diff --git "a/test.tsv" "b/test.tsv"
deleted file mode 100644--- "a/test.tsv"
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,3491 +0,0 @@
-pomt-14759	In 2000, "I wrote about Osama bin Laden, ‘We’ve got to take him out.’"	/virginia/statements/2015/dec/11/donald-trump/much-hype-trumps-claim-he-called-rubbing-out-bin-l/	Almost two years before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Donald Trump says he urged the United States to eliminate Osama bin Laden. "Remember that in ‘The America We Deserve,’ I wrote that book in 2000, I wrote about Osama bin Laden: ‘We’ve got to take him out,’" Trump said during a Dec. 2 rally for his presidential campaign in Manassas. Trump rarely leaves a rally without saying that well before the Sept. 11 attacks, he was among the first to recognize bin Laden’s danger. We wondered whether his claim about the warning in his book is accurate. "The America We Deserve" was published in January 2000. Trump was considering a presidential bid that year, and the book laid out his views on an array of issues, including terrorism. Bin Laden is mentioned once in the 304-page book, in a passage criticizing then-President Bill Clinton for having an unfocused national security policy during an era when the U.S. no longer faced one central threat, such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Here’s what Trump wrote: "Instead of one looming crisis hanging over us, we face a bewildering series of smaller crises, flash points, stand offs, and hot spots. We’re not playing the chess game to end all chess games anymore. We’re playing tournament chess - one master against many rivals. One day we’re assured that Iraq is under control, the UN inspectors have done their work, everything’s fine, not to worry. The next day the bombing begins. One day we’re told that a shadowy figure named Osama bin Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jet fighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later, it’s on to a new enemy and a new crisis." The reference to bin Laden relates to the Aug. 20, 1998, U.S. bombing of his camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. Clinton said they were in retaliation for terrorist bombings earlier that month on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton said the goal of the U.S. strikes was to "disrupt bin Laden’s terror network." In the next paragraph of his book, Trump wrote that the U.S. also was "haphazard" in early 1999 when it intervened with NATO in the Kosovo War. Again, Trump mentioned bin Laden only once in his book. He did not call on the U.S. to target the terrorist leader individually, or to wage a unilateral war against his al-Qaida terror network. In many of his speeches this year, Trump has gone a step further and said that he "predicted" bin Laden in his 2000 book. Trump didn’t make that claim in Manassas, where he was diverted by demonstrators in the midst of his comments about bin Laden and did not return to the subject after the protesters had been removed. Trump, in his book, described China’s emergence as an economic power as "the greatest long-term challenge" facing the U.S. and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions as biggest short-term "menace." He devoted a chapter to terrorism. Trump wrote that the U.S. "must prepare for the real possibility that somewhere, sometime, a weapon of mass destruction will be carried into a major American city and detonated." He acknowledged that this was not an original thought, noting that ABC-TV’s "Nightline" had aired a series of shows about the threat. Trump wrote that such an attack likely would be carried out through germ warfare. We tried to contact Trump’s campaign for this fact-check, but did not get a response. Our ruling Trump claims that in early 2000, almost two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, "I wrote about Osama bin Laden: ‘We’ve got to take him out.’" Trump’s book did not contain those words or their clear likeness. Bin Laden’s name appears once in the book, when the author was criticizing the Clinton administration for having an unfocused national security policy. He complained that the U.S. kept shifting its military focus between Iraq, bin Laden’s organization and Kosovo without strong results. The book says that if bin Laden was "public enemy number one" in 1998, then the U.S. should have spent more than one day that year on a retaliatory bombing mission against his camps that bin Laden escaped. But Trump, never known for mincing words, did not call for future efforts to exterminate bin Laden or strike against al-Qaida. So we rate Trump’s hyperbolic statement Mostly False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2015-12-11T10:44:11	2015-12-02	['Osama_bin_Laden']
-pomt-02596	Says in 2000, Fox News broke the story of George W. Bush’s drunk driving arrest. "Who broke it? Fox News."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/27/ann-coulter/coulter-fox-news-broke-bush-drunk-driving-story-20/	In the world of cable television news, most people generally agree that Fox News caters to a more conservative audience and MSNBC a more liberal one. But conservative pundit Ann Coulter cautioned against seeing the news each network produces the same way. In a recent interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Coulter used the coverage of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and an old story about President George W. Bush to draw a distinction between the two cable networks. "I don't have a job so all I do is watch TV," Coulter said. "If you watch no station but MSNBC, you have no idea what they're talking about on Fox. On Fox, I promise you, they're reporting the Chris Christie scandal -- maybe not 24 hours a day like the 9/11 attack." Coulter then pivoted to talking about the run-up to the 2000 presidential election and how reporters found out that Bush had a drunk driving arrest on his record. "That story hurt George Bush in the 2000 presidential election," Coulter said. "Who broke it? Fox News." Is Coulter rewriting history or does she have her facts right? We thought we’d check. Bad news at a critical moment Headed into the final week before Election Day, Nov. 7, 2000, polls showed a razor-close contest between Bush and Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore. With the disputed results in Florida, we know now how accurate those polls were. Just five days before the election, the country learned that in 1976 police in Maine had arrested Bush for drunk driving. His past troubles with drinking were already on the record but until Nov. 2, an arrest was not part of the narrative. The first news organization that ran the story was Fox News. It carried an item at 6 p.m. that day. Once Fox News ran it, the Associated Press spread the story to all the broadcasters and newspapers that subscribe to its service. To Coulter’s point, the broader public first learned about Bush’s arrest through Fox News. Uncovering a story vs. reporting it In the news business, breaking a story has a particular meaning. A reporter breaks a story by being the one who found it first. In the competitive world of journalism, these morsels are precious and newsrooms generally hold their cards close to the chest until they are ready to spring their scoop on the world. The release of the Bush arrest followed a different path. Fox News took this story from a local affiliate. Erin Fehlau, a reporter with the Portland Fox affiliate WPXT, first got wind of the arrest on the afternoon of Nov. 2. While working on another assignment, a police officer mentioned overhearing a conversation about Bush and drunk driving. Fehlau quickly found the case number and began following the paper trail. Back at the station, Fehlau’s news director, who was relatively new, didn’t know if this was old news. Later that afternoon, he called Fox News in New York City to find out. Fox News contacted the Bush campaign where a staffer confirmed that Bush had been arrested. Assistant news director Matt Ledin remembers what happened next. "I was sitting in my office and I saw Fox reporting our story." Ledin told PunditFact. "I think they credited us, but I was surprised." That was at 6 p.m. At 7 p.m., WPXT had the story in its newscast. At 10 p.m., Fehlau broadcast her report with all the details. Fox News had no hand in doing the digging that brought this story to light. WPXT was an independent news operation in 2000, owned by Pegasus Communications, a Pennsylvania corporation that paid for the rights to run Fox programs. Fehlau was generally credited with breaking the story. Fehlau won the National Clarion Award for her work while the station won the regional Edward R. Murrow Award for investigative journalism. "CBS, ABC and NBC, all had satellite trucks out in front of our station the next morning," Ledin said. "Fehlau was on all the network shows." Our ruling Coulter said Fox News broke the story of George W. Bush’s 1976 drunk driving arrest. In terms of being the first to broadcast the story, that is correct. On the other hand, breaking a story has the strong meaning of having made the effort to uncover something that was obscure. In that sense, a local news station that happened to be a Fox affiliate gets the credit. While Fehlau's station was contracted to run Fox programming, it is independetly owned and not part of Fox News, the cable news channel. We rate Coulter’s statement Half True.	None	Ann Coulter	None	None	None	2014-01-27T16:20:31	2014-01-22	['Fox_News_Channel', 'George_W._Bush']
-snes-00569	A video shows a powerful jet of water flipping a child at a park.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/child-flipped-by-fountain/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Video Show a Child Flipped by a Fountain?	21 May 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14237	"My numbers are better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-about-1980-ronald-reagan-race-a/	During a rally in Rome, N.Y., Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cast himself as the inheritor of the mantle of Ronald Reagan -- at least in the way Reagan came from behind to win the 1980 presidential election. "I haven’t even started on Hillary, and my numbers are better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter," Trump said, at about the 17:50 mark. "Ronald Reagan had a 30 (percent) favorability and he was behind Jimmy Carter by so much everybody said, 'Oh, this is going to be a disaster.' " Does Trump have a solid historical point? We looked at Trump’s numbers against Clinton rather than against her fellow Democrat Bernie Sanders because Sanders leads Trump by even larger margins than Clinton does. (Trump’s press staff did not respond to an inquiry for this article.) Comparing Trump vs. Clinton to Reagan vs. Carter We’ll start off by noting that the 1980 general election was different than the 2016 race -- at least so far -- because the earlier race had three major candidates. Carter, the incumbent president, faced Reagan, the Republican nominee, as well as John Anderson, running as an independent. To focus as closely as we could on the Carter-Reagan race, we set aside Anderson’s vote share and looked instead at the shares taken by Carter and Reagan. Here’s a summary of polls, from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. We have included all polls we could find that were taken in March and April of 1980. Date Pollster Carter Reagan Anderson Carter-Reagan margin March 1980 Time/Yankelovich 39 32 20 Carter +7 March 1980 ABC/Harris 38 38 22 Tie March 1980 Gallup 44 36 20 Carter +8 April 1980 Washington Post 42 33 16 Carter +9 April 1980 Gallup 45 36 19 Carter +9 April 1980 ABC/Harris 33 42 19 Reagan +9 April 1980 ABC 38 35 19 Carter +3 April 1980 Roper 39 27 16 Carter +12 Average 40 35 17 Carter +5 So, Carter did lead in seven of the eight polls, by an average of five percentage points. What about the potential Trump-Clinton contest? Here are the polls released since March 1, 2016, that were publicly released by the time of Trump’s comment, according to realclearpolitics.com: If you take the average of all these polls, Clinton leads Trump, 50 percent to 39 percent. That’s an 11-point advantage -- more than twice the size of Carter’s lead over Reagan in 1980 at the same point in the campaign. So Trump’s numbers are not, contrary to his assertion, "better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter." They are worse. We should note that there was a period during the 1980 campaign when Carter actually was far ahead of Reagan in head-to-head polling, but it was brief and it was winding down -- if not gone entirely -- by this point in the campaign. After American hostages were taken in Iran in November 1979, Carter’s approval ratings initially spiked, in what historians sometimes call a "rally round the flag" effect. This can be seen in Gallup’s job approval ratings below: By January 1980, Carter’s job approval rating in the Gallup poll had risen to 58 percent. But by late March, it was back down again, to 39 percent. And that decline -- combined with the emergence of Anderson’s independent bid -- made the Carter-Reagan head-to-head contest much closer. This trend can be seen in 1980 polling data from political scientists Christopher Wlezien and Robert S. Erikson: Comparing Reagan and Trump on favorability ratings Trump is also off-base on favorability ratings. We didn’t find many questions on favorability in the Roper database, but one April 1980 poll from Cambridge Reports found Reagan at 39 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable. That’s five percentage points "under water" -- favorable minus unfavorable. By contrast, Trump’s poll averages for favorability in 2015 and 2016 have -- at their best -- been 17 points under water. Currently, they are at 64 percent unfavorable, 30 percent favorable, according to HuffPost Pollster. That’s 34 points under water, far worse than Reagan’s in the spring of 1980. There are other indications that Reagan, despite being considered too conservative by many in 1980, was not as polarizing a figure then as Trump is today. In May 1980, Gallup asked respondents to place Reagan on a rating scale between +5 (very favorable) and -5 (very unfavorable). About 70 percent placed him on the positive (favorable) side of that scale, compared to just 27 percent who placed him on the negative (unfavorable) side of that scale. And a CBS News/New York Times poll in April 1980 asked, "Are there any candidates -- Carter, Reagan or Anderson -- you would refuse to vote for under any circumstances?" Only 13 percent said they would definitely shun Reagan. Trump’s recent "never-vote-for" percentages are much higher. In two polls, a full 54 percent of those polled said they would definitely not vote for Trump -- an Associated Press/GfK poll in February 2016 and a Quinnipiac poll in March 2016. "Reagan never had the high unfavorables that Trump does now," said Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. Did people say Reagan’s candidacy would be ‘a disaster’? Not in the national media coverage we found on Nexis, at least. David Broder, the legendary political reporter with the Washington Post, wrote a piece on March 12, 1980, that was headlined, "Despite Primary Triumphs, Carter Could Be Vulnerable." On April 7, Newsweek concluded its article this way: "The politics of discontent has already propelled Ronald Reagan nearly to the Republican nomination, enticed John Anderson to the brink of a third-line candidacy -- and now brought home the message that Jimmy Carter is once again in trouble." And on May 8, 1980, the Post published an article headlined, "Poll Shows Reagan Now Likely Winner." We asked Craig Shirley, who has written several books on Reagan, what he thought of of Trump’s comparison. "There are just too many personal and ideological and cultural differences between Trump and Reagan and their times to draw anything resembling a parallel," Shirley said. Our ruling Trump said, "My numbers are better right now than Ronald Reagan's numbers were with Jimmy Carter. ... Ronald Reagan had a 30 (percent) favorability and he was behind Jimmy Carter by so much everybody said, 'Oh this is going to be a disaster.' " We found that Trump’s deficit against Clinton during March and April 2016 was twice the size of Reagan’s deficit against Carter in March and April 1980. We also found that Trump’s favorable/unfavorable ratings are much worse than Reagan’s were during that same period. We rate his claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cac5ce8d-56aa-4356-94eb-377725ecb8fe	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-04-14T10:05:57	2016-04-11	['Jimmy_Carter', 'Ronald_Reagan']
-snes-05947	The U.S. Congress is considering passage of the "Americans with No Abilities" Act.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/americans-no-abilities-act/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	Americans with No Abilities Act	23 June 2006	None	['United_States_Congress', 'United_States']
-pomt-07681	Bing Energy said it decided to move to Florida because of Gov. Rick Scott’s "plan to eliminate the corporate tax."	/florida/statements/2011/mar/08/rick-scott/rick-scott-said-corporate-income-tax-fueled-Bing/	Gov. Rick Scott welcomed business leaders to his State of the State address, saying they exemplified his efforts to win jobs for the state. One of those leaders was Dean Minardi, chief financial officer of Bing Energy Inc., a company that uses nanotechnology to make hydrogen fuel cells. "Bing Energy, a California-based company, was courted by offers from several states, but Bing decided to come to Florida in December, and Tallahassee, which is nice," Scott said in his March 8, 2011, address to a joint session of the Legislature. "The reason Florida won? Dean said it was our plan to eliminate the corporate tax." We decided to fact-check the claim that Bing came here because of Scott’s plan to eliminate the corporate tax, which now stands at 5.5 percent of business income. Scott intends to reduce the tax to 3 percent on the way to eliminating it entirely. We soon found video of Minardi speaking at a press conference on Feb. 10, announcing that the company was moving its corporate headquarters to Tallahassee and opening its first production facility there. The move could bring up to 244 jobs to Florida. "The tipping point in our decision to move to Florida is the governor’s pledge to try to eliminate the corporate income tax. It’s huge," Minardi said. "From a business point of view, the simple truth is that the more income a company can keep, the more people it can hire. And the more people we can hire, the faster we can grow. Simple truth." All done? Not quite. As you may have noticed, the corporate tax rate has not yet been lowered, and it’s hardly a done deal that it will be. Legislators have said their first priority is a balanced budget without tax increases. Tax cuts for businesses might have to wait. And there are a few other pertinent facts about Bing Energy’s business. • Bing Energy intends to make fuel cells using "buckypaper," a fiber that’s stronger than steel but has a fraction of its weight. Some of the leading research on buckypaper is being done at Florida State University in Tallahassee, at the school’s Center for Advanced Power Systems. • In September 2010, FSU announced it was entering into a commercialization agreement with Bing Energy. Dr. Jim P. Zheng, a professor with FSU since 1997, would develop several prototypes of fuel cells, while Bing Energy would evaluate the cells for effectiveness and their potential for mass production, the university said. • In October 2010, Bing Energy asked Leon County officials for tax incentives to continue its work on fuel cells under its agreement with FSU. • At the February 2011 press conference announcing Bing Energy’s move to Tallahassee, FSU president Eric J. Barron credited the "breakthrough research" of FSU’s faculty and added that the company’s decision was "confirming that the investment made in their work by our state and by the federal government has realized its commercial potential." Scott himself added, "If you look at other capitals with great universities, they ought to be big business centers. And this city, Tallahassee, should be a significant business center." Scott's right that Bing Energy’s CFO said Scott’s proposal to eliminate corporate income taxes was the "tipping point" for the company’s decision to move to Tallahassee. And we have little doubt that Minardi loves the idea of getting rid of the tax. But the company already had signed a high-tech commercialization agreement with FSU and sought tax breaks from local officials -- all before Scott was even elected. So the potential of getting rid of the corporate tax outweighs the reality of a university’s research and commercialization agreement? We don’t think any hard-headed business person would buy that. That's the way Minardi described it, and Scott quotes him accurately. But we think both men are overlooking important details that would put this deal in a different light. We rate Scott’s statement Half True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-03-08T20:31:49	2011-03-08	['None']
-snes-01813	A photograph shows actor James Earl Jones dressed as Darth Vader alongside 'Star Wars' stars Mark Hamill, Anthony Daniels, and Kenny Baker.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/james-earl-jones-star-wars-london-segregation/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This James Earl Jones Dressed as Darth Vader?	30 August 2017	None	['Darth_Vader', 'James_Earl_Jones', 'Mark_Hamill']
-snes-02041	A home pregnancy test can detect testicular cancer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/home-pregnancy-tests-detect-testicular-cancer/	None	Medical	None	David Mikkelson	None	Home Pregnancy Tests Detect Testicular Cancer?	13 March 2014	None	['None']
-snes-06044	Photographs show a mass re-enlistment ceremony held in Iraq on the Fourth of July in 2008.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/linked-list/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Largest Re-Enlistment Ceremony Ever	4 July 2014	None	['Iraq', 'Independence_Day_(United_States)']
-snes-02334	Crisis Actors Uncovered?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/same-girl-crying-now-oregon/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Crisis Actors Uncovered?	26 October 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00309	Ariel Winter, Burt Reynolds Were Feuding Before His Death, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/ariel-winter-burt-reynolds-feud-death/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ariel Winter, Burt Reynolds Were NOT Feuding Before His Death, Despite Report	11:34 am, September 7, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01914	Angelina Jolie Headed For “Physical Meltdown,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-meltdown-physical-breakdown/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Angelina Jolie NOT Headed For “Physical Meltdown,” Despite Report	2:20 pm, January 3, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00712	Will guarantee "access to at least two years of community college or Oregon university education for students earning the Oregon Diploma."	https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/742/guarantee-two-years-of-community-college-to-those/	None	kitz-o-meter	John Kitzhaber	None	None	Guarantee two years of community college to those with new Oregon Diploma	2011-01-04T21:58:42	None	['Oregon']
-tron-00776	Julie Andrews singing about aging	https://www.truthorfiction.com/julie-andrews-aging/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Julie Andrews singing about aging	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00817	AC/DC Is Retiring Because Guitarist Malcolm Young Had A Stroke	https://www.truthorfiction.com/acdc-retiring/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	AC/DC Is Retiring Because Guitarist Malcolm Young Had A Stroke	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04326	Says when he was governor, "most of the Democrats" voted for his billion-dollar property-tax cuts, but U.S. Senate rival Tammy Baldwin "voted against it."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/26/tommy-thompson/thompson-says-most-democrats-not-baldwin-voted-his/	In the second U.S. Senate debate, Republican Tommy Thompson went after Democrat Tammy Baldwin as an extreme liberal with a voting record to the left of most in her own party. The former governor said the pattern reached back to Baldwin’s years representing Madison in the state Assembly from 1993 to 1999. "When I was governor I cut income taxes three times. I cut property taxes by over a billion dollars, not once, but twice," Thompson said. "And you know, my opponent was in the Assembly at the time. Most of the Democrats voted with me. Congressman Baldwin voted against it. Property taxes is a huge tax on the middle class. She voted against it." Let’s go to the tape. Did most Democrats, but not Baldwin, vote for big property tax cuts? Although Thompson mentioned two big property-tax relief bills, he appeared to narrow it to one vote when talking about Baldwin. When we asked Thompson’s campaign for backup, they pointed us to a vote on the 1995-’97 budget. That two-year budget provided $1.2 billion in local property tax relief without a general state tax increase. The mechanism: A big boost in state aid to local school districts, reducing the property tax burden. The Journal Sentinel July 1995 headline on the bill signing: "Thompson exults over tax relief." Elected officials and tax experts debate whether the relief was fairly distributed and ultimately amounted to $1.2 billion, but say it’s reasonable to describe it that way. So give Thompson a point. The main thrust of his charge, though, was that Baldwin was an outlier. Here’s what the legislative history shows: In 1995, at the time of that vote, Republicans controlled both the Assembly and Senate. Baldwin voted no when the budget bill containing the property tax relief passed the Assembly on June 22, 1995. The vote: 52-47, with only one Democrat, Rep. Annette (Polly) Williams, joining with Republicans to approve it. In the state Senate, it was the same story: only one Democrat, Sen. Lynn Adelman, joined in the majority. So Thompson’s main point -- that Baldwin bucked a bipartisan tide voting for the plan -- is off the mark. Finally, it’s worth noting the budget bill contained hundreds of spending decisions as well as major policy items -- not just the property tax plan. The year before, there was a stand-alone vote on a Democratic bill that went even further than Thompson’s later plan. It sought to completely eliminate local property tax funding of schools. Thompson’s 1995 plan greatly boosted state aid to schools but still left one-third of the costs to local districts. Baldwin voted in favor of the 1994 bill, which passed 81-18 but did not get through the Senate amid GOP accusations it was an election-year stunt. All but one Assembly Democrat voted for it. Many Republicans voted yes, with an election looming. Thompson warned that state tax hikes might be necessary to pay for the Democratic plan. Finally, a footnote. We did not find a second instance of a billion-dollar property tax cut under Thompson. There was a tax-cut package close to that in 1999 that was a mix of income tax cuts and property tax relief. It was approved with significant support by Democrats. Baldwin was in Congress by then. Our rating Thompson claimed Baldwin, while in the Assembly, voted against a property tax relief plan that most other Democrats favored. There’s an element of truth in that Baldwin voted no on the budget that prominently included a property tax relief plan. But most Democrats actually opposed the budget, a critical fact that undercuts the impression Thompson meant to leave -- that Baldwin had bucked her own party. We rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Tommy Thompson	None	None	None	2012-10-26T11:36:32	2012-10-18	['Tammy_Baldwin', 'United_States', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-00129	Angelina Jolie Hunting For Fourth Husband?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-fourth-husband/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie Hunting For Fourth Husband?	10:18 am, October 16, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-03439	New Forever Stamp Commemorates Muslim Holiday	https://www.truthorfiction.com/2013-eid-forever-stamp-kali/	None	religious	None	None	None	New Forever Stamp Commemorates Muslim Holiday	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08699	"The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/07/mary-jordan/do-presidents-always-get-shellacked-midterm-electi/	As Democrats brace for expected losses in the House and Senate, you can expect to hear a lot more of this in the weeks ahead: The president's party usually takes a beating in midterm elections. So when we heard Mary Jordan, a longtime foreign correspondent for the Washington Post, mention this pattern during the roundtable segment of ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour, we decided to check the history. Jordan said, "Well, the fact that the Republicans are going to do so well, really, it's just the history. The president's party always gets shellacked in midterms. It's only twice, 1934 and 2002, that the president's party actually gained in both the House and the Senate." She's correct that the president's party generally loses ground in midterm elections. In midterms since 1862, the president's party has averaged losses of about 32 seats in the House and more than two seats in the Senate. She's also right that the president's party beat the odds and gained in 1934 and 2002. In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats. But the president's party also avoided getting "shellacked" on other occasions. We won't dig back as far as the Lincoln Administration, but in 1962, President John F. Kennedy's Democrats lost just four seats in the House and gained three seats in the Senate. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush's Republicans lost eight seats in the House and only one seat in the Senate -- a setback, but not a shellacking. And in 1998, President Bill Clinton gained five seats in the House and stayed even in the Senate. None of these fit the strict definition of the president's party gaining seats in both chambers during a midterm election -- the yardstick Jordan specifically used -- but we do think they undermine her claim that presidents "always" get "shellacked" in midterms. The 1998 election under Clinton is especially notable, since elections six years after a president takes office tend to produce especially harsh results for the party occupying the White House. In fact, the 1998 election -- when voters were widely believed to be punishing a Republican overreach in their impeachment of Clinton -- represents the only time since the Civil War that a president has survived a sixth-year election with anything close to gains in both chambers. A final note for political history buffs. We initially thought we'd have to add 1902 to 1934 and 2002 as a year in which the president gained seats in both chambers. On Election Day 1902, Theodore Roosevelt's Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and seven in the House -- but we found the Democrats also gained seats in the House, 25 to be precise. How was that possible? It was because Congress had enlarged the House to account for population growth, from 357 seats before the election to 386 seats after. (The House didn't reach its current 435 seats until 1913.) So because of this oddity, we'll leave 1902 out. In all, then, Jordan is on target by singling out 1934 and 2002 as the only years in which a president's party gained seats in both chambers during a midterm election. But she stretched a bit when she said that "the president's party always gets shellacked in midterms." If she'd said "usually gets shellacked," she would have been on safe ground, but the examples of 1962, 1990 and 1998 demonstrate that an incumbent president can in fact lose ground in Congress without being "shellacked." On balance, we rate Jordan's statement Mostly True.	None	Mary Jordan	None	None	None	2010-09-07T18:16:20	2010-09-05	['None']
-pomt-06378	Says some Wisconsin state employee contracts "gave some employees $4 for bringing in their own lunch."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/nov/02/maciver-institute/conservative-group-says-wisconsin-state-employees-/	When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proposed freezing state employee pay for two years, a conservative think tank pointed out that his plan also eliminates what it called abuse of overtime and "odd" types of other employee compensation. The Madison-based MacIver Institute weighed in with an online video posted Oct. 25, 2011, the same day the proposal was released. The institute noted, for example, that Department of Corrections employees would no longer be allowed to call in sick for one shift, then work the shift immediately following on overtime. That practice had been revealed more than three years earlier by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. But the institute also made a claim in the video we hadn’t heard: "Other odd provisions in the old contracts gave some employees $4 for bringing in their own lunch." A $4 reimbursement might not seem like much -- but state employees being paid to bring their lunch to work? Who? And how many? We decided to take a look. The MacIver Institute, on the day it released its video, also posted an article about Walker’s pay-freeze plan. The article elaborated on the $4 lunch claim, saying the plan would eliminate a provision in one contract that allows police communications operators to be reimbursed $4 if they work through their lunch period. We asked MacIver Institute spokesman Brian Fraley if he had any evidence to back up the claim. He cited the state’s 2008-2009 contract with the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association union. The contract says police communications operators who work shifts of eight hours or longer "without relief for a meal break are eligible for a $4 bag meal." Let’s flesh this out a bit. The Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association represents several hundred employees of the State Patrol, the Capitol Police and the police departments that serve University of Wisconsin System campuses, said the union’s president, Tracy Fuller. Police communications operators are dispatchers who work for the State Patrol, he said. The "bag lunch" reference in the contract simply indicates that when dispatchers have to bring a lunch to eat while remaining on the job through their lunch period, they are reimbursed $4, Fuller said. The provision enables managers to ensure that dispatch staffing has no gaps, especially if a dispatcher has to work longer than expected due to an incident, he said. The reimbursement applies to about 50 or 60 dispatchers and the $4 rate hasn’t been changed since the provision was added to their contract about eight years ago, Fuller said. We asked state Department of Administration spokesman Tim Lundquist how much the state spends per year on the $4 lunch reimbursement, but he said figures weren’t available. He said that even though the contract that covers the dispatchers has expired, provisions such as the lunch reimbursement have remained in place and will remain until a new pay plan is adopted. If adopted by the Legislature’s GOP-controlled Joint Committee on Employment Relations, likely in early to mid-November, Walker’s pay plan would take effect Jan. 1, 2012. Our conclusion The MacIver Institute said Walker’s pay proposal would eliminate various state employee contract provisions, including one that "gave some employees $4 for bringing in their own lunch." State dispatchers don’t get $4 just for bringing a lunch to work; the reimbursement applies only when they are required to eat while continuing to work through their lunch period. The statement was accurate but needed some clarification. We rate it Mostly True.	None	MacIver Institute	None	None	None	2011-11-02T09:00:00	2011-10-25	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-01743	The people who want President Barack Obama impeached "are all white, they're all older, and guess what, they're in the far right wing of the Republican Party."	/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/03/juan-williams/juan-williams-people-who-want-impeachment-are-whit/	House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the House has no plans to impeach President Barack Obama, but that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t lurking in the wings. Yes, House Republicans have voted to sue the president on the grounds that he singlehandedly rewrote his signature health care law, but with conservatives now calling him "lawless" and "out of control," a lawsuit might not satisfy. Fox News analyst Juan Williams accused Republicans of demonizing Obama in an Aug. 3, 2014, broadcast of Fox News Sunday. Host Chris Wallace pressed Williams on whether he thought Republican opposition to the president was racial. "All I can do is look at the numbers," Williams said. Then, in a heated exchange with another panelist, Michael Needham of the conservative group Heritage Action, Williams said, "The core constituency, the people who want him impeached, they’re all white, and they’re all older, and guess what, they’re all in the far right wing of the Republican party." We decided to find the numbers and see if they matched Williams’ claim that the desire for impeachment rests with white, older, Republican voters. The polls We found three polls that asked about impeachment. One from CNN/ORC reported that 33 percent of the public at large thought Obama should be impeached (with a margin of error of 3 percent). Among conservatives and Republicans, the share jumped to about 56 percent. The CNN/ORC poll found no significant variation among the age groups. The numbers hovered around 33 percent. There was a sharp racial divide. About 40 percent of whites said they favored impeachment, while just 17 percent of non-whites took that view. (The margin of error was higher for non-whites -- plus or minus 6.5 percentage points.) Just 13 percent of Democrats supported impeachment. Fox News did its own survey. Fox put overall support for impeachment at 36 percent. The age factor showed a slightly greater skew than in the CNN poll, with just 28 percent in favor among people under 35 and older voters coming in closer to 40 percent. Fox also found that about 40 percent of whites liked the idea of impeachment. They reported that 20 percent of African-Americans support impeachment. (The margin of error on was plus or minus nine percentage points.) Among people who described themselves as "tea partiers," support for impeachment jumped to 68 percent. The Huffington Post partnered with YouGov to conduct an online survey and like the other polls, reported that about a third of the public favored impeachment. Support was strongest among Republicans, at 68 percent, and lowest among Democrats at 8 percent (with no reported margin of error). As with the Fox poll, this one found more interest in impeachment among older people; 47 percent of those 65 and up liked the idea. In terms of race, 40 percent of whites, 10 percent of African-Americans and 26 percent of Hispanics leaned in favor, but the number of responses among non-whites was very low and no one should put much faith in those exact figures. What the experts say The general sense from the political scientists we reached is that Williams had a point but went overboard. The main problem had to do with the word "all." "That's a categorical assertion, one that I cannot support," said Christopher Parker, a political scientist at the University of Washington. "However, I will say that this group of people is more likely than any other group of folks to wish to see the president impeached." Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard University, also noted that Williams had taken "a few everyday language shortcuts, but he is basically right." "In our research in 2010-11, we found that conservative Republicans/tea party sympathizers are overwhelmingly white and definitely tend to be older," Skocpol said. "Now, keep in mind that all Republicans tend, statistically speaking, to be older and whiter than other Americans. So any time you talk about Republicans, you are talking older and whiter. And of course, only Republicans tell pollsters in a majority that they favor impeachment." William Miller, a political science instructor at Flagler College in Florida who has written about the tea party and the Republican Party, generally agreed with Skocpol. Both the tea party and people supporting impeachment tend to be older and whiter, but "there are pockets of support in other groups," he said. Our ruling Williams said that the people who want to impeach Obama are all white and all older and all are in the right wing of the Republican Party. "All" is going too far. But the publicly available polling shows that the people who support impeachment are more likely to be white, conservative and older. In one poll, about a third of the public supported impeachment, while about two-thirds of tea partiers said they did. In another, 40 percent of whites supported impeachment compared to 10 percent of African-Americans. The polling data bears out the general thrust of Williams' claim. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Juan Williams	None	None	None	2014-08-03T17:40:32	2014-08-03	['Barack_Obama', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-thet-00031	Claim that recorded crime down and police numbers up is Mostly True	https://theferret.scot/recorded-crime-police-numbers-mostly-true/	None	Crime and justice Fact check 	None	None	None	Claim that recorded crime down and police numbers up is Mostly True	January 16, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04338	"There’s 21 congressmen and senators that have been convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail. They don’t have to wait until they’re 65."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/oct/25/jesse-ventura/jesse-ventura-says-convicted-congressmen-senators-/	Jesse Ventura doesn’t hold back when it comes to criticizing government. As a former governor of Minnesota, he’s seen his share of politics on both sides of the aisle and details in his new book, "DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government," why he likens the two mainstream political parties to the infamous street gangs. Ventura notes that while gang activity generally affects neighborhoods, the actions of both parties affect the nation. "There’s 21 congressmen and senators that have been convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail," Ventura said in an interview with MyCentralJersey.com, ahead of a Sept. 16 appearance at Rutgers University in New Brunswick. "They don’t have to wait until they’re 65." There are quite a few congressmen and senators who have been convicted of felonies, but multiple public databases with conflicting information about the number of convicted federal lawmakers makes it impossible to assess an exact number. We were intrigued, however, by the claim that federal lawmakers can collect taxpayer-funded pensions while incarcerated. And short of those officials being convicted of treason or espionage, it’s true. Let’s look at how pensions work for members of Congress. Officials participate in one of two retirement systems, depending on when they were first elected to the House or Senate. But they do not forfeit their pensions or accumulated retirement income if indicted, or convicted of most felonies. That struck a nerve with the National Taxpayers Union which, in mid-2011, sent a letter to Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican, to express support for his bill to increase the number of circumstances under which a member of Congress could lose his pension. "Since the 1980s, NTU has identified lawmakers convicted on charges ranging from bribery to fraud who were each receiving pensions worth tens of thousands of dollars annually (or more) – sometimes while serving prison terms," NTU Executive Vice President Pete Sepp wrote. The NTU advocates for lower taxes. But can a member of Congress simultaneously receive a taxpayer-funded pension while incarcerated? "The short answer is yes," John David, a senior research fellow with the Conservative Heritage Foundation, said in an e-mail. "Times have changed to some extent, but if the Member is not convicted of one of the offenses that would cost him/her the pension, it will be paid as promised -- even to prison." Congressmen and senators can lose their pensions if they are convicted of a national security offense or a crime relating to public corruption and abuse of one’s official position, according to the 2008 Congressional Research Service report "Status of a Senator Who Has Been Indicted for or Convicted of a Felony." So, there are circumstances in which a member of Congress can’t receive pension benefits. As for the rest of Ventura’s claim, members don’t have to be 65, either, to get their retirement. A 2007 Congressional Research Service report, "Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress," states members are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. The age requirement drops to 50 for member with 20 years of service or any age after 25 years of service. Ventura did not return three requests for comment. Our ruling Ventura claimed in an interview that "there’s 21 congressmen and senators convicted of felonies that still get their retirement, even in jail. They don’t have to wait until they’re 65." For this fact-check, we looked only at the claim that federal lawmakers convicted of felonies and can still collect retirement benefits while in jail. We attempted to count the number of convicted national lawmakers, but there are multiple public databases with conflicting information on the number of congressmen and senators convicted of felonies. In most cases, a congressman or senator convicted of a felony can receive his pension as long as the charge is not one that violates national security or relates to public corruption and abuse of official position. Members also receive pensions based on completed years of service, not an age requirement of 65. We rate the claim Mostly True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Jesse Ventura	None	None	None	2012-10-25T07:30:00	2012-09-14	['None']
-snes-04017	Stone Age tunnels have been found that stretch thousands of miles all the way from Scotland to Turkey.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stone-age-tunnels/	None	Junk News	None	Bethania Palma	None	Massive Stone Age Tunnel Stretches from Scotland to Turkey	16 September 2016	None	['Scotland']
-para-00009	The government’s $4.5 billion aid cut is "greater than what was budgeted by our Labor Government in 2013-14 for the entire AusAID country and global program".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/07/tanya-plibersek/how-much-government-slicing-foreign-aid/index.html	None	['Budget', 'Foreign Aid']	Tanya Plibersek	Michael Koziol, Peter Fray	None	How much is the government slicing from foreign aid?	Thursday, November 7, 2013 at 1:48 p.m.	None	['AusAID']
-pomt-09060	"We have that program where immigrants come here and they have to bring a million dollars in order to get a green card if they’re going to create jobs."	/florida/statements/2010/jun/29/jeff-greene/greene-no-green-card-expert/	Arizona's recent unveiling of a hard-line immigration law designed to identify and detain undocumented immigrants has sparked a national conversation about what role the federal government should play in addressing the millions of illegal immigrants who call the United States home. In many ways, Republicans have dominated the debate with renewed calls for effective border security and streamlined deportation procedures. But, that's not to say Democrats have been silent on the issue. U.S. Senate contender Jeff Greene echoed a favorite party line in a June 22, 2010, Democratic primary debate when he ruminated over the hurdles faced by would-be immigrants looking to legally work in the United States. Business-savvy immigrants, in particular, need help navigating convoluted immigrant laws, Greene said. "We have that program where immigrants come here and they have to bring a million dollars in order to get a green card if they’re going to create jobs," he lamented. "But you know what? If an immigrant comes here and they’re willing to create jobs and they’re willing to contribute to our economy, we have to make it easier for the kinds of immigrants we want, because that is the past of America, that’s our greatness, and that will continue to be our greatness in the future." Whether immigration contributes to America's greatness is a matter of opinion, but Greene's million-dollar statement caught our attention. We wondered, what does a green card go for these days? To be sure, so-called "green cards" are the key to legal life for immigrants in the United States. They are permanent resident cards that serve as evidence that the owner has the right to live and work here. Green card recipients can also petition for visas for other immigrants. There are multiple paths to obtaining a green card. The most common starting point for a green card is an employment visa submitted by immigrants who want to legally work in the United States. Other popular applications allow family members to petition for visas for foreign relatives, or allow refugees to seek humanitarian visas. Other than application fees, most immigrants don't have to put up a large amount of cash to obtain a visa, but they do have to show they will have a job or someone to provide for them. "The reason is to avoid immigrants from becoming dependent on government assistance," said Sharon Scheidhauer, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman. Each process carries a different base filing fee, which can range from $355 for a petition for a relative and $1,435 for a petition by an entrepreneur. Greene singled out the entrepreneur visa in his comments, so we will here, as well. The EB-5 Immigrant Investor visa can open doors, but it is not cheap. Congress created the application process in 1990 to lure foreign millionaires. Recipients must invest $1 million in a U.S. business that benefits the economy and creates at least 10 full-time jobs, excluding employment for the visa applicant or the applicant's immediate family. If the investment is made in a targeted employment area, defined as a rural area or an area experiencing unusually high unemployment, the financial requirement drops to $500,000. The applicant must be involved in the daily management of the business and provide evidence that the investment funds were obtained through lawful means. Despite the many requirements, the investor visa remains an attractive alternative to the traditional green card process, said David Abraham, a University of Miami School of Law professor. "Those applying as employment visa immigrants must prove that they have a real and good job available that no American can/will fill," Abraham said. But, "if they have money to invest in a job-creating way, there is practically no wait." Roughly 1,028 immigrants applied for the investor visa last year. Most -- 966 in all -- were approved. The investor visa, however, does not immediately yield a green card. Instead, successful applicants are granted conditional residency for two years. After that period, they can apply to have the conditions removed if all requirements have been met. "Then they become a lawful permanent resident -- otherwise known as a green card holder," said Scheidhauer. Greene's campaign reiterated his criticism of the investor program. "Jeff was making the argument that we should change the provisions of the EB-5 visa so that rather than requiring prospective immigrants to bring cash into the country, we should favor those who plan to come and start companies, and extend their visas once they begin hiring American residents," said spokesman Luis Vizcaino. But it is worth noting that investor visa recipients don't enjoy exclusive rights to job creation. Temporary residents and permanent residents alike can legally start a business and hire workers in the United States. So, there is some truth to Greene's statement. There is a program where immigrants can funnel $1 million into the U.S. economy in exchange for some legal rights. But successful applicants do not immediately receive a green card as a reward for their investment. And, contrary to Greene's assertion, immigrants don't "have" to participate in this exchange. They can obtain either a visa or a green card through other avenues that would also allow them to create jobs. We rate this claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Jeff Greene	None	None	None	2010-06-29T17:18:08	2010-06-22	['None']
-pomt-04327	Says the Central Health district's tax rate is the "lowest among the largest counties in Texas, and it will continue to be the lowest" if voters approve a proposed tax increase.	/texas/statements/2012/oct/26/keep-austin-healthy-pac/proposition-advocate-says-central-health-district-/	Central Health, the government agency entrusted with improving health care access across Travis County, has a low tax rate that will remain low if voters ratify Proposition 1 on the November 2012 ballot, a proponent says. Mark Nathan of the Keep Austin Healthy PAC said recently: "Our health care district’s tax rate is the lowest among the largest counties in Texas, and it will continue to be the lowest" if the proposal wins approval. His comment appeared in an Austin American-Statesman news article posted online the same day, Oct. 18, 2012. Central Health, the county health-care district created in 2004, seeks to increase its tax rate from 7.89 cents per $100 of assessed value to 12.9 cents for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013. Resulting revenue would help support health-care initiatives including a new medical school plus a site for a new teaching hospital. We wondered about the district’s current and possible future tax rates. In 2005, the first year the district collected property taxes, Central Health’s governing board set a tax rate of 7.79 cents per $100 of assessed property value, which cost the average taxpayer $126.84, according to a July 31, 2012, Statesman news story. Between 2005 and 2011, the average tax bill for Central Health rose $29.77 to the current $156.61 on the average-valued home in Travis County, counting exemptions--an increase of 23.5 percent, the story says. Generally, according to the story, Central Health’s finances were helped over the years by unexpected windfalls in federal payments, a robust real estate market that pumped up property tax collections and a deal the City of Austin cut with the Seton Healthcare Family years before voters created the district, allowing the district to steadily expand services while setting relatively modest tax rates. By phone, district spokeswoman Christie Garbe told us the district’s low tax rate is an artifact of how the district was born, reflecting the merger of separate rates previously levied for health care by the City of Austin and Travis County. Garbe said by email that after the change, residents outside the city experienced a significant rate increase while city residents saw a slight decrease. Another fiscally relevant distinction: Unlike hospital districts in Harris, Dallas, Bexar, Tarrant and El Paso counties, the July Statesman story says, Central Health does not run a hospital, so it can function with a lower tax rate. The Seton Healthcare Family operates the safety-net University Medical Center Brackenridge and bears most of the financial responsibility for it, the story says, which has helped Central Health set property tax rates 60 to 74 percent lower than other urban Texas hospital districts. At our inquiry, Nathan emailed us a chart, attributed to Central Health, indicating that its tax rate trails those of hospital districts in the urban counties noted in the July Statesman article plus Nueces County. All things staying equal, the other districts’ rates would also outpace the Central Health rate if Proposition 1 passes, according to the chart. Garbe told us by email that the chart reflects April 2012 research by Central Health. According to the chart, the Nueces County district has the next-lowest rate, 16.24 cents per $100 valuation. That's more than double Central Health’s rate. Via telephone interviews and web research, we confirmed the proclaimed rates, but found one rate getting cut. Mike Norby of the Harris County Hospital District, also known as the Harris Health System, said by phone that the county’s commissioners court voted to reduce the district’s tax rate by a penny to 18.22 cents per $100 valuation, effectively cutting the district’s revenue by $10 million once all factors are considered. (He said the vote to do so occurred Oct. 23, 2012, which was after Nathan made his claim.) So, Central Health has the lowest rate among seven urban Texas hospital districts and would still have the lowest rate if the proposition passes, presuming other districts do not slash rates in the meantime. At the recommendation of Jonny Hipp, ceo of the Nueces County district, we queried Austin consultant Shari Holland, who told us she has written reports in the past comparing Texas hospital districts; report purchasers have included Central Health, she said. Holland agreed that Central Health has and will likely have a lower tax rate than the other cited districts, due in part, she said, to the Austin area’s high property values. In 2008, she said, Travis County had assessed property values of $97,100 per resident, tops among the 10 most populous counties. Curious about the possible effect of higher property values, we asked Nathan how much tax revenue each of the cited health districts raises per resident. Central Health has ranked last among the seven districts in total tax revenues per resident, at $71, according to another Central Health chart emailed to us by Nathan. However, its per-resident revenue would escalate to $115 if the proposition passes. The district could then be collecting more per resident than the districts in Nueces and El Paso counties, which have per-person tax revenues of $91 and $86, respectively, according to Central Health. The other analyzed health districts still would generate more tax revenue per resident, the district’s research suggests. By email, Nathan pointed out he did not say Central Health’s per-resident tax collections would stay the lowest. Our ruling Nathan, the PAC spokesman, said Central Health has the lowest tax rate among districts in the largest Texas counties and will retain that distinction if the proposition passes. That’s correct, presuming other districts don’t slash rates. Still, Central Health’s per-person tax levy is projected to outpace those of two other districts should Travis County voters approve the bump. This information was missing from the spokesman's statement. Tax rates alone make the comparison incomplete. . We rate the claim as Mostly True.	None	Keep Austin Healthy PAC	None	None	None	2012-10-26T10:00:00	2012-10-18	['Texas']
-snes-06091	Coins left on military tombstones denote visits from living soldiers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coined-tradition/	None	Military	None	Snopes Staff	None	Why Are Coins Left on Headstones?	20 August 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-14076	Says "Elizabeth Warren lied when she says I want to abolish the Federal Minimum Wage."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/19/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-elizabeth-warren-lied-saying-he/	The question of whether -- or how much -- to raise the minimum wage has been a divisive issue during the Democratic presidential primary. But it has also caused frictions between Republicans and Democrats. A case in point is a recent Twitter exchange between presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a favorite of the progressive wing of her party. On May 11, Warren tweeted this: "You care so much about struggling American workers, @realDonaldTrump, that you want to abolish the federal minimum wage?" Later that day, Trump tweeted back: "Goofy Elizabeth Warren lied when she says I want to abolish the Federal Minimum Wage. See media—asking for increase!" Did Trump say he wants to abolish the federal minimum wage? To be honest, Trump's comments are so all over the map that it's hard to definitively say. That said, it's also wrong of Trump to accuse Warren of lying. First, some background. There’s a federal minimum wage -- currently $7.25 an hour -- that sets an absolute wage floor for the country as a whole. Beyond that, though, states can set their own minimum wages higher than the national level, and many of them have. (This map shows the current state-by-state breakdown.) In the meantime, localities can also set minimum wage levels higher than that of their state. The clearest example of Trump seeming to propose abolishing the federal minimum wage came in the May 8, 2016, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, when host Chuck Todd prodded Trump on his minimum wage views. Here’s the relevant exchange: Todd: "Should the federal government set a floor, and then you let the states--" Trump: "No, I'd rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they're out there. They're working. It is a very low number. You know, with what's happened to the economy, with what's happened to the cost. I mean, it's just -- I don't know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide." By answering no, we think many people would assume Trump does not want a minimum wage set by the federal government. That's what Warren certainly thought. We asked the Trump campaign whether he had simply misspoken in the heat of the interview and meant to say he supported keeping a $7.25 wage nationally and letting states set their own wage floor higher. But we didn’t hear back. Trump's other recent comments about the minimum wage articulate no clear position. • In an interview with MSNBC in August 2015, Trump said, "Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country." • During the Republican debate in Milwaukee in November 2015, Trump said wages are "too high" and, when asked whether he would raise the minimum wage, said, "I would not do it." • In December 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tweeted, "Donald Trump does not want to raise the minimum wage. In fact, he has said that he thinks wages in America are too high." Trump tweeted back, ".@BernieSanders-who blew his campaign when he gave Hillary a pass on her e-mail crime, said that I feel wages in America are too high. Lie!" • On ABC’s This Week on May 8, 2016, host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "Minimum wage -- all through the primaries, you were against an increase. Now you're saying you're looking at it. So what's your bottom line on this?" Trump responded, "Well, I am looking at it and I haven't decided in terms of numbers. But I think people have to get more." When Stephanopoulos asked whether that’s a change, Trump answered, "Well, sure it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility." • In the May 8 Meet the Press interview, Trump said, "I have seen what's going on. And I don't know how people make it on $7.25 an hour. Now, with that being said, I would like to see an increase of some magnitude. But I'd rather leave it to the states. Let the states decide." • And as we noted earlier, Trump tweeted to Warren that he’s "asking for (an) increase." Our ruling Trump said, "Elizabeth Warren lied when she says I want to abolish the Federal Minimum Wage." Yet when Trump was asked if he would have a federal floor with states going higher if they wish,Trump said, "No." While Trump's other statements can leave readers with a different impression, there is certainly no evidence Warren lied. She simply used Trump's own words. We rate this statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c2102b27-05a7-44f6-910c-bdc68df7420a	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-05-19T10:44:03	2016-05-11	['None']
-pomt-05515	"Since President Obama took office, our federal spending has increased by nearly 30 percent and our national debt has increased by almost 50 percent."	/ohio/statements/2012/apr/13/jim-renacci/rep-jim-renacci-says-president-obama-took-office-f/	With an uncontested primary victory under his belt, freshman Wadsworth GOP Rep. Jim Renacci is gearing up for a hotly contested general election battle with Copley Township Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton. The incumbents were placed in the same district by a GOP-controlled state legislature, which had to eliminate two of Ohio’s current 18 congressional seats because the state’s population has grown more slowly than other parts of the country. In an April 5 campaign email that sought volunteers and donations, Renacci touted his experience as a Northeast Ohio CPA and former small business owner in warning that "Washington’s debt crisis threatens the prosperity of every American." "Since President Obama took office, our federal spending has increased by nearly 30 percent and our national debt has increased by almost 50 percent," it continued. "The time to stand up and say enough is enough is now!" The kind of spending Renacci cited sounded excessive over a bit more than three years, so PolitiFact Ohio decided to audit his numbers. According to the U.S. Treasury Department’s website, on Obama’s Jan. 20, 2009 inauguration date, the total outstanding public debt was $10.627 trillion. By the time of Renacci’s April 5 missive, the total outstanding public debt had risen to $15.620 trillion. That’s almost 47 percent higher than it was the day Obama took office, a number that approximates the "almost 50 percent" statistic cited by Renacci. It’s worth noting that public debt began to escalate well before Obama’s presidency. On the inauguration date of his GOP predecessor, George W. Bush, total outstanding public debt was $5.728 trillion. On April 5 of Bush’s fourth year in office, public debt had swelled by approximately 25 percent to $7.142 trillion. When Bush left office, the debt was 85 percent higher than when he entered. Unsurprisingly, Obama’s Treasury Department blames most of the current debt on decisions made under Bush, including tax cuts (which it says cost the government $3 trillion), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which it tallies at $1.4 trillion) and the Medicare prescription drug program ($300 billion). It attributes a 12 percent fraction of the deficit to Obama administration policies like the $800 billion recovery act. Treasury Department spokesman Matthew Anderson says the recession further threw the budget out of whack by boosting the need for government aid at a time when tax revenues decreased. Renacci also stated that federal spending escalated by nearly 30 percent since Obama took office. When we asked his spokesman, James Slepian, where Renacci got the number, he correctly said that federal spending in the last year of Bush’s presidency was $2.982 trillion. He then said that spending would rise by $820 billion, or 27 percent, if President Obama’s $3.803 trillion proposed 2013 budget were to become law. When we observed that Obama’s proposal is unlikely to become law, and asked whether it’s appropriate to treat that number as dollars that have already been spent, Slepian replied that Obama’s budget reflects the president’s desired spending level. He also conceded it might have been more precise if Renacci had said "Since President Obama took office, his budgets would increase federal spending by nearly 30 percent." Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman provided a more accurate take on the rise in federal spending in a statement that PolitiFact Ohio examined in January. PolitiFact found that Portman’s assertion that federal spending rose 21 percent over the past three years was Mostly True, because his percentage was accurate, but his statement didn’t reflect that the extra spending was a temporary elevation driven by the economic downturn. Renacci’s statement that the national debt has increased by almost 50 percent on Obama’s watch is accurate, although it fails to account for factors beyond Obama’s control that drove a significant part of the rise. And while federal spending has increased significantly on Obama’s watch, it hasn’t risen by "nearly 30 percent," as Renacci claimed. Nor does Renacci’s statement reflect that plenty of the spending he criticizes is tied to the faltering economy and some was due to decisions made before Obama took office. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate his claim Half True.	None	Jim Renacci	None	None	None	2012-04-13T06:00:00	2012-04-05	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-13723	"Immigrants start businesses at a faster rate; they seem to grow those businesses more successfully."	/arizona/statements/2016/jul/27/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claims-immigrants-are-more-success/	Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton portrayed immigrants as more successful at starting and running businesses than natives in a recent interview. When Vox editor Ezra Klein asked Clinton if it would be good for the economy to increase immigration, Clinton gave a short answer: yes. "It is certainly the case that immigration has been and continues to be good for our economy," Clinton said June 22 (the interview appeared online July 11). "Immigrants start businesses at a faster rate; they seem to grow those businesses more successfully." Clinton’s statement on immigrant-owned businesses interested us. Are immigrants really better than native-born Americans at starting — and growing — successful businesses? What the data shows Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin pointed us to analysis from the nonpartisan Kauffman Foundation that shows immigrants are almost "twice as likely" to start businesses than natives. The foundation looked at monthly data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey from 1996 through 2014 and estimated that immigrants have a new entrepreneur rate of 52 percent compared to the native born rate of 27 percent. Their analysis also addressed the success of these businesses, but only within a certain subset - venture-backed firms. Immigrant founders from these companies have created about 150 jobs per company in the United States. According to the foundation, in 2011, 24 of the top 50 venture-backed businesses also had a least one foreign-born founder. Experts we spoke with generally agreed with Clinton’s claim. Although, there are some caveats. University of California, Santa Cruz economics professor Robert Fairlie, who authored a 2012 paper for the Small Business Administration on immigrant entrepreneurs, said that the success of these businesses is not as clear as the start-up data. "My estimates show that immigrants have a much higher business start rate than non-immigrants," Fairlie said. "There is also evidence showing that immigrant businesses are smaller on average than non-immigrant businesses." A 2011 report from the bipartisan Partnership for a New American Economy notes that 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies are founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. Although, when the former CEO of AOL repeated this claim, we rated it Half True -- a company’s dominance could be more attributable to recent leaders more so than its founders. However, Clinton’s claim was not as definitive. "Immigrants are indeed more likely than others to be business owners," said David Kallick, a senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute. "The claims about business ownership are sometimes overstated, but from the Vox quote, I’d say Hillary is on the mark." Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for stricter immigration policies, analyzed the Census Bureau’s 2015 Current Population Survey self-employment data by country for immigrants and natives. He found that immigrants from some countries, such as Brazil and Germany, do have higher business ownership rates than natives. But immigrants from other countries do not. Camarota said it is possible they start businesses at higher rates than natives, but "they fail at higher rates, too." But, Colgate University economics professor Chad Sparber, an immigration economy expert, said Clinton’s claim is accurate, noting that federal data shows that immigrants are "almost always more likely" to be self-employed than natives. "Though, self-employment isn’t necessarily the same thing as starting a business," Sparber said. Our ruling Clinton said, "immigrants start businesses at a faster rate; they seem to grow those businesses more successfully." Federal data and the experts we spoke with back up her claim. While it’s important to note that evidence on the success of immigrant-owned businesses is limited, what we did find supports what Clinton said, that immigrants "seem" to grow their businesses better than their native counterparts. We rate Clinton’s claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9e394b49-c56d-49c0-8cc7-46eb68e4e919	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-07-27T18:00:00	2016-06-22	['None']
-pomt-12325	"The same unhinged leftists cheering last week's shooting are all backing Jon Ossoff."	/georgia/statements/2017/jun/19/principled-pac/pants-fire-claim-ossoff-supporters-celebrated-viol/	An attack ad released on the eve of Georgia’s special House election claims Democrat Jon Ossoff has the support of "unhinged leftists" who celebrated the shooting of Republican lawmakers. The video, from a group calling itself Principled PAC, opens with the sound of gunfire over footage of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., being wheeled on a stretcher. Scalise was critically wounded in the June 14 attack on a GOP congressional baseball practice that left five others with gunshot wounds and the shooter dead. "The unhinged left is endorsing and applauding shooting Republicans," states the ad, which was viewed more than 86,000 times on YouTube since June 18. "When will it stop? It won’t if Jon Ossoff wins on Tuesday, because the same unhinged leftists cheering last week's shooting are all backing Jon Ossoff." Republican Karen Handel, Ossoff’s opponent in the June 20 race, condemned the ad. Handel campaign aide Kate Constantini said the group behind the video "should be ashamed," and denounced efforts to use the recent shooting for political gain. The premise of the ad is alarming and incorrect. We searched for evidence of applause for the shooting and came up empty. There is a further lack of evidence that those cheerleaders are then supporting Ossoff. Principled PAC did not respond to requests for explanation. Toxic fight for Georgia’s 6th Recent events, partly connected to the Alexandria, Va., ballpark shooting, have set the historically Republican district in northern Atlanta on edge. On the same day James Hodgkinson attacked GOP congressmen, reports surfaced showing Hodgkinson had previously posted a rant against Karen Handel on Facebook. Hodgkinson had slammed Handel for her opposition to increasing the minimum wage in a profanity-laced tirade he posted a week before the mass shooting. Handel called for calm and unity in response to those reports. "We should not allow our political differences to escalate to violent attacks. We must all refuse to allow the politics of our country to be defined in this way," she said in a statement. The following day, Handel and her neighbors received suspicious packages at their homes containing threatening letters and an unidentified white powder substance. A letter Handel’s neighbor shared with the media told the recipient to "resist the fascist takeover," and appeared to borrow Marxist language, condemning the "bourgeoisie." It’s not clear who sent the package, but a neighbor told Fox 5 Atlanta it had a Greenville, S.C., shipping address. There is no evidence it was mailed by someone who supports Ossoff, or has any connection to the Democratic nominee. If the ad writers had this news in mind, they jumped to a connection that was not based in proof. The same day Handel received the suspicious package, Ossoff revealed in a statement that he too had received threats against him, and had hired bodyguards for protection. Meantime, some residents of the district said they’re too scared to put out a yard sign for fear of retribution. Adding to the toxicity of the election, the most expensive House race in history, the chairman of the Republican Party in the neighboring 11th Congressional District predicted the shooting of GOP lawmakers would hand Republicans a win. A spokesman for Principled PAC described the shooting as a "political assassination attempt" fueled by rabid talk by the "left" in an email to the Washington Examiner. "Wednesday's shooting, in stark contrast to a random act of violence, was a political assassination attempt driven by the left's rabid, unhinged rhetoric, so Americans should take a hard look at the ramifications of politically motivated violence," Noel Fritsch told the Examiner. Our ruling Principled PAC said, "The same unhinged leftists cheering last week's shooting are all backing Jon Ossoff." For any statement we fact-check, the speaker carries the burden of proof. Principled PAC did not respond to multiple requests seeking information to support its incendiary claim linking Ossoff to a celebration of violence against Republicans. We were unable to find a single example of someone cheering the recent shooting of Republican lawmakers and voicing support for Ossoff. We rate Principled PAC’s statement Pants on Fire! See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Principled PAC	None	None	None	2017-06-19T17:54:38	2017-06-18	['None']
-pose-01088	As governor, I will: Create incentives for our schools to purchase digital learning materials instead of paper-based texts.	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/gina-meter/promise/1171/create-incentives-schools-purchase-digital-learnin/	None	gina-meter	Gina Raimondo	None	None	Create incentives for schools to purchase digital learning materials	2014-12-19T07:22:37	None	['None']
-goop-02301	Kim Kardashian Does Refuse Moving To New Mansion After Attempted Robbery, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-moving-new-mansion-robbery/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kim Kardashian Does NOT Refuse Moving To New Mansion After Attempted Robbery, Despite Report	4:29 pm, October 25, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01357	Dunkin' 'Free Box of Donuts' Coupon	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dunkin-donuts-coupon-hoax/	None	Fraud & Scams	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Free Dunkin’ Donuts Coupon Scam	18 April 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02290	Angelina Jolie Did Invite Brad Pitt To Go Trick-Or-Treating With Kids, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-trick-or-treating-brad-pitt-kids-halloween/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie Did NOT Invite Brad Pitt To Go Trick-Or-Treating With Kids, Despite Report	9:59 am, October 27, 2017	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Angelina_Jolie']
-pomt-11612	"No state generates as much solar power as California, or has as many people whose jobs depend on it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/25/kamala-harris/california-no-1-solar-power-and-solar-jobs/	Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., wasn’t happy about President Donald Trump authorizing tariffs on solar energy cells and panels. "No state generates as much solar power as California, or has as many people whose jobs depend on it. This is an attack on California," Harris tweeted Jan. 24, two days after Trump signed the order. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We wondered whether Harris was correct about how California ranks in U.S. solar power generation. First, a word about the tariffs. They will start at 30 percent and then fall over a four-year period to 15 percent, with some exceptions. The biggest expected loser will be China, which has become the world’s largest supplier of solar equipment. The U.S. solar industry has been divided on the tariffs. Two companies — Suniva Inc. and SolarWorld Americas — pushed for them, though many end users of solar equipment and solar energy expressed concern about the impact on consumer prices. The most complete state-by-state data on solar power comes from the Solar Energy Industries Association, the industry’s trade group. The group’s data shows that California ranked first among states nationally in installed solar capacity in 2016 with 18,296 megawatts. California ranks far ahead on this score. The next-closest state is North Carolina, with less than one-sixth the amount of installed solar capacity. The other states in the top 10 are, in order, Arizona, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, Massachusetts, Georgia, Texas and New York. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com As for jobs, California also ranks No. 1, with 100,050 positions tallied by the group. The second-ranking state in solar jobs is Massachusetts with 14,582 —only about one-sixth as many as California. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com That isn’t entirely surprising: California is the nation’s most populous state and third-biggest by land area behind Alaska and Texas. It also tends to get a lot of sun. On a per capita basis, the group’s data shows California ranks fourth in solar capacity behind Nevada, Utah and Hawaii. It also ranks fourth in solar jobs per capita, behind Massachusetts, Nevada and Vermont. That said, there’s little question that California has actively encouraged solar energy in recent years due to state policy efforts and consumer preferences. Our ruling Harris said, "No state generates as much solar power as California, or has as many people whose jobs depend on it." The raw numbers back her up, it’s worth noting that the state’s size is a factor. On a per capita basis, California ranks fourth in both solar capacity and solar-related jobs. We rate her statement Mostly True. See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kamala Harris	None	None	None	2018-01-25T17:31:44	2018-01-24	['California']
-pomt-03914	"When I ran against incumbent President Gerald Ford, you know how much money we raised? None."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/26/jimmy-carter/jimmy-carter-says-when-he-ran-against-gerald-ford-/	During a recent interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, former President Jimmy Carter made a striking claim about how presidential campaigns had changed since Carter first ran against President Gerald Ford in 1976. Asked by Morgan about the challenges facing President Barack Obama, Carter said in the Feb. 21, 2013, interview that the presidency has "changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, when I ran against incumbent President Gerald Ford, you know how much money we raised? None." Coming off a 2012 election in which Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney together raised in excess of $2 billion, that’s quite a difference. Is it correct? We checked with campaign-finance experts, who explained how campaign finance was structured in 1976. That was the first presidential election run under the post-Watergate amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under this law, presidential candidates were able to receive a partial federal match for money they raised for the primary, up to $5 million. For the general election, candidates could receive full federal funding, up to $20 million, as long as they raised no private money for the general election and stuck to expenditure limits. We were able to obtain original campaign-finance documentation during a visit to the public records room of the Federal Election Commission in Washington, D.C. During the primary phase of the campaign, Carter raised $13.8 million. Of that, $3.5 million came from federal matching funds, and the remainder was raised privately. But since Carter wasn’t running against Ford at that point -- but rather such Democratic rivals as California Gov. Jerry Brown and the late Idaho Sen. Frank Church -- we don’t think these fundraising efforts undercut Carter’s claim of not raising money against Ford. (Interestingly, some of Carter’s biggest fundraising draws during the primaries were concerts by such Southern rock bands as the Allman Brothers Band, Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Marshall Tucker Band.) What happened in the general election is the more relevant issue for judging the claim Carter made on CNN. Both he and Ford agreed to the expenditure limits, meaning they qualified for the $20 million in federal funds. By accepting the money, both candidates were legally barred from raising money for their official campaign committee. On the surface, this supports Carter’s claim. "No presidential candidate raised a dime for a general election campaign between Watergate and Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign," said Kenneth A. Gross, who practices political and election law for the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. "Until 2008, every major-party general-election candidate was 100 percent publicly funded." But as is so often the case with campaign finance, there were some exceptions that make Carter’s claim an oversimplification. We learned about at least three ways in which Carter (or his ticket-mate, Walter Mondale, or other surrogates such as his wife Rosalynn) were allowed to raise money for the general election. The key is that this money had to go toward groups other than his own official presidential campaign committee. • Fundraising for the Democratic National Committee and other party committees. The DNC, like its Republican equivalent, was allowed under the law to raise and spend $3 million on behalf of the Carter-Mondale ticket for the general election campaign. News reports in October 1976 suggested tension between the Carter campaign and DNC chairman Robert Strauss due to the DNC’s inability to deliver all of the permitted $3 million to the presidential ticket. Still, while not every fundraising effort for the DNC was headlined by Carter, "we did raise money for the DNC up to the limit," said Peter G. Bourne, who served as Carter’s deputy campaign director in the general election as well as mid-Atlantic director and director of the Washington office during the primaries. • Fundraising for an authorized "compliance fund." The law allowed the Carter campaign to collect money for a separate account called a "compliance fund," which supported the campaign’s legal efforts to follow campaign finance laws. FEC data shows that the compliance fund collected more than $58,000 for the general election. • Fundraising for down-ballot candidates. Bourne said the Carter campaign, and sometimes Carter himself, also raised money for House, Senate and other candidates. Media coverage backs this up. The New York Times reported that Carter himself attended, among other events, a rally in Norfolk, Va., in September; a fundraiser for Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Jim Sasser; and a box-lunch fundraiser at the Hartford Civic Center in October. In addition, in October, Mondale attended a fundraiser at the home of former Rep. Ogden R. Reid, D-N.Y., and a fundraising dinner in Essex County, N.J. And Rosalynn Carter narrated Aaron Copland's "A Lincoln Portrait" at an October fundraiser at Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., in a joint appearance with Leonard Bernstein. She also appeared at a fundraising event for New York State Democrats in New York City’s Tavern on the Green. Our ruling Carter said on CNN that when he ran against Ford in 1976, "you know how much money we raised? None." Carter is correct that, like every presidential candidate until Obama in 2008, he did not raise money for his own campaign committee for the general election, opting instead for federal funding that came with some strings. However, he exaggerates slightly by suggesting that he and his campaign raised no money during their general-election campaign against Ford. In fact, they did help raise money for the DNC, a compliance fund and for down-ballot candidates. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Jimmy Carter	None	None	None	2013-02-26T09:48:46	2013-02-21	['Gerald_Ford']
-snes-05397	Human traffickers are targeting young girls near the Great Lakes Crossing theater with a powdered drug that incapacitates them.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/great-lakes-crossing-human-trafficking-rumor/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Great Lakes Crossing Human Trafficking Rumor	8 January 2016	None	['None']
-farg-00162	Denied he ever called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/cruz-social-security-ponzi-scheme/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Ted Cruz	Eugene Kiely	['Social Security']	Cruz on Social Security as a ‘Ponzi Scheme’	October 19, 2017	[' CNN town hall debate – Wednesday, October 18, 2017 ']	['None']
-para-00064	"30 per cent of all cancers are related to tobacco. 15,000 people will die this year."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/bill-shorten/tax-smokers-save-lives-Shorten/index.html	None	['Health']	Bill Shorten	Ellie Harvey, Sarah Fantini, Peter Fray	None	Tax smokers and save lives: Shorten	Wednesday, August 14, 2013 at 12:08 p.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-02597	Says David Jolly’s former firm lobbied "for hundreds of millions (of dollars) for a dictator in Pakistan."	/florida/statements/2014/jan/27/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-say-david-jollys-old-firm-lobbied-millio/	Pinellas Republican congressional candidate David Jolly’s lobbyist past was always going to be a favorite target for his opponents. In the GOP primary, Kathleen Peters tried the "lobbyist" attack, attempting to tie Jolly to Obamacare in a claim we rated False. (We’ve done some other checks on his lobbying, too.) But Peters’ loss to Jolly hasn’t stopped Democrats from trying to rap Jolly as a lobbyist ahead of the general election. A new commercial released Jan. 21 by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee focused not on a subject that Jolly himself worked on, but rather on a client represented by his former employer. The ad refers to a quote from Jolly saying "I’m proud of the work that I’ve done." It then asks a hypothetical: "Is Jolly proud of lobbying for special interests that received over $3,000,000 in taxpayer-funded earmarks? Or the firm lobbying for hundreds of millions for a dictator in Pakistan as we face record debt?" These charges are paired with images of Pervez Musharraf, the former president of Pakistan. One of those claims gave us pause: Did one of Jolly’s firms really have anything to do with "a dictator in Pakistan"? For the answer, we need to head to K Street. Did Pakistan retain Jolly’s firm? Jolly served as an aide to the late U.S. House Rep. C.W. Bill Young for almost 20 years before leaving his office to work for lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates Inc. on Jan. 1, 2007. He worked for Van Scoyoc until the end of 2010, then formed his own firm, Three Bridges Advisors. We are confident that Jolly didn’t ever lobby for anyone in Pakistan. His office denies it, his records confirm it and the DCCC doesn’t claim it. But the DCCC’s claim is carefully worded, implicating Jolly’s firm -- not Jolly personally. And there is plenty of evidence that Van Scoyoc did lobbying work for Pakistan. Van Scoyoc was one of several lobbying firms retained by Pakistan’s government between 2005 and 2008 to lobby for the country’s interests, particularly foreign aid. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Pakistan was viewed as a vital ally in the search for Osama bin Laden and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, making Musharraf an important strategic partner. DCCC national press secretary Joshua Schwerin said the commercial specifically refers to two appropriations that benefited Pakistan -- the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, setting aside millions to train and equip Pakistani armed forces, including the Pakistan Frontier Corps to fight militant Islamic groups; and fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act’s Foreign Military Financing Program, to supply the South Asian country’s army, air force and navy. Van Scoyoc confirmed it was employed by the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to discuss defense and economic issues, including the bills the DCCC references. The firm added that dollar amounts attached to those bills weren’t listed in filings, because the filings focus on discussions rather than outcomes. A Foreign Agents Registration Act form listing lobbying activities shows Van Scoyoc engaged in dozens of meetings with members of Congress and congressional staffers, the Department of Defense and media outlets between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2007. Those meetings would have been supportive of the strategic partnership with Musharraf, who was in power until August 2008. Both the NDAA and the appropriations bill were listed as lobbying subjects on the disclosure form. The form also confirms that Pakistan had terminated its relationship with the lobbying firm Cassidy & Associates and hired Ogilvy Public Relations during the same time frame. Records show that the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act ended up paying out $131 million, including $75 million for the Pakistan Frontier Corps. The Pakistani military eventually used $298 million from the Foreign Military Financing Program that year. And that’s just the totals for 2008. Washington continued funding the program at similar levels. (The Pakistan Frontier Corps funding was cut back to $25 million in 2009 and dropped after that.) For its services, Van Scoyoc received between $30,000 to as much as $55,000 a month from Pakistan’s government. The more than $1 billion in total economic and military aid Pakistan received in 2008 is not unusually high for a U.S. ally in a troubled but strategically important region, especially with a war right next door in Afghanistan. That number also doesn’t include more than $1 billion per year the country got through the Pentagon’s Coalition Support Funds, which technically reimburse the nation for allowing American armed forces and their allies to use air bases and similar facilities. Egypt received about $1.5 billion that same year. Israel took in almost $2.4 billion. In all, foreign aid accounted for about 1.6 percent of the total U.S. budget that year. Despite the country’s strategic importance, continued aid to Pakistan has drawn some criticism within the United States -- even before it became known that Osama bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad. And when the United States learned of his location, President Barack Obama took action without informing Pakistan first, for fear that elements within the Pakistani government or military might tip off the al Qaeda chief, who had managed to live undeterred in Pakistan for a decade. "In the early years post-9/11, Pakistan’s involvement was essential," said Daniel Markey, a senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "By 2007, there was frustration with Musharraf’s actions … At the very least, he was minimally satisfying needs for the U.S., to put it charitably." Was Musharraf a dictator? Is it fair to call Musharraf, whose name was not specifically mentioned in the ad, a dictator? It depends whom you ask. In 2007, Congressional Quarterly Weekly quoted Brookings Institution fellow Bruce Riedel, a former Bill Clinton adviser on Near East and South Asian affairs and 30-year CIA veteran, saying that Van Scoyoc was doing a good job "selling what is essentially a military dictatorship." Musharraf, a general, was Chief of Army Staff in 1999 when he led a bloodless coup ousting a civilian (albeit ineffectual, to many observers) government led by Nawaz Sharif. Musharraf re-instituted military rule in the country, and his tenure was marked by constitutional disputes, protests, economic hardship, territorial battles, and tensions between Islamist militant and secular factions in the government. Musharraf eventually gave up his Army position in 2007 and resigned after he lost support in 2008 parliamentary elections and faced impeachment. He went into exile in November 2008, only to return last year ahead of May elections. He was arrested, facing a host of charges, including suspicion of conspiring to murder political rivals, and was placed under house arrest. He has been released, but he is barred from leaving the country. Now he’s on trial for treason (largely at the behest of Sharif, who was re-elected last year) for such actions as detaining judges, suspending the constitution and imposing emergency rule in November 2007. Musharraf is currently attempting to leave the country to seek medical attention for a heart problem, but many consider this a ruse to escape trial. When we asked Riedel whether he thought the DCCC’s description of Musharraf was fair, he said it was. "Musharraf is without question a former dictator," he told PolitiFact Florida. "He took power in a military coup, ruled as a military dictator and was overthrown by the judiciary and popular demonstrations. He is now ... on trial for his abuses of power in Pakistan. He double-dealt the U.S. in power, promising help against al-Qaida while he supported the Afghan Taliban to kill our troops in Afghanistan." Not everybody is on board with this assessment, however. Khurram Husain, a Karachi-based journalist who is currently at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said the term isn’t so cut-and-dried. "I think anyone who seizes power through force, then changes the rules of the game to legitimize his coup, then allows an elected parliament to come into being but retains the power to dissolve that parliament or even individual members of the parliament can be called a dictator," Husain said. He added that he calls him a dictator in his own writing. Still, Husain added that during Musharraf’s time, executive power was in the hands of a civilian prime minister, elected by a parliament full of directly elected representatives. That’s different than the way dictators in parts of Africa and the Middle East have ruled, he said. Some say Musharraf "couldn’t really dictate anything and had to work to build some modicum of consensus before getting his way, and often found the Supreme Court struck down his government’s policies and actions and therefore cannot be called a dictator," Husain said. Our ruling The DCCC’s commercial charges that Jolly’s former firm lobbied "for hundreds of millions (of dollars) for a dictator in Pakistan." The ad uses guilt by association, leveraging a widespread American distaste for dictators in general -- and uneasiness with the U.S.-Pakistan relationship in particular -- in a quest to damage Jolly, who, in reality, was close to neither. On the other hand, the ad phrases its allegation carefully. It doesn’t claim that Jolly himself lobbied for Pakistan, but rather that his former employer, Van Scoyoc Associates Inc., did. And on that point, the ad is correct. So too, experts say, is the ad’s description of Musharraf as a dictator. This ad treads close to the line, implying Jolly’s firm did something unethical when, so far as we know, it acted lawfully and as other lobbying firms regularly do. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2014-01-27T13:29:22	2014-01-21	['Pakistan']
-pomt-07356	Rick Perry "advocated to liquidate" the state’s rainy day fund in 2007.	/texas/statements/2011/may/08/steve-ogden/state-sen-steve-ogden-says-perry-advocated-liquida/	As state senators edged toward a party-line divide on the 2012-13 state budget, state Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, questioned the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee on GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s past positions on taking money from the state’s Economic Stabilization Fund, better known as the rainy day fund. On the Senate floor May 3, Watson said to Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan: "A couple of times, Gov. Perry has actually ... advocated for spending the (fund), hasn't he?" Ogden replied: "He's advocated to liquidate it." Ogden added: "I believe it was four years ago and that proposal was made and soundly rejected by" the Senate. Ogden’s comment caught our attention because Perry declared in March he won’t sign off on a 2012-13 budget that taps any dollars in the fund. Some background: The stabilization fund, created in 1988, accumulates money from portions of oil and/or gas production taxes; it also receives half of any unencumbered state revenue -- unspent dollars not reserved for a specific purpose -- at the end of each two-year budget period. Money has been taken from the fund in the past, including more than $3 billion during Perry’s tenure as governor. In 2003, lawmakers diverted $295 million in rainy-day dollars to launch an enterprise fund overseen by Perry to lure businesses to the state. Two years later, more money was taken from the fund to start an emerging technology fund overseen by the governor. Sharp increases in natural gas prices have boosted its balance, which was nearly $8.2 billion in January and is projected to be $9.4 billion at the end of August 2013. In March, Perry revealed he’d support taking $3.1 billion from the fund to shore up the current budget, which runs through August. However, Perry said, "I remain steadfastly committed to protecting the remaining balance of the" fund "and will not sign a 2012-2013 state budget that uses" it. Ogden has thrown the liquidation jab before. A May 3 commentary by Peggy Fikac of Hearst Newspapers quotes Ogden recalling Perry’s 2007 stance on the rainy day fund: "Four years ago, the governor said we didn't even need one. And in fact, the governor tried to get us to liquidate it... his theory was, as I remember . . . that it's excessive taxation on the people, and why are we collecting all this money and doing nothing with it?" The article also quotes a Perry spokeswoman saying the governor did not propose to liquidate the fund. When we tried to follow up with Ogden, he declined to elaborate on his floor statement. Separately, we checked news archives, finding that during the 2007 legislative session Perry was willing to tap the fund to finance additional school property-tax cuts. In 2005 and 2003, Perry signed off on budgets that basically drained the fund’s existing balance, mostly to meet budget shortfalls. In the latter instance, the fund ended up with more money in it than projected, thanks to unexpected revenue due to higher oil and gas prices. A May 3, 2007, Associated Press report quotes Perry urging lawmakers to divert money intended for the fund to finance additional school property tax cuts. But Ogden spokeswoman Constance Allison told us Ogden’s liquidation comment was not referring to that proposal. Instead, she said, Ogden was talking about Perry’s 2007 desire to return rainy-day monies in the form of rebates to Texas taxpayers. The governor included legislation authorizing rebates among his emergency items for that session, according to a Jan. 12, 2007 press release from his office in which he said: "To keep government fiscally responsible, state leaders need the authority to rebate surplus funds directly to taxpayers." In his February 2007 State-of-the-State address to lawmakers, Perry said he was proposing a budget that "grows the Rainy Day Fund to more than $4 billion" while setting aside $2.5 billion more for property tax relief. His speech continued: "One way to provide tax relief is in the form of a rebate. The appeal of a one-time rebate is that future legislatures don’t have to find the money to sustain it. However, the will of the Legislature may be to provide rate relief instead. Either way is better than the alternative: which is having the money spent on more government." According to a Jan. 29, 2007, Houston Chronicle news article, Ogden was cool to the rebate idea. Asked his opinion of it, he said: "Not much . . .The big issue to me in this session is to make sure that we set aside enough of the surplus to guarantee that we'll be able to meet our property tax promises in future years." Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst aired a similar sentiment. Neither the Chronicle article nor Perry’s formal messages say the governor wanted to empty the Rainy Day Fund to provide rebates. In an interview, Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Perry did not call for depleting the fund then and now considers it prudent to leave the fund intact. He has, however, said he’ll go along with taking out $3.1 billion to cover gaps in the current budget, which runs through August. In the end, the 2007 Legislature took no money from the fund, according to a 2011 policy paper on the fund’s history by the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities, which has urged the 2011 Legislature to maintain existing government programs through 2012-13 by leaning on the fund. According to the state comptroller’s office, the state later ended fiscal 2008 with more than $4.3 billion in the fund and closed the next year with a balance of more than $6.7 billion. End of story? Not quite. In a May 5 blog post by Fikac on the Houston Chronicle website, Perry acknowledged he advocated liquidating the rainy day fund — in 2005. "I did," Fikac quotes Perry saying. "If you’ll recall, it was during a period of time when we had major surpluses. I don’t see any reason to have huge amounts of money in a rainy day fund when you have just massive surpluses. If you recall, in 2005 we had a $10 billion budget surplus relative to the two-year budget before." As for what he was going to do with the fund after it was liquidated, Perry said he didn’t remember the details. "You’re asking me things I can’t give you specific answers to. I’ll speak to you philosophically about what I was thinking about, which is why have a big stack of money sitting over in the side when you have large budget surpluses." Winding up: We found no record that Perry proposed to empty the rainy day fund to pay for rebates in 2007 — he never specified what they would cost — or that the Senate "roundly rejected" such an idea. The record does show that Perry’s rebate proposal got nowhere in the Legislature. It also shows that despite Perry’s avowed distaste for tapping the rainy day fund, he has repeatedly approved state budgets that effectively spent it all. And that was the larger point Ogden and Watson were trying to make in their exchange on the Senate floor. We rate Ogden’s statement Half True.	None	Steve Ogden	None	None	None	2011-05-08T06:00:00	2011-05-04	['Rick_Perry']
-pomt-04334	Says GM used taxpayer dollars to prop up operations in China.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/25/let-freedom-ring/claims-gm-used-bailout-money-boost-china-operation/	If there is one economic success that President Barack Obama likes to tout, it is the recovery of the American auto industry. An ad now circulating on the Web aims to strip Obama of that accomplishment. It is called Chinese Motors and accuses General Motors, and by extension, Obama, of parlaying American taxpayer dollars to create jobs in China. The ad comes from Let Freedom Ring USA, a group that fuses religious and fiscal conservatives. The group’s president Colin Hanna said he has spent $7 million dollars to have the ad show up 300 million times on computer screens in Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Here is what the ad says: Obama video: "We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back." Image: "Almost two-thirds of GM’s jobs are in other countries - Forbes" GM CEO video: "Seven out of 10 of our vehicles were made outside the United States." Text: "OUTSIDE the United States?" Announcer: "That’s the CEO of General Motors, the man President Obama appointed." Image: "GM, which closed 13 plants in the U.S. ... opened 15 plants in China. - CNN" Tom Rose - retired auto worker: "Is this a GM America bailout or a GM China bailout?" GM CEO: "Our commitment to work in China, with China, for China, remains strong." Announcer: "President Obama. Your GM CEO is bragging about working for China? With our taxpayer dollars you gave him? Not working for us?" Roy Smith - retired auto worker: "Anytime our tax dollars are being used to prop up another country, it’s not the right thing for America." Hanna has high hopes for what voters will take away from the ad. "They will conclude that the GM bailout was a colossal misuse of their taxpayers’ dollars," Hanna said. "Not the shining example of betting on the American worker that President Obama claims that it is." In this fact-check, we look at whether bailout money propped up GM’s operations in China. Some key bankruptcy and bailout numbers Thousands of American workers and lenders had a great deal riding on the restructuring of General Motors. When GM declared bankruptcy in 2009, it had $172 billion in debts and $82 billion in assets. Of its 50 largest creditors, 45 were suppliers like U.S. Steel and Goodyear Tires. Together, they were owed nearly $900 million. GM’s obligations to its workers totaled $23 billion. Bondholders were owed $27 billion. Simply to stay afloat, GM borrowed over $9 billion from the government while President George W. Bush was in office. By the time it emerged from bankruptcy, the government had put about $51 billion into the effort to save GM. A bit over half of that has been repaid. GM in China and the U.S. In China, GM has 11 joint ventures and two wholly owned foreign enterprises with more than 35,000 employees. In 2011, these firms produced 2.5 million vehicles and generated some $1.5 billion in profits for GM in the U.S. With more and more Chinese interested in buying cars, GM plans to expand there. One of its joint ventures, Shanghai GM, recently won approval to build a $1 billion plant in the country’s central Hubei province. The plant is slated to produce 300,000 vehicles a year. In the United States, GM has 12 assembly plants, many other smaller plants and more than 79,000 employees. In 2011, those plants produced more than 1.8 million vehicles. The company’s operating income across all its North American operations, which includes, Canada and Mexico, were $7.2 billion. Since 2009, GM says it has invested about $7.3 billion in its American facilities. Following the money The ad claims that the bailout of GM propped up operations in China. To the extent that a collapse of GM in the United States would have caused considerable headaches in China, that claim is accurate. The end of GM would have required complex negotiations over the rights to use GM’s designs and technology and a number of other knotty issues. Avoiding that was very good news for GM’s Chinese partners. However, the ad has the financial relationship backwards. Those 2011 profits from China, about $1.3 billion, were something the firm had counted on for years. "Even before the recession, GM was losing lots in America but making lots of money in China," said Kim Hill, an analyst with the Center for Automotive Research, a group that has many funders, including automakers. "Sales in China were keeping the company afloat." Aaron Bragman with IHS Automotive, a financial research group, underscored that China is one of GM’s most profitable regions. "They're the largest, most popular automaker in China, actually," Bragman said. "The fact that seven out of 10 vehicles GM makes are not sold here but are actually sold abroad is a testament to the company's successful international business plans, not some crazy scheme to steal money from Americans to spend it elsewhere." When we asked Hanna for evidence to support the ad's message, he emphasized that the GM CEO, Dan Akerson, was caught on camera saying "Our commitment to work .. for China remains strong." "If the average voter knew that the president of GM who had been installed by the president," Hanna said, "for a company that had been kept afloat by enormous infusion of taxpayer dollars, was bragging he was working for China, they would be shocked." GM spokesman Greg Martin, has two responses. "Akerson was never appointed by the president," Martin said. Akerson put his name forward when the previous CEO, who had been appointed by the White House, said he wanted to step down. The GM board gave Akerson the job in August 2010. As for Akerson’s comments about working for China, Martin says that was a speech aimed at Chinese auto dealers and suppliers. It was a marketing pitch to assure them that GM thought they were important. We watched the entire speech. The clip used in the ad was Akerson’s summation, after he promised that GM would be a good corporate citizen, focused on sustainable development and ready to be part of the communities in which it operates. "Our goal is to play a significant role in the social and economic changes that bring a better life to China’s citizens," Akerson said. "You could take any snippet of a speech and twist it anyway you want," Martin said. "The context was, this was the sort of rousing speech you could find daily from an auto executive whether he was talking to suppliers in the U.S., members of a chamber of commerce, or state and local officials." Overseas production The ad highlights that seven out of 10 GM vehicles are produced outside the United States. However, it fails to note that seven out of 10 GM vehicles are also sold outside the United States. GM officials says this is part of long-standing strategy to "build where we sell." The ad uses a peculiar device to suggest that GM China’s gains come at the expense of American jobs. It cites a CNN article as saying "GM, which closed 13 plants in the U.S. ... opened 15 plants in China." We found the original article. The full sentence ended with, "opened 15 plants in China in the last 10 years." The quote in the ad obscures that the time frames are entirely different. It blends decisions made years ago with those made more recently. Our ruling The ad claims that taxpayer dollars propped up GM’s operations in China. While the collapse of GM would have presented the GM-China joint ventures with many problems, the bailout money itself didn’t help China so much as allow GM to continue to draw money out of China. In fact, the Chinese operations were making money and supporting themselves through sales in China. The ad makes several other errors of fact, including saying that the current GM CEO was appointed by Obama when he was not. Plus, the ad suggests that if GM says it is working for China, that must mean it is not working for the United States. It reinforces this idea by selectively quoting from a news article. We rate the statement False.	None	Let Freedom Ring	None	None	None	2012-10-25T16:03:25	2012-10-15	['China']
-pomt-12371	"A majority of President Trump's supporters and voters wanted (the United States) to stay in" the Paris Agreement.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/05/al-gore/al-gore-says-majority-trump-voters-support-paris-a/	Former Vice President Al Gore said most backers of President Donald Trump wanted the United States to remain a party to the Paris accord on climate change. Trump announced on June 1 that he would set the country on a course to withdraw from the agreement, which lays out ambitious but voluntary goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature. "The president made the wrong decision in my view and in the view of most Americans," Gore said in a June 4 interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "A majority of President Trump's supporters and voters wanted us to stay in." Gore made it sound like the president’s decision was out of step with his supporters, so we decided to take a closer look at how his voters view the global climate pact. One poll shows a plurality of support Gore, an environmentalist who favored sticking to the deal, appears to be referring to a joint poll conducted by Yale University and George Mason University immediately after the 2016 election that looked at what American voters -- and Trump voters in particular -- thought about U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. (It is the only poll we could find that homed in on Trump voters’ position on the Paris deal.) Overall, the poll found that nearly 70 percent of registered voters wanted the United States to stay in the international agreement that’s been signed by 194 other countries. That appears to dovetail with a separate Rasmussen poll of likely voters that found only 30 percent agreed with Trump’s decision to withdraw. The Yale-GMU poll also found that a slim majority of registered Republicans -- 51 percent -- said the United States should participate in the pact. However, this result fell within the 3 percent margin of error, so it should not be taken as an ironclad indication of majority support. As for Trump voters, the poll describes their attitudes about the environment in a light that may strike some as a surprising, given Trump’s previous dismissal of climate change as a "hoax." Most Trump voters who responded to the poll voiced support for some climate-friendly policies. Strikingly, nearly half backed an Obama administration policy limiting carbon emissions from coal-powered plants, as well as a carbon tax on fossil fuel companies. On Gore’s central point, the poll found that among Trump voters, 47 percent wanted to participate in the Paris Agreement, compared to 28 percent who supported opting out, with a quarter expressing no opinion. So, 47 percent support among Trump voters amounts to a plurality -- not a majority, as Gore said. This may seem nitpicky, but had Gore said that more Trump voters wanted to remain in the agreement than leave it, his description of the Yale-GMU poll would have been accurate. Since this is the only poll we found that asked Trump voters specifically about U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement, we wondered how much credence we should give the data. How much weight should the poll carry? For insight on the Yale-GMU poll’s reliability, we turned to polling experts Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute and Charles Franklin, who directs the Marquette Law School Poll. Both agreed Yale-GMU’s polling generally employs sound statistical methods and is considered highly reputable in the field. Bowman said there’s no sign that the poll’s funding sources, including the Energy Foundation, swayed the pollsters’ findings. Our experts also agreed that the 401 self-identified Trump voters who responded to the poll amounted to an adequate sampling, and that the poll’s roughly 5 percent margin of error was a fair estimate. But we got some interesting answers when we asked our experts to consider the Yale-GMU question that elicited the relevant data, which read: "One year ago, the United States signed an international agreement in Paris with 196 other countries to limit the pollution that causes global warming. Do you think the U.S. should participate in this agreement, or not participate?" Franklin said there’s no issue with question phrasing, per se. But given his belief that most people don’t know the details of the Paris Agreement, Franklin said the opinion may be "more of a reflection of a general attitude toward and belief about climate change." That’s important because, as Gallup points out, Americans are open to arguments about helping the environment and containing global warming, on the one hand, and arguments about the costs of imposing burdens on the U.S. economy that might slow job growth, increase federal spending or lead to unfair outcomes for the United States, on the other. However, what the Yale-GMU question did not do was challenge respondents to wrestle with these trade-offs, which is the core of any meaningful environmental policy, including the Paris Agreement. Had the question addressed this tension, the findings may have been quite different. By failing to address the costs of participation, the Yale-GMU question may very well have been interpreted to mean, "Do you dislike pollution and like working with other countries?" Bowman said that given how low climate change ranks on Americans’ priority list it’s unlikely that subsequent polls will show Trump voters emerging as strong environmentalists. What’s more likely, she said, is that future polling on climate change would break along partisan lines. Franklin agreed that forthcoming polls will provide important context. "This is one poll taken shortly after the election," he said. "Now that Trump has acted on this, will those numbers shift?" Our ruling Gore said, "A majority of President Trump's supporters and voters wanted us to stay in" the Paris Agreement. One poll taken immediately after the 2016 election found 47 percent of Trump voters supported U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement that Trump withdrew from. That amounts to a plurality, not a majority. While our experts lauded Yale-GMU's statistical methodology and reputation, the poll question skirted the tension inherent in policymaking. A more meaningful question about whether or not to participate in the Paris Agreement would force respondents to wrestle with environmental and economic trade-offs. Ultimately, it's risky hanging a factual assertion on any one single poll, and a fuller, more accurate picture of Trump supporters' opinion of environmental policy is likely to emerge through additional polling over time. We rate Gore’s statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Al Gore	None	None	None	2017-06-05T13:46:10	2017-06-04	['United_States']
-pomt-01505	Was Martha Kanter "dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money" to save Craig Robinson’s job?	/oregon/statements/2014/sep/23/blog-posting/was-martha-kanter-dispatched-corvallis-17-million-/	Every two years, just like clockwork, here it comes -- a chain email claiming that a federal assist worth millions of dollars saved Craig Robinson’s job as Oregon State University basketball coach. "Thank Goodness For The Stimulus!!!" trumpets the anonymous email, which first popped up in March 2010. "But $17 million for one job? I wonder what mine is worth?" An updated version is making the rounds again, urging people to vote this November. A PolitiFact Oregon reader received it from an acquaintance and passed it along to us. The claim: The email focuses on Robinson, who is first lady Michelle Obama’s brother and President Barack Obama’s brother-in-law. The piece alleges that Oregon State officials in 2010 were "seriously considering" firing Robinson after his team’s "dismal" start to the 2009-10 basketball season. "When word reached Washington, D.C.," it continues, "Undersecretary of Education Martha Kanter was dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money for the university. Craig Robinson’s job is safe for another year." It notes the first family connections and closes: "If this doesn’t anger you, nothing will … remember to vote this fall!!!!" The analysis: The crux of the claim involves the charge that Bob DeCarolis, Oregon State’s athletic director, was preparing to fire Robinson after a "dismal 8-11 start (2-5) in the Pac 10 Conference." The university changed its mind, supposedly, only after Kanter, formerly the Obama administration’s highest-ranking higher education official, was "dispatched" to Corvallis with oodles of stimulus money. We called Steve Clark, OSU’s vice president for university relations and marketing. "It’s interesting that it comes up again now," he said, "just a few months before the elections." As for stimulus money -- from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed by Congress and signed by Obama after the 2008 onset of the Great Recession -- Oregon State did receive some. "As did public universities throughout the nation," Clark said. OSU’s share totaled $26.4 million. "That funded 61 research projects and some infrastructure," he added, "all associated with issues consistent with Oregon State’s research mission." However, a problem of timing surfaces immediately. By Oct. 12, 2009, OSU had already received and spent $17.8 million in stimulus money, according to a story by education reporter Betsy Hammond of the Oregonian (the remainder was spent later, on a rolling basis). So that’s likely where the $17 million referred to in the chain email came from. But when OSU’s 2009-10 basketball season came along, that money was already gone. The Beavers didn’t get to two wins and five losses in league play -- the point at which DeCarolis, according to the email, was mulling firing Robinson -- until their Jan. 23, 2010, road loss to California. It should also be noted that the funds came through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a program set up to help educational institutions retain top teachers and professors. Individual states, not the federal government, chose the recipients. We emailed Kanter, now a visiting professor at New York University Steinhardt. "I have no idea where this rumor stems from," she wrote. "I never traveled to Corvallis to award $17 million in stimulus money in 2010, nor do I personally know Craig Robinson." She also provided a link to another fact-checking site that debunked the claim. OSU officials said they have no record of Kanter showing up in Corvallis around that time, nor is there any evidence of news stories detailing a trip. DeCarolis has flatly denied the story several times. It would also be highly unusual for any major college program to fire a coach so early in a season, especially considering that Robinson’s team the year before finished with an 18-18 win-loss record and earned OSU’s first post-season championship by winning the 2009 College Basketball Invitational. As for Robinson, the run didn’t last forever. DeCarolis fired him May 5, 2014, after six seasons and a win-loss record of 94-105. The ruling: A recycled chain email claims OSU basketball coach Craig Robinson -- Michelle Obama’s brother and the president’s brother-in-law -- avoided losing his job in March 2010 only because a high-ranking administration official was "dispatched to Corvallis with $17 million in stimulus money for the university." Records show that OSU had spent $17.8 million in stimulus funds months before the point when Robinson’s job was supposedly on the line. And there is no evidence that an administration official was "dispatched" to Corvallis. The state, not the feds, also chose how to spend the money. The claim has been debunked repeatedly, but keeps cropping up with nothing changed but the date. It’s not only false, but ridiculously so. We rate it Pants On Fire.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2014-09-23T16:51:49	2014-09-18	['Corvallis,_Oregon']
-vees-00006	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post about Grace Poe's 'million dollar' US home	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-online-post-about-grace-poes-million-d	None	None	None	None	Grace Poe,fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post about Grace Poe's 'million dollar' US home FALSE and OUTDATED	October 29, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01514	The U.S. Constitution is "the oldest written constitution still in use today" among nations.	/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-has-oldest-working-national-cons/	U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte was among many Virginia lawmakers who wished the U.S. Constitution a happy 227th birthday on Sep. 17. "As we reflect with reverence on the oldest written constitution still in use today, let’s also not forget the dangers of an unchecked executive branch," Goodlatte, R-6th, said in a video. We’ll pass on the jab at President Barack Obama for executive overreach. Our goal is to check whether the U.S. really has the oldest active constitution. Beth Breeding, Goodlatte’s spokeswoman, pointed to several documents supporting the congressman’s statement. Among them is a passage from the U.S. Senate website, which says the Constitution is "The world’s longest surviving written charter of government." Breeding noted that similar statements appear on the websites of the National Archives, Encyclopedia Britannica, and The Constitution Center in Philadelphia -- a museum dedicated to the U.S. Constitution. We ran Goodlatte’s statement by Tom Ginsburg , a University of Chicago professor and a principal investigator with the Comparative Constitutions Project, which has examined national constitutions around the world. He agreed with the congressman and directed us to a list his group has compiled on when national constitutions were enacted. The oldest one is the United States’. Although signed in 1787, it needed to be ratified by the states and didn’t go into effect until 1789. Next on the seniority list is Norway, which enacted its constitution in 1814, and then Belgium, in 1831. Although we may think of constitutions as yellowing pieces of parchment, that’s not always the case. Only half live more than 19 years, according to a summary of a 2009 book that Ginsburg co-wrote about constitutions around the world. While many constitutional experts agree with Goodlatte, his statement does not get unanimous ratification. As our colleagues at PolitiFact noted in 2011, there’s a debate among scholars over whether some countries have an older constitution than the U.S. It all depends on how you define a constitution. Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines the term a couple of ways. One of them is as a governing document. But another way is as a "system of beliefs and laws by which a country, state or organization is governed." Some countries don’t have a formal central constitution like the U.S., but rather pull from a collection of laws, practices and texts that date back centuries. For example, the tiny country of San Marino, landlocked by Italy, bases its government on various "legislative instruments," including a series of written laws enacted in 1600, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook. The United Kingdom, is said to have an "unwritten" constitution based on common law, practices and various statutes -- including the Magna Carta, which was written in the 13th century. John Paul Jones, a professor of law emeritus at the University of Richmond, said Goodlatte’s statement is essentially correct. But Jones qualified his conclusion by pointing to the United Kingdom’s constitution. Although largely unwritten, Jones said it does contain some centuries-old texts including "three or four documents that predate 1789." What makes the U.S. Constitution so enduring? We asked Lynn Uzzell, the scholar in residence at Montpelier, the home of President James Madison, who was one of the most frequent speakers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Uzzell said she thinks it’s because the document is based on a lot of sound principles guarding against abuse of power. She also said it’s a relatively simple and short document with a lot of flexibility allowing the country to respond to developing circumstances. A final note: Goodlatte’s office justifies his statement by citing documents that compare the U.S. Constitution to other countries around the world. But we also wondered whether any of the original U.S. states has a working constitution older than our national document. The answer is yes; Massachusetts enacted its state constitution in 1780. That means it was adopted seven years before the U.S. Constitution was written. Our ruling Goodlatte says the U.S. constitution is the "oldest written constitution still in use today." He was referring to national constitutions. Some scholars note that the United Kingdom and San Marino have some written governing documents still in effect that predate the 1789 enactment of the U.S. Constitution. But as a single document laying out an overall framework for governing a country -- a common way many people would define a constitution -- the U.S. truly has the oldest one still working. We rate the claim True.	None	Bob Goodlatte	None	None	None	2014-09-22T00:00:00	2014-09-17	['None']
-pomt-13078	"1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate."	/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/11/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-history-tweet-forgets-bush-presidency/	As Election Day results came in pointing to a presidential victory for Donald Trump and wins for other Republicans in Congress, conservative pundit Ann Coulter offered a nugget of history. "1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate," Coulter tweeted Nov. 9 at 12:19 a.m. Coulter’s public account has more than 1 million followers, and within days had been retweeted nearly 10,000 times and liked more than 15,000 times. 1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate.— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 9, 2016 We wondered, has it been that long since the Republican party had such control? We didn’t have to go back too many years to find out Coulter was wrong. We reached out to Coulter via Twitter and to the publisher of her latest book to find out the source of her information, but did not hear back. George W. Bush presidency George W. Bush, a Republican, served as president from 2001 to 2009. During his administration, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for a total of four years, from 2003 to 2007. From 2003 to 2005, GOP House members outnumbered Democrats 227 to 205, with one independent and two vacancies. In the Senate, Republicans held 51 seats, Democrats 48, with one independent. House Republicans increased their edge in the 2005 to 2007 Congress, gaining three seats for a total of 230. They also improved in the Senate, holding 55 seats. Donald Trump presidency So Bush had Republican majorities not too long ago. President-elect Trump’s majorities will either match or surpass the majorities Bush had. CNN election results said Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate and Democrats 48 (including two Independent senators who caucus with Democrats). One seat had not been called by Friday morning. In the House where 218 seats are need to control, Republicans had 238, and Democrats 193. Four had not been called yet by CNN. While Republicans’ unified control has clearly happened after 1928, it is still rather rare, said Michael Bailey, professor of American politics at Georgetown University. "Unified government definitely makes it easier for the majority party to pass legislation. President Trump will likely be unpredictable, but at this point the Republicans appear to be able to pass almost anything they want," Bailey said. The Democrats only defense is the filibuster in the Senate, but that can be defeated if the Republicans are unified and willing to overturn long-standing procedural traditions, Bailey said. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report notes that most issues in the Senate are determined by a simple majority vote (51). But the Senate also has imposed super-majority requirements, such as needing a three-fifths vote, or 60 of the 100 senators’ votes, to invoke cloture on debates. Cloture "is the only formal procedure," for breaking a filibuster, according to Senate rules. Though Trump’s administration will begin with a Republican-leaning Congress, "you do not always win in unified government or lose in divided government," pointed out Michele L. Swers, an American government professor at Georgetown University. For instance, President George W. Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 with a Democratic Senate, and President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, got welfare reform and budget deals with a Republican Congress, Swers said. "At the moment, I expect Republicans and Trump will try to start with the things they agree on like repealing Obamacare and the infrastructure bill, but there are still divisions within the Republican caucus, and between congressional Republicans and Trump, so it is not clear that everyone will just agree on policy," Swers added. Our ruling Coulter tweeted, "1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate." Republican president George W. Bush served from 2001 to 2009, during that time there were two Congresses with Republican majorities in the Senate and House, 108th Congress (2003-2005) and 109th Congress (2005-2007). We rate Coulter’s statement False.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/6a25bc81-66b8-4ef6-8ba2-9feaa856b103	None	Ann Coulter	None	None	None	2016-11-11T15:40:39	2016-11-09	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'White_House']
-thal-00086	FactCheck: Can Santa really deliver all the world's presents in one night?	http://www.thejournal.ie/santa-claus-present-delivery-facts-3110146-Dec2016/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: Can Santa really deliver all the world's presents in one night?	Dec 24th 2016, 8:00 AM	None	['None']
-pomt-10441	"My friend, we have increased the size of government by some 40 percent just in the last few years."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/07/john-mccain/his-percentage-is-right-his-amount-is-not/	Sen. John McCain has a long record of speaking out against government spending, so it was no surprise to hear him fretting in April about how the federal government has grown in recent years. Especially now that he's a presidential candidate. While appearing on ABC's This Week, McCain got specific. He claimed the federal government had grown 40 percent in recent years. McCain pointed to the growth while declaring his intent to end "business as usual" in Washington and cut "hundreds of billions of dollars out of wasteful and unnecessary spending in America." At the same time, McCain defended tax cuts he would seek if elected president. "My friend, we have increased the size of government by some 40 percent just in the last few years," McCain told George Stephanopoulos during the April 20, 2008, broadcast. "By some 40 percent, by trillions. By trillions, we have increased the size of government." He later clarified that the increase was between 2000 and 2008. McCain's campaign at first cited annual federal spending totals from the Office of Management and Budget as the source of the claim. After being told that those numbers showed growth of 61 percent, from $1.8-trillion to $2.9-trillion, and that according to scholars the values had to be adjusted for inflation (which brings you to a 33 percent hike), the McCain campaign said they'd offered up the wrong figures. Rather than total federal spending, the campaign said they believe McCain was referring to inflation-adjusted discretionary spending, which is another standard measure economists and political scientists use to track government growth. Discretionary spending is the money Congress and the president control each year, as compared with mandatory spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. In fact, adjusted federal discretionary spending did climb nearly 43 percent during the period, going from $615-billion to $877-billion. The problem is that while McCain had the percentage right, he kept talking. The increase in discretionary spending was not in trillions and trillions of dollars, as McCain went on to say, but in billions. Actually, spending hasn't increased by trillions even when you look at total federal government spending. Asked to nail down more precisely what measure McCain was using, the campaign did not respond. So, McCain has his percentage right, but he's way off on the actual dollars involved. That brings us to Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-05-07T00:00:00	2008-04-20	['None']
-pomt-03802	Every day, "about 100 people will be arrested for possession of marijuana in Georgia."	/georgia/statements/2013/mar/26/james-bell/fuzzy-use-data-undercuts-marijuana-arrests-claim/	Weed, pot, ganja, sticky icky, cannabis. Call it what you want, some statewide advocates want it called legal. It was more than a month before 4/20 (Weed) Day, but supporters for legalizing marijuana were out in Atlanta recently making their case to rewrite the state’s marijuana laws.Georgia has spent billions of tax dollars enforcing "draconian" and ineffective prohibition laws against marijuana, the supporters said during Cannabis Awareness Day at the state Capitol. "In Georgia, more than 35,000 arrests occur for marijuana offenses each year. Eighty-five percent of those arrests are for possession, accounting for 55 percent of all drug arrests," James Bell, the director of Georgia C.A.R.E. (Campaign for Access, Reform and Education), said in a news release. "Today, March 14, about 100 people will be arrested for possession of marijuana in Georgia." PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know whether that many people are actually being arrested each day. For decades marijuana has been one of the most popular drugs in the nation, even for the most famous among us. Former President Bill Clinton admitted to smoking -- although not inhaling -- it while in college. And President Barack Obama supposedly ran around his high school with the Choom Gang of marijuana-smoking buddies. In November, voters in Colorado and Washington state approved legislation legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The drug is already legal for medical use in 18 states. But marijuana remains illegal under federal laws, although Obama has said federal law enforcers have "bigger fish to fry" than chasing down marijuana users. Georgia prosecutes marijuana offenses under its Controlled Substances Act, and it has various fines and punishments for growing, buying, selling and possessing the drug. (Georgia also passed its own medical marijuana law in 1980, but the law has never been implemented.) Bell said his numbers are derived from estimates of FBI arrest data for the state of Georgia. Doing the math on his claim, 85 percent of the 35,000 annual arrests would equal 29,750 arrests for marijuana possession. Dividing that number by 365 days, equals about 81.5 possession arrests each day. "We’re fed up with the whole war on drugs," he said. His group wanted state lawmakers to consider revising the marijuana laws as part of criminal justice reform, but none of them sponsored any legislation. We reviewed FBI crime data and found that marijuana accounted for 52.1 percent of all arrests for drug abuse violations nationwide in 2010. And 45.8 percent of those marijuana arrests were for possession. That marijuana arrests figure dropped a bit to 49.5 percent in 2011, with 43.3 percent of those marijuana arrests being for possession. Marijuana policy researcher Jon Gettman forwarded to PolitiFact data he compiled from FBI data on the same subject. According to that data, Georgia’s marijuana arrests were: Year All marijuana arrests Marijuana possession arrests 2008 30,289 26,978 2009 33,200 28,892 2010 31,506 28,091 Gettman, a criminal justice professor at Shenandoah University, has also been a past president and national director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. But calculating arrests is a tricky undertaking, Robert Friedmann, a criminology professor at Georgia State University, reminds us. Arrest numbers are nebulous, he said, depending on the way they are counted: Are multiple arrests for a single person counted individually? Do the numbers include local, state and federal activities? Do all jurisdictions report arrests? An explanation of arrest data on the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program states that the report counts one arrest for each separate instance in which a person is arrested, cited or summoned for an offense. Because a person can be arrested multiple times, the FBI report doesn’t reflect the number of people who have been arrested, but the number of times people are arrested. So what’s the skinny? Marijuana legalization advocate James Bell said about 100 Georgians are arrested each day on charges of marijuana possession. Bell’s claim is based on FBI crime report arrest data. Using that data from the years 2008 through 2010, an average of about 28,000 possession arrests were recorded in Georgia each year. Dividing the average annual possession arrests by 365 days results in about 76.7 marijuana possession arrests each day. Bell uses that arrest data to estimate the number of people arrested for the violation. But the FBI clearly states this type of estimation that Bell claims is not reflected in their numbers. Individuals can be arrested multiple times for the same infraction, so the FBI’s arrest data indicate the number of arrests -- not the number of people arrested -- for any particular infraction. Based on this explanation, Bell’s claim seems to be up in smoke. We rated Bell’s claim Mostly False.	None	James Bell	None	None	None	2013-03-26T06:00:00	2013-03-14	['None']
-pomt-11878	Says Paul Manafort’s alleged crimes were "years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/30/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-says-manafort-crimes-came-years-he-j/	President Donald Trump reacted via his favorite platform -- Twitter -- to indictments against his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, a business associate of Manafort’s, and a guilty plea from a former campaign policy adviser. "Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus," Trump tweeted. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The Justice Department indicted Manafort on 12 counts, primarily money laundering and false statements, none of which involved his work for Trump. The oldest of the allegations date back to activities that began in 2006, but three occurred in 2016 and 2017. Manafort’s more recent actions undercut Trump’s statement. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Manafort’s campaign role In March 2016, then-candidate Trump tapped Manafort to manage the Republican National Convention. In a press release announcing the hiring, Trump praised Manafort as "a great asset and an important addition" in consolidating the support Trump won during the primary season. On May 19, Trump promoted Manafort to campaign chairman and chief strategist. On Aug. 19, as Trump’s poll numbers tumbled, Manafort resigned. His time with the Trump campaign had lasted six months. The indictments From 2006 to 2014, according to the indictment, Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates made tens of millions of dollars lobbying on behalf of a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine and the man who led it into power, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The work continued briefly after Yanukovych was forced from office. The grand jury indictment alleges that in order to hide the money from the U.S. government, Manafort and Gates "laundered the money through scores of United States and foreign corporations, partnerships and back accounts." Manafort used "his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States." He bought "multi-million dollar properties" and then "borrowed millions of dollars in loans using these properties as collateral, thereby obtaining cash in the United States without reporting and paying taxes on the income." The money-laundering conspiracy is the second count in the indictment. The government documented a large number of transactions between 2008 and 2014. But they continued into March 2016, the very beginning of Manafort’s work with the Trump campaign. In 2012, Manafort used an offshore account to buy a $2.8 million condominium in New York City, which he rented out using, among other services, Airbnb. In late 2015, he applied to get a mortgage on the property. To get a lower interest rate, he and Gates invented documents to say it was a second-home for his daughter and son-in-law. Based on that assurance, in March 2016, government prosecutors said, a bank gave Manafort a $1.185 million loan on the property. Also in early 2016, Manafort misled another bank to secure a loan on a second New York property. In addition, the indictment said for many years Manafort had hidden his control over multiple foreign accounts in places such as Cyprus and the United Kingdom. That deception continued as late as October 2016. There are two other charges that occurred in 2016 and 2017, and both involve making false statements. The government said that in November 2016 and February 2017 Manafort and Gates failed to make a full disclosure of their overseas work under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. They denied that their work for Ukrainian parties included meetings or outreach within the United States. The government also said they tried to bury the paper trail that would reveal their full activities. Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said in a statement that the Special Counsel was using a "very novel theory" of the foreign agents registration law, and that since 1966, the government has won just one conviction for failure to file under it. Our ruling Trump said the allegations against Manafort involved crimes committed years ago. Most of the counts in the indictment detail Manafort’s money laundering efforts dating back to 2006. But that deception involving foreign bank accounts and misleading lenders, prosecutors said, extended until as late as October 2016. By March of that year, Trump had named Manafort to oversee the Republican National Convention. The charges that Manafort made false statements took place after Manafort stepped down from the Trump campaign, but they did take place within the past year. Trump’s claim puts more of a cushion between him and Manafort than was actually the case. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-10-30T15:02:40	2017-10-30	['None']
-snes-05147	The app Down to Lunch is a covert tool for human trafficking.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/down-to-lunch-trafficking/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Down to Lunch Human Trafficking Rumors	26 February 2016	None	['None']
-tron-02317	China Has a New Multi-Hulled Aircraft Carrier	https://www.truthorfiction.com/china-new-aircraft-carrier/	None	military	None	None	None	China Has a New Multi-Hulled Aircraft Carrier	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00509	Did Pope Francis Order White Women to ‘Breed’ with Muslims?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-muslim-breed/	None	Junk News	None	Snopes Staff	None	Did Pope Francis Order White Women to ‘Breed’ with Muslims?	5 June 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04902	Says Measure 11 is "one of the most significant reasons" for decrease in violent crime.	/oregon/statements/2012/aug/03/steve-doell/has-measure-11-really-helped-halve-crime-rate-1995/	The people behind a new radio ad looking to "set the record straight" on Oregon’s prisons laws say that 1994's Measure 11 has played a big role in bringing Oregon's crime rate down from its high water mark back in the 1980s and 1990s. Here’s the full statement from Steve Doell, the executive director of the Truth in Sentencing Project, on the passage of Measure 11. "The voters were tired of the high violent crime rate in Oregon and violent criminals receiving short sentences so they put a high priority on violent crimes. And while Oregon’s violent crime rate increased nearly 700% from 1960 until 1985, then basically plateaued through 1995, the violent crime rate has decreased more than 50% since then. We believe one of the most significant reasons for this decrease is Measure 11." The 700 percent figure caught our attention -- but so did this whole concept that Measure 11 was so instrumental in such a dramatic shift away from higher crime rates. We couldn’t help but check it out. We were able to corroborate the statistics and general narrative pretty quickly by placing a call to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, which studies these issues. What still remained, though, was the question of whether Measure 11, which instituted mandatory jail time for certain crimes, was one of the causes of the trend. Doell drew the connection pretty sharply based on the timing of the reversal in the trend. That makes sense, but we thought we ought to look at what happened nationally during the same period. As it happens, the U.S. saw a fairly similar pattern. Violent crime rates grew dramatically between 1960 and 1991, when finally the trend reversed. In Oregon, the rate grew through 1985, when the state posted its highest violent crime rate ever and then stagnated, more or less, until 1995, when the trend downward took hold. When we spoke with Craig Prins, the executive director of the justice commission, he seemed less convinced that Measure 11 had much to do with the fall. He pointed to the same national data we found. "What we're looking at nationally is that all states ... almost every state had the same type of reduction in crime," he said. Prins also showed us a graph that looks at the connection between incarceration and crime rates. Essentially what Doell and other Measure 11 supporters are saying is that there’s an inverse correlation between incarceration and crimes rates -- as incarceration increases, crime decreases. But that’s not always the case. Between 1995 and 2010, incarceration rates in Oregon grew by nearly 80 percent and, indeed, violent crime rates fell by a little over 50 percent. That’s all fine and good, but take a look at what happened in New York and California during the same period. In New York, the incarceration rate actually decreased and in California it increased by about 5 percent -- and yet both states saw larger decreases in their violent crime rate than Oregon. When we spoke to Doell about both of these factors, he had some valid rebuttals. First off, Oregon’s violent crime rate didn’t follow the exact pattern of the national rate -- it started to fall later than the national trend. (That said, it did peak earlier.) Second, Oregon ranks below California and New York in terms of incarceration rate despite our rapid growth during the past 15 years. There is some other important context as we look at the national trend. Between 1994 and 1996, 23 states passed some form of three-strike laws for certain habitual offenders. Measure 11 wasn’t included in that group, but it basically served the same purpose and contributed to a national trend of escalating incarceration rates. Still, we did a quick check and found that even states -- such as Minnesota and Arizona -- that didn’t pass tough-on-crime laws during that period saw trend lines that matched Oregon’s. We asked Prins what some of the additional factors might have been, beyond incarceration rates, and he referred us to a report that draws a pretty striking correlation between demographics and crime rates. According to the report, which the commission released in 2010, "most crime is committed by males age 15-39" -- a demographic that has been on a steady decline since 1985. One last bit that Prins pointed out: During the same time that crime rates started dropping, Oregon -- and many other states -- were busy building out their prison systems. Up until that point, overcrowding would lead to severely truncated sentences. In that regard, Measure 11 did prompt some changes by essentially forcing the system to make room for offenders that were ineligible for early release. "I think you have to put it in context," Prins said. "Measure 11, I think, was needed in the ‘90s because it did help us build our prison system, but it’s not at all what I would point to as the reason that our crime dropped." We checked in with one last expert, Brian Renauer of the Criminal Justice Policy Research Institute. He said that the Criminal Justice Commission’s findings mirrored those of national studies. "Their analysis is good, their conclusions are very similar to what experts around the nation would say about the issue," he said. "You're going to see this pretty strong effect as you do begin to ramp up incarceration, but those effects do tend to wear off." Now for the ruling. Doell says that Measure 11 is "one of the most significant reasons" for the decrease in the violent crime rate. That "one of" language is important. It acknowledges the existence of other causes. We also agree that Measure 11 made a difference, though it’s unclear whether it was because of the higher incarceration rates or the greater prison building to prevent early releases, as Prins suggests. That and the fact that Oregon’s drop was part of a national trend caused in large measure by changing demographics are needed clarifications to the statement. For those reasons, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Steve Doell	None	None	None	2012-08-03T16:11:07	2012-07-19	['None']
-tron-00288	CDC Says Mothers Shouldn’t Breastfeed to Make Vaccines More Effective	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cdc-says-mothers-should-not-breastfeed/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	CDC Says Mothers Shouldn’t Breastfeed to Make Vaccines More Effective – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01837	"North Korea is telling its people that their men’s national team is in the World Cup final."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/17/blog-posting/blog-says-north-korea-told-its-people-their-team-m/	Germany may have won the 2014 World Cup, but the tournament featuring soccer’s best has left the anonymous producer of the YouTube channel Korea News Backup with good reason to pop the champagne. Its mock video of a North Korean news broadcast previewing the final match has garnered over 8 million views. The video’s charm? It appears to tell North Koreans that their team made it to the final and will face the powerhouse team from Portugal. We at PunditFact took an interest because bloggers, and maybe even some journalists, thought North Korea was actually trying to put one over on its citizens. We want to be clear: The video is a fake. But a writer for the blog Outside the Beltway posted, "North Korea is telling its people that their men’s national team is in the World Cup final." The bulk of the post is a copy and paste from an article on the British website, Metro: "We’ve known for a long time now that supreme leader Kim Jong-un controls the flow of information to his people, with the television channels only reporting positive stuff about the country. "But in a report posted on YouTube, the media have been caught broadcasting that North Korea are on course to win the biggest prize in football, despite not actually qualifying for the World Cup. "The report says North Korea’s brave side crushed Japan 7-0, USA 4-0 and China 2-0 in the group stages, before going on to reach the final… against Portugal. "Of course, the real final, which takes place this Sunday, is between Germany and Argentina." The Outside the Beltway blogger observes at the end, "This is yet another example of just how pervasive the Kim dictatorship is, and just how hard it will likely be to integrate this nation into the real world when that regime finally falls." We emailed the blogger and didn’t hear back. Curiously, by the time other readers saw the Metro article he linked to, it said something quite different from the words he quoted. The second sentence was key. "But in a brilliant spoof report posted on YouTube, the media appears to be caught broadcasting that North Korea are on course to win the biggest prize in football, despite not actually qualifying for the World Cup," the Metro article said. We emailed the Metro sports writer to see if the article had been changed from the original but again, no word back. So it’s possible that that sports writer had also been pulled in, but we can’t say. From the comments on the Outside the Beltway blog, it is clear that while most readers doubted the newscast’s authenticity, others were ready to believe that the North Korean propaganda machine was aiming for a personal best in the disinformation category. A dose of reality There are several reasons the North Korean government would be unlikely to try such a stunt. For one, state-controlled media had been broadcasting the games, although not live. Also, most North Koreans would likely know that about two years ago, their team failed to qualify for the World Cup. It ranks 137 in the FIFA world rankings; only 32 countries get to compete. Soccer stat maven and professor of government at Cornell University Chris Anderson said "making it to the final is basically impossible for North Korea on sporting grounds." Stephen Epstein, a specialist in Korean culture and society at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, noted several elements in the video would instantly tell a trained viewer that it was a joke. "As soon as I saw it, I knew what it was," Epstein said. "The way the women was speaking, her accent, sounded like a South Korean broadcaster. Also she used the word ‘fighting’ (an English word brought over to South Korea). It clearly was not from the north." In fact, Epstein said he thinks only people outside South Korea "were suckered." But he said that’s understandable. "If you don’t have a real familiarity with North Korea and just know what Western media generally provides, this would fit with a preconceived stereotype," Epstein said. A mountain birth and a golf score It’s not as though North Korea doesn’t exercise creative license. According to the official biography of its previous leader Kim Jong Il, he was born on Mount Baekdu, a sacred place in Korean culture. In reality, historians place his birth on Russian soil near Vladivostok where his father lived in a camp for Korean exiles. There’s also another sports myth, and this one is interesting because it has morphed over time. In 1994, the Agence France Presse news service said the golf pro at the Pyongyang golf course told a reporter with the Australian Financial Review that Kim Jong Il had scored 5 holes-in-one on his very first time on the links. "He is an excellent golfer," the pro told the reporter. What’s notable about this factoid is that it was first ascribed to the golf pro alone, with no witnesses, as told to a named Australian reporter. By 2003, the New York Post had it at 11 holes-in-one. In 2011, the golf website Cybergolf.com had the 11, plus that the feat was witnessed by 17 security guards and "dutifully reported to the North Korean masses by the state news agency." With golf as with soccer, stories about North Korea seem to have the ability to take on a life of their own. Our ruling Bloggers said that North Korea was telling its people that the national team was in the World Cup final. The video was satire and bore unmistakable markings, for any Korean speaker, of having not come from the communist country. Plus, North Korea had been broadcasting the World Cup and any soccer fan there would know that their team failed to qualify. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2014-07-17T15:56:59	2014-07-12	['North_Korea']
-snes-04467	The creator of Pokémon said in an interview that the game is anti-Christian, and was developed with Satanists in mind.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pokemon-satanist-anti-christian-inverview/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Pokémon Was Originally Designed for Satanists	12 July 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09888	There were more job losses per month in the last three months under President Bush than in the past three months under President Obama.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/steny-hoyer/rep-steny-hoyer-claims-there-were-more-job-losses-/	In a spirited exchange on the House floor the other day, Republican Rep. Mike Pence used a popular GOP talking point about the economic stimulus package. “Where are the jobs?” he asked. Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, responded by saying job losses were worse under President George W. Bush. “We have lost 200,000 less jobs per month than Bush lost in his last three months in office, over the last three months.” His syntax was a bit spotty, but the point was clear — that the scale of job losses was greater during the end of the Bush administration than it has been over the past few months under President Barack Obama. We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government agency that keeps employment data, to sort this out. When we asked how the bureau would go about checking Hoyer's math, Gary Steinberg, a BLS press officer, told us to look at the monthly changes in seasonally adjusted, nonfarm payrolls. First we compiled the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost. For the most recent three months under Obama: 519,000 jobs were lost between March and April, 322,000 from April to May, and 467,000 May to June. There are two ways to look at these numbers. While Hoyer’s language leaves some room for interpretation about what he meant, the most reasonable measurement may be to average the three months for each president and then compare the result. Calculated this way, the average job losses under Bush’s three months were 673,000, versus 436,000 for Obama. Subtract Obama’s number from Bush’s and you find that Obama had, on average, 237,000 fewer monthly job losses — meaning that Hoyer was correct. In fact, he understated the difference. Another way to look at it would be to see if any single month-to-month comparison netted a difference smaller than 200,000. Looking at all nine possible month-to-month comparisons, it turns out that six of the nine comparisons, or two-thirds, match or exceed Hoyer’s benchmark difference of 200,000. So by this measure, Hoyer isn’t perfect, but he’s right more often than he’s not. We used the above methodology to calculate the numbers after we spoke with two economists — Gary Burtless, an economist with the moderate-to-liberal Brookings Institution and a former economist with the Labor Department, and Anna Turner, a research assistant with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. They agreed with the BLS spokesman about using the change in nonfarm payrolls. But there is another way to slice and dice BLS’ statistics. When we asked the Employment Policies Institute, a think tank funded by businesses, how it would sift the numbers, a spokeswoman suggested looking at month-to-month changes in unemployment, rather than employment. The employment figures come from a payroll survey of 400,000 work sites, whereas unemployment figures come from a survey of 60,000 households. Lo and behold, using this measurement dramatically changes the outcome. The monthly increases in unemployment during Bush’s final three months were 255,000 from October to November, 632,000 from November to December, and 508,000 from December to January. Averaged out, that’s an increase of 465,000 unemployed Americans per month under Bush. By contrast, under Obama, the nation lost 563,000 jobs between March and April, 787,000 between April and May and 218,000 between May and June. On average, the changes in unemployment were 523,000 per month under Obama — a number that’s actually higher than what it was under Bush. So using these figures, Hoyer would be wrong. We asked a cross-section of economists whether one measure was inherently better than the other. On this question, the conservatives and liberals we spoke to agreed: Charting employment by using the payroll survey, as Hoyer appears to have done, is indeed the economist's preferred way of doing it. “Using payroll employment is the way to go — looking at unemployment levels is messy because the labor force is always changing,” said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “A general rule of thumb: Look at payroll employment changes, or unemployment rate changes.” J.D. Foster of the conservative Heritage Foundation agreed. “If you’re not employed, you get into various issues of why you’re not employed,” he said. “Did you retire? Are you leaving because you’re discouraged about finding a job?” By contrast, he said, “if you’re employed, you’re employed.” So Hoyer’s figures mostly hold up under scrutiny. He's right if you calculate an average, but he's only right six of nine times when you look at the monthly changes. So we rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Steny Hoyer	None	None	None	2009-07-23T18:39:06	2009-07-21	['Barack_Obama', 'George_W._Bush']
-vogo-00079	Statement: “I’ve also worked with my colleagues to say yes together. Making sure that we have things like the five-year labor agreement, which by the way was something I presented even before Proposition B as a way to save millions of dollars for our city,” mayoral candidate and Councilman David Alvarez said at a Sept. 20 debate.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/city-council/fact-check-alvarezs-pension-reform-plan/	Analysis: City Councilman David Alvarez has less than three years in elected office under his belt so he’s trying to emphasize his big ideas and accomplishments during that relatively short time as he campaigns for mayor.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Alvarez's Pension Reform Plan	September 23, 2013	None	['None']
-goop-00899	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Had Trial Separation?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-trial-separation/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Had Trial Separation?	10:58 am, June 1, 2018	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-13240	Creflo Dollar has endorsed Republican Donald Trump for president.	/georgia/statements/2016/oct/19/social-media/they-both-expensive-jets-creflo-dollar-did-not-end/	Well, they both like expensive jets. A new round of reports blazed across the internet again recently with this unlikely premise: Flamboyant Pastor Creflo Dollar of metro Atlanta -- who once tried to raise $65 million from his flock to buy a top-of-the-line Gulfstream jet -- has endorsed Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump. The reports first surfaced a month or so back, died down and reignited recently as the campaign rhetoric between forces backing Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, well, escalated. Several readers have asked PolitiFact Georgia to take a look. We did, and what we got was an education on how misinformation -- or just plain made-up "news" -- is spread loud, and, like Jason in the "Halloween" movies, comes howling back to life even after it is disproven. Dollar is an internationally known American televangelist and pastor of the nondenominational World Changers Church International, which is based in College Park, a suburb south of Atlanta. A year or so back, Dollar and other leaders at World Changers Church International launched Project G650. The goal: Raise nearly $65 million for a luxury jet, largely from $300-plus donations from 200,000 of the faithful. One rationale given for buying the aircraft was that the church needed to be able to carry thousands of pounds of food and other goods to other parts of the world. Trouble is, the plane is designed to carry billionaires and their golf clubs, not large quantities of relief supplies. That food/relief argument never got off the runway, and PolitiFact Georgia gave Dollar a Pants on Fire rating. As PolitiFact quickly discovered, the Dollar-endorses-Trump rumor also crashes and burns. This time around, Dollar was the target of a satirical online site The Biz Standard News (as in BS News), which first "reported" in late May that Dollar was endorsing Trump. This is how the Standard defines its own site: "The Business Standard News is a satirical site designed to parody the 24-hour news cycle. The stories are outlandish, but reality is so strange nowadays they could be true." The Standard piece quoted the pastor as saying: "God came to me in a dream last night and said that Trump is his chosen candidate. God apologized for the mixed messages he was sending. I now know that Trump has been touched by the hand of God." The piece also had Dollar comparing Trump to the biblical figure John the Baptist. The initial piece of satire received little attention. But then a legitimate online news site, WordOnDaStreet.com, mistook this fake story as real news and two months ago rehashed the article on its website. It was quickly picked up by numerous other media outlets and went viral. Soon, there were YouTube videos -- all fake -- purporting to show Dollar’s support for Trump. Dollar, meanwhile, refuted the reports, writing on his Facebook site Aug. 25 that he has endorsed no one in the race for president. The post stated: "At World Changers Church International, I nor the ministry endorse any political party or candidate; nor do we advise our members who to vote for. Any reports stating that I have endorsed Donald Trump for President are false. I have not endorsed any candidate and do not plan to." Snopes.com, the site known for sniffing out bogus reports, also looked at the Dollar-Trump endorsement and found it to be flatly false. Our ruling Social media sites have buzzed with the "news" that metro Atlanta Pastor Creflo Dollar has endorsed Trump. Those reports are based on a satirical news site. A parody on that site was picked up as legitimate news and went viral. Dollar has dissed the reports as categorically untrue. Which they are. We rate the reports Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a48cab2e-8372-4b1c-b664-df4e586073df	None	Social Media	None	None	None	2016-10-19T06:00:00	2016-10-17	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Donald_Trump']
-goop-02281	Angelina Jolie Looking For “Dirt” On Brad Pitt?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-looking-dirt-brad-pitt/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Angelina Jolie Looking For “Dirt” On Brad Pitt?	3:15 pm, October 29, 2017	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Angelina_Jolie']
-snes-02045	Did President Trump Say 'Eventually We Will Get Something Done'?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/president-trump-say-eventually-will-get-something-done/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did President Trump Say ‘Eventually We Will Get Something Done’?	18 July 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00734	"Medicaid patients were 97 percent more likely to die than those with private insurance."	/florida/statements/2015/apr/22/richard-corcoran/medicaid-recipients-97-percent-more-likely-die-pri/	Constituents demanding a solution to the Legislature’s budget impasse over Medicaid expansion have been emailing Rep. Richard Corcoran, who has been telling voters that the federal program is dangerous for its patients. Several PolitiFact Florida readers have sent in an email response from the Land O’ Lakes Republican, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the Joint Legislative Budget Commission. In his reply, Corcoran decries the already high enrollment and expense of Medicaid, the joint state and federal health care program for the very poor, as a reason to not accept federal expansion money under the Affordable Care Act. "Unfortunately, those Floridians belong to a troubled delivery system," Corcoran wrote. "The largest national study, conducted by the University of Virginia, found that Medicaid patients were 97 percent more likely to die than those with private insurance. Expanding coverage through a health care program that delivers questionable care is not a public policy that Florida should embrace." Saying patients are twice as likely to die is an eye-opening statistic to cite when arguing against Medicaid, implying not only is the program delivering substandard care, it’s actually bad for patients. We wondered if the federal plan was really to blame for such a high mortality rate. What we found is that if you’re on Medicaid and you have surgery, the study Corcoran cited did say you are more likely to die -- but it’s probably not because you’re using Medicaid to pay for treatment. The Virginia study The University of Virginia study was published in 2010, and followed the patient outcomes of almost 900,000 major surgeries across the country. That’s different than the Medicaid population as a whole. It also kept track of whether those patients had private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid or no insurance at all. The eight researchers adjusted for patient health care and population variables like age, income, where they lived, the type of hospital they were in, what kind of operation they were having and more. The results showed Medicaid patients were the most at-risk, and were 1.97 times more likely to die following a procedure than a patient with private insurance. That’s where Corcoran got his percentage, although experts we talked to said it was misleading to use as a reference. Medicaid patients also were more likely to die after a procedure than Medicare patients (1.54 more than insured patients) and even the uninsured (1.74 times). Medicaid recipients also had the highest total costs and longest hospital stays, although mortality rates varied depending on a variety of factors. So does that mean Medicaid is the culprit for the higher odds of patient deaths? Not at all, University of Virginia School of Medicine professor and cardiovascular surgeon Dr. Irving Kron (rhymes with "phone") told us. Kron was one of the researchers for the study. While it does adjust for socioeconomic factors, the study notes that if you’re on Medicaid, you’re probably suffering from a whole host of risk factors other categories of patients don’t have, he said. Medicaid recipients are the poorest, least educated and sickest of all patients, and often don’t seek medical help until conditions are at their worst. Those patients have the highest incidence of AIDS, depression, liver disease, neurologic disorders, psychoses and metastatic cancer, the study said. "The reality is it’s apples and oranges," Kron said. "The problem with Medicaid is there’s more emergencies, because they’re sicker than most people. … They wait for care and unfortunately, emergent patients don’t do as well as elective patients." Kron said the study focused on whether socioeconomic status was a factor in medical treatment, which it clearly was, and not on the quality of the systems paying for health care. Corcoran insisted the study proved him right. "My point was that Medicaid is a subpar health care delivery system," Corcoran said via email. "The University of Virginia study supports that conclusion." The study does include a caveat that there is a possible "system bias" that gives privately insured people access to better hospitals and doctors. "For many surgical patients, private insurance status often allows for referral to expert surgeons for their disease. Alternatively, Medicaid and uninsured patients may have been referred to less skilled and less specialized surgeons," the study said. But Kron and health policy experts disagree with Corcoran’s takeaway. Leighton Ku, director of the Center for Health Policy Research for the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, said Medicaid patients are a very broad category that is tough to compare to others, even the uninsured. Echoing Kron’s concerns, he added that uninsured patients may elect to go without coverage and end up on Medicaid when they become sick, or that insured patients in the study may have reached lifetime policy limits and had to resort to Medicaid. "As the researchers in the paper acknowledge, part of the reason that Medicaid is associated with higher mortality is that many people fall into Medicaid when they are very sick and impoverished," Ku said. Other reports Corcoran also directed us to a recent Oregon study that examined the difference between patients allowed to join expanded Medicaid rolls in a 2008 lottery versus others who did not get into the program. Over two years, the study found that while patients in the program initially reported feeling better, there was no real change in health indicators such as diabetes control, cholesterol or blood pressure. In essence, the research found Medicaid didn’t really improve physiological health, although patients said they felt better. That’s probably because they didn’t have to worry as much about getting treatment, Harvard health economist Ben Sommers said. People in the Oregon study did report better access to care and improvements in mental health. One thing it didn’t say, which Corcoran originally argued with the Virginia study, was that Medicaid hurt its patients. "In any accounting, there is no evidence of people being worse off for having gotten Medicaid. Getting Medicaid is a major improvement over being uninsured in these studies," Sommers said. Sommers, who is a part-time adviser to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, helped research a report on the effects of Medicaid expansion programs in Arizona, Maine and New York. The team found patients in those states showed improved access to care, self-reported health and reduced mortality, compared to nearby states that didn’t expand Medicaid. Improvements were higher in minority and very low-income patients. He added that there are other reports that compare different primary payer categories to each other, but there was no evidence of what Corcoran implied in his email -- that Medicaid itself was to blame for the higher mortality rate by providing substandard care. "To my knowledge there are no studies that examine the impact of states’ expanding Medicaid, or individuals going from uninsured to Medicaid, showing Medicaid to be harmful," Sommers said. Our ruling Corcoran said, "Medicaid patients were 97 percent more likely to die than those with private insurance." Corcoran was citing a 2010 University of Virginia study that looked at Medicaid patients who underwent surgery, not all people in the program. Experts we spoke to -- including one of the study’s authors -- said it’s a misleading statistic to cite. While it’s accurate to say Medicaid patients who undergo operations have higher odds of dying than those with private insurance, it’s because they are sicker and tend to wait until the last minute for care, not because the program is inadequate. Other studies show using Medicaid improves access and quality of life for many patients, or at the very least doesn’t hurt them. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Richard Corcoran	None	None	None	2015-04-22T17:25:10	2015-04-16	['None']
-pomt-00679	"Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment.	/punditfact/statements/2015/may/07/chris-cuomo/cnns-chris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/	Hate speech is not the same thing as free speech, wrote CNN anchor Chris Cuomo on the ultimate forum for public discourse: Twitter. Amid debate about free speech after a shooting at an anti-Muslim protest in Texas , a user tweeted at Cuomo: "Too many people are trying to say hate speech (doesn’t equal) free speech." In response, Cuomo, who has a law degree, said, "It doesn't. Hate speech is excluded from protection. Don’t just say you love the Constitution … read it." The claim that the Constitution doesn’t protect hate speech incited heavy backlash, so we decided to flesh it out and see if there’s any truth to Cuomo’s statement. Them’s fightin’ words First let’s get the obvious out of the way: The concept of "hate speech" -- speech that negatively targets people based on personal traits like religion or race -- is not addressed in the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution, included in the Bill of Rights, says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That may seem cut and dried, but as with the rest of the Constitution, there are nuances to the concept of free speech. In the course of interpreting the amendment, courts have decided that certain speech does not fall under protections offered by the First Amendment. Unprotected speech includes things such as threats, child pornography and "fighting words" (speech that would likely draw someone into a fight, such as personal insults). But hate speech is not included in that list. However, sometimes hate speech can also be considered "fighting words" or a threat. In those cases, hate speech would be excluded from protections offered by the First Amendment, said James Weinstein, an expert in free speech at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School. For example, if someone hurled racial epithets during a heated argument with another individual, that could be considered both fighting words and hate speech, in which case it would not have First Amendment protection. But it would be unconstitutional to ban someone from putting those same words on a picket sign at a protest -- it would still be hate speech, but it wouldn’t fall under one of the unprotected categories. "With that caveat, the overwhelming understanding is that ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected in the United States," said Michael Herz, co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo Law. "Indeed, that protection makes this country different from most other countries in the world." To his credit, Cuomo later clarified his position and said he was referring to the type of hate speech that falls under unprotected categories -- specifically citing the 1941 Supreme Court ruling in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, which excluded fighting words from the First Amendment. (In the Chaplinsky case, the fighting words were not hate speech; rather they were "God damned racketeer" and "damned fascist.") "Of course the First Amendment does not expressly mention hate speech among its six protections in its text," Cuomo said. "I meant to refer to the relevant case law about the (First Amendment) to see what is protected. There you quickly find that hate speech is almost always protected. The keyword is ‘almost.’ Hate speech can be prohibited; that is why I keep citing the Chaplinsky case and the fighting words doctrine." (Read his full response on Facebook.) Even with this clarification, Weinstein said Cuomo’s argument isn’t without holes. If a statute bans hate speech, it has to be because it counts as a threat or fighting words -- not simply because it is hate speech. This may seem like a slight nuance, but it’s important. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional for a state to have a statute that bans cross-burning -- but only if prosecutors can prove criminal intent to threaten. They cannot, for example, ban a burning cross used only to demonstrate political ideology. In another cross-burning case, the Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that it’s unconstitutional to up the penalty or charge people with a crime solely because their actions constitute hate speech. "The fact that something is hate speech or not is irrelevant for First Amendment analysis," Weinstein said. Herz, of Cardozo, added that there hasn’t been a fighting words case in the Supreme Court since Chaplinsky in 1941, and he believes it likely would have a different outcome today. Of course, reasonable legal minds can disagree on these nuances. Alexander Tsesis, a First Amendment law professor at Loyola University Chicago, said he believes it can be constitutional to prohibit hate speech, and the 2002 cross-burning ruling is a good example of that. Tsesis said the jury’s still out on whether or not there’s potential for the Supreme Court to ban hate speech more broadly, noting that there’s some potential for laws that prohibit speech that defames an entire group, such as causing a group injury by saying a false stereotype. Although Tsesis believes that would be constitutional, he acknowledged that most scholars disagree. "In the United States, the only two types of hate speech laws likely to survive are those that are likely to elicit an imminent fight and those that are truly threatening," he said. Our ruling Cuomo said, "Hate speech is excluded from protection" under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain categories of speech are excluded from constitutional protection, such as a threat or "fighting words." Sometimes, speech can be both a threat and hate speech, in which case it would not necessarily have First Amendment protection. But hate speech on its own -- such as on a picket sign or a blog -- is not excluded from protection. It may only be incidentally excluded. Cuomo tried to clarify his point after the fact, giving an explanation similar to the examples we hashed out here. But on his specific claim, the jurisprudence works against him. We rate his statement False.	None	Chris Cuomo	None	None	None	2015-05-07T16:00:00	2015-05-06	['None']
-goop-02093	Brad Pitt Pursuing Jennifer Lawrence To Make Angelina Jolie Jealous, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-jennifer-lawrence-angelina-jolie-jealous-date/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt NOT Pursuing Jennifer Lawrence To Make Angelina Jolie Jealous, Despite Report	1:45 pm, December 4, 2017	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Lawrence']
-pomt-13253	Says Marco Rubio "opposes immigration reform. Worse, Rubio supports Donald Trump. His plan would deport 800,000 children, destroying families."	/florida/statements/2016/oct/17/patrick-murphy/patrick-murphy-attacks-marco-rubios-record-immigra/	U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy says that U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s flip-flop on immigration reform will rip apart families. "I worked with President (Barack) Obama on this topic while Sen. Rubio changed position," Murphy said in a Spanish-language ad Oct. 10. "Now he opposes immigration reform. Worse, Rubio supports Donald Trump. His plan would deport 800,000 children, destroying families." Murphy, a Jupiter Democrat, is challenging Rubio, a West Miami Republican, in the Nov. 8 Senate race. Murphy’s ad makes it sound like Rubio is against any changes to the immigration laws, but that’s misleading. Rubio supports a different approach than the one he initially backed in 2013. The threat of 800,000 deportations under Trump also requires further explanation. Rubio still wants changes (just not the kind Murphy wants) Rubio has called for changing immigration laws for years, from his 2010 race for Senate to his unsuccessful presidential bid. Here’s how he changed course. In 2013, Rubio and seven other senators unveiled bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate. The law required beefed-up border security before unauthorized immigrants could pursue legal status. But House leadership wouldn’t bring the bill up for a vote, so it died. Within months, Rubio said that a single comprehensive immigration bill was "not realistic" and instead called for a piecemeal approach starting with border security first. "Such measures would include securing the most vulnerable and most trafficked sectors of the southern border, mandatory E-Verify and the full implementation of an entry-exit tracking system," Rubio wrote in his 2015 book American Dreams. Murphy’s spokesman argues that Rubio’s support for reform contingent on first "securing the border" is intangible and vague. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, told us in 2015 that Rubio’s piecemeal proposal is a "stylistic rather than a substantive change." Daniel Costa, an immigration expert at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, told PolitiFact that Rubio’s approach counts as reform — but there’s concern Republicans could try to leave out the "piece" that includes a path to citizenship. "If all the necessary pieces get done, there’s no problem," Costa said. "But I don’t know of any good reasons to advocate for piecemeal unless you don’t want one of the pieces." Whose plan is it anyway? The part of the ad about 800,000 deportations refers to people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, called Dreamers by advocates. Rubio spoke against the DREAM Act in 2010 when he was running for U.S. Senate but later showed interest in finding a bipartisan solution to help Dreamers obtain legal status. In 2012, Rubio was working on legislation for this group, but that came to a halt when Obama announced his executive action for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals allowing Dreamers to temporarily avoid deportation. Without the program, they could be deported. Data through June from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services show 741,546 individuals nationwide have received deferred action. Of those, almost 30,000 are from Florida. (Murphy’s ad includes the pending requests to bring the number up to 800,000.) Rubio criticized Obama for bypassing Congress. In 2015, Rubio said that he wouldn’t undo Obama’s program immediately because it would be disruptive, but he said that it would have to end eventually. In February 2016 he said that he would eliminate DACA on day one if elected president. On his Senate campaign website Rubio calls for cancelling Obama’s actions. If DACA is rescinded, Murphy argues that all of those with deferred-action status would get deported. But the particulars of enforcement would depend upon the administration. Certainly they would face a threat of deportation. Hillary Clinton supports DACA but Trump says it’s unconstitutional, pledging in an Aug. 31 speech he "will immediately terminate President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties." The fate of those with DACA status would depend on whether repeal would mean immediate cancellation of status and the accompanying work permits, or simply non-renewal, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for low levels of immigration. If Trump wins and rescinds DACA, immigrant advocates point to his call for mass deportation as a sign that Dreamers, too, would be deported. But Trump has made conflicting statements calling for mass deportation, then rejecting it and then saying there is a "very good chance" that it would happen. Some DACA recipients could face deportation faster than others. "Those with removal orders would be threatened with immediate deportation," said David Leopold, past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "Those who don’t face immediate deportation would face a very real threat of expulsion in the ensuing months." A lot of the DACA recipients’ personal information is on file with the federal government, including their residence, which could make them easier to track down for deportation proceedings. We asked Rubio’s spokesman to provide more details regarding what the senator would want to happen to those with DACA status. He referred us to Rubio’s comments in 2015 when he called for eventually ending DACA with hopes that by that point the government would have passed new immigration laws to include accommodating "those people that have been in this country a long time, especially the young people." It appears that Rubio doesn’t want those immigrants deported. However, we are fact-checking whether his plan to rescind DACA would mean deportation for them — and they would face the threat of deportation. Our ruling The ad says Rubio "opposes immigration reform. Worse, Rubio supports Donald Trump. His plan would deport 800,000 children, destroying families." Murphy is pushing Rubio's position too far when he says Rubio opposes immigration reform. After a comprehensive bill with a path to citizenship failed in 2013, Rubio called for a piecemeal approach with border security first. He still wants to change immigration laws, but he believes it is politically impractical to do it in one swoop. Some immigration advocates argue that Rubio’s piecemeal approach is a delay tactic and kicks a path to citizenship even further down the road. Rubio does support Trump, who has said he will overturn a program that temporarily allows Dreamers to avoid deportation, affecting about 740,000 people. That action by itself would leave those undocumented immigrants to face the threat of deportation. Rubio has said he supports a legislative replacement for DACA. We rate this claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ff746077-8ec0-423e-9767-8f1a33036ac3	None	Patrick Murphy	None	None	None	2016-10-17T16:28:48	2016-10-10	['Marco_Rubio', 'Donald_Trump']
-faan-00110	 Facebook photo of Stephen Harper and the words “Target closing means 17,000 people have lost their jobs”	http://factscan.ca/tom-mulcair-facebook-photo-of-stephen-harper-and-the-words-target-closing-means-17000-people-have-lost-their-jobs/	Tom Mulcair’s Facebook page has a picture that reads “Target closing means 17,000 people have lost their jobs” with Stephen Harper in the background. This is a case of guilt by association, and is misleading.	None	Tom Mulcair	None	None	None	2015-02-18	ruary 4, 2015	['Stephen_Harper']
-pomt-00515	Between 1980 and 2010, water usage in Georgia dropped even as the state’s population grew.	/georgia/statements/2015/jun/24/athens-banner-herald/did-georgias-water-use-drop-even-state-population-/	The bad news regarding water in Georgia is legion. No major reservoir has been built since the 2007-2008 drought to insulate metro Atlanta from future water shortages. Water/sewer rates have gone up in several counties to cover everything from federally mandated upgrades to increased material costs. Then there is the so-called "water war" with Alabama and Florida, a multi-year battle of lawsuits over how to meet the water needs across the states. So it was a surprise to read the recent headline in the Athens Banner-Herald: "Water use in Georgia declines, even as population grows." The trend, the May 10, 2015 story said, was a 30 percent drop in water usage in the three decades between 1980 and 2010, the last year that federal data was available. Suffice it to say the claim whet our appetite – we save wetting our whistle for after-hours – for the numbers and what might be going on. We reached out to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has a mandate to file a water usage report for the nation every five years. In concert with that work, the agency encourages states to conduct their own reports. Georgia has compiled a report every five years since 1975, in a bid to provide information about the precious resource in a state without a single natural lake. The 1980 report shows that year, Georgia sucked 6.7 billion gallons of water from Georgia rivers and aquifers every day. In 2010, it sipped 4.7 billion gallons every day. While the reports in that overall span show some increases – including a 21 percent jump in daily use during the 1990s – water usage has plunged 30 percent when looking at the three decades. Census figures show the number of people living in Georgia over that period exploded, from 5.46 million in 1980 to 9.69 million in 2010. That’s a 77 percent increase. Given the well-known water woes in the Peach State, how is that possible? Conservation plays some role, which we will get into in a moment. But the biggest factor was the change in how thermoelectric plants across the state operated. Several of the facilities were decommissioned between 2000 and 2010 – during the worst of the drought years and the decade that saw usage plunge nearly 28 percent, said Steve Lawrence, a hydrologist with the USGS in Atlanta. Several other plants converted from coal-fired, which needs plenty of water to cool it as an energy source, to natural gas, Lawrence said. "Thermoelectric withdrawals account typically for a third of withdrawals, so all water withdrawals decrease when such a large user drops its share," Lawrence said. Data is not available for 1980 for the per capita usage in Georgia. But 1985 and 2010 figures mirror the overall trend. Every Georgian used about 860 gallons of water daily in 1985 but only 470 gallons daily in 2010, Lawrence said. Those totals include a person’s share of water that a utility, say Georgia Power, uses to provide electricity. It’s unclear what the per person usage would be in 1985, if the water used by agriculture, industry and utilities are removed. But in 2010, it was an estimated 75 gallons a day per person to bathe, cook and clean, Lawrence said. "That’s a good number, one you see with the push for water-efficient fixtures and conservation efforts like tiered pricing," Lawrence said. Local water providers, however, don’t always follow the statewide trend. The Cobb County Water System can provide daily usage dating back to 1986, when the then-small county used just 38.6 million gallons countywide. In 1990, when the county had about 451,000 people, average daily use was 42.5 million gallons countywide. In 2010, about 688,000 people lived in Cobb, and daily usage was 57.1 million gallons for the county. That’s a 53 percent jump in population, and a 34 percent increase in daily usage. Although the daily usage did not keep pace with the population increase, the jump itself bucks the state trend. However, water system officials point out that Cobb saw usage drop 14 percent countywide between 2006 and 2014, during the worst of the recent droughts. The 2014 daily usage, of 104 gallons per person, also is down 15 percent from the 122 gallons per person in 2005, when the county began looking at per capita usage. "You can see very clearly the impact of our water conservation efforts, which became much more aggressive in 2008," county spokeswoman AikWah Leow said. Our ruling News reports claimed that Georgia has seen its water usage drop over the past three decades, in the same period that the population mushroomed. Federal reports confirm that unlikely shift, largely due to a change from coal-fired electric plants to facilities powered by natural gas. Conservation efforts also have made an impact, even if local water systems don’t show quite the same drop in usage. But the statewide trend is clear. We rate the statement True.	None	Athens Banner-Herald	None	None	None	2015-06-24T00:00:00	2015-05-10	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-pose-00007	"The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth. This highly-successful program has engaged in more than 350,000 projects across the country and in 2006 alone, helped create and protect over 50,000 jobs. But despite this success, funding for MEP has been slashed by the Bush administration. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will double funding for the MEP so its training centers can continue to bolster the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/7/double-funding-for-the-manufacturing-extension-par/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that encourages manufacturing efficiency	2010-01-07T13:26:45	None	['United_States', 'Joe_Biden', 'Barack_Obama', 'George_W._Bush']
-tron-03610	Glass Found Has Been Found in Huggies Wipes	https://www.truthorfiction.com/glass-found-has-been-found-in-huggies-wipes/	None	warnings	None	None	None	Glass Found Has Been Found in Huggies Wipes	Aug 24, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07533	On running for Senate if Jim Webb retires.	/virginia/statements/2011/apr/05/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-said-he-would-not-run-senate/	The worst-kept secret in Virginia is now official: Democrat Timothy M. Kaine is running for the U.S. Senate. Kaine, a former governor and currently the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, made the announcement in an April 5 Twitter message. He’ll be seeking the seat next year held by Democrat Jim Webb, who is not running for re-election. Webb announced his retirement on Feb. 9, confirming months of speculation that he would not run for a second term. The senator had shown little interest in raising money or assembling a campaign staff. Three weeks before Webb said he was leaving, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell put the big question before Kaine during an interview. "And if Jim Webb does not run, would you consider that Senate race?" she asked. "No, I’ve got a job I really like right now, tough though it may be," Kaine said, referring to his DNC chairmanship. "And I’m doing what the president wants me to do. And so, no, my full expectation is that I’m going to be supporting a great Virginia Democrat, and I believe that Virginia Democrat will be Jim Webb for the Senate seat." In late January, Kaine also told reporter Jim Nolan of the Richmond Times-Dispatch that another run for public office was unlikely -- at least until his 15-year-old daughter, now in high school, had finished up with college. "I could wake up after Annella's out of college and say I want to do it, but I know myself pretty well," Kaine said. "You get spoiled being an executive — being a legislator is not the best way for me to serve others right now, and I find it hard for me to contemplate a future where I say that is the best way for me to serve." No doubt, Kaine’s been under pressure to run since the moment Webb announced he would not. Rank-and-file Democrats chanted "Run, Tim, Run," at the state party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Feb. 14. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and state party Chairman Brian Moran said they wanted Kaine to join the race. Perhaps the greatest pressure came Feb. 16, when President Barack Obama told a Richmond television reporter that he had been in touch with Kaine by phone and was eager to know what the former governor planned to do. "I think he would be a great senator from Virginia if he chose to do that," Obama told NBC 12’s Ryan Nobles. Before Webb’s retirement, Kaine said he was doing what the president wanted in serving as Obama’s hand-picked DNC chairman. But with the stakes for the Virginia senate seat growing, the president seems to have changed his mind about where he wants Kaine. Former Gov. and U.S. Sen. George Allen is seeking the Republican nomination for the senate. Allen barely lost the seat to Webb in 2006. Also running in the GOP primary are Tea Party activist Jamie Radtke and David McCormick, a Virginia Beach lawyer. Kaine appeared with Obama at a March 29 fundraiser in New York. The president said his ally would make an excellent legislator. Obama urged major donors to support Kaine if he joins the race. While Kaine certainly said he would not run for the Senate, he also expressed a desire to do "what the president wants me to do." Once Webb said he would not seek reelection, Obama began encouraging Kaine to run. So we rate Kaine’s candidacy a Half Flip.	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2011-04-05T18:14:38	2011-01-18	['Jim_Webb']
-pomt-14245	"The state that has the highest per capita number of … guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/12/hillary-clinton/look-hillary-clintons-claim-about-vermonts-gun-pip/	As the April 19 New York presidential primary approached, Hillary Clinton sought to draw a contrast with rival Bernie Sanders on gun policy. During an April 11 appearance in Port Washington, N.Y., for what was billed as a "conversation on gun violence," Clinton took issue with Sanders’ characterization of his home state, Vermont, in the gun policy debate. Sanders has said that Vermonters have a more tolerant attitude toward guns than more urbanized states like New York, because of their state’s small, rural nature. In Port Washington, Clinton said that doesn’t excuse Vermont from being part of the problem for cities grappling with the spread of out-of-state guns. "Here's what I want you to know," Clinton told the audience, according to CBS News. "Most of the guns that are used in crimes and violence and killings in New York come from out of state. And the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont. "So this is not, 'Oh, you know, I live in a rural state, we don't have any of these problems,' " she added. "This is, you know what, it's easy to cross borders, criminals, domestic abusers, traffickers, people who are mentally ill, they cross borders too and sometimes they do it to get the guns they use. This has to become a voting issue for those of us who want to save lives." This talking point was several days in the making; PolitiFact attempted to fact-check a similar claim she reportedly made during a closed-door event on April 4. But we were unable to nail down the wording through a recording -- until Clinton offered the version in Port Washington a week later. Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Clinton’s claim Three Pinocchios out of a maximum of four -- not a very favorable score. But we’ll take a fresh look here. When we asked the Clinton campaign for evidence, they pointed us to a report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives covering calendar year 2014. The report looks at firearm "tracing" data, an investigative and statistical tool used by the ATF to discern how a gun traveled from its point of origin to its ultimate destination, at which point the gun is often involved in the commission of a crime. A chart in the report included Vermont in the top 15 "source states" for guns, with 55 guns from Vermont ending up in in New York. Here’s that chart: That’s actually one of the smallest raw numbers of any of the 15 highlighted states -- beyond New York itself, the biggest states in raw numbers of guns were Virginia, Georgia and Pennsylvania. These states, especially Virginia, are more commonly associated with the "Iron Pipeline" that some analysts have described in which guns flow up Interstate 95, from southern states with looser gun laws to northern states with stricter laws. But it’s important to note that Clinton said "per capita." So we divided the per-state gun haul by the state’s population and confirmed that Vermont does indeed have the highest rate per capita, thanks to its tiny population. (Guns from elsewhere in New York ranked second, followed by South Carolina, Georgia and Virginia.) So we have no quarrel with the accuracy of Clinton’s numbers. Instead, the dispute is about whether this per-capita number has any relevance to the gun-policy debate. In a statement, the Clinton campaign said that the per-capita number is "critically important" because "it shows just how dangerous Vermont's laws are relative to other states. If Vermont had the population of California, it would source roughly 3,800 crime guns each year to New York -- far more than the top 15 total source states for New York crime guns combined." However, the academic experts we checked with echoed the concerns from the Fact Checker article -- that the raw numbers matter much more than the per-capita numbers do. John Roman, a senior fellow in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, told PolitiFact that "many guns used in violent events come from a very small number of dealers, usually unlicensed gun show folks or shady businesses. That's the problem with this denominator -- the size of the state's population doesn't matter, the number of bad dealers does." The strongest support we found for using the per capita data came from Ted Alcorn, research director at Everytown for Gun Safety, an anti-gun-violence group. But even he was even-handed about the comparative usefulness of the two measures. If you were a policymaker, Alcorn said, and you "had the ability to turn on off the spigot, of course you’d want to reduce the top-source states" as measured by raw numbers, he said. At the same time, he added, having an analytical tool along the lines of a per capita measurement is valuable for deciding where to pinpoint law enforcement resources. "If you’re looking at the state level, and if you’re just concerned with the absolute numbers, you’ll only focus on the big states and never focus on the small states," he said. That said, Alcorn said other types of measurements will often be more valuable than the state per-capita data Clinton is pointing to -- particularly if you can drill down to whether specific stores are seeing a disproportionately large share of the guns they sell end up in New York. Experts we checked with offered a couple other concerns with Clinton’s statement: • The ATF’s trace data is not random or comprehensive. In fact, this point was made in the very same report the Clinton campaign cited. It said: "Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime. ... The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe." Jay Corzine, a sociologist at the University of Central Florida who studies gun issues, said this is an important caveat. "The ATF tracing data is the best we have, but for a gun to show up in the data set, it has to be recovered by the police and the police have to make the decision to have the source of the gun traced," Corzine said. "Nobody really knows what the level of bias happens to be. It may be minimal or it may be substantial." • Traced guns have not necessarily been trafficked. This is the case even though Clinton used the specific word "traffickers" in her comments. "If Joe Gunowner moves from Vermont to New York, gets burglarized and loses a gun, and that gun is used later in crime, is recovered by police, and is traced by ATF, it will show up as a crime gun that originated in Vermont -- but it most definitely did not involve gun trafficking," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. It’s impossible to know how common this scenario is, but Kleck believes it’s substantial. The flow of guns across state borders is "a reflection of the very mobile character of the American population," he said. • Geography matters. The question of geography cuts both ways when measuring the validity of Clinton’s claim. On the one hand, a small-population state with relatively loose gun laws that happens to share a long border with New York may carry added significance than a larger-population state with equally loose gun laws that’s located much further away. On the other hand, it may be the case that the guns from Vermont are flowing into the neighboring areas of Upstate New York, rather than higher-crime areas around New York City that are more supportive of restrictive gun laws. (Corzine is one who thinks that’s quite possible.) We don’t know the answer to this question for sure, however, due to laws restricting the public release of data with greater detail. Our ruling Clinton said "the state that has the highest per capita number of … guns that end up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont." Clinton’s specific statistical computation is accurate. But beyond the numbers, Clinton’s claim is misleading for a varied number of reasons. From a policy perspective, experts say raw numbers of gun flows are likely a better measure. And while the ATF data set is the best we have, Clinton’s bold comment glosses over some important caveats about the data, including whether the guns it captures are representative and whether they line up with "trafficking." These caveats call into question whether Vermont’s gun policies are having the effect Clinton suggests. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context, so we rate it Half True.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/536adfc8-dbed-445d-bd35-b749ab26d12a	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-04-12T16:57:15	2016-04-11	['New_York_City']
-tron-00596	Jennifer Lawrence Blames President Trump for Hurricanes Irma, Harvey	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jennifer-lawrence-blames-trump-hurricanes/	None	celebrities	None	None	['celebrities', 'climate change', 'donald trump', 'natural disasters']	Jennifer Lawrence Blames President Trump for Hurricanes Irma, Harvey	Sep 11, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-03193	Who Shut Down the Government? by Thomas Sowell	https://www.truthorfiction.com/sowell-thomas-shut-down-101413/	None	politics	None	None	None	Who Shut Down the Government? by Thomas Sowell	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-14508	"Mr. Trump is self-financing his campaign, so we don’t have any donors."	/virginia/statements/2016/feb/22/corey-lewandowski/trumps-campaign-manager-we-dont-have-any-donors/	Why was Donald Trump heavily booed during the Feb. 13 Republican presidential debate in South Carolina? Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s national campaign manager, addressed that question during a Feb. 15 radio interview on "The John Fredericks Show" based in Portsmouth. He said the Republican National Committee offers debate tickets to the big donors for each presidential candidate and, as such, Trump supporters are shut out. "As you know, Mr. Trump is self-financing his campaign, so we don’t have any donors," Lewandowski said. Seconds later, Lewandowski added: "We have only one donor to the campaign, so we can submit only one name. His name is Donald Trump, and he already has a spot on that stage, and he’s always at the center of that stage because he’s the front runner." Let’s start by noting the RNC disputes Lewandowski’s claim that debate tickets are reserved for the highest donors, saying each of the five campaigns participating in the South Carolina event - including Trump’s - were given 107 passes to distribute as they pleased. The subject of this fact-check is not debate tickets but Lewandowski’s repeated claim that the billionaire Trump is the "only" contributor to his campaign. Trump often says he’s "self-financing" his campaign, a statement our colleagues at PolitiFact National recently rated Half-True. Lewandowski’s assertion that there are no outside donors to the campaign, however, takes Trump’s claim to a new level and deserves a separate look. We asked Trump’s campaign for an explanation of Lewandowski’s comments but did not get a response. Contributions Trump’s campaign brought in about $19.4 million by the end of 2015, according to the latest Federal Election Commission records. Trump put in $12.8 million of that himself. The remaining $6.6 million came from individual contributions, which federal law caps at $2,700 per candidate per election. Trump has invested far more of his personal money into his campaign than any other presidential contender. The only other candidates endowing their own campaigns are: •Republican Jeb Bush, $388,720, or 1.2 percent of $31.9 million he raised; •Democrat Hillary Clinton, $368,147, or 0.3 percent of the $115.6 million she raised; and •Republican Ben Carson, $25,000, or 0.05 percent of the $54 million he raised. Trump, by contrast, has put in 66 percent of the money his campaign has raised. But the remaining 34 percent, contrary to Lewandowski’s claim, has come from donors. FEC rules require candidates to disclose the names of donors who have contributed an aggregate $200 or more to their campaigns. Through the end of 2015, Trump listed about 3,200 such patrons who donated a collective $1.6 million. A far greater number of people made small donations to the campaign, but we can’t tell you how many because these names and contributions are not itemized. What we do know is that Trump, at year’s end, raised almost $5 million from people who sent in less than $200 apiece. Although a significant portion of his campaign fund comes from individuals, Trump doesn’t appear to be actively soliciting these donations with high-profile fundraising events. The Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for transparency in money in politics, tracks political fundraisers with its Political Party Time tool. It has no record of any events to benefit Trump. In contrast, Political Party Time has recorded more than 280 fundraisers for Clinton and more than 150 for Bush since the start of 2015. There is, however, a "donate" button on Trump’s website. Lastly, any conversation about Trump’s "self-financed" campaign also should include two caveats: •Of the personal money he’s put into his campaign, Trump lists $200,000 as a contribution and $12.6 million as loans. That means he may expect to recoup those funds. •Trump ramped up his self-financing in the final quarter of 2015, when he made $10.8 million of his loans to his campaign. Our ruling "Mr. Trump is self-financing his campaign, so we don’t have any donors," Lewandowski, Trump’s campaign manager, told a Virginia radio audience. Seconds later, he virtually repeated the claim. Trump is certainly his own greatest benefactor, having endowed his campaign with $12.8 million of the $19.4 million it raised through the end of last year - or 66 percent of its funds. Trump lists almost all of his investments in his campaign as a loan, not a donation, so he may be expecting to get some of his money back. In any case, Lewandowski is flat-out wrong by insisting the campaign has no donors other than Trump. He ignores thousands of supporters who contributed $6.6 million through the end of last year, or 34 percent of the campaign’s resources. So we rate the claim False.	None	Corey Lewandowski	None	None	None	2016-02-22T11:40:00	2016-02-15	['None']
-pomt-09064	When he worked for AT&T, he "was responsible for large parts in a $5 billion organization."	/georgia/statements/2010/jun/29/john-albers/state-sen-says-he-ran-large-parts-5-billion-organi/	Recent reports in The Beacon, a newspaper that covers north Fulton County, drew attention to what could be a whopper. John Albers, a Republican candidate for District 56 state senator, said during a campaign forum that he ran a $5 billion division of AT&T, it reported. The problem was that Dick Anderson, who once ran a major division of AT&T, happened to be in the audience. Anderson, who backs one of Albers' opponents, told The Beacon, and later PolitiFact Georgia, that he never heard of Albers and couldn't find any telecommunications executive who did. Ouch. Albers said he was taken out of context. He added that Anderson's claim should be disregarded because he is partisan. So, did Albers really say he ran a huge telecom operation when he didn't? We had to find out. Albers is running for an open seat vacated by Dan Moody (R-Johns Creek), the state Senate's majority caucus chairman. Moody was first elected to the seat representing the Roswell area in 2002. Witnesses said Albers made the statement during a forum hosted by the Chattahoochee Republican Women's Club on March 23. PolitiFact Georgia could find no recording of the event, but attendees including the president of the club, a reporter from The Beacon, Republican District 56 candidate Brandon Beach, and Anderson, who donated to Beach's campaign, all told us that Albers said he ran a large division of the company that was worth lots and lots of money. Later, at a forum hosted by The Beacon, Beach challenged Albers on his resume. Albers' reply was videotaped, and The Beacon's publisher John Fredericks sent PolitiFact Georgia a copy. "Now, I've learned in my politicking that you do get taken out of context all the time," Albers said. "I did work at AT&T, I did rise through the ranks very rapidly, and I was responsible for large parts in a $5 billion organization. "Now, I didn't even know Dick Anderson, so I'm guessing he didn't work anywhere close to our company. But when you have a $98 billion budget and 350,000 employees, you tend not to know too many folks." The Beacon published a follow-up story on Albers' credentials June 12. We interviewed Albers afterward. He softened his description of his role at AT&T, saying he said he "helped manage" a $5 billion division of AT&T. Albers told PolitiFact Georgia that he started with the company in 1993 as a telecommunications equipment installer in Louisville, Ky. He moved up swiftly and left after his division became part of Lucent Technologies. He said his final post there was as a manager of workers who maintained electronic systems used by engineers. "I was booted up the ranks very quickly," Albers said. A spokeswoman for what's now called Alcatel-Lucent confirmed much of what Albers told PolitiFact Georgia. He was "part of the business that did installation, maintenance, engineering and a wide range of professional services," according to an e-mail response to our inquiry. He worked for a part of AT&T dubbed "Network Systems," and his title was "Network Capacity Planning Manager." Lucent did not provide information on how many people he supervised. So did Albers tell the truth? Only after he was taken to task. As scrutiny of his resume grew, Albers demoted himself from executive whiz kid to manager. Based on accounts from attendees of the Chattahoochee event, a video recording from The Beacon forum, and our interview of Albers, the candidate gave three different versions of his resume: that he was in charge of a big business organization; that he was a "responsible for large parts in a $5 billion organization"; and that he was a member of management. Only this final description squared with Lucent employment records. In response, Albers said PolitiFact Georgia focused too closely on one word—“large”—and re-asserted that he played a significant role at AT&T. He added that we were giving too much credence to attacks made by his opponents and their backers. Albers' claims that he was part of the billionaire-dollar business executive set were wishful, at best. We rate his statement False.	None	John Albers	None	None	None	2010-06-29T06:00:00	2010-04-27	['None']
-pomt-05262	"Only 2 percent of public high schools in the country offer PE classes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/30/michelle-obama/michelle-obama-understates-percent-high-schools-ph/	As first lady, Michelle Obama has promoted exercise and healthy eating to combat teen obesity, a project she calls Let's Move. During a recent interview with NPR to promote American Grown, a diary about her White House vegetable garden, she lamented the decline in physical education in schools. "Kids aren't playing outside as much," she told NPR. "The statistics show that kids are spending an average of 7.5 hours a day in front of some kind of screen, a TV, computer, what have you. Fewer schools are offering PE. Only 2 percent of high schools -- public high schools in the country offer PE classes. Two percent." A reader asked us to check the claim that "only 2 percent of public high schools in the country offer PE classes" because the number sounded low. In October 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published the School Health Policies and Practices Study, which tabulated statistics for 2006. It’s summarized here, but these are the key findings as they relate to Obama’s comment: • Overall, 69.3 percent of elementary schools, 83.9 percent of middle schools and 95.2 percent of high schools required PE in 2006. • However, only 3.8 percent of elementary schools, 7.9 percent of middle schools and 2.1 percent of high schools provided daily PE or its equivalent. We checked with the CDC and a spokeswoman confirmed that the 2006 figures were the most recent ones available. A subsequent report conducted by the National Association for Sport and Physical Education and the American Heart Association found that 46 states (out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia) mandate PE for high school students. A spokeswoman for Obama confirmed that she had misspoken. Obama was referring to the 2007 CDC study, and her mistake was to say that only 2 percent of public high schools offer PE classes. In fact, 2 percent of public high schools offer daily PE classes. Our ruling Official federal data show that more than 95 percent of high schools in 2006 required PE -- a far cry from the 2 percent Obama cited. We rate her claim False.	None	Michelle Obama	None	None	None	2012-05-30T14:23:37	2012-05-29	['None']
-goop-01230	Justin Bieber “Struggling” With Selena Gomez Break, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-selena-gomez-struggling-break/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Justin Bieber NOT “Struggling” With Selena Gomez Break, Despite Claim	12:30 pm, April 7, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05800	Drinking cold water after meals causes unpleasant and lasting side effects.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drinking-cold-water-meals-cause-cancer/	None	Medical	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does Drinking Cold Water After Meals Cause Cancer?	23 August 2006	None	['None']
-snes-00438	The Obama administration placed immigrant children with human traffickers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-administration-children-human-traffickers/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did the Obama Administration Place Immigrant Children With Human Traffickers?	20 June 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11005	Immigrants "can show up at any embassy or consulate abroad" to make their asylum claims.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/10/raul-labrador/no-immigrants-cannot-apply-asylum-us-embassies-or-/	While lamenting family separations at the border and the perilous journey many immigrants take to come to the United States, Republican U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador said immigrants didn’t need to come to U.S. borders to make their asylum requests. They could do so at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad, Labrador, of Idaho, claimed. In a June 27 opinion piece for the Idaho Statesman, Labrador criticized "catch-and-release" — the release of immigrants apprehended at the border, under the expectation that they will later show up to immigration court — saying it increased illegal immigration. Some immigrants coming to the United States illegally faced abuse, rape and even death in their journey, Labrador wrote. "What makes these tragedies so unnecessary is there’s already a process in place for those who are legitimately seeking asylum," Labrador wrote. "They can show up at any embassy or consulate abroad or any U.S. port of entry to make their asylum claims." Individuals can make asylum claims at U.S. ports of entry, but can they also make those claims at "any embassy or consulate abroad"? No. Asylum claims must be made within the United States. ‘Physically present in the United States’ Asylum may be granted to individuals who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. U.S. law says that in general, "any alien who is physically present in the United States, or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum." Asylum seekers must generally apply for the protection within one year of their arrival to the United States. "A U.S. consulate or embassy is clearly outside the U.S., so you can’t apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate or embassy," said Stephen H. Legomsky, an emeritus professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis who served as chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2011 to 2013. Going to a U.S. embassy or consulate does not count as being physically present in the United States for purposes of the asylum statute, said Deborah Anker, a clinical professor of law, founder and director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School. Diplomatic asylum is an entirely different matter, one that is very limited and generally not recognized under international law. U.S. embassies, consulates do not process asylum applications U.S. embassies serve as the headquarters for U.S. government representatives in foreign countries and are normally located in the country’s capital. Embassy branches (consulates) are in other cities. An embassy’s primary purpose is to assist American citizens who live or are traveling in the foreign country, though they may also provide visa services for people who want to come to the United States temporarily or permanently. Online pages for U.S. embassies in Italy and Poland, explicitly say, "The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad." Scholars have noted that while there are special diplomatic provisions among countries when it comes to embassies and consulates, embassy grounds are not the territory of the sending country; rather, they remain territory of the host country. Labrador’s response: No excuses for illegal entry Todd Winer, a spokesman for Labrador, said there’s already a legal process in place for those seeking asylum, "so there is no excuse for anyone trying to cross the border illegally." (According to U.S. law, immigrants can apply for asylum even if they enter the country illegally). "True victims of persecution can show up at any U.S. port of entry to make their asylum claims. They can also submit their application online when in the U.S.," Winer said. "The Democrats’ charge that people need to illegally cross the border to gain asylum is what really needs to be fact-checked." Difference between asylee and refugee processing Some people may be confusing provisions for asylees and for refugees, said Karen Musalo, a professor and director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies at U.C. Hastings College of the Law. While individuals applying for asylum must be in the United States, some individuals outside the United States can seek refugee protection there and enter the country as refugees, Musalo said. Still, Musalo said, there are many conditions for the refugee program, including an annual cap on refugee entry. The Trump administration plans to admit no more than 45,000 refugees from around the world in fiscal year 2018, which ends Sept. 30. The Obama administration set a cap of 110,000 for fiscal year 2017. Our ruling Labrador said immigrants "can show up at any embassy or consulate abroad" to make their asylum claims. This assurance is completely wrong. Asylum seekers must be within the United States to apply for the protection, according to U.S. law. Immigration law experts affirmed that individuals cannot apply for asylum at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. Labrador’s claim is inaccurate. We rate it False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Raul Labrador	None	None	None	2018-07-10T17:46:59	2018-06-27	['None']
-snes-01436	Cards Against Humanity purchased acres of land on the U.S.-Mexico border and retained a law firm to fight President Trump's plan to construct a border wall.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cards-humanity-block-trump-border-wal/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Cards Against Humanity Trying to Block President Trump’s Border Wall?	15 November 2017	None	['Mexico–United_States_border']
-snes-04774	Bill O'Reilly was denied custody of his children because he physically attacked their mother.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-oreilly-lost-custody/	None	Entertainment	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bill O’Reilly Loses Custody Battle Due to Domestic Violence?	11 May 2016	None	['None']
-afck-00165	Drinking water at the correct times maximises its effectiveness on the human body.	https://africacheck.org/reports/not-healthyliving-city-joburg-tweets-nonsense/	None	None	None	None	None	Not #healthyliving: Why these City of Joburg tweets are nonsense	2017-02-16 06:39	None	['None']
-pomt-10017	"AIG insures the pension trust of the United States Congress!"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/18/chain-email/aig-does-not-insure-pensions-congress/	An anonymous e-mail making the rounds claims that Congress has its own selfish reasons for bailing out the insurance company American International Group, better known as AIG. "Remember when this economic crisis hit, and Congress let Bear Sterns go under, pushed a bunch of forced marriages between banks, etc.?" the e-mail asks. "Then they bailed out AIG. At the time, I thought: 'That's strange. What does an insurance company have to do with this crisis?' "I think I just found the answer. Among other things, AIG INSURES THE PENSION TRUST OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!! No wonder they got bailed out right away!" Note the classic signs of the chain e-mail — all capital letters and LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! But we digress ... To recap the history here, AIG is an insurance company that collapsed in September 2008. Because the firm had so many obligations, the federal government concluded the broader economy could be badly damaged if AIG were simply allowed to go under. So the government gave AIG access to credit to make good on its obligations, more than $150 billion so far. AIG has in turn paid billions to customers such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wachovia. We looked into the claim that AIG insures the pensions of members of Congress. "It's not true — totally bogus," said Mike Orenstein, spokesman for U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which oversees federal pensions. He said he's been asked the question at least three times since the beginning of the year. AIG does sell retirement services like annuities. But it does not insure federal pensions, said AIG spokesman Joseph Norton. Next we turned for confirmation to the National Taxpayers Union, a nonprofit advocacy group that favors lower taxes and smaller government. "Neither federal pensions in general nor congressional pensions in particular are insured by any private entity," said Pete Sepp, vice president for policy and communications. The government doesn't need to insure its pensions because the pensions are ultimately paid for by government revenues. That means Congress will get their pensions "until the federal government itself goes broke. If that were to happen, we would be a Third World country," he said. The National Taxpayers Union believes this dynamic puts off needed reforms to the Civil Service Retirement System and Social Security, he added. We should add that Congress members do not receive their full salary for life, as some Internet sources suggest. (This year, congressional pay is scheduled to be $174,000 a year, though there is a possibility Congress will reject a recent cost-of-living raise.) Instead, members accrue benefits based on how long they serve. In 2006, the average pension was about $61,000 a year for 20 years of service, according to the Congressional Research Service. If anyone insures congressional pensions, it's U.S. taxpayers, not AIG. The chain e-mail that claims AIG insures congressional pensions is just plain wrong. In fact, we rate it Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2009-03-18T14:48:20	2009-03-18	['United_States_Congress', 'American_International_Group']
-snes-04539	Donald Trump has vowed to get rid of the Library of Congress if elected President.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-library-of-congress/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Trump Vows to ‘Get Rid of the Library of Congress’	28 June 2016	None	['Donald_Trump']
-tron-03566	Infinite Wisdom of Founding Fathers: Electoral College vs Popular Vote Numbers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/infinite-wisdom-founding-fathers-electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-numbers/	None	trump	None	None	['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'hillary clinton']	Infinite Wisdom of Founding Fathers: Electoral College vs Popular Vote Numbers	Dec 12, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02483	"In Oregon, women earn an average of 79 cents for every dollar that men earn for doing the same job. That’s just wrong."	/oregon/statements/2014/feb/19/brad-avakian/do-oregon-women-earn-79-cents-every-dollar-men-ear/	Income inequality has emerged as a significant issue heading into the 2014 campaign season. One hot-button piece of that debate focuses on what some politicians, researchers and economists call the gender pay gap. In his recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama mentioned the gap when he said that, nationally, women earn an average of 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. In Oregon, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian posted an "issue statement" on his campaign website on Jan. 31, 2014, that customizes the issue for the Beaver state. "In Oregon," according to the post, "women earn an average of 79 cents for every dollar that men earn for doing the same job. That’s just wrong." We agree, that would be quite the disparity. But is it accurate? We checked. We called Avakian’s office and spoke with Charlie Burr, communications director for the state Bureau of Labor and Industries, which Avakian oversees. Burr said the claim is based on statistics included in the fall 2013 edition of "The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap" issued by the American Association of University Women. A table in the report lists, by gender and state, median annual earnings and earnings ratios of men to women for full-time, year-round workers ages 16 and older. The information, drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, showed that men in Oregon earned $47,402 in 2012, compared with $37,381 for women. We checked the Census information ourselves and found the information was accurate. That put the income earned by women at 79 percent of their male counterparts. The table showed that, nationally, the figure is 77 percent. PolitiFact National has already looked into this issue, so we checked the most recent offering, which, in analyzing Obama's State of the Union address, called the president’s 77-cent ratio "a credible figure from a credible agency." The wording of Obama’s and Avakian’s claims, however, is problematic, PolitiFact National has found. That work determined that adding the words for the same work or in the same job slightly weakened the claims’ accuracy. One reason is that federal agencies aren’t entirely in agreement when it comes to tracking such statistics. The Census Bureau, for instance, tracks annual wages. That information yields the 77-cent figure. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, meanwhile, tracks weekly wages. Broken down that way, women earn 82 cents for every dollar men make. What’s the difference? The weekly analysis does not account for people who are self-employed, PolitiFact found, but does include some left out of the annual measure, such as some teachers, construction workers and seasonal workers. The gap narrows more -- to 86 cents -- if hourly rates are used, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data because those account for part-time workers, who include a larger percentage of women than men. We called Ariane Hegewisch, study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan think tank. "The hourly figures still show there is a wage gap," she said, "but they still don’t suggest that the 77-cent figure or Oregon’s 79-cent figure are wrong. They are just looking at different measures." Nothing has shown that any gap is solely because of workplace discrimination, Hegewisch said. But studies controlling for factors such as level of education, hours worked and sector of work still leave 25 to 40 percent of the gap explainable only by discrimination, Hegewisch said. "There are shades and important nuances here," she said. "It’s not based on taking two people literally in the same firm and saying, ‘Are you being paid more or not?’ It’s also who gets hired at all. It’s still the case that the highest-paying firms tend to hire more young white guys than young anybody else." Different pay for different work also plays a part, Hegewisch said. Laborers, who tend to be men, usually make more than, say, nursing aides, who tend to be women, she said. "It comes down to more of a social issue of how we judge the value of different occupations." Avakian, citing Census data and echoing claims by Obama and others, said women in Oregon "earn an average of 79 cents for every dollar that men earn for doing the same job." The report he relied on noted that the 79-cent figure applies to full-time, year-round work, although Avakian didn’t include those stipulations. For starters, the commissioner loses points for cherry-picking the 79-cent figure. Other means of measuring pay gaps between men and women put it considerably less. The same can be said of the "for doing the same job" piece. As PolitiFact has found previously, the existence of a pay gap doesn’t necessarily mean that all of the gap is caused by individual employer-level discrimination, as Avakian’s claim implies. Some of the gap is at least partially explained by the predominance of women in lower-paying fields, rather than women necessarily being paid less for the same job than men are. Finally, Avakian used the term "average" when the report he relied on said "median." He could have avoided that by simply saying women "make 79 cents for every dollar a man earns," but since the information he cited contains only median incomes, we find the difference to be inconsequential. Those caveats aside, he still is well inside the ballpark and the ratio he cited is a credible figure from a credible agency. We rate the claim Mostly True. Return to OregonLive.com/politics to comment on this ruling.	None	Brad Avakian	None	None	None	2014-02-19T10:25:17	2014-01-31	['Oregon']
-pomt-12336	Says each of the past three years "has been the hottest on record."	/texas/statements/2017/jun/15/derrick-crowe/democrat-lamar-smith-three-years-hottest-record-ea/	A Democrat hot after the U.S. House seat held by Republican climate-science skeptic Lamar Smith made a searing claim while strolling for support in South Austin, a news story shows. After a resident told candidate Derrick Crowe she’s worried about climate change, Crowe responded: "That one actually keeps me up at night." Crowe went on: "I have a 3-year-old, Henry, and every year he’s lived has been the hottest on record." Has each of the past three years proved the hottest on record? Candidate cites federal agency Crowe, described as a climate justice organizer in the June 3, 2017, Austin American-Statesman news story, responded to our request for factual backup for his claim by pointing out by email a Jan. 18, 2017, web post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration headlined: "2016 marks three consecutive years of record warmth for the globe." NOAA’s post said "the 2016 globally averaged surface temperature ended as the highest since record keeping began in 1880, according to scientists from NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)." The agency further said: "The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces in 2016 was 58.69 degrees F or 1.69 degrees F above the 20th century average. This surpassed last year’s record by 0.07 degrees F. Since the start of the 21st century, the annual global temperature record has been broken five times (2005, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016)." That’s three straight years of record average land-ocean-surface temperatures. That day, NASA announced a similar conclusion. In its post, the space agency said: "Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures." The space agency elaborated: "NASA's analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980. "NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data," NASA said, "but with a different baseline period, and different methods to analyze Earth's polar regions and global temperatures." News stories News stories posted that day by The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal each indicated scientific consensus that each of the years was the hottest in the history of the temperature measurements. The Times’ account said 2016 marked "the first time in the modern era of global warming data that temperatures have blown past the previous record three years in a row." In 2015 and 2016, the newspaper reported, planetary warming was intensified by the weather pattern known as El Niño, in which the Pacific Ocean released a huge burst of energy and water vapor into the atmosphere. But the bigger factor in setting the records was the long-term trend of rising temperatures, the story said, which scientists say is being driven by increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A British agency aired a similar conclusion, the story said. "In the British data set," the story said, "2016 set a record by only a small amount; the margin was larger in the NOAA data set and larger still in NASA’s. NASA does more work than the other groups to take full account of Arctic temperatures," the story said, "and several scientists said they believed the NASA record to be the most accurate for 2016." Then again, the story said, the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, a nonprofit California group set up to provide a temperature analysis independent of governments, did not find that three records had been set in a row; in its analysis, 2010 was slightly warmer than 2014. The Journal’s news story on 2016 proving the hottest year on record noted three other independent assessments of the year’s warming trend. The Japan Meteorological Agency, which uses slightly different methods in its calculations, had just ranked 2016 as the warmest in its modern record, the story said, while separately researchers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, drawing on satellite data to track global atmospheric temperatures, concluded that by a very small statistical margin, 2016 was the warmest year in 38 years of orbital monitoring. The Journal story said the same week that NOAA and NASA piped up, scientists at the U.K.’s Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit reported that by their analysis, 2016 was fractionally warmer than any other year in its record keeping, barely edging out 2015. State climate experts For our part, we asked experts including the respective state climatologists for Florida and Texas--big states on the Gulf of Mexico--to evaluate Crowe’s claim. David Zierden of the Florida Climate Center and John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M University each cited the conclusion that global average surface temperatures in 2016 set a record high--just as record highs were reached in 2014 and 2015. By email, Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Center at Texas Tech University, and Clare Nullis, a spokeswoman for the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations agency, each concurred. Zierden filled us in on how the averages cited by NASA and NOAA are reached, saying that each weather station’s overnight low and day-time high ultimately contributes toward year-long planet-spanning averages. "It’s not necessarily a great measure of our climate system," Zierden said, but it’s a simple way of showing long-term trends. Focusing on global averaged temperatures, he added by email, reduces "an infinitely complicated climate system, which includes the atmosphere (all levels), oceans, land surfaces, and ice surfaces, to ONE number per month or year is quite an oversimplification." Warmth of U.S., Texas Crowe didn’t limit his hottest-ever statement to the U.S. or Texas. But the Journal story, citing NOAA, said that in the 48 states of the continental U.S., 2016 was the second-hottest year in record keeping, marking 20 years in a row when temperatures were above average. With help from the state climatologists, we clicked to the NOAA’s NCEI website and obtained a ranking, from 1901 through 2016, of the average surface temperature in the 48 states in the continental U.S. Results: The average 2016 surface temperature of 54.91 degrees F was exceeded by the 55.28 degrees F average in 2012 with the continental U.S.’s 2015 average temperature of 54.40 degrees F ranking third since 1901. The continental U.S.’s 2014 surface temperature average, 54.52.54 degrees F, made that year its 37th warmest, according to NOAA. In Texas, according to the site, 2016 tied 2006 for the third-warmest average surface temperatures on record of 67.1 degrees F. Also not record-setting: The state’s averages for 2014 (the state’s 56th warmest year since 1901) and 2015 (the state’s 16th-warmest year since 1901). Our ruling Crowe said each of the past three years was the "hottest on record." There’s scientific consensus that this was so, according to averaged global surface temperature readings, though it’s worth pointing out that those temperatures add up to a single indicator of climate conditions. We rate the claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Derrick Crowe	None	None	None	2017-06-15T06:00:00	2017-06-03	['None']
-pomt-07010	"Young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-post-911-veterans-have-higher-un/	During a July 6, 2011, question-and-answer session on Twitter, President Barack Obama was asked whether he would consider giving companies a tax break if they hired honorably discharged veterans. Obama said it’s an idea that he’s "been talking a lot about internally. We’ve got all these young people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan; have made incredible sacrifices; have taken on incredible responsibilities. You see some 23-year-old who's leading a platoon in hugely dangerous circumstances, making decisions, operating complex technologies. These are folks who can perform. But, unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that a lot of these young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve. And that makes no sense." We wondered whether Obama was right about unemployment among recent veterans, so we took a look at federal statistics. We found a recent table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that breaks down employment status for veterans and non-veterans. It reported that in May 2011, veterans from the post-9/11 period had an unemployment rate of 12.1 percent. By comparison, non-veterans that month had an 8.5 percent unemployment rate. So Obama was correct. It’s worth noting that since post-9/11 veterans account for a tiny fraction of the entire labor force -- a bit over 1 percent -- and because the BLS did not seasonally adjust the numbers, these figures are subject to a lot more volatility than the unemployment rate for all workers. For instance, in March and April 2011, unemployment for post-9/11 veterans was 10.9 percent, or more than a full point lower than it was in May. Going further back, it bounced around quite a bit -- 12.5 percent in February 2011, 15.2 percent in January 2011, and 11.7 percent in December 2010. Still, even the lowest of these figures were comfortably ahead of the comparable unemployment rates for non-veterans. The other issue we’ll mention is that post-9/11 veterans are an exception to a more general rule. Typically, veterans of earlier military actions have unemployment levels similar to, or even lower than, non-veterans. Consider the statistics for May 2011. As post-9/11 veterans saw their unemployment rate hit 12.1 percent, veterans of the first Gulf War were seeing a 7 percent unemployment rate, veterans of World War II, Korea and Vietnam were seeing 7.4 percent unemployment and veterans from other periods saw a rate of 7.9. Each group’s rate was clearly lower than the 8.5 percent unemployment rate for non-veterans. Still, none of this undercuts Obama’s claim. If you interpret his remark -- that "young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve" -- to mean post-9/11 veterans, then the rates have indeed been significantly higher than for non-veterans over at least the last six months. We rate his statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-07-07T15:52:17	2011-07-06	['None']
-tron-03273	Alaskan Opinion of Sarah Palin	https://www.truthorfiction.com/alaskan-view-palin/	None	politics	None	None	None	Alaskan Opinion of Sarah Palin	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-farg-00323	"Major signs of voter fraud uncovered in Ohio."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/bogus-claim-of-voter-fraud-in-ohio/	None	askfactcheck	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['election fraud']	Bogus Claim of Voter Fraud in Ohio	August 15, 2018	2018-08-15 21:09:20 UTC	['Ohio']
-tron-03227	President Obama Worked Behind-the-Scenes Deals to Get the AMA and AARP to Endorse Health Care Reform	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obamacare-endorsements/	None	politics	None	None	None	President Obama Worked Behind-the-Scenes Deals to Get the AMA and AARP to Endorse Health Care Reform	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00227	Calls to privatise the ABC have become louder in recent months, with Liberal Party members voting to privatise the national broadcaster at the party's annual federal council, though the Coalition Government's policy remains to keep the ABC in public hands.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-13/fact-check3a-abc-greens-voters/9931782	Professor Davidson's claim is flimsy. In making the claim, Professor Davidson referred to a study published in 2013 which surveyed 605 journalists from a variety of organisations on their voting intentions. Fifty-nine of these journalists were from the ABC, and only 34 of them answered the question on voting intention, with 25 either undecided or electing not to answer. Of the 34 who did answer, 41.2 per cent, or 14, said they would vote for the Greens. But experts told Fact Check that the ABC sub-sample was too small and the rate of undecided and non-response too high to be able to draw accurate conclusions from the survey on ABC journalist voting intention, let alone voting intention of all ABC employees. Upon releasing the findings in 2013, the author of the study himself, Folker Hanusch, inserted numerous caveats about using sub-samples of the survey, including that the margins of error would be larger than those for the total sample. Professor Davidson neglected to include any of these important caveats in making his claim. Experts contacted by Fact Check, including Professor Hanusch, also took issue with comparing the results of the survey with larger, more stable studies of the voting intention of the general population, such as Newspoll. Whilst the survey found that Australian journalists in general tend to skew left, it showed no evidence that ABC journalists were five times more likely to vote for the Greens than the general public, and experts contacted by Fact Check said they did not know of any other recent studies which canvass the voting intentions of ABC journalists. University of New South Wales statistician Jake Olivier compared the survey results with those of Newspoll over the same survey period, and found ABC journalists were 2.4 times more likely to vote for the Greens. But he cautioned that the sample size of ABC journalists was too small to make strong conclusions about this result. Fact Check could find no research on the voting intentions of all ABC employees including those outside of the news division.	['abc', 'television-broadcasting', 'work', 'political-parties', 'australia']	None	None	['abc', 'television-broadcasting', 'work', 'political-parties', 'australia']	Fact check: Are ABC employees or journalists five times more likely to vote for the Greens than the general population?	Thu 6 Sep 2018, 7:37am	None	['American_Broadcasting_Company', 'Coalition_government']
-snes-00947	Does Chuck Schumer Have an Unrestricted Concealed Carry Permit?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-schumer-have-concealed-permit/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Does Chuck Schumer Have an Unrestricted Concealed Carry Permit?	28 February 2018	None	['Chuck_Schumer']
-pomt-05709	Says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker doesn't make his calendar public -- "he's on our dime and we don't know where he is."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/08/kathleen-falk/wisconsin-dem-candidate-governor-says-scott-walker/	To fend off a recall effort aimed at removing him from office, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has traveled out of state to raise campaign money and been accused of being both greedy and secretive. Democrat Kathleen Falk made such an attack on Feb. 18, 2012, 10 days after the Republican governor made a political trip to Florida. Falk, a former Dane County executive who has announced she will run against Walker in a recall election expected later in 2012, said at a candidates forum: "My calendar will be public, unlike Scott Walker's. The only reason we know he's in Florida is because of Facebook. It's bad enough that he's out of state raising these unforeseen amounts of money from billionaires and millionaires instead of working here for us. But the fact that he's on our dime and we don't know where he is, is wrong. So, my record and my schedule will be public." Let’s check both parts of Falk’s claim -- that Walker doesn’t make his schedule public and that "he’s on our dime and we don’t know where he is." Walker’s schedule When asked for evidence to back Falk’s claim, Falk campaign spokesman Scot Ross said Walker does not post his schedule on a website or make it directly accessible to the public in any other way. It’s true that Walker does not post his schedule ahead of time. For some events, he gives advance notice to reporters. And under the state open records law, he also issues a monthly calendar -- after the fact -- to reporters and others who request it. That calendar, which lists Walker’s official activities as governor, is usually distributed about 10 days after the month ends, said Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie. The two most recent monthly calendars available -- December 2011 and January 2012 -- list activities from morning until night, with a time frame listed for each. Included are activities such as public appearances, meetings, media interviews, travel and phone calls; some blocks of time are simply listed as personal. Werwie said calendars aren’t released ahead of time because the governor’s schedule can change by the hour. Walker’s predecessor, Democrat Jim Doyle, initially provided more information. Doyle released to reporters a weekly list of some of his upcoming public events, but stopped the practice near the end of his first term. During both of his terms, Doyle released a detailed monthly calendar after the fact. But, unlike Walker, he included events that, while not specified as political, could be easily ascertained as political events. Falk, who ran for governor and state attorney general while Dane County executive, issued a weekly notice listing highlights of some of her upcoming events as county executive, Ross said. Falk herself said: "I didn't think it was the wisest thing to do to put campaign things on the county exec calendar regularly." So, in terms of excluding political events, Falk's list of upcoming events was similar to Walker's official calendar. Madison attorney Robert Dreps, an expert in media and political law, said governors are not compelled to create a schedule, but if they do, it is generally considered a public record that must be released upon request. So, Falk is partially correct on the first part of her claim. Walker doesn’t keep a public schedule that would enable citizens to know his plans ahead of time, but he does release his schedule after the fact. ‘On our dime’ The second part of Falk’s claim -- that Walker is "on our dime and we don’t know where he is" -- suggests that while he’s working for the taxpayers, he takes political trips and doesn’t give notice of them. Falk’s campaign provided two Madison newspaper articles to support this part of the claim. The Wisconsin State Journal reported in December 2011 that Walker "has refused to keep the public informed as to his comings and goings. His presence in New York, or Texas or Washington has been learned after the fact and almost always tipped off by a blogger or a website listing." The Capital Times reported six weeks later that the "governor's office does not send out press releases when he's headed out of town on campaign or personal business." Werwie, the governor’s spokesman, confirmed that the governor’s office does not publicize Walker’s political events or include them in his official calendar, saying the office tries to draw a line between official and political events. He cited a state statute that prohibits political events from being planned, staffed or paid for by the governor’s office. Attorney Dreps said it is arguable that political events would not have to be listed on calendars Walker releases, because Walker is not conducting official business, but that hasn’t been tested in court. So, Falk is partially correct on the second part of her claim, as well. It’s true that Walker doesn’t routinely notify the public about his political trips. But almost by definition he’s not "on the public dime" if he’s raising campaign money or involved in other political activity. Our rating Falk said Walker doesn't make his work schedule public -- "he's on our dime and we don't know where he is." Walker makes his schedule public, but only after the fact. And while he typically doesn’t give notice of his political activities, it’s off base to claim he’s on the public dime during those times. We rate Falk’s statement Half True.	None	Kathleen Falk	None	None	None	2012-03-08T09:00:00	2012-02-18	['Scott_Walker_(politician)', 'Wisconsin']
-pomt-02669	"I have never lobbied for offshore oil drilling."	/florida/statements/2014/jan/10/david-jolly/david-jolly-says-he-never-lobbied-offshore-oil-dri/	Congressional hopeful David Jolly’s lobbyist past is a major target for his opponents. His response to an accusation that he lobbied for expanded offshore oil drilling is problematic for the Indian Shores Republican, however. Jolly was at a Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce forum on Jan. 6 when he said he supported the current restriction preventing drilling within 230 miles of Florida’s coastline. An audience member said there was talk that Jolly lobbied on behalf of oil-drilling interests, which Jolly refuted. "I have never lobbied for offshore oil drilling, and I'd be interested in what information you might be suggesting because that's never happened," Jolly said. "I'm not suggesting you are fabricating this, but if that information is in the public domain, it's a complete fabrication." So has Jolly lobbied for expanded oil exploration, despite saying he opposes drilling now? Time for PolitiFact Florida to go back to the well. Digging deep The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee seized upon the incident at the forum. In a post on their website later that day, the group declared, "In 2011 Jolly lobbied on behalf of Free Enterprise Nation for the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future." It tied Jolly and his Three Bridges Advisors lobbying firm to Free Enterprise Nation, a pro-business, anti-regulation advocacy group. It also showed that Free Enterprise Nation supported the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future, an energy independence proposal introduced by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., as H.R. 909 on March 3, 2011. The DCCC quoted a Weekly Standard article saying the Roadmap "would open the Outer Continental Shelf to offshore drilling." They also cited then-Assistant Secretary of Energy David Sandalow as saying the bill would thwart "safety and environmental reforms adopted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill." The Roadmap, meanwhile, was referred to the Energy and Commerce committee, which held a hearing on June 3, 2011 (the day Sandalow testified), but no further action was ever taken. Offshore drilling is not allowed off Florida shores, for the most part. Florida is protected by the 2006 Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which prohibits drilling within 230 miles of Tampa Bay and 125 miles from the Panhandle. The law expires in 2022. President Barack Obama banned drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for seven years following the 2010 disaster. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced in December that 465,000 acres extending as far east as Pensacola would be leased for drilling in March. We found a lobbyist disclosure that showed Jolly did work with Free Enterprise Nation in the first quarter of 2011, and Jolly himself wrote an April 2011 blog post on the group’s website that noted Free Enterprise Nation was in favor of the Nunes bill. Jolly responded to the DCCC’s attack by once again saying the assertion wasn’t true, and that he remained "unequivocal in that statement." But he also said that "a later review of public documents did reveal that a former client of mine endorsed a comprehensive energy independence blueprint that could have possibly expanded drilling in the Gulf, but I did not lobby on its behalf." He added he did support offshore drilling outside the 230-mile moratorium area. Free Enterprise Nation founder and former CEO Jim MacDougald issued his own statement. "While FEN did publicly support the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future, David Jolly was never employed to advocate on its behalf," MacDougald said. "David represented FEN on issues related to transparency for public employee pension funds, right-to-work matters, and a reduction in corporate and individual taxes." MacDougald is now Jolly’s campaign finance co-chairman. It’s not the first time Jolly’s platform and his past have come under scrutiny: Kathleen Peters, his rival in the Jan. 14 Republican primary, previously accused him of lobbying for the Affordable Care Act. We found that statement False, because he had a plausible explanation (not to mention the client backing up his claims) and Peters’ camp couldn’t prove its case. On the lobbyist disclosure form, Jolly lists the Nunes bill as a subject of his activity. He said he listed the proposal not because he lobbied for the bill, but because he had attended a meeting in which the legislation was discussed. He said he "had a practice of always overcomplying." Public Citizen Congress Watch Division director Lisa Gilbert said it would be extremely uncommon for any lobbyist to overreport what their work entailed. She added that the forms are designed in a way that a lobbyist has to individually report what they deal with. "It would be very surprising to me if he wasn’t, in his mind, working on this legislation when he filled out the form," she said. Dan Auble, a lobbying researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics, said that according to the guidelines of the Lobbying Disclosure Act, lobbyists are supposed to report any issue in which they played a specific action. This can include preparing information, communicating with government officials, participating in planning activities and other actions on behalf of the client. Auble warned that the filings are fairly vague, and that we can’t independently verify the kind of activity that led Jolly to list H.R. 909. But according to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, even being in a meeting in which it was discussed was technically a form of lobbying. "He was part of a communication about the bill," Auble said. "Essentially, that’s why he put it on the form." Our ruling Jolly said he never lobbied for offshore drilling. But a lobbyist disclosure statement contradicts that, and Jolly said later that he did attend a meeting in which the legislation was discussed even though he didn’t actively lobby for it. When we looked into the rules of lobbying, it seems that the situation as he describes it -- being at a meeting but not actively pushing the measure with elected officials -- technically counts as being part of a communication about the proposal. We’ll never know the specifics of the meeting in question, and given the vague nature of lobbying reporting, the events may very well have been as low-key as he describes. But when it comes to the letter of the law, the way Jolly describes the incident counts as lobbying, experts say. We rate this statement Mostly False.	None	David Jolly	None	None	None	2014-01-10T17:24:36	2014-01-06	['None']
-pomt-10093	Barack Obama said "people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan" then said "if you're a family making less than $200,000, you'll benefit."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/29/john-mccain/different-statements-different-numbers/	In a rally in Hershey, Pa., John McCain accused Barack Obama of using different numbers to talk up his tax plans. "Senator Obama has made a lot of promises," McCain said. "First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan. Then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000, you'll benefit. But yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to middle class people, people making under $150,000 a year. "Are you getting an idea of what's on their mind? A little sneak peek. It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase." The $42,000 tax vote is a dubious claim, one we've checked before and found Barely True . It's based on a vote Obama made that set broad revenue goals. No one's taxes went up as a result of the vote. But McCain is on firmer ground when he talks about the different numbers Obama and Biden have used to tout their tax plans. They have used different numbers, and it can get confusing. We'll say right off the bat that candidates' tax proposals are general outlines that don't have the specificity that actual tax law requires. So there are gray areas, particularly when we're talking about specific income amounts. We've also noticed that candidates don't like to talk about the difference between single people and couples. So Obama will say he won't raise taxes for people making $250,000 or less, and McCain will say he offers a health care tax credit of $5,000. But these numbers are for couples . If you're a single person, Obama will likely raise your taxes if you make more than $200,000, and you would only get $2,500 from John McCain's health care tax credit. Roughly 47 percent of people file taxes as a single person, so this is not an insignificant difference. But the numbers McCain cited in his speech seem to all apply to families, so let's zoom in closer on that. Obama often says that he won't raise taxes for those making $250,000 or less. This appears to be generally true for couples. He also offers tax credits to workers of $500 each — and, yes, that's $1,000 for couples if both spouses work. The tax credits, though, phase out as you get closer to the $250,000 mark. The Obama campaign hasn't detailed how the tax credits phase out. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center believes the tax credits will phase out generally at about $150,000 for couples. The Obama campaign's tax calculator, which we evaluated in depth previously , sheds some additional light on the issue of credit phase-outs. If you mark the category of married filing jointly, the Obama tax calculator shows that for the $100,000 to $150,000 income category, there is a tax cut of $1,000. For the $150,000 to $200,000 income category, it shows a tax cut of $500. And for the $200,000 to $250,000 category, it shows a tax cut of $0. The calulator appears to assume the both members of the couple work. So it seems like the credits start phasing out around $150,000 and completely phase out around $200,000. We want to issue a big word of caution here. People with the same income levels can have different tax burdens. Different sources of income tend to be taxed differently, and you must work to get Obama's tax credit. The Tax Policy Center's analysis projects that most people with low incomes will see lower taxes under Obama's plan — but not all of them. Conversely, their analysis projects that most of the top 1 percent of income tax filers will see higher taxes under the Obama plan — but again, not all of them. In that high-earning group, 93 percent will see their taxes go up, but 7 percent won't, because of the intricacies of the tax system. Did you make that exclusive 7 percent of the top 1 percent? Only your accountant knows for sure. (For more detail on these points, take a look at the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the Obama plan .) Getting back to McCain's statement: Did Obama say that "people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan"? Obama typically states that he won't raise taxes on people making $250,000 or less, but the McCain campaign points to a statement Obama made in Powder Springs, Ga., on July 8, 2008. Obama emphasized that he would not raise taxes on people making less then $250,000, then said: "If you make $ 250,000 a year or less, we will not raise your taxes. We will cut your taxes." That's problematic, because Obama clearly does not offer a tax cut for everyone making less than $250,000. But we only found a few times that Obama or his advisers talked about tax cuts for people making less than $250,000. Much more often, they said they wouldn't raise taxes on people making less than $250,000. It's a small but significant difference, and it's possible Obama simply tripped up his lines in Powder Springs. McCain then said Obama "said in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000, you'll benefit." That's also true. Obama said in a television ad, "If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you’ll get a tax cut." Obama's statement seems very likely true, though naturally we hesitate to say it's true always and everywhere, for the reasons outlined above. Finally, McCain went after Joe Biden, saying that Biden said tax cuts "should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year," a comment Biden made to a Pennsylvania television station on Oct. 28, 2008. Biden did say that, but the Obama campaign said he only meant it as an example of the types of income levels that should get a tax cut. That may be right; it's hard for us to say based on Obama's proposals. But $150,000 is also the income level that the Obama tax calculator shows that tax credits start phasing out. The Tax Policy Center uses that number as a phase-out for tax cuts. We can't say that's what was in Biden's head, but it seems likely to us that the $150,000 number is likely where the tax credits will start going away. To be clear, we don't see evidence that Obama is crawfishing backward from his tax plan, as McCain implies. Most of the statements McCain refers to are consistent with Obama's long-stated tax policies. But McCain is also correct that there are a lot of numbers flying around that can be used in different ways. Voters need to be cautious in evaluating these numbers, because there are caveats and assumptions behind them. For this reason, we rate McCain's statement Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-10-29T00:00:00	2008-10-28	['None']
-pomt-03439	"There is no statistical evidence that bail bonds increase the likelihood of those awaiting trial returning to court for their scheduled hearings."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/23/lena-taylor/taylor-says-alleged-advantage-bail-bonds-not-backe/	Unaccountable, armed bounty hunters breaking down doors in Milwaukee, profiting on the criminal justice system. State Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) raised that specter after a last-minute Republican budget action on June 5, 2013 that would authorize private bail agents to work in five Wisconsin counties at a judge’s discretion -- Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine, Kenosha and Dane. "Bail Bonds are back," Taylor wrote in a June 7, 2013 opinion piece in the Milwaukee Courier, a weekly newspaper. "Since the early 1970’s private bail bondsmen and bounty hunters have been illegal in Wisconsin. In the 2011 budget, Republicans tried to introduce them back to Wisconsin, but Governor Walker wisely vetoed them out of the budget." Taylor then took on one of the key talking points used by bonding companies in favor of the GOP plan. "There is no statistical evidence that bail bonds increase the likelihood of those awaiting trial returning to court for their scheduled hearings, etc.," Taylor wrote. "In fact, this provision is widely opposed by almost everyone in the criminal justice system in Wisconsin, especially in Milwaukee." Wisconsin hasn't had a commercial bail bonds system since 1979, and many leaders within the state's justice system want to keep it that way. A key issue in the debate is whether use of a bail bondsman gets more defendants to show up for court, so we wondered about Taylor’s claim that "no statistical evidence" supports the notion that bail bonds bring that about. How bail bonds work National research suggests that about 60 percent of felony defendants in large counties are released while their cases are pending; the figure was 75 percent in Milwaukee County during a period studied in 2012. Studies focus on felony cases. Under the proposed bail bonds system, defendants would pay a bail agent 10 percent of the full cash bail amount. The company must pay 3 percent of the bail amount to the court. If the defendant fails to appear in court, the bonding company is liable for the full amount. But a bail agent usually has an opportunity to recover a no-show defendant using bounty hunters. These "private bail bonds" or "surety" bonds are in use in 46 states and long have been the most common form of pretrial release. Types of financial release include full cash bond, and in some states but not Wisconsin, "deposit bonds" with a partial bail paid to the court. The most common types of non-financial release are personal recognizance and conditional release, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics said in a 2010 report. In Milwaukee County, for example, 60% of felons in the 2012 study were released on personal recognizance bonds, meaning they aren’t liable to pay unless they fail to appear. The other 40% had to pay cash -- or stay in jail before trial. Bail companies say their work needs no taxpayer funding and enhances public safety. Critics say it’s an unfair monetary burden on lower-income people, and Milwaukee County judges say they are in a better position, using sophisticated risk analyses of defendants, to judge whether the accused should be held or walk free while their cases are in process. Milwaukee County’s no-show rate in that 2012 study period was 16 percent in felony cases. Taylor’s claim Asked for backup, Taylor’s office pointed us to a widely cited Bureau of Justice Statistics report issued in 2007. The arm of the Justice Department examined the pretrial releases of 71,000 state-court defendants in eight years from 1990 to 2004 in the 75 largest U.S. counties, including some Milwaukee County cases. But that report cites an advantage for bail bonds, undercutting Taylor’s claim rather than bolstering it. That study said the no-show rate for those on bail bonds was 18 percent, vs. 30 percent for those released on unsecured bond. The no-show rate was lowest for defendants who pledged property equal to the value of their bail. In 2008, one of the authors of that study, Thomas H. Cohen, published a narrower follow-up study using the same county-based federal data. He found that no-show rates were twice as high in five U.S. counties that make little use of private bail bonds, compared to five counties that use the approach a lot. No Wisconsin counties were included in that study. Surveying the research as a whole on the topic, Cohen wrote: "Various studies conducted at both the academic and non-academic levels have also found that surety agents outperform other kinds of pretrial release at preventing court skips." Case closed? Not quite. Researchers on both sides say a key question is whether this correlation between bail bonds and a lower no-show rate means that the type of bond causes the disparity. To gauge that, local differences in bail-setting practices must be accounted for. The Bureau of Justice Statistics itself issued an advisory to researchers and the media in 2010 warning that its data "are insufficient to explain causal associations between the patterns reported, such as the efficacy of one form of pretrial release over another." The advisory said factors associated with a defendant’s pre-trial misconduct also would have to be considered -- things like a defendant’s community ties, employment status, income, educational background, drug abuse history, and mental health status. Various studies have tried to determine what causes the bail-bond advantage by comparing similarly situated defendants and controlling for other factors. Perhaps the most widely cited study of that kind was published in 2004 in the peer-reviewed Journal of Law and Economics. It was authored by Alexander Tabarrok and Eric Helland, economists at George Mason University and Claremont McKenna College, respectively. The study suggested that defendants released on private bail bonds are 28 percent less likely to fail to appear than similar defendants released on their own recognizance (no money bail). It also found that if defendants released on bail bonds do no-show, they are 53 percent less likely to remain a fugitive for extended periods. Tabarrok is the Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank at George Mason that has received major funding from lightning-rod conservative industrialist Charles Koch, a Mercatus director. Tabarrok is also research director at the Independent Institute. Helland is an economist at Claremont McKenna, a former economic adviser to the George W. Bush administration and is currently a researcher at the RAND Institute for Civil Justice, a non-profit research organization that seeks a more efficient and more equitable justice system. Critics of private bail bonds, including the Pretrial Justice Institute, point to the Bureau of Justice Statistics own advisory and say that only local studies can draw hard conclusions on the reasons for varying no-show rates. The institute, funded mainly by the Justice Department and the liberal Public Welfare Foundation, advocates to reduce pre-trial detention when assessments predict that defendants pose no threat and will return for court appearances. It cites other factors necessary to judge the value of different release methods. "For example, do we want potentially dangerous defendants to buy their way out of jail? Do we want low risk indigent defendants to take up expensive jail space because they cannot afford the services of a bail bondsman?" the group asked in a 2010 paper. Our rating Taylor said "there is no statistical evidence that bail bonds increase the likelihood of those awaiting trial returning to court for their scheduled hearings." There’s no definitive evidence, to be sure, but various statistical studies have shown that bail bonds are associated with, and may be a cause of, lower no-show rates. The studies are not without their limitations, and don’t settle the broad policy argument over bail bonds, but Taylor’s blanket assertion is off base. We rate her claim False.	None	Lena Taylor	None	None	None	2013-06-23T08:00:00	2013-06-07	['None']
-pomt-09455	"Nobody has been talking about it (Medicaid fraud), focused on it, or paying attention to it."	/florida/statements/2010/mar/05/alex-sink/alex-sinks-nobody-medicaid-fraud/	Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink is criticizing her potential November opponent for governor for failing to address abuses in the state-run Medicaid system. The Democrat's campaign is touting that the number of Medicaid fraud cases opened has dropped significantly since Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum took office, and that Florida has the second-highest number of Medicaid recipients in the nation, but ranks 39th in convictions per person in its fraud unit. By one estimate, Medicaid fraud costs Floridians $3.2 billion annually. The attorney general's office oversees Medicaid fraud investigations. "That Medicaid thing is just glaring," Sink said in a March 4, 2010, interview with the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald. "And ... this is nothing new, this is not a new problem. Nobody has been talking about it, focused on it, or paying attention to it. It goes on and on and on. Very frustrating." For this item, we'll zero in on Sink's statement that "Nobody has been talking about it (Medicaid fraud), focused on it, or paying attention to it." We'll cut to the chase. It turns out lots and lots of people -- including McCollum -- have. Medicaid fraud, in fact, has been a constant topic of discussion among state lawmakers since at least 2004. From the highlight reel: Former Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill in 2004 requiring prior government authorization for patients seeking certain medications and limited Medicaid recipients to one doctor or pharmacy. The bill also increased penalties for drug dealers selling drugs paid for by Medicaid. A 2007 bill gave the attorney general the ability to recover triple damages in Medicaid fraud cases. The Legislature passed a bill in 2008 that increased oversight of home health agencies and nursing businesses that provided Medicaid services. In 2009, the Legislature passed and the governor signed a health care bill specifically addressing Medicaid fraud. The bill, SB 1986, created incentives for people reporting cases of Medicaid fraud, according to Senate staff analysis. (McCollum later allocated $1 million). It increased penalties for Medicaid fraud and increased licensing standards. It also designated Miami-Dade County as a "health care fraud crisis area" and directed the Agency for Health Care Administration to start two pilot projects to better control and prevent fraud in South Florida. This year, state Sen. Charlie Justice, D-St. Petersburg, and state Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, are sponsoring bills that would require the Department of Health and Office of Insurance Regulation to revoke or refuse to renew permits of people or businesses who have been convicted on Medicaid fraud charges. State Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, sponsor of the 2009 changes, has filed a followup fraud bill this year. McCollum, specifically, also has been involved. As attorney general, he twice wrote to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking for a federal waiver to expand some fraud detection programs in his Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. That unit, meanwhile, has seen Medicaid fraud convictions steadily rise, from 38 in 2004 to 64 in 2007 to 109 in 2009, the attorney general's office reported. That's a contrast to the number of cases opened -- the figure Sink cited. The attorney general's office says that's because it changed the way it classifies when a case is opened. Previously, every complaint constituted an open case. Now, only complaints with merit become a case. Fighting against Medicaid fraud has long been a priority of state government, said Alan Levine, who served as the Agency for Health Care Administration secretary under Gov. Jeb Bush. AHCA manages the Medicaid program, while the attorney general's office investigates and prosecutes fraud cases. "We made fighting fraud a huge effort," said Levine, who now leads Louisiana's health department. "Legislatures going back eight or nine years passed sweeping measures with significant statute changes for the sole purpose of fighting fraud." Levine said in his office he had anywhere between 50 and 100 people examining Medicaid claims, in addition to the 200 or so investigating fraud in the attorney general's office. The problem, he said, is the system -- which pays out the claims before regulators have a chance to look at the charges. As he talked, he kept referring back to a 2006 Associated Press article to help make his point. Its title, "Florida's Efforts to Crack Down on Medicaid Fraud Paying Off." The story said fighting fraud was one of Levine's "biggest priorities." Still, Medicaid fraud remains a serious problem like Sink suggests. The Legislature's policy research office estimated that fraud could account for 5 to 20 percent of the Medicaid program, or $940 million to $3.7 billion, in 2008, the Times/Herald reported. Medicaid costs will hit about $19 billion in 2010, providing health services to about 2.8 million poor children, frail elders and severely disabled Floridians -- about 14 percent of the population. The numbers get groans from Republicans and Democrats alike. Sen. Durell Peaden, a Crestview Republican who chairs the Senate health budget committee, grumbled about McCollum's efforts. "He needs to get his butt in gear,'' Peaden said. McCollum, in the same story, agreed that there was room for improvement. Sink spokeswoman Kyra Jennings notes that's like an admission of his failures. (Jennings also wanted to note that during the interview, most of Sink's comments about Medicaid fraud were directed at McCollum. The "nobody" quote came near the end of the interview, almost as in summation. We don't disagree with that). Look, we're not here to weigh in on how successful anti-Medicaid fraud efforts have been in Florida. By the sound of it, by the fact that the state may be losing $3.2 billion a year, it sounds like there is indeed room for improvement. And so we're clear, we're not saying who's to blame. Sink's campaign touts that the number of cases are down. McCollum's attorney general office touts that fraud convictions are up. But any inference that elected officials are just letting the money walk out the door ignores reality. Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate are proposing legislation each year meant to clamp down on Medicaid abuses. The House held a previously scheduled hearing about Medicaid and Medicaid fraud the very morning after Sink made her claim. The state Senate talked about Medicaid fraud the same week as well. McCollum, meanwhile, has at least twice written to federal officials in Washington suggesting a fix that he says will better protect Florida against fraud. And more than 250 people are employed at two state agencies to monitor Medicaid payouts for fraud and abuse. At PolitiFact Florida, we always say words matter. In this case, Sink said, "Nobody has been talking about (Medicaid fraud), focused on it, or paying attention to it." While the outcomes may not be to her liking, people are paying attention. For that, we rate her claim False.	None	Alex Sink	None	None	None	2010-03-05T19:26:45	2010-03-04	['None']
-pomt-01618	"There have been at least 100 shootings each year [Angel Taveras] has been mayor" of Providence.	/rhode-island/statements/2014/aug/29/american-leadhership-pac/american-leadhership-pac-says-providence-has-had-1/	A political action committee backing Rhode Island Treasurer Gina Raimondo for governor is leveling a series of attacks against one of her opponents in the Sept. 9 Democratic primary, Angel Taveras, mayor of Providence. In a four-page pamphlet mailed to voters by the American LeadHERship PAC, one of the attacks focused on crime, noting that, under Taveras, there had been cuts to the police budget and the size of the force had fallen to its lowest number in years. Then came this claim: "There have been at least 100 shootings each year Taveras has been mayor." (The claim was repeated in large print in a subsequent mailing.) PolitiFact Rhode Island last examined Providence's crime statistics in a July 24, 2014 item after Taveras said, "If you look at what we’ve done over the last several years, the crime rate has actually gone down in [Providence] and . . . the number of shootings has been going down." We ruled the mayor’s claim Half True because the trends weren't that clear-cut. For example, the crime rate actually ticked up during his first year in office, only to subsequently come down. For this fact check we will review the statistics on the number of people shot in the city. (Police do not tally the number of reports of shots being fired, a statistic the city doesn't keep because it can be impossible to tell the difference between a gun going off and fireworks, for example. The LeadHERship pamphlet cites a July 26, 2014, story in The Providence Journal that refers to "a constant drumbeat of violence in the capital city over the past three years with more than 100 shootings annually." That covers 2011-2013. And what about 2014? When we emailed American LeadHERship PAC founder Kate Coyne-McCoy to find out if the total had reach 100 for 2014, she referred us to our July 24 PolitiFact item, which reported 61 shootings through July 12, 2014. The total was 69 as of this writing, so it could hit 100 by year's end, but it's not even close to that yet. So the number of shootings has not hit 100 for "each year" of the Taveras administration. The LeadHERship statement also ignores some significant context: The number of shootings, which peaked at 108 in 2011, declined in the subsequent two years of Taveras' tenure, dropping to 105 in 2012 and 100 in 2013. Before Taveras took office, the numbers were lower but steadily increasing. The annual total was 47 shootings in 2006 (during the tenure of his predecessor, David Cicilline), 58 in 2007, 77 in 2008, 86 in 2009, and 90 in 2010, Cicilline's final year, before jumping sharply to 108 during Taveras' first year. Because the statement is mostly accurate but ignores important context, we rate it Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	American LeadHERship PAC	None	None	None	2014-08-29T00:01:00	2014-08-27	['None']
-snes-06023	Jimi Hendrix was dropped as an opening act from a Monkees tour because the Daughters of the American Revolution complained that his stage act was "too erotic."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eroticked-off/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was Jimi Hendrix Kicked Off a Monkees Tour?	28 January 2000	None	['Jimi_Hendrix', 'The_Monkees']
-tron-01272	Atheist in a university classroom is upstaged by a piece of chalk	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chalk/	None	education	None	None	None	Atheist in a university classroom is upstaged by a piece of chalk	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-01753	U.S. Government Purchase of Russian Helicopters for Afghan Air Force	https://www.truthorfiction.com/afghan-russian-helicopters-062213/	None	government	None	None	None	U.S. Government Purchase of Russian Helicopters for Afghan Air Force	Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States']
-pomt-04583	"Tim Kaine announced he wants to raise taxes on everyone."	/virginia/statements/2012/sep/24/george-allen/george-allen-says-tim-mkaine-announced-he-wants-ra/	Republican George Allen’s senate campaign was not mincing words after Thursday’s debate with Democrat Tim Kaine. "Today, Tim Kaine announced he wants to raise taxes on everyone," Allen’s camp said in a statement released an hour after the candidates left the podium. We looked into the claim. Allen’s campaign backed its statement by pointing to an exchange between Kaine and David Gregory, the moderator of the debate and host of NBC’s "Meet the Press." Gregory asked Kaine to respond to remarks by Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, that were secretly recorded at a private fundraiser and released this month by Mother Jones magazine. Romney noted that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes and called them "victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it." Kaine called Romney’s comments "condescending and divisive." Then, this exchange occurred: Gregory: "But let me pin you down on one point. Do you believe that everyone in Virginia should pay something in federal income tax?" Kaine: "Well, everyone pays taxes. I mean, the statistics--" Gregory: "I’m asking about the federal income tax--" Kaine: "I would be open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level for everyone, but I do insist many of the 47 percent that Gov. Romney was going after pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than he does." So Kaine’s comment came in response to a question from Gregory, who was trying to pin him down on taxes. Kaine did not endorse or promote the idea of all Americans paying a minimum federal income tax, he said he would consider it. Almost 75 percent of those who pay no federal income taxes are elderly, have low earnings, or have children at home, according to a 2011 study by the Tax Policy Center. At other points in the debate, Kaine talked about tax policies he supports. He called for ending the Bush-era tax cuts for individuals and families with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 or more. Such a move would raise income taxes for 1.2 percent of taxpayers, according to Internal Revenue Service statistics from 2009 filings. He also backed "tax reform that broadens the base and includes more taxpayers, along the lines of the question that David asked earlier, that fills in deductions and exclusions and then reduces tax rates." Kaine declined to specify tax loopholes he would be willing to eliminate. He said, "I think the charitable and mortgage interest deductions are incredibly important policies and, frankly, what I would favor is not battling about each individual deduction, but instead looking at a proposal where there would be an aggregate amount of deductions that you could claim. I think the battling about each individual deduction could take Congress decades." Kaine has not provided details on how he would set the limit in total deductions and, in exchange, how low he would be willing to drop tax rates. Our ruling Allen claimed that Kaine "announced he wants to raise taxes on everyone." Kaine, in response to a question, said he would be "open to a proposal that would have some minimum tax level on everyone," but did not endorse the concept. If such a policy was enacted, it would not mean that everyone would pay higher income taxes. It would mean that the 47 percent of filers who had no income tax liability would pay something. Even if you go beyond the debate statement the Allen camp points to and look at Kaine’s other major tax positions -- ending the Bush era cuts for those earning more than $500,000 and eliminating some tax deductions in exchange for lowering rates -- that does not equate to a plan that would raise taxes on everyone. We rate Allen’s statement False.	None	George Allen	None	None	None	2012-09-24T06:00:00	2012-09-20	['None']
-tron-03361	Angola Becomes the First Country to Ban Islam	https://www.truthorfiction.com/angola-becomes-the-first-country-to-ban-islam/	None	religious	None	None	None	Angola Becomes the First Country to Ban Islam	Oct 2, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-09272	Says a Bureau of Labor Statistics report attributed a sharp increase in work-related fatalities to "increasing numbers of employees and drivers could not read or understand warning signs in English."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/29/tim-james/alabamas-tim-james-says-government-report-backs-hi/	Alabama gubernatorial candidate Tim James' campaign ad calling for state driver's license exams to be given only in English has sparked a political firestorm in an already smoldering immigration debate. "Why do our politicians make us give driver's license exams in 12 languages?" James says in the ad. "This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it. We're only giving the test in English if I'm governor." James has defended his stance, in part, because he says it's a public safety issue. According to an April 26, 2010, press release on his campaign website, the evidence is a 2004 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report that said work-related traffic fatalities had increased 72 percent. According to James' campaign, the federal agency attributed that to increasing numbers of drivers who could not read or understand warning signs in English. The campaign didn't directly cite the report, but cited an article about it in the Sept. 23, 2004, Birmingham News. "We welcome non-English speaking people, who are legally in the U.S., to Alabama. However, if you want to drive in our states, public safety concerns dictate that you need to speak English," James said in the release. "Political correctness may endear you to the Rachel Maddow crowd, but here in Alabama, the safety of our people comes first." We decided to look into the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report cited by the James campaign. It's a 2003 BLS report on fatal occupational injuries in Alabama. And that year, the report shows, there were 63 transportation-related incidents. But it doesn't say anything about any of those accidents being tied to an inability of drivers to read signs in English. Turns out that's not something the BLS tracks. So where did James get that? It was from speculation by a Department of Labor economist, Victoria Dinkins, who was quoted in a newspaper story about the report. "Dinkins said transportation accidents accounted for the bulk of Alabama's 2003 work-related fatalities," the Birmingham News story said. "Fatalities involving truck drivers and workers driving company cars or personal vehicles on the job rose to 62 last year from 36 in 2002. "The language barrier for Hispanic workers could also play a role in increased Alabama on-the-job fatalities, Dinkins said. "If these workers can't recognize or interpret a sign that shows that something is dangerous, that will present a problem," she said. "A further problem may exist even if an employer displays a warning sign in Spanish and the workers may speak Spanish, but are not literate in English or Spanish. Therefore they would be unable to read a sign regardless of the language it is written in." But that speculation isn't supported by the report. Although it doesn't directly address their language, it tracks the race and ethnic origin of those who died on the job. So if Dinkins' speculation is correct, we would expect a much higher rate among workers of Hispanic origin. It doesn't. Of the 63 transportation-related fatalities that year, the report states, 51 were non-Hispanic whites; and 10 were non-Hispanic blacks. In other words, we know that at least 61 of the 63 people who died were not Hispanic. There was no data on the origin of other two people -- so we don't know whether they were Hispanic or not -- but even if they were, that clearly would not warrant a conclusion that a rise in transportation-related deaths that year was tied to people not being able to read signs in English. (Alabama's population is 2.9 percent Hispanic.) We're also not even sure why James cited a statistic from 2003. The BLS puts out these statistics every year. In 2004, there were 51 work-related transportation fatalities. All 51 were non-Hispanic. In fact, if you total up the numbers from 2003 through 2008, there were 319 transportation-related deaths. Of them, the reports note that 309 were non-Hispanic. The origin of the other 10 is not listed in the reports. But clearly, there is no basis to conclude that something as tangential as not being able to read signs in English is affecting those numbers one way or the other. Karen Ransom, a regional economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Atlanta, said Dinkins clearly misspoke. "We took a look at the numbers, and as you can see, that quote is simply not the case," she said. "Of the 63, 61 were listed as non-Hispanic. Clearly that does not play out." We poked around but couldn't find any study that does suggests a higher rate of traffic accidents, fatal or not, among people who do not speak English. Nor could we find news reports of any traffic fatalities in Alabama caused by a driver's inability to understand a road sign in English. We checked with Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a group funded by the auto insurance industry that researches ways to reduce crashes. If anyone would know if non-English speakers are more of a driving hazard than English-speakers, this would be the group. "We aren't aware of any studies that show non-English speakers get into crashes more frequently," Rader said. We also called and wrote the James campaign for comment, but did not get a response. In summary, James backed up his claims about concerns over public safety by citing a 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics report that he claimed showed an alarming rise in work-related traffic fatalities due to the fact that increasing numbers of employees and drivers could not read or understand warning signs in English. The report does not state that. It doesn't even consider the issue. Rather, that's the speculation of a Bureau of Labor economist who was quoted in a 2004 news story. And that speculation is actually contradicted by the data in the report. We rate James' claim False.	None	Tim James	None	None	None	2010-04-29T17:44:12	2010-04-26	['English_language']
-pomt-01011	"The No. 1 cause of childhood deaths is preventable accidents."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/02/nationwide/nationwide-super-bowl-ad-claims-accidents-are-lead/	Super Bowl XLIX had everything a fan could hope for (unless you’re from Seattle). A hectic, nail-biting finish. Amazing plays. Dancing sharks. But despite the genuine on-field fireworks, it was once again a commercial — not the game itself — that had many people talking. And not necessarily for good reasons. A 45-second commercial by insurance company Nationwide was widely panned by professionals and amatuer Twitter critics for its haphazard attempt to tug at the heart strings by imagining the long-term consequences of a child’s accidental death. In it, a boy, lamenting that he won’t ever be able to ride a bike — or fly or get married — explains, "I couldn’t grow up, because I died from an accident." Punctuated by an overflowing bathtub in the background, the following text on the screen appears: "The number one cause of childhood deaths is preventable accidents." The masses, and the experts, have already spoken on the wisdom of running the ad. But as fact-checkers, we were interested in whether a statistic viewed by perhaps 110 million people was accurate. We reached out to Nationwide but didn’t hear back. The company did, however, release a statement on their website after the public’s reaction began to mount. "Preventable injuries around the home are the leading cause of childhood deaths in America. Most people don’t know that," Nationwide wrote. "The sole purpose of this message was to start a conversation, not sell insurance. We want to build awareness of an issue that is near and dear to all of us—the safety and well being of our children. We knew the ad would spur a variety of reactions." The statement continued, "While some did not care for the ad, we hope it served to begin a dialogue to make safe happen for children everywhere." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks death by cause. One category is "unintentional injuries," which encompasses everything from car accidents and falls to drownings and the accidental discharge of a firearm. "Unintentional injuries" are indeed quite common across most age groups. According to the data, unintentional injury was the leading cause of death in 2013 for Americans among children and adults up to age 44, with one exception: infants. For infants — children below 1 year of age — congenital anomalies, or birth defects, resulted in 4,758 deaths in 2013, CDC reported, making them the top killer. Unintentional injuries were fifth with 1,156. Birth defects continue to claim lives after children pass their first birthday. Through age 14, there were 5,574 cumulative deaths from such complications in 2013. Compare that to unintentional injuries that resulted in deaths. There were 3,993 cumulative deaths in 2013 among children through age 14. Bottom line: From birth to 14, the most common cause of death is birth defects. From one year old to 14, the most common cause is accidents. So the question becomes: How do you define "children" -- when childhood starts, and where it ends? Once a child reaches the mid-to-late teens, the rate of deaths caused by birth defects drops significantly, to about 30 a year for each of the following ages: 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. But conversely, the number of accidental deaths rises in years 15 through 19. Why? It’s partly because around that time, kids start getting behind the wheel, and the number of transportation accidents increases dramatically. While there are about 500 deaths from transportation-related injuries from ages 10 to 14 combined, it’s double that from age 15 to 17. Here are the cumulative deaths by accident for each age and how they compare to total deaths by birth defect in 2013. Cause <15 <16 <17 <18 <19 Birth defect 5,609 5,643 5,674 5,707 5,740 Accident 4,293 4,754 5,444 6,455 7,645 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Not until you include 18-year-olds in the data does death by accident surpass birth defects. There’s a good argument that this is all semantics. "Infants" can be considered distinct from "children," which would suggest that congenital anomalies of babies should not be factored in. By the same token, some might question whether 18- and 19-year-olds are still children. As for the CDC itself, it tends to separate children under the age of 1 from other age groups in most of their data sets, and an agency spokesman didn’t contest the notion that accidents are the leading cause of death among children. And if so, that’s been the case for a while. In 1999, the earliest year of data that’s publicly available, unintentional injury caused the most deaths from age 1 to 34. This raises another bit of missing context: The number of deaths caused by accidents among children in 2013 is essentially half of what it was 15 years ago. So while it’s still the No. 1 killer, it has dropped rather significantly. A postscript: While we’re checking the actual ad in this item, Nationwide erred when it phrased its after-the-fact defense. The company’s statement claimed that "preventable injuries around the home are the leading cause of childhood deaths." Actually, transportation injuries are the top cause of accidental deaths among kids. From age 1 to 14, nearly half of all accidental deaths are related to motor vehicles or other types of land transportation. And that rate only increases once you start including older children in their mid-to-late teens. Our ruling In a Super Bowl ad, Nationwide claimed, "The No. 1 cause of childhood deaths is preventable accidents." The claim is based on hard numbers from the CDC, and the general trend has been consistent for the last decade and a half. However, there are different ways to slice the numbers, and if infants are counted as children, then congenital anomalies top the list for certain age ranges. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Nationwide	None	None	None	2015-02-02T17:27:01	2015-02-01	['None']
-tron-03103	Oklahoma State University’s “We the People” Video	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oklahoma-state-universitys-we-the-people-video/	None	politics	None	None	None	Oklahoma State University’s “We the People” Video	Feb 2, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12548	"Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel has said the app is for rich people, don't want to expand in poor countries like India and Spain."	/global-news/statements/2017/apr/17/viral-image/did-snapchats-ceo-say-india-was-too-poor-his-app/	Snapchat pictures might come and go in seconds, but the furor in India over reported comments by Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel is hanging on much longer. On April 15, News18, a CNN affiliate tweeted, "Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel has said the app is for rich people, don't want to expand in poor countries like India and Spain." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Outraged Indians launched a campaign to undercut the social media photo and video sharing application. Gaurav Pradhan, who has over 80,000 followers, retweeted an image that urged Indians to uninstall the application and give it a one-star rating on Google’s Play Store. Pradhan’s wrote, "If Indians, across world and in India have any "Self Respect" left. Uninstall @Snapchat now and give a KICK 2 this arrogant Headless Chicken." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Snapchat is in damage control mode. In a statement, Snapchat denied that Spiegel said the offending words. "This is ridiculous," the company said, according to reports. "Obviously Snapchat is for everyone! It’s available worldwide to download for free." We decided to see whether it’s accurate to assert categorically that Spiegel said India was too poor for Snapchat. In this case, certainty is elusive, because it comes down to one person's word against Snapchat's. Magazine article triggers firestorm On April 11, Variety published a story about a former Snapchat manager’s lawsuit against the company. The headline alone highlights the key caveat: "Snapchat CEO Said ‘This App Is Only for Rich People,’ Ex-Employee Alleges." A Jan. 4, 2017, filing had this account of an exchange between former manager Anthony Pompliano and Spiegel (pages 19 and 20 in the file). "The data showed that Snapchat’s international user metrics were very low, even in countries with high social media engagement, such as Spain and India. When Mr. Pompliano attempted to explain that he could implement strategies to achieve significant growth for Snapchat in these major markets, Mr. Spiegel abruptly cut in and said, ‘This app is only for rich people. I don’t want to expand into poor countries like India or Spain.’" This conversation allegedly happened on Sept. 11, 2015, a year and a half before the filing. So far, that is the sum total of the evidence that Spiegel disparaged Spain and India. Two other people were in the room, but Spiegel’s alleged response was tangential to the meat of the lawsuit and there is no further testimony on this point. (We have not seen reports about a backlash in Spain.) We have one man’s word that Spiegel said this, and that man is suing Snapchat. The larger Indian news organizations noted the uncertainty behind the allegation. Our ruling A viral post in India asserted that Snapchat CEO Spiegel said his company’s application was for rich people and not poor places such as India. The article that fueled this meme stated at the top that Spiegel allegedly said these words, not that he definitely had. The lawsuit behind the article provides no evidence beyond saying that a former employee said the exchange took place. If there was a conversation, it happened a year and half ago, which raises questions of how accurately the exact words can be relied on. We might learn more, but until then, we rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Viral image	None	None	None	2017-04-17T16:51:05	2017-04-15	['Spain', 'India']
-pomt-03703	Polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/	Gabrielle Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head while meeting with constituents on Jan. 8, 2011, has become a leading advocate for Americans who support tighter restrictions on guns. More than two years later, the Senate moved to consider an amendment that would have expanded background checks. But the amendment failed to win the necessary 60 votes to proceed to a final vote. The day after the vote, Giffords wrote an op-ed for the New York Times decrying that vote. In her op-ed, Giffords wrote, "Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them." Under current law, background checks are required in sales made by federally licensed gun dealers, but not for gun sales by private sellers. President Barack Obama wants to require criminal background checks for all gun sales. The National Rifle Association, which opposes universal background checks, argues that an expansion would fail to deter criminals. Here, we will check Giffords’ claim that polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks." To do this, we will look at national survey data from media and academic polls taken in the month prior to Giffords’ column. Here’s a rundown of all such polls we could find that addressed an expansion of background checks: • Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 86 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. • CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013: "Some proposals would require a background check on anyone attempting to purchase a gun in order to determine whether the prospective buyer has been convicted of a felony or has a mental health problem. Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances. ... If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent. "If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent. "If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent. "Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent. • Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent. • CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent. Giffords’ claim is well-founded, in part because it’s not overly specific: In four polls over the prior month, between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents said they would favor an expansion of the current background check regime. We think any reasonable person would conclude that those percentages qualify as "overwhelming." Giffords would have had more trouble finding support for her claim had she either set a numerical threshold or had she been more specific about the kind of background checks Americans are comfortable with. For instance, when Obama spoke shortly after the amendment’s failure in the Senate, he cited 90 percent support for an expansion of background checks not once but five times in fairly brief remarks. In the survey results we found, half of the polls crossed that threshold and half did not (though those that didn’t are fairly close). Meanwhile, the results of the CNN poll suggest that Americans do not support all possible expansions of background checks to the same extent. Checks at gun shows found 83 percent support, but private sales between a willing seller and a willing buyer garnered 70 percent backing, while checks for transfers to family members or for the purchase of ammunition only reached the mid 50-percent range. Our ruling In her op-ed, Giffords said polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks." Four independent polls taken in the previous month showed that some sort of expansion of background checks earned the support of between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents, a level of backing we think qualifies as "overwhelming." We rate her statement True.	None	Gabrielle Giffords	None	None	None	2013-04-18T13:49:28	2013-04-17	['United_States']
-pose-00523	Will adopt a strong "Castle Doctrine" law. "Homeowners should take comfort in knowing that their home is truly their castle, which is why I support citizens’ rights to protect themselves in their own homes and anywhere they have a legal right to be, by adopting a strong Castle Doctrine law"	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/544/adopt-strong-castle-doctrine-law/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Adopt strong "Castle Doctrine" law	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['None']
-tron-02865	Help The Lopez Family	https://www.truthorfiction.com/help-lopez/	None	pleas	None	None	None	Help The Lopez Family	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00188	Did South Carolina Execute 14-Year-Old George Stinney, Then Declare Him Innocent 70 Years Later?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-stinney-execution-exoneration/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did South Carolina Execute 14-Year-Old George Stinney, Then Declare Him Innocent 70 Years Later?	21 August 2018	None	['None']
-abbc-00181	The claims: Tony Abbott says Australia is ranked 21st in global competitiveness, 128th when it comes to burden of government regulation and second last in productivity growth.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/competitiveness-regulation-productivity-where-australia-ranks/5359694	The claims: Tony Abbott says Australia is ranked 21st in global competitiveness, 128th when it comes to burden of government regulation and second last in productivity growth.	['abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'federal-government', 'regulation', 'industry', 'mining-industry', 'australia']	None	None	['abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'federal-government', 'regulation', 'industry', 'mining-industry', 'australia']	Global competitiveness, government regulation and productivity growth: Where does Australia rank?	Wed 9 Apr 2014, 6:34am	None	['Tony_Abbott', 'Australia']
-pomt-08796	"Over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States."	/texas/statements/2010/aug/19/kevin-brady/kevin-brady-says-more-80-percent-trade-deficit-nat/	U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, last month spoke in support of creating an Emergency Trade Deficit Commission, while noting his hopes for congressional ratification of trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. "The world has changed," Brady said on the House floor July 28. "It’s not enough to simply buy American; we have to sell American, sell our products and goods and services throughout this world. And in fact, over 80 percent of our trade deficit today is with countries that are not trade agreement partners, that are not level playing fields for the United States; that’s why we push hard for those agreements." The 80 percent figure jarred a reader who urged us to give it a once-over; happy to oblige. Some background: In June, the U.S. trade deficit reached nearly $50 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Exports in June totaled $150.5 billion, imports $200.3 billion. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the United States has free-trade agreements — meaning neither country imposes trade restrictions such as tariffs — with 17 nations, which together account for 34 percent of U.S. imports and exports. The countries are Israel, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Bahrain, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Oman and Peru. Through participation in the World Trade Organization, the United States has agreements permitting some restrictions with many nations. These include export powerhouses such as China, which from January through June 2010 was the leading exporter to the United States, with $161 billion in exported goods, according to the Census Bureau. China was followed in the exports-to-USA category by Canada, Mexico and Japan. And what of Brady's "more than 80 percent" breakout? Joe Kafchinski, a bureau statistician, said that from January through June, 13 percent of the nation’s trade deficit involved the countries that have free-trade agreements with the United States — meaning 87 percent of the deficit was with nations without such agreements. Next, we wondered about Brady's statement that those agreements serve to "level the playing field" with other countries, trade-wise — and thus reduce the U.S. trade deficit. The National Association of Manufacturers says free-trade agreements ease the export of American goods: "Free trade agreements (FTAs) account for nearly one-half of U.S. manufactured goods exports," the association says on its website. "They lower the price for consumer goods in the United States as well as the costs U.S. businesses pay for imported materials. Bilateral deals also open foreign markets to U.S. goods, increasing employment in those export sectors." The manufacturers note that the Census Bureau "reports that over the past two years, U.S. manufacturers had a $50 billion surplus with their counterparts in FTA partner countries. Conversely, in the same time period, the U.S. trade deficit in manufacturing goods with the rest of the world was an astounding $820 billion." Put another way, the group says, 95 percent of the nation’s manufactured-goods’ deficit is with nations that do not have free-trade agreements with the United States. For labor's perspective, we contacted Jeff Vogt, global economic policy specialist for the AFL-CIO. Vogt said China’s 2001 entry into the WTO drove up the U.S. deficit with non-free-trade nations. Regardless of which countries account for the deficit, Vogt said, the imbalance is a problem because the domestic economy benefits more from exports than imports. Vogt shared a March 2010 report by the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, which focuses on the economic needs of low- and middle-income Americans. The report says the U.S. trade deficit with China increased $186 billion between 2001 and 2008. "Rapidly growing imports of computer and electronic parts (including computers, parts, semiconductors, and audio-video equipment) accounted for more than 40 percent" of the surge, the report says, with deficits in advanced technology products responsible for 27 percent of the U.S.-China deficit. Also, according to the report, the growth of the deficit contributed to the loss of 627,700 U.S. jobs in computer and electronic products, along with other hard-hit industrial sectors including apparel and accessories (150,200 jobs), miscellaneous manufac­tured goods (136,900) and fabricated metal products (108,700). But trade agreements are not all that's behind the deficit with China. The report says a major cause "is currency manipulation. Unlike other currencies, the Chinese yuan does not fluctuate freely against the dollar," giving Chinese-made goods an artificial price advantage overseas. In June 2010, China’s central bank announced that it would allow the yuan to fluctuate more, but the value of the yuan has since increased less than 1 percent, according to a news report posted online this week by FinanceAsia. Robert Scott, an economist at the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute in Washington, cautioned against presuming that free-trade agreements benefit the United States, saying that depends in part on whether the other nation is as developed as the United States and has open markets. For instance, the U.S. runs a trade deficit with its free-trade neighbor Mexico, he said, dominated by a flow of manufacturing plants to the less-developed country. Free-trade agreements, Scott said, are "designed to make the world safe for multinationals to outsource production forever." And in a July 1 article on the institute's website that criticized the proposed trade agreement with South Korea as "foolish," Scott wrote: "History shows that such trade deals lead to rapidly growing trade deficits and job loss in the United States." Clearly, there's a difference of opinion on whether free-trade agreements are a good thing vis-a-vis the growing U.S. trade deficit, as Brady asserts. But the key statistic in Brady’s statement stands up. In fact, he understates the share of our trade deficit with nations that don't have free-trade agreements with the U.S. We rate Brady's statement Mostly True.	None	Kevin Brady	None	None	None	2010-08-19T06:00:00	2010-07-28	['United_States']
-pomt-14399	The U.S. "doesn’t make television sets anymore."	/virginia/statements/2016/mar/14/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-us-doesnt-make-tvs-anymore/	Editor's note: We looked at a similar claim from Trump in October 2015 and rated it Half True. (View an archive of the original report.) PolitiFact Virginia recently looked at this claim again and found convincing evidence that while companies in the United States assemble televisions from foreign parts, they don't make them. We have re-rated the statement as True and removed the older report from Trump's Truth-O-Meter record. Donald Trump, a no stranger to the small screen, says the U.S. doesn’t make television sets anymore. He made the statement during a Feb. 23 appearance at Regent University in Virginia Beach while hitting on one of his major campaign themes - that the U.S. has "horrible, horrible" trade deals with other nations. Trump named several countries that he said are beating the U.S. in commerce. "Then we have South Korea, who I love," he said. "I have buildings in South Korea. But they make a fortune. I buy television sets. I buy a tremendous amount of things there because we don’t make television sets anymore, folks. We’d like to make them. We used to make them. You remember Sylvania, RCA. But those days are gone." Has the manufacturing of American-made TVs truly shut down? We asked the Trump campaign for the basis of his statement but didn’t hear back. So we began our own search for American television manufacturers and found no company that flat out says its sets are "Made in USA." To make that claim, the Federal Trade Commission requires that a company make "all or virtually all" of its product in the U.S. The rule doesn’t apply to automakers. Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, told us that just about all components for TVs - the electronics that go inside the set - are made in Asia. "It would be impossible to manufacture a TV in the U.S. without imported parts," he said. With the help of Paul’s group and the Consumer Technology Association, we found three companies that - to varying degrees - assemble the components into TV sets inside the United States. Element Electronics is by far the largest. From a plant in Winnsboro, S.C., it assembles flat-screen TVs that are sold by Walmart, Target and other retail outlets. We tried three times to reach a spokesperson for the company but didn’t hear back. The Wall Street Journal reported July 17, 2014, that Element doesn’t do much assembly work at the plant. The article said assembly-line employees open boxes with TVs shipped from China, inspect the sets for damage, unscrew a plastic panel and insert a Chinese-made memory board, and conduct mechanical tests. Then the television is put back in its box and shipped to retailers. The TVs often are shipped in red, white and blue boxes that have a picture of Statue of Liberty and say "Assembled in the USA," a claim Walmart has vaunted in selling the sets. But the back of many of the sets bears small print that says "Made in China." A March 25, 2014, article in The Herald Independent of Winnsboro, S.C., reported that Element had an assembly quota of 1,000 sets a day. Assuming the company hit that goal every day, including weekends, Element would have shipped 365,000 TVs in 2014. That translates to about 1 percent of all the televisions sold in the U.S. that year, according to data from IHS Technology, a global business information company. The other two companies assemble expensive, niche TVs in the U.S.: Seura of Green Bay, Wis., assembles TVs with screens that turn to mirrors when the sets are turned off, and waterproof units for use outdoors or in bathrooms. A spokesman said the screens are made in the U.S. and the TVs are assembled with mostly imported components. Seura’s televisions range in cost from $1,799 to at least $12,999, according to its website. SunBrite TV of Thousand Oaks, Calif., assembles waterproof outdoor sets that vary in price from $1,495 to $24,995, according to its website. It also makes jumbo screens that are used at Disneyland and Dodger Stadium. Company officials declined our invitations for comment. Paul told us that the two specialty companies’ sales are insignificant compared to major brands that are sold in the United States. Trump, while speaking at Regent, recalled days when the United States dominated TV manufacturing. We thought we’d take a minute to discuss the decline. Down the tube During the 1950s, there were 90 to 150 television manufacturers in the United States, and they churned out 11 million sets per year, according to a 1955 report by the now-defunct Radio Electronics Television Manufacturers' Association. American manufacturers continued to dominate the domestic market into the 1960s, though Japanese-made TVs began to trickle in. In 1965, the United States made about 3 million color sets, while Japan produced fewer than 100,000. But companies in Japan and other Asian nations were catching up fast. Imports rose quickly during the 1970s, as U.S. makers began to move production abroad. By 1972, every major American manufacturer had established factories in developing countries, while imports from South Korea and Taiwan began to overtake those from Japan, according to a 1983 book, "Cases in Competitive Strategy," written by Michael E. Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School. By 1980, just three American makers remained: the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), Zenith, and GTE-Sylvania, which stopped making consumer electronics a few years later. According to a report from the now-defunct congressional Office of Technology Assessment, 68 percent of black-and-white TVs and 13 percent of color TVs were imported in 1982, and whatever manufacturing remained largely had become assembly operations. Still, Zenith and RCA held about 40 percent of the U.S. market share. But in 1986, RCA was acquired and broken up by General Electric. Zenith, then the third-largest and last remaining American TV maker, "gave up its battle to survive on its own" in 1995 and was sold to the South Korean giant, LG Electronics, according to The New York Times. American-made vs. American-owned LG’s acquisition of Zenith, however, did not mean the end of all TV manufacturing in the United States. In 1995, the two largest producers - Thomson Consumer Electronics of France and Philips of the Netherlands - made TV sets in Indiana and Tennessee, respectively, according to the New York Times. American manufacturing may see a comeback yet. Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer of Apple products that has drawn negative attention for its labor practices, is in talks to make TV displays in Arizona, according to Bloomberg. Nonetheless, two of the three largest TV makers worldwide are South Korean - Samsung and LGE - and the other, Sony, is Japanese. Together, they account for about half of the flat-screen market. Our ruling Trump said the U.S. "doesn’t make television sets anymore." He has a point. We know of no televisions on the market that bear the label "Made in USA," a claim that requires virtually all of the product to be manufactured domestically. An expert told us it’s "impossible" to build a TV in the United States without relying heavily on imported components. Evidence suggests about 99 percent of sets sold in the United States are fully made and assembled overseas, mainly in Asia. Trump’s statement ignores three companies that are, to varying degrees, assembling TVs in the United States. Two of them manufacture expensive niche products such as outdoor televisions. A spokesman for one of the companies told us it makes its specialty screens in the U.S. and imports most of its components. The third company, Element Electronics, essentially imports sets, inserts Chinese-made memory boards in them, and then ships them to large retailers. The back of some of the sets say "Made in China." So Trump’s statement holds up and we rate it True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-03-14T16:45:00	2016-02-23	['United_States']
-pomt-09247	"We can prevent terror suspects from boarding an airplane, but the FBI doesn't have the power to block them from buying dynamite or an AK-47."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/07/michael-bloomberg/can-suspected-terrorists-buy-guns/	In the wake of a foiled car bomb attempt in Times Square, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg went to Washington on May 5, 2010, to lobby for legislation he hopes will keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. "It's amazing but true: we can prevent terror suspects from boarding an airplane, but the FBI doesn't have the power to block them from buying dynamite or an AK-47," Bloomberg wrote in an op-ed for the Huffington Post the same day. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., echoed the claim in a Senate hearing: "The stark fact is that the United States Department of Justice has no authority to block the sale of firearms to suspected terrorists even when the department knows they are about to purchase guns." Really? Between February 2004 and February 2010, FBI data shows that people on the terrorist watch list went through the background check process to purchase firearms or explosives 1,225 times; and that 1,116 (about 91 percent) of the purchases were allowed to proceed because no "prohibiting information" was found such as felony convictions, illegal immigrant status, those dishonorably discharged from the armed forces or people adjudicated as mentally defective or who have been committed to a mental institution. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows Bloomberg is right: "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law." But that doesn't mean these purchases go unnoticed by the feds. When a person on the "Known or Appropriately Suspected Terrorists" list applies to buy a firearm, it sets off notifications to various law enforcement and counterterrorism intelligence groups, according to the FBI assistant director Daniel D. Roberts' testimony before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 5, 2010. "In this situation, in a given investigation, the attempt may, in combination with other factors, lead to enhanced investigative methods, such as surveillance," Roberts stated. "What the attempt to buy a firearm means in a counterterrorism investigation, and as a result the subsequent actions it warrants, necessarily must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." But if no "federally prohibitive information" is uncovered, the purchases are allowed to proceed. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has introduced legislation to close the so-called "terror gap" in the nation's gun laws. Under the law, the FBI would be given the latitude to deny firearms and explosives sales to people on the suspected terrorist lists. Anyone denied a purchase could appeal to the courts to overturn it. The bill has the support of 500 mayors who are members of the bipartisan coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns. But it's not a slam dunk. Some legislators have raised constitutional issues with the proposal. "Before we subject innocent Americans who have done nothing but have the wrong name at the wrong time having to go to court and pay the cost of going to court to get their gun rights back, I want to slow down and think about it," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in the Senate hearing. "There's a difference between losing your rights based on a felony charge that has been proven in a court of law and appealed and is a conviction in the books, and being on some list that's at best suspect," Graham said. "We're talking about a second amendment right," Graham said. "Some of the people pushing this idea are pushing the idea of banning handguns. And I don't think banning handguns makes me safer." Whether the law makes sense is a political matter. But unless or until the proposed law is enacted, there is no dispute that the FBI currently does not have the power to block suspected terrorists from buying dynamite or an AK-47, as Bloomberg said, unless they have some other disqualifying factor such as a felony conviction on their record. And, in fact, people on the terror watch list have been able to purchase firearms or explosives more than a thousand times in the past six years. The purchases may trigger "enhanced investigative methods" from the FBI, but the sales are allowed just the same. We rate Bloomberg's statement True.	None	Michael Bloomberg	None	None	None	2010-05-07T11:54:44	2010-05-05	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation', 'AK-47']
-farg-00248	Claims a bank co-founded by GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania used a “controversial” loan tactic that forced "21 small-business owners out of their homes."	https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-attack-on-toomey/	None	the-factcheck-wire	DSCC	Robert Farley	['2016 TV Ad', 'banking']	A False Attack on Toomey	October 27, 2016	[' TV ad – Friday, October 28, 2016 ']	['Pennsylvania', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-00068	A photograph documents that a portion of Interstate 40 in North Carolina was completely underwater after Hurricane Florence.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/i40-north-carolina-underwater/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Photograph Show a Stretch of I-40 in North Carolina Underwater?	18 September 2018	None	['North_Carolina']
-pomt-10891	"New Mexico was 46th in teacher pay (when he was elected), now we're 29th."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/jun/12/bill-richardson/correct-but-stats-came-from-friendly-group-/	Richardson led a successful effort to raise teacher pay, but we cannot give him a fully truthful ruling because he neglects to mention that he is mixing rankings from two sources. The ranking of 46th is from the 2002-03 National Education Association survey of teacher pay. The newest NEA ranking, with 2004-05 statistics, only shows New Mexico has climbed to 40th. The New Mexico chapter of the NEA did its own estimate and concluded that the state now ranks 29th in teacher pay, but the local NEA chapter is run by Charles Bowyer, who identifies himself as a longtime Richardson supporter.	None	Bill Richardson	None	None	None	2007-06-12T00:00:00	2007-05-10	['None']
-snes-03610	Taking a photograph of your ballot and posting it to the Internet is illegal or will invalidate your vote.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dont-selfie-your-ballot/	None	Ballot Box	None	David Mikkelson	None	Don’t Selfie Your Ballot?	6 November 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-09104	Rick Scott “has heavily invested in a company that is geared to helping illegal aliens transfer money to family and friends out of the country."	/florida/statements/2010/jun/21/bill-mccollum/mccollum-accuses-scott-investing-company-used-ille/	Republican rivals for governor, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Rick Scott, have accused each other of being too helpful toward illegal immigrants -- a hot topic in the wake of the Arizona immigration law. Their campaigns sent dueling press releases June 15 and 16, 2010, trying to portray their opponent's business practices as being too friendly to illegal immigrants. The Republicans' positions on illegal immigration will be key for primary voters. If elected, Scott has promised to bring an Arizona-style law to Florida -- a law that requires officers who have made lawful stops to check an individual's immigration status. PolitiFact gave McCollum a full-flop for sending mixed signals on the law. McCollum sent these fighting words in a press release June 15, 2010: "In just the latest case of hypocrisy, it was revealed today that Rick Scott has heavily invested in a company that is geared to helping illegal aliens transfer money to family and friends out of the country. ... Rick Scott says he wants to crack down on illegal immigration, but now we find out he has been profiting from illegal immigrants." The following day, June 16, 2010, Scott's campaign issued a press release about McCollum which stated: "Bill McCollum jumped his sinking ship of a campaign today and fled to Washington, D.C., where he served as a lobbyist whose clients enabled mortgages for illegal immigrants.'' In this Truth-O-Meter item, we explore whether Scott invested in a company that is "geared to helping illegal aliens transfer money to friends and family out of the country." What’s the McCollum campaign talking about? The campaign provided a copy of a June 15, 2010, article in the Orlando Sentinel that stated that opposition research shows "Scott's investment company was one of a handful of equity investors that lent $12.5 million in 2004 and 2005 to Emida Technologies. Emida provides electronic pre-paid services ranging from phone cards to money transfers, and focuses on Central and South American markets. According to its Web site, the company also partnered with another called IPP, which primarily focused on helping Hispanic migrant workers in Arizona transfer money and pay bills back in Mexico. Press releases from the company list Richard L. Scott Investments, LLC, as an equity partner." Rick Scott spokeswoman Mary Anne Carter said that Scott's company did invest in Emida Technologies, but she described it as a prepaid cell phone company. RLSI Emida Capital Partners, LLC was set up to invest in Emida, Carter wrote in an e-mail. That company invested about $2 million in 2004 and about $1 million in 2005. Scott's personal portion was $736,004, Carter wrote. Since Scott doesn't dispute that he invested in Emida, the only question is whether Emida allows illegal immigrants to send money to friends or family in other countries. But first, some background on Emida. The company, formerly located in Miami and now based in Foot Hills, Calif., and Bogata, Colombia, started in 2001, according to a March 14, 2006, article in Business Wire. An article in the Miami Herald Dec. 22, 2003, described Emida as "a provider of transactional networks for electronic prepaid distribution, bill payment and money transfer services targeting the global Hispanic market." In 2005, Emida merged with Debisys Inc. -- another electronic prepaid solution company. Information on the privately-held company's website states that it has technology that "enables the domestic and international distribution and value transfer of many types of prepaid products and payment services. Our strategy is to build profitable, robust distribution networks for many prepaid products in targeted operating geographies, and to introduce unique cross border value products between regions." To learn more about Emida, we spoke to Martyn Fricker, director of business development and marketing. We asked Fricker to describe what Emida does. He described a typical prepaid wireless phone plan, purchased by customers in the United States, allowing the recipient in Latin America to make calls but not get cash. Could illegal immigrants be customers? "The merchants who offer this service I'm not sure they ask 'are you an illegal immigrant?'" Fricker said. So where does the idea about "money transfer" come from? Fricker said Emida has wanted to expand into the money transfer business and has recently launched or is launching two other money-transfer or “virtual wallet” products. But he said neither one has had a single transaction as of June 16, 2010. If those products have only been recently launched, we asked why Emida was described as providing "money transfer" since at least 2004. "Sometimes private companies tell people about capabilities," Fricker said, to draw their interest "before they have the capability to deliver." So where does that leave us? There is no dispute that Emida could allow illegal immigrants in the U.S. to put money on cell phones for friends and relatives in other countries. Is that the same as a money transfer? Technically, no, but helping a relative keep their cell phone service available is financial help. McCollum's claim was that Scott invested in a company that was "geared to helping illegal aliens transfer money to family and friends out of the country." Emida’s spokesman and its press releases acknowledge that’s the business the company is pursuing. Even if some of Emida's products are just launching this year, news articles since at least 2003 have described the company as providing "money transfer" -- even a press release from the company used that phrase in 2004 -- so it is clearly "geared to" that business. We rate this claim True.	None	Bill McCollum	None	None	None	2010-06-21T17:10:58	2010-06-15	['None']
-snes-02243	Account of a 10-year-old boy's death explains dry drowning and its symptoms.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dry-drowning/	None	Medical	None	Snopes Staff	None	Dry Drowning	17 June 2008	None	['None']
-snes-03647	MSNBC host Chris Matthews endorsed Donald Trump during a segment on the show "Hardball."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chris-matthews-endorses-trump/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Chris Matthews Endorses Donald Trump	1 November 2016	None	['Chris_Matthews', 'MSNBC', 'Hardball_with_Chris_Matthews', 'Donald_Trump']
-tron-00155	Muslim Shirt Depicting Twin Towers in Flames	https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-shirt/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Muslim Shirt Depicting Twin Towers in Flames–Unproven!	Mar 30, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01978	A woman developed necrotizing fasciitis (a disease described as "flesh-eating bacteria") due to poor water quality at Myrtle Beach.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/flesh-eating-bacteria-in-myrtle-beach/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did a Swimmer Become Infected with Flesh-Eating Bacteria in Myrtle Beach?	1 August 2017	None	['Myrtle_Beach,_South_Carolina']
-pomt-10722	"The $2.3-billion budget deficit I inherited when I came into office became a $2.9-billion surplus."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/21/rudy-giuliani/not-if-you-count-all-the-years-/	Rudy Giuliani often boasts of turning a "$2.3-billion budget deficit into [a] $2.9-billion surplus by FY 2001" while he was mayor of New York City. He sometimes refers to the surplus as a "multibillion-dollar" one. Although his figures are correct, he doesn't include his full eight years in office. When Giuliani took office on Jan. 1, 1994, city spending was in the hole by $700-million, according to figures provided by a former Giuliani budget director, Bob Harding, at the request of the Giuliani campaign. The budget forecast for the next fiscal year, which would begin July 1, 1994, projected a gap between revenues and spending of $2.3-billion. Jump ahead seven years, to June 30, 2001, the end of Giuliani's last full fiscal year in office. The city wound up with the $2.9-billion surplus Giuliani is boasting about. So far, so good. But the last budget Giuliani wrote, for the 2001-02 fiscal year beginning the next day, had higher spending with a much smaller surplus – a $350-million surplus, to be precise, as of the day he left office. And Giuliani's budget forecast for the next fiscal year, 2003, says Harding, included a deficit of $3.1-billion that Giuliani's successor, Michael Bloomberg, would have to close. After the 9/11 attacks, that projection ballooned to $4.77-billion, according to figures from the New York City Office of Management and Budget. (The figures are not adjusted for inflation.) What Giuliani has done is include the budget that outgoing Mayor Dinkins wrote as he left office, but doesn't include the budget Giuliani himself wrote as he left office. Including both is closer to a fair comparison of the two changes of administration. It looks at (1) the moment he took office and left, and (2) the out-year projection for the first full fiscal year of the new administration as of the same date. So Giuliani inherited a deficit of about $700-million and left a surplus of $350-million as of the first and last days of his tenure. He also inherited a projected budget gap of $2.3-billion for his next fiscal year, and left his successor, Bloomberg, a projected deficit of $4.7-billion. It is probably worth noting that both out-year "deficit" figures – the one Giuliani says he inherited from Dinkins and the one he bequeathed to Bloomberg – are just projections. The city (unlike the federal government) is not allowed to end the year with an operating deficit. Harding notes that gaps in out-year budgets have often happened in New York City and have, through a combination of above-budget revenues or below-budget spending, gotten into balance or turned to surplus by the time the year ends. Add it all up and we only get halfway to true.	None	Rudy Giuliani	None	None	None	2007-11-21T00:00:00	2007-07-01	['None']
-pomt-10130	A mortgage buyback plan is "my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/john-mccain/the-idea-is-old-but-the-plan-is-mccains/	In a debate that featured rehashed candidate positions, one new policy emerged: Sen. John McCain’s proposal to have the government buy and renegotiate what his top adviser later said would be “literally millions” of mortgages on houses whose values have dropped and whose owners are struggling to keep up with payments. Taxpayers would cover the difference between the original loan and the new one, at a cost the McCain campaign estimated to be at $300-billion. “Is it expensive? Yes,” McCain said during the debate on Oct. 7, 2008. “But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we’re never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we’ve got to give some trust and confidence back to America.” In announcing the plan amid the question-and-answer of a town hall meeting, McCain sought to make clear that this was a bold, new idea all his own: “And it’s my proposal, it’s not Sen. Obama’s proposal, it’s not President Bush’s proposal.” The question is whether or not McCain's proposal is as original as he claims. But first, some details on the plan. “Mechanically, the initiative is very simple,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser for the McCain campaign. “A home­owner would initiate the process by calling a mortgage broker or other originator and basically saying, 'I’d like to refinance my home,’ and they would start the underwriting process, verify incomes.” The government loans would be available to mortgage holders who: • Live in the home as a primary residence. • Can prove their creditworthiness (and made a down payment at the time of the purchase). The FHA would then issue a 30-year fixed rate mortgage at a rate Holtz-Eakin estimated would be “in the low 5 percent” range. Mortgage rates for 30-year fixed home loans are currently about 5.82 percent. Taxpayers would pick up the difference between the value of the two loans. While at least part of the expense of McCain’s plan would be borne by the recently approved $700-billion bailout plan, the initiative also would tap some of the $300-billion tied to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act passed this summer. That’s a plan that seeks to refinance loans for low- to moderate-income homeowners struggling to pay for homes they bought for more than they are now worth. The McCain plan outlines a dramatic shift in emphasis for the $700-billion bailout plan. While the bailout contained provisions to allow the Treasury to purchase mortgages directly, the legislation primarily was intended as a means for the government to buy troubled assets from financial institutions that might otherwise fail and that could later be sold when the markets recover. The hope, said Holtz-Eakin, is that McCain’s “bottom level up” plan will offset the need for some of that $700-billion. When McCain announced the plan at the debate, Obama supporters were quick to note that Obama had in previous weeks recommended that the bailout plan include the option of buying individual mortgages. “We can’t simply bail out Wall Street without helping the millions of innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure — or, for that matter, are seeing their home values decline,” Obama said. McCain argued, during the debate and afterward, that his proposal is nothing like what Obama talked about. And after hearing details the next day, the Obama campaign agreed with McCain. Obama has always supported plans to have the government buy loans at market prices (in other words, the loan companies would have to swallow some loss), said Obama campaign economic policy director Jason Furman. And homeowners would have to share some of the profits should the value of the home rise. But McCain's proposal wouldn't do either of those things. The government would refinance homes at their new, lower value and absorb the loss in propoerty values entirely. Okay, so who's idea is it? Charlie Black, a senior adviser to McCain, told the New York Times the mortgage renewal idea actually originated with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who borrowed it from a Depression-era New Deal agency, the Home Owner’s Loan Corp. Clinton spoke about her plan before Congress on Sept. 18, 2008. "A new government entity like the HOLC with a focus on attacking the source of the problem can serve the purpose of clearing a lot of those toxic mortgage securities from the market," Clinton said. "We know there will not be any semblance of a normal or orderly marketplace until we have found a way to resolve these mortgage securities that are metastasizing in the bottom of our markets. By taking this paper out of the market and quarantining it in this new entity we will be able to give the market breathing room to recover. We will also be able to set the stage for an orderly sale of these securities and in turn allow some of them to recover and actually regain some of their value. Perhaps just as importantly, not only would our financial markets stabilize but so would our housing markets." Although Clinton did not offer specifics of her plan, she seemed to suggest that it would entail buying mortgages at discounted current market rates, and that taxpayers might ultimately turn a profit on them. That's not McCain's plan. So here's where we stand: It's true that terms of the $700-billion bailout plan first initiated by President Bush contains authority for the Treasury to purchase mortgages directly. And it's true that Obama has called for a component of the buyout plan to include direct purchase of mortgages to alleviate homeowners struggling to make payments. Finally, it's true that Clinton sketched out a plan last spring that shared some of the goals and traits of McCain's proposal. The method McCain proposes — buying mortgages at their original value and renegotiating at the current market value (with taxpayers picking up the difference) — is indeed new. But while McCain can rightly take credit for the details of his proposal, he is by no means alone with the idea of having the federal government buy mortgages directly. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-10-09T00:00:00	2008-10-07	['George_W._Bush', 'Barack_Obama']
-abbc-00327	The claim: Greg Hunt says technology which will be available over the next three to five years will reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by up to 30 to 50 per cent.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-12/greg-hunt-clean-coal-technology-highly-ambitious-fact-check/5587040	The claim: Greg Hunt says technology which will be available over the next three to five years will reduce emissions from coal-fired power stations by up to 30 to 50 per cent.	['coal', 'industry', 'environmentally-sustainable-business', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'environment', 'environmental-impact', 'environmental-policy', 'environmental-management', 'mining-environmental-issues', 'environmental-technology', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['coal', 'industry', 'environmentally-sustainable-business', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'environment', 'environmental-impact', 'environmental-policy', 'environmental-management', 'mining-environmental-issues', 'environmental-technology', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	Fact check: Can clean coal technology halve emissions within 5 years?	Fri 14 Nov 2014, 1:43am	None	['Greg_Hunt']
-goop-02087	Angelina Jolie “In Tears Over Losing” Brad Pitt?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-tears-brad-pitt-divorce-mistake/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Angelina Jolie “In Tears Over Losing” Brad Pitt?	11:20 am, December 5, 2017	None	['Angelina_Jolie', 'Brad_Pitt']
-tron-00887	Facebook Censored Obama Critics	https://www.truthorfiction.com/facebook-censored-obama-critics/	None	computers	None	None	None	Facebook Censored Obama Critics	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00541	'Facebook Drug Task Force' to Monitor Facebook Posts	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/facebook-drug-task-force-fake-story.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	FAKE-NEWS: 'Facebook Drug Task Force' to Monitor Facebook Posts	August 21, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-09960	"Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question of how they want to pay for the more than $1 trillion of health care spending."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/19/roy-blunt/democrats-still-pondering-how-pay-healthcare/	With high-profile support from President Barack Obama, Congress is preparing a major overhaul of the nation's health care system. The details have yet to be revealed, but that hasn't stopped critics in Congress from going on the attack. Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri said Democrats haven't come up with a way to pay for their ambitious health plan. "We agree that reform is needed, but Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question of how they want to pay for the more than $1 trillion of health care spending they’re advocating," Blunt said. It's not clear how much the health care plan will cost. During the presidential campaign, Obama estimated his plan could cost $50 billion to $65 billion a year. That could come to $1 trillion over about 15 to 20 years. But independent sources that favor a health care overhaul put the expense much higher, at about $150 billion a year. That comes to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Blunt says that "Democrats have failed to answer the most basic question" of how they want to pay for health care. But Obama has put forward some relatively concrete proposals. His current budget includes a $635 billion fund for health care that includes savings from greater efficiencies and changing the tax code so the wealthy don't get as much in deductions. It's not clear if Congress will go along with the tax changes, though, and analysts have questioned whether the savings will be as great as Obama says. Democrats in Congress are still debating how they want to pay for health care. Sen. Max Baucus of Montana of held a hearing on May 12, 2009, to discuss ways of financing health care, and senators during the hearing expressed a great deal of skepticism about new taxation strategies. After Blunt made his comments, Baucus put forward a policy paper that included several ways to potentially pay for health care, including modifying tax exemptions on employer-provided insurance and taxing alcohol and soda. Len Berman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, who testified during the hearing, said later Congress seems unsure how it will pay for health care. He wrote in a blog post that they seemed to be in the grip of "magical thinking." "If there was the easy answer they'd have figured it out already," Berman told PolitiFact. "The idea of a new federal tax terrifies legislators. ... If they're serious, and it's not going to be smoke and mirrors, then they're going to have to make decisions that they haven't been willing to make so far." So Blunt is largely correct that that Democrats "have failed to answer" how to pay for health care. But they are putting forward ideas, and the Obama administration has identified $635 billion — perhaps optimistically — to get a plan started. So we rate Blunt's statement Mostly True.	None	Roy Blunt	None	None	None	2009-05-19T13:58:24	2009-05-14	['None']
-pomt-05998	Says proposal to boost teacher pension fund "puts no mandate on local government."	/virginia/statements/2012/jan/20/bob-mcdonnell/mcdonnell-says-plan-bolster-teacher-pensions-puts-/	Gov. Bob McDonnell is calling on local governments to kick in $1 billion towards public teachers’ retirement nest eggs over the next two years. The initiative is part of the governor’s overall plan to inject a record $2.21 billion of state and local dollars into the ailing Virginia Retirement System’s pension plans for state employees and teachers. During a December 19 speech to the General Assembly’s money committees, the governor said his proposal "puts no mandate on local government, but just continues their fair share of retirement for their teachers." We were curious whether McDonnell’s plan, if approved by the General Assembly, would mandate a level of pension of contributions for local government. So we took a look. Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines mandate as "an authoritative order or command, (especially) a written one." In political debate, mandate is a charged word connoting an strong central government sending down dictates that erode local sovereignty and personal rights. Many conservatives, including McDonnell, have railed against mandates. McDonnell, on Jan. 16, unveiled a legislative effort to eliminate 21 "burdensome state mandates on localities" this winter. The governor did not list pension rates on his list of local mandates. So let’s look at how employer contributions for teacher pensions are set by the state. Every two years, the Virginia Retirement System’s board of trustees recommends a level of employer contribution for teacher retirement plans. For the biennial budget cycle starting July 1, VRS called for a contribution equaling 16.77 percent of the total teacher payroll for local school systems participating in the state pension plan. The governor, in presenting a two-year state budget to the legislature last month, called for a smaller contribution of 11.66 percent. The General Assembly, while considering the state budget, ultimately sets the pension amounts that localities pay for teacher retirement. With that background, we called the McDonnell’s office and asked this question: If the General Assembly -- which has final say on pension rates -- approves the governor’s plan, why would it not qualify as a mandate on localities? We were referred to Ric Brown, Virginia’s secretary of finance. Brown's answer was that teachers are local employees. The state is not dumping a burden on localities, he said, because cities and counties already have a responsibility to pay most of the pension costs for their teachers. Although the General Assembly can set a lower rate than McDonnell recommends, doing so won’t save localities long-term money, Brown said. That’s because the cities and counties ultimately have the liability to fund the pension and must pay now or pay later, he explained. The VRS is an estimated $19.9 billion short of the assets needed to pay its projected pension liabilities over the next 85 years. One of the reasons is that legislators for decades have set pension contribution rates at lower levels than recommended by VRS. McDonnell has said the proposal, if approved, would be "the largest employer contribution to the Virginian Retirement System in history." We checked out that statement earlier this month and rated it True. The state does help localities with teacher retirement costs by paying its share of the Standard of Quality -- regulations that provide minimum education guidelines for Virginia public schools. Under McDonnell’s plan, localities would pay $1 billion for teacher retirement costs over the next two budget years, and the state would contribute $600 million. "The state determines what the localities pay. This is nothing new … This is not a new mandate," said Mary Jo Fields, the director of research at the Virginia Municipal League. "The fact that we pay part of the retirement costs is not unreasonable, but the amount we pay is unreasonable. Our share it too large, but Governor McDonnell didn’t invent that." What would happen if a county or city refused to pay the pension rates set by the General Assembly? Brown said the VRS could extract the payment by "intercepting" state aid intended for the locality. Our ruling: McDonnell said his proposal to boost localities’ teacher pension contributions "puts no mandate on local government." The governor and his finance secretary justify the statement by noting teachers are local employees and, as such, it is up to localities to pay for the bulk of their retirement costs. But the simple fact is that the General Assembly sets the rates localities pay into the state pension for teachers. If lawmakers adopt McDonnell’s plan, cities and counties must make the record retirement contributions or risk losing state aid. That sounds like a mandate to us, albeit one that started long before McDonnell became governor. We rate McDonnell’s no-mandate claim False.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2012-01-20T06:00:00	2011-12-19	['None']
-pomt-06843	"As a percentage of our gross domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6 percent. This figure is low by all historical standards."	/virginia/statements/2011/aug/05/randy-forbes/forbes-says-us-defense-spending-measured-against-g/	U.S. Rep. Randy Forbes recently argued it was time to "go on the offense" against proposed cuts to defense spending. "As a percentage of our gross domestic product, the defense budget remains just 3.6 percent," Forbes, R-4th, wrote in a July 25 column in Politico. "This figure is low by all historical standards." Forbes’ district is anchored in South Hampton Roads where military installations dominate the economy. He has been warning that the nation’s security would be hurt by defense cuts that have been proposed during the fight to rein in the federal budget deficit. Is defense spending really lagging when viewed through the lens of history? We decided to check. First, a definition: Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, is the measure of all goods and services produced in a country during a given time and is used as measure of a nation’s standard of living. Joe Hack, Forbes’ spokesman, said the congressman’s assertion that the defense budget comprises 3.6 percent of the GDP comes from the president’s 2011 budget proposal. It showed the "base budget" authority allocated to the Department of Defense was expected to come in at $550 billion -- or 3.6 percent of the roughly $15 trillion GDP estimated for 2011. Though analysts often refer to the Pentagon’s base budget when discussing military spending, it doesn’t include all defense spending. It omits billions of dollars set aside each year to pay for operations overseas, including in Afghanistan and Iraq. Figures from the Department of Defense and the president’s 2012 fiscal year budget show that when those other costs are included, the national defense budget for the agency comes to about $700 billion for fiscal 2011, which ends Sept. 30. That’s just under 5 percent of GDP. These numbers refer to "budget authority" -- the amount congressional appropriators set aside each year for current and future defense spending. Another way to look at defense spending is by examining outlays, the actual money paid out for defense each year. Those two sets of numbers will differ in a particular year, but analysts told us that over time, they almost completely equal out as the government spends the money that’s been authorized by Congress. Forbes’ spokesman also pointed to a November 2010 report from the Center for Strategic & International Studies. It says that, with the exception of President Bill Clinton’s term and a couple years preceding the start of the Korean War in 1950, U.S. defense spending measured as a percentage GDP is the lowest since World War II. We found tables from the Office of Management and Budget showing national defense spending was below 5 percent only in the late 1940s, late 1970s and since the start of the early 1990s. Forbes said that defense spending is low "by all historical standards." We found data that rebuts that contention. During the 1930s, for example, defense spending amounted to 1 percent or lower of GDP, according to a 2002 Congressional Research report. Two analysts told us that for comparison purposes, it’s best to measure the U.S. defense spending after the World War II. "The (pre-World War II) spending was a reflection of the fact that we were not a global superpower," said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute. So, when measured as a percentage of the GDP since World War II, defense spending is low. Two defense analysts told us that Forbes’ use of GDP to measure the defense budget is a legitimate gauge. But Winslow Wheeler, director of the Strauss Military Project at the Center for Defense Information, argued GDP is an unreliable measure of the amount that the U.S. spends on defense. After all, GDP is constantly changing, he said. Even if the defense budget is on the rise, it could become a smaller percent of the nation’s overall economic output if GDP increases at a faster pace. Forbes "is engaging in that sliding slippery scale," said Wheeler, whose group was founded by retired military officers to analyze defense issues. "He’s trying to make the defense budget look small. It’s not." Wheeler also noted that the base budget that Forbes cites only accounts for Department of Defense spending and doesn’t include other military-related costs, such as money spent every year by the Department of Energy to maintain the country’s nuclear stockpile. Even when adjusted for inflation, the total dollars dedicated to national defense is now at its highest level since World War II, Wheeler said. Figures from the Department of Defense comptroller’s office show that, when measured in 2005 dollars, the total spending on national defense peaked at just more than $900 billion in 1945 before falling off. It didn’t approach the $700 billion mark until the 2011 fiscal year. The Center for Strategic & International Studies report also notes that the U.S., by far, spends more money on defense than any other country in the world. The U.S. accounted for 46.5 percent of global military spending in 2009, according to the CSIS report. China only accounted for 6.6 percent with France in third at 4.2 percent. To summarize: Forbes said the U.S. defense budget stands at 3.6 percent of the country’s gross domestic product, a figure that’s "low by all historical standards." Forbes’ statement stems from a base budget for defense that omits spending for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. When those costs are factored in, defense spending comes to about 5 percent of GDP. Even at that higher level, spending is low compared to the post World War II era. So Forbes is right that the U.S. defense budget is at a relatively low mark when it’s measured by the country’s economic outlook. But by other measures -- such as using inflation-adjusted dollars and comparing U.S. expenditures to the rest of the world -- America’s defense spending is high. We rate the claim Mostly True."	None	Randy Forbes	None	None	None	2011-08-05T11:04:57	2011-07-25	['None']
-snes-05894	A list collect passages about racism taken from Barack Obama's books.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coil-of-rage/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	Winds of Change	21 May 2008	None	['None']
-snes-04604	The world's largest tortoise was 59 feet tall and weighed more than 800 pounds.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/worlds-largest-tortoise-gamera/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	World’s Largest Tortoise?	15 June 2016	None	['None']
-tron-01162	Lock your car manually, not with the wireless remote	https://www.truthorfiction.com/carlock/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Lock your car manually, not with the wireless remote	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-11133	Says Wisconsin "doesn't even give" released prison inmates "a bus ticket to get home."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/jun/01/kathleen-vinehout/not-even-bus-ticket-home-inmates-released-prison-w/	Does Wisconsin leave just-released inmates stranded outside the prison gates? State Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, an Alma Democrat who is running for governor, painted that picture in a May 1, 2018, interview with Earl Ingram, a liberal radio talk show host on WRRD-AM in Milwaukee. Saying she wants to provide better substance abuse and mental health services in prisons because so many inmates suffer from those problems, Vinehout declared: These folks need help. They need the ability to be able to deal with their addiction and the health care they need to heal from their mental health issues. And instead, the state doesn’t even give them a bus ticket to get home, let alone help them re-integrate into their community. We thought we should check the bus ticket claim. No evidence from Vinehout Ingram seemed startled. He followed up by asking: "You mean to tell me, when a person gets out of prison, the state doesn’t even give them a bus ticket to get home?" Vinehout responded vaguely, alluding to legislative hearings on prisons from years earlier. "Well, we heard a lot of stories," she replied "I have to give" state Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, "credit for my education about what’s happening in our prison system." When we asked Vinehout’s campaign spokesman for evidence to back Vinehout’s claim, we were told she was simply relating what others had told her, "not talking on her authority." But in the interview, Vinehout stated the claim as fact. And she didn’t backtrack on it when she was asked the follow-up question. Other prison-related fact checks: 39 percent of violent criminals return to prison? Mostly True. Probationers do new crimes but don't get probation revoked? Half True. State policy The state describes its policy on releasing inmates this way: Transition from incarceration to community is carefully planned collaboratively by both institution and community corrections staff, coordinated with inmates and community stakeholders and developed in full consideration of the concerns of victims. State Department of Corrections spokesman Tristan Cook told us that transition planning with a social worker and, if necessary, probation staff begins three months before an inmate’s release. That includes transportation from the prison. If an inmate doesn’t have transportation from family or friends, the department will provide a ride or a bus ticket, he said. It’s worth noting that inmates generally are returned to the county where the crime was committed -- which may or may not be where they lived or now have family. Dameon Payton told us the state gave him a bus ticket back to Milwaukee when he was released in March 2018. He said he knew other inmates who were transported by the state. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc But in practice … There are some exceptions, according to non-profit groups that help transition inmates. Andre Brown, an employment specialist at Project Return in Milwaukee, estimated that his agency gets calls twice a month from inmates who need rides. He said his agency provides them bus tickets. Linda Ketcham, executive director of Madison Area Urban Ministry, said her agency has never received calls like those. Inmates who will be supervised on extended supervision get a ride or a bus ticket from the Department of Corrections, she said. But released inmates who do not go on extended supervision are on their own to arrange transportation, she said. The Rev. Jerry Hancock, director of prison ministry for First Congregational Church of Christ in Madison, said in some cases the Department of Corrections drops inmates at the Capitol Square in Madison. Our rating Vinehout says Wisconsin "doesn't even give" released prison inmates "a bus ticket to get home." She did not provide any evidence and her claim certainly is not the state’s policy, or general practice. What we found is that the state typically provides a ride, or a bus ticket, to released inmates. But occasionally, there are inmates without transportation who get a bus ticket from a non-profit agency. Vinehout’s statement has only an element of truth and ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That’s our definition of Mostly False.	None	Kathleen Vinehout	None	None	None	2018-06-01T06:00:00	2018-05-01	['None']
-pomt-02822	In a poll, "53 percent of young Republican voters . . . under age 35 said that they would describe a climate [change] denier as 'ignorant,' 'out of touch' or 'crazy.'"	/rhode-island/statements/2013/nov/25/sheldon-whitehouse/us-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-says-most-young-republic/	Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has now made 50 speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate urging his colleagues and other Americans to "wake up" about the issue of climate change. He has railed against global warming skeptics, many of them Republicans who say that the planet is not warming or, if it is, the warming isn't caused by human activity. During his Nov. 13 speech, he argued that "the polls show clearly that climate denial is a losing tactic" and young people aren't fooled by the arguments of climate change "deniers." We've fact-checked two other Whitehouse statements from his previous speeches about climate issues. We ruled his claim that the oceans "have become 30 percent more acidic" Mostly True; his assertion that Narragansett Bay waters have gotten 4 degrees warmer in the winter since the 1960s earned a Half True. In his Nov. 13 speech, one of the poll numbers he cited caught our eye. "Fifty three percent of young Republican voters -- Republican voters under age 35 -- said that they would describe a climate [change] denier as 'ignorant,' 'out of touch' or 'crazy,'" Whitehouse said. "Republicans outside of Congress are trying to lead their party back to reality and away from what even young Republicans are calling ignorant, out of touch or crazy extremist views." Do more than half of young-adult Republicans really think climate change skeptics are loopy? Whitehouse’s office said he got the figure from a survey commissioned by the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group. The league hired two firms -- GS Strategy Group (which does Republican polling) and Benensen Strategy Group (President Obama's chief pollster) -- to conduct a joint poll of 600 registered voters, ages 18 to 34, last July. Fifty-three percent of Republicans under 35 said they would "describe a politician who says climate change is not really happening" as out of touch, ignorant or crazy, according to a joint July 24, 2013 memo from the polling firms. (The rest, if they had an opinion, preferred characterizations such as "independent," "commonsense" or "thoughtful," which were the three positive options offered.) When Democrats and independents were added in, the ratio of people who considered deniers to be out of touch, ignorant or crazy jumped to 73 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. "It is not surprising then that a climate change denier faces stiff headwinds with young voters, with 68% saying they would be less likely to vote for a climate change denier," according to the report. "And even among Republicans, 47% would be less likely to vote for a denier." It should be noted that only 7 percent of all respondents -- Republicans, Democrats and independents -- characterized deniers as "crazy." We asked the League for a Republicans-only breakdown in that category because we suspect that very few would put skeptics in the crazy category. Spokesman Jeff Gohringer said the League would not release any further data. "The purpose of the poll was to show that Republicans understand climate change is happening and they want to see action," he said. "The disconnect in Washington is that this is somehow a party issue, that the Democrats support it and Republicans don't. But huge swaths of both parties support action on climate and they know it's a problem." One important caveat should be noted. The poll asked respondents to classify people who argue that climate change is not really happening. But that's only the most extreme type of climate change "denier," a word never used in the survey. Other people sometimes saddled with that label acknowledge that the climate is changing, but they argue that it's due to natural variability, not human activity. So the League poll only characterized the deniers with the most extreme -- and scientifically untenable -- position. That's an important distinction, which can be seen in the Pew Research Center's recent national survey on climate change, conducted Oct. 9-13, among 1,504 adults. A hefty 46 percent of all Republicans said there is solid evidence that Earth is warming. But the percentage drops to half that amount (23 percent) when Republicans were asked if the warming is mostly due to human activity. Nineteen percent of the GOP respondents said it's due to natural patterns. Our ruling Sheldon Whitehouse said, "53 percent of young Republican voters . . . under age 35 said that they would describe a climate [change] denier as 'ignorant,' 'out of touch' or 'crazy.'" He cited the number accurately. But the findings come from just one poll, commissioned by a conservation group. And the question he referenced focused only on the most extreme position of climate change "deniers" (those who believe that the climate is not changing). That term can also include people who acknowledge that climate change is occurring but don't believe it’s caused by humans. Whitehouse is making a leap by suggesting that the League survey is a gauge of how all "deniers" are regarded by younger Republicans. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Sheldon Whitehouse	None	None	None	2013-11-25T00:01:00	2013-11-13	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-03963	President Obama took a knee during the national anthem.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/president-obama-takes-a-knee-during-national-anthem/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	President Obama Takes a Knee During National Anthem	24 September 2016	None	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-00700	Rumsfeld shutting down Ted Kennedy	https://www.truthorfiction.com/kennedy-rumsfeld/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Rumsfeld shutting down Ted Kennedy	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00936	Avoid conflicts in interests in county lobbying activities by requiring public disclosures related to lobbying activities and prohibiting any person or entity who lobbies on the county's behalf from lobbying county government on behalf of others during such county representation.	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/carlos-o-meter/promise/969/require-lobbying-disclosures-and-create-restrictio/	None	carlos-o-meter	Carlos Gimenez	None	None	Require lobbying disclosures and create restrictions on lobbying county government	2011-07-14T16:14:09	None	['None']
-pomt-03119	The employer mandate "affects only 5 percent of businesses in this country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/chris-van-hollen/van-hollen-says-employer-mandate-affects-5-busines/	On Obamacare, Republicans generally fall into two camps. One group wants to defund it entirely and the other wants to delay putting it into action. President Barack Obama gave the delay group some ammunition in July when he made the surprise decision to hold off enforcing the employer mandate. That provision in the Affordable Care Act requires most firms with 50 or more workers to offer insurance or face a penalty of $2,000 per employee. There are some wrinkles, but that’s the gist of the mandate. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., defended the president’s move, arguing that it had little impact on the overall goal of the health care reform law. He made this point during a quick back and forth with the show host on Fox News Sunday. Van Hollen: The reality is that Obamacare is already in place for millions of Americans. John Roberts: But it's been delayed for millions of others. Van Hollen: No, no, no. The employer mandate, which affects only 5 percent of businesses in this country, which is a relatively small part of the overall system." In this fact-check, we note for the record that Van Hollen shifted from talking about individuals to talking about businesses, and the two should not be confused. However, our focus is on his claim about the number of businesses. We contacted Van Hollen’s office, and the staff there referred us to a couple of key sources. First, the Census Bureau surveys the business community and in 2010, it counted about 5.7 million firms. Of those, about 211,000 had 50 or more employees. Do the math and you find that 3.6 percent of all firms would be subject to the employer mandate. Van Hollen’s other source is a report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan think tank for Congress. The study published last month found that 96.3 percent of firms would be exempt from the employer mandate because they were too small. Flip that around and 3.7 percent would be affected by the requirement to offer insurance. So if anything, Van Hollen overstated the fraction of firms that would need to worry about the mandate. You have to use a certain amount of care when looking at estimates of the number of firms, because different groups use different methods. The highly respected research center, the Kaiser Family Foundation, reports that 7.3 percent of firms have 50 or more workers. Kaiser, however, only surveys companies with at least three employees. That eliminates more than 2 million firms that the Census Bureau includes. Another widely used source, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, located within the Department of Health and Human Services, produces the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. According to its tally, about 25 percent of all establishments are firms with 50 or more workers. We did not find a clear explanation for these differences, but experts suggested to us that they could be due partly to varying survey methods and partly to varying definitions of establishments (as a place of work) and firms (as a single owner of several establishments). That said, the Census Bureau enjoys broad trust, and we weigh its numbers accordingly. Thomas Buchmueller, an economist at the University of Michigan who has written about the impact of Obamacare on businesses, said the 5 percent figure could be too high for another reason. "Around 90 percent of firms with 50 or more employees offer health insurance today, and when you get up to 100 employees, coverage is essentially universal," Buchmueller said. "So the mandate will be a binding constraint for a very small number of firms -- the small number of medium-sized firms (say 50 to 99 employees) that currently do not offer insurance and a few more in that size range that might be thinking of dropping coverage." As one final caveat, looking at the mandate through the lens of business does not tell the whole story. During his television interview, Van Hollen began by talking about the number of people and then brought up the number of companies. As we noted, the two are quite different. According to the Census Bureau, about 72 percent of workers in companies - which is not a complete count of all workers - are in firms with 50 or more employees. While over 90 percent of those firms offer insurance, Christopher Conover, a policy analyst at the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, cautioned that just because you work at a company that offers insurance, that doesn’t mean you actually get it. "With 44 percent of working uninsured located in firms with 50-plus employees," Conover said, "it’s obvious that the employees lacking coverage do not work exclusively for the tiny fraction of such firms not offering coverage." These people might work part time, or might have declined coverage, or they might be waiting to be eligible for coverage. Conover based his findings on the work of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. He said it’s a complicated picture but one that underscores the challenges of implementing Obamacare -- a process that he would like to delay. Our ruling Van Hollen said that 5 percent of businesses would be affected by the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. While different surveys produce different numbers, the Census Bureau has been in this line of work longer than any other body, and its data show that 3.6 percent of firms employ 50 or more workers. That is the group for which the mandate would apply; other firms are too small. The Congressional Research Service relied on the Census data. We found no one who challenged the Census numbers. So Van Hollen’s figures are correct. However, his claim focuses our attention on the number of firms, which makes the mandate issue look small. But when seen through the lens of individual workers, it is a bigger deal. How big is difficult to say but the significance is larger than the 5 percent number he used. In PolitiFact terms, the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Chris Van Hollen	None	None	None	2013-09-18T14:59:14	2013-09-15	['None']
-goop-02146	Gwen Stefani Did “Rock A Baby Bump” On Thanksgiving With Blake Shelton, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-baby-bump-photo-thanksgiving-blake-shelton/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani Did NOT “Rock A Baby Bump” On Thanksgiving With Blake Shelton, Despite Claim	8:40 pm, November 24, 2017	None	['Blake_Shelton']
-pomt-01735	Gwinnett County government has made "significant cutbacks in staffing."	/georgia/statements/2014/aug/05/charlotte-nash/gwinnett-claim-hurt-by-comparisons/	Gwinnett County government is expected to collect $20 million more in general fund property taxes this year as a result of rebounding home values. County commissioners could give the money back to homeowners by rolling back the tax rate an equivalent amount. But they’ve decided it’s more prudent to leave the millage rate unchanged and put the extra money into projects that were put off during the worst of the Great Recession, such as a new roof for the main government complex. They point out that even with the $20 million, the county will be collecting $40 million less than it did in 2009, when property tax collections were at their peak. In recent discussions of the millage rate, Commission Chairman Charlotte Nash said county government has made "significant cutbacks in staffing." A PolitiFact Georgia reader asked if Nash’s statement could be truth-tested. We were glad to oblige. PolitiFact reached out to Joe Sorenson, communications director for Gwinnett County government, who provided data and documents back to 2008, when local governments were just starting to feel the fallout of the national economic down spiral. Based on that information, here’s what happened. Gwinnett County government imposed a hiring freeze in 2008 and eliminated a net of 179 positions a year later. The Planning and Development Department took the hardest hit. New building had stopped. Rezoning requests essentially had evaporated and, with them, the need for 84 of the department’s 154 jobs. Some other employees’ jobs were cut. Another 202 workers, with a combined 4,400 years of experience and institutional knowledge, accepted retirement incentives to leave. The police and fire departments left 25 positions vacant, although some other critical jobs were filled, Sorenson said. (The situation also was grim in Gwinnett’s private sector. In the first three quarters of 2009, more than 18,000 jobs were eliminated. The local unemployment rate shot from 5.6 percent to 8.9 percent in a single year.) The county’s tax rate was increased in 2009, and some of the extra revenue was used in 2010 to increase staffing, primarily in public safety (48 new jobs in fire and emergency management services and 50 new police positions). In 2011, the hiring freeze of 2008 was changed to a 90-day freeze on vacant positions. That policy remains in effect today and, by the county’s projections, is saving $8.9 million a year. The policy requires that vacant county jobs be held open for three months and only be refilled after their need is justified to the county administrator. Year Population Authorized Positions Ratio per 1,000 residents 2004 687,468 4,152 6.04 2005 710,978 4,391 6.18 2006 740,267 4,586 6.20 2007 764,129 4,797 6.28 2008 780,721 4,893 6.27 2009 796,276 4,714 5.92 2010 808,291 4,827 5.97 2011 824,941 4,815 5.84 2012 842,046 4,812 5.71 2013 855,459 4,825 5.64 Source: Gwinnett County Communications Department This year, the county added one new position, for an authorized workforce of 4,826. That’s 67 fewer workers than the 4,893 the county had in 2008, when the government was serving 90,000 fewer residents. But can a 1.4 percent reduction in staff be called significant? Nash told us that her comments related to the number of full-time county employees per 1,000 residents, which she county officials for several years have considered a more accurate measure of staffing levels. "There is certainly validity to the general idea that service demands go up as the population increases," Nash said. From 2008 to 2013, the number of authorized full-time county employees per 1,000 residents dropped from 6.27 to 5.64, a 10-percent reduction, she said. "The significance of the 10 percent reduction is even greater when I look at the allocation of authorized positions across the organization," Nash said. "Authorized positions for Public Safety, Sheriff and the Judiciary grew by 124 positions from 2008 to 2013 while authorized positions for the rest of the county departments and offices shrank by 192 positions." Officials at the Georgia Labor Department and the National Association of Counties provided data to help us see what’s been happening in other governments across Georgia and the country. The Labor Department data shows that in Georgia: -- the number of people working in fulltime and part-time federal jobs increased by 1,900 or about 2 percent from 98,200 in 2008 to 100,100 in 2013, the latest year for which data is available; -- the number of fulltime and part-time state workers dropped by 9,500, or 5.2 percent, from 183,500 in 2008 to 174,000 in 2013; -- and in local governments, the number of fulltime and part-time workers dropped 21,500, or about 5 percent, from 429,200 in 2008 to 407,700. Across the nation, counties cut 91,000, or 2.7 percent of their full-time works, going from 3.345 million workers in 2007 to 3.254 million workers in 2012, said Emilia Istrate, director of research and outreach for NACo. In metro Atlanta, we also reached out to officials in DeKalb, Cobb and Fulton counties. Burke Brennan, spokesman for DeKalb County, sent us data showing that the number of full-time workers in the county fell 14.5 percent, from 7,309 in 2008 to 6,251 in 2014 and all workers, including temps and part-timers, dropped from 7,649 to 6,427 or about 16 percent. Cobb County is down from 4,409 employees in 2008 to 4,213, or 4.4 percent, currently, said Robert Quigley, county spokesman. Meanwhile, the number of full-time employees in Fulton County has dropped about 18.3 percent, from about 6,327 in 2008 to 5,168 in 2014, according to data from the county’s IT department. Steve Anthony, a political science lecturer at Georgia State University who focuses on Georgia government policies and practices, said the staff reductions in Gwinnett cannot be called significant. "Getting rid of 1 percent of what you have is not significant," he said. "The loss of personnel there was less than anywhere else, and significantly less." Katherine Willoughby, a professor in the Department of Public Management and Policy at Georgia State’s Andrew young School of Policy Studies, said, however, that even a small cut in staff can be tough. "A 1.4 percent cut to the government workforce, especially in light of an increasing population, is very challenging," Willoughby said. So where does that leave us? Gwinnett County does have 67 fewer employees and 90,000 more residents now than it did in 2008. In better times, the county likely would have added 100 to 200 new employees a year to meet the demands of a growing population. But it’s probably a stretch to say the cutback in employees is "significant" given the downsizing that’s occurred across the public and private sectors. We rate her statement as Half True.	None	Charlotte Nash	None	None	None	2014-08-05T00:00:00	2014-07-15	['None']
-snes-04890	Costco lied about carrying cage-free eggs in their stores.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/costco-lying-about-cage-free-eggs/	None	Business	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Costco Lying About Cage-Free Eggs?	20 April 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-08006	"I have fought for our shared values without being an ideologue or a partisan"	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jan/13/chris-abele/milwaukee-county-executive-candidate-chris-abele-s/	Philanthropist Chris Abele stunned the political and charity worlds when he jumped into the spring 2011 race to succeed Scott Walker as Milwaukee County executive. Abele used his Jan. 4, 2011, announcement to position himself as an outsider who could build consensus and rise above politics to save critical services and solve the county’s fiscal problems. In a speech almost free of policy specifics, Abele made pragmatism the centerpiece of his pitch, telling reporters: "I’ve worked with Republicans, Democrats and anyone who has good ideas to find solutions. And I’ve fought for our shared values without being an ideologue or a partisan." Abele (pronounced AY-buh-lee) argues that squabbling between Walker and the far more liberal Milwaukee County Board -- and to some extent between Republican Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat -- has hampered progress. Abele is a transplanted Bostonian unknown to most voters. To the degree he has had a public profile, his family’s Argosy Foundation is best known for backing the arts and left-of-center social causes. His statement made us wonder: Is he really a nonpartisan or bipartisan kind of guy? We tested Abele’s statement by checking his past political involvement, including donations to political campaigns, as well as examining the foundation’s donations. Beyond that, the question of nonpartisanship can be measured by his positions on key issues facing the county. We aimed to put him on the record about those as well. Personal contributions The long paper trail left by Abele’s personal campaign donations since 2000 leaves no doubt he is a very loyal Democrat. He has given heavily to Democratic Party office-seekers here and around the country, to the Democratic Party itself and in 2002 was on the campaign finance committee for Jim Doyle in his first race for governor. He has plugged funds into key state legislative contests outside Milwaukee that were important for determining the balance of power in Madison. Among the recipients closer to home: Pedro Colon, Lena Taylor, Sheldon Wasserman and Jim Sullivan -- now a foe in the exec’s race. His federal donations have helped Wisconsin congressional candidates Russ Feingold, Dave Obey, Steve Kagen and Tammy Baldwin, as well as Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Michael Bennet of Colorado. In 2004, Abele lined up attendees at a Ted Kennedy fundraiser for John Kerry’s presidential bid. And in 2008, Barack Obama got a check. "His politics are well known," said David Gordon, who directed the Milwaukee Art Museum when Abele served on its board. "He’s known as a supporter of Democratic policies. He’s a liberal. He would be proud to use the word and not ashamed of it." It’s not uncommon for major community figures who work with various governments to hedge their bets with small donations to candidates they may not necessarily favor personally. Abele has not done that. When he began making political donations in 2000, Abele suggested to the Journal Sentinel -- which described him as a "young millionaire" -- he wouldn’t just give to Democrats. But we couldn’t find one dime in donations over a decade to a Republican candidate out of about $175,000. And Abele himself could not point out any to GOP candidates or incumbents in a partisan position. Abele downplays his Democratic bent, saying he doesn’t necessarily agree with his favored candidates on everything. He gets a mixed political report card from his own campaign co-chairman, Milwaukee businessman-philanthropist Sheldon Lubar -- Abele’s closest Republican ally by his own account. The pair have worked together for years studying and offering solutions to Milwaukee County’s fiscal plight, in their role as co-chairs of a group set up by the Greater Milwaukee Committee, a group of local business and civic leaders. Lubar, co-chairman of Abele’s campaign, said Abele is a moderate who is "kind of" nonpartisan and won’t spend money the county doesn’t have. "He’s ideological, but he’s not a (political) party freak," Lubar added. Julia Taylor, president of the Greater Milwaukee Committee, said Abele did not show any partisan bent in his work studying county government’s future. "He likes to get a lot of different viewpoints at the table," she said. Foundation giving The primary source of Abele’s influence around town is the Argosy Foundation. It’s a private family foundation established in 1997 by Abele’s father, John, a co-founder of the medical technology firm Boston Scientific. The younger Abele now directs Argosy from Milwaukee -- and Wisconsin organizations are prominent recipients. Abele, 43, who moved here in the early 1990s, says he is the main decision-maker in the family on the local grants. The foundation’s grants slowed to a relative trickle in 2009 -- just $550,000 nationally and only $89,000 in Wisconsin. Before Boston Scientific’s stock went south, the foundation was doling out as much as $14.5 million a year. Figures for 2010 are not yet available. Chris Abele told The Business Journal in 2002 that his goal was that Argosy outstrip Milwaukee’s conservative Bradley Foundation "but with a much different political bent." He made good on the second part: Argosy has funded progressive social causes such as Planned Parenthood, homeless prevention, global warming, alternative energy and the Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund, the sister organization of group representing a coalition of labor and social justice causes. The Progressive magazine in Madison is a beneficiary. But the arts here and in several others states are the prime beneficiary, including many mainline performing arts groups and museums. He has served on the boards of the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts and the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. Argosy also backs a number of good-government causes, and well-established organizations that transcend politics, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs, Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer and the American Heart Association. Education is another pet cause, and the only area where Argosy’s donations clearly lean to the free-market conservative side -- at least in some donations supporting the charter and for-profit school movements. So what has the money trail shown us? A "partisan" label seems pretty fair based solely on Abele’s campaign donations -- especially if you narrowly define partisan as a "strong supporter of a person, group, or cause." That’s a common dictionary definition. His foundation giving is broader, but the social causes certainly lean left. But "partisan" carries a broader, more negative meaning: a biased, emotional attachment to ideas and unwillingness to listen or acknowledge alternate viewpoints. Positions on the issues Abele does not seem like a rigid thinker; from what’s known about his positions on local issues, he defies easy labeling. He may be a traditional liberal in some broad sense, but when it comes to local politics Abele strays from that orthodoxy on some key issues: Taxes. He has not adopted Walker’s strict "no new taxes" approach, but says tax increases should be a "last resort" until the county gets its act together. Specifically, a dedicated sales tax for parks or transit is out for the "foreseeable future," he told PolitiFact Wisconsin. Privatization. He told us he is "wide open" to privatizing more county services if it saves money, preserves an important service or improves poorly delivered programs such as mental health. County employee unions have fiercely fought such moves. Intergovernmental cooperation. He is open to letting other municipalities perform some of what the county now does, or have the county take over other things. Employee benefits. With Lubar, he called for an end to lifetime health insurance for transit workers, and says getting employee costs under control is important. He says Walker didn’t go far enough, fast enough to trim pension liabilities. Public education. He favors a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools, and urged Barrett to push for that. It died quickly but isn’t necessarily buried. On the other hand, some of Abele’s rhetoric seems designed to reassure progressives -- suggesting we can protect services even in the county’s time of fiscal peril. "The answer is not to continually cut the critical county services that for years have been neglected, like transit, public safety, mental health services and support for our parks," Abele said at his announcement. Abele supported the use of federal funds for a high-speed rail link between Madison and Milwaukee. Wisconsin lost the $800 million after Walker opposed the project during the governor’s race. Under questioning, he resists being pinned down, preferring to offer lengthy analyses of competing liberal and conservative political philosophies, saying he takes good ideas from both sides. He’s still an enigma to key interest groups in the county, from unions on the left to anti-tax groups on the right. Abele recently asked to meet with Rich Abelson, leader of the powerful county employee union, AFSCME District Council 48. He sought to assure the union boss that he’s not a Darth Vader seeking to blow up county government, but made no specific commitments, Abelson said. "He didn’t ask for our endorsement," Abelson said. "I came away from our breakfast together not knowing what he really wants to do." One of the most high-profile conservative activists on the county scene, Chris Kliesmet of Citizens for Responsible Government, also sat down with Abele recently. Kliesmet said Abele struck him as "almost apolitical." "The question in every conservative’s mind should be, ‘Is this guy a wolf in sheep’s clothing?’" Kliesmet said. That brings us back to the question of who Abele is. More specifically, is he what he defines himself as -- non-ideological and nonpartisan? Based on where he puts his own money, Abele’s politics are decidedly Democratic -- and his family’s foundation backs a variety of liberal social causes and just a few that would be considered conservative. Abele made clear his political intentions when he declared his plans to make Argosy an ideological counterweight to the conservative Bradley Foundation. His own campaign co-chairman says he is ideological. When it comes to his stated positions on county issues, a limited number at best, they cannot be labeled under one partisan banner. As promises of future behavior, though, they carry less weight than the money trail he has already established. For now, we’ll call his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Chris Abele	None	None	None	2011-01-13T09:00:00	2011-01-04	['None']
-vogo-00137	Statement: “The process was never brought up once before the outcome of the vote,” District 7 Councilman Scott Sherman said at a Feb. 11 San Diego City Council meeting.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/the-port-commission-appointment-process-fact-check/	Analysis: The San Diego City Council will soon outline its vision for the Unified Port of San Diego.	None	None	None	None	The Port Commission Appointment Process: Fact Check	February 20, 2013	None	['None']
-vogo-00165	Statement: “All told, we will leave the next mayor with a combined surplus of nearly $120 million over the next five years,” Mayor Jerry Sanders said in an April press release. “That’s money that can be used for more library hours and to hire more police officers and firefighters.”	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/san-diegos-sunny-budget-forecast-could-quickly-darken-fact-check/	Analysis: Outgoing Mayor Jerry Sanders seems to be leaving on a high note.	None	None	None	None	San Diego's Sunny Budget Forecast Could Quickly Darken: Fact Check	November 20, 2012	None	['None']
-snes-04136	Taxpayers are picking up the tab for food shelves in Minneapolis to provide halal food to Muslims on welfare.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/minneapolis-muslims-force-government-to-provide-halal-items-at-food-shelves/	None	Junk News	None	Bethania Palma	None	Minneapolis Muslims ‘Force’ Government to Provide Halal Items at Food Shelves	30 August 2016	None	['Minneapolis']
-afck-00362	“In 1994, 1.2-million families were without homes. In 2013, more than 3.3-million families have free homes.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-the-anc-have-a-good-story-to-tell-we-examine-key-election-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does the ANC have a ‘good story to tell’? We examine key election claims	2014-04-25 05:00	None	['None']
-goop-00906	Caitlyn Jenner’s “Lover” Did Ban Her From Attending Son Brody’s Wedding, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-sophia-hutchins-son-brody-wedding/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Caitlyn Jenner’s “Lover” Did NOT Ban Her From Attending Son Brody’s Wedding, Despite Report	11:42 am, May 31, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01855	Khloe Kardashian Appearing On “Celebrity Big Brother UK,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-celebrity-big-brother-uk-malika-haqq/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Khloe Kardashian NOT Appearing On “Celebrity Big Brother UK,” Despite Claim	11:54 am, January 11, 2018	None	['None']
-bove-00131	UPA Government Invited Taliban Leader In 2013, Claims Times Now: A FactCheck	https://www.boomlive.in/upa-government-invited-taliban-leader-in-2013-claims-times-now-a-factcheck/	None	None	None	None	None	UPA Government Invited Taliban Leader In 2013, Claims Times Now: A FactCheck	Dec 11 2017 9:02 pm, Last Updated: Dec 11 2017 10:57 pm	None	['None']
-pose-00333	"Will direct a review of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/350/revise-regulations-for-export-of-aerospace-technol/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Revise regulations for export of aerospace technology	2010-01-07T13:26:56	None	['United_States']
-snes-04251	A photograph shows Donald Trump's solid gold toilet.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-golden-toilet/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Donald Trump’s Solid Gold Toilet	14 August 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13778	"We in Indiana have . . . the highest credit rating in the nation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/mike-pence/mike-pence-touts-top-indiana-credit-rating-achieve/	Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, the Republican nominee for vice president, introduced himself to the nation during a speech at the Republican convention in Cleveland by trying to show that he knows how to handle big budgets. A five-term member of Congress who assumed the governorship three and a half years ago. Pence contrasted the federal government's $19 trillion debt to his state's finances. "We in Indiana have a $2 billion surplus, the highest credit rating in the nation, even though we've cut taxes every year since I became governor four years ago," he told the crowd. Measuring a governor by his state’s credit rating is something we hear often. People criticized New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for his state’s credit rating while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush tried (and failed) to use Florida’s credit rating to his benefit. A credit rating is an assessment of a state’s ability to repay its lenders, not just today but for years to come. The opinion, issued by ratings agencies, matters because the lower the rating, the higher the interest rate the state faces when it wants to borrow money. It’s kind of like a credit score for states. So what’s the story with Indiana and Pence? Pence is correct that Indiana has the highest credit rating a state can receive, though you can also say there a lot of states tied for first place. The three ratings agencies — Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings — have given Indiana its highest credit rating, AAA, since April 2010 Not only Indiana The most recent long-term compilation of state-by-state credit ratings we found was compiled by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew tracked the ratings from Standard & Poor’s, from 2001 through May 2014. It shows that Indiana's rating is AAA, the highest. But several other states share that distinction as well. As of May 2014, 14 other states also had AAA ratings. Pew noted that three states — Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia — have held a AAA credit rating for at least 50 years. Pre-dated Pence Indiana maintained AAA status during Pence’s term. But it achieved that feat before Pence took office. Pence became governor in January 2013. State officials say Indiana had a top credit rating since 2010. A Dec. 4, 2012, report from the state's public finance director says the AAA Fitch rating was earned in April 2010, the same time Moody's Investor Services, the third major rating agency, upgraded Indiana's credit rating to Aaa from Aa1. The Northwest Indiana Times reported at the time of those credit upgrades that the Fitch and Moody’s ratings went up because both agencies had recalibrated their rating systems for states. Our ruling Pence said, "We in Indiana have ... the highest credit rating in the nation." It actually shares that distinction with several other states and those top ratings predate Pence's governorship by a few years or more. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/45b7ec67-5d4a-4ad0-bf5d-21983a4a7573	None	Mike Pence	None	None	None	2016-07-21T00:59:42	2016-07-20	['Indiana']
-pomt-03395	"About 95 percent of (Ohio’s) electricity comes from burning coal."	/ohio/statements/2013/jul/05/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-almost-all-ohios-e/	President Barack Obama, declaring that "Americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction" on climate change, announced sweeping measures on June 25 to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. He said he would use executive power to require reductions in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the nation’s power plants, as the centerpiece in a three-part plan that includes new federal funds to advance renewable energy technology, and spending to protect cities and states from the ravages of storms and droughts aggravated by a changing climate. Republicans led by House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio were quick to condemn the measures, saying they constituted government overreach that would constrict energy production and strangle the nation’s economic recovery. "The president’s policies are not helping the economy, they’re making it worse," Boehner said in a news conference. He said the policies would have the effect of "increasing the cost of electricity – especially in a state like mine, in Ohio, where about 95 percent of our electricity comes from burning coal." That figure caught PolitiFact Ohio's attention. We asked Boehner's staff for a source to back it up. They did not have a source for the figure, but Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said: "Regardless, it’s clear the overwhelming majority of electricity in Ohio comes from the coal that the president is attacking." In support of that statement, he cited a Washington Post article that looked at the question of whether Obama was waging a "war on coal." So how much of Ohio's electricity does come from coal? The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) has a feature on its website that asks and answers the question. "Coal, a nonrenewable fossil fuel, is used to generate 77.87 percent of the electricity in Ohio," the PUCO site says. PUCO says about 11 percent of Ohio electricity is generated by nuclear power, about 9.1 percent is produced using natural gas and other gases, and petroleum is burned to create steam to turn the turbine blades that generate about 1.0 percent of Ohio electricity. (PUCO lists as its source the Edison Electric Institute, EEI, the association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric companies.) The U.S. Energy Information Administration rounds the figure to 78 percent for electricity generated by coal. That percentage is far higher than the 42 percent of electricity generated by coal nationally, according to the EIA. Our colleagues at the Washington Post Fact Checker also examined Boehner's statement. In addition to citing the figures from PUCO, they noted that the latest figures show that Ohio cut its net generation of electricity from coal by about 10 percent from 2010 to 2011. Fact Checker also took note of Ohio law, cited by the PUCO and Energy Information Administration, that is designed to reduce reliance on coal by requiring that at least 25 percent of all electricity sold in the state come from alternative energy sources by 2025. Half of that must come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric power, geothermal and biomass. Boehner's overall point was correct. As his spokesman said, the vast majority of Ohio's electricity does come from coal, and the percentage is far higher than the national average. But the state officially is looking to reduce, not maintain, its reliance on coal, and has made progress in the effort. And while the percentage of electricity from coal is high, Boehner's figure of 95 percent exaggerates it by 17 percentage points. That's a significant difference. On balance, we rate the statement Half True.	None	John Boehner	None	None	None	2013-07-05T06:00:00	2013-06-26	['None']
-snes-00156	A Twitter user jeopardized her NASA internship after unknowingly insulting a member of the National Space Council.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-insult-nsc/	None	Embarrassments	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Twitter User Jeopardize Her NASA Internship by Insulting a Member of the National Space Council?	28 August 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14700	The five Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bowe Bergdahl are "back on the battlefield."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-repeats-wrong-claim-prisoners-swapped/	President Barack Obama is one of the worst negotiators Donald Trump has ever seen, the real estate magnate and presidential candidate said. Take, for example, Obama’s controversial decision to exchange five Guantanamo detainees for Taliban prisoner Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May 2014, Trump said to NBC Meet The Press host Chuck Todd. "You look at these deals," Trump said Jan. 10 in Ottumwa, Iowa. "I always bring up Bergdahl. We get a traitor, they get five people that they've wanted for nine years, and they're back on the battlefield, trying to kill everybody, including us. And we get a dirty, rotten traitor." Trump’s statement that the five former detainees -- who were senior Taliban operatives -- are now "back on the battlefield" is one we rated False in July 2015. We decided to revisit the claim to see if anything had changed in the past six months. We looked into whether there were any new developments around the detainees, sometimes called the Taliban Five. The new information shows they’re still where they were last -- in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar under government supervision. So Trump is still wrong. The five detainees were released to Qatar in 2014. Qatar is understood to be a neutral state, as opposed to a "battlefield" for insurgent activity. Under the agreement, the five released detainees are not allowed to leave the country. This travel ban was initially supposed to last one year, ending June 1, 2015, but it has been extended. Multiple administration officials told us the detainees haven’t left Qatar. We looked for any evidence to contradict that and found nothing. In fact, in December 2015, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee produced a report in which it expressed concern that the Taliban Five pose a security risk. But the report noted that the security arrangements first made in 2015 had been extended so that the five would remain in Qatar. The State Department told us on Jan. 9, 2016, that the men were still in Qatar. "None of the five individuals has returned to the battlefield," said State Department spokeswoman Liz Trudeau. "All five men are subject to a travel ban, and none have left Qatar." "They’re still in Qatar," added Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Another barrier to the ex-detainees’ return to the battlefield is an additional travel ban beyond the U.S.-Qatar agreement. Four of the five are restricted from leaving the country due to a travel ban imposed by a 1998 United Nations Security Council Resolution, said Barnett Rubin, associate director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean the former detainees aren’t trying to reconnect with the Taliban or other insurgent groups. At least one of the Taliban Five is suspected by the United States of having attempted to contact Taliban associates. And Afghan intelligence officers arrested two suspected insurgents who tried to visit former detainee Mohammad Nabi Omari in Qatar, according to the New York Times. It’s also possible that some or all of the Taliban Five have had more contact with the Taliban or other jihadist networks without the public (or even the government) knowing, said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. But mere communications, or even giving orders from a distance, is not the same thing as literally being "back on the battlefield." "There are indications that they would like to return to the battlefield," Gartenstein-Ross said. "There’s reason for concern, but there’s not evidence to support (Trump’s) particular claim." Even if the Taliban Five has re-engaged in insurgent activities electronically -- a contention that, we reiterate, is not confirmed by any publicly available information -- it would be a stretch to conclude that this counts as returning to the battlefield. "At least one of them called some of his relatives. I don't know what he said on the phone. If making a phone call now constitutes returning to the battlefield, we are in 1984 territory," Rubin said, referring to the George Orwell novel. Our ruling Trump said the five Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bowe Bergdahl are "back on the battlefield." The Taliban Five are known to be in Qatar, where they have been since their release over a year ago. Qatar is considered neutral ground -- not a battlefield -- and they are not allowed to leave the country. At least one of the five has been in contact with suspected insurgents, but experts said there is not enough information available to know the extent of these communications. And even if they had communicated with insurgents from afar, that would not the same as literally going back to the battlefield and, as Trump said, "trying to kill everybody.". Because there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim, we rate it False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-01-10T09:00:00	2016-01-10	['Bowe_Bergdahl', 'Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp']
-hoer-01226	Monica Lewinskys Sons Body Has Been Found in Central Park	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/monica-lewinsky-son-death-fake-news/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Monica Lewinskys Sons Body Has NOT Been Found in Central Park Fake-News	May 17, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-12949	"We don't get any of that information" from the federal government on who refugees are, where they come from and how long they are likely to stay.	/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/06/scott-walker/federal-government-doesnt-give-information-syrian-/	In year-end media interviews, Gov. Scott Walker amplified his safety concerns about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s review of refugees who come to Wisconsin, particularly from Syria. "We want to make sure Homeland Security's got an aggressive and appropriate vetting process, to have an idea who's coming in, where they're coming from, how long they're anticipating being here," Walker said on the Dec. 23, 2016 edition of "Here and Now," a Wisconsin Public Television show. "Right now, we don't get any of that information. And as you can imagine, it's frustrating for us, it's frustrating for law enforcement. And it's not to say that refugees aren't legit; we've had refugees before, we'll have refugees going forward from any number of countries. We just want to make sure we can guarantee our safety." Is Walker right that authorities in Wisconsin don’t know who the refugees are who settle in the state, where they’re from and how long they’re likely to stay? Federal vetting process After terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, Walker and other Wisconsin Republicans said they opposed the settling of Syrian refugees in the state. They have not laid out a plan for ensuring that doesn't happen. But in one of his 2016 year-end interviews, Walker called on President-elect Donald Trump to immediately clear federal barriers to keeping Syrian refugees out of the state. Refugees, to be clear, are different from other types of immigrants. A refugee has been legally defined as having "a well-founded fear of persecution because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; is outside his or her country of origin"; and is unable to return there "for fear of persecution." Trump and other Republicans have denounced the sufficiency of the federal vetting of refugees. And there’s no question there are challenges to screening refugees from conflict zones such as Syria, where intelligence and national security officials have said there is minimal data on individuals. Nevertheless, vetting is a multi-step, multi-agency process, in place since 1980, that includes additional screening of refugees coming from Syria. As PolitiFact National has reported, here is the process generally: 1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees determines who is eligible as a refugee. 2. Refugees referred to the United States are vetted through a process that involves multiple federal intelligence and security agencies. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through databases coordinated by the FBI, and the departments of State, Homeland Security and Defense. (For Syrian refugees, there’s one additional step (more details here). Their filings with the UN and initial documents submitted to the U.S. program are reviewed. Information about where they came from, what caused them to flee and what their experiences were like are cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.) 3. While the checks are being conducted, Homeland Security officers interview the refugees in person. Refugees who’ve been cleared by an officer, the State Department and the background checks then undergo medical screenings, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance. This process (more details here) typically takes one to two years, if not longer, and happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil. Notifications in states With regard to Walker’s statement, two nonprofits -- Amnesty International USA and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants -- told us that state governments generally are not given lists of the names of refugees who are resettled in their states. But that’s something of a red herring. Refugees approved for settling in the United States, like other legal immigrants, have a right to live where they want and to move about. The experts pointed out that the state government or local law enforcement agencies generally are not notified when any person who is legally in the United States moves into their state. That’s not to say no one in Wisconsin knows when refugees first arrive. In fact, preparations are made in advance, in an effort to choose a community where a refugee is likely to assimilate. According to the two nonprofit agencies and David Martin, an emeritus professor of international law at the University of Virginia who’s previously held posts at Homeland Security and the State Department, here is an overview of the process: 1. Non-profit agencies that have offices throughout the United States -- including Catholic Charities and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services -- have contracts with the U.S. State Department to do refugee resettlement. Those agencies are given the names, home countries and other information about refugees approved by the Department of Homeland Security, such as whether they have family in the United States. 2. At the national level, the agencies meet weekly to decide, in consultation with the State Department, where the approved refugees should be resettled, based on their individual circumstances and local resources. In turn, those agencies’ local offices are notified and resettlement plans are put in place specifically for the refugees, covering housing, job assistance, language classes and other needs. Once the final vetting is completed, the local agencies meet the refugees when they arrive and begin the process of helping them settle. In addition, the private agencies coordinate with state refugee services workers who are federally funded employees of the state Department of Children and Families. So, it’s not as though the state is in the dark about refugee resettlement. Two final points: 1. Some information about refugee resettlements is readily available on the website of the federal Refugee Processing Center. We did a search that showed that in 2016, 1,877 refugees were placed in Wisconsin, with nearly half coming from Burma (also known as Myanmar) in Southeast Asia. Here are the five largest groups: Country Refugees settled in Wisconsin in 2016 Burma 979 Democratic Republic of the Congo 262 Somalia 216 Iraq 144 Syria 119 2. Given that refugees are coming to the United States because life is not safe for them in their homeland, and it’s been a years-long process to get admitted to the U.S., the stays are not viewed as temporary. "The strong presumption is that it’s permanent," said Martin. Refugees who stay for a year without committing a crime can then get a "green card" and become a permanent U.S. resident, he said. Walker spokesman Tom Evenson said Walker’s complaint is that the governor’s office doesn’t receive any information about refugees placed in Wisconsin until after decisions have been made by the federal government. "The state has no authority regarding who is coming to our state, when they are coming and where they are coming from," Evenson said. But, to reiterate, the vetting of refugees is a federal matter. And once people have legally arrived in the United States -- immigrants, refugees, etc. -- they are generally free to live where they want without notification to, or approval from, the state. Our rating Walker said: "We don't get any of that information" from the federal government on who refugees are, where they come from and how long they are likely to stay. Walker has a point in that, after vetting the refugees and approving their entrance to the United States, the federal government does not provide lists of the names of those individuals to states. But that’s something of a red herring -- states don’t get lists of other people who are legally in the United States and are generally free to move about and reside wherever they want. Data on the numbers of refugees, where they came and where they settle is available -- and Wisconsin state government has refugee services workers who coordinate with private agencies in the settlement of refugees. As for Walker’s point about length of stay, it doesn’t really fit, given that refugees fleeing their homeland generally are settling in the United States permanently. For a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/727375cb-e973-4e22-9341-5b20a1e8605b	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2017-01-06T06:00:00	2016-12-23	['None']
-tron-01347	Eating Carrots Improves Your Vision	https://www.truthorfiction.com/eating-carrots-improves-your-vision/	None	food	None	None	None	Eating Carrots Improves Your Vision	Jan 6, 2016	None	['None']
-tron-00413	Tried to Barbecue a Kitten?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/kitten/	None	animals	None	None	None	Tried to Barbecue a Kitten?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-06233	Photograph shows a satellite view of a blackout in eastern North America.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackout-2/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	North American Blackout	22 August 2003	None	['North_America']
-snes-05403	A video shows Koko the gorilla spontaneously using sign language to issue a warning about climate change.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-does-koko-know-about-climate-change-nothing/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	What Does Koko Know About Climate Change? Nothing.	6 January 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00141	"Our military engages in a wide range of humanitarian activities that build friends and allies at the regional and ground level, most remarkably during the response to the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia. This demonstration of American military professionalism and aid won back local hearts in key Muslim states. Yet, such strategic and high pay off programs are presently not included in long-term planning and, when they do occur, actually take away funds from a unit's regular operational budget. The result is that the United States sometimes misses opportunities to build partnerships and trust. The Obama administration will expand such programs, regularizing them into the annual budget so that our efforts to aid allies, and win hearts and minds along the way, are sustainable, rather than ad-hoc."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/153/include-humanitarian-international-missions-in-lon/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Include humanitarian international missions in long-term budgeting	2010-01-07T13:26:49	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama', 'Southeast_Asia', 'Islam']
-pomt-05259	Says "there have been some job gains in the McMansion State since Mr. Christie took office, but they have lagged gains both in the nation as a whole and in New York and Connecticut, the obvious points of comparison."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/31/paul-krugman/chris-christies-jersey-comeback-challenged-new-yor/	New York Times columnist Paul Krugman isn’t feeling Gov. Chris Christie’s "Jersey Comeback." In his May 28 column, Krugman chastised the Republican governor as a "fiscal phony," suggesting that Christie’s comeback message is at odds with job growth in New Jersey since he took office in January 2010. According to the liberal columnist, "there have been some job gains in the McMansion State since Mr. Christie took office, but they have lagged gains both in the nation as a whole and in New York and Connecticut, the obvious points of comparison." We’re not sure if that "McMansion" nickname will stick, but as for job growth, Krugman’s analysis is spot on, PolitiFact New Jersey found. In terms of the percentage increases in total jobs and private-sector jobs as of April 2012, New Jersey’s growth since the beginning of Christie’s tenure has been less than the growth in New York, Connecticut and the nation as a whole, according to seasonally-adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak argued that the state’s "economic policies have us headed very much in the right direction in terms of job growth." Drewniak added, "Do keep in mind that it was under this Governor that New Jersey had the best single year of private sector job growth in the last 10 years. That’s over 71,000 private sector jobs created since the Governor took office." First, let’s talk about total job growth, including public- and private-sector employment. As with previous stories, there’s two ways of analyzing job growth figures: the net increase in jobs and the percentage increase. Our analysis is focused on the percentage increase, because that metric accounts for the differences in size between New Jersey and the other two states and the nation as a whole. While New Jersey’s total jobs grew by 37,100, or roughly 1 percent, between January 2010 and April 2012, New York increased its total jobs by 298,700, or about 3.5 percent, and Connecticut saw growth of 33,500, or about 2.1 percent. As of April, there were 132,989,000 total jobs in the nation as a whole, representing a roughly 2.9 percent increase since January 2010. The April figures for the nation and the states are preliminary. Looking at total job growth since February 2010 -- Christie’s first full month in office -- we found similar results. Between February 2010 and April 2012, the nation saw an increase in total jobs of about 2.9 percent. During the same time period, New York and Connecticut increased total jobs by about 3.5 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, New Jersey’s total job growth was about 1.2 percent. The following chart lays out the changes in total job growth as of April 2012: Net Total Job Growth Since Jan. 2010 % Total Job Growth Since Jan. 2010 Net Total Job Growth Since Feb. 2010 % Total Job Growth Since Feb. 2010 New Jersey 37,100 1% 45,000 1.2% New York 298,700 3.5% 296,000 3.5% Connecticut 33,500 2.1% 34,100 2.1% Nation 3,710,000 2.9% 3,745,000 2.9% Now, let’s review private-sector job growth -- a statistic frequently touted by the Christie administration. Between January 2010 and April 2012, New Jersey gained 65,600 private-sector jobs for an increase of about 2 percent. Starting in February 2010 and continuing through April 2012, the state’s private-sector jobs grew by 71,200, or roughly 2.2 percent. But those figures fall behind private-sector job growth in New York, Connecticut and the nation as a whole. New York increased its private-sector jobs by about 4.6 percent since both January 2010 and February 2010, while Connecticut’s growth was roughly 3.2 percent since January 2010 and nearly 3.3 percent since February 2010. The nation’s private-sector jobs increased by about 4 percent during the same time periods. Here’s the chart showing private-sector job growth as of April 2012: Net Private Job Growth Since Jan. 2010 % Private Job Growth Since Jan. 2010 Net Private Job Growth Since Feb. 2010 % Private Job Growth Since Feb. 2010 New Jersey 65,600 2% 71,200 2.2% New York 324,300 4.6% 321,800 4.6% Connecticut 43,800 3.2% 44,400 3.3% Nation 4,220,000 4% 4,247,000 4% Our ruling In his May 28 column, Krugman claimed "there have been some job gains in the McMansion State since Mr. Christie took office, but they have lagged gains both in the nation as a whole and in New York and Connecticut, the obvious points of comparison." Krugman’s analysis is correct. In terms of the percentage increases in total jobs and private-sector jobs as of April 2012, New Jersey’s growth since the beginning of Christie’s tenure has been less than the increases in New York, Connecticut and the nation as a whole. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Paul Krugman	None	None	None	2012-05-31T07:30:00	2012-05-28	['New_York_City', 'Connecticut']
-farg-00219	“In the last presidential election, when [Donald] Trump won, we had the lowest voter turnout … in 20 years.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/sanders-wrong-voter-turnout/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['voter turnout']	Sanders Wrong on Voter Turnout	April 17, 2017	2017-04-17 22:32:18 UTC	['None']
-abbc-00235	Fact check: Has SA Labor adopted five of the Liberals' previously announced policies?	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-14/fact-check-south-australia-infrastructure-funding/9537064	Fact check: Has SA Labor adopted five of the Liberals' previously announced policies?	['elections', 'alp', 'transport', 'australia', 'sa']	None	None	['elections', 'alp', 'transport', 'australia', 'sa']	Fact check: Is SA's share of federal infrastructure funding set to drop to 2 per cent in coming years?	Thu 12 Jul 2018, 2:23am	None	['None']
-pomt-02882	Says the U.S. national debt has tripled during Rep. Greg Walden’s time in Congress.	/oregon/statements/2013/nov/11/dennis-linthicum/has-national-debt-trippled-rep-greg-walden-was-ele/	U.S. Rep. Greg Walden may be a member of the House GOP leadership, but that hasn’t protected him from allegations that he’s too liberal for his conservative base -- or from drawing a primary challenger. Late last month, Klamath County Chairman Dennis Linthicum announced he would try to oust Walden in the 2014 Republican primary. Part of Linthicum’s motivation, he told The Oregonian, is that he sees Walden as a career politician who doesn’t stand up for conservative values. On his campaign website, Linthicum offers the nation's ever-increasing public debt as one piece of evidence: "During Walden’s time as a representative (nearly 16 years) the National Debt has tripled." We constantly hear about the nation’s trillions of dollars worth of debt, but has it really tripled in the time that Walden has been in office? We wanted to find out. Looking up the public debt -- past and present -- is a fairly simple exercise. The U.S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of the Public Debt has a handy website that lets you look up the debt on just about any date. Before we shower you with numbers, though, a quick note: As with almost anything we dig into, debt is a complex subject. When you talk about the total debt held by the U.S., there are two oft-cited measures. The first is the total outstanding public debt. That’s everything we owe to all of our debt-holders, no distinction made. Then there’s the debt held by the public. That’s our total debt minus intragovernmental debt or money owed by one part of the government to another part of the government. One economist we spoke to said the second one was generally "a little better measure." To be safe, we checked the growth of both. Walden began his service as a U.S. congressman in January 1999. The closest date we could find for which the Treasury had estimates of both sorts of debt was Sept. 30, 1999, so we went ahead and used that date and compared it with the most recent figures available, from Nov. 7. Here’s what we found: Back in 1999, the total outstanding public debt was $5.6 trillion. These days, it’s a little north of $17 trillion. In other words, it’s tripled. The U.S. debt minus the intragovernmental loans was $3.6 trillion back in 1999 and is about $12.1 trillion these days. So, that’s more than tripled. Of course, we’re not economists so our next step was to call some experts. We spoke with Tom Potiowsky, the chair of the Economics Department at Portland State University and the former chief economist for the state of Oregon, and Mark Thoma, an economics professor at the University of Oregon. They both had little doubt that Linthicum’s claim is accurate, but they did provide us with some caveats. Thoma noted that comparing our debt now, on the heels of a recession, to debt from 1999 when the economy was in better shape, might be somewhat deceiving. We’ve had to spend far more on social programs, for instance. "To me, it’s misleading to use a recession as your end point," he said. Potiowsky questioned whether it’s fair to hang the debt growth on Walden -- something we’ll get to later. And both Thoma and Potiowsky suggested we look at the U.S. debt relative to the nation’s gross domestic product. If the economy were expanding as quickly as the debt, that would be important to note. We dug back into the numbers. In 1999 the debt-to-GDP ratio (if you use the entire debt) was 57 percent. These days, it’s 101 percent. So it’s just about doubled. Meanwhile, if you skim off the intragovernmental debt, the ratio in 1999 was 36 percent and is 72 percent today. Again, it’s doubled. The takeaway, then, is that debt is growing and it’s growing faster than our GDP. We called Linthicum to ask whether it’s fair to pin this all on Walden. "I realize that Greg Walden is one member of the House, and there’s the Senate and there’s the president and his policies," he said. "I was just making what I saw as a statement of fact." That may be so, but given that Linthicum uses the claim on a campaign website specifically to draw contrasts between him as a fiscal conservative and Walden as somebody who has let the debt skyrocket, it’s hard not to read it as an attack. The blame, though, is largely misplaced. You’d also have to account for entitlement program growth and the impact of the recession. His statement is accurate but he can’t pin the bulk of the growth on Walden, who is one of hundreds of lawmakers and three presidents to serve since 1999. We rate the statement Half True. (Head back to OregonLive to comment on this article and let us know what you think about the ruling.)	None	Dennis Linthicum	None	None	None	2013-11-11T14:33:03	2013-11-01	['United_States', 'United_States_Congress']
-pomt-08581	On running a "civil and polite" campaign	/georgia/statements/2010/sep/27/roy-barnes/bag-snakes-jab-leads-ajc-politifact-georgia-revisi/	A TV political ad funded by Democrats calls Republican candidate for governor Nathan Deal "slippery as a bag of snakes." This gave AJC PolitiFact Georgia's scribes pause. The Democrats' candidate is former Gov. Roy Barnes. Didn't he say after the Republican primary runoff that "just because we have differences doesn’t mean that we have to call each other names"? We pulled out our Flip-O-Meter, which detects whether politicians have flipped on their positions. We've used the Flip-O-Meter on Barnes and his opinion on "civil and polite" campaigns before. On Aug. 11, Barnes said on WSB-TV that he'd try to run one. "I think that you can show differences without being mean," Barnes said. "You know, it’s a Southern tradition to be civil and polite. There are differences, but they’re honorable people. And so just because we have differences doesn’t mean that we have to call each other names. "But we do have a responsibility to show the differences, and I think they do, too. As long as it’s done in a respectful way and one that’s not personal, I think that we can do that." In late August, we looked at Barnes' commercials to see if he was true to his word. We found the ads were not nearly as nasty as those in the Republican gubernatorial runoff. They focused on important issues and cited facts correctly. But with each new TV commercial, he moved further from "civil and polite" territory. We ruled Barnes did a Half Flip. So how's Barnes doing now? We peered into that bag of snakes with the help of two University of Georgia professors: Charles Bullock, an expert on Georgia politics, and Spencer Tinkham,an expert on political messaging. The Democratic Party of Georgia paid for "Fabrication," the pro-Barnes commercial. It was posted on YouTube.com on Sept. 19. It was a response to one released several days earlier by the Republican Governors Association. In both ads, pairs of codgers sit at tables covered in red-checked tablecloths, sipping coffee and swapping homespun political wisdom over the whine of a harmonica. In the Republican ad, the old men remember the term of Barnes, which ended in 2003, as an unhappy chapter in Georgia's history. In Democrats' ad, "times were better" when Barnes was governor, one of the men says. "So this Washington guy Deal is lying?" a second man asks. "Slippery as a bag of snakes," his friend replies. "I guess we can call him a 'shady Deal,' " the second man quips. The scene ends. An announcer says, "Nathan Deal. Too corrupt, even for Congress." Bullock's verdict: Negative. Tinkham's verdict: It's not a negative ad. It's a comparative one. A true negative ad would not mention the positive things done by the candidate it supports, he said. "I wouldn't call the ad 'civil and polite,' " Tinkham said. "But I think Barnes successfully separates himself from its content to such an extent that it is difficult to attribute the incivility and impoliteness to him. Rather, it seems that it's the 'good ole boys' in the coffee shop who are making the negative judgments." In Barnes' defense, Emil Runge, a spokesman for Barnes' campaign, said the ad was in response to a "misleading" one by Republicans. He added that Barnes never said he would avoid pointing out differences between himself and Deal. Since our experts were split and Runge made reasonable points, we looked at four other pro-Barnes TV commercials to see if the overall tone of Barnes' ads has shifted. "Fresh Start," released Aug. 27, compares Barnes to Deal on ethics. Deal might spend too much time clearing his name on ethics accusations, it said. Barnes has no such problems, so he can devote more time to Georgians. "Padlock," also released Aug. 27, features a cartoon of Deal in what appears to be a windowless storage closet. It said Deal is "hiding something," but offers no facts to back up its claim. "Secret Lease," released Sept. 6, said Deal's release of his tax returns is "a desperate attempt to fool the voters" and calls Deal "too corrupt, even for Congress." "Investigation," also released Sept. 6, scrolls through headlines about Deal's run-in with congressional ethics investigators and asks whether, if elected, he'd spend too much time clearing his name. While "Fresh Start" and "Investigation" for the most part stick to the facts on the legitimate issue of candidate ethics, "Secret Lease" accuses Deal of trying to deceive voters without clear proof, and "Padlock" is almost all insinuation. With these most recent commercials, Barnes is heading even deeper into negative territory. Deep enough to turn his Flip-O-Meter rating from a Half Flip to a Full Flop.	None	Roy Barnes	None	None	None	2010-09-27T06:00:00	2010-08-11	['None']
-pomt-08519	Since being elected in 2002, Scott Walker has "given back over $370,000 of his salary to the county."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/06/scott-walker/gop-governor-candidate-scott-walker-says-he-has-gi/	For years, folks in southeastern Wisconsin have heard about Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive, giving up thousands upon thousands of dollars of his salary. Elsewhere, the claim may be more of a jaw-dropper. In March 2010, after launching his campaign for governor, Walker used a TV ad to tout the money he has returned and the amount is also proclaimed on Walker’s campaign website: Since being elected in 2002, Scott Walker has "given back over $370,000 of his salary to the county." The returned money was part of a 2002 campaign promise to cut the job’s salary by $60,000 per year. Walker, the Republican candidate for governor, made the pledge in the wake of a scandal over lavish county pensions. His Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, has taken a jab at Walker, pointing out Walker has reduced his annual giveback from $60,000 to $10,000. The Barrett campaign points to a 2002 Walker flier, which includes the promise to reduce the county exec salary by $60,000 per year. That promise, however, didn’t specify for how long Walker would reduce the salary by $60,000. And in April 2008, he was re-elected after telling voters he would reduce the giveback to $10,000. (Walker joked at the time, according to a news report, that his decision to give back nearly half of his $129,114 salary had been unpopular with his wife.) (For those wondering, Barrett has taken six furlough days, two in 2009 and four in 2010, according to an aide. He has been taking his full salary, which this year is $147,335, according to the city comptroller’s office.) So now the $370,000 question: Has Walker really given back that much back? Let’s find out. To get our tallies, we went first to the Walker gubernatorial campaign, which referred us to the county Department of Administrative Services. That office reports directly to Walker, so we also asked for figures from Milwaukee County Treasurer Dan Diliberti, a Democrat. Both offices agreed on the figures. Taking into account the partial year Walker served after being elected in 2002, and an odd number of pay periods in 2003 through 2005, Walker returned the equivalent of $60,000 per year from 2002 through 2007. In 2008, which was covered partly by the $60,000 promise and mostly by the $10,000 promise, Walker returned $18,846. And in 2009 and so far in 2010, Walker not only returned the equivalent of $10,000 per year, but he’s also written checks to the county, for just under $500 each, for one furlough day in 2009 and six more furlough days in 2010. The grand total? Walker has foregone $375,070 in salary since being elected county executive in 2002 -- $5,070 more than what he has claimed during the gubernatorial campaign. Our summation is as simple as the math: In his initial campaign, Walker made a pledge to return $60,000 a year, though he later was re-elected on a smaller give-back pledge. He said his checkbook is more than $370,000 lighter -- and the county’s coffers that much better off. The record shows Walker’s claim is accurate. We rate it True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2010-10-06T09:00:00	2010-10-05	['None']
-snes-03098	Donald Trump requested tanks and missile launchers at his inaugural parade.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-military-inaugural-parade/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Donald Trump Want Tanks and Missiles at His Inaugural Parade?	20 January 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06399	Says Rick Perry wrote a newspaper item saying he was "open to amnesty" for illegal immigrants in the United States.	/texas/statements/2011/oct/29/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-perry-wrote-opinion-article-sayin/	Assailed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry about undocumented workers who used to mow his lawn, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shot back: "You wrote an op-ed (opinion piece) in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That moment at the Oct. 18, 2011, CNN Republican presidential debate marked continued jousting between the two over illegal immigration. According to a Sept. 11, 2011, news article in the Boston Globe, both hopefuls oppose legislation offering a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, deeming it "amnesty." In references to immigration, according to HG.org, a legal information website, amnesty means a "governmental pardon for violating policies related to immigration. Immigration amnesty would include the federal government forgiving individuals for using false documentation such as Social Security numbers, identification cards, and driver’s licenses, in order to gain employment in the U.S. and continue to remain in the country. Amnesty would allow illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens to gain permanent residency in the United States." The Globe article also notes that Perry unsuccessfully asked the 2011 Texas Legislature to approve legislation disallowing "sanctuary cities" in his state and ensuring police officers could inquire into the immigration status of people they stop. The story says too that Perry opposes the federal DREAM Act, which would open a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who complete two years of college or military service. Republicans haven’t always aligned against amnesty plans. A 1986 measure signed into law by President Ronald Reagan permitted residents illegally in the country before 1982 to work toward legal status. According to a July 2010 report by NPR, nearly 3 million illegal immigrants ultimately took advantage of the opportunity, though critics judged the law a failure at curbing illegal immigration. These days, Perry ranks among candidates who view amnesty as a toxic term. A Sept. 12, 2011, press release from his campaign says that Perry "believes that Washington must first secure the border before we can have any rational discussion about immigration reform, and he opposes amnesty." Then again, NumbersUSA, a group that airs concerns about mass immigration, says in a web post updated Sept. 28, 2011, that Perry’s stance on amnesty "remains unclear. During the (George W.) Bush presidency, Gov. Perry gave mild support to the idea of legalization. But he has spoken against President Obama's various ‘administrative amnesties.’" That’s a reference to the Obama administration’s declaration it’s applying "prosecutorial discretion" to deport some illegal residents and not others. Some factors the government listed in June 2011 as affecting deportations include how long a person has been here, with particular consideration given to his or her legal residency status; if the person came here as a young child; and if he or she has pursued a college degree or served in the military or have immediate relatives who have done so. NumbersUSA also notes Perry’s support for a 2001 Texas law enabling some undocumented residents to pay in-state tuition at colleges and universities. Its entry continues: "He opposes a congressional-passed amnesty as long as the border is not secure. He says once the border is secure, a conversation about amnesty can start. He does not make it clear where he would stand during such a conversation." Back to Romney’s debate jab. Did Perry write a piece saying he was open to amnesty? Romney spokesman Ryan Williams sent us a copy of a July 28, 2001, letter from Perry, who had become governor the previous year, to the editor of the Dallas Morning News. In the letter, Perry takes exception to a news story characterizing him as wary of easing the flow of immigrants from Mexico into the United States. That news article, in the July 27, 2001, Morning News, quoted Perry airing reservations about a proposal by the George W. Bush administration to grant permanent legal residency to many undocumented immigrants from Mexico. "I share the concerns of most Texans and most residents of the United States about an amnesty program," the story quoted Perry saying. "All of those concerns must be addressed in a thoughtful methodical manner." The article also referred to President Bush saying he didn’t favor unconditional amnesty for immigrants living here illegally. "Perry said he, too, sees problems in blanket amnesty but that he supports the goal of working with Mexico on having a seamless border," the article said. "‘Having some day in the future a transparent border is an admirable goal and one we should have,’ (Perry) said. ‘With that said, we realize there are problems with health care, education, environment and infrastructure all along the border of Texas and Mexico that we need to address. Until both countries are comfortable that we addressed these concerns, then we need to be cautious and make progress one step at a time.’" Perry’s subsequent letter of objection to the newspaper said: "The truth is, I am intrigued and open to the Bush administration's amnesty proposal. Most Texans would agree that it's better to have legal, taxpaying immigrants from Mexico working in the United States than illegal immigrants living in fear of the law and afraid to access basic services." Perry’s letter also said that if Mexico develops a "stronger middle class, the goal of a more seamless, transparent border could become a reality. In the meantime," his letter said, "...there are many unanswered questions about how an amnesty plan would be implemented and how it would ultimately impact our state's health care and education systems, as well as other services. Any amnesty proposal must be thoroughly debated and analyzed before implementation and should include input from all border states. Such a plan could benefit our state and countless Mexican families seeking a better life. I applaud President Bush for initiating a public dialogue on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to participate in the development of this initiative." So, Perry wrote to a newspaper saying he was open to the Bush amnesty proposal, though any proposal would need vetting. News reports show Perry talking down amnesty in later years. In a Dec. 14, 2006, article posted on the website of the Texas governor’s office, Perry said "neither amnesty nor mass deportation is the answer" to border security and illegal immigration. "The first unfairly rewards those who broke our laws, and the latter is not only unrealistic and unenforceable, but it would devastate our economy. That’s why I support a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contributions without providing them citizenship status." His article continues: "I would rather know who is crossing our border legally to work instead of not knowing who is crossing our border illegally to work. A guest worker program that provides foreign workers with an ID removes the incentive for millions of people to illegally enter our country. It also adds those workers to our tax base, generates revenue for needed social services and it can be done without providing citizenship." In his January 2007 inaugural address, Perry said: "We must have a guest-worker program... And we must oppose amnesty because those who come here illegally should not be able to receive citizenship ahead of those who migrate here legally." He said much the same in his February 2007 State-of-the-State address, telling lawmakers: "Those who come here illegally should not be rewarded with amnesty." In August 2007, according to a Houston Chronicle news story, Perry said during a trip to Mexico that he supports a system that would temporarily legalize foreign workers, while making sure they pay taxes and obey the law. Such a system, Perry said then, would allow for a "free flow of individuals between these countries who want to work, who want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico." Stumping in Iowa for Rudy Giuliani for president in November 2007, Perry was interrupted when he advocated securing the border and providing non-citizen workers with a tamper-proof ID card, according to a Dallas Morning News recap. In what may have been a reminder that some people see temporary guest-worker schemes as tantamount to amnesty, an audience member said: "That sounds like amnesty." In early 2008, Perry stressed border security over immigration reform in an Austin press conference, saying that if a comprehensive overhaul occurs he wants temporary workers who apply for U.S. citizenship to wait their turn behind others who have already done so. "There's a line. Get in just like everybody else," he said, according to an article in the Feb. 1, 2008, Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Our ruling Romney’s claim leaves the incorrect misimpression Perry is lately open to amnesty, while Perry has said he's against amnesty for years. Still, Romney is correct that Perry once wrote a newspaper saying he was open to amnesty, though Perry's 2001 letter spoke only to a particular proposal. The Texan also has aired continued interest in enabling illegal immigrants to become guest workers, an idea that some consider a form of amnesty. We rate Romney's statement Half True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2011-10-29T06:00:00	2011-10-18	['United_States', 'Rick_Perry']
-tron-01957	Website That Offers a Search of U.S. Driver’s Licenses	https://www.truthorfiction.com/driverslic/	None	humorous	None	None	None	Website That Offers a Search of U.S. Driver’s Licenses	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00110	Bob Howard Pedophile Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/bob-howard-rumour.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Unfounded Facebook Rumour- Bob Howard Pedophile Warning	28th April 2011	None	['None']
-goop-00716	Selena Gomez Thinking About Justin Bieber During “Hotel Transylvania 3” Media Tou	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-justin-bieber-hotel-transylvania-3-made-up/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez NOT Thinking About Justin Bieber During “Hotel Transylvania 3” Media Tour	10:58 am, June 30, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04548	"We haven’t passed a budget in more than three years and not a single appropriations bill has been brought to the floor this year."	/tennessee/statements/2012/sep/28/bob-corker/bob-corker-says-senate-has-not-passed-budget-more-/	Congress headed home for its six-week, pre-election break on Sept. 22, after the U.S. Senate voted just past midnight to give final approval to a short-term budget measure that will keep the federal government running for another six months. The decision to approve a short-term budget fix instead of passing a spending plan for the entire fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 again set off a debate about whether lawmakers were acting irresponsibly. "We haven’t passed a budget in more than three years and not a single appropriations bill has been brought to the floor this year," U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in a press release explaining why he voted against the short-term measure. Corker argued Congress should not be passing the short-term measure, known as a continuing resolution, or any spending bill until it has prioritized how taxpayer dollars are to be spent and at what levels. "If the Senate can’t perform its most basic responsibilities," Corker said, "I worry about how we’re going to make the tough decisions and do the hard work that will be necessary to get our country on a path to fiscal solvency." To back up the senator’s claim about congressional inaction on a budget and spending bills, Corker’s office pointed us to two documents compiled by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee. The first was a timeline indicating that the last time the Democratic-led Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009. The other document was a status report on all 12 of the annual spending bills that provide funding for federal departments and agencies. According to that document, not one of the 12 spending bills has been considered by the full Senate this year. Corker is not the first Republican to take the Democratic-led Senate to task for failing to pass a budget. PolitiFact and its partners in other states have examined at least five similar claims in the past, and rulings on those have varied because the statements were worded differently. When statements attempted to pin the blame squarely on just one political party for the inaction, rulings of Half True were given. But in a case where blame was not heaped on just one party, as is the case with Corker’s statement, PolitiFact has gone with True or Mostly True, depending on the wording of the claim. In any case, each of those statements cited the same date – April 29, 2009 – as the last time a budget had been approved. An April 26, 2012, item from PolitiFact Ohio explained how the budget process is supposed to work: Since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Senate and the House are supposed to pass budget resolutions in the spring. These budget resolutions set a framework for spending, taxation and other fiscal items in the coming fiscal year. They also lay out general plans for the next four years. If these budget resolutions differ, the chambers are supposed to hammer out a compromise. Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes. If a budget resolution doesn’t pass, the federal government won’t go dark. In the absence of a budget resolution, appropriations bills have continued to allocate money. What about Corker’s claim that not a single appropriations bill has been brought to the Senate floor this year? The U.S. House passed seven of the 12 annual appropriations bills this year and sent them to the Senate for consideration, according to the status report by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee also approved 11 of the 12 spending bills and sent them to the full Senate for consideration. An independent search by PolitiFact via the Library of Congress’ Thomas bill-tracking web site confirmed the figures cited in the GOP report. But none of the bills approved by the House or the Senate Appropriations Committee were ever brought to the Senate floor for a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who decides which bills will be considered, told reporters on July 10, 2012, that no spending bills were likely to be approved this year because of an ongoing dispute with House Republicans over how much the federal government should spend. True to his word, Reid so far has not brought any of the annual spending bills to the floor this year, necessitating the short-term budget measure to keep the government running for another six months. Previous PolitiFact items on claims like this also have brought this perspective -- there have been times when Republicans have been in charge and also have failed to pass a budget. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Florida report that the House and the Senate had failed to pass a joint budget bill on four other occasions since 1983. For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, under Democratic control in 2002, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind. For fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and the Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress. Our ruling Sen. Corker says it has been more than three years since Congress passed a budget and that this year, not a single appropriations bill has made it the Senate floor. The record shows that he has his facts straight. While other Republicans have tried to lay the blame for the lack of a budget at the feet of Democrats, Corker does not specifically apportion blame just one party. He simply chastised the Senate in general for failing to pass a budget and we rate his statement as True.	None	Bob Corker	None	None	None	2012-09-28T04:00:00	2012-09-22	['None']
-tron-01169	Claims about Michael Brown’s Family	https://www.truthorfiction.com/claims-about-michael-browns-family/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Claims about Michael Brown’s Family – Truth! & Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-05845	Says abortion is "the most common surgery in our country."	/ohio/statements/2012/feb/15/patrick-johnston/leader-personhood-issue-claims-abortion-most-commo/	Nearly four decades after the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion, it remains an emotionally-charged debate. It was against that backdrop that Dr. Patrick Johnston, the director of Personhood Ohio and a leader of the effort to get the so-called "Personhood" issue on the Ohio ballot, began his remarks on Cleveland public radio on Jan. 30 with a statement. At the outset of his remarks, Johnston referred to abortion as "the most common surgery in our country." The statement became the launching point for the Zanesville-area doctor to make his case that abortions have become too routine and for why Ohioans should back a rewriting of the Ohio Constitution so that a fertilized egg is defined as a person -- a change that effectively would outlaw abortion. Johnston’s claim seemed like the kind of straightforward assertion that Politifact Ohio can dig into while steering clear of the moral questions that surround the divisive issue. We began by checking with Johnston to see where he got his numbers on abortion, and the frequency of other procedures. He directed us to the website for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and policy analysis group, as the source for his abortion numbers—they count about 1.21 million abortions in 2008. He also pointed us to several websites for gall bladder surgery, which assert that the procedure is one of the most common surgeries in the United States with about 500,000 patients a year. The Guttmacher Institute numbers for abortions were much higher than those we found from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reported about 828,000 abortions in 2007. However, the CDC numbers are based on reports from state health departments and do not include abortions done in California, Maryland and New Hampshire — three states where the reporting of abortions is apparently voluntary. Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman with the Guttmacher Institute, said her group’s numbers include all 50 states and are based on actively surveying abortion providers rather than pulling data from state health department reports. Over the past several years, the Guttmacher Institute’s estimated number of abortions in the United States have basically held steady going from 1,206,200 in 2005 to 1,212,350 in 2008. But are there more common forms of surgery? The federal CDC keeps close tabs on what people are discharged from hospitals for based on a pair of national annual surveys, one for inpatient and one for outpatient clients. By far, the most common form of surgery in 2006 was eye surgery for cataracts. There were about 5.63 million eye surgeries that involved either removing or replacing the eye lens, according to the 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery (the latest outpatient survey available). There were about 1.4 million endoscopic polypectomies, which involves the removal of presumed pre-cancerous lesions such as polyps on the colon, according to the outpatient numbers. Meanwhile, there were about 1.34 million Caesarean sections where the fetus is delivered by cutting open the pregnant woman’s abdomen, according to the 2007 National Hospital Discharge Survey (the latest inpatient survey available). Abortion would rank fourth behind that trio in most common surgeries. But are they all examples of surgery or could they be considered just medical procedures? We spoke with Dr. Lisa Keder, an obstetrician and associate professor with the Ohio State University Medical Center, and she said that while the term surgery isn’t strictly defined, the way that patients are billed for medical procedures reflects whether it is officially considered "surgery." Keder said that eye operations, endoscopic polypectomies, C-sections and abortions are all coded for billing purposes as surgeries. Additionally, we should note here that because so many people go to the hospital for medical procedures -- almost 45 million inpatient procedures were done on 34.4 million people in 2007 in the United States -- that virtually every type of surgery on a human system when classified broadly was much more common than abortions. There were, for example, 6.94 million heart operations, but no specific procedure more than the 1.06 million cardiac catheterizations. So if you classify surgeries in broad terms, abortions tumble much farther than No. 4 on the most common surgeries list. Johnston , while trying to make his case that abortion has become too routine, told a Cleveland radio audience that abortion was "the most common surgery in this country." He’s not even close. The most comprehensive abortions statistics show about 1.21 million abortions a year in the United States. But annual surveys show there are about 5.63 million eye surgeries involving the removal or replacement of the lens in the eye. That procedure occurs more than four times as often as abortion. And abortion didn’t rank No. 2 or No. 3. There were about 1.4 million cases where presumed per-cancerous polyps were removed from inside a patient’s body the year of the most recent outpatient survey numbers available. Meanwhile, a procedure that is common among women who are giving birth -- a Caesarean section -- occured more frequently that year than did abortion. On the Truth-O-Meter, Johnston’s claim rates Pants on Fire.	None	Patrick Johnston	None	None	None	2012-02-15T06:00:00	2012-01-30	['None']
-tron-01423	Class Action Suit Awarded $75 to Naked Juice Drinkers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/naked-juice/	None	food	None	None	None	Class Action Suit Awarded $75 to Naked Juice Drinkers	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-vees-00147	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: How the Consultative Committee pictures a ‘Federal Republic of the Philippines’	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-how-consultative-committee-pictures-fe	None	None	None	None	federalism,Consultative Committee	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: How the Consultative Committee pictures a ‘Federal Republic of the Philippines’	July 09, 2018	None	['None']
-mpws-00031	Marty Seifert has issued a challenge to Gov. Mark Dayton: refuse campaign contributions from lobbyists. Seifert says he’s never taken lobbyist contributions and wants Dayton, whom Seifert hopes to unseat this fall, to do the same. “Not accepting lobbyist contributions so far this election, and in all my previous elections, has made my campaign unique,” said Seifert in a press release. Seifert’s campaign finance reports don’t include lobbyist contributions. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t taken them. 	https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2014/06/poligraph-seifert-misleads-on-campaign-dollars/	None	None	None	Catharine Richert	None	PoliGraph: Seifert misleads on campaign dollars	June 13, 2014, 2:00 PM	None	['Mark_Dayton']
-tron-02720	Malia Obama Fired from Internship at Spanish Embassy	https://www.truthorfiction.com/malia-obama-fired-internship-spanish-embassy/	None	obama	None	None	['barack obama', 'fake news', 'obama family']	Malia Obama Fired from Internship at Spanish Embassy	Jul 6, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10411	Obama's wife wrote a paper in college that said America was a nation founded on "crime and hatred" and that whites in America are "ineradicably racist."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/30/chain-email/her-senior-thesis-doesnt-say-that/	A chain e-mail about Michelle Obama purports to be excerpts from a senior thesis she wrote while at Princeton University. It's true that Obama, then Michelle Robinson, attended Princeton and wrote a thesis titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." In Obama's thesis, she sought to quantify how the attitudes of black Princeton alumni changed after graduation in regard to race relations and social change. Obama was especially interested in the attitudes of Princeton alumni in regard to improving the lives of lower-income blacks. To document the change in attitudes, Obama devised an 18-question survey and mailed it to black alumni. Her thesis is a discussion of her methodology and an analysis of the results. It contains a limited amount of personal opinion in the introduction. But the thesis did not say that the United States was founded on "crime and hatred" and that whites in America are "ineradicably racist." This appears to be a complete fabrication. The thesis is available on the Internet; the politics news site Politico reported on it in February 2008 and posted a copy it had obtained from Princeton University . We downloaded a copy, which appears to be complete with no numbered pages missing. We read it, but we did not find the phrases the e-mail describes. We took the additional step of scanning the document through optical character recognition software so we could search its text electronically. An automated search did not find the words "crime," "hatred," "hate," "ineradicably," or "racist" in the document. The e-mail goes on to list some accurate quotes from the thesis, but its initial accusations are fiction. The words "crime and hatred" and "ineradicably racist" are inventions of whoever penned the e-mail, not words that appeared in Obama's thesis. Because of that fabrication and the e-mail's intention to defame the Obamas, we rate this claim Pants on Fire! For more about this chain e-mail, read our story Digging up dirt on Michelle Obama .	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-05-30T00:00:00	2008-05-13	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-goop-02514	Kourtney Kardashian Getting Surgery To Fix “Annoying Voice,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-voice-surgery-vocal-procedure-annoying/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kourtney Kardashian NOT Getting Surgery To Fix “Annoying Voice,” Despite Report	6:00 pm, August 31, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10896	Says Tony Evers "didn't revoke the license of a teacher caught spreading pornography and commenting on the bodies of middle-school girls."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/aug/06/republican-party-wisconsin/yes-explaining-gops-attack-governor-candidate-tony/	With the Aug. 14, 2018 primary election closing in, the Wisconsin Republican Party on Aug. 1, 2018 released radio ads attacking four of the eight Democrats who are running for governor. In announcing the ads, the party identified Tony Evers, Matt Flynn, Mahlon Mitchell and Kelda Roys as the leading candidates to win the right to challenge GOP Gov. Scott Walker in the general election on Nov. 6, 2018. The ad attacking Evers, who is the state schools superintendent, claims Evers "didn't revoke the license of a teacher caught spreading pornography and commenting on the bodies of middle-school girls." An earlier version of the GOP attack, which we fact checked in 2017, rated Mostly False on the Truth-O-Meter. The revised attack does a little better, but still leaves out important context. All our fact checks in the governor’s race. The teacher The radio ad alludes to the case of Andy Harris, a middle-school science teacher in the Middleton-Cross Plains Area School District, west of Madison. As we reported in the earlier fact check, Harris was fired in 2010 for viewing images of nudity on his school computer and showing at least one of them to a female co-worker. As the state GOP continued to hammer on the case in 2017, it was later reported that a fellow staff member had told the school district’s investigators Harris also had made crude remarks to staffers about the appearances and chest sizes of female students. However, Evers’ department said neither the department nor the arbitrator could determine whether Harris actually made the sexually crude comments. Harris got his job back after an arbitrator ruled he had been improperly fired. The arbitrator concluded that Harris’ behavior did not endanger any students — a key finding, based on state law at the time — and the decision to give Harris back his job was upheld by two courts. The real punch in the Republican Party’s attack, though, is aimed at Evers. So, where does he come in? Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc. Evers’ role Evers did have the discretion on whether to go through license revocation proceedings, which Harris could have challenged. But Evers decided against seeking revocation after concluding, as the arbitrator did, that the teacher’s behavior didn’t endanger kids, as defined by the law at that time. In other words, in the view of Evers’ department, there was no legal basis to take away Harris’ license. At the time, state law defined immoral conduct in such cases as "conduct or behavior that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare, or education of any pupil." After the Harris case, the law was changed so that immoral conduct includes "the intentional use of an educational agency’s equipment to download, view, solicit, seek, display, or distribute pornographic material." That is, the part about endangering students was removed, a change that was backed by both Evers and Walker. We’re on the 6 p.m. newscasts on WTMJ-TV on Wednesdays and Fridays. Our rating The state Republican Party says Evers "didn't revoke the license of a teacher caught spreading pornography and commenting on the bodies of middle-school girls." It’s true that Evers, as the state schools superintendent, opted not to revoke the teacher’s license. But what’s left out is that Evers concluded that state law at the time didn’t allow for a revocation because the teacher’s behavior didn’t endanger children. The same conclusion had been reached by an arbitrator, who ruled the teacher had been fired improperly and gave the teacher back his job. And two courts upheld the arbitrator’s decision. The importance of the endangering standard was underlined by the fact that the Legislature later made sure to take that clause out. The attack on Evers is partially accurate, but leaves out important details — our definition of Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Republican Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2018-08-06T06:00:00	2018-08-01	['None']
-goop-00714	Giuliana Rancic Demanded E! News “Ditch” Maria Menounos Before Her Return?	https://www.gossipcop.com/giuliana-rancic-maria-menounos-feud-e-news-return/	None	None	None	Alejandro Rosa	None	Giuliana Rancic Demanded E! News “Ditch” Maria Menounos Before Her Return?	12:53 pm, July 1, 2018	None	['None']
-para-00010	"Most of the countries around the world are moving in favour of Direct Action" and "not proceeding with emissions trading schemes or market based mechanisms".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/01/joe-hockey/hockey-says-most-countries-moving-toward-direct-ac/index.html	None	['Carbon Tax', 'Climate change', 'Environment', 'Foreign Affairs']	Joe Hockey	Michael Koziol, Peter Fray	None	Hockey says most countries are moving toward Direct Action and not proceeding with emissions trading	Friday, November 1, 2013 at 9:59 a.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-09698	"History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/barack-obama/obama-says-job-growth-always-lags-behind-economic-/	Some Republican critics have scoffed at President Barack Obama's pronouncements that the economy seems to be improving, pointing to the unemployment rate, which keeps going up. But Obama has consistently tempered his hopeful words about positive economic indicators with warnings that unemployment rates are likely to continue to rise for a while, even as the economy improves. "History tells us that job growth always lags behind economic growth," Obama said Nov. 6, 2009, in remarks in the White House Rose Garden. "He's right about that," said William Beach, director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's center for data analysis. In the post-World War II era, there have been 10 recessions and after most of them, employment lagged a few months behind other improving economic indicators. But after the last two, in 1991 and 2001, unemployment rates continued to climb for more than a year. Interestingly, Democrats criticized President George W. Bush regarding the 2001 "jobless recovery," much as some Republicans now criticize Obama for the current one. The latest jobless recovery came as little surprise to economists who study such trends. "Employers are hesitant to hire people back to the work force (after a recession) because they don't know if the economy is going to continue to grow, which is understandable," Beach said. But more importantly, he said, the American economy has become increasingly reliant on service jobs, such as information and financial jobs. "Those jobs come back very slowly," Beach said. The recession this time is even more severe, so Beach predicts this jobless recovery will last even longer than past recessions. "I don't think we'll see jobs coming back for a long time," Beach said. But even without government meddling, Beach believes employment was destined to lag. The San Francisco Chronicle , relying on numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in August charted the lag between recessions' end and the peak of unemployment rates. In the eight recessions between 1949 and 1991, unemployment rates lagged by an average of about three months. After the last two, however, it took 15 months and 19 months, respectively, before unemployment rates peaked. Bottom line, President Obama is right when he cautions that employment has lagged behind economic recovery in the past. And so we rate his statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2009-11-09T18:32:41	2009-11-06	['None']
-tron-00437	Dead deer found atop power pole	https://www.truthorfiction.com/deerpole/	None	animals	None	None	None	Dead deer found atop power pole	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-11536	"Russian source behind fake Trump dossier killed in Russian plane crash, Rosatom CFO also dead"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/14/puppetstringnewscom/fake-news-claims-two-russian-officials-dead-plane-/	A fake news story said that two Russian officials linked to an infamous dossier and a Russian nuclear agency were among the victims of a plane crash near Moscow that killed all 71 passengers. "Russian source behind fake Trump dossier killed in Russian plane crash, Rosatom CFO also dead," read the headline on a Feb. 11, 2018, post on Puppet String News. The post was flagged on Facebook as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media website’s efforts to combat fake news. The fake news story took a real plane crash and made up the names of some of those who died. Consider the source: Puppet String News describes itself as created by a jaded U.S. Navy veteran who "decided to get into alternative news to tell the truth to best of ability." We found many things wrong with the post. The story begins by citing an actual Business Insider story on Belarus-born businessman Sergei Millian as a key source in the Trump-Russia dossier, a 35-page report of opposition research on President Donald Trump, prepared by a former British intelligence officer who was hired by Trump’s Republican and Democratic rivals during the election. Later, the Puppet String News story suggests Millian actually goes by the name Sergey Panchenko and died in the Russian plane crash. Sergey Panchenko is listed on the passenger list released by Russian authorities, but Panchenko is a different person than Millian. The article also refers to Millian as being Russian, but he’s Belarusian. The name "Sergei Millian" is not listed at all in the list of passengers who were boarded on the plane. The story offered an unsourced photo of passengers' names who were on the aircraft with Panchenko highlighted. Also killed off in this story is Ivanov Vyacheslav, who is credited with being the CFO of nuclear energy corporation Rosatom, the company at the center of the Uranium One deal. That deal involved the sale of a Canadian company with mining interests in the United States to Russia’s nuclear energy agency. Vyacheslav did hold the CFO position at Rosatom until 2017, according to his LinkedIn profile. According to the company website, the current CFO is Nikolay Soloman. This Ivanov Vyacheslav was not on the plane, but a different man by the name was. The man killed in the plane crash was born in 1986, Snopes reported, whereas the former Rosatom CFO began studying for his degree in 1987. Our ruling A fake news site said that two Russian officials had died in a plane crash. While the list of victims contained names that matched those of the two officials, they were not the same people. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	PuppetStringNews.com	None	None	None	2018-02-14T12:00:21	2018-02-11	['Russia']
-goop-00247	Jennifer Aniston Trying To Destroy Justin Theroux’s Career?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-career-revenge/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Aniston Trying To Destroy Justin Theroux’s Career?	3:27 pm, September 19, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-snes-00458	A list accurately portrays the NFL's history on free speech issues.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-nfls-free-speech-accurately-portrayed/	None	Sports	None	Dan Evon	None	Is The NFL’s History of Free Speech Issues Accurately Portrayed in This List?	14 June 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05256	Says that from 1992 through 2010, every statewide candidate drawing over 43 percent of the vote in a Republican Texas primary won the resulting runoff.	/texas/statements/2012/may/31/david-dewhurst/david-dewhurst-says-1992-every-texas-republican-dr/	David Dewhurst led the May 2012 Texas Republican primary for the U.S. Senate with 45 percent of the vote; his campaign then said that history is on Dewhurst’s side in the July 31 runoff against second-place finisher Ted Cruz, who drew 34 percent in the primary, according to nearly complete returns. A memo from Dewhurst pollster Mike Baselice, issued at 11 p.m. May 29, 2012, says: "While we should expect a normal post-election tightening of numbers, history demonstrates why Dewhurst is in a strong position to become U.S. senator: every Republican candidate with over 43 percent going into a statewide runoff during the last 20 years has gone on to win." For sure? Dewhurst’s spokesman, Matt Hirsch, provided us with a spreadsheet he described as listing every statewide Republican primary since 1992 resulting in a runoff. Runoffs occur when no candidate draws more than 50 percent of the primary vote. Hirsch said the information on Dewhurst’s spreadsheet was drawn from historical election returns kept by the state. According to Dewhurst’s spreadsheet, 13 statewide GOP Texas primaries led to runoffs from 1998 through 2010. By phone, Hirsch told us the party had no statewide runoffs in 1992, 1994 or 1996, though we later confirmed there were runoffs in 1996. And of the statewide Republican primaries that led to runoffs, four fit the Dewhurst campaign’s conditions, according to the spreadsheet. That is, three judicial primaries and a primary for a seat on the Texas Railroad Commission involved candidates garnering more than 43 percent of the primary vote who later won their runoffs. In four of the other GOP primaries resulting in runoffs, the candidate who led the primary won the runoff, according to the spreadsheet. Yet five GOP primary leaders -- including 1998 attorney general hopeful Barry Williamson -- lost their runoff. Two eventual losers carried 38 percent of the primary vote and one drew nearly 43 percent – not quite the "over 43 percent" figure aired in the Dewhurst campaign’s memo. Dewhurst’s spreadsheet shows that in a 2002 Texas Supreme Court primary, Elizabeth Ray drew nearly 42.92 percent of the vote to Dale Wainwright’s 31 percent. Ray lost the runoff, however, drawing 45 percent to Wainwright’s 55 percent. Online recaps posted by the Texas secretary of state, which oversees election returns, confirmed the campaign’s examples of runoffs won by individuals who earlier drew over 43 percent of the primary vote. Specifically, Paul Womack, running for a spot on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, drew nearly 45 percent of the 2002 primary vote and won the runoff with nearly 57 percent. Also that year, Tom Price drew 47 percent in the primary and 57 percent in the runoff. In 2004, Victor Carrillo, running for the railroad commission, carried nearly 50 percent of the primary vote, 63 percent in his runoff. And in 2006, Charles Holcomb won 45 percent of the primary vote for a Court of Criminal Appeals seat, drawing 54 percent in the runoff. Our review of each primary since 1992 unearthed three 1996 Court of Criminal Appeals runoffs not on Dewhurst’s spreadsheet. One of these runoff winners, Price, prevailed after barely trailing -- by 30.53 percent to 30.35 percent -- in the primary. Bottom line: Four primaries resulting in runoffs neatly match up with the Dewhurst camp’s conditions.In contrast, a dozen primaries resulting in runoffs do not perfectly fit the parameters because the leader in the primary carried 43 percent or less of the vote, meaning he or she fared worse than Dewhurst in the 2012 primary -- and half of these other primary winners won the runoff, while half lost. Our ruling We are not judging the predictive value of Dewhurst’s claim, which would be speculative beyond the bounds of a backward-looking fact check. For instance, skeptics might stress that only four of the 16 GOP statewide primary-runoff combinations from 1992 through 2010 fully support Dewhurst's claim. Half of the remaining dozen primary leaders lost the runoffs. Put another way, however, there are no instances since 1992 of a Texas Republican candidate for statewide office drawing more than 43 percent of the primary vote and losing the runoff, which is Dewhurst’s point. We rate the claim as True.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2012-05-31T12:30:44	2012-05-29	['None']
-pomt-09011	Tarpon Springs takes its homeless to St. Petersburg.	/florida/statements/2010/jul/09/leslie-curran/city-council-chairwoman-leslie-curran-says-tarpon-/	The nickname for it is "Greyhound therapy." A police officer comes across a homeless person and gives him a one-way bus ticket out of town to a faraway locale. It's also dubbed "homeless dumping," where officials from one city drive homeless people to another city, drop them off and leave. One city's solution becomes another city's problem, handled in the most impolitic way. Does it happen? Or is it the stuff of urban legend? No one can say for sure, partly because no jurisdiction would ever admit to sticking another place with its homeless problem. Which makes what City Council Chairwoman Leslie Curran said at a May 13 council meeting so extraordinary. Curran implicated Tarpon Springs police Officer Jose Yourgules, and unnamed others, in passing the buck. "When he comes upon any homeless individual in Tarpon Springs who needs assistance, he brings them to St. Petersburg," she said. "They send them all to St. Petersburg." Yourgules made this confession at the May 7 Homeless Leadership Network meeting, Curran said. "I didn't find it amusing," Curran said. "I don't think it's funny that every other city should depend on St. Petersburg to provide social services for everyone in the county." That does seem unfair, so, really, why does Yourgules do it? Well, not so fast, Yourgules said. "We don't do that," he said. For one, Tarpon Springs doesn't have a big homeless problem. He said the town has about 40 homeless people. Total. As the Police Department's homeless outreach officer, he does come across people who might need help. Does he bring people to St. Petersburg and drop them off at places like St. Vincent de Paul? "No, that's the worst thing you could do," Yourgules said. "You're not helping them if you do that." Instead, he said, he calls around to shelters in Pinellas County, checking which ones have open beds. He said that since March 15, he has placed 10 people in shelters. He took four to Pinellas Park, which has two shelters, Pinellas Hope and Touched by an Angel. He took five to Clearwater, which has two shelters, Homeless Emergency Project Inc. and Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project. He has taken only one person to St. Petersburg, to A Turning Point, an alcohol rehabilitation center. We checked it out. Pinellas Hope's facility manager, Angelia Mosley, confirmed that Yourgules brings homeless people to the Pinellas Park shelter. Jeffrey Polhill, president of the Touched by an Angel, said he knows who Yourgules is, but said the shelter doesn't track officers in its records. Neither does Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project, said Larry Passaro, a case manager there. "I do know that Tarpon Springs police bring people to our shelter," Passaro said. Katrina Tucker, program manager for A Turning Point, confirmed that Yourgules had brought only one person to the facility since March 15. Did Yourgules say what Curran said he said? The meetings aren't recorded, so it's unclear. The minutes of the meeting are compiled from typewritten notes of a staffer. They summarize, briefly, that Curran asked Yourgules where he sent people for services and he said ''St. Petersburg." Sarah Snyder, executive director of Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless, is responsible for the minutes. She said Yourgules meant that as a joke. "We told him afterward that there are things you don't joke about," Snyder said. But City Council member Herb Polson, who attended the meeting, said Yourgules wasn't joking. Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch attended the meeting, but doesn't remember Yourgules speaking. He did find it hard to believe that Yourgules would have said something like that. "I don't remember any statement about homeless people from north county being brought to St. Petersburg," Welch said. Another attendee, former St. Petersburg City Council member Jamie Bennett, said Yourgules did in fact say that. "I think he just misspoke," Bennett said. "He's brand new. That was his first meeting. I don't think he meant it." Yourgules said that what he said was misunderstood, but he definitely hadn't been joking. He said Snyder didn't tell him that there are some things you don't joke about. "What I was trying to say is that up north, there are no services," Yourgules said. "We take them to where the shelters are." And that's not St. Petersburg, he said. "Clearwater and Pinellas Park provide more services that we use," he said. "(Curran's) just upset. They are the biggest city, and it has the highest population of the homeless. But we don't bring people there and leave them. That would be unethical." Curran said she believed him, now. "All I was reporting is what he said at the time," Curran said. "Nothing on him, but that's just what he said." The Truth-O-Meter isn't interested in what Yourgules said. That's a good thing, too, considering that there's no recording of the meeting, only vague minutes reflecting what was said. But no one is disputing what Yourgules claims now and what his records show. Four shelters confirmed his records. He takes the majority of the homeless people he finds to shelters, which mostly aren't in St. Petersburg. What we're assessing is Curran's claim that Tarpon Springs takes all of its homeless to St. Petersburg. And we find no evidence to substantiate her blanket statement. We rate her statement False.	None	Leslie Curran	None	None	None	2010-07-09T16:30:17	2010-05-13	['Tarpon_Springs,_Florida', 'Saint_Petersburg']
-goop-00644	Vin Diesel Demanding $2 Million To Promote Movie On Social Media?	https://www.gossipcop.com/vin-diesel-bloodshot-2-million-promote-movie-social-media/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Vin Diesel Demanding $2 Million To Promote Movie On Social Media?	3:18 pm, July 13, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-13439	If upstate New York split from downstate "the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country."	/new-york/statements/2016/sep/16/bob-duffy/upstate-economy-one-worst-country/	Former Lt. Governor Robert Duffy penned an op-ed piece in the Rochester Business Journal urging upstate lawmakers to form their own caucus. Doing so would help them press upstate issues in a state legislature dominated by downstate lawmakers. But upstate New York breaking from downstate entirely? Duffy called the idea "ludicrous." "If we ever did that, the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country," Duffy claimed. "We do count on downstate to carry much of the load for the economic health of New York." Calls for upstate to secede from New York State are not new. But secession gained steam last year when upstate advocates pitched the idea at a protest in the Southern Tier. Some were angry over gun control laws passed in 2013. Others were upset by the ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, because they believe the gas drilling process would boost that region’s struggling economy. One of the leading secession proponents, the Divide NYS Caucus, hopes for momentum to build ahead of a future Constitutional Convention in New York State. Voters will decide whether to hold a convention in the 2017 general election. Downstate has a bigger population than upstate. The Assembly is comfortably in the hands of lawmakers from New York City and the surrounding area, most of whom are Democrats. The State Senate, meanwhile, is controlled by Republicans, mostly from upstate and Long Island. Is Duffy right? Would upstate’s economy rank low on its own? The Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce was not able to tell us which economic indicators Duffy was referring to. We looked at two indicators typically used to measure the economy - unemployment and wages - to check his claim. The unemployment scorecard As of July, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s better than the national average of 4.9 percent. But New York State still ranks 25th in the nation, tied with three other states. Duffy says the line dividing upstate from downstate is the same used in this year’s minimum wage hike. In that deal, New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County were given a different timeline to reach the higher wage than the rest of the state. Our analysis uses the same method: We define upstate as everything north of New York City except for Westchester County. There’s no data publicly available that shows unemployment for this definition of upstate. We used county-level data from state and federal databases to evaluate Duffy’s claim. The unemployment rate in upstate New York is 4.6 percent, according to the latest data from the state Department of Labor. That number is an average of the counties we’ve defined as upstate. That’s better than the statewide average and would rank 23rd in the nation - ahead of the statewide ranking. The wage scorecard Income per capita is different than the average wage. It measures how much money someone takes in, whether it’s earned at a job or not, instead of just measuring how much a job pays. We looked at both. In upstate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita income was $40,123 at the end of 2014, the latest county-level data. Upstate would have ranked 37th in the nation that year, below the national average of $46,049. New York State as a whole ranked fifth that year. As for wages, only Washington, D.C., had a higher average wage than New York State’s $67,521. The national average is $52,942. The average wage upstate was $42,287 by the end of 2015, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor. If it was its own state, upstate would rank 44th for wages, ahead of South Carolina but behind New Mexico. Our ruling Duffy wrote in the Rochester Business Journal that "the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country" if the region split from downstate. We compared national data on unemployment and wages to county-level data to rate his claim. With Duffy’s definition of upstate New York, unemployment is close to the national average while wages and income are among the lowest in the country according to the latest data. We rate this claim as Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fa7c54fa-de00-4abc-9ed1-8e386ceaf46c	None	Robert Duffy	None	None	None	2016-09-16T15:15:08	2016-08-19	['New_York_City']
-goop-02359	“Survivor” Recap: Who Was Voted Out Third On “Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/survivor-recap-october-11-2017-eliminated-patrick-voted-off-heroes-healers-hustlers/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	“Survivor” Recap: Who Was Voted Out Third On “Heroes v. Healers v. Hustlers”?	8:54 pm, October 11, 2017	None	['None']
-pose-00206	"Barack Obama will double the Peace Corps to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011 and push Congress to fully fund this expansion, with a focus on Latin America and the Caribbean."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/221/double-the-peace-corps/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Double the Peace Corps	2010-01-07T13:26:51	None	['Latin_America', 'United_States_Congress', 'Caribbean', 'Barack_Obama', 'Peace_Corps']
-pomt-06351	"The average homeowner spends more than $2,000 each year on energy costs – more than on either real estate taxes or homeowners insurance."	/georgia/statements/2011/nov/07/johnny-isakson/isakson-says-energy-bills-higher-taxes-insurance/	Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson wants Americans to invest in greener homes, and he is co-sponsoring a bill he thinks will help this take place. The Sensible Accounting to Value Energy Act, introduced last month, requires lenders who write mortgages backed by the federal government to consider a home’s possible energy costs along with loan payments and other expenses when they determine whether a buyer can afford it. Energy bills are even higher than real estate taxes or homeowners insurance, Isakson said in a press release issued Oct. 19. "The average homeowner spends more than $2,000 each year on energy costs – more than on either real estate taxes or homeowners insurance, both of which are regularly accounted for in mortgage underwriting, " the release read. Even more than real estate taxes or homeowners insurance? Sounds like a big chunk of a typical homeowner’s budget. We took a closer look. An Isakson spokeswoman referred us to a chart produced by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Market Transformation, which promotes energy efficiency and green buildings. It created a chart with average 2008 costs for energy, property taxes and homeowners insurance. Energy costs stood at $2,278. Property taxes were $1,879. Homeowners insurance was $791. The chart said that the IMT used U.S. Department of Energy data, U.S. Census Bureau numbers, and figures for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Researchers typically go to these sources for this type of information. Each year, the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy publishes the Buildings Energy Data Book, which tracks how much energy residential and commercial buildings use. They include data on how much the average household spends on energy. For 2008, it was $2,269, or $9 lower than IMT’s figure. An IMT researcher told us that their number is higher because they included costs of wood fuel, which the Energy Department excludes. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey includes estimates on the median amount of real estate taxes paid for owner-occupied housing units. It was $1,897, according to their 2008 data. This is close to IMT’s number. Then we looked at average yearly costs for homeowners insurance. We looked at census data, which is based on calculations from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. For 2008, it was $791, just as IMT said. Isakson was right. On average, the amount of money a homeowner pays for energy bills is higher than property taxes or homeowners insurance. He earns a True.	None	Johnny Isakson	None	None	None	2011-11-07T06:00:00	2011-10-19	['None']
-tron-03018	Hillary Clinton Has a Body Double	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hillary-clinton-body-double/	None	politics	None	None	['2016 election', 'conspiracy', 'hillary clinton']	Hillary Clinton Has a Body Double	Sep 13, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13244	Says that compared to direct sales by manufacturers, consumers "save avg of $500 per car sold through franchised dealer model."	/texas/statements/2016/oct/18/texas-automobile-dealers-association/car-dealers-association-incorrectly-ties-500-savin/	To say Tesla Motors hasn’t had an easy ride directly selling its high-end electric vehicles to Texans is an understatement. That’s probably due in part to the sway of the Texas Automobile Dealers Association, which through the 2013 and 2015 state legislative sessions stopped Tesla’s effort to repeal a prohibition on vehicle manufacturers selling directly to Texas motorists -- a standoff expected to renew in the 2017 session. So we noticed when @teslaintexas, a Twitter account for Tesla’s efforts in Texas, said in a September 2016 tweet: "Auto dealers profit off the current system." The tweet urged followers to tell legislators to legalize "direct sales." The auto dealers association, through the @autodealerstx account, shot back with a tweet stating "consumers save avg of $500 per car sold through franchised dealer model. #txlege got it right the first time." We wondered about that savings figure, ultimately finding the association’s cited study didn’t compare dealership sales to online or phone sales of the kind that Tesla conducts with Texas customers. First, it’s worth a look at what the auto dealers and Tesla have been tussling over. The Texas franchise law, implemented decades ago, prohibited direct sales of vehicles from the manufacturer to the consumer. In other words, Tesla cannot sell cars at their own Texas showrooms, though it may process orders by phone or online. Other states, including Connecticut, Michigan and Utah, have dealership statutes, according to Stateline, a reporting service on state policy funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. For their part, TADA has told lawmakers that the franchise model saves consumers money because it allows them to shop around independently-owned dealerships, where deals and other incentives can drop the car’s sticker price. So why has Tesla declined to sell its electric vehicles through Texas dealerships a la Ford, Chevrolet and Toyota? Appearing before the Federal Trade Commission in January 2016, Todd Maron, Tesla’s general counsel, said the Texas model would not work for the company because, unlike traditional dealerships that often sprawl side by side along major highways, Tesla's showrooms need to be smaller and are already built in high foot traffic shopping areas. Such a setup encourages a necessary education process for buyers who must learn about the company’s relatively new electric technology, Maron said. Large car dealerships cannot offer those resources, Tesla representatives have argued. Legislation that would have allowed Tesla to get around the state’s franchise dealer model won approval from a Texas House committee in 2013 but went no further. In 2015, Tesla-friendly measures got a House committee hearing and no more. Back to the money claim: We asked the dealers association about how it got its $500 savings figure for dealerships versus direct sales to motorists. On behalf of the association, consultant Jennifer Stevens pointed us to a journal article, "State Automobile Franchise Laws: Public or Private Interests?" It was published July 12, 2016 on the website of the Washington, D.C.-based Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies, a nonprofit founded in 1998 "with a mission to provide independent assessments of the economic and material implications of regulatory and economic policy in the U.S. and abroad," according to its website. But, we noticed, the study didn’t compare shopping in a dealership to shopping for cars online. Rather, it largely considers a broader debate about state auto franchise laws -- whether dealers protect consumers from manufacturers or whether they’re a scheme to protect dealership owners. We noticed that the touted $500 figure doesn’t show up in the paper. Asked about that, one of the paper’s authors, George Ford, the center’s chief economist, pointed out the figure in the abstract of a March 2015 Phoenix Center policy paper, which minorly cited in first paper, on "the price effects of intra-brand competition. In other words, this paper focused on competition among retailers that sell the same branded product, measuring competition as "the distance (in miles) to the nearest same-brand dealer," the paper said. The abstract states: "For the popular Honda Accord, for example, increasing the distance between Honda dealerships by thirty miles raises the price paid by consumers by about $500." The researchers found that for nearly all the car models they looked at -- limited to the 10 most popular new cars bought in Texas from 2011-2013 -- competition between same-brand dealers lowered the price tag on new cars. The authors considered price as a function of the distance between the nearest same-brand dealers, allowing them to find the average price at various distances. The bottom line, according to the study’s authors, is that more independent dealers competing for consumers’ money meant lower prices for the consumers. Ford, a co-author of both papers, said there was previously a lack of economic analysis on the "fairly important" issue of price changes due to dealership competition, so he and a colleague set out to do that. Fiona M. Scott Morton, an economics professor at Yale University, disagreed with the overall analyses of the center’s two studies. The Texas model does not reduce in any discernable way the amount customers will pay for a car, a claim which long has been advanced by the automobile associations to keep the model, Morton said. In fact, according to her analysis of the issue at the state level, the opposite can be true. "One issue that’s particularly confusing to lay people is the idea that the dealers create price competition with each other" under a dealership model like Texas’, she said. "There is no sense that a manufacturer who owns his own store would charge more. Truthfully, there are no issues with the manufacturer having their own stores." Next, we hunted other relevant research on the specific question about customers saving money at car dealerships as opposed to via a direct sales model. Several professors, including Mortons, pointed us to a U.S. Department of Justice analysis from 2009, conducted by Gerald R. Bodisch that focused on the state bans on direct sales, which Bodisch said may hinder the development of a more cost-effective method for car distribution. In the paper, Bodisch writes that most buyers today likely would want some hands-on contact with the car before purchasing, but if state bans were repealed, the situation for consumers could look different. "Surveys do show that many new car buyers in America would be interested in buying directly from manufacturers, particularly to avoid costs associated with the dealer/customer bargaining process. In one survey, almost half of respondents said that they would opt to buy cars direct from the manufacturer even if it didn't save any money," he wrote. Daniel Crane, a University of Michigan law professor who focuses on regulation and studies franchise models, said the study’s attempt to correlate the dealership model’s intra-brand competition with generally more savings for consumers is bogus. "I’m not denying that it’s possible that (dealerships) could lead to lower prices, but it’s not because of the law. You don’t need the law for that," Crane said. "The dealer could just turn out to be more efficient than the manufacturer." The independent experts we talked with said there is no way to compare how much Texas consumers save when purchasing a vehicle at a dealership versus online from Tesla, because Tesla can’t sell directly to consumers from showrooms in the state. Finally, we circled back to the auto dealers association. Its president, Bill Wolters, stood by its tweet and cited study. By phone, Wolters agreed the study didn’t compare traditional dealers to Tesla’s sales methods. However, Wolters said, the conclusion suggesting dollar savings due to franchises being abundant signals a built-in advantage for consumers that Wolters said he doesn’t believe manufacturers like Tesla would offer through showrooms which, Wolters predicted, would solely be concentrated in the state’s biggest cities. Our ruling The auto dealers association responded to a tweet talking up direct sales by car manufacturers by saying consumers save an average of $500 by shopping at traditional roadside dealers. However, studies offered to back up this claim didn’t gauge whether shoppers save money by visiting dealers rather than buying directly from manufacturers. The $500 savings figure ties to shopping roadside dealers offering the same model of car. We rate the claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/841b0ef7-f147-4297-adfe-7eb8e2768104	None	Texas Automobile Dealers Association	None	None	None	2016-10-18T17:41:10	2016-09-21	['None']
-pomt-07137	Gov. Chris Christie caused a 4.1 percent increase in property taxes in 2010, marking the highest increase since 2007.	/new-jersey/statements/2011/jun/16/new-jersey-assembly-democrats/new-jersey-democrats-say-gov-chris-christie-caused/	The blame game over New Jersey’s rising property taxes has been under way in Trenton for decades, and the current debate over last year’s increases is no different. In various public statements, Assembly Democrats have blamed Republican Gov. Chris Christie for the following statistic: property taxes increased 4.1 percent in 2010, marking the highest increase since 2007. "New Jersey property taxes increased 4.1 percent in 2010," according to a May 10 press release. "This is the highest increase since 2007." That number showed up in the press release as one of the examples of the "governor’s property tax failure." Assembly Democrats said the tax hike followed cuts made by Christie to school and municipal aid. PolitiFact New Jersey found the Assembly Democrats’ numbers to be accurate. A report by the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs shows that the average residential property tax bill increased in 2010 by 4.1 percent. That report also points out that last year’s percentage increase was higher than the 3.3 percent and 3.7 percent increases in 2009 and 2008, respectively. (Because of budget increases, average bills went up by 5.4 percent in 2007 and 7 percent in 2006, according to the report.) But PolitiFact New Jersey still thought some things were missing from the Democrats’ underlying argument that Christie bears responsibility for the 2010 tax hikes. It’s worth noting that Christie didn’t begin his tenure until after the previous fiscal year had started, and some policy decisions affecting the beginning of 2010 predated him. For a clearer picture, we reached out to five experts on economic policy and taxes, and learned that although they believe Christie holds some responsibility, the property tax hikes also had to do with the recession and rising costs facing local officials. As some experts pointed out, there’s no doubt the reduction in state aid last year contributed to property tax increases. Property taxes are determined by county, municipal and school officials, but their local budgets are influenced by the level of state aid received. To help meet an $11 billion budget gap, Christie’s first budget as governor cut school aid by about $829 million and reduced municipal aid by nearly $446 million, according to the state’s "Citizens’ Guide to the Budget." Democrats are blaming Christie for those aid reductions, but keep this in mind: the cuts were part of a budget approved by the Legislature, including both Democratic and Republican representatives. Referring to the decision to not raise state taxes to meet the revenue shortfall, Rutgers University professor Joseph Seneca said: "It was a shock to the way fiscal business was done in New Jersey before." Glen Fandl, an adjunct professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, said the aid reduction played a role in the tax hikes, but he argued a larger factor is that the number of municipal revaluations slowed in 2010 due to declining property values. In revaluations, properties’ assessed values are revised -- meaning the amounts that taxes are based on -- and tax rates are reduced. Without as many revaluations, tax rates mostly went up in 2010, Fandl said. Fandl said another reason was a significant increase in tax appeals from commercial property owners. Fandl said of Christie: "The recession’s not his fault." Fandl noted that towns and school districts still faced contractual obligations to their employees, despite cutting expenses. Rising utility and healthcare costs are beyond Christie’s control, but at the same time, the governor declined last year to support extending a higher tax rate on personal income over $1 million, according to Jon Shure of the Washington, DC-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The center leans Democratic. The state’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services estimated the higher rate would have generated about $637 million for the property tax relief fund in the current fiscal year. "Any time New Jersey reduces its state income tax, it has less money available for property tax relief," said Shure, former president of the Trenton-based New Jersey Policy Perspective, a left-leaning think tank. David Brunori, a research professor at The George Washington University in Washington, DC, offered a few other targets to place blame for the tax hikes, including the dependence on state aid and a desire to maintain the same level of local services. New Jerseyans want a great deal of services and there are two ways of paying for them: state aid and higher property taxes, Brunori said. Across the country, states historically cut local aid when faced with budget deficits, Brunori said. At the end of the day, towns decided to maintain services, he said. "I’m not sure I would blame the governor," Brunori said. Montclair State University assistant professor James DiGabriele said he’s not blaming anybody, including Christie. The larger problem is that government has not revised its structure for generating revenue, DiGabriele said. Towns could charge a fee for services, such as garbage collection, he said. "In the new economy, I don’t know if we have a choice," DiGabriele said. Pointing to the number of school administrators and school boards, Fandl said there is so much home rule in New Jersey that is driving up costs. That system itself is the problem, Fandl said. "The costs are never going to go down and that’s the problem," Fandl said. Now let’s go back to the blame game: The Assembly Democrats are criticizing Christie for tax increases in 2010. They are correct taxes increased 4.1 percent. The governor’s aid cuts contributed to the tax hikes, and Christie rejected a tax increase that would have provided more property tax relief. But some Democratic legislators also signed off on aid reductions by approving the state budget. There also are several other factors at play here -- the recession, declining property values, tax appeals, rising costs, a local desire to maintain services and an expensive system of running school districts. We rate the Democrats’ statement Half True. To comment on this ruling, join the conversation at NJ.com.	None	New Jersey Assembly Democrats	None	None	None	2011-06-16T05:00:00	2011-05-10	['Chris_Christie']
-snes-01105	The NFL announced that it will not be televising the national anthem before the Super Bowl in February 2018.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-wont-televise-national-anthem-before-super-bowl/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did NFL Decide Not to Televise National Anthem Before Super Bowl?	29 January 2018	None	['Super_Bowl', 'National_Football_League']
-tron-01327	Feces Found in Starbucks Iced Coffee Drinks	https://www.truthorfiction.com/feces-found-in-starbucks-drinks/	None	food	None	None	['business', 'consumer safety', 'food', 'starbucks']	Feces Found in Starbucks Iced Coffee Drinks	Jul 5, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10519	"I've been standing up against ... the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/11/hillary-clinton/a-great-speech-but-what-else/	Pointing to her experience confronting a foreign giant on a diplomatically sensitive matter, Sen. Hillary Clinton takes credit for pressuring the Chinese government to recognize women's rights, and for taking the Beijing government to task for its overall human rights record. In an interview on CNN's American Morning on March 5, 2008, Clinton said, "I've been standing up against . . . the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights." Clinton has made similar claims in campaign speeches. In a foreign policy address at George Washington University in Washington on Feb. 25, she said, "I went to Beijing in 1995 and spoke out for women's rights and human rights. The Chinese government wasn't happy; they pulled the plug on the broadcast of my speech. But I took that as a compliment. Because it was important for the United States both to be represented and to make absolutely clear that human rights is an integral part of our foreign policy and that women's rights is key to that. What we have learned is that where women are oppressed and denied their basic rights we are more likely to have regimes that are more adversarial to American interests and values." Clinton was referring in her February remarks to a 1995 speech she delivered at the United Nations' Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, in which she called on the world community to protect women against violence, improve their access to health services and education and generally give them more self-determination. "It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Clinton said. "It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls." Chinese state radio and television blacked out Clinton's speech. Reports at the time stated the official Chinese press was under instruction to ignore her address until an official reaction was crafted. China experts say such censorship is routine and reflects the government's desire to emphasize consensus and tamp down confrontation. Though Clinton's comments detailed abuses that occurred around the world — for example, rape in war-torn Bosnia and the burning of Indian brides whose marriage dowries were deemed too small — they had particularly strong implications in China, which had been the object of global criticism for forcing women to have abortions or undergo sterilization as part of "one-child-per-family" population control efforts. Clinton echoed her remarks and stressed the importance of promoting the economic empowerment of women at a separate gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women later in the trip. Clinton's campaign says her advocacy helped prompt many nations to make equality among the sexes a reality in the 21st century, and that she helped procure $140-million in small-enterprise loans and other credit to help poor women around the world. Clinton was walking a fine line at the time of her Beijing address because her husband's administration was trying to engage China and tone down U.S. condemnations of human rights abuses. Human rights groups were concerned her participation in the conference would amount to an implicit endorsement of Chinese policies. Diplomats, meanwhile, were worried her presence would aggravate U.S.-Chinese relations. The New York Times, in an editorial, said the speech "may have been her finest moment in public life." Experts on U.S.-China relations say Clinton's speech exemplified her ability to go to a foreign capital and deliver a forthright address, but said little about her readiness to confront a real foreign relations crisis. Nor did it have much of a lasting impact on China's legal and political system. Women remain underrepresented in the country's political and business leadership, and the country's population control policies remain in place. "In no way was this (Clinton's speech) a major confrontation with the Chinese government, or did it in any way resemble a crisis," said Thomas Carothers, vice president for studies-international politics and governance at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It was a good speech that set out principles but didn't go outside the bounds of the relatively mild approach to China the U.S. was taking at the time. It was one of many pushes from the outside ... it couldn't be said to change the direction of China's legal reform." The Clinton campaign, responding to recent criticism that her speech was not important, cites an Associated Press account to claim that "her speech at the conference — where she famously declared 'women's rights are human rights' spurred real action." But that's a bit of sleight-of-hand. We checked the full text of that story, which cited policy changes that helped women in many countries, and found the story attributed those changes to the conference, not specifically to Clinton's speech. Clinton's interest in women's issues in China again was apparent — albeit in a less confrontational way — three years later, when she and then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright traveled to a women's legal aid center affiliated with Beijing University's law school during a 1998 state visit by President Bill Clinton. The visit was intended to assess China's efforts to update its legal system. The Clinton administration made U.S. pledges of assistance in that effort a subject of the trip. The legal aid center dealt with a wide range of women's legal issues, including rape, job discrimination and family planning. Yes, Clinton delivered a tough speech implying Chinese policies were unacceptable at a global gathering in that nation's capital city. But the Clinton campaign has failed to show she has been involved in the long-term commitment for improvements in China that her statement suggests. We find her claim to be Half True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2008-03-11T00:00:00	2008-03-05	['China']
-pose-00520	Will "create Governor Advisory Groups consisting of everyday sportsmen, conservationists, business owners and rank-and-file DNR employees to advise me on new and existing regulations and practices."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/541/create-new-panel-to-provide-advice-on-hunting-and/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Create new panel to provide advice on hunting and environmental matters	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['None']
-pomt-06505	Massachusetts has "less than 1 percent of our kids that are uninsured. You (Gov. Perry) have a million kids uninsured in Texas."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/12/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-raps-number-uninsured-kids-texas-touts/	During the Oct. 11, 2011, Republican presidential debate in Hanover, N.H., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sought to contrast health care in his state with that in Texas, the home state of a rival, Gov. Rick Perry. One of the yardsticks he used was how many children are uninsured in each state. "We have less than 1 percent of our kids that are uninsured" in Massachusetts, said Romney, who signed a law designed to get uninsured residents covered. "You have a million kids uninsured in Texas. A million kids." We decided to check Romney’s math. We turned to the statehealthfacts.org website, assembled by the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent research organization specializing in health care policy. The most recent state-by-state figures available are for the period 2008-09. For Massachusetts, there were 51,400 uninsured children (that is, birth to 18), or 3 percent. (Of those with insurance, 65 percent got it from an employer and 29 percent got it from Medicaid.) This means that Romney’s number is overly rosy -- he said less than 1 percent, when the percentage is actually three times higher. To be fair, Massachusetts still had the lowest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. And it did a whole lot better than Texas. Texas had 1,303,000 children without insurance over the same period, or 18 percent. (Of those with insurance, 42 percent got it from an employer, 35 percent got it from Medicaid, 3 percent from an individually purchased plan, and 2 percent from other public plans.) Texas' rate is the highest in the nation. So for Texas, Romney was accurate. He even undercounted a bit. The Romney campaign pointed to a report published by the Massachusetts state government that found that "virtually all Massachusetts children had health insurance coverage in 2010 (99.8 percent). The uninsured rate for Massachusetts children fell from 1.9 percent in 2009 to 0.2 percent in 2010." However, the report did not address uninsured children in Texas, and we prefer to compare states using a study with equivalent methodologies if one is available, and in this case, we’re sticking with the Kaiser report’s numbers. Our ruling Romney said that "less than 1 percent" of Massachusetts kids are uninsured, when in fact the best available number is 3 percent. But that’s still the lowest in the nation. Meanwhile, he actually underestimated the number of uninsured children in Texas when he said there were a million. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2011-10-12T14:44:43	2011-10-11	['Texas', 'Massachusetts']
-pomt-06405	Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was right that President Barack Obama’s health care bill created what "would, in effect, be death panels."	/georgia/statements/2011/oct/28/newt-gingrich/gingrich-claims-health-care-reform-includes-death-/	Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich seems to have done some dumpster diving in that bin where politicians toss their old rhetoric. During the Republican primary debate in New Hampshire, Gingrich reused an old gem of a claim: That President Barack Obama’s health care reform created "Death Panels." Karen Tumulty, a national political correspondent for the Washington Post, brought up expensive treatment that she said patients receive in the last two years of their lives under Medicare. She asked the former Georgia congressman whether such spending is wasteful, and if the government should intervene. "So, if you ask me, ‘Do I want some Washington bureaucrat to create a class action decision which affects every American’s last two years of life?’ Not ever," Gingrich replied. "I think it is a disaster. I think, candidly, Governor Palin got attacked unfairly for describing what would, in effect, be death panels," he said. Death panels? Our friends at PolitiFact National, our sister site based in Washington, D.C., debunked the "Death Panel" claim more than two years ago. In fact, it was PolitiFact’s 2009 Lie of the Year. Since Gingrich seems it’s worthwhile to recycle death panels, we think it’s worthwhile to remind readers why they’re bunk. PolitiFact National traced the controversy to a post on Palin’s Facebook page Aug. 7, 2009. She said seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." PolitiFact read all 1,000 pages of the Democratic bill and examined versions in various committees. "There is no panel in any version of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person's ‘level of productivity in society’ to determine whether they are ‘worthy’ of health care," they concluded. "There's certainly no "death board" that determines the worthiness of individuals to receive care," they added. Health care bill opponents could make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day transform into such a board, but that’s not what she said. She said the panels were in the bill. They weren’t, and they still aren’t. PolitiFact also debunked a similar claim made after the final version of the health care bill passed in March 2010. In June of that year, PolitiFact Florida looked at a claim by a candidate for U.S. Congress that under the new health care law, the elderly will be denied care when they have "passed the age limit for treatment." The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Medicare, the federal health care program for the elderly, confirmed in an email that it has no age limit for treatment. This newer claim started because the health care law, as passed, does support "comparative effectiveness research," which compares the clinical effectiveness of treatments. But the law specifies that if research shows a certain treatment for the elderly isn't effective, it "may not be construed as mandates, guidelines, or recommendations for payment, coverage, or treatment or used to deny coverage." "Death panels" were not proposed when the health care reform effort started, and "death panels" still don’t exist. Gingrich earns a Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/1484bcdb-41e1-4486-a690-13eb89d7e7e0	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-10-28T06:00:00	2011-10-11	['Sarah_Palin', 'Alaska', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-00436	"The American economy is continuing its longest monthly streak of job growth in history, with 3.9 million jobs added since President Trump was elected."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/23/west-virginia-republican-party/west-virginia-gop-tweet-correct-about-job-growth/	President Donald Trump often touts job growth on his watch as one of his top accomplishments in office. State Republican party organizations have followed his lead. The West Virginia Republican Party tweeted on Aug. 8, 2018, that "the American economy is continuing its longest monthly streak of job growth in history, with 3.9 million jobs added since President Trump was elected." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The tweet cited a White House web page as its source. But we dug into the numbers ourselves just to be sure. We’ll take the two parts of the tweet separately. "The American economy is continuing its longest monthly streak of job growth in history." PolitiFact has previously confirmed that the United States is in the midst of its longest positive job growth streak in history -- 94 months and counting. Here is a chart showing month-to-month employment increases or decreases since January 2008. There has not been a monthly decline since 2010. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com The tweet fails to mention that most of these months of job growth occurred on President Barack Obama’s watch, which are noted in blue in the chart above. So Trump, whose months of job growth are noted in red starting in 2017, did not accomplish this feat on his own. "3.9 million jobs (have been) added since President Trump was elected." We looked at official Bureau of Labor Statistics data and found that since November 2016, when Trump was elected, the economy has added about 3.9 million jobs. That’s what the tweet said. Starting from this point, of course, includes two and a half months when Obama was still president. If you calculate the figure using January 2017 instead -- when Trump actually took office -- the number would be 3.4 million. We’ll note that economists say presidents don’t deserve either full credit or full blame for employment trends on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. Our ruling The West Virginia Republican Party said, "The American economy is continuing its longest monthly streak of job growth in history, with 3.9 million jobs added since President Trump was elected." Both parts of this claim are accurate, and while it’s worth noting that no president deserves full credit for economic achievements on their watch, the tweet was carefully worded and is not substantially misleading. We rate it True.	None	West Virginia Republican Party	None	None	None	2018-08-23T11:59:53	2018-08-08	['United_States']
-tron-00170	Astrologer predicted the World Trade Center attack	https://www.truthorfiction.com/wtcpredict/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Astrologer predicted the World Trade Center attack	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-02782	Ben Affleck Using Wrinkle Fillers?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-wrinkle-fillers/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Ben Affleck Using Wrinkle Fillers?	10:45 am, May 22, 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00877	Does a Photograph Show a Massive Spider found in a Manchester UK House?	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-spider-manchester.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Does a Photograph Show a Massive Spider found in a Manchester UK House?	August 17, 2012	None	['None']
-snes-02655	Scientists are stumped by a photograph taken by the Hubble Telescope, and some believe it shows "the gates of heaven."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gates-of-heaven/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	‘Gates of Heaven’ Photograph	22 January 2016	None	['None']
-snes-05703	Social Security retirement disbursements have recently been reclassified as 'federal benefit payments.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/federal-benefit-payments/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	Social Security as ‘Federal Benefit Payments’	23 July 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-10681	"Productivity has risen 18 percent ...yet wages have stayed flat... There are 5-million more people in poverty here in our country than there were in 2000."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/15/hillary-clinton/the-ugly-truths/	As she makes her case for the White House, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., promises voters that she'll do more to help the middle and working classes. Key to that pitch is the notion that things aren't going so well now. "Productivity has risen 18 percent among American workers over the past six years, yet wages have stayed flat, and family incomes have fallen by nearly $1,000," she told a crowd in New York City on Dec. 5, 2007. "There are 5-million more people in poverty here in our country than there were in 2000." The macroeconomic forces of a rapidly changing global economy are causing more trouble for many working people than the Bush administration, despite what Clinton and other Democratic candidates suggest. U.S. Census Data from 1995 to 2005 show that those wages are down or stagnant for workers who have the least education, while earnings have increased for those with college degrees. Increased competition from cheap foreign labor is squeezing U.S. factory workers and costing jobs, while wages have not kept pace with rising energy and health care prices, several studies say, including the 2006 State of Working America by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan advocate for the poor. Productivity indeed is up about 18 percent since 2000, but income is down, and nearly 5-million more people are living in poverty than at the height of the last business cycle in 2000, government statistics show. "All of that paints more of a picture about what individual households are seeing and reacting to," said Aviva Aron-Dine, a policy analyst for the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, a nonpartisan advocacy group for the poor. Clinton accurately portrays the economic challenges facing Americans - and the next president - as she campaigns. We find her statement true.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2007-12-15T00:00:00	2007-12-05	['None']
-snes-05300	U.S. citizens who receive government benefits will soon be required to have microchips surgically implanted in them.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/food-stamps-rfid-mandatory/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Must Citizens Who Want to Receive Government Benefits Agree to Be Microchipped?	28 January 2016	None	['United_States']
-pomt-07706	Says Oregon recyclers can't recycle plastic bags	/oregon/statements/2011/mar/05/mark-hass/sen-mark-hass-says-plastic-bags-not-really-recycla/	Sen. Mark Hass, a Beaverton Democrat, is one of the most vocal supporters of the plastic bag ban making its way through the Oregon Legislature this session. It makes sense, then, that he’s been pretty vocal about correcting perceived untruths on the part of the plastics lobby. In a Feb. 8, 2011, committee hearing on the ban, Hass called lobbyists out for saying that plastic bags are recyclable. Here’s what he had to say: "You know, I think Oregonians would really love to recycle your (plastic bags). They really would. And if they could, we wouldn’t be here today. The whole point of the recyclers being in support of this is because they can’t recycle your bags. "Four percent are turned in to the supermarkets (to be) sent over to China. You just heard that testimony. "If Oregon recyclers could recycle your bags, there would be no need for this (bill). We want to be able to recycle them. But we can’t. And so they don’t get recycled, and they do end up on the beaches and in the ocean. And you keep referring to these things as being recyclable. And I just want to caution you on that because I think you’re stretching things when you say these are recyclable." We wondered whether Hass was right. Are plastic bags destined for the landfill and nothing else? So, we started off on a fact-checking mission with this as our claim: Oregon recyclers can’t recycle plastic bags. To start, we called the city of Portland’s Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, which is home to the Solid Waste and Recycling Program. We asked Bruce Walker, the manager of the program, whether Portlanders could just slip the ubiquitous plastic grocery bags into their curbside bins like they can other common recyclables. "Absolutely not," he said. "We have tried our darnedest, through public education, to get that message out there. … They absolutely should not be put in a recycling cart." Walker added: "Throughout the state of Oregon, there is no curbside program that wants these materials." Next stop was the recyclers themselves. We called Jeff Murray, a vice president for Far West Fibers, a Portland-area recycling business. Murray also sits on the board of Oregon Recyclers Association, which has come out in favor of the plastic-bag ban. He spoke to us, however, from the point of view of Far West Fibers. We asked him to walk us through the reasons plastic bags generally get the shaft from curbside recyclers. Are they recyclable or not? He prefaced his comments with this: "I have learned almost anything in this world is recyclable." But some things are easier and more cost-effective to recycle. The deal with plastic bags, at least as far as his business is concerned, is that they clog the sorting machines and unclogging those machines is more than just an inconvenience. "It just jams," Murray said. "It breaks … sometimes it can cause fires." "Basically, it shuts down the efficiency of the system." But, Murray added, "plastic bags are recyclable in the right market." That market, he said, is generally overseas, and there are a couple of caveats. The market isn’t a dependable one. "There are times when we don’t have markets to recycle it. That was the one material we had to landfill" when the economy soured. Even when there is a market, the product might not get recycled, he said. "When it gets sent overseas, I can’t tell you how much does or does not get recycled," Murray said. "We have absolutely no way to guarantee or even make the slightest claim that we’re going to hold these for recycling." Ideally, he added, residents would know better than to put the bags in their recycling cans and they would never find their way to his facility in the first place. Rick Winterhalter, chairman of the Oregon Recyclers Association, one of the groups supporting the plastic bags ban, says that’s the general sentiment. "We kind of look at (plastic bags) like an invasive species," he said. "We have never included them in our curbside recycling program. And yet they wind up in the curbside recycling and then they wind up at the (sorting facility)." But Winterhalter confirmed what Murray had said, under the right conditions (and if they’re in good enough shape), plastic bags can be recycled. However, he added, the public doesn’t have many options for recycling the bags themselves. "The opportunities for people to do that in this region are extremely limited." Usually those opportunities have to be provided by the grocery stores themselves. For example, Fred Meyer -- which has stopped offering plastic bags in its 10 Portland-area stores -- offers plastic-bag recycling bins at its retail locations. Those recovered bags are then sold to a company that uses the materials in its "wood alternative" products. Other companies, such as Hilex Poly, which manufactures the bags in question, also take the bags back from in-store recycling programs. "Plastic bags are 100 percent recyclable," says Philip Rozenski, the company’s marketing and sustainability director. "We are one of the major buyers in the United States." Hilex recycles old bags into new bags. That said, the company doesn’t offer the sort of dependable buyer that local recycling centers say they need. Hilex works with a specific sort of plastic bag and wrap, and the materials collected at Oregon centers include various other bits and pieces that Hilex has no use for. Rozenski said Hilex would rather educate the public to take the plastic bags back to the stores, rather than get them from sorting centers. So, it seems, bags can be recycled -- under the right circumstances -- but are they? We gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a call to see if there are any statistics on the matter. It turns out there are. According to the agency’s 2009 Municipal Solid Waste Report, about 3,850,000 tons of "plastic bags, sacks and wraps were generated" last year. Of that, 360,000 tons -- about 9 percent -- were recycled. Of the portion of those plastics that are low density -- the sort used in plastic bags -- the recycling rate was closer to 13.4 percent. In the Feb. 8 hearing, ban opponents tried to argue that plastic bags could be recycled, and Sen. Hass pushed back. He said Oregon recyclers couldn’t use the bags. Well, the issue is not that cut and dried. In a broader sense, plastic bags are, indeed, recyclable. At the local level, though, it’s a tough sell. Oregon recycling centers can -- and sometimes do -- collect the bags and sell them to others for further recycling. But that’s not always possible; sometimes there’s just no market for the bags, sometimes the bags can’t be saved. (And state recyclers seem to agree that, ultimately, the bags are more trouble than they’re worth.) We’ll split the difference here and rate this claim -- that Oregon recyclers can’t use plastic bags -- as Half True. Comment on this item.	None	Mark Hass	None	None	None	2011-03-05T06:00:00	2011-02-08	['None']
-snes-06306	Residents of some states will no longer be able to use their driver's licenses as ID for boarding airplanes after January 2018.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/real-id-act/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	REAL ID Act	8 April 2007	None	['None']
-pomt-02225	"On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar men make."	/georgia/statements/2014/apr/18/michelle-nunn/nunn-avoids-slip-gender-pay-claim/	Democrats and Republicans have yet again found an issue to disagree on -- the gender pay gap -- and one U.S. Senate candidate’s comments about it drew the attention of our Truth-O-Meter. "On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar men make," the candidate, Michelle Nunn, a Democrat, has said in statements and on her Facebook page. Is this statistic true? Senate Democrats earlier this month failed to get the 60 votes required to break a Republican filibuster blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act, which among other things, would require the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect data about pay from employers. Nunn and other Democrats say the bill would help women earn the same wages as men. Republicans say the legislation is unnecessary and would result in more civil lawsuits. A few area Republicans saw Nunn’s comments about the gender pay gap and asked us to fact-check Nunn, who has sought centrist positions on many issues. Some political analysts see the gender pay gap battle as an election-year effort by Democrats to woo women to their side. Several Democrats have used the 77 cents claim in this ongoing debate, some with more accuracy than others. For example, we recently gave former President Jimmy Carter a Mostly False rating for his statement that "in the United States for the same exact work for a full-time employee, women get 23 percent less pay than men." The number Carter used comes from a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau study that looked at the total wages earned by male and female workers. The study found men’s total wages -- key words here, total wages -- were about 23 percentage points higher than the total amount of women's wages. But that large discrepancy was due in part to the fact that men generally work more hours. And this is a key point: The census study did not attempt to look at equal pay for the same work or the same number of hours worked. Other data -- including hourly wages tracked by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as data comparing the same jobs -- yield smaller wage gaps. The Census Bureau number does not take into account critical factors that could influence the figure, including specific occupation, time on the job and education level. The gap drops dramatically if you compare men and women of similar education levels, job titles, time on the job and other relevant factors. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis cited one survey, prepared for the Labor Department. It found that when such differences are accounted for, much of the hourly wage gap vanished. President Barack Obama made a somewhat similar statement to Carter’s on the campaign trail in 2012 when he said "women (are) paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men." Our colleagues at PolitiFact in Washington rated that statement Mostly False for many of the same reasons we gave the same rating to Carter. Perhaps seeing the trouble with that statement, Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union address that women "make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns." That statement is more in line with the U.S. Census Bureau study because the president did not say that women were doing the same work and being underpaid. PolitiFact found other research that showed a smaller pay gap. PolitiFact rated Obama’s revised statement Mostly True. There are two key points to Nunn’s statement. She began with the qualifier "on average." And she did not say there was a pay gap for women doing the same work as men. That puts Nunn’s statement more in line with the U.S. Census Bureau study. Nunn made no attempt to equate equal work with equal pay -- a comparison that has landed some of her fellow politicians on shaky Truth-O-Meter terrain. Her statement could have used a little context, but she is mostly on target. We rate Nunn’s statement Mostly True.	None	Michelle Nunn	None	None	None	2014-04-18T06:00:00	2014-04-10	['None']
-pose-00659	"Consider designations and namings of post offices and other federal buildings only one day each month."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/689/consider-designations-and-namings-of-post-offices/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	Eric Cantor	None	None	Consider designations and namings of post offices and other federal buildings only one day each month	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['None']
-goop-00541	Carrie Underwood Pregnant With Two Girls, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/carrie-underwood-pregnant-twin-girls-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Carrie Underwood NOT Pregnant With Two Girls, Despite Report	11:33 am, August 1, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-09918	Says the Constitution only requires her to tell the census "how many people are in our home."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/michele-bachmann/michelle-bachmann-claims-constitution-only-require/	U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is no stranger to the Truth-O-Meter. So far, her comments have decidedly bent the needle to the left and, on one occasion, set the meter on fire. We swear we're not trying to pick on her, but we just couldn't let this latest one go. Recently, Bachmann went on record to declare that because of ACORN's involvement in the Census and other privacy concerns, she would only tell 2010 Census takers how many people are in her household — and nothing more. Here's how she explained it in a Washington Times interview (which you can listen to here ): "Now ACORN has been named one of the national partners, which will be a recipient again of federal money," Bachmann said. "And they will be in charge of going door-to-door and collecting data from the American public. This is very concerning because the motherload of all data information will be from the Census. And, of course, we think of the Census as just counting how many people live in your home. Unfortunately, the Census data has become very intricate, very personal (with) a lot of the questions that are asked. "And I know for my family the only question that we will be answering is how many people are in our home. We won't be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn't require any information beyond that." There's a lot wrong in her statement, so we divided it into two Truth-O-Meter items. You can read the one on ACORN's involvement in a different item . In this item, we'll address Bachmann's claim that she's only constitutionally obligated to provide the number of people in her household. Here's what the Constitution actually says: "Representation and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers ... the actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So the Constitution itself does not contain any requirement, as Bachmann claims. We draw your attention to the last clause, "in such a manner as they shall by law direct." The "they" in that sentence refers to members of Congress. They write laws about the content of the Census and require that people answer the questions. Even the very first census in 1790 included more than just the question of how many people lived in the household. According to a Census Bureau spokeswoman, the 1790 Census specifically asked about the number of free white males age 16 and over in order to assess the country’s military and industrial potential. That first Census also asked for the race and gender of household residents, and whether they were free or enslaved. Subsequent Census Acts expanded the number of questions exponentially. According to Census spokeswoman Stacy Gimbel, these laws came under the authority of the "Necessary and Proper" clause of the Constitution: "The Congress shall have the power . . . To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Congress' use of the Census to ask questions well beyond just the number of people has been upheld several times by the Supreme Court, Gimbel said, citing several cases. What's more, a law passed by Congress requires people to answer "any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any Census" from the U.S. Census. So what if you don't? The law says those who refuse to fill out the entirety of their Census questionnaire or answer questions posed by Census takers could face fines of anywhere from $100 to $500. Honestly, Gimbel said, the U.S. Census doesn't often enforce those rules. "It is important to note that Census takers are not seeking to prosecute people; our goal is to gather and return to the public quality information that assures equal representation and determines how billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is spent by their government," Gimbel said. Bachmann's claims that the Constitution only requires people to say how many people live in their household is "completely baseless," Gimbel said. Bachmann stuck to her misguided guns in a Fox interview on June 25, this time backing up her concerns about privacy by noting that in the 1940s the Census Bureau handed over information used to round up Japanese people and put them in internment camps. "I'm not saying that that's what the administration is planning to do," Bachmann said, "but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps. I am just not comfortable with the way this census is being handled, with associating with ACORN, with the questions that are being asked, with Americans being compelled to give this information. How will this be cross-checked? Will it be held privately?" Bachmann is right about how the Census was used to identify Japanese-Americans in the 1940s. Since then, however, Congress has passed laws to specifically protect the information it collects. Census employees take those privacy laws very seriously, she said. Employees found to have violated laws to protect people's personal identity face up to five years in jail and fines of up to $250,000. Bachmann is not only wrong here, she is engaging in fearmongering that encourages people to break the law. And in doing so, she's falsely telling people that the Constitution would support them. In fact, the Washington Times reporter followed her answer by saying, "Well, I'm going to take your hint then and that'll save me some time." And so we feel it's necessary to rate this one Pants on Fire.	None	Michele Bachmann	None	None	None	2009-06-25T16:01:03	2009-06-17	['None']
-pomt-12094	"I'm the only candidate who has not accepted money from Carl Paladino nor LPCiminelli; two of the biggest developers in the city of Buffalo."	/new-york/statements/2017/aug/25/betty-jean-grant/which-candidates-mayor-took-money-top-buffalo-deve/	Buffalo Democrats will choose among three candidates in the Sept. 12 mayoral primary. But, according to Erie County Legislator Betty Jean Grant, only one of them has not received money from two controversial Buffalo developers. "I'm the only candidate who has not accepted money from Carl Paladino nor LPCiminelli; two of the biggest developers in the city of Buffalo," Grant told a local news station. "The fact they have not contributed to my campaign gives me the freedom to be independent of any political strings attached to me." Paladino, a major figure in Buffalo development, is the founder and chairman of Ellicott Development. LPCiminelli was run by Louis P. Ciminelli until his indictment on federal corruption charges in 2016 for allegedly rigging state construction bids. Ciminelli has since resigned. Grant, the underdog, faces Mayor Byron Brown, a three-term incumbent, and Mark Schroeder, the city’s comptroller. Brown had $582,167 in his campaign account at the most recent filing, more than four times what Schroeder had. Grant had $11,986. Is she right that she’s the only candidate who hasn’t taken money from Paladino or Ciminelli? Donations to Brown Brown is the only candidate who has received donations from either developer since his last election in 2013. He received $2,500 from Louis Ciminelli in 2015. Brown has said he will set aside the donation from Ciminelli until the trial is resolved. William Paladino, Carl Paladino’s son, gave Brown $2,000 earlier this year. William Paladino, who is Carl's son, is the current chief executive officer of Ellicott Development and has worked at the company for more than two decades. Brown received a total of $12,000 from Ciminelli during his first and second terms. The company gave Brown $6,000 during those terms. Paladino contributed $100 to Brown’s campaign in 2013. William Paladino donated $500 the same year. Brown also used a second political committee to support other candidates during his first term. The account has not taken or spent money since 2009. Ciminelli donated $1,000 to the account between himself and his company. Brown did not receive donations from either developer when he was in the State Senate from 2001 to 2005. Donations to Schroeder Schroeder received $3,500 from Louis Ciminelli when he first ran for comptroller in 2011. Ciminelli gave him another $5,000 in 2015. Ellicott Development gave Schroeder $200 in 2011. William Paladino gave him $500 in 2012. Schroeder also served in the State Assembly from 2005 to 2011. He took $1,750 from Louis Ciminelli and $150 from Ellicott Development in that time. Donations to Grant Grant ran primary campaigns against State Sen. Tim Kennedy in 2012 and 2014. She did not receive any contributions from either Paladino or Ciminelli. Grant served on the Buffalo Common Council and Buffalo School Board before her election to the county legislature in 2007. Her filings for Common Council no longer exist. Local candidates were not required to file with the state Board of Elections at the time, and the Erie County Board of Elections was not required to hold on to the records after five years. So to the extent of what we know from state filings, Grant has not received money from either developer or their families. Our ruling Grant said she was the "only candidate who has not accepted money from Carl Paladino nor LPCiminelli." Because Carl Paladino is the chairman of Ellicott Development, and his son runs it as CEO, we included contributions from him, his son and the company in our rulling. Grant did not specify a time frame. Her two rivals for the mayor's office have not received contributions from either developer during the current campaign. But we understood her to mean contributions during their entire political careers. Filings show Grant is the only candidate who has not received money from either developer. Brown is the only candidate to take money from both since 2013. We rate her statement True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Betty Jean Grant	None	None	None	2017-08-25T16:55:43	2017-08-17	['Buffalo,_New_York', 'Carl_Paladino']
-pomt-06400	"A recent Department of Labor study guessed Wall Street fees cost a worker 28 percent of the value of your plan over the span of your career."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/28/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wall-street-fees-claim-third-40/	On a tirade against Wall Street -- and the critics of Occupy Wall Street protesters -- Rachel Maddow used a "three pillars" illustration on her MSNBC show Oct. 19, 2011, to talk about the crumbling of America’s retirement system. The three pillars of retirement income are pensions, personal savings and Social Security. Then Maddow proceeded to deconstruct how they’ve all been deconstructed. We were particularly interested in her comments on pensions. Pensions have largely been replaced by 401(k) investment plans, which in Maddow’s view are "kind of a scam." "Whereas pensions for the most part used to be separate from the Wall Street banking/casino apparatus, 401(k) plans just put Wall Street in the middle of the action, right between you and your retirement -- which is by definition a risk-laden venture for the middle class. But it is a great windfall for Wall Street," Maddow said. She then went to video of an NBC News segment with Tom Brokaw and a reporter discussing the problem of hidden fees for 401(k) plans. The segment ends with an unidentified male saying, "The total cost to the American public is something in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year." Maddow then follows up: "One and a half to $2 billion a year right into Wall Street`s pockets just in fees. And that was back in 1997. What do you think it is now? "A recent Department of Labor study guessed Wall Street fees cost a worker 28 percent of the value of your plan over the span of your career," Maddow said. That’s a pretty big bite out a hard-earned nest egg. We decided to investigate. A little on 401(k) plans Until about 30 years ago, a major source of retirement income for Americans was the employer-funded pension system. Pensions were calculated based on what employees earned and years of service. Traditional pensions are known as a defined benefit plans because they pay a fixed amount every month. Many employers no longer offer pensions because, quite simply, they’re expensive. Instead, more and more are offering 401(k) plans. In these defined contribution plans, the employee contributes to an individual fund -- a contribution sometimes matched by the employer. Instead of providing a predictable income in retirement, the plans are subject to the ups and downs of the market and other variables that can erode or enhance retirement income, including how many years the money is invested and the timing of withdrawals. Most of us don’t manage our plans ourselves -- they demand sophisticated, long-term investment decisions -- so that’s where management companies come in. Think Vanguard and Fidelity and other investment advisers. Maddow was talking about the fees charged by these firms to manage the plans’ investments and do the bookkeeping. What we found A spokesman for MSNBC referred us to a section of the Department of Labor website that covers these fees. "Assume that you are an employee with 35 years until retirement and a current 401(k) account balance of $25,000. If returns on investments in your account over the next 35 years average 7 percent and fees and expenses reduce your average returns by 0.5 percent, your account balance will grow to $227,000 at retirement, even if there are no further contributions to your account. If fees and expenses are 1.5 percent, however, your account balance will grow to only $163,000. The 1 percent difference in fees and expenses would reduce your account balance at retirement by 28 percent," the website says. To Maddow, that paragraph meant Wall Street takes nearly a third of workers’ retirement savings. We asked a couple of economists what it meant to them. Steve Utkus, a principal with the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, said the Labor Department’s example is "a standard hypothetical used through the retirement savings industry." "It simply says that, all things equal, higher fees mean lower savings at retirement. ... I don't believe the DOL was trying to make any comparison with the actual fees paid by 401(k) plans -- for example, that most participants were paying one or the other fee," Utkus said. He pointed us to a 2009 study by Deloitte Consulting and the Investment Company Institute, a trade group for mutual funds, that surveyed actual fees paid by plans. It found the median 401(k) fee is 0.72 percent -- or about half the 1.5 percent used in the Labor department example. Utkus also pointed out that most participants in the U.S. (i.e. employers) are larger plans which are able to negotiate even lower fees. Tony Webb, senior economist with the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, also noted that assuming 7 percent return on investment is a bit optimistic. Taking inflation into account, Webb said a return of 4.5 percent is more realistic. And 35 years, he said, is longer than most people save for retirement. They may have student loans to pay when they begin working, or they might put their extra money toward saving for a house. Whatever the reasons, Webb said most people don’t get serious about saving until age 40. So that 35-year retirement savings could be shortened to 25 years and both the fees and the return on investment could be significantly lower. The Labor department example assumes a single contribution accruing interest over time. Webb said it’s more useful to consider a worker who makes annual contributions. He says, "A typical worker aged 27, earning $50,000 a year, who contributed 9 percent of salary (6 percent himself plus a 50 percent employer match), invested 50/50 in a stock-bond portfolio earning 4.5 percent after inflation, could, in the absence of fees, expect to accumulate $366,700 by age 62. If he incurred fees of 0.72 percent, his pot would be 13.5 percent less, $317,200." Webb also pointed out that the fees aren’t for nothing. "Investment managers do provide a service," he said. Still, the reason all this is important -- the reason the Labor Department devotes space to it on its website and the reason Maddow sounded the alarm -- is that the fees over time do add up to thousands of dollars subtracted from people’s savings. And yet very often they’re invisible. "There’s nothing on the (401(k) plan) website that tells you how much the plan manager has charged you that month in management fees," Webb said. "Nobody sends you a bill." So those fees just end up being unknown costs that erode substantial value out of people’s nest eggs. (Some good news on that front: new regulations that take effect next year will require companies to provide investors more and clearer information in their quarterly statements on administrative and investment fees charged to their accounts.) Our ruling Maddow declared, "a recent Department of Labor study guessed Wall Street fees cost a worker 28 percent of the value of your plan over the span of your career." But what she was quoting was not a study -- but a scenario using higher than normal fees. Maddow's statement made it sound as if the typical worker, or at least a great many of us, lose a third of our retirement savings to plan management fees. Economists tell us that’s not the case. So Maddow correctly reflected the Labor Department's hypothetical scenario in which fees would seriously erode retirement savings. But it didn't reflect the reality most workers with retirement savings accounts face. In reality, returns on investment, the number of years the money is invested and even the fees vary greatly. The study by Deloitte Consulting and the Investment Company Institute that surveyed actual fees paid by plans found the median 401(k) fee is 0.72 percent -- or about half of the rate used in the Labor Department's example. We take Maddow’s larger point -- that these unseen fees can claim a lot of money from people who don’t have it to spare. But the numbers that she uses to make the point reflect higher fees than most people pay. So we rate her claim Mostly False.	None	Rachel Maddow	None	None	None	2011-10-28T17:48:45	2011-10-19	['Wall_Street']
-bove-00248	‘Disband Congress’, Said ‘Chatur Baniya’ Gandhi; But He Had A Message For All	https://www.boomlive.in/disband-congress-said-chatur-baniya-gandhi-but-he-had-a-message-for-all/	None	None	None	None	None	‘Disband Congress’, Said ‘Chatur Baniya’ Gandhi; But He Had A Message For All	Jun 10 2017 8:40 pm, Last Updated: Jun 16 2017 7:08 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-04922	Says under federal law "we do not have any limitation on the number of guns and bullets we can buy."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/aug/01/robert-menendez/us-sen-robert-menendez-claims-there-are-no-federal/	In the days following a mass shooting at a Colorado movie theater, U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez and some of his fellow Democrats called for strengthening the nation’s gun control laws. At a July 24 news conference in Washington, D.C., Menendez pointed out how, under federal law, "we do not have any limitation on the number of guns and bullets we can buy." PolitiFact New Jersey is not weighing in on whether there should be such federal restrictions. We are only fact-checking Menendez’s claim that none exist. We found that the senator's right that there is no federal law limiting the number of guns and bullets one can purchase at a given time. Three states, including New Jersey, have enacted their own restrictions on handgun sales. A spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and gun policy experts confirmed that the senator’s claim is accurate. "It is correct that there are no limits in federal law to the amount of guns or ammunition a person can buy if he/she is not a proscribed possessor of firearms," said Daniel Webster, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Federal law prohibits certain individuals from getting a gun or ammunition, such as someone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Also, there are certain reporting requirements under federal law for multiple gun sales. For instance, licensed dealers must report to federal authorities if they sell more than one handgun to the same person within five consecutive business days. Also, licensed dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas must report multiple sales of certain rifles during the same time period. Referring to such federal reporting requirements, Jon Vernick, co-director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, added in an e-mail: "However, this form simply acts as a record of, not a limitation on, multiple purchases." The vast majority of states don’t limit the number of firearms that can be purchased, according to a state-by-state breakdown compiled by the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. New Jersey is one of three states that prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to an individual within a 30-day period, along with California and Maryland, according to the center. Each of those state laws allow for certain exemptions. Virginia repealed a similar law earlier this year. "The Senator was (and will continue) to talk about the need for federal laws that limit the number of bullets and the number of firearms a person can purchase," Menendez spokeswoman Tricia Enright said in an e-mail. "He believes we need stronger laws nationally, not a patchwork of laws that vary in terms of strength state by state." Our ruling Following the mass shooting at a movie theater in Colorado, Menendez claimed at a news conference that "we do not have any limitation on the number of guns and bullets we can buy." Three states, including New Jersey, limit the number of handguns one can purchase in a 30-day period, but there are no limits under federal law on the purchase of firearms and ammunition. Federal regulations only mandate reporting multiple gun sales in certain cases. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Robert Menendez	None	None	None	2012-08-01T07:30:00	2012-07-24	['None']
-snes-04286	Hillary Clinton refused to congratulate American gold medalist Ginny Thrasher.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-refused-to-congratulate-american-gold-medalist/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Hillary Clinton Refused to Congratulate American Gold Medalist?	9 August 2016	None	['United_States']
-pomt-07176	Says U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan promised to "end health care for our seniors."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jun/10/sandy-pasch/democratic-wisconsin-state-rep-sandy-pasch-says-go/	When some Democrats look at the federal budget plan proposed by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., it’s as if they’ve caught sight of a tiki bar at the end of a hot summer day. They aren’t envisioning fruity drinks with tiny umbrellas, but rather electoral victories. The Democrats see Ryan’s plan, particularly its changes to Medicare, as distasteful to voters and therefore an advantage for their party. As evidence, they point to Democrat Kathy Hochul’s upset win in a western New York congressional race that was dominated by Ryan’s Medicare plan. That special election was held May 24, 2011, less than two months after Ryan released his plan, which would convert Medicare into a "premium-support payment" program starting in 2022. On June 6, 2011, Wisconsin state Rep. Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, was asked in an online chat how Ryan would affect elections on another level. Pasch is running in a recall election against state Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, who aims to retain a seat she has held since 1992. It is one of an unprecedented nine state senator recall elections that will be held in Wisconsin in July 2011. In the chat, which was sponsored by Blue America, a political action committee that says it works to elect progressives, a questioner asked: "I just read that (Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman) Mike Tate says that Paul Ryan will be a central focus in the recall elections. I hadn't heard that before. Will it work? Is it that connected in people's minds? Or is it too abstract for the average voter to make the connection?" Pasch, a second-term lawmaker who formerly worked as a nurse and nursing professor for 30 years, gave this response: "I think that Paul Ryan is the face of the radical plan to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. People across Wisconsin depend on and like Medicare. If you stand with Paul Ryan, you stand with the promise to end health care for our seniors. It's not just a policy issue, it's a values issue." So, according to Pasch, Ryan promised to end health care for senior citizens. No health care? That would be one stiff drink to swallow. Before we assess Pasch’s defense of her claim, a little background. Ryan’s budget -- passed by the GOP-controlled House, 235-193, but defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate, 57-40 -- would make dramatic changes to Medicare if it ever became law. As it exists now, Medicare is government health insurance for people age 65 and over and for people under 65 with certain disabilities. It helps pay for doctor visits, inpatient and outpatient hospital care, other services and prescription drugs. Under Ryan’s plan, people who turn 65 before 2022 would remain in traditional Medicare, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those who turn 65 in 2022 or after, the budget office said, would get a "premium support payment" from Medicare. Rather than getting health insurance from the government, Medicare recipients would use the payment toward the cost of buying private health insurance. That’s a major change. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that future Medicare recipients "would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system." But when MoveOn.org declared that Ryan’s budget "abolishes Medicare within 10 years," the left-leaning political advocacy group earned a False from us, given that Medicare would change but not go away. Other critics, including U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, haven’t gone as far, arguing instead that Ryan’s plan would end Medicare "as we know it." But when Wasserman Schultz also claimed that under Ryan’s Medicare, insurance companies could "deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions," she got a False from our colleagues at PolitiFact National. Yet Pasch goes even further, claiming Ryan has promised to "end health care for our seniors." Not just Medicare, but "health care." Now to Pasch’s defense. Pasch’s campaign manager, Phil Walzak, argued in an email to us that, under Ryan’s proposal, Medicare recipients would "lose a guaranteed set of health benefits" because they would instead receive money to be used toward buying private health insurance. He also predicted that Medicare recipients would get fewer benefits even though they would be paying more for their health care. He cited analyses by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the National Academy of Social Insurance. For her part, Pasch herself was more measured in an interview with PolitiFact Wisconsin than she was in the online chat, saying Ryan’s plan "is clearly a move toward not promising health care to seniors." She went on to say that as senior citizens are forced to pay more for health insurance, they will "start neglecting their health care." It’s time for the tab from our political tiki bar. Pasch originally claimed that Ryan promised to end health care for seniors and now she says his Medicare plan is a "move toward not promising health care to seniors." That’s quite a step back from the original claim. Moreover, we’ve established that, although it’s expected that senior citizens would pay more for health care under Ryan’s plan, they would still have health care. At PolitiFact, we have a name for the drink that’s made by mixing false and ridiculous. It’s called Pants on Fire, and that’s what we rate Pasch’s claim.	None	Sandy Pasch	None	None	None	2011-06-10T09:00:00	2011-06-06	['United_States', 'Paul_Ryan']
-tron-00913	Free Ericsson laptops?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ericsson-laptop/	None	computers	None	None	None	Free Ericsson laptops?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02805	If the Trans-Pacific Partnership "is fast-tracked through the Senate, it won't receive a committee assignment" and the consideration will include "no debate."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/29/chain-email/chain-email-says-major-pacific-trade-deal-could-be/	A new chain email warns that President Barack Obama is about to grab "the powers of a king" through a new trade agreement with Pacific Rim countries. The email begins, "A leaked copy of Obama's top secret Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been posted on our website and it is much, much worse than anyone anticipated. We can say goodbye to America's borders, our Constitution and the rule of law if Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are able to ram this treaty through the Senate. And that's exactly what they're trying to do! Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., says this ‘free trade’ deal is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Only the Senate is allowed to negotiate trade agreements under the Constitution. Harry Reid wants to fast-track this treaty, which will essentially grant Obama the powers of a king to negotiate all future deals." The email goes on to say, "If this treaty is fast-tracked through the Senate, it won't receive a committee assignment and it will be subjected to a straight up-or-down vote, with no debate." We learned of the email when a reader sent it to us, asking for a fact-check. The email originated with Pray For US, a Henderson, Nev.,"online outreach Christian church and ministry." Most Americans probably haven’t heard of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but if the trade agreement comes to fruition -- and that’s far from a certainty at this point -- it could be a very big deal. One thing it wouldn’t do, though, is give Obama king-like powers. The email is also wrong when it claims that the fast-track process in Congress rules out committee assignments and debate. That’s what we’ll be fact-checking here. Let’s start with the basics. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, if it’s enacted, would set the ground rules for trade between a dozen nations in the Pacific region. It’s been in negotiation for several years among the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Combined, these countries account for roughly 40 percent of the world’s economy. The Obama administration has made the agreement a top priority for trade policy. Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has called it "the most ambitious trade initiative pursued by the Obama Administration, one that will have large ramifications for overall trade policy and the direction of the world trading system." Trade deals often draw opposition from the left (due to such concerns as labor rights, environmental protection and an expansion of corporate power) and sometimes from the right (such as over a feared loss of national sovereignty). This has been true with the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well, with various proposed provisions drawing fire, including everything from pharmaceutical patent rules to rights for legal redress. The deal could be taken up under a process informally known as "fast-track." That refers to a procedure outlined in the Trade Act of 1974. According to the Congressional Research Service, when Congress passed this law, it granted the president the authority to enter into trade agreements that reduced or eliminated tariffs. Congress would then enact changes related to the agreement through legislation, using a procedure that streamlined and sped up the legislation’s path through Congress. The streamlined rules were designed to keep lawmakers from making changes that would threaten the international agreement. Here are some of the key elements of the fast-track process, taken from a CRS summary: • The president sends a final text of the trade agreement and a draft implementing bill to Congress. Identical bills are required to be introduced in each chamber of Congress on the day they are received. • The bills are then referred to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, as well as other committees, if jurisdiction warrants. Each committee has 45 in-session days to report the bill to the floor. If that deadline passes without committee action, the bill is automatically sent to the floor. • On the floor, debate is set at 20 hours, evenly divided between those for the agreement and against it. The chain email is correct that when the eventual vote is taken, it is on the original text, without any amendments. And the measure needs 50 percent plus one to pass -- not the common Senate supermajority of 60 votes. While these rules do curb lawmakers’ ability to shape the agreement’s terms, the email is simply wrong to claim that legislation stemming from a trade agreement "won't receive a committee assignment" and that the agreement will have "no debate." We will note two other problems with the claim. First, whatever comes out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation won’t be a "treaty," as the email claims. Under the Constitution, treaties require a two-thirds vote by the Senate. Second, fretting about how the Trans-Pacific Partnership could be passed under the fast-track process is putting the cart before the horse. Fast-track authority must be renewed periodically by Congress, and that authority lapsed on July 1, 2007. Since then, Congress -- under both Democratic and Republican majorities -- has not chosen to renew it. And with relations between the two parties, and between the House and the administration, thoroughly frayed, a renewal looks unlikely anytime soon. So it's possible that the agreement will be considered under fast-track, but it's far from certain. Our ruling The chain email said that "if the treaty (the Trans-Pacific Partnership) is fast-tracked through the Senate, it won't receive a committee assignment" and the agreement will have "no debate." The procedures laid out in the Trade Act of 1974 are designed to streamline the process of enacting trade agreements, but the process does in fact include committee consideration and floor debate. We rate the claim False.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2013-11-29T06:00:00	2013-11-26	['None']
-goop-01974	Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt “Reunited For The Holidays” In Aspen, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-not-reunited-holidays-brad-pitt-aspen-christmas/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt NOT “Reunited For The Holidays” In Aspen, Despite Report	4:00 pm, December 23, 2017	None	['Jennifer_Aniston', 'Aspen,_Colorado', 'Brad_Pitt']
-snes-05293	A recent uptick in Zika virus infections is linked to the introduction of a genetically modified mosquito farm in Brazil in 2012.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zika-virus-gmo-mosquitoes/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Zika Virus Caused by GMO Mosquitoes?	29 January 2016	None	['Brazil']
-pomt-14087	"The Chinese last year probably stole $360 billion in intellectual property from the United States."	/punditfact/statements/2016/may/17/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-china-stole-360-billion-intelle/	Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., has spoken favorably of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, including expressing openness to being tapped as his vice president. And on Fox News Sunday, Gingrich joined Trump in hammering away at China. Gingrich said on May 15 that while he had played a major role as a congressional leader in passing one of Trump’s most heavily criticized trade deals, the North American Free Trade Agreement, it’s not a bad idea to be tougher now. "When you hear, for example, that the Chinese last year probably stole $360 billion in intellectual property from the United States, I think being tough about that's a good thing," Gingrich said. "I think conservatives can be for very tough-minded trade." The $360 billion figure is based on a federal estimate, though experts caution that the true number is impossible to know. It could actually be higher. Where the number comes from Intellectual property refers to creative concepts such as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names and images used in commerce, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization. Its creators and owners are protected legally through patents, copyrights and trademarks, but cross-border theft of intellectual property is hard to police. Over the years, United States officials have said that China is one of the worst offenders. This has been driven in large part by an aggressive technology quest by China’s central government. We tracked down Gingrich’s $360 billion figure to comments by William Evanina, director of the Counterintelligence and Security Center under Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Evanina told reporters in November 2015 that, based on reports by nearly 140 companies, espionage via computer hacking costs the U.S. economy $400 billion a year, and that the Chinese government is believed to be behind 90 percent of those attacks. That works out to $360 billion. Gingrich spokesman Ross Worthington subsequently confirmed that Evanina’s comments were the source of Gingrich’s number on Fox News Sunday. The first thing we should note, however, is that the $360 billion figure is only for losses from cyber-hacking — a limitation that Gingrich didn’t specify. Of course, adding in non-cyber losses would only increase that figure beyond $360 billion. And Worthington said that this all may be an under-estimate because "corporations do not usually reveal the fact or allow (law enforcement) to go public or estimate losses because that would in effect expose their consumers, clients and stockholders to more losses, indirect and direct." How solid is the $360 billion number? Still, experts agreed that there’s lots of uncertainty in determining the scale of intellectual property losses. Another estimate for intellectual property theft from China, by the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property, a blue-ribbon panel, pegged annual U.S. losses from intellectual property at approximately $300 billion, of which China accounted for "between 50 percent and 80 percent of the problem." That would produce a figure between $150 billion and $240 billion, lower than what Gingrich said, though the commission acknowledged that such studies may be undercounting the scale of losses. "The exact figure is unknowable," the commission cautioned. Independent experts strongly agreed. "Estimating losses from intellectual property theft is like trying to predict next month's weather with 1960s technology," said Justin Hughes, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in intellectual property. "Estimates are by nature guesstimates, and rough ones at that. I would not be comfortable with anything more specific than ‘hundreds of billions of dollars.’ " Hughes added that measurements of intellectual property theft don’t necessarily include U.S. losses from counterfeit goods, another area of concern. Even basic definitions offer room for disagreement, said Derek M. Scissors, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Should we use what it’s worth to the owner or the thief? If intellectual property hasn’t fully been brought to market — and that turns out in many cases to be the most valuable intellectual property — its value to anyone can only be very roughly estimated," he said. James A. Lewis, senior vice president and program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, also noted technical problems in calculating a dollar value. "If I steal intellectual property that you value at $100 and I can’t use it, the actual loss is zero," Lewis said. Our ruling Gingrich said, "The Chinese last year probably stole $360 billion intellectual property from the United States." The $360 billion figure comes from a senior government official, and there are indications that it could, if anything, understate the scale of the problem. However, it’s worth remembering that all estimates in this field are subject to guesstimation. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cba1cc29-04f5-45ce-8fde-99d2012548ce	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2016-05-17T16:02:27	2016-05-15	['United_States', 'China']
-pomt-00820	Says Ted Cruz just flip-flopped about the president needing to be U.S.-born.	/texas/statements/2015/mar/27/facebook-posts/facebook-meme-says-ted-cruz-flip-flopper-president/	Canadian-born Ted Cruz, the Texas senator lately embarked on a bid for president, conveniently flip-flopped on whether a candidate needs to be born in the United States to run for president, an online meme suggests. We speak of this March 26, 2015, Facebook post: SOURCE: Facebook post, March 26, 2015 The post quotes the pictured Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, in December 1970 to an American mother and a Cuban-born father, saying Barack "Obama’s mother’s citizenship is irrelevant since his father wasn’t American and he wasn’t born in America. He can’t be president." Constitutional provision That comment would have been of a piece with inaccurate "birther" charges about the Democratic president, who was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in August 1961 to an American mother and Kenyan father. At issue is the constitutional provision requiring any president to be a "natural born citizen" of the United States--meaning the person must be a citizen at birth, most legal experts concur. The candidate also must be 35 years of age and a U.S. resident for 14 years. What does it mean to be a "natural born citizen"? Most legal experts contend it means someone is a citizen from birth and doesn’t have to go through a naturalization process to become one. And if that’s the definition, then Cruz is a natural born citizen by being born to an American mother and having her citizenship at birth. (See a full rundown of Cruz’s eligibility in this updated PolitiFact story.) Cruz flip-flop? The Facebook post, making the case for Cruz’s flip-flop, says Cruz said March 23, 2015, the day he announced his presidential candidacy: "All you need to know about my parentage is my mother was a citizen. My father and place of birth are irrelevant." Hypocrite! No confirmation of either comment Except, ahem, an extensive search of the Nexis news database and online news sources yields no sign of Cruz, a Houston lawyer elected to the Senate in 2012, making either statement. Our searches led us only to a March 26, 2015, web post on Debunkr.net saying the same; Cruz hasn’t made these comments. We asked Cruz’s campaign if Cruz had ever said Obama couldn’t be president for anything connected to his birthplace. He "has not," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier emailed. In news stories dating from 2013 to the present, Dallas Morning News reporter Todd J. Gillman, who heads that paper’s Washington, D.C., bureau, has detailed Cruz’s citizenship actions including a decision to legally end his dual U.S.-Canada citizenship in June 2014. At the time, Cruz made his birth certificate available to reporters: SOURCE: Email, Catherine Frazier, then-press secretary, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, to Jonathan Tilove, chief political writer, Austin American-Statesman, Aug. 19, 2013 Previously, Gillman took note of a Mother Jones magazine article stating Cruz’s father, Dallas-area pastor Rafael Cruz, had made a comment while stumping for his son that suggested Obama be sent back to Kenya. In September 2012, the elder Cruz spoke of sending Obama "back to Kenya." That's the land of birth for Obama's father, the News noted in a Nov. 1, 2013, news story, though the 44th president was born in Hawaii, "making him a natural-born American two ways -- by birth on American soil and because his mother was from Kansas." "We have our work cut out for us," the elder Cruz told a North Texas Tea Party gathering Sept. 12, 2012, as later revealed by Mother Jones. "We need to send Barack Obama back to Chicago. I'd like to send him back to Kenya, back to Indonesia." At the time, Frazier said the pastor did not speak for his son. Ted Cruz subsequently said his father made an "ill-advised joke," the News reported. Our ruling A Facebook meme indicates Ted Cruz has conveniently flip-flopped on whether the president must be U.S.-born. We found no evidence Cruz made the presented comments or that he’s changed his position about the "natural born citizen" provision. While he’s spoken occasionally about his own birth and citizenship, he appears not to have made declarations about Obama’s origins. This makes the Facebook post factually unsupported and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9fb7e53e-44be-41dc-a91b-15f4bed19831	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2015-03-27T15:29:14	2015-03-26	['Ted_Cruz']
-bove-00031	Attack On Umar Khalid: Brazen ‘Gau Rakshaks’ Claim Responsibility	https://www.boomlive.in/attack-on-umar-khalid-brazen-gau-rakshaks-claim-responsibility/	None	None	None	None	None	Attack On Umar Khalid: Brazen ‘Gau Rakshaks’ Claim Responsibility	Aug 16 2018 6:04 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-10689	Mike Huckabee "supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/11/mitt-romney/huckabee-wanted-scholarship-open-to-all/	With Mike Huckabee surging in the polls in Iowa, Mitt Romney recently released an attack ad that turned on the issue of immigration. Among other things, the ad says that Mike Huckabee "even supported taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal aliens." There's some truth here, but it's not as dramatic as the 30-second ad portrays. Rather than supporting a scholarship fund aimed at illegal aliens, Huckabee supported a measure that would have allowed the children of illegal aliens who graduated from Arkansas high schools to receive in-state tuition and apply for a state-funded scholarship program, the Academic Challenge Scholarship. Arkansas students can qualify for the scholarship if they achieve a specific grade-point average (3.0 out of 4.0 for a four-year college) and meet a few other basic criteria. At a November 2007 debate in St. Petersburg, Huckabee said he supported the measure so that the children of illegal immigrants could have "the same scholarship that their peers had, who had also gone to high school with them and sat in the same classrooms." (Huckabee also claimed the rules regarding this proposal were stricter than they actually were; we checked that claim here . We also checked previous claims from Romney on similar issues here and here .) Even though Huckabee supported the measure in 2005, it never made it out of the Arkansas legislature, so it never became a law in Arkansas. Romney is right in his assertion, but he glosses over a few important caveats to get there. For that reason, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2007-12-11T00:00:00	2007-12-10	['Mike_Huckabee']
-faan-00102	 “The judge is required to see that the person is actually reciting the oath of citizenship.”	http://factscan.ca/paul-calandra-the-judge-is-required-to-see-that-the-person-is-actually-reciting-the-oath-of-citizenship/	Paul Calandra said a judge is required to see a person reciting the citizenship oath. The Citizenship Act is not that specific. It says a person “shall take the oath of citizenship by swearing or solemnly affirming it before a citizenship judge.”	None	Paul Calandra	None	None	None	2015-03-07	uary 13, 2015	['None']
-goop-02310	Jamie Lee Curtis Stopped By Cop For Jaywalking?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jamie-lee-curtis-cop-jaywalking-police/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jamie Lee Curtis Stopped By Cop For Jaywalking?	10:50 am, October 24, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03934	Radio personality Michael Savage was fired because he talked about Hillary Clinton's health on the air.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-savage-removed/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Michael Savage Removed from the Airwaves for Discussing Clinton’s Health	28 September 2016	None	['Michael_Savage', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-goop-02375	Caitlyn Jenner Wants To Embark On Modeling Career?	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-modeling-career-model/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Caitlyn Jenner Wants To Embark On Modeling Career?	11:03 am, October 6, 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00141	Cracking Down on Medical Pot: Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/cracking-down-on-medical-pot-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	Cracking Down on Medical Pot: Fact Check TV	February 5, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-15171	Says Bobby Jindal’s parents "used his birthright citizenship to become Americans, making him an anchor baby."	/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/25/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-tags-jindal-anchor-baby/	Billionaire Donald Trump’s immigration proposals include forcing Mexico to pay for a wall at the border, tripling the number of immigration officers, and ending the long-standing practice of birthright citizenship. There are exceptions but generally speaking, if you are born in the United States, you can claim citizenship regardless of the immigration status of your parents. This goes back to the 14th Amendment. Once Trump raised the issue, other GOP contenders followed suit, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. On Aug. 17, 2015, Jindal tweeted, "We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants." This prompted the liberal group Occupy Democrats to post a meme on its Facebook page with this message: " ‘We have to end birthright citizenship to stop anchor babies,’ says Republican Bobby Jindal whose noncitizen parents arrived in the U.S. four months before he was born and used his birthright citizenship to become Americans, making him an anchor baby." The part we’re fact-checking is the claim that Jindal’s parents gained citizenship through him. People define "anchor baby" in different ways. Some use it when food assistance and medical care for a low-income child of undocumented immigrants produce indirect benefits for the parents. That doesn’t apply in Jindal’s case. For one, his parents had healthy incomes when they arrived, and more to the point, Occupy Democrats focused on another meaning of anchor baby — a child through whom a noncitizen can craft a path to full citizenship. Coming to America The Facebook post is shaky on its quotation of Jindal. His tweet didn’t mention "anchor babies." The closest he came to saying those words was during an interview with Fox News where, on being pressed by the host, Jindal said, "I’m happy to use the phrase," but he still didn’t actually use it. However, regarding Jindal’s personal timeline, the post is accurate. Jindal’s parents moved from India to Baton Rouge, La., on Feb. 1, 1971. Jindal was born on June 10, 1971. So that’s just about four months later. Back in the days when people like Trump were clamoring for President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate, Jindal moved to ensure that no such questions would hang about him. In 2011, the Times-Picayune reported that Jindal had produced his birth certificate. It showed that he was born at Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge to Raj Gupta, his mother, and Amar Jindal, his father. At the time, his mother had a scholarship to study nuclear physics at Louisiana State University, and his father, an engineer professor, was working for a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railway. A couple of years later, Amar Jindal took a new job with the Exxon oil company. Jindal’s mother Raj Gupta earned two master’s degrees, one in physics and another in nuclear engineering. She ultimately worked for the state Labor Department in information technology. Mike Reed, communications director in the Louisiana governor’s office, told us that Raj Gupta became an American citizen in 1976, and Amar Jindal followed 10 years later in 1986. Why does that matter? Because those dates mean that Jindal’s birthright citizenship played no legal role in his parent’s citizenship applications. Let’s see why. 21 is the magic number Two leaders in immigration law explained that Jindal only could have helped his parents become citizens when he had turned 21 years old. Under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child of immigrants can sponsor them to become permanent residents. The child must be a citizen and must be 21 or older. Once the parents are permanent residents, they must live in America for five straight years. After that, they can apply for citizenship. If Jindal’s citizenship had made any difference, the earliest his parents could have been eligible would have been 1992, five years after he turned 21. When his mother became a citizen in 1976, Jindal was 5, and in 1986, for his father’s naturalization, he was 15. It’s not even close. "If both parents had lawful permanent residence, then it doesn’t make a difference if they had a kid," said David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Lenni Benson, a law professor at New York Law School, also said that given the Jindals’ circumstances, the son’s citizenship was "irrelevant." "Once they secured immigrant visas and became lawful permanent residents, they could seek naturalization on their own after five years of residence and meeting other requirements," Benson said. Everything Leopold and Benson told us matches the rules that we found on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website. At the end of the day, there is no evidence that Jindal was an "anchor baby." Occupy Democrats did not return a message to the group’s email address. Our ruling Occupy Democrats said Bobby Jindal’s parents used his birthright citizenship to become Americans. We reviewed the law and spoke to two experts in immigration law. The only way Jindal might have been able to help his parents become citizens is if he had been 21. He was 5 when his mother became a citizen and 15 when his father took the same step. The experts we reached told us Jindal’s citizenship was irrelevant, bringing Occupy Democrats' claim into the realm of ridiculous. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!	None	Occupy Democrats	None	None	None	2015-08-25T17:08:01	2015-08-23	['United_States']
-pomt-11667	"White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel" for President Donald Trump.	/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/05/tweets/gorilla-channel-trump-satire-tweet-fools-1000s/	With off-the-charts anticipation over the release of a tell-all book about President Donald Trump, the Twittersphere was primed for a classic hoax. The Twitter account @pixelatedboat delivered. "Wow, this extract from Wolff’s book is a shocking insight into Trump’s mind," the prankster said Jan. 4, adding what looked like a picture of a section of the book. "On his first night in the White House, President Trump complained that the TV in his bedroom was broken, because it didn’t have ‘the gorilla channel’," the faux excerpt began. "To appease Trump, White House staff compiled a number of gorilla documentaries into a makeshift gorilla channel, broadcast into Trump’s bedroom from a hastily-constructed transmission tower on the South Lawn." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Not content with that absurdity, the excerpt continued with a quote from an unnamed insider saying Trump "kneels in front of the TV, with his face about four inches from the screen and says encouraging things to the gorillas." But it’s not true. To be sure, we ran a search on a Kindle copy of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, by Michael Wolff. There was not one mention of a gorilla. But plenty of people believed the tweet, which got over 51,000 likes and was retweeted over 16,000 times. One person tweeted, "I did not realize it was a joke until I read the comments!! We're so far down the rabbit hole, this seemed completely believable. What's happening to us????" Another said "I read pretty far in before I realized ..." Prolific twitterer Eric Garland with over 170,000 followers confessed "I got totally punked on the Gorilla Channel thing." About six hours after the tweet went up, the author changed his display name to "the gorilla channel thing is a joke." And he wrote, "Wonder if this new display name will help. Probably not." Our ruling Come on. A phony gorilla channel for President Trump hacked together by his staff to distract him? Do we need to say more than Pants on Fire? See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tweets	None	None	None	2018-01-05T16:51:37	2018-01-04	['White_House', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-14962	"CNN's Crap Polling" is so bad that it shows that "no one under the age of 50 has an opinion of Hillary Clinton."	/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/21/viral-image/next-chapter-conspiracy-theiry-graphic-takes-aim-c/	A few days ago, we waded into the debate over a conspiracy theory circulating among some supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders -- the one that has CNN, among other media outlets, keeping favorable post-debate poll results for Sanders under wraps because the network, and other parts of the media establishment, are in the tank for Hillary Clinton. After we gave a Pants on Fire rating to the claim that CNN deleted from its website an online poll favorable to Sanders, many readers attacked PolitiFact as being part of this conspiracy against Sanders. Nonetheless, we’ve decided to wade in again after a reader sent us a Facebook post that added a new wrinkle to the alleged CNN conspiracy. The reader sent us a post that showed an image of results from a CNN-ORC International poll taken between Oct. 14 and 17. On the image, two columns were circled in red -- two columns of sub-results by age group for a question about how favorably or unfavorably the respondent views Hillary Clinton. The two columns show responses for survey participants ages 18 to 34 and ages 35 to 49. Every possible answer in those columns has been marked N/A -- "not applicable." The creator of the image was dumbfounded, slapping this comment on the image in big red type: "CNN's Crap Polling: No one under the age of 50 has an opinion of Hillary Clinton?" The reader who contacted PolitiFact wondered whether the image creator’s question was legitimate, so we took a closer look. Bottom line: It’s all a misunderstanding about how CNN reports the results of its surveys. (After we emailed questions to the person who had posted it on their Facebook page, we didn’t receive a response, but the post was pulled down. We saved a screenshot, above.) The easiest way to debunk the graphic’s assumption is to look a few columns to the right. There, one can find a heading that reads "under 50," with 74 percent of respondents in that age group saying they feel favorably about Clinton, 23 percent saying they feel unfavorably, 3 percent saying they have no opinion and 1 percent saying they’ve never heard of her. (Our real question: Who belongs to the 1 percent who have never heard of Hillary Clinton?) So this column of poll results clearly shows that people under 50 did tell the survey takers about their opinions about Clinton. What about those mysterious columns full of "N/A"? They are there because of CNN’s polling policy. The policy is explained fully in the same document that the Facebook image was drawn from, though it appears on an earlier page not shown in the Facebook post. This section explains the CNN policy on "crosstabs" -- the polling industry’s term for results sorted by demographic subcategories such as age, race, gender or income level. "Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less," CNN wrote. "Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with ‘N/A.’ " In other words, for the age ranges 18 to 34 and 35 to 49, the survey reached too few people to produce a statistically valid sample -- so to avoid publishing questionable numbers, CNN simply reported them as "N/A." This pattern -- categories with larger sample sizes given specific figures, and those with smaller sample size marked "N/A" -- is echoed elsewhere in the full document. "The CNN/ORC polls are highly regarded," said Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. "They are one of the few partnerships to provide us subgroup data, which is invaluable. The Facebook question does a disservice to the poll." Our ruling The Internet graphic accused CNN of being such an incompetent pollster that it found that "no one under the age of 50 has an opinion of Hillary Clinton." This is based on a misreading of the CNN-sponsored poll. Two age-range subcategories produced too few respondents to qualify as statistically valid results under CNN’s threshold, which was plainly spelled out in the survey-results document. The claim is even debunked on the graphic itself -- it showed a category with actual results for respondents under the age of 50. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Viral image	None	None	None	2015-10-21T16:00:15	2015-10-21	['CNN', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-02793	In March 2017, actor William H. Macy died of a heart attack at the age of 66.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/william-h-macy-death-hoax/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	William H. Macy Death Hoax	13 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06972	Says state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf wants to "eliminate Medicare" as we know it.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/14/shelly-moore/democratic-candidate-shelly-moore-says-sen-sheila-/	The high-stakes recall elections for Wisconsin Senate are starting to sound like congressional races, as Democratic challengers try to link Republicans to the Medicare funding plan offered by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Janesville. Sometimes the link is clear: Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), for example, said she was "standing with Ryan" on Medicare reforms. Now she’s under attack for it as she tries to retain her seat. Then there’s the claim from Democrat Shelly Moore, a teacher and union activist seeking to unseat Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls) in a northwestern Wisconsin district. She sent out a direct-mail piece with this headline: "Senator Harsdorf and Her Party Want to Eliminate Medicare As We Know It, Forcing Seniors to Pay Thousands More a Year for the Same Coverage." The cover illustration and message, featuring a resident in the 10th District, was even tougher: "Lyda Haskins of River Falls Can’t Afford For Medicare to End. CAN YOU?" We’ll return to that constituent later, but first a bit of background. Democrats across the country are seeking political advantage by injecting Ryan and Medicare into local races. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed Ryan’s proposal and found that it will save the government money. It does so by asking future Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for insurance, PolitiFact National has reported. The Ryan plan leaves the government-run Medicare health insurance program in its current form for people now 55 and older. For those currently under 55, Ryan would end the guaranteed benefit in Medicare; it would pay directly for medical services instead of giving seniors a set amount, the Journal Sentinel reported. Critics call that a "voucher" plan but Ryan does not. He says more choices for Medicare participants would increase competition and drive down cost. It is complex and far-reaching plan. But has Harsdorf come out in favor of it? When we asked Moore for backup, campaign aides cited two pieces of evidence. One was a video of a brief, taped conversation Harsdorf had July 3, 2011, in Hudson with a woman who wanted to know her position on Ryan’s Medicare plan. But rather than voicing support, as Moore’s campaign claims, Harsdorf pointedly -- and repeatedly -- does not take a position. "I’m really focused on state issues," Harsdorf offered -- a stance she repeated in an interview with us. Gillian Morris, a Democratic Party of Wisconsin spokesman involved in Moore’s campaign, said the video showed that Harsdorf was "unwilling to stand against" Ryan’s plan -- and may be a hint she supports it. But the video doesn’t indicate support -- or even opposition -- so it’s not much backing at all for Moore’s claim. The second piece the campaign pointed to was a vote cast by Harsdorf on June 16, 2011, against a Democratic amendment to restore a variety of social service cuts in the 2011-’13 state budget. One line in the amendment sought to allow Wisconsin’s attorney general to sue over possible federal changes to Medicare and Medicaid. Harsdorf joined other Republicans in killing the amendment. We examined the Senate amendment and listened to the 40-minute floor debate in that chamber, as well as the debate in the Assembly over a similar amendment the day before. The Senate version does not mention Ryan at all, but Democratic senators made it crystal clear during debate the amendment was aimed at Ryan’s Medicare plan. In the Assembly, there was little doubt that Democrats were using the vote to put Republicans on the record in a way that could be used against them later. "Are you going to stand with Wisconsin seniors or stand with Congressman Ryan?" asked state Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee). That gets at the purpose of the amendment, which included many other things, but what about the substance of the claim made by Moore? During the Senate debate, Harsdorf said nothing about the amendment; Republicans as a group largely were silent. What about the guts of the amendment? Did a vote against it, as Moore contends, put someone on record in favor of Ryan’s plan to turn Medicare into what the amendment called "vouchers"? There are significant problems with that reasoning. One, Harsdorf had 98 other possible reasons to vote against the amendment, which contained a total of 99 changes covering a range of issues such as Family Care, Senior Care and Badger Care. The Medicare amendment Moore refers to was No. 93 on the list. Two, the amendment in question referred to giving the attorney general the ability to sue over changes not just to Medicare, but to Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income individuals. We searched news accounts, speeches, TV ads and position papers and found no evidence of Harsdorf taking a public position on Ryan’s plan. Nor could Moore’s campaign produce any. Harsdorf told us her vote against the Democratic amendment reflected only her support for the Republican-crafted state budget, which she helped mold as a member of the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee. Without that direct connection, the approach feels more like guilt by association. In the 2010 campaign, a liberal group sought to link GOP Assembly candidates to Ryan’s proposals on Social Security. We found the links were beyond thin, and the allegation of "privatizing" Social Security inaccurate, and we rated the claim Pants on Fire. Before we close, there are two other problems with Moore’s campaign literature -- one of them a whopper. For one, Moore plays loose in stating the impact of Ryan’s Medicare proposal. At one point, her flier says it would "eliminate Medicare as we know it." In another, it says the plan would "end" Medicare. For those who turn 65 before 2022, the program would not change. And for the others, Medicare would change dramatically but it would still exist, PolitiFact Wisconsin noted in ruling False a MoveOn.org claim that Medicare would be abolished in 10 years. And, last but not least, we called the woman pictured under the flier's headline: "Lyda Haskins of River Falls Can’t Afford For Medicare to End." Haskins, 85, told us that she would have no trouble without Medicare even if it were taken from her -- which it would not be, under the plan. "It’s laughable that I wouldn’t be able to afford it," Haskins said. "They should have not have done that." Haskins, whose daughter Alison Page ran unsuccessfully against Harsdorf in 2008, is well known in the area. Haskins said she was not told her name would be used, and was not aware that Medicare would be an issue in the direct mail piece. She said she agreed, along with her grandchildren, only to be pictured generically as a Moore supporter. "It was wrong to use my name. I think it was somebody’s error," said Haskins, who said she would still support Moore. Morris said Moore campaign officials were "perplexed" over Haskin's allegations, saying they fully explained to her the image would be used in a Medicare flier and that she understood. Let’s take stock. Moore portrays Harsdorf as wanting to "eliminate Medicare as we know it" or to "end" Medicare for seniors. But the video she points to as backup does not include an acknowledgment of support for Ryan’s Medicare plan and the opposition to the Senate amendment cited is not proof of support either. There were 99 points in that amendment and the Ryan-focused one was so vague that even as a separate item it would have provided no definitive proof of Harsdorf’s stance. We could find no backup at all in our own search of Harsdorf’s position, and she said simply she’s focused on state issues. Indeed, the campaign literature highlights a woman who wouldn’t be affected -- and who herself disputes that she "can’t afford" for Medicare to end. It is incumbent on the person making a factual claim to be able to support it. The flier’s claims are false, barring new information, and the misleading nature of the presentation pushes this into ridiculous territory. That’s a Pants on Fire.	None	Shelly Moore	None	None	None	2011-07-14T09:00:00	2011-07-08	['Medicare_(United_States)']
-snes-05758	Retired CIA agent Normand Hodges confessed on his deathbed to assassinating Marilyn Monroe.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seven-year-snitch/	None	Media Matters	None	David Mikkelson	None	Retired CIA Agent Confesses on Deathbed: ‘I Killed Marilyn Monroe’	16 April 2015	None	['Marilyn_Monroe', 'Central_Intelligence_Agency']
-goop-02081	Christina Aguilera “Marrying For Money” Claim Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-aguilera-marrying-money-matt-rutler/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Christina Aguilera “Marrying For Money” Claim NOT True	9:20 pm, December 5, 2017	None	['None']
-thal-00052	FactCheck: Are there really only 10,000 undocumented Irish in the USA?	http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-undocumented-irish-usa-3559047-Aug2017/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: Are there really only 10,000 undocumented Irish in the USA?	Aug 23rd 2017, 12:05 AM	None	['None']
-pomt-03641	U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham says South Carolina "has a labor shortage and wants more immigration."	/georgia/statements/2013/may/03/dustin-inman-society/anti-amnesty-group-takes-sen-graham/	The immigration debate is in high gear, prompting us to look into two claims on the issue. The most prominent driving force for reform has been the Gang of Eight, a bipartisan coalition of U.S. senators -- four Republicans and four Democrats -- which released its comprehensive immigration reform bill last month. A key provision in the Senate bill (a House version could be a step-by-step approach still to come) would create guest worker programs for low-skilled and agricultural workers. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is a proponent of the programs. But that advocacy didn’t go over so well here in Georgia with an anti-amnesty group, the Dustin Inman Society, which purchased a billboard advertisement criticizing Graham. The billboard, posted in Cherokee County near Woodstock, reads: "South Carolina Welcomes the Undocumented! Sen. Lindsey Graham says his state has a labor shortage and wants more immigrants." The advertisement goes on to tell job seekers: "For job tips, call his office (number provided) located in Pendleton, S.C., only two hours from Atlanta!" The billboard ends with a link to a Patch article about Graham discussing immigration reform at a South Carolina Rotary Club meeting in February. We wanted to know if the ad correctly quoted Graham and accurately characterized his comments. We contacted D.A. King about the billboard. King is the leader of the Dustin Inman Society, named for the Georgia teenager killed in a 2000 traffic accident by an illegal immigrant. The billboard is in the county where Dustin Inman lived, King said. "Absent the (mainstream media) shining some honest light on the matter, we thought it would be educational and entertaining to at least illuminate his claims and perhaps encourage black market labor to migrate to South Carolina," King said in an email to us. "That would open up jobs here (in Georgia) and help legal workers." Graham, through a spokesman, said he had no comment on the billboard. In the Patch article referenced on the advertisement, Graham told the Rotary Club: "When you go to these meatpacking plants in Saluda (S.C.), harvesting the crops or servicing the hotels along the coast, you may not believe it, but it is true -- there is a shortage of labor in some parts of our economy, even though we have high unemployment." Graham also commented on the issue in a U.S. Senate hearing in February, and a portion of his remarks are included in a film by independent filmmaker Dennis Michael Lynch, "They Come to America II." The film, which is critical of Graham, says that 340,000 Americans in South Carolina can’t find full-time jobs. "Nobody wants to displace a willing American worker, but I can tell you in South Carolina there are certain jobs, like in the meatpacking industry, that as an employer you can advertise all day long every day of the week and you’re not going to get that workforce," Graham says during the hearing. So, Graham says his state has a labor shortage for certain jobs, and in the instances he’s made that claim, he has largely focused on the meatpacking industry. Neither the billboard nor a film criticizing Graham, though, notes that the senator’s comments referred mostly to the meatpacking industry. The billboard goes on to say that South Carolina welcomes the undocumented. Graham has advocated for a bill creating a guest worker program, but such a program would provide a legal means for some immigrants to work in the country. To sum up, a Georgia anti-amnesty group, the Dustin Inman Society, criticized Graham for his comments that the Palmetto State has a labor shortage. As part of his argument for comprehensive immigration reform and guest worker programs, Graham made claims there is a labor shortage in some areas, and in at least two instances the Republican senator specifically mentioned the meatpacking industry as an area needing workers. The claim about Graham’s statement contains an element of truth, but it ignores the senator’s focus on the meatpacking industry. The society goes on to say that Graham’s state welcomes undocumented immigrants, but the guest worker program he supports would create a legal means for immigrants to work. We rate the society’s claims Mostly False.	None	Dustin Inman Society	None	None	None	2013-05-03T00:00:00	2013-04-15	['United_States', 'Lindsey_Graham', 'South_Carolina']
-tron-03165	President Bush was wired for off stage prompts during debates	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bush-wired/	None	politics	None	None	None	President Bush was wired for off stage prompts during debates	Mar 17, 2015	None	['George_W._Bush']
-pomt-06396	"The State of Rhode Island has the worst state-funded pension in the country."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/oct/30/helen-glover/talk-show-host-helen-glover-says-rhode-islands-pen/	(This story was updated on Oct. 31 to reflect the fact that General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has also referred to Rhode Island as "the worst" as recently as Sept. 8, 2011.) Rhode Island has a pension crisis. Simply put, it doesn't have enough money set aside to cover the payments that it has promised its current and future retirees. How bad is it? WHJJ talk show host Helen Glover declared on Oct. 24 that we are now first among the worst. "The State of Rhode Island has the worst state-funded pension in the country. Of all of the systems, we're the worst," she said during her Oct. 24 show. Are we really at the bottom of the heap? When we asked Glover for her source, she sent along several articles. But before we get to them, a quick reminder about what is at stake. Rhode Island’s state pension plans are paying $370 million this year to provide retirement benefits for government employees. If nothing changes, that amount will nearly double next year to $615 million. According to state officials, the plan now has only 48 percent of the funds it needs to cover its pension obligations. The federal government regards 80 percent as a safe level. Now back to Glover’s claim that Rhode Island’s system is the worst in the nation. One of the sources she supplied to us was a story on WPRI.com with this headline: "RI pension fund in worst shape of all, Pew suggests." But the story compared the 2010 funding level for Rhode Island with Pew data from other states from 2009, when Rhode Island wasn't the worst at all -- five states had less cash in 2009 to cover their pension obligations than Rhode Island (which was at 59 percent). Illinois ranked the worst, funded at 51 percent. The WPRI story noted what the headline didn't: that it was using data from different years. Yet when other websites picked up the WPRI headline, the story’s caveats were dropped. Glover's sources included one such item, a five-paragraph story from BusinessInsider.com headlined, "Rhode Island's Pension Liabilities Are Now The Worst In the Country" that combined the WPRI story with an error-filled chart that, it said, came from Boston College's Center for Retirement Research. When we went directly to the Boston College database and ran our own calculations, we found that it put Rhode Island pensions as being funded at 62 percent in 2009, not 48 percent as Business Insider reported. (And instead of being "the worst in the country," Rhode Island was ranked ninth from the bottom, a better ranking than the Pew report.) So what do the latest numbers show? At Pew, research director Kil Huh said the organization is still gathering 2010 data. The latest tallies from 4 of the 10-worst states haven't been released. But Illinois' numbers, published in July, show that state has dropped to a funding level of 45 percent, keeping it at the bottom of the list -- so far. Two states that had worse numbers than Rhode Island in Pew's report on the 2009 numbers -- West Virginia and Oklahoma -- have not released their latest statistics. So why did the funding percentages fall in 2010? Huh said it probably comes from the lingering impact of the recession, which keeps pulling down the amount of money pension funds have been earning over the last five years. "The states are still accounting for the significant losses they experienced in the fall of 2008." And in Rhode Island, the state retirement board voted in April to scale back its predicted rate of return for its pension investment portfolio. The assumed rate of return had been 8.25 percent per year; the board adjusted that to 7.5 percent. (The actual market return over the last 10 years has been 5.74 percent; 1.52 percent in the past 5 years.) Glover also referred us to a recent Washington Post story that paraphrased Raimondo as saying that Rhode Island has the nation’s worst-funded pension system. (We also found a New York Times story that did the same thing.) But neither quoted her directly, and the Post story cited a per-capita comparison, not a funding level comparison. Raimondo did make such a statement in the Feb. 24, 2011 edition of PBS NewsHour, saying the state had "the highest unfunded liability per capita of any state in the country." But more recently, says Raimondo’s office, the treasurer has consistently characterized the funding level as "one of the worst" in the nation or "one of the worst" per capita. A search of Providence Journal stories supports that. (However, after this report was published, Bob Plain of WPRO produced a tape from Sept. 8, 2011, in which the treasurer clearly and repeatedly characterized the funding of the state's pension system as "the worst," with the "highest unfunded liability per capita.") Our ruling Helen Glover said Rhode Island's pension system is the mostly poorly funded in the U.S. Her statement was based on sources that either misread the numbers or mixed old data with new. Using the latest 2010 numbers from Pew, Rhode Island ranks no lower than second from the bottom, and the state's standing may improve as other states report their figures. And when we sought out other sources, such as Moody's and Boston College, we couldn't find any ranking that put Rhode Island at the bottom of the barrel when it came to pension funding. That doesn't detract from Rhode Island's profoundly perilous pension problem. But being in last place is a very specific distinction, and we're not there -- yet. Because Glover was so definitive, we rule that her statement "contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression" -- PolitiFact's definition of Mostly False. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Helen Glover	None	None	None	2011-10-30T06:00:00	2011-10-24	['Rhode_Island']
-snes-01738	Did Crabs Swarm a Florida Road After Hurricane Irma?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-crabs-swarm-florida-irma/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Crabs Swarm a Florida Road After Irma?	13 September 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00699	A photograph captures a man washing aborted fetuses in Brazil.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/washing-aborted-fetuses/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does This Photograph Show a Man Washing Aborted Fetuses in Brazil?	30 April 2018	None	['Brazil']
-pomt-03501	Says Gov. John Kasich implied that a portion of workers’ compensation rebates to employers "should be directed back to him in the form of campaign cash."	/ohio/statements/2013/jun/07/tom-letson/state-rep-tom-letson-suggests-ohio-gov-john-kasich/	Ohio Gov. John Kasich made news last month when he proposed returning $1 billion in insurance premiums to more than 200,000 public and private employers. The rebates, later approved by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation board, could be worth up to millions of dollars and are possible thanks to an unexpected surplus in bureau funds. A couple of weeks later, the Republican Kasich noted the accomplishment among others in an email sent to his campaign’s listserv. The email drew the ire of State Rep. Tom Letson. A statement sent by Letson’s office called Kasich campaign’s email as a "fundraising pitch to cash in" on the rebates. Letson asserted that Kasich was "raising money from an injured workers’ fund" and that the governor has "directly tied BWC rebates to" political donations. "It is as if the Governor is implying that a portion of the rebate should be directed back to him in the form of campaign cash," said Letson, a four-term Democrat from Warren. PolitiFact Ohio decided that Letson’s provocative claim was worth a closer look. Let’s start with the email from Kasich’s campaign. Letson’s office attached a copy to his statement. We confirmed its authenticity after a Kasich aide forwarded us the original. The campaign email’s subject line: "$1 billion back." Here is the entire text: [Supporter], did you hear the recent news about the $1 billion coming back to Ohio taxpayers? Governor Kasich recently announced that Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation would be returning $1 billion back to public and private employers in a move that’s aimed to help spur job creation. This plan has received a lot of praise and you can read some of the coverage below. Also, a recent survey of CEOs named Ohio as having the most improved business climate of all the other states in the country. It's great to see our reforms getting so much attention but there's still a lot more work to do and we’ll need your help to keep up the momentum. Finally, Gov. Kasich joined a Mahoning Valley company in announcing the creation of new jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in the local economy. You can read more about this great news here. Below are some more things for you to read and please take a moment to help us share some of them with your Facebook friends: We share the entire text, with the Kasich campaign’s bolded emphasis added, to show that there is no direct fundraising pitch in the text. The closest the campaign comes is the line about how Kasich has "a lot more work to do" and needs "your help to keep up the momentum." Immediately below the text were photos and headlines that link to six articles shared on the campaign’s website. At the very bottom of the email were two button-style links. One, labeled "Donate Today", links to the contribution page on the campaign’s website. The "Donate" button was not displayed next to any mention of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation rebate offer. PolitiFact Ohio reached out to Letson’s office. Keary McCarthy, chief of staff for the Ohio House Democrats, responded on the lawmaker’s behalf. He argued that because the email included the "Donate" button at the bottom, it qualified as a fundraising pitch. Because the email noted the rebate program, McCarthy said it’s fair to link the rebates to a plea for campaign money. "Donate" buttons are common on nearly every email sent by a political campaign. Many emails are much more explicit, whether by suggesting specific contribution amounts or making it clear that the supporter’s donation is important to meeting an incremental goal or winning a race. McCarthy stressed other points from Letson’s statement, which referred to past "horrible missteps" at the workers’ compensation agency. That’s a reference to the Coingate scandal during the Taft administration, in which lax oversight of investments cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Tom Noe, a Republican fundraiser, went to prison for raiding a $50 million portfolio he had managed for the agency. That context helps explain what type of behavior Letson is concerned about. But Letson spoke of misbehavior as if it already was occurring. So, do the facts back him up? Let’s review. In an email to campaign supporters, Kasich’s campaign touted the workers’ comp rebate program and two other recent accomplishments. The email included links to articles about these and other accomplishments and, at the very bottom, a link for those who wished to donate. So there is a fundraising element to the email. Letson said it was "as if the Governor is implying that a portion of the rebate should be directed back to him in the form of campaign cash." He is not merely asserting that Kasich was trying to raise money in the email. Rather, Letson is positing something very specific: that Kasich was asking rebate recipients to kick back some of their savings to the governor’s campaign. That’s a serious accusation. And though Letson hedges with words such as "as if" and "implying," that doesn’t excuse the gravity of his claim. We don’t think anyone could reasonably come away from Kasich’s email with the impression he implied what Letson says he did. PolitiFact Ohio has a rating for such absurd statements: Pants on Fire!	None	Tom Letson	None	None	None	2013-06-07T09:55:24	2013-05-16	['John_Kasich']
-pomt-11045	The Iran deal "handed billions of dollars of cash on cargo planes, sent it to a state sponsor of terror, and Tammy Baldwin was one of the first U.S. senators to get on board and support that."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/jun/29/kevin-nicholson/tammy-baldwin-opponent-errs-claiming-billions-doll/	A prime attack Kevin Nicholson makes against U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin concerns the Iran deal that President Donald Trump recently withdrew from. The deal, Nicholson declared, had "handed billions of dollars of cash on cargo planes, sent it to a state sponsor of terror, and Tammy Baldwin was one of the first U.S. senators to get on board and support that." Nicholson and state Sen. Leah Vukmir are running in the August 2018 Republican primary for the right to challenge Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, in the November 2018 general election. The Delafield businessman made the statement on May 30, 2018, to conservative Green Bay radio talk show host John Muir. It is one he has made repeatedly. He mostly misses. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc The backdrop About three weeks before Nicholson made the radio claim, Trump announced the United States would pull out of the nuclear pact with Iran and re-impose sanctions on Tehran, saying the deal failed to contain the regime’s nuclear ambitions and regional meddling. The easy part of Nicholson’s claim to check is Iran’s connection to terrorism. Iran has been on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984. Those countries (Iran, Sudan, Syria and North Korea) have been determined to have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism." But let’s get to the thrust of Nicholson’s claim -- that the deal merely "handed billions of dollars of cash on cargo planes" to Iran and that Baldwin was one of the first senators to support it. The cash The deal, struck in July 2015 under President Barack Obama, was with Iran, the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was aimed at making it harder for Iran to make a nuclear bomb. The deal restricted certain Iranian nuclear activities for periods between 10 to 25 years, and allowed for more intrusive, permanent monitoring. It also prohibited Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons in the future. So, it wasn’t just merely turning over cash to Iran. Latest Kevin Nicholson fact checks: "Tammy Baldwin cosponsored legislation that wanted to establish the Department of Peace and Nonviolence." Mostly True. Says conservative mega-donor Richard Uihlein is a Wisconsin resident. False. "There are more guns in this country than there are people." Half True. As part of the deal, Iran did get access to tens of billions of dollars in assets — but the vast majority of those assets are Iran’s own money. And what cash was delivered on a plane was far less than billions. As our PolitiFact colleagues have reported: The deal released Iranian assets frozen under a variety of sanctions. The assets, cash in the bank, real estate or something else, belonged to Iran in the first place. The total value — worldwide — of freed Iranian assets was about $56 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. According to the U.S. State Department, Iran received about $1.7 billion from the United States — $400 million plus interest. The payment was indirectly linked to the nuclear deal. The money was legally due to Iran. The country had paid America for military equipment in 1979, but the Iranian revolution came and the hardware was never delivered. Many news organizations reported the delivery of the $400 million in an unmarked cargo plane after American officials were certain that three Americans held in Iran were on their way home. It is not known how the remaining $1.3 billion made its way to Iran. As for Baldwin’s backing of the Iran deal, she wasn’t among the first. Her campaign cited reports showing that Baldwin announced her support on Aug. 7, 2015 — after 13 other senators had done so. Our rating Nicholson says the Iran deal "handed billions of dollars of cash on cargo planes, sent it to a state sponsor of terror, and Tammy Baldwin was one of the first U.S. senators to get on board and support that." Iran is on the United States’ list of state sponsors of terrorism. As part of a 2015 deal aimed making it harder for Iran to make a nuclear bomb, Iran got access to tens of billions of dollars of its own assets that had been frozen — there weren’t billions of dollars sent on a plane. The United States, in a transaction indirectly linked to the Iran deal, did send on a plane $400 million in cash to Iran. Iran was owed the money because it had paid the United States for military hardware in 1979 that was never delivered. Finally, Baldwin was not among the first senators to support the Iran nuclear deal. Thirteen other senators had announced their support before she did. For a statement that contains only an element of truth, we give Nicholson a Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kevin Nicholson	None	None	None	2018-06-29T06:00:00	2018-05-30	['United_States', 'Tammy_Baldwin', 'Iran']
-pomt-06686	Rick Perry "was the (campaign) chairman for Al Gore at one time, not too many years ago."	/texas/statements/2011/sep/07/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-rick-perry-was-al-gores-campaign-cha/	Editor’s note: After doubts were raised about Rick Perry’s role in Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, we looked afresh into the matter, concluding in September 2011 that Perry was not Gore’s Texas campaign chairman. This research has prompted us to revise downward our rating of Paul’s claim to Half True. Interviews and news articles confirm that Perry was among 28 Democratic legislators who endorsed Gore for president in January 1988. But there’s no proof he led or ran Gore’s campaign in Texas. It appears that a Democratic opponent slapped various Gore campaign leadership labels on Perry in a 1998 election year and, partly because Perry did not dispute them, the descriptives stuck. For archival purposes, though, the article below retains the text of our original Paul fact check, which was published Aug. 15, 2011. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul told a gathering in Iowa the other day that he wasn’t worried about his chances if fellow Texan. Rick Perry joined the Republican presidential race. As caught on video by a San Francisco Chronicle reporter, Paul said Aug. 10 in Mason City that Perry’s candidacy "probably will help us, because he’ll just further dilute the establishment vote. He’s part of the status quo." Paul also said Perry’s gubernatorial record doesn’t show him to be a conservative. He added that Perry "actually was the chairman for Al Gore at one time, not too many years ago." Gov. Perry for Gore, the former Democratic vice president, not so long ago? Indeed, as we noted in a 2010 fact check, when Perry was still a Democrat, he was the Texas state chairman for Gore's presidential campaign in 1988, the year before he switched parties in anticipation of running for state agriculture commissioner in 1990. What brought Perry to pitch in for Gore, whose candidacy washed out after the Tennessee senator failed to do well outside his native South? At the time, many conservative Texas Democrats put stock in Gore’s campaign, among them former Gov. Dolph Briscoe and then-House Speaker Gib Lewis, who flew to Washington to endorse Gore. Later, Perry said he found out Gore was far from a real conservative. "Going through that (Gore experience) was part of what started me through the process of changing parties," Perry said. "I came to my senses." In the Texas primary, Gore ran third to Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the eventual nominee, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. In late 2009, Perry revisited his disagreement with Gore over the human impact on global warming. Suggesting he'd seen the light on the climate issue while Gore had drifted into darker territory, Perry joked: "I certainly got religion. I think he's gone to hell." Don’t count on the two to be joined in a cause again. Per Paul’s comment, Ryan J. Rusak of The Dallas Morning News wondered in an Aug. 11 blog post if it’s fair to say Perry was Gore’s chairman "not too many years ago." Rusak wrote: "Is 23 years really ‘not too many years ago?’ When you're about to celebrate (your) 76th birthday, as Dr. Paul is next week, I suppose not. But in politics, it's a lifetime, no?" It was more than two decades ago. For that reason, we rate Paul’s statement Mostly True. This rating was changed to Half True on Sept. 7, 2011.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2011-09-07T07:36:09	2011-08-10	['Al_Gore', 'Rick_Perry']
-pomt-06015	"In 2011, (Debbie) Wasserman Schultz missed 62 congressional votes — one of the worst records of any member of Congress."	/florida/statements/2012/jan/17/karen-harrington/harrington-says-wasserman-schultz-missed-62-congre/	Karen Harrington, a Republican setting her sights on the congressional seat held by Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, says the Congresswoman spends too much time hob-knobbing across the country and not enough time casting votes. Harrington has a "Where is Debbie?" post on her website that includes a map of the U.S. marking the states where Wasserman Schultz has visited. In Florida the map shows a sign reading "Debbie’s District abandoned." Harrington said Wasserman Schultz is "more concerned with headlining fundraisers for President (Barack) Obama and the DNC than she is with fulfilling the responsibilities owed to her constituents," adding, "In 2011, Wasserman Schultz missed 62 congressional votes — one of the worst records of a member of Congress." We decided to see for ourselves: How many votes did Wasserman Schultz miss in 2011, and how did she stack up with her peers? We soon discovered that the numbers add up quickly when you’re talking about 435 members of Congress and more than 900 votes. But a web team at the New York Times tracks congressional votes in an online database. The New York Times posted an analysis in October that showed nearly 20 members had missed more than 10 percent of the votes in 2011 -- mostly due to their own illness or that of a family member. Wasserman Schultz was not on that list. There were some not so-surprising names included. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot Jan. 8, missed the most. Presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Ron Paul, R-Texas, were also on the list. And Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., "might have been the first paternity leave for a gay member of Congress," the Times wrote. The article reflected about 814 votes -- not the full year. We contacted Derek Willis, a web developer at the New York Times, who shared internal data with us that showed 948 votes between January and Dec. 20, 2011. The votes are roll call votes and omit voice votes or unanimous consent. Willis told us in an e-mail that the voting data, which comes from the Clerk of the House, showed that Wasserman Schultz missed 62 votes, which equals 6.4 percent of all House votes in 2011. She tied for 45th among the top missers of votes in the House. The median was 17 missed votes or about 1.8 percent. The New York Times’ analysis showed that Wasserman Schultz didn’t top the Florida delegation for missed votes. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami, missed the most votes -- she ranked No. 11. Wilson had gallbladder surgery in October, according to the Miami Herald’s "Naked Politics" blog. Three other members of Florida’s Congressional delegation missed more than Wasserman Schultz: C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Indian Shores; Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami; and Kathy Castor, D-Tampa. Our ruling Harrington said, "In 2011, Wasserman Schultz missed 62 congressional votes — one of the worst records of any member of Congress." She’s right that Wasserman Schultz missed 62 votes. That means Wasserman Schultz is No. 45 among members who have missed votes, out of 435 sitting members, a fairly high ranking. On the other hand, she's not even the worst in the state and has a better voting record than four other members of the Florida delegation. So the record is mixed on whether she is "one of the worst." We rate the statement Half True.	None	Karen Harrington	None	None	None	2012-01-17T10:41:58	2012-01-09	['United_States_Congress', 'Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz']
-snes-05411	You can get free Wendy's Frostys all year long if you purchase a $1 Frosty Key Tag.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wendys-frosty-key-tag/	None	Business	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Wendy’s $1 ‘Free Frosty’ Key Tag?	5 January 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-01240	Donald Trump Cardiac Arrest	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-donald-trump-cardiac-arrest-posts-link-to-scam-websites/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake Donald Trump Cardiac Arrest Posts Link to Scam Websites	October 6, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-00823	Says Gov. Scott Walker "has been rated America’s most factually-challenged politician."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/27/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/has-scott-walker-been-rated-most-factually-challen/	The Wisconsin Democratic Party posted a statement on its website March 17, 2015 that criticizes Gov. Scott Walker's state budget proposal -- and claims Walker "has been rated America’s most factually-challenged politician." A belittling label, even coming from the opposing party, for a Republican who is formulating a 2016 run for the White House. Since we’re in the fact-checking business, we wondered what the party was using as its source. Turns out it's us. Flattering. But we’ve never done that kind of rating. And the party’s analysis has some big holes in it. Ratings The party’s statement links to a post on its website from October 2014. That earlier post cites a January 2014 article by PolitiFact National about the 10 most-fact-checked people on the Truth-O-Meter at the time. The article tallied all PolitiFact fact checks -- those done by PolitiFact National (since 2007), as well as PolitiFact Wisconsin (since 2010) and the other PolitiFact state operations. President Barack Obama topped the list, with 500 fact checks. Coming in ninth, with 85 fact checks, was Walker -- just behind Hillary Clinton and ahead of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. The Democratic Party said that, based on the tallies, 54 percent of the 85 Walker statements had been rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire -- and that that percentage was higher than anyone else on the top 10 list. OK. But there are several problems with using our ratings to make the claim the party did. The first is obvious. The Democrats based their claim on only the top 10 list, which -- as one might expect -- was dominated by politicians who ran for president or were from states that had PolitiFact operations. That ignores all of the other office holders, former office holders and candidates around the country that PolitiFact has fact checked -- including more than 130 such politicians in Wisconsin alone. More importantly, we don't rate politicians in the way the Democratic Party's claim suggests. We don’t rate every single claim a person makes. Rather, we choose a statement based largely on whether it is interesting and timely, and we give it a rating based on our research and reporting. And those ratings apply to the individual statements. We don't make sweeping generalizations about a politician's overall facility with the facts. Some notes before we close. To date, PolitiFact has fact-checked 130 Walker statements. Just over 51 percent of them have been rated True, Mostly True or Half True; nearly 49 percent have been rated Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire. Meanwhile, we have previously rated 18 claims from the Wisconsin Democratic Party. One was rated True and one was rated Half True; the other 16 were rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire. A few days ago, PolitiFact National put in one snapshot a summary of the Truth-O-Meter records of Walker and nine other likely presidential candidates for 2016. Check it out. Our rating The state Democratic Party said Walker "has been rated America’s most factually-challenged politician." But the party misuses our data to claim we said something we never did. For a statement that is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim, our rating is Pants on Fire. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Democratic Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2015-03-27T08:00:00	2015-03-17	['United_States']
-pomt-01287	Says Rick Scott "spent $800,000 of your tax dollars upgrading the Governor's Mansion."	/florida/statements/2014/oct/31/charlie-crist/crist-says-scott-spent-800k-governors-mansion-reno/	Florida gubernatorial candidates are now taking shots at each other’s wallets in campaign commercials, with Democratic challenger Charlie Crist working overtime to get voters to realize that millionaire Gov. Rick Scott is, in fact, a millionaire. "He flies on a private jet and owns an $11 million oceanfront home," an Oct. 24, 2014 ad says. "Rick Scott is used to the finer things. Maybe that's why he spent $800,000 of your tax dollars upgrading the Governor's Mansion." The commercial then repeats a lot of prior attacks about education spending. Meanwhile, we got to wondering whether Scott, who campaigned in 2010 on cutting government spending, spent $800,000 on his new home in Tallahassee after taking office. Ringing up the renovations As the basis for the claim, the Crist campaign sent us an Oct. 28, 2013, Associated Press story posted on CBS Miami’s website. That story said that more than $800,000 in renovations had occurred at the governor’s Greek Revival mansion at 700 N. Adams St. Those renovations included cleaning oriental rugs, refinishing wood floors, "new wallpaper, pillows, furniture, drapes, paint, window repairs, new screens for the swimming pool and an upgraded kitchen," the story read. According to the story, the state spent almost $3 million on the property during Gov. Jeb Bush’s eight years in office, although a third of that money was for security upgrades after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The story said that during Crist’s four-year term from 2007-2011, the state spent a bit more than $27,000. The AP later corrected this amount to almost $443,000. Of the $800,000 the AP said was spent during Scott’s term, almost $600,000 was taxpayer money that went to grounds upkeep, the story said. More than $200,000 more was donated to the Governor’s Mansion Foundation by U.S. Sugar, Florida Crystals and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. There were also $20,000 in gifts from lobbyist Brian Ballard, Scott adviser Tony Fabrizio and the CEO of a private prison company, George Zoley. That private money was used to pay for things like $38,000 in new rugs and $2,000 for a new mirror for First Lady Ann Scott, who had been an interior designer, the AP story said. For this fact-check, we won’t look at private donations, because Crist said "your tax dollars." The Scott campaign said the mansion has routinely been funded by both public and private money, and that the public money involved was used according to state law. It paid for things like code compliance in the kitchen, repairing safety hazards in public areas, electrical upgrades and plumbing repairs, spokesman Greg Blair said. We checked in with the Department of Management Services, the agency that handles expenses for upkeep. Spokesman Ben Wolf told us that the DMS has a budget for mansion projects, and periodic fixes are needed. He declined to be more specific for us. He did give us totals for renovations, maintenance and purchases made for the mansion’s improvements using public money, but we found some numbers were a bit different than what the AP reported in 2013. From January 1999 to December 2006, Jeb Bush’s terms in office, the total was $2.87 million, including post-Sept. 11 security upgrades such as buying surrounding property and putting up barriers. The total from Crist’s term, January 2007 to December 2010, was almost $443,000, including almost $254,000 for heating and cooling ductwork and $102,000 for the design and installation of a "fuel cell" designed to cut emissions and power use. Adding in miscellaneous purchases like tools, supplies, building materials, freight and so on, the total went up to almost $628,000. As for Scott, the DMS disclosure said a little more than $499,000 had been spent for the things Blair claimed. Although that measured more than just 2011, that year is when the bulk of the expenses were incurred. (We’ll also note that more than $10,000 in tax money was spent on cabana repairs.) Add in other expenditures, as we did with Crist and Bush, and the grand total from January 2011 to the present is almost $745,000. In 2013, the Department of Management Services said the agency had reviewed the mansion and decided it needed some freshening, without Scott’s input. Scott’s office said then that neither the governor nor the first lady asked for the changes, but the AP reported that May 2011 meeting minutes from a Governor’s Mansion Committee gathering showed Ann Scott had mentioned the house’s condition. "It’s important to me to maintain its beauty and showcase its history, making the mansion a welcome destination for all guests," she said. We also tried contacting mansion curator Carol Beck several times, but never heard back. She was quoted in the AP story as saying Department of Management Services officials "have been exceptionally proactive in addressing concerns of the first lady and myself as it relates to the current condition of the interior and exterior of the mansion proper, as well as the grounds." This wasn’t the only time spending on the manse has been an issue. In 2011 and 2012, staffers were instructed to use private phone lines and email accounts while working to find about $5 million in public and private money to buy commercial property around the mansion and turn it into a public space. Our ruling Crist said Scott "spent $800,000 of your tax dollars upgrading the Governor's Mansion." When we checked with the agency in charge what the totals were, it said almost $745,000 in taxpayer money had been spent during Scott’s term. So the amount of tax money spent on renovations at the mansion is close. However, the ad is trying to make it sound like Scott was being wasteful, and that's not as clear. The Crist and Bush administrations also spent large sums on expensive renovations, and the money doesn't appear to have come from a direct request from Scott (although the Scotts did accept donations to spruce up the mansion). We rate the statement Half True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2014-10-31T11:29:41	2014-10-24	['None']
-abbc-00130	"Indigenous children at the moment are 10 times more likely to be living out of home right now," Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said on the ABC's Q&A.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-13/are-indigenous-kids-ten-times-more-likely-to-live-out-of-home/7177866	Experts contacted by Fact Check said children "living out of home" could be in informal or formal care. They said there are no statistics available for children in informal care, where the carer is not paid by government. The report and the experts consulted by Fact Check said the number of Indigenous children in out-of-home care may have been undercounted. Two experts said the margin would probably be small and one said it is unknown.	 ['australian-greens', 'sarah-hanson-young', 'indigenous-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander', 'child-abuse', 'children']	None	None	['australian-greens', 'sarah-hanson-young', 'indigenous-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander', 'child-abuse', 'children']	Fact check: Are Indigenous children 10 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be living out of home?	Wed 13 Apr 2016, 1:31am	None	['None']
-pomt-12831	"Legislators themselves cannot afford to buy housing in California."	/california/statements/2017/feb/08/chad-mayes/claim-california-lawmakers-cant-afford-housing-dis/	Is housing in California so expensive that even state lawmakers are priced out? That’s the claim from Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes. "Legislators themselves cannot afford to buy housing in California," Mayes, who represents parts of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, said at a forum hosted by the Public Policy Institute of California on Jan. 17, 2017. Assemblyman Chad Mayes makes his claim at about the 11:30 minute mark in this video. The forum offered legislative leaders a chance to speak about their top priorities. Mayes said reducing the state’s housing costs and its high share of poverty are among his top goals. There’s no doubt California is an expensive place to live. And its housing market has experienced a strong rebound following the Great Recession. But is it fair to say California’s state lawmakers — who receive the highest base salary of any state legislators in the country at $104,000 — can’t afford a home in the Golden State? We set out on a fact check. Our research Several economists pointed us to the California Association of Realtors Traditional Housing Affordability Index. It lists California’s median priced single-family home at $515,940, noting the minimum qualifying income to reasonably afford that home is $100,290. For condos, the median price is $418,230 with a minimum qualifying income of $81,290. All figures are based on home sales data from the third quarter in 2016, the most recent period available. SOURCE: California Association of Realtors Traditional Housing Affordability Index. As a comparison, Zillow.com lists the median home value in California at $485,800, through December 31, 2016. On the realtors index, the qualifying income figures assume homebuyers spend no more than one-third of their income on housing, make a 20 percent down payment, and pay the national average interest rate, plus principal, interest, property tax and homeowner’s insurance. Based on their salaries, and the supplemental pay lawmakers receive, it’s clear California state lawmakers can afford the state’s median single-family home or condo, and less expensive homes. Notably, California’s state lawmakers receive up to $35,000 per year in per diem to cover their costs while working in Sacramento, including housing. Their flights to and from their districts are also paid by the state. High coastal costs When we asked Mayes’ office for evidence to back up his claim, his spokesman Matt Mahon told us the assemblyman is correct if we consider the cost "to buy a home in a number of California cities." That’s different from Mayes’ blanket statement that "Legislators themselves cannot afford to buy housing in California." But, for some context, we decided to examine the range of home costs in the state. The realtors association index places a median priced single family home in the San Francisco Bay Area at $785,980 with a corresponding minimum qualifying income at $152,780. In San Diego, those figures are $589,260 and $114,540, respectively. Prices in other coastal cities, from Santa Cruz to Santa Barbara to Ventura, are also considerably higher than the median. State lawmakers, assuming they earned close to base pay, were the sole income earners in their household and had no additional sources of income, would find fewer affordable homes in these markets. "It just depends on where they come from. Maybe in the big cities they would struggle," said Anna Scherbina, an associate professor at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management, who studies investment management and behavioral finance. "If Mayes wants to buy a home in Santa Barbara or San Mateo then, yes, he will have some problems. But if he's looking to buy in Bakersfield, the Central Valley, or South Sacramento, he's not going to have too much of a problem," added Jesus Hernandez, who lectures at the UC Davis sociology department and has written about housing. "Mayes is trying to make a point that housing prices are sky high again making it difficult for even middle class folks to buy. And he does have a valid concern." Members of the California State Assembly take the oath of office. File photo / Capital Public Radio Prices away from the coast Taking another look at the realtors’ index, they show the median price of a single family home in Bakersfield was $224,670, with a minimum qualifying income of $43,670. For Sacramento, the median price was $327,040 with a minimum income of $63,570. In the Inland Empire, which includes much of Mayes’ district, the median price was $318,960 which requires a minimum salary of $62,000. State lawmaker salaries are on the high-end, not just for lawmakers across the country, but for anyone in California. The state’s median household income was $61,818 in 2015 dollars, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Through the third quarter of 2016, just 31 percent of homebuyers in California could afford to purchase the state’s median-priced single family home, according to the realtors’ index. It was the 14th consecutive quarter that the index has been below 40 percent. In addition to their state salaries, many legislators collect income from the small businesses they own, from stocks and rental properties, according to a check of their statements of economic interests. Many also list household income generated by their spouses. Our ruling Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes recently claimed: "Legislators themselves cannot afford to buy housing in California." Mayes has a point when considering some of California’s priciest coastal cities. In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, it would take a minimum salary of $152,000 to afford a median priced single family home, well above the $104,000 base pay for state legislators. But Mayes did not make this qualification. Instead, he declared legislators in general can’t afford California homes. Based on data from the California Association of Realtors Traditional Housing Affordability Index, that’s just not the case. At $515,000, California’s median priced single family home is expensive. But the salary to reasonably afford that home is $100,290, less than a legislator’s base pay. Many, though not necessarily all, lawmakers have other sources of income including the income of a spouse, or from owning a small business, that would increase their purchasing power. Mayes’ statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/46718580-8637-4912-acd4-23c6a781b1e5	None	Chad Mayes	None	None	None	2017-02-08T11:11:50	2017-01-17	['California']
-tron-02513	Class Action about Music Recordings	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cd/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Class Action about Music Recordings	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-13525	The Clinton Foundation "took steps that went above and beyond all legal requirements and, indeed, all standard requirements followed by every other charitable organization."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/31/hillary-clinton/did-clinton-foundation-go-above-and-beyond-transpa/	Hillary Clinton dismissed criticism of the Clinton Foundation for creating the appearance of conflicts of interest for the State Department she led, arguing that the nonprofit has actually been more transparent and ethical than was required. CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Clinton Aug. 24 about Donald Trump’s charge that she "sold favors and access" in exchange for donations to the foundation and why Bill Clinton would leave the foundation only if Hillary Clinton became president. Clinton responded that Trump is "ridiculous." "In 2009, (the foundation) took steps that went above and beyond all legal requirements and, indeed, all standard requirements followed by every other charitable organization, voluntarily disclosing donors, significantly reducing sources of funding, even to the point of, you know, of those funding being involved in providing medication to treat HIV/AIDS," Clinton said. Clinton’s family, campaign and supporters have used similar defenses lately, often calling the Clinton Foundation’s disclosure agreements "unprecedented" and pointing out that charities associated with the Bush presidents didn’t have to abide by the same standards. Just how accurate is this talking point? Clinton is right that the foundation bearing her family name has done more than what is required of charities by law. But the requirements are rather basic to begin with, and other nonprofits, including those tied to presidential candidates and presidents, have been similarly forthcoming. Clearing a low bar The Clinton Foundation, as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration, promised to publish the names of all of its donors, roll back Bill Clinton’s involvement in fundraising, and stop accepting donations to the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments, among other pledges. The foundation only began to do that in 2008, as a condition of Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state in order to preempt conflicts of interest (and it hasn’t always lived up to that ethics agreement). Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, pointed out that the Clinton Foundation continued disclosing donors after Clinton left office even though it was "under no obligation to do so." None of what the foundation agreed to do — disclosing donor identities, limiting an official’s role, or not taking foreign donations — is required by tax law. The law doesn’t actually require much from nonprofits like the foundation. "The legal requirements are so absolutely minimal that it’s like saying, ‘No, I haven’t shot anyone today, so you should be grateful,’ " said Daniel Schuman, policy director for Demand Progress, a progressive advocacy group focused on civil liberties and government transparency. Suzanne Friday, legal counsel to the nonpartisan Council on Foundations, agreed that the laws are "basic." Many nonprofits are volunteering a lot more information than what’s required, she said. "Anyone who is more putting more information on their website or wherever goes above and beyond the law," Friday said. Tax-exempt organizations or 501(c)(3) groups only have to reveal a few bits of information to the public when requested. The requestable tax documents can include the last three years of a group’s Form 990, which gives an overview of the organization’s activities, leadership and finances. More specific requirements vary by state and also depend on whether an organization is a private foundation or public charity. Confusingly, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity, not a private foundation, even though it has the word "foundation" in its name. Private foundations (for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) are typically controlled by one person, one family or one corporation and have just a few funding sources. In addition to Form 990, they have to disclose their donors upon request of the public. (This is how we know, for example, that World Wrestling Entertainment gave $1 million to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in 2009.) The requirements are less stringent for public charities, which includes schools and churches but also organizations with many funding sources — like the Clinton Foundation. They don’t have to disclose their donors, even if requested, but they do have to prove to the IRS that a third of their revenue comes from fundraising. So the Clinton Foundation is not required by law to disclose its donors, as it does on its contributors page, and most other nonprofits don’t give this information, said David Callahan, editor-in-chief of Inside Philanthropy. (Friday of the Council on Foundations said this is to protect donor privacy.) Minassian referred us to the Clinton Foundation's Charity Navigator rating of four stars out of four stars and a 93 out of 100 in accountability and transparency. The Clinton Foundation, however, is not the only charity disclosing its donors on a website. The Wikimedia Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation, the Center for Global Development and the Center for Strategic and International Studies are are all examples of public nonprofits that voluntarily disclose donors. Many nonprofits like Oxfam and the World Resources Institute publish annual reports that include more comprehensive donor rolls on their websites, said Friday. The Clinton Foundation does not do this. ‘The wild west’ of presidential foundations There are about 1.1 million public charities like the Clinton Foundation, but only a handful are linked to presidents and presidential candidates. Experts told us the Clinton Foundation is among the most transparent in this group of charities, which, for the most part, are foundations associated with presidential libraries. (The Clinton Foundation was initially focused on Bill Clinton’s library and evolved into the organization it is today.) Anthony Clark, author of a book on presidential libraries called The Last Campaign, told us the presidential library foundations follow basic disclosure laws and therefore are notoriously opaque. He agreed with that the Clinton Foundation’s transparency was "unprecedented." "It’s the wild west," he said. "Before 2008, the closest we came to learning the donors was a donor wall with major donors engraved in granite or a bronze plaque." Here are two charts detailing the disclosure and finances of charities related to presidential candidates and presidents: The asset and fundraising amounts reflect the most recent public filings available for each foundation. For a more detailed list with links to sources and information on the private family foundations of presidents and presidential candidates, click here. *Our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker gave two Pinocchios to 2008 GOP nominee John McCain’s claim that he’s unaffiliated with the nonprofit that bears his name. **The Carter Center is the only presidential foundation listed here not associated with a presidential library. ***We did not include the Heinz Endowments, chaired by 2008 presidential candidate and current Secretary of State John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz. Though it has significant assets ($1.6 billion), it has no donors. As the chart shows, the Clinton Foundation discloses more information than the other presidential foundations. It also fundraises significantly more. For that and a few more reasons — such as the fact that Clinton has served as secretary of state and is running for president — experts told us, it belongs in a category of its own. "The sheer scope and size of the Clinton Foundation is also unprecedented and warrants extra measures to guard against conflicts of interest," said Craig Holman of the government accountability group Public Citizen. Schuman of Demand Progress also brought up Marc Rich, a former fugitive and Clinton Foundation donor pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office, as a conflict of interest issue that preceded the "above and beyond" disclosure steps. Hillary Clinton "doesn’t seem to be meeting her own standards either," said Schuman, referring to unsuccessful legislation she cosponsored in the Senate on disclosing gifts to presidential foundations in 2001. The Clinton campaign specifically forwarded us reports about George W. Bush's continued involvement in his father’s foundation while he was president. We also found reports of Bush foundations taking foreign donations during that time. Experts agreed that more scrutiny should have been placed on the Bush family, but the situations are somewhat different. "Adult children aren’t tied financially and otherwise to their parents the way one’s spouse is tied to another spouse, "said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University in St. Louis law professor who specializes in government ethics. " ‘Hey, they did it too’ — it’s not quite as juvenile as that, but it’s not a particularly persuasive argument." "The Bush foundations did not raise comparable amounts of money and from as many foreign sources as the Clinton Foundation," said Holman of Public Citizen. In contrast to the Bush organizations, three other public nonprofits tied to presidents and presidential hopefuls have been rather forthcoming, though they don't disclose all their donors as the Clinton Foundation does. This election cycle, former presidential candidate Jeb Bush disclosed the vast majority of donors to his Foundation for Excellence in Education early in his campaign, and the foundation subsequently published their names on its website. Bush, who started the think tank in 2008 after his tenure as Florida governor, also stepped down as its chairman when he began to seriously consider running for president in early 2015. Jimmy Carter’s nonprofit is perhaps the most similar to the Clinton Foundation with its focus on international work in human rights, poverty and disease. (Most other presidential foundations function as political think tanks advancing the ideology of its president or as education shops promoting and preserving his legacy, Clark said.) The Carter Center has been disclosing its donors every year in annual reports since 1982, when it was founded. It does, however, take anonymous donations. And then there’s Barack Obama, whose presidential library foundation also lists its contributors who've donated more than $200 and publishes its financial documents. Plus, Schuman added, "He did it without being under duress." Our ruling Clinton said the Clinton Foundation "took steps that went above and beyond all legal requirements and, indeed, all standard requirements followed by every other charitable organization." The law does not require the Clinton Foundation to disclose donors or roll back foreign donations, but the disclosure requirements are rather minimal to begin with. It’s important to note that the Clinton Foundation, already unique in its size, function and relationship to two presidential figures, agreed to take these steps only when Clinton was nominated as secretary of state. Among presidents and presidential candidates, foundations affiliated with Jeb Bush, Obama and Carter have all been forthcoming about their donations and finances. We rate Clinton’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b96c22d5-b166-4804-b3ed-6e7364ed2a5b	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-08-31T18:37:21	2016-08-24	['Clinton_Foundation']
-pomt-06573	Says President Barack Obama failed "to stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson-Bowles Commission."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/sep/29/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-barack-obama-failed-stand-prop/	With Republicans across the country clamoring for Gov. Chris Christie to run for president, the governor on Tuesday cited various reasons why the administration of President Barack Obama has been a failure. One example is how the president failed to back up the recommendations of his own deficit reduction commission, Christie said in a high-profile speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. "Because each and every time the president lets a moment to act pass him by, his failure is our failure too," Christie said. "The failure to stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a report the president asked for himself." PolitiFact New Jersey investigated whether Obama failed to "stand up for the bipartisan debt solutions of the Simpson-Bowles Commission," and found that Christie is not entirely right. The president did not fully embrace the commission’s recommendations at the outset, but Obama later outlined deficit reduction measures similar to those proposed by the commission. Even the commission’s co-chairs -- former White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles under President Bill Clinton, and former Republican U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson -- have said so. "We are encouraged that the President has embraced a balanced, comprehensive approach to deficit reduction similar to that outlined in the Fiscal Commission report," Bowles and Simpson said in an April 13 press release. Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts argued that the statement from Bowles and Simpson show "that they praise a similar approach – which isn’t the same as saying he has supported their recommendations." "To date, the President has not endorsed the recommendations as proposed by his own commission," Roberts said in an email. Now, let’s explain the commission’s history and Obama’s responses to its proposals. Obama established the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February 2010. The president asked the bipartisan panel to recommend measures that would address the nation’s debt problem. In December, the commission released its final report, which included dozens of proposals to cut discretionary spending, reform the tax code and Social Security and rein in health care costs, among other measures. According to a previous ruling from PolitiFact National, Obama later proposed deficit reduction measures similar to those recommended by the commission. Jason Peuquet, a policy analyst with the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us Obama’s deficit reduction plan from April incorporated many of the broad principles of the commission’s recommendations, but was mostly devoid of specifics. Obama has fleshed out some of those broad principles in a deficit reduction plan unveiled earlier this month, according to Peuquet. Referring to Christie’s statement, Peuquet said: "It seems to not quite give the president enough credit for things he’s done recently." Alice Rivlin, a member of the commission and former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton, said she was disappointed that the president didn't endorse the commission's recommendations immediately, but agreed that Obama later embraced some of its proposals. A former policy adviser to Clinton said Obama has "approached the report very carefully." "He’s kept it at arms’ length," said Bill Galston, now a senior fellow at Brookings. Obama is "not exactly rejecting it," Galston said, but "not exactly embracing it either." During negotiations over raising the debt ceiling, Obama didn't offer exactly the proposals in the commission's report, but "he went much of the way there," said Dean Baker, a liberal economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Chris Edwards, an economist with the libertarian Cato Institute, said it’s a fair assessment that Obama did nothing with the commission’s report, but said the president has another opportunity to implement recommendations when introducing the federal budget in February. Edwards noted that the commission’s report contained some politically unpopular moves that might explain why Obama didn’t pursue some of the recommendations, such as raising the Social Security retirement age. Our ruling Christie claimed Obama has failed to stand up for the solutions proposed by his own deficit reduction commission. It is true that the president did not fully embrace the commission’s recommendations in the immediate months following its December report. But since then, Obama has outlined deficit reduction measures similar to the commission’s recommendations. That’s why the governor is wrong to imply that Obama has done nothing with the commission’s proposals. We rate the statement Mostly False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4662f0d2-a5c5-4af0-b172-032b3a2d545a	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2011-09-29T05:15:00	2011-09-27	['Barack_Obama', 'National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform']
-snes-05136	The famous quote "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” originated with Mahatma Gandhi.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/first-they-ignore-you/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	‘First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You’ Quote Isn’t Gandhi’s	1 March 2016	None	['None']
-tron-03430	Retailers urging Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/merrychristmas/	None	religious	None	None	None	Retailers urging Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02559	"Since I took office in January 2011, we have created 11,100 Rhode Island-based jobs."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/feb/02/lincoln-chafee/ri-gov-lincoln-chafee-says-his-administration-crea/	In his Jan. 15 State of the State address, Governor Lincoln Chafee noted that while the state’s economy still has a way to go to recover from the collapse of 2008, economic indicators such as the unemployment rate and the number of people working had moved "in the right direction." It’s easy to lose sight of the progress, he said, but the signs are there. He cited one statistic in particular. "Since I took office in January 2011," he said, "we have created 11,100 Rhode Island-based jobs." At the time he gave his speech, the state’s unemployment rate was 9 percent, tied with Nevada for worst in the nation. So we decided to check his numbers. The 11,100 figure was derived from statistics compiled by the state Department of Labor and Training. Donna A. Murray, the department’s assistant director of labor market information, said it came from subtracting the January 2011 Rhode Island jobs number - 459,500 - from the November 2013 number - 470,600. She qualified it somewhat by noting that the November 2013 figure is an estimate that will be refined later this year when the state has a chance to review all Rhode Island employers’ unemployment insurance filings. So the jobs number was correct. How about the "we created" part? Determining how much credit a political leader should get when jobs numbers go up -- or down -- can be tricky. Generally, they’re influenced far more by national economic trends than anything a mayor or governor does. During the period Chafee cites, the national jobs number went from about 139.3 million to 143.2 million, a gain of around 2.8 percent, while Rhode Island’s increase was about 2.4 percent. Did the number of jobs in the state increase because of efforts by the Chafee administration or because of the slow but steady improvements in the national economy? When we examined Cranston Mayor Allan Fung’s claim that his administration created more than 1,000 jobs in the city, Fung provided a spreadsheet of 37 companies that had been directly helped by the city. We checked with officials of some of those companies, who confirmed the city’s help, leading us to rule Fung’s claim Mostly True. We asked the Chafee administration for such specific examples. Spokeswoman Faye Zuckerman didn’t have a similar position-by-position count showing how the administration’s help create specific jobs. Instead, she pointed to Chafee’s Workforce Board, which spent about $10 million in 2013 on training and education programs on its own and in cooperation with hundreds of employers in the state. She also noted Chafee’s efforts to increase state aid to public schools, arguing that better-educated graduates would be better able to get jobs. Then we asked Edinaldo Tebaldi, assistant professor of economics at Bryant University, for guidance. Internal economic policies can have an effect on jobs, he said. But because Rhode Island’s economy is relatively small compared with the rest of New England, it is more sensitive to regional and national trends. Tebaldi said all politicians like to claim credit for job growth but it’s hard to tell how much they drove it and how much was floated by a tide that was coming in anyway. "It’s really impossible to quantify," Tebaldi said. "We know they have made a contribution, but we don’t know how much." Our ruling Governor Chafee said "we have created 11,100 Rhode Island-based jobs" since January 2011. The number of jobs added in that period is correct. But the gains came at the same time the national economy was improving. The Chafee administration provided no direct evidence that its actions led to any of those jobs. Because the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, we rate it Half True.	None	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	None	2014-02-02T00:01:00	2014-01-15	['None']
-goop-01615	“Celebrity Big Brother” Recap: Who Was Evicted First?	https://www.gossipcop.com/celebrity-big-brother-recap-february-9-2018-evicted-chuck-voted-off-results/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	“Celebrity Big Brother” Recap: Who Was Evicted First?	9:00 am, February 9, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00631	Doors Keyboardist Ray Manzarek Dies	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/ray-manzarek-died.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Doors Keyboardist Ray Manzarek Dies	May 21, 2013	None	['None']
-snes-04956	A photograph shows a group of Texas college students protesting the rising cost of education by writing their debts on their graduation caps.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/student-debt-cap-protest-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Photograph Doesn’t Show Texas Students Protesting College Debt	5 April 2016	None	['Texas']
-pomt-07703	Says Sheldon Whitehouse said on Senate floor: "Everybody in Rhode Island who disagrees with me about Obamacare is an Aryan, is a white supremacist."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/mar/06/kenneth-mckay/mckay-says-sen-whitehouse-said-senate-floor-everyb/	It looked like the 2012 election season was getting under way when Republican Kenneth V. McKay IV was interviewed Feb. 27 on the ABC6 news show "On the Record." McKay, former chief of staff for ex-Gov. Donald Carcieri, and then for the Republican National Committee, is running for the state Republican chairmanship. At one point, the conversation turned to the possibility of either McKay or Carcieri challenging Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse if he runs for reelection next year. "Let’s take a look at the record," McKay said of Whitehouse. "This is a guy who stood up in front of the U.S. Senate and said, ‘Everybody in Rhode Island who disagrees with me about Obamacare is an Aryan, is a white supremacist.’" We remembered Whitehouse making a passionate -- some said inflammatory -- Senate speech in 2009 about the decline in civility in politics. But we didn’t remember him castigating every Rhode Islander who opposed President Obama’s health care plan. We asked McKay for his source and he referred us to the 20-minute speech we remembered, which Whitehouse delivered Dec. 20, 2009, during the health care debate. It was a speech that lit up the blogosphere. Democrats and progressives called it historic and brilliant. Conservatives called it outrageous. One called it a lunatic rant. McKay drew our attention to one paragraph that he called "the relevant part." Here it is: "And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented, destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new, young President. They are desperate to break this President. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama: the ‘birthers,’ the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militias and Aryan support groups. It is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason." McKay wrote that when you read or hear the entire speech, you understand that Whitehouse is talking about Republicans in the Senate and their supporters in the fight against health care. Then he reasoned that Whitehouse was suggesting that "anyone in Rhode Island who is an ardent supporter of the fight against Obamacare are (sic) ‘nearly hysterical . . . the ‘birthers,’ the fanatics, the people running around in right wing militias, and Aryan support groups." We read the speech and disagree on several counts. First, Whitehouse was excoriating Republican senators, not Rhode Islanders. In fact, he said nothing about Rhode Island in the entire speech. Second, despite his strident language, nowhere in the speech did he come close to saying that everyone who disagreed with the health care plan is an Aryan or a white supremacist. He accused his Republican colleagues of engaging in a campaign of obstruction and delay "affecting every single aspect of the Senate’s business.’ He said they engaged in a "campaign of falsehoods: about death panels, and cuts to Medicare benefits, and benefits for illegal aliens and bureaucrats to be parachuted in between you and your doctor." And he accused the GOP senators of voting against funding for soldiers, as another tactic to stall the health care vote. But in the paragraph McKay cites, it’s clear that Whitehouse was criticizing fringe groups who are "nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama" not just opponents of the president’s health care plan. In suggesting that Whitehouse labeled all opponents of the health care plan Aryans and white supremacists, McKay seriously distorted the senator’s speech. His further suggestion that, by extension, Whitehouse was applying the label to Rhode Islanders who disagreed with the president, is even more of a distortion. Pants on Fire.	None	Kenneth McKay	None	None	None	2011-03-06T00:00:01	2011-02-27	['Rhode_Island']
-pomt-00962	Ninety-six percent of failing schools are spending above $8,400, the average annual per student expenditure, and 26 percent spend considerably more than that.	/georgia/statements/2015/feb/17/nathan-deal/gov-deal-gets-school-math-right-comments-need-more/	Gov. Nathan Deal’s signature education legislation this year calls for a constitutional amendment to create a special school district solely for perennially failing schools. Deal’s office says 141 schools -- more than 60 in metro Atlanta -- currently could land in the proposed district and under state control, having each scored 60 or below for three straight years on Georgia’s annual report card, the College and Career Performance Index (CCRPI). The state would have unprecedented powers in the "opportunity school district." It could run schools, close them, partner with local school districts to operate them or turn them into charter schools. The superintendent of the district would report directly to the governor. Deal acknowledges that it’s a dramatic step and in an interview on Feb. 12 dashed off some statistics to counter those who would say more money is the answer. "I would say to them that 96 percent of those (failing schools) pay more than the average of the state of $8,400 per child per year, and about 26 percent of them spend considerably more than the state average," the governor said. "If they say that money alone will fix this, then the statistics and the information that we have does not bear that out." We wondered if the vast majority of these failing schools are, as the governor said, spending more money per student than the average school. We decided to check the governor’s math. First, a little background. Deal’s proposal would require approval from two-thirds of the General Assembly and would be put before voters in 2016. It would broaden the governor’s powers over K-12 education. Those powers already include the ability to remove dysfunctional local school boards. Some lawmakers and local school superintendents are against creation of a special school district for failing schools. Critics say that approach creates a one-size-fits-all solution for some very complex problems and fails to recognize how those challenges have been compounded by years of underfunding from the state. At least one metro school superintendent has suggested that districts with large percentages of low-income students be given more money when the state’s education funding formula is revamped at Deal’s direction in the next year. Luvenia Jackson, superintendent of Clayton County Schools, said she "applauds the governor for wanting to do more. "But I don’t know if this is the answer," Jackson said. Clayton has three of the failing schools and is a federal Title I school system due to of its overall high poverty rate. "How about restoring some of those (budget) cuts and see what happens," said Jackson, who estimates the district has been underfunded $100 million by the state in the past five years. "Most of our children come in with a level of readiness below what is required. They need more health care, more counselors, things that must be taken into consideration. We have to nourish the whole child." Robert Avossa, superintendent of Fulton County Schools, said the governor "is correct to stand up for these communities and shine a bright light" on the problem of failing schools. Fulton, one of the state’s wealthiest counties, has already started working to bring additional support and resources to its seven failing schools, all located in areas with a multitude of problems, including high mobility, poverty, unemployment and crime, Avossa said. Through a public-private partnership, the school system raised enough money to offer $20,000 bonuses to recruit 15 experienced and talented teachers to three of the schools this year, he said. "This is a people problem more than it’s a money problem," Avossa said. "We need flexibility on how we spend our salary dollars to keep the best in the lowest performing schools." Almost all of the state’s failing schools qualify for Title I federal money because of their high percentages of students from low-income families. Millions more from the state’s Race to the Top grant have targeted failing schools in the past five years. These schools are a tiny share of Georgia’s 2,267 public schools: 1,321 elementary schools, 480 middle schools and 453 high schools according to the state Department of Education. Now to the math Jen Talaber, a Deal spokeswoman, said the governor based his statement on a comparison of a list of the failing schools and a report from the state Department of Education on per pupil spending by district. Information on per pupil spending at the school level is not collected by the state, she said. "Our operating assumption, because of those data limitations, was that the district per pupil expenditure would apply to the school," Talaber said. "That may not be the case in every district, and we have consistently provided that clarification in all of our conversations." Ben Scafidi, a nationally recognized expert on the economics of education and a professor of economics at Kennesaw State University, and PolitiFact both independently confirmed that Deal is correct: 96 percent of the schools with three consecutive years of sub-60 CCRPI scores spend above the state average per student expenditure, identified in the DOE report as $8,400. PolitiFact’s analysis also showed 37 schools with a per pupil expenditure above $10,000, which could fit the governor’s definition of schools spending well above the state average. Scafidi pointed out: :"We cannot say whether schools with more low income or minority students spend more or less than other schools within their districts." The reasons, he said, are three-fold: veteran teachers who are higher paid are usually in schools with more white students and fewer lower income students; federal compensatory programs target funds to individual schools with larger portions of low income students; and federal and state programs target funds to special needs students. Our conclusion; Gov. Nathan Deal is pushing a constitutional amendment to create an "opportunity school district" that would give his office and the state broad powers over failing schools. Last week, the governor cited statistics indicating that 96 percent of the failing schools spend more per student than the state average and 26 percent spend well above the state’s average per student expenditure of $8,400. His statement is accurate and relies on student spending per district in the absence of actual school-level data. His statement doesn’t point out that the failing schools are likely spending more money because they are receiving more money as a result of having high concentrations of students from low-income families. It could be argued that the money they receive and spend isn’t working -- afterall, they are failing schools by the state’s current measure of success, the CCRPI index. Or it could be said that they need more money or a different kind of help, or both. That’s important context in a discussion of what those closest to the ground -- the educators -- say is a very complex problem. For that reason, we rate the governor’s statement Half True.	None	Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2015-02-17T00:00:00	2015-02-12	['None']
-pomt-10481	The United States is "seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/apr/16/barack-obama/income-inequality-is-on-the-rise/	At the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama made a case that working families need more help because they're facing harder economic times. "We're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s," Obama said. Obama is making a broad point here, but several sources support him. The U.S. Census compiles data on income distribution on a year-to-year basis. Since 1967, it's clear that the top 5 percent of all households are capturing a growing share of the nation's aggregate income. From 1917 to 1998, the income share of the top 10 percent dropped and then began rising again, following a U-shaped curve, according to a historical analysis of U.S. tax returns by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez published in 2003 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics . Piketty and Saez found that economic inequality grew further by 2005. That year, the top 1 percent of Americans — people with incomes of more than $348,000 — received their largest share of national income since 1928. Critics may argue whether this change in income distribution is significant or not, or what it's underlying causes are. Earlier in this campaign, Hillary Clinton argued that George W. Bush was to blame, a statement we found only Half-True . But the numbers show that income inequality is at a record high since the 1920s, so we find Obama's statement to be True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-04-16T00:00:00	2008-04-16	['United_States']
-pomt-08806	Pam Bondi "refuses to take a position on the gay-adoption ban."	/florida/statements/2010/aug/17/john-stemberger/ag-candidate-pam-bondis-stance-gay-adoption-under-/	As the Republican primary inches closer, the three Republican candidates running for attorney general -- Holly Benson, Pam Bondi and Jeff Kottkamp -- are trying to establish themselves as the conservative candidate of choice. One big question keeps coming up in forum after forum -- where does each candidate stand on Florida’s gay-adoption ban? So far, all the candidates say that they would follow through on a lawsuit filed by current Attorney General Bill McCollum defending the state’s gay adoption ban. The state’s challenge comes after a Miami judge in 2008 ruled the state’s law unconstitutional, following a lawsuit by a North Miami man who wanted to adopt two foster children cared for by him and his partner. While all the candidates have voiced their opposition to gay adoption, social conservative John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, is not convinced that Bondi, a former prosecutor with the State Attorney’s Office in Tampa, has established a strong enough stance in favor of the adoption ban. On Aug. 8, 2010, Stemberger dispatched an endorsement letter supporting Kottkamp, stating that Bondi "refuses to take a position on the gay adoption ban." We decided to check out Stemberger’s claim. Going straight to the source, we asked Bondi her position on the issue and she responded with an e-mail stating: "As Florida’s next attorney general, I will vigorously defend Florida’s law banning gay adoption in our state. As a veteran prosecutor who has spent her entire career upholding the laws of this state, I have the training and experience necessary to successfully defend our laws in a courtroom." Checking back on newspaper reports of earlier candidate forums and events featuring Bondi, it’s worth noting that earlier in her campaign, she was vague in outright declaring a position. During a June 4 forum in St. Petersburg, when asked about upholding McCollum’s challenge, both Benson and Kottkamp said they would. Bondi said, "Our judiciary will make a fair and just decision regarding that case." Earlier, at a May 18 appearance in Miami Lakes, Bondi was quoted by the St. Petersburg Times as mentioning two gay friends and noting that the adoption process needed reform. "I have friends in Tampa who are in law enforcement who have adopted from overseas, who are in a loving, committed same-sex relationship." Still, calling for an overhaul of the adoption process and clearly specifying whether or not gays should be entitled to adoption are two different things. Bondi, a legal analyst for Fox News, began to clarify her support for the gay adoption ban in subsequent forums and newspaper interviews. When asked by the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald in a June 5 interview whether she would follow through on McCollum’s appeal, she responded: "I will continue with General McCollum’s appeal. If [the Supreme Court] can legally hear it, yes, I will appeal." At an Aug. 7 forum sponsored by the Christian Family Coalition, Bondi pledged to oppose gay adoption. Bondi campaign spokesman Kim Kirtley also pointed to interviews with the editorial boards of the St. Petersburg Times on July 14 and the Sun-Sentinel on Aug. 10 where she was asked about her position on gay adoption and she stated her support for the ban. Both papers have handed Bondi an endorsement. So back to the question. Did Bondi "refuse to take a position on banning gay adoptions"? No. She hedged at first, but she’s made it clear since then that she will pursue the appeal and opposes gay adoption. Therefore we rate his claim False.	None	John Stemberger	None	None	None	2010-08-17T15:23:38	2010-08-08	['Pam_Bondi']
-pomt-11851	"Eight in 10 people this year can find plans for $75 a month or less."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/06/barack-obama/can-eight-10-people-get-health-coverage-under-75-n/	Get America Covered, an organization founded by former health officials under the Obama administration, is running an enthusiastic albeit misleading campaign to get people to sign up for health care. On Nov. 1, the first day of open enrollment, the group released a video on Twitter featuring former President Barack Obama talking about HealthCare.gov, a portal to enroll in the marketplace exchanges set up by the Affordable Care Act. "It only takes a few minutes and the vast majority of people qualify for financial assistance," Obama says. "Eight in 10 people this year can find plans for $75 a month or less." Can 8 in 10 people get health coverage for $75 a month or less? It depends on who those 10 people are. The statistic only refers to people currently enrolled in HealthCare.gov. That’s not most Americans. Only 3.7 percent of Americans under the age of 65 are enrolled in the marketplace exchanges. So 80 percent of that sliver can find plans for under $75. "The entire video is about HealthCare.gov, and not off-marketplace plans, which is made clear throughout the video," said co-founder Lori Lodes, a former Medicare and Medicaid Services communications director. But that may not be so clear to the average viewer. The bulk of Americans under the age of 65 are getting health care through their employers, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Generally speaking, those people either aren’t permitted or wouldn’t want to shop on the marketplaces. About seven percent of Americans under 65 are purchasing health care individually, on or off the exchanges. But about 6 million Americans don’t bother going through the marketplace because they make too much money to qualify for subsidies. If they, too, were considered, the 8 in 10 figure might look a lot different, according to Chris Sloan, a senior manager at the health care consulting firm Avalere. With subsidies as the biggest incentive to enroll in the marketplace, the HealthCare.gov population is pretty self-selecting. Avalere found that participation in the exchanges declines dramatically as incomes increase and subsidy eligibility decreases. Over 80 percent of eligible individuals with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level enrolled in the exchanges, while only 2 percent of eligible individuals with incomes above 400 percent of the FPL enrolled. (Subsidies are available, with exceptions, to individuals between 100 and 400 percent FPL.) But in the absence of statistics on HealthCare.gov visitors, the 8-in-10 figure is the only data point available to those wondering about their eligibility for low-cost plans within the marketplace. What’s more, the website also helps enroll people who might not have otherwise known they were eligible for other government programs. "The share of people who use Healthcare.gov that actually end up in some form of coverage that gets assistance if you include Medicaid and CHIP is probably even higher," said Matt Buettgens, a senior fellow in the Health Policy Center at the left-leaning Urban Institute. The report found that HealthCare.gov enrollees able to pay $75 or less for health insurance is up by 9 percentage points from last year, and 8 percentage points from 2015. That’s in large part an effect of the Trump administration’s decision not to reimburse insurers for cost-sharing reductions. The uncertainty of those reimbursements drove up premiums on the silver plans used to calculate the tax credits enrollees receive, so anyone eligible for a premium tax credit gained access to more funds. Access to $75-or-less plans depends on whether enrollees stay on their current plan. Sixty percent would qualify for plans $75 or less if they continued to get the same coverage as last year, whereas 80 percent would qualify if they switched. That doesn’t necessarily entail a downgrade. Avalere found that people between 100 and 150 percent of FPL qualified for free Bronze plans in 98 percent of counties, while 10 percent qualified for the more generous gold plans for free. Our ruling Obama said, "Eight in 10 people this year can find plans for $75 a month or less." The video was only talking about an average of 80 percent of less than 3.7 percent of the American population, or the people currently enrolled on HealthCare.gov. This is already a highly self-selected group, as participation in the exchanges declines dramatically as subsidy eligibility decreases. It ignores a majority of the American population because they are enrolled elsewhere, and a large portion of those who could but choose not to use the site because they don’t qualify for subsidies. While enrollees' eligibility for plans under $75 has increased by 9 percentage points from last year, the people who qualify for subsidies hasn’t changed. We rate this statement Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2017-11-06T11:06:51	2017-11-01	['None']
-goop-02192	Angelina Jolie Snubbed Margot Robbie At Hollywood Film Awards?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-margot-robbie-snub-hollywood-film-awards-feud/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie Snubbed Margot Robbie At Hollywood Film Awards?	2:42 pm, November 16, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06912	Says state Rep. Fred Clark (D-Baraboo) ran a red light and seriously injured a bicyclist.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/24/wisconsin-family-action/wisconsin-family-action-says-wisconsin-rep-fred-cl/	As the Senate recall elections heat up, the personal lives of candidates are dominating the attack ads. Their criminal convictions and other transgressions are being highlighted -- along with their voting records and stances on the issues. Many of the ads are being aired by outside groups. Perhaps no television ad is more startling -- and graphic -- than one being aired in Green Bay and Madison by a group called Wisconsin Family Action. It targets state Rep. Fred Clark (D-Baraboo), challenger to state Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon). The ad, bearing the theme "Legislators should lead by example," runs through Clark’s checkered driving record -- speeding, previous accidents, driving with a suspended license -- and concludes with a disturbing video of an SUV hitting a bicyclist. In the video, an SUV zips into the frame, slamming into a bicyclist who rode into the intersection. As the crash occurs, the narrator intones: "Fred Clark ran this red light, seriously injuring this bicyclist." The audio includes the sound of squealing tires and the shocked voice of a witness on the bus. (The ad is not available online. A Madison television station did a story about the ad, which includes much of its content that you can see here.) Did Fred Clark really crash into a bicyclist? Beyond that, is the video actually from the incident? And who was at fault? Let’s backpedal. A Madison police report shows that Clark was involved in car-bike accident on Aug. 18, 2009, near the state Capitol. According to the report: Clark was driving his 2008 Ford Escape north on Hamilton Street about 4:25 p.m. The bicyclist, a 57-year-old Madison man, was heading north on Webster Street. when he was struck by Clark’s SUV. The report said that Clark "violated the red traffic signal" before striking the biker who had a green light. "I ran a red light," Clark told an officer at the scene, the report says. "I was just not paying attention." The cyclist was taken to University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics with back and lung injuries, which the report called "incapacitating." An officer attempted to speak with the victim at the hospital but said the man was unable to do so because of his injuries. Clark received an $88 ticket for running the red light. After the incident hit the news, his office issued a statement from Clark: "At this time, my first concern is for the well-being of the cyclist who was injured. What occurred was an accident, and my thoughts are with that person and his family." So what of the video in the ad? The video is real, and it comes from the dashboard camera of a Madison Metro bus that was stopped at the light on Webster Street. The light changes and the bus begins to move into the intersection when Clark’s SUV cuts in front of it and strikes the bike, which approached the intersection alongside the bus. Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Actionl, a group that advocates against same sex marriage and "foundational issues such as marriage, life and liberty" did not respond to requests for comment about the ad. Likewise, neither Clark nor his campaign was available to discuss the ad. So where does that leave us? A television ad produced by Wisconsin Family Action against recall challenger Clark highlights his checkered driving record. With video, the ad says Clark struck a bicyclist. The video is real and the accident happened as described. We rate the claim True.	None	Wisconsin Family Action	None	None	None	2011-07-24T09:00:00	2011-07-21	['None']
-tron-00265	Green Beret Sniper Bryan Sikes Destroys Michael Moore in Letter	https://www.truthorfiction.com/green-beret-sniper-bryan-sikes-destroys-michael-moore-in-letter/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Green Beret Sniper Bryan Sikes Destroys Michael Moore in Letter – Authorship Confirmed!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05532	Keanu Reeves posted a message on his personal Facebook page about the difficulties he has overcome in life.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keanu-reeves-tragedy-quote/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Quoth Keanu?	21 November 2015	None	['Facebook']
-vogo-00485	Statement: “The Chargers are literally just a check away from leaving Qualcomm Stadium: between February 1 and April 30 of every year from now through 2020, the Chargers can get out of their lease by writing a check to the city of San Diego — this year, the amount is about $26 million, and it decreases annually,” Fanhouse reported Nov. 15 in a story about a potential NFL stadium in Los Angeles.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-ease-of-the-chargers-leaving/	Analysis: The buzz surrounding a new Chargers stadium intensified this week after Fanhouse.com reported that Alex Spanos has hired Goldman Sachs to sell a minority share in the team. Spanos now owns 36 percent of the team while his four children split another 60 percent.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Ease of the Chargers Leaving	November 18, 2010	None	['San_Diego', 'Los_Angeles', 'San_Diego_Chargers', 'National_Football_League', 'Qualcomm_Stadium', 'AOL']
-pose-00326	"Will strengthen baseline climate observations and climate data records to ensure that there are long-term and accurate climate records. He will not use climate change research data for political objectives."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/343/improve-climate-change-data-records/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Improve climate change data records	2010-01-07T13:26:55	None	['None']
-pomt-13916	"We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion. Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no — there's nothing out there."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/24/donald-trump/what-do-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-religion-lo/	Donald Trump has once again questioned a presidential candidate’s religious affiliation, accusing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton of shielding her religious preference from the public eye. Speaking prior to a gathering hosted by the conservative Christian activist organization United in Purpose, Trump said there has been no public reference to Clinton’s religion. The comment was captured in a video from E.W. Jackson, a former nominee for Virginia lieutenant governor who attended the gathering. "We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion," Trump said in the video. "Now, she's been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there's no — there's nothing out there. There’s like nothing out there." This is not the first time Trump has questioned a candidate’s religion. In 2011, Trump floated the possibility that President Barack Obama, whose path to Christianity is well-documented, could be a Muslim. At the gathering, Trump also made the broader claim that Clinton would not protect religious liberty. "We can’t be again politically correct and say we pray for all our leaders, because all of your leaders are selling Christianity down the tubes, selling evangelicals down the tubes," he said. So, what does Clinton have to say about her religion? A lot, we found out. On the campaign trail Let’s get this out of the way: Clinton is a Methodist, and the record on that is abundantly clear. The Clinton campaign directed us to several news articles where Clinton discussed her religion, including a Jan. 25 campaign rally in Knoxville, Iowa. When asked about her beliefs, Clinton cited her Methodist faith and tied it into her support for the poor, citing the teachings of Jesus. "Because it sure does seem to favor the poor and the merciful and those who in worldly terms don’t have a lot but who have the spirit that God recognizes as being at the core of love and salvation," she said. She went on to criticize those who use Christianity to "condemn so quickly and judge so harshly." In February 2016, after the New Hampshire primary, Clinton paraphrased a phrase popular among Methodists and often attributed to John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church. "You know, my family and my faith taught me a simple credo — do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, for all the people you can," she said. She called upon her personal spirituality during her unsuccessful 2008 bid for president. "I was raised to pray, you know, as a little girl, you know, saying my prayers at night, saying grace at meals, praying in, you know, church," she said at a 2007 presidential forum. Clinton has definitely brought up her religious background on the campaign trail this time around to convey both her political and personal philosophies. However, the intended message has not always hit home with voters. A 2016 Pew poll found that 43 percent of people found Clinton "not religious" compared to 60 percent for Trump. A 2008 Pew poll had 31 percent thinking her not religious, 53 percent only somewhat religious. Formative years Religion has played a large role in Clinton’s life even before "there was any political advantage to do so," said Patrick Maney, a Bill Clinton biographer and professor of history at Boston College. Hillary Clinton’s religious upbringing starts around the sixth grade in Park Ridge, Ill., where she attended Bible classes and participated in the Altar Guild at the First United Methodist Church, writes Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Carl Bernstein in his Clinton biography. There, she met Don Jones, a Methodist youth minister who took Clinton under his wing. At Jones’ memorial in 2009, Clinton attributed her pursuit of social justice to Jones’ teaching. "He taught me the meaning of the words ‘faith in action’ and the importance of social justice and human rights," she said at the time. In the conservative community of Park Ridge, Jones was considered to be more liberal and a free thinker, occasionally drawing ire for it. Jones made it a point to teach Clinton how "Jesus would deal with social issues," said William Chafe, a professor of history at Duke University who has studied Clinton extensively. "He took Hillary and the youth group into the slums of Chicago, had them interact with poor blacks and Puerto Ricans, and brought them to hear (Martin Luther King, Jr.) preach," Chafe said. "Even though her father was a Goldwater Republican." Jones was eventually asked to leave by members of the community, notably one of Clinton’s teachers Paul Carlson, who found his teachings too radical. The disagreements they had informed her shift in political philosophy, Clinton wrote in her 2003 autobiography Living History. "Though my eyes were opening, I still mostly parroted the conventional wisdom of Park Ridge’s and my father’s politics," she wrote. "While Don Jones threw me into ‘liberalizing’ experiences, Paul Carlson … reinforced my already strong anti-communist views." Her critics have actually used her relationship with Jones against her as a "radicalizing influence," Maney said. However, even after leaving for Wellesley College, the two kept in touch. "I wonder if it's possible to be a mental conservative and a heart liberal," she wrote Jones in a letter, reflecting on her changing political ideology and its religious influences. Conservative historian Paul Kengor, author of the book God and Hillary Clinton, told PolitiFact that Clinton has deviated from recent Methodist doctrine on abortion and gay marriage. The United Methodist Church recently voted in May on actions to the contrary of Clinton’s views on those topics — withdrawing from a pro-choice group and choosing not to alter its stance on gay marriage. "I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare," she said at a 2008 forum commenting on how her Methodist tradition has complicated the issue. Kengor said in an interview with Christianity Today hat Clinton "walks step by step with the Methodist leadership into a very liberal Christianity." She continued to attend church at Wellesley, and Chafe noted that her social justice pursuits meshed with her religious convictions once she got to Yale as well. "She immediately identified with Marion Wright Edelman's Children's Defense Fund at Yale and worked with them after graduating from Yale," Chafe said. The group advocated for family rights. The trend continues after moving to Arkansas in the 1970s, where she taught Sunday school at the First United Methodist Church, Maney said. Clinton also attended the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington as first lady. Kengor told PolitiFact she was considered a "regular" at the church, which is considered to be more liberal than the larger Methodist denomination. Bill Clinton is a Baptist, not a Methodist. Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, was raised a Methodist. In her own words Clinton has said that "advertising" her faith publicly is not her first instinct. Chafe noted she has relied on it less extensively in the recent past. Nonetheless, she has expounded on her faith in several public comments and books since entering the national spotlight with the election of her husband as president in 1992. "Bill and I went into our bedroom, closed the door and prayed together for God’s help as he took on this awesome honor and responsibility," Clinton wrote in Living History of her husband winning the 1992 election. In the same book, she describes meeting her "prayer partners" at the 1993 National Prayer Breakfast, and the gifts of Scripture they provided her. "Of all the thousands of gifts I received in my eight years in the White House, few were more welcome and needed than these 12 intangible gifts of discernment, peace, compassion, faith, fellowship, vision, forgiveness, grace, wisdom, love, joy and courage," she wrote. Her first book — It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us — published in 1996, includes a section devoted to Clinton’s religious affiliation, "Children are Born Believers." In the chapter, she marvels about children’s potential to grasp spiritual issues and cites it as reason to defend religious freedom. "We are only children of God, not God. Therefore, we must not attempt to fit God into little boxes, claiming that He supports this or that political position," she wrote. References to Clinton’s faith surfaced in 1998, when news of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky hit the press, and in 2000 when she campaigned for the U.S. Senate. In 2014, Clinton spoke to United Methodist Women, citing the Methodist Church as inspiring her to "advocate for children and families, for women and men around the world who are oppressed and persecuted, denied their human rights and human dignity." "I’ll always cherish the Methodist Church because it gave us the great gift of personal salvation, but the great obligation of social gospel, and for me, having faith, hope, and love in action was exactly what we were called to do," she said. Our ruling Trump said, "We don't know anything about Hillary in terms of religion." The reality is we were able to find quite a lot about Clinton’s Methodist upbringing and beliefs, and how she says it ties into her political philosophy. We documented just some of what we found here, and experts agree there is more out there. Trump’s statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-06-24T11:53:59	2016-06-21	['None']
-pomt-07431	"Gov. (Rick) Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help, which he happily took, and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help."	/texas/statements/2011/apr/24/barack-obama/president-obama-says-gov-perry-used-stimulus-fund-/	Asked by a Dallas television reporter whether he agreed with Texas leaders that the federal government should take some governing cues from the Lone Star State, President Barack Obama said he saw "a little inconsistency" in that position. "Keep in mind, Gov. (Rick) Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help, which he happily took, and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama said during an April 18 interview with WFAA reporter Brad Watson at the White House. That so? We started our fact-check with Obama’s budget claim. Adam Abrams, a White House spokesman, told us that Obama was referring to stimulus funds when he said Perry plugged the budget with federal aid. The roughly $800 billion federal stimulus package, named the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by Congress, became law in February 2009 after receiving only three Republican votes, all in the Senate. State governments were the primary recipients of the money, although funds have also gone directly to entities such as schools, hospitals and utilities. The law specified that governors had 45 days after its passage to certify that their state would "request and use" the offered funds. On Feb. 18, 2009, Perry sent Obama the requisite letter of certification, assuring the president that the state would accept the funds and use them "in the best interest of Texas taxpayers." According to a February 2009 PBS News Hour online post, some stimulus money was meant "to help states avoid slashing funding for education and other programs that lawmakers could trim to offset shortfalls." Abrams, asked for backup for the president’s statement, pointed us to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which in turn sent us its July 2009 report on state budgets. According to the report, state budget-writing Texas lawmakers in 2009 were short $6.6 billion in revenue for 2010-11 and relied heavily on stimulus funds for a solution. We did our own budget research, finding that lawmakers agreed to spend $80.6 billion in state general revenue on basic expenses over the two-year period, according to a report by the Legislative Budget Board, which advises lawmakers on budgetary matters. However, the stimulus aid let legislators put an additional $6.4 billion toward programs, primarily Medicaid and education, historically financed with general revenue, according to a July 2009 House Research Organization report. Another $5.7 billion in stimulus money went to programs such as highway and bridge construction, child care development programs and weatherization assistance. Counting all funding sources, including the $12.1 billion in stimulus aid, the 2010-11 state budget totaled $182 billion. So, Obama’s dollar figure holds up. What about his claim that after accepting the stimulus money, Perry started blaming members of Congress who voted for the bill — almost all of them Democrats? We searched news archives and websites for such jabs. For the record, Perry has long aired anti-Washington, anti-spending rhetoric. A December 2007 Austin American-Statesman story reported that Perry, while campaigning in Iowa for presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, said President George W. Bush "is not and he never was" a fiscal conservative. Back to the stimulus: On Feb. 18, 2009, the same day Perry accepted the federal funds, the governor slammed the legislation as being "full of pork and special interest handouts." On his campaign website, Perry wrote: "The Democrats think this bill will change our country's financial fortunes, but you and I know better. … This administration is saddling future generations with an increasingly unbearable debt." He then urged readers to sign an online petition telling "Washington" that they are "fed up with bailouts." In his letter to Obama accepting the aid, Perry said: "As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe (the stimulus plan) will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt." Perry also wrote that he opposed using "these funds to expand existing government programs" because the state would be burdened "with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up." (Elsewhere, Perry was quoted as saying that he welcomed federal dollars that could be used for one-time expenses.) During a Feb. 26, 2009, interview with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher, Perry criticized those members of Congress who had supported both the stimulus plan and the earlier $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which helped shore up struggling banks during the financial crisis. He said: "Voting for the TARP in my opinion is even worse than voting for the stimulus; and they’re both very bad. ... At least some of the stimulus money may actually get into the hands of people where it might accidentally do some good." There’s more. In an April 7, 2009, video posted on his campaign website, Perry urged "fellow patriots" to attend tea party rallies planned for April 15 to let Washington know "what you think about the bailouts, all this stimulus, all this runaway spending that’s going on." And during speeches at tea party rallies that day, Perry said the attendees were sending Washington a message that "we will not stand for our pockets being picked, our children’s future being mortgaged, our rights being taken away." Perry’s criticism of Washington’s policies was not limited to Democrats. Running against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the last Republican gubernatorial primary, Perry frequently attacked her by calling out Washington. According to a Sept. 25, 2009, Statesman article, Perry wrote in a fundraising letter, "If Washington Republicans hadn't spent like Democrats for 12 years, they might have maintained enough votes to actually kill Obamacare." More recently, during a January 2010 speech in favor of a proposal to require Congress to balance the federal budget, Perry said that "leaders in Washington … pour out your tax dollars on every challenge, blissfully ignoring the consequences of their largesse while they consign our children, our grandchildren to a life of unprecedented, unmanageable debt." We asked the White House for examples of Perry "blaming the members of Congress" who supported the stimulus plan. Abrams didn’t offer any but told us that the president was pointing out "the well-documented habit of those who criticize Recovery Act assistance while using those funds to balance a state's budget." Summing up: Obama said Perry "happily" took federal stimulus funds that helped balance the state’s 2010-11 state budget. Perry hardly sounded happy about it, but Obama is correct that he accepted stimulus money that was used to help balance the budget. As to whether Perry then started "blaming" members of Congress who had supported the stimulus legislation — well, not in so many words. And as we noted, Perry’s criticism of the federal government had started long before. But Perry criticized the plan specifically and the policies of Washington in general, using rhetoric that painted Congress and the White House with the same big-spending brush. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-04-24T06:00:00	2011-04-18	['United_States_Congress', 'Rick_Perry']
-pomt-06306	Under energy efficiency legislation sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, "federal bureaucrats could take over the local building code enforcement in your city if so-called ‘green mandates’ are not complied with quickly enough."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/15/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-federal-bureaucrats-will-take-over/	Texas Gov. Rick Perry didn’t refer to U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen by name when he attacked the New Hampshire Democrat last month over her proposed energy efficiency bill. But, with a conservative audience before him, he didn’t have to. "Instead of relieving the economic burden … you have your counterpart in the United States Senate who is working on a bill that would make things worse for home builders," Perry said to great applause at the Cornerstone Action Dinner, October 28, 2011 in Manchester, N.H. "Under her scheme, federal bureaucrats could take over the local building code enforcement in your city if so-called green mandates are not complied with quickly enough," Perry said. "It is just simply bureaucratic overkill." Just as Perry didn’t mention Shaheen by name, he didn’t identify the specific legislation he was referring to. But a call to the Perry campaign found the governor was referring to the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011. The bill, introduced in May by co-sponsors Shaheen and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, proposes a host of changes to national energy policies and practices. If passed, it would launch a federal training program for energy-efficient building design and operation, and it would establish a loan program for energy improvements to homes and small businesses, among other initiatives. But would it really hand control of local building codes over to the federal government? We’re on the case. Under the proposal, which reinforces existing law, the federal Department of Energy would work with building industry groups, such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, to develop new model standards for residential and commercial buildings. The new standards would adjust federal targets toward more efficient appliances, lighting, windows and insulation, according to the text of the bill, S. 1000. And states would have two years from the date the new codes are implemented to report whether they plan to adopt the standards or not. "The 1992 Energy Policy Act mandated that states must review and consider adopting each revision of national model energy codes. S.1000 does not change this," Jeff Sadosky, a spokesman for Sen. Portman, the bill co-sponsor, wrote in an e-mail statement. "What it does is require the federal government to more frequently and consistently revise the national codes," Sadosky wrote. "There remains no federal mandate on states to adopt national model energy codes. Those states that do agree to the standards would be subject to a certification process, in which planners demonstrate their building codes meet the federal models or they are working towards them. But, according to the bill text and policy analysts alike, the legislation would not require any states to take part, nor would it offer provisions for any penalties for non-compliance. "Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any model building code or standard established under this section shall not be binding on a State, local government or Indian tribe as a matter of Federal law," the legislation reads. "The voluntary building codes provision contained in Senator Shaheen’s bipartisan energy efficiency bill provides models, not mandates, for the states," Shaheen spokeswoman Faryl Ury added this week in a written statement. "Adoption and enforcement is reserved for the states," she wrote. Financial incentives would be available to states that opt to participate. The bill, which passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in July 2011, proposes up to $200 million in incentives to be spread among participating states, among other training and educational resources. But, without any federal mandates, the only thing states stand to lose is access to the incentive money. The bill is awaiting a full Senate vote. "Basically, there’s a lot of carrot with no stick," said Deborah Estes, senior counsel for the Senate energy committee, which is chaired by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. "We hope that states do the right thing and participate in this. It’s for the good of their citizens and for the good of the nation," Estes said. "But a lot of states, particularly smaller states, might not have the resident expertise to do this." Our ruling: Under Shaheen’s energy legislation, states would be required to report whether they plan to meet the model building codes. Those states that agree to the standards and accept federal dollars would be subject to a certification process to ensure they meet the regulations. But there is nothing in the bill that requires states to take part, nor are there any penalties for non-compliance. The bill is voluntary, not mandatory. We rate Perry’s claim False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2011-11-15T14:48:21	2011-10-28	['United_States']
-pomt-03968	Says he and Mitt Romney agreed on tying minimum wage increases to inflation.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/14/barack-obama/obama-says-he-and-romney-agreed-indexing-minimum-w/	In his State of the Union address this week, President Barack Obama proposed an increase to the federal minimum wage, from the current $7.25 an hour to $9. And lest anyone hasten to cast that as a partisan proposal, Obama claimed to have support on the idea from an unlikely source: former presidential rival Mitt Romney. "Working folks shouldn't have to wait year after year for the minimum wage to go up, while CEO pay has never been higher. So here's an idea that Gov. Romney and I actually agreed on last year: Let's tie the minimum wage to the cost of living, so that it finally becomes a wage you can live on," Obama said. We know from last year’s dogged fight for the White House that Obama and Romney agreed on very little. But what about the minimum wage? We decided to check it out. Running for Senate Romney first expressed support for the idea of an indexed wage increase back in 1994, when he ran for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy. (Indexing the minimum wage means pegging it to a common measure of inflation, such as the Consumer Price Index. The idea is that when prices overall go up, the minimum wage would go up, too. Obama used the term "the cost of living" to refer to inflation, but the concepts here are the same.) Kennedy criticized Romney for opposing a 30-cent increase to the minimum wage, which was then $4.25 an hour. In defense, he said he favored increasing it even more by tying it to inflation. "I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation. I think the minimum wage is a good thing to have in our economy and I think it ought to be updated. We've had some inflation since the time it was set at $4.25 in April 1991, so I think an inflationary increase is appropriate," he said at the time. Inflation had risen about 11 percent over the previous three years, so Romney's plan would have boosted the minimum wage by about 45 cents. As Massachusetts governor In 2006, Romney vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature to raise the state’s minimum wage to $8 an hour over two years. Again, he defended the decision by asserting that the wage should increase modestly and regularly and be indexed to inflation. He sent the plan back to lawmakers with a proposal to hike the minimum wage from $6.75 to $7 an hour, and study further increases every two years. His spokesman told the Boston Globe, "The governor is not opposed to a minimum-wage increase, but he thinks it should be in line with inflation, so that's what he has put on the table. This is logical and consistent with what the governor has supported in the past." Running for president At a New Hampshire campaign event in January 2012, Romney was asked about his stance on raising the minimum wage. "My view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI (Consumer Price Index) or with another index so that it adjusts automatically over time," he said. The interviewer followed up, asking, "So you’d support that as president?" "I already indicated that when I was governor of Massachusetts, and that’s my view," he responded. He confirmed in February that his opinion had not changed, which drew quick criticism from conservative players such as Steve Forbes, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Club for Growth. Romney’s positioned shifted a bit after that. In a March interview on CNBC he conceded that the timing wasn’t right to raise the minimum wage during an economic recovery: "On a regular basis, I said in the proposal I made (as governor of Massachusetts), every two years, we should look at the minimum wage, we should see what’s happened to inflation, we should also look at the jobs level throughout the country, unemployment rate, competitive rates in other states or, in this case, other nations. "So, certainly, the level of inflation is something you should look at, and you should identify what’s the right way to keep America competitive. So that would tell you that right now, there’s probably not a need to raise the minimum wage." Our ruling Obama said that tying the minimum wage to the cost of living is something he and Romney "actually agreed on." As far back as 1994, Romney favored this approach. He reiterated it in 2006 while governor of Massachusetts, and again as the Republican nominee for president last year. Under criticism on the national stage, he did back away slightly from that position given the fragile economy in 2012. None of this is to say that Romney would support Obama’s current proposal to boost the minimum wage to $9 an hour. But Obama was on firm ground claiming that at least for most of Romney’s political career, the former rivals were in agreement on indexing the wage. We rate Obama’s statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2013-02-14T16:15:07	2013-02-12	['None']
-pomt-14293	China is "in the South China Sea and (building) a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/04/donald-trump/donald-trump-weighs-chinas-island-building-south-c/	Donald Trump warned of China’s military might in a recent interview with the New York Times. "We have rebuilt China, and yet they will go in the South China Sea and build a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen," Trump said. "Amazing, actually. They do that, and they do that at will because they have no respect for our president and they have no respect for our country." We looked at Trump’s that the United States "rebuilt" China in a separate fact-check. But we were curious about Trump’s claim that China is now building a groundbreaking fortress in the South China Sea. The Trump campaign didn’t get back to us about his claim, which is exaggerated. While China is expanding aggressively in the South China Sea, it is not constructing a floating Death Star by any means. Take me to the South China Sea Before we delve into the South China Sea, let’s go through some basics. Several Asian nations have been fighting over hundreds of small islands, reefs, atolls and sandbanks in the South China Sea for centuries. Though largely uninhabitable, the area is a potential treasure trove of oil and gas. The waters are also home to some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, where $5 trillion of trade passes through every year. China and Taiwan both claim the good majority of the area and contend their sovereignty dates back, at the very latest, to Kublai Khan in 1293. Vietnam disputes this and says it’s ruled the key island chains, the Spratlys and the Paracels, since the 17th century. The Philippines’ claim for the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal is one of geographical proximity. Malaysia and Brunei, meanwhile, say parts of the waters fall within their United Nations-defined economic exclusion zones. The United States, for its part, has no claim on the territories, but it has significant interests at stake. Assistant Defense Secretary David Shear, in congressional testimony last year, listed "peaceful resolution of disputes, freedom of navigation and overflight, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, unimpeded lawful commerce, respect for international law, and the maintenance of peace and stability." Of particular concern to the United States is China’s ambitions to militarize the South China Sea and achieve "hegemony in East Asia," in the words of Navy Adm. Harry Harris Jr. China retorted that it’s the United States that’s militarizing in the region and escalating tensions. As a show of force, the Obama administration is sending Navy patrols to the region. According to the New York Times, Pentagon officials said these exercises were meant to convey the message that the "United States is the dominant military power in the region." In response, a spokesperson for Beijing’s defense ministry warned the United States to "be careful," according to the AFP. Historical and legal arguments aside, the grab for the islands didn’t really begin until the 20th century, with military clashes and diplomatic stand-offs springing up every couple of years. And to assert their claims, all of the countries except Brunei have been building outposts and artificial islands in the South China Sea for decades. We’ll explain how an island can be artificial in a bit. Vietnam and the Philippines were the most active in island-building in the early 2000s, and they, along with Taiwan, have stationed military forces on some outposts, according to Reuters. But in recent years, however, China has been the dominant player. Since 2014, China has staked out about 2,000 acres in the South China Sea and built seven artificial islands and three airstrips in the Spratlys. This is "more land than all other claimants combined over the history of their claims," Shear told Congress. Experts say Trump has a point that this reclamation and level of assertiveness is unprecedented. Larry Wortzel, a member of the congressional United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, noted that China’s buildup this time around is significantly improved in technical capacity, scope and modernity. The artificial islands themselves, however, are not "the likes of which the world has never seen." Floating but not exactly fortified Artificial islands are made by building concrete platforms, docks, airtrips and other landmass structures onto reefs and sand cays in the Spratlys. For example, China created about 114,000 square meters (about the size of 20 football fields) of new land in the Spratlys by constructing a large supply platform on a reef, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (Photo from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative) Though many in the media have taken to calling these artificial islands "fortresses" — a term that typically refers to a stronghold that can defend against attacks — they don’t quite live up to the name yet. "It seems a bit premature to say that China is building a military fortress," said Bonnie Glaser, the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. For one, while Beijing will likely use the islands for military purposes, it’s been deliberately unclear about its intentions and hasn’t deployed any aircraft or missiles yet, Glaser told PolitiFact. Thus far, these outposts only have radars and dual-use equipment, according to Patrick Cronin, the senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. "A military fortress would be more obvious than China’s preferred exploitation of grey-zone situations and use of incremental tactics — salami-slicing incremental moves to improve China’s position," Cronin said. For another, the military infrastructure China has built is far from unbreachable and, in fact, pretty vulnerable to attack. "These facilities are quite limited and though they offer a headache to the region in peacetime, they would not be a major threat to U.S. or allied forces in a conflict," said Gregory Poling, the director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Trump may have been referring to the military base on Hainan Island or the surface-to-air missiles deployed on Woody Island in the Paracels. But the two are different from the recently constructed artificial islands. Hainan Island, which is roughly the size of Belgium, is not one of the contested territories. Woody Island, though contested and becoming increasingly fortified, has been under Chinese control since 1946. Cronin noted that some analysts have speculated that China may be looking to form a triangle of bases to fortify its position — perhaps the closest thing to a "military fortress" — but "this is more of a long-term idea than a reality China can defend." Our ruling Trump said, China is "in the South China Sea and (building) a military fortress the likes of which perhaps the world has not seen." China made large land grabs in the South China Sea and has constructed several artificial islands in the region. However, it's a stretch for Trump to say these outposts that could be used for military purposes amount to a fortress. We rate Trump’s claim Half True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-04-04T14:37:22	2016-04-04	['China', 'South_China_Sea']
-pomt-13627	Says Barack Obama "founded ISIS. I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-pants-fire-claim-obama-founded-isis-c/	Donald Trump has found a ferocious way to describe President Barack Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton: as the founder and cofounder of ISIS, the terrorist group behind beheadings of Americans and lethal attacks around the world. Speaking to thousands of supporters at a Broward County arena Aug. 10, Trump vowed to "knock the hell out of ISIS" before pointing the finger at the Democrats. "ISIS is honoring President Obama," he said. "He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He is the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton." Trump has been making similar comments for several months, and he repeated his latest talking point in an interview with Republican radio host Hugh Hewitt the day after his Broward speech. In fact, when Hewitt proposed a more cautious interpretation of his assertion — that Obama and Clinton "created the vacuum" in the region and thus "lost the peace" to ISIS — Trump rejected that formulation, sticking with the most literal version of "founder" and "co-founder." "No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS," Trump told Hewitt. "I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton." Hewitt pushed back, saying, "But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them." Trump dismissed that again, saying, "I don’t care. He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq was, that, that was the founding of ISIS, okay?" And hours after the Hewitt interview aired, Trump tripled down on the attack in a speech to the National Association of Homebuilders in Miami Beach once again accusing them of being the founder and cofounder of ISIS. Trump was already incorrect when he said Clinton "invented" ISIS with her "stupid policies," as he did a few weeks ago. Now he’s taking it a step further with the "co-founded" attack. Let us be clear: It is wildly inaccurate to say Obama or Clinton "co-founded" ISIS. The creation of ISIS Experts have repeatedly told us that the sources of ISIS are complex and interconnected. But Trump’s provocative comment glosses over all of that nuance. For starters, the terrorist group’s roots pre-date Obama’s presidency and Clinton’s role as secretary of state. ISIS has used several names since 2004, when long-time Sunni extremist Abu Mus‘ab al-Zarqawi established al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and more recently the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), according to the National Counterterrorism Center. After he was killed in a 2006 U.S. airstrike, the group became the Islamic State of Iraq. In 2013, the group was referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and then just the Islamic State in 2014. The most prominent leader of the group we now call ISIS has been Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who became the leader in 2010. Democrats often blame President George W. Bush for the creation of ISIS, because al-Qaida flourished after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But you could also argue Obama’s decision to leave Iraq after 2011 contributed to the security vacuum that gave ISIS the chance to put down roots and regroup. The Trump campaign sent us links to articles about how the Obama administration handled the situation in the Middle East that influenced the rise of ISIS. As for Clinton, Trump’s campaign has previously pointed to her vote as a senator to authorize force in Iraq in 2002. She later said she regretted that vote. While Clinton does bear some responsibility for the Iraq war that gave ISIS an opening, she isn’t solely responsible: The vast majority of senators — from both parties — joined her in supporting the intervention advocated by Bush. "So yes, Hillary's vote for President Bush's misguided policy to build democracy in Iraq directly assisted the Republican decision that opened the door to the radicalization of Iraq and destabilization of the Levant," said Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma told us in July when Trump attacked Clinton. "Bush's destruction of the Iraq Army and state is the single-most important decision that led to the expansion of al-Qaida into the region and later emergence of ISIS." Republicans have blamed Obama for not keeping 10,000 troops in place in Iraq, which they say could have deterred the opening for ISIS. However, Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from Bush, and that did not include an agreement to leave a large force behind. Trump’s campaign has also pointed to Clinton’s positions on Syria and Libya as evidence for allowing ISIS to grow. As secretary of state in 2011, she echoed Obama’s support for regime change in Syria and said Assad needed to "get out of the way." "Clinton's enthusiasm for regime change in Libya in 2011, which Obama endorsed, resulted in the collapse of order there, which ISIS and others have exploited," Christopher Preble, a defense expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, previously told PolitiFact. "That is a fair criticism, in my opinion." In recent years, the United States has targeted ISIS militarily, with some signs of progress and some setbacks. After an ISIS terrorist attack in Brussels, Obama said that destroying the group is his "top priority." (For what it’s worth, Clinton herself was in favor of supporting Syrian rebels but was overruled by Obama. She also advocated for maintaining a moderate troop presence in Iraq after 2011.) As Hewitt suggested in the interview, it’s possible to argue that the administration’s withdrawing from Iraq, its lack of support to anti-Assad rebels in Syria and its decision to intervene in Libya contributed to the power of ISIS. These concerns track those we’ve heard from foreign-policy experts. However, this more limited and defensible critique of Clinton’s record is what Hewitt offered Trump on his radio show, and the candidate forcefully rejected it out of hand — twice. Our ruling Trump said Obama "founded ISIS. I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton." There’s a credible critique that Obama’s and Clinton’s foreign-policy and military decisions helped create a space in which ISIS could operate and expand. But Trump explicitly rejected this formulation, saying he literally means Obama is "the founder of ISIS" and Clinton is the "cofounder." In reality, the founder of ISIS was a terrorist. It is run by terrorists. Obama has said destroying ISIS is his "top priority." All this makes Trump’s statement a ridiculous characterization. He’s doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on it in various venues and has reinforced that he meant his words to be taken literally. We rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-08-11T14:07:25	2016-08-10	['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-05888	The consumption of poppy seeds used on bagels and muffins can produce positive results on drug screening tests.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/poppy-seeds-alter-drug-test-results/	None	Medical	None	David Mikkelson	None	Poppy Seeds Alter Drug Test Results?	5 August 2003	None	['None']
-pomt-00775	Facebook has unveiled new rules to stop their users from creating posts related in any way to religion.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/10/facebook-posts/facebook-planning-ban-religious-content-no/	Is Facebook planning to ban all posts related to religion? A reader recently sent us links to an article shared on Facebook, titled, "Facebook To Ban Religious Posts, Memes After Criticism From Atheism Groups," asking if we could verify its accuracy. The article was originally published several months ago on a website called the National Report; other versions have circulated as Facebook memes. Here’s a portion of the article: "In a closed-door session with shareholders on Tuesday, Facebook executives wheeled out a set of new rules which, when implemented later this year, will ban their users from creating status updates and image posts related in any way to religion, while also vowing to disband groups and take down pages with religious goals or affiliations." The story goes on to claim that Facebook will implement the new rules in three phases by removing pages with religious themes; prohibiting the posting or sharing of religious images and memes; and implementing filters to weed out status updates that include words like "Jesus," "prayer," "church," or "God." This would be a pretty big deal if it were true, but there’s a problem: The National Report is a fake news site. The website, established in 2013, once included a disclaimer making that point clear. The disclaimer has since been removed, but was archived by urban-legend investigation site Snopes.com. It said, in part, "All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental." As for Facebook banning religion, similar bogus rumors have been floating around cyberspace for years. In March 2014, Snopes investigated a nearly identical claim. The message, allegedly issued by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, said that Facebook would be launching a "No Religion" campaign prohibiting the "spreading (of) religious beliefs," and planned to delete the accounts of those who violated the new policy. Just to put the final nail in the coffin, we went looking and found many religiously affiliated pages on Facebook that have collected hundreds of thousands of "likes." The Facebook page Jesus Daily, which claims to be the "#1 most active Facebook Page in history where you can learn how to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior," has more than 26 million likes. Facebook pages for the Bible, Koran, and Torah have netted more than 40 million likes altogether. None have been deleted from Facebook. Our ruling A recent article claims that Facebook plans to institute a ban on all user-generated posts related to religion. However, the article comes from the National Report, a satirical website. It is not factual and was never intended to be. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2015-04-10T13:45:24	2015-03-28	['None']
-snes-03093	Former president Barack Obama referred to himself 75 times during his farewell speech, compared to just 3 self-references by President Donald Trump in his inaugural address.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-barack-obama-more-self-referential-than-donald-trump/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Is Barack Obama More Self-Referential than Donald Trump?	20 January 2017	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-11567	Says that singer Dolly Parton said, "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush, Obama put together."	/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/05/americanproudinfo/no-dolly-parton-didnt-say-trump-better-bush-and-ob/	Singer Dolly Parton praises President Donald Trump as outperforming his predecessors -- or at least that’s what a fake story on Facebook proclaims. "Singer Dolly Parton: "Trump in one year is already better than 16 Years’ of Bush, Obama ‘Put Together,’" stated a Jan. 22 headline on Americanproud.info. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. It is. The story took a quote by a consultant who served in George W. Bush’s administration and and falsely attributed it to Parton. Earlier this month, Brett Decker spoke about consumer confidence and the economy. in a radio interview with Breitbart. "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of those guys put together," he said. The Americanproud.info story also used an actual quote by Parton in an interview with CNN in August 2016, but omitted the full context of her comments. "We’re doing good," Parton told CNN. "We got a woman that could go in the White House, so we’ve certainly come a long way in that respect." Americanpround.info included that snippet in its report, but went on to say that Parton "saw the light" and later called Hillary Clinton "nuts" and that her campaign has been "just crazy." In reality, all those comments were actually from the same CNN interview, but Americanproud.info distorted what Parton actually said. When asked about Clinton and Trump, here’s Parton’s full remarks: "I don't know where they're going to land but I think they're both nuts" she said, joking that "it's like watching the OJ Simpson trial. You just believe whoever's up next. Whoever testified last is who you believe." In the CNN interview, Parton doesn’t come across as committed to either candidate. CNN paraphrased her as saying she might not know who she will vote for and that it's time that both Trump and Clinton stopped talking about each other. In June 2016, the New York Times asked Parton how she felt about a female presidential nominee. "Well, I think that that would be wonderful. Hillary might make as good a president as anybody ever has. I think no matter if it’s Hillary or Donald Trump, we’re gonna be plagued with PMS either way — presidential mood swings! But I personally think a woman would do a great job. I think Hillary’s very qualified. So if she gets it, I’ll certainly be behind her." After much publicity about that quote, Parton issued a statement. "My comment about supporting a woman in the White House was taken out of context. I have not endorsed Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump. I try not to get political but if I am, I might as well just run myself 'cause I've got the hair for it, it's huge, and they could always use more boobs in the race." Proclaiming that a celebrity now loves Trump or hates Clinton is a common theme in fake news stories. We debunked an article that said Sandra Bullock said to Clinton "if you don’t like our president you can leave and never come back again" and that "Julia Roberts claims ‘Michelle Obama isn’t fit to clean Melania’s toilet’ " We rated both statements Pants on Fire. In this case, the story that said Parton said, "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush, Obama put together" is also fake news. A consultant actually made a statement that virtually mirrors that quote. We rate this story Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Americanproud.info	None	None	None	2018-02-05T14:59:26	2018-01-22	['Barack_Obama', 'Dolly_Parton', 'George_W._Bush']
-goop-00982	Tom Cruise Banned Katie Holmes From Met Gala?	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-cruise-katie-holmes-met-gala-ban-religion/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Tom Cruise Banned Katie Holmes From Met Gala?	1:33 pm, May 17, 2018	None	['Tom_Cruise']
-snes-04440	Ted Cruz said that he would endorse Donald Trump if the latter promised to make masturbation illegal.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ted-cruz-donald-trump-endorsement/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Ted Cruz: I Will Endorse Donald Trump for President If He Makes Masturbation Illegal	15 July 2016	None	['Ted_Cruz', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-14589	"Faced with $1 million in campaign debt," Scott Walker "is unloading his campaign security costs onto the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/feb/05/katrina-shankland/heavy-presidential-campaign-ious-scott-walker-fois/	Gov. Scott Walker, once an early favorite among the 2016 Republican candidates for president, doubtless wishes he were canvassing the Granite State, soliciting votes ahead of the New Hampshire primaries. Instead, the news lately about his bid, which ended in September 2015, is his campaign’s red ink. On Jan. 29, 2016 it was reported that despite raising $500,000 in the last three months of 2015, Walker’s presidential campaign was still in debt -- by more than $1 million. The governor announced the same day that his campaign would no longer pay for the travel costs of his state-provided security team when he leaves Wisconsin for political events. Instead, those future travel costs for the security team for political events would once again be the responsibility of state taxpayers. Cueing off those two news items, a top state Assembly Democrat lambasted Walker the same day. "Faced with $1 million in campaign debt, Governor Walker is trying to cut corners in any way he can," Assistant Minority Leader Katrina Shankland of Stevens Point said in a news release. "In this case, he is unloading his campaign security costs onto the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers." Walker is putting travel expenses for his security team for future political trips back onto taxpayers -- as they long have been under him and previous governors -- but Shankland’s claim mixes apples and oranges. Walker is not unloading such expenses from his presidential campaign, or any of his presidential campaign debt, onto taxpayers. The security detail backdrop Wisconsin taxpayers have long paid for security officers to give around-the-clock protection to their governors. But the costs have made more news since shortly after Walker took office in January 2011. Almost immediately, Walker launched legislation that resulted in Act 10, a law that sharply curtails the collective bargaining powers of both state and local government employees. Thousands upon thousands of people demonstrated daily in Madison. Walker beefed up security. Costs mounted. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, for example, that in 2013 taxpayers spent $2.23 million for the 10 state troopers who protect Walker and his family, GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, and dignitaries from other states and countries who visit Wisconsin. That was up from $657,457 paid out by Walker’s predecessor, Democrat Jim Doyle, during his last year in office in 2010. Walker’s security bill inched higher in 2014, to $2.3 million. A large part of the increase came because Walker had added five members to what is officially known as the Dignitary Protection Unit in the wake of the Act 10 protests. Both Walker and Kleefisch were the target of death threats during the frenzied debate over the bill. (The security unit did not provide services for lieutenant governors until Kleefisch came into office in 2011.) Another factor, though, was an increase in travel costs due to out-of-state trips made by Walker as he was increasingly seen as a possible 2016 presidential contender. Walker made political trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and other states. Taxpayers have routinely covered security costs for governors, on official business in Wisconsin and on political trips out of state. But Doyle, as one example, didn't travel outside Wisconsin on political jaunts nearly as often as Walker did as he pursued his White House run. The presidential campaign In March 2015, Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb, who oversees the security team, told the Legislature’s budget committee that taxpayers would foot the bill for providing security for Walker as he traveled around the country for what was then his budding presidential campaign. "The governor is the governor 24/7," he said, noting that taxpayers paid for security for previous governors on their political travels. In April 2015, Our American Revival, which was then Walker’s presidential campaign-in-waiting, announced it would pick up the security officers' travel costs when Walker attended political rallies, fundraisers and other events related to what eventually would become his official bid for the White House. So, that was a change from past practice, when taxpayers would cover all security expenses for a governor, even for political travel. By early January 2016, Walker’s campaign had reimbursed taxpayers about $260,000 to cover airfare, hotels and other expenses for his security team while Walker ran for president. The most recent payment covered costs from July, August and September 2015. According to Walker’s Department of Administration, Walker’s campaign has reimbursed the state for the travel expenses in full. Our rating Shankland said: "Faced with $1 million in campaign debt," Scott Walker "is unloading his campaign security costs onto the backs of Wisconsin taxpayers." For future political trips, Walker is returning to the practice of taxpayers paying for travel expenses for his state security team. But Walker is not unloading any of his presidential campaign debt onto taxpayers, including travel expenses for the security team. His campaign has already reimbursed the state for those expenses. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False.	None	Katrina Shankland	None	None	None	2016-02-05T12:21:06	2016-01-29	['Wisconsin', 'Scott_Walker_(politician)']
-snes-00074	A photograph shows a bag of Skittles signed by George Zimmerman.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zimmerman-skittles-signing/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did George Zimmerman Sign a Bag of Skittles?	17 September 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00417	"Obama will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/437/educate-business-about-the-benefits-of-flexible-wo/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Educate business about the benefits of flexible work schedules and telecommuting	2010-01-07T13:26:58	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-04192	Eerie clouds over Geneva were caused by the particle collider at CERN opening a portal to a new dimension.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clouds-over-geneva-show-cern-opening-a-portal-to-a-new-dimension/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Bethania Palma	None	Clouds Over Geneva Show CERN Opening a Portal to a New Dimension?	23 August 2016	None	['Geneva']
-pomt-02325	"Rick Scott tried to slash school funding by $3.3 billion."	/florida/statements/2014/mar/27/charlie-crist/charlie-crist-says-rick-scott-tried-slash-school-f/	Both Charlie Crist and Rick Scott will have gubernatorial records to fuel the campaign fire this year. The attacks have already started, with Crist firing a shot about Scott’s budget actions over the years. On a page titled "Top 5 reasons to make Florida Scott-free," Crist brings up education spending as No. 1. "Rick Scott tried to slash school funding by $3.3 billion," the site says. "To put that into perspective, $3.3 billion could pay the yearly salaries of more than 70,000 teachers in Florida." Considering Scott came into office during the Great Recession, his budget cutting is well known. We thought we’d dive into the numbers to see whether he proposed that the state’s schools take a $3.3 billion hit. Slash and learn Scott entered office in 2011, facing a $3.6 billion shortfall in the state’s $70.5 billion budget. His solution in February 2011 was to propose cutting $4.6 billion in spending and $2.4 billion in state revenue by reducing taxes, regulations and fees. His budget came in at $65.9 billion. His proposal, encompassing two fiscal years, recommended cutting per-pupil spending by about $700, a 10 percent reduction from the state’s current $6,899 spending per student at the time. Part of the cuts included a 10 percent cut in the required local effort portion of property taxes and a loss of more than $870 million in federal stimulus money. In all, that added up to a projected $4.8 billion in cuts to education over the two years. The Scott plan attempted to offset some of those cuts with other federal aid and by requiring teachers to contribute 5 percent to their pension plans, adding back about $400 per student. We’ve broken down some of those dollar figures before. In all, funding would have been cut some $3.3 billion the first year. Legislators did not respond well to such a drastic proposed budget reduction for schools. "Are we looking at the cuts the governor is making? The answer is no, a resounding no," PreK-12 Education Appropriations subcommittee chairman Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, told the Gainesville Sun. After a contentious session, the Legislature passed and Scott signed a budget that included $1.3 billion in cuts to education, from $18.2 billion to $16.5 billion. The reduction ended up being about $540 per student, a 7.9 percent cut in funding. The following year, Scott requested a $1 billion increase in education dollars, which was included in the 2012-2013 state budget. The increase was needed to make up for more than 30,000 new students and a decline in property taxes from a 3 percent drop in property values. He then requested $1.2 billion more in 2013; the Legislature agreed to $1 billion. This year he has asked Tallahassee for $542 million more for next year, bringing the totals to $10.6 billion in state cash and $18.8 billion overall. This would be a record amount of spending in terms of dollars, but still less than the amount being spent per student when he took office. The ruling Crist said "Rick Scott tried to slash school funding by $3.3 billion," pointing to a budget proposal from 2011, Scott’s first year in office. Scott did propose cutting $3.3 billion from the education budget, alienating members of his own party in the Legislature in the process. He even had suggested cutting $4.8 billion over two years. Part of the cuts were from the loss of federal stimulus dollars, but the state had the power to restore them had it chosen to. In the end, Tallahassee approved $1.3 billion in cuts. Scott has asked for increases in the three years since. Crist’s statement was specifically phrased, saying Scott "tried" to reduce school funding. That is accurate, but it’s important to note that Scott's initial proposal died in the Legislature, and funding has increased since that attempt. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2014-03-27T16:06:13	2014-03-25	['None']
-pomt-02347	After hiring a campaign manager in 2006, "I got this $100 and something fee ... for hazardous materials."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/mar/23/allan-fung/allan-fung-says-he-had-pay-100-hazardous-materials/	With Rhode Island currently hobbled by the nation’s highest unemployment rate, gubernatorial candidates have been suggesting all sorts of ways to improve the state’s business climate. During a March 7 interview on Rhode Island Public Radio, Cranston mayor and Republican candidate for governor Allan Fung said the state sometimes nickel-and-dimes its businesses. He gave an example from his own experience. Fung said he hired a campaign manager for one of his previous campaigns. "Well, lo and behold, I got this hundred-something dollar fee that came from the Department of Labor and Training, for hazardous materials." Fung said he had only the one employee, and, as a political campaign, no contact with hazardous materials. "But because you have an employee, you have to pay that," he said. Do you? We checked it out. Fung’s political career goes back to 2002, when he won a seat on the Cranston City Council (he was the second highest council vote getter). His first mayoral run, unsuccessful as it turned out, was in 2006, when he lost to Democrat Michael Napolitano by 79 votes. It was for that campaign that he hired a manager, Ryan Bilodeau. Copies of Fung’s 2006 campaign finance reports on file in the State Archives show regular payments to Bilodeau, as well as IRS withholding and state tax payments. They also show, on March 12, 2006, a $42 check made out to the state Department of Labor and Training, with the notation "right to know registration form." The Department of Labor and Training is charged with enforcing what is known as the "Hazardous Substances Right to Know Act," so named because it says employees in Rhode Island have a right to know what hazardous materials are used in their workplaces. The law requires businesses that deal with hazardous materials to notify workers -- and the labor department -- about the materials. Even if a business doesn’t use any hazardous materials, it still has to file the form. In 2006, when Fung hired his campaign manager, all Rhode Island employers were assessed a $42 fee when they filed the required declaration form, DLT spokeswoman Nikki Armstrong said. And that was the law. Until July 2013. That was when the General Assembly passed a budget article, submitted by Governor Chafee’s administration, that eliminated the fee. "This change is the latest in a series of cost-saving initiatives my administration has made to improve regulations and to build a more customer-friendly business climate in Rhode Island," Chafee said in a statement announcing the abolition of the fee, an action he said was projected to save about 10,000 state businesses collectively around $400,000 a year. Fung for Governor campaign manager Patrick A. Sweeney acknowledged that the candidate was off by $58. But he said Fung’s bigger point, "that we have a plethora of regulations that are hurting small businesses across the country," was still valid. Our ruling Allan Fung, recollecting events of eight years ago, said he had to pay a fee of about $100 for filing a hazardous materials notification form when he hired his first campaign staff member. He was right about there being a fee, but he overstated the amount. And in expressing his frustration about the fee, he gave the impression it still exists, when, in fact, it was eliminated a year ago. Because the statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Allan Fung	None	None	None	2014-03-23T00:01:00	2014-03-07	['None']
-snes-02654	The cut of steak known as "sirloin" is so named because an English king once knighted a piece of beef.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mis-steak/	None	Food	None	David Mikkelson	None	Etymology of Sirloin	20 May 2001	None	['England']
-snes-00796	Former first daughter Malia Obama said white people will be 'blended out' of the population by the time she turns 30.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/malia-obama-white-people-blended-out/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did Malia Obama Say White People Will Be ‘Blended Out’?	8 April 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01980	Miley Cyrus, Liam Hemsworth Eloping During Australian New Year’s Vacatio	https://www.gossipcop.com/miley-cyrus-not-eloping-liam-hemsworth-australia-new-years-vacation/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Miley Cyrus, Liam Hemsworth NOT Eloping During Australian New Year’s Vacation	2:58 pm, December 22, 2017	None	['Miley_Cyrus']
-tron-02206	Puerto Ricans Get Disability Because They Don’t Speak English	https://www.truthorfiction.com/puerto-ricans-get-disability-because-they-dont-speak-english/	None	medical	None	None	['Trending Rumors']	Puerto Ricans Get Disability Because They Don’t Speak English	Apr 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03451	Apple's purge of "fake news" apps from the App store started with the removal of Breitbart News in November 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/breitbart-news-app-removed-from-the-apple-store/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Breitbart News App Removed From the Apple Store?	30 November 2016	None	['Breitbart.com']
-snes-00969	Is the NRA a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit Organization?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-tax-exempt-non-profit/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Is the NRA a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit Organization?	23 February 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-09792	Insurers delayed an Illinois man's treatment, "and he died because of it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/17/barack-obama/obama-says-decision-revoke-insurance-led-illinois-/	To show that insurance companies can be callous, President Barack Obama recently cited the case of an Illinois man who Obama said had died because of an insurer's decision. "More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care," the president told a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. "It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." The man Obama was referring to was Otto S. Raddatz, who died earlier this year. But Lynn Sweet, a reporter with the Chicago Sun-Times , found the president was wrong to blame Raddatz's death on the insurance company. Raddatz, a restaurant owner, was insured by Fortis Insurance Co., according to congressional testimony by his sister, Peggy. In September 2004, at 59, he was diagnosed with stage IV non-Hodgkins lymphoma and began chemotherapy. As he was preparing for a stem cell transplant for which timing was crucial, he was told that his coverage was being rescinded due to a "routine" review that had found that he'd failed to disclose having gallstones and an anyeurism. Explaining that the doctor had never even told him about the discovery, and that no treatment had ever been urged, Peggy Raddatz went to the state attorney general for help. Within weeks, the attorney general's office got the decision reversed, and Raddatz was able to proceed with his transplant. The case drew national attention, including stories in Slate and on National Public Radio, and Peggy Raddatz testified twice to congressional commitees about her brother's story. But the president's version of the story was challenged by a Sept. 13, 2009, blog post by Sweet, who covers the White House for the Sun-Times . She noted that the transplant went ahead and Raddatz lived for another three years — an indication that the company's decision to rescind his treatment didn't cause his death. Peggy Raddatz's testimony backs this up. On June 16, 2009, Raddatz recounted the experience before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Raddatz is still angry with the insurer — in her prepared testimony, she called what the company did to her brother "unethical" and "cruel" — but she gave no indication that the delay hampered her brother's survival. At one point, the full committee's ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, asked Raddatz whether her brother had received the stem cell transplant he needed. "He did indeed receive the stem cell transplant," she responded. "It was extremely successful. It extended his life approximately three-and-a-half years. He did pass away January 6th of 2009, and he was about to have a second stem cell transplant. Unfortunately, due to certain situations, his donor became ill at the last minute, and so he did pass away on January 6th. But again, (the initial transplant) extended his life nearly three-and-a-half years. And at his age, each day meant everything to him." The White House acknowledges that the facts got garbled, but insists that the larger lessons from the story are unchanged. "The story President Obama referenced in his speech underscores what so many Americans have learned the hard way: Insurance companies look for ways to rescind their coverage when you need it most," White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield said. "A media account of Mr. Raddatz’s story that the president relied on in his speech confused some of the details, but the underlying point remains the same. President Obama wants to end the practice that allows insurance companies to pull insurance for individuals like Mr. Raddatz when they need it most." In her piece, Sweet noted that a fellow Sun-Times reporter, Cheryl V. Jackson, talked to Raddatz after the speech, and she had no complaint with Obama's account of her brother's death. "The point is that my brother lost his insurance coverage when he was dying," the article quoted Raddatz as saying. Still, the president said that Otto Raddatz's death was caused by a delay in his surgery caused by the insurer's decision to rescind his policy. But as Peggy Raddatz testified, government intervention enabled her brother to have the procedure, and he lived, despite his cancer, for another three and a half years. When Raddatz eventually died earlier this year, his sister said that his death came while waiting for a second procedure that did not happen because the transplant donor unexpectedly fell ill. Critics can still blame the insurance company for insensitivity — and it's true that the company only paid for Raddatz's treatment after the attorney general's office acted — but the evidence shows that it's inaccurate to say a delay in care caused his death. So we rate the president's statement False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2009-09-17T19:16:20	2009-09-09	['Illinois']
-pomt-03731	Says Oregon’s high minimum wage is the reason why "by 2011, Oregon's restaurants employed an average of only 13.8 workers, or 2.6 fewer employees than they did before the state's minimum wage began rising above the federal level in 1997."	/oregon/statements/2013/apr/13/melvin-sickler/has-oregons-higher-minimum-wage-hurt-our-restauran/	Melvin "Mel" Sickler, a representative of the National Restaurant Association, recently told a U.S. Senate committee to put the brakes on a bill that would increase the federal minimum wage and tie it to inflation. Why? Boosting the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 would reduce the number of jobs in the food service industry, Sickler said. The claim: In his testimony, Sickler trotted Oregon out as an example of a state with a high minimum wage (it’s $8.95) tied to inflation, saying that’s happened here. Here’s what he said: "Given the experience in states that have raised their minimum wages above the federal rate, we know the impact The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 would have, if enacted, on the availability of jobs in my industry. "For example, Oregon's state minimum wage is now $8.95, more than a dollar less than what is being proposed in The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. After peaking at 16.4 employees per establishment in 1996, the average number of workers in Oregon's restaurants declined steadily." Wow, right? And, it gets worse, according to Sickler. "By 2011, Oregon's restaurants employed an average of only 13.8 workers, or 2.6 fewer employees than they did before the state's minimum wage began rising above the federal level in 1997," he said. Oregonians are sensitive about the quality of their restaurants and the size of their workforce so we wanted to figure out if this was true. Has Oregon’s minimum wage hurt the state’s restaurant industry? And what is "employees per establishment," anyway? The analysis: We went to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for some numbers. The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages is the go-to data source for job trends. To find the "employees per establishment" throughout the U.S., we took the average number of employees in the food service industry in 2011 and divided it by the average number of "establishments." Bingo. Oregon’s number in 2011 was 13.8. That’s lower than the national average of 16.4. But that’s just the start. Sickler was making a statement about how we got there. So let’s look at that other question, has the minimum wage in Oregon led to job losses? To dig into that, we started comparing Oregon to other states. That’s where the trouble began. But first, we need to talk a little more about the minimum wage. In Oregon, pretty much everybody has to be paid at least the minimum wage. That’s true in Washington, California and a few other states. But it’s not very common. In most states, tipped employees can be paid less under certain circumstances. The math gets pretty fuzzy pretty fast and lots of states have their own rules. But the main point is this: waiting tables on the West Coast pays better. So if our high minimum wage has hurt the job market for bartenders, the $9.19 hourly rate in Washington and the $8 rate in California has to have done the same thing, right? Well, this is where it gets sticky. Washington had 1.54 fewer employees per establishment than the national average. But California was basically at the national average. Oh, and in Nevada, where you either get the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour if your employer provides health coverage or you get $1 more if they don’t, the average number of employees per establishment was 18.75, 1.8 ahead of the average. Here’s another puzzler. Tipped employees in New York and New Jersey can earn less than $7.25. But New York food service businesses had an average of 12.6 employees. In New Jersey they had an average 12.4 employees. That’s worse than Oregon! Since you’re probably wondering, the state with the lowest average employees per population was Wyoming with 10.4. The highest number came from South Dakota, which had 22.46. Employees in both states earn the federal minimum. We asked Josh Lehner, a senior economist with the state of Oregon, whether this "employees per establishment" thing was a good gauge of the economic health of the restaurant industry. "You have two numbers there," Lehner said. "Your numerator and denominator -- and they can both be moving on their own trend lines for a whole host of reasons." See, lots of things happened between 1997 and 2011. Brewpubs began sprouting up like mushrooms across the state. Food carts blossomed in downtown Portland, then throughout the metro area. Foodie culture hit, increasing the interest in small locally owned restaurants over big national chains. There also were a couple recessions. We weren’t sure of the effects of all those things, so we looked at the underlying data. There we found that the yearly number of food service establishments in Oregon grew each year from 1997 through 2011. Employment grew every year except 2010, when it took a tiny dip. The "employees per establishment" number quoted by the restaurant association, seems to have changed over time, but not because of a massive drop in employment or restaurants. If you control for population growth, you get a clearer indication of the impact of recessions and the business cycle on the industry. That’s just what Lehner did. His conclusion was that Oregon’s a pretty good place to nosh. From 2001 to 2011, Oregon consistently had more establishments per 1,000 people than the U.S. average, and it had more people working in the food service industry per 1,000 people than the national average. During the entire time, Oregon’s minimum wage was higher than the national average and steadily crept up, matching inflation. Finally, we tracked down Michael Reich, director of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California Berkeley. "The drop in jobs per establishment in Oregon could be caused by any number of factors. The chart shows a rising trend in jobs per establishment in the U.S. as a whole, even while the federal minimum wage rose several times during the period in the chart," Reich said. "I would not argue, though, that the minimum wage caused the increase. One has to have many more controls to make the transition from correlation to causality." We went back to the National Restaurant Association to discuss our findings. Katie Laning Niebaum said the group wasn’t arguing that smaller establishments were bad for the economy, or that Oregon’s restaurant industry was in decline, but instead, that a change in business model in response to the minimum wage was reducing opportunities for employment. "The data shows that over the last several years since Oregon's minimum wage rose above the national," Laning Niebaum said, "it appears that restaurant owners have changed their business model to employ fewer individuals. The ruling: Sickler wants to connect the shrinking size of restaurants on average in Oregon to the state’s minimum wage being higher than the federal minimum. In a vacuum, his data seem to suggest that link. But when we looked at data from other states, the correlation just didn’t work. And putting employment and the number of restaurants into context, as Lehner did, we can see that restaurant jobs rise and fall with the health of the national economy, not the state’s minimum wage. Oregon’s per capita restaurant employment is higher than the national average, in spite of having a higher minimum wage. We rate the statement False.	None	Melvin Sickler	None	None	None	2013-04-13T06:00:00	2013-03-14	['Oregon']
-vees-00178	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: France's Macron called Duterte a 'role model'	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-frances-macron-did-not-call-duterte-ro	None	None	None	None	fake news	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: France's Macron DID NOT call Duterte a 'role model'	June 09, 2018	None	['France']
-tron-00478	Frog in a pre-packaged salad	https://www.truthorfiction.com/frogs-salads/	None	animals	None	None	None	Frog in a pre-packaged salad	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04232	Says she is "entering in the most diverse class ever," of U.S. Representatives	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/nov/21/ann-mclane-kuster/ann-kuster-touts-being-member-most-diverse-congres/	New Hampshire voters made history this month, electing the nation’s first all-female delegation to Congress. And they weren’t the only ones to break down barriers. Across the country, voters broke records, electing the most diverse class ever to enter Congress, according to U.S. Rep.-elect Ann McLane Kuster, who will be sworn in in New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District in January. "I’m … entering in the most diverse class ever," Kuster told MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry, Sunday, Nov. 11 -- five days after the election. "The Democratic caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives will be (a) majority of women and minorities. So, that is a wonderful experience. … I take great pride in that, as well." As Kuster notes, the incoming Democratic caucus includes a majority of women and minorities for the first time in history, according to news reports. Despite the gains, however, white men still hold a two-thirds majority in the 113th Congress. Bloomberg News pointed out that the House floor didn’t even have women’s restrooms until 2011, when Speaker John Boehner had them installed. But, does that make this House of Representatives the most diverse ever? We decided to check the books. According to preliminary counts, the incoming class in the House of Representatives, to be sworn in in January, features 78 women, 42 African Americans and 28 Latinos, among the 435 total representatives. Voters initially elected 43 African American representatives across the country, but that number fell to 42 after U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned his seat Wednesday. If that number stands, the Congressional Black Caucus will have lost two members from the 2012 count, falling from 44. Overall, since other minority groups will have added to their numbers, new records for diversity are poised to be set. The class of 78 women elected to the House this month marks an increase of five over the record 73, who served in each of the last three sessions of Congress, according to the Center for Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Federal counts show a total of 277 women have served in the House since 1917, when Rep. Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first elected to Congress. As for Latinos, the 28 members represent an increase of four over the 2012 count -- the previous high, according to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. In total, 91 Hispanic representatives have served since Joseph Marion Hernandez, of Florida, became the first in 1822. The current Congress’ class of 24 had been the largest until this month’s election. "We are seeing greater geographic representation," said Rosalind Gold, senior director of policy research and advocacy for the California-based Education Fund. "We’re seeing more and more that candidates can both win in districts that are traditional centers of Latino population, but they can also appeal to very diverse constituencies. … There were a lot of milestones in this election." Looking forward, the next Congress also will see more Asian American and Pacific Islander members in Congress than ever before-- 13 in the House-- while Arab Americans retained at least four of their five House seats, as U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, faces a December runoff election. Our ruling: The 113th Congress, like the ones before it, will go down as the most diverse class in history. The African Americans caucus have lost one seat, but voters elected more women than ever before (78), more Latinos (28) and more Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (13). We rate Kuster’s claim True.	None	Ann McLane Kuster	None	None	None	2012-11-21T16:47:26	2012-11-11	['United_States']
-pomt-11618	"82-year-old who killed a Muslim in self-defense gets the death penalty."	/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/24/patriot-report/fake-story-says-elderly-man-shot-muslims-self-defe/	A story moving on Facebook would lead you to believe that an elderly California man was sentenced to death after defending himself when he was ambushed by two Muslim men, but the story is fake news. "82-year-old who killed a Muslim in self-defense gets the death penalty," said a Jan. 15 headline on The Patriot Report. The story was previously posted by Ladies of Liberty, a website that defines itself as satire. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. The fake story has several made up details including that the photo of the elderly man reportedly sentenced to death in California is actually of a drug trafficker caught in Kansas. The story said that in October 2015 William DeLisle of Marina Del Ray, Calif., was walking home from the local senior center when he was ambushed by a pair of young Muslims -- Abdi Nadjeer Hallalla and Mustif Salabu. DeLisle, a Marine veteran, pulled a .22 from his ankle holster and shot both men within seconds, leaving one dead and the other paralyzed. The story said that the "Dewey County Prosecutor" said that because the two men were unarmed, the use of deadly force was "extreme and unnecessary." We found no such Dewey County in California, although the county does exist in Oklahoma and South Dakota. The photo allegedly of DeLisle matches a photo of Marshall Dion taken in Junction City, Kan., when he was arrested on drug trafficking charges in 2013. Dion had a long, colorful history with law enforcement dating back to 1985 when he crashed an airplane in Wisconsin and crawled away, denying that $112,000 found inside and around the airplane belonged to him. In that incident, the government confiscated the money, suspecting it was drug money, but he wasn’t charged. We searched the names of the alleged suspects in Nexis and found nothing in news accounts. We found nothing about an elderly William DeLisle in California, however, there was a 19th century British pulp-fiction writer by that name who in one book wrote about whites killing all blacks and Asians to create a paradise. Fake news purveyors have published many false stories that cast Muslims in a negative light, including one about 412 Muslims arrested in a Michigan bust and another story claiming a Muslim man started a California wildfire. In this case, the headline that an "82-year-old who killed a Muslim in self-defense gets the death penalty" is also fake news. We rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	The Patriot Report	None	None	None	2018-01-24T14:46:39	2018-01-15	['None']
-pomt-02037	The five Taliban detainees being released from Guantanamo in exchange for captured Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/02/john-mccain/john-mccain-says-five-taliban-detainees-freed-bowe/	When President Barack Obama announced that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been freed after five years of being held by the Taliban, it didn’t take long for commentators to question whether the price of Bergdahl’s freedom was too steep. In exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom, the Obama administration agreed to release five members of the Taliban from the United States’ detention facility in Guantanamo, Cuba. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan prior to the 2001 U.S.-led military operation, and even though it’s no longer in power, the Taliban continues to fight for control of Afghanistan. On CBS’ Face the Nation, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply questioned whether it was in the United States’ best interests to release the five Taliban members: Abdul Haq Wasiq, Mullah Norullah Noori, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, and Mohammad Nabi Omari. Under the agreement, the five are to be held in Qatar for a year without the right to travel elsewhere. The five freed detainees, McCain said, "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people." We wondered whether McCain had sound support for his characterization, so we took a look at the evidence. The most detailed assessment comes from once-secret U.S. government documents made public by Wikileaks. The key documents, written in 2008, were individualized assessments by the Defense Department’s Guantanamo leadership. The documents, which provide most of the direct quotes in the five capsules below, give background and risk assessments of each of the five detainees being freed. According to the documents, all five men were deemed to be of "high" risk to the United States and were recommended for "continued detention." "From my general background, McCain, alas, is on target," said James Jeffrey, visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank that studies American interests in the Middle East. Here’s a rundown of the five former detainees: • Mullah Mohammad Fazl. Experts suggested to PolitiFact that, of the five, Fazl and Noori may be the most dangerous to United States interests. Fazl was an experienced commander against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance and served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff. He’s "wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites" and had "operational associations with significant al Qaeda and other extremist personnel." The leaked documents say Fazl "wielded considerable influence" and that he’s become a recruiting symbol for the Taliban. • Mullah Norullah Noori. Noori was a "senior Taliban military commander" and the onetime governor of Balkh province who, like Fazl, is on the United Nations’ radar screen for possible war crimes. Fazl and Noori "were responsible for ethno-sectarian massacres in northern Afghanistan, as were some of their enemies who are now in the Afghan government," said Barnett R. Rubin, director and senior fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation. "They cooperated with al-Qaida, which was providing assistance to their fight against the Northern Alliance." Leaked documents cite ties to the Taliban’s top leader, Mullah Omar, and "senior al-Qaida members," including the allegation that he passed a message from Omar to al-Qaida’s Osama bin Laden. • Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa. The leaked documents say Khairkhwa was close to both Omar and bin Laden, representing the Taliban in "meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against U.S. and Coalition Forces" following the start of the United States war in Afghanistan. He was governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001 and was alleged to be one of the "major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan." Complicating matters somewhat, Khairkhwa was in discussions with the family of post-war Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, a longtime friend, about possibly cooperating with the new government when he was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and brought to Guantanamo. • Abdul Haq Wasiq. Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban’s intelligence service and "was central to the Taliban's efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against U.S. and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks," according to the leaked documents, which added that he "utilized his office to support al-Qaida and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture" in late 2001. He is believed to have "arranged for al-Qaida personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods." Wasiq claimed to be offering cooperation to the United States, though the U.S. government has officially been skeptical of those claims. • Mohammad Nabi Omari. Leaked documents describe Omari as "a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles," including membership in a joint al-Qaida-Taliban cell in Khowst that "was involved in attacks against U.S. and coalition forces." Omari also "maintained weapons caches and facilitated the smuggling of fighters and weapons," the documents say. Omari, like Wasiq, was apprehended while claiming to be providing intelligence of interest to the United States. Experts told PolitiFact that each of the five detainees represented risks to the United States’ national security to one degree or another, with Fazl and Noori at the top of the list. "They were involved in a range of Taliban operations in senior positions," said Seth G. Jones, associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation. After being released, the five will be able to leverage their time at Guantanamo, Jones added. "We’ve already seen Taliban statements that they’re pretty excited about the return of these men." There’s precedent for Taliban officials being released from Guantanamo and then going back to the battlefield. In 2007, the George W. Bush administration released Mullah Abdul Qayyum Zakir. Despite being considered less of a risk than any of the five released in exchange for Bergdahl, he rejoined Taliban forces and pushed a campaign of improvised explosive devices. Because the agreement stipulates that the five men will stay in Qatar for a year, the five released detainees won’t be able to take part immediately in battles on the ground, Jones noted. However, they might be able to provide strategic advice from a distance. "The reason the negotiations took so long was that the U.S. insisted on very strict safeguards against the risk posed by the release of these detainees," Rubin said. "No one claims there is no risk or even a low risk." While experts said McCain is generally correct that the five released detainees are significant figures who could put American interests at risk, some added that his language might have been a bit hyperbolic. Only one of the five -- Omari -- was labeled a "high" risk while in detention. The other four were considered "low" risks while in detention, meaning that they weren’t rabble rousers within Guantanamo. Jones said he wasn’t sure it was precisely accurate to call the five "the worst of the worst," saying he’d leave that description for the Taliban’s very top leaders, particularly Mullah Omar. Still, Jones said, "several of these five are pretty senior." Our ruling McCain said the five Taliban prisoners exchanged for Bergdahl "are the hardest of the hard-core. These are the highest high-risk people." It might be a slight exaggeration to place all five into the highest threat category among Taliban officials and leaders. Still, these were very senior Taliban operatives, and leaked internal documents from U.S. officials at Guantanamo generally back up McCain’s assessment. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2014-06-02T17:29:16	2014-06-01	['Taliban', 'Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp', 'Bowe_Bergdahl']
-pomt-11125	"The bottom line is clear: Under the policies of this unified Republican government, American workers, families, and business owners are achieving economic growth that is unmatched in recent memory. … More than 1 million new jobs have been created just since we passed tax reform last December."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/05/mitch-mcconnell/how-strong-have-job-gains-been-tax-bill-passed/	On the heels of a strong jobs report — one that featured 223,000 new jobs in May and an unemployment rate falling to 3.8 percent — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took to the Senate floor to tout the success of Republican economic policies. "The bottom line is clear," McConnell said June 4. "Under the policies of this unified Republican government, American workers, families, and business owners are achieving economic growth that is unmatched in recent memory." McConnell went on to cite changes to the tax code and regulatory changes. "After a decade of stagnation," he said, "Republican policies have gotten Washington out of the way and freed American workers and job creators to do what they do best — build a dynamic economy that is literally the envy of the world. But as impressive as some of these statistics may be, I think it is important to keep in mind that these stories are, at the end of the day, human stories. More than 1 million new jobs have been created just since we passed tax reform last December." When McConnell’s office posted the speech to YouTube, it hit the jobs line hard, giving it the title, "More Than One Million Jobs Created Since the Passage of Republican Tax Reform." There's little question that the economy, and particularly the jobs picture, are strong. The 3.8 percent unemployment rate is the lowest since 2000. Asked about McConnell's floor speech, his office offered another quote from the Majority Leader: "I spoke yesterday about the new job opportunities flooding into the U.S. economy. It’s all thanks to the ingenuity of American workers and job-creators, with an assist from Republican policies. … Republicans are proud of the historic tax reform and dramatic regulatory reform that helped make this happen." But is there evidence that Republican policies have boosted job creation? While it’s always tricky to isolate whether specific policies have shaped economic trends, policies implemented by the Republicans in charge of the White House and Congress probably had some effect. That said, the number of new jobs gained since passage of the Republican-backed tax bill in December 2017 is pretty similar in scale to those racked up by both President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump going back to 2010. McConnell is correct on the number. From January to May 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a net increase of 1.037 million jobs. That works out to about 207,000 more net jobs a month. But rather than being a turnaround from weak to strong, that amount of job creation is roughly in line with the gains in each of the past nine years. Here’s a chart showing the month-to-month job gains since the start of 2008. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com And here’s a chart showing the job gains for every January-to-May period in recent years. Since 2010 — the year the Great Recession began to wane and the recovery began — every January-to-May period saw an average monthly job gain of between 160,000 and 236,000. The performance for 2018 was slightly higher than the average, but pretty typical. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, came to a similar conclusion. He looked at all 96 overlapping five-month periods from May 2010 to April 2018 to see how many of those five-month periods saw job creation grow at a faster rate than the first five months of this year. He found that employment increased faster than the most recent five-month period 47 percent of the time, and slower 53 percent of the time. In other words, the past five months were pretty ordinary. "So, job growth since December 2017 does not look exceptional compared with job growth throughout the current economic expansion," Burtless said. Burtless said he didn’t doubt that the changes to the tax code could have had an effect on job creation. But he said it’s hard to measure how much. "In the absence of the tax cut, job growth might have been weaker than what we actually saw," he said. "My guess is that the tax cut probably boosted employment growth at least a bit. It’s just too soon to be sure, and we’ll probably never know with very much confidence." Still, he added, "it is not very convincing to claim recent job growth has been particularly remarkable." Our ruling McConnell said, "The bottom line is clear: Under the policies of this unified Republican government, American workers, families, and business owners are achieving economic growth that is unmatched in recent memory. … More than 1 million new jobs have been created just since we passed tax reform last December." Officially, it’s 1,037,000 new jobs — and it’s likely that the tax cut had some positive impact. However, it’s questionable to suggest that job growth in the past five months has been especially strong, or that recent rates of job-creation represent some kind of turnaround from a poor performance earlier. Job growth in the past five months is in line with the gains seen in previous five-month periods and in previous January-to-May periods going back nine years. We rate the statement Half True. Correction: The original version of this fact-check misstated the last year the national unemployment rate was 3.8 percent. It was 2000. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mitch McConnell	None	None	None	2018-06-05T11:35:36	2018-06-04	['United_States', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-00401	An Arizona family preparing for a swim found several rattlesnakes hiding inside two pool noodles stored near their home.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/snakes-pool-noodles/	None	Critter Country	None	David Emery	None	Have Rattlesnakes Been Found Inside Pool Noodles?	27 June 2018	None	['Arizona']
-pomt-13060	Says Scott Walker left college "under an ethical cloud for having tried to fix" the election for student body president.	/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/18/howard-dean/one-ex-presidential-candidates-attack-another-scot/	In a post-mortem a week after the presidential election, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the onetime chairman of the Democratic National Committee, offered a biting assessment of why Donald Trump won. "What this was, was basically a populist revolution," Dean said Nov. 15, 2016 on National Public Radio’s "Morning Edition." "Luckily we have a democracy here, so nobody got killed." Dean’s views are relevant because he ran for president in 2004 and because he is running again to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee, which says needs a strategy to win over the white, working-class voters who were pivotal in Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton. But what caught our attention was the interview’s surprising turn toward Wisconsin, when host David Greene asked about Gov. Scott Walker, who briefly ran for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination before dropping out in September 2015. Dean responded with a claim we want to check: Greene: You made some news in early stages of the campaign. You suggested that Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, would not make the best presidential candidate or president because he hadn’t gone to college. That feels like the kind of thing that might really alienate the kinds of working-class voters who the Democratic Party needs to get back. Dean: I think I was referring to the way that he left college, which was under an ethical cloud for having tried to fix the presidential election for the presidency of his college. Greene: So, that was misreported, you’re saying. Dean: No, it wasn’t misreported. I said he wasn’t fit to be president because he didn’t finish college because he cheated, basically. So, Dean claims Walker left college "under an ethical cloud for having tried to fix" the election for student body president. It’s an attack similar to others we’ve evaluated before. Walker’s college days The definitive piece on Walker’s time at Marquette University is a PolitiFact Wisconsin article from 2013 that examined questions about how Walker left the Catholic university in Milwaukee. The election Dean referred to was for student body president in 1988, when Walker was a sophomore. The winner would not only preside over the government, but get a scholarship and expense money. Among other things, Walker pledged safer streets around campus and bringing in cool bands like INXS and REM. The "cheating" Dean alluded to occurred after the Marquette Tribune student newspaper endorsed Walker’s opponent, though it said Walker was qualified. Students said they’d seen Walker campaign workers and/or College Republicans emptying editions of the Tribune from racks in high-traffic buildings. And Walker’s camp plastered campus with an election-eve flier criticizing his opponent’s political tactics. In turn, the Tribune published an election-day editorial headlined, "Walker unfit," and he lost in a landslide. But there was no evidence that the election tiff, or anything else, led to Walker being forced out of Marquette, or that he was barred from participating in campus elections. Marquette confirmed that he was a student in good standing throughout his time at Marquette, including when he left school two years later, as a senior, without getting his degree. He has said he left to accept a job offer from the American Red Cross to do marketing and fundraising. Prior False claims Aside from the article, we’ve also fact checked three statements regarding Walker’s college days. You might see a pattern here. December 2013: We rated False a claim by the Wisconsin Democratic Party that Walker dropped out or was kicked out of college "not long after" he was "kicked out of student elections" at Marquette. March 2015: We rated False Walker’s own claim that he had "unsealed" his Marquette records. He took only the very limited step of authorizing the school to confirm that he was in good standing during his time at Marquette and that he voluntarily withdrew. We haven’t seen any transcripts or other records. August 2015: We rated False a claim in Facebook posts that Walker "had a 2.3 GPA when he was asked to leave Marquette University for cheating." We noted that because Walker had not released his transcripts, some still questioned his move to leave college early, but there was no evidence to prove any part of the claim. Dean’s staff, meanwhile, did not respond to our requests for information to back his claim. Our rating Dean said Walker left college "under an ethical cloud for having tried to fix" the election for student body president. When Walker was a student at Marquette, there were allegations that his supporters confiscated copies of a student newspaper that endorsed Walker's opponent for student government president. But the available evidence shows no action was taken against Walker regarding the newspaper incident. And Walker was officially in good standing throughout his time at Marquette, including when he left school early, without a degree, to take a job. We rate Dean’s statement False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2af1ef0a-e990-409c-b995-61c993c2e5e2	None	Howard Dean	None	None	None	2016-11-18T07:30:00	2016-11-15	['None']
-pomt-07818	"It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak's Acela train in Washington D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010."	/florida/statements/2011/feb/16/rick-scott/rick-scott-cites-amtrak-ridership-numbers-announci/	In his stunning but not totally unexpected announcement to reject $2.4 billion in federal money for high-speed rail, Florida Gov. Rick Scott hammered on rosy ridership projections that he believed weren't attainable. Scott said he was briefed on the most recent ridership studies that found 3.07 million riders would use the 84-mile rail line linking downtown Tampa to the Orlando International Airport. Previous studies said about 2.4 million riders would use the rail line in the first year. "Ridership and revenue projections are historically overly optimistic and would likely result in ongoing subsidies that state taxpayers would have to incur," Scott said during remarks announcing his decision on Feb. 16, 2011. He later offered evidence to back up his assertion that the rail line was, as he called it, high risk. "It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually," Scott said. "Keep in mind that Amtrak's Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market population is eight times the size of Tampa-Orlando." We wanted to check Scott's comparison between the I-4 corridor of Florida and the bustling northeast. Florida's high-speed line was projected to cost around $2.7 billion to build, with the federal government picking up all but about $300 million. The state originally had said it would put up the remaining funds, but legislators recently suggested that a private business be asked to absorb that cost as part of a contract to operate the rail system. Original ridership estimates said 2.4 million people would ride the system, with one-way ticket prices ranging between $15 and $30. A full third of those riders would use the train to move between Disney and Orlando International Airport. Under the original study, ridership was projected to grow to more than 3.5 million passengers per year by 2025. Scott cited an updated estimate on 3.07 million people per year. Governor's office spokesman Brian Hughes said Scott was briefed about the new estimate from the Florida Department of Transportation and that a copy of the formal study was not yet available. That leaves us to take Scott at his word. (We'll update this item if the number proves incorrect.) As for the Acela, Scott is talking about Amtrak's high-speed rail linking the major metro centers of the northeast United States. The train runs between Washington, D.C., and Boston, with stops in Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York. The Acela generally has been considered one of the bright spots in Amtrak's portfolio. Nearly 72 percent of the Acela's 300 seats are selling on peak segments -- figures that have improved substantially over the past five years, the Washington Post reported. And while Amtrak relies on federal subsidies to stay in business, Amtrak officials maintain that the Acela line by itself is profitable. In fiscal year 2010, Amtrak said 3.22 million people rode the Acela, an increase of 200,000 riders compared to 2009. That puts Scott's comparison on solid footing, but it leaves out an important point. The Acela service is just part of the Amtrak system in the northeast. Along with the high-speed Acela, Amtrak operates a more traditional regional rail line connecting the major cities of the northeast. The regional rail line has more stops and is slower. In fiscal year 2010, Amtrak reported that an additional 7.15 million people rode the northeast regional rail line. Total, that means Amtrak trains are serving more than 10 million passengers in the northeast -- not the 3.2 million Scott cited. (For the record, Scott is right about the relative size of the two areas. The population of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the northeast is about a combined 38 million, compared to about 5 million for Tampa-Orlando.) In offering a reason for rejecting $2.4 billion in federal money for high-speed rail, Scott said the ridership projections were overly optimistic, and cited train service in the busy northeast corridor to prove his point. But Scott's reference to the high-speed Acela is only one form of service in that corridor, and he omitted the bigger chunk of Amtrak's passengers when comparing ridership. That's an important detail that would have added more context. We find this claim Half True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-02-16T16:32:11	2011-02-16	['Boston', 'Philadelphia', 'New_York_City', 'Washington,_D.C.', 'Amtrak', 'Baltimore']
-tron-01402	Mechanically separated chicken for food	https://www.truthorfiction.com/msm/	None	food	None	None	None	Mechanically separated chicken for food	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02147	Says Virginia House Republicans are sacrificing $5 million a day in U.S. funds by refusing to expand Medicaid.	/virginia/statements/2014/may/05/democratic-party-virginia/virginia-democrats-says-state-giving-5-million-day/	Virginia is turning down a fortune in federal aid every day the Republican-led House of Delegates refuses to expand Medicaid, according to the state Democratic Party. "Today alone, @VAHouseGOP wasted $5 mil of our tax $ by refusing to #ClosetheGap," the Democratic Party tweeted on April 15. We decided to take a look at the $5 million-a-day figure, which has been uttered by a wide circle of politicians seeking to broaden Medicaid eligibility in Virginia, including Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, and Republican Sen. John Watkins of Powhatan. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility to people earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line, about $16,104 in a one-person household and $21,707 in a two-person household. Uncle Sam will pick up the entire tab for new enrollees during the next three years and pay 90 percent of the cost down the road. The House has twice refused to broaden the program, saying the federal government can’t be trusted to pay its promised share. A stalemate between the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate is delaying passage of a two-year state budget. Ashley Bauman, a spokeswoman for the state Democratic Party, said the $5 million-a- day figure originates from The Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis, a think tank that analyzes state policies with a focus on their effects on low- and moderate-income people. In February 2013, it released a one-page paper saying if Virginia expanded Medicaid eligibility by the start of 2014, "the state would be able to draw down about $5 million per day in federal funds." Michael Cassidy, president of the institute, told us it used 2012 estimates by the state’s Medicaid agency of the amount of federal money that would flow into Virginia if the Old Dominion began expansion on Jan. 1, 2014 -- the earliest date permissible. Such action would bring $2.99 billion of federal money into the state between the start of 2014 through June 30, 2015, the agency projected. The Commonwealth Institute then divided the $3 billion by the number of days in the span, 546. The daily cost to the federal government would be $5,494,505. But Virginia’s Medicaid agency has since lowered its estimate of expansion costs. Its actuary, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, found that the cost per new enrollee has been lower than expected in states that have expanded their programs. That’s because the new Medicaid recipients are less likely to be disabled or require long-term care than those who already had been receiving benefits. The new estimates were released in January 2014. Assuming that expansion in Virginia would begin this July 1, the state’s Medicaid agency estimated it would receive $1,264,366,699 in new federal payments through June 30, 2015. That breaks down to $3,464,018 a day. The total federal dollars will increase over the decade as more people enroll in expanded Medicaid. The agency projects it would receive an extra $1,655,080,206 from Washington during the state budget year that begins July 1, 2015. That breaks down to $4,522,077 a day. Our ruling The state Democratic Party says Virginia is losing out on $5 million a day in federal funding by not expanding its Medicaid program. It throws that figure at the feet of the Republican-led House of Delegates, which twice has rejected expansion. No doubt, there’s a tremendous amount of federal money at stake. As many as 400,000 Virginians could become eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare, and the U.S. would pay their entire health care costs through 2016. But the $5 million-a-day figure comes from an old state estimate. The most recent estimate of expansion costs, released in January, breaks down to about $3.5 million a day for the budget year that starts this July 1. The federal contribution would be about $4.5 million a day during the following budget year, starting in mid-2015. That’s lots of money, but not as much as the Democrats say the House is now bypassing. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Democratic Party of Virginia	None	None	None	2014-05-05T00:16:30	2014-04-15	['United_States', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-11986	Ending the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-pants-fire-claim-about-estate-tax-sm/	During a speech in Indianapolis launching his proposal for tax overhaul legislation, President Donald Trump said that one element of the plan -- elimination of the estate tax -- would lift a burden on many family businesses and farms. "To protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer, we are finally ending the crushing, the horrible, the unfair estate tax, or as it is often referred to, the death tax," Trump said in his Sept. 27 speech. He continued, "That means, especially for all of you with small businesses that are really tremendous businesses, you’ll be able to leave them to your family, and your family won’t have to run out and do a fire sale to try and get the money to pay the tax. ... The farmers in particular are affected. They have wonderful farms, but they can't pay the tax, so they have to sell the farm. … So that death tax is a disaster for this country and a disaster for so many small businesses and farmers." We’ve addressed the question of how many small businesses and farmers pay the estate tax in previous fact-checks, but Trump’s assertion that eliminating the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer" goes well beyond what we’ve heard before. And the data doesn’t support it. The estate tax comes into play when someone dies and their estate is large enough to qualify for the tax. The estate tax was first established in 1916 to offset a decline in tariff revenue caused by the first World War, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Congress has tinkered with it many times throughout the years. In 2017, estates worth less than $5.49 million are exempt from the tax, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Above $5.49 million, the estate is generally taxed at 40 percent. However, family-owned farms and closely-held businesses may be able to pay less or pay in low-interest installments. So how many estates are affected by the tax? Not many, and the people who pay it are usually among the country’s richest families. For 2017, the Tax Policy Center estimated, based on past tax data and modeling, that 11,310 individuals will have estates big enough to file an estate tax return. "After allowing for deductions and credits, 5,460 estates will owe tax," the center concluded. "Over two-thirds of these taxable estates will come from the top 10 percent of income earners and close to one-fourth will come from the top 1 percent alone." The top 10 percent of income earners would pay 88 percent of estate tax revenues, the center found, while the richest 0.1 percent could pay 27 percent. How about small businesses and farms? The center projected that only about 80 small farms and closely held businesses would pay any estate tax in 2017. That would amount to about 1 percent of all payers of the estate tax that year. And the estate tax revenue from small businesses and farms, the center said, would amount to fifteen-hundredths of 1 percent of the total paid under the estate tax in 2017. So, getting rid of the estate tax would hardly "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer," as Trump put it. Trump's claim doesn't hold up even if you account for small businesses and farms that would potentially benefit from elimination down the road. The number from the Tax Policy Center (80) only refers to the number of small businesses and farms that would have to pay the tax this year. Multiplying the amount of small business and farm-based estate taxpayers who are living today by deaths over the next 70 years would still just result in 5,600 small businesses or farms potentially relieved of the tax — vastly smaller than Trump’s "millions." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Our ruling Trump said that ending the estate tax would "protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer." That’s a ridiculously high estimate. Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, according to a credible estimate, and of those, about 80 represented small businesses or farms. We rate the statement Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-09-28T11:54:21	2017-09-27	['United_States']
-pomt-01116	Under the "cromnibus" law, taxpayers must guarantee "incredibly risky" derivatives deals made by the nation's largest banks.	/wisconsin/statements/2015/jan/07/mark-pocan/new-law-means-taxpayers-must-back-banks-incredibly/	Most of us don't deal in investments known as derivatives, but most of us use banks. That means we should worry about the so-called "cromnibus bill" passed recently by Congress, according to U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison. "Our taxpayer money will back them up on these incredibly risky ventures for the biggest banks out there that do these," Pocan said Dec. 17, 2014 on a Madison-area liberal talk show. So, Pocan is claiming that derivatives are "incredibly risky" financial ventures. And that the new federal law requires taxpayers to back up banks that lose money on them. "Cromnibus" As Pocan indicated, Congress approved a major bill that includes a provision affecting derivatives. The $1.1 trillion measure, signed by President Barack Obama the day before Pocan made his claim, avoided a government shutdown. In the word "cromnibus," the "cr" refers to a Continuing Resolution, or a stop-gap spending bill, to keep the Department of Homeland Security operating into February 2015. And omnibus refers to a catchall bill to fund the rest of the government, through September 2015. Derivatives Derivatives, as PolitiFact National has reported, are an unusual kind of an investment whose value depends on an underlying asset. For example: An airline has to buy jet fuel over the coming year to run its planes. If oil prices skyrocket, the airline loses money. So it enters into an agreement that will pay if oil prices increase, lowering its potential for losses. So, derivatives aren’t inherently bad or high-risk. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog has observed, before the 2008 financial crisis "Wall Street firms used more complicated derivative formulas to place risky bets on the mortgage market." They were at the center of the financial meltdown. The risk The financial crisis led to the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One of its rules requires banks to push some derivatives trading into separate units that do not have access to federal deposit insurance. In other words, banks could continue to hold derivatives, but in special subsidiaries that didn’t benefit from government backing in the form of FDIC insurance. Since Dodd-Frank took effect, banks have sought to change that rule so they can once again use their deposits to underwrite some more complex derivative trades. And the cromnibus bill rolls back that Dodd-Frank provision. The libertarian Reason Foundation worried about the rollback: "The Dodd-Frank rule prevented traditional banks from betting on financial derivatives with federally insured deposits. The banks could still trade in such exotic securities, but they had to do so with their own capital stock, through non-bank affiliates unsecured by FDIC backing. The idea was to prevent future bailouts like the ones that took place" in 2008. Two national financial publications, however, saw more of a middle ground. Wall Street banks such as Citicorp and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. were "thrilled" with the change made by the cromnibus. But the measure "doesn’t completely let them off the hook," the Wall Street Journal wrote. The change would affect requirements under the Dodd-Frank law that banks spin off certain derivatives-trading activities into units that don’t enjoy access to the government safety net. But the banks would still have to spin off certain riskier derivative transactions "that helped bring American International Group Inc. to the brink of failure in the 2008 financial crisis." Similarly, the Fiscal Times concluded that the cromnibus provision does not mean "that when banks lose money on swaps and derivatives trades, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will have to make them whole. It also doesn’t suggest that, when a bank fails, the taxpayers have to bail out depositors. "The money the FDIC holds in the Deposit Insurance Fund, and uses to reimburse depositors in failed banks, doesn’t come from taxpayers. It comes from the banks themselves. Secondly, there is no sense in which the FDIC is on the hook to make banks whole if a swaps deal or derivatives trade goes bad. The FDIC insures deposits – hence the name – not the bank itself." New York University finance professor Stephen Figlewski, founding editor of the Journal of Derivatives, also staked out more of a middle ground in sizing up Pocan’s claim. Only a small number of the derivatives deals could be considered "incredibly risky," he told us, noting that because of other Dodd-Frank provisions, derivatives have become considerably less risky. And while it is true that taxpayers bear some risk, given that the government guarantees banks as a whole, the risk to taxpayers "is much less than (Pocan) wants you to think," Figlewski said. Louisiana State University finance professor Don Chance, the author of two books on derivatives, also told us Pocan’s claim is partly correct but goes too far. Our rating Pocan said that under the federal "cromnibus" law, taxpayers must guarantee "incredibly risky" derivatives deals made by the nation's largest banks. The federal spending measure does include a provision that makes it easier for banks to use federally insured funds to invest in some investments known as derivatives. But not all derivatives are considered high-risk investments, and there is disagreement over just how much risk the new provision poses for taxpayers. For a statement that is partially accurate but leaves out important details, our rating is Half True.	None	Mark Pocan	None	None	None	2015-01-07T05:00:00	2014-12-17	['None']
-pose-00055	"Expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/58/expand-eligibility-for-state-childrens-health-ins/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Expand eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)	2010-01-07T13:26:46	None	['None']
-hoer-00924	PDS (Parcel Delivery Service) Premium Rate Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/pds-parcel-delivery-service-premium-rate-scam-warning/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	PDS (Parcel Delivery Service) Premium Rate Scam Warning	November 10, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03499	The 'Podesta e-mails' revealed the existence of a secret society of pedophiles operating through a pizza place loosely connected to Clinton associate David Brock.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pizzagate-conspiracy/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria Home to Child Abuse Ring Led by Hillary Clinton	21 November 2016	None	['David_Brock', 'Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-09575	"We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-says-lobbyists-have-been-excluded-policy-mak/	In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touted his efforts to bar lobbyists from his administration. "We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions," he said on Jan. 27, 2010. That rang a bell with us because we have tracked a campaign promise he made on that topic. He had promised that "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." We rated that one a Promise Broken because his policy has substantial loopholes that have allowed Obama to essentially decide when he wants to ignore the rule. He's right that on his first day in office, he signed an executive order to bar lobbyists from his administration. But the order also included a loophole — a "waiver" clause that allows former lobbyists to serve. Waivers are granted by the administration itself, so they are little more than the administration saying it's okay for the lobbyist to work for the administration. The executive order says a waiver may be granted if "the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction" or "it is in the public interest. ... The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy." Another provision allows lobbyists to serve if they agree to recuse themselves from discussions related to their former jobs. Still, open government groups have given Obama high marks for reducing the number of lobbyists at the White House and for making the process more transparent than other administrations. "I think that by any fair measure ... the reported number is certainly much fewer," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center. "In fact, I'd say the waivers are good. It allows them to go in and say, 'Here's someone we think has unique skills.' " One of the first Obama appointees to get a waiver was William J. Lynn to be deputy secretary of defense, the No. 2 position at the Pentagon. Lynn was a Raytheon lobbyist for six years, lobbying extensively on a broad range of defense-related issues. Jocelyn Frye, director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, also got a waiver. Previously, Frye lobbied for the National Partnership for Women and Families from 2001 to 2008. The organization advocates for fairness in the workplace, access to health care and "policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of work and family." And Cecilia Muñoz, director of intergovernmental affairs in the Executive Office of the President, manages the White House's relationships with state and local governments and is a principal liaison to the Hispanic community. Formerly, Muñoz formerly lobbied for National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization. The White House has issued seven waivers to its ethics rules, which apply to lobbyists as well as to people who served as officers and directors of a company or organization. And agencies have issued 15. The White House has said these waivers are quite rare -- less than 1 percent of the thousands of appointments that have been made. What about those recusals we mentioned earlier? The administration has not made public how many of these have been issued. We do know that Mark Patterson, the chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, took one -- but that information was only released by the White House after lawmakers and media reports started asking questions. Public records show Patterson worked as a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs in 2008. Obama said that he has "excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs." But that's not the case. We know of at least four that have taken on policymaking roles in the Obama administration -- Frye's title even contains the word "policy." While these appointments may be few and far between, and while those who made the cut have signed special waivers, we give Obama a False on this claim.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-01-27T22:42:15	2010-01-27	['None']
-pomt-02827	On changing the rules for filibusters on presidential nominees	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-among-flip-floppers-senates-nuclear-o/	"What (the American people) don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet." Then-Sen. Barack Obama, remarks on Senate floor, April 13, 2005 "I support the step a majority of senators today took to change the way that Washington is doing business — more specifically, the way the Senate does business. What a majority of senators determined … is that they would restore the longstanding tradition of considering judicial and public service nominations on a more routine basis." President Obama, remarks on Senate efforts to confirm presidential nominees, Nov. 21, 2013 After years of threats and retreats by both parties, the Democratic Senate majority on Nov. 21, 2013, enacted a controversial rule change called the "nuclear option." The change eliminated the filibuster — a blockage of floor action, typically by the chamber’s minority party — for executive branch nominations as well as judicial appointments short of the Supreme Court. Under the new rule, the Senate only needs a 51-vote majority instead of a 60-vote supermajority to end a filibuster and move to a final vote on a nomination. The question of whether to change the rule has long divided the chamber’s majority and its minority. In fact, supporting or opposing the "nuclear option" has been much more closely linked to a senator’s position in the majority or the minority than whether they’re a Republican or Democrat. This means that both sides in this recent faceoff made different arguments than they had in previous iterations of the battle. Following the decision, President Barack Obama gave a press conference lauding and supporting the change, which was implemented with the support of all but a few Democrats and no Republicans. Yet the president had strongly condemned the maneuver during his own time as a senator. Time to take out the Flip-O-Meter! PolitiFact’s Flip-O-Meter rates politicians' consistency on particular topics from No Flip to Full Flop. The meter is not intended to pass judgment on whether the change is justified or not. It simply looks at whether they did, indeed, change their stated position. We’ll take a look back to 2005, when the partisan lineup was substantially different. President George W. Bush had recently won a second term, while his fellow Republicans had a majority in the Senate. (The House was also controlled by Republicans, but the House isn’t directly involved in the filibuster fight.) In the Senate, the Democratic minority had filibustered a number of Bush’s judicial appointments, displeasing Republicans, who seriously considered implementing the nuclear option that would allow them to confirm judges with a simple majority. The effort drew the outrage of Democrats, among them then-Sen. Barack Obama, who had won his seat the previous November: "What (the American people) don't expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet," Obama said on the Senate floor in April 2013. He added, "If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party and the millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice, I fear the partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything." The threat to go nuclear was eventually rescinded when a bipartisan group of senators – the "Gang of 14" – pledged to block the effort. Seven Democrats agreed to no longer support their party’s filibusters on judicial nominees, while seven Republicans promised not to vote with their colleagues to invoke the nuclear option. Fast-forward to 2013. Now, Democrats held the White House and a Senate majority. The Republican minority had been stalling nominations and appointments by Obama, including filibustering the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Senate Democrats decided to go nuclear after the Senate GOP made clear that they had no intention of allowing three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be filled. At that point, Senate Democrats took the opposite view they had taken in 2005. Led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., they successfully invoked the nuclear option in a near-party-line vote, 52-48. Obama flipped his position as well. In a statement supporting the rule change, he explained that it would bring the "longstanding tradition of considering judicial and public service nominations on a more routine basis." "A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to refight the result of an election is not normal, and for the sake of future generations, we can't let it become normal, " Obama said. Our ruling In 2005, Obama strongly condemned a proposed Senate rule change by the Republican majority. This week, with a Democratic majority, he supported it. We rate this a Full Flop.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2013-11-22T18:34:02	2013-11-21	['None']
-pomt-09465	"The lifespan of the average American is less than that of people in nations that spend far less (on health care). ... To put it bluntly, we spend more and die sooner."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/03/mitt-romney/romney-says-americans-pay-more-health-care-die-soo/	In his new book, No Apology, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney devotes a chapter to health care policy -- a topic that animated his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. Romney, working with a Democratic-dominated legislature, passed a health care overhaul that was designed to get his state as close to universal coverage as possible. Romney is now often discussed as a presidential candidate for 2012, which has forced him into an uncomfortable balancing act: He seeks to lead a party intent on blocking President Barack Obama's health care proposal, even though he himself enacted a plan that, according to many sources we interviewed earlier this year, shares much in common with what Obama is proposing. We looked through the health care chapter of Romney's book as well as transcripts of his recent media appearances, but we were unable to locate a clear, fact-checkable statement addressing the similarities and differences between the two bills. (He broached the issue on a number of occasions, but in each case he phrased his statements in such a way that made it difficult for us to subject them to the Truth-O-Meter.) So while Romney did not compare the Massachusetts plan with Obama's proposal, in his book he compared the U.S. system with other nations'. "The lifespan of the average American is less than that of people in nations that spend far less" on health care, Romney wrote, adding, "To put it bluntly, we spend more and die sooner." The first place we looked was the statistical archive of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group that represents 30 advanced, industrialized nations, mostly in Europe, Asia and North America. Scholars consider OECD figures to be among the most reliable for international comparisons on health care. First, we'll look at life expectancy -- the number of years someone born in a certain year can expect to live. The OECD's most recent figures, for either 2005 or 2006 (the year varies by country), show that the United States ranks 24th -- well under the average level for the 30 nations studied. Specifically, life expectancy in the United States was 77.8 years. That put it behind the following nations, in descending order: Japan (at 82.4 years in 2006), Switzerland, Iceland, Spain, Australia, Italy, France, Sweden, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Portugal and Denmark. Meanwhile, health and population economists at the World Health Organization devised another measure to gauge life expectancy -- disability-adjusted life expectancy, or how many years one can expect to live before becoming disabled by old-age illnesses. WHO did its last full-blown international comparison of DALE, as it is abberviated, in 2000, and the results are much the same. The United States ranked 24th on the WHO list with exactly 70 years of DALE. It trailed Japan (with 74.5), Australia, France, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Iceland, Finland, Malta, Germany and Israel. Now, we'll look at health care expenditures. There are two ways to measure this -- by expenditures per capita, or by expenditures as a percentage of GDP. However you measure it, we're No. 1 -- by a mile. Using the first measure, the OECD reports that the United States spent $7,290 on health care per capita in 2007. The only two other countries where per capita health care expenditures exceeded even $4,000 were Norway and Switzerland. Using the second measure, the United States spent more than 15 percent of GDP on health care in 2006, according to the OECD. Only Switzerland and France exceeded 11 percent. To take one extreme case, South Korea spends less than a quarter per capita of what the United States spends on health care -- yet its people, on average, live past 79 years of age, which is more than one full year longer than Americans do. Ali Mokdad, a professor in global health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, attributes the United States' poor showing in part to a lack of emphasis on preventive care. "We have fallen behind other countries in tackling the root causes of mortality and disease," Mokdad said. "We know, for example, that just reducing salt in people’s diets can save more than 100,000 lives a year, but there is much more discussion in this country about health insurance, which would save, at best, about half as many people." Whatever the reason, and however you measure it, Americans "spend more and die sooner," as Romney so bluntly put it. We rate his statement True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2010-03-03T18:15:17	2010-03-02	['United_States']
-snes-02278	First Lady Melania Trump banned all Monsanto products from the White House after reading about the dangers of genetically modified foods.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-bans-monsanto/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Melania Trump Bans Monsanto Products from the White House?	4 June 2017	None	['White_House', 'Monsanto']
-snes-02119	Photograph shows a new Boeing 797 blended-wing airliner.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boeing-797/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Boeing 797	31 March 2012	None	['Boeing']
-goop-02327	Janet Jackson “Shocking Slimdown” From Plastic Surgery, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/janet-jackson-weight-loss-plastic-surgery/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Janet Jackson “Shocking Slimdown” NOT From Plastic Surgery, Despite Speculative Report	8:28 pm, October 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02821	Over-the-counter painkiller paracetamol is contaminated with the Machupo virus and should be avoided.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paracetamol-warning/	None	Medical	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Paracetamol Contaminated with the Deadly ‘Machupo’ Virus?	7 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-15045	Every general City of Milwaukee employee "pays toward his or her pension, but approximately 88 percent of our police officers and firefighters do not."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/30/tom-barrett/vast-majority-milwaukee-police-and-firefighters-ma/	Unlike every other City of Milwaukee employee, the vast majority of Milwaukee police officers and firefighters make no contributions to their pensions, Mayor Tom Barrett says. Strictly speaking, he’s right. But it’s not quite that simple. Barrett’s claim Presenting his 2016 budget to the Common Council on Sept. 22, 2015, Barrett said he would eliminate three unpaid furlough days that had been imposed on police officers as a cost-saving measure. He said that’s a cost to the city of $1.5 million. In return, the mayor wants the police officers union to agree, during collective bargaining with the city, to more pension contributions from police officers. (Firefighters have not had furlough days, but the city is seeking in contract negotiations more pension contributions from them, as well.) "Today we have a situation where each and every general city employee pays toward his or her pension," Barrett told the aldermen, "but approximately 88 percent of our police officers and firefighters do not." The numbers To check Barrett’s 88 percent claim, we asked for figures from the city pension office on what percentage of city employees make contributions -- as a portion of their pay -- toward their pensions. There are four groups of employees. Here’s the breakdown: Employee group Percentage of employees who contribute to pensions General employees 100% Police officers 11.6% Firefighters 12.3% Elected officials 100% So, Barrett is correct: 88.4 percent of police officers -- along with and 87.7 percent of firefighters -- do not make direct contributions to their pensions. Here’s how that came to be. Pension vs wages, Act 10 As we’ve noted, generally speaking, pension funds are built by contributions made from employees and from employers. But it has long been the case in Wisconsin that many public employers, such as Milwaukee, have covered both the employee and employer contributions. Jerry Allen, executive director of the city pension system, told us that around 1970, unions for the various City of Milwaukee employee groups negotiated contracts in which employees made concessions on wage increases in exchange for the city picking up their pension contributions. John Barmore, vice president of the Milwaukee Professional Fire Fighters union, told us the city sought the so-called "pickup" because both inflation and pay raises were relatively high in the early 1970s. By accepting lower raises, employees have, in effect, continued contributing to their pensions even though no direct employee payments are made, he said. Mike Crivello, president of the Milwaukee Police Association union, made the same point. In 2010, the City of Milwaukee began requiring general city employees hired in 2010 or later to make pension contributions. Then in 2011, Gov. Scott Walker’s Act 10 became law. It requires state and local government employees in Wisconsin -- except for police, firefighters and other public safety workers -- to make pension contributions, as well as to pay higher health insurance premiums. For the City of Milwaukee, that meant general city employees hired before 2010 also had to start making pension contributions. The city also used Act 10 to require that police officers and firefighters hired on or after Oct. 3, 2011 contribute 7 percent of their wages toward their pensions. But it remains to be seen whether unions representing police and firefighters will agree in their contract bargaining to Barrett’s call to have officers and firefighters hired before Oct. 3, 2011 make pension contributions. Barrett has not indicated that he would reinstate furlough days for police officers if they don’t agree to the pension contributions. But he has suggested that the pension issue could affect another priority of the police union: adding more officers. "So I’m fully prepared to have a meaningful conversation about police staffing levels," said in his budget address. "What I’m not going to do is cut public health nurses. I am not going to slow down the reconstruction of neighborhood libraries, gut our increased commitments to infrastructure or interrupt our efforts to build strong neighborhoods and put people to work. The best option is the fair option: everyone should be contributing toward his or her pension." Our rating Barrett said every general City of Milwaukee employee "pays toward his or her pension, but approximately 88 percent of our police officers and firefighters do not." The Act 10 collective bargaining law, adopted in 2011, requires most public employees in Wisconsin, including all general City of Milwaukee employees, to make contributions toward their pensions. Because the law exempts police and firefighters, only Milwaukee police officers and firefighters hired since late 2011 make pension contributions -- the vast majority, 88 percent, do not. However, it’s worth noting that the police and firefighter unions in effect are paying toward their pension in that they made wage concessions in exchange for not making direct contributions to their pensions. We rate Barrett's statement Mostly True. More on City of Milwaukee Ald. Nik Kovac says police, fire workers routinely get 4% raises (False) Milwaukee Police Association says it has offered several million dollars in savings in contract negotiations with the City of Milwaukee (Mostly False)	None	Tom Barrett	None	None	None	2015-09-30T05:00:00	2015-09-22	['Milwaukee']
-snes-04864	Landmarks all over the world were bathed in purple light to honor Prince after his death in April 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/landmarks-purple-prince-photos/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Landmarks Went Purple in Honor of Prince?	26 April 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02056	A photograph shows two women getting golf lessons from a robot golf instructor.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lady-golfers-robot-trainer/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are These Golfers Getting Lessons from a Robot Trainer?	17 July 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05354	"Just remember this: the president's health care bill put 30 million people on health care rolls that weren't there before."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/11/frank-lautenberg/frank-lautenberg-claims-national-health-care-refor/	Many provisions of the national health care reform law have yet to take effect, but U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg recently made it sound like the landmark legislation already has brought coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans. The Democratic senator visited the Rutgers-Camden campus last week to discuss an effort to prevent student loan interest rates from increasing. But in response to a question about health care coverage, Lautenberg touted the benefits of the reform signed into law in March 2010. "Just remember this: the president's health care bill put 30 million people on health care rolls that weren't there before," Lautenberg told the crowd on May 3. The number cited by Lautenberg is solid, but the timing is off, PolitiFact New Jersey found. The health care reform is estimated to provide insurance coverage to about 30 million additional people, but not until after many of the law’s provisions are implemented in the years ahead. At the earliest, the number of newly insured Americans would reach 30 million in 2016, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. In a statement, Lautenberg spokesman Caley Gray responded to our findings: "The President's health care reform bill is working for millions of people. It's going to put at least 30 million people on the rolls and millions in New Jersey have already benefited from new access, lower costs and better service." Now, let’s explain some of the major features of the health care reform. Signed into law by President Barack Obama, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes various measures to boost health insurance coverage. Some of the most notable provisions are the individual mandate; the expansion of Medicaid; and the creation of insurance exchanges. The individual mandate is the requirement that residents have health insurance, with certain exemptions. Medicaid eligibility will be expanded to individuals under 65 years of age with income below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Individuals and small businesses will be able to purchase private health insurance through the new exchanges. Each of those provisions takes effect on Jan. 1, 2014. Given the impact of those provisions, the health care reform is projected to increase the number of nonelderly individuals with health insurance by 30 million as of 2016, according to estimates released in March by the Congressional Budget Office. That number would increase to 33 million in 2021, the budget office said. However, the forthcoming decision of the U.S. Supreme Court could throw off those projections. The nation’s highest court heard arguments in March about, among other issues, the constitutionality of the individual mandate. If the individual mandate is eliminated, the budget office has stated about 16 million fewer Americans would have health insurance in 2021. Our ruling During his May 3 appearance on the Rutgers-Camden campus, Lautenberg made this claim about the health care reform law: "Just remember this: the president's health care bill put 30 million people on health care rolls that weren't there before." Based on the latest projections, the health care reform may lead to insurance coverage for about 30 million additional Americans -- but contrary to what Lautenberg suggested, that has not happened yet. The increase in newly insured people is estimated to reach 30 million in 2016. We rate the statement Half True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Frank Lautenberg	None	None	None	2012-05-11T07:30:00	2012-05-03	['None']
-hoer-00773	1956 Hard Disk Drive - Disk Storage Unit for 305 RAMAC Computer	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/1956-hard-disk-drive.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	1956 Hard Disk Drive - Disk Storage Unit for 305 RAMAC Computer	April 2009	None	['None']
-snes-05153	A photograph shows a man standing on top of a pile of bison skulls.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pile-bison-bones-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Photo Shows Man Standing on Large Pile of Bison Skulls?	25 February 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-00611	Water Bottles Airport Drug Smuggling Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-water-bottle-airport-drug-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake Water Bottles Airport Drug Smuggling Warning	October 9, 2013	None	['None']
-abbc-00285	The gap between rich and poor is reaching fresh extremes, according to a new Oxfam report.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/are-62-people-as-wealthy-as-bottom-50-per-cent-oxfam/7114666	Oxfam's claim is in the ballpark. Its calculations on the wealth of the richest and poorest people in the world accurately reflect its original sources, the Global Wealth Databook, and the Forbes billionaires list. The experts Fact Check consulted said that the data Oxfam had used was the best available, despite inherent limitations. However, the experts said the data was not robust enough to make conclusions about the change in wealth inequality over time.	['economic-trends', 'money-and-monetary-policy', 'poverty']	None	None	['economic-trends', 'money-and-monetary-policy', 'poverty']	Fact check: Do the world's 62 richest people hold the same wealth as the poorest 50 per cent?	Wed 3 Feb 2016, 1:59am	None	['None']
-snes-03260	Donald Trump threatened military action against Mexico in a tweet sent on Christmas Eve.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-threatened-military-action-against-mexico/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Trump Threatened Military Action Against Mexico?	27 December 2016	None	['Christmas_Eve', 'Mexico', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-05143	A video shows the first person to climb "the Bean" in Chicago.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bean-climber-video-chicago/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Video Shows Person Who Climbed Chicago’s Bean?	29 February 2016	None	['Chicago']
-pomt-04510	Says Austin voters can approve seven bond propositions "without raising taxes."	/texas/statements/2012/oct/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-voters-can-approve-bond-propo/	Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell floated a pocketbook reason to support bond proposals placed on the November 2012 ballot by the Austin City Council. "These seven bond proposals offer Austinites an important opportunity to invest in our community’s future without raising taxes," Leffingwell said in an Aug. 31, 2012, press release from a group backing the bonds. Leffingwell, who chairs the Unity PAC urging voter support of the bond propositions, aired his reference to taxes less than two weeks before he voted, alone among council members, against approval of the city’s new $3.1 billion budget. At the body’s Sept. 11, 2012, meeting, Leffingwell said the council had failed to try hard enough to scale back a planned property tax increase. Under the budget, which took effect Oct. 1, the property tax rate grows from 48.11 cents per $100 of property value to 50.29 cents. That means a city tax bill of $897 for the owners of a median-value Austin home of $178,327, a $20 increase over the previous year. So, would approval of the $385 million in proposed bonds not raise taxes? The proposed bonds reflect what remains from an original wish list of $1.3 billion in possible bond-backed projects, the Austin American-Statesman has reported. The balloted bonds would pay to renovate libraries, improve parks, repair roads and build or repair low-income housing. They amount to Austin's first full-scale bond package since 2006. By email, Unity PAC spokesman Mark Nathan said Leffingwell’s no-tax-increase claim stems from a December 2011 analysis presented by city staffers to the council showing that some $385 million in general-obligation bonds could be issued without requiring an increase in the city’s existing debt service property tax rate, meaning the rate needed to generate enough revenue to pay the bonds’ principal and interest costs. Indeed, a chart in the presentation indicates that the issuance of $385 million in bonds would keep the debt tax rate steady. The chart indicates that issuing up to $725 million in bonds would require up to a 3-cent increase in the debt rate. However, another chart in the presentation indicates that if $385 million in bonds were issued, the average homeowner would still pay $38 more in city taxes as of 2016. The chart says that would be the increase in city taxes on a $200,000 home, taking into account modest expected increases in assessed values. By email, Nathan told us there is no certainty property valuations will go up, so it’s possible taxpayers would not pay more in taxes due to valuations. The Statesman’s Dec. 17, 2011, news article drawing on the presentation quotes Greg Canally, a city finance officer, explaining that the debt tax rate could be kept steady despite the issuance of $385 million in fresh bonds because the city is continually retiring previously issued debt. Overall, the story says, the city's tax rate at the time was 48.11 cents per $100 valuation, including the 12.6 cents to pay debt on previously approved bonds. Of late, the debt tax rate is 12 cents, an adjustment driven by an uptick in home valuations, the city says. In his email, Nathan reminded that council members only hold sway over the city’s tax rates. Property valuations are overseen by the Travis Central Appraisal District. "That's why, in my experience, it's almost always the vernacular of elected officials, and very frequently of the media as well, to mean ‘tax rates’ when speaking of ‘taxes,’" Nathan wrote. Nathan noted the Statesman’s Aug. 15, 2012, news article on the council giving preliminary approval to putting the bond issues on the ballot, which included: "The council wants a bond package no larger than $385 million because that number will not require a property tax increase." The story also brings up the possible tax impact of the bond proposals not happening: "If the bond package isn't placed on the ballot or doesn't pass, the debt portion of the city's tax rate would probably stay roughly the same over the next few years, then could go down in 2015, 2016 and 2017, city budget staffers said. They have no estimate of what the decrease would be." In a telephone interview, Canally told us that if none of the bond propositions pass, the debt tax rate would drop about two cents over about five years starting in 2015, "all other things being equal." On a $200,000 house, the resulting city-tied tax reduction would be about $40, he said. A key factor would be changes in home valuations. If valuations surge, there would be less pressure on tax rates, while if valuations drop, there would be pressure to raise rates. Canally said that since the early 2000s, the city’s debt tax rate has dropped from about 21 cents per $100 valuation as a result of increases in home valuations. By email, Nathan agreed the debt tax rate would drop two cents should the bond propositions fail, presuming the city issues outstanding bonds previously approved by voters as planned; city assumptions about assessed valuations hold true; and voters authorize and the city issues no additional general-obligation debt. Our ruling Leffingwell said the bond propositions offer an opportunity to invest "without raising taxes." No tax-rate increase would be required. But this statement overlooks the fact that taxes paid by homeowners and others would still be going up a bit, presuming expected increases in property valuations. Also unsaid: The debt rate would decrease two cents as of 2015 if the propositions fail to pass. Leffingwell’s claim leaves out important details. It rates Half True.	None	Lee Leffingwell	None	None	None	2012-10-04T06:00:00	2012-08-31	['None']
-snes-02267	A photograph shows a man mowing his lawn during a tornado.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-mowed-lawn-tornado/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Man Mowed Lawn During Tornado?	5 June 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-12429	It is a myth that Florida's education legislation was "negotiated in secret."	/florida/statements/2017/may/17/richard-corcoran/florida-house-speaker-richard-corcoran-misleads-ab/	Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran says his critics are wrong that the main education bill was hammered out behind closed doors. "Time to end the myth of ‘legislation negotiated in secret.’ #transparency #HB7069 #PutKidsFirst," Corcoran tweeted May 12. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Corcoran tweeted that it is "fiction" to say that the "best and brightest teachers and principals provision in HB 7069 was NOT made public." "Fact: these provisions were contained in HB 7069 which was filed on March 10, 2017 passed two committees and the House 79-38 on April 13th, 2017." We found the original legislation about teacher bonuses for the "best and brightest" was unveiled and voted on in public; however, the final version of the bill and important details were negotiated out of the public eye. Mammoth education bill hammered out at end of session The legislative session began in March with dozens of education bills in the House and Senate. Many bills moved their way through the traditional legislative process of public committee hearings and votes. But at the end of the session, at least 55 bills were crammed into one mammoth $419 million, 278-page education bill negotiated by legislative leaders. The final outcome is now in the hands of Gov. Rick Scott, who can veto the entire education bill or sign it in the coming weeks. In March, both chambers produced bills -- HB 7069 in the House and SB 1552 in the Senate -- to expand eligibility criteria for bonuses to top public school teachers under the Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. Lawmakers wanted to add in bonuses for principals, and the House budget proposal called for $214 million to the expanded program in the 2017-18 budget, up from the $49 million this year. Two House committees voted in favor of the bill at public meetings on March 10 and March 29. Although senators also expressed interest in expanding the program, the Senate’s initial budget proposal included no such funding. The decision was part of a strategic move in hopes that the Senate would get some of its priorities in later negotiations with the House. On April 13, the House version passed the House (79-38). The Senate voted unanimously -- but not to pass the bill, rather to send it to budget conference. HB 7069 was among four K-12 policy bills sent into conference negotiations. Conference negotiations between members of both the House and Senate are common to work out differences in spending allocations, but it is unusual to resolve policy disagreements. Watchdogs raised concerns that policy and funding decisions would be hashed out in secret. Legislative leaders repeatedly vowed a transparent process. But by Saturday, April 29 -- three days before lawmakers needed to agree on a final total state budget in order to end session on time -- House and Senate leaders still hadn’t released proposed language to be discussed, including about the teacher bonuses. House and Senate negotiators -- Hialeah Republican Rep. Manny Diaz Jr. and Altamonte Springs Republican Sen. David Simmons -- told the Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald that they would not release draft language until the House and Senate were ready to exchange formal offers. While Florida’s Sunshine Law bans city or county commissioners from meeting in secret to hash out legislation, two legislators are allowed to meet in private under limited circumstances before voting in public on legislation. While a budget conference subcommittee held a brief public meeting that Saturday morning to trade spending offers, they revealed little about what their intentions were for the policy bills. Ultimately, legislators couldn’t agree on the overall state budget on time, which led to an extension of the session from Friday, May 5 to Monday, May 8. During the final week of the regularly scheduled session, Corcoran and Negron -- with help from other key lawmakers, such as Simmons, Diaz and House Education chairman Michael Bileca, R-Miami -- negotiated in private a catch-all education bill that included a final version of the teacher bonuses language, the policies of the other K-12 budget bills and myriad other proposals unrelated to spending. That final version of HB 7069 was made public for the first time on Friday evening May 5. Several newspapers -- including the Herald and Times, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Gainesville Sun, the Orlando Sentinel -- wrote that final legislation was hammered out behind closed doors. "State lawmakers flushed promises of transparency down the toilet," wrote the Gainesville Sun editorial board. There were a few differences in the teacher bonus program as outlined in the final version in May, compared to the original House version in March. The most significant change -- and one not previously contemplated or discussed in public -- was that the final version added the ability for teachers to get bonuses over the next three years of $1,200 if they were "highly effective" or up to $800 if rated "effective." Corcoran and Negron publicly discussed HB 7069 for 10 minutes May 5 without any substantive debate of the contents before formally accepting it. The Times/Herald submitted several questions to Corcoran’s office May 6 after the final language of HB 7069 was made public. An explanation provided in the speaker’s response: "Negotiating solutions when there are significant differences between the two chambers on an issue in conference sometimes requires adding new language and bringing in issues that were not part of the budget conference. That is often what it takes to reach agreement and is inherent to the conference process." On May 8, both chambers met for the final day of the session. Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, the Senate’s appropriations chairman, took responsibility for allowing HB 7069 to balloon so much. But he urged passage anyway. The House (73-36) and Senate (20-18) both voted in favor of the final compromise version of HB 7069 that was decided in budget conference. In an interview with PolitiFact Florida, Corcoran spokesman Fred Piccolo defended the process that led to the final version. He said that Corcoran’s tweet didn’t mention anything about discussions during conference. "I get folks don’t like it, but because it wasn’t talked about during a public budget conference debate doesn’t mean it wasn’t publicly discussed for months beforehand," he said. The same argument could be made about any other type of legislation -- from the environment to health care -- if it was discussed during a conference, he said. Our ruling Corcoran tweeted that it is a myth that education legislation was "negotiated in secret." Corcoran pointed to the filing of HB 7069 in the House on March 10 and its passage in two committees and then the House on April 13. While part of the legislative process was done in public, Corcoran omits that the final dealmaking between the House and Senate was largely done behind closed doors. We rate this claim False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Richard Corcoran	None	None	None	2017-05-17T10:55:08	2017-05-12	['None']
-snes-06095	The brothers who invented automobile air conditioning pulled a fast one on Henry Ford.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cool-millions/	None	Humor	None	David Mikkelson	None	Henry Ford and Air Conditioning	28 June 2004	None	['None']
-tron-02711	Boeing test pilot tells it like it is to the Europeans	https://www.truthorfiction.com/boeingtestpilot/	None	natural-disasters	None	None	None	Boeing test pilot tells it like it is to the Europeans	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00266	A video shows 5 million bikers on their way to Washington D.C. to demand an end to the Russia investigation.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/5-million-bikers-video/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are 5 Million Bikers Heading to D.C. to Demand an End to the Russia Investigation?	2 August 2018	None	['Russia']
-snes-04462	A homeowner shot and killed a teenaged boy trespassing during a round of Pokemon Go.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/15-year-old-killed-trespassing-while-playing-pokemon-go/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	15-Year-Old Killed Trespassing While Playing Pokemon Go	13 July 2016	None	['None']
-goop-00209	Kelly Ripa Bailing On Cancer Charity To Attend Ballet, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kelly-ripa-ballet-host-ovarian-cancer-charity/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Kelly Ripa NOT Bailing On Cancer Charity To Attend Ballet, Despite Report	3:00 am, September 27, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02237	Caitlyn Jenner Moving To Idaho, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-not-moving-midwest-idaho/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Caitlyn Jenner NOT Moving To Idaho, Despite Report	2:50 pm, November 7, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03912	Snacks marketed to children are heavily laden with ingredients that cause cancer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/childrens-snacks-petroleum/	None	Food	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Cancer-Causing Children’s Snacks Made from Petroleum-Based Products	2 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-02420	"The Russians didn’t wear uniforms when they came in" to Ukraine.	/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/04/chris-matthews/hardball-host-chris-matthews-says-russian-troops-a/	Hardball host Chris Matthews is, like the rest of us, keeping up with what’s going down between Ukraine and Russia from half a world away, piecing together storylines from news stories, social media, TV clips and photos. His impression is both sides are treading lightly as they anticipate the other’s next move, he said during a March 3, 2014, episode of Hardball on MSNBC: Watching it from a distance, it’s amazing, you see a couple things. I noticed that a lot of people in the new government in Kiev were walking around the palace and the presidency over there in Kiev wearing ski masks. They weren’t confident at all they weren’t being provocative to Moscow. And secondly I noticed the Russians didn’t wear uniforms when they came in (to Ukraine). Both sides seem to be aware that this is going to go on for a while and they’re hedging their bets a bit. It’s fascinating. The insiders seem to know that this isn’t going to be over for a while. We were interested in Matthews' claim that "The Russians didn’t wear uniforms when they came in" to Ukraine. Over the weekend, reporters for the New York Times, Reuters and Guardian wrote of Russia unloading troops in the Crimea region of Ukraine, a peninsula that includes many people who identify themselves as Russian. Crimea was part of the Soviet Union until 1954, when Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev gave the territory to Ukraine (more history in this fact-check). Russia maintains a military base in the Sevastopol under a post-Soviet breakup treaty between Russia and Ukraine. News outlets wrote of Russian-speaking, armed soldiers unloaded from armored vehicles whose service uniforms "bore no insignia" though their vehicles featured Russian military plates of the country’s Black Sea force. The troops "swarmed the major thoroughfares of Crimea," wrote the New York Times, shutting down the area’s main airport and surrounding government buildings. Despite their lack of traditional military ID, "there was no doubt among residents they were deployed from the nearby Russian base to take up position outside a Ukrainian border guard base," Reuters wrote. The Guardian estimates 16,000 "pro-Russian troops" are controlling Crimea and blockading Ukrainian bases. In a March 4 news conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin denied Russian troops were occupying Crimea as he said that Russia would only resort to military action "for the protection of the Ukrainian people." Putin chastised the U.S. government for interfering in Ukraine’s affairs like a scientist with rats. "There are many military uniforms. Go into any local shop and you can find one," Putin said of the so-called pro-Russia "local defense forces," according to a translation in the Times. Foreign journalists have challenged Putin’s claims, often just by asking talkative, possibly bored soldiers if they are Russian military. Guardian Moscow correspondent Shaun Walker tweeted the soldiers were "forced to keep up ‘volunteer’ charade," though one "chatty chap" admitted he was from Russia "to defend against ‘terror’ " in a video. Experts we consulted said there’s no doubting the troops are Russian. "It’s clear these are Russian special forces in terms of their performance and in terms of their bearing," said Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Heritage Foundation. Cohen said he was born in Crimea and has friends there who have told him the military men have identified themselves as Russian elite troops. So why wouldn’t Putin say so? Or why won’t Russian soldiers wear patches identifying them as Russian? Plausible deniability, Cohen said. "Russians can still deny these are forces that are working under their direction, so it may facilitate walking this back," Cohen said. There would be nothing new for Russian special forces to be out of uniform in Crimea in an effort to blend in with the locals, said Lance Janda, chairman of Cameron University's Department of History and Government, adding the U.S. military does that to operate secretly as well. But since it’s cold over there, he is also seeing pictures of Russian soldiers bundled up in winter clothes, which are less likely to have unit insignias than combat uniforms, he said. "It's also possible that they were ordered to take off unit insignias in order to either confuse the Ukrainians initially or to try and appear a bit less threatening," Janda said. "In any case, I think it's an overstatement to stay the Russians were not wearing military uniforms. The safer, more accurate statement would be that some Russian soldiers appear to have not been wearing uniforms." Janda said the size of the Russian military presence in Crimea "has surely been augmented" since the original reports of 16,000. From a distance, it’s hard to tell. Janda agrees with Matthews’ overall assertion that neither side wants a war, and the Russians "are going in as ‘light’ as they can. ... They just aren't going to risk losing access to the Crimea." Our ruling Matthews said, "the Russians didn’t wear uniforms when they came in" to Ukraine. To be certain, they are wearing uniforms. But we think a reasonable person would infer Matthews was talking about uniforms that identified them as Russians. That does require a bit of clarification. So we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Chris Matthews	None	None	None	2014-03-04T18:03:21	2014-03-03	['Ukraine', 'Russia']
-pomt-13054	Says Donald Trump's presidential victory was "an electoral landslide."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/	The margin of Donald Trump’s presidential victory might be merely academic -- were it not for his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, and fellow Republicans such as House Speaker Paul Ryan declaring that Trump had won a mandate. In his own way, Wisconsinite Reince Priebus, the president-elect’s newly named chief of staff, also hammered home the idea of a surpassing victory. On Nov. 14, 2016, six days after the election, the Republican National Committee chairman repeated the same word on three network television shows: Landslide. Priebus put it this way on ABC’s "Good Morning America": "And look what happened on Tuesday. I mean, it was an electoral landslide and the American people agreed that Donald Trump’s vision for America is what this country has been waiting for." There was considerable political earth shaking after Trump’s triumph over Democrat Hillary Clinton, even though she won the popular vote. But was Trump’s win in the Electoral College, the result that mattered, a landslide? How the Electoral College works Voters cast ballots for candidates, but it is electors from each state who actually elect the president. That’s the way it’s always been in the United States. The states are assigned a number of electors based on population. The total number of electors is 538, with each state being assigned electors based on population. Thus, you need half-plus-one -- the magic 270 votes -- to win in the Electoral College. (Some Democrats want to scrap the Electoral College, but some Republicans have also backed election through popular vote. After Trump’s win, PolitiFact Georgia rated True a claim that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a major Trump supporter, had previously backed using the popular vote.) Go here to see a 1-minute video on how the Electoral College works. The Electoral College doesn’t sign, seal and deliver the final tallies until Dec. 19, 2016, a month and a day before Trump’s inauguration. But the margin, according to the Associated Press, is Trump 290 and Clinton 232, with Michigan’s 16 electoral votes still not officially determined. Trump holds a lead in Michigan, however, and is expected to win the state. So, giving him the benefit of the doubt, the electoral votes would be: Trump: 306 Clinton: 232 Does that constitute a landslide? Some really big landslides Landslide, of course, is not technically defined. When we asked for information to back Priebus’ claim, the Republican National Committee merely recited the electoral figures and repeated that it was a landslide. Countering Priebus, the Wisconsin Democratic Party pointed out that six times since 1952 alone, the winning candidate won substantially more electoral votes than Trump: President Election year Electoral votes won Ronald Reagan (R) 1984 525 Reagan 1980 489 Richard Nixon (R) 1972 520 Lyndon Johnson (D) 1964 486 Dwight Eisenhower (R) 1956 457 Eisenhower 1952 442 Democrat Barack Obama’s totals, by the way, were 332 in 2012 and 365 in 2008. These totals, too, are more than Trump. Still, just because some candidates won by larger margins doesn’t necessarily mean Trump didn’t win in a landslide. So, we consulted 10 experts. Other views One said it was close to a landslide, but none said Trump had crossed the threshold. Costas Panagopoulos, director of the Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy at Fordham University, said Trump’s winning 57 percent of the Electoral College vote makes it "pretty close" to a landslide. He said 60 percent is generally considered to be a landslide, at least when it comes to the popular vote. But the others all said Trump fell short. Taegan Goddard, founder of Political Wire, said the threshold should be 400 electoral votes. He said that was a figure often cited, prior to the election, when there were predictions of a Clinton landslide. Alex Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, went much lower -- 330 -- though still above what Trump has earned. Keyssar, former chairman of the Social Science Research Council's National Research Commission on Voting and Elections, acknowledged the figure is "pure impression." Political scientist Barry Burden, director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said the Trump margin comes up short in another way. From 1952 to 2012, the winning candidate got an average of 73 percent of the electoral votes, well above Trump’s 57 percent. "Losing the popular vote also takes the shine off any Electoral College victory," Burden added, a point echoed by Herb Asher, a political science professor emeritus at Ohio State University. Also voting no on landslide were John Woolley, a University of California, Santa Barbara political science professor and co-founder of the American Presidency Project; and Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. Sabato also runs Sabato’s Crystal Ball, an election analysis website. "Calling a 306 electoral-vote victory a ‘landslide’ is ridiculous," Sabato told us. "Trump’s Electoral College majority is actually similar to John F. Kennedy’s 303 in 1960 and Jimmy Carter’s 297 in 1976. Has either of those victories ever been called a landslide? Of course not — and JFK and Carter actually won the popular vote narrowly." Added Boston University history professor Bruce Schulman : "To say that Trump won by a landslide, then Obama won by even bigger landslides." Indeed, the narrower of Obama’s two wins -- in 2012 with 332 electoral votes -- was described at the time as not being a landslide by The Atlantic, Politico, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg, Fox News’ Brit Hume and others. Our rating Priebus said Trump’s win was "an electoral landslide." But aside from the fact Trump lost the popular vote, his margin in the Electoral College isn’t all that high, either. None of the 10 experts we contacted said Trump’s win crosses that threshold. We rate Priebus’ claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Reince Priebus	None	None	None	2016-11-21T05:00:00	2016-11-14	['None']
-pomt-10338	Obama "hasn't been to Iraq in years."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/21/john-mccain/true-on-the-day-the-ad-was-released-/	An ad for Sen. John McCain makes the case that Sen. Barack Obama is a foreign policy lightweight who has voted against funding for troops. "Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan," an announcer states. "He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops — positions that helped him win his nomination. Now Obama is changing to help himself become president. John McCain has always supported our troops and the surge that's working." See our story for details about the ad's other claims. Here we'll look at the statement that Obama "hasn't been to Iraq in years." The McCain campaign released this ad on Friday, July 18, 2008, a day before Obama was to leave for a widely anticipated trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Before that, the last time Obama had been in Iraq was in January 2006. McCain, on the other hand, has been to Iraq eight times as of this writing. The McCain-Obama Iraq tally is now 8 to 2. One catch to this claim is that it was accurate when the ad was released on Friday, but was no longer accurate by Monday, July 21. Because the campaign knew its claim was going to be invalidated in a few days, we deduct one point and call it Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-21T00:00:00	2008-07-18	['Iraq', 'Barack_Obama']
-hoer-01108	Winfield Ten Free Cigarette Carton Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/winfield-ten-free-cigarette-carton-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Winfield Ten Free Cigarette Carton Giveaway Facebook Scam	September 1, 2016	None	['None']
-tron-03605	Sex-Trafficking Ring Targets Teens at Michigan Movie Theater	https://www.truthorfiction.com/sex-trafficking-ring-targets-teens-at-michigan-movie-theater/	None	warnings	None	None	None	Sex-Trafficking Ring Targets Teens at Michigan Movie Theater	Jan 8, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13422	"Over the past eight years, black youth unemployment is up."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/21/republican-national-committee-republican/rnc-weak-over-past-eight-years-black-youth-unempl/	In recent weeks, Donald Trump has sought to make inroads with African-American voters, a group that overwhelmingly favors Hillary Clinton. Trump has argued that after decades of loyalty to the Democratic Party, black voters should consider voting Republican because the system is broken and "what the hell do you have to lose?" Seeking to boost Trump’s message, the Republican National Committee sent a blast email on Sept. 17, 2016, responding to Clinton’s remarks at a dinner for the Congressional Black Caucus. (It’s archived here on the RNC website.) A portion of the email said, "Over the past eight years, black youth unemployment is up." This struck us as odd, because the overall unemployment rate has plunged from a high of 10 percent in October 2009 to 4.9 percent in August 2016. Has African-American youth unemployment really moved in precisely the opposite direction as the nation as a whole? We’ve heard talking points like this before, from Democrat Bernie Sanders and Trump himself. Their veracity really depends on how they were phrased. In this case, the RNC is cherry-picking and misinterpreting old research by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, specifically a chart that tracked the "high school graduates age 17–20 who are not enrolled in further schooling." According to the chart, the rate rose from 44.8 percent in January 2009 to 51.3 percent in March 2015. But unemployment is not underemployment. "High school graduates age 17–20 who are not enrolled in further schooling" isn’t the same thing as all black youths. And unemployment generally has declined since March 2015. "I'm sure the RNC can cherry-pick an age group or an ‘underemployment rate’ definition for which the situation has worsened," said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. But using the standard BLS statistics, he said, the labor-market situation for African-American youths "has improved since the president took office." Checking the numbers We looked at the unemployment rate over time for two groups of African-Americans -- one broader (ages 16 to 24) and the other narrower (20 to 24). Both ranges would seem to fit the email’s broad definition of "black youth." Here’s what we found when we took the annual average black youth unemployment rate for ages 16 to 24 -- the broader of the two age ranges we looked at -- going back to 2009. This shows that African-American youth unemployment has been going down -- not up -- consistently since 2010 (Obama’s second year in office) and is well below what it was in 2009 (his first year in office). To be precise, the average unemployment rate for black youth fell from nearly 29 percent in 2009 to a bit below 18 percent in 2016. That’s a decline of more than one-third in the unemployment rate over the roughly eight-year period. In fact, 2016 marks the lowest August rate on record since the statistics were first calculated in the early 1970s, said Jed Kolko, chief economist for the jobs site Indeed. The pattern also holds for African-Americans age 20 to 24. Here’s the equivalent graph: Using this narrower age range, the average annual black youth unemployment rate fell from about 25 percent in 2009 to about 15 percent in 2016. So it fell by about two-fifths of its original level over eight years. Our ruling In an email blast, the Republican National Committee said that "over the past eight years, black youth unemployment is up." The RNC has pointed to one narrow comparison that shows a higher rate today than in 2009. But the email seeks to paint this specific subset as illustrative of all "black youth unemployment," and it’s not. The broadest, most standard statistics show that black youth unemployment has declined by one-third or more since the 2009, when Obama took office. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/42b72614-de5e-4757-9548-66e3ee7895f1	None	Republican National Committee	None	None	None	2016-09-21T10:00:00	2016-09-17	['None']
-pomt-00722	The money the Clinton Foundation took from from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state "is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff."	/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-clinton-foreign-donations-clearly-vi/	Hillary Clinton is in the political crosshairs as the author of a new book alleges improper financial ties between her public and personal life. At issue in conservative author Peter Schweizer’s forthcoming book Clinton Cash are donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation during the four years she served as secretary of state. George Stephanopoulos used an interview with Schweizer on ABC This Week to point out what other nonpartisan journalists have found: There is no "smoking gun" showing that donations to the foundation influenced her foreign policy decisions. Still, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the donations are "clearly illegal" under federal law. In his view, a donation by a foreign government to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state is the same as money sent directly to her, he said, even though she did not join the foundation’s board until she left her post. "The Constitution of the United States says you cannot take money from foreign governments without explicit permission of the Congress. They wrote that in there because they knew the danger of corrupting our system by foreign money is enormous," Gingrich said. "You had a sitting secretary of state whose husband radically increased his speech fees, you have a whole series of dots on the wall now where people gave millions of dollars — oh, by the way, they happen to get taken care of by the State Department." He continued, "My point is they took money from foreign governments while she was secretary of State. That is clearly illegal." PunditFact wanted to know if a criminal case against Clinton is that open and shut. Is what happened "clearly illegal"? A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation certainly disagreed, calling Gingrich’s accusation "a baseless leap" because Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while serving as a senator or secretary of state. We did not hear from Gingrich by our deadline. Foundation basics Former President Clinton started the William J. Clinton Foundation in 2001, the year after Hillary Clinton won her first term as a New York senator. The foundation works with non-governmental organizations, the private sector and governments around the world on health, anti-poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change initiatives. Spokesman Craig Minassian said it’s reasonable for the foundation to accept money from foreign governments because of the global scope of its programs, and the donations are usually in the form of tailored grants for specific missions. Hillary Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while she was a senator or secretary of state. Her appointment to the latter post required Senate confirmation and came with an agreement between the White House and Clinton Foundation that the foundation would be more transparent about its donors. According to the 2008 memorandum of understanding, the foundation would release information behind new donations and could continue to collect donations from countries with which it had existing relationships or running grant programs. If countries with existing contributions significantly stepped up their contributions, or if a new foreign government wanted to donate, the State Department would have to approve. Clinton took an active role in fundraising when she left the State Department and the foundation became the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013. But she left the board when she announced her run for the presidency in April 2015. The Emoluments Clause So how does Gingrich come up with the claim that Clinton Foundation donations are "clearly illegal" and unconstitutional? The answer is something known as the Emoluments Clause. A few conservative websites have made similar arguments in recent days, including the Federalist blog. The Emoluments Clause, found in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, reads in part: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." The framers came up with this clause to prevent the government and leaders from granting or receiving titles of nobility and to keep leaders free of external influence. (An emolument, per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.") Lest you think the law is no longer relevant, the Pentagon ethics office in 2013 warned employees the "little known provision" applies to all federal employees and military retirees. There’s no mention of spouses in the memo. J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, said interpretation of the clause has evolved since its adoption at the Constitutional Convention, when the primary concern was about overseas diplomats not seeking gifts from foreign powers they were dealing with. The Defense Department memo, in his view, goes beyond what the framers envisioned for the part of the memo dealing with gifts. "I think that, aside from the unambiguous parts, the burden would be on those invoking the clause to show actual causality that would be in violation of the clause," Pham said. Expert discussion We asked seven different constitutional law experts on whether the Clinton Foundation foreign donations were "clearly illegal" and a violation of the Emoluments Clause. We did not reach a consensus with their responses, though a majority thought the layers of separation between the foundation and Hillary Clinton work against Gingrich. The American system often distinguishes between public officers and private foundations, "even if real life tends to blur some of those distinctions," said American University law professor Steve Vladeck. Vladeck added that the Emoluments Clause has never been enforced. "I very much doubt that the first case in its history would be because a foreign government made charitable donations to a private foundation controlled by a government employee’s relative," he said. "Gingrich may think that giving money to the Clinton Foundation and giving money to then-Secretary Clinton are the same thing. Unfortunately for him, for purposes of federal regulations, statutes, and the Constitution, they’re formally — and, thus, legally — distinct." Robert Delahunty, a University of St. Thomas constitutional law professor who worked in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 1989 to 2003, also called Gingrich’s link between Clinton and the foreign governments’ gifts to the Clinton Foundation as "implausible, and in any case I don’t think we have the facts to support it." "The truth is that we establish corporate bodies like the Clinton Foundation because the law endows these entities with a separate and distinct legal personhood," Delahunty said. John Harrison, University of Virginia law professor and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 1990 to 1993, pointed to the Foreign Gifts Act, 5 U.S.C. 7432, which sets rules for how the Emoluments Clause should work in practice. The statute spells out the minimal value for acceptable gifts, and says it applies to spouses of the individuals covered, but "it doesn’t say anything about receipt of foreign gifts by other entities such as the Clinton Foundation." "I don’t know whether there’s any other provision of federal law that would treat a foreign gift to the foundation as having made to either of the Clintons personally," Harrison said, who added that agencies have their own supplemental rules for this section, and he did not know if the State Department addressed this. Other experts on the libertarian side of the scale thought Gingrich was more right in his assertion. Clinton violates the clause because of its intentionally broad phrasing about gifts of "any kind whatever," which would cover indirect gifts via the foundation, said Dave Kopel, a constitutional law professor at Denver University and research director at the libertarian Independence Institute. Kopel also brought up bribery statutes, which would require that a gift had some influence in Clinton’s decision while secretary of state. Delahunty thought Kopel’s reasoning would have "strange consequences," such as whether a state-owned airline flying Bill Clinton to a conference of former heads of state counted as a gift to Hillary Clinton. Our ruling Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation "took money from from foreign governments while (Hillary Clinton) was secretary of state. It is clearly illegal. … The Constitution says you can’t take this stuff." A clause in the Constitution does prohibit U.S. officials such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from receiving gifts, or emoluments, from foreign governments. But the gifts in this case were donations from foreign governments that went to the Clinton Foundation, not Hillary Clinton. She was not part of the foundation her husband founded while she was secretary of state. Does that violate the Constitution? Some libertarian-minded constitutional law experts say it very well could. Others are skeptical. What’s clear is there is room for ambiguity, and the donations are anything but "clearly illegal." The reality is this a hazy part of U.S. constitutional law. Gingrich’s statement rate Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/947e9cfc-05c6-4bc4-a4f8-00ee07b8ee52	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2015-04-26T18:57:14	2015-04-26	['Clinton_Foundation', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-goop-00286	Leonardo DiCaprio Has ‘Eye On’ Margot Robbie?	https://www.gossipcop.com/leonardo-dicaprio-margot-robbie-movie-once-upon-time-hollywood/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Leonardo DiCaprio Has ‘Eye On’ Margot Robbie?	5:54 pm, September 11, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05541	"General Motors is the largest corporation in the world again."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/09/joe-biden/vice-president-joe-biden-says-general-motors-large/	Vice President Joe Biden declared General Motors "the largest corporation in the world" in an April 1, 2012, interview on Face the Nation. It was no April Fool’s joke. We knew GM’s auto sales were back on top in 2011 — aided by its joint ventures in China and a tsunami-burdened Toyota — but the world’s largest corporation? We just had to check. (Hat-tip to a reader who asked us whether he was right, emailing a a Fox News piece by Karl Rove that took Biden to task. Email, Twitter, Facebook — send claims our way!) Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer had asked Biden to respond to comments by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that President Barack Obama’s term had "been a failure." Biden declared the former Massachusetts governor "a little out of touch." "Look, you know, everything that he said, the American people don't think the policies have worked. Romney argued about let — not an exact quote — but let Detroit go bankrupt. Wasn't very popular action the president took. Now they're hiring people. You know, hundreds of thousands of new people instead of losing 400,000 jobs. General Motors is the largest corporation in the world again." Romney had argued for a managed bankruptcy instead of a government-aided turnaround. Detroit automakers are hiring again. But the claim that GM "is the largest corporation in the world again"? It’s not. Top companies lists Fortune and Forbes both annually rank the world’s largest companies. The Fortune Global 500 ranks them by total revenues. The Forbes Global 2000 ranks them by sales, profit, assets and market value. GM didn’t make the top of either list last year. Not even among automakers. Or among U.S. companies starting with the word, "General." Toyota and Volkswagen both beat out GM on the Fortune list. They were No. 8 and No. 13. GM was No. 20. (That other American institution, General Electric? No. 16.) On the broader-based Forbes list, Volkswagen weighed in at No. 24. Daimler (think Mercedes-Benz) hit No. 43. Ford and Toyota ranked No. 54 and No. 55. General Motors trailed at No. 61. (General Electric? No. 3.) When Forbes broke out its rankings by category, GM didn’t lead any of them. Rather, it was: • No. 18 in sales • No. 70 in profit • No. 155 in assets • No. 148 in market value Our ruling Biden may have been reaching for a different statistic — that GM’s sales led other automakers in 2011, subject to a few caveats. But he didn’t say that. He said, "General Motors is the largest corporation in the world again." Surely the vice president of the United States can pick his words more carefully. We rate this claim False.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2012-04-09T16:39:20	2012-04-01	['None']
-pomt-04891	Says Gov. Jeb Bush vetoed the "Quiñones Plan" because it was "taxation without representation on a large scale."	/florida/statements/2012/aug/06/alan-grayson/grayson-says-jeb-bush-vetoed-quinones-plan/	Let’s say you’re a Florida Republican seeking public office. If there’s one nickname you don’t want, it’s "Tax Man." And if there’s one man you don’t want dissing your ideas, it’s former Gov. Jeb Bush. Alan Grayson, the former Democratic U.S. House member from Orlando, is trying to stick both of these toxic GOP labels on former state Rep. John Quiñones. Grayson is unopposed for the 9th congressional district, but Quiñones, R-Kissimmee, must pass the Aug. 14 primary. "John Quiñones: The Tax Man," claims a mailer from Grayson’s campaign. The mailer says Quiñones voted to raise various taxes as a Tallahassee lawmaker and as a current member of the Osceola County Commission. The kicker: "Gov. Jeb Bush vetoed the Quiñones Plan because it was ‘taxation without representation on a large scale.’ " Grayson cites a June 28, 2006, story by the Tampa Bay Times as backup for the Bush claim. We cracked open the archives and found references to rental cars but nothing about Quiñones or the "Quiñones Plan." We wondered what Grayson was talking about. The plan in question was a wide-ranging transportation bill, SB 1350, that would have raised money for city and county transportation projects by adding a $2-a-day tax on rental car customers, if voters approved it in a county referendum. Central Florida Republicans had backed the idea for years, including former state Sen. Daniel Webster, who ousted Grayson from his U.S. House seat in 2010. They argued the surcharge wasn’t really a tax because it would be up to county voters, and the state needed money to pay for urgent transit needs. An Orlando Sentinel editorial praised the surcharge as "the Holy Grail of Central Florida lawmakers for nearly a decade." The charge would have targeted tourists, who come to Orlando for theme parks and clog the highways. If approved by voters in Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties, the proposal would have generated $40 million for local transportation needs, or $80 million coupled with matching funds, according to the newspaper. SB 1350 passed the House by a vote of 103-14 and the Senate by 34-4. Quinones -- along with now-U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and most House conservatives -- voted yes. Rental car companies and Americans for Tax Reform, the anti-tax group of Grover Norquist, attacked the plan as unfair to tourists. In the end, Bush agreed. He threw down a veto a few days before the law was to take effect. In his veto message, Bush praised legislators for trying to solve rising transportation costs and make transportation project contracts more competitive. But he drew the line at the optional increase on rental car taxes, and Grayson accurately quotes part of his explanation: "While I appreciate the inclusion of voter approval as a prerequisite to implementing the new tax, these taxes will be paid disparately by tourists visiting Florida, consequently creating taxation without representation on a large scale. Philosophically, I cannot support this." So where does Quiñones come in? Even though his name isn’t on the final legislation, he played a role in the rental car surcharge issue. He introduced the House companion to Webster’s Senate bilion Oct. 31, 2005. Quiñones’ bill, HB 301, exempted motorists who rented cars while their automobiles received repairs. His bill was never brought up for a full floor vote on its own, but the idea was amended to the final version of SB 1350. Quiñones defended the idea in committee. "In this situation, you have an opportunity to allow tourism to help on the transportation problem that we have in our community," he said, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "This way it would have less impact on the local residents. I didn’t want to have an added burden on the local constituencies." The Orlando Sentinel editorial credited Webster and now-state Sen. Andy Gardiner for guiding the measure through session, "with the help of Rep. John Quiñones." Our ruling Grayson says Bush vetoed the "Quiñones Plan" because it was "taxation without representation on a large scale." His mailer accurately quotes Bush’s veto message but lacks context about what the vetoed "Quiñones Plan" entailed. There’s no denying Quiñones played a hand in legislation that would have allowed county residents to vote on an additional $2 per day surcharge on rental cars, which would mostly have hit tourists. He sponsored language that ended up in the final bill. But the mailer has no details for voters, unless residents somehow connect it with the words "rental cars" in a cluster of items Grayson says Quiñones taxed. It’s unfair to say Quiñones taxed rental cars when the "plan" in question would be up to county voters and it never happened because of Bush’s veto. Plus, even though Quiñones sponsored a version of the surcharge legislation, his clout trails the influence of two Central Florida colleagues widely credited for getting the language in the final version of SB 1350 -- which was certainly not known as the "Quiñones Plan" around the Capitol. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Alan Grayson	None	None	None	2012-08-06T16:00:47	2012-08-06	['Jeb_Bush']
-pomt-11268	Says Austin is the "safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running."	/texas/statements/2018/apr/26/steve-adler/steve-adler-jeopardy-austin-safety-best-place-live/	Austin Mayor Steve Adler, who seeks a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In an April 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to this clue from that night’s episode of Jeopardy: "Per Rick Perry, it��s the blueberry in the tomato soup." Perry, the Republican former governor, often offers the "blueberry" characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered "Austin" for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: "What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running?" Is all of that true about Austin? Not all: In 2017, we found Half True an Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that the FBI advises against using crime data it collects to declare one city "safer" than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested both that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016. Seeking mayor’s factual backup The morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didn’t have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 "safest big city in Texas" statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austin’s jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nation’s best place to live. Checking Austin’s unemployment Our search for Austin’s jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the city’s jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017: SOURCE: Website, "Unemployment," Texas Labor Market Information, Texas Workforce Commission (search completed April 26, 2018) Austin ranked best place to live two times in a row On April 10, 2018, U.S. News announced that for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas; Colorado Springs, Colo., placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents "to find out what qualities they consider important in a home town. The methodology," U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--plus U.S. News rankings of the country’s high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the planet, earned a score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story says: "The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median." Then again, the story says, "Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax, and a low state and local tax rate." Another semi-warning in the story: "Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching." Though, the story says, the "metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, though temperatures have been known to drop in the winter." The story also notes: "Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion." But, the story says, that "can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking and biking." Our ruling Adler referred to Austin as the "safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running." Hizzoner was right about Austin’s jobless rate of late and Austin getting named the city’s best place to live two years in a row though it’s worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the country’s 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. This said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Steve Adler	None	None	None	2018-04-26T18:12:50	2018-04-25	['United_States', 'Texas']
-snes-01689	A special property of the equinox allows eggs (or brooms) to be balanced on their ends that day.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/egg-balancing-on-the-equinox/	None	Science	None	David Mikkelson	None	Egg Balancing on the Equinox	17 March 1999	None	['None']
-pomt-02085	"20 percent of the time (smart guns) won't work."	/punditfact/statements/2014/may/20/larry-pratt/larry-pratt-smart-gun-fails-20-percent/	The debate over "smart guns" doesn’t always turn up accurate talking points. Exhibit A: Sarah Palin telling the National Rifle Association crowd about a (nonexistent) federal plan to make gun owners wear "special bracelets that would identify you as a gun owner." Exhibit B: MSNBC host Chris Hayes’ recent on-air shouting match with Larry Pratt, executive director of the lobbying group Gun Owners of America. Smart guns -- also known as "child-proof guns" and "personalized guns" -- are designed to work solely for authorized users through features like fingerprint recognition or electronic sensors. The hope is they will reduce deaths by suicide, accidental shootings or someone stealing a law enforcement officer’s weapon. They are not sold in the United States, though two dealers tried before backing down amid intense pressure from activists. Hayes supports the technology, but Pratt and other gun-rights advocates are skeptical. Pratt questions the guns’ reliability, saying smart guns are "only 80 percent effective." When Hayes pressed Pratt for the source of his statistic, Pratt cited the New Jersey Institute of Technology. "Twenty percent of the time it won’t work," Pratt said. "And you’re asking people to put their lives in the hands of a product like that?" Later, Pratt used the figure again. "Is it okay to put on the market a car that 20 percent of the time explodes on you and causes you harm or death?" Since Pratt tripled down on his statistic, PunditFact wanted to check it out. Tracing the source of the claim Pratt pointed to a 2003 column in Popular Mechanics magazine headlined "‘Smart’ Guns: Dumb Idea!" The column was inspired by a 2002 New Jersey law that requires all guns sold in the state to have "smart" technology within three years of the attorney general verifying the first smart gun was sold in the United States. Fear among gun rights activists that more government mandates may come when this happens drive their opposition to smart guns. In his column 11 years ago, writer Cliff Gromer said law enforcement officers are exempt from the law, which proves the technology isn’t solid enough for the mainstream gun market. "According to the New Jersey Institute of Technology, which used government grants to study personalized handgun technology, fingerprint recognition systems work only 80 percent of the time," Gromer wrote. "But the New Jersey law goes into effect regardless of whether the guns are 100 percent -- or 80 percent -- reliable." Article is not the smoking gun You may have read over it, but the 80 percent figure Gromer cited talks about fingerprint recognition systems. Not whether a smart gun will work. That’s important because while some smart guns use fingerprint recognition systems (which work like the new unlocking method for iPhones), not all do. The German-made Armatix iP1 .22 caliber pistol was expected to be the first smart gun sold in the United States this year until a California gun store owner scrapped plans to sell it after facing aggressive backlash. It happened again with a Maryland dealer. The Armatix does not have a fingerprint recognition system. Instead, the gun works with a black stopwatch and PIN code that emits radio signals to the gun to make it active. The signal is akin to what’s emitted from those bulky tags on mall merchandise that aren’t triggered until taken out of the store. Other models work with similar chips implanted in everyday accessories, such as bracelets, pins and rings, and some are implanted in the body. If the badge is too far away from the microchip in the gun, it will stop working. But that means the technology works, not that it failed. And, more critically, the Armatix radio signal has nothing to do with the study Pratt cited, which focused on fingerprint recognition systems, New Jersey Institute of Technology researchers told us. Other smart guns also avoid fingerprint technology. Michael Recce, an associate professor in the information systems department at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, invented "dynamic grip recognition" and applied it to a gun, so that it fires only after it recognizes the user’s grip thanks to sensors on the side of the gun that detect pressure and the contours of the user's hand. The gun starts to detect if the user is authorized as someone starts pulling the gun, he said. Recce said the owner detection rate for his dynamic grip "is within the mechanical failure rate," i.e. the rate at which a standard gun fails. However, two or three people out of 100 adults could also fire the gun in trials because their hand is similar to the owner’s -- a tradeoff with the technology so it is sure to fire for the rightful owner, he said. Other types of smart guns in varying stages of development are outlined in a year-old National Institute of Justice report commissioned as part of President Barack Obama’s gun reforms after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. This research is dated In this case, the New Jersey Institute of Technology research is being misapplied, and it’s old. Researchers told us their work on fingerprint scanners should not be applied to newer guns. Their research, which was not published, was done in the early 2000s on four types of guns using fingerprint readers. None of those guns were as reliable as mechanical firearms, they found, though the guns were a "fragile technology" then, said Donald Sebastian, New Jersey Institute of Technology senior vice president for research and development. "Fingerprint readers may have progressed in the past 10 years," Recce said. "At that time even the readers on laptops would often require you to swipe your finger more than once before they worked. Our opinion was that swiping your finger over the reader multiple times would be a challenge when using a gun." Skeptics of these guns point to many concerns about the reliability of the weapons in a high-pressure situation, like who has time to enter a PIN code, and what if the sensors in the gun die? Michael Bazinet, a National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman, said the "strongest statement on their reliability" will be when law enforcement officers use them en masse. But other potential weaknesses don’t change the fact that what Pratt cited is old news. "To make a universal blanket statement based on a 15-year-old analysis of fingerprint detectors just doesn’t pass muster," Sebastian said. "It’s like talking about the reliability of a Model T and comparing it to a race car. Apples and oranges." If not 80 percent reliable, then what? Finding a reliability rate for smart guns is an "almost unanswerable question," said Stephen Teret, a pro-smart gun Johns Hopkins professor and director of the university’s Center for Law and the Public’s Health. "Because there’s a wide range of quality in existing guns, some are better, some are worse. So when you are trying to compute a rate of reliability, are you using one gun or various categories?" Robert Spitzer, a SUNY Cortland political science professor and author of The Politics of Gun Control (whom Hayes brought in after Pratt to talk about the issue), said in order for the Armatix iP1 gun to be sold in California, it had to pass a reliability test. "The standard was a 99 percent successful fire rate, which it met (fire 600 times with 6 or fewer failed discharges)," Spitzer said. Others stressed that all guns are prone to failure at some point. The mechanical failure rate is often given as 1 in 1,000, and a military weapon’s failure rate is closer to 1 in 10,000, Sebastian said. "Misfire is embedded in our language," he said. Our ruling Pratt said "20 percent of the time (smart guns) won't work," which he got from a 2003 magazine story referencing unpublished research from the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The scientists who conducted that research say Pratt’s citation is misapplied. Researchers only looked at smart guns that rely on fingerprint sensors, yet Pratt applied the statistic to all smart guns, including the Armatix pistol that works with a black stopwatch, PIN code and small electronic chips. Even more, their research is more than a decade old, and they say fingerprint matching technology has changed since then. Pratt’s statement is not based on solid evidence. We rate his statement False.	None	Larry Pratt	None	None	None	2014-05-20T16:23:20	2014-05-06	['None']
-bove-00203	Copycat Tweets Hailing Demonetisation Emerge After RBI Report	https://www.boomlive.in/copycat-tweets-hailing-demonetisation-emerge-after-rbi-report/	None	None	None	None	None	Copycat Tweets Hailing Demonetisation Emerge After RBI Report	Aug 31 2017 11:12 pm, Last Updated: Aug 31 2017 11:23 pm	None	['None']
-snes-04336	Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton once said, "I think Sharia Law will be a powerful new direction of freedom and democracy for the women of Libya."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-sharia-law/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Hillary Clinton Touts Sharia Law as ‘Powerful New Direction’ for Women	1 August 2016	None	['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Libya']
-pomt-01565	Saturday Night Live executive producer "Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/11/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-snls-lorne-michaels-could-be-jailed-/	In his brief time in Congress, first-term Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has attracted national attention for his rhetoric. On Sept. 9, 2014, Cruz gave a stemwinder of a floor speech, criticizing a proposed constitutional amendment backed by Democrats. The backers of the proposed amendment, S.J.Res.19, say it’s intended to overturn Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that loosened campaign-finance laws for corporations. They argue that the court’s ruling has opened a floodgate of campaign spending that threatens the democratic process. Cruz, however, argues that the proposed amendment severely threatens First Amendment protections that date back more than two centuries. Perhaps the most attention-getting portion of Cruz’s lengthy speech (which you can read in its entirety here) came when he suggested that Lorne Michaels, the executive producer of NBC’s long-running show Saturday Night Live, would be put at risk of imprisonment if the amendment were enacted: "When I asked the senator from Minnesota (Al Franken, a former Saturday Night Live writer and actor) in the Senate Judiciary Committee, ‘Do you believe that Congress should have the constitutional authority to prohibit Saturday Night Live from making fun of politicians, the good senator promptly reassured me he had no intention of doing any such thing. But what we are debating is not the intentions of 100 senators. What we are debating is a constitutional amendment that 49 Democrats are proposing to be inserted into the Bill of Rights. ... "What the amendment says is for any corporation, Congress would have the constitutional authority to prohibit it from engaging in political speech. Well, NBC, which airs Saturday Night Live, is a corporation. … Congress would have the power to make it a criminal offense. Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician." Political observers expect the amendment to fall well short of the two-thirds vote in the Senate that would be required before it went to the House (where it would need a two-thirds vote) and the states (where it would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states). So the fears Cruz expresses are probably moot. Still, many readers asked us to take a closer look at Cruz’s claim about Lorne Michaels and Saturday Night Live. What the amendment says Let’s start by looking at the proposed amendment. Here are the key passages: "Congress and the States may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. … Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. … Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press." Cruz’s argument Cruz, both in his speech and in a subsequent telephone interview with PolitiFact, made the case for why Michaels might have reason to worry for his freedom if the amendment were to be ratified. Among his points: • Reading the amendment literally, the SNL scenario closely fits its language. That is, a corporation (NBC) is spending money (to produce and air SNL) that could influence an election (it arguably has in the past, as in its characterization of 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin). "By any measure, NBC is a corporation," Cruz said in the interview. "And the amendment says the government can prohibit such entities from spending money to influence elections." In fact, Cruz also argued in the speech and the interview that a literal reading of the amendment also would permit restrictions on the speech of entities as diverse as movie studio Paramount Pictures, publisher Simon and Schuster, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the Sierra Club. "Every one of these is a corporation," Cruz said. • SNL is unlikely to benefit from the proposal’s press-freedom exemption. While the amendment contains an exemption for freedom of the press, SNL is an entertainment show, Cruz noted, not part of NBC’s news division. "I agree (the amendment) carves out a specific press exemption, but SNL is by no measure the press," Cruz told PolitiFact. • It doesn’t matter that the amendment’s backers promise that the amendment is narrowly targeted at campaign finance rather than political satire. What matters, Cruz counters, is how future generations of lawmakers will view it, once they have such powerful tools embedded in the Constitution. "Lots of Democrats argue passionately, ‘We don’t intend to prohibit books or movies or Saturday Night Live,’ " Cruz said in the interview. "In all likelihood, Congress would not try to do so. But things can change. I am not content to entrust our free-speech rights to the good graces and whims of Congress and hope that politicians don’t abuse their power." Indeed, Cruz noted that the facts at issue in the Citizens United case involved the ability of a non-profit corporation making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. "Democrats say it’s unrealistic, but we’ve already seen government go after a corporation making a movie about a politician." What experts say Several legal experts we interviewed agreed that Cruz had a point. "It’s quite obvious that, under this proposed amendment, Congress could pass a law prohibiting corporations and their agents from, say, supporting or opposing candidates during a broadcast other than a news program," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Congress would get free rein to legislate in this area." Other scholars weren’t as gung-ho as Shapiro was but still agreed that Cruz’s scenario can’t be ruled out. "Generally, if the government has the power to regulate some activity, it can impose civil liability or criminal penalties as it chooses," said University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt. "If the amendment were broadly construed, I would say it's possible." And Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor, said he sees what Cruz "is getting at. Any criticism of a politician by something as expensive to produce as a TV show is spending money in a way that could influence elections." That said, a number of the experts we contacted -- including some of those who acknowledged above that Cruz had a point -- consider the scenario more far-fetched than the senator lets on. Here are the two main reasons why: • Even after the amendment was in force, a lot would need to happen before any satirist felt the heat from prosecutors. Both chambers of Congress would need to pass a bill on this subject, and the president would have to sign it into law. Then, judges would have to agree wholeheartedly with the interpretation Cruz fears and uphold the law. And prosecutors would have to consider it a good use of their time to go after TV comedians or media outlets for speech violations. "The government has many powers that could be used to do bad and stupid things," Roosevelt said. "Congress could ban the sale of milk, for instance. Ordinarily we rely on the democratic political process to stop that." Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at the University of California-Irvine, said that while he opposes the proposed amendment, he believes that Cruz was "engaged in hyperbole. It is not a reasonable way to interpret the amendment." And Douglas W. Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, agreed. "If the amendment referred to by Mr. Cruz could possibly be interpreted in the manner in which he described, it would be a triumph of fiction over language, and would be contrary to the well-established interpretive canon that one should certainly avoid interpreting statutes -- let alone other provisions in the Constitution -- in a manner that would negate their validity." • Even if prosecutors started using their newly granted powers, it’s a stretch for Cruz to invoke the word "jail." In theory, it’s possible to go to prison for violations of campaign-finance law -- up to two years, plus fines, according to federal law. This existing law might well come into play under the SNL scenario, Cruz and his allies say. However, in U.S. history, examples of criminalizing speech itself are rare, and prison time is even rarer. Not counting examples of speech accompanied by other law-breaking behavior, such as trespassing, the experts we interviewed could only name the Sedition Act of 1798 and the Espionage Act of 1917 as examples. (Some would also include the trials of comedian Lenny Bruce in the 1960s, though Bruce’s cases involved speech that was allegedly obscene rather than political.) It’s important to note that these precedents, far from carrying judicial weight today, are now regretted and held up as cautionary tales. "Contemporary doctrine repudiates these historical missteps," said Timothy Zick, a law professor at the College of William and Mary. "It would take nothing short of a revolutionary shift in judicial thinking to uphold any measure that criminalized pure political satire." Cruz’s rebuttal Cruz acknowledged to PolitiFact that past history shows few prosecutions and prison terms for purely political speech. But that doesn’t comfort him, for one reason: All of this judicial and historical precedent protecting speech springs from the First Amendment as we know it, not the new reality that would be shaped by the amendment now being debated. Laws like the Sedition Act were "patently unconstitutional," Cruz said in the interview. But the proposed amendment now being debated "does not just reverse Citizens United, it goes much further than that. It was never the law previously that Congress could prohibit a corporation from speaking about politics." Supporters of the amendment, he said, may "point to case law upholding the First Amendment, but none of that matters, because a subsequent amendment would trump those rulings." In this complicated debate, there’s only one thing that seems to be a pretty good bet, said Brett Kappel, a counsel at the law firm Arent Fox LLP. "I’m sure SNL will be mocking Sen. Cruz" on its next show, he said. Our ruling Cruz said that "Lorne Michaels could be put in jail under this amendment for making fun of any politician." Most experts we talked to agreed that the proposed amendment’s language left open the door to that possibility. But many of those same experts emphasized that prosecuting, much less imprisoning, a comedian for purely political speech would run counter to centuries of American tradition, and would face many obstacles at a variety of government levels and run headlong into popular sentiment. In the big picture, Cruz makes a persuasive case that it’s not a good idea to mess with the First Amendment. Still, his SNL scenario is far-fetched. The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2014-09-11T16:54:56	2014-09-09	['None']
-pomt-09955	"Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal 'supermax' prisons."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/21/barack-obama/obama-correct-no-inmate-has-ever-escaped-supermax-/	In a speech defending his plans for the detainess at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, President Barack Obama said Americans should not be concerned about them being transferred to the United States because federal prisons are secure. "Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders — highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety," Obama said. "Bear in mind the following fact: Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal ' supermax ' prisons." First, we should note that Obama's comment suggests there is more than one federal "supermax " facility. But there's actually just one, the Administration Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo., according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Some states have built their own maximum security prisons, but it's clear Obama was referring to federal facilities because they would be the ones to house the suspected terrorists. The security of the "Alcatraz of the Rockies," as the Florence prison is known among correctional program professionals, has been cited frequently by Democrats as lawmakers and the administration battle over where to relocate the detainees. Obama is seeking to close the Guantanamo prison by January 2010. Many Republicans believe it should remain open, and many Democrats have also grown wary. A bipartisan group of lawmakers blocked funding to close the facility until Obama comes up with a more detailed plan on what would happen to the detainees. Meanwhile, some Senate Democrats, including Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , have suggested that a supermax prison is the best place to house the suspected terrorists. As you might expect, living is austere at the Alcatraz of the Rockies. Prisoners are kept in small cells and have limited contact with others. Florence is already home to several widely known international and domestic terrorists, including the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussaoui , a man sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks. As for Obama's statement, federal prison officials confirmed that he is correct. No prisoner has ever escaped from the only federal supermax facility since it was opened in 1994, no doubt thanks to the $10 million perimeter fence and the remote-controlled steel doors. We find his statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2009-05-21T18:15:17	2009-05-21	['None']
-pomt-09743	The Obama White House is renaming Christmas trees "holiday trees."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/14/chain-email/chain-e-mail-claims-obamas-plan-change-holiday-tra/	On the Internet, the "war against Christmas" wages on — or at least that's what the e-mails claim. A chain e-mail says that the Obama White House is renaming Christmas trees "holiday trees." "We have a friend at church who is a very talented artist. For several years she, among many others, has painted ornaments to be hung on the various White House Christmas trees," the e-mail begins. "She got her letter from the WH recently. It said that they would not be called Christmas trees this year. They will be called Holiday trees. And, to please not send any ornaments painted with a religious theme... Just thought you should know what the new residents in the WH plan for the future of America." "This isn't a rumor; this is a fact," the e-mail says. We always get suspicious when we hear statements like that. It is true that the White House has long commissioned tree ornaments. In 1969, first lady Pat Nixon asked disabled workers in Florida to make velvet and satin balls featuring each state's flower, according to the White House Historical Association. And in 1974, first lady Betty Ford commissioned Appalachian women and senior citizen groups to craft ornaments that emphasized thrift and recycling. And for her first year in the White House, first lady Laura Bush asked artists from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to design replicas of historic homes and houses of worship to hang on the tree. Nevertheless, the Bush administration came under scrutiny for its own politically correct holiday traditions. In 2005, then-press secretary Scott McClellan was asked why the media Christmas party had been changed to the media "holiday" party. Here's what he had to say: McClellan: "I don't know that that's accurate, that the Bush White House eliminated ..." Reporter: "It is. Yes, it's no longer Christmas. It says, 'holiday.' " McClellan: "This is a time to welcome people of all faiths, and all those who are celebrating the holiday season. The president just yesterday dedicated the National Christmas Tree to our men and women in uniform." In the same year, Laura Bush was asked whether she had any misgivings about calling the White House Christmas tree a Christmas tree. "Well, no, not really," she said. "At this season we know that Americans celebrate the season in a lot of different ways. We'll have a Hanukkah party, Hanukkah reception here at the White House later during the month. But I think we've always called this the White House Christmas tree." The Bush White House also recognized Kwanzaa, a holiday traditionally celebrated in African-American communities, and held an annual children's "holiday" party. For the current administration's part, White House spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield says the tree tradition isn't changing. "There is no truth to this, and the letter referenced in the e-mail does not exist," she said. "No letter has gone out yet from the White House pertaining to Christmas tree ornaments." She added, "The trees in the White House will be called Christmas trees, and the tree on the Ellipse will be called the National Christmas Tree. There will be no name changes." So all this chain e-mail deserves is a lump of coal and a Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2009-10-14T16:30:37	2009-10-14	['White_House']
-pomt-13945	Says Donald Trump has said he loves war, "including with nukes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/19/priorities-usa-action/super-pac-ad-says-trump-likes-war-even-nuclear-lac/	Donald Trump would be "too dangerous for America," says a new ad from Priorities USA Action, a political action committee supporting Hillary Clinton. The 30-second ad, which will air in eight battleground states, features several of Trump’s own comments about foreign policy. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd played a portion of the ad on the June 19 show as an example of the kind of ads Trump can expect to face in the general election. It starts with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski asking Trump, "Who are you consulting with consistently so that you are ready on day one?" "I’m speaking with myself, number one," he responds. Then the ad cuts to four more of Trump’s comments: "This is the Trump theory on war… I’m really good at war. I love war in a certain way." "Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes." "I want to be unpredictable, I’m not going to tell you right now what I’m gonna do." "I know more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me." The "nukes" comment in particular caught our attention. It’s clear that it’s separate from the preceding comment — "I love war in a certain way" — but the implication seems to be that Trump is a warmonger who isn’t afraid to use nuclear weapons. We decided to check out the context of both of those comments and see if the ad is fairly representing Trump's position. We also looked at Trump’s overall views on nuclear policy. ‘I love war in a certain way.’ This comment comes from a 90-minute speech in Iowa on Nov. 12, 2015. In the speech, Trump theorized that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein feigned having weapons of mass destruction to scare neighboring Iran, before briefly sidetracking into his feelings on war generally. "This is the Trump theory on war," he said. "But I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars of my own. I'm really good at war. I love war in a certain way. But only when we win." He then moved on to talking about veterans. Earlier in his speech, he railed against the decision to invade Iraq. ‘Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes.’ Trump made his comments about "nukes" in an April 3 interview with Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace. Wallace was asking Trump about his suggestion that Japan might be better off with nuclear weapons. Wallace: "You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?" Trump: "In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes." Wallace: "Understood." Trump: "It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea." Wallace: "With nukes?" Trump: "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes." So Trump was saying Japan might do well to defend itself with its own nuclear weapons, rather than talking about what he would do as president with the United States’ own nuclear arsenal. The way the ad splices Trump's comments together, a reasonable person would think Trump "loves war," including "with nukes." Priorities USA spokesman Justin Barasky told us that the fact Trump is open to more countries having nuclear weapons supports the ad’s overarching argument — that Trump would be too dangerous. Other comments Trump has offered somewhat conflicting views on using nuclear weapons throughout the campaign. He has said he "wouldn’t rule out" using tactical nuclear weapons against ISIS, but adding in the same interview: "Definitely nuclear weapons are a last resort." Nor would he rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe, if a conflict ever were to arise. "You don’t want to, say, take everything off the table," he said. He also told the New York Times, "It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation." Our ruling An ad by Priorities USA says Trump says he loves war, "including with nukes." Trump did say the phrase "I love war in a certain way." And Trump has said he wouldn't rule out using nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean he is enthusiastic about them. He says they would be the weapon of last resort and that he believes nuclear proliferation to be the "biggest problem, to me, in the world." It's worth noting that the Trump comment used in the ad wasn’t about the United States using nuclear weapons, but about his belief that Japan might be better off if it had nuclear weapons. Readers can decide for themselves if Trump’s positions are dangerous. But Priorities USA’s ad is missing a bit of context, so we rate it Half True.	None	Priorities USA Action	None	None	None	2016-06-19T18:10:14	2016-06-19	['None']
-chct-00085	Here’s How Many People Have Been Lifted Off Food Stamps Under Trump	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/08/02/fact-check-trump-food-stamps/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	1:04 PM 08/02/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02110	A majority of Americans "since Harry Truman days" support single-payer health insurance, or "full Medicare for all."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/14/ralph-nader/70-years-most-americans-have-supported-single-paye/	Americans are more politically polarized than they were a generation ago. Yet consumer activist and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader argues in his new book that there is "an emerging left-right alliance" in the country that could "dismantle the corporate state." Interviewed about the book on May 7, 2014, Nader told Wisconsin Public Radio host Joy Cardin that majorities of liberals and conservatives agree on a number of issues, such as raising the minimum wage. Then he made an attention-getting claim about the enduring popularity of "single-payer" -- a health insurance system in which everyone is covered by the government and the government pays all the bills. Nader’s quote is a bit jumbled, but his claim is clear. "The reason why single-payer is not discussed -- even though a majority of the American people since Harry Truman days supported full Medicare for all, everybody in nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital; very efficient, much more than the present wasteful system -- even though that is the status in terms of public opinion, it's not on the table," he said. Wait. How often have most Americans agreed on any one thing for nearly 70 years? And more specifically, has a majority of Americans supported single-payer -- or "Medicare for all," as Nader also referred to it -- dating back to the presidency of Harry Truman (1945-’53)? Single-payer and politicians Under single-payer, private insurers would be eliminated, although private medical providers would remain. Everyone would get health coverage from the government and government would pay all the bills. In that sense, it’s like Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older and certain younger people. Single-payer received mention in the debate during the run-up to Obamacare, which became law in 2010. But even some of its most prominent supporters have wavered on it. In 2009, Obama earned a Half Flip on PolitiFact’s Flip-O-Meter. Compared to his earlier years in politics, Obama had moderated his statements in support of single-payer as he tried to appeal to a wider audience, our PolitiFact National colleagues found. Similarly, after Republican former Gov. Tommy Thompson made single-payer an issue in the 2012 race for a U.S. Senate seat in Wisconsin, we gave a Half-Flip to Democrat Tammy Baldwin. Just before she defeated Thompson, Baldwin deflected questions about single-payer and said she was setting aside at least temporarily her efforts toward getting single-payer in place. Nader’s evidence For his part, Nader -- who won 2.74 percent of the vote in the razor-thin 2000 presidential race -- cited through a spokesman portions of three articles to back his claim about the public’s support for the concept. But none of the articles constitute evidence that most Americans have backed single-payer over the past seven decades. A 1982 article in the New England Journal of Medicine, citing polls, argued that most Americans believed there was a "need for national health insurance and that it would require larger government intervention." A 2003 article in the American Journal of Public Health said public opinion generally ran in favor of health care reform. And a 2009 article by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a widely recognized authority on health care, said polls as far back as the 1930s show Americans have generally supported "the goals of guaranteed access to health care and health insurance for all, as well as a government role in health financing." We wanted to know more about what polls have shown. The polls A Rasmussen Reports poll in April 2014 found that only 37 percent of Americans favored single-payer. And although the proposal has largely been out of the public debate since before Obamacare became law, earlier polling also didn’t find clear support. In 2009, with the Obamacare bill being pushed in Congress, filmmaker Michael Moore said a majority of Americans favored a single-payer system. PolitiFact National rated his statement False. Polls had consistently shown that a majority of Americans wanted some form of universal health care coverage — they want uninsured people to have insurance -- but there was wide disagreement about how to do that. For example, some people supported keeping the current the system, but with tax credits to help uninsured people buy private insurance, while others backed requiring employers to provide employee health insurance, or to pay into a government fund that would pay to cover those without insurance. In other words, not majority support for a government-run health insurance system. To get a longer view of the polling, we contacted two polling experts: Liz Hamel, the Kaiser foundation’s public opinion and survey research director; and Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Kaiser’s latest poll on single-payer, in September 2009, found that less than a majority of Americans -- 40 percent -- favored single-payer. Conversely, seven other ways to expand health insurance coverage -- such as expanding Medicare or instituting an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage -- all received higher levels of support. Three years earlier, a 2006 Kaiser poll indicated possible majority support for single-payer -- but it was constructed as a limited either-or question: "Which would you prefer -- the current health insurance system in the United States, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance; or, a universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that's run by the government and financed by taxpayers?" Fifty-six percent said they preferred a universal system. Going back further, however, there was no such majority support. In 2001, two directors of the Harvard Opinion Research Program reviewed more than 100 public opinion polls over a 50-year period. One key conclusion was that "most Americans remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan." Given that it covered much of the period Nader referred to, that article is strong evidence refuting his claim. But we were curious about polling going back to the start of Truman's presidency. The results were mixed. Two examples from that period: On an either-or Gallup poll question in 1945, 53 percent said they favored "a plan set up by the government which would require every person to take part," while 34 percent preferred a voluntary plan "set up by the medical profession" and 13 percent had no opinion. But when asked this question in 1949 -- "Should the U.S. Congress pass the government's compulsory health insurance program, which would require wage or salary deductions from all employed persons to provide medical and hospital care for them and their families?" -- the results were: Yes, 44 percent; No, 47 percent; No opinion, 9 percent. Our rating Nader said a majority of Americans "since Harry Truman days" support single-payer health insurance, or "full Medicare for all." While there are individual poll results dating back to 1945 that indicate majority support for single-payer, overall the results are mixed, at best. In fact, one review of more than 100 polls over 50 years found that most people opposed single-payer. We rate the claim False. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website.	None	Ralph Nader	None	None	None	2014-05-14T05:00:00	2014-05-07	['United_States', 'Harry_S._Truman', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-vees-00493	STATEMENT: On Sept. 26, the president said care should be exercised when vetting intelligence reports because they could ruin one’s reputation.	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-foolproof-narco-list	None	None	None	None	Duterte,drugs,narco-list	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: The ‘foolproof’ narco-list	October 01, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03895	Dozens of veterans' bodies were left to rot in a Chicago-area VA hospital's morgue.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veterans-corpses-found-rotting/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Veterans’ Corpses Found Rotting in Chicago VA’s Morgue?	3 October 2016	None	['Chicago']
-pomt-04467	Says she "oversaw an audit that won the city $2 million in franchise fees."	/oregon/statements/2012/oct/09/amanda-fritz/did-amanda-fritz-oversee-audit-won-city-2-million/	Portland City Council member Amanda Fritz talks a lot about the money she’s saved the city. It’s a central theme in her pitch for a second term on the council. In a recent campaign mailer, Fritz highlights some of the places she’s been able to earn her keep -- such as when she oversaw the Office of Cable Communications and Franchise Management (now the office for Community Technology). "Saving money with tough audits," the mailer reads. "Amanda Fritz oversaw an audit that won the city $2 million in franchise fees." Any time a politician takes credit for an audit we get a little suspicious -- often they’re not directly involved in the process. So we decided to check this one out. We called Fritz’s policy adviser, Tim Crail, who told us the audit in question was on XO Communications Services. As Crail explained it, an audit of the city’s contract with the company revealed that it had paid none of the franchise fees due to the city for nearly a decade. The city was owed nearly $2.5 million. Initially the city was poised to settle for some $1.3 million, he said, but Fritz, who oversaw the office at the time, "did not want to settle" and pushed to recoup the full amount. Eventually, the city succeeded in doing just that. Crail forwarded us an email that backed up this version of events. We also pulled a copy of the agenda item that approved final settlement with the city’s e-file document archive. It backed up the $2.44 million figure that we’d received from Crail. But it also raised a few questions for us. The item showed a timeline for the audit and eventual settlement that began well before Fritz was in office. The initial audit took place in 2006 and was further bolstered by further investigation in 2007. Fritz didn’t take office until 2008. To be sure, that was the year that negotiations toward a settlement began in earnest. It’s probably also worth noting that even if Fritz had been the commissioner in charge of the bureau when it began, she would not have been involved all that much in it. We spoke with Mary Beth Henry, the manager for Community Technology, and she explained that most audits are done according to a routine schedule, usually a three- or five-year cycle. It’s not until a company is "not responding to our information requests and we begin to suspect they're not paying the right amount" that the office will go to the commissioner in charge for permission to litigate. That’s around the time Fritz became involved. The city granted permission to litigate and, according to the agenda item, "negotiations resumed, and the parties … agreed to settle the issues for the full amount of past due principal and interest." In her mailer, Fritz said that she "oversaw an audit that won the city $2 million in franchise fees." Indeed, while she oversaw the Office of Cable Communications and Franchise Management, the city settled a franchise dispute worth nearly $2.5 million. Still, some clarification is necessary -- namely that the audit began well before she was in office and also that the city was poised to get $1.3 million of the amount due before she intervened. She did push to get more than initially offered, but it’s not as though the city would have left empty-handed otherwise. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Amanda Fritz	None	None	None	2012-10-09T16:12:04	2012-09-28	['None']
-tron-00296	First Lady’s Negative Comment About the Flag During a 9-11 Memorial Ceremony	https://www.truthorfiction.com/michelle-obama-damn-flag/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	First Lady’s Negative Comment About the Flag During a 9-11 Memorial Ceremony	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-10912	The Black River’s water quality is "rated at the very top in North Carolina."	/north-carolina/statements/2018/aug/01/steve-troxler/defending-hog-farms-steve-troxler-says-north-carol/	If hog farms were wrecking the environment in eastern North Carolina, a local river would be more polluted. That was the logic behind a recent statement by Steve Troxler, the state’s agriculture commissioner since 2005. Troxler was among several Republicans to speak at a rally on July 10 in Duplin County, in rural Eastern North Carolina. They attended the event to denounce a court ruling against Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer and a partner of many N.C. hog farmers. A jury recently awarded $25 million to an Eastern North Carolina couple after they complained that a Smithfield farm caused swarms of flies, bad smells and other nuisances on their property. Troxler called the ruling "un-American" and "a travesty of justice." And he expressed doubt about the extent of damage that hog farms cause. "The Black River starts in Sampson County, runs through Duplin County right through hog country. And the water quality in that river is rated at the very top in North Carolina," Troxler said. "Now, how can that be with all of the stories you’ve heard about environmental disasters associated with the hog industry in North Carolina? It’s just not true," he continued. "But I think it goes back to the old adage that if you say it enough times, it must be true. So we have got to disprove that. We’ve got to educate, and we’ve got to talk about it." During hurricanes and other big storms, hog waste sometimes runs into rivers in Eastern North Carolina. Farmers keep the waste in lagoons, or ponds, often to use for fertilizer. The lagoons can overflow during floods. The Black River is a 50-mile-long tributary of the Cape Fear River, which last year was ranked as one of America’s "most endangered" by the American Rivers environmental advocacy group. The group listed the threat of pollution from hog farms as their reason for concern. So PolitiFact wondered about the accuracy of Troxler’s claim about the Black River. Is its water quality "rated at the very top" in North Carolina? A state classification In an email, a spokeswoman for the state Agriculture Department cited Black River’s classification with the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality. The river is classified as a swamp that has "outstanding resource water," meaning it has "excellent water quality" while "being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance." It’s the highest classification the state offers. And only 900 of the 13,000 water bodies that DEQ examines — about 7 percent — have that label, according to Christy Simmons, a spokeswoman for DEQ. The department measures dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, water temperature, total suspended solids, turbidity and fecal coliform, among other things. Fecal coliform bacteria come from warm-blooded animals. While coliform bacteria won’t necessarily make you sick, their presence can be a sign the water is home to harmful pathogens. At two stations in the Black River, fecal coliform is elevated about 10 percent of the time, according to DEQ. The Black River doesn’t violate any of the department’s quality standards. However, DEQ doesn’t collect fecal coliform data frequently enough to assess the extent that fecal coliform growth exists and fluctuates in the river, DEQ spokeswoman Bridget Munger said. The "true standard" for measuring fecal coliform levels is to take five samples in a 30-day period, she said, but DEQ collects data only once a month. The lower part of the Black River "is listed as data inconclusive due to low dissolved oxygen levels in this part of the river system," Munger said in an email. PolitiFact asked DEQ whether the Black River is, indeed, ranked as one of the state’s cleanest rivers. "I don’t think we have the data to make this specific claim," Munger said. "It doesn’t violate the water quality standards set for this stream. There are elevated nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria concentrations at times," Munger said. "There is only a single major (wastewater treatment plant) upstream of the Black River but there are many animal feeding operations in the Black River watershed." Lack of testing Thus, environmental advocates say the Black River’s "outstanding resource water" classification isn’t a true reflection of the river’s water quality. Part of the reason DEQ hasn’t found more pollution in the Black River is because it’s not properly looking for it and reporting it, said Grady McCallie, policy director at North Carolina Conservation Network. North Carolina doesn’t have standards for nitrogen and phosphorus in the water — which can cause illness. "If we did, I suspect a lot of the rivers in hog country would show significant burdens of these pollutants. Because we don’t, we rely on chlorophyll-a, a pigment associated with algae, as a marker for too much nutrient pollution," McCallie said in an email. The problem with testing for that kind of algae is that it blooms only when the water slows down, he continued. "That’s why you see significant impairment behind (a dam) on the Cape Fear, because the water slows down and the algae blooms. But as long as the Black River keeps flowing, the pollution is just carried down the river to cause problems downstream," McCallie said. Compounding issues, the state isn’t testing for a wide enough range of nutrients. "Lots of nutrient pollution in the river could be messing up the ecology, but we also don’t have a ‘periphyton’ standard, which would measure whether we have the right kinds or too much algae on the bank and bottom of the river," McCallie said. "EPA had previously recommended that North Carolina develop one, but we haven’t." ‘Hogwash’ Michael Mallin, a research professor at UNC-Wilmington, has conducted research on eastern NC rivers and co-authored the 2016 report "Environmental Assessment of the Lower Cape Fear River System." At the time, Mallin noted high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus at three sites in the Black River. Mallin checks the nutrients monthly and "often" finds nitrogen and phosphorus levels to be higher than the level that scientists would consider healthy, he said in a phone interview. He called the Black River’s ORW classification "outdated." Ryke Longest, director of the Duke Environmental Law and Policy Clinic, went a step further. "But the claim that this proves there are no water quality problems caused by hog farms is pure hogwash," Longest said in an email. "The truth is the Black River may be much more polluted than we know because it lacks sufficient monitoring stations to check its status." Longest, McCallie and Will Hendrick, staff attorney for the N.C. Waterkeeper Alliance, scoffed at Troxler’s suggestion that hog waste isn’t affecting the Black River and that the river’s water quality is among the state’s best. "What Troxler is saying is that because it’s classified at the top, its quality is at the top. But just because you say the quality should be good at this place doesn’t mean it is," Hendrick said. "It has the ORW classification. But that says nothing at all about the current water quality. Period." Our rating Troxler cast doubt on the effect of hog farms, saying the Black River’s water "is rated at the very top in North Carolina." While the Black River has an "outstanding" designation with the state, its environmental regulatory agency says the label doesn’t mean the river is one of the cleanest in the state. And experts say the state probably would find other harmful nutrients — if only it tested for them. We rate Troxler’s claim Half True. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Steve Troxler	None	None	None	2018-08-01T10:48:54	2018-07-10	['None']
-snes-05042	Did Bumblebee Recall Tuna Contaminated with Human Remains?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumble-bee-tuna-recall-human/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Bumblebee Recall Tuna Contaminated with Human Remains?	20 March 2016	None	['None']
-afck-00218	“The City of Cape Town runs six facilities dedicated to providing treatment for alcohol and drug addiction.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-the-da-create-change-that-moves-sa-forward-we-weigh-up-key-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does the DA create ‘change that moves SA forward’? We weigh up key claims	2016-06-02 06:07	None	['None']
-pomt-04878	Says he never voted for a "tax increase."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/08/mark-neumann/gop-wisconsin-senate-primary-mark-neumann-says-4-y/	Wisconsin Republican Mark Neumann has repeatedly cast himself as more conservative than his three opponents in the Aug. 14, 2012 U.S. Senate primary -- and he often cites his record on taxes as evidence. On the tax reform page of his campaign website, Neumann declares he is "the only candidate who has never supported a tax increase." On another page, he says that during his two terms in the House of Representatives in the 1990s, he "repeatedly voted for lower taxes — never raising taxes." And a host of anti-tax groups have given him awards. But congressmen cast many votes. When it comes to Neumann’s claim that he never voted to raise taxes during his four years in Congress, at least two bills he voted for -- the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act -- raise questions. As the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office notes, the two were companion measures that President Bill Clinton signed into law on Aug. 5, 1997. Together they cut taxes by $370 billion, mostly through tax credits for families with children, and raised other taxes, primarily on cigarettes and air travel, by $130 billion. That’s a net tax reduction of $240 billion -- which the budget office pointed out was the first major reduction in federal taxes since the early 1980s. But, obviously, $130 billion in tax increases isn’t small change, either. In response, Neumann campaign manager Chip Englander said: "Neumann has always, always, always said he is fine making changes to our tax structure as long as the overall impact is the same or lower taxes." But that’s not the statement we’re testing. The claim was an absolute. Our rating Neumann said he never voted for a tax increase. But looking at just two of the major bills he supported, although they contained $370 billion in tax decreases, they also contained $130 billion in tax increases. We rate Neumann’s statement False.	None	Mark Neumann	None	None	None	2012-08-08T15:09:04	2012-08-08	['None']
-pomt-02745	Says "Harry Reid has a better voting attendance record than these three Congressmen!"	/georgia/statements/2013/dec/17/eugene-yu/senate-candidate-blasts-opponents-absent-when-it-c/	What’s the best way to attempt to shame a conservative congressman and score some political points? Compare him unfavorably with the most powerful Democrat in Congress, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Eugene Yu, an upstart Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, recently launched a website that attacked the voting attendance records of three GOP House members who are also vying for the Senate seat: Paul Broun, Phil Gingrey and Jack Kingston. "Harry Reid has a better voting attendance record than these three Congressmen!" the website says. Yu’s point near the bottom of the website: "Their subpar voting records are evidence they are not representing you in Washington." Yu plans to air television ads making the claim, Morris News Service reported. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether Yu’s claim was hyperbole or the truth. Yu’s claim came out close to the same time as an Atlanta Journal-Constitution report that Broun, over a two-year stretch, missed more than 80 percent of the meetings of a congressional Border and Maritime Security panel while being highly critical of federal border security. Yu, a South Korean immigrant whose campaign website notes he served in the U.S. Army and as a Richmond County sheriff’s deputy, used the nonpartisan website Govtrack.us as the basis for his claim. The website logs the votes of each member of Congress -- and when they didn’t vote. Here are the percentages of votes missed for each congressman, according to the website: Gingrey 3.9 percent Broun 3.7 percent Kingston 3.5 percent Reid 1.1 percent The website says the percentage of votes missed by each of the three Georgia members is above the congressional median of 2.3 percent. Case closed? Not entirely, we thought. PolitiFact Georgia looked at the Govtrack.us website and did an apples-to-apples comparsion of the voting records of the four men from the same time period, since each congressman joined Congress in different years. We chose July 2007, since that was the year Broun came to Washington. Broun has the shortest tenure of the four congressmen. Reid, Kingston and Gingrey joined Congress in 1987, 1993 and 2003, respectively. What we noticed is that the three Georgia members had voted nearly three times as often as Reid, a senator from Nevada, since July 2007. The House held more than 5,000 votes since July 2007 while the Senate, where Reid serves, had about 1,850 votes during the same time span. The House has more than four times as many members as the Senate. House members file more pieces of legislation. Since July 2007, Gingrey missed 4.9 percent of House votes, the highest of the three Georgia members, our review of Govtrack’s records shows. Broun missed 3.5 percent of House votes during that time span while Kingston missed 3 percent of those votes. On the Senate side, Reid missed 0.3 percent of the votes. Still, since the House votes more frequently than the Senate, is this a fair comparison? We mentioned this to the Yu campaign, and the candidate’s Augusta campaign office manager, Cole Watkins, sent us a reply via email. "What is important is that our elected officials take the voice of the Georgians to Washington for every vote and every committee meeting," Watkins wrote. "If they feel that they are overworked, then it is time for them to step down." Kingston spokesman Chris Crawford said the congressman "strives to make every vote" but sometimes can’t do so because of illness and family emergencies. Crawford said Reid’s position as majority leader gives him an advantage in terms of voting. "Senator Reid sets the vote schedule in the Senate, which should make it nearly impossible for him to miss votes," Crawford said. To sum up, Yu claimed on a website that Reid has a better voting attendance record than three Georgia congressmen that Yu is running against for the U.S. Senate. The numbers show he’s correct. But Reid votes far less than the House members. To us, it’s akin to comparing a baseball player who’s been up to bat 190 times to another who’s had 500 plate appearances. Yu’s claim needs a little context to be fully explained. Under our rating system, this one meets the definition of a Mostly True.	None	Eugene Yu	None	None	None	2013-12-17T00:00:00	2013-12-09	['Member_of_Congress', 'Harry_Reid']
-pomt-10518	Obama voted for "tax subsidies and giveways" that have slowed oil companies from pursuing clean energy sources.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/12/hillary-clinton/a-boost-not-an-impediment-to-clean-energy/	At a rally in Harrisburg, Pa., on March 11, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton once again took on Sen. Barack Obama for supporting a 2005 energy bill. "In 2005, when we had a chance to say no to Dick Cheney and his energy bill, my opponent said yes and voted for it with all of those tax subsidies and giveaways that have been used by the oil companies and others to retard the development of clean, renewable energy," Clinton said. "When it counted, I said no, he said yes." Clinton, along with 25 other senators, including 19 Democrats, voted against the bill, which generally reflected the Bush administration's priorities. Obama and 73 Senate colleagues, including a total of 25 Democrats, supported the bill. Obama said the energy bill would help Illinois and promote greater energy independence by doubling ethanol use, spurring investment in hybrid and flexible-fuel vehicles and promoting clean-coal technology. But he said bolder action would have to be taken to rein in high energy costs. "This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," Obama said at the time. Clinton has made much of her opposition to the bill in her campaign — for example, characterizing the legislation during a Jan. 15, 2008, Democratic debate in Las Vegas as "a big step backward on the path to clean, renewable energy." Our examination of that claim found it to be false. This time, while Clinton rightly points out that the legislation included tax breaks for oil companies — $2.6-billion to be exact — those were largely wiped out by a $3-billion extension of taxes on crude oil to help offset costs associated with oil spills. The bulk of the $14.6-billion in tax incentives included in the legislation actually went to "renewable" sources of energy, to accelerate the development of wind, clean-coal and nuclear power, and hybrid vehicles. (Although there is debate over whether coal and nuclear power should be considered renewable.) The bill also included a mandate to produce more alternative fuel, requiring 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol — instead of petroleum-derived methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE — to be blended into gasoline by 2012. The industry is on pace to meet that target ahead of schedule, despite Clinton's claims that oil industry tax breaks have been used to retard development of renewable energy. Responding to a PolitiFact inquiry, the Clinton campaign referred to a speech she made on the Senate floor, citing her opposition to the bill because, in part, it ignored pressing energy challenges, including U.S. dependence on foreign oil. "The bill includes billions in subsidies for mature energy industries, including oil and nuclear," Clinton said in her July 29, 2005, remarks. However, this reasoning ignores the fact that tax breaks for oil and gas producers encourage domestic production, which helps reduce reliance on foreign oil. Clinton is right that Obama voted for the bill and she didn't. But because she incorrectly depicts the 2005 energy bill as a setback to renewable energy and a sop to Big Oil, we find her statement to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2008-03-12T00:00:00	2008-03-11	['None']
-pomt-02266	"Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage are going to see an average premium increase between $50 and $90 per month."	/florida/statements/2014/apr/09/rick-scott/obamacare-will-force-average-premium-increase-betw/	Gov. Rick Scott has made the Affordable Care Act’s cuts to Medicare Advantage a talking point early in his re-election campaign, no doubt spurred on by the fact more than 1.4 million Floridians are enrolled in the program. In an April 3, 2014, Spanish-language editorial in El Nuevo Herald, Scott brought up several talking points about the program, including threatened premium increases. "Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage are going to see an average premium increase between $50 and $90 per month," he wrote. Many private insurers warned premiums would increase under Obamacare, but we wondered if they would go up as high as Scott said. After Scott's op-ed published and while we were working on this report, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid announced it would give Medicare Advantage a little more money next year rather than a bit less. But we still wanted to see where Scott got his numbers from and if they added up. First, though, let’s take a look at how Medicare Advantage works. How is Medicare Advantage different? Medicare became available in 1965, offering retirees both hospital insurance (Part A) and medical insurance for doctors visits (Part B). Lawmakers in the 1970s started suggesting private insurers could offer Medicare benefits at a lower rate than the government-run program. By 2003, those private plans came to be known as Medicare Advantage. You can read about the differences between the government-run and private programs here. About 30 percent of all Medicare recipients nationwide are enrolled in an Advantage plan. That ratio is about the same in Florida, with 1.4 million in Medicare Advantage and 4.4 million enrolled in Medicare, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services says. The advantage in Medicare Advantage was ostensibly the savings private companies would realize over what the federal government pays. In reality, that’s not the case; Advantage plans were subsidized at about 14 percent more than regular plans by 2009, when Obamacare was being debated. Some estimates put that overage at about 9 percent or so now. When the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, one of the attempts to pay for subsidized health insurance was to cut payments to the Medicare Advantage program to bring costs more in line with traditional Medicare. The proposal spurred an outcry from private insurers, which said the only alternatives they had were to cut services, shrink networks and increase premiums while cutting into the program’s enrollment. Enrollment has actually gone up, with a 9 percent increase between 2012 and 2013 alone, and about 30 percent since the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. Parsing payments But what about premium increases? Insurance industry advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) insists Advantage plans faced cuts of about 6 percent, after a combination of sequestration, a reduction in subsidies, the elimination of bonuses the government paid for quality plans and Obamacare’s tax on premiums. At the start of every year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sets rates for Medicare Advantage so private insurers can bid on selling policies. Those rates are then revised in April and set for the year. Scott’s campaign directed us to an AHIP-commissioned report from February 2013 that stated on a per member, per month basis, Medicare Advantage patients could potentially face premium increases and benefit reductions in 2014 that would cost $50 to $90 a month. It was a national number, not a Florida number, and was only an estimate based on that year’s preliminary suggestion from the government. (AHIP’s projected Florida increase was actually $50 to $60.) AHIP did not readjust its estimates after payments were set in April 2013. This year AHIP released a new report that stated on a per member, per month basis, Medicare Advantage patients nationwide could have faced premium increases of $35 to $75, te report said. In Florida those potential increases could have been $35 to $45 by 2015. AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said Scott used a number the group estimated, but it was taken from an old projection. "It seems to me if they were looking ahead, they should have used $35 to $75 in the latest report," Zirkelbach said. He added such a number shouldn’t necessarily be used in definite terms, because AHIP changes its estimates based on the latest information. They will address the $35 to $45 estimate for Florida in this year’s report after they have analyzed the rates that were proposed April 7, he said. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services changed its initial estimate of a 1.9 percent rate cut to a 0.4 percent increase for next year. We have to note that we're checking what Scott said on April 3, before the federal government reversed its decision to cut payments for 2015 and slightly raise them instead. Even using an old estimate, Scott didn't know for sure that the cuts weren't going to happen. Other companies and insurance groups come up with their own projected cost increases, but they don’t reflect the trend that the Affordable Care Act seems to be doing what it set out to do: lowering the costs of Medicare Advantage. Joe Baker, president of the nonprofit Medicare Rights Center, said that despite the "scare scenarios and sky-is-falling stuff," enrollment is increasing, premiums are down almost 10 percent and coverage hasn’t decreased. Premiums may one day increase, but that hasn’t been the trend since 2010, he said. "People have been forecasting problems and none of those problems have occurred," Baker said. He added that the insurance industry lobbyists (and anti-Obamacare lawmakers) who have been fighting the payment reductions are defending the higher-cost private plans at the expense of the cheaper government-run option, and still manage to make Advantage plans profitable. "They want to keep market share, so they keep their product competitive," he said. "They want as much reimbursement as possible. They’re profit-making businesses, and even if they are nonprofit, they still care about margin." Our ruling Scott said in a Spanish-language editorial that "seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage are going to see an average premium increase between $50 and $90 per month." That’s an estimate made by an insurance lobbying group back in 2013, based on government data that wasn’t finalized. Experts we spoke to pointed out the estimate also was created in the best interest of the industry, seeking to maximize government reimbursements for private Advantage plans. Even the group that commissioned the report from which the projection was culled says it wasn’t the proper number for Scott to use. We should note that the numbers changed again shortly after Scott's editorial appeared. But even before that, the numbers Scott used were off. It’s possible that one day premiums may increase, but data since 2010 don’t reflect that. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2014-04-09T12:15:29	2014-04-03	['None']
-pose-00070	"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/73/allow-medicare-to-negotiate-for-cheaper-drug-price/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices	2010-01-07T13:26:47	None	['None']
-pose-00212	"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we must use all available tools to demand that China use its influence to prevent Sudan and other regimes from acting contrary to international law and peace and security. ... Barack Obama and Joe Biden will press China to end its support for regimes in Sudan, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/227/press-china-to-end-its-support-for-regimes-in-suda/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Press China to end its support for regimes in Sudan, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe	2010-01-07T13:26:52	None	['Sudan', 'China', 'Iran', 'Joe_Biden', 'Zimbabwe', 'Barack_Obama', 'Burma']
-pose-01197	Gov. Greg Abbott wants lawmakers to send voters a proposed constitutional amendment to toughen the existing ability of lawmakers to override the spending limit by majority votes of the House and Senate.	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/abbott-o-meter/promise/1287/require-two-thirds-vote-texas-house-and-senate-ove/	None	abbott-o-meter	Greg Abbott	None	None	Require two-thirds' vote of Texas House and Senate to override constitutional spending limit	2015-01-20T14:00:00	None	['None']
-farg-00012	Rep. Beto O’Rourke “said crossing the border illegally should not be a crime.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/misleading-ad-targets-orourke-for-border-comments/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Ted Cruz	D'Angelo Gore	['2018 Election', 'border']	Misleading Ad Targets O’Rourke for Border Comments	September 25, 2018	[' TV ad – Wednesday, September 19, 2018 ']	['None']
-hoer-00446	Coke Has Recalled Dasani Water Due to Parasite Contamination	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-coke-has-not-recalled-dasani-water-due-to-parasite-contamination/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Coke Has NOT Recalled Dasani Water Due to Parasite Contamination	May 6, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-06383	An article accurately recounts details of Senator John McCain's divorce from his first wife, Carol.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carol-mccain/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	Carol McCain	10 September 2008	None	['John_McCain']
-pomt-07391	"One of three patients hospitalized (is) harmed by the care they receive."	/georgia/statements/2011/may/03/kathleen-sebelius/one-three-harmed-during-medical-care-white-house-o/	It’s no secret that health care costs are rising, but comments by a White House Cabinet member about the quality of care surprised us. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a recent Atlanta Press Club luncheon that "one of three patients hospitalized (is) harmed by the care they receive." Sebelius made the claim while discussing the need to provide better health care under the federal government’s Medicare program. The White House has begun a program to reduce preventable medical errors. The secretary attempted to drive home the seriousness of the issue by telling the story of a Stone Mountain woman who got an infection during ankle surgery. The woman, Sebelius said, needed another surgery to remove screws previously put in her ankle. She had to take antibiotics at home, needed weekly visits from a home health nurse and additional treatment from a doctor to make sure the infection went away. Sebelius said such tales are not rare. Still, we wondered about the frequency. Is it really one of three? The secretary’s office said her claim came from a recent study in the journal Health Affairs. The study’s headline said that adverse effects from medical care in hospitals may be 10 times greater than previously believed. "Overall, adverse events occurred in 33.2 percent of hospital admissions," the nine-page study said. Several newspapers reported the findings. "[Medical errors] are a big issue," said Dr. Peter Pronovost, director of the Johns Hopkins University Quality and Research Safety Group, who has received praise for his research on the topic. But is the statistic that Sebelius quoted correct? Doctors and medical experts began paying more attention to medical errors during care after a landmark 1999 study by the Institute of Health, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. Researchers concluded that as many as 98,000 Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. In November, a team of doctors released its findings on five years worth of medical records from 10 randomly selected hospitals in North Carolina between 2002 and 2007. They chose that state because it has worked hard to improve patient safety in recent years. The research found "25.1 patient harms per 100 admissions." Nearly one out of five patients had an adverse effect from medical care, the study found. The greatest percentage of harms came from medical procedures. Medications were a close second. Infections were third on the list. Dr. Christopher Landrigan, the lead author of the North Carolina study, said the adverse effect from medicine could range from a condition that requires a hospital stay to something as simple as a rash. Landrigan, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical Center, said medical errors occur because care and treatment are imperfect. "The root cause of it is medicine is very complicated," Landrigan said, explaining why medical errors are so alarmingly high. "There is a high risk of something going wrong." The April report that Sebelius referenced focused on three hospitals of different sizes located in different parts of the United States. The researchers, led by Dr. David C. Classen, randomly selected patients from all adult age groups admitted to those hospitals during the month of October 2004 and reviewed the records of 795 patients. The largest forms of problems, nearly 40 percent of them, were related to medicine given for a surgery or procedure. The second-leading cause, nearly 30 percent, was procedure-related. Infections were the third-leading cause, the study found. About one third of the problems required a longer hospital stay. Nearly 8 percent resulted in permanent patient harm, a lifesaving procedure or death. Landrigan said he didn’t dispute the research in the Health Affairs report. He said Classen and his fellow researchers were more experienced in using some of the tools now used to detect medical errors. Classen and his team did use a broader definition of adverse events than in other studies, saying they did not restrict themselves to whether they were preventable or led to a major disability. "Fundamentally, the methodology was very sound," Landrigan said. To date, other reviews of the study have been well-received. "This is one of the best studies that now gives us a sense of how much harm is happening to patients in American hospitals," Dr. Robert Wachter, chief of medical service at the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center, told American Medical News. Wachter was not involved in the research. To sum up, Sebelius repeated information from a report that falls in line with other research showing that the problem of medical errors is progressively getting worse. Although the report has not been disputed, there are a few caveats, such as the researchers used a broader definition of adverse events, some of the effects were not life-threatening and the short length of the research of the study. We rate the Sebelius claim as Mostly True.	None	Kathleen Sebelius	None	None	None	2011-05-03T06:00:00	2011-04-19	['None']
-pomt-13836	"Each [Corbett administration] budget finished in the black."	/pennsylvania/statements/2016/jul/13/mike-turzai/surprising-pa-budget-claim-gop-leader-almost-check/	State House Speaker Mike Turzai criticized Governor Tom Wolf’s stance on budget talks in a PennLive op-ed last month. As Turzai sees it, Wolf wants more taxes. But to balance the state’s books, he argues, it doesn’t have to be that way. "Under former Gov. Tom Corbett, we made some tough decisions. But in the face of a sputtering economy, we delivered four on-time, balanced budgets without increasing broad-based taxes," wrote Turzai. "Each budget finished in the black" With reports of deficits creeping past $2 billion when Wolf entered office, and the gloomy measure of the state’s finances referenced frequently during last year’s nine-month budget impasse, it may seem confusing to read that each Corbett year ended so well. We decided to look into the numbers for a clearer sense. So, a structural deficit occurs when expenditures are set to outpace revenue. Budget experts refer to this for deficits that appear within the fiscal year at hand, but also for projections for the fiscal years to come. Corbett did indeed end each fiscal year with a positive general fund balance. "That result must occur because the Governor is required to certify that the budget for the fiscal year that ends is in balance before agreement can be reached on the new fiscal year," Matthew Knittel, director of the Independent Fiscal Office, a nonpartisan state center for budget analysis, explained in an email. Mark Price, research director at the left-leaning Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, called Turzai’s recollection accurate "on it’s face." But he cautioned, "It’s not a full accounting of the implications of those choices." Nathan Benefield, vice president of policy at the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank also thought the statement bore truth, but noted that that matter was "nuance[d]." "It depends on what ‘in the black’ actually means," he wrote in a statement. "Three out of the four Corbett budgets spent more than net revenue." But how can this be? Corbett has been largely blamed for the more than $1 billion in education cuts in 2011. His camp and Republicans in-state have long argued that pointing the finger at him is unfair. His predecessor, Ed Rendell, moved $1.3 billion in one-time federal stimulus funds towards schools after a study found the state’s system to be underfunded by $4.4 billion. "I don’t see, from what we’ve seen so far, how you’re not going to leave the next governor with a disaster on their hands," said Centre County Senator Jake Corman reacted in March 2009, according to Philadelphia City Paper. The Corbett administration early on told constituents that financial management would be different under their watch. "All of these events and fiscal realities conspire to make the 2011-12 budget the year we get our fiscal house in order," Charles Zogby, budget secretary at the time, told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review roughly two months into Corbett’s term. "No more reliance on federal stimulus funds, no more gimmicks, no more use of one-time funds. We're focused on the core missions of government and making difficult decisions to live within [our] means." That budget would up the state’s contribution to education funding overall, as Team Corbett has reminded reporters plenty since, but did not nearly replace the federal money that had expired. The nearly $900 million shortfall in K-12 funding sent shockwaves through public education, and spawned, in many cases, crises, through school districts across the state. Price pointed out that the state may not have raised "broad-based taxes," cash-strapped school districts upped property taxes. More than six in 10 school districts have increased them for the last six years straight. While Turzai can note that they achieved Corbett’s goal and didn’t raise taxes, local jurisdictions absolutely did. But even with these cuts, the Corbett administration didn’t fix the state’s deficit in his four years. Actually, in 2014, while other states’ general funds swelled, Pennsylvania found itself in the red. His administration argued that they’d inherited a deficit margin of $4 billion; Rendell staunchly denied this, stating that Corbett walked into a surplus. (The Independent Fiscal Office notes that the surplus in 2011 was $1.1 billion.) On the more liberal side, experts and politicians argued that corporate tax cuts had diminished revenue and aggravated an already dire situation. In 2014, revenue came in $509 million lower than estimated, according to the Independent Fiscal Office. "[T]here are many methods that can and have been used to bring historical budgets into balance, such as one-time federal fund transfers, transfers from non-General Fund accounts and spending delays," Knittel told PolitiFact PA in an email. A late 2014 report from Knittel’s office lists a total $1.5 billion in transfers, payment delays and other "nonrecurring" deals "used to balance and enact the FY 2014-15 budget." In other words, Corbett was another governor who solved budget deficits with short-term maneuvers, but failed to fix the looming structural deficit that continues to hang over the state. The report did not celebrate these transfers: "Those measures must be replaced by other one-time measures, permanent funds or expenditure reductions. The reliance on fund balances and nonrecurring measures has allowed policymakers to defer solutions to the long-term structural imbalance identified by this analysis." Our ruling Turzai wrote, "Each budget finished in the black" from the Corbett administration. This is right, but borderline misleading. It conveys that the state was healthy place financially. Pennsylvania wasn’t. Moreover, the administration implemented one-time tactics to balance the books that their own budget secretary had previously decried. We rule this claim Half True.	None	Mike Turzai	None	None	None	2016-07-13T09:30:00	2016-06-15	['None']
-pomt-09150	Rick Scott's former health care company, Columbia/HCA, committed "fraud."	/florida/statements/2010/jun/10/bill-mccollum/rick-scott-leading-polls-opponents-pull-out-fraud-/	Rick Scott’s opponents for governor are telling reporters to essentially brush off a June 2010 poll that shows the former Columbia/HCA hospital CEO beating both Attorney General Bill McCollum in the Republican primary and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink in a hypothetical November match-up. Focus on the fraud, they say. The fraud. The fraud. “Rick Scott has spent $15 million in half as many weeks to fund his public image repair squad’s pricey and misleading paid media campaign,” McCollum spokesman Kristy Campbell said June 10, 2010. “It’s no surprise he has skyrocketed in the polls since Floridians are just beginning to learn about his questionable past. His lead will evaporate when Floridians learn Rick Scott oversaw the most massive Medicare fraud scheme in American history.” Democrats added their own e-mail titled “Fraud is not a mistake,” and a 2-minute, 40-second web video called “Slick Rick.” “Rick Scott may think that his millions of dollars will allow him to avoid answering hard questions about his record as CEO of Columbia/HCA ... but with your help we will make sure he is held accountable,” said the Florida Democratic Party’s Eric Jotkoff. The fraud. The fraud. PolitiFact Florida had to bite. Here we’ll focus on whether Scott’s old company, Columbia/HCA, committed fraud, and also explain Scott’s role with the company, his part in a federal investigation and the outcomes of the federal probe. To borrow a line from Scott’s television ads — Let’s get to work. Columbia/HCA history Scott started what was first Columbia in the spring of 1987, purchasing two El Paso, Texas, hospitals. He quickly grew the company by purchasing more hospitals. A hospital network created efficiencies. Efficiencies created profits. In 1994, Scott’s Columbia purchased Tennessee-headquartered HCA and its 100 hospitals, and merged the companies. When Scott resigned as CEO in 1997, Columbia/HCA had grown to more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations in 37 states and two foreign countries, Scott’s campaign says. The company employed more than 285,000 people. Now about Scott’s departure in 1997. That year, federal agents went public with an investigation into the company, first seizing records from four El Paso-area hospitals and then expanding across the country. In time it became apparent that the investigation focused on whether Columbia/HCA bilked Medicare and Medicaid. Scott resigned as CEO in July 1997, less than four months after the inquiry became public and before the depth of the investigation became clear. Company executives said had Scott remained CEO, the entire chain could have been in jeopardy. At issue, Scott says, is that he wanted to fight the federal government accusations. The corporate board of the publicly traded company wanted to settle. And settle, Columbia/HCA did. In December 2000, the U.S. Justice Department announced what it called the largest government fraud settlement in U.S. history when Columbia/HCA agreed to pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. Among the revelations from the 2000 settlement, which all apply to when Scott was CEO: Columbia billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs for tests that were not necessary or ordered by physicians; The company attached false diagnosis codes to patient records to increase reimbursement to the hospitals; The company illegally claimed non-reimbursable marketing and advertising costs as community education; Columbia billed the government for home health care visits for patients who did not qualify to receive them. The government settled a second series of similar claims with Columbia/HCA in 2002 for an additional $881 million. The total fine: $1.7 billion. Plea deals, fraud As part of the 2000 settlement, Columbia/HCA agreed to plead guilty to at least 14 corporate felonies. A corporate felony comes with financial penalties but not jail time, since a corporation can’t be sent to prison. Among the 14 felonies, Columbia/HCA pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Also, four Florida-based Columbia/HCA executives were indicted. Two were convicted of defrauding Medicare in 1999 and were sentenced to prison, only to have those convictions overturned on appeal. A third executive was acquitted and a jury failed to reach a verdict on the fourth. Was Scott close to going to prison for his part in the case? It appears not at all. The former CEO was never indicted and was never questioned in the case, he says. He may have been a target of the investigation — an ABC News report from 1997 says he was — but that never translated into charges. Sorting it out Let’s boil this down. Was Scott running Columbia/HCA when it found itself at the center of a massive federal investigation? Yes. Did the company pay a record $1.7 billion in government penalties and fines? Yes, Columbia/HCA paid. And as we checked in this item, did his former company commit fraud? Yes, it pleaded guilty to fraud charges as part of a settlement. Of course, the million-dollar question is how much of the blame ultimately falls on Scott? And that’s an answer we can’t provide. Scott was in charge so he bears some responsibility and has said so. But there has yet to come to light any detail of how much he knew, and when he knew it. Though that won’t keep us from looking. McCollum's campaign, in a statement, said Rick Scott's former company Columbia/HCA committed fraud. We rate the statement True.	None	Bill McCollum	None	None	None	2010-06-10T18:30:59	2010-06-10	['Hospital_Corporation_of_America']
-hoer-00294	Ford Mustang Giveaway Facebook	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/ford-mustang-giveaway-like-farming-scam.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Ford Mustang Giveaway Facebook Like-Farming Scam	October 18, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-04452	"Repealing and replacing Obamacare – that’s going to save $1 trillion over a 10-year period."	/virginia/statements/2012/oct/11/george-allen/george-allen-says-ending-obamacare-would-save-nati/	George Allen, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, offers the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as the prime example of what he says is an overreaching federal government under President Barack Obama. In Monday night’s debate, he and Democratic candidate Tim Kaine were asked how they would avoid $1 trillion in automatic cuts split evenly between defense and domestic programs that are scheduled to begin Jan. 2. The cuts -- called sequestration -- can be averted only if Congress and the White House agree on a debt-reduction package. Allen’s plan included a big-ticket item. "Repealing and replacing Obamacare – that’s going to save $1 trillion over a 10-year period," he said. Allen gave an identical response when he was asked during a Sept. 20 debate how he would reduce debt and avoid sequestration. We were curious if canceling Obamacare really would save the government $1 trillion. The Allen campaign, in a blog, pointed to three studies to back up its claim: *A Jan. 6, 2011, report issued by House Republican leaders entitled, "Obamacare: A Budget-Busting, Job Killing Health Care Law." The GOP said that the health care act would add $701 billion to the nation’s debt over 10 years. *An April 9, 2012, study by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. He concluded that the law would add more than $340 billion to the nation’s debt woes over the next decade. *An Aug. 2, 2012, paperby the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. It said the reforms would expand the debt by at least $340 billion over 10 years and priced scenarios that might take the number beyond $500 billion. So Allen offered three studies by conservative analysts and none of them came close to saying that repealing Obamacare would save the government $1 trillion over 10 years. Allen also cited a July report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the primary agency charged with reviewing the cost of legislative proposals. He noted that the CBO estimated that the government’s price of implementing Obamacare would easily exceed $1 trillion over 11 years. But Allen omitted a crucial fact: the CBO said the reforms would more than pay for themselves through health care efficiencies, taxes and fees. In a July 24 letter to House Speaker John Boehner, the CBO estimated that repeal of Obamacare would increase deficits by $109 billion over 10 years. Here’s the CBO’s math: By repealing the law, the government would save $1.171 trillion in expanded health care costs. But it would lose $1.28 trillion in savings -- $711 billion in health care efficiencies demanded by the law and $569 billion in taxes and fees. The CBO left itself wiggle room, saying it is difficult to predict how the Affordable Care Act will affect the budget. Contributing to the complexity, the agency said, is a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that allows states to opt in or out of Medicaid expansion. The studies by House GOP leaders, the Heritage Foundation and Blahous say the government is overestimating savings that will come from health care efficiencies. Those future savings, they say, could be used to pay for other programs and have little impact on deficits. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org last year described as "bogus" the GOP leaders’ contention that the repeal of Obamacare would save $701 billion. They said the Republicans overestimated costs of the law and wrongly claimed that the CBO was "double counting" savings. When GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney claimed that the Affordable Care Act added "trillions to our deficits and to our national debt," PolitiFact National rated it False. The same ruling was given to Romney when he said repealing the law would save $95 billion in 2016. Our ruling Allen, in describing how he would cut debt, said repeal of the health care act would "save $1 trillion over a 10-year period." The three studies he cites from conservative analysts don’t put the debt reduction anywhere near $1 trillion -- the closest he gets is $701 million in a report commissioned by the House Republican leadership. And a report by the nonpartisan CBO says the repeal of Obamacare would increase debt by $109 billion over 10 years. We rate Allen’s claim False.	None	George Allen	None	None	None	2012-10-11T06:00:00	2012-10-08	['None']
-pomt-02107	Says Dan Patrick "proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation."	/texas/statements/2014/may/14/julian-castro/dan-patrick-proposed-arizona-style-law-requiring-p/	In an April 15, 2014, debate on immigration, Democrat Julián Castro said Republican Dan Patrick filed legislation akin to the 2010 Arizona mandate that police officers ask individuals about their immigration status. "He filed (Senate Bill) 1070-like show-me-your-papers legislation," the San Antonio mayor said in the debate aired by the Univision network. Castro said this action left Patrick out of step with Texas Democrats and Republicans who, he suggested, are more supportive of immigrants regardless of origin. Patrick, the Houston state senator in a May 27 runoff with incumbent David Dewhurst for the GOP lieutenant governor nomination, replied: "No, mayor. That’s a lie." Asked to elaborate, Patrick said: "First of all, that bill, which didn’t pass, would have only … come into play had police had suspicions that someone had committed a crime and then" they would "turn it over to" the federal Immigration Customs Enforcement agency, he said, "to try to keep us in line with Secure Communities," the program enabling fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases. Patrick further said he’d decided, "based on things the federal government has done, that that bill will not pass and will not be effective." We wondered if indeed Patrick filed an Arizona-type "show-me-your-papers" proposal. Looks like it. Castro's basis By email, Castro spokesman Jaime Castillo quoted Patrick’s measure, which died without a hearing in the 2011 legislative session, and said it was similar to a vital part of Arizona’s law. As recapped by Castillo, Patrick’s legislation specified: "A peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws (sic)." Castillo said Arizona's law "included language authorizing police officers to check immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that someone is here illegally and, before" court rulings "to arrest without a warrant, anyone ‘the officer has probable cause to believe … has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.’" Let’s look at both. Arizona law Arizona’s 21-page measure, signed into law in April 2010, included provisions intended to "work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present" in the country. A key element of the law--which included state-level restrictions on human smuggling and workers congregating in search of day jobs--directed law officers at all levels to check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Another section said the immigration status of arrested individuals must be checked before their release. The law also provided for officers to transport individuals lacking proof of legal residency to federal authorities. Generally, as noted in a 2010 fact check, the law required legal immigrants to carry papers that confirmed their legal status, though the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out parts of the law that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations, as reported by The Associated Press in June 2012. According to the AP’s account, the court rejected the law’s mandate that immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers. It also tossed language making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job, the AP said, and voided a provision permitting police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. The court let stand the law’s requirement that police officers check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally. Even then, the AP reported, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Also, they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges. Patrick’s proposal According to a Texas legislative website, Patrick filed his measure, SB 126, on Nov. 8, 2010 in anticipation of the 2011 legislative session. The proposal called for revising the state’s Code of Criminal Procedure by specifying that a "peace officer shall inquire into the lawful presence of any person who is lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested on other grounds if the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe the person has violated a criminal provision of the federal immigration laws." If the officer has "probable cause" to believe as much, the officer could arrest the person and "shall identify and report the person to" ICE, the proposal said. Also, Patrick’s measure voided any local ordinance, regulation or policy interfering with an officer carrying out the described duty, furthermore giving legal immunity to an officer, agency or other governmental entity for any cause of action connected to carrying out such duties aside from intentional misconduct, recklessness or gross negligence connected with the intended law. At the time, news stories said Patrick had filed a proposal like the show-your-papers part of the Arizona law, though Patrick stressed in interviews that police officers would be required to ask a person if they were in the state legally only if they reasonably suspected otherwise. A Nov. 13, 2010, news story in the San Antonio Express-News quoted him as saying law agencies wanted the question to be required, instead of being optional, to avoid complaints of profiling. In January 2011, Patrick separately told the Associated Press and an MSNBC host that he’d been to Arizona to see its law in action. Patrick said on MSNBC: "It's workable for our police. And then once a police officer says to someone, are you legally present, because they don't have any identification, we then give the discretion to the officer to take the next step. Is that an arrest, is it detaining that person on suspicion of another possible crime?" Logan Spence, Patrick’s lieutenant governor campaign manager, replied to our query about Patrick’s proposal with an email suggesting Patrick’s proposal was more narrow than the entire Arizona statute. By phone, Castillo said Castro didn’t say in the debate that Patrick filed the entire Arizona law. Our ruling Castro said Patrick "proposed Arizona-style show-me-your-papers legislation." Patrick’s unsuccessful proposal was similar to, and modeled on, Arizona’s show-your-papers provision. We rate this claim as True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Julián Castro	None	None	None	2014-05-14T12:19:04	2014-04-15	['None']
-chct-00239	FACT CHECK: Was It Illegal For CNN To Broadcast Smoking Weed On Live TV?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/04/fact-check-can-you-smoke-marijuana-on-tv/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	2:10 PM 01/04/2018	None	['None']
-tron-02247	Emergency Room Doctor Writes About the Health Care Crisis	https://www.truthorfiction.com/starner-jones/	None	medical	None	None	None	Emergency Room Doctor Writes About the Health Care Crisis	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01212	Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Had “Final Showdown” Before Divorce Truce?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-showdown-divorce-truce/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt Had “Final Showdown” Before Divorce Truce?	3:51 pm, April 10, 2018	None	['Angelina_Jolie']
-pomt-14876	Says Hillary Clinton told her daughter and a government official that Benghazi "was a terrorist attack, and then tells everybody else that it was a video."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/11/ben-carson/ben-carson-says-hillary-clinton-gave-conflicting-a/	In Ben Carson’s playbook, a good defense is a good offense. Media reports have raised questions about Carson’s account of being violent as a child and whether he was offered a West Point scholarship. So the retired neurosurgeon got a question on his biography at the Nov. 10 debate. "Are you worried your campaign -- which you've always said, sir, is bigger than you -- is now being hurt by you?" asked Fox Business Network debate moderator Neil Cavuto. Carson switched the topic to call Hillary Clinton a liar for her comments as secretary of state about the attack in Benghazi. "When I look at somebody like Hillary Clinton, who sits there and tells her daughter and a government official that no, this was a terrorist attack, and then tells everybody else that it was a video. … Where I came from, they call that a lie." We decided to fact-check Carson’s account of conflicting statements by Clinton and whether that shows she was lying. Carson has a point that Clinton privately told a few people the attacks were the work of terrorists. But he’s not accurate when he says she told "everybody else" that it was a video. Her public remarks were much more measured than Carson suggests. What Clinton said about Benghazi We’ve based our fact-checking of the Benghazi attacks on news accounts, government press releases and congressional investigations, as well as information we’ve received from the Carson and Clinton campaigns. As we have noted before, there was initial confusion about the cause of the attack at the time it happened. One key question was whether Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice purposefully downplayed the idea that it was a terrorist attack when she spoke on five Sunday talk shows days after the incident, instead suggesting that it a spontaneous reaction to a movie that mocked Islam. That movie had drawn protests around the Middle East at about the same time that the Benghazi attack happened. Here are Clinton’s key comments: Sept. 11, 2012: The attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound begins at 3:40 p.m. ET (9:40 p.m. in Benghazi); an attack on a CIA mission annex begins at 6 p.m. ET. Four Americans die in the attacks. Sept. 11, 2012: During a phone call with Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf around 8 p.m. ET, Clinton said she understood Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaida-affiliated group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, according to notes from that conversation documented in a State Department email. However, Ansar al-Sharia soon retracted the claim. Clinton issued a public statement at 10:08 p.m. that didn’t indicate a cause for the attack but said, "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. ..." At 11:12 p.m., Clinton sent an email to her daughter Chelsea saying: "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Queda-like (sic) group. The ambassador, whom I hand picked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same." Sept. 12, 2012: In a call with Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, Clinton said, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda." Sept. 13, 2012: In public remarks with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani, she condemned the video, saying, "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries.. ...." Clinton did not say, though, that the video sparked the attack in Benghazi. Sept. 14, 2012: At a ceremony, Clinton said, "This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with. The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob." So she mentions Benghazi in one sentence and then more broadly "American embassies" in the next sentence. Sept. 20, 2012: During a press conference Clinton talked about "protests in several countries around the world" and then said, "And as I have said the video that sparked these protests is disgusting and reprehensible, and the United States government, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with it." Clinton didn’t specify Benghazi in these comments. Sept. 21, 2012: Clinton talked at a press conference about protests in several cities in Pakistan and then said: "We found the video that’s at the core of this series of events offensive, disgusting, reprehensible. But that does not provide justification for violence, and therefore it is important for responsible leaders, indeed responsible people everywhere, to stand up and speak out against violence and particularly against those who would exploit this difficult moment to advance their own extremist ideologies. Yesterday afternoon, when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans." It would be possible for a listener to conflate her comments about the video and Benghazi, but if you look closely at her statement she doesn’t do that. She blames the video on protests in Pakistan, but when she talks about Benghazi a couple of sentences later, she blames it on terrorism. One more note: Charles Woods, father of Ty Woods who died in the attack, shared diary notes he took after meeting Clinton Sept. 14, 2012, for a Fox News report that aired on Oct. 23, 2015. Woods was in Washington for her testimony about Benghazi and had previously testified himself before a House committee in 2013. "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son," the entry said. Woods had previously recounted the same conversation to the media starting in 2012. Our ruling Carson said Clinton told her daughter and a government official that Benghazi "was a terrorist attack, and then tells everybody else that it was a video." But he’s oversimplifying multiple statements from Clinton during the month of the attacks. He has a point that Clinton told her daughter that terrorists attacked in Benghazi, and she told the Libyan president that a terrorist group had taken responsibility. But those were private comments made hours after the attack. Carson misleads when he said that she told everybody else that it was a video. On the day after the attack, she told the Egyptian prime minister it had nothing to do with the film. At other times, Clinton talked about the video but didn’t say it caused the attacks. At other times, she blamed the video more broadly for protests in various places. A family member of a victim said Clinton blamed the video for his son’s death, but we didn’t find that same sentiment expressed in any of her public comments. Carson is oversimplifying and distorting Clinton’s comments to portray a complex situation in the worst possible light. We rate his statement Mostly False.	None	Ben Carson	None	None	None	2015-11-11T17:06:54	2015-11-10	['None']
-pomt-03221	Obamacare provision will allow "forced home inspections" by government agents.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/21/blog-posting/bloggers-say-obamacare-provision-will-allow-forced/	A startling Obamacare claim swept from blog to blog last week: "SHOCKING: Obamacare Provision Will Allow ‘Forced’ Home Inspections." One blogger used a photo of armed officers entering a cottage, with the overline, "We’re from the government and we’re here to raid your home." Another said "this is why the IRS has been training with AR-15s." A reader sent us a post from BenSwann.com, "Obamacare provision: ‘Forced’ home inspections." He wondered if it were true. So did we. South Carolina’s concern "Forced home inspections"? Um, no. The flurry originated with BenSwann.com blogger Joshua Cook on Aug. 13. He picked up the phrase "forced home inspections" from a state lawmaker in South Carolina. Back in March, as a group of state legislators discussed a bill to fight the Affordable Care Act, Rep. Rick Quinn offered a specific example of something in the law that worried him: "The forced home inspections that I’ve heard about." Cook was there. And the comment nagged him. He noticed people weren’t really writing about the issue. "It's just been bothering me," he told PolitiFact. So he wrote about it last week, talking with an attorney who spoke at the committee hearing and posting a video clip of Quinn’s comment. "The point is South Carolina legislators believe it, and are convinced this is going to happen," Cook told us. Quinn, indeed, had added an amendment to the South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act to prevent state workers from conducting any "involuntary … in-home visitation." It passed the House, but the Senate didn’t have a chance to vote. Cook says lawmakers hope to revive the legislation in the next session. But that Obamacare program that worries Quinn? It already is — by statute — voluntary. There’s literally nothing to suggest raids or weapons. Home visiting programs Concerned bloggers pointed to an Obamacare-funded grant program for "maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting." In 2011, the government announced $224 million in funding. Most of those grants are going to health departments — none, so far, in South Carolina. The idea: fund visits from nurses and social workers to high-risk families to help them develop skills to keep kids healthy, get them ready for school, and prevent child abuse and neglect. Home-visit programs already existed in 40 states. But to Kent Masterson Brown, a health care litigator invited by South Carolina lawmakers to help them avoid implementing Obamacare, the programs suggest overzealous nonprofits telling parents how to raise their children without their consent. Brown raises the specter of a home-schooling family subject to "intervention" for school readiness, their children forced into schools and onto medications and vaccines. "The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits," he wrote about the law. But consent is built into the program. A home visitor could no more compel a family to vaccinate kids than a pediatrician could, said Kay Johnson, a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School who’s one of the nation’s experts on state home visiting policy. Here’s what the Affordable Care Act says: Home-visiting programs must assure they’ll have procedures that ensure "the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary." Here’s how that might work, according to Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at George Washington University, who supports such programs. A low-income mom gets her prenatal care at a community health center. Her doctor asks if she would like visits from a nurse after the baby comes to offer tips and answer questions. Mom could say yes — or no. It’s like the old days of health care, Rosenbaum said, when nurses would visit families to show how to breastfeed, sterilize bottles, care for babies and cope when you’re exhausted. "It's real health education in the home, is the purpose of it," she said. Such programs have a long history backed by peer-reviewed research, she said. They work. "They make sure that you don't go home to nothing. It's done to help families, not to police them." A classic randomized trial in Elmira, N.Y., showed nurse visits to families of newborns reduced child abuse and neglect, even years later. They also reduced government spending for low-income unmarried women. Brown, the lawyer, says he’s concerned families have no protection from social workers. He’s concerned workers won’t be well-trained and will overstep families’ rights. Nobody should knock on your door without a badge, he said. "What I see in this is a monster, frankly. And you can quote me on that," he said. That’s the fear. The law, however, specifies that programs be voluntary, their staffs trained and supervised, and the home-visiting models they follow based on strong research. Any "forced home inspection" wouldn’t be under the law — it would be in direct opposition to it. And if a family welcomed help but later decided it made them uncomfortable? Samantha Miller, a spokeswoman for the U.S. agency administering the program, said families could stop accepting services "without consequence at any time and for any reason." Our ruling Bloggers passed around a claim last week that a provision of the new health care law will allow "forced" home inspections by government agents. But the program they pointed to provides grants for voluntary help to at-risk families from trained staff like nurses and social workers. What bloggers describe would be an egregious abuse of the law — not what’s allowed by it. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2013-08-21T12:10:19	2013-08-15	['None']
-pomt-08842	"If we ban the practice of earmarks, we could save the American taxpayer anywhere between $15 (billion) to $20 billion dollars a year in pork-barrel spending."	/florida/statements/2010/aug/10/marco-rubio/rubio-tackles-earmarks/	In his bid for the U.S. Senate, Republican Marco Rubio has unveiled multiple proposals to reduce federal spending, including calling for an end to congressional earmarks. In an Aug. 3, 2010, campaign video, he said: "The practice of earmarks in Congress is really one that lends itself to sort of corruption. It allows for all sorts of dealmaking like what they did with Obamacare to get it passed. But more insidious about it is the fact that these projects are funded without any public oversight, without the attention they deserve. In fact, powerful legislators are able to secure millions and millions of dollars for their home districts at the expense of the rest of the country. It's wrong. .... If we ban the practice of earmarks, we could save the American taxpayer anywhere between $15 (billion) to $20 billion dollars a year in pork-barrel spending." In this Truth-O-Meter item, we wanted to explore whether Rubio cited the correct figure: do earmarks add up to $15 (billion) to $20 billion a year? We are not going to evaluate whether all these projects equal "pork-barrel spending." We can find definitions of "earmarks" but "pork-barrel spending" is an opinion. We decided to look at the most recent three years worth of earmarks because Rubio's campaign sent us sources that pertained to the current fiscal year and the previous two years. Rubio campaign spokesman Alex Burgos directed us to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group that aims to reduce wasteful spending. The group concluded in a Feb. 17, 2010, report that earmarks added up to about $15.9 billion for fiscal year 2010. Taxpayers for Common Sense has analyzed earmarks since 2004. TCS has a handy Q&A on its website, which defines earmarks as "legislative provisions that set aside funds within an account for a specific program, project, activity, institution, or location. These measures normally circumvent merit-based or competitive allocation processes and appear in spending, authorization, tax, and tariff bills." TCS concluded there were $18.3 billion of congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008, $17.9 billion for fiscal year 2009, and $15.9 billion for 2010. It's possible to find different totals for earmarks depending upon which entity anyalzes them because of varying definitions of earmarks, according to TCS. So we decided to look at earmark amounts provided by the federal government. We contacted the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB's website has a link to congressional earmarks, which showed about $16.6 billion for 2008, $15.3 billion for 2009 and $11.1 billion for 2010. The OMB, which obtains its information about earmark amounts from federal agencies, provided this definition: "The Administration defines 'earmarks' as 'funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.'" It's worth noting that when it comes to spending cuts, earmarks are a very thin slice of the overall budget. In fiscal year 2010, consolidated federal government outlays (including Social Security trust funds and the postal service) totaled more than $3,720 billion while earmarks were about $11.1 billion, according to OMB. We also contacted the Congressional Research Service to ask for its conclusions about earmark amounts in recent years. CRS spokeswoman Janine D'Addario told us that since CRS works exclusively for Congress and its staff, it would not provide an employee to interview on the record for attribution. CRS also would not provide a copy of the earmark report for us to post, but D'Addario gave us the name of the report and suggested that we obtain it from a member of Congress. (To provide readers full disclosure, PolitiFact Florida gathers information through on-the-record interviews and posts links to data.) U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's office sent us a copy of the CRS report, "Earmarks Disclosed by Congress: FY2008-FY2010 Regular Appropriations Bills." That reports shows in Table 6 that the total amount of congressional earmarks disclosed by Congress and requested by Congress was $12.5 billion in fiscal year 2008, $12 billion in fiscal year 2009 and $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010. We asked Steve Ellis, TCS vice president, how his organization could reach a different conclusion regarding the amount of earmarks than OMB and CRS. "CRS takes as gospel what Congress says is an earmark. The House and Senate don't always agree on what is an earmark. So some things will be disclosed as an earmark in the Senate, the same item will not be disclosed in the House, and in the final bill is not disclosed," Ellis said. At OMB, "they task each agency to actually review their appropriations and to tell them what earmarks were in their bills." We also asked Meg Reilly, an OMB spokesperson, how different entities could reach varying conclusions regarding the amount of earmarks. "It’s true that OMB collects data from federal agencies annually on earmarks in appropriations bills for reporting on earmarks.gov," she wrote in an e-mail. "We can’t speak on behalf of CRS or TCS, but their definition of earmarks may be different, which could account for a difference in numbers." So how do Rubio's numbers stack up? Rubio claimed that the total of earmarks was between $15 (billion) and $20 billion. During his video, Rubio did not explain what years he was referring to for that amount but his campaign provided information about fiscal years 2008 through 2010. Taxpayers for Common Sense concluded that the amounts were between $15.9 billion to $18.3 billion for the past three years -- all within Rubio's range. The Office of Management and Budget concluded the amounts were $11.1 billion, $15.3 billion and $16.6 billion -- so two of the three were within Rubio's range. So far, Rubio is scoring five out of six here. The CRS Congressional earmarks ranged from $10.1 billion to $12.5 billion -- all below Rubio's estimate. But since Rubio was within range for most of the OMB and Taxpayers for Common Sense figures, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2010-08-10T14:14:21	2010-08-02	['United_States']
-tron-00636	Jim Morrison Found Alive in Paris	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jim-morrison-found-alive-paris/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Jim Morrison Found Alive in Paris	Mar 22, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04189	Says that "the state spends more money on tax giveaways than it receives in tax collection."	/oregon/statements/2012/dec/10/our-oregon/does-oregon-spend-more-tax-giveaways-it-brings/	Middle ground is a hard thing to find in politics these days. Partisanship, especially at the national level, is almost a sport. And yet, this election cycle there did seem to be one point of agreement: The tax code needs to be reworked and breaks, in particular, need a close examination. In a recent blog post, Our Oregon, an organization backed by several public employee unions and other groups of similar political views, made the same case for the Oregon’s tax code. Here’s part of a recent post their Sockeye blog published on the topic: "Oregon's tax expenditure code is a list of 378 different tax breaks, writing exceptions into Oregon's law for certain income, property, and other items. While some of the tax expenditures are good, common sense ideas (like the earned income tax credit, which provides relief for low-income, working families), others appear completely baffling (did you know that boat owners can take a tax credit for each of their boats?) "Overall, Oregon's tax expenditure code costs the state $32 billion each budget cycle, while Oregon collects about $14 billion in total taxes and other revenue. To put it plainly: Each budget cycle, the state spends more money on tax giveaways than it receives in tax collection." We decided to check it out. First, we called up the Oregon Department of Revenue. Spokesman Dennis Thompson told us to take a look at the Tax Expenditure Report. This report lays the details out pretty clearly for 2011-13. During the current biennium, the state is expected to bring in some $27.2 billion, while its tax giveaways are expected to total $31.3 billion. The numbers support Our Oregon’s statement. There is some important context offered in the expenditure report right before these figures. The dollar impact listed for tax breaks is not the amount of revenue you could gain if you wanted to repeal all of them. Take federal land, for example. Oregon has a lot of it -- and it’s exempt from property taxes. Even though we technically forgo those revenues, we don’t have much of a choice. It’s also true that certain tax breaks should, if working correctly, generate more revenue for the state than they give away -- inducements to attract business, for example. We called Scott Moore, Our Oregon’s spokesman, and spoke with him about all of this. "We tend to speak pretty generally about the money that the state loses through the tax code because there is a great deal of complexity in individual expenditures," he said. But "I don’t think that discounts, in any way, the general statement that the revenue impact of this big collection of tax breaks is astonishing. "There is clearly room to make that system more efficient and more effective and save money." He’s not the only one who feels this way, of course. The Legislature has already instituted a six-year cycle in which all credits will get reviewed before being renewed. The folks at Our Oregon believe they should go further and statistics like this one underscore that. There was, however, one other detail that caught us. The Our Oregon blog post mentioned $14 billion in total taxes and other revenue. The report we read put the figure at $27 billion, nearly double that. Moore told us the Our Oregon figure comes from a separate 2011-13 Budget Highlights document that references the state’s general fund, leaving out property taxes, beer and wine taxes, gas taxes and others. Moore said they went with the $14 billion figure because that’s the money the Oregon Legislature has the most direct control over. Property taxes, for example, usually go to local governments. But if you follow that line of reasoning, there’s also a significant portion of the tax code that the Legislature doesn’t have control over -- again, federal land. In the blog post, Our Oregon said "the state spends more money on tax giveaways than it receives in tax collection." State budget documents back them up. But context matters. In the sentence before the statement we’re ruling on, Our Oregon compares apples and oranges. You can’t count revenues the Legislature has control over and then compare them with tax breaks that include some the Legislature has no say in. We find that additional clarification is needed. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Our Oregon	None	None	None	2012-12-10T16:55:29	2012-12-04	['None']
-para-00213	"He [Abbott] wants to cut penalty rates and overtime when he talks about changing the Fair Work Act back to what he describes as the centre."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/21/kevin-rudd/will-abbott-cut-penalty-rates-and-overtime/index.html	None	['Industrial relations', 'Workers rights']	Kevin Rudd	Jonathan Pearlman, Peter Fray	None	Will Abbott cut penalty rates and overtime?	Wednesday, August 21, 2013 at 1:42 p.m.	None	['None']
-vogo-00580	Statement: “South Bay Power Plant will shutdown in December,” the Environmental Health Coalition headlined a May 12 press release.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-south-bay-power-plant-to-close/	Analysis: Contrary to the group’s headline, the December closure of the South Bay Power Plant is not a foregone conclusion.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: South Bay Power Plant to Close?	May 18, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-12034	"Nearly 2/3 of rural Missourians don’t have access to broadband. That needs to change."	/missouri/statements/2017/sep/15/roy-blunt/roy-blunt-points-out-serious-lack-internet-infrast/	The internet has become a part of everyday American life, and people are more connected now than ever before. However, some Americans do not have access to high quality broadband services. At the Missouri State Fair, Republican Sen. Roy Blunt addressed an audience about the importance of broadband access for rural residents, saying that two-thirds of rural Missouri residents are lacking broadband access. Nearly 2/3 of rural Missourians don’t have access to broadband. That needs to change," Blunt posted on Twitter Aug.8, 2017. The tweet included a video clip from the address. Blunt went on to talk about why he believes broadband is necessary. He also went on to discuss how he is an advocate for broadband issues on the Senate floor. Blunt’s remarks got us thinking: Are two-thirds of rural Missourians really lacking access to the service? A spokesperson for Sen. Blunt pointed us to a Wall Street Journal piece, as well as some past research by the PolitiFact team as the sources backing the statement. What is broadband? Before we delve deeper into the issue, let’s establish what "broadband" means. The FCC describes it in a 2016 report as the speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download speed and 3 Mbps upload speed for fixed (not mobile) services. The FCC is required by a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications Act to report on whether Americans are able to access advanced telecommunications capabilities. They define this as, "‘high-quality’ capability that allow users to ‘originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video’ services." Basically, high-speed internet. In the same report, the FCC said 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband — 39 percent of rural Americans and 4 percent of Americans living in an urban area. Currently, many rural Missourians use alternatives to broadband like DSL, or digital subscriber line, which uses the same two-wire copper telephone line used for landlines. Some people just use their phones for internet, but for Northeast and Northwest Missourians, it’s tough to get service. Surprisingly, 8 percent of rural Missourians still use dial-up internet. The numbers While 39 percent of rural Americans live without access to broadband internet, that figure jumps to 61 in Missouri, according to the FCC. Missouri is lagging compared to surrounding states. Forty-nine percent of rural residents in Kansas are without broadband access, 56 percent in Illinois, 37 percent in Iowa and 48 percent in Arkansas. The lack of access affects everything from telemedicine to searching for jobs. It even touches agriculture: Janie Dunning, Missouri Farm Bureau’s consultant for broadband, said farmers utilize technology in order to do "precision farming." By combining computers and farm equipment, production can increase, and business can be easier to manage. Further, when looking at a map provided by the FCC, we can see that in Missouri, even when rural areas have broadband access, most of those residents only have one provider option. It gets worse. "One caution on using broadband maps and data — you need to understand how ‘access’ is being counted," said University of Missouri Extension state specialist for community development Sharon Gulick. "In many cases as long as one person or business in the zip code has access, that zip code is considered covered. Also, having it available and it being affordable are also two very different issues." In most rankings, Missouri is around No. 40 to 47 when it comes to broadband access, Dunning said. Missouri has over 6 million people living it, 70 percent of whom are in urban areas and 30 percent in rural areas, Dunning said. So with almost a third of the population residing in rural areas, how are there so many without broadband? When looking at people per square mile, the state average is 87.1 people per square mile. In urban areas, that number skyrockets to 5,000 people per square mile; conversely, some rural areas have as few as one or two people per square mile. "Even non-profit providers need a return on investment," Dunning said. "Providers prioritize the urban areas since there’s more people who will use their services. It’s just more financially feasible." Our ruling Blunt said that nearly two-thirds of rural Missourians don’t have access to broadband. FCC numbers back up his statement. Experts agree that Missouri has a broadband access issue, and all cite the same FCC report. The 2016 Broadband Progress Report from the FCC states that 61 percent of rural Missourians lack access to broadband. The report is the most recent and uses a benchmark of of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps for high-speed internet. While 61 percent isn’t 2/3, it’s nearly so, especially in the context of the statement. We rate Blunt’s claim True.	None	Roy Blunt	None	None	None	2017-09-15T11:35:18	2017-09-08	['Missouri']
-pomt-13029	Says Indiana Gov. Mike Pence "advocated diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy."	/california/statements/2016/dec/02/gavin-newsom/pences-support-conversion-therapy-not-settled-matt/	EDITOR’S NOTE: On July 28, 2016, PolitiFact California rated as True a statement by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom that Republican Indiana Governor and now Vice President-Elect Mike Pence "advocated diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy." We based that ruling on a statement Pence made in 2000 on his congressional campaign website, in which Pence says "Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." Subsequently, our readers and other fact-checking websites examined the claim and made some points that led us to reconsider the fact check. Readers pointed out that Pence never explicitly advocated for conversion therapy in his statement and that he may have been pushing for safer sex practices. Pence’s words are open to other interpretations: Gay and lesbian leaders, for example, say his statement continues to give the impression that he supported the controversial practice of conversion therapy when his words are viewed in context with his long opposition to LGBT rights. Taking all of this into account, we are changing our rating to Half True and providing this new analysis. PolitiFact California’s practice is to consider new evidence and perspectives related to our fact checks, and to revise our ratings when warranted. California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom joined in the chorus of attacks on Donald Trump’s choice for running mate during a speech at the Democratic National Convention in late July. Newsom, a prominent LGBT rights supporter, said Republican Indiana Gov. and now Vice-President Elect Mike Pence "advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy." Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. It’s banned in five states including California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey. Our research When asked about the claim in late July, Newsom’s campaign spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family: "Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior." Many, including Newsom and other LGBT advocates, have interpreted the last portion of Pence’s statement, about "assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior," as evidence he supported conversion therapy. The statement, however, does not explicitly mention conversion therapy. And Pence has said little, if anything, specific on the topic. We heard from a number of readers who said Pence’s words could be interpreted as supporting groups that aim to not necessarily change one’s sexual orientation, but instead as supporting groups that advocate for curbing sexual behaviors that lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS. Pence has, for example, advocated for abstinence as a way to prevent sexual diseases. "Indeed, promoting safer sexual behaviour is a common intervention strategy in the fight against HIV/AIDS," reader Justin Goddard of Ontario, Canada, said in an email. Other fact-checking websites, such as Snopes.com, have examined the claim Pence supported conversion therapy and concluded it’s not a settled case. LGBT rights advocates say given Pence’s extensive record of opposing gays and lesbians, his words are indeed confirmation that he supported conversion therapy. "That is very specific language — some might call it a dog whistle — that has been used for decades to very thinly cloak deeply homophobic beliefs," Rea Carey, executive director of the National L.G.B.T.Q. Task Force told the New York Times in late November. "Particularly the phrase ‘seeking to change their sexual behavior,’ to me, is code for conversion therapy." "It’s the most likely reading" of Pence’s words, Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, an LGBT civil rights group, told PolitiFact California. "We view this in the context of the whole record. … You can’t think of someone who is more hostile to LGBT people and people with AIDS than Mike Pence." Also on the 2000 website, Pence wrote: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a 'discreet [sic] and insular minority' entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities." Statement mischaracterized? In an email exchange with PolitiFact California in late July, Pence’s spokesman Marc Lotter did not directly answer whether Pence supported conversion therapy. Four months later, Lotter told the New York Times, however, that it was "patently false" that Mr. Pence "supported or advocated" the practice of conversion therapy. Lotter added that Pence had been calling for federal funds to "be directed to groups that promoted safe sexual practices" during his 2000 congressional campaign, and he said it was a "mischaracterization" to interpret the statement as a reference to conversion therapy. Newsom’s campaign spokesman said in November he did not have any additional information pointing to Pence’s stance on conversion therapy. As reported by McClatchy DC in July, Pence continues to be at the center of gay rights controversy: "Pence angered gay rights groups (in 2015) when he signed a religious freedom bill that opponents said would allow businesses to discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation. Pence later backtracked, when state lawmakers changed the law to say that no discrimination would be allowed." At the Republican National Convention this summer, the McClatchy news service noted: "Delegates voted to approve a platform that backs the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children. The platform makes no specific mention of gay conversion therapy, but critics say that passage is aimed at accepting the notion that one’s sexual orientation can be changed." GOP Party Chairman Reince Priebus, who President-Elect Donald Trump has selected as chief of staff for the incoming administration, has denied that passage encourages conversion therapy. Our ruling California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom said Indiana Governor and now Vice President-Elect Mike Pence "advocated for diverting taxpayer dollars to so-called conversion therapy." Pence’s own words on his campaign website from 2000, specifically a passage that calls for funding groups that give "assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior," have been interpreted by LGBT advocates as supporting the controversial practice. Pence’s statement, however, does not explicitly mention conversion therapy. Readers and other fact-checking outlets have said Pence may have been calling for safer sexual sexual practices rather than pushing for efforts to change one’s sexual orientation. When asked about the statement in July, Pence’s spokesman Marc Lotter did not directly answer whether the Indiana governor supports the practice. Months later, Lotter strongly denied that Pence supports conversion therapy and said Pence was calling for funds to "be directed to groups that promoted safe sexual practices" Given Pence’s strong and extensive opposition to LGBT rights, his words in 2000 have been widely interpreted as supporting the controversial practice. Rea Carey, executive director of the National L.G.B.T.Q. Task Force, has called them "a dog whistle" for like-minded supporters of conversion therapy. Newsom’s definitive claim, however, that Pence advocated for conversion therapy is not fully supported. We rate it Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/62f4ea40-225a-4933-a430-aa0a942a7509	None	Gavin Newsom	None	None	None	2016-12-02T10:49:58	2016-07-27	['Mike_Pence']
-pomt-12709	On filibusters for U.S. Supreme Court nominees.	/florida/statements/2017/mar/09/bill-nelson/did-sen-bill-nelson-flip-flop-use-filibuster-supre/	A conservative group misfired in its attack on U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., for being inconsistent on the use of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. America Rising Squared, the policy arm of the conservative America Rising PAC, said in an online post that Nelson, up for re-election in 2018, committed a "filibuster flip-flop" on President Donald Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch. "In 2006, Nelson opposed the use of a filibuster for the nomination of Justice (Samuel) Alito, but now has adopted a different stance," said America Rising Squared, a group advocating for senators to support Gorsuch. We decided to look at whether Nelson flip-flopped on using the filibuster for a Supreme Court nominee on our Flip-O-Meter, which examines whether a politician has been consistent on an issue. Experts told us America Rising mischaracterized Nelson’s record. Samuel Alito and the filibuster process As proof of its claim, America Rising Squared points to Nelson’s votes in January 2006 on the nomination of Alito, who was appointed by President George W. Bush to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Democrats fought against Alito’s nomination mainly due to his criticism of Roe vs. Wade, the decision that legalized abortion nationwide. But in the weeks leading up to the vote, Democrats, including leaders Harry Reid and Charles Schumer showed little interest in using the filibuster to block his nomination. (Reid and Schumer would ultimately go along with the filibuster.) Under Senate rules, a minority of senators -- even just one -- can filibuster, or hold up, a Supreme Court nomination, effectively requiring 60 votes for a motion to end debate and move on to the nomination itself. When the minority party filibusters an initiative, as many Democrats have pledged to do with the Gorsuch nomination, the majority party can force a vote through a procedure called cloture. This effectively ends the filibuster by limiting the debate to 30 more hours. Days before the vote on Alito, Reid said, "Everyone knows there is not enough votes to support a filibuster." Massachusetts Democrats John Kerry and Ted Kennedy led a filibuster effort anyway, drawing interest from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they contemplated a presidential bid. But the effort failed, as almost half of the Senate's Democrats — including Nelson — voted against it on Jan. 30. We found no statements by Nelson at the time about his opinion on the use of the filibuster, but he didn’t go along with it. The Senate voted 72-25 to end debate on Alito's Supreme Court nomination. A "yes" vote was a vote to end debate, while a "no" vote was a vote to filibuster Alito’s nomination. Nelson was one of 19 Democrats and 53 Republicans to vote "yes." The next day, the Senate held an up-or-down vote on Alito’s nomination. Nelson was one of 42 senators to vote against Alito while 58 voted in favor. Nelson told reporters that he viewed Alito as being against the "little guy" in the face of big corporations and government. Nelson’s statements about Gorsuch process Since the Republicans currently hold 52 Senate seats, it means the GOP needs eight Democrats to schedule a final vote on Gorsuch, assuming no Republican defections. (Then the nomination itself needs only 51 votes to pass.) It will likely be difficult for Republicans to sway eight Democrats, so it’s possible that the GOP will use the "nuclear option." Related to Gorsuch’s nomination, Nelson’s spokesman Ryan Brown pointed to Nelson’s interview with the Tampa Bay Times in February. (The Times is PolitiFact’s parent company.) Nelson told the Times he stands with Democrats in insisting on a 60-vote threshold. "You bet I do. The filibuster has always forced the political extremes to come of the middle to build consensus," Nelson said, adding it was a "mistake" for Reid to lower the threshold on other nominees that were stymied by Republicans. Brown told PolitiFact Florida that Nelson doesn’t support the "nuclear option," a procedural shortcut known as the "nuclear option" that would enable Senate Republicans to sidestep the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominations. "In 2006, Nelson voted for cloture - that doesn’t mean he supports changing the Senate rules," Brown said. "Just because you vote for cloture, doesn’t mean you support the so-called ‘nuclear option.’ " See our explainer on the "nuclear option" We asked three political science professors to review America Rising’s argument against Nelson’s actions. All three said they saw no inconsistencies in Nelson’s actions. "There is a huge difference between voting for cloture in 2006 (utilizing a process in the existing rules) and not wanting to see the Senate change its rules in 2017," said Gregory Koger at the University of Miami. "Indeed, there is a high level of consistency between these actions: Both affirm the use of the existing cloture rule to address filibusters against Supreme Court nominations." Steven S. Smith, a Washington University political science professor, said that favoring the 60-vote threshold is not inconsistent with voting for or against cloture or the confirmation in any particular case. "In this case, a senator has a point of view about the best rules for the Senate and, under those rules, exercises his judgment in different ways on different issues," Smith said. "There is nothing inconsistent about that." In Alito’s case, Nelson wanted the Senate to vote on the nomination even though he opposed Alito, said Burdett Loomis at the University of Kansas. "Now he says he supports 60 votes (to overcome a filibuster) to bring Gorsuch’s nomination forward," Loomis said. "This is exactly what he did with Alito, even though he might well vote differently in this instance. And this has nothing to do with the nuclear option." One final point: Nelson’s stance related to the process of Gorsuch’s nomination isn’t complete. Nelson, who met with Gorsuch on March 7, has "not yet decided how he will vote on cloture or confirmation," Brown told PolitiFact Florida. Our ruling Nelson did not join a failed effort by some of his Democratic nominees to filibuster Alito’s nomination in 2006. He voted to end debate and then voted against Alito’s nomination. Gorsuch’s nomination hasn’t reached a vote yet, and Nelson hasn’t said how he will ultimately vote on cloture or confirmation. But he has said he stands by the 60-vote threshold. Nelson made No Flip. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bill Nelson	None	None	None	2017-03-09T14:51:38	2017-03-07	['None']
-hoer-00272	'Shocking Video'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/shocking-video-facebook-scams.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'Shocking Video' Facebook Scams	February 20, 2014	None	['None']
-tron-03094	KKK Members Appear at Trump Rally in Las Vegas	https://www.truthorfiction.com/kkk-members-appear-at-trump-rally-in-las-vegas/	None	politics	None	None	None	KKK Members Appear at Trump Rally in Las Vegas	Feb 25, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02617	An airliner was saved by a pickup truck after its landing gear malfunctioned.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-truckin-miracle/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Plane with Landing Gear Failure Saved by Truck?	10 November 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-03799	Says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says "we can only have three bullets" and "the NRA wants firearms with nukes on them."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/26/wayne-lapierre/wayne-lapierre-michael-bloomberg-says-we-can-only-/	Who makes "ridiculous" claims about guns? The other side, of course. National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre appeared on Meet the Press on March 24, 2013, after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "It’s insane the stuff he says," LaPierre said of Bloomberg, a co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns who’s spending millions on ads in support of stricter gun controls. "We have people all over, millions of people, sending us $5, $10, $15, $20 checks saying stand up to this guy that says we can only have three bullets, which is what he said," LaPierre told host David Gregory. "Stand up to this guy who says ridiculous things like the NRA wants firearms with nukes on them." We wondered: Did Bloomberg say "we can only have three bullets" and "the NRA wants firearms with nukes on them"? ‘Three bullets’ We asked Bloomberg’s office and the NRA about LaPierre’s comments, and searched news databases and the Web. We didn’t find evidence that Bloomberg said "we can only have three bullets." He publicly endorses a ban on "military-style assault weapons" and "high-capacity ammunition magazines," such as in a Feb. 11, 2013 letter to lawmakers from Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Generally, that’s meant opposition to magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, the target of legislation making its way through Congress. Other folks in favor of stricter gun control have argued that magazines with more than three rounds ought to be banned, such as Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., in a December interview on MSNBC. Has Bloomberg? Close. But not quite. The NRA pointed us to a Nightline interview on Dec. 20, 2012, in which the mayor says if you need more than three bullets, you’re a lousy shot. Anchor Cynthia McFadden asked him about the challenge of defining an "assault weapon." "Well, if it can fire a lot of bullets very quickly, that's a good place to start, okay, and then you can argue about what a lot is," Bloomberg said. McFadden starts to interject, and the mayor continues: "Let's pick it. Let's say three. If you haven't hit the deer with three shots, you're a pretty lousy shot. The deer deserves to get away. Let's get serious here." Later, he says: "If it's 30 bullets, or 20 bullets or 10 bullets before you run out, I would suggest, God wants that deer to live." McFadden says: "But according to gun owners, what you've just described would ban most guns used by hunters today." Bloomberg: "If that's what they're using, for God sakes, why aren't they using dynamite? Just make it easier. I mean, what's the sport?" Did that interview constitute a proposal to ban more than three bullets? Not according to Bloomberg’s spokesman, John McCarthy, who shared the Bloomberg speech and letter supporting legislation to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. "Everything we have proposed has been very public. We have never proposed that," McCarthy said. "We have been very clear about what we have wanted and have seven years' worth of public advocacy, reports, press releases and more. We have never called for that, nor did he in that interview." ‘Firearms with nukes’ Did Bloomberg say "the NRA wants firearms with nukes on them"? Almost. He said the group would support the right to own them. Here’s what he told MSNBC anchor Mika Brzezinski on Dec. 18, 2012’s Morning Joe: "The U.S. Army has a rifle — they call it a rifle. I would call it a cannon. It’s attached to the front of a tank or a moving vehicle," Bloomberg said. "It shoots a nuclear warhead. The NRA would say, ‘Oh, that’s a gun. And people have a right to have that.’ " (We searched for a sign the NRA would indeed say such a thing. At the moment, the group pokes fun at the idea. Meanwhile, it once blessed a ban on fully automatic machine guns, much less ones with nuclear warheads. Still, soon afterward it said it supported "the right of law-abiding individuals to choose to own any firearm, including automatic firearms.") Why did Bloomberg think the NRA would support a nuclear-armed populace? "The NRA used to support background checks, and now they don't," McCarthy said. "The mayor was using a rhetorical device to point out that if you oppose every regulation, you will allow anything." Our ruling LaPierre claimed that Bloomberg has said "we can only have three bullets" and "the NRA wants firearms with nukes on them." He’s partially right. Bloomberg suggested on MSNBC that the NRA would support the right to carry a cannon firing nuclear warheads — but his point was that the organization always supports gun rights, not that it was actively promoting nuclear weapons. And while he hasn’t formally proposed a three-bullet maximum, he does support banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and has said anyone who needs more than three is "a pretty lousy shot." LaPierre hits the target, but it’s no bull’s-eye. We rate his claim Half True.	None	Wayne LaPierre	None	None	None	2013-03-26T16:13:49	2013-03-24	['Michael_Bloomberg', 'National_Rifle_Association']
-pomt-12955	"Donald Trump dead from a fatal heart attack!"	/punditfact/statements/2017/jan/04/thenewyorkeveningcom/news-trumps-death-fake-his-wrestlemania-appearance/	A fake news website is posting a real image of President-elect Donald Trump and using it to draw a bogus conclusion. "Donald Trump dead from a fatal heart attack!" screamed a Dec. 19, 2016, headline from a site called TheNewYorkEvening.com. The post came with a startling and real image of Trump sprawled out on the ground. The post and photo were flagged by Facebook users as part of the social media giant’s crackdown on fake news. Obviously Trump is not dead. Reading a newspaper, turning on a TV or radio or going anywhere else on the Internet will prove that. Bu where is that photo coming from? And is it real? It is. It comes from Trump's 2007 appearance at WrestleMania 23. Trump, who knows World Wrestling Entertainment kingpin Vince McMahon, had agreed to the Battle of the Billionaires. In that storyline, Trump and McMahon both chose a proxy wrestler to compete in the annual pay-per-view event, with the loser having his head shaved in front of the roaring crowd. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com This screen grab of an image on fake news sites implied that it was taken after Donald Trump's imaginary heart attack, but it's actually Trump suffering from a Stone Cold Stunner during Wrestlemania 23. At the match, Trump clotheslined McMahon prior to Trump’s wrestler winning the match. Trump then shaved McMahon’s head in the ring. Notably absent from many online clips is what happened next: Guest referee Steve Austin delivered a Stone Cold Stunner to Trump, leaving Trump writhing on the mat. That’s the image being used in the fake news still. Trump was involved with the WWE for several years after the match. One storyline in 2009 involved Trump buying the WWE’s Raw from McMahon, then selling it back to him for twice the price. Even though the sale was fake, it still caused WWE stock to drop 7 percent at one point. Trump was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2013. Three years later, the president-elect tapped McMahon’s wife Linda McMahon, who donated $6 million to a Trump super PAC, to head the Small Business Administration. TheNewYorkEvening.com seems to mix snippets of real stories, like a recent announcement that Ford Motor Company was abandonding plans to build a new plant in Mexico, with fake ones. The idea is likely to trick viewers. This claim rates Pants On Fire! https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c1353155-0e42-4c34-beae-5abff58056bf	None	TheNewYorkEvening.com	None	None	None	2017-01-04T17:32:25	2016-12-19	['None']
-pomt-11234	"Thousands killed as Israel Drops Tactical Nuclear Bomb On Syria"	/punditfact/statements/2018/may/04/blog-posting/fake-news-claims-thousands-killed-nuclear-bomb-syr/	It’s not true that Israel dropped a nuclear bomb in Syria, killing thousands. A website called exclusive103.com shared that false story based on legitimate reports of strikes in Syria. "Thousands killed as Israel drops tactical nuclear bomb on Syria," said the headline of an April 30 post on exclusive103.com. The story claimed an Israeli plane "dropped the first nuclear bomb deployed in armed conflict since the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to local reports." The post said the nuclear attack targeted an ammunitions depot in Hama, Syria, and created a 2.6-magnitude earthquake. Exclusive103.com’s About Us section says it is "your gallant news out-let that informs you all you needs to know about daily worldwide breaking news." The stories on the website are ridiculous and untrue. Facebook users flagged the April 30 post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. Legitimate news outlets, including NBC News and the New York Times, on April 30 reported on missile strikes (not a nuclear bomb) in Hama with explosions powerful enough to cause a 2.6-magnitude earthquake. The strikes targeted an arms depot for ground-to-ground missiles, NBC News and other outlets reported. Media reports said that while the death toll varied, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 26 people were killed (not thousands). Israel was the presumed attacker, but there was no official confirmation from the Israeli government. "Israel’s military does not comment on individual attacks in Syria, and a spokesman declined to comment on Sunday’s attack, most likely because if Israel claimed responsibility it could put pressure on Iranian leaders to strike back," the New York Times reported. Exclusive103.com distorted information about strikes in Syria to falsely claim thousands were killed because of a nuclear bomb. We rate exclusive103.com’s post Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-05-04T11:58:11	2018-04-30	['Syria']
-pomt-05701	"If we keep the minimum wage at the current level, then single-parent families earning the minimum wage at a full-time job will live in poverty in New Jersey."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/mar/09/wayne-deangelo/assemblyman-says-single-parent-earning-current-min/	As a tough economy stretches resources, a Democratic legislator said the lifeline for New Jersey families relying on a minimum wage job is thinning -- and soon it may snap. Residents struggling to find work in the recession turned to lower-paying jobs to get by, but the situation hasn’t improved, Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo, who represents parts of Mercer and Middlesex counties, said in a letter to the editor published Feb. 27 in The Times of Trenton. "Since the economy is slow to grow, these jobs have become permanent, thereby cementing the reality that the minimum wage simply is not a sustainable salary for New Jerseyans," DeAngelo wrote. "At the current New Jersey minimum wage, a full-time employee earns only $15,080. In comparison, the federal poverty level for a two-person household is $15,130. If we keep the minimum wage at the current level, then single-parent families earning the minimum wage at a full-time job will live in poverty in New Jersey. We can’t sit idly by while parents raising their children cannot financially support themselves or pay the bare minimum of daily expenses while earning the minimum wage." Is the state’s minimum wage too little to lift a single-parent family out of poverty, as DeAngelo suggests? PolitiFact New Jersey found the assemblyman is right. A plan to raise the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $8.50 per hour, then adjust it annually based on any increase in the Consumer Price Index, is coursing its way through the state Legislature. But currently, full-time workers with minimum-wage jobs earn roughly $15,080 annually in New Jersey before taxes if they work 40 hours a week, every week of the year. The federal government releases two measures of poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau sets poverty thresholds using income before taxes, which are used primarily for statistical purposes such as estimating the number of Americans in poverty each year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sets federal poverty guidelines that are used for more administrative reasons, such as determining eligibility for assistance programs. Agencies may apply different income measures -- before taxes or after taxes -- to the guidelines. A spokesman for the Assembly Democrats said DeAngelo based his statement on the federal health department’s poverty measure. For a family of two, the measure tops off at $15,130. That’s $50 more than the gross income of an individual working full-time at a minimum wage job. For comparison, the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold is $15,504 for a two-person household with a parent and child. As the size of a household grows, the poverty measure increases. For a family of four, the federal health department’s guideline is $23,050. The Census Bureau’s threshold, which changes depending on the number of children under 18 in the household, is $22,891 for a family of four, with one parent and three children. There’s debate about the overall economic benefits of an increase in the minimum wage. We’re not wading into that argument in this Truth-O-Meter item. But in the scenario DeAngelo highlights, the annual earnings for a full-time worker would increase to $17,680 if New Jersey increased its minimum wage to $8.50 per hour. That’s $2,550 more than the health department’s poverty guideline for a family of two, but still less than the guidelines for any other size household. Our ruling The assemblyman said: "If we keep the minimum wage at the current level, then single-parent families earning the minimum wage at a full-time job will live in poverty in New Jersey. " A New Jersey resident working full-time at a job paying the state’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour makes roughly $15,000 annually. For a family of two, the federal health department’s poverty guideline is $15,130. We rate the claim True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. Editor's Note: A research fellow with the business-backed Employment Policies Institute took issue with this ruling. We address his points in this story.	None	Wayne DeAngelo	None	None	None	2012-03-09T07:30:00	2012-02-27	['New_Jersey']
-vees-00126	SONA 2017 PROMISE TRACKER: Social services	http://verafiles.org/articles/sona-promise-tracker-social-services	None	None	None	None	SONA promise tracker,SONA 2017,SONA2017	SONA 2017 PROMISE TRACKER: Social services	July 20, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00777	The Story of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the Rabbi	https://www.truthorfiction.com/kareem-abdul-jabbar/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	The Story of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the Rabbi	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-10180	McCain "has opposed stem cell research."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/24/barack-obama/obama-ad-distorts-mccains-stem-cell-position/	Competing radio ads from the McCain and Obama campaigns in the last week may have left voters confused about where Sen. John McCain stands on stem cell research. First, you had a McCain campaign ad highlighting McCain’s support for stem cell research. Then you had an Obama campaign ad that portrayed McCain as an opponent of stem cell research. Which one is wrong? For the most part, that dubious honor goes to the Obama ad. Here’s what the Obama ad says: "Stem cell research could unlock cures for diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer’s too. But John McCain has stood in the way...he’s opposed stem cell research...picked a running mate who’s against it...and he’s running on a platform even more extreme than George Bush’s on this vital research. "John McCain doesn’t understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn’t be held hostage by the political views of a few." At one time, McCain did oppose embryonic stem cell research. In February, 2000, McCain joined 19 other senators in asking the National Institutes of Health to withdraw its new proposals to fund federal embryonic-cell research. But then McCain changed his mind. McCain explained why in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on July 15, 2001. "I’ve looked at the issue more carefully," McCain said. "I have talked with numerous scientific experts. I believe that under stringent safeguards and under the most rigorous kinds of procedures, that this can help in finding the cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other serious diseases. I had supported, in the past, fetal tissue research, and this is an earlier stage, as you know, of the process. So, I think it’s an issue that I was educated on." In June 2004, McCain was among 58 U.S. senators — most of them Democrats — who signed a letter urging President Bush to change his position and allow federal funding for scientific research on embryonic stem cells. McCain has backed up that position with votes in the U.S. Senate, putting him in the distinct minority among his Republican colleagues. On July 18, 2006, and again on April 11, 2007, McCain voted in favor of a bill that would allow the use of federal funds in research on embryonic stem cell lines derived from surplus embryos at in-vitro fertilization clinics. In both cases, McCain ran counter to the majority of Republicans, although both bills passed with overwhelming support from Democrats. Republican U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who also voted for the bills, noted that it was a position unpopular in Republican circles. "The fact is John McCain has been a champion for stem cell research, which holds the promise of curing devastating diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease," Specter said in a statement released on Sept. 23, 2008. "John McCain bucked the majority of our party in standing strong with me in urging the Bush administration to lift restrictions on stem cell research, and last year voted to overturn the Bush policy." So how does the Obama campaign back up its claim that McCain has stood in the way of — and opposed �� stem cell research? First, the Obama campaign accuses McCain of pandering to social conservatives at a private meeting in Ohio in June. The campaign cites a Los Angeles Times article which states that McCain "told the small assembly that he was open to learning more about their opposition to embryonic stem cell research despite his past disagreements with them on the issue." But the article also notes that "several participants said McCain did not offer any indication he would change his mind, but they said they were impressed that he appeared open to" points made by one of the country’s leading opponents of using embryonic stem cells. The Obama campaign also notes that the recently adopted GOP platform calls for "a major expansion" of adult stem cell research but also "a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes." Again, however, this is a position at odds with McCain’s. The Obama campaign also notes that McCain selected a vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who opposes embryonic stem cell research. That’s accurate. In a 2006 Alaska gubernatorial debate , Palin said stem cell research ran counter to her prolife position. "Stem cell research that would ultimately end in destruction of life," she said, "I couldn’t support." In an interview that aired Sept. 12, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked Palin about embryonic stem cell research, given McCain’s support. "You know, when you’re running for office, your life is an open book and you do owe it to Americans to talk about your personal opinion, which may end up being different than what the policy in an administration would be," Palin said. "My personal opinion is we should not create human life, create an embryo and then destroy it for research, if there are other options out there. And thankfully, again, not only are there other options, but we’re getting closer and closer to finding a tremendous amount more of options, like, as I mentioned, the adult stem cell research." Palin’s clear opposition to embryonic research is actually our biggest problem with McCain’s ad on stem cell research, which begins by calling McCain and Palin "the original mavericks." The ad states: "John McCain will lead his congressional allies to improve America’s health. Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness. Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns. Stem cell research to help stroke victims. And, John McCain and his congressional allies will invest millions more in new NIH medical research to prevent disease. Medical breakthroughs to help you get better, faster. Change is coming. McCain-Palin and congressional allies. The leadership and experience to really change Washington and improve your health." By including Palin in the ad, it suggests she is in step with his position. And as we have noted, she is not. But it should be noted that when asked about the issue directly, Palin made clear that while her "personal opinion" would be in disagreement with a policy supporting embryonic stem cell research, she would respect a McCain-led administration's right to set such a policy. Ultimately, the McCain ad is substantially more accurate than the one from the Obama camp. We get that it may make some stem cell proponents nervous when McCain tells hard-line opponents to embryonic stem cell research that he is open to listening to their arguments; or that he chose a running mate who opposes embryonic stem cell research; or that the GOP platform calls for a ban on experimentation on human embryos for research purposes. But McCain has not backed away from his position. Asked in a Republican debate in California on May 3, 2007, what he thought about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, McCain was unequivocal. "I believe that we need to fund this," McCain said. "This is a tough issue for those of us in the prolife community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. "We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding." And McCain has backed up his words with his vote twice in recent years, even when it meant challenging President Bush and a majority of his fellow Senate Republicans. That’s not standing in the way of, or opposing, stem cell research. We rate the Obama ad False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-09-24T00:00:00	2008-09-16	['None']
-pomt-03445	The state GOP ticket "says their top priority is a career-long mission to outlaw abortion in all cases and ban some common forms of birth control."	/virginia/statements/2013/jun/21/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-claims-gop-ticket-says-its-top-priority-/	Members of the Democratic state ticket gathered recently in Richmond for their first campaign rally an immediately labeled their Republican opponents as extremists. "The Tea Party ticket says their top priority is a career-long mission to outlaw abortion in all cases and ban some common forms of birth control," Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, told a crowd of about 150 at the Hippodrome Theater in Jackson Ward. The claim caught our attention. There’s no doubt that the members of the GOP slate -- gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli, lieutenant governor candidate E.W. Jackson and attorney general candidate Mark Obenshain -- are strongly opposed to abortion. But have they really said their No. 1 goal is to ban abortion and some forms of contraception? We asked McAuliffe’s campaign for proof and spokesman Josh Schwerin pointed to a comment Cuccinelli made at a February 2012 rally to support personhood legislation. The bill, which defined life as beginning at conception, had passed the House when Cuccinelli spoke but would subsequently die in the Senate. "It’s hard to believe we actually have to come and advocate for something as basic as life, but we’ve had to do it for decades and we’re going to have to do it for the rest of our lives," The Washington Times quoted Cuccinelli as saying. "The fight for life is going to last for all of our lives." Schwerin cited various press reports and other materials saying the personhood measure would lead to a ban on all abortions and forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a uterus. But this Truth-O-Meter is not about the consequences of personhood legislation. We are examining whether the GOP ticket has proclaimed that ending abortion and certain types of contraception is its top priority. So Cuccinelli’s comments at the rally are immaterial. There are plenty of instances when members of the GOP ticket opposed abortion. Cuccinelli helped muscle through controversial new regulations that require clinics performing abortions to comply with building code standards for hospitals -- an action that was criticized as a ruse to force clinics to close. In a May 18 speech at the Republican state convention accepting the gubernatorial nomination, Cuccinelli called for "defending those at both ends of life -- protecting the elderly from abuse as well as the unborn." Jackson, the lieutenant governor nominee, has called abortion "genocide." And Obenshain, running for attorney general, has consistently voted to restrict abortion rights during his nine years in the state Senate. But when it comes to identifying the most important issue facing voters this fall, Cuccinelli has said it’s the economy. He was asked in a Jan. 3 radio interview on The John Fredericks Show how a Cuccinelli administration would differ from current GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell. "In some ways it would be very similar," Cuccinelli replied. "Certainly the same top priority of focusing on economic opportunity would be the same in a Cuccinelli administration." And in a May 7 news conference announcing his tax plan, Cuccinelli said "as governor, job creation will be my top priority." We asked McAuliffe’s spokesman if he had any other evidence that Cuccinelli and his running mates have stated that ending abortions and restricting birth control are their main reasons for running this year. Schwerin pointed to comments Cuccinelli made last September during a visit to Prison Fellowship, a Lansdowne-based ministry. "Start with the priorities. Work your way down: life, family, community, world -- a lot of ways to affect the ones at the bottom," Cuccinelli said. "It gets narrower and narrower as you get to the top. None of those other rights matter a whole lot if you don’t get born." Schwerin provided another snippet of a clip, this one from Cuccinelli’s appearance at a June 2011 conference of homeschoolers in Herndon. "And that’s where the candidate’s responsibility arises. You give a campaign purpose. My purpose was to fight abortion, to shrink government, to protect life and families," Cuccinelli said. That establishes once again that one of Cuccinelli’s key reasons for entering politics is to oppose abortion. But it falls short of a declaration by the GOP ticket of its No. 1 goal. Our ruling McAuliffe claimed the GOP ticket "says their top priority is a career-long mission to outlaw abortion in all cases and ban some common forms of birth control." A compelling argument can be made that members of the GOP ticket will do everything possible to restrict abortions and those actions could ban certain types of birth control. But McAuliffe went an extra step and put words in the mouths of his opponents. We rate McAuliffe’s statement False.	None	Terry McAuliffe	None	None	None	2013-06-21T11:41:12	2013-06-12	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-11204	Says Joe Manchin displayed an "unwillingness to change the failed Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/15/patrick-morrisey/patrick-morrisey-says-joe-manchin-wont-budge-obama/	As the general election for the seat held by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., heated up, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey took a shot in a radio interview with Breitbart, saying Manchin too often stands against President Donald Trump, who remains popular in the state. Referring to Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, Morrisey said, "If Joe Manchin had his way, Judge (Neil) Gorsuch never would have been able to get a vote" in the Senate. Morrisey went on to say, "Whether we're talking judicial picks, whether we're talking Trump tax cuts, whether we're talking unwillingness to change the failed Obamacare ... Joe Manchin has not stood with President Trump." Morrisey is right that Manchin voted against the tax bill supported by Trump and most Republicans. But he isn’t really right about Manchin’s positions on Gorsuch and modifying Obamacare, officially known as the Affordable Care Act. We’ll look at the Obamacare assertion here; we separately fact-checked the part about Gorsuch in another item. Bottom line: Despite voting against the major Obamacare overhaul that most Republicans supported, Manchin has been open to making incremental changes to the law. Changing Obamacare Manchin voted against the major Obamacare overhauls that most Republicans supported in 2017. When the Senate took up three varieties of bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Manchin voted against all three bills, siding with all other Democrats. All three failed, due to Republican defections. However, it is wrong to say that Manchin was unwilling to "change" the Affordable Care Act. In January 2017, Manchin told West Virginia’s MetroNews radio that he had told Republican leaders that he's "happy to sit down with you to see if we can find a pathway forward" on Obamacare, Politico reported. Six months later, Manchin repeated that sentiment, telling MetroNews’ Talkline that he was still willing to work toward fixes for Obamacare, even as he objected to the Republican plan for a thorough overhaul. "If they want to say, ‘Okay, Joe, we can’t pass this thing. Will you sit down and work with us?’ I’m there tonight with them and I’ll get six or seven or eight other very like-minded Democrats," Manchin said. Manchin then organized a bipartisan health care policy meeting. Perhaps most important, Manchin was one of 24 original supporters — 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans — of a bill written by Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., that was touted as a way to fix rather than scuttle Obamacare. The measure would have granted flexibility for states to allow a wider variety of insurance policies while temporarily continuing certain Obamacare payments that were at risk under a repeal. (It remains pending.) Manchin also expressed public support for efforts by Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., to modify Obamacare short of repeal, which crystallized as S. 1835, which would allow states to apply for funding for a reinsurance program or high-risk pool program. The Morrisey camp pointed to several votes, including a number of Republican attempts to either repeal Obamacare entirely or make sweeping changes to it. But Morrisey’s use of the word "change" suggests something more measured than those bills offered, so we won’t consider them as evidence of Morrisey’s claim. Of the other votes Morrisey’s campaign cited, three concerned one narrow provision of the law: the "Cadillac" tax on high-cost health care plans. This provision has been controversial ever since the passage of the law, and the effective date has regularly been pushed back by Congress. Manchin declined to push back the effective date on at least three occasions, sometimes alongside Republicans. On one such vote in December 2015, Manchin was joined by six other Democrats and three Republicans. On another vote that same month, Manchin was joined by 26 Republicans and six other Democrats or Democratic-aligned Independents. The third vote, in July 2017, was largely along party lines. Morrisey’s campaign mentioned other Obamacare-related votes on taxes, including a 2013 amendment to repeal Obamacare tax increases that hit "middle-income Americans." These included the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance, the "Cadillac" tax, expense deductions and penalties for withdrawing funds from health savings accounts. This amendment failed on a party-line vote. These comprise the strongest piece of evidence for Morrisey’s position, but they mostly involve relatively narrow tax provisions affecting how the law is funded. It’s worth noting that Manchin has also pursued his own efforts to tweak the bill narrowly, such as exempting volunteer first responders from the tax for not having health insurance; to delay the individual mandate penalty; and to redefine who counts as a full-time employee under the law. Our ruling Morrisey said Manchin displayed an "unwillingness to change the failed Obamacare." Manchin did oppose the various Republican-led repeal efforts, but he has worked actively to promote incremental changes to Obamacare — not only rhetorically but also by backing bipartisan bills intended as efforts to modify Obamacare without scuttling it. We rate the statement Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Patrick Morrisey	None	None	None	2018-05-15T09:00:00	2018-05-11	['None']
-pomt-06653	"We know that President Obama stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/12/michele-bachmann/did-president-obama-steal-500-billion-medicare/	At a debate in Tampa, the Republican presidential candidates were asked this stumper by a Florida tea party supporter: How do you convince senior citizens that Social Security and Medicare need to be changed and still get their vote? Bachmann said she had both the government experience and the private-sector experience to understand how the programs should be changed, but she offered few specifics. She also took the opportunity to criticize the new health care law championed by President Barack Obama, saying, "We know that President Obama stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare." We've looked into this topic previously, though we haven't heard the specific allegation that the money was "stolen." We'll begin with a review of how the new health care law handles funding for Medicare and for the new parts of the law. To begin with, the health care law leaves in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. It attempts to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid for the very poor and by offering tax breaks to help people with modest incomes buy insurance. Individuals are required to have insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." And companies that don't offer insurance to employees have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases. The national health care reform law also made several changes to Medicare, which makes up roughly 12 percent of the federal budget. In a few cases, the law actually increased Medicare spending to provide more benefits and coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a trusted independent source that analyzes the health care system. For instance, the health care law added money to cover prevention services and to fill a gap for enrollees who purchase prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program. (That coverage gap is often referred to as the doughnut hole.) Other parts of the law are intended to reduce future growth in Medicare spending, to encourage more efficiency and to improve the delivery and quality of care. (An example is paying hospitals less when patients are quickly re-admitted to hospitals after being discharged, to prevent people from being discharged too soon.) The bill doesn't take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare, the law doesn't cut current funding for Medicare. Still, where does the $500 billion in future savings come from? Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program, an alternative to traditional Medicare that has turned out to be much more costly than expected. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. If you disregard the incendiary word "stole," it is true that savings from Medicare help pay for other parts of the health care law. That's because Democrats wanted to make sure they did not increase the federal deficit with the new health law. The savings from Medicare offset new spending resulting from the health care bill. Mostly, the new spending in the health care law comes from tax credits to help people of modest incomes buy health insurance and from expanding Medicaid to offer coverage to the poor. The tax credits and other cost-sharing subsidies are estimated to cost $350 billion over 10 years, while the Medicaid expansion costs $434 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Those two initiatives add up to more than $500 billion. So in addition to reducing future Medicare spending, the law also increases Medicare taxes on the wealthy and creates new fees for the health care industry, as well as a few other things, to come up with the needed sums. Now, to address the word "stole." The money was not stolen in any literal sense of the word. Congress passed the law through its normal process, and the cost reductions for Medicare were out in the open during the many weeks that the final law was being negotiated. Bachmann said that, "We know that President Obama stole over $500 billion out of Medicare to switch it over to Obamacare." There is a small amount of truth in her statement in that future savings from Medicare are planned to offset new costs created by the law. But the law attempts to curtail the rapid growth of future Medicare spending, not cut current funding. Additionally, the money was not "stolen." Congress reduced spending on a program through its normal legislative process. That kind of rhetoric is deceptive, and it undermines Bachmann's basic point. We rate her statement Mostly False.	None	Michele Bachmann	None	None	None	2011-09-12T23:06:53	2011-09-12	['Barack_Obama', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-03232	Under Obamacare, members of Congress are required to purchase their health insurance from the new exchanges.	/rhode-island/statements/2013/aug/18/james-langevin/us-rep-james-langevin-says-he-will-be-required-pur/	One complaint about Congress is that its members make rules that apply to everyone but themselves. That complaint, mostly untrue, is being used again in the campaign against Obamacare. For example, Fox News anchorman Bill Hemmer announced on Aug. 8 that President Obama "personally intervened to make sure that members of Congress and their staffers will not have to live with Obamacare." The Wall Street Journal opined on Aug. 5 that the politicians had moved "to create a special exemption for themselves from the Obamacare health coverage that everybody else is mandated to buy." Yet when U.S. Rep. James Langevin, a Democrat representing Rhode Island’s Second Congressional District, was interviewed Aug. 12, 2013, by WPRO's Gene Valicenti, Langevin said flatly that he's now going to have to buy his health insurance from the "exchanges" that serve as online marketplaces for health care policies. "Obamacare, as you mentioned, is going to be in effect very soon. We've seen some very positive effects," he said, citing the elimination of lifetime caps and the ban on insurance companies denying coverage because of a preexisting condition. "And people will very soon be choosing their health care through the health insurance exchanges, including members of Congress." "I’ll be choosing my health care plan from the new exchange that Rhode Island is setting up," Langevin said. (Rhode Island’s exchange, HealthSource RI, starts enrollment Oct. 1 for plans that take effect in 2014.) So who is correct here? We decided to check Langevin's statement that members of Congress will have to buy from an exchange, sometimes referred to as a health insurance marketplace. Here's the short answer: members of Congress are treated differently under the law, but not in the way critics of Obamacare say. Here’s why. Under Obamacare, people must either get health insurance coverage or pay a fine, beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Generally, workers and their dependents who are covered by an employer's health insurance are all set. More than half the population is already covered that way. (Beginning in 2015, companies employing 50 or more must offer coverage or pay a penalty.) The exchanges -- set up by individual states or the federal government (if a state doesn't want to operate one) -- are designed to offer one-stop shopping for small businesses seeking affordable plans for their workers and for people without insurance looking to buy a policy. Because members of Congress and their staffs are already covered by the same health insurance plans that cover other federal employees, they wouldn’t have needed to buy their insurance through an exchange. But when Obamacare was being debated, some argued that Congress and congressional staff members should be required to buy their insurance through an exchange system, saying that would ensure that the system would work properly. If ordinary citizens would have to use the exchange, the argument went, so should Congress. That provision ultimately became part of Obamacare, formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In passing it, members of Congress made themselves and their staffers exempt from the provision of the law that would have let them stay with their existing health plan, like everyone else already covered by an employer's health insurance plan. But that opened up a different issue, and it revolves around paying for their insurance. Most individuals who buy their coverage on the exchange will have to pay for it out of their own pocket. Many will get help from a federal subsidy in the form of a tax credit that varies based on family size and income. Yet members of Congress, and some of their staff, make too much money to quality for any subsidy. So they would have to pay twice. Not only would they lose their company-subsidized insurance (in this case, the "company" is the federal government), they would have to pay for their new insurance plan entirely out of their own pocket. To resolve the issue, the Obama administration announced Aug. 7, 2013, that the money already being spent to pay for Congress’ current health insurance plan would be applied to any policy purchased from an exchange. (The government currently covers up to 75 percent of the premiums of the federal plan, with enrollees paying the rest. Members of Congress and their staffs would still have to pay their share of the bill.) It was this proposed rule that prompted critics over the past few weeks to allege that the Obama administration was creating another exemption for Congress members and their staffs. But Congress had already agreed to live by the system it created. What the new rule actually does is continue the federal government’s contribution toward its employees’ insurance coverage. So when U.S. Rep. James Langevin said he would be required to buy his health insurance through one of the Obamacare exchanges, his statement was True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	James Langevin	None	None	None	2013-08-18T00:01:00	2013-08-12	['United_States_Congress']
-pomt-08950	"The War in Afghanistan is officially the longest war Americans have ever been asked to endure."	/ohio/statements/2010/jul/23/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucinich-calls-end-americas-longest-war/	Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants the United States out of Afghanistan. In a statement on his website he decries the costs, both monetary and human, in a war that has passed too many milestones. "The War in Afghanistan is officially the longest war Americans have ever been asked to endure." he says in the statement. The greatests casualties, he says, are children of the world "for whom war becomes as ordinary as the sunrise." They pay for the war in hunger, poor health, poor housing, and a lack of education as resources are spent on the war. We thought we'd look at the congressman's statement and see how the War in Afghanistan compares with America's other wars. In terms of casualties, there's no comparison. The death toll in Afghanistan reached 1,000 at the end of May with the death of Cpl. Jacob C. Leicht, a Texas Marine serving his second overseas tour. The war in Iraq has seen more than four times as many deaths. The Civil War remains America's deadliest, with more than 600,000 deaths. More than 400,000 died in World War II. Answering which war is longest is more art then science. James Bradford, a Texas A&M historian, told us previously that the American Revolution may have begun with the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) -- or earlier, with the breakout of hostilities at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Meanwhile, the end of the war could have been the the British surrender at Yorktown (Oct. 17, 1781), the signing of the Treaty of Paris (September 1783), the ratification of the treaty by the Continental Congress (Jan. 14, 1784), the ratification by King George III of England (April 9, 1784) or the exchange of the ratification documents (May 12, 1784). Richard H. Kohn, a historian at the University of North Carolina, told us that how one conceptualizes a war further complicates the answer. "Afghanistan could be considered simply a campaign of the 'war on terror' if one accepts that as a war, just as Korea and Vietnam could be considered campaigns of the Cold War rather than separate wars." We decided not to count the 46-year-long Cold War on the grounds that it belongs in a separate category. We also did not count situations in which U.S. military forces have remained in a long-term role long after the shooting has stopped, such as the U.S. military personnel stationed in South Korea for the last 55 years. Finally, we ignored battles that are popularly called "wars" but are usually not fought on military terms, such as the "war on drugs." So, in terms of duration, the Vietnam War was tops -- until now. American involvement in Vietnam spans decades. The Eisenhower administration backed creation of South Vietnam in the 1950s and provided the country with military aid and advisors. President John F. Kennedy expanded that presence. But the formal beginning of U.S. involvement often is dated from Congress' passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution on Aug. 7, 1964. It gave President Lyndon Johnson authority to send troops into battle. The last ground combat troops left Vietnam in March 1973, 8 years and 8 months later. More than 3 million Americans served in the war. The casualty lists includes almost 58,000 dead, more than 1,000 missing in action and some 150,000 Americans seriously wounded. President George W. Bush ordered troops be sent to Afghanistan after terror attacks Sept. 11, 2001. Fighting began less than one month later on Oct. 7. Last month, on June 7, the war completed 8 years and 9 months. There's no fighting the numbers. We find this statement True. Comment on this item.	None	Dennis Kucinich	None	None	None	2010-07-23T10:00:00	2010-06-10	['Afghanistan', 'United_States']
-pomt-03893	Two-thirds of Wisconsinites receiving unemployment checks "are not required to search for work due to current work search exemptions."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/mar/04/scott-walker/two-thirds-collecting-unemployment-dont-have-look-/	When Gov. Scott Walker preached about the need to reform government assistance programs on Feb. 13, 2013, his congregation was a "business day" gathering in Madison. But one could imagine the minister's son giving the same speech at a town hall gathering in Iowa, stumping for the 2016 presidential nomination -- a possibility raised a number of times since the 2012 presidential election. In his 37-minute "dependence to independence"presentation, which was accompanied by a slide show, Walker rejected a federal proposal to expand Medicaid and called for requiring able-bodied, childless adults who receive food stamps to get job training. Then the Republican governor turned to unemployment benefits. People receiving unemployment checks should be required to look for a job four times a week instead of two, Walker said, adding "we want to make sure you’re out hustling each and every week as much as reasonably as possible to go out and find that job. We’re going to give you the skills and the backing and the opportunity to do that, but you’ve got to work to make that happen as well. I don’t think that’s an unrealistic expectation." Although Walker didn’t state it in his speech, he claimed in one of his slides that two-thirds of unemployment insurance recipients in Wisconsin "are not required to search for work due to current work search exemptions." That seems like a big number. Is he right? Is there more to the story? Unemployment picture Employment has been a contentious issue since Walker took office in January 2011. As our Walk-O-Meter shows, the governor is far off the pace for meeting his signature campaign promise of creating 250,000 private-sector jobs during his four-year term. At the same time, he emphasizes that the state's unemployment rate has been lower than the national rate and has generally declined during his tenure. In January 2013, Walker proposed tightening the standards for receiving jobless benefits, a move that would have to be approved by the Legislature. Wisconsinites seeking unemployment benefits must file a claim each week they are out of work. Depending on what their previous wages were, their unemployment benefits are between $54 and $363 per week. When filing the weekly claims, the recipients are asked a number of questions, including: Were you able to work full-time and available for full-time work? and Did you contact at least two employers during the week to try to find work? Recipients could lose their benefits if they don’t contact at least two employers "who hire people with your skills or might have other work you can do." However, state regulations waive the work search requirement under a number of circumstances. According to Walker’s Department of Workforce Development: "You may be told that you do not have to look for work if you are definitely returning to full-time work for a recent employer or if you are a member (in good standing) of a trade union that operates a hiring hall or referral system and has signed an agreement with the department. In some cases, you will not have to look for work if you are working part-time." Walker’s evidence John Dipko, a spokesman for the Department of Workforce Development, told us that Walker’s claim is based on calculations by the department. The department estimated that 60,167 people filed an initial claim for unemployment benefits in January 2013 and were paid benefits. In other words, they were filing for the first time since becoming unemployed; that’s when the determination is made on whether they must look for work. Two-thirds of those people -- 40,119 -- were not required to look for work, the department determined. We asked for figures covering a longer period of time and were given statistics indicating that in 2012, an even larger proportion of unemployment compensation recipients -- 68 percent -- were not required to work. We ran the numbers by Maurice Emsellem, policy co-director of the National Employment Law Project, which says it promotes "help unemployed workers regain their economic footing through improved benefits and services." He didn’t quarrel with the accuracy of the claim that two-thirds of the recipients don’t have to look for work. But Emsellem said it would be counterproductive, both for employers and employees, to require laid-off employees to look for new jobs if they are likely to soon return to their old job, or similar work. Those people are not likely to find better jobs -- or temporary ones -- simply by making "cold calls" to other employers, he said. Getting back to the most recent figures that Walker relied on, for January 2013, here’s a breakdown from the Department of Workforce Development of the 40,119 people who filed new claims for unemployment insurance who were not required to look for work: Laid off, expected to return to job within 12 weeks 29,636 Now working part-time for same employer 5,940 Laid off, but routinely obtains work through union hiring hall 3,837 Enrolled in job training program 442 Expected to start job with new employer within four weeks 258 Other 6 Total 40,119 So, it’s not as though the people exempted from work search are being allowed to idly collect handouts. The vast majority who aren’t required to look for jobs expect to be working again in the relatively near future, either at their same job or for a new employer. Our rating Walker said two-thirds of Wisconsinites receiving unemployment checks "are not required to search for work due to current work search exemptions." The statement is accurate, but needs additional information -- namely that the vast majority of unemployment insurance recipients who aren’t required to look for work are expected to be working again relatively soon, many at the same jobs they were laid off from. We rate Walker’s statement Mostly True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2013-03-04T09:00:00	2013-02-13	['None']
-pomt-04430	On Iran sanctions	/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/14/tammy-baldwin/after-votes-against-major-Iran-sanction-bills/	Campaigning for U.S. Senate, Republican Tommy Thompson points to Democrat Tammy Baldwin’s votes opposing economic sanctions on Iran as evidence of what he calls his rival’s "record of radical policy." So when Baldwin said in the first debate that she had voted for "tough and biting sanctions against Iran," Thompson pounced. "My opponent just, I think, misstated," Thompson said during the Sept. 28, 2012 debate. "She voted against the sanctions in 2006, 2009 and 2010, then in August (2012) she voted for them because she was running for the United States Senate. Complete change of heart." Cue the Flip-O-Meter. That’s what we use to determine if a candidate has changed position on an issue. An important note: We’re not rating the political or policy merits of any switch. We’re looking at whether the candidate has been consistent. So, did Baldwin get tough on Iran as the election neared and -- if so -- was it a change in her longstanding view? While Thompson went back to 2006, we studied dozens of Baldwin’s votes dating to 1999, her first year in Congress. Based on that review and consultations with foreign-policy analysts, we focused on the major sanctions votes -- five before Baldwin’s Senate candidacy, and two after she started running. Here’s a chronology of key actions: July 26, 2001: Baldwin joined a 409-6 House majority in approving a five-year extension of the Clinton-era Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996. That law, passed unanimously, had sought to discourage foreign energy firms from investing in those nations. The George W. Bush administration had sought a shorter extension, trying to aid diplomatic efforts. April 26, 2006: With the sanctions due to expire and concerns about Iran’s nuclear program rising, Baldwin voted against extending and toughening sanctions. The vote on the Iran Freedom Support Act was 397-21. Baldwin initially joined 359 others in co-sponsoring the bill, but said the final version was too heavy handed in targeting the oil and gas industries in Iran. Baldwin, a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq war, said the law would "give cover for a military attack by this administration." December 15, 2009: In President Barack Obama’s first year, Baldwin joined a very small minority of lawmakers in voting against what was introduced as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009. It passed the House 412-12. Baldwin said it went too far and would punish ordinary, pro-democracy Iranians by imposing sanctions against companies that supply Iran with gasoline. June 24, 2010: Baldwin voted against a beefed-up version of the 2009 bill, relabeled as the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010. The vote to approve was 408-8. A key supporter, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, called it the "strongest Iran sanctions legislation ever passed by the Congress" and necessary because "in the last year, Iran has concealed major nuclear facilities...and openly threatened to, as the Iranian president said, ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map.’'' May 26, 2011: Baldwin joined a bipartisan group of lawmakers opposing a defense funding bill that contained a major new sanctions tactic. Baldwin’s campaign says she voted against it because of her very public opposition to continued funding for the war in Afghanistan. The bill, approved 322-96, contained a provision that sought to disrupt the Iranian financial system by dissuading foreign banks from dealing with the Iranian central bank. The particulars of that move -- which the Wall Street Journal said marked "the sharpest economic confrontation between Washington and Tehran yet" -- had drawn some opposition from the Obama administration. December 14, 2011: Three months after entering the U.S. Senate race, Baldwin supported a major bill that sought to expand sanctions. The legislation, which passed as the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, sought a far-reaching expansion of the 1996 sanctions act. A New York Times account said the bill’s measures "target Iran’s oil and petrochemical sectors as well as its shipping trade, (and) intensify existing sanctions intended to choke off the revenue that Iran reaps from its two largest export industries." Baldwin was in the majority on the 410-11 vote. Among those in opposition: U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat whom Baldwin had joined in opposing previous sanction expansions. "Proponents of the Iran Threat Reduction Act claim that it's a last-ditch effort to prevent military confrontation with Iran," The Hill quoted Kucinich as saying. "Yet, this bill takes away the most effective tool to prevent war, diplomacy." August 2012: On final passage of the Threat Reduction Act, Baldwin again voted yes on a 421-6 vote. This is the vote Thompson cited. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) blasted the bill as "just one more step to another war that we don't need." We could find no public comments by Baldwin as to her reasoning on the 2012 vote. Her campaign declined to comment on it. Additional factors In our research, though, we found that Baldwin’s congressional webpage struck a tougher tone on Iran in 2012 when compared to before her entry into the Senate race. A month before she entered the race, her page said Iran was subject to sanctions in part due to its "purported support" for terror activities. It now says: "No country poses a greater threat to Middle East peace and stability than Iran. Iran is a major state sponsor of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, which exercises significant control over the government of Lebanon, and Hamas, which operates in the Gaza strip." We consulted four officials about the legislative history: Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a sanctions expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the pro-sanctions Foundation for Defense of Democracies; Jamal Abdi, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy group that opposes broad sanctions that hurt ordinary Iranians; and Matthew Irvine, a defense researcher at the Center for a New American Security, a non-profit think tank. All four said the bills from 2001 through 2012 built on the original 1996 sanctions and raised similar issues for supporters and opponents. "I don’t see the ‘pivot point’ for objecting to earlier sanctions and endorsing the Threat Reduction Act (in 2012), nor do I see grounds for supporting the 2001 Act and then opposing the 2006 Act," Hufbauer wrote in an email. Dubowitz agreed, saying: "There’s no way to reconcile 2006, 2010 and 2012 votes from a policy perspective." Elected officials who are concerned about the humanitarian impact of sanctions might have been expected to stand against the 2012 measure, Dubowitz said. Abdi noted, though, that the dynamic was somewhat different in 2012. As the temperature rose over possible Israeli military action against Iran, tougher sanctions became a more attractive alternative for some. Irvine agreed, saying the security environment had worsened. He added that the Democratic caucus aggressively "whipped" the 2012 bill, trying to get everyone on board for the election-year vote. As for the 2001 bill Baldwin voted for, Dubowitz said it would have been surprising if she had opposed it given that it extended the 1996 act approved under a Democrat, President Bill Clinton. We found only other House member who voted as she did on the 2001, 2006, 2009-10 and 2012 votes: Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. Flake, like Baldwin, is seeking a U.S. Senate seat in November 2012. He’s been ripped as a flip-flopper over his sanction votes. John Kraus, Baldwin’s campaign spokesperson, took issue with Thompson’s claim of a "change of heart" by Baldwin. He said Baldwin has a lengthy record of supporting sanctions and has taken a tough stance against Iran. He sent a list of votes showing Baldwin has voted for numerous bills expressing condemnation of Iranian human rights abuses and deception regarding its nuclear programs, or expressing concern over Iran’s potential nuclear capabilities. But the question at hand is Baldwin’s position on sanctions. Kraus also pointed to several votes, long before she got into the Senate race, in which Baldwin supported sanctions, including measures that died in the Senate in 2007 and 2009. We confirmed those votes. The most significant bill she backed was the 2009 Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which sought to pressure local pension funds to divest from companies invested in Iran’s energy sector. Hufbauer called the Enabling Act "largely symbolic," while Abdi and Dubowitz said it was a significant bill though not on the level of the 2006 and 2010 actions. Whatever the merits, that divestment bill was rolled into the tougher and broader 2010 sanctions bill -- and Baldwin, as we noted, opposed that 2010 legislation. Our rating Overall, Baldwin can point to support of a framework of sanctions and of some specific upgrades, but on the major bills, she consistently stood against expansion. From 2006 to 2011, she voted against the four biggest moves to toughen sanctions against Iran. After she entered the race, and in one case just three months from the November 2012 election, Baldwin was confronted with another major sanctions vote, on the Threat Reduction Act. All of our experts, whose views on sanctions vary, agreed that it was inconsistent to vote in favor of tougher sanctions in 2012, and was not a logical policy evolution based on the specifics of the bill. Was it based on the changing political landscape, the heightening of tensions, the electoral calculus of the Senate race? All of the above? Something else? Whatever the reasons, this amounted to a major reversal of position. That’s a Full Flop on our meter.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2012-10-14T09:00:00	2012-09-28	['Iran']
-pomt-11791	"Civil war erupts in Sweden as irate Swedes burn nine Muslim refugee centers to the ground"	/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/21/pipo-news/fake-news-civil-war-erupts-sweden/	The Swedes are fed up with the "Muslim invasion" in their country and have fought back with fire, according to a news account on Facebook. "Civil war erupts in Sweden as irate Swedes burn nine Muslim refugee centers to the ground," states the headline in Pipo News, which linked to a similar 2015 article in JewsNews, a fake news website. We found no contact information on the Pipo News website. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. The story and the photo are misleading. However, Muslim refugees have been the targets of suspected arson attacks in Sweden in recent years. Pipo News states that the multiple arsons have been at facilities that house or are slated to house immigrants. But the photo is actually a of a fire of a recycling station in Malmo Sweden in 2013, our fact-checking friends at Snopes noted in 2015. Pipo News cites arson incidents at a children’s summer camp in the Swedish town of Eskilstuna that planned to host asylum seekers and in a refugee center in the town of Munkedal. Fires did occur in those two towns, according to credible news articles. On Christmas Day in 2014, five people were injured in a fire in a mosque in Eskilstuna, near Stockholm, which the authorities also suspect may have been arson, the New York Times reported. (Nothing in the New York Times stated that the site was a children’s camp.) Reuters reported in November 2015 that in the town of Munkedal, a center housing 14 asylum seekers went up in flames. "The Munkedal blaze was just one of more than a dozen at centers across Sweden in the past month -- some confirmed as arson attacks and others suspected as such -- that the police are struggling to solve as the country expects to take in up to a record 190,000 asylum seekers this year," Reuters reported. The fires occurred while a far-right anti-immigrant party, the Sweden Democrats, was gaining more traction, the New York Times wrote in 2015. Sweden had previously been known as a welcoming country for refugees, but that philosophy was tested as an influx of refugees strained government services. Omar Mustafa, president of the Islamic Association of Sweden, told the New York Times in January 2015 that the fires at mosques followed a year of rising anti-Islamic attacks which included vandalism of mosques. ''It is a scary development in Swedish society,'' Mustafa said. ''It is a big movement that is moving from the Internet to the real world.'' Suspected arson incidents have continued in 2017 at Sweden's largest Shiite Muslim mosque and a mosque near Stockholm. While the Pipo News article gives the impression that Muslim immigration has led to civil war, Reuters reported in 2015 that opinion polls showed most Swedes supported welcoming refugees. Pew Research Center surveyed European views of refugees in 2016 and found that in Sweden 57 percent were concerned that refugees would increase terrorism in their country, slightly above the median among the 10 countries surveyed. But of the 10 countries, Sweden had the lowest percentage that viewed refugees from Syria and Iraq as a major threat. Our ruling Pipo News’ headline states "civil war erupts in Sweden as irate Swedes burn nine Muslim refugee centers to the ground." The story uses a misleading photo of an unrelated fire and portrays the situation in Sweden as a war, which is a gross exaggeration. There have been multiple fires at Muslim sites, but there is no evidence that a civil war has erupted as nine Muslim refugee centers burned to the ground. We rate this headline as False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Pipo News	None	None	None	2017-11-21T15:14:31	2017-11-11	['Sweden', 'Islam']
-pomt-14877	Says that Starbucks took "Christmas off of their brand new cups."	/punditfact/statements/2015/nov/11/joshua-feuerstein/evangelical-activist-focuses-lack-christmas-new-st/	Joshua Feuerstein bills himself as an American evangelist and social media personality who connects with the Millennial generation. Feuerstein made a strong connection recently: A video he posted mocking the new Christmas cup from Starbucks was shared over 500,000 times, and got Feuerstein on CNN. In the video, Feuerstein bemoaned the absence of the word "Christmas" on the cups. "Do you realize Starbucks wanted to take Christ and Christmas off of their brand new cups?" he said. "That’s why they’re just plain red. In fact, do you realize that Starbucks isn’t allowed to say Merry Christmas to customers?" Feuerstein boasted that when he ordered his specialty coffee drink and the server asked his name, he said it was Merry Christmas, so the barista would be required to write Merry Christmas on the cup. "So guess what Starbucks," Feuerstein said. "I tricked you into putting Merry Christmas on your cup." We decided to investigate whether Starbucks took Christ and Christmas off its holiday cups. We asked Feuerstein and Starbucks for comment but did not hear back. If a picture as as good as a thousand words, we thought we’d let the pictures tell the story. We searched year by year, mainly on the photo sharing site Flickr, and were unable to find any previous cups that said Christ or Christmas. Here is what we found: 2013 cup 2012 cup 2011 cup 2010 cup Then we skipped a few years. 2006 cup 2005 cup (the reusable version, we think) 2004 cup We found no evidence that Starbucks ever put the word Christmas on its holiday cups. All the images we found included generic winter and holiday themes. Furthemore, the word Christmas is hardly banned at Starbucks. The caffeine purveyor’s 2015 annual blend drives home that point. An investigative field trip to a Starbucks on L Street in Washington revealed that the coffee company also sells gift cards that say "Merry Christmas" (second row from top, right hand side). Our ruling Feuerstein said Starbucks took "Christ and Christmas" off their cups. Feuerstein’s prank suggested he meant the word Christmas literally. Going back over 10 years, we could find no proof that the words Christ or Christmas have ever appeared on a Starbucks cup. If they weren’t there in the first place, you can’t say the company removed them. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.	None	Joshua Feuerstein	None	None	None	2015-11-11T15:29:26	2015-11-05	['None']
-goop-01076	Khloe Kardashian Urging Tristan Thompson To Propose, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-tristan-thompson-propose-marriage-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian NOT Urging Tristan Thompson To Propose, Despite Reports	3:37 pm, May 2, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02904	Selena Gomez Did Say She’s “Empowered” By Dating The Weeknd, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-empowered-dating-the-weeknd-interview-personal-life-today-show-video/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez Did NOT Say She’s “Empowered” By Dating The Weeknd, Despite Report	4:03 pm, March 27, 2017	None	['None']
-thal-00047	FactFind: Why on earth hasn't Ireland ratified the UN's Convention on Disabilities?	http://www.thejournal.ie/factfind-un-crpd-3595556-Sep2017/	None	None	None	None	None	FactFind: Why on earth hasn't Ireland ratified the UN's Convention on Disabilities?	Sep 19th 2017, 12:05 AM	None	['None']
-goop-02197	Jennifer Lopez Taking Break From Alex Rodriguez?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-lopez-break-alex-rodriguez/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Lopez Taking Break From Alex Rodriguez?	4:04 pm, November 15, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-01535	Since I took office, "Wisconsin ranks 11th in the nation in total business establishment growth compared to 47th in the years Mary Burke was Commerce secretary."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/17/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-wisconsin-11th-business-establis/	Following the searing recall elections and years of bare-knuckle brawling in Madison, it wouldn’t have surprised anyone to see Wisconsin’s 2014 campaign season start nasty and get nastier in the closing months. Instead, we have numerical warfare -- an arms race of rankings and comparisons on the economy before and after Scott Walker. Yeah. Here at PolitiFact, that’s just the way we like it. The Republican governor’s new "Wisconsin’s Comeback" plan -- a platform for his 2014 re-election bid -- includes a raft of rankings and statistics in its 62 pages (and 208 footnotes). Many of those rankings compare Walker’s time in state government with that of his Democratic challenger, Mary Burke. She was state Commerce Department secretary under Gov. Jim Doyle from early 2005 to late 2007. Among the comparisons: "Since Governor Walker took office, Wisconsin ranks 11th in the nation in total business establishment growth compared to 47th in the years Mary Burke was Commerce secretary." Walker has argued tax cuts and other moves have helped spur small business growth. But is he right on the rankings? Before the Great Recession hit, was Wisconsin a bottom feeder for business establishment growth, compared to a near Top-10 showing now? Defining terms First things first: Let’s define "business establishment growth." It’s not a reference to job growth, or even new business creation, so it doesn’t carry the weight those figures carry. The phrase is a bit of jargon courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the agency that releases state-by-state data every quarter on employment-related measures. Contrary to what the phrase may suggest, it’s not about how many businesses have incorporated or otherwise formed, compared with how many have folded or otherwise died. Instead, "business establishments" means a business location, such as a new store or factory or farm. A single "company" can have multiple "establishments," and new "establishments" can be opened by existing or new firms. The data comes from a very broad census of employers and economists use it as one indicator of net business activity. Walker cites the data as backup for the claim, and we agree it’s the right data to look at for his very specifically worded statement. Checking the rankings We started with Burke’s time at Commerce. Her tenure as the economic development chief coincides pretty well with the quarterly data collection, though it’s not perfectly aligned. She started in February 2005 and left in November 2007. We used the fourth quarter of 2004 as our starting point and the same quarter in 2007 as the end point. And we looked only at private-sector figures because both Walker and Burke have focused on economic growth in that sector. The numbers showed a ranking of 47, just as Walker claimed. (It was one lower if you use the first quarter of 2005 as the baseline as a nod to the fact that Burke arrived mid-quarter). The number of new establishments grew 1.3 percent in the three-year period from 2005 to 2007, ahead of only Michigan, Massachusetts and Maine. At the top of the heap were Arizona, Nevada and Florida, all with more than 14 percent growth. Illinois had the highest rank in the Midwest (11th). Walker compared Burke’s time at commerce to what happened since he took office. There is no data source we found that brings us to the present -- or even close. That’s because there is a long lag in reporting the quarterly data. (Information for the first quarter of 2014 is scheduled to be released Sept. 18, 2014.) We looked at the most recent data, which covers 2011 through 2013, Walker’s first three years in office. In this period, Wisconsin’s growth rate (5.5 percent) was 11th highest, just behind Iowa (10th) and Illinois (9th). So Walker’s claim is on solid ground. To be sure, the "establishment" rankings don’t necessarily match up with separate ranking of net job gains in the state. During Walker’s first three years, for example, Wisconsin was 35th for private-sector job growth, but 11th in establishment growth. There’s a much stronger correlation during the Burke era -- the state ranked 42nd in private job gains from 2005-’07, and 47th in pace of new business "establishments." So what should we read into these "establishment" growth numbers? It’s important to keep in mind the statistics make no distinction between the size of the firms being created and shutting down, according to economist Brian Jacobsen, chief portfolio strategist for Wells Fargo Funds Management in Menomonee Falls. "If you have a lot of firms with one to four employees being created, you can get a good ranking for the number of businesses being created, but a bad ranking for total employment growth," he said. Our rating Walker’s second-term blueprint said that since he took office, "Wisconsin ranks 11th in the nation in total business establishment growth compared to 47th in the years Mary Burke was Commerce secretary." The numbers, though not covering Walker’s complete time as governor, are the latest available and support Walker’s statement. We rate the statement True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-09-17T05:00:00	2014-09-14	['Wisconsin']
-afck-00297	“About 4.3% of 18 to 29-year-olds were enrolled at a higher education institution in the country in 2013 – up from 4% in 2002.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/national-youth-policy-unemployment-and-education/	None	None	None	None	None	National Youth Policy: unemployment and education claims fact-checked	2015-06-10 01:12	None	['None']
-snes-00231	Imam Siraj Wahhaj, the father of a suspect accused of training children to be school shooters at a compound in New Mexico, was the keynote speaker at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/father-of-man-accused-training-school-shooters/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Was the Father of the Man Accused of Training School Shooters the Keynote Speaker at Obama’s Democratic National Convention?	11 August 2018	None	['New_Mexico', 'Democratic_National_Convention']
-snes-03535	A hunter from Michigan was nearly killed by a sexually voracious moose.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunter-nearly-killed-by-brutal-sexual-assault-from-moose/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Hunter Nearly Killed by Brutal Sexual Assault From Moose	16 November 2016	None	['Michigan']
-pomt-14517	"In New Hampshire, I spent $3 million. Jeb Bush spent $44 million. He came in five, and I came in number one."	/new-hampshire/statements/2016/feb/18/donald-trump/donald-trump-compares-his-spending-and-new-hampshi/	Donald Trump brought a souvenir from the New Hampshire primary with him to the GOP debate in South Carolina last weekend, and he appeared eager to dangle it over Jeb Bush’s head. It’s nothing new to see the billionaire businessman tangling with the former Florida governor – but this piece of data he twice repeated was a novel talking point, seeking to illustrate the efficiency of his campaign compared to Bush’s. "In New Hampshire, I spent $3 million. Jeb Bush spent $44 million. He came in five, and I came in No. 1," Trump said. Trump first deployed a version of this line after Bush accused him of getting his foreign policy knowledge "from the shows," but it was garbled as the two went back and forth in a flared exchange. Later, Trump circled back to make the same point with better clarity during a question directed only to him, again trying to paint Bush as a failed candidate. Even if the statistic fits with the storyline – that Bush’s well-heeled campaign and super PAC went all out in New Hampshire, and Trump doesn’t need to spend money to get attention – the gap seemed extraordinary. PolitiFact New Hampshire knew straight away his recollection of the election results was a bit off, so we decided to investigate whether it could be true that Trump tallied more than three times as many votes as Bush, while spending less than one-tenth what the governor did. The results First, we’ll take on the second half of Trump’s statement: Bush "came in five, and I came in No. 1." We only needed to look at the election results to know Trump was right about his position -- he won the Republican primary on Feb. 9 with 100,406 votes -- but wrong about Bush’s. With 11 percent of the vote (31,310), Bush came in fourth place, not fifth. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was the one who actually came in fifth – although the margin was very close. The difference between Bush and Rubio was 1,278 votes, or about 0.4 percent of the total. We reached out to Trump’s campaign and never heard back. The spending Trump said Bush spent $44 million in New Hampshire, but made no mention of super PACs spending money. We won’t hold that wording against Trump, especially since the money was spent on Bush’s behalf, and Bush himself raised money for his PAC before he was an official candidate. Various news agencies have published analyses of the money that campaigns and related super PACs have spent on ads in New Hampshire. NPR, for one, looked at NBC-SMG Delta and Associated Press data through Feb. 3 to consider each candidate’s return on his or her New Hampshire TV ad spending. Their data, which doesn’t include the final few days before the primary, found that Bush and super PACs backing him spent the most per-vote by far: $4.5 million from his campaign and $29.5 million from super PACs. With about 31,000 voters supporting him, that meant a per-vote cost of more than $1,000. Trump, according to the same analysis, spent $3.1 million, all of which came from his campaign and none from a super PAC. With slightly more than 100,000 votes, that’s $31 per vote. To refocus on Trump’s statement, the total spent for each candidate per NPR’s analysis was: Trump $3.1 million; Bush, $34 million. By that measure, Trump appears to be accurate on his own numbers but exaggerating Bush’s. A secondary analysis by Morning Consult, which was published the morning of the primary, accounts for the last few days before voting. It had each candidate’s ad spending slightly higher in line with the additional time. By this time, Bush was at $36.1 million and Trump was at $3.7 million. So Trump’s estimate for himself was slightly low, while his account for Bush was still exaggerated by about $8 million. To put that spending in perspective, we took a look at the numbers for the campaigns that fell in after Bush. Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton weren’t even close, spending $18.5 million, $15.2 million, $12.1 million and $10.8 million, respectively, according to the Morning Consult analysis. So whether Trump had said $34 million or $44 million, he was pointing out a radically high number. Our ruling Trump said: "In New Hampshire, I spent $3 million. Jeb Bush spent $44 million. He came in five, and I came in No. 1." Bush came in fourth, not fifth, and his campaign and the PACs supporting him spent about $36 million, not $44 million. But it was still the most of any candidate. Trump did finish in first but spent closer to $4 million, not $3 million. Trump is slightly off in three out of the four claims, but his larger point about spending and campaign effectiveness in New Hampshire hold true. We can’t say whether Trump was intentionally exaggerating or not. Either way, we rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-02-18T20:29:52	2016-02-13	['Jeb_Bush']
-snes-02711	Recently-arrived asylum seekers are perpetrating the majority of crime in Sweden.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/	None	Crime	None	Bethania Palma	None	Crime in Sweden, Part II: Are Refugee Men Overrepresented in Swedish Crime?	30 March 2017	None	['Sweden']
-pomt-04539	Says Rep. Charlie Bass, R-NH voted to "raise his own pay" eight times	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/sep/28/ann-mclane-kuster/ann-mclane-kuster-mark-charlie-bass-salary-claim/	Democratic nominee Ann McLane Kuster, taking her second shot at ousting U.S. Rep. Charlie Bass, R-NH, took aim at his congressional pay increases to plead her case for representing New Hampshire’s Second Congressional District in 2013. In a press release titled, "Congressman Bass’ Hypocrisy on Congressional Pay," Kuster targeted Bass’ proposal to reduce congressional pay if Congress fails to act to avoid the sequester. "After voting to raise his own pay eight times during his fourteen years in Congress, Congressman Bass has apparently had an election-year change of heart," Kuster said. "While we need to cut and cap Congressional pay, New Hampshire voters deserve better than election-year gimmicks from politicians like Congressman Bass who have spent their careers raising their own pay and protecting their Congressional perks." PolitiFact has seen its share of jabs over congressional pay increases. PolitiFact Florida and PolitiFact Virginia have each checked similar claims against congressmen in their states and rated those statements Half True and Mostly True, respectively. Both checksfound those claims -- like Kuster’s statement -- aren't that clear cut. In 1989, Congress passed an ethics reform law that included an annual cost of living adjustment. The automatic pay raise was created in exchange for not getting paid for private speeches. The pay raise, based on a formula, is automatically included in appropriations bills unless Congress takes a vote to stop it. The law -- even if it had the best of intentions -- created a system where members of Congress receive raises without having to be on-record voting for them. What does exist though, are roll call votes on whether members of Congress were willing to hear amendments to suspend their pay increases. Members of Congress have seen their pay increase over time. Members initially received $6 a day in 1789; today they receive $174,000 annually. But because the pay raises are now essentially automatic, the only thing Congress can do is vote to stop them. Bass Represented New Hampshire's Second Congressional District from 1995-2007 and was re-elected in 2010. From 1995-2007, congressional salaries rose from $133,600 in January 1995 to $174,000 in January 2012. To Back up Kuster's claim, her campaign provided eight votes that they say show Bass voted to increase his own pay. Roll Call 261 on H. Res. 865 H.R. 5576, June 13, 2006 Roll Call 327 on H. Res. 342 H.R. 3058, June 28, 2005 Roll Call 451 on H. Res. 770 on H.R. 5025, Sept. 14, 2004 Roll Call 463 on H. Res. 351 on H.R. 2989, Sept. 4, 2003 Roll Call 322 on H. Res 488 on H.R. 5120, July 18, 2002 Roll Call 267 on H. Res 206 on H.R. 2590, July 25, 2001 Roll Call 419 on H. Res 560 on H.R. 4871, July 20, 2000 Roll Call 300 on H. Res 246 on H.R. 2490, July 15, 1999 We’ll break them down, starting with the earliest:1999: On July, 15, 1999, the House voted 276-147 with Bass in the majority on "ordering the previous question" to essentially defeat a measure to stop the pay raise. The vote was on House Resolution 246, which related to H.R. 2490, the $13.5 billion treasury and general government appropriations bill. The effect: members of Congress accepted a$4,600 pay increase from $136,700 to $141,300 in January 2000. 2000: On July 20, 2000, the House voted 250-173 with Bass in the majority on "ordering the previous question" on House Resolution 560, which quashed an amendment to prohibit a pay raise, and allowed for consideration of H.R. 4871, the fiscal 2001 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill. Congressional salaries increased$3,800 to $145,100 a year in January 2001. 2001: On July 25, 2001, the House voted 293-129 with Bass in the majority, to order the previous question on House Resolution 206, which prevented an amendment to block the pay increase, and allowed consideration of H.R. 2590, the $32.8 billion fiscal 2002 Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations bill. In January 2002, House members saw a $4,900 pay increase to $150,000. 2002: On July 18, 2002, the House voted 258-156, Bass in the majority, to order the previous question on House Resolution 488, which prevented consideration of an amendment to stop the cost-of-living raise, and allowed consideration of H.R. 5120, the fiscal 2003 Treasury Appropriations bill. The vote cleared the way for a $4,700 salary bumpin January 2003 to $154,700. 2003: On Sept. 4, 2003, the House voted 240-173, Bass in the majority, to order the previous question on House Resolution 351 for consideration of H.R. 2989, the fiscal 2004 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill, therefore an amendment seeking to halt a pay raise was not in order, paving the way for Congress’ salary to increase $3,400 in January 2004 to $158,100. 2004: On Sept. 14, 2004, the House voted 235-170, with Bass in the majority, on ordering the previous question for consideration of House Resolution 5025, the fiscal 2005 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill. By doing so, the House rejected Rep. Jim Matheson, D-UT's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise. Congress received a pay adjustment of 2.5 percent in January 2005, increasing their salary $4,000 to $162,100. The only House member to speak out against the automatic raise in 2003 or 2004, according to Fox News, was Rep. Matheson. "Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise," Matheson said. "Let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in America's economy." 2005: On June 28, 2005, the House voted 263-152with Bass in the majority, on ordering the previous question to again essentially stop Matheson from introducing a measure to block the pay raise. The vote was on House Resolution 342, which related to H.R. 3058, an appropriations bill for transportation and other areas. Congress would receive a $3,100 pay raise, bringing their salary to $165,200. Alyson Heyrend, Matheson's spokesperson, explained the procedural move. "Matheson each year sought a 'no' vote on a procedural vote on Ordering the Previous Question," she told PolitiFact in an e-mail. "Had a majority voted 'no' he would have then offered his amendment to deny the annual Congressional pay raise. The process is designed to be obscure -- which is Matheson’s primary concern -- that the public isn't able to see Congress take an open, up-or-down vote on whether or not to raise their salaries." 2006: On June 13, 2006, the House took a similar vote -- this time 249-167 with Bass in the majority -- on ordering the previous question which again halted Matheson's attempt for an up-or-down vote. The vote was on House Resolution 865, which related to H.R. 5576, an appropriations bill. The result: members would receive a $3,300 pay raise increasing their salaries to $168,500. But then campaign season kicked in. Democrats vowed not to accept the 2007 pay raise until Congress approved an increase to the minimum wage. On. Dec. 8, 2006, the House voted 370-20 with Bass in the majority or a stopgap funding measure H.J. 102 until mid February 2007 -- delaying the pay raises. Democrats had planned to offer an amendment to delay the congressional pay raise, so "House GOP leaders decided to include language deferring the pay raise in the bill, taking away the Democrats' ability to make it an issue,"Congressional Quarterly Today wrote in an article we found in Nexis. So, did Bass vote to increase his own pay here? Not exactly, his spokesman says. "Kuster continually cites procedural votes that have nothing to do with pay raises beyond what certain Members of Congress said they intended to do if this procedural vote failed to move the underlying bill along the House floor process," said Scott Tranchemontagne, a spokesman for Bass’ "Victory Committee," in an email to PolitiFact. "However, that same argument could be applied to any issue that was not addressed in the underlying legislation being considered at the time. It’s parliamentary shenanigans." Tranchemontagne added that Bass has voted for extended freezes to congressional pay several times, including recently, with H. Res. 3835 and H.J. Res. 117 which extend Congressional and federal employee pay freezes; and H. Res. 3630-- which would prohibit any pay adjustment for Congress prior to December 31, 2013. Our ruling: Since Congress has essentially built a system that allows for pay raises without direct votes by its members, it’s difficult to say who voted for the raises, which were a tiny part of much larger appropriation bills. What can be seen are votes on procedural moves to block the pay raises, or force an up or down vote. Still, Kuster is exaggerating to cite these eight votes to say Bass voted to raise his own pay, because the votes didn’t do that on their own. Still, Bass cast procedural votes that effectively allowed automatic pay raises to stand for eight years, and the practical effect of those votes meant Bass saw raises. And Kuster left out the fact that Bass has voted for pay freezes. To us, the two caveats amount to a Half True.	None	Ann McLane Kuster	None	None	None	2012-09-28T17:57:39	2012-09-19	['None']
-goop-02214	Selena Gomez Getting “Emotional” When Seeing The Weeknd With Other Women?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-emotional-the-weeknd-other-women/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Selena Gomez Getting “Emotional” When Seeing The Weeknd With Other Women?	10:51 am, November 12, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08975	"There have been 30 published polls in this election cycle and Harry Reid's been trailing in every single one."	/texas/statements/2010/jul/17/john-cornyn/reid-only-clearly-trailing-two-thirds-polls/	U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah, the Republican who lost his bid for re-election in May when he finished third at his party's nominating convention, warned last week that tea party "mischief" could cost Republicans in hotly contested Senate races this November. "The Utah senator said he fears tea party extremism could end up costing the GOP seats that they otherwise would have been able to win," the Associated Press reported July 9. Namely, Bennett said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., doesn't have to worry about Republican Sharron Angle, who was nominated to challenge Reid with the Tea Party's blessing. "My sources in Nevada say with Sharron Angle there's no way Harry Reid loses in Nevada," he said. Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas later fired back, suggesting Bennett's suffering from sour grapes. "I realize we're hot and heavy leading up to the election, but voters are going to make the right decision," Cornyn was quoted saying in an article posted July 13 by Talking Points Memo, an online political news organization. "There have been 30 published polls in this election cycle and Harry Reid's been trailing in every single one." Is Reid really down and out all over? Brian Walsh, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which Cornyn chairs, said there have been "at least" 30 polls taken in the "last 18 months of this election cycle," or since January 2009. Walsh didn't share the senator's breakdown of polls, so we went surfing. We turned up several online compendia of poll results: Rasmussen Reports, Real Clear Politics, and Talking Points Memo, all looking at who voters would pick in a matchup between Reid and Angle, and Reid and Sue Lowden, who was a promising GOP primary candidate. Rasmussen, Real Clear Politics and Talking Points Memo yielded summaries of 27 polls and we scrounged up three more polls from the Talking Points Memo "PollTracker." For each poll, we checked to make sure that Reid was tested for re-election and that there was a clear-cut indication of who was ahead — Reid or an opponent. All told, we found, there have been polls testing Reid's chances against various possible challengers since at least August 2009. That's when the Mason-Dixon poll showed Lowden leading Reid by 5 points, though the margin of error was also 5 points. Of the 30 polls we reviewed — including five Democratic polls and one Republican poll — a Republican led Reid in all but two of them, both Democratic. We sought more information on the two exceptions, and this is what we found: In May, a poll by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates reported that Reid had a seven point lead on Lowden; Angle wasn't included in the poll. Jonathan Brown, a senior researcher for the pollster, told us the result was unique because Lowden had just made some "extremely ill-advised comments" about her idea to have Americans barter with their doctors for health care. In June, Research 2000, working with the liberal-leaning Daily Kos, reported Reid had a six-point lead on Angle and a four-point lead on Lowden. (That month, Daily Kos severed ties with Research 2000, and has since sued the pollster for faulty polling.) Among the remaining 28 polls, 21 showed Republicans clearly leading Reid. Seven showed a GOP candidate ahead, but not by enough to exceed the poll's margin of error — meaning their race would have been too close to call at that time. In one of them, Reid led when voters were asked to choose between Reid and Lowden, but when asked to choose between Reid and Angle, Angle led. In another, Reid was leading Angle, but behind Lowden. On average, Talking Points Memo found Angle leading Reid an average of 45.9 percent to 41.7 percent from December 2009 to July 2010, and Lowden leading Reid by an average of 45.6 percent to 39.6 percent from August 2009 to June 2010. Looking solely at data from April to June, Real Clear Politics found the since-defeated Lowden 2.7 points ahead of Reid. From May to July it found Angle leading Reid by 1 percentage point, on average. The most recent Rasmussen survey of 750 likely Nevada voters taken July 12 showed Angle leading Reid by 3 points at 46 percent, with a 4 point margin of error. "This is Reid's best showing all year and follows a visit by President Obama to the state to help his campaign," Rasmussen said. "Angle's support continues to edge down following the bounce she got a month ago following her GOP primary win." As we were wrapping up this item, Talking Points Memo posted a July 1 poll by the Democratic Patriot Majority PAC that showed Reid with a four-point lead over Angle, without revealing the poll's margin of error, and a July 14 Mason-Dixon poll that showed Reid with a seven point lead on Angle. We didn't include these polls in our count because they weren't available when Cornyn made his claim. In its July report, Rasmussen said Reid is "creeping forward and now is nearly tied" with Angle, and rated the Nevada Senate race as a "toss-up." Though the latest polling hints that Reid's numbers may be picking up, he clearly trailed Republican opponents in two-thirds of the 30 polls we reviewed; in those seven polls showing a closer race, Reid was behind in five. Had Cornyn said that Reid was behind in nearly every poll, we wouldn't quibble. But in two polls, Reid was the clear leader — and that means he didn't trail "in every single one." We rate Cornyn's statement as False.	None	John Cornyn	None	None	None	2010-07-17T06:00:00	2010-07-09	['Harry_Reid']
-pomt-00643	The average age of planes in the Qatar Airways fleet is about four years while Delta Air Lines flies planes that are 35 years old.	/georgia/statements/2015/may/19/akbar-al-baker/qatar-airways-leader-mark/	Some harsh words have been hurled by the CEOs at the forefront of what some say is a struggle for dominance of international aviation. They include recent remarks from Akbar Al Baker, chief of Qatar Airways, suggesting that his airline flies airplanes that are superior to those flown by Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines by virtue of their age. "I am delighted that (CEO) Richard Anderson of Delta is not here," Al Baker said in an interview March 16. "First of all, we don’t fly crap airplanes that are 35 years old. The Qatar Airways average fleet (age) is only four years and one month." PolitiFact Georgia decided to fact-check Al Baker’s claim. But first a little background. Al Baker first made the unflattering claim about Delta’s fleet when he met with a reporter to address a complaint being spearheaded by Anderson. The complaint accuses three major Middle East airlines -- Etihad, Emirates and Qatar -- of receiving $42 billion in "unfair" subsidies. Delta, United and American Airlines say the subsidies give the Gulf carriers an unfair advantage and are allowing them to expand around the world. Qatar Airways currently flies into Washington D.C., Chicago, New York, Houston, Miami and Dallas and is scheduled next year to launch service to Los Angeles, Boston and Atlanta. Al Baker denies receiving any "subsidies." "The state of Qatar is the owner of Qatar Airways and whatever funds are put into the airline is as equity, which is quite legitimate," he has said. Al Baker and Anderson sparred earlier this year after the Gulf carriers complained that some U.S. airlines received their own subsidies in the form of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and federal loan guarantees and aid after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. airlines countered that bankruptcy is not a subsidy, and the restructuring process is transparent. Anderson in February told CNN: "It's a great irony to have the United Arab Emirates from the Arabian peninsula talk about [bailouts for U.S. airlines] given the fact that our industry was really shocked by the terrorism of 9/ 11 which came from terrorists from the Arabian peninsula that caused us to go through a massive restructuring." Al Baker shot back: "I think he should be ashamed to bring the issue of terrorism to try to cover his inefficiency in running an airline." The numbers Now, to the specifics of Al Baker’s claim. Qatar Airways, the national carrier for the State of Qatar, was launched in 1997 and bills itself as "one of the fastest-growing airlines operating with one of the youngest fleets in the world." We contacted the airline for documentation that it had a fleet of airplanes, averaging 4.1 years in age. We received data that showed the fleet was actually newer -- averaging 3.1 years. The airline, based in Doha, has 152 passenger and cargo airplanes, including some Airbus A330s with "designer sleeper suites’ for first-class passengers. Data on the age of U.S.-registered aircraft is available at the FAA website, which helped with our research. At Delta, spokesman Trebor Banstetter told us the the airline has about 1,250 airplanes, averaging 14 years in age and 15 years on its trans-oceanic fleet. "Of our 1,200 plus aircraft, there are a total of four that are older than 30 years," Banstetter said. "They are all about 30.5 years old, and all scheduled for retirement this year." The average age of the fleet is shown as slightly higher -- 17 years --- on Delta’s quarterly filing to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s largely a reflection of change -- new Boeing 737s being purchased; planes being moved into retirement; and others salvaged for parts, Banstetter said. We were unable to contact Al Baker to ask where he got the information to suggest Delta was flying 35 year old airplanes. Aviation expert Richard Aboulafia said airlines are defined by their products, not the age of their jets. "Business class passengers, who are the only ones who really drive these considerations, look at the state of interiors, seats, food, and other amenities," Aboulafia said. "Jet age is largely irrelevant. And Delta's average fleet age certainly is nowhere near 30." Our conclusion Al Baker was conservative in saying that Qatar Airways had a fleet of airplanes that was 4.1 years on average. The age of Qatar’s 152 passenger and cargo airplanes is actually on average 3.1 years. But Al Baker veered off course when his comments morphed into an attack on Delta. Delta has more than 1,200 aircraft. Four are due to retire this year. Each of those is about 30.5 years old, Delta spokesman Trebor Banstetter said. The majority of Delta’s fleet is much newer. Al Baker’s comments contain an element truth but they ignore critical facts that would give the average reader a different impression We rate Al Baker’s comments Mostly False.	None	Akbar Al Baker	None	None	None	2015-05-19T00:00:00	2015-03-16	['Delta_Air_Lines', 'Qatar_Airways']
-pomt-10831	"Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/17/ron-paul/lotsa-bills-but-not-the-most/	On his campaign Web site, Rep. Ron Paul makes this claim: "Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress." We'll give him points for qualifying his claim by saying it is "probably more" than others, but our tally shows he falls short. By early September 2007, Ron Paul has introduced 49 bills this year. That puts him fifth out of 540 members of Congress. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., has the most at 59. Most of Paul's bills are substantive – that is, he doesn't often introduce legislation such as naming post offices, reducing the duty on a specialized piece of manufacturing equipment or congratulating a sports team. Indeed, he's introduced substantive bills such as the Sanctity of Life Act, which fixes the beginning of life at conception; a constitutional amendment to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants; and a constitutional amendment with the effect of abolishing income, state and gift taxes. But in the last Congress, he was far short of being the most prolific bill-writer. He was 25th overall in the number of bills introduced, with 71 bills, 66 of which could be called substantive. We give Robert E. Andrews, D-N.J., the prize for most substantive bills in the 109th. He introduced 128, 119 of them that were substantive.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2007-09-17T00:00:00	2007-09-17	['United_States_Congress']
-snes-01792	Did a Texas Mosque Refuse to Help Hurricane Harvey Survivors?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-texas-mosque-refuse-help-harvey-survivors/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did a Texas Mosque Refuse to Help Hurricane Harvey Survivors?	4 September 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02871	A lack of media attention regarding a $12 billion reduction to the national debt during President Trump’s first month in office is attributable to biased news coverage.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/media-silence-national-debt-trump/	None	Politics	None	Alex Kasprak	None	‘Media Silence’ on $12B Reduction to the National Debt During Trump’s First Month?	27 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-01082	Says he "secured the highest possible bond rating" for the city of Tampa.	/florida/statements/2015/jan/15/bob-buckhorn/buckhorn-secures-highest-possible-bond-rating-comm/	In touting Tampa’s fiscal health, an ad that Mayor Bob Buckhorn’s re-election campaign is running on television says that he "secured the highest possible bond rating" for the city. Four times this year, credit rating agencies have looked at the city’s finances and "said, not only is this a well-run operation, it is a superior operation, and our ratings reflect that," Buckhorn told PolitiFact Florida in an interview at his office in City Hall on Jan. 13, 2015. In September 2014, Standard & Poor's raised its rating on what's considered to be the city's general credit from AA+ to AAA, its highest rating for municipalities. Also in September 2014, Standard and Poor’s upgraded the city's occupational license revenue bonds from AA to AA+. In July 2014, Fitch Ratings raised its rating on Tampa's water and sewer bonds from "AA+"' to "AAA," its highest rating. In November 2014, Moody's Investors Service upgraded its rating on $101.1 million in solid waste bonds from A3 to A2. (Its highest rating is Aaa.) Higher ratings let the city hold down costs by borrowing money at lower interest rates. City officials say they also validate difficult choices they've had to make in balancing the budget during the recession and its aftermath. But the city has hundreds of millions of dollars in other bonds, including utilities tax bonds, sales tax bonds and special purpose bonds, that do not have the highest ratings assigned by those credit rating agencies. All of them are rated "investment grade," which is better than being rated speculative grade. But for different bond issues, at least some -- and sometimes all -- of the ratings from the three rating agencies are a notch or more below the top. In addition, Standard & Poors is the only agency to give its top grade so far to Tampa’s general credit rating. Moody’s rates it Aa1, just below Aaa. Fitch rates it AA, just below its top rating of AAA. Buckhorn said it wouldn’t have been possible to summarize all of the city’s bond ratings in a 60-second commercial, but he checked with his chief financial officer to make sure he made the most accurate statement possible. And he acknowledged that Tampa could earn even higher credit ratings on some of its debt. "We strive for that," he said. "So is all of our debt Triple-A? No. I would venture to say there’s probably not a city in America where all of the debt is Triple-A. Is a big portion of our debt Triple-A? You betcha. ... I’m proud and I’ll say it wherever I go. The folks who vote for me should be pretty happy with that." Buckhorn’s campaign ad said he had "secured the highest possible bond rating." Loking at the campaign’s use of the phrase "highest possible," we find there’s still room for improvement in the ratings on some of the city’s debt. We rate this statement Half True.	None	Bob Buckhorn	None	None	None	2015-01-15T18:21:09	2015-01-15	['None']
-pose-00402	"I'll put in place the common-sense regulations and rules of the road I've been calling for since March -- rules that will keep our market free, fair, and honest; rules that will restore accountability and responsibility in our corporate boardrooms."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/422/create-new-financial-regulations/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Create new financial regulations	2010-01-07T13:26:58	None	['None']
-snes-00618	Pilot Flying J Flag Controversy	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pilot-flying-j-flag-controversy/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Pilot Flying J Flag Controversy	10 May 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01139	Move over for flashing lights in Texas	https://www.truthorfiction.com/texas-sb193/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Move over for flashing lights in Texas	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04859	A woman defecated on her boss' desk after winning the lottery.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/woman-quits-winning-lottery/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Woman Arrested for Defecating on Supervisor’s Desk After Winning Lottery	26 April 2016	None	['None']
-snes-06154	The song "The Twelve Days of Christmas" was created as a coded reference to important articles of the Christian faith.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twelve-days-christmas/	None	Holidays	None	David Mikkelson	None	The Twelve Days of Christmas	16 December 2000	None	['None']
-pomt-00354	Says Joe Manchin "strongly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton after she said, ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work.’"	/west-virginia/statements/2018/sep/13/patrick-morrisey/did-joe-manchin-stick-hillary-clinton-after-contro/	Appearing at a rally with President Donald Trump in Charleston, W.Va., Patrick Morrisey -- the Republican challenger to Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin -- riled up the crowd by invoking a particularly embarrassing remark by Hillary Clinton, the 2016 presidential nominee of Manchin’s party. "Joe Manchin strongly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton after she said, ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work,’" Morrisey told the crowd after Trump turned over the podium on Aug. 21, 2018. Morrissey's statement has a basis in truth, but it glosses over some context. (We're not addressing the portion of Morrisey's remark about how Manchin voted, since ballots are cast privately, making it impossible for us to verify independently.) What Clinton said On March 13, 2016, as she was running for president, Clinton appeared at a televised town hall in Columbus, Ohio. At one point during the event, Clinton said, "I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity — using clean, renewable energy as the key — into coal country. Because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." She continued, "And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on." While the latter portion of her comments communicated empathy for coal-mining families, her remark that "were going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business" drew intense criticism, not only from Americans in coal country but also with her allies, who said Clinton’s phrasing seemed to trivialize the seriousness of coal workers’ economic dilemma. Manchin’s support for Clinton So how did this episode affect Manchin’s support for Clinton? Let’s review. Manchin and Clinton had known each other for years, and he endorsed her on CBS’s Face the Nation on April 19, 2015. "I support Hillary Clinton. I know Hillary Clinton, and I find her to be warm and engaging, compassionate and tough. All of the above, " Manchin said. After the town hall remark, MetroNews reported that a senior advisor to Manchin was "troubled and concerned by the comments and reached out directly to the Secretary and her senior advisor for energy." In June 2018, Manchin told Politico that he repeatedly threatened to revoke his support for Clinton after her remark. "First, Manchin told Bill Clinton that he would withdraw his support, as the former president pleaded with him not to," Politico reported, "Then Hillary Clinton called him. ‘She said, ‘Please don’t. Let me come to West Virginia, I need to explain.’ I said, ‘That’s a bad idea, you shouldn’t come,’" Manchin recounted. But the two sides reconciled, and on March 15 -- two days after the town hall -- Clinton formally reacted to the fallout from her remark, sending a letter to Manchin. "Simply put, I was mistaken in my remarks," she wrote. "I wanted to make the point that, as you know too well, while coal will be part of the energy mix for years to come, both in the U.S. and around the world, we have already seen a long-term decline in American coal jobs and a recent wave of bankruptcies as a result of a changing energy market — and we need to do more to support the workers and families facing these challenges." She also said in the letter that she supported the Miners Protection Act backed by Manchin, which would provide health benefits and pensions for former miners and family members. "I pledge to you that I will focus my team and my Administration on bringing jobs to Appalachia, especially jobs producing the carbon capture technology we need for the future," Clinton wrote. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com About six weeks later, on May 2, Clinton came to West Virginia for a roundtable at the Williamson Health and Wellness Center. At that event, she talked with Manchin and a former coal miner, Bo Copley. "I don't know how to explain it, other than what I said was totally out of context from what I meant because I have been talking about helping coal country for a very long time and I did put out a plan last summer," Clinton said. "It was a misstatement, because what I was saying is that the way things are going now we are going to continue to lose jobs. What I said was that is going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it." At the roundtable, Manchin also expressed his discomfort with Clinton’s initial statement. "I have two ways to go when that statement came out," Manchin said. "I could have said, 'I thought she was my friend, by golly I'm done, I'm gone.' Now that's not the way we were raised, I wasn't raised that way. So, I said I'm going to call" her instead. He added, "If I thought that was in her heart, if I thought she wanted to eliminate one job in West Virginia, I wouldn’t be sitting here, and she wouldn’t be sitting here if she felt that way.". Manchin’s office did not respond to an inquiry, but CNN reported on June 17, 2016, that Manchin remained one of the Democratic Senators who were "backing" Clinton for president. And in the 2018 Politico interview, Manchin called his decision to stick by Clinton "a mistake. It was a mistake politically." But the article added that to Manchin, "her $20 billion commitment to his state was too much to pass up. ‘Is this about me? Or trying to help a part of my state that’s never recovered and is having a tough time?’" Our ruling Morrisey said Manchin "strongly supported and voted for Hillary Clinton after she said, ‘We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work.’" It’s worth noting some of the context that Morrisey left out -- that Clinton had also expressed empathy for coal miners’ economic challenges in her initial remark, that she later clarified what she had meant to say, and that Manchin had worked to convince Clinton of why her remarks had been unacceptable. Still, none of that changes the gist of Morrisey’s assertion -- that Clinton said the remark, and that Manchin remained in her camp through the election (while we know he endorsed her, we do not know for sure he voted for her, as ballots are secret). We rate the statement Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Patrick Morrisey	None	None	None	2018-09-13T12:00:33	2018-08-21	['None']
-pomt-06260	Says Mitt Romney flip-flopped on supporting "the president's Recovery Act."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/28/democratic-national-committee/dnc-ad-says-mitt-romney-flip-flopped-obama-stimulu/	On Nov. 28, 2011, the Democratic National Committee released two videos designed to paint Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper. The shorter, 30-second version gives a taste of the attack, specifically citing abortion and health care, and directs viewers to a website with a four-minute version that offers alleged flip-flops on a variety of other issues. For this item, we’ll check one of the claims from the four-minute version -- specifically, whether Romney has changed his position on President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We're looking at other aspects of the ad in separate items. Here’s the relevant portion from the DNC ad: On-screen text: "Opposed the stimulus" Video clip of Romney: "I have never supported the president's Recovery Act, alright -- the stimulus. No time, nowhere, nohow." On-screen text: "After he was for it." Different video clip of Romney: "I think there is need for economic stimulus." We asked the DNC for citations for these clips, and they responded that the first one came from a town hall at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H., on Sept. 28, 2011, and the second one came from a Romney appearance on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer on Jan. 4, 2009. Upon learning this, we immediately noticed that the CNN interview -- when Romney said, "I think there is need for economic stimulus" -- took place before Obama had even been sworn into office and therefore came before there was an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To get the full context of the CNN interview, we looked to the transcript. Blitzer said that Obama, then president-elect, was "talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It's unclear if whether it can be passed before he's inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal?" Romney replied, "Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress (had) dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could have signed that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they'll be doing, and that's net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that's one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed." He continued, "I'd move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We'll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let's not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects. That would be wrong. You'll see Republicans fight that tooth and nail if that happens. Let's do what's right for the economy, and let's not do what's a political expedient move." The DNC ad has some support for its flip-flop claim. Romney did indeed say, "I think there is need for economic stimulus," and at the time of the interview, there was in fact an outline of a stimulus plan from Obama. But it’s misleading to say Romney flip-flopped on supporting "the president's Recovery Act." At the time of the CNN interview, no Obama stimulus bill had been introduced, much less enacted. With such complex bills, the devil’s in the details. Given that Romney outlined a whole list of conditions he’d impose on such a bill, we think it’s unfair for the DNC to say Romney once supported "the president's Recovery Act." Our ruling In the CNN interview, Romney expressed support broadly for "economic stimulus" -- not for a specific measure known as "the president's Recovery Act." And even as he offered his support for the concept of stimulus, Romney articulated a pretty specific vision of the kind of bill he’d support. Some of this vision did ultimately overlap with what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act offered -- tax relief for "middle-income families" and businesses, for instance, and investments in infrastructure and energy. But Romney’s two comments can be easily reconciled by arguing that the dollar amounts in the Obama stimulus bill -- or the ratios of various provisions in the bill -- went beyond what he was envisioning. We rate the DNC’s charge of flip-flopping Mostly False.	None	Democratic National Committee	None	None	None	2011-11-28T17:51:49	2011-11-28	['None']
-goop-02250	Meghan Markle Shunning “Sexy Image” For “Conservative Royal Look”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-sexy-image-conservative-royal-look-style/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Meghan Markle Shunning “Sexy Image” For “Conservative Royal Look”?	11:49 am, November 4, 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00308	Message Warns Of Requests for Photos Of Babies With Nappies Open	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/open-nappy-research-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Message Warns Of Requests for Photos Of Babies With Nappies Open	August 6, 2013	None	['None']
-pose-00465	"Will re-evaluate the transportation funding process to ensure that smart growth considerations are taken into account."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/485/consider-smart-growth-in-transportation-funding/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Consider "smart growth" in transportation funding	2010-01-07T13:27:00	None	['None']
-snes-01880	NASA scientists "forgot to carry the one," miscalculating the date of an August 2017 solar eclipse by one year.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientists-miscalculate-solar-eclipse-actually-next-year/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Scientists Miscalculate, Solar Eclipse Actually Next Year?	18 August 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10076	The Rev. Rick Warren "has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/13/people-american-way/seeing-red-over-warren/	President-elect Obama's selection of evangelical Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration drew sharp rebuke from some of Obama's liberal supporters due to Warren's hard line against abortion and gay marriage. Warren, senior pastor of the evangelical Saddleback Church in Southern California and author of the bestselling The Purpose Driven Life , is viewed in many circles as a social moderate, but he is on the outs with many liberal groups due to his outspoken support for California's recently passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages. Among the groups that expressed "grave disappointment" over Obama's inclusion of Warren at the inauguration was People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group. In a news release issued on Dec. 17, the organization warned that despite an "affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa," Warren has "promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans." The organization attributes several recent statements to Warren to back its contention that Warren is more of an extremist than many people know. "He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia," the release states. And, "He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists." We looked at the contention that Warren "has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia" when U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., made similar comments (see PolitiFact statement "Warren on gay marriage and incest"). Here, we'll look at the claim that Warren "has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists." The statements come from an interview of Warren in mid December by Beliefnet editor in chief Steven Waldman. In the interview, Warren sought to provide historical perspective for the split between main-line Protestants and evangelicals a century ago. As with the incest comment, the Warren comments in question come in the middle of a fairly long quote to make a larger point, so bear with the lengthy excerpt, because we think context is critical. "Along about the beginning of the 20th century there were some Protestant theologians who started using the term 'social gospel,' " Warren said. "And what they meant by that was, 'We don't really need to care about Jesus' personal salvation any more. We don't really have to care about redemption, the cross, repentance. All we need to do is redeem the social structures of society and if we make those social structures better, the world will become a better place.' Really, in many ways, it was just Marxism in Christian clothing. And it was in vogue at the time. If we redeem society then man will automatically get better. It didn't deal with the heart. And so they said, we don't need this personal religion stuff. So Protestants split into two wings. The main-line Protestants — Methodists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians — said, ‘We're going to take the body, and we're going to care about poverty and disease and charity and social justice and racial justice. And the evangelicals and fundamentalists ... said ‘We're going to take the soul and we're going to care about personal morality and pornography and protecting the family and personal moral issues and personal salvation.' Who's right? Well, in my opinion, they're both right. And part of my desire as a leader is to bring these two wings back together." Warren did liken the social agenda of some early 20th century Protestant theologians to "Marxism in Christian clothing." But Warren is referring to the ideas and agendas of theologians at a time when socialism and Marxism were part of the national dialogue. To put Warren's comment in the present tense — saying Warren "has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists" — is a serious distortion of his comment. And we note that Warren concludes his thoughts by saying he believes both positions are right, and that he'd like to bring both wings together. We rate the People for the American Way's characterization of Warren's comments Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	People for the American Way	None	None	None	2009-01-13T19:52:36	2008-12-17	['Rick_Warren', 'Marxism']
-pomt-12036	"So the number on DACA is 800,000, but every one person can bring in their entire extended family once they reach a certain status. So it's 3 or 4 million, right?"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/15/dave-brat/rep-dave-brats-false-claim-about-daca-chain-migrat/	Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va. said that a program that protects young immigrants from deportation needs to be looked at in a broader context and that a bipartisan deal to protect the program is misguided. NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Brat if he was open to granting legal status to DACA beneficiaries if Democrats supported funding Trump’s promised border wall. "I don't like these little pieces, as I was just saying," Brat said Sept. 7. "That's not the problem. If you want to know if people are going in good faith on immigration reform, first you've got to do e-Verify and then you've got to take a look at chain migration, right? So the number on DACA is 800,000, but every one person can bring in their entire extended family once they reach a certain status. So it's 3 or 4 million, right?" Brat went on to say that "8 billion people would love to come here" but that such migration "ain't going to work." Todd interjected that the number at issue was not 8 billion, "we're talking about 800,000." The 800,000 is the approximate number of young people who are part of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA program. DACA spares from deportation immigrants in the country illegally who came to the United States as children. President Donald Trump gave Congress six months to pass a bill that would deal with the hundreds of thousands of people protected by the program. Brat said the 800,000 number was deceptive. "The DACA problem is the immigration problem. And once you put up a green light, it's a green light. Once you legalize and say, hey, once you make it in here, the American people are generous, always have been. We're a country of immigrants. But once you put up that green light, kwoom, right? Surges come every time." Brat left us wondering if in fact DACA recipients could bring in extended family members "once they reach a certain status" and if that could add up to 4 million additional immigrants. His office said this could happen once they got green cards. But green card recipients can only petition for spouses and unmarried children. On average, DACA recipients came to the United States before they were 7 years old. ‘Every one (DACA) person can bring in their entire extended family once they reach a certain status’ DACA gave individuals temporary deportation relief, but did not grant them legal status. Having DACA does not allow them to petition a family member to come to the United States. What "certain status" was Brat referring to? "Currently a loophole exists for DACA recipients to become eligible for green cards," said Juliana Heerschap, Brat’s communications director. "Individuals with a green card status can petition to bring their immediate and extended family into the United States." Heerschap pointed us to a Sept. 1 press release from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that said "the Obama administration allowed thousands of DACA recipients to exploit an immigration law loophole to obtain green cards," and that some of them had become U.S. citizens. Grassley said U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services preliminary data showed that as of Aug. 1, 2017: • 45,447 DACA recipients were approved for advance parole (3,993 applications denied); • 59,778 DACA recipients had applied for green cards and 39,514 were approved; • of those who received green cards, 2,181 had applied for U.S. citizenship, and 1,056 had become U.S. citizens. Advance parole is issued at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, and DACA recipients can request it for humanitarian, education or employment purposes. It allows them to travel outside the United States and re-enter lawfully. (Individuals with other immigration statuses or protections can also request advance parole.) Simply re-entering lawfully thanks to an advance parole does not lead to legal permanent residence. A DACA recipient would still need to be eligible for a green card under established categories. However, coming in with advance parole can make the green card process easier and faster for immigrants who initially entered the country illegally. Brat’s office told us people who have green cards could petition for their immediate and extended family. But per U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, green card holders can only petition for spouses and unmarried children. Only U.S. citizens can petition for extended family members, such as parents and siblings, and in those cases the petitioner must be at least 21 years old. While the majority of DACA recipients are now adults, it’s worth noting that to be approved they had to be in the United States before they were 16 years old. Also, DACA recipients on average were 6.5 years old when they came to the United States, according to an August survey of 3,063 program beneficiaries, fielded by Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political science at the University of California-San Diego. The median age of arrival was 6, according to the survey. ‘So it's 3 or 4 million, right?’ How did Brat determine that DACA beneficiaries could bring in 3 or 4 million people? "Rep. Brat calculated the 3 or 4 million number based on a rough estimate of total immediate and extended family members potentially eligible for chain migration if DACA recipients receive green card status. This is a very back of the envelope estimate and conservative at best," said Heerschap said, his communications director. Heerschap referred us to a paper on chain migration published by Negative Population Growth, which studies overpopulation and advocates for gradual population reduction and reversal, including through an 80 percent decrease in legal immigration. Contemporary studies found that in recent years each new immigrant sponsored an average of 3.45 additional immigrants, the paper said. Federal data up to March 31, 2017, show that 787,580 people had been approved for DACA. If each of the 787,580 people approved brought in 3.45 family members, that would be 2.71 million more immigrants. But green card holders cannot petition for extended family members and it’d be unlikely that the nearly 800,000 DACA recipients have spouses and unmarried children back in their home country, because many came to the United States after they were 6 years old. DACA beneficiaries also must have continuously lived in the United States since June 15, 2007. Brat’s office also linked us to data from Migration Policy Institute that estimated the number of people who may benefit under House and Senate bills introduced in 2017 to help so-called "Dreamers." Under the Senate bill, about 1.5 million immigrants would be eligible for a green card, compared to an estimated 938,000 under the House proposal, MPI reported. Our ruling Brat said, "So the number on DACA is 800,000, but every one person can bring in their entire extended family once they reach a certain status. So it's 3 or 4 million, right?" Brat’s office said the status he meant was lawful permanent residence. However, even if DACA recipients were to become lawful permanent residents, as green card holders they cannot petition for extended family members to enter the United States, only spouses and unmarried children. DACA recipients were on average 6.5 years old when they arrived, making it less likely that they all have children and spouses back in their home country. Brat’s statement is not accurate, we rate it False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Dave Brat	None	None	None	2017-09-15T10:45:57	2017-09-07	['None']
-pomt-07803	Says John Kitzhaber’s proposed budget for upcoming biennium represents 8 percent increase over last	/oregon/statements/2011/feb/18/shawn-lindsay/shawn-lindsay-says-john-kitzhabers-budget-proposal/	Gov. John Kitzhaber’s budget has been fairly well received by Republicans. The key to his budgeting success has a lot to do with the fact that he has set levels according to what the state is projected to take in, not what departments say they need to keep providing current services. Still, it’s quickly becoming a Republican talking point that the budget Kitzhaber proposed represents an increase over our current two-year budget. It has popped up in a note from Rep. Gene Whisnant, R-Sunriver, to his constituents; a newsletter from Rep. Kevin Cameron, R-Salem; and in an e-mail from Rep. Shawn Lindsay, R-Hillsboro. For the purposes of this fact check, we’ll focus on Lindsay, who, based on the e-mails we’ve seen, takes the most aggressive approach. In an e-mail to constituents, he writes: "Under the Governor's proposed budget, the state would have $1.2 BILLION more to spend in 2011-12 than it had in 2009-2010. That's an INCREASE not a BUDGET CUT. If I only got an 8% pay raise when I wanted a 30% pay raise, there's no way I'd call it a pay cut." We wouldn’t call that a pay cut either, so we decided to look into this one. (For those interested, in the full statement, Lindsay also says the following: "Increases in DHS (Department of Human Services) and OHA (Oregon Health Authority) spending is out-pacing increases in Education. In other words, DHS and OHA spending increases are done at the expense of Education." We already fact-checked a similar allegation and found it to be Barely True.) Kitzhaber has proposed a combined general and lottery fund budget for the 2011-2013 biennium of $14.5 billion. There’s an extra $220 million that Kitzhaber has not allocated; he’s saving that as a cushion of sorts. That puts the budget at about $14.7 billion in all. Kitzhaber based that total on the most recent state revenue forecast. Now, for comparison, the current two-year budget clocked in at $13.5 billion. When you take these two numbers -- $14.7 billion and $13.5 billion -- side by side, it does indeed look like an increase of some $1.2 billion, or 8 percent. Hey! That’s what Lindsay said. So he’s right, right? Not so fast. That $13.5 billion total for the current biennium isn’t really the full extent of what the state spent. Remember that stimulus the federal government passed two years ago? Well that and a few other smaller bills infused the state’s budget with some $1.3 billion in one-time cash. Generally, you wouldn’t count that as part of the general and lottery fund budget, as those dollars went to very specific places in the total funds budget. That said, those dollars helped loosen up other dollars to go toward services that receive their money from the general fund. All of that is a complicated way of saying that the state has been working with a $14.8 billion two-year budget. Bottom line: Kitzhaber’s spending proposal is on par with the current biennium. We called Lindsay to see what he had to say about this. He argued that his e-mail was talking about the general and lottery funds only -- not the total fund budget. But he doesn’t make that clear in the e-mail. And even so, that seems to us to be a little deceiving. Let’s look at this another way. Say last year you made $30,000 for the year and got an end-of-year bonus of $5,000. This year, however, your boss has said no bonuses, but your annual salary got bumped up to $35,000. By Lindsay’s standards, that’s a raise because he’s not counting the bonus -- or, in the state’s case, the federal stimulus money. Fact is, though, you’d probably fold that bonus into your budget just as you would the extra cash in your paycheck. Well, without the bonus the following year, that extra $5,000 in wages wouldn’t feel much like a raise, would it? Not as far as we’re concerned. And yet that’s what Lindsay and his fellow Republicans seem to be arguing here. Sorry, we just don’t see it. We rate this claim Barely True. Comment on this item. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Shawn Lindsay	None	None	None	2011-02-18T06:00:00	2011-02-09	['None']
-snes-04493	Police officer Nakia Jones was fired after expressing her thoughts about police brutality in a viral Facebook live video.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officer-nakia-jones-fired-after-viral-police-brutality-video/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Officer Nakia Jones Fired After Viral Police Brutality Video	8 July 2016	None	['None']
-tron-02893	George Soros Suffers Massive Heart Attack While Visiting Hungary	https://www.truthorfiction.com/george-soros-suffers-massive-heart-attack-visiting-hungary/	None	politics	None	None	['death hoax', 'fake news', 'george soros']	George Soros Suffers Massive Heart Attack While Visiting Hungary	Dec 27, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05475	Muslims recently decided to celebrate the birth of the Prophet Mohammed on 24 December (Christmas Eve) in order to preempt Christmas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslims-declare-december-24th-islamic-holiday/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	FALSE: Muslims Declare December 24th an Islamic Holiday	17 December 2015	None	['Christmas', 'Christmas_Eve']
-pomt-13793	" ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?' I am the guy that got under her skin and provoked that infamous response from Hillary Clinton by asking a pretty simple question, 'Why didn't you just pick up the phone and call the survivors’ (of the Benghazi attack)?"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/19/ron-johnson/what-you-need-know-about-hillary-clintons-infamous/	Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who for weeks declined to endorse Donald Trump, called for party unification on the second night of the Republican National Convention against the "cold, calculated lying" of Hillary Clinton. Johnson is one of the only vulnerable GOP senators to appear in Cleveland, and he devoted the majority of his short speech to clobbering Clinton. " ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?' I am the guy that got under her skin and provoked that infamous response from Hillary Clinton by asking a pretty simple question, 'Why didn't you just pick up the phone and call the survivors’ (of the Benghazi attack)?" Johnson said. "Instead of doing that, she hatched a cover-up story and repeatedly lied to the American people." Is that how their exchange unfolded? We found that Johnson is accurately recounting the testimony, but being selective. Clinton’s answer was longer and more nuanced. During a January 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Johnson did repeatedly press Clinton about not making contact with Americans in Benghazi to "ascertain immediately that there was no protest." Clinton did give her exasperated answer (which has been hashtagged and criticized). "Ron's questioning from start to finish was about how a simple phone call could have led to the truth — a fact that clearly got under Secretary Clinton's skin just as he described," Brian Reisinger, Johnson’s spokesman, told us. But Johnson’s account requires some more context, as Clinton answered the senator’s question twice before her infamous comment. Here is a transcript of their exchange, per PolitiFact Wisconsin, with the parts Johnson highlighted in bold: Johnson: "Okay, when you read the ARB (State Department Accountability Review Board), it strikes me as how certain the people were that the attacks started at 9:40 Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to — or have you ever spoken to — the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?" Clinton: "I‘ve spoken to one of them, but I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation." Johnson: "How many people were evacuated from Libya?" Clinton: "Well, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends — " Johnson: "Approximately?" Clinton: "Approximately, 25 to 30." Johnson: "Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?" Clinton: "There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli — which, I think you’re talking about Washington, right?" Johnson: "The point I’m making is, a very simple phone call to these individuals, I think, would’ve ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. This attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time, and it was an assault. I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I’m going back to then-Ambassador (Susan) Rice five days later going on the Sunday shows and, what I would say, is purposefully misleading the American public. Why wasn’t that known? And again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing, but why weren’t we transparent to that point in time?" Clinton: "Well, first of all, senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS (Diplomatic Security) agent at Walter Reed seriously injured — getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not — I think this is accurate, sir — I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC (Intelligence Community) talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the — " Johnson: "But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?" Clinton: "But, senator, again — " Johnson: "Within hours, if not days?" Clinton: "Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one — " Johnson: "I realize that’s a good excuse." Clinton: "Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown —" Johnson: "No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that." Clinton: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime." Johnson: "Okay. Thank you, Madame Secretary." So the transcript makes a few points fairly clear: Johnson was the guy who got Clinton riled up by asking why she didn’t call Benghazi survivors; Clinton did say "What difference at this point does it make?" in response to that question. But Clinton also did provide Johnson other answers. She said her priority was figuring out how to rescue those still at the compound and how to treat their injuries, not pressing them for information. She said it wasn’t appropriate for the State Department to talk to them before FBI interviews. Finally, she said her department and the administration were still trying to sort out the confusion in the days following the attacks. Our ruling Johnson said, "I am the guy that got under her skin and provoked that infamous response from Hillary Clinton by asking a pretty simple question, 'Why didn't you just pick up the phone and call the survivors’ (of the Benghazi attack)?" During a 2013 hearing, Johnson suggested repeatedly that had Clinton phoned the Benghazi compound, she would have known the attack wasn’t related to alleged protests. Clinton did get exasperated and say, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" But Johnson’s phrasing omits the fact that Clinton did provide other detailed responses to Johnson’s question. The claim is accurate but needs additional information. We rate the claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/bea4535d-04cb-444a-a32e-8a2c8a67d2ba	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2016-07-19T23:43:32	2016-07-19	['Benghazi']
-goop-02312	Miranda Lambert, Anderson East Did Split, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/miranda-lambert-split-anderson-east/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Miranda Lambert, Anderson East Did NOT Split, Despite Speculative Report	3:48 pm, October 23, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-03249	Dutch Give up Multiculturalism	https://www.truthorfiction.com/dutch-multiculturalism/	None	politics	None	None	None	Dutch Give up Multiculturalism	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Netherlands']
-pomt-05993	Rick Santorum says Rick Perry requested 1,200 earmarks as governor of Texas.	/texas/statements/2012/jan/20/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-rick-perry-requested-1200-congr/	Rick Santorum, who once took fire from Rick Perry for seeking earmarked spending while in Congress, lashed back after a town hall meeting in South Carolina. On Jan. 11, 2012, eight days before the Texas governor suspended his presidential campaign, Santorum said: "Rick Perry requested 1,200 earmarks as governor of Texas," according to a blog posted by MSNBC. "It’s sort of hard for somebody who’s been in public life and elected office for 25 years to be the outsider when he also requested over a thousand earmarks from Washington," he added. We wondered how Santorum arrived at Perry’s 1,200, a figure the former Pennsylvania senator aired again a few days later, according to a Jan. 16, 2012, post on ABC News’ blog The Note. A refresher: According to the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, an earmark is a legislative provision that sets "aside funds within an account for a specific program, project, activity, institution or location. These measures normally circumvent merit-based or competitive allocation processes and appear in spending, authorization, tax and tariff bills." Earmarks, which Congress banned from its budgeting and appropriations process in 2011, draw fire in some quarters because they enabled individual lawmakers to carve out funding for pet projects without public scrutiny. Some advocacy organizations say they’re still finding earmarks--sometimes called pork--in legislation. Earmark requests that raised some eyebrows include: the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project in Alaska--something for which Santorum voted, says a Perry ad (that’s Mostly True, PolitiFact found); $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey, and $1 million for a Woodstock museum, honoring the 1969 music festival in upstate New York. Santorum’s campaign didn’t reply to our requests for his backup. It would not be a shock, though, if Perry was involved in seeking earmarks. As noted in a Dec. 29, 2011, Austin American-Statesman blog post, headlined "Texas has sought its own earmarks under Perry’s leadership," a July 2006 strategic plan for the Texas Office of State-Federal Relations, which then lobbied for the state in Washington, said that with the Texas Department of Transportation, it had secured "over $669 million in highway earmarks for the state, $78 million in bus and bus facility earmarks, and $505 million in New Starts transit earmarks in the five-year surface transportation bill." At the time, the blog post says, Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and then-House Speaker Tom Craddick, comprised the advisory board for the state-federal office. For this article, we looked for signs of Perry seeking Santorum’s proclaimed 1,200 earmarks. Steve Ellis, who studies earmarks as vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that says it works to advance government transparency and cut wasteful spending, told us that from October 2007 through September 2010, Texas received 1,342 earmarks valued at $1.7 billion. That money could have gone to projects anywhere in Texas, he said, from Fort Hood to county governments. "It’s the entire state of Texas so it could be Democrats, Republicans, whomever, asking," Ellis said. "Whether Gov. Perry wanted them all, didn’t want them all, I have no idea." Ellis said that after October 2007, federal disclosure laws required Congress to list any earmarks in each piece of legislation. Staffers at Taxpayers for Common Sense would comb the legislation for additional earmarks and do their own calculations to determine things like the number of earmarks that went to each state. Citizens Against Government Waste, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that started when Ronald Reagan was president, also tracks earmarks. Its president, Tom Schatz, told us by email that between 2008 and 2010, Texas received 1,151 earmarks worth $1.4 billion, according to the organization’s earmarks database. The database, also known as the "Congressional Pig Book," is compiled by staffers at the organization who review legislation in search of earmarks, Schatz said. But there’s no way of telling how many of the earmarks originated with any governor, Schatz said, because earmarks are requested by members of Congress. "I’ve never seen a letter from any governor asking for a specific earmark," Schatz said, adding: "The only way to say that Gov. Perry ‘requested’ 1,200 earmarks, or more than 1,000 earmarks, is to attribute all of the (Texas) earmarks over that three-year period to him." Full disclosure: In 2010, the group’s political arm, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, endorsed Perry for governor and, Schatz said, the council might endorse a presidential hopeful later this year. Schatz said he was speaking about earmarks on behalf of the group, not its PAC. The figures Schatz gave us--1,151 earmarks worth $1.4 billion--differed some from those we received from Taxpayers for Common Sense: 1,342 earmarks valued at $1.7 billion. Ellis said the discrepancy is likely the result of slightly different definitions of earmarks. He said that everyone would have the same initial list of earmarks, provided through disclosure laws, but additional searching of legislation could yield findings that some groups would call an earmark and some wouldn’t. Citizens Against Government Waste lists seven criteria for determining earmarks. According to news accounts, some Texas-tied requests for earmarks during Perry’s time in office were claimed by Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. A Feb. 4, 2010 news article in The Houston Chronicle said that Hutchison, a "senior Republican on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, points with pride to the $2.3 billion in Texas earmarks she has obtained over the last two years. Among the projects delivered by the senator are highway construction, NASA funding and expansion of Fort Hood and other military installations in an era of base cutbacks." In November 2010, PolitiFact Texas examined Hutchison’s record on earmarks by citing a study by Taxpayers for Common Sense, which ranked Hutchison 19th out of the 100 U.S. senators for steering tax dollars to specific home-state projects. The state’s junior senator, John Cornyn, ranked 54th. In October 2009, The Dallas Morning News reported that by Hutchison's accounting, she had steered $8.7 billion to Texas over the previous five years. "And as Congress finalizes the 2010 budget," the News' story says, "the haul will probably exceed $10 billion – a staggering sum that has never been tallied before. It ranks her among the most successful earmarkers in congressional history." Ray Sullivan, a Perry campaign spokesman, said the governor has a history of rejecting earmarks, something Perry noted when he faced off with Hutchison in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. "Perry has long been opposed to congressional earmarks and other irresponsible spending in Washington," Sullivan said in an email. We asked Sullivan how many earmarks Perry sought. "I was chief of staff for two years and recall no such requests from the Governor’s Office during that time," Sullivan said in another email. "From time to time Gov. Perry asked the federal government to return Texas taxpayer money to Texas for priority needs, including disaster assistance and border security." Upshot: We failed to come up with a count of earmarks pursued or supported by Perry. Put another way, the only count we found that might potentially support Santorum’s 1,200 figure was the total earmarks that went to all of Texas over a recent period. State government may have played a role in requesting some of that funding. But it’s more than a stretch to say that Perry himself sought all the earmarks. It’s Pants on Fire!	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2012-01-20T18:51:41	2012-01-11	['Texas', 'Rick_Perry', 'Rick_Santorum']
-chct-00216	FACT CHECK: Did Bush's Popularity Double After Trump Was Elected?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/30/fact-check-did-bushs-popularity-double-after-trump-was-elected/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	11:33 AM 01/30/2018	None	['None']
-bove-00011	Video Of Boy Washing Apples In A Sewer In Pakistan Given Hindu-Muslim Spin In India	https://www.boomlive.in/video-of-boy-washing-apples-in-a-sewer-in-pakistan-given-hindu-muslim-spin-in-india/	None	None	None	None	None	Video Of Boy Washing Apples In A Sewer In Pakistan Given Hindu-Muslim Spin In India	Sep 26 2018 6:01 pm, Last Updated: Sep 27 2018 1:22 pm	None	['None']
-snes-06411	A few years after a couple of kids used a made-up name to sign up for a free yearly ice cream cone, they received a Selective Service registration notice for their non-existent friend.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-cream-registration-notice/	None	Military	None	Snopes Staff	None	Ice Cream Draft Notice	31 December 1998	None	['None']
-pomt-07287	"Tommy Thompson wanted to implant data chips in humans."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/may/22/michael-mc-auliff/huffington-post-reporter-says-possible-gop-senate-/	Over the past few years, Wisconsin Republican Tommy Thompson has toyed with making another run for public office about as often as Brett Favre pondered retiring and un-retiring from professional football. Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and U.S. health and human services secretary, said in 2009 that he might run again for the Wisconsin governor’s seat the following year, but he didn’t. In 2010, he was said to be weighing a challenge to then-U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., but he never jumped in. Nevertheless, considerable buzz followed a Politico.com report on May 17, 2011, that Thompson had told he friends he plans to run in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated after 24 years by Democrat Herb Kohl. Later that day, this headline appeared on the liberal and widely read HuffingtonPost.com: "Tommy Thompson wanted to implant data chips in humans." The headline stopped us because it read like it might have come from the Onion satirical newspaper. So we decided to do some peeling to see if the claim was accurate. Was Thompson an advocate of chip implantation? Was it to be voluntary or something more forceful, as the headline seemed to suggest? The headline topped an article by Michael McAuliff, senior congressional correspondent for Huffington Post and a former Washington reporter and editor for the New York Daily News. McAuliff is the "king of headlines," according to a fan of his on Twitter who re-tweeted the article about Thompson. The article recalled that in 2005, Thompson joined the board of VeriChip Corp., a Florida company that implants digital chips in people. He joined the board a few months after resigning from the health and human services post he held under then President George W. Bush. VeriChip, McAluliff wrote, "makes something called radio frequency identification chips that are implanted in an arm, and can help doctors track a person's medical history, or can be used in high-tech security systems." The article linked to two sources that contained statements Thompson made in July 2005 about the chip: Spychips.com, which says the chips "pose serious risks to consumers," posted two video clips from an interview Thompson gave to the former CBS Marketwatch, a financial news operation that was a partner of CBS News. Saying human implantation was "completely voluntary," Thompson called the chips a "giant step forward to getting to what we call an electronic medical record for all Americans." In a TV interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" business program, Thompson said he would get such a chip implanted in his arm. "I certainly would and I think it's the coming thing," he said. "And the problems is, is that medical technology is so far behind that (the chips) are going to really be the impetus in order for us to get new technology in the medical field that's going to help people improve their quality of care, and that's what it's all about." So, the two Thompson statements show he was enthusiastic about the chips, although he wasn’t advocating they be implanted in people involuntarily. We asked McAuliff if he had other evidence to back the headline. He said the two videotaped Thompson statements meant "case closed" -- in other words, it was clear, he said, that Thompson wanted to implant data chips in humans. McAuliff also said he didn’t think the headline suggested that Thompson wanted people to be implanted involuntarily. We sought comment from Thompson, but one of his advisers, Madison lobbyist Bill McCoshen, didn’t respond. We found other accounts of Thompson’s support of the VeriChip chip for humans, including two more statements from July 2005. When Thompson joined VeriChip's board, the company issued a statement quoting Thompson as saying: "We are all well aware of the need to enhance information technology in health care. It is my belief that VeriChip is an important and secure means of accessing medical records and other information. I look forward to working with the company as it continues its growth." U.S. News & World Report quoted Thompson as saying he planned to have the chip implanted. "People are dying all the time because they can't access their medical information overseas," he said. It’s unclear whether Thompson ever did get the chip implanted, as later reports quoted him as saying he was waiting for more hospitals to be able to read the chips. When Thompson resigned from the VeriChip board in 2007, he held options for 55,556 shares of VeriChip stock and, in 2006, had been paid $40,000 by the company, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article. By 2010, the majority owner of VeriChip, which had become known as PositiveID Corp., said the company had stopped marketing the chip that Thompson had touted as an electronic medical record and instead would use the technology for medical diagnostic purposes. We’ve peeled enough of this onion. What’s left? The headline of an article by HuffingtonPost.com reporter Michael McAuliff said Tommy Thompson "wanted to implant data chips in humans." Thompson certainly was a major cheerleader for the product, although he made it clear he was only advocating that people choose to be chipped voluntarily. The headline was accurate, but needed clarification. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Michael McAuliff	None	None	None	2011-05-22T09:00:00	2011-05-17	['Tommy_Thompson']
-hoer-00651	Monkey Orchid	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/monkey-orchid.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Monkey Orchid	November 9, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-02106	"No Republicans voted for" recent hikes in the income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax. "These taxes were all passed under … Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/14/chain-email/chain-email-overstates-tax-increases-incorrectly-s/	Numerous readers have asked us to fact-check a chain email they’ve received recently about rising tax rates from Obamacare. Here’s the full text of the email, with its original typos intact: Here is what happened on January 1st 2014: Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6% Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2% Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28% Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6% Estate tax went from 0% to 55% Remember this fact: if you have money, the democrats want it. These taxes were all passed only with democrat votes, no republicans voted for these taxes. These taxes were all passed under the affordable care act, aka Obamacare." We’ll take these claims in order: "Here is what happened on January 1st 2014" To the extent that these tax rates were changed -- and as we’ll see most of them didn’t change in the way the email says -- the changes didn’t take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. They took effect on Jan. 1, 2013. That may seem like a minor difference, but in this case, it makes all the difference. The tax rates that changed on Jan. 1, 2013, were all passed as part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. That was the bipartisan deal -- and we’ll discuss just how bipartisan in a bit -- that passed after the 2012 presidential election to avoid the "fiscal cliff." The "cliff" refers to the expiration of tax cuts originally passed under President George W. Bush, combined with mandated federal spending cuts. The law made permanent many of the Bush-era tax cuts, but it did raise some taxes that primarily hit upper-income taxpayers. That’s what the email is attempting to spotlight, but it does so in a way that introduces a host of inaccuracies. "Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%" The timing is wrong, but the numbers are correct. "Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%" Usually people think about income taxes and payroll taxes separately. But it’s not uncommon for tax experts to look at the combination of income and payroll taxes together, because they give a sense of the overall burden of direct taxation on individuals. That’s what the email did here. On Jan. 1, 2013, the top combined rate for the income and payroll tax went from 37.9 percent to 42.5 percent. The top combined rate to 43.4 percent due to an additional Medicare tax in Obamacare. So if you just look at the federal rate, the email overstates the current top rate. If you take state taxes into account, the email is closer, but still inaccurate. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that also receives funding from individual donors and foundations, has calculated 2013 combined tax rates for each state. The group found that the top marginal tax rate, averaged across all states, is 47.9 percent. Of course, any state taxes would have been imposed by state governments, and thus were not part of the Affordable Care Act. And this would not be an apples-to-apples comparison; to make the comparison fair, the initial tax rate would need to be adjusted upward for state and local taxes as well. "Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%" On Jan. 1, 2013, the capital gains tax rate went from 15 percent to 20 percent. The health care law took that up to 23.8 percent. So the email is high by more than 4 percentage points. If you add in state and local taxes, the Tax Foundation says the current rate, averaged across the 50 states, is 28.7 percent, but Tax Foundation economist Kyle Pomerleau said this is "sort of an apples-to-oranges comparison." "Dividends tax went from 15% to 39.6%" This next line would have been correct if the Bush tax cuts had expired the way they were initially supposed to. But the December 2012 deal ended up going with a top marginal tax rate of 20 percent on dividend income instead of the pre-Bush rate of 39.6 percent on dividend income. It rose to 23.8 percent due to Obamacare. So the final rate cited in the email is far higher than the current rate. "Estate tax went from 0% to 55%" Both ends of this claim are wrong. The estate tax was gradually wound down by the Bush-era tax cuts, disappearing entirely in 2010. For 2011 and 2012 it was reimposed at 35 percent, then raised to 40 percent on Jan. 1, 2013 as part of the "fiscal cliff" bill. "These taxes were all passed only with democrat votes, no republicans voted for these taxes. These taxes were all passed under the affordable care act, aka Obamacare." Most of these changes were passed as part of the 2012 fiscal cliff deal, which was enacted with bipartisan support. Facing expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which would have meant a massive tax increase up and down the income scale, both parties felt compelled to strike a deal that neither side was really enthusiastic about. In the Senate, the measure passed by an 89-8 margin. Forty Republicans voted for it, and just five Republicans voted against it. In the House, it passed by a 257-167 margin. While a majority of Republicans (151) voted against the bill, 85 Republicans did vote for it. So the email is flatly wrong to say that no Republicans voted for these taxes. It’s also incorrect to say that these taxes were all raised by Obamacare. The health care law did add marginally to three of the five taxes -- 0.9 percentage points extra on the top payroll tax rate, and 3.8 percentage points higher for the capital gains and the dividends tax -- but the bulk of the increases came from the fiscal cliff deal. All told, less than a third of the actual increases in the taxes cited by the email came from Obamacare. Our ruling The chain email said that "no Republicans voted for" recent hikes in the income tax, payroll tax, capital gains tax, dividend tax and estate tax, arguing that they "were all passed under … Obamacare." The email gets many things wrong, including the effective date of the increases and most of the rates, which are uniformly higher than the actual rates. Most obviously, the email is flat-out wrong when it blames Democrats, and Obamacare, exclusively for the increases. The bulk of the tax hikes stem from a different bill entirely -- the fiscal cliff bill, which received support from a large majority of Senate Republicans and a significant minority of House Republicans. This email is so riddled with errors -- and gets so few things correct -- that we rate it Pants on Fire.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2014-05-14T15:44:17	2014-05-14	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-pomt-12997	"Democrats Filing TREASON Charges Against Trump, McConnell, Giuliani, & Comey."	/punditfact/statements/2016/dec/15/realtime-politics/websites-offer-false-headlines-about-treason-c/	Social media platforms have lit up recently with various combinations of the words "treason" and "Trump." But there’s less to the rhetoric than meets the eye. One prominent example making the rounds comes from the aggregation site Realtime Politics. A recent post was headlined, "BREAKING: Democrats Filing TREASON Charges Against Trump, McConnell, Giuliani, & Comey MONDAY MORNING" (That would be President-elect Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, former New York City mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani, and FBI Director James Comey.) The article begins, "Following the news that the CIA has determined Russia was involved in swaying the election for Donald Trump, both Democratic and REPUBLICAN senators are calling for an investigation into the Russian cyber-attacks that interfered with the presidential election. Four senators issued a statement, Chuck Schumer (D-New York), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), John McCain (R-Arizona), and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). ... "Now a group of Democrats plans to file treason charges against Trump, and others that knew about Russia's interference in the election. The group, democraticcoalition.org, announced their plan on Twitter." So what’s happening here? As we were preparing our fact check, the page in question appears to have been taken down, replaced by a "404 error" message. But similar headlines have also surfaced on such sites as Bipartisan Report and New Century Times. We should start by noting that that none of the senators cited in the Realtime Politics article, despite their criticism, have filed any treason "charges" (and it’s not clear that they could in any case). Rather, the story is based on a Dec. 11 tweet by a Democratic strategist and fundraiser, Scott Dworkin, who is advising the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, an advocacy group founded earlier this year. In the tweet, Dworkin wrote, "Breaking: We are filing complaints for treason tmrw on Trump, McConnell, Giuliani & James Comey. #DworkinReport #TrumpLeaks Russians #AMJoy Dworkin did not reply to a call from PolitiFact or an email sent to the firm he founded, Bulldog Finance Group, so we don’t know whether he actually filed a complaint on Dec. 12 -- or, perhaps more important, what kind of complaint it was. But if Dworkin did file a complaint, it wouldn’t have carried much legal weight. Treason is a serious crime that is cited by name in the Constitution, so an ordinary member of the public can’t file "charges" over treason on their own. "Private citizens can’t initiate prosecution," said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania constitutional scholar. All they could do is "tell some federal prosecutor that they think a crime has been committed," Roosevelt said. It would then be up to the prosecutor and their superiors to determine whether to proceed -- a move that would not be taken lightly. A previous complaint filed by Dworkin was somewhat more logical. As our friends at Snopes.com have outlined, Dworkin on Oct. 28, 2016, wrote a letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, requesting that the office open an investigation into possible violations of the Hatch Act by Comey, who many Democrats blamed for airing allegations about Hillary Clinton’s emails late in the presidential campaign. The Office of Professional Responsibility is a Justice Department unit "responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct" involving Department attorneys and law-enforcement personnel that "relate to the exercise of their authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice, as well as allegations of misconduct by law enforcement personnel when related to allegations of attorney misconduct," according to the office’s web page. So the complaint to the Office of Professional Responsibility about Comey at least made some sense, even though experts have previously told PolitiFact that Comey’s potential to be prosecuted under the Hatch Act is uncertain at best. But accusing anyone -- much less the president-elect and other high officials -- of treason represents a whole other level, experts said. For treason, there is "a high bar for prosecution, because such prosecutions were common under the King of England, and the founders wanted to protect against frivolous allegations," said Brett Kappel, an attorney specializing in government ethics at the law firm Akerman. Not surprisingly, Kappel said, the resulting statute on treason "has been narrowly construed in keeping with the founders’ concerns." Experts agreed that since the treason statute refers to "giving aid and comfort" to "enemies" of the United States, initiating a prosecution -- to say nothing of winning a conviction -- is a steep climb. The statute, Kappel said, has long been interpreted to refer to "states with which the Unites States was then at war – not merely states that are in some way hostile to the United States. … Since we are not currently at war with Russia, there is no legal basis for a treason complaint. For that reason, the Justice Department is unlikely to act on any such complaint." Roosevelt agreed. "Russia doesn’t meet that criterion," he said. The complaint "sounds empty to me," he added. Our ruling Realtime Politics, echoing posts elsewhere, headlined an article, "Democrats Filing TREASON Charges Against Trump, McConnell, Giuliani, & Comey." It’s unclear whether such a request has been made, but calling the complaints "charges" is wrong. Only prosecutors, not ordinary Americans, can file "charges." Moreover, experts told us that the likelihood of actual criminal charges for treason being filed are small, at least given what’s known about the evidence so far. Among other things, treason has historically been judged to require a state of war, something that does not currently exist between the United States and Russia. We rate the statement False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4ffad66d-8f2c-4e64-8167-2eb3954ec349	None	Realtime Politics	None	None	None	2016-12-15T15:14:51	2016-12-11	['Rudy_Giuliani']
-pomt-07312	"The (border) fence is now basically complete."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/	In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, President Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is "now basically complete." Still, he predicted that many Republican opponents won't be satisfied. "We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time." "They'll want want a higher fence," Obama said. "Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics." Fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border has long been a thorny political issue, so with Obama declaring mission accomplished, we decided to check it out. Department of Homeland Security officials told us they have finished 649 out of 652 miles of fencing (99.5 percent), which includes 299 miles of vehicle barriers and 350 miles of pedestrian fence. But the same day as Obama's speech, Sen. Jim DeMint penned an op-ed for National Review in which he countered that the Obama administration has "not done its job to finish the border fence that is a critical part of keeping Americans safe and stopping illegal immigration." "Five years ago, legislation was passed to build a 700-mile double-layer border fence along the southwest border," DeMint wrote. "This is a promise that has not been kept. Today, according to staff at the Department of Homeland Security, just 5 percent of the double-layer fencing is complete, only 36.3 miles." So what gives? Is the border fence "now basically complete" or not? Not to go all Clinton on you, but it largely depends on how you define "fence." You need to go back to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico. The act specified "at least two layers of reinforced fencing." But the law was quietly altered in a significant way the following year. Responding to urging from the Department of Homeland Security -- which argued that different border terrains required different types of fencing, that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense -- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location." In other words, Border Patrol would have the leeway to decide which type of fencing was appropriate in various regions. The amendment was included in a federal budget bill in late 2007 despite being condemned by legislators such as Reps. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who argued the amendment effectively killed the border fence promised in the 2006 bill. At the time, Hutchison told the San Antonio Express-News, "Border patrol agents reported that coyotes and drug-runners were altering their routes as fencing was deployed, so the amendment gives our agents discretion to locate the fence where necessary to achieve operational control of our border." DHS reports there are currently 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing, the kind with enough gap that you can drive a vehicle between the layers. But the majority of the fencing erected has been vehicle barriers, which are designed to stop vehicles rather than people (see here), and single-layer pedestrian fencing (see here). The design specifications vary depending on geography and climate characteristics, but according to the Customs and Border Patrol website, it includes "post on rail" steel set in concrete; steel picket-style fence set in concrete; vehicle bollards similar to those found around federal buildings; "Normandy" vehicle fence consisting of steel beams; and concrete jersey walls with steel mesh. That's not enough for some opponent of illegal immigration. "They are interpreting the requirements of the Secure Fence Act in a way that is clearly contrary to what Congress intended," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors tougher enforcement against illegal immigration. There may be a role for the vehicle barriers, but "your grandmother could hop over them," he said, and "that's not what Congress thought it was voting for." Krikorian said, "The president's claim that the job is done is misleading." A Government Accountability Office report on border security, issued in February 2011, paints a mixed picture. The report acknowledges progress on the fences, as well as hundreds more miles deemed to be under "operational control," but "DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics." T.J. Bonner, retired president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents all the front-line border patrol agents, said the type of fencing is less important than whether the border is secure. It is estimated that for every person caught (Border Patrol reported apprehending over 445,000 illegal entrants in 2010) two more get by, Bonner said. "To me, that doesn't seem like border security." But is it accurate for Obama to claim that "the fence is now basically complete"? DHS reports that there is now fencing for 649 of the 652 miles described in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. But the vast majority of the requirement was met with vehicle barriers and single-layer pedestrian fence. The original act specifically called for double-layer fencing, and only 36.3 miles of double-layered fencing currently exist. However, the act was later amended to allow Border Security the discretion to determine which type of fencing was appropriate for different areas. So Obama can make a case that the vehicle barriers and single-layer pedestrian fences meet the amended letter of the law. But we also think Obama misleads, particularly when he mocks Republican opponents, saying that even though the fence has been built, "They'll want want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat." The Border Patrol has not gone "above and beyond" what Republicans requested, as Obama claimed. What they originally requested was a double-layer fence, and they didn't get much of it. And so we rate Obama's statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-05-16T17:03:42	2011-05-10	['None']
-tron-02675	Help find Sabrina Fair Allen	https://www.truthorfiction.com/sabrina/	None	missing	None	None	None	Help find Sabrina Fair Allen	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08901	Dave Aronberg "was the first to demand that BP create a billion-dollar fund to pay for the devastation."	/florida/statements/2010/jul/29/dave-aronberg/aronberg-says-he-was-first-demand-bp-escrow-fund/	In the wake of the April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, Florida politicians have been boasting about their own responses to the disaster. State Sen. Dave Aronberg, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, said in a campaign mailer that hit mailboxes this week that he "was the first to demand that BP create a billion-dollar fund to pay for the devastation." PolitiFact Florida previously ruled on a similar claim by Democratic political consultant James Carville that CFO Alex Sink, a Democrat running for governor, was the "first official who said that BP should pay $25 million for an ad campaign to promote Florida tourism." We found two state legislators who raised the issue of BP funding tourism ads before Sink did. So we wondered, was Aronberg the first to call for BP to pay for a $1 billion escrow account? First, we contacted Aronberg's campaign to ask what he meant by "first" since the ad didn't explain. The first politician in Florida, the first attorney general candidate or some other first? Campaign spokeswoman Allison North Jones said that the mailer referred to the first state legislator or member of Florida's Cabinet. Aronberg wrote a letter to Gov. Charlie Crist on May 5, asking that Crist reach out to BP and the other firms involved in the explosion to ask them to set up a $1 billion escrow account. "With the representatives of these three firms actively engaged on the rig’s activities at the time of the Deepwater explosion, it seems obvious that all three should be stepping up to the plate of financial responsibility," Aronberg wrote. "While the $25 million BP has offered to our state is a start, it is by no means sufficient." The letter goes on: "Florida should be insisting that an interest-bearing escrow account by established, under the control of the Cabinet or CFO, with each responsible party in this disaster committing a share to total $1 billion. The funds would be drawn down to fund preparations and prevention, wildlife recovery, loss to the local fishing industries, and mitigation as the damage rolls in." We asked Jones how the campaign determined Aronberg was first. She said that in Aronberg's role as chair of the Senate's Committee on Military Affairs and Domestic Security, he regularly received briefings on "what public officials were or were not doing in terms of response to the cleanup and any recommendations on how to hold BP accountable. In May he really felt the need to do something to make sure the money was tied up for the state to pay for the cleanup. That's when he came up with the idea for the escrow." Jones pointed to a June 14 Miami Herald Naked Politics blog that criticized Attorney General Bill McCollum for taking credit when President Barack Obama called for BP to establish the escrow account. McCollum sent a press release stating "Obama has followed McCollum's lead," according to the blog. "But really, McCollum followed the lead of state Sen. Dave Aronberg, a Democrat running for attorney general," Naked Politics wrote. "In a May 5 letter to Gov. Charlie Crist, Aronberg wrote that 'Florida should be insisting that an interest-bearing escrow account be established, under the control of the Cabinet or CFO, with each responsible party in this disaster committing a share to total $1 billion.' (The total is smaller than the one McCollum proposed, but it was also much earlier in the crisis.)" Although the blog puts Aronberg ahead of McCollum, it doesn't rule out other politicians. While Aronberg's campaign -- after the fact -- said that by "first" they meant state legislators or Cabinet members, in this Florida election season with candidates everywhere, we think the average voter could assume "first" refers to any politician or candidate. When we searched news articles, we found only one reference to a Florida politician asking for BP to provide an escrow fund before Aronberg: Republican Congressman Jeff Miller, who represents the Pensacola area. A May 4, 2010, article in the Pensacola News Journal quoted Miller at a May 3 press conference at the Mobile Regional airport. Miller said: "And we are asking BP to put money in an escrow fund so local governments, if possible, can draw upon it." Miller said the escrow fund was needed because many local governments are having to dip into their reserve funds to spend money for the disaster. Miller was not quoted as asking for a specific amount for the escrow fund. He made the statement accompanied by Florida Sen. George LeMieux and Alabama senators. We e-mailed Miller's spokesman to ask if May 3 was the first time he brought it up and whether he had also put a dollar amount on it by that point. Dan McFaul said Miller had a phone conversation with David Nagel, a top BP executive, on May 3 asking for a $1 billion escrow account. Miller reiterated his request in an in-person meeting with Nagel May 6 and in a letter May 10. We e-mailed BP in an attempt to verify the May 3 conversation. BP spokeswoman Kathleen Randall said that she left a message for Nagel about it but he was out of the office. We also reached out to LeMieux's office -- and Sen. Bill Nelson's office -- to ask if either had made a similar request. LeMieux sent a letter to BP on May 11 asking that it provide $1 billion to the gulf states. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin wasn't certain when Nelson first raised the topic of an escrow account. "I think Bill may have even discussed the concept with Tony Hayward during a May 4 meeting here between the two," McLaughlin said. "But I don’t think we made any 'official' public request in writing for money in such a fund until we had a better idea of the scope of the damages and until the president was preparing to sit down to negotiate with BP. That would be our letter in early June seeking $20 billion. Within a week or so after that, BP did agree to the $20 billion figure." We also contacted Florida's Cabinet. CFO Alex Sink, Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson and Gov. Charlie Crist asked either BP or the federal government to help Florida pay for activities related to the disaster, but none made a request for an escrow account. Finally, we contacted Hope Lanier, a BP spokeswoman who helped us determine who the first official was to ask BP to pay for tourism ads. She said she had no information related to Aronberg's claim. "I don't have any reason to believe that it's inaccurate,'' she said. "I'm unaware of anything that would dispute it one way or another." After a meeting with Obama, BP agreed to establish a $20 billion claims fund, according to a June 16 BP press release. Aronberg said he was the "first" to call for a $1 billion escrow fund but didn't define first -- although his campaign said that meant first state legislator or Cabinet member. There's no certain way to rule Aronberg first among state legislators without contacting every legislator. We didn't find anything showing any Cabinet members demanding an escrow fund before Aronberg, who wrote his letter May 5. We did find evidence that Florida Congressman Jeff Miller asked for an escrow fund May 3. Aronberg should have been more precise in his mailer, such as "first state legislator." For that omission, we give him a Half True.	None	Dave Aronberg	None	None	None	2010-07-29T18:33:10	2010-07-26	['None']
-snes-02582	A photograph shows Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor leaning against a tree.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marilyn-monroe-liz-taylor/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor Pose Together?	18 April 2017	None	['Marilyn_Monroe', 'Elizabeth_Taylor']
-snes-00510	Is It Now Against the Law in California to Shower and Do Laundry on the Same Day?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Is It Now Against the Law in California to Shower and Do Laundry on the Same Day?	4 June 2018	None	['California']
-chct-00166	FACT CHECK: Is Facebook Collecting Text Message And Call Data?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/28/fact-check-is-facebook-collecting-text-message-and-call-data/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	2:11 PM 03/28/2018	None	['None']
-goop-01616	Kim Kardashian’s Former Boss Paris Hilton Begging Kris Jenner For ‘KUWTK’ Contract, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-paris-hilton-beg-kris-jenner-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Kim Kardashian’s Former Boss Paris Hilton NOT Begging Kris Jenner For ‘KUWTK’ Contract, Despite Reports	7:45 am, February 9, 2018	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-05569	If the Supreme Court throws out the federal health care law, it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/04/barack-obama/obama-attaches-stark-terms-possible-supreme-court-/	After remaining mostly silent on the topic, President Barack Obama stepped into the debate over how the Supreme Court might rule on the health care law, the signature legislation of his presidency. In a Rose Garden press conference on April 2, 2012, the president expressed confidence that the nine justices will uphold the law and said that to do otherwise would be an example of "judicial activism" so often maligned by Republicans. He listed some benefits of the law that have already taken effect -- drug discounts for Medicare beneficiaries and millions of children gaining coverage. "So there's -- there's not only an economic element and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he said. Two terms stood out to us in that statement: "strong majority" and "unprecedented." Is Obama, a Harvard Law-educated president, correct in his characterization of how the bill passed Congress? We remembered the vote as quite narrow. And what about the historical implication of overturning it? First, ‘strong majority’ For this part of the claim, we turned to the congressional record of votes on the health care bill from late 2009 and early 2010. The health law took an unusual path to passage. Usually, the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill, then they work out their differences in a conference committee. A unified bill comes out of that committee, and both bodies vote again on the new bill. Then, if it passes, the president signs it. In the case of the health care bill, the House and Senate had each passed different versions in 2009. It was expected the two bills would be integrated in conference committee, then voted on again. But before that could happen, the Democrats lost their 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. (Republican Scott Brown in January 2010 won the seat formerly held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.) Anything that came out of conference committee at that point could have been held up in the Senate, blocked by 40 Republican senators. Democrats decided to get around this by having the House simply accept the Senate’s version of the bill. Then Democrats in the House and Senate used a different measure -- a reconciliation bill, which requires only a simple majority -- to modify the law they had just passed. The vote to pass the Senate version of the bill had been 60-39. The bill passed the House 219-212 on March 21,2010. Numerically speaking, neither vote reflects a very large margin of victory. In the Senate, 60 votes was actually the exact minimum needed to prevent a filibuster -- not a vote more. And in both chambers, not a single Republican voted for for the bill. The notion of ‘unprecedented’ This one, we’ll acknowledge, puzzled us. The Supreme Court routinely reviews laws passed by Congress and either upholds or overturns them. For Obama to suggest that such an action would be unique in American history is something of a head-scratcher. We could name numerous examples of the Supreme Court tossing laws passed by a "democratically elected Congress," starting with Marbury vs. Madison, in 1803. For a more recent example, Senate historian Don Ritchie cited the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, which made it a federal offense to knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone. But in United States vs. Lopez, the court said the federal government could not use the commerce clause to restrict guns. "Lots of laws have been overturned," Ritchie said. "That’s what the Supreme Court does." Eugene Volokh, a law professor at University of California at Los Angeles and blogger who considers himself center-right or libertarian-conservative, even cited a case that was passed by a large majority in Congress and then tossed out by the court. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 passed unanimously in the House and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate. The law protected religious individuals and organizations from government interference with the practice of their faith. But the court, in the 1997 case City of Boerne vs. Flores held that the statute was unconstitutional because it exceeded federal power. Volokh said the Boerne case is noteworthy in the health care debate because it was also a federalism case, meaning it was being challenged under the 10th Amendment that says powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Another interesting point: Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens, two of the court’s liberal justices, joined the majority opinion. "Were they stopped by the fact that this was a federal statute enacted by a nearly unanimous vote of the Congress? Absolutely not," Volokh said. What’s more, he said, the Supreme Court is not supposed to consider a law’s popularity. "It’s not its job to do that," Volokh said. "You could imagine justices being influenced because justices are human. But according to the Constitution, a law is a law. … and a law that unconstitutional is unconstitutional. "They’re not supposed to look at these things, and there’s considerable evidence that they often don’t." What else might Obama have meant when he said overturning the health care law would be unprecedented? He was asked for just such clarification a day after the press conference at a luncheon with members of the Associated Press. Obama’s response: "We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue, like health care ... at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal." He further explained that, because the court has extraordinary power as the final say on laws, it "has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected Legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this." The president seemed to be framing the health care case in historical terms. He said that no law on an economic issue such as health care has been overturned in decades, and he cited Lochner vs. New York, a controversial 1905 decision striking down a New York labor law because it interfered with employer/employee contract rights. The case marked the beginning of what came to known as the Lochner era of the court, when justices overturned several laws through the 1930s on the grounds that they were an overreach by government into business. Obama further added that overturning such a far-reaching law as the health care bill would be atypical use of the court’s power. So, when given the chance to explain, Obama wasn’t saying it would be unprecedented simply for the Supreme Court to overturn a federal law. But "this is not any law," said Norman Ornstein, a scholar with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "At least since the early part of the New Deal, when you had a Supreme Court that blocked at least a few initiatives of the new Roosevelt administration, we haven’t had a major social policy overturned," he said. "And I don’t think any of them were as sweeping or significant in their effect on the country as this one (the health care law). They didn’t overturn Social Security; they didn’t overturn the (Works Progress Administration)." He continued: "If you’re looking at things that have had a big effect on people’s lives, you’d say Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest ones in the last 80 years. And I think you could make the case that while this (the health law) doesn’t affect everybody in the same way -- most people already have health insurance -- but everybody’s lives would be changed by this law because of the way that insurance would be provided and other changes in the law that affect how you deliver health care. And we’re talking about something that impinges on 17 percent of the economy, and that’s big stuff." Ornstein said that since the 1930s, there has been "a wide acceptance of the role of government in the economy and affecting the social fabric of the country." "A decision that would not only affect the health care law but would also raise questions about other mandates... this could challenge the entire New Deal and post-New Deal structure of America. You’d have to say that’s unprecedented." Our ruling That was a lot of Supreme Court history. First, let’s review Obama’s statement: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." There’s simply no support for the assertion that the law was passed by a "strong majority." It was passed along party lines in a sharply partisan climate, and the 60 votes in the Senate were the minimum needed to keep Republicans from bottling it up in a filibuster. But the "unprecedented" idea is more nuanced. It’s without question that the Supreme Court overturning a law passed by Congress -- by any margin -- is a common and routine occurrence, and by no means without precedent. Volokh gave us a close analogy with the case of Boerne vs. Flores, a religious freedom law that glided through Congress but was held unconstitutional by a majority of the court, including two of its liberal justices. However, Obama’s elaboration a day later at least gives us more to think about. He argued that invalidation of the health care law would represent a court action unseen since the Great Depression on an issue that affects every American. Ornstein echoed that interpretation, saying that a ruling by the court which overturns a major social policy and challenges prior court rulings would be unprecedented. But we’re taking Obama literally, and that historical perspective was not reflected in his original statement, which is what we're ruling on. He simply said the law passed with a strong majority and overturning it would be unprecedented. Wrong and wrong. We rate the statement False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-04-04T16:51:42	2012-04-02	['United_States_Congress']
-tron-02936	Maxine Waters: I March Because My Mother Couldn’t Have an Abortion	https://www.truthorfiction.com/maxine-waters-i-march-because-my-mother-couldnt-have-an-abortion/	None	politics	None	None	['abortion', 'congress']	Maxine Waters: I March Because My Mother Couldn’t Have an Abortion	Feb 15, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00088	Nike sells shoes featuring an "All-Seeing Eye" symbol that represents satanism or the Illuminati.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nike-all-seeing-eye-shoes/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does Nike Make Shoes Featuring the ‘All-Seeing Eye’ Symbol?	14 September 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01791	Says Common Core is a federal mandate.	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jul/25/joe-leibham/federal-government-required-states-adopt-common-co/	Gov. Scott Walker joined other potential Republican candidates for president when, in a surprise move, he called on the Wisconsin Legislature to repeal the Common Core education standards. State Sen. Joe Leibham, one of four Republicans seeking the GOP nomination for an open seat in Congress, applauded the announcement two days later. "Like Governor Walker, I believe education decisions should be made at the local and state level, not through federal mandates like Common Core," he said in a July 19, 2014 news release. Common Core -- a federal mandate? No. That's a lesson we've learned before. Let's review. The race GOP U.S. Rep. Tom Petri, who has represented east-central Wisconsin in Congress since 1979, announced in April 2014 that he would not seek re-election. That was a week after state Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-Campbellsport, announced he would run. Jumping in later were Leibham, of the Town of Sheboygan, state Rep. Duey Stroebel of the Town of Cedarburg and political newcomer Tom Denow of the Town of Algoma in Winnebago County. The winner of the Aug. 12, 2014 primary will face Winnebago County Executive Mark Harris, who is running unopposed in the Democratic primary, in the November 2014 general election. On the GOP side, much of the campaigning has centered on which candidate is the most conservative. Common Core's origins Increasingly, conservatives around the country have attacked the Common Core State Standards, a set of standards for English and math that were unveiled in 2010. The criticism has stirred debate about the federal government's role in the standards and whether the renewed focus on them is strictly political. Tony Evers, the elected Wisconsin school superintendent, used his authority to have the state adopt Common Core in June 2010. More than three years later, in October 2013, the GOP-majority Legislature began holding hearings with the aim of reviewing and perhaps replacing Common Core. At the time, Evers said the pushback in Madison and elsewhere "is all about what's going on in Washington. It's all about controlling the message and the next (presidential) election." Also in October 2013, we rated as Mostly True a claim by state Rep. Sondy Pope, D-Cross Plains, a Common Core supporter. She said Common Core "is not from the federal government," they "do not have their fingerprints on this thing at all." Here's what we learned at the time: Common Core came out of years of discussion between private nonprofit groups and state education departments. The goal: to better prepare students for college and careers and ensure that students in different states learn the same academic concepts. The Council of Chief State School Officers -- a national organization of public officials who head state education departments -- discussed developing common standards during its annual policy forum in 2007, a year before Barack Obama won the presidency. In 2009, that council and the National Governors Association agreed to create Common Core. They developed the standards with the help of teachers, parents and experts. Although Common Core is voluntary, the federal government has had a role in encouraging states to adopt the standards. States earned the equivalent of extra points in the competition for grants from Race to the Top, Obama’s signature education program, if they had adopted standards to prepare students for college and work. They didn't have to adopt Common Core, but they were better positioned for federal money if they did. Linking Race to the Top funding and Common Core is what Leibham cited to defend his claim. "In this era of tight budgets, tying federal funding to the adoption of specific education initiatives like Common Core is inherently coercive," Leibham campaign spokesman Ryan Terrill wrote in an email. "As Wisconsin struggles to maintain appropriate funding for K-12 education amid increasingly scarce (state) resources and declining property tax revenues in many districts, any individual suggesting that Wisconsin not try for RTTT funding would be ridiculed. Therefore, Wisconsin’s grant application and the strings attached really were not entirely a matter of choice." But that doesn't make Common Core a mandate -- a fact that has been reported repeatedly since we checked the Pope claim. Four examples, from March and April 2014: 1. PolitiFact Georgia noted that one of the leaders in developing Common Core, former Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue of Georgia, said it was a way to "prevent a federal mandate" in education. 2. U.S. News & World Report, in an article headlined "Common Core: Myths and Facts," labeled as the first myth: "The Common Core State Standards are a federally mandated curriculum." The article pointed out that the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act forbids the federal government from intervening in school curriculum development and that states independently adopted Common Core. 3. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reported that Common Core is voluntary and, the curriculum and teaching methods are decided locally. 4. The Washington Post -- reporting on Indiana being the first state to pull out of Common Core after being among the first of 45 states to adopt it -- said Common Core isn't a federal mandate, and noted it was developed in part through the National Governors Association. Indeed, the fact that not every state adopted Common Core -- and that Indiana, as well as Oklahoma and South Carolina adopted it and later dropped it -- underscore that the standards aren't mandatory. As does the fact that Walker is calling on the Legislature to repeal them. Our rating Leibham said the Common Core education standards are a federal mandate. States put themselves in better position for federal education funding by adopting Common Core. But the school standards were voluntary for states to adopt, not mandatory, and some have since pulled out of the program -- just as Wisconsin is considering doing. We rate the statement False. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page.	None	Joe Leibham	None	None	None	2014-07-25T05:00:00	2014-07-19	['None']
-pose-00668	"We will once again fund weapons’ research and development not just to meet the threats of today, but those of tomorrow."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/698/fund-weapons-research/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	Eric Cantor	None	None	Fund weapons research	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['None']
-pomt-09766	Gas will reach $4 a gallon under a cap-and-trade plan.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/energycitizensorg/energycitizensorg-claims-gas-will-cost-4-gallon-un/	In a full-page ad in the Sept. 30, 2009, edition of the Washington Post , was this eye-catching claim about gas prices: "$4 GAS - Another unfortunate truth about the House's climate bill," said the ad from EnergyCitizens.org . "As Congress considers new climate legislation, Americans aren't getting the whole truth. A recent study found the House-passed bill could lead to $4 per-gallon gasoline. America is in the middle of a harsh recession. Think about the impact of $4 gas." We've heard a lot about the cap-and-trade plan — that it will increase the cost of energy and that it will eliminate jobs — but it's been a while since we put claims about the price of gas to the Truth-O-Meter. The concept of cap-and-trade is relatively easy to understand. A cap is put on greenhouse gas emissions, and firms are required to buy credits, either from the government or from other companies, to continue polluting. Iterations of a cap-and-trade plan have been introduced in Congress previously, but the most recent legislation, written by Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, has been passed by the House of Representatives. Their bill aims to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. Opponents of cap-and-trade argue that forcing industry to buy pollution credits will ultimately harm consumers and business. Firms will have no choice but to pass on the cost of buying those permits. And that's where the argument from EnergyCitizens.org comes into play. The group, a coalition of business organizations, antitax groups, transportation companies, and Washington heavy hitters such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Farm Bureau Federation, says those higher prices will hit consumers in the form of higher gas prices. The ad cites a Heritage Foundation study of the bill published on June 16. The conservative think tank, which has been critical of the Waxman-Markey bill, contends higher energy prices "will spread throughout the economy as producers everywhere try to cover their higher production costs by raising their product prices. ... Even after adjusting for inflation, gasoline prices will rise 58 percent over the 2035 baseline price." We checked with the Heritage Foundation to find out if EnergyCitizens.org was correctly interpreting Heritage's study, and were told that the group was. Heritage also pointed us to another study the think tank did that looked at gas prices per state. Heritage assumes that under Waxman-Markey, gas will be at a minimum $3 a gallon in 2035, depending on where you live. A 58 percent price increase as a result of cap-and-trade would put the cost of a gallon of gasoline at more that $4. So, based on Heritage's data and assumptions, EnergyCitizens.org is in the ballpark. However, the group leaves out an important detail in its ad: These predictions are for 2035, 26 years from now when, presumably, our economic landscape will be very different. EnergyCitizens.org plays on people's anxiety about the recession by portraying these prices as something that would take effect immediately. To get more perspective, we looked at other estimates. For comparison, keep in mind that the current national average is $2.60 for unleaded regular. The Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Energy Department, published an analysis of the bill on Aug. 4, 2009, which predicts gas price increases will be relatively small compared to increases in the electricity sector, in part because emissions reductions from the fossil-fuel sector will only account for 12 to 20 percent of overall reductions. If the bill is enacted, gas prices will only be about 20 cents more per gallon in 2020 and 35 cents more in 2030, the report predicts. Another analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency predicts impacts on future gas prices would be minimal under the Waxman-Markey bill. Specifically, prices would go up $0.13 in 2015, $0.25 in 2030, and $0.69 in 2050, according to the June 23 report. Clearly, there's a difference of opinion on how much the price of gas will change as the result of cap-and-trade. For the most part, those differences have to do with what kind of assumptions are made about nonfossil fuels, such as nuclear and wind power. The EPA, for example, assumes that cleaner technologies and renewable energy will replace fossil fuel more quickly, which would translate to lower costs to consumers. Heritage takes an austere approach, assuming that traditional energy sources would be scaled back to meet new emissions standards, but would not be immediately replaced by new technology or renewable fuels. As a result, fossil fuel prices will go up and continue to rise. Another point to put this all in perspective: Gas prices fluctuate dramatically. In January 2009, a gallon of gas cost about a $1.80 a gallon. This week, gas costs $2.60 — about a $1.20 less than it was a year ago. So predicting how much gas will cost next week — let alone in 2035 — is an imperfect science. Based on the estimates, it's probably a safe bet that the price of gasoline will ultimately increase as a result of cap-and-trade. And the estimates vary based on reasonable disagreements about methodology. But Energycitizens.org is guilty of a significant exaggeration because the ad strongly implies the price hike would happen very soon. It fails to mention that $4-a-gallon gasoline wouldn't be the norm until 2035 — if it ever is. The group also leaves out other important studies that predict smaller increases. For a serious case of cherry-picking, we rate the ad Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	EnergyCitizens.org	None	None	None	2009-09-30T17:47:16	2009-09-30	['None']
-snes-03823	Michele Bachmann said that Christopher Columbus was the first person to set foot on the North American continent.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michele-bachmann-columbus-day/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Michele Bachmann on Columbus Day	11 October 2016	None	['Michele_Bachmann', 'North_America']
-vees-00507	STATEMENT: In his first state of the nation address Monday, President Rodrigo Duterte, digressing from a prepared speech, talked about the peace process in Mindanao and the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).	http://verafiles.org/articles/so-duterte-unclear-bbl	None	None	None	None	Duterte,Fact check,bbl,MILF	Is that so? Duterte unclear on BBL	August 04, 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-00680	Drano Bottle Bomb Warning Message	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/drano-bottle-bomb.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Drano Bottle Bomb Warning Message	12 August 2011	None	['None']
-vees-00313	VERA FILES YEARENDER: In his own words: Telling the truth, Duterte-style	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-yearender-his-own-words-telling-truth-duterte-sty	None	None	None	None	Duterte	VERA FILES YEARENDER: In his own words: Telling the truth, Duterte-style	December 29, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08208	"The (Ohio) economy is on the mend. … It is in better shape than it was when we took office."	/ohio/statements/2010/nov/19/pari-sabety/state-budget-director-pari-sabety-says-ohios-econo/	The perception that Ohio’s economy is in terrible shape is a big part of why John Kasich is Ohio’s next governor and Ted Strickland will be Ohio’s newest unemployed citizen next year. Kasich hammered home the theme of 400,000 lost jobs in Ohio in his rather narrow win over Strickland. And it’s a perception that is a bone of contention with some Strickland supporters who see the state again on the road to prosperity. State budget director Pari Sabety appears to be in that crowd. She spoke two days after the Strickland defeat at a roundtable discussion at the Columbus Convention Center as part of the Impact Ohio Post-Election conference. During her Nov. 4 remarks, Sabety took pride in how the Strickland administration has managed the state’s finances during the worst recession since the Great Depression. To give those in the audience a sense for why she thought things were moving in the right direction, Sabety passed out an "economic dashboard," a color-coded chart that depicted 11 key economic indicators shaded red, yellow or green. Those indicators were a mix of red, yellow and green in Nov. 2007, and today they are almost all green, she explained to the audience. Praising the Strickland administration fiscal management, Sabety said Ohio is now on a steady course. She added, "The economy is on the mend. … It is in better shape than it was when we took office." That got our attention. Is Ohio’s economy really on the mend? And is it really in better shape today than it was when Strickland became governor in 2007? We first looked at the "economic dashboard" Sabety used to support her assertions. Developed by Jim Koons of the governor’s council of economic advisors, the dashboard covers 11 categories, including Ohio’s employment rate, new building permits, wage and salary information, initial jobless claims as well as U.S. retail sales, light motor vehicle sales and other measures. But the dashboard is only of limited use in evaluating Sabety’s statement, primarily because it dates from November 2007, not January 2007 when Strickland took office. Koons said he didn’t design it until November 2007. Furthermore, it’s not designed to give a snapshot of Ohio’s economy at a given time, but rather more of a "forward-looking" sense of what trajectory the state is on. Ultimately, Koons said, it’s a tool to help predict whether the state’s revenue forecasting will be on target in the coming months — a handy thing to know if you are running a $25 billion-a-year enterprise like state government. And it’s weighted to favor the short term over the long term, he said. Asked if the state’s economy is better now than 2007, Koons couldn’t say. "I haven’t really spent much time thinking about that," he said. "I would definitely say we are moving in a better direction." We put the same question to a trio of other independent economic analysts — all based in Ohio. They consider the assertion false, laughable and downright bizarre. That’s because a state’s employment figures are the true measure of the health of a state’s economy, they all said. "Frankly, an economist getting up in a meeting and saying things have improved in Ohio since 2007 would be laughed at," said Bob Rogers, an economics professor at Ashland University and former president of the Ohio Association of Economists and Political Scientists. Said Ken Mayland, an economic analyst who is president of Clear View Economics in Pepper Pike: "I think on the face of it that statement is blatantly false." Said George Zeller, a economic research analyst based in Cleveland: "When you look at it in terms of jobs, it’s kind of a bizarre statement actually." All three said the state’s employment record is clear — 5.65 million people employed in January 2007 when Strickland became governor and 5.32 million today -- a difference of 330,000 jobs. And they all said that is clearly the best way to measure the health of the state’s economy. "It’s a macromeasure," Mayland said. "When people are employed they are producing things." Our trio of experts were somewhat more split when asked if Ohio’s economy was on the mend. Mayland said he thought Ohio’s economy was definitely on the upswing. "I do believe that the Ohio economy is recovering, we are probably going to get a pretty big share of the national economic recovery," he said. "Manufacturing, in general, and the auto industry in particular, they are rebounding," he said. "But when I say they are recovering you have to keep in mind there had been permanent job loss that will never be recovered, so they won’t get back to their former selves." Professor Rogers agreed there has been a bit of a rebound in Ohio’s economy this year. "Steel has made a little bit of a recovery, but in the last month or two it’s backed down. The auto industry is better, but it’s certainly not back to where it was before the crash." Other outside experts have seen signs that Ohio’s economy is rebounding including the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, which rated Ohio as having the fifth-fastest growing economy during the past 12 months. And personal income tax collections are up 5 percent in the first quarter of fiscal 2011 as well as sales tax collections over the past four months when both are compared to the same period a year ago. By far, the most pessimistic was Zeller who said that small gains in employment in Ohio that have been reported are a mirage caused by a faulty national modeling which has overestimated new firms being born. He predicted that the state’s employment figures will be downgraded by 86,000 in January when the national model is evaluated by federal officials erasing, the 15,000 or so jobs that Ohio has gained on paper in 2010. Instead, Ohio will have lost 70,000 jobs this year. "There is no evidence at all that Ohio has gained even one job in 2010," said Zeller. "Ohio is still losing jobs right now, so therefore the economy is not on the upswing. I will say that the rate at which we’re losing jobs has slowed dramatically." Zeller compared it to a football team that is getting destroyed, but manages to tack on a few points. "If the Browns are behind 48-0, and they kick a field goal, are things on the upswing?" he asked. "Well, yes, because they have three points now, but they are still way behind. That’s kind of the position the state’s economy is in." So add it all up, and what do we have: Sabety used an "economic dashboard" tool designed to show the trajectory the state is on to argue that the economy is on the mend and that the state’s economy is in better shape than when the Strickland administration took office in 2007. But the dashboard doesn’t go back to when Strickland first took office and is most useful as a way to figure out if the state’s revenue projections will stay on track, according to its creator. A trio of independent economic experts contacted by PolitiFact Ohio was somewhat split on the first part of Sabety’s statement -- whether the economy was "on the mend." There does seem to be evidence that Ohio’s economy is rebounding, although the gains in jobs in Ohio this year are either minimal or perhaps even a mirage caused by faulty modeling. All three of the experts contacted found the second part of Sabety’s claim, her assertion that Ohio’s economy was in better shape now than 2007, to be laughable, "blatantly false" and "bizarre." All three agree that employment is the best measure of a state’s economic health, and there are 330,000 fewer people are employed in Ohio now there were in 2007. Had her claim only been this assertion, we likely would have rated it Pants On Fire. Allowing for the evidence that Ohio’s economy is rebounding, we’ll give Sabety credit for the first part of her claim. But we take away points for the second part. We rate her statement that the economy is on the mend and that it is in better shape than when Strickland took office to be Half True.	None	Pari Sabety	None	None	None	2010-11-19T17:50:00	2010-11-04	['Ohio']
-snes-04015	Young women are inserting vodka-soaked tampons as a furtive way of getting drunk.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boozing-it-up/	None	Risqué Business	None	David Mikkelson	None	Vodka Tampons	18 October 2009	None	['None']
-snes-03043	A Small Price to Conway	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/conway-racist-small-price-to-pay/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did KellyAnne Conway Say Being Labeled Racist is ‘a Small Price to Pay’ for Making America Great Again?	30 January 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05048	Gov. Rick Scott "tried to kick 180,000 people off the voter rolls."	/florida/statements/2012/jul/10/moveon/moveon-says-gov-rick-scott-tried-kick-180000-peopl/	The liberal group MoveOn.org warned its supporters in a blistering email that Florida Gov. Rick Scott is engaged in voter suppression. The subject line: "Secret GOP plan revealed." "Republican Governor Rick Scott tried to kick 180,000 people off the voter rolls in his state and is now suing the Department of Justice after they stepped in to stop him," the June 27 fundraising email said. "Rick Scott's racist voter purge -- which directly targets Latino voters -- is so egregious that every one of the 67 supervisors of elections in the state -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents -- has so far refused to carry it out." MoveOn also has run TV ads in Florida (watch them here and here) about the state-led effort to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. Some of the email’s claims struck us as a bit off, so we decided to investigate. Here, we’ll fact-check whether Scott tried to kick 180,000 people off the voter rolls. In a related fact-check, we will explore whether every election supervisor has "refused" to carry out this project. The origins of the list Scott’s quest to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls began shortly after the governor took office in 2011. He asked the state’s chief elections official at the time, Kurt Browning, to look into whether noncitizens were illegally voting. Two departments, the Florida Department of State and the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, compiled a list comparing voter registration information with driver's license data. It’s possible for a noncitizen to get a driver's license, but it’s illegal for a noncitizen to vote. So the agencies looked for noncitizen drivers to see if they had also registered to vote. There’s a catch there, though: The driver's license data is not updated when people become citizens, at least not until they need to renew their licenses. The state found 180,000 names that they considered potential noncitizens. But the state government itself does not have the power to remove people from the voting rolls -- that power lies with the local supervisors of elections. It’s important to note here that the state did not send all 180,000 names to the local supervisors. Instead, the state identified a much smaller subset of potential noncitizens and sent those names to the local supervisors in April. The first batch of about 1,200 names included people who get annual drivers' licenses because they are on work or student visas. Another 1,400 were the first ones that the state verified that names on the driver's license list and the voter registration list matched, said Chris Cate, a spokesman for the Florida Division of Elections. So that came to 2,600 names that the state sent to the local supervisors, not 180,000 names. The state gave supervisors a sample letter to send to the registered voters asking for proof of citizenship. If the voters failed to comply, state law indicated they would be removed from the voter rolls within one or two months. The largest contingent came from Miami-Dade County, which has a high foreign-born population. Democrats questioned the motives and timing of a Republican governor months before a presidential election. Republican leaders pointed out that it’s a felony for noncitizens to vote. A Miami Herald analysis determined that there were more Democrats than Republicans on the list and that about 58 percent were Hispanic. The feds step in And then the dueling lawsuits began. The U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the state ordering it to halt its noncitizen purge on May 31. On June 11, the state Division of Elections filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, seeking access to the SAVE database, which contains information on noncitizens. The state had been trying to access that database for about a year. (MoveOn wrote that the state sued DOJ, but the state actually sued DHS.) The next day, June 12, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Florida. On June 27, a U.S. District Court Judge denied the DOJ’s request for a restraining order. But that wasn’t really a game-changer, because the state hadn’t sent additional names to counties after April. By late June, many counties had either finished or halted the process. (See our related factcheck here.) Before and after the feds got involved, state officials left open the possibility that they might send additional names from the list of 180,000 to the counties. "When we are able to improve the information we have from the driver’s license database by accessing SAVE, we will begin sending additional names to supervisors," Cate told PolitiFact in an email. We asked MoveOn specifically about the 180,000 number being overblown. MoveOn spokesman Nick Berning said that the 180,000 are "at risk" of being thrown off the rolls. "Florida’s State Department of Elections has disclosed that it has a list of 180,000 people that was assembled in connection with the purge, which is why the U.S. Justice Department has written that the purge ‘may ultimately target more than 180,000 voters.’ … To clarify, our intention was to identify for our members the large number of voters that are at risk of being purged off the rolls, and we will endeavor to use language that more accurately explains this as we continue our campaign to protect voters from this discriminatory purge." Our ruling MoveOn.org said, "Republican Governor Rick Scott tried to kick 180,000 people off the voter rolls in his state...." The 180,000 was the state’s starting point for gathering data on potential noncitizens. But the state forwarded less than 2 percent of that list -- about 2,600 -- to the counties for further review. Also, state officials were careful to say that the list was "potential" noncitizens and asked counties to contact those registered voters for proof of citizenship. That means the county officials had the power to decide whether anyone should be kicked off the list. MoveOn wildly exaggerated the number of voters that Scott tried to "kick off" -- it wasn’t close to 180,000. It was 2,600. If the state had forwarded the full list of 180,000 names, or even close to that number, MoveOn would have been on more solid ground. We rate this claim False.	None	MoveOn.org	None	None	None	2012-07-10T16:04:37	2012-06-27	['None']
-tron-00511	Bonsai Kittens-cruelty to kittens by rearing them in jars	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bonsaikittens/	None	animals	None	None	None	Bonsai Kittens-cruelty to kittens by rearing them in jars	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03469	Wisconsin is "not walking away from a dime" in federal funds by rejecting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.	/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/15/kitty-rhoades/wisconsin-not-leaving-any-federal-funds-table-reje/	Gov. Scott Walker announced in February 2013 that Wisconsin would refuse what has been portrayed as a financial windfall for state governments -- an expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare that would be financed almost completely with federal funds. Democrats have ripped the Republican governor, with some citing estimates that his proposed alternative will cost Wisconsin state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet four months after the announcement, Walker's secretary of health services, Kitty Rhoades, painted a different financial picture. Many people had said, "Why did you walk away from all of the money on the table?" the former GOP state lawmaker told a business-sponsored health care seminar in Madison on June 6, 2013. "Which is a line that just drives me insane." Later in the speech, Rhoades added: "We believe and we know that based off of our modeling, we’re not walking away from a dime. We actually will have more federal dollars flowing through the state of Wisconsin than we would have had by taking the enhanced rate of including people of 133 percent of federal poverty level into Medicaid." So, despite estimates that state government is losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars, is it the case that ""we’re not walking away from a dime" in federal funds? The wording of Rhoades' claim is key. Medicaid and its expansion Medicaid, a federal- and state-run health care program for the poor, serves more than 1.1 million people in the Badger State. Federal taxpayers pick up about 60 percent of the cost in Wisconsin. But President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act offers an even larger share of federal funding if states make more people eligible for Medicaid, starting in 2014. From 2014 through 2016, Uncle Sam would pay 100 percent of the cost of expanding Medicaid coverage for adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. For an individual, that means an income of $15,282; for a family of four, it's $31,322. After 2016, the federal share would gradually decline until it reaches 90 percent in 2020, with the states picking up the remaining cost. That gives the appearance of a lot of federal money going to state governments. And indeed, that’s what the experts say will happen. The number crunchers Walker himself has acknowledged the federal government is offering more money to states that do the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. But he says that because of the federal budget deficit, he believes the federal government won't follow through on the promised funds. That, of course, remains to be seen. What is clear from budget experts is the State of Wisconsin is, in fact, giving up federal funds by declining the Medicaid expansion. (Although, with the state budget due to be adopted in a matter of days, the top Democrat in the state Senate held out hope that a compromise might be reached to at least give the Obamacare Medicaid expansion a try.) A week before Rhoades’ speech, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which both political parties have long cited as a neutral scorekeeper on budget matters, weighed in. For the 2013-2015 state budget, currently being debated in the Legislature, opting out of the Obamacare Medicaid expansion would cost state taxpayers $119 million, the fiscal bureau estimated. The total could exceed $459 million through 2021, the bureau said. Similar findings were produced a few days later by RAND Corp., a California-based independent think tank. According to its study (subscription required), Wisconsin and 13 other states that said, as of late April 2013, they won't do the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, would forgo $8.4 billion per year in federal payments. So, what is Rhoades talking about? Rhoades’ evidence Her spokeswoman, Stephanie Smiley, said Rhoades doesn't dispute the fiscal bureau's estimates of state government losing out on hundreds of millions of dollars by not expanding Medicaid through Obamacare. Rhoades instead cites a different flow of federal funds. She argues that under Walker's alternative, even more federal money will come to Wisconsin -- but to health insurance companies and health care providers, rather than state coffers. Walker's plan expands Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes at 100 percent of the poverty level, but not to 133 percent, as Obamacare would do. Under the governor's plan, people with incomes between 100 and 133 percent of poverty would get health coverage from private insurers through "exchanges," another feature of Obamacare. Citing the fiscal bureau report, Rhoades notes the federal government would give the state a total of $489 million during the 2013-2015 budget cycle if it agreed to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. But she contends that "modeling" done by her department -- not the fiscal bureau -- projects that under Walker's alternative, $776 million to $784 million in federal money would flow into Wisconsin during that period. It would subsidize premiums and health care for people who go into the exchanges. The problem here is that the fiscal bureau can make solid estimates knowing how many people would be eligible for Medicaid under Obamacare. But the Department of Health Services has to guess how many people will buy insurance through the exchanges and thus bring federal dollars into Wisconsin. That's a difficult calculation, given that the fiscal bureau has determined many people eligible for coverage through the exchanges will decide they can't afford it. In fact, the fiscal bureau has said the Walker administration is "unreasonably optimistic" on the question. So, it's unclear whether Walker's plan will result in more federal money coming to Wisconsin insurers and health care providers than would be paid to the state under the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid. What is clear, is Walker's alternative to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion comes at a cost to state taxpayers of $119 million in 2013-2015 alone -- which is the criticism Rhoades was trying to refute. Our rating Responding to criticism that state taxpayers are taking a financial hit because Walker chose not to expand Medicaid through Obamacare, Rhoades claimed "we’re not walking away from a dime" in federal funds. There's an element of truth in her claim, in that under Walker's alternative plan, some level of federal funds will flow to Wisconsin insurers and health care providers based on the number of people who choose to buy health insurance through Obamacare exchanges. But the criticism focused on the impact on state government by not taking the Obamacare offer -- $119 million just in the next two years, a figure Rhoades doesn't dispute. Because of that, we rate her claim Mostly False.	None	Kitty Rhoades	None	None	None	2013-06-15T06:00:00	2013-06-06	['None']
-hoer-00377	Little Girl With Huge Belly Facebook Donation	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/huge-stomach-child-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Little Girl With Huge Belly Facebook Donation Hoax	14th March 2012	None	['None']
-vogo-00370	Statement: The City Council’s public safety committee “had monthly updates from our fire chief, Javier Mainar, on the impact on response times and so forth and we were seeing this steady, slow rise in the time it took to respond to medical emergencies and fires,” Councilwoman Marti Emerald told NBC7 San Diego in an interview June 17.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-slower-to-the-rescue/	Analysis: The controversial budget plan that shelved up to eight San Diego fire engines a day and became the rallying cry for a failed November tax increase ended Friday. The plan, commonly called brownouts, saved the city millions of dollars in overtime costs but put residents — especially those in northern suburbs like Mira Mesa and Rancho Peñasquitos — at greater risk by slowing response times to emergency calls.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Slower to the Rescue	July 1, 2011	None	['None']
-snes-03274	Former Trump campaign official Carl Paladino said he hopes President Obama dies of mad cow disease and Michelle Obama goes to live in a cave in Africa with a gorilla.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carl-paladino-obama-comments/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Did Trump Ally Carl Paladino Say Michelle Obama Should Go Live in a Cave with a Gorilla?	23 December 2016	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Africa', 'Michelle_Obama', 'Carl_Paladino']
-goop-02845	Prince Harry Did Ask Meghan Markle To Shut Down Lifestyle Site, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-asked-meghan-markle-shut-down-lifestyle-site/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Prince Harry Did NOT Ask Meghan Markle To Shut Down Lifestyle Site, Despite Report	11:49 am, April 22, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02961	Donald Trump's father, Fred Trump, ran a mayoral campaign advertisement called 'Dope Man' in 1969.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fred-trump-dope-man/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Fred Trump Run a Campaign Advertisement Called ‘Dope Man’ in 1969?	10 February 2017	None	['Donald_Trump', 'Fred_Trump']
-pomt-02033	"This generation, on average, is starting their careers, if they’ve been to a four-year college, with just under $30,000 in debt."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jun/04/tammy-baldwin/tammy-baldwin-claims-college-students-graduate-300/	Tammy Baldwin has the younger generation’s future in her sights as she looks to the burden of student loan debt weighing on college graduates. "This generation, on average, is starting their careers, if they’ve been to a four-year college, with just under $30,000 in debt. And it’s going to impact our economy, our future," Baldwin said May 8, 2014 on the Devil’s Advocate show on Madison radio. A week later, Baldwin announced her support for a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) that would allow borrowers to refinance student loans at an interest rate of 3.86 percent, much lower than most federal loan options. With graduation season in full swing, we thought we’d take a look. Studies show seven out of every 10 college graduates has student loan debt, but is Baldwin right about the $30,000 figure and that it affects an entire generation? Spokesman John Kraus said Baldwin’s source was a December 2013 report from the Institute for College Access & Success, an independent, nonprofit group that tracks student loan debt by state. The California-based group advocates for more available and affordable higher education. Various funders support its efforts, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Ford Foundation. To complete its 2012 report, the institute relied on federal data and a survey sent to colleges through Peterson’s, a college guide publishing company. The report says the average debt nationally for those 2012 graduates who took out loans was $29,400. Among Wisconsin graduates, the average debt was $28,102, the nation’s 14th highest. So Baldwin’s claim was pretty on target for both national and state levels. The debt itself, however, varies widely by state, from $18,000 to $33,650, and even more so by college, from $4,450 to $49,450. The likelihood for graduating seniors to have debt after college also stretches from 41 percent to 78 percent depending on the state. But the report itself notes its data offers an incomplete picture because only about half of all public and private nonprofit four-year colleges reported their student-loan debt figures 2012. That can skew the results. Additionally, the figures don’t differentiate between federal or private loans. Private loans make up one fifth of overall student loan debt, which colleges cannot document as easily. And no for-profit colleges are included because none reported their debt figures, while the report shows they have the most borrowers at 88 percent. They also rack up the highest debt at an average of $39,950 per borrower. "Colleges that accurately calculate and report each year’s debt figures rightfully complain that colleges may have students with higher average debt but fail to update their figures, under-report actual debt levels, or never report figures at all," the report says. What it means for the Class of 2014 Other studies show a slightly different picture. A study released in May 2014 by the National Conference on State Legislatures concluded that 2014 graduates with student loans will owe an average of $26,500, somewhat lower than what Baldwin cited. Another study released in May 2014 by Edvisors, a network of websites that offer insight on ways to pay for college, analyzed data from the National Center for Education Statistics to conclude that borrowers would graduate with an average of $33,000 in debt. This led a Wall Street Journal article on the study to call the class of 2014 : "the most indebted class ever." State legislatures instituted tuition freezes and increased funding last year that have slowed down the rise in tuition that began in the early 1980s, which another NCSL study shows is a major factor in a decrease in student loan debt. Outstanding student loan debt also totaled $1.7 trillion in the third quarter of last year to surpass credit card, mortgage, and auto debt as the fastest growing portion of debt since 2008, according to a recent study from the Federal Reserve of New York. The study shows students struggle to pay back these loans that also have the highest delinquency rate -- 11.5 percent of loan balances are more than 90 days delinquent or in default. A final note: while the amount of student loan debt continues to soar, its rate of growth decreased from 12 percent in early 2012 to 8.25 percent in late 2013, according to the Federal Reserve. This led them to conclude that "the more-rapid expansion" of student loan debt in early 2012 has not been as fast this past year. All this research undermines Baldwin’s point. The level of college debt is a moving target. While Baldwin painted the $30,000 figure as affecting a generation of students, the data she cited is limited to a specific graduating class. And studies show three of every 10 graduates finish without student loan debt. Our rating Baldwin claimed that "this generation, on average, is starting their careers, if they’ve been to a four-year college, with just under $30,000 in debt." While she cites a figure from a legitimate source, that data has limitations that are not acknowledged. Notably, about half of the colleges were not included in the data used to create the state-by-state breakdown. Additionally, the national figure is for 2012 and more recent studies show a more mixed picture and in some cases suggest the level may be lower. We rate her statement Half True. (Note: This item was changed June 5, 2014 to clarify the source of data used to calculate the average student-loan debt and that additional, more recent studies show the debt level may be lower, not decreasing.)	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2014-06-04T05:00:00	2014-05-08	['None']
-snes-05345	In 1964, Hillary Clinton campaigned and voted for Barry Goldwater, who promised to overturn the Civil Rights Act and "re-segregate" America.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/goldwater-girl/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	Goldwater Girl	19 January 2016	None	['Barry_Goldwater', 'United_States', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-09351	"I never considered myself a maverick."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/06/john-mccain/mccains-ultimate-maverick-move-denial/	During the 2008 presidential campaign, Republican nominee John McCain was so closely identified with the term "maverick" that it became a national punchline. On the Oct. 4, 2008, edition of Saturday Night Live, Tina Fey reprised her famed imitation of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, closing an opening skit spoofing the vice presidential debate with the line, "Oh, and for those Joe Six-packs out there playing a drinking game at home: 'Maverick.' " So it came as a surprise to us when McCain was quoted on Newsweek magazine's website on April 3, 2010, saying, "I never considered myself a maverick. I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities." Debunking this one wasn't a question of "if" but rather "how can we avoid piling on?" We ignored cases in which Palin or other campaign surrogates used the term on McCain's behalf, sticking instead to instances when McCain himself used it, or when he blessed television advertisements using that term with the words, "I approve this message." (This message, by the way, is a requirement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which McCain himself spearheaded.) Here are the instances we found: • "A maverick, John McCain tackled campaign reform, military reform, spending reform. He took on presidents, partisans and popular opinion. He believes our world is dangerous, our economy in shambles. John McCain doesn`t always tell us what we hope to hear. Beautiful words cannot make your lives better, but a man who has always put his country and her people before self, before politics can. Don`t hope for a better life, vote for one. McCain." -- "Love" campaign ad, July 7, 2008 • "He reformed Wall Street, battled big oil, made America prosper again. He's the original maverick. One is ready to lead -- McCain." -- "Broken" campaign ad, Aug. 5, 2008 • "The original mavericks. He fights pork barrel spending. She stopped the 'Bridge to Nowhere.' He took on the drug industry. She took on big oil. He battled Republicans and reformed Washington. She battles Republicans and reformed Alaska. They'll make history. They'll change Washington. McCain/Palin: real change." -- "Original Mavericks" campaign ad, Sept. 7, 2008 • “If you want real reform and you want change, send a team of mavericks." -- campaign appearance in Colorado Springs, Colo., Sept. 6, 2008 • "And what 'maverick' really means, what this team of mavericks really means is we understand who we work for. We don't work for the party, and we don't work for a special interest, and we don't work for ourselves. We'll work for you and the American people." --campaign appearance in Lancaster, Pa., Sept. 9, 2008 • "Stand by, because change is coming. And real change is coming to Washington, D.C. And we're going to shake things up. And you've got a team of mavericks, a team of mavericks." -- campaign appearance in Lebanon, Ohio, Sept. 9, 2008 • "Can I just mention one other thing? You know there's now this going around that there's differences between myself and Sarah Palin. We're very close. We're both mavericks." -- interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, Oct. 28, 2008 • "When two mavericks join up, we don't agree on everything, but that is a lot of fun." -- campaign appearance in Hershey, Pa., Oct. 28, 2008 • "We get along fine. Sarah is a maverick. I'm a maverick. No one expected us to agree on everything." -- interview with CNN's Larry King, Oct. 30, 2008 And finally: • Worth the Fighting For: The Education of an American Maverick, and the Heroes Who Inspired Him -- book by John McCain and Mark Salter, published 2003 In McCain's (slight) defense, we should say that he has on a number of occasions expressed a degree of ambivalence about the title "maverick" -- including his highest-profile use of the word, in his 2008 Republican National Convention acceptance speech. “You know, I’ve been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum," he said. "Sometimes it’s meant as a compliment and sometimes it’s not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don’t work for a party. I don’t work for a special interest. I don’t work for myself. I work for you.” Meanwhile, in the prologue to the book that used "maverick" in the subtitle, McCain wrote, "I'm 64 years old as we begin this book, which seems a bit old to be routinely described as a maverick. American popular culture admits few senior citizens to its ranks of celebrated nonconformists. We lack the glamorous carelessness of youth and risk becoming parodies of our younger selves. Witnessing the behavior can make people uncomfortable, like watching an aging, overweight Elvis mock the memory of the brash young man who had swaggered across cultural color lines." That's not exactly an aggressive embrace of the term. But even if McCain is now listening more closely to his inner ambivalence about the term, it cannot erase the eagerness with which his 2008 presidential campaign touted that particular characteristic as a major selling point for candidacy. So we rate his statement that "I never considered myself a maverick" to be Pants on Fire!	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2010-04-06T18:51:46	2010-04-03	['None']
-farg-00171	President Obama left “us with more Superfund sites than when he came in.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-record-toxic-cleanups/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Vanessa Schipani	['environment']	Obama’s Record on Toxic Cleanups	September 29, 2017	2017-09-29 18:43:17 UTC	['Barack_Obama']
-hoer-01257	Eleven States are Implementing a Motorcycle Curfew	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-eleven-states-are-not-implementing-a-motorcycle-curfew/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Eleven States are NOT Implementing a Motorcycle Curfew	March 17, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05625	"Every poll you see, the overwhelming majority of people want [E-Verify]."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/mar/25/peter-palumbo/rhode-island-state-rep-peter-palumbo-says-all-poll/	State Rep. Peter G. Palumbo was on WHJJ’s "Helen Glover Show" recently to talk about his latest attempt to crack down on illegal immigration in Rhode Island. The Cranston Democrat has submitted legislation in the General Assembly that would require companies with three or more employees to check on the immigration status of any job applicants using the federal E-Verify database. During his talk-radio appearance March 20, Palumbo told Glover that not only is E-Verify the "simplest way to curb illegal immigration," it’s also a program that has broad public support. "Every poll you see, the overwhelming majority of people want the bill," he said. Does E-Verify really have such overwhelming support? E-Verify is a federal government program that allows companies to check on a worker’s immigration status through an online database. The program compares information on the worker’s Form I-9 to records from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. If the records match, there’s no problem. If the records don’t match, the worker may be in the country illegally. When we asked Palumbo to show us some polls on E-Verify, he referred to only one, conducted a year ago by Brown University’s Taubman Center for Public Policy & American Institutions. We found that poll, but it didn’t ask any questions about E-Verify. The closest was a question about the controversial law in Arizona that requires local police forces to enforce federal immigration laws. Fifty-four percent of the Rhode Islanders in the survey were in favor of such a law. We did our own research and found many polls that asked about a variety of illegal- immigration questions, but few that asked specifically about E-Verify. The one poll that supporters of E-Verify around the country most frequently cite was conducted by Rasmussen Reports, a nationally recognized polling firm. That poll of 1,000 likely voters was conducted May 27-28, 2011. The poll asked this question: "The federal government maintains an E-Verify system which allows employers to determine the immigration status of potential employees. Before hiring a new employee, should businesses be required to check and make sure that each potential employee is in the country legally?" Eighty-two percent of respondents answered yes, 12 percent said no and the remaining 6 percent were undecided. That is an overwhelming majority in favor of E-Verify. But that’s only one poll. What about others? NumbersUSA, a group that opposes illegal immigration and also advocates for limits on legal immigration, last month released the results of a poll it commissioned from Pulse Opinion Research, a subsidiary of Rasmussen Research. The poll asked: "On the issue of illegal immigration, do you favor or oppose mandating that all employers electronically verify the immigration status of their workers?" Seventy-eight percent were in favor, 12 percent were opposed and 9 percent were unsure. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, another group opposed to illegal immigration that also seeks to curb legal immigration, released the results last year of a poll it also commissioned from Pulse Opinion Research. According to FAIR, 88 percent of respondents supported the use of an "electronic verification system to check worker eligibility," while 11 percent were opposed. A 2010 poll of 616 Arizona residents conducted by The Arizona Republic newspaper found that 66 percent supported a state law that would require employers "to prove that all their workers are U.S. citizens or have valid work visas." As for Rhode Island, we found two polls, both conducted in 2008 by Rhode Island College’s Bureau of Government Research and Services, that asked voters about then-Gov. Donald Carcieri’s executive order to use E-Verify to screen state workers and employees of companies that do business with the state. In the first poll, done that June, 75 percent of the 500 Rhode Islanders in the survey agreed with the governor’s order. In the second poll the following September, 73 percent agreed with it. Our ruling Palumbo said that "every poll" shows "overwhelming support" for E-Verify. Obviously, we can’t guarantee that we found every poll on E-Verify. But we did find several, some conducted by independent pollsters, others financed by groups that favor stronger enforcement of immigration laws. All of the polls that we found -- both national surveys and others conducted in Rhode Island -- showed strong support for E-Verify, ranging from 66 percent of respondents in favor to 88 percent. We rule Palumbo’s statement True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Peter Palumbo	None	None	None	2012-03-25T06:00:00	2012-03-20	['None']
-pomt-07905	Says there are "a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare that are going to go in place" as a result of health care reform.	/ohio/statements/2011/feb/02/jim-renacci/rep-jim-renacci-characterizes-medicare-savings-hea/	Less than a week after taking office as a member of Congress, GOP Rep. Jim Renacci held his first town hall meeting at Walsh University in North Canton. Local news reports indicated about 225 people attended, some of whom grilled Renacci about his campaign pledge to overturn the health care reform bill that Congress adopted last year. In an exchange between Renacci and a senior citizen identified as Dan Fonte, Fonte cites facets of the the health care bill that he approves of, and asks Renacci why Republicans don’t present a replacement plan for people to examine before the repeal vote. Renacci replies that he and more than 80 other freshmen Republicans were elected to Congress with pledges to repeal the new law. "I agree with you, there are some good things, but there are also a half a trillion dollars in cuts to Medicare that are going to go in place," Renacci told Fonte. That statement had a familiar ring to it. We decided it was one worth another look. Renacci’s exchange with his constituent hit on the same themes as the health care debate in 2010. And more than once during the election season we looked at the claims from Republicans and groups that opposed the reforms that the health care package would cut $500 billion from Medicare. But it’s important to note that the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget, as Renacci and the bill’s foes make it sound. Rather, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slows the program’s projected growth in Medicare spending by about $500 billion over 10 years. That’s a big difference. Medicare spending will still increase. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated it will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. About $136 billion in savings is projected to come from Medicare Advantage, an optional program where the federal government pays private insurance companies a set rate to treat Medicare recipients. About a quarter of Medicare recipients were enrolled in the Medicare Advantage plans in 2010, which often offer benefits like dental and vision coverage that aren’t available to traditional Medicare beneficiaries. It was hoped that competition between private insurers for Medicare Advantage programs would drive down costs and make the system more efficient, ultimately saving the federal government money. But it has not worked out that way. A June 2009 analysis from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said the Advantage programs cost taxpayers an average of 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. The health care law that President Barack Obama signed in March will phase out extra payments for Medicare Advantage programs to bring their costs in line with traditional Medicare. The law aims to save the Medicare program another $220 billion by reducing annual payment increases health care providers would otherwise get. More savings would come from requiring seniors with yearly incomes over $85,000, or $170,000 for couples, to pay higher Medicare premiums. PolitiFact examined repeated claims by politicians and interest groups in 2010 that the health care reform bill would cut Medicare by $500 billion, including one by the 60 Plus Association in an attack ad against Renacci’s election opponent, Democrat John Boccieri. Each time the claim was found to be Barely True, no matter who or where it was uttered. Neither a new year, nor the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives makes it any more accurate. We still rate the claim as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Jim Renacci	None	None	None	2011-02-02T06:00:00	2011-01-10	['Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-08376	Says "Scott Walker favors cutting up to 350,000 families and children off health care."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/25/greater-wisconsin-political-fund/scott-walker-wants-kick-350000-families-badgercare/	In his quest for the Republican nomination for governor, Scott Walker offered a consistent answer when asked for examples of how he would cut taxes and trim the state budget. His answer: Start by limiting the time Wisconsinites can stay on BadgerCare Plus, the state health care program At least, that was the answer up until a few weeks before Walker trounced Mark Neumann in the Sept. 14, 2010 primary. In a new campaign ad, the liberal Greater Wisconsin Political Fund is aiming to make Walker pay for his earlier position. In the ad, as an iPhone replica flashes onto the screen, a narrator asks: "Don’t you wish there was an app that told you when politicians were lying?" Then a knockoff of PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter fills the screen, as Walker is rated on three sound bites. (Sure, imitation is a form of flattery. But we’re in real danger of being over-flattered this election.) "I support BadgerCare," Walker says in one of the three. The needle jumps to False as the narrator snarls: "Fact, Walker favors cutting up to 350,000 families and children off health care." We’ll look at the 350,000 charge, not Walker’s pronouncement of support. The Greater Wisconsin Committee made the same claim in an ad that started Sept. 2. The group is a political action committee that gets big money from organized labor, the Democratic Governors’ Association and at least $1 million from outgoing Gov. Jim Doyle’s soon-to-be defunct campaign fund. Needless to say, the group is backing Democrat Tom Barrett as Doyle’s replacement. So, does Scott Walker support tossing hundreds of thousands of people off BadgerCare? The answer would have been easier -- and the group’s charge more accurate -- a few months ago. First, a little about BadgerCare. The program, targeted to the working poor and low-income unemployed, provides health insurance coverage to children, pregnant women, parents and childless adults. Its rolls have swelled dramatically -- to 767,910 in September 2010 -- due to eligibility expansions and the fallout of the recession. Walker voted for the program when he served in the state Assembly. After a late-August primary debate with Neumann, in which Walker reiterated his support for time limits, Walker backed off that position. Walker told the Journal Sentinel’s Patrick Marley the next day that he had "misspoke" in saying he endorsed BadgerCare time limits -- he said he meant time limits on W-2, the state’s welfare-to-work program. The Journal Sentinel reported that story on page 1 on Aug. 27, 2010. To back up its claim that "up to 350,000 families and children" would lose coverage, the Greater Wisconsin Committee cites a lengthy Appleton Post-Crescent interview of Walker from June 2010 -- and several other public statements. It also points to state BadgerCare data -- provided by the state to us for this item -- showing more than 350,000 individuals now on BadgerCare have stayed longer than the 24 months Walker has discussed. That’s fine, but Walker’s position on it clearly has changed -- even if the group’s charge has not. So, let’s dig in again. PolitiFact Wisconsin listened to hours of Walker media interviews and concluded that over 11 months he unequivocally endorsed time limits in response to BadgerCare questions time and again. In the Appleton interview in June he suggested a 24-month limit. But since the late August debate, Walker instead has emphasized possible tighter income rules and sounds open to dropping low-income childless adults from the program. That group was just added to the program in 2009; there are more than 50,000 enrolled. In addition, Walker has made vague statements about getting back to the "original intent" of BadgerCare, which he defines as for the "truly needy like the disabled, children from low-income families and low-income single parents." Walker says the state’s exploding Medicaid population has put BadgerCare in a financial crisis. The new, mushier position makes quantifying the true impact of Walker’s position very difficult. The Greater Wisconsin Committee says the language in its ad is still supported by the facts. Of course, with the "up to" qualifier, that leaves an awful lot of room. Some numbers: If you tighten up recent changes that made it easier to qualify, you would knock 68,000 people off the program, according to calculations by Jon Peacock, a researcher who studies state welfare issues at the liberal Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. If you go back to pre-2008, before Doyle consolidated several programs into BadgerCare and made other changes, there were 267,000 fewer people on the program than today. There are 400,000 people in working families on BadgerCare. Walker objects to BadgerCare insurance being a permanent entitlement. Does that mean he objects to people continuing in the program once they get a job? His campaign declined to be specific beyond saying Walker thinks it ought to cover the truly needy like the disabled, children from low-income families and low-income single parents. The numbers above include a lot of children. That may not be fair, given that Walker said in the Post-Crescent interview that he wants to "make sure kids are covered." But it is unclear if Walker means all children currently eligible or just those of unemployed parents. A lot of questions and few answers. Peacock said it best: "I think it’s very hard to quantify how much Walker might affect BadgerCare participation – partly because his statements have either been vague or fluid, and partly because it sounds like he might reduce eligibility below the level initially recommended by Governor Thompson." The target may be moving, but the Truth-O-Meter has to stop somewhere. The Greater Wisconsin Committee charges that Walker’s original position could move as many as 350,000 people -- or fewer -- off BadgerCare. Their claim rested primarily on the time limits that Walker supported for almost a year but then backed away from just days before Greater Wisconsin’s first ad in September. Walker changed course to a muddier position, while Greater Wisconsin has continued to cite the number. It adds an important qualifier though -- "up to" 350,000. Walker’s new position, while unclear, still focuses on reining in BadgerCare enrollment -- whether it’s the 68,000 or some other number remains to be seen. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Greater Wisconsin Committee	None	None	None	2010-10-25T09:00:00	2010-10-08	['None']
-pomt-01207	Says "93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks."	/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/25/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-93-black-murders-committed-blacks/	This is a case where a statistic is accurate, but it doesn't address key elements in the bigger picture. The turmoil in Ferguson, Mo., has spurred a lot of talk about what has gone wrong in America. Some say it reveals core problems in the criminal justice system and policing. Others believe it points to problems in the black community itself. One vocal spokesman for the second approach is former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. When NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd brought up the number of cities where the police departments are mainly white while the communities they serve are mainly minority (as in Ferguson), Giuliani aimed to take the conversation in a different direction. "I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks," Giuliani said in his Nov. 23, 2014, appearance on the show. His point was that the death of a black teenager at the hands of a white cop was "the exception," and if the country is concerned about black homicides, then it would do better to focus on African Americans. We will set the larger questions aside and deal simply with Giuliani’s statistic about black homicides. He accurately recites a federal statistic, but he would almost equally be right if he were talking about white homicides at the hands of other whites. On the other hand, blacks do suffer from higher murder rates than whites. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93 percent of black homicides were indeed committed by other blacks between 1980 and 2008. In 2012, the most recent data posted on the web, the figure was 91 percent. This overlooks many deaths because it’s only possible to gather this information when a crime leads to a conviction and some cases are never solved. It’s important to note that whites were almost equally likely to be killed by other whites. According to government data, 84 percent of white homicides were committed by whites. This was true between 1980 and 2008 and in 2012. The last time we looked at this topic, we asked Professor David M. Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, why this might be. "Homicides overwhelmingly happen among people who know each other," Kennedy said. "There are relatively few absolutely straight-up stranger homicides. Homicide is a phenomenon of social networks. ... Most peoples’ relationships are primarily with someone of their own race or ethnicity. As long as anybody has studied homicide, this has been the pattern." So Giuliani’s point about black-on-black homicide doesn’t carry us very far in exploring murder in America. The percentage is higher for blacks than for whites, but only by seven to nine percentage points, depending on the time period you use. We did find that young black men, ages 14 to 24, suffer disproportionately from murder. While the numbers have been falling since the mid-1990s, in 2008 about 16 percent of homicide victims were young and black. As a group, they represented just 1 percent of the population. Young white men were also disproportionately at risk, but the situation was not quite as dire. They comprised about 6 percent of the population and 10 percent of murder victims. On the offender side, young black men accounted for 27 percent of everyone who committed murder in 2008. Young white men accounted for 16 percent. Our ruling Giuliani said that 93 percent of blacks are murdered by blacks. That’s in line with federal statistics. However, it actually tells us little about violence in black communities. The percentage of whites killed by whites is only about seven percentage points lower. The strong historical trend is that in a society with persistent pockets of segregation, most homicide occurs within each ethnic group. Giuliani’s claim is accurate but needs clarification. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Rudy Giuliani	None	None	None	2014-11-25T17:36:35	2014-11-23	['United_States']
-tron-00160	Baker Company photo tribute to 9-11	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bakertributeto9-11/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Baker Company photo tribute to 9-11	Mar 18, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01938	Says Scott Brown voted with President Barack Obama 70 percent of the time in 2011.	/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/25/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-claims-fellow-republican-scott-brown-vo/	When New Hampshire Republican Jim Rubens came face-to-face with Scott Brown in the race for a U.S. Senate seat, Rubens didn’t waste any time going on the attack. "In 2011, you voted with president Obama 70 percent of the time," Rubens said to Brown, his GOP primary opponent, in his opening remarks during a June 20, 2014, forum televised on WMUR-TV. It was a line that underscored criticism from Brown’s opponents about the strength of Brown’s conservative beliefs. Brown has touted his bipartisan credentials in the past, and while representing Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate from 2010-2012, Brown developed a track record as one of the lawmakers most willing to reach across the aisle. But did Brown really support Democratic President Barack Obama’s agenda 70 percent of the time, as Rubens stated? This isn’t the first time a candidate’s record of support for Obama has been invoked in the U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire. For instance, Brown has claimed several times that the Democrat who currently holds the seat, U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, voted with Obama 99 percent of the time. PolitiFact New Hampshire previously ruled that claim Mostly True, based on research conducted by the publication Congressional Quarterly. In its annual Vote Studies, CQ examines voting patterns for every member of Congress and sorts them in ways that allow comparisons. One of those ways is an examination of presidential support, or the number of votes by each lawmaker on bills on which the sitting president has staked a position. The 2011 CQ analysis found that, out of the pool of votes on which Obama took a clear position that year, Brown’s vote matched the president’s stance 69.6 percent of the time. That score is in line with the claim Rubens made. Out of all Republicans in the Senate, only Maine Sen. Susan Collins recorded a higher presidential support score that year, based on CQ’s analysis. Brown’s presidential support score was somewhat lower during his first year in office. In 2010, CQ determined, Brown supported Obama’s positions about 60.7 percent of the time. The number rose to about 78 percent during Brown’s final year in office in 2012. It’s important to note that there are limitations to gauging any politician’s support for the president based solely on the small number of votes represented in the CQ analysis. In 2011, for example, the Senate took 235 roll call votes. CQ registers Obama as having taken a clear stance on only 89 of those votes, most of which were taken on presidential nominations. After he was criticized by Rubens, Brown pointed out that he was proud to join Obama in supporting pieces of legislation such as the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which provides tax incentives for businesses that hire unemployed veterans. Brown’s campaign also pointed out that Brown’s presidential support score in the 2011 CQ analysis placed him midway between the average Republican and average Democrat in the Senate. According to CQ’s figures, the average Senate Republican voted with the president 53 percent of the time, while the average Democrat supported the president 92 percent of the time. Our ruling Rubens said that when Brown was serving in the U.S. Senate in 2011, Brown voted with President Obama 70 percent of the time. In 2011, Brown took the same position as the president 69.6 percent of the time when Obama outlined a clear position, based on analysis by Congressional Quarterly. Rounding off, Rubens was right on the money. But it’s important to note the president doesn’t take a clear position on all legislation and outlined his position on only 38 percent of the roll call votes taken in 2011. Overall, the number is accurate, but needs additional clarification. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Jim Rubens	None	None	None	2014-06-25T11:49:19	2014-06-20	['None']
-pomt-11265	The nuclear deal gave Iran "$150 billion, giving $1.8 billion in cash — in actual cash carried out in barrels and in boxes from airplanes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-150-billion-and-18-billion-c/	In a wide ranging phone call to Fox & Friends, President Donald Trump repeated his objection to the 2015 nuclear agreement that rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. "The past administration made a horrible deal giving $150 billion," Trump said April 26 on the Fox News morning show. "Giving $1.8 billion in cash — in actual cash carried out in barrels and in boxes from airplanes." Of the two numbers he gave, $150 billion and $1.8 billion, the first is dodgy and the second is slightly exaggerated. And there’s no evidence that barrels and boxes were involved. We reached out to the White House and will add their response when it arrives. The $150 billion The 2015 agreement freed up Iranian assets that had been frozen under sanctions. Called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal included Iran and the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the European Union. The agreement only affected sanctions imposed to punish Iran for its nuclear program. Iran has other assets that remain frozen. Some conservatives have put the amount released after lifted sanctions as high as $150 billion, which is the highest of estimates we have seen. Another estimate from Iran’s Central Bank topped out at about $29 billion in readily available funds, with another $45 billion tied up in Chinese investment projects and the foreign assets of the Iran’s Oil Ministry. After talking with officials at Iran’s Central Bank, Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, believes the actual total is between $25 billion and $50 billion. In July 2015, U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told lawmakers Iran would gain access to $56 billion. It’s important to know that little of that money was under the control of the United States or any U.S. bank. Most of it, Habibi said, was in central and commercial banks overseas. Furthermore, it was Iran’s money to begin with, not a payment from any government to buy Iran’s cooperation. The $1.8 billion The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, reviewed this cash transfer in a 2018 report. It gave a total of $1.7 billion. That was the amount that U.S. and Iranian negotiators settled on to resolve an arms contract between the United States and Iran that predated the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iran had paid for military equipment, and it was never delivered. As of 1990, there were $400 million in that account. Negotiators agreed that accrued interest would add $1.3 billion to the amount, which is a lot of money — but 25 years is a long time for interest to build up the balance. The United States sent the money to Iran in euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. Trump embellished when he mentioned barrels and boxes. Reports at the time said the money was packed and loaded onto pallets, similar to how other bulk goods are shipped. Our ruling Trump said that the nuclear deal with Iran gave the country $150 billion, including $1.8 billion from the United States in cash. The $150 billion is the highest estimate we've seen, and the one with the least evidence to support it. The high-end estimate from the U.S. Treasury Department in 2015 was $56 billion, and outside analysts believe the number could be lower. The $1.8 billion is reasonably accurate. The official amount is $1.7 billion. However, there’s no evidence that barrels and boxes were involved. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-04-27T10:49:15	2018-04-26	['Iran']
-vees-00223	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Story claiming Andanar co-conspirator of Tulfo in DOT issue	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-story-claiming-andanar-co-conspirator	None	None	None	None	fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Story claiming Andanar co-conspirator of Tulfo in DOT issue MISLEADING	May 04, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03772	Says "94 percent of (Marco Rubio's) constituents support a universal background check."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/02/mark-kelly/mark-kelly-says-94-percent-floridians-support-univ/	Former astronaut Mark Kelly, the husband of Arizona shooting victim Gabby Giffords, said that while "gun control" doesn’t poll very well, there’s "incredible momentum" to pass a universal background check law. Never mind five Republican senators, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who say that they’re going to filibuster any new "Second Amendment restrictions." "I would say to Marco Rubio that 94 percent of his constituents support a universal background check," Kelly told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace on March 31, 2013. National polls this year show strong support for universal background checks, from Pew Research Center’s 85 percent to Quinnipiac University’s 92 percent. We wondered, is it true that 94 percent of Floridians —who share their state with NRA superlobbyist Marion Hammer and a Stand Your Ground law — favor universal background checks? The polls We reached out to Kelly and Gifford’s advocacy group, Americans for Responsible Solutions, but didn’t immediately hear back. Still, we quickly found a poll supporting Kelly’s "94 percent" figure. It came from a group co-chaired by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The February survey of 600 voters was conducted by the polling firm of Democratic consultant Doug Schoen. We wouldn’t call that an independent survey. However, Quinnipiac University conducted state surveys in March. And its poll of 1,000 registered voters found 91 percent support for universal background checks. The question: "Do you favor or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" That also supports Kelly’s "94 percent" claim — within the Quinnipiac poll’s 3.1 percentage point margin of error. It’s also decent evidence that Floridians are in line with the country on expanding background checks from just sales by federally licensed dealers to sales between private sellers, sometimes referred to as closing the "gun show loophole" or "private seller loophole." Even among Florida Republicans, the Quinnipiac poll showed 87 percent support. Rubio hasn’t been so clear. In January, he gave an interview that made it sound like he was open to universal checks. ("I think you'll find support for that so long as there's not a public database that people can look up and see who owns what guns and where they live.") Then his spokesman clarified he wasn’t. ("Expanding it to private sales is problematic because you are asking an individual to conduct a background check on another individual. That is expensive and hard to do, and he does not support that.") His most recent statement doesn’t endorse background checks and opposes "new Second Amendment restrictions." Our ruling Kelly said "94 percent of (Rubio's) constituents support a universal background check." A major state poll conducted in March shows 91 percent of Florida voters favor requiring checks "for all gun buyers." Kelly’s claim is within the poll’s margin of error. We rate his statement True.	None	Mark Kelly	None	None	None	2013-04-02T17:21:45	2013-03-31	['Marco_Rubio']
-vogo-00600	Statement:“They use that fund ($2 million for each Supervisor every year) to give out taxpayer money to their favorite people, organizations or causes,” the ballot argument, Yes on B, March 27.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-supervisors-2-million-fund/	Analysis: In June, voters will decide on Proposition B, which would limit county supervisors to serving two terms, or eight years in office.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Supervisors' $2 Million Fund	April 23, 2010	None	['None']
-pose-01333	"The Trump Plan will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1425/lower-business-tax-rate/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Lower the business tax rate	2017-01-17T09:05:18	None	['None']
-tron-01902	MTV “12 and Pregnant” Show	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mtv-12-and-pregnant/	None	humorous	None	None	None	MTV “12 and Pregnant” Show	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02071	Milwaukee has seen "an uptick in violence" since 2010, and "the only period of calm we get is when winter sets in."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/23/david-clarke-jr/sheriff-clarke-cites-violent-crime-uptick-2010/	Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. hasn’t declared himself a candidate for mayor or county executive, but he continues to expand his critique of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and County Executive Chris Abele. After at least 12 people were wounded and three died in shootings during the city’s "Ceasefire Week," Clarke ripped Barrett as a do-nothing mayor in the face of stubbornly high poverty and joblessness, then labeled Abele a know-nothing on crime strategies. The sheriff, who stands for re-election later this year, added a statistical layer to his reaction to the shootings in a statement to reporters. "This uptick in violence is not new. It has been going on since 2010. The only period of calm we get is when winter sets in," the statement said. "The reason crime and violence rise in the summer is NOT due to the hot weather, leading to short tempers, like so many think. It rises in summer months because you have more human interaction due to more people being on the streets enjoying what little summer we have." There’s little doubt about summer being too short. But is "violence" up since 2010, with the only let up in the winter? To get at the question, we examined the trend in homicides, non-fatal shootings and the broader violent-crime index by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That index includes homicide, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Homicides After a sharp drop in 2008 and 2009, homicides were at their lowest count since the 1980s. Then they jumped in 2010 from 72 to 95. The figure fell in 2011, but rose in 2012 and 2013, when 105 were recorded. That put the total back to where it was in 2007, shortly before Chief Edward Flynn was sworn in as Milwaukee’s chief. Of the 31 total zip codes that make up the City of Milwaukee, the majority of homicides last year occurred in four, the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission reported -- 53212 (14%), 53204 (14%), 53209 (13%) and 53206 (11%). Milwaukee saw a surge of of 33 homicides in just two months in 2013, August and September. Non-fatal shootings The trend is similar to homicides, but not identical. The number of people wounded by firearms dropped 35 percent between 2006, when it was 621, and 2010, when the figure was 400. But the total has risen three straight years starting in 2011, reaching 532 last year. As in homicides, it’s overwhelmingly the case that the victims are African-American men, according to the commission. Overall violent Crime Total violent crime has risen 21 percent since 2011 -- 1,300 more violent crimes were reported in 2013 compared to 2011. Most of that increase came in aggravated assaults. Milwaukee Police data shows that in every violent crime category the 2013 totals are higher than the 2010 totals. And for the most part, the upward trend has been consistent since 2010, though the uptick in overall violent crime began more recently, in 2012. "We were as frustrated as the rest of the community was with the increase in violent crime in 2013 over 2012," Police Chief Edward Flynn told reporters in March 2014. In contrast, the much larger category of property crime has fallen six straight years, and total crime (violent and property added together) in five of six, according to the department. Seasonal variation The other part of Clarke’s claim was that crime and violence rises in the summer, with winter the "calm" period. Criminologists have debunked some other seasonal crime explanations, such as the full moon effect. So we wondered if the numbers back it up. Homicide Review Commission reports and data show a seasonal difference is real, though winter is far from "calm." The ugly business of homicide certainly doesn’t close up shop in the colder months. In 2013, the months of December, January and February saw 20 of the year’s 105 homicides. But, the commission noted in 2014 that, "Generally, in years past, the number of homicides increases during the summer months." Typically, about 30 percent of annual homicides occur in June, July and August, our analysis of commission data showed. In non-fatal shootings, in both 2012 and 2013 the number of incidents generally increased during the summer months of June through September, the commission reported. "Specifically, in 2013, 262 nonfatal shootings occurred in June through September," the commission reported. In those four months, nonfatal shootings accounted for 49 percent of such incidents in all of 2013. Why? As Clarke said, it’s not just the abstract fact of sinking temperatures. Alcohol consumption and arguments are more common in the hotter months, noted Stephen Hargarten, director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "We do know weather has an effect, both ways," Hargarten said. "It has a limited effect but some effect." Our rating Clarke said Milwaukee has seen "an uptick in violence" since 2010, and "the only period of calm we get is when winter sets in." Violent crime rates have roller-coastered in recent years, but Clarke’s observations about the trend since 2010 is on target. His observation about a winter "calm" period is a bit of a stretch, but it’s certainly calmer than the hot days of summer. We rate his claim Mostly True. Update: an earlier version of this item incorrectly stated that Sheriff Clarke faces re-election in November 2014. He would first have to clear an expected August 12 primary challenge to reach the November 4 general election.	None	David A. Clarke Jr.	None	None	None	2014-05-23T16:26:18	2014-05-19	['None']
-tron-00052	President Trump Describes White House as “A Real Dump”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-white-house-real-dump/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['donald trump', 'media', 'sports', 'white house']	President Trump Calls White House “A Real Dump”	Aug 3, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-00554	Home Depot’s Founder and CEO Bernie Marcus Endorses Donald Trump	https://www.truthorfiction.com/home-depots-founder-ceo-bernie-marcus-endorses-donald-trump/	None	business	None	None	None	Home Depot’s Founder and CEO Bernie Marcus Endorses Donald Trump	Jun 8, 2016	None	['None']
-tron-02531	Gatlinburg, Tennessee Overrun by Immigrants	https://www.truthorfiction.com/gatlinburg-061013/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Gatlinburg, Tennessee Overrun by Immigrants	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-12088	Says Marco Rubio took "three quarters of a million dollars from fossil fuel executives" during the 2016 Senate election.	/florida/statements/2017/aug/29/marco-rubios-heckler/marco-rubio-took-three-quarters-million-fossil-fue/	A college student and climate activist interrupted U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio during a recent speech to question Rubio's ties to the energy industry. September Porras, a Swarthmore college student who is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a national group of climate change activists, challenged Rubio's links to fossil fuels at the Seminole County GOP fundraiser held at a hotel in Altamonte Springs on Aug. 22. Here is a partial transcript of the exchange: Porras: "Senator, if you really care about young Americans, why did you take three-quarters of a million dollars from fossil fuel executives in your last Senate election?" Rubio: "I’m so glad I live in America where she can say that, in a lot of countries you go to jail, I am grateful that I live in America where ... (applause drowns out a few words) ... I don’t have a problem with protesters..." Porras: "I’m not a protester, I just want to know why you aren’t answering our questions." Rubio: "I don’t have a problem with hecklers. I don’t have a problem with any of that. You know why? Because one of the issues I am working on now involves nations where that’s not possible," a reference to his work related to U.S. policy on Cuba and Venezuela. "I am grateful that I live in a nation where people can disagree, I am grateful that I live in a nation where people get to vote every two to four years. I am grateful that I live in a place where people can speak their minds and they can settle their differences at a ballot box." Rubio then made a call for the United States to achieve energy independence: "I believe as a cornerstone of allowing us to succeed economically we need to be able to power a 21st century economy, and I believe technological advances are making that energy more efficient and cleaner than ever before. I absolutely believe that America needs to be energy independent. We are crazy as a nation if we don’t utilize all of the resources that God’s blessed this great land with and I will continue to be a strong supporter of that." The part of the exchange we will fact-check is whether Rubio took three-quarters of a million dollars from fossil fuel executives during his 2016 Senate bid. We did not hear back from Rubio’s spokespersons. Rubio’s donations from oil and gas industry Porras told PolitiFact that she obtained the dollar amount from the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent clearinghouse for campaign finance data that publishes its data at opensecrets.org. The center’s data for the top 20 recipients of oil and gas donations during the 2016 cycle showed that Rubio received $753,201. That amount put Rubio in fourth place for oil and gas donations behind three other presidential candidates: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Separately, the center compiled industry donations for the Florida Senate candidates in 2016. That analysis shows that Rubio received $524,877 from oil and gas. Rubio received more money from six other sectors, including retirees, security/investment and Republican/conservative. Over Rubio’s career as a federal candidate and politician between 2009-18, he has taken $1.1 million from oil and gas. (Porras cited Rubio’s oil and gas donations but coal is also a fossil fuel. The Center of Responsive Politics found Rubio got $48,800 from the coal industry in 2016.) Compiling Rubio’s donations during the 2016 cycle is complicated because he ran in two elections -- presidential and Senate. The Center for Responsive Politics provided PolitiFact with a more specific breakdown for his oil and gas donations: $339,194 - to his presidential campaign $207,500 - to outside groups that supported both his presidential and Senate runs $271,571 - to his Senate campaign and leadership PAC That adds up to $818,265. That’s higher than the other totals shown for Rubio because it is the center’s most up to date analysis. So the dollar amount cited by Porras is valid, but while she referenced Rubio’s "last Senate election" the amount she cited included some donations to his presidential campaign. Another caveat: Porras said that the donations to Rubio were from "executives" but the donations could be broader than that. The donations reflects contributions from any individuals who list their employer as an oil and gas firm as well as as corporations and unions who donate from their treasuries. However, the vast majority of money reported to the Federal Election Commission comes from executives, CEOs and PACs, said Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics. The donations don’t include external lobbyists who represent a whole host of interests, not just oil and gas, but it would include an in-house lobbyist for an oil company. Donations from the oil and gas industry have generally been increasing over the past decade, particularly in presidential cycles. The donations peaked at about $103 million in 2016, with about 88 percent going to Republican candidates. Rubio has previously called for the United States to become energy independent, and that includes the use of oil and gas. He criticized international climate efforts, as well as President Barack Obama’s regulatory measures. "If you’re overly dependent on any one source of fuel, then you become vulnerable to disruption," he said at an event in January 2016. "I want America to truly have a truly all-of-the-above strategy." Our ruling A heckler said that Rubio took "three quarters of a million dollars from fossil fuel executives" during the 2016 Senate election. While the heckler was referencing Rubio’s Senate election, that amount also includes donations to his presidential race. That's an important distinction, because presidential fundraising tends to draw more donations. The figure comes from an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics which found that Rubio received $753,201 during the 2016 cycle. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Marco Rubio's heckler	None	None	None	2017-08-29T12:23:34	2017-08-22	['Marco_Rubio']
-pose-00484	"As President, I will make protecting Florida's water resources a priority. My Administration will live up to the federal government's promise to be a 50-50 partner with Florida in restoring the Everglades – which won't just save jobs, but create new ones."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/504/fully-fund-federal-contribution-to-the-preservatio/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Fully fund federal contribution to the preservation of the Everglades	2010-01-07T13:27:00	None	['Everglades', 'Florida']
-pomt-05032	"83% of doctors have considered leaving the profession because of #Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/12/jeff-duncan/gop-lawmaker-jeff-duncan-repeats-survey-finding-83/	As the House was taking another vote to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law in mid July 2012, a number of Republicans offered a grim view of the health care system’s future under "Obamacare" by citing poll results that said many doctors were thinking about quitting. One example: a July 10, 2012, tweet from Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., who wrote: "83% of doctors have considered leaving the profession because of ‪#Obamacare‬ ‪#repealandreplace." Many readers urged us to fact-check this statistic, which was circulated widely in the blogosphere in addition to being mentioned by other Republican lawmakers, such as Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers of Washington state in an MSNBC interview. We found it came from a survey by the Doctor Patient Medical Association Foundation, a group founded last fall that is opposed to the health care law. The group asked: "How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice medicine?" According to the group, 83 percent answered, "Makes me think about quitting," 5 percent said, "I’m re-energized," while 13 percent said they were unsure or had no opinion. So while the number is right, it's important to examine whether Duncan has accurately explained the results. Are the poll’s respondents actually talking about "Obamacare"? Despite the linkage by Duncan and other lawmakers to Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as "Obamacare" is officially known, the question actually does not mention the law. In fact, only the final question in the poll mentions anything about it, in passing. Instead, the question asks about "current changes," which could include not just the law, but many other factors, such as changes driven by insurance companies and hospital systems. There’s no way of knowing what specifically the respondents were referring to. In an interview, Kathryn Serkes, the founder and CEO of the Doctor Patient Medical Association, emphasized that the group was not asking specifically about the health care law. She noted that other findings in the survey painted a more nuanced picture than pure anti-Obamacare sentiment. For instance, when asked to provide their top three choices for "who’s most to blame for current problems in medicine," 65 percent of respondents did choose "government involvement in general," but the next three categories were "health plans/insurance," "third-party payers" and "lawyers," with 50 percent, 42 percent and 42 percent, respectively. And while 27 percent cited "president" as one of their three choices, an almost equal number, 26 percent, cited "Congress," which is most visible today for a House Republican leadership that is dead-set against Obama’s health care law. "What we know from the other answers in this survey is that there are two main things going on for doctors -- government control and corporate control," Serkes said. "The rest of the results in the survey show doctors bemoaning corporatization as a very close second to government control. Many doctors don’t separate the two." The poll’s sponsor As with any poll, it’s always important to know who paid for it. The group’s website says, "It is DPMA's position that PPACA is the Destruction Of Our Medicine, attempting to insert the government and bureaucrats between the relationship and decisions of medical professional and their patient." It was founded by a longtime representative of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group that stands for "individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the ability to freely practice medicine according to time-honored Hippocratic principles." By itself, this doesn’t mean that the poll is untrustworthy. But it's important to consider that the group is strongly opposed to the law. The poll’s methodology Survey experts expressed some concerns about its design, noting that it's difficult to get accurate surveys on specific groups and occupations. The DPMAF was transparent about its methodology. The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. Of 16,227 faxes that were successfully delivered to doctors’ offices, 699, or 4.3 percent, submitted responses. Experts said they were concerned with two aspects of the poll: • Respondents weren’t given much of a middle ground. The choices for answering this question were "makes me think about quitting," "I’m re-energized" and "unsure/no opinion." "It’s a poorly worded question that does not offer a complete range of likely alternatives, such as 'no effect,'" said Don Dillman, an expert in mail-based polls and a professor at Washington State University. Charles Franklin, a polling specialist at the University of Wisconsin, agreed that the response categories offered were "odd." In addition, interpreting the question requires caution, because asking about whether someone has "considered" something as dramatic as quitting their lifelong profession is a long way from saying they will do so. Serkes acknowledges this. "Do I expect doctors to quit en masse? " she said. "No, I don’t. Doctors don’t do anything en masse in the U.S." • Because the response rate was only 4.3 percent, it’s hard to gauge how representative the survey was. A different recent survey of doctors with a similar response rate -- conducted by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions -- took the extra step of weighting their sample "by years in practice, in combination with gender, region, and specialty to reflect the national distribution of physicians in the (American Medical Association) master file." DPMAF did not. If a respondent knew about or could detect DPMAF’s conservative policy orientation from the questions, or if they learned about the group’s orientation during the weeks-long period they were given to turn in the survey, they might have been likelier to take part. If they disagreed with the group’s stance, they might have been less likely to take part. Still, there’s no way to prove that DPMAF’s sample was biased. Either way, Serkes noted that her group never claimed scientific authority for the poll. "We didn’t say specifically that this was a scientific poll, nor did we state confidence levels or margins of error," she said. "We were very transparent about that." Other estimates We looked for alternative estimates in similar surveys and found that the Deloitte poll asked doctors if they agreed that "physicians currently practicing will stay in practice." Fifty-four percent said yes, while 34 percent said physicians would stop practicing. That's far below the 83 percent who told the DPMAF that they were considering quitting. Our ruling Duncan said "83% of doctors have considered leaving the profession because of #Obamacare." But that's an inaccurate description of the foundation’s poll. The poll did not specifically ask about the federal health care law and was meant to measure concerns about a wide range of changes in health care. Also, it's worth noting that the poll had a small return rate and the group that conducted it is opposed to the law. We rate the claim False.	None	Jeff Duncan	None	None	None	2012-07-12T18:22:00	2012-07-10	['None']
-goop-01869	Jennifer Garner, Josh Duhamel In “Secret Romance,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-josh-duhamel-romance-dating-secret/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Garner, Josh Duhamel NOT In “Secret Romance,” Despite Report	10:27 am, January 10, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14613	"Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136%."	/texas/statements/2016/feb/01/sheila-jackson-lee/rep-sheila-jackson-lee-says-maternal-mortality-rat/	Shortly before the December holidays, Sheila Jackson Lee, a 10-term U.S. House member, inserted remarks into the Congressional Record in regard to women’s legal and human rights. The Houston Democrat, sharing initial findings from the U.S. visit of a United Nations Working Group that focuses on discrimination against women, touched on the nation’s gender wage gap, the increasing percentage of women in poverty and disparities in access to reproductive health. A figure that got our attention had to do with the maternal mortality rate. "Between 1990 and 2013," Jackson Lee said, "the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136 percent." Were women in this country dying at a significantly higher rate from pregnancy-related causes compared with almost a quarter century ago? We had to find out. We checked with Jackson Lee’s office to find the source of the 136 percent claim, and staffers sent back a Euro News article from Dec. 14, 2015. The article also referenced the U.N. working group’s U.S. visit, and attributed the 136 percent increase to U.N. rights workers. Similarly, several media outlets have used the 136 percent figure often. We also found the figure in a 2014 report compiled by the World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNFPA, The World Bank and the United Nations Population Division titled "Trends in Maternal Mortality: 1990 to 2013." It showed that yes, from 1990 to 2013, there was a 136 percent increase in the maternal mortality rate in the United States. Before we get into the figures, some definitions. The maternal mortality rate is the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. A maternal death is defined as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, regardless of duration and site of pregnancy, but not including accidental or incidental causes. A WHO fact sheet attributes 75 percent of maternal deaths to these complications: Severe bleeding (mostly bleeding after childbirth) Infections (usually after childbirth) High blood pressure during pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and eclampsia) Complications from delivery Unsafe abortion According to the WHO, 99 percent of maternal deaths occur in developing countries. Nicholas Kassebaum, professor at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, also analyzed the maternal mortality rate for an article in the medical journal The Lancet. His team put the rate increase between 1990 and 2013 at closer to 49 percent. Kassebaum suggested the difference in percentages could be attributed to model predictions the World Health Organization used. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation used a larger volume of data than the WHO/UN report, Kassebaum said, which showed the rate peak in 2009, and subsequently go down slightly the following years, settling at 18.5 deaths in 2013, or close to a 49 percent increase. The original WHO report used 5-year projections that predicted an increase every year. Experts such as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Bill Callaghan warn against indiscriminately using the 136 percent figure. To make his point, the 2015 report (the following year) from WHO, UNICEF, et. al. showed only a 16.7 percent increase in maternal mortality rate for the United States. In an email, Sebastian Oliel, a spokesman for the Panamerican Health Organization, attributed the new figures to a change in methodology intended to allow a better comparison of mortality rates from different countries. Instead of relying on vital statistics (information gleaned from death certificates), which Callaghan said are not the most accurate, the WHO/UN began using CDC data for the United States in reports after 2014. Also, the current methodology uses estimates on an annual basis, instead of the previous method that estimated figures every five years, based on vital statistics. While the new rate looks like it’s telling a less drastic story, Callaghan said there still is a legitimate cause for concern. "The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. is unacceptably high," said Callaghan, chief of the CDC’s Maternal and Infant Health branch. "I’ve borne witness to women dying in pregnancy, it’s an awful thing. Whether it’s 18 out of 100,000 or 12 out of 100,000, it’s too high. Whether we’re first in the world or 89th in the world, it’s too high." He said that in the 1980s and ‘90s, health experts knew maternal deaths were underreported. Vital records, such as death certificates, were the main source of information and there was no way to ensure accurate reporting of deaths due to pregnancy-related issues. "The system was not nuanced. When women die in pregnancy, it’s not like counting people who died from colon cancer. Women who die in a particular state from a multitude of causes, it’s hard to account for it." The CDC began the pregnancy mortality surveillance system in 1986. Callaghan says reporting has "incrementally gotten better," but the process remains imperfect since states do not report every death identically. The 2014 WHO report (where the 136 percent increase originated), used older methods of modeling based purely on vital statistics, "which we know are problematic," he explained in an email. The more recent estimates in the 2015 report (source of the 16.7 percent increase) are based on CDC pregnancy mortality surveillance system data. While better reporting could account for more maternal deaths, Callaghan said he believes there is a definite increase beyond that. It could be attributed to a multitude of causes, including changing demographics of women giving birth (people giving birth at older ages) and worsening health outcomes (higher rates of obesity, heart disease) in the general population. But, there has been a proportionate decrease in common causes of maternal deaths, such as hemorrhages and blood clots in the United States, he said. One ratio that has been consistent since the CDC began collecting this data has to do with health disparities between white and black women. Black women face a three- to four-times greater risk of dying from complications of pregnancy. Callaghan explained that black women aren’t dying from different causes, but they are more likely to die from complications. That could be a reflection of differences in care, or being more susceptible to certain diseases, or a "complex combination of both," he said. To find a solution, there has been an increasing focus on patient safety, establishing national guidelines and rooting out possible variations in care, facility to facility. By having protocol at all facilities to handle the "low-hanging fruit" of hemorrhages, blood clots and women with severe hypertension, the rate in the United States could improve for all women. Our ruling Sheila Jackson Lee said the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased 136 percent between 1990 and 2013. A 2014 report compiled by the World Health Organization, UNICEF and The World Bank presented just that figure. However, experts agree it is inaccurate and based on a modeling method WHO no longer uses. While there has been an increase in U.S. maternal mortality in that time -- possibly due, in part, to better reporting and worsening health conditions in the general population -- experts said it was not as drastic. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Sheila Jackson Lee	None	None	None	2016-02-01T11:25:48	2015-12-18	['United_States']
-snes-04551	A video shows a group of 'radical' Muslims rallying around a painting of Jesus' decapitated head in Dearborn, Michigan.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslims-rally-around-image-jesus-decapitated-head/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Muslims Rally Around Image of Jesus’ Decapitated Head	25 June 2016	None	['Michigan', 'Jesus', 'Islam']
-mpws-00004	By now you have probably heard of Minnesota’s State Auditor. That’s because a change in the state auditor’s responsibilities was, at least for a few days, the main reason legislators hadn’t met yet for a special session. Because of a law that passed during the regular session, counties can outsource their audits to accounting firms instead of having the state auditor’s office do the work. Rep. Sarah Anderson, R- Plymouth, who sponsored the state government funding bill, which included the change, said the idea is to save counties money. State Auditor Rebecca Otto says the change will gut her office, and she plans to take the issue to court. 	https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/06/poligraph-truth-elusive-in-state-auditor-claims/	None	None	None	Catharine Richert	None	PoliGraph: Truth elusive in state auditor claims	June 12, 2015, 2:00 PM	None	['Minnesota', 'State_auditor']
-tron-00020	7 Women Dead From Inhaling Scents, Perfume Samples Sent by Mail	https://www.truthorfiction.com/7-women-dead-inhaling-scents-perfume-samples-sent-mail/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['terrorism', 'war on terror']	7 Women Dead From Inhaling Scents, Perfume Samples Sent by Mail	Dec 28, 2017	None	['None']
-obry-00059	In her bid to retake the 85th Assembly District seat, Democrat Mandy Wright has repeatedly underscored her background as an educator. Drawing on her experience working as a teacher in Wausau, she has criticized what she sees as Republican attacks on education in the state. She also has highlighted funding cuts in her district. When Wright announced her run in a Nov. 6, 2015 op-ed in the Wausau Daily Herald, she attacked GOP support of voucher schools and argued that the program draws resources away from public schools in her own district. “Just in the 85th Assembly District, we’re spending half a million taxpayer dollars on private school tuition for students that often attended those private schools already. That money is needed in our public schools, where there is public oversight for public funds and all children are welcome.” So how much money does the Wausau School District spend on vouchers? Which children are benefiting from that spending? The Observatory decided to look and find out. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/10/27/how-much-money-flows-to-voucher-schools-in-the-85th-assembly-district/	None	None	None	Andrew Bahl	None	How much money flows to voucher schools in the 85th Assembly District?	October 27, 2016	None	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'New_York_State_Assembly']
-snes-04369	Televangelist Joel Osteen endorsed Donald Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joel-osteen-donald-trump/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Joel Osteen Endorses Donald Trump	27 July 2016	None	['Joel_Osteen', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-06190	A video clip shows a Budweiser tribute to the victims of 9/11 that was only aired once.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/budweiser-tribute/	None	September 11th	None	David Mikkelson	None	Budweiser 9/11 Tribute	21 September 2007	None	['None']
-pose-01129	"Gov. Scott’s vision for the public, higher education system focuses on the following goals that will give Florida a competitive edge over other states: Be No. 1 in university and college affordability."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/1215/make-florida-no-1-higher-education-affordability/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Make Florida No. 1 in higher education affordability	2014-12-30T10:50:18	None	['None']
-pomt-04461	High school students arrested on campus are twice as likely not to graduate and four times less likely to graduate if they’ve appeared in court.	/georgia/statements/2012/oct/10/steven-teske/judge-links-arrests-high-school-drop-out-rates/	Crime costs Georgia, and state leaders are trying to find a smarter approach to deal with teenagers who run afoul of the law. Last month, a commission of judges, police officers, attorneys and others met to discuss ways to improve Georgia’s juvenile justice system. By some estimates, Georgia deals with 40,000 juvenile delinquents a year. The budget for the state juvenile justice system for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013, is about $300 million, nearly as much as Georgia will spend on its technical college system. One judge at the meeting relayed some information that piqued the Truth-O-Meter’s interest. "We know from the research that if you arrest a kid on campus, he’s twice as likely not to graduate," Clayton County Juvenile Court Judge Steven Teske said. "If they appear in court, they’re four times as likely not to graduate." Teske said in an interview that his concern is about "zero-tolerance" policies that more schools across the country have adopted concerning students who get in trouble on campus. The policies can result in more students being arrested and expelled. "[T]he problem with zero tolerance is that it does not distinguish between the kids who are bullies and those who make stupid decisions," Teske told us. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the numbers Teske used to base his case are correct. Teske said his claim was based on a widely used study of graduation rates among high school students who go through the court system. The study by Gary Sweeten, an associate professor of criminology at Arizona State University, was published in December 2006. Sweeten claimed it is the first study to estimate the effect of arrest and court appearance jointly. "[F]irst-time arrest during high school nearly doubles the odds of high school dropout, while a court appearance nearly quadruples the odds of dropout," Sweeten wrote. In his study, Sweeten also found evidence of what are called labeling effects. The concern is that young people who get arrested are labeled as delinquents and continue to get heightened scrutiny and punishment. Scholars on the subject say that can explain why a disproportionate percentage of students who wind up in the criminal justice system do not graduate from high school. "This perspective argues that official intervention can be a stepping stone in the development of a delinquent career," two authors wrote in a 2003 study on the subject cited by Sweeten. That study of 1,000 seventh- and eighth-graders in the Rochester, N.Y., school system over a nine-year span found that an arrest nearly quadrupled the odds of being a high school dropout, and involvement in the justice system increased the odds by about the same rate. In his study, Sweeten wrote: "Court involvement may put youths in close contact with other delinquent youths who may encourage further delinquency, and less attachment to high school, leading to poorer educational outcomes." "They think of themselves as a troublemaker now," Sweeten said in a telephone interview. Sweeten’s study, though, did not focus solely on on-campus arrests. He selected a random sample of people who answer an annual survey done by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics with an oversampling of disadvantaged youths. The respondents answer a series of questions on many issues, including their educational background and criminal history. Sweeten told PolitiFact Georgia that he hasn’t seen much research about the impact of on-campus arrests on graduation rates. He said his research "implies" there may be a connection. A separate study casts a little bit of doubt on the research. Another group of researchers studied about 2,000 Philadelphia students interviewed after they finished eighth grade and then seven years later. "We found that arrest has no significant impact on the likelihood of a student dropping out of high school, but it does have a strong and consistent impact on a late graduation," the researchers wrote. Christopher Weiss, one of the authors of that study, said they could not distinguish which arrests were made on campus. Weiss said on-campus arrests were a rare occurrence at that time. One study of Chicago inner-city high school students arrested during the ninth or 10th grade found they are at least six times more likely to drop out of school. A 2012 study by the American Civil Liberties Union and Citizens for Juvenile Justice concluded that students in the three largest school systems of Massachusetts who are arrested at school are three times more likely to drop out than those who are not. To summarize, Teske referenced on-campus arrests and court interaction at the meeting. "We know from the research that if you arrest a kid on campus, he’s twice as likely not to graduate," he said. "If they appear in court, they’re four times as likely not to graduate." The first part of Teske’s claim is troublesome because there’s not much research on the subject of on-campus arrests and high school dropout rates. The most recent study we found, though, supported Teske’s claim. As far as the latter part of his statement, there is more support for what Teske said at the meeting. We rate his entire claim as Mostly True.	None	Steven Teske	None	None	None	2012-10-10T06:00:00	2012-09-18	['None']
-pomt-07508	Says JoAnne Kloppenburg’s side had a "3-to-1 money advantage" in the Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/apr/10/charlie-sykes/charlie-sykes-says-joanne-kloppenburg-had-3-1-adva/	Conservative talk radio host Charlie Sykes was in a pretty good mood the day after his preferred candidate for state Supreme Court battled to a virtual dead heat against the more liberal JoAnne Kloppenburg. Justice David Prosser avoided defeat, Sykes told his WTMJ (620-AM) listeners on April 6, 2011, despite the efforts of labor and the left to use public anger over Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-union legislation against Prosser, a former Republican legislator. It was especially remarkable, Sykes said, because liberals had such a huge fundraising edge. "They put in as much money as they will ever be able to," Sykes said. "They will never again, in Wisconsin, be able to mobilize a 3-to-1 money advantage." He repeated the "3-to-1" claim at least twice more, at one point attributing it to an unidentified "political observer" who wrote up some pro-Prosser thoughts late on election night. The claim surprised us. The two candidates both agreed to public financing, so they were limited to public grants. And spending by outside groups was heavy on both sides. Sykes wasn’t the only one to sound this theme. A National Review story two days before the election said outside groups on the conservative side were being "heavily outspent" by liberal counterparts. And Bob Dohnal, publisher of the Wisconsin-based Conservative Digest, circulated an email on April 7 saying conservatives were outspent 10 to 1. He told us the figure was based on information "bandied around the Internet and the talk shows for weeks." What’s more, it’s much broader than Sykes’ claim. Dohnal said his number included all efforts by the unions and liberal groups dating back more than a month to the protests over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget bill -- not just the Supreme Court race. We asked Sykes for backup for his statement, but he did not respond. So, we turned to the numbers, which fall into three categories. -- Candidate fundraising. As noted, both candidates opted for public financing, limiting their intake almost exclusively to $400,000 in public financing each ($100,000 for the primary, $300,00 for the general). So that’s a draw. -- Independent expenditures by political action committees. This is a small category, but Kloppenburg had a decided edge, according to state Government Accountability Board reports of spending through April 6, 2011. Groups supporting her or attacking Prosser spent $135,152. On the Prosser’s side, the tally was $12,386. -- Media spending by special interest "issues advocacy" groups trying to influence voters. This is the big outside money that came in record amounts for a state judicial race. By law, these ads can’t explicitly endorse the defeat or election of a candidate, but they are essentially indistinguishable from ads that do. The two tallies we found both showed a big advantage for Prosser’s side -- not Kloppenburg’s. The first was a report -- released on election day -- by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School that looked at broadcast TV spending by outside groups. It is the only organization we could find that attempts to put a hard number on such spending by outside groups. The left-leaning think tank/advocacy group relies on TV satellite data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, an ad-tracking firm. It says its numbers are estimates that may underestimate the precise amount of actual expenditures. The Brennan study was reported widely by Wisconsin and national media, including the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, and the Journal Sentinel. It found there had been $2.2 million spent by four conservative groups through election day vs. $1.36 million by one liberal group, the Greater Wisconsin Committee. (The conservative groups are the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce’s issues mobilization council, Citizens for a Strong America, Wisconsin Club for Growth and the State Tea Party Express). That’s an $840,000 advantage for the conservative side. The Brennan study also was picked up on WisPolitics.com, a widely cited online digest. The website added some of its own reporting and wrote on election day that pro-Prosser groups outspent the Kloppenburg side, $2.5 million to $1.9 million. That’s a somewhat smaller $600,000 advantage. WisPolitics had broader information -- including cable TV and radio -- though it cited the Kloppenburg campaign as its source for the additional information. Kloppenburg, the WisPolitics story said, had tracked ad spending by both sides, and provided some numbers to WisPolitics. Prosser’s campaign manager Brian Nemoir said he had not tracked the spending totals by outside groups and couldn’t comment on which side spent more. We also asked the biggest spending groups on both sides to release spending figures -- or to confirm or dispute the Brennan Center tally. The liberal GWC group said they do not release their spending figures -- nor are they required to do so. Officials with Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Citizens for a Strong America and Wisconsin Club for Growth could not be reached. Kloppenburg’s side did not respond to a question about spending. To be sure, the information that is available is not perfect. State and federal laws allow undisclosed spending by a variety of groups, on a variety of election and issues-related advocacy. Robo-calls and mailings by outside groups are not tracked. There are limitations to the TV data, though it likely covers a very large chunk of the TV spending by outside groups, said Ken Goldstein, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who tracks ad spending. Still, it is the best and most complete information. And it all was available when Sykes made his comments the day after the election. Indeed, the Brennan numbers and WisPolitics story both came out the day before. So what were the grand totals, when paired with the other categories? For the Prosser side: $2,628,000. For the Kloppenburg side: $1,900,000. That’s a $728,000 spending advantage on Prosser side, or a 38 percent edge. The gap is smaller, but still substantial, if you use the figures reported by WisPolitics. Let’s wrap this one up. Sykes repeatedly claimed that the pro-Prosser forces were outgunned financially by a 3 to 1 ratio by the Kloppenburg side. He did not specify a source of his own, cite any information from the Prosser side or debunk the widespread media reports of the spending advantage on the Prosser side. His assertion may have become an article of faith in some circles on the right, but we could find no basis for any spending advantage by Kloppenburg, much less a 3 to 1 edge. His statement warrants a Pants on Fire. (Editor’s note, April 11, 2011: Sykes did not respond to our April 7, 2011 request for information that would support the claim he made about spending in the Supreme Court race. He went on the air April 11, 2011-- the day after the item was posted – and led off his segment by saying: "I don’t have a problem admitting if I made a mistake." Amid criticism of PolitiFact Wisconsin, Sykes said it was his "good faith" impression from about two weeks prior to the election that the Kloppenburg side was outspending the Prosser side. He acknowledged the balance might have tipped by election day and said no one can know the true amount that was spent because, by law, it is not officially reported. He did not provide any information to support his claim that the Prosser side was outspent 3-to-1.)	None	Charlie Sykes	None	None	None	2011-04-10T09:00:00	2011-04-06	['None']
-tron-00111	Donald Trump Was Never Accused of Racism Before Running for President	https://www.truthorfiction.com/donald-trump-never-accused-racism-running-president/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Donald Trump Was Never Accused of Racism Before Running for President	May 19, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04148	"Over $1 trillion" was spent on anti-poverty programs in 2011, enough to "give every single poor American a check for $22,000."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/dec/30/paul-ryan/anti-poverty-spending-could-give-poor-22000-checks/	In a speech shortly after the presidential election, Republican vice-presidential contender Paul Ryan decried what he called the government’s ineffective approach to fighting poverty, saying spending alone isn’t the answer. "Just last year, total federal and state spending on means-tested programs came to over $1 trillion," the Wisconsin congressman and House Budget Committee chairman said Dec. 4, 2012, referring to programs that have eligibility based on income. "What does that mean in practical terms? For that amount of money, you could give every single poor American a check for $22,000 -- every man, woman and child." Really? Let’s check Ryan’s math. Ryan’s evidence To begin with, a little background: -- Ryan made his indictment at a time when poverty is at one of its highest rates in decades. In 2011, 46.2 million people, or 15 percent of the U.S. population, lived in poverty. -- For 2012, the income levels to be eligible for certain anti-poverty programs was $11,170 for a single person and $23,050 for a family of four. -- More than half of Americans -- 51 percent, according to an October 2012 Rasmussen poll -- think the government spends too much fighting poverty. That’s up from 38 percent in an April 2011 Rasmussen survey. As for the numbers in Ryan’s speech, it turns out he had used them before -- on the campaign trail less than a month before the election. Here’s the evidence Ryan spokesman Kevin Seifert provided us to back the two numbers. How much was spent: Some $1.03 trillion was spent on means-tested programs for the poor in 2011, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee said in October 2012. Most of that amount -- $746 billion -- was federal spending, based on a detailed memo by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, with the committee itself estimating that states picked up the remainder of the $1 trillion. But it’s not as though all of that money was being given to people in poverty as cash or food. The largest category was for health care, primarily through Medicaid. How many in poverty: Ryan cited census data, noting as we did earlier that 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2011. From there, Ryan takes the $1.03 trillion and divides it by 46.2 million people living in poverty. The result, he says, is each poor person could have been written a check for $22,000. The math itself is accurate, and there’s no dispute about the number of people in poverty. But let’s go to some experts for a closer look. The conservative Heritage Foundation calculates the cost of means-tested federal and state spending on welfare programs in 2011 as $927 billion, with half the amount going to health care. Michael Tanner, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute, puts the 2011 anti-poverty spending figure at $952 billion -- although he counted local government spending as well as money spent by the federal and state governments. That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person, Tanner wrote. So, both groups give support to Ryan’s claim, although their spending figures are somewhat lower than Ryan’s claim of $1 trillion. The liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research says that even if the $1 trillion is accurate, it is spent on "a population that is more than twice the size" of the 46 million people living in poverty. That’s because two of the major programs, Medicaid and the earned income tax credit, have income eligibility limits above the poverty line. Moreover, some of the $1 trillion, the center said, is paid to school districts and other institutions to help educate the poor -- the poor themselves don’t get the money. LaDonna Pavetti, a family income support researcher at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said of Ryan’s claim: "It’s not so much the numbers as what he does with them." Noting that the single largest portion of spending cited by Ryan is on health care, Pavetti pointed out that the largest Medicaid expenditures are made on people who live in nursing homes and other institutions -- they, by definition, are not included in the number of people living in poverty. And the list of programs Ryan includes in his $1 trillion in spending "is sort of anything and everything that is targeted to low-income people," Pavetti said. That includes money that aids schools and low-income communities but do not directly benefit the poor, she said. Our rating Ryan said "over $1 trillion" was spent on anti-poverty programs in 2011, enough to "give every single poor American a check for $22,000." As a sweeping statement, Ryan’s claim is partially accurate, in that roughly $1 trillion was spent on means-tested programs, and if you divided that by the number of people living in poverty, it would amount to roughly $22,000 per person. But Ryan mixes apples and oranges, in that the $1 trillion is actually spent on far more people than the 46 million counted as living in poverty. Moreover, much of the money goes to institutions, such as nursing homes and schools, and not directly into the pockets of the poor. We rate Ryan’s statement Half True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2012-12-30T09:00:00	2012-12-04	['United_States']
-snes-05535	Tidy Cats Lightweight brand cat litter causes breathing problems in cats.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tidy-cats-breathing-problems/	None	Critter Country	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Tidy Cat Litter Causes Breathing Problems in Cats?	18 November 2015	None	['None']
-vogo-00346	Help Us Fact Check Balboa Park	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/neighborhoods/help-us-fact-check-balboa-park/	None	None	None	None	None	Help Us Fact Check Balboa Park	August 19, 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-15087	Says that President Barack Obama said an attack on Syria "was going to be a pinprick."	/florida/statements/2015/sep/18/marco-rubio/obama-called-potential-attack-syria-pinprick-rubio/	Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida defended a 2013 vote not to authorize President Barack Obama to use military force in Syria by saying the strategy wasn’t worth risking American lives. During a presidential debate in Simi Valley, Calif., on Sept. 16, 2015, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked Donald Trump if he thought three senators — Rubio, Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky — who opposed intervention against Syrian President Bashar Assad were now responsible for the current Syrian refugee crisis. Rubio defended his stance after Trump said he thought they were partly to blame. "We have zero responsibility, because let’s remember what the president said," Rubio said. "He said the attack that he was going to conduct was going to be a pinprick. Well, the United States military was not built to conduct pinprick attacks." Rubio went on to say he wanted a strategy that would put "men and women in a position where they can win." Obama’s Syria policy has been a target for Republicans during the campaign, but did Obama refer to potential strikes against Assad as "a pinprick" attack? Pinning down strategy We didn’t hear back from Rubio’s campaign when we contacted them, but the crux of his reference is Obama’s response to Assad’s chemical weapons attack against civilians in 2013. While initially planning a military response against the Syrian government, Obama suddenly switched gears on Aug. 31. He announced he would first ask Congress to authorize intervention, likely starting with surgical missile strikes from Navy destroyers — an approach that faced questionable results, according to a July 2013 report from the Institute for the Study of War. Involving Congress was widely seen as a political gamble to bring lawmakers into the decision to move against Syria. Prior to that, Obama had struggled with whether to act unilaterally, without support from the American public, Congress, the United Nations or U.S. allies. Obama did use the term "pinprick" several times, but he used the word to say that's what he was not doing. Take, for example, an interview blitz on Sept. 9. Obama told Savannah Guthrie on the Today show that day that "the U.S. does not do pinpricks. Our military is the greatest the world has ever known. And when we take even limited strikes, it has an impact on a country like Syria." Michael O’Hanlon, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and co-director of the institution’s Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, told us the term "pinprick" certainly is not a technical description of any kind of military strike. But in his experience, when the word is used, "it is always pejorative." Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who favored military action in Syria, questioned Obama’s commitment to using force. McCain said on Face the Nation on Sept. 1 that he had wondered whether surgical strikes are "just a pinprick that somehow Bashar Assad can trumpet that he defeated the United States of America." By Sept. 4, Rubio and Paul voted against a Senate Foreign Relations Committee resolution allowing Obama to use limited force against Assad’s regime. (Cruz, who was not on the committee, made it clear he would have opposed the resolution.) It passed by a 10-7 vote and was sent to the Senate. Meanwhile, during a hearing for the House Foreign Affairs Committee on strategy in Syria on Sept. 4, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to dispel notions Obama wasn’t planning an effective response. "The president has said ... this would not be a pinprick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would in fact degrade his capability," Hagel said. Now, Obama’s case wasn’t necessarily helped when then-Secretary of State John Kerry gave the opposite message on Sept. 9, saying during a meeting in Britain that the United States planned an "unbelievably small, limited kind of effort." But the strikes, pinpricks or not, never happened. Facing shaky support in the Senate, Obama asked majority leader Harry Reid to pull the measure. On Sept. 10, Obama said in an address to the nation from the White House that he would postpone a military solution, but was committed to his stance that future intervention was a possibility. "As some members of Congress have said, there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria," Obama said. "Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks." A year later, Rubio voted in favor of arming Syrian rebels, which Paul and Cruz opposed. Our ruling Rubio claimed Obama said an attack on Syria "was going to be a pinprick." In reality, Obama said the exact opposite of that, stating several times that a U.S. military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons on its citizens would involve a significant show of force. While the president’s full strategy was somewhat unclear, at the debate Rubio echoed Obama’s own past statements that the U.S. military was not built for small-scale engagements that could be characterized as "pinpricks." We can pop Rubio’s talking point here. We rate his statement False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/983faff3-e616-4dc9-a8e1-cf4c7cfa21c6	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2015-09-18T11:32:51	2015-09-16	['Syria', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05094	"People who wash cars at home will use approximately 80 percent more water than they do in a car wash."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/jul/01/helio-melo/ri-state-rep-helio-melo-says-washing-car-home-uses/	In the closing hours of the state budget debate last month, as talk on the House floor turned to a new sales tax on select businesses, Rep. Helio Melo, D-East Providence, suggested a reprieve for one targeted retail group. Melo, chairman of the House Finance Committee, advocated exempting the state’s car washes from the 7-percent sales tax increase. With car wash supporters in the gallery holding signs reading "Save Our Jobs," Rep. Karen L. MacBeth, D-Cumberland, wanted to know: "Why car washes? Why not taxis and charter buses?" which were also subject to the tax increase. Melo replied: "We noticed there was an environmental impact to it that was brought to us by environmentalists. People who wash cars at home will use approximately 80 percent more water than they do in a car wash." Ultimately, the car washes won out and were saved from the tax. The taxi and charter bus businesses weren’t so lucky. But we were left wondering: Eighty percent more water used for a driveway wash? Was there a shortage of hose nozzles and two-gallon buckets out there? The statement cried out for a PolitiFact scrubbing. In a phone interview, Melo said the information supporting his statement came from literature he received from the carwash industry, as well as earlier testimony before the House Finance Committee by car wash owners. Daniel E. Paisner, former president of the New England Carwash Association and owner of a ScrubaDub car wash in Warwick, spoke passionately at that March 7, 2012, hearing. In a video Paisner is seen and heard saying that the sales tax increase would "create an environmental concern" if it kept customers away. Car washes "are water conservationists," Paisner said. "At the professional car wash, we recycle water. We’re very, very careful with it. We use about 28 or 30 gallons a car. When you wash your car in the driveway, you can use as much as 140 gallons." (If you accept Paisner’s statement that would mean homeowners use 400 percent more water than a professional car wash.) Further, said Paisner, car washes trap the oil, chemicals and grime that comes off a car, whereas those pollutants drain into storm drains during driveway washes and sometimes flow directly into nearby watersheds. While most research on water use at car washes comes from the industry, regional offices of the federal Environmental Protection Agency have in the last decade honored carwash associations for efforts to curb pollution and conserve water. David A. Nickerson, spokesman for the Providence Water Supply Board, says professional car washes do prevent pollutants from entering waterways and, "It’s generally assumed more water can be saved at a carwash than by doing it yourself." But the numbers of just how much water is used during a home care wash versus a professional job seem, well, fluid. Nickerson says he’s seen industry figures showing a car wash uses between 37 and 40 gallons of water per car, whereas the homeowner will use between 80 and 100 gallons in the driveway. In that scenario, the car wash uses 50 to 60 percent less water. That’s about what the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection says on its website: "the average driveway car wash uses a total of 116 gallons of water! Most commercial car washes use 60 percent less water..." Apparently, the Massachusetts DEP is using industry numbers as its source; its website refers readers to the New England Carwash Association for more information. The website for the ScrubaDub Auto Wash Centers, a chain of New England car washes, boasts that professional car washes use "about 25 gallons" while a driveway wash can use between 60 and 120 gallons. That’s as much as a 400 percent difference. Here at PolitiFact we’re not afraid of using a little elbow grease in search of the truth. And so, rather than rely on the varying findings of published reports, we turned to a dirty midsize pickup in need of its annual bath. First, we filled a bucket with two gallons of water and marked the waterline. Two gallons, plus detergent, seemed more than enough to wash the truck. (Following the father-knows-best principle, we would wash the truck in sections, working top to bottom.) Then we took our hose, set the nozzle on soak and measured how long it took to wet and rinse each section of the truck after each soaping. Total time: 153 seconds (including hubcaps). We took our time, but we didn’t go out of our way to waste water either. Finally we timed how long it took to fill the bucket to the two-gallon mark, making sure to use the same nozzle setting to match the water flow used during the washing. It took 34 seconds. That's 17 seconds per gallon. Dividing 153 seconds by 17 seconds per gallon revealed that we had used 9 gallons of water to wet and rinse the truck. Add the original two gallons in the bucket to soap the pickup, and you have a Dakota Sport that has come clean using just 11 gallons of water. Even if we had taken twice as long to wet and rinse (and used 18 gallons), that's a total of 20 gallons used -- nowhere near the 60 gallons, 80 gallons, 116 gallons, or 140 gallons, that car wash industry representatives claim people can use washing their cars at home. In other words we used half the amount of water a professional car wash might use -- not almost twice as much, as Melo claimed. Our ruling This is a claim that's easy to check with a stopwatch, a bucket of suds, a hose, and that all-important spray nozzle most people use. Professional car washes do provide an environmental service by keeping pollutants out of watersheds. But Melo’s comparison between the water used during a driveway wash versus a professional car wash is all wet. If Melo doesn't believe us, we'd be glad to demonstrate by washing his car. And he can use the water we save to douse his Pants On Fire! (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Helio Melo	None	None	None	2012-07-01T00:01:00	2012-06-07	['None']
-snes-02714	Is a Maine Crematorium Offering Free Cremations?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maine-crematorium-free-cremations/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Is a Maine Crematorium Offering Free Cremations?	29 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09796	"Medicare began as a public option and now holds 97 percent of the market share."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/16/tom-price/medicares-history-public-option/	Rep. Tom Price of Georgia sent a letter to doctors in September 2009 urging them to oppose Democratic initiatives on health reform. "If health care reform is taken down the wrong path, it will end in nothing short of disaster," the three-term Republican wrote. Price, who is an orthopedic surgeon, singled out plans for a public option for the most criticism. "As a fellow doctor, I know you have personally navigated the federal health care system of our first 'public option' — Medicare," Price wrote. "And I know your experience will tell you that government-run programs many times mean restrictive coverage rules, endless bureaucratic delays, and inadequate financing structures. . . . "There will be no turning back, no reversing the government intrusion that Democrats desire," he warned. "Medicare began as a public option and now holds 97 percent of the market share." We were interested in checking whether Medicare began as a public option and whether Price is right about its current market share. To check this, we turned to several books on the history of Medicare and spoke with a couple of experts in the field. It's difficult to concisely summarize decades of health policy and legislative history, but we'll try. Medicare had been discussed by presidents since the 1940s, but its big moment began in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson was elected by a large margin, along with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. Johnson relied on Rep. Wilbur Mills, a conservative Democrat from Arkansas, to craft the legislation and move it through the House Ways and Means Committee. Johnson kept close tabs on the process. There were arguments about what should be in the bill and how it should be paid for. Mills decided to combine the proposals of several factions into one package to maximize support. He started with the administration's proposal to cover hospital services for the elderly, now known as Medicare Part A. He also included a proposal promoted by the committee's senior Republican member, John Byrnes of Wisconsin, who wanted coverage for physicians' services, now Medicare Part B. Finally, Mills included coverage for poor elderly Americans, which is today's Medicaid. The histories of Medicare that we reviewed emphasized that the part of Medicare that covered visits to doctors' offices was voluntary. Here's how an April 8, 1965, report in the New York Time s described the plan: "As revised, the bill provides the basic hospitalization and nursing care benefits originally proposed by the administration while covering major doctor bills and many other medical expenses under a supplementary insurance program in which participation would be voluntary. "The basic benefits, financed by increases in the Social Security payroll tax, would be automatically available to persons over 65. The additional coverage would be available to those over 65 who enrolled in the voluntary plan and paid premiums of $3 a month. Half of the voluntary plan's cost would be financed by federal subsidies of about $600 million a year from general tax revenues." Johnson signed the Medicare law on July 30, 1965, and the program's aministrators began an intensive recruitment drive. At the end of the first year, participation was up to 93 percent of the elderly, according to The Politics of Medicare , a history by Theodore Marmor. Subsequent research indicates that Medicare participation has remained very high among those who qualify for the program, at roughly 97 percent in recent years, according to Medicare: A Policy Primer , a 2005 book by Marilyn Moon. All of this supports Price's statement, with one exception. As we reviewed the history of Medicare, we noticed that legislators and policymakers drafting the legislation seemed to assume that Medicare participation would be very high. We could find nothing implying that Medicare coverage would compete with private insurers in paying for coverage. Marmor, author of The Politics of Medicare , confirmed that perception when we asked him. Marmor witnessed the Medicare negotiations firsthand when he worked as assistant on the drafting of the 1965 legislation. "The voluntary part was a mirage," he said. "They fully expected most people to join, because the terms were so attractive. And that's exactly what happened." This is markedly different from today's debate and discussion about the public option. Obama has said the public option would be one among many insurance proposals from which people could choose, and that it would be a backstop to keep private insurers honest. He also said it should not be subsidized by other tax revenues but pay for itself with customer premiums. A spokesman for Price said the Democrats can say the public option will be limited, but it won't be. "While they claim it's a public option, the end goal is saturation," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Price. We're noting that disagreement for the record. For a fuller explanation of the public option and how it fits into overall reform effort, read our story Health care reform: A simple explanation . But getting back to Price's statement, we find the following: He is right that Medicare was a public plan and its coverage of physicians' services was voluntary, which is another way to say "optional." And its participation rate among eligible seniors is close to 97 percent. But we take a notch off our rating to acknowledge that people disagree about whether the words "public option" today are the same as Medicare's "voluntary" Part B in 1965. It's important to note that the founders of Medicare expected that nearly every senior would be covered by Part B, while the Democrats' "public option" today is envisioned as just one of many options in the health care exchange. We rate Price's statement Mostly True.	None	Tom Price	None	None	None	2009-09-16T14:21:50	2009-09-14	['None']
-hoer-00423	Black Van Child Abduction Alert - Number Plate Ending With 03A	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/black-van-abduction-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Black Van Child Abduction Alert - Number Plate Ending With 03A	8th June 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-09239	"McCollum admitted he didn't think that the subprime mortgage crisis was a big deal, telling reporters he thought that the subprime collapse had been exaggerated by the media and investors and that 'it's not the end of the world.' "	/florida/statements/2010/may/11/florida-democratic-party/florida-dems-bill-mccollum-subprime-mortgage/	Florida Democrats say Attorney General Bill McCollum's recent South Florida Mortgage Fraud Community Forum was little more than a political stunt crafted to help the Republican running for governor. The truth, they say, is that for years McCollum has been negligent when it comes to dealing with the state's mortgage and foreclosure crisis. "Although Bill McCollum holds a 'mortgage fraud forum' in Miami today (May 8), his election-year attention to the foreclosure and mortgage fraud crisis is too little, too late for millions of Florida homeowners," Democratic Party spokesman Eric Jotkoff said in a May 8, 2010 news release. "Florida's families have been dealing with the fallout of misleading loans and irresponsible lenders for years, while Attorney General McCollum has not paid attention to the issue. "Just two years ago McCollum admitted he didn't think that the subprime mortgage crisis was a big deal, telling reporters he thought that the subprime collapse had been exaggerated by the media and investors and that 'it's not the end of the world'." The forum, which was co-hosted with the Florida InterAgency Mortgage Fraud Task Force, a group McCollum established in 2009, was held to help homeowners prevent mortgage fraud and avoid or deal with a foreclosure. McCollum said that "helping Floridians suffering from this severe foreclosure crisis is a top priority," in a posting on Twitter after the event. Florida has ranked first in the nation in mortgage fraud every year since 2006. For this item, we wanted to check the Democratic Party's claim that McCollum said he didn't think the subprime mortgage crisis was a big deal, that it had been exaggerated by the media and said that "it's not the end of the world." A subprime mortgage is a home loan granted to people with poor credit histories or other financial issues that prevent them from qualifying for a conventional mortgage. A subprime mortgage has higher interest rates and represents a bigger risk to lenders. But lenders were liberal in issuing the loans from 2004-2006, largely due to lower interest rates and a booming housing market. When the housing market started to decline along with the economy in 2007, the rate of subprime foreclosures skyrocketed, shaking the entire American financial system. Florida Democrats say McCollum was late to realize the severity of the problem, claiming that he sat in a Nov. 15, 2007, meeting of the Florida Cabinet and declared the crisis mostly a media creation. At that meeting, Cabinet members heard a report that the state investment pool had taken a $2.28 billion hit as a result of the subprime crisis. State Democrats pointed to an account of the meeting published in the Fort Myers News-Press to back up their claim. The last two lines of the News-Press story include the only mention of McCollum: "Attorney General Bill McCollum thinks the subprime collapse has been exaggerated by the media and investors," the News-Press article said, and then quoted McCollum as saying "it's not the end of the world." We couldn't find the quote in any other story. But the state does keep typed transcripts of Cabinet meetings online. We went to the transcript from the Nov. 15 Cabinet meeting to see the context of McCollum's statement. Coleman Stipanovich, the then executive director of the State Board of Administratrion, which oversees the state's investments, ended the Cabinet meeting with a discussion of risk exposures to the state's investment portfolio. He provided the Cabinet with a report, based on a request from Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, identifying risks and the state's monitoring activities due to the collapse of the subprime residential market. As the News-Press reported, Stipanovich said the state's investment pool -- which was then about $188 billion -- had lost about $2.28 billion as a result of the subprime crisis through something called "write-downs." A write-down is when someone reduces the paper value of an asset because it is overvalued when compared to the market value. When he got a chance to speak, McCollum asked Stipanovich to explain the write-downs, which McCollum called downgrades, saying he believed that they were not so much losses as a reflection that the state would be earning less. From the transcript (starting on page 93): McCOLLUM: "What's the meaning of a downgrade in practical terms? If a paper is downgraded, does that mean that we're going to earn less on it? It doesn't mean it's worthless." STIPANOVICH: "No, it's certainly not worthless, but you do have the potential -- and this is why we're trying to work through these issues. You do have the potential of earning less on it. We're optimistic that that's not the case. We have dug down into these holdings and looked at the collateral, and the collateral looks good to us. The collateral, you know, has a very high rating." McCOLLUM: "That's my point. I'm just trying to make a point to anybody observing this out there who might not be as sophisticated in the world of finance that this is not the end of the world. You would rather see us have higher ratings than we have on some of the paper that has been downgraded or some of the holdings, but it doesn't mean that we're going to necessarily lose money because of that." After McCollum's remarks, Stipanovich -- not McCollum -- says the subprime mortgage crisis was being sensationalized by the news media, according to the transcript. "This has been exaggerated. It has been sensationalized, and you're probably going to see more in print that's, you know, going to be sensational possibly," Stipanovich said. Interestingly Sink, a Democrat running for governor, didn't have that different of a take from McCollum when it came to the state investment report. She said that if the state took any losses as a result of the 2007 subprime write-downs, they would be "de minimis," according to the transcript. (De minimis, a Latin word, means of little or no significance, inconsequential.) The transcript differs with the news account in two critical ways. First, McCollum didn't say the subprime mortgage crisis was being sensationalized by the media, that was Stipanovich. McCollum did say however during the meeting that he believed many subprime mortgages were functioning properly. Second, and more important to our analysis, when McCollum said it's "not the end of the world," he was referring to the specific $2.28 billion in write-downs in the state's investment portfolio and not the subprime crisis in general. So Florida Democrats are being incorrect and misleading. They attribute one quote to McCollum that was actually said by Stipanovich. And when they use McCollum's actual words, they quote him out of context. They portray McCollum as a callous state official who belittlies the overall impact of the subprime crisis. But his comment was referring to the impact on the state's investments, not on homeowners. That's a big difference. Pants on Fire!	None	Florida Democratic Party	None	None	None	2010-05-11T10:36:45	2010-05-08	['None']
-pomt-00437	"I want clean air. I want crystal clean water. And we’ve got it. We’ve got the cleanest country in the planet right now."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/23/donald-trump/united-states-not-cleanest-country/	President Donald Trump touted the United States’ environmental health during a speech in coal country. "I want clean air. I want crystal clean water. And we’ve got it. We’ve got the cleanest country in the planet right now," Trump said in an Aug. 21 rally in Charleston, W.Va. "There’s nobody cleaner than us, and it’s getting better and better." Does the United States dominate when it comes to water and air quality? Let’s take a look. The Environmental Performance Index is the go-to source for questions on environmental quality. Yale and Columbia University researchers teamed up with the World Economic Forum in 2018 to compile the data. Using 10 categories, they ranked the United States 27th. On air it ranks 10th and on water, 29th. Among wealthy democracies, the United States ranks toward the bottom, according to Zachary Wendling, principal investigator at the Environmental Performance Index. Switzerland ranked first on the overall index, Barbados ranked first on air quality, and eight European countries tied for first on water. European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan and Japan tend to top the United States in environmental performance. Clean air The air quality ranking is broken up into three parts. On indoor air quality, the United States ranks first. We don’t cook by burning biomass, so that isn’t surprising, Jeffrey Geddes, a Boston University professor who studies air quality, told us. The United States ranks 88th on exposure to particulate matter, which Geddes called "a really good indicator for health effects from air pollution." The scientists used satellites and ground-based measurements to collect the data for 228 countries and territories dating from 2008 to 2015. That predates Trump. In general, however, changes between 2018 scores and the baseline (roughly 10 years earlier) are mixed and small, Wendling said. The Environmental Protection Agency’s own research shows a continued decline in air pollutants from 1990. But experts said Trump’s deregulatory practices may have the opposite effect. "Deregulation of automobile emissions standards will increase air pollution, particularly in dense urban areas," said Elizabeth Albright, an environmental science professor at Duke University. Crystal clean water The United States ranks 29th overall in water quality. In drinking water, it ranks first (alongside nine other countries) and in sanitation, 31st. "For both drinking water and sanitation, the United States is performing okay in absolute terms, with about 3.3 disability-adjusted life-years lost per 100,000 people from risks due to unsafe drinking water, as compared to 6.4 for unsafe sanitation," Wendling said. Wendling said the lower sanitation ranking might be explained by rural populations that rely on septic tanks, but there is enough uncertainty in the data that estimates for high-income countries should be treated with caution. Experts said the United States still had a long ways to go before being ranked cleanest. "Any idea we have the freshest water is entirely laughable," said Ashok Gadgil, an environmental engineering professor at Berkeley University. "The U.S. does a very good job of producing relatively clean drinking water at very low cost, but we fall far short on our investments in water infrastructure investments—that was the case in Flint, and it also is the case in thousands of other water systems around the country," said Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech environmental and water resources engineer. "Some people could argue it is clean enough for the price, but we are not the cleanest." In 2016, 5,363 water systems serving 17.6 million people violated EPA's lead and copper rule, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist non-profit group. The White House did not respond our request for comment. Our ruling Trump said, "I want clean air. I want crystal clean water. And we’ve got it. We’ve got the cleanest country in the planet right now." No ranking places the United States at the top of their list for cleanliness. The United States has ample room to improve on air quality when it comes to other developed democracies. While some cities’ water systems violate domestic environmental standards, the United States overall ties for best when it comes to drinking water. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-08-23T10:12:03	2018-08-21	['None']
-afck-00142	R4.3 billion invested in new car manufacturing plant in Eastern Cape	https://africacheck.org/reports/president-zumas-track-record-7-claims-progress-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	President Zuma’s track record: 7 claims about #progress fact-checked	2017-04-21 06:20	None	['None']
-pomt-08065	Says that "all those who do not answer directly to the president, they've said (repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell) is a terrible idea."	/texas/statements/2010/dec/23/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-those-who-dont-answer-directly-/	Objecting to a proposal repealing the law preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, said he had received hundreds of letters from military personnel vowing not to re-enlist if the change went through. "The hundreds I've heard from, that I didn't bring their quotes down here, have said, you pass this and I will tell you personally, but I will not say it in the presence of my commander, you pass this, I will not re-enlist," Gohmert said on the House floor Dec. 15. "...Because we know what this president, this commander in chief, wants, just as does the secretary of defense, the two people that the president appoints said let's do it, because they know the president appointed, he's their boss, and all those who do not answer directly to the president, they've said this is a terrible idea." The House subsequently voted to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law and the Senate followed suit. President Barack Obama signed the change into law Wednesday. Regardless, was Gohmert correct that the two people the president appointed supported the change in law, but that everyone who doesn't answer to Obama gave the idea thumbs-downs? To our request for back-up evidence, Gohmert sent this statement: "The top officers in the Air Force, Army and Marine Corps have voiced grave concerns with ending the DADT policy during a time of war. Any disruption to our military at a time when our troops are in harm’s way is dangerous and could cost lives. One single life lost to a degradation of combat-unit cohesion on the front lines is one life too many." That sent us scrambling for testimony. To recap: On Feb. 2, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each told the Senate Armed Services Committee he favored dropping the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law put in place in 1993. Mullen testified: "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." According to a Feb. 2 New York Times news article, Mullen was the first sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to support repealing the law, saying it was his belief that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do." According to the Times, Gates "was more cautious, even as he acknowledged that the question was not whether the law would be repealed, but how the Pentagon might best prepare for the change." Next, we turned to news articles on testimony about the change posted online by the American Forces Press Service. On Dec. 3, the joint chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee; Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said he favored repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Adm. Gary Roughhead, chief of naval operations, is quoted saying: "With the exception of the moderate risk associated with projected retention and some Navy irregular warfare specialties, I assess the risk of readiness, effectiveness and cohesion to the Navy to be low. Based on my professional judgment and informed by the inputs of our Navy, I recommend repeal." Gen. George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, is quoted saying he supports repealing the law, but not during wartime. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, and Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps' top officer, also recommended not repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell while the United States is at war. Scorecard? The defense secretary, chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified in favor of repealing the law. So too did the Navy's Roughhead. However, three of the four joint chiefs — the top officers Gohmert refered to in his statement to us — recommended not repealing the law now. According to federal law, members of the joint chiefs of staff are military advisers to the president, with the chairman — Mullen — being the primary adviser. The chairman is appointed by the president, with advice and consent from the Senate. Next, we turned to the results of a nine-month Pentagon study on the effects of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. According to the results, released Nov. 30, the study amounted to one of the largest in the military's history, drawing 115,052 responses to a survey issued to nearly 40,000 active-duty and reserve service members. From the study: "When we asked about how having a service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit's ability to 'work together to get the job done,' 70 percent of service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed or no effect... when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a coworker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent stated that the unit's 'ability to work together' was 'very good,' 'good,' or 'neither good nor poor.'" According to the study, 15 to 20 percent of service members said repeal would have a positive effect, while 30 percent said it would have a negative effect. So, some—not all—military personnel objected to repealing the law, some saying the timing is bad. And not all who don’t answer directly to the president labeled the change a terrible idea. We rate Gohmert's statement False.	None	Louie Gohmert	None	None	None	2010-12-23T06:00:00	2010-12-15	['None']
-para-00127	"Within three years, the Coalition’s NBN will deliver broadband speeds at least five times faster than the current average."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/02/tony-abbott/broadband-speeds-under-coalitions-nbn-do-they-stac/index.html	None	['Budget', 'National Broadband Network', 'Technology']	Tony Abbott	Peter Fray, Flynn Murphy, David Humphries	None	Broadband speeds under the Coalition's NBN: Do their claims stack up?	Tuesday, July 2, 2013 at 4:54 p.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-13953	There are "500 failing schools in North Carolina"	/north-carolina/statements/2016/jun/16/americans-prosperity-north-carolina-chapter/americans-prosperity-exaggerates-number-failing-sc/	In vouching for a law that would allow some struggling public schools to be taken over by charter schools, the state chapter of the conservative group Americans For Prosperity said one in every five North Carolina public schools is failing. "This Achievement School District legislation is a small first step testing one approach to the long-overdue process of improving 500 failing schools in North Carolina," wrote AFP’s North Carolina director, Donald Bryson, on the group’s website. North Carolina has 2,583 public schools, including 148 charter schools. So if Bryson is right about 500 failing schools, that means nearly 20 percent of schools fall into that category. His proposed solution, a relatively new and controversial program called an achievement school district, or ASD, is moving forward in North Carolina. The ASD program was approved by the N.C. House on June 2 (the day after Bryson published his argument) and is now up for a vote in the Senate. The idea is to take a handful of the lowest-performing schools away from their districts and turn them over to charter school operators. Bryson said it’s noteworthy that there are 500 failing schools because such schools "remain broken education communities, systematically failing to teach tens of thousands of students without any path towards meaningful, long-term reform or improved achievement." We wondered if the picture was really so bleak. How many schools are failing? The state has give out school grades since the 2013-14 school year. Last year, 146 schools received Fs. That’s a far cry from 500, so we asked Bryson where his number came from. He said he was actually underestimating it – that there are 547 low-performing schools, according to a state law that defines the term. However, "low-performing" is not the same as "failing" – the law that Bryson cited includes F schools as well as D schools. And as any slacker can tell you, D’s get degrees. For Bryson to count D schools as failing seems to be self-evidently wrong. But that’s not the whole story. The state gave its schools a grading scale that we all would’ve loved to have had ourselves. While a typical grading scale gives any score below 60 an F and then goes up by 10-point intervals, North Carolina uses the following scale to grade its schools: F: 0-39 D: 40-54 C: 55-69 B: 70-84 A: 85-100 The scores are mostly based on how students do on standardized tests, with a small amount of consideration given to whether the schools met their expected student growth goals. Grades for high schools also include factors like graduation rates. If the state used a traditional scale, every D school (and even some C schools) would have instead received an F. That’s a pretty good argument in Bryson’s favor. We decided we needed to talk to an expert on education policy to determine whether the state had a good reason to give itself this scale, or if it was simply protecting its image. Eric Houck is a former public school teacher who now teaches education policy at UNC-Chapel Hill. He said many academics, including himself, don’t really pay attention to school grades – including the question of whether the scale is too generous. The rubric doesn’t give much weight to how much students improved in a given year, Houck said, and instead focuses mostly on raw scores. He said that punishes schools for having students who came to them below grade level and largely ignores how well teachers did getting those students caught up. "The entire grading system is a little suspect in terms of being able to accurately identify what schools are actually failing," he said. Using growth to measure schools The "low-performing" metric that Bryson cited includes all D and F schools that didn’t meet their growth goals, as well as those that met their growth goals. Those that exceeded their growth goals are not considered low-performing. That’s a bit more in line with Houck’s philosophy on how to best judge schools, but it’s still misleading to say all those students are being left behind. By equating "low-performing" with "failing," Bryson’s claim considers a school to be failing if its average student is a D student whose scores are improving as much as the state expects. A reasonable person wouldn’t say that student is failing. He’s below average, but above the threshold for failure and on track for improvement. And nearly half of the schools Bryson is talking about, 225 of them, are in that category. Paying a bit more attention to growth, like Houck suggested, we found that a better estimate of the number of failing schools could range from 80 to 415, depending on how much you trust the state to have given itself a fair grading scale. 80: The number of F schools in 2014-15 that did not meet their expected growth. 146: The number of F schools in 2014-15. 299: The number of low-performing schools that did not meet their expected growth (out of 547 total low-performing schools). 415: The number of schools that scored 59 or below in 2014-15 and thus would’ve received an F on a traditional grading scale, and which also didn’t meet growth goals. Our ruling It’s hard to say exactly how many failing schools are in North Carolina, but we do know there are not 500 like AFP state director Donald Bryson said. He was referring to low-performing schools, but the majority of low-performing schools are D schools – which most people don’t consider failing. We counted failing schools in a number of ways, with the results ranging from 80 to 415 depending on the grading scale used to define what an F is. Any way you slice it there are clearly dozens, and maybe hundreds, of failing schools statewide. Bryson’s statement was overly broad, but it’s not totally wrong. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Americans For Prosperity, North Carolina chapter	None	None	None	2016-06-16T15:30:19	2016-06-01	['None']
-pomt-03097	"Thanks to (Rick) Perry's bad budgeting, the (Texas) highway department has to convert some modern paved state roads back to gravel."	/texas/statements/2013/sep/24/texans-americas-future-pac/texas-governors-bad-budgeting-not-blame-announced-/	A Democratic group reacted to Republican Gov. Rick Perry bringing his move-to-Texas pitch to Maryland by airing an ad on Baltimore radio stations. In the ad from the Texans for America’s Future PAC, two men twang about Texas starting with one reminding listeners of Perry’s "oops" when during a 2011 Republican presidential debate he did not come up with the name of the third agency he intended to eliminate. Perry similarly has forgotten that one in four Texas children "lives in poverty," the fellow says in the ad. In 2011, some 26 percent of the state’s children lived in households with incomes below the federal poverty line, according to a Sept. 12, 2012, Austin American-Statesman news article. In the ad, the second man intones: "And thanks to Perry's bad budgeting, the highway department has to convert some modern paved state roads back to gravel." The Texas Department of Transportation has revealed plans to convert to gravel some paved roads battered by heavy trucks traveling to oil and gas fracking sites. And did this decision result from Perry’s "bad" budgeting? Jeff Rotkoff, Austin spokesman for the group, reminded us by email that as governor, Perry signs lawmaker-advanced state budgets into law. More specifically, Rotkoff said, news accounts show that TxDOT cited finances as a reason to gravel the selected roads. On July 25, 2013, TxDOT’s chief engineer, John Barton, told the agency’s oversight commission that a dozen short farm-to-market road segments, adding up to 83 miles of pavement, were in such poor shape that they were not worth repairing, the Statesman reported in a news article posted online that day. The story said that concurrently, speed limits on the roads would be reduced from a typical 55 mph to 30 mph. The paper quoted Barton as saying TxDOT also planned to post weight limits on an additional 518 miles of roads, some to as low as 20,000 pounds, and restrict vehicles widths to 10 feet or less on an additional 517 miles of road. "We’re at a point where it’s really not safe to have them be asphalt," Barton told the Texas Transportation Commission. A Texas Tribune news story posted that day said that the chosen roads were in four South Texas counties — Live Oak, Dimmit, LaSalle and Zavala — and two West Texas counties — Reeves and Culberson — and that they included a three-mile stretch of frontage road for Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. A month later, though, the agency announced a pause, saying that aside from more than three miles of damaged roads that had already been converted to "high-end gravel," it would enter a two-month review period for the other proposed conversions to see if county governments stepped forward to pay for maintaining the paved roads, the Statesman said in a news story posted online Aug. 29, 2013. Several news accounts said budgetary pressures played into the initial decision to gravel roads. A July 26, 2013, Houston Chronicle news story, for example, quoted Barton as saying: "Our resources are being strained to the point we are having to make difficult decisions." The July Statesman story said that "TxDOT, thanks to more than $20 billion of borrowing, has had a several-year surge of road building, but that bubble of money is due to pop in the next couple of years." The newspaper described TxDOT executive director Phil Wilson as saying that unless lawmakers found new TxDOT funding sources, the agency’s existing level of road contracts, about $6.2 billion this year, would fall to $2.5 billion by the 2015-16 fiscal years and stay there. A Sept. 11, 2013, San Antonio Express-News news article quoted Barton as telling residents at a community meeting about the asphalt-to-gravel plans: "If resources were different, different decisions would be made." The story also quoted Wilson as saying the intent is to repave the roads in the future when funding is available. But none of that news coverage referred to Perry as being to blame for TxDOT’s budget crunch. Perry has long opposed pitches to raise the state’s gas tax, which would generate more money for roads. But he’s also called for money for building and keeping up roads. In his Jan. 29, 2013 State of the State address, Perry urged lawmakers to shift $3.7 billion from the state’s rainy day fund to make one-time investments in road and water projects. Perry also called for ending the diversion of tax revenue from the state’s highway fund, which he said would free up $1.3 billion every two years for road maintenance and construction. Lawmakers later agreed to prevent the diversion of $400 million from the highway fund through 2014-15 and also sent voters a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would shift $1.2 billion a year in "rainy day" funds to building and maintaining roads and acquiring related right-of-ways. By email, TxDOT spokeswoman Veronica Beyer sent figures indicating that during Perry’s governorship, the agency has annually committed at least $3 billion a year to build and maintain highways. More than $9 billion in commitments occurred in the fiscal year running through August 2009, Beyer said. Over all of Perry’s years, she said, expenditures came from the highway fund, bond funds approved by lawmakers and/or voters and federal aid. Beyer said bringing the 83 miles of roads slated for gravel up to highway strength would cost more than $40 million. Separately, we reached Tim Lomax, a senior research engineer at the Texas Transportation Institute, which says it annually works on hundreds of transportation-related research projects. Lomax, who said he has worked on projects for TxDOT, said by phone he doubts budgetary moves by Perry drove the roads-to-gravel decision. Instead, he suggested, TxDOT rationalized that keeping the particular roads paved didn’t make sense. "Those roads are difficult to maintain," Lomax said. "They could keep pouring money into those roads and still struggle to keep them up… The specifics are (that) if this oil and gas development is going to continue; they’re going to have to keep going out there to repair those roads or they’d have to spend a whole bunch of money to keep those roads in good shape… Why would you invest a whole bunch of money in a road to make it solid and then five years from now, it isn’t being used or not being used for what it was designed?" Our ruling The PAC said that thanks to "Perry's bad budgeting, the (Texas) highway department has to convert some modern paved state roads back to gravel." TxDOT indeed cited financial pressures as a reason for not repaving 83 miles of rural roads that it wants to convert to gravel. But we saw no sign of Perry playing more than his role of signing budgets into law. Those actions don’t strike us as sufficient to blame Perry for the gravel plans, which also reflect the agency’s judgment that it doesn’t make sense to repave certain roads only to have them repeatedly buckle under big trucks part and parcel of the fracking boom. Significantly, too, Perry sought billions of dollars in additional road funding from the 2013 Legislature; some funding came through and voters could approve more. While this claim has a pebble of truth, we stripe it as Mostly False. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Texans for America's Future PAC	None	None	None	2013-09-24T15:37:54	2013-09-18	['Texas', 'Rick_Perry']
-afck-00389	“@DA_News municipalities have created 31,000 job opportunities in the past year. #DAdelivers”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-south-africas-democratic-alliance-really-deliver-we-assess-their-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does South Africa’s Democratic Alliance really deliver? We assess their claims	2014-03-25 08:47	None	['None']
-pomt-06422	GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain called Ron Paul’s followers "ignorant."	/georgia/statements/2011/oct/25/ron-paul/paul-herman-cain-called-federal-reserve-critics-ig/	The New Hampshire Republican presidential primary debate gave voters a glimpse into a bitter feud between what some might consider unlikely political foes: Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Atlanta-area businessman Herman Cain. Moderators gave each candidate one chance to pose a single question to any one of his or her opponents. Paul used his turn to attack Cain. The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO "belittled" him and his followers, who want the Federal Reserve to undergo a major audit, Paul said. "You said -- you've used pretty strong terms -- that we were ignorant and that we didn't know what we were doing, and therefore there is no need for an audit anyway because if you had one you're not going to find out everything because everybody knows everything about the Fed," Paul said during the Oct. 11 debate at Dartmouth College. "I did not call you or any of your people ‘ignorant," Cain fired back. "I don't know where that came from." Did too, Paul shot back: "I’ll get it for you." Paul’s supporters rose to the challenge. Within hours after the debate’s end, the Internet swirled with what they said was proof that Cain called them "ignorant." Cain’s denial caught our attention. Did Cain really call Paul and his followers "ignorant"? The Fed is a touchy issue among many Republicans, especially Paul supporters, who think it conducts too much business behind closed doors. Congress created the central bank of the United States to give the nation a more stable financial system, but Paul thinks the Fed brought about the current economic troubles through backroom dealings and bad policy. He wants the organization audited and abolished. Paul and Cain both consider themselves strict Constitutionalists and enemies of big government, but Cain is a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. For Paul supporters, that’s like having a giant bull’s-eye painted on your back. Even before Cain announced his run for president, Paul supporters were dogging him at campaign stops, asking him to back a full audit of the Fed. (Cain’s position on auditing the Federal Reserve is the subject of a separate PolitiFact item.) We contacted Paul’s camp so it could give us its best evidence against Cain, but it didn’t get back to us. In its absence, we sifted through news accounts, news databases, Internet videos and websites where backers posted what they called key evidence of Cain’s name-calling. We found that Cain isn’t shy about his disdain for Paul’s criticisms. He’s not above calling someone ignorant, either. Last month, he said President Barack Obama showed "ignorance of basic economics." But we found no record that Cain ever called Paul or his backers "ignorant." Bloggers and news accounts repeatedly referred to two sources as proof against Cain: his recently released book "This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House" and a 2010 clip from Neal Boortz’s radio show. Cain frequently subbed in for Boortz when he was a talk show host on radio AM 750 and 95.5FM News/Talk WSB Let’s take a look at the book. Near the end of the chapter "The Cain Doctrine," Cain wrote that Paul supporters stretch the truth whenever they attend his appearances and say he does not want an audit of the Federal Reserve. Instead of calling Paul backers "ignorant," Cain wrote this: "I get the same stupid question at almost every one of these events. I know it’s a deliberate strategy. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? " And this: "But I’ve got news for the Paulites: It’s not going to work, because the American people are a lot smarter than they are." Cain did call some people stupid, but not Paul’s supporters: "[T]here are stupid people out there -- the people who are running this country, and I’m worried about them," Cain wrote. Now for Cain’s radio statement, which Paul backers posted online. "I think a lot of people are calling for this audit of the Federal Reserve because they don’t know enough about it," Cain said, according to their online post. "There’s no hidden secrets going on in the Federal Reserve to my knowledge." Once again, Cain did not use the word "ignorant." He did say backers of a Fed audit need to understand the bank better. How do we rule? Cain said plenty of disparaging things about Paul’s backers. He called their questions "stupid." He said Fed audit backers "don’t know enough about it." He said the American people are are "a lot smarter than they are." You could even say that Cain "belittled" Paul’s followers, as the Texan claimed during the debate. But Paul was very specific that one of the "strong terms" Cain used against his backers was the word "ignorant." Paul said he’d produce proof, but neither he nor his supporters have done so. We couldn’t find any, either. Paul earns a False.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2011-10-25T06:00:00	2011-10-11	['Herman_Cain', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-afck-00263	“Blacks living on less than $2 a day fell from 16% to 2.5% since 1996.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/more-claims-of-south-africas-spectacular-transformation-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	More claims of S. Africa’s ‘spectacular transformation’ fact-checked	2015-11-19 11:28	None	['None']
-hoer-00757	Let's Say Thanks Website - Send a Card to a Soldier	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/xerox-say-thanks.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Let's Say Thanks Website - Send a Card to a Soldier	November 2009	None	['None']
-goop-00465	Oprah Making Peace Between Meghan Markle And Dad?	https://www.gossipcop.com/oprah-meghan-markle-dad-thomas/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Oprah Making Peace Between Meghan Markle And Dad?	3:04 pm, August 13, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12394	Deals struck on his first foreign trip as president made and saved "millions of jobs."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/26/donald-trump/did-donald-trumps-trip-create-or-save-millions-job/	In a tweet from his first foreign trip as president, President Donald Trump touted his accomplishments on one of the cornerstones of his presidential campaign -- jobs. Trump traveled to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Brussels and Rome on a mix of business and diplomatic tasks from May 20 to May 27. "Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs," Trump tweeted. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Millions of jobs? That would be a massive shot in the arm for the economy. For a sense of scale, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, has 2.3 million employees; the second-largest, Yum Brands, which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC, has about 500,000. The problem is, the White House has been cagey about exactly where this projection comes from. For starters, Trump’s use of the word "millions" represents a thousand-fold expansion from what Trump had said just days earlier, when he told the audience in a speech in Saudi Arabia: "Yesterday, we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will invest almost $400 billion in our two countries and create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia." Meanwhile, over two days of inquiries to the White House, officials were unable to provide us with full details of the $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, which itself is just a portion of the $400 billion investment package Trump cited in his speech. When the Washington Post Fact Checker asked the White House for details about Trump’s tweet, a White House official responded that Trump was referring to "benefits to trade from the entire trip from Saudi Arabia to the G7" -- that is, including Trump’s meetings with the heads of other advanced industrialized nations in Europe toward the end of the trip. (It’s not clear what trade deals were discussed in the European portion of the trip.) In any case, assuming "millions" of jobs from unspecified investments is not justified, economists say. "There’s not enough information to substantiate his claims on millions of jobs," said Chris Lafakis, senior economist at Moody’s. In the meantime, here’s what we know and don’t know. The arms deal The Defense Security Cooperation Agency issued a news release on May 20 saying that the United States and Saudi Arabia agreed to a $110 billion package on five main areas: border security and counterterrorism, maritime and coastal security, air force modernization, air and missile defense, and cybersecurity and communications upgrades. The release detailed six specific areas, with links to documents that offered a dollar amount. They were: • Munitions and support: $6.8 billion; • Multi-Mission Surface Combatant ships: $11.25 billion; • Ammunition for the Royal Saudi Land Forces: $500 million; • Saudi Abrams Main Battle Tanks and HERCULES Armored Recovery Vehicles: $1.15 billion; • Chinook cargo helicopters: $3.51 billion; • Persistent Threat Detection System Aerostats: $525 million. That totals $23.74 billion, leaving $86 billion from the package unspecified. Using other available data, John Pike, the director of globalsecurity.org, told PolitiFact that he can estimate perhaps $50 billion in arms sales, "most of which was initiated under Obama," he said. Bloomberg calculations Reporters at Bloomberg have written several articles about the deals signed in the Saudi portion of the trip, focusing on agreements outside the $110 billion arms deal. They include: • Agreements signed by Saudi oil company Aramco: $50 billion; • Commitments by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to an infrastructure investment fund with the Blackstone Group. (Blackstone, Bloomberg reported separately, has close ties to the family of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.) $20 billion; • General Electric memorandum of understanding with Saudi Arabia: $15 billion; • Honeywell International memorandum of understanding with Saudi Aramco: $3.6 billion; • McDermott International memorandum of understanding with Saudi Aramco: $2.8 billion; • Jacobs Engineering Group memorandum of understanding: $250 million; • Rowan Companies memorandum of understanding with Saudi Aramco for offshore drilling rigs: $7 billion; • Rowan memorandum of understanding with Saudi Aramco for its supply chain: $1.2 billion; • Nabors Industries memorandum of understanding on well and rig services on an existing joint venture worth $9 billion; • Nabors memorandum of understanding with Saudi Aramco for its supply chain: $1.6 billion; • Weatherford International memorandum of understanding: potential value of $2 billion. That works out to about $112 billion, coming on top of the $110 billion in arms sales. Bloomberg cited a few more items without specific dollar amounts, including a jet purchase from Boeing by SaudiGulf Airlines, and a joint venture between National Oilwell Varco and Saudi Aramco for the manufacture of drilling rigs and equipment. That leaves more than half of Trump’s $400 billion figure -- just for the Saudi leg of the trip -- undisclosed, to say nothing of what deals may have been struck in the European portion of the trip. And for now, the Washington Post reported that several key CEOs of companies that signed deals have been a lot more restrained than Trump about promising specific numbers of jobs. "There is absolutely zero chance that the trip created millions of jobs," said Dean Baker, a liberal economist. Even if jobs were created -- possibly in the thousands, not the millions -- "this may or may not lead to any net job creation, since the Fed could easily offset it with higher interest rates." Our ruling Trump said that deals struck on his first foreign trip as president created and saved "millions of jobs." We can’t know for sure how many jobs will be created or saved -- nor, despite the certainty of his language, does Trump -- but the evidence at this point is so thin and so premature as to be little more than puffery or wishful thinking. We rate the statement False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-05-26T16:17:29	2017-05-26	['None']
-faan-00002	 The Canada Child Benefit has lifted “nearly 300,000 children” out of poverty	http://factscan.ca/esdc-canada-child-benefit/	The number of children lifted out of poverty by the Canada Child Benefit won’t be known until 2019. The government is still relying on the projected impacts of the CCB and not on survey data.	None	ESDC	None	None	None	2018-10-04	gust 20, 2018	['None']
-pomt-00914	"Abortions account for 94 percent of the services provided for pregnant women by Planned Parenthood."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/mar/02/thomas-tobin/ri-bishop-thomas-tobin-says-abortions-make-94-plan/	Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Tobin is an ardent and outspoken abortion opponent. He voiced his opposition recently in the Jan. 22, 2015 edition of The Rhode Island Catholic newspaper in a column entitled "The ‘Throwaway Culture’ Has Arrived at Our Doorstep." In it, he faulted Planned Parenthood as a "destructive, immoral" organization that should not be supported by federal tax dollars. He cited figures to support his position, including that "... Abortions account for 94 percent of the services provided for pregnant women by Planned Parenthood." In the column, Bishop Tobin identified the source of the information as the Susan B. Anthony List, a Washington, D.C.-based organization whose mission is to help elect anti-abortion candidates and pursue policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion. We reached out to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence, which Bishop Tobin leads, to see whether the bishop had additional information to back up his statement. Carolyn E. Cronin, director of communications for the diocese, referred us to a fact sheet put out by the Susan B. Anthony List -- which included the 94-percent figure -- as well as statistics from another anti-abortion organization, Life Issues Institute Inc. Mallory E. Quigley, a spokeswoman for the Susan B. Anthony List, referred us to numbers taken from page 18 of Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 annual report. "There are 3 options/responses to pregnancy for Planned Parenthood," Quigley said in an email. Abortion services: 327,653 Prenatal referrals: 18,684 Adoption Services: 1,880 Quigley said the sum of those three numbers -- 348,217 -- represents "total pregnancy services." She said the total number of abortions -- 327,653 -- is 94 percent of that total. When we contacted Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, which encompasses Rhode Island, Susan Yolen, the vice president for public policy and advocacy, faulted that calculation -- and Bishop Tobin’s conclusion -- as misleading. Planned Parenthood health centers do not compile the pregnancy status of all their female patients, she said. Nor do they tally the number of pregnant women staff refers to outside obstetricians or other health-care providers, she said. In other words, the number of women receiving "pregnancy services" is not simply the sum of those getting abortions or receiving adoption or prenatal services. Other figures on page 18 of Planned Parenthood’s annual report show that the agency conducted 1.1 million pregnancy tests and another 3.7 million tests for sexually transmitted diseases (for both men and women). Presumably, there were pregnant women in each of those groups who aren’t represented in the Susan B. Anthony lists’ tally. It’s also important to note that the number cited by the Susan B. Anthony List for "total pregnancy services" does not appear in the Planned Parenthood report. Eric Ferrero, vice president for communications for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, also rebutted Tobin’s numbers. "This meaningless and false claim is part of a campaign to spread misinformation by a group whose sole purpose is to end access to abortion in America," Ferrero wrote in an email. Ferrero cited figures to support his position. "One in five women in America relies on Planned Parenthood at some point in her life for the full range of reproductive health care," he said. "In 2013, Planned Parenthood health centers provided more than 2 million birth control appointments, 1 million pregnancy tests, and 900,000 cancer screenings." In addition, the agency informed us that in 2013, only 9 of Planned Parenthood’s 64 affiliates provided prenatal services at 45 health centers nationwide. Additionally, 14 health centers provided childbirth classes. In other words, the 18,684 cited by the Susan B. Anthony List as receiving "prenatal referrals" reflect only the numbers from those 45 health centers. We asked the Susan B. Anthony List about Planned Parenthood’s response. "The fact that Planned Parenthood refers pregnant women to ob-gyns and other health care centers just underscores our point that they don’t actually provide care for pregnant women and their babies," Quigley said. "They could track that number if they chose, just like they track adoption referrals. Perhaps they will someday." Quigley is right that Planned Parenthood could track the number of pregnant patients it sees, if it chose. Planned Parenthood told us that its records would not indicate a patient’s pregnancy status unless it was specified as the reason for the visit. Also worth considering is that Planned Parenthood’s numbers are self-reported, as PolitiFact affiliates have noted in previous fact-checks on similar claims. (In 2011, PolitiFact Ohio ruled False on a claim that 32 of every 33 pregnant women who visit Planned Parenthood get abortions. That same year, PolitiFact Florida ruled False on a claim that abortion services are "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does".) Without knowing how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood sees at all its clinics, it is impossible to calculate what percentage abortions make up of the overall services to expectant mothers. But that’s what exactly what the Susan B. Anthony List did, reaching a flawed conclusion. Our ruling Bishop Thomas Tobin said that "... Abortions account for 94 percent of the services provided for pregnant women by Planned Parenthood." He cited as his source the Susan B. Anthony List, which arrived at that percentage using numbers that don’t represent all services provided to pregnant women by Planned Parenthood. Because Planned Parenthood says it doesn’t track that number, we don’t know what percentage of pregnant women seen by the agency receive abortions. But neither does the Susan B. Anthony -- nor Bishop Tobin. We rate his claim False. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Bishop Thomas Tobin	None	None	None	2015-03-02T00:01:00	2015-01-22	['None']
-hoer-01129	Marlboro Ten Free Cigarette Carton Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/marlboro-ten-free-cigarette-carton-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Marlboro Ten Free Cigarette Carton Giveaway Facebook Scam	June 29, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09176	"Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather" instead of terrorism as the biggest threat to national security.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/04/carly-fiorina/fiorina-attacks-boxer-caring-more-about-weather-te/	The latest ad from California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina -- who is running in the Republican primary to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer -- mocks Boxer for saying in 2007 that "one of the very important national security issues frankly is climate change." After playing a clip of Boxer's statement, Fiorina faces the camera and responds, "Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather." No one doubts that Boxer made the comment. But we wanted to check the context of Boxer's remark and see if Fiorina was quoting it accurately. We examined three elements: • How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat? Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA. A Quadrennial Defense Review Report issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world." Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources." So while there is certainly room for disagreement about how big a national security threat climate change will ultimately be, Boxer is hardly advocating a fringe theory. The notion that climate change will be significant is being discussed at the Pentagon and the CIA. • Is it fair to say that Boxer's concern about climate change amounts to being "worried about the weather"? This comment conflates two concepts that people often confuse, but are actually quite different. "Weather" refers to daily variations in sun, precipitation, wind, heat and cold. "Climate," by contrast, refers to typical atmospheric patterns over a much longer time scale. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "climate" as "the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation." A more lighthearted explanation is "climate is what you expect; weather is what you get." We asked 10 experts -- a mix of governmental and academic climate scientists, broadcast meteorologists and climate policy specialists at think tanks -- whether there is a broad consensus among their peers that weather and climate are different concepts. They all agreed that there is. "There is no debate between scientists and meteorologists, as the terms 'weather' and 'climate' are not interchangeable," said Drew Jackson, a former meteorologist with KPTV-TV in Portland, Ore. "Scientists, meteorologists and climatologists fully understand that." The closest that one of our experts came to detecting some justification in Fiorina's conflation of the two fields came in comments by Samuel Thernstrom, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He noted that climate change does cause changes in weather, meaning that Fiorina's statement is "not necessarily inaccurate." But even he added that her phrasing in the ad "is pejorative and arguably misleading," and we agree. • By focusing on the threat of climate change, did Boxer somehow ignore the issue of terrorism? We should begin by noting that Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which gives her a key perch for discussing environmental issues. She's also on the Foreign Relations Committee, but does not sit on either Homeland Security or Armed Services, two panels that more directly address terrorism. In addition, it's not clear to us that having concern over climate change and terrorism are mutually exclusive. Still, we think it's valid to review Boxer's record on terrorism. Critics point to her 2007 vote against a supplemental funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as evidence she is soft on terrorism. Boxer said she voted against it for tactical reasons -- she and some of her fellow Democrats were seeking to tie further war funding to a more explicit troop withdrawal date. The critics also cite her votes against $86 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003, as well as her vote against the use of military force in Iraq in 2002. At the same time, opponents accuse Boxer of being soft on the treatment of terrorism suspects. In 2006, for example, Boxer voted to preserve habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. She also voted in 2006 against extending the wiretapping provision of the PATRIOT Act. On the other hand, Boxer's campaign offers a number of initiatives she's made on terrorism, including: • Leading a bipartisan coalition in 2002 to pass an amendment allowing commercial airline pilots to carry guns in cockpits and providing flight crews self-defense training. She also wrote a law to put more air marshals on high-risk flights, such as the nonstop cross-country flights that were hijacked on Sept. 11. • Voting for President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, which included more than $300 million to strengthen port security, public transportation security and railroad security. It also included $680 million to strengthen border security and $1 billion for airport security. • Cosponsoring of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, to give the president expanded authority to impose new economic penalties on foreign firms involved in the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran. • Voting in 2009 for a war supplemental spending bill proposed by Obama to fund a troop surge in Afghanistan. "I am voting for this bill not because I want the U.S. to remain bogged down in two wars but because I want to give this administration, the Obama Administration, the resources it needs to successfully end the wars starting with the war in Iraq," Boxer said in a floor speech. "Furthermore, I do not support an open-ended commitment of American troops to Afghanistan, and if we do not see measurable progress, we must reconsider our engagement and our strategy there." • Voting in 2007 to implement the 9/11 Commission report. • Supporting a bill to establish a global strategy to defeat al-Qaida in 2008. So to recap, Fiorina is guilty of a major distortion here. Boxer brought up climate change and said it was "one of the very important national security issues," but Fiorina ignores that wording and portrays it as if Boxer cited it as the only priority. In addition, Fiorina casts climate change as something you need to pack an umbrella for, or that prompts you to curse at the TV weatherman -- which strikes us as not only a trivialization of climate change but also a failure to distinguish between two well-established scientific specialties. She also ignores Boxer's lengthy record supporting bills against terrorism. So we have to light up the meter: Pants on Fire!	None	Carly Fiorina	None	None	None	2010-06-04T17:54:16	2010-06-02	['None']
-snes-02484	White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus sent an e-mail to White House staff directing them to address Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as "secretary."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reince-priebus-secretary/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Reince Priebus Told White House Staff to Address Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as ‘Secretary’?	5 May 2017	None	['White_House', 'Jared_Kushner', 'Ivanka_Trump']
-pomt-03496	"RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country."	/rhode-island/statements/2013/jun/09/abel-collins/sierra-clubs-abel-collins-says-rhode-island-public/	Public transportation was one of the topics when Abel Collins, program manager for the Rhode Island chapter of the Sierra Club, was a guest on the June 2 edition of "10 News Conference." Collins, an unsuccessful independent candidate for Congress in the 2nd District in 2012, said one goal of his organization is to cut pollution by getting better funding for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, which operates the state’s bus system. "They're stuck. They have declining revenues and increasing demand. And RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country," he said. "So it's really something that should get more attention and hopefully this is the year that the General Assembly sees fit to give RIPTA sustainable funding for the long term. There's a bill to do that and we've been pushing on it for years." We wondered whether RIPTA does, in fact, have some of the fullest buses around. We called Collins. He said he was told that factoid by Mark Therrien, the authority's assistant general manager for planning. We called Therrien. He said Collins was correct. When we asked for details, he referred us to the Integrated National Transit Database Analysis System (INTDAS) which has national statistics over many years for transit systems throughout the United States. The database will generate a list of comparable transit systems around the country. We did that for RIPTA and decided to focus on the 30 that were closest based on a variety of measures such as size, according to the federal ranking. We also looked at six other systems -- in Eugene, Ore.; Fort Worth, Texas; Jacksonville, Fla.; Memphis, Tenn.; Louisville, Ky.; and Des Moines, Iowa -- that Therrien said were comparable as well. But what to look at? The database, whose most recent statistics were from 2011, doesn't include a direct measurement of how full the buses are. We discovered there were a lot of indirect ways to estimate capacity that gave different rankings. Therrien said we should look at passengers per hour. By that measure, RIPTA ranked 8th out of 37 systems. We also looked at the number of passenger trips divided by the number of vehicles in operation during peak hours. RIPTA ranked 9th by that measure. Meanwhile, we received an e-mail from Albert Gan, a professor with the department of civil and environmental engineering at Florida International University, who developed the INTDAS system. He said the correct method would be to divide the number of passenger miles in a year by the number of miles driven when the buses were picking and dropping off passengers (known as revenue miles). By that measure, RIPTA ranked 13th out of 37. Then we heard back from Therrien's office, which advised us that it was best to look at the number of passenger trips divided by the number of revenue miles. In that instance, RIPTA ranked 10th. Some other systems were pretty crowded using that yardstick. Milwaukee had 24 percent more passengers per bus than Providence; Madison had 34 percent more; Eugene had 39 percent more; and Rochester, N.Y. had 46 percent more. To sum up, Abel Collins said, "RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country." "Some of the fullest" is a little vague, but it implies that Rhode Island is going to be up there in the rankings. RIPTA, asked about the claim, suggested that we look at 11 transit systems. We ultimately analyzed data on more than three times that many, using a federal rating method that listed bus services comparable to Rhode Island's. RIPTA's rankings ranged from 8th to 13th. They varied a bit because there's no standardized way to calculate who has the "fullest" buses. Because there's some uncertainty but the different methods show RIPTA ranking high, we rate Collins' statement Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Abel Collins	None	None	None	2013-06-09T00:01:00	2013-06-02	['None']
-tron-02695	36 Cities Dump U.S. Dollar for Thomas Edison’s Monetary System	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bitcoin/	None	money-financial	None	None	None	36 Cities Dump U.S. Dollar for Thomas Edison’s Monetary System	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03882	Says if Oregon had limited its budget growth to the rate of population growth plus the rate of inflation, the state’s all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today, not $60 billion.	/oregon/statements/2013/mar/06/doug-whitsett/would-oregons-budget-be-dramatically-smaller-if-pe/	Fiscally conservative members of the Oregon Legislature never much like the size of the state’s budget. But once something is funded, it’s never easy to muster the political willpower to take the cash away. In a recent opinion piece for The Oregonian, Sen. Doug Whitsett, a Republican from Klamath Falls, offered a creative solution: Peg state spending to population growth and inflation. "Oregon desperately needs to establish a constitutional limit on the growth of state spending," he wrote. He maintains that the $60 billion all-funds budget is growing out of control. Whitsett noted that the state’s Legislative Fiscal Office, which keeps a close eye on the budget, had illustrated "for purpose of comparisons" what Oregon’s all-funds budget would look like today if his proposal had been implemented 20 years ago. "Oregon spent about $20 billion in all-funds budgets 20 years ago," he wrote. "With this spending limit in place, the state’s all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today." That’s a nearly $33 billion difference. A huge amount of money for a state like Oregon. So huge, in fact, that PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know whether Whitsett was right. We spoke with Whitsett, who said that he’d gotten this statistic from a presentation that the fiscal office had given at the beginning of the current legislative session. So we called Ken Rocco, the office’s director, and asked him if he remembered this. Rocco got back to us via e-mail. He offered two pieces of caution. First: There was no reason in particular that his office chose the budget from 20 years ago to use for their projection. Second: The data the senator had referred to in his opinion piece hadn’t been calculated accurately. "In looking at this chart, the data presented claimed it was inflating the 1991-93 base year by both inflation and population growth, but when I looked more closely at the data today, it was actually only for inflation." In fact, he noted, if the calculations been done right, the actual 2011-13 budget -- pegged to population growth and inflation -- would be about $36 billion. "This was not the Senator’s mistake, but LFO’s," Rocco noted. Nevertheless, the point Whitsett was trying to make -- that spending growth has happened beyond just normal population growth -- remains true, Rocco said. "There are a number of other drivers to budget growth than simply inflation and population increases, such as specific caseload growth, additional mandate programs that require funding, etc." Let us point out here that the all-funds budget is just that -- all funds. It includes not only the general fund, which lawmakers can allocate however they choose, but also federal money, bond revenue, gas taxes, fees -- in short, a whole lot of money dedicated for specific purposes. Now, allow us to offer up a slight tangent. Whitsett’s idea is not entirely new. Back in 2006, Measure 48 was put on the Oregon ballot. That measure would have limited any increase in state spending to population growth and inflation increases. It turned out, this had nothing to do with what Whitsett was writing about, but we bring it up because it illustrates an important point: Measure 48 didn’t apply to things like federal funds. That’s huge given that nearly a fourth of the state budget comes from federal funds. For instance, about $15 billion of the upcoming all-funds budget comes from federal sources -- that’s about a quarter of the total. Twenty years ago, federal funds only accounted for about 15 percent of the total. If you were to play by Measure 48’s rules and add that chunk of change to the $36 billion that the fiscal office projected, you’d get an all-funds budget closer to $42 billion. That, of course would still mean about $18 billion in less budget growth over 20 years. That is no small thing -- but it’s still a lot closer to the current all-funds budget than the initial $27 billion Whitsett mentioned. Whitsett also pointed out, during an interview, that it would be a mistake to assume the federal government will keep providing a quarter of the state’s all-funds budget. "At some point in time that has to reverse … the current sequester might be a part of that." Whitsett said that if we had curbed budget growth 20 years ago by pegging it to population growth and inflation, our budget would be about $27 billion today instead of $60 billion. He was referring to an inaccurate calculation made by a typically unimpeachable source. The figure is actually closer to $36 billion. We won’t hold their error against Whitsett, but we do think it’s important to note that, if federal funds are a concern at all, our budget wouldn’t be quite as slight as Whitsett predicted. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Doug Whitsett	None	None	None	2013-03-06T16:43:31	2013-02-18	['Oregon']
-hoer-00435	Baby Shot With Brad Nailer Prayer Request	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/baby-shot-nailgun-prayer-request.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Baby Shot With Brad Nailer Prayer Request	15th October 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-13017	Says actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson wore a T-shirt stating: "We Stand for the flag, we kneel for the fallen."	/texas/statements/2016/dec/07/sid-miller/sid-miller-posts-manipulated-photo-the-rock-facebo/	Sid Miller, the Texas agriculture commissioner perhaps destined to join President-elect Donald Trump’s administration, has a prolific social media presence. The politician regularly posts memes, photos and his reactions to daily news, at times critical of reporting and often without attribution. His "Miller for Texas" Facebook fan page has more than 330,000 likes. On Nov. 27, 2016, Miller posted a fresh unattributed photo, this time of the muscled actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, shown wearing a T-shirt with a message Miller endorsed. Johnson’s shirt read: "We stand for the flag, we kneel for the fallen," along with this Miller caption: "Thanks to Dewayne Johnson AKA "The Rock" for standing up and defending our flag. There are a few good guys left in Hollywood and The Rock is one of them." As of early December 2016, Miller’s Johnson post had drawn 3,500 reactions, 1,092 shares and 111 comments, all supportive, some praising Johnson for being a "stand up guy" who’s "not ashamed to admit" his love for country, or telling Johnson "he is The Rock for a reason." Is photo real? But when we saw the photo presentation, it looked to us like the unsourced photo’s shirt text had alignment problems. Also, the text on the T-shirt looked skewed and a smudge next to Johnson’s right arm looked as if there might have been additional removed text or imagery. We knew too that Miller had previously posted a photo lacking accuracy. In March 2016, we found "Pants on Fire" what turned out to be Miller’s Facebook post of a fake image of Barack Obama holding a T-shirt with Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara’s face on it. Separately, the Texas Tribune in December 2016 compiled what its story described as 10 Miller posts of "demonstrably false, misleading or unsupported information." A reverse image search We started our review of the Johnson photo posted by Miller by conducting a reverse Google image search of it. Such a search enables anyone to pull up similar images across the web, demonstrating if other versions have been posted in digital spaces. If multiple versions of a photo exist online, a reverse Google image search can show some of the different iterations. What came back from our search: The same T-shirt and Johnson pose with other slogans displayed, such as "Only elephants should wear ivory" or "Still here, still strong, Native Pride." Additional results showed Johnson standing in a blank V-neck T-shirt, without any text. And among those, one photo came from the cover of the August 2013 issue of Essence Magazine; that photo shows Johnson wearing a similarly fitting navy blue V-neck T-shirt, without any text on the shirt. Then again, Johnson holds a different pose and presents a different facial expression. Other results--on websites such as Pinterest and Mid-day.com, an Indian news and lifestyle website--showed what looked to us like a blank T-shirt version of the Miller-posted photo. Miller spokesman calls inquiry 'silly' So, what gives? We turned to a Miller campaign spokesman, Todd Smith, to find out where Miller picked up his Facebook-posted photo. Smith said he personally "had no clue" and said ours was a "silly, silly inquiry." He said the message of the T-shirt is what counts. When asked what his comment would be if the photo itself was fake, he said he hadn’t heard complaints from Johnson. Johnson representative says Miller photo 'photoshopped' Next, we endeavored to reach someone familiar with Johnson’s photo history. After calling Johnson’s public relations team, we heard from Britt Johnson with the Garcia Companies, who identifies herself as a social media spokesperson for Johnson. Britt Johnson said by email: "While I can't recall where that photo was taken, I can say with confidence that the image/shirt" shared by Miller "was photoshopped." Forensic photography expert Separately, a web search led us to a forensic photography expert at the Forensic and National Security Sciences Institute at Syracuse University. By email, Cathryn Lahm responded that what she looked at after downloading a copy of the photo we’d shared from Miller’s Facebook post and viewing the photo in her software program, "the T-shirt The Rock is wearing is most likely ‘plain’ and the graphics were placed on the photo -- made to look -- like it was actually on his shirt," referring to the pro-flag message. She said the artist likely applied the graphic design onto an existing image, so Johnson would look like he was wearing the presented T-shirt. "The original image was shot at some press event -- I think -- based on the ‘hot flash shadows’ as if he is walking the red carpet for some opening of a movie or an event," Lahm said. If she "had to go to court" about the authenticity of the Miller-posted photo, Lahm said, she would call the image a fake. Our ruling Miller posted a photo of "The Rock" wearing a T-shirt with a message calling for people to "stand for the flag and kneel for the fallen." That image, we found, was a product of photo manipulation. It looks to us like Johnson actually posed in a plain shirt without any message. We rate this photo post False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/78c817db-edb5-41bd-9b0f-73dfd49857bd	None	Sid Miller	None	None	None	2016-12-07T11:00:00	2016-11-27	['None']
-pomt-06224	U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz "has blamed the Republicans for the creation of Hamas."	/florida/statements/2011/dec/05/karen-harrington/gop-challenger-says-debbie-wasserman-schultz-blame/	Republican Karen Harrington is making her second attempt at unseating U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston -- and she is going after one of the incumbent's bases -- the Jewish vote in a district with a significant Jewish population. Harrington, a Catholic who lost to Wasserman Schultz by about 22 percentage points in 2010 and is now running in a GOP primary, wants to define herself as the candidate who is the stronger supporter of Israel. Harrington talked up her support of Israel and her Jewish voter outreach in this Nov. 12, 2011, interview with a conservative blogger at BlogCon -- a gathering of bloggers held in Denver and hosted by FreedomWorks, a conservative organization. When the blogger talked about "the president's failed stance on Israel," and called Obama an "antagonist" to Israel, Harrington responded: "Debbie's latest thing as well as her lack of support for Israel -- is 'cause she has to stand by this president -- she also has blamed the Republicans for the creation of Hamas -- that's been her latest thing. This president asked them to stop building in the settlements, asked them to return to the '67 borders and just the other day was caught with (French President Nicolas) Sarkozy saying negative things about Israel. This is a country and a nation that needs to stand by Israel as our history has shown us to. And Debbie supports this president and his policies, and you are right -- Israel has become more endangered over there because of our approach and lack of strong support of Israel." That's a whole lot of claims about Wasserman Schultz and Obama rolled into one paragraph (read about the Sarkozy-Obama conversation about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu here). But we wanted to know: Has Wasserman Schultz blamed the Republicans for creating Hamas? What Wasserman Schultz actually said about Hamas Harrington's campaign sent us a link to the Shark Tank, a conservative blog, that posted this Oct. 31, 2011, video of Wasserman Schultz from a town hall in Pembroke Pines under the headline "Wasserman Schultz blames Bush for Hamas' rise to power." The gathering was part of a string of meetings the Jewish congresswoman and Democratic National Committee chair held in South Florida in an attempt to shore up Obama's Jewish support and portray him as a strong ally of Israel. The Shark Tank video shows just a clip, and we'll start from the relevant part where Wasserman Schultz talks about keeping tabs on the Arab Spring countries: "We are very, very watchful. We are sticking to them like glue. All of those countries that have gone through the Arab Spring to make sure that the forces that would be interested in ... changing their nations' aggression or lack of aggression toward Israel are held at bay and that we give support to allowing these nascent democracies to begin to survive. And we have to be careful. Here is the thing about democracy. You kind of never know what you are going to get. We have to be careful with be careful what you wish for scenarios. Remember when President Bush pushed for democracy in Gaza and the West Bank, and we got Hamas in charge of Gaza, and you know there was a massive rift and the rise of Hamas is thanks to 'democracy.' So making sure that we keep a close watch and close communications with those countries and help them through the development of those nascent democracies is going to be critical for us in helping to make sure Israel remains strong and isn't overwhelmed." Wasserman Schultz was making a point about the potential perils of democracy and using a Hamas victory, after President George W. Bush promoted democracy, as an example. Harrington used a sliver of that statement to claim that what Wasserman Schultz did was "blame the Republicans for the creation of Hamas." But before we pick apart Harrington's and Wasserman Schultz's words, let's review some history about Hamas. Origins of Hamas Hamas is the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement, according to this background information about Hamas we pulled directly from The Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think tank: "Hamas grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious and political organization founded in Egypt with branches throughout the Arab world. Beginning in the late 1960s, Hamas' founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, preached and did charitable work in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, both of which were occupied by Israel following the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1973, Yassin established al-Mujamma' al-Islami (the Islamic Center) to coordinate the Muslim Brotherhood's political activities in Gaza. Yassin founded Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood's local political arm in December 1987, following the eruption of the first intifada, a Palestinian uprising against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas published its official charter in 1988, moving decidedly away from the Muslim Brotherhood's ethos of nonviolence." The Council on Foreign Relations also provided this information about Hamas: "In January 2006, the group won the Palestinian Authority's (PA) general legislative elections, defeating Fatah, the party of the PA's president, Mahmoud Abbas, and setting the stage for a power struggle. Since attaining power, Hamas has continued its refusal to recognize the state of Israel, leading to crippling economic sanctions. Historically, Hamas has sponsored an extensive social service network. The group has also operated a terrorist wing, carrying out suicide bombings and attacks using mortars and short-range rockets. Hamas has launched attacks both in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and inside the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel. In Arabic, the word 'hamas' means zeal. But it's also an Arabic acronym for 'Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya,' or Islamic Resistance Movement." Hamas under President Bush We're fact-checking Harrington here, but since she cites Wasserman Schultz's comments about Hamas under President Bush, we sent both candidates' statements to experts on the Middle East including Aaron Miller, a former adviser to six Secretaries of State on Arab-Israeli negotiations, 1978-2003, who now works at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, and Elliott Abrams, who was the deputy national security adviser handling Middle East affairs in the George W. Bush administration and now works at the Council on Foreign Relations. Bush called for the Palestinians to hold elections in a 2002 speech: "My vision is two states, living side by side, in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror. Yet at this critical moment, if all parties will break with the past and set out on a new path, we can overcome the darkness with the light of hope. Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror." And in his second inaugural address in January 2005, Bush also spoke about supporting "the growth of Democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." Bush was warned that Hamas could win. In January 2006, Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Parliament beating the governing Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Washington Post wrote that the "election results stunned U.S. and Israeli officials, who have repeatedly stated that they would not work with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas, which both countries and the European Union have designated as a terrorist organization." Bush defended his efforts to promote democracy despite the outcome. (Liz Cheney, who served in the state department under Bush and is the daughter of Bush's vice president Dick Cheney, later said that Bush made a mistake.) The election that Hamas won was in February 2006, and Hamas took over Gaza by military coup in June 2007, Abrams said in an e-mail. "So we did not 'get Hamas in charge of Gaza' due to the 2006 election," Abrams wrote. "The rise of Islamist movements is global, from Pakistan to Nigeria to Tunisia, and is not the result of 'democracy.' Palestinian politics is no exception, and Hamas had been growing in strength for many years before 2006. The most one can say is that the 2006 election allowed Hamas to demonstrate the support it had, just as elections in Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco appear to be showing that Islamist groups have considerable support there, too. The rise of Hamas can’t be explained by any one cause but certainly reflects distaste for the corruption of the rival Fatah Party, greater religiosity, and support for violence against Israel." This Vanity Fair article takes a critical look at the Bush administration's role -- including Abrams -- in pushing for elections. It's possible to argue that Bush may have misjudged the results of the election, but he isn't to blame for Hamas' victory, Miller said in an interview with PolitiFact Florida. "Whenever you have fair and free elections anywhere in the Arab and Muslim world the Islamic parties are going to do extremely well -- they are the most organized, disciplined and their messaging and control is really on the money. ... The question is do you blame the Bush administration for the rise of Hamas? The answer is no. You could criticize the Bush administration for pressing for elections when they didn't realize what the outcome would be, but you cannot blame the Bush administration for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamists in Gaza. That rise is attributed to Fatah's corruption, Hamas' discipline, the existence of the Israeli occupation. There are so many forces that would be standing in line before President Bush to take responsibility for that." Wasserman Schultz's words Words matter in every PolitiFact ruling, but especially in this one. Harrington said Wasserman Schultz "has blamed the Republicans for the creation of Hamas." But read Wasserman Schultz's comments again: "Here is the thing about democracy," she said. "You kind of never know what you are going to get. We have to be careful with be careful what you wish for scenarios. Remember when President Bush pushed for democracy in Gaza and the West Bank and we got Hamas in charge of Gaza and you know there was a massive rift, and the rise of Hamas is thanks to 'democracy.' " She's not saying Bush or Republicans created Hamas. She's saying that there can be a downside to pushing for democracy in that when you advocate for change, you can't control what that change ultimately looks like. Jonathan Beeton, Wasserman Schultz's office spokesman, explains in an interview: "That was a broader conversation about the Arab Spring and democracy. In a democratic election, in a situation like that, you can end up with electing people who might not be favorable to Israel or America. ... It was elections pushed for by the Bush administration that ultimately did bring Hamas into a more formal leadership control over Gaza." Our ruling Harrington said Wasserman Schultz "has blamed the Republicans for the creation of Hamas." Harrington didn't explain what she meant during the interview, but her campaign points to a statement Wasserman Schultz made about democracy in the Middle East. Only, Wasserman Schultz didn't blame the Republicans or President George W. Bush for the "creation" of Hamas, although she did suggest that Bush's push for democracy led to Hamas taking charge of Gaza. We are fact-checking Harrington's words here and she has misquoted Wasserman Schultz -- blaming Republicans for the creation of Hamas is different than blaming a Republican administration for promoting democracy and then charging that that led to Hamas being in charge of Gaza. When Wasserman Schultz said "the rise of Hamas thanks to 'democracy' " she isn't talking about the original birth of Hamas -- she is talking about their increased role in Gaza. We rate this claim False.	None	Karen Harrington	None	None	None	2011-12-05T16:06:30	2011-11-12	['United_States', 'Debbie_Wasserman_Schultz', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-03813	Kentucky police shot a white coal miner after mistaking him for a black man.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-shoot-coal-miner/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Police Shoot a White Coal Miner, Thinking He Was Black?	13 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04603	"Seven times Obama could have stopped China's cheating. Seven times, he refused."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/19/mitt-romney/romney-ad-accuses-obama-refusing-seven-times-stop-/	A campaign ad for Mitt Romney accuses President Barack Obama of failing to confront China to protect American manufacturing jobs. "Under Obama, we've lost over half a million manufacturing jobs," the narrator says. "And for the first time, China is beating us. Seven times Obama could have stopped China's cheating. Seven times, he refused." We’ve looked before at claims about manufacturing job losses and gains under Obama, finding it True that the United States has created over half a million manufacturing jobs in the last two and a half years. (That’s right — the country’s actually gaining now, though not yet by enough to replace the drop in Obama’s early months.) But Democrats have overstepped when they claimed we’ve added " millions of jobs in manufacturing." Still, Romney’s pushed for a harder stance on Chinese trade, while portraying Obama as weak. For this fact-check, we’re examining whether "seven times Obama could have stopped China’s cheating" and "seven times, he refused." What happened ‘seven times’? The Romney campaign posted a news release Sept. 17, 2012, explaining its reasoning. It says that under Obama, the U.S. Treasury Department has refused seven times to label China as a "currency manipulator." A little background: Twice a year, the Treasury Department must report to Congress on "the currency practices of America's major trading partners." If it tells Congress that a country has engaged in manipulating its currency — say, keeping the value of its currency artificially low to boost its exports, as China’s been known to do — that triggers a process to start "expedited" negotiations with the country, perhaps drawing in the International Monetary Fund. The legal designation also prompts Congress to take action to punish the offender. Slapping China with the label has support from some think tanks, unions, businesses and members of Congress, who urged President George W. Bush and Obama to take the step. Candidate Obama, in fact, pushed for a tougher stance. The number of times his administration declined to name China a currency manipulator "is a check on whether Obama administration trade policy has succeeded by the light of his own 2008 promises. It has not," said Philip Levy, a Romney supporter who teaches global economics at the Darden School of Business at University of Virginia. (We rated an Obama promise to urge China to stop manipulation of its currency value a Compromise.) But a "currency manipulator" label isn’t the only way to take China to task for its trade practices. Nor does it automatically stop China’s cheating, as Romney put it. The last time Treasury cited China as a currency manipulator was in 1994. Negotiations afterward didn’t produce any major results. Since then, U.S. presidents have argued for a more diplomatic approach. Bush’s Treasury Department, for example, didn’t call China a currency manipulator, but encouraged the country’s membership in the World Trade Organization. It joined in 2001. As a WTO member, China must play by the rules or face trade cases filed by other member countries. The value of China’s currency, the renminbi, started to rise in 2005 as it worked to bring its policies into line with international trade rules. That rise has stalled in recent years as China grappled with international financial uncertainty. And that’s renewed calls for the "currency manipulator" label. "The administration continues to let China get away with flouting trade rules just for the sake of diplomacy," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, said in a statement reported by The Hill in May 2012. "Calling out China as a manipulator may be awkward, but it is time to take off the kid glove." Different measures Experts told us that while Romney’s campaign is right that Obama hasn’t labeled China a currency manipulator, that’s not the same thing as failing to pressure China over its trade practices. "The criterion the Romney campaign is using to judge Obama's China trade policy is ridiculously narrow," said Paul Blustein, a trade expert with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "... I'm by no means a big fan of the Obama administration's trade policy toward China, but I think it's absurd to make it sound as if the administration has been somehow ignoring unfair trade practices by the Chinese." Obama’s administration has filed trade cases with the WTO over issues such as auto parts and flat-rolled electrical steel, and plans more. It also pursued remedies through the U.S. International Trade Commission and created an Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. The Bush Administration brought seven WTO cases over two terms. The Obama administration has already filed seven. (That’s prompted Obama’s campaign staff to say the administration has brought trade cases "at nearly twice the rate" as Bush did, something we’ve found just Half True because of the timing of China’s WTO membership.) Meanwhile, the Obama team has "urged China" to let its currency gain value vs. the dollar in periodic talks, said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow for the Peterson Institute for International Economics who writes about U.S.-China trade and worked in the Carter and Ford administrations. "I would characterize Obama's economic policy towards China as 'case-by-case' litigation and diplomacy," he said. "By contrast, Romney urges a broader brush, more strategic confrontation." Our ruling A Romney campaign ad claims that "seven times Obama could have stopped China's cheating. Seven times, he refused." It’s true that the Obama administration passed up seven opportunities to label China a currency manipulator, something it’s been encouraged to do by some members of Congress, unions and businesses. But that designation in 1994 and earlier didn’t stop the kind of "cheating" Romney’s talking about. Meanwhile, the ad makes it sound as though Obama "refused" to take on China over unfair trade practices. The administration hasn’t done as much as some on the right and left have demanded, but among other things it has filed seven trade cases with the WTO — with more coming — and engaged in diplomatic talks. The claim is partially accurate, but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-09-19T17:47:09	2012-09-13	['China', 'Barack_Obama']
-hoer-00578	You Should Update Your Kindle Before March 22nd	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/true-you-should-update-your-kindle-before-march-22nd/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	TRUE You Should Update Your Kindle Before March 22nd	March 12, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-03055	Shutdowns are "a normal part of the constitutional process," with 12 shutdowns under Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill and two during his own speakership.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/04/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-late-speaker-tip-oneill-served-/	Newt Gingrich knows a thing or two about government shutdowns. When he was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995 and 1996, the Georgia Republican was involved in two of them. In fact, they were the most recent examples of a federal government-wide closure before the one we’re experiencing right now. On a recent edition of CNN’s Crossfire, where Gingrich is now one of the hosts, he drew on this experience to put the current shutdown into historical context. "Tonight there is an amazing amount of hysteria and vitriol over what is a normal part of the constitutional process," Gingrich said during the Sept. 30, 2013, edition of the show. "The government shut down 12 times under Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill. It was only shut down twice while I was speaker." The U.S. government was shut down 12 times when O’Neill was speaker and Ronald Reagan was president? We didn’t remember that. On the other hand, we did remember shutdowns under Gingrich, and we wouldn’t classify them as a "normal part of the constitutional process." We decided to investigate. The numbers What causes a shutdown is fairly simple: It happens when appropriations bills expire, and Congress and the president can’t agree on new ones. Shutdowns have a constitutional basis, from Article I, Section 9, which says, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." This has been reinforced by the Antideficiency Act, which stems from an 1870 law that has been revised periodically over the years. The act provides exceptions only for "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." We found a list of recent shutdowns, from 1976 to right before the current shutdown, in a report from the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of Congress. Gingrich was right on the numbers: O’Neill, a Massachusetts Democrat, served as speaker from January 1977 to January 1987. Twelve of the 17 shutdowns happened during his speakership. Two others came during Gingrich’s tenure. (One each occurred under Speakers Carl Albert, Jim Wright and Tom Foley.) Still, we found a lot of context that was at odds with Gingrich’s implication that all of those shutdowns were similar, or that they were a "normal" part of governance. A fair comparison? Gingrich equated the shutdowns under O’Neill with those during his own tenure. But we found the nature of shutdowns and the reasons they happened have changed significantly since the 1980s. Here’s why: • Five of the 12 cases under O’Neill didn’t result in genuine shutdowns. Five of the shutdowns that happened under O’Neill happened before 1980, when new legal opinions changed how shutdowns happened. Prior to 1980, many federal agencies continued to operate during funding gaps, assuming that money would be restored soon and that Congress didn’t intend for them to close down. But in 1980 and 1981, then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued two opinions that required agency heads to suspend operations until funding began to flow again. The only activities that could go forward, Civiletti wrote, were those where there is a connection "between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property," or where otherwise "authorized by law." So right off the bat, it’s not really accurate to equate the first five episodes under O’Neill to either of the Gingrich-era shutdowns, or, for that matter, to the current one. The first five shutdowns under O’Neill were hardly apocalyptic events in which hundreds of thousands of federal workers were forced to stay home. By contrast, in the second and longer of the shutdowns under Gingrich, roughly 280,000 executive branch employees were furloughed, government contractors were laid off and government services were delayed, CRS noted. • The remaining seven shutdowns under O'Neill were much shorter than either of those under Gingrich. Of the seven O’Neill-era shutdowns after the Civiletti memos, the longest lasted three days, and the total duration for all of them was 13 days. That’s half the cumulative length of the two Gingrich shutdowns, which lasted 26 days. In addition, three of those happened primarily on weekends, further minimizing their impact. A one-day shutdown in October 1982, the Washington Post recently noted, stemmed from a particularly innocuous reason: Congress delayed a session because President Reagan had invited lawmakers to a White House barbecue, and Democrats were holding a $1,000-a-plate fundraising dinner. The funding question was resolved the next day. • The seven later shutdowns during the O’Neill era involved a lot of horse-trading on fairly mundane issues, not stark, ideological warfare. The Gingrich-era shutdown was led by small-government Republicans who wanted to aggressively cut back the scope of government. The current one was sparked by the imminent implementation of the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement. By contrast, the seven later shutdowns under O’Neill seemed to be dominated by more run-of-the-mill budgetary horse-trading. The sticking points in these shutdowns included a grab bag of comparatively parochial issues -- raises for senior civil servants; adjustments in aid to Israel, Egypt, Syria and El Salvador; a ban on oil and gas leasing in federal animal refuges; water-development projects; civil-rights standards for universities; the percentage of U.S.-made goods and labor required in offshore oil rigs; and the sale of the freight railroad Conrail. What the experts say Donald Wolfensberger, a former Republican staff director of the House Rules Committee, said Gingrich has a point. "It's not the duration that matters so much as the disruption, inconvenience and appearance of dysfunction from closing government doors and shooing federal workers away from their jobs," said Wolfensberger, a congressional scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Bipartisan Policy Center. Other experts we checked with found fault with Gingrich’s comparison, however. While his numbers were correct, the differences in the reach of the shutdowns and their duration make it "an apples and oranges comparison," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Roy T. Meyers, a political scientist at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County, agreed that Gingrich’s "facts are correct, but his implication is not." Several of our experts also cast doubt on whether any of the shutdowns were a normal part of the constitutional process. Meyers said that "the normal situation throughout our history has been for agencies to be funded through appropriations bills, not closed because the lack of such bills. It is hard to imagine how the preamble's charge to ‘promote the general welfare’ is met by this shutdown; it was not met by the Gingrich-era shutdowns." Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed. "What we have had is 17-year hiatus from the breakdown of the constitutional process and shutdowns," he said. Now, he said, the breakdown is back. Our rating Gingrich said shutdowns are "a normal part of the constitutional process," with 12 shutdowns under Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill and two during his own speakership. He's right on the number, but the shutdowns under O'Neill were quite different in nature than either of the ones under Gingrich, or the current one. It’s also dubious to suggest that shutdowns are part of the normal constitutional process. Just because they have been relatively common doesn’t mean they are the way the founders intended government to operate. We rate Gingrich’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9b23fd78-e6c8-47ed-a6b3-1ac9bdf33e60	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2013-10-04T11:26:03	2013-09-30	['None']
-pomt-13506	"Under Pat McCrory, (North Carolina) has fallen to 41st in teacher pay."	/north-carolina/statements/2016/sep/02/roy-cooper/roy-cooper-falsely-says-north-carolina-teacher-pay/	In his new ad, Democratic candidate for N.C. governor Roy Cooper focuses on a teacher who says she had to leave North Carolina to find a better-paying job in another state. The ad says Gov. Pat McCrory, the Republican incumbent whom Cooper is trying to unseat, proposed a budget for this school year that would’ve had the smallest percentage of state funding going toward education in 30 years. We rated that claim Half True in a previous fact check. But another Cooper claim caught our eye: The one he used to promote the ad online. "Under Pat McCrory, our state has fallen to 41st in teacher pay," Cooper tweeted along with a video of the ad. "We must fix this." He said the same thing on Facebook, also adding in a jab accusing Republicans of "election year gimmicks." But we wondered if it was actually Cooper who was using an election year gimmick here. Who pays teachers? First, a refresher on teacher pay. It doesn’t come entirely from the state government. School boards are allowed to supplement local teachers’ salaries, and all but a handful of North Carolina’s 115 school districts choose to do so. Depending on the district in North Carolina, teachers can get a few hundred dollars a year or more than $6,000. So it’s hard to attribute all of the responsibility for teacher pay, good or bad, to only the state government or only the county and city governments. However, the state does provide most. National ranking In the 2015-16 school year, according to estimates by the National Education Association, North Carolina was ranked 41st in teacher pay – just like Cooper claimed. However, take that number with a grain of salt. The NEA typically revises its salary numbers after a year, and that revision can sometimes make a difference in the rankings. In 2014, for example, the NEA estimated the average North Carolina teacher made $45,737 in 2012-13. It tentatively ranked the state 46th in the country. The revised numbers came out a year later. Even though North Carolina’s average pay for 2012-13 didn’t change, its ranking rose from 46th to 43rd because other states did change. So when the revised numbers for 2015-16 come out, North Carolina might still be ranked 41st. Or it might be a few spots higher or lower. We won’t know until spring 2017, however, so for now we’ll just go by the estimates. The rise and fall of teacher pay But is Cooper right with the more important part of his claim, that North Carolina has "fallen" to 41st under McCrory’s leadership? No. McCrory was sworn in on Jan. 5, 2013, halfway through the 2012-13 school year. As we already mentioned, North Carolina was ranked 43rd that year. McCrory’s first budget, for the 2013-14 school year, saw teacher pay drop to 47th in the nation. But teacher pay has only risen since then, even if only slightly. In 2014-15 average pay rose to 42nd, and in 2015-16 it was estimated to have risen again to 41st. So Cooper is clearly wrong about the ranking having "fallen to 41st" under McCrory. It actually rose to 41st. Cooper’s campaign pointed out that teacher pay was much higher when Cooper was in the state legislature – especially toward the end of his tenure when Cooper was one of the top Senate leaders. In the 1990s and early 2000s under Democratic legislators and a Democratic governor in Jim Hunt, North Carolina did rank much higher in average teacher pay. While the state never paid teachers as much as the national average, its ranking did break into the top half of states. North Carolina ranked 21st in average teacher pay during Cooper’s last year in the Senate, in 2000-01, and it was 22nd the year before. But the ad doesn’t talk about any of that, nor do the posts promoting it. The posts instead make the incorrect claim that the state’s ranking has fallen under McCrory. We wondered if there was a different way the claim might have some truth to it. Maybe even though North Carolina’s ranking rose, its average pay fell compared to the national average. That’s possible. A state could rise in the rankings even while sinking further away from average, if the average is affected by outliers at the very top or bottom of the rankings. But again, that’s not the case. In 2012-13, the last pre-McCrory budget, the average North Carolina teacher made 81.6 percent of the national average. The most recent data we have is the NEA estimate for 2015-16, when the average North Carolina teacher made an estimated 82.6 percent of the national average. Like with the ranking itself, that’s not much of an increase but it is still an increase – although it’s lower than the 95.6 percent it reached during the last budget Cooper helped pass as a legislator. Our ruling Cooper said North Carolina "has fallen to 41st in teacher pay" under Gov. McCrory. In fact, the opposite is true. North Carolina has risen to 41st in teacher pay since McCrory entered office. It’s barely an increase, from 43 to 41, but it’s still an increase. Since the claim contains a snippet of truth – that North Carolina is one of the country’s lowest-paying states for teachers – but uses that to paint a misleading picture, we rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f76d6e83-3146-40e5-81c5-795f90eac033	None	Roy Cooper	None	None	None	2016-09-02T17:32:37	2016-08-29	['Pat_McCrory', 'North_Carolina']
-vogo-00227	Statement: “We’ll send a crew out in about four to five days and get it fixed,” City Councilman Kevin Faulconer said about the city’s response to pothole complaints during a March interview with 10News.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/a-councilmans-potholed-pledge-fact-check/	Analysis: As San Diego’s underfunded streets have gotten worse, city officials have gone to great lengths to tout their efforts to fix them. They’ve held pothole patrols, photo-ops with pothole crews, even repaired them themselves. Faulconer joined the chorus in March at a pothole repair event in Point Loma. During an interview with 10News, he assured residents that their complaints would be handled within five days.	None	None	None	None	A Councilman's Potholed Pledge: Fact Check	June 21, 2012	None	['None']
-pose-00237	"Will also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/253/create-a-voluntary-national-performance-assessment/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Create a voluntary national performance assessment for educators	2010-01-07T13:26:52	None	['None']
-vees-00140	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post connecting LP to Halili killing	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-online-post-connecting-lp-halili-killi	None	None	None	None	fake news,Antonio Halili	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post connecting LP to Halili killing MISLEADING	July 13, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01824	Jeff Mann has an ethics complaint against him alleging he used county workers for campaign work, which is an indictable offense.	/georgia/statements/2014/jul/19/vernon-jones/ethics-complaint-doesnt-equal-wrongdoing/	DeKalb County has more than its share of alleged misdeeds by elected officials. Ethics complaints are pending against all six sitting DeKalb County commissioners and interim CEO Lee May. Suspended CEO Burrell Ellis is slated to go on trial in September to face felony charges he shook down county vendors for campaign contributions. Amid that backdrop, Vernon Jones, the former county CEO, is complaining that interim Sheriff Jeff Mann faces his own integrity problems. The pair traded several such attacks at a recent Atlanta Press Club debate, which airs at 10:30 a.m. Sunday on Georgia Public Broadcasting. One volley from Jones drew a direct line between ongoing conduct questions and Mann: "His senior executives, and he himself, have ethics complaints against them (that) they are using county employees to campaign during county time. That’s an indictable offense." Given the winner of the runoff race Tuesday will serve out former Sheriff Tom Brown’s term through 2016, the AJC Truth-O-Meter jumped quickly. First, know that Mann protested in the debate that he knew of no pending ethics complaints against him. He also denied any wrongdoing. So has Jones, after a special grand jury last year recommended that he be investigated on allegations of bid rigging during his eight years as CEO. The question of an ethics complaint, though, is easy to answer because DeKalb has a Board of Ethics. State law grants the board the power to examine complaints that elected officials or county workers have violated the code of ethics – and remove them from office or fire them if allegations are deemed flagrant enough. DeKalb reinvigorated the board last year, amid the ongoing scandals, but the body has yet to take such drastic action on any of 18 pending complaints. County records show two of those complaints relate to Mann. On June 25, the clerk to the County Commission forwarded both complaints from Rhonda Taylor, a former Sheriff’s Department employee, to the ethics board’s attorney. Taylor complains that Mann forced her to work on his campaign and that the department’s human resources director, Xernia Fortson, abused her during that work. Similar allegations surfaced last month, but no ethics complaints were filed in that case. At the time, Mann released an email he sent in March to the department. It reads in part that working on campaigns at work is prohibited. The ethics board attorney, and the board itself, have yet to review Taylor’s complaints, Chairman John Ernst said. That’s because the board last met June 24, the day before her complaints were filed. Procedure calls for the board attorney to review complaints for presentation to the board during meetings, to decide whether the body has jurisdiction to investigate and act. In the sheriff’s case, that jurisdiction is in doubt. The board is given authority over elected commissioners, the CEO and workers, as well as appointed county board members. But it is specifically excluded from oversight over the district attorney, solicitor and most court officials, such as judges and clerks from State and Superior Court. The question is whether the sheriff – like the DA and judges, an elected office enshrined in the state Constitution – falls in the first or second category. "The (board) attorney is expected to tell us at our meeting if we have jurisdiction," Ernst said. Only if the board has and accepts jurisdiction at that session, scheduled for Aug. 14, would the board send Mann and Fortson notice that it plans to investigate. The question of an indictment is a criminal matter that would fall to the DA’s office, not the ethics board, to pursue. District Attorney Robert James would not comment on whether his office is looking into Taylor’s allegations. It’s worth noting that James persuaded a grand jury to indict Ellis last year on similar charges, of having county employees do campaign work on taxpayer time. Far more clear is the fact that at least one ethics complaint has been lodged against Mann, as Jones claims. Anyone can file a complaint against most elected officials and county workers in DeKalb, though. There is real uncertainty about whether the county’s Board of Ethics has jurisdiction over the constitutionally elected sheriff. So while the statement contains a lot of literal truth, it lacks a good deal of context to fully understand how ethics complaints work. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Vernon Jones	None	None	None	2014-07-19T00:00:00	2014-07-10	['None']
-pomt-13334	Says Ron Johnson "helped companies ship jobs overseas."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/oct/05/russ-feingold/voting-free-trade-deals-ron-johnson-helped-compani/	During the 2016 election cycle, free trade agreements have drawn scorn from candidates ranging from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders, both of whom have unloaded on Hillary Clinton for her support of NAFTA and other trade deals. But Democrats have ripped Republicans on the deals, too. In June 2016, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold released a TV ad claiming that the incumbent, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson, "voted five times for tax breaks that help companies ship Wisconsin jobs overseas." Our rating was False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7a39c531-6573-489b-93c8-a5b81b4020fb Then on Sept. 26, 2016, Feingold went on the attack again with a similar but less specific claim in a TV ad that features four middle-age people. One looks at the camera and says Johnson "helped companies ship jobs overseas." The new attack falls short, too. Three trade deals To back the claim, the Feingold campaign cited three votes Johnson made in 2011. They were in favor of free trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. President Barack Obama, who touts the tariff-reducing agreements as a way to increase U.S. exports and "support" jobs in the United States, signed each of them into law in 2012. Currently, the United States has free trade agreements with 20 countries -- with the largest being the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. The South Korea deal is the second-largest. An August 2016 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that the United States’ negative trade balance with South Korea has grown -- from $16.6 billion in 2012 to $28.3 billion in 2015 -- since that trade deal was signed. That report did not make any estimates on jobs. In May 2016, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute estimated that trade deficits with Korea eliminated more than 95,000 U.S. jobs between 2011 and 2015. The report was written by Robert Scott, the institute’s senior economist and director of trade and manufacturing policy research. Scott told us that the Korean trade deal led to an increased demand in the United States for products made in Korea and a decreased demand for U.S.-made products. But, importantly for this fact check, his report did not say that jobs lost in the United States were sent overseas. The report’s job-loss estimate was in the same range as a March 2015 estimate by government accountability think tank Public Citizen, which said the increased trade deficit with Korea "equates to nearly 85,000 lost U.S. jobs." But that report did not state that U.S. jobs were sent overseas, either. Moreover, there are issues with the two job-loss estimates attributed to the Korean trade deal. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker weighed in in March 2016 about claims on free trade and job losses, including one by Trump that cited the Economic Policy Institute, saying: "We urge all readers to view such claims with deep skepticism. The job-loss figures often rely on simplistic formulas that are disputed by other economists. It is often difficult to separate out the impact of trade agreements on jobs, compared to other, broader economic trends." Indeed, the Fact Checker gave Public Citizen four Pinocchios, its lowest rating, for its 85,000 lost-jobs claim. Public Citizen took "fishy" math the White House used to make a jobs increase estimate and then manipulated further, the Fact Checker said. (Scott, of the Economic Policy Institute, told us he has not seen estimates on job effects of the Colombia and Panama free trade deals, noting the deals are much smaller.) Other experts also see problems with the job-loss estimates attributed to free-trade deals. Susan Houseman, senior economist at the Michigan-based Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, told us: "Estimating the effects of a trade agreement on jobs is very difficult to do convincingly, because many other factors affect employment, and so parsing out the effects of one trade agreement is tough. Some jobs are lost by increased competition, but others are created by increased access to foreign markets." NAFTA, Houseman noted, has been closely studied, "and the evidence that it had significant negative effects on employment is weak." PolitiFact National also concluded in an April 2016 fact check on Sanders attacking Clinton over trade deals that that the jury is still out on the job effects of the deals. Our rating Citing Johnson’s votes for free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia, Feingold says Ron Johnson "helped companies ship jobs overseas." There are estimates that the largest of the three deals, with South Korea, resulted in a loss of jobs in the United States. But those estimates are disputed, largely because of how difficult it is to isolate one cause for changes in employment. Moreover, the job-loss estimates do not state that any U.S. jobs were shipped overseas. Without evidence of the trade deals helping ship jobs overseas, we rate Feingold’s statement False.	None	Russ Feingold	None	None	None	2016-10-05T05:00:00	2016-09-26	['None']
-tron-03102	Bernie Sanders Pays Interns $12 an Hour, Campaigns for $15 Minimum Wage	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bernie-sanders-pays-interns-12-an-hour-campaigns-for-15-minimum-wage/	None	politics	None	None	None	Bernie Sanders Pays Interns $12 an Hour, Campaigns for $15 Minimum Wage	Feb 2, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04625	David Cicilline is "the 5th most liberal person in the House of Representatives."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/sep/17/bernard-jackvony/republican-bernard-jackvony-says-democrat-david-ci/	One of the reasons U.S. Rep. David Cicilline gives when asking voters in the 1st Congressional District to send him back to Washington is that Rhode Islanders need a Democrat in that seat to prevent the Republican Party -- and by implication, conservatives -- from doing bad things. During a discussion on the contest during the Rhode Island PBS program "A Lively Experiment," former Republican Lt. Gov. Bernard Jackvony said Cicilline is far more liberal than most. How liberal? "Cicilline is the 5th most liberal person in the House of Representatives," he said. There's no reason to debate Cicilline's liberalism, but is he really the 5th-most left-leaner in that highly partisan institution? When we called Jackvony to ask the source of his information, he said he heard the factoid as part of a question in the WPRI-TV-Providence Journal debate on Aug. 28 between Cicilline and Anthony Gemma. WPRI's Ted Nesi told us he made a reference to Cicilline's voting record, but he was referring to a different ranking, by OpenCongress.org. On that website, Cicilline is indeed ranked 5th. But it's a list of party-line votes among Democrats, not liberal votes. Of 1,697 votes logged, the congressman voted with the majority of the House Democratic caucus 95.9 percent of the time. One could argue that Democrat votes are liberal votes, but that's a gross oversimplification. The website notes that the list makes no distinction between serious deeply divisive issues and the hundreds of votes on routine matters where ideology doesn't play a role. The Washington Post has a similar database. It has Cicilline voting with the party on 96 percent of 1,503 votes. In that ranking, where the percentages are rounded off, Cicilline is listed as third among Democrats. But 36 House members -- 11 Democrats and 25 Republicans -- also voted with the party line at least 96 percent of the time. Because Jackvony characterized Cicilline as the 5th-most liberal member of the House, we looked for other sources that actually use that metric. Many special-interest groups give legislators scores for their votes on various liberal and conservative issues, although their lists are typically not very comprehensive. However, the National Journal, a weekly magazine that covers politics, has an annual survey that ranks members of Congress on the liberal and conservative scales. In its latest report, Cicilline is the 48th most liberal member of the House, based on 949 roll call votes. That keeps him out of the National Journal's "Most Liberal" category. We also checked rankings for two conservative organizations, where the more liberal you are, the lower your score. Heritage Action for America, the activist arm of The Heritage Foundation, scores Cicilline at 12 percent, tied for 31st place (with 24 others) on the liberal scale. Club for Growth has Cicilline tied at 19th from the bottom. The liberal website Progressive Punch tags Cicilline as the 49th most liberal member of the House. In short, nobody puts him close to 5th. And to illustrate how the rankings differ depending on who does them, the National Review and Progressive Punch list Cicilline as more liberal than his Rhode Island colleague, Rep. James Langevin. Heritage Action and Club for Growth say Langevin is more liberal. Our ruling Former Lt. Gov. Bernard Jackvony said Rep. David Cicilline "is the 5th most liberal person in the House of Representatives." He was citing a statistic that ranked party-line voting, not liberal votes, although among Democrats the two often go hand in hand. There is no definitive arbiter of which congressman is more liberal than the next. Different organizations judge candidate voting records differently. The rankings we found gave Cicilline a bit more moderate score and the respected National Journal didn't even include the congressman in its tally of the 25 "most liberal" members of the House. Cicilline is clearly liberal. But because Jackvony was so specific, and he was specifically wrong, we rate his statement False. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter: @politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Bernard Jackvony	None	None	None	2012-09-17T00:01:00	2012-09-02	['None']
-hoer-00155	Human Parts Factory	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/human-parts-factory-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Human Parts Factory Hoax	September 2008	None	['None']
-chct-00295	FACT CHECK: Have Federal Compliance Costs Increased 'Nearly Sevenfold' Over The Last 20 Years?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/20/fact-check-have-federal-compliance-costs-increased-nearly-sevenfold-over-the-last-20-years/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	12:01 PM 10/20/2017	None	['None']
-tron-02430	The meaning of the folding of the American flag	https://www.truthorfiction.com/foldsoftheflag/	None	military	None	None	None	The meaning of the folding of the American flag	Mar 16, 2015	None	['United_States']
-vees-00100	A reader asked VERA Files Fact Check to verify Duterte’s Aug.14 claim that:	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-real-numbers-ph-update-contradicts-dut	In an Aug. 17 press briefing, the Presidential Communications Operations Office, Philippine National Police and National Bureau of Investigation updated “Real Numbers PH,” purportedly the “real” numbers on the war on drugs. The update covers the period July 1, 2016 to July 31, 2018.	None	None	None	Duterte,war on drugs,realnumbersph	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: ‘Real Numbers PH’ update contradicts Duterte’s claim	August 17, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01457	Leticia Van de Putte "voted to give illegal immigrants in this country free health care--not emergency health care but total free health care."	/texas/statements/2014/oct/02/dan-patrick/contrary-dan-patrick-claim-van-de-putte-didnt-vote/	In the only debate between major-party candidates for Texas lieutenant governor, Republican nominee Dan Patrick stood by his objections to a Texas law authored by his Democratic opponent that enables some children living in the state without legal authorization to qualify for in-state college tuition. Patrick, a Houston state senator, went on to say Sept. 29, 2014, that after the tuition proposal passed into law in 2001, state Sen. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio, the Democratic nominee, supported another questionable move. "She voted to give illegal immigrants in this country free health care -- not emergency health care but total free health care," Patrick said. "That was about seven years ago and that bill didn’t pass." We were curious about the described vote. By email, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia said Patrick was referring to Van de Putte’s vote for a proposal that cleared the Senate in 2003, Senate Bill 309. Garcia said the legislation required "local hospitals to provide emergency care to patients regardless of immigration status. Opponents claimed the bill would drive up the costs of health care and increase taxes to provide care to illegal immigrants. Van de Putte supported this measure knowing that it would benefit illegal immigrants at a cost to taxpayers," Garcia wrote. We’d been down this path with Patrick before. In May 2014, we rated False his claim that the Senate had earlier approved free health care for illegal immigrants. Let’s unspool afresh. Senators including Van de Putte on May 5, 2003, gave voice-vote approval to the proposal, which a May 5, 2003, Senate Journal entry summarized as "providing health care services without regard to a person's immigration status." At the time, Patrick, a talk-radio host, wasn’t yet a senator. The legislation said a city, county or public hospital "may use money from local sources to provide health care services to a person without regard to the person's immigration status and shall establish a cost-share system for persons receiving health care services." At an April 2003 committee hearing, authoring Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, said it permitted hospitals to draw on local revenue to provide preventive services to residents regardless of a patient’s immigration standing. Sylvia Garcia, then a Harris County commissioner, testified the proposal would hasten outpatient services, heading off health problems early and saving money thanks to fewer emergency-room visits. Proponents described the legislation as vital after the then-Texas attorney general (and future U.S. senator), John Cornyn, issued an advisory opinion in July 2001 stating that unless lawmakers allowed the Harris County Hospital District (and others, presumably) to deliver preventive services to patients regardless of immigration status, the district couldn’t give such care without violating the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which required state legislatures to intervene if states wanted hospitals to go ahead and do so. Notably, Cornyn’s letter made it clear some health services already were provided to patients regardless of immigration status--as mandated by federal law. Cornyn’s letter said the district was required by law to provide emergency care to residents regardless of their legal status. Lance Lunsford, spokesman for the Texas Hospital Association, which describes itself as the political and educational advocate for more than 430 hospitals and health systems statewide, told us a federal law from the 1980s, the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, made free emergency care available to illegal immigrants. According to a federal website, that act required Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical exam when a request is made for an emergency condition, including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Cornyn’s letter also said federal law permitted public health services including immunizations and testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases. Still, he wrote, the 1996 law specified that any other state or local health benefit could be provided only if a state law "affirmatively provides for such eligibility." Mike Stafford, the Harris County attorney, reacted to Cornyn’s letter by advising the local hospital district to stop giving discounted preventive care because it violates federal law, according to a July 12, 2001, Associated Press news story. "It's up to the Texas Legislature to step in now and, if they want to create an exception for this, it's allowable," Stafford said. In 2003, Senate Bill 309 died in the House, though advocates including Lunsford said the permission to provide such services ended up in House Bill 2292, a major 2003 overhaul of health care agencies. Section 285.201 of the Texas Health and Safety code "affirmatively establishes" the eligibility of undocumented residents to receive non-emergency public health benefits funded locally by public hospital districts. And in the end, did the legislation expand free health care for illegal immigrants? When we inquired, King Hillier, a vice president of the Harris County Hospital District, said by phone that "basically" the district had already been providing non-emergency services when the issue reached lawmakers. Hillier stressed the permissive quality of the proposal; funding and delivery of services was left up to local governments. Finally, Hillier noted the Senate version of the law envisioned a system of patients sharing costs, which has resulted, he said. Our ruling Patrick said Van de Putte "voted to give illegal immigrants in this country free health care--not emergency health care but total free health care." The 2003 proposal in question didn’t provide immigrants free across-the-board health care. Rather, the measure permitted (and didn’t require) local governing bodies to provide (or, it appears, resume providing) non-emergency services to residents regardless of immigration status, an action that was predicted to improve outcomes and head off costly emergency care to which all residents were already entitled per federal law. Significantly, too, the proposal envisioned patients sharing costs. Diagnosis: False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate.	None	Dan Patrick	None	None	None	2014-10-02T12:00:00	2014-09-29	['None']
-pomt-05221	Says Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie made a late-night visit to Kinko’s to forge President Barack Obama’s birth certificate two days before Obama unveiled it to the media.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/07/chain-email/satire-obama-birthers-neil-abercrombie-fools-some-/	We never cease to be amazed that the people who routinely forward chain emails are so gullible that they will also fall victim to satire. The latest episode involves one that was far-fetched even by birther standards. "Please research this info claiming to be about the governor of Hawaii faking Obama’s birth certificate," the reader asked, explaining that it came from his brother-in-law. We also found the account posted on a few birther blogs, where it prompted comments like "the MSM will never touch this story, or investigate it. Send it to Sheriff Joe, maybe he'll do something with it." (That's a reference to Joe Arpaio, the Arizona sheriff who has rekindled birther theories.) The publisher of the original satire also got calls from people who believed it, as you'll see below. The email says: "New evidence now points a finger at Hawaii’s Governor Neil Abercrombie as the possible source of the widely disputed document purporting to be President Obama’s long form birth certificate. Surveillance photos of the South St. & Queen St. intersection routinely monitored by the Honolulu Fire Department have been leaked to the media. One frame clearly shows Governor Abercrombie leaving the Kinko’s late at night, on April 25th, two days before Obama unveiled the 'official' document. "The night manager at Kinko’s, Mr. Marvin Ishikawa, further corroborated what was shown on the video. "‘Sure I remember them,’ said Ishikawa. ‘They hogged my best graphics machine for hours. I thought the short guy looked a lot like the governor, but he said his name was John Smith. I thought it was kind of funny that they paid with a State of Hawaii government debit card.’ Ishikawa elaborated, ‘They were on that machine for almost two days straight, and I have the computer logs right here; 12 hours of Adobe Illustrator, 23 scans, a bunch of PhotoShop and several faxes back and forth to Washington, DC.’ "Asked to identify the man in the video, Ishikawa said, ‘Yeah, that’s him, that’s "Smith." ‘ "When Abercrombie first took office, he vowed to clear this birth certificate business up, once and for all, but by January of 2011 had given up. He basically told his friends that he simply ‘couldn’t find the dam thing.’ Things changed in April, when the President sent a letter to Hawaii’s Department of Health requesting a copy of the long form birth certificate. "According to one un-named source inside the DOH, everybody, including the Governor’s Office, panicked, ‘We had to do what we had to do.’ " The text was accompanied by a green-tinted "surveillance" photo of a smiling Abercrombie holding the "fake" birth certificate outside the copy store in question. (Incidentally, Kinko’s changed its name to FedEx Office in 2008.) The photo looked fake to us, and it wasn’t hard to debunk the text as well. We found that it originated on the website of the Hawaii Reporter, a news and commentary blog that has won investigative journalism awards and is perceived as somewhat right-of-center. Whoever started this e-mail on its Internet voyage snipped off a bit of relevant information at the bottom of the story: "EDITOR'S NOTE: This report is in our satire section." Malia Zimmerman, editor and co-founder of the Reporter, told us the item was written by Keith Rollman, a Hawaii political consultant who has worked for Democrats and Republicans and whose cartoons and writing are sometimes published on the Reporter’s website. He uses the pseudonym Atomic Monkey. "We ran the piece on April Fools Day, in our comics section, and said in the story that it was satire," Zimmerman said. "We did not expect people to take this seriously. But we still had people calling and emailing us demanding more information about the piece. We are still getting calls today. Most had a good sense of humor about it when we pointed out the April Fools Day note, but not everyone took it so well. We did get some nasty notes. Other than putting the very top in all-caps, ‘THIS IS AN APRIL FOOLS DAY JOKE,’ I am not sure what else we could have done to be more clear." We've seen this phenomenon before. One of the most long-lived chain emails we’ve seen circulating claims that Obama once said, "Nobody made these guys go to war. ... Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice?" That was originally published by Arizona-based satirist John Semmens. We gave it a Pants on Fire. We have debunked other chain emails based on satires by Semmens. One claimed that that in a hearing, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., suggested to Gen. David Petraeus that the Army "put more emphasis on less environmentally damaging methods, like stabbing or clubbing enemy forces in order to minimize the carbon output." Semmens’ work was also turned into chain emails claiming that Obama wants to redesign the American flag "to better offer our enemies hope and love," and that he thinks the national anthem should be "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing." Another satirist who saw his work go viral is Matthew Avitabile, who blogs his spoofs at Jumping in Pools. One satirical Avitabile post claimed that Obama wrote a thesis at Columbia University in which he criticized "plutocratic thugs" and said the Constitution gave Americans "the shackles of hypocrisy." Another was that the Obama administration "wants to have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office of the President, and no longer to the Constitution." The Abercrombie spoof doesn’t appear to have gained as much traction on the Internet as some of these other satires. Maybe it was too outlandish. As one commenter to the blog "Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored" put it, "The governor, sneaking down to Kinko’s …. LOL …. gives me flashbacks to college, when I often had to go to Kinko’s after midnight. No governors then, no governors now." Our ruling It seems silly that we have to put these claims to the Truth-O-Meter, but given that the Hawaii Reporter received serious calls about it and that the chain email continues to circulate, we'll quickly set the meter on fire to shed a little light on the silliness. Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2012-06-07T15:50:51	2012-04-01	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-00332	Says Marsha Blackburn "at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry, co-sponsored a law that weakened DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled narcotics to the black market."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/18/phil-bredesen/bredesen-blackburn-weakened-dea-opioid-enforcement/	Tennessee has struggled with the opioid crisis more than many states. In 2015, prescription drug deaths were twice the national rate, according to federal and state summaries. And around that time, Congress moved to trim the power of the Drug Enforcement Administration to sanction negligent drug distributors. Democratic Senate candidate Phil Bredesen said if he wins, his first act as senator would be to attempt to reverse a 2014 bill championed by his opponent, Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn. "Blackburn, at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry, co-sponsored a law that weakened DEA enforcement efforts against drug distribution companies that were supplying corrupt doctors and pharmacists who peddled narcotics to the black market," Bredesen’s Aug. 24 campaign announcement said. The law was at the center of a Washington Post/60 Minutes October 2017 exposé. Within days, that investigation scuttled the nomination of Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., to serve as national drug czar. Marino introduced the first version of the bill in 2014. Blackburn was an original cosponsor. In this fact-check, we examine Blackburn’s position on DEA enforcement and to what extent she did what the drug distribution companies wanted. Key takeaways Blackburn played a lead role on a bill that made it harder for the DEA to hold the threat of shutdowns over drug distributors. The drug distribution industry spent over $1 million lobbying for the change, and its campaign donations to Blackburn went up after the bill became law. The precise impact of the law remains unclear, but the Justice Department recommends reversal, and Blackburn has signed on to a bill that would do that. The DEA and drug distributors The DEA enforces the Controlled Substances Act, which includes monitoring sales of prescription painkillers such as oxycodone, fentanyl and codeine. Around 2009, the agency began focusing on distributors who were shipping millions of doses into relatively small communities. The DEA holds two legal hammers over bad actors. One, called a show cause order, requires the company to prove why it shouldn’t have its permit to sell drugs taken away. The bigger hammer is an immediate suspension order, which stops all shipments on the spot. The company can argue its case under both actions, but with the first one, operations continue during the hearing process, while with the second, operations shut down right away. Jim Geldhof retired from the DEA in 2016 after nearly four decades. He told us that formal sanctions were a last resort. "I can’t think of one time that we didn't try to get a company into compliance before we issued any kind of order," Geldhof said. But Blackburn saw the DEA as trigger happy. Blackburn supported changing the rules In a 2011 House hearing on prescription drug diversion, Blackburn said certain things had to be kept in mind. "First, to what extent should duly-licensed prescription drug manufacturers be required to spend time, money and resources on trying to envision every new way that their products might be abused," Blackburn asked. By 2012, her focus was more on DEA oversight of distributors and pharmacies. "Should we be thinking of a more surgical approach to addressing the issue of prescription drug abuse rather than just looking at suspension of licenses?" she asked a DEA official at a House hearing. "Is there a more proportional approach to take rather than just going to an immediate suspension?" Blackburn was unswayed by testimony that DEA regularly met with companies before taking formal action. The bills In 2014, Blackburn firmly linked herself to legislation that added new requirements before the DEA could move against a distributor. She put her name to two versions of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act as they were introduced, and at one point, Blackburn took the lead during debate on the House floor. In an April 2014 hearing, Blackburn said she was concerned that patients would not get the pain medications they counted on. She said suppliers needed more guidance from Washington on how to collaborate with law enforcement. "Stated simply, their obligation to prevent diversion is only achievable if the DEA and other regulators will work with them to get it done," Blackburn said. Both bills made two changes. They raised the DEA’s burden of proof before it could issue a immediate suspension order. For show cause actions, drug distributors gained the option to offer a plan to fix any problems. That effectively put the enforcement on hold while the plan played out. The Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act of 2014 passed the House. In response, then-Attorney General Eric Holder cautioned Congress. "A recently passed House bill would severely undermine a critical component of our efforts to prevent communities and families from falling prey to dangerous drugs," a department press release said July 31, 2014. The bill stalled in the Senate. Two years later, a slightly modified version passed in both chambers and became law in April 2016. Drug distributors backed the changes The major drug distribution companies lobbied for bills Blackburn supported. Between 2014 and 2016, two distribution companies and the Healthcare Distribution Alliance, a trade group, spent just shy of $1.3 million on lobbyists to work specifically on getting Blackburn’s ideas into law. "This legislation will go a long way in encouraging meaningful dialogue and collaboration between supply chain stakeholders and federal regulators," the Healthcare Distribution Alliance wrote in 2014. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The drug distribution industry’s campaign donations to Blackburn rose over this period. In 2012, they gave her $6,000. A few years later, the total more than tripled to $22,000. (This is a conservative figure, based only on distribution firms, and omits other groups interested in these bills, such as the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.) We asked Blackburn’s office what input she received from the distribution industry as she formed her approach. Her staff declined to answer, but in October 2017, Blackburn said questions about whether donations fueled her interest in the law were "absolutely absurd." Consensus: The changes undermined the DEA Many observers have noted that the final version of the law passed with barely a ripple of dissent. The Washington Post described backroom negotiations, but when it came to a vote in 2016, it sailed through under unanimous consent. After the Post investigation, the Justice Department sent a letter to the House recommending that the law be rolled back. In October 2017, less than a week after the Washington Post article appeared, a group of seven House Democrats and one Republican introduced a bill to repeal the amendments made in 2016. Blackburn did not join that effort, saying she was waiting for a report from the DEA on the law’s impact. In mid March 2018, another two House Democrats introduced their own measure to roll back the changes. Both of them, Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Judy Chu, D-Calif., had been original cosponsors of the 2014 legislation. Blackburn submitted a bill at the same time, but while it increased penalties for drug diversion, it left the enforcement changes untouched. After Bredesen raised the issue in late August, Blackburn and fellow Republican Rep. Gus Bilrakis, R-Fla., submitted a bill to undo the changes Blackburn had championed. She was still waiting for the report from the DEA. "This solution takes another step to combat the opioid epidemic by giving law enforcement the tools they need to go after bad actors," said Blackburn chief of staff Charles Flint. At the end of the day, the legal and lawmaker consensus is that the measures first proposed in 2014 had weakened the DEA. Our ruling Bredesen said that "at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry," Blackburn was a leading force behind a law that weakened the ability of the DEA to go after drug distributors that facilitated the flow of opioids into the black market. The record shows that Blackburn was critical of the DEA and was an early leader in reining in DEA powers. It is also a matter of record that the industry spent nearly $1.3 million lobbying for those changes and increased its donations to Blackburn as the legislative process played out. The only uncertainty concerns what prompted Blackburn’s actions, and the meaning of "behest" has some wiggle room. It can be both a command and a strong suggestion. Blackburn’s office declined to answer our question about her contacts with the industry. Nearly a year after the controversial legislation came to light, Blackburn switched her position. Because additional information is needed, we rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Phil Bredesen	None	None	None	2018-09-18T16:09:08	2018-08-24	['None']
-pomt-03809	Says, "The Democrats' proposed budget is also balanced by using more in new tax revenue than in total PERS reform or savings."	/oregon/statements/2013/mar/23/bruce-hanna/are-democrats-relying-more-new-taxes-pers-reforms-/	Earlier this month the two Democratic co-chairs in charge of legislative budgeting released their draft for state spending in 2013-15. Republicans, who are in the minority in both chambers, have criticized repeatedly what they see as the shortcomings of the $16.5 billion general fund budget. Basically, they complain that the plan relies too much on new revenue and doesn’t do enough to rein in the Public Employees Retirement System. Roseburg Republican Rep. Bruce Hanna, a former co-Speaker of the House, had his say on the floor recently. "Frustratingly, the Democrats' proposed budget is also balanced by using more in new tax revenue than in total PERS reform or savings," he said. "This may represent a priority for some, but certainly not one I can support. Balancing our budget requires hard decisions but it can be done through common-sense solutions." We had one question: Does the proposed budget released by Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland, and Sen. Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin, rely "more in new tax revenue than in total PERS reform or savings?" The statement didn’t sound quite right to one of our budget watchers, so we decided to check it out. People interested in reforming the system, including Gov. John Kitzhaber, say reforms are necessary to curb mounting costs that will eat into public services into the future. People not so interested say the proposed reforms are unfair and probably won’t pass legal muster. In any case, the legislative budget draft released by Buckley and Devlin calls for lawmakers to find $275 million in additional revenue by eliminating or reducing tax breaks. So that’s the new revenue part. PERS reforms The draft budget also calls for three ways to reduce spending on the retirement system, although the dollar amount is harder to suss out. One idea would cap the cost-of-living adjustment given to retirees for an estimated savings of $400 million in 2013-15. Another idea would end a tax break for retirees living out-of-state, saving about $55 million. The third idea is to "collar" rates -- in other words, spread the projected impact of rate changes into the future -- for an estimated $350 million. Those proposals add up to $805 million in "savings," otherwise known as money that government won’t have to spend on the pension system in 2013-15. But not all of the $805 million will help the state general fund budget. Why not? Well, the $805 million will be spread throughout the budgets of not only the state, but of schools, cities and counties, basically any system that participates in PERS. So how much money will assist the state budget? The Legislature’s chief fiscal officer Ken Rocco, a non-partisan position, calculates that amount to be closer to $281 million, and this is the number we need to compare with the $275 million figure. We’ll get back to that in the ruling. We want to clear up one more thing: What do we mean by "help"? Without the reforms, the state would have to find an additional $281 million in revenue to pay for the budget the co-chairs have proposed. Or, legislators would have to spend that much more on PERS and give up what they had hoped to buy with the $281 million. For example, the draft budget calls for K-12 schools to receive $6.55 billion in 2013-15. But off the balance sheet, school districts will receive an additional $200 million in the form of money officials will no longer have to spend on PERS, giving schools $6.75 billion for the biennium. (In a way, the $16.5 billion turns into $16.78 billion, as far as what agencies are given to spend.) This is a confusing issue and we have to share with readers that both sides, when reached by PolitiFact Oregon, were mistaken on the amount that affects the general fund. It took our queries to the Legislative Fiscal Office to get the numbers straightened out. The ruling Hanna said on the House floor that the proposed budget by Democrats is balanced "by using more in new tax revenue than in total PERS reform or savings." That is not accurate. The draft budget relies on $275 million in new tax revenue and $281 million in "savings" from PERS reforms. The reforms also reduce pension-related costs for numerous other budgets in Oregon. Certainly Hanna and others would like to see deeper changes to PERS rather than eliminate some of Oregonians’ tax breaks. That’s a philosophical question for legislators. All we can say is that the state budget as proposed by the Democratic co-chairs contains an approximately equal amount of new tax revenue and PERS cost reductions. We rate the statement False.	None	Bruce Hanna	None	None	None	2013-03-23T03:00:00	2013-03-06	['None']
-pomt-13080	Says the KKK marched in Mebane, N.C., after Trump’s victory	/north-carolina/statements/2016/nov/09/viral-image/viral-image-debunked-kkk-was-not-marching-north-ca/	It’s a grainy photo that many woke up to Wednesday morning, hours after Donald Trump won the race for president – shrouded figures carrying flags or signs on a bridge above a busy North Carolina highway. "KKK on the bridge in Mebane, NC this morning," wrote Twitter user @kelbi1lewis, along with the photo. That tweet alone has since been retweeted tens of thousands of times and has also been picked up by people ranging from football player Chad Johnson to terrorism expert Charles Lister and actress/activist Yvette Nicole Brown. But is it true? The Twitter user who started the viral rumors didn't respond to our requests for comment. After spending some of Wednesday retweeting news that her post was trending internationally, she later deleted her account. Trump was endorsed by the KKK’s official newspaper. And after his victory became official Wednesday morning, former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke tweeted: "This is one of the most exciting nights of my life. Make no mistake about it, our people have played a HUGE role in electing Trump!" However, there's no proof that the Klan was on the march in North Carolina, like the viral post claimed. The photo appears to show a group of Trump supporters that local media also interviewed. And according to that news report and follow-up interviews, none of them were wearing KKK regalia, carrying Confederate flags or doing anything else that would link them to the racist group. The scene on the bridge Although the tweet claimed the marchers were on the bridge in Mebane Wednesday morning, they were actually there on Tuesday afternoon and night. Natalie Allison Janicello, a reporter for the local Burlington Times-News, was there interviewing them. She said she’s sure the group in the viral post is the same group she spoke with; she could recognize the same flags and the neon yellow shirt of someone in the photo. None of them were wearing any KKK regalia, she said, or carrying flags associated with the Confederacy or white supremacy movements. Instead, they had Trump signs, red-white-and-blue scarves and an assortment of American, Christian and "Don’t Tread On Me" flags. "There was no one claiming or professing to be part of the KKK," Janicello said. "These were just local conservatives who were out there for Trump." Janicello said they had actually come to that spot a few times a month, since February, to wave flags to passing traffic. Furthermore, neither the Mebane Police Department nor the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office received complaints of KKK activity close to the election – either at that bridge or anywhere else in the area. The sheriff’s office said in a press release Wednesday that calls only started coming in after the photo went viral, and that there’s nothing to substantiate the rumors. "Several members of law enforcement had observed these individuals over the past weeks, and never observed any paraphernalia related to the KKK nor Confederate symbols," the press release said. "No suspicious activity was observed nor reported." The newspaper’s photos from the bridge show that some of the marchers were affiliated with the group Alamance County Taking Back Alamance County (ACTBAC). It received some notoriety this summer when it began raising money to buy and install Confederate flags along Interstate 40, which is the busiest road in a number of North Carolina counties. But there were no Confederate flags or KKK regalia visible at the Trump celebration, Janicello said. She also interviewed an Alamance County Republican Party official at the bridge, but party leaders later told us there was no formal connection. "I haven’t even heard of what you’re talking about," said Ben York, the Alamance County Republican Party chairman, several hours after the image had gone viral. The KKK in North Carolina Despite there being no proof behind the viral claim, Alamance County was one of the major early hotbeds of KKK activity in North Carolina. In an 1870 incident known as the Kirk-Holden War, a band of Klan supporters from Alamance and Caswell counties attempted to capture the town of Pittsboro in neighboring Chatham County. They were defeated by a militia formed by Gov. William Holden, who also arrested some prominent Klan supporters. That infuriated white supremacist state lawmakers, who soon made Holden the first governor in U.S. history to be impeached and removed from office. Holden was pardoned by the N.C. Senate in 2011. The contemporary KKK has also found support in the central area of the state, called the Piedmont, which includes Alamance County. "In North Carolina, one of its banner states, the modern Klan thrived among mill workers and other blue-collar laborers in the Piedmont," according to the 2006 book Encyclopedia of North Carolina. Our ruling A viral post on social media claimed to show KKK members marching in Mebane, N.C. on Wednesday morning after Trump won the election. Trump has been supported by the KKK, and that area of North Carolina does have longstanding ties to KKK activity. But thanks to a newspaper reporter who was at the scene, and whose reporting was corroborated by local law enforcement, we know that there’s no substance to the rumors. The people were not wearing KKK regalia and didn’t even have a Confederate flag amongst them. They also were never overheard saying anything about the KKK – they were simply excited for Trump. We rate this claim False. UPDATE After we wrote this, the KKK did hold a widely publicized "victory" parade in North Carolina, celebrating Donald Trump's presidential win. But that doesn't change anything about this rating, since they were separate events on different days and in different places. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a38543ff-c4c5-4840-a02d-937ad5424535	None	Viral image	None	None	None	2016-11-09T15:52:18	2016-11-09	['None']
-pomt-02329	Most of the people who have signed up through the Obamacare exchanges "already had insurance."	/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/26/rich-lowry/were-most-obamacare-sign-ups-people-who-had-insura/	If Obamacare was about anything, it was about getting more people insured. The law never promised to eliminate the uninsured altogether, but the Obama White House did say 32 million people would gain coverage, out of about 48 million who didn’t have it. With the sign-up window for 2014 about to close, Rich Lowry, editor in chief of the conservative news magazine National Review, gave a somber assessment of how the program is doing. "The law is not going to collapse on its own weight, which seemed a real possibility when the launch was so botched, but I think it’s still pretty grim," Lowry said on Meet the Press. "If you believe the surveys of people who have signed up through these exchanges, most of them already had insurance, which suggests what you have basically done is a churn where you’ve knocked people off their old insurance and then gotten them on the exchanges. There’s not much upside to that." When Lowry mentioned "exchanges" he was talking about the federal and state systems, from websites to hotlines, aimed at getting people covered. If most of those folks were just changing plans, that would raise a pretty fundamental problem. We are checking whether surveys show that most of the people signing up through the Obamacare exchanges, now called marketplaces, already had insurance. Lowry pointed us to a report from McKinsey and Company, a large private consulting group. In early March, McKinsey released the results of a survey that found that of all the people who bought a new insurance policy, about a quarter of them said they hadn’t been insured for at least most of last year. That sounds like Lowry had it right. Three-quarters of the sign-ups were people who already had coverage. That would qualify as "most people" in anyone’s book. But there’s more to the survey. McKinsey analysts make it clear that their study was about the individual insurance market as a whole, not specifically Obamacare marketplaces. People are free to buy directly from insurance companies or through government marketplaces. Emily Hackel, a spokesperson for McKinsey, said analysts did not break down their results for people who specifically purchased insurance through Obamacare. "If you’re looking to zero in on that, we don’t have that detail," Hackel said. It’s not like the report buries this distinction. In fact, it makes the point three times. In the first paragraph, it states that the survey "included consumers who enrolled in health care coverage for 2014 (either on or off exchange)." There is no way to know how many respondents fell into each group. So, the report Lowry cites doesn’t speak directly to his point. When we raised this problem to Lowry, he said the McKinsey numbers would hold up if relatively few people signed-up directly through insurers. Lowry referred us to a piece in Forbes that suggested that this group accounted for about 20 percent of enrollments. That wouldn’t be enough to significantly change the McKinsey findings, Lowry said. He also cited an item on the website of the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has been critical of the Affordable Care Act. That article focused on an estimate of uninsured sign-ups from Goldman Sachs. However, that estimate was itself based on the McKinsey findings. One person Lowry referred to us to is Robert Laszewski, a health care policy consultant who has highlighted many of the failings of Obamacare. But when we spoke to Laszewski, he had a cautious take on interpreting the McKinsey data. "The McKinsey survey suggests a high percentage had insurance before," Laszewski told PunditFact. "But it is limited, and we don’t know." So what’s the real number? That’s tough to say. Laszewski has spoken to some of the largest insurance carriers who are selling through the marketplaces. From that, he guesses that about half of the people buying there were previously insured. "That’s what these carriers are telling me," Laszewski said. "But that’s just anecdotal information." That’s only an estimate, but "about half" is not "most". The federal agency charged with tracking what’s going on, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told us they don’t have this information yet. Individual states have released numbers but these also fall short. New York just reported that "more than 70 percent of those who have enrolled to date were uninsured at the time of application." But that mixes together those who signed up for Medicaid and those who bought private insurance. Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services told PunditFact that 80 percent of the people who bought private insurance through their marketplace reported that they didn't have insurance. But spokesperson Jill Midkiff said the intake form does not ask how long they have been without coverage. It could have been as short as one day or as long as a year or more. Stephen Zuckerman is a health economist at the Urban Institute, a Washington academic center. He’s very interested in knowing if Obamacare has made a dent in the uninsured population. "This is one of the big questions where there will need to be more stats available before we can say what the law has done," Zuckerman said. For what it’s worth, a March Gallup poll found the percentage of uninsured Americans has fallen by more than 2 percentage points since October 2013. This figure, too, is limited, because it does not prove that Obamacare is responsible. That said, the decline coincides with the launch of the marketplaces, and the greatest progress took place among households making less than $38,000 a year. Lowry’s framework on Obamacare had its own limitation. When asked how it was doing, he spoke only about the fraction of uninsured buying coverage through the exchanges. That leaves out the gains made through Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that in the short-run, about half of the progress toward getting people insured comes through opening Medicaid to the working poor by raising that program’s income limit. Christine Eibner, an economist at the Rand Corporation, said Medicaid needs to be part of any assessment. "The main goal of the law was to expand insurance coverage, not necessarily to enroll people on the exchanges," Eibner said. "Medicaid and (exchange) sign-ups are both important in assessing the ACA, since the law expanded coverage using both programs." Beware of fuzzy language When you hear pundits and politicians talk about the success or failures of Obamacare, there are two factors that tend to cloud the debate. First, the expansion of Medicaid has a big impact on reducing the ranks of the uninsured. But it has proven to be very tough to tease out the people who gained Medicaid coverage thanks to the higher income limit by itself. Plenty of people who are signing up were eligible before. Second, some states that run their own exchanges, such as New York, California and Kentucky, have a "no wrong door" approach. That means, everyone enters through the same portal. As they fill in their personal information, those who are Medicaid eligible get sent down one path; people who make more money get directed toward private insurance. Those states tend to say everyone got covered through the exchange, but in terms of the Affordable Care Act, very different pieces of the law are in play. Our ruling Lowry said reports show that most of the people signing up through the Obamacare exchanges already had insurance. The McKinsey report he cited did not address his specific point. It examined the individual insurance market as a whole, regardless of how people found their insurance plans. While Lowry couched his claim with the caveat, "if you believe the surveys," it doesn’t matter if you believe the McKinsey survey. The survey did not describe the performance of Obamacare. An analyst cited by Lowry confirmed this point. There are other data from other states that Lowry could have cited that would suggest a greater impact on the number of uninsured people. But that is also flawed. The fact is, we have no clear data and to say most of the people already had insurance sidesteps an information gap. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Rich Lowry	None	None	None	2014-03-26T13:42:31	2014-03-23	['None']
-pomt-07211	Says Wisconsin state Senate President Michael Elllis (R-Neenah) broke Senate rules during debate on a photo ID bill for voters.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jun/05/fred-risser/wisconsin-state-sen-fred-risser-says-senate-presid/	Wisconsin’s state Senate has probably generated more headlines in the past four months than any time in state history. Democratic senators skipping town for weeks, warrants issued for their arrest, recall elections for up to nine senators and the disintegration of decorum for even routine business. And this is in the Legislature’s more formal, "deliberative" body. Take, for instance, the May 19, 2011 vote on a bill to require voters to present photo ID at the polls. Long-sought by Republicans, bitterly fought by Democrats, the measure was certain to stir an emotional debate. And it did. The vote ended with a shouting match about the rules of the Senate between the state’s two most veteran lawmakers: Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, vs. Sen. Michael Ellis, R-Neenah. Between the two of them, they have a more than 90 years experience in the Capitol. But only one of the two -- Ellis -- held the gavel. And that meant the upper hand. In the heat of the debate, Risser became angry when Ellis, the Senate president, started a roll call vote while Risser was speaking on the Senate floor. "You’re not following the rules, Mister President," Risser yelled. Ellis shouted back: "Read the book!" He hammered the gavel and the roll call vote was taken, over shouts of foul play from Democrats. The bill passed 19-5 and was signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker. But what of Risser’s claim that Ellis violated the Senate rules? Let’s open up that book Ellis was talking about. Senate rules govern "such things as committee activities, bill introductions, order and conduct in debate," according the Senate chief clerk’s website. But they are not permanent. Senators meet at the beginning of the two-year legislative session and set the rules for their body. What’s more, the rules allow some things, such as terms of the debate, to be set along the way. "The rules are extremely important to preserve the decorum and the dignity of the Senate," said former Senate President Alan Lasee, R-De Pere, who retired last year after 36 years in the Legislature. "It’s the difference between anarchy and order," said former Sen. Mordecai Lee, D-Milwaukee, now a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. On May 17, 2011, the Senate opened 13 hours of debate on the bill -- largely Democrats speaking against the bill. It ended in the early morning of May 18. The next day, May 19, the measure was up for a final vote. On that morning, Republicans changed the rules for that single bill, about an hour before debate began. They voted to end debate after one hour. Senators were aware of that rule change before the debate began. The Senate convened and Democrats took turns speaking against the bill, with the clock running and being carefully watched by Republicans. Shortly before the hour was up, Risser was recognized and took the floor. He was reminded by Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn -- who was temporarily serving in the chair -- that he had four minutes left. Risser gave a meandering talk, discussing a change of address issue with his own driver’s license and appeared to be killing time. With 15 seconds to go Ellis, back in the chair, gave the warning: Time is almost up. At the stroke of 11, Ellis ordered the roll call be taken, even though Risser was still speaking. "You’re out of order. Take your seat," Ellis told Risser. "Continue the roll call." After the vote, Risser declared in a news conference: "Never in the 55 years that I have served have I seen the type of procedure, or lack of procedure, that has been followed in this house." "In the middle of someone’s talk, they decided to shut me off," he said. So, that’s what happened. Now lets get back to the rules. Debate has been limited only two other times in recent Senate history. It last happened in 2003 on the state budget and 1995 on welfare reform, according to Senate officials. Republicans were in charge both times -- but both parties agreed to limit debate. "It’s incredibly unusual to amend the rules for one day," Lee said. He also said it’s rare that a senator is cut off when he is speaking from the floor. "He did have the floor legally," Lee said. "I think what Mike (Ellis) did was unusual and arguably wrong." But the fact something is unusual does not necessarily mean any rules were broken. "He knows the rules," said Lasee of Risser. "Everything I learned about being Senate president, I learned from Fred." In an interview, Risser backed away from his claim that Ellis violated the Senate rules. Rather, he said, Ellis violated a less-precise set of rules -- the rules of common decency. Said Risser: "I can’t remember any time when there was an arbitrary time limit to stop discussion and to stop a person from discussing." But that’s not what Risser claimed at the time -- and Emily Post was not available for a consult on manners. Indeed, if she were, there would be plenty more to look at: Risser said Ellis also broke the rules by ignoring a motion to adjourn shouted out by Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton. Under the Senate rules, that motion takes precedence over all others. There was one problem with that tactic: Ellis never "recognized" Erpenbach to give him the floor and the motion was not formally made. "You had nine guys yelling at me and no one got recognized. How do you recognize nine guys?" Ellis said. He had his own list of violations committed by the Democrats: shouting during a roll call, refusing to vote and leaving the Senate floor during a vote. For his part, Ellis said it was no accident that Risser, the longest-serving lawmaker in the nation, was speaking when the hour was up: "They wanted the 40-year veteran in the chair -- me -- versus the 50-year veteran. How dare you cut him off?" What’s the bottom line? Risser’s claim that Ellis broke the rules made for some drama after the voter ID bill passed, but the vote result itself was a foregone conclusion. When he was asked later, Risser pointed to the unwritten rules of common decency. But his claim focused on the written rules of the Senate, which allow for the parameters of debate to be set by a majority vote. It’s rare, but permissible. And that’s what happened here. We rate Risser’s claim False.	None	Fred Risser	None	None	None	2011-06-05T09:00:00	2011-05-19	['None']
-pomt-12652	Says "Snoop Dogg arrested for conspiracy after talking about his ‘murder Trump’ video."	/punditfact/statements/2017/mar/23/blog-posting/snoop-dogg-wasnt-arrested-over-comments-about-shoo/	A series of fake news articles saying rapper Snoop Dogg was arrested for encouraging people to shoot President Donald Trump are all fabricated, and can be traced back to one website. Snoop, born Calvin Broadus, drew fire of his own for pretending to shoot a clown resembling Trump (named Ronald Klump, for subtlety’s sake) with a toy gun that released a flag that read "BANG" in his video for the song "Lavender," released March 12. You can watch the video here if you don’t mind, um, colorful language. By March 14, the Internet was filled with versions of a post on various websites saying Snoop had suffered the consequences, most with headlines that read, "Snoop Dogg arrested for conspiracy after talking about his ‘murder Trump’ video." Several of these posts were flagged by Facebook users as possibly being fabricated, which they are. The posts, almost all of which appear to copy each other, say Snoop wasn’t arrested specifically because of the video. Rather, the articles included a fake quote in which the rapper allegedly said, "I don’t like violence any more than the next guy, but I would hope that if this clown in the White House was about to start a war or somethin’ that someone would do what I did but with a real gun." The fake reporter in the fake story then supposedly told the Secret Service what Snoop said, landing Snoop in jail. To be clear, Snoop is not a Trump fan — he called the president a "clown" in a Billboard interview — and the video for "Lavender" does not paint a flattering picture of the current chief executive. But Snoop did not say he hoped someone shot Trump. As is the case with several other claims we’ve checked before, this post originally came from a website called TheLastLineOfDefense.org. They posted the story on March 14. The site doesn’t identify the Obama story as fake, but its About Us page notes that "all articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney." None of the other websites flagged by Facebook indicate the story is contrived, either. But the post has been shared tens of thousands of times via various websites. Trump, who boasted as a presidential candidate, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," tweeted to decry the content of the video: See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Like all presidents, Obama did face death threats, although it’s tough to say just how many. At least one other official also decried the imagery of the president with a gun to his head. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told TMZ.com on March 13 that "Snoop shouldn’t have done that." "We’ve had presidents assassinated before in this country, so anything like that is really something people should be very careful about," Rubio said, adding that if the "wrong person sees that and gets the wrong idea, you could have a real problem." The Secret Service did tell TheWrap.com on March 14 that they were "aware" of Snoop’s video. But it doesn’t appear they’re hauling him off to prison over his comments. It is a federal crime to threaten the president, but such actions have to be substantial and credible enough to meet the level of a "true threat." The First Amendment allows a lot of leeway for criticism, and Snoop Dogg is hardly the only recording artist to signal his distaste for Trump. Shock rocker Marilyn Manson, for example, released a video teaser in November 2016 for his new album Say10, in which he beheads a man dressed suspiciously similar to Trump. Snoop Dogg’s reaction since has been limited to a March 15 Instagram video in which he said he’s "got nothing to say, mate." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com He hasn’t been arrested for his video or for talking about it, despite what the fake reports say. We rate this one Pants On Fire! See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-03-23T15:30:27	2017-03-14	['None']
-pomt-06218	"The only reason the unemployment rate is going down is because … twice as many people dropped out of the employment pool as the number of jobs were created."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/06/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-unemployment-only-dropped-becau/	During a Dec. 5, 2011, news conference, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich tried to take the wind out of White House celebrations about the previous week’s jobs report. The statistics for November 2011 were generally regarded as a political plus for President Barack Obama, since they showed the unemployment rate falling to 8.6 percent from 9.0 percent in October, its lowest level since March 2009, just two months after Obama took office. "I think the president has now spent three years proving that he kills jobs in energy, he kills jobs in manufacturing, he kills jobs in virtually every part of American life. I mean, notice -- the only reason the unemployment rate is going down is because … twice as many people dropped out of the employment pool as the number of jobs were created." We’re going to check this statement in two parts. In this item, we’ll check the claim that "the only reason the unemployment rate is going down is because … twice as many people dropped out of the employment pool as the number of jobs were created." In another item, we’re checking the claim that President Barack Obama "has now spent three years proving that he kills jobs in energy, he kills jobs in manufacturing." First, some background about how the unemployment rate is put together. Using a survey of Americans, the Bureau of Labor Statistics determines which respondents are working (either full or part time), which respondents are not working but are looking for work and which ones are not looking for work. The unemployment rate is determined by taking the number of people who are unemployed but are looking for work, and dividing it by the sum of two categories -- those who are employed, plus those who aren’t employed but who are looking for work. In other words, the third broad category of survey respondents -- those who are able to work but who are not actively searching for jobs -- are ignored by this statistic. These may include people who have decided to return to school, who have chosen to take care of their children, who have become dejected and stopped looking or some combination of these categories. What this means is that either of two factors could combine to push the unemployment rate lower -- either more people become employed or more people could stop looking actively for work. So in a literal sense, Gingrich is wrong that the shrinking labor force is "the only reason the unemployment rate is going down." It’s a combination of a shrinking labor force and the increase in jobs. What about the notion that the shrinkage in the labor force was twice the size of the increase in jobs? Judging by the November 2011 data that was widely reported in the media, Gingrich would seem to be right. There were two headline numbers. One was that the economy created a net 120,000 jobs, specifically an increase of 140,000 in the private sector and a decrease of 20,000 government jobs. The other was that the number of people either employed or actively looking for work declined by 315,000. Using these statistics, Gingrich actually undersold the numbers. The shrinkage in the labor force was 2.6 times the size of the increase in jobs, not merely twice the number. But while these numbers are fine to use in isolation, Gingrich runs into problems when he links them, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. That’s because the two numbers originate with different surveys that have different methodologies. As we noted, the unemployment rate is calculated using a survey of Americans that asks whether they are working, looking for work, or not actively looking. This is called the Current Population Survey, or CPS. While the CPS does calculate the number of jobs gained or lost per month, the usual measurement for jobs gained or lost comes from a survey of employer payrolls known as the Current Employment Statistics. Because the CES is almost always the source of employment figures used in government and media reports, it’s understandable why Gingrich turned to it as his benchmark. However, a comparison such as the one he made is one of the exceptions to the rule that CES employment numbers are preferred. To be statistically consistent, Burtless said, you have to use figures from the Current Population Survey. Due to some methodological quirks -- for instance, self-employed Americans are counted by CPS but not by CES -- the monthly increase or decrease in jobs tends to vary somewhat between the two surveys. For November 2011, the CES found a net increase of 120,000 jobs, but the CPS found a net increase of 278,000 jobs. That’s a whole lot closer to the 315,000 Americans who dropped out of the labor market. So, using the CPS numbers, the decline in the labor force is not twice the number of jobs created, as Gingrich said -- it’s only 1.1 times the amount. Our ruling Gingrich would have been correct if he’d simply challenged the White House’s spin by reminding voters that the big drop in the unemployment rate came not just from the jobs created in the previous month but also from workers who left the labor force. However, he overplayed his hand by arguing that "the only reason the unemployment rate is going down" is because of labor force shrinkage. It was by no means the only reason. There were thousands of jobs created too. Gingrich also erred by using the wrong survey in his numerical comparison. (We feel for him: Until Burtless straightened us out, we had thought Gingrich had reported the numbers accurately.) Using the appropriate survey data, the decline in the unemployment rate stemmed in roughly equal parts from job creation and a shrinking labor force. He can't put the blame "only" on people who stopped looking for work. So we rate his statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/736a198d-c5ed-4d2e-80ae-5aa7ada93f14	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-12-06T18:13:38	2011-12-05	['None']
-hoer-01147	Her Son Has Cancer Facebook Sick Child	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/her-son-has-cancer-facebook-sick-child-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Her Son Has Cancer Facebook Sick Child Scam	April 11, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12341	Says Iran has "violated the terms of the (nuclear) deal."	/georgia/statements/2017/jun/14/karen-handel/iran-complying-nuclear-deal-yes-small-hiccups/	Republican Karen Handel took aim at the Iran nuclear deal in two recent televised debates ahead of Georgia’s special election, accusing Iran of failing to comply with the agreement to scale back its nuclear program in exchange for relief from crippling economic sanctions. "From the things that I have seen, they are and (have) already violated the terms of the deal," Handel said in a June 8 debate against Democrat Jon Ossoff ahead of the June 20 vote. In the campaign for Georgia’s 6th, a historically Republican congressional district, Handel has been sharply critical of the agreement, which President Donald Trump disparaged as the "worst deal ever negotiated" during his 2016 run. GOP attack ads launched in May sought to paint Ossoff as a dangerous national security naif in part by highlighting his support for the Obama-era deal. The agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, was signed in 2015 by the United States and Iran, as well as China, Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom. Under the deal, Iran has agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to allow continuous monitoring of its compliance. The United States and other countries agreed to lift sanctions on the condition that Iran abide by its end of the bargain, lest sanctions be reimposed. The deal’s finer details get very technical very quickly, with dozens of limitations placed on Iran’s nuclear-related activities. But the major points concern Iran giving up materials it could use to quickly build a nuclear weapon. Iran agreed to relinquish nearly all of its enriched uranium stockpile (97 percent) and 70 percent of its centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium. It also agreed to stop plutonium production and to dismantle its plutonium reactor. Because Iranian compliance is a crucial national security issue, we decided to look closer at Handel’s repeated claims that the Islamic Republic had violated the terms of the deal. Iran is in compliance The prevailing view among foremost authorities is that Iran has complied with the deal. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has primary monitoring responsibility, and its quarterly reports are considered the authoritative view of Iran’s compliance. With a couple of minor exceptions we’ll deal with later, the agency has repeatedly found Iran to be in compliance with the terms of the agreement. The U.S. State Department, which is required to report to Congress every 90 days on Iran’s compliance, also certified in April that the Islamic Republic is living up to its end of the deal. Additionally, experts we interviewed agreed Iran is complying with nuclear pact. So case closed, right? Mostly, but with some minor qualifications. Excessive ‘heavy water’ a drop in the bucket While the IAEA has certified Iran’s compliance in its quarterly reports, Iran’s record is not without blemishes. The Handel campaign zeroed in on those. Handel’s campaign aide pointed us to news reports and congressional testimony that highlighted instances where Iran committed two small infractions of a highly technical nature. The deal says Iran can keep 130 metric tons of "heavy water," a modified liquid used in some nuclear reactors. However, Iran has twice crept over its limit, according to the IAEA, each time by a fraction of one ton. These breaches formed the core basis of Handel’s claim that Iran violated the nuclear deal. Some experts we spoke to said Iran has tried to create wiggle room by interpreting portions of the agreement to favor their own interests. But the clear consensus is that it overstates the case to say Iran has violated the deal. Daryl Kimball, the executive director Arms Control Association, downplayed the heavy water issue as a "minor infraction," and noted that Iran currently does not have a functioning heavy water reactor. In other words, from a practical standpoint, the issue is essentially moot because excessive heavy water wouldn’t move Iran closer to building a nuclear weapon. Several experts also noted Iran quickly rectified its breach to come back into compliance. Handel’s campaign pointed us to congressional testimony by David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, who warned lawmakers in February about Iran exceeding its heavy water cap. But Handel’s own source now appears to have a more sanguine view on the state of Iran’s compliance. "Iran appears to be complying more strictly with JCPOA limitations over which it was facing controversy, such as the heavy water cap," Albright wrote in a June 5 analysis of the IAEA’s latest Iran report. It is also worth noting that Albright told lawmakers on April 5 that he did not believe Iran’s excessive supply of heavy water justified reimposing sanctions. Inevitable ‘small hiccups’ Several experts said that under any technical agreement there are bound to be minor implementation issues. "A complex, technical process like this one is inevitably going to face small hiccups," said Ariane M. Tabatabai, visiting assistant professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. "Just as Iran believes there have been hiccups on the U.S. side." She added it’s important to distinguish brief slip-ups ― like Iran’s temporary, slightly excessive heavy water inventory ― from major violations. "What’s critical to watch is whether the parties settle those issues in a timely manner and whether they remain fairly minor," Tabatabai said. "So far, the IAEA, State (Department) and the (European Union) believe this was the case." Richard Nephew, senior research scholar on global energy policy at Columbia University, added that allegations of cheating are best reserved for clear-cut, consequential breaches, should they arise. "I don't agree with Ms. Handel's assertion," he said, "and think that it is overstated." Our ruling Handel said Iran has "violated the terms of the (nuclear) deal." The IAEA, the foremost authority on the matter, has repeatedly deemed Iran in compliance with the nuclear deal. The State Department has also certified the Islamic Republic is holding up its end of the bargain, and a host of experts affirmed these definitive findings. However, the IAEA did report two instances where Iran barely -- and briefly -- exceeded its supply of a nuclear reactor component known as "heavy water." But experts said this minor breach posed no practical risk of moving Iran closer to developing a nuclear weapon, and added that such infractions should not be interpreted to mean Iran has not complied with terms of the deal. We rate Handel’s statement Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Karen Handel	None	None	None	2017-06-14T15:21:00	2017-06-08	['None']
-tron-03484	F-35 Airplane Takes Off Vertically, Flips	https://www.truthorfiction.com/f-35-video/	None	space-aviation	None	None	None	F-35 Airplane Takes Off Vertically, Flips	Mar 28, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03925	Bruce Springsteen called Donald Trump an "asshole" on Twitter, signing off with the pro-Clinton hashtag #ImWithHer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bruce-springsteen-attacks-donald-trump-on-twitter/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bruce Springsteen Attacks Donald Trump on Twitter	29 September 2016	None	['Bruce_Springsteen', 'Donald_Trump']
-tron-00530	Camping World CEO Doesn’t Want Business from Trump Supporters	https://www.truthorfiction.com/camping-world-ceo-doesnt-want-business-trump-supporters/	None	business	None	None	['business', 'donald trump', 'protests']	Camping World CEO Doesn’t Want Business from Trump Supporters	Aug 23, 2017	None	['None']
-wast-00042	99% of Elana [sic] Kagan's White House records were made public before her nomination hearing. 0.08% of Brett Kavanaugh's records are public now. It's unprecedented to go to these lengths to hide a Supreme Court nominee's records from the American people.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/15/fact-checking-bipartisan-spinfest-brett-kavanaughs-time-white-house/	None	None	Dianne Feinstein	Salvador Rizzo	None	Fact-checking the bipartisan spinfest on Brett Kavanaugh's time at the White House	August 15	None	['United_States', 'White_House']
-snes-03075	The FBI raided the CDC in the middle of the night to seize data on a link between vaccines and autism.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fbi-raids-cdc-vaccine-data/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did the FBI Raid the CDC for Data on Vaccines and Autism?	24 January 2017	None	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-vogo-00347	Fact Check: Barely True Rating Stays	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-barely-true-rating-stays/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Barely True Rating Stays	August 18, 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-00013	"Election fraud: Democrats are voting twice in Maryland"	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/nov/08/infowars/online-claim-double-voting-maryland-lacks-evidence/	"Election fraud: Democrats are voting twice in Maryland" is the headline for a Nov. 5 posting on Alex Jones' InfoWars website being shared on Facebook. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Readers who look below the headline will see no story and no documentation, just a nearly-10-minute video of Jones' show in which an anonymous caller, identified as "Kevin in West Virginia" who says: "I actually moved to Maryland and I had to vote in Maryland for the early election or for early voting, and one thing that I witnessed -- people had already voted and they're letting them vote again. And this was in Hagerstown, Maryland. And I don't quite understand how they can do that." Jones asks: "What were you seeing?" Kevin responds: "Well, I'm blind so I didn't see it. I could hear them saying, ‘Um, you know, Oh! You voted yesterday but you can go ahead and recast your vote again today.' I mean, it's insane, and I wish I could have pulled my phone out or recorder at the time and gotten this on audio or something." Jones then asserts, without offering evidence, that Democrats in Maryland, Texas and "all over" have been busted for doing the same type of thing, adding, "And it's always Democrats because they have no morals." Jones does not ask, and the caller does not say, if there was any indication that the person trying to vote again was a Democrat. "Somebody's making a joke, I'm guessing," Donna Duncan, assistant deputy for election policy at the Maryland State Board of Elections, told PolitiFact in a phone interview. She said that early voting is done through the electronic voter registration database and anyone who tried to vote twice would be immediately flagged. Their only other option, if they insisted that they hadn't voted yet, would be to cast a provisional ballot, which would be investigated by election officials and never counted if it was confirmed that the person had already voted. Duncan said she was unaware of any specific complaints of double voting in the Nov 6 election. In short, InfoWars is alleging voting fraud by Democrats in Maryland based on the claim of a single anonymous caller who says he overheard a comment that was casually made in public under circumstances that, even if accurately interpreted, don't implicate any particular political party. Because the claim is absent of real evidence, we rate it Pants on Fire!	None	Infowars	None	None	None	2018-11-08T14:15:30	2018-11-05	['Maryland', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pose-00968	Bob McDonnell will propose the expansion of “gang-free school zones,” into “gang-free zones,” similar to the “drug-free zones,” currently in our state laws.	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/1003/seek-law-establishing-gang-free-zones/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Seek law establishing "gang-free zones"	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Bob_McDonnell']
-hoer-01209	A Woman in California is Suing Her Parents Due to Ugly Genes	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-a-woman-in-california-is-not-suing-her-parents-due-to-ugly-genes/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, A Woman in California is Not Suing Her Parents Due to Ugly Genes	May 24, 2018	None	['California']
-pomt-05578	Says "streetcars carry more people than buses … you attract more riders who don't ride transit now, and actually the operating costs are not any greater than the bus."	/oregon/statements/2012/apr/03/charlie-hales/do-streetcars-really-beat-out-buses-capacity-rider/	Portland mayoral candidate Charlie Hales is well known for his support of streetcar projects. He promoted them in Portland during his time as a city council member, then ended his term early to go help other cities start their own. Hales hasn’t advocated expanding the city’s system during his current campaign, but the subject keeps coming up. During an appearance on Oregon Public Broadcasting’s "Think Out Loud," Hales explained why he’s so keen on street cars. It comes down to three things, he said: Because "streetcars carry more people than buses. Because you attract more riders who don't ride transit now. And actually the operating costs are not any greater than the bus. The trick is coming up with the very large capital cost." These sorts of talking points get thrown around a lot by rail-system advocates. We thought it was high time we checked it out. Our first call was to Hales’ campaign. His spokeswoman, Jessica Moskovitz, sent us a thorough e-mail outlining the support for the various pieces of the statement. Before we get to all that, though, let’s start with TriMet when spokeswoman Mary Fetsch. On whether streetcars carry more people than buses, there is no ambiguity. Streetcars have a maximum capacity of 92 riders, according to Fetsch. That’s nearly double the 51 or so riders who can fit on a single bus. (It was clear during the interview that Hales was talking capacity here and not the actual number of riders.) The next part was about whether streetcars have a smaller operating cost. Naturally, our minds went to the huge down payment a city has to make on tracks, whereas a bus can use existing roads. But Hales was careful to take that out of the equation by acknowledging the startup costs. It’s clear he was talking about day-to-day operation. On that point, he seems to be right again. According to Fetsch, the streetcar operations cost $1.50 per boarding ride, while the bus costs $2.82. Now, there are a few important caveats here. Portland’s streetcar system is much smaller than TriMet's bus and MAX systems. That’s important because those two systems require a command center, which deals with dispatch and customer service. The streetcar also ducks security charges -- Portland police take care of the streetcar while TriMet has to budget for the Transit Police Division. You also have to consider the fact that the streetcar serves just the city core, while the MAX and bus systems operate in the low-density, outer areas and run both earlier and later. The last bit of important context here, too, is that the streetcar system requires fewer maintenance expenses: It’s younger and it runs at lower speeds, so it has less wear than the MAX and bus system. That leaves us with the last bit: Do streetcars really attract riders who don’t typically take public transit? Moskovitz, the spokeswoman for Hales, pointed us to a study by Edson Tennyson for the National Research Council on the issue of rail transit. Tennyson concluded that, all things being equal, "rail transit is likely to attract 34 percent to 43 percent more riders than will equivalent bus services." There was a catch, though: That paper was written more than two decades ago. The only other source Moskovitz had was an article touting the increase in streetcar ridership. TriMet, however, had two pieces of pertinent information. First up, between 2000 and 2003, bus stops within a sixth of a mile of the streetcar saw ridership drop by 20 percent when the rail went online. Meanwhile, the streetcar ridership grew well beyond that drop, indicating the system was attracting more people than just those who would have ridden the bus. Second, according to a June 2011 rider study, 38 percent of occasional and infrequent riders exclusively used the MAX, while only 12 percent exclusively used the bus. Of course, the MAX is not the streetcar, but this fact seems to speak to the attractiveness of rail travel over bus for some transit users. While the data are somewhat old and somewhat tangential, taken together they seem to support Hale’s claim that the streetcar attracts more infrequent riders. So that brings us to the ruling. Hales said "streetcars carry more people than buses … you attract more riders who don't ride transit now, and actually the operating costs are not any greater than the bus." Whether these arguments make a persuasive case for the necessity and usefulness of a streetcar system is, of course, up for debate. The statement itself remains factual. While, there’s some missing context, it’s nothing significant. We rate this claim True.	None	Charlie Hales	None	None	None	2012-04-03T14:18:28	2012-02-12	['None']
-snes-06000	A mother named her child "Le-a," which she insists be pronounced "Ledasha."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/le-a/	None	Language	None	Snopes Staff	None	Le-a	30 October 2008	None	['None']
-tron-00427	Huge mountain lion of Kansas and Pennsylvania	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mountainlion/	None	animals	None	None	None	Huge mountain lion of Kansas and Pennsylvania	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Kansas', 'Pennsylvania']
-pomt-11720	The House tax plan "would provide permanent tax cuts for individuals who are multi-millionaires and billionaires," but "all middle-class families will eventually face a tax increase, since tax relief for them expires."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/dec/15/gwen-moore/house-tax-plan-permanent-tax-cuts-rich-eventually-/	U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore took to the House floor on Nov. 29, 2017, to criticize the House tax bill that Republicans hope will become law before the end of the year. The Milwaukee Democrat started with a sarcastic reference to a book authored by Donald Trump before he became president, saying: Mr. Speaker, I proudly present the "art of the deal." The tax deal before us would provide permanent tax cuts for individuals who are multi-millionaires and billionaires. With this deal, all middle-class families will eventually face a tax increase, since tax relief for them expires. We’ve rated as Half True a claim by the biggest backer of the House tax bill, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. We found that savings for some middle-class Wisconsin households would reach $2,000 in 2018 but would get smaller each year after that. So, what about Moore’s claim about the tax bill’s impact nationally? Would multimillionaires and billionaires get permanent tax cuts, while all middle-class families would initially see a tax cut, but later get a tax increase? The bill To support Moore’s claim, her office pointed us to a Washington Post Wonkblog analysis that summarized the House bill this way: Big businesses get a large, permanent tax cut, while American families receive only temporary tax relief that expires" in 2023. The tax increase would mostly hit moderate and middle-income families because a credit designed to help them expires after five years. A $300-per-parent family credit that would be created with the House bill does expire in 2023. But the credit would be available to all families, not just the middle class, though arguably it means more to middle-class families than to higher-income ones. Let’s dig a little deeper. Here’s what we know from a PolitiFact National article and our own reporting. The rich: The House bill makes changes that benefit higher-income earners more than the middle class, even if there aren’t specifically provisions for millionaires or billionaires. Those include permanent reductions to the corporate income tax rate, a lower pass-through business income tax rate and repeal of the estate tax, which is only paid by the ultra wealthy. The net tax cuts going to the richest 1 percent increases from about 34 percent in 2019 to 47 percent in 2027 under the House bill, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. That’s partly because the tax cuts titled to the wealthiest are permanent. The middle class: The Tax Foundation found that, comparing the House bill to current law, the average taxpayer in the middle class would see an increase in their after-tax income -- that is, a tax cut -- in each year from 2018 through 2027. But just because the average taxpayer would get a cut doesn’t mean that all taxpayers would. The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center says that by 2027, roughly 25 to 30 percent of middle-class households would face a tax increase relative to current law. That’s because a family tax credit created by the bill would expire after 2022 and the because law uses a slower-growing measure of inflation for things such as the standard deduction, which has the effect of raising taxes over time. Two notes: While the Tax Foundation and the Tax Policy Center are respected for their research, there isn’t a universal definition of "middle class." It’s not clear which provisions in the tax bill approved by the House will be in the final version of the legislation to be considered by both the House and the Senate. Our rating Moore says the House tax plan "would provide permanent tax cuts for individuals who are multi-millionaires and billionaires," but "all middle-class families will eventually face a tax increase, since tax relief for them expires." The richest do benefit from tax cuts that are permanent, but most in the middle class also would see lower taxes each year from 2018 through 2027. It’s estimated that only 25 to 30 percent of middle-class households, not all of them, would see a tax increase by 2027. We rate Moore’s statement Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Gwen Moore	None	None	None	2017-12-15T05:00:00	2017-11-29	['None']
-pose-00570	"Balance the budget — without gimmicks, one-time revenues, borrowed funds, temporary funds, or tax increases."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/593/no-budget-gimmicks-one-time-revenues-borrowed-fu/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	No budget gimmicks, one-time revenues, borrowed funds, temporary funds or tax increases	2010-12-21T09:36:20	None	['None']
-vogo-00195	Fewer Airplanes Using Lindbergh Field: Video	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fewer-airplanes-using-lindbergh-field-video/	None	None	None	None	None	Fewer Airplanes Using Lindbergh Field: Video	September 11, 2012	None	['None']
-ranz-00020	Half the number of houses per capita are being built now than were built in the 1970s	https://www.radionz.co.nz/programmes/election17-fact-or-fiction/story/201858175/fact-or-fiction-all-just-spin	Fact or Fiction has used population and residential dwelling consent figures from the most recent five-year period available (2012-16) and the corresponding period in the 1970s (1972-76). During the earlier period, about 11 houses per 1000 people were being built each year. During the more recent period, this had dropped to just over five houses per 1000 people - roughly half.	Elections	David Seymour	None	None	Fact or Fiction: All just spin?	12 September 2017	12 September 2017	['None']
-goop-01127	Jennifer Aniston’s Matchmaker Is Gwyneth Paltrow?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwyneth-paltrow-jennifer-aniston-boyfriend-matchmaker/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Aniston’s Matchmaker Is Gwyneth Paltrow?	11:36 am, April 24, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston', 'Gwyneth_Paltrow']
-vees-00161	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte blows hot and cold with the Reds	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-duterte-blows-hot-and-cold-reds	None	None	None	None	Duterte,peace talks,CPP-NPA-NDF	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte blows hot and cold with the Reds	June 24, 2018	None	['None']
-peck-00059	Has the cholera outbreak in Rukwa been fully contained?	https://pesacheck.org/has-the-cholera-outbreak-in-rukwa-been-fully-contained-75e66bbf2c6f	None	None	None	Kiki Otieno	None	Has the cholera outbreak in Rukwa been fully contained?	May 10	None	['None']
-snes-00199	William Harvey Carney was the first African-American serviceman to be awarded the Medal of Honor.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/william-harvey-carney-medal/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Was William Harvey Carney the First Black Medal of Honor Recipient?	16 August 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14401	Susie Lee and her husband "own 17 homes across the country and use their private jet to take vacations," and invest in "companies like Walmart, Halliburton and GEO Group."	/nevada/statements/2016/mar/14/culinary-workers-union/susie-lees-wealth-under-fire-competitive-nevada-co/	The powerful Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union may not have officially gotten involved in the Nevada presidential caucuses, but the 57,000-member union is starting to throw its weight around in down-ballot races. The union endorsed state Sen. Ruben Kihuen in the crowded Democratic primary for Nevada’s hotly contested Fourth Congressional District, and is going on the offensive against Kihuen’s biggest challenger — education advocate and philanthropist Susie Lee. The primary election is June 14. Union secretary-treasurer Geoconda Arguello-Kline asked union members in a letter sent March 9 to endorse Kihuen at the upcoming AFL-CIO state convention, and claimed that Lee is "trying to purchase this congressional seat." "She has never run for office, never taken a tough vote, and frankly, doesn’t represent our values," Arguello-Kline wrote. "She and her husband own 17 homes across the country and use their private jet to take vacations. She is an investor whose personal wealth comes from questionable investments in companies like Walmart, Halliburton and GEO Group (a for-profit prison company)." Given the specificity of the those charges and the likelihood that Lee’s opponents will use her wealth as a negative over the next three months of campaigning, we wanted to see just how accurate the union is. A union spokeswoman forwarded a screenshot of an excel spreadsheet listing all of the properties owned by Lee and her husband Dan, a casino company CEO. We found the union to be correct: The couple listed 14 rentable properties in multiple states on their 60-page financial disclosure report, with a total net value between $2.2 million and $4.8 million. They also own a five-bedroom home in Las Vegas worth around $2.1 million, a vacation home in Wilson, Wyo., and another house in Las Vegas where Lee’s mother-in-law lives, according to county assessor records (personal and vacation homes aren’t required to be disclosed). That adds up to 17 properties. Lee does indeed list several investments in companies generally seen as liberal kryptonite, including Halliburton, for-profit prison company GEO Group and Walmart. But those investments were made through a brokerage account that Lee’s campaign says were made at the discretion of the account manager, not the candidate. Lee’s campaign manager says she dropped the investments, which made up a tiny percentage of her overall investment portfolio, after filing her financial disclosure report in September 2015. Lee’s campaign confirmed that the couple owns a plane, but they said it’s a small single-engine turboprop plane that Dan Lee uses to visit his casino properties in rural areas like Fallon, Nev., and Rising Sun, Ind. The charge of trying to "buy this primary" is harder to fact-check, but Lee has loaned her campaign $150,000, which makes up around 17 percent of her total money raised. But even subtracting those loans, Lee leads her primary opponents in the fundraising race by a significant margin. It’s worth noting that Lee, Kihuen and their two other major opponents have relatively similar stances on raising the standard of living for working class families — all four support universal health care and want to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Our ruling The Culinary Workers Union claims that Lee and her husband "own 17 homes across the country," a "private jet," and that she invests in Walmart, Haliburton and the for-profit prison company GEO Group. There’s no doubt that Lee and her husband are substantially well-off. The union letter is correct on many details about the Lee family’s wealth, but it slightly fudged some of the particulars, like the couple’s airplane and details in their investments. We rate their statement as Mostly True.	None	Culinary Workers Union	None	None	None	2016-03-14T15:29:18	2016-03-09	['Halliburton', 'Walmart']
-tron-00840	Melania Trump an Hired Exorcist to Rid the White House of Obamas’ Demons	https://www.truthorfiction.com/melania-trump-hired-exorcist-rid-white-house-demons-fiction/	None	clinton	None	None	['barack obama', 'donald trump', 'hillary clinton']	Melania Trump Hired an Exorcist to Rid the White House of Demons	Feb 23, 2018	None	['None']
-farg-00164	Iran “has committed multiple violations” of the nuclear deal, specifically on heavy water limits, military inspections and advanced centrifuges.	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-irans-multiple-violations/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['nuclear weapons']	Trump on Iran’s ‘Multiple Violations’	October 13, 2017	2017-10-14 14:45:46 UTC	['None']
-pomt-05424	Before the HOPE scholarship, "70 percent of the high school students who made 1400 or above on their SAT left the state of Georgia. Now, 70 percent of those stay in the state of Georgia."	/georgia/statements/2012/may/01/nathan-deal/deal-hope-aid-keeps-georgias-brightest-close-home/	Even as elected officials cut the beloved HOPE scholarship, they’re going out of their way to remind voters they think it’s good for Georgia and they want it to survive. The nearly 20-year-old program uses Georgia Lottery money to pay in-state college tuition for the state’s highest-performing students. Gov. Nathan Deal told attendees at a recent Atlanta Press Club luncheon that HOPE is keeping Georgia’s best and brightest close to home. "I am told ... and I think my statistic is correct on this, that prior to HOPE, 70 percent of the high school students who made 1400 or above on their SAT left the state of Georgia," he said April 17. "Now the figure is reversed," Deal said. "Seventy percent of those stay in the state of Georgia. And that makes a huge difference on a number of fronts." Sounds like a huge difference to us, but is this statistic true? First, some context. The scholarship has been cut in recent years because spending was growing faster than the state could afford. It used to provide full rides to state schools for those who met its requirements. HOPE now pays full tuition for only about 10 percent of recipients. The rest receive scholarships that cover 90 percent of tuition at 2010-11 academic year rates. That percentage will likely shrink over time. Do students who make 1400 or above on their SAT stay in Georgia at more than twice the rate they did before HOPE? We hunted for the source of Deal’s information and came up short. We found no studies, published or otherwise, that directly support Deal’s statement. What we did find is that a string of credible officials have used this factoid or one like it. Their statements appear in multiple news outlets, including The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This doesn’t mean Deal’s claim is false. Data show it has a ring of truth. Deal’s office responded to our inquiry with a peer-reviewed study published in 2006 in the Journal of Labor Economics about the effects of HOPE on college enrollment. The study did not conclude that the percentage of students who score 1400 or better has grown. Instead, a footnote refers readers to a statement in an October 2000 Athens Banner-Herald article, which in turn quoted then-Gov. Roy Barnes. "Since the HOPE program started seven years ago, [Barnes] said, the state's rate of retaining students with SAT scores between 1500 and 1600 has climbed from 23 percent to 76 percent," according to the story. Barnes told PolitiFact Georgia that he got the number from former University System of Georgia Chancellor Stephen Portch, who had the numbers calculated at the governor’s request. Portch made a similar claim in 2011 to an AJC reporter, but he used a 1400 combined reading and math score as his threshold. Atlanta Magazine and an Augusta television station have also used the number in recent years. Data we found don’t refute these claims. SAT scores of freshmen in Georgia’s state schools appear to be increasing, as is the number of students staying in-state. In fact, the Journal of Labor Economics study found that HOPE reduced the number of students leaving Georgia for college by an average of 560 per year. Furthermore, the average SAT score of freshmen in Georgia public colleges and universities rose nearly 40 points after HOPE, the study said. Average scores in Georgia and the U.S. rose only slightly during that time. Other information suggests Deal was heading in the right direction. But it also raises the possibility that he overstated the percentage of high-scoring college students who stayed. A 2003 presentation by the University System of Georgia stated that in 1992, 36 percent of Georgia’s college-bound seniors who scored 1000 or above enrolled in the system’s schools. Ten years later, that number was 57 percent. The change among higher-scoring students was not so dramatic. For students who scored between 1400 and 1490, the figure climbed 23 percentage points, from 21 percent to 44 percent. The percentage rose to 30 percent for those who scored 1500 and above, an increase of only 8 points. This information has shortcomings. It’s old, and we could not find further details on how researchers came to these conclusions. Furthermore, students can also use HOPE money to attend private schools in Georgia. The data do not show what happened to them. More recent data also suggest Deal is on the right track. According to data provided by the governor’s office, the mean SAT score of freshmen entering UGA jumped from 1,086 to 1,226 between 1993 and 2011. This bodes well for Deal’s statement, but it does not confirm it directly. The governor used very specific numbers in his HOPE claim, but his office could not back them up. There’s also a possibility the data Deal and others have used are far out of date. The newspaper article cited in the study his office sent us is more than a decade old. Deal’s statement contains a kernel of truth. Recent information backs up the larger claim that more of Georgia’s high-achieving students are staying in-state to attend college. But Deal set a high bar when he used such specific figures. The governor earns a Mostly False.	None	Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2012-05-01T06:00:00	2012-04-17	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-tron-02379	Openly Gay Military Unit Created by the Pentagon	https://www.truthorfiction.com/pentagon-gay-unit/	None	military	None	None	None	Openly Gay Military Unit Created by the Pentagon	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-01338	Wendy’s Employee Arrested for Pooping in Chili	https://www.truthorfiction.com/wendys-employee-arrested-pooping-chili/	None	food	None	None	None	Wendy’s Employee Arrested for Pooping in Chili	Mar 14, 2016	None	['None']
-goop-01668	Nicole Kidman Helping Keith Urban To Become Movie Star?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-keith-urban-movie-star-agent/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Nicole Kidman Helping Keith Urban To Become Movie Star?	5:54 pm, February 1, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02168	Julia Roberts Has Rules For Danny Moder While He’s Away Working?	https://www.gossipcop.com/julia-roberts-rules-danny-moder-working/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Julia Roberts Has Rules For Danny Moder While He’s Away Working?	2:55 pm, November 21, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00817	Justin Theroux, Sienna Miller Dating?	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-sienna-miller-dating/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Justin Theroux, Sienna Miller Dating?	8:50 pm, June 14, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03544	A police horse kicked a Black Lives Matter protester.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-horse-kicks-blm-protester/	None	Junk News	None	Bethania Palma	None	Police Horse Kicks Black Lives Matter Protester	15 November 2016	None	['None']
-tron-01323	Aquafina Bottled Water Doesn’t Freeze in Cold Temperatures	https://www.truthorfiction.com/aquafina-bottled-water-doesnt-freeze-cold-temperatures-mostly-truth/	None	food	None	None	['business', 'consumer safety', 'environment']	Aquafina Bottled Water Doesn’t Freeze in Cold Temperatures	Jan 8, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-03035	Former Clinton Hit Man Larry Nichols Confesses to Murders	https://www.truthorfiction.com/former-clinton-hit-man-larry-nichols-confesses-murders/	None	politics	None	None	None	Former Clinton Hit Man Larry Nichols Confesses to Murders	Aug 10, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14657	"I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/	Sen. Bernie Sanders is wearing a bad grade as a badge of honor. The Democratic presidential candidate is under fire since Sunday’s debate for his votes on gun legislation, with chief rival Hillary Clinton eagerly highlighting his flip-flops on immunity for gun dealers, among other issues. Sanders got his chance to explain himself in Underwood, Iowa, when an audience member asked him about his past positions, which she said seemed more Republican. Sanders said that impression wasn’t right. "I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA," he said. "Does that sound like a tool of the NRA? D-minus." We wanted to know if his statement earned perfect marks. A spokesman for Sanders’ campaign said Sanders’ NRA grade came during the 2012 election cycle, as shown in the lobby group’s subscriber-only database. The group awarded Republican John MacGovern, Sanders’ unsuccessful challenger, an A. The NRA corroborated Sanders’ D-minus grade. Of course, 2012 wasn’t Sanders’ first public-office rodeo. The NRA (or technically its political action committee, the NRA-Political Victory Fund) has grades for Sanders as far back as 1992, when he ran for his second term for Congress as an independent from Vermont. (The NRA did not have earlier ratings available even though Sanders first ran for Congress in 1988 before winning in 1990.) The grades the gun lobby did have on file show Sanders has never exactly been in its favor, with one sort-of exception. 1992 D 1994 F 1996 F 1998 F 2000 F 2002 F 2004 D+ 2006 C- 2012 D- Our first thought: Man, the NRA really didn’t like Sanders in the 1990s and early 2000s, awarding five straight Fs. The NRA slightly warmed to Sanders in the mid 2000s, giving him a D-plus in 2004 and a C-minus in 2006, his first bid for the Senate. That’s mediocre but passing, right? The change of heart corresponds with Sanders voting in favor of the gun liability bill, which passed in October 2005 with NRA support. The bill also contained provisions for childproof trigger locks and a ban on body armor-piercing bullets, which Sanders mentioned as he explained his vote to the audience in Underwood. However, its most controversial provision was broad immunity for gun sellers, with a few exceptions, such as if the seller was negligent or knowingly broke the law in making the sale. The Democrats opposed this section, but the bill passed 283-144 in the House. (You can read more about Sanders' votes on guns over his congressional career in this fact-check.) NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter gave us a little more insight into the group’s grading process. Ratings are compiled by lobbyists and analysts who know the issues in their specific region well, she said, and are generally not done for primaries. Each grade represents each election cycle, including all of the relevant gun issues in that politician’s state and the country at that time. "They only last through that election," Hunter said. Clinton’s most recent grade came in 2006 as she ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006. It was an F. Our ruling Sanders said he has a "D-minus grade" from the NRA. He’s accurately referring to the most recent assessment from the gun lobby group in 2012. The NRA has not issued a more recent evaluation for Sanders for the 2016 primary election. It’s worth noting that the grade is a few years old, and that his rating has been higher in previous election cycles. Still, a D-minus is far from a full-throated endorsement. His claim is partially accurate but needs more clarifying information, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-01-20T18:27:37	2016-01-19	['None']
-pose-00990	Will develop a statewide leadership academy with a "focus on improving the leadership development pipeline so that the best candidates are selected, the best training is provided and the leadership needs of local school districts are met by a crop of highly effective principals.”	https://www.politifact.com/tennessee/promises/haslam-o-meter/promise/1057/create-academic-leadership-academy/	None	haslam-o-meter	Bill Haslam	None	None	Create academic leadership academy	2012-01-18T15:26:36	None	['None']
-goop-01418	Justin Theroux Hitting On Selena Gomez Following Jennifer Aniston Split?	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-selena-gomez-jennifer-aniston-split/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Justin Theroux Hitting On Selena Gomez Following Jennifer Aniston Split?	10:16 am, March 9, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00289	Bill O’Reilly Embellished Combat Experiences and Has a Brian Williams Problem	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bill-oreilly-embellished-combat-experiences-and-has-a-brian-williams-problem/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Bill O’Reilly Embellished Combat Experiences and Has a Brian Williams Problem	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-peck-00009	How Much Money Is Going To The NYS in the Supplementary Budget?	https://pesacheck.org/has-the-government-doubled-its-allocation-to-nys-in-the-supplementary-budget-16e0ea6b0230	None	None	None	Leo Mutuku	None	How Much Money Is Going To The NYS in the Supplementary Budget?	Feb 9, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-12397	"Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia."	/georgia/statements/2017/may/26/congressional-leadership-fund/gop-attack-ad-twists-ossoff-donation-sources-georg/	Both sides have launched attack ads in the race for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District. Recently, Democrats accused Republican Karen Handel of wallowing in administrative bloat. (We rated that Mostly False). Now, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan, has an ad that paints Democrat Jon Ossoff as beholden more to people in California than voters in Georgia. It is running in the Atlanta area as part of the super PAC’s $6.7 million independent expenditure. Shot against iconic backdrops of San Francisco, actors, each one the most stereotypical of "left coast" stereotypes, speak cheerfully about Ossoff. A young woman with a floppy hat and a big "Cut the military now" button says, "There’s a reason Bay Area liberals have contributed more to Jon Ossoff’s campaign than people in Georgia. He’s one of us." Another young woman stands in front of the Golden Gate Bridge and says "San Francisco hearts Ossoff." With a coy toss of her ponytails, she makes a heart with her hands and presses them to her chest. Set aside the political snark and you have this factual claim: San Francisco "Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia." Is it so? The Congressional Leadership Fund said they got their information from the Mercury News, a prominent local paper. An April 12 article said, "Ossoff reported 2,628 individual donations from people living in the nine Bay Area counties, significantly more than from all of Georgia — although of a smaller total value." Here’s how the numbers shook out at the end of March when the data behind the article was collected. (The dollar total for Bay Area residents wasn’t in the article. We calculated it based on the same data.) State Number of donors Dollars (through March 31, 2017) Georgia 1,578 $600,141 California 5,822 $547,857 Bay Area 2,628 $290,229 (PolitiFact calculation) So first off, the article doesn’t back up what the ad said, that people in the Bay Area gave more to Ossoff than people in Georgia. In fact, as the original article noted, Georgians gave more money to Ossoff than people from California. As for people in the Bay Area, we found that they gave half as much compared to voters in Georgia. (More people from the Bay Area contributed than from Georgia, but that’s not what the ad claimed.) Of course, it’s also important to note that the ad relies on information that is now nearly two months old. In truth, there’s only so much more to learn. The last public report was on April 16. With help from staff at the Center for Responsive Politics, we updated the totals. Georgia remained in the lead, by about $640,000 compared to about $321,000 from the Bay area. It’s also worth noting that donations under $200 are not required to be itemized under Federal Election Commission rules, meaning we don’t know where those donors live. That accounts for about two-thirds of Ossoff’s donations through the end of March. Our ruling The Conservative Leadership Fund is running an ad that says "Bay Area liberals have given more to Jon Ossoff's campaign than people in Georgia." In fact, based on data available through mid April, people in Georgia have given Ossoff twice as much money as people in the Bay Area. The one trace of accuracy is that Bay Area donors outnumber Ossoff’s Georgia donors, but the ad failed to describe the donations in those terms. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Congressional Leadership Fund	None	None	None	2017-05-26T10:23:11	2017-05-22	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-hoer-00157	Point to Point Speed Camera Warning Email	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/point-to-point-speed-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Point to Point Speed Camera Warning Email	March 2008	None	['None']
-tron-00352	The album cover that seemed to anticipate the World Trade Center Attack	https://www.truthorfiction.com/coup/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	The album cover that seemed to anticipate the World Trade Center Attack	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00108	The claim: Clive Palmer says senior citizens in Australia are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/clive-palmer-wrong-asylum-seekers-pensioners/4917836	The claim: Clive Palmer says senior citizens in Australia are paid less than newly arrived asylum seekers.	['immigration', 'federal-government', 'federal-elections', 'clive-palmer', 'aged-care', 'minor-parties', 'australia']	None	None	['immigration', 'federal-government', 'federal-elections', 'clive-palmer', 'aged-care', 'minor-parties', 'australia']	Clive Palmer wrong on asylum seekers being paid more than pensioners	Tue 17 Sep 2013, 2:33am	None	['Australia']
-pomt-08597	Marco Rubio tried to insert "$1.5 million for a rowing institute" into the state budget.	/florida/statements/2010/sep/24/charlie-crist/rowing-institute-earmark-center-new-charlie-crist-/	Charlie Crist's independent campaign for the U.S. Senate is reaching back into his old Republican playbook to attack GOP candidate Marco Rubio. In a new TV ad called "Vetoed," Crist says Rubio of tried to sneak millions of dollars of earmarks and pet projects into the state budget while Rubio was House speaker. It's pretty much a rehash of an attack Crist launched back in the spring, when he was still fighting for the Republican nomination. "Have you seen Marco Rubio's ads attacking me?" Crist asks in the ad, which began airing on Sept. 20, 2010. "Here's what he's hiding. Rubio tried to sneak almost $500 million in earmarks into the budget. I vetoed them. One and a half million dollars for a rowing institute. Vetoed. $800,000 for artificial turf on a Miami field where he played flag football. I vetoed that, too. "Just remember, the Washington special interests who are paying for Rubio's ads don't want an independent like me looking out for your money." Back in March, PolitiFact Florida checked Crist's claim that Rubio inserted $800,000 into the state budget for artificial turf on a field where Rubio played flag football and ruled it to be Half True. In this fact check, we wanted to check the other specific claim -- which we're hearing for the first time -- that Rubio tried to steer $1.5 million to a rowing institute. First, a little background. Rubio served as House speaker during Crist's first two years as governor in 2007 and 2008. As speaker, Rubio wielded great influence over the state budget the Legislature ultimately presented to the governor. "The House speaker has absolute power to direct the appropriations staff, subcommittee chairs or appropriations chair to put in the appropriation or take it out," said Steve Geller, a retired Senate Democratic leader. "If the speaker said 'put it in,' it's in, if he said 'take it out,' it's out. ... One of the perks of being speaker or (Senate) president is you get to put money places." And one of the perks of being governor is the ability to veto individual pieces of the budget. Florida's governor has the power of a line-item veto, meaning Crist can strike a specific program or project from the state budget without having to reject the spending plan entirely. In 2007, Crist vetoed what was said to be a record $459 million in projects from the budget. Crist vetoed more than $140 million in college construction projects. He killed a $15 million program to safeguard mobile homes from hurricanes. He axed $6 million to continue privatization of the state accounting system. "We are trying to lead by example," Crist said at the time. "Honoring the fact that the people across the state are pinching their pennies, so are we." We should note that other local projects were spared by Crist in 2007. In a parks category, he vetoed most line items but spared $500,000 to restore the fort at Fort DeSoto Park in his home county of Pinellas. And 13 projects supported by Sen. Mike Fasano, a Crist ally from Pasco County, survived the veto ax. In Rubio's second year as speaker in 2008, Crist's vetoes to a smaller budget were also much smaller. Crist cut just two projects, $300,000 for a lake restoration program in Central Florida and $840,000 for a Miami festival promoting ties with Miami's sizable Nicaraguan community. That's roughly about $460 million in budget vetoes in Rubio's two years as speaker, or as Crist says in the ad -- that's "almost $500 million" that Crist claims Rubio tried to sneak into the budget. It's a stretch in itself to try to link every project Crist vetoed in two years specifically to Rubio, as if he was personally pushing for $7.5 million for economic development initiatives in Pasco County (vetoed in 2007) or $1 million in startup costs for the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority (vetoed in 2007). It's also a pretty big stretch to use the word "sneak" the way Crist does. The projects are listed in line items within the budget, and the governor's office keeps a spreadsheet that tracks what each request is for. But we'll address those stretches more in the context of the rowing center claim. The $1.5 million budget request was to build a boat house and improve a boat launch ramp on a water management district canal near Fellsmere, a tiny inland town in Indian River County. The canal, called the C-54 Canal, runs in a straight east-west line between Indian River and Brevard counties, and has high dirt and grass mounds on either side. The mounds protect the water from being exposed to the wind. As a result, the canal has become a perfect venue for competitive rowers. The state would have helped create the Tom Adams National Training Center for Rowing, a partnership between the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne and the St. Johns River Water Management District. The request for the money came to the Legislature from state Rep. Ralph Poppell, R-Vero Beach. In an interview with PolitiFact Florida, Poppell said the money might have helped land the U.S. Olympic Rowing Team, which was thinking of training on the Florida canal for several months out of the year. "I have been there when there would be 300-500 cars lined up on that canal bank," Poppell said. "People are coming down from Michigan and Massachusetts to do events in that spot because there is nowhere else really good to go." Crist vetoed the $1.5 million appropriation in 2007 when Rubio was speaker, and a request for $500,000 for the canal in 2010 when Rubio had left the state House. We asked Poppell -- who hadn't seen the Crist ad -- what role Rubio had in adding the $1.5 million to the budget. "I think all I did with the speaker, if I remember correctly, I made him aware of what we were trying to accomplish," Poppell said. "I don't think I went to him to ask him for any special favor. In his thought, he was supportive if we could find the money to do it. To be honest, it wasn't a hot button issue. He believed in it, but he also was very clear we were dealing with a tight budget." Poppell called us back after watching the ad online. Crist "needs to pin it on the person who did it. That's me," Poppell said. "I'm the one who sponsored it. I'm the one who believed in it. I'm the one who fought for it. I'm the one that pushed it. "Did it have to meet the muster of the leadership? Sure," Poppell said. "But I didn't spend hours beating on Marco's door. If people are going to throw any stones about this project, throw them at me." We asked the Crist and Rubio campaigns about connections between Rubio and the $1.5 million rowing appropriation. "The speaker's budget that was presented to the governor for signature or veto with the speaker's vote and support included $1.5 million for a rowing institute," Crist spokesman Danny Kanner said. Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos said there is no direct connection between the rowing center and Rubio, and reiterated that it was Poppell who sought the money. In his latest television ad, "Vetoed," Crist claims that Rubio tried to sneak almost $500 million into the state budget for pet projects, including "$1.5 million for a rowing institute." We find a lot lacking in the claim. Rubio did vote for the 2007 budget with the $1.5 million included for the rowing center. And as speaker, he could have likely killed the appropriation before a floor vote. But that's the extent of the relationship between Rubio and the rowing money. We found no evidence in news accounts, for example, that Rubio lobbied or pushed for the money. We also found no direct benefit to Rubio for funding a project 150 miles north of his Miami-area House district. That's a key difference from a project for Rubio's home district, or a project where he otherwise might benefit (like adding artificial turf to fields where Rubio played flag football). The clear suggestion from Crist's ad is that Rubio tried to sneak the money into the budget. But there's no evidence of that, either. The request was formally submitted on Jan. 12, 2007 -- months before the budget was agreed to -- and the initial request made clear what the money was for: "Construction of necessary infrastructure along the C-54 Canal in Brevard County to facilitate use as a rowing training center." And that request, as we now know, wasn't made by Rubio, but Poppell. And just to be even more clear, the rowing center appropriation had its own line in the budget. (See here, page 345). To tie Rubio to the rowing center is an oversimplification of how the state budget process works -- a process Crist as a former state senator knows quite well. We rate his claim Pants On Fire!	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2010-09-24T06:54:04	2010-09-20	['Marco_Rubio']
-hoer-00586	Rupert Murdoch Condemned for Insensitive 'Congrats' Tweet	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/rupert-murdoch-condemed-congrats-tweet.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Rupert Murdoch Condemned for Insensitive 'Congrats' Tweet	December 17, 2014	None	['None']
-snes-04326	Google's definition for the word "trap" includes an example sentence about demonstrators and police.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/google-result-for-trap-shows-liberal-agenda/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Google Result for ‘Trap’ Shows Liberal Agenda?	3 August 2016	None	['None']
-goop-00175	Jennifer Garner’s “New Man” Is Co-Star Arturo Del Puerto?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-dating-arturo-del-puerto-new-man-camping-costar/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Jennifer Garner’s “New Man” Is Co-Star Arturo Del Puerto?	1:55 am, October 5, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11570	"100% of heroin/fentanyl epidemic is because we don't have a WALL."	/north-carolina/statements/2018/feb/02/ann-coulter/would-wall-have-prevented-opioid-epidemic/	In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, President Donald Trump proposed a stricter immigration system that he says would keep Americans safer and help address the country’s opioid epidemic. Trump’s plan is built on four "pillars," as he called them, one of which is a wall along America’s southern border. "Our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country," Trump said, adding shortly thereafter: "These reforms will also support our response to the terrible crisis of opioid and drug addiction." The speech was roundly praised by conservative politicians and pundits, including Ann Coulter. Coulter is the author of several books and often appears on radio and television shows. While Trump’s speech didn’t linger on the relationship between opioids and Mexico, Coulter attempted to provide some context. "Good he's talking about opioid crisis -- 100% of heroin/fentanyl epidemic is because we don't have a WALL," she tweeted. There are three claims to address here. One: the insinuation that the opioid crisis is limited to or caused by a rise in heroin and fentanyl use. Two: that all heroin and fentanyl used by Americans enters the country through Mexico. And three: the suggestion that building a wall along America’s southern border would drastically reduce opioid abuse. What are opioids? The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes opioids as a class of drugs that includes heroin, fentanyl and prescription pain relievers such as oxycodone (including OxyContin), hydrocodone (including Vicodin), codeine, morphine, and many others. Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid pain reliever that is similar to morphine but is 50 to 100 times more potent. More than 64,000 people died in 2016 from drug overdoses, the majority of which were linked to opioids, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trump declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency Oct. 26 at the White House. What caused the epidemic? According to the final report by the U.S. Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, a commission Trump created, the current epidemic is a result of "excessive prescribing of opioids since 1999" compounded by the "widespread availability of inexpensive and purer illicit heroin; the influx of highly potent fentanyl/fentanyl analogs." The commission included former Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the chairman, Republican Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Democratic North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, former Democratic Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Republican Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Bertha Madras, an opioid expert and professor of psychobiology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. "Examining national-level general population heroin data (including those in and not in treatment), nearly 80 percent of heroin users reported using prescription opioids prior to heroin," the Institute on Drug Abuse notes on a webpage explaining prescription opioids as a gateway drug. In 2015 alone, the Institute says, an estimated 2 million people in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers, and 591,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder (the stats aren’t mutually exclusive). Where do heroin and fentanyl come from? International gangs based in Mexico "remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States," and their most common method of smuggling drugs is vehicles legally coming into the U.S., according to a 2017 Drug Enforcement Administration report. And, as PolitiFact previously reported, heroin is most smuggled through Mexico. "Opium poppy cultivation and heroin production in Mexico, believed to be the primary source of heroin for the U.S. market, have continued to surge, providing traffickers a steady stream of high-purity, low-cost heroin to market throughout the United States," the report says. As for fentanyl, it mainly originates in China and comes in through the southwest border, Canada and the U.S. Postal Service. Trump’s opioid commission says many users are ordering the pill-form of fentanyl online and having it shipped discreetly. The commission’s report references a Carnegie Mellon University study which found that revenues from online illicit drug sales increased from between $15-17 million in 2012 to $150-$180 million in 2015. Furthermore, the fentanyl found at the southern border tends to be less potent than the fentanyl shipped through the mail. "Large volumes of fentanyl are seized at the [southern border], although these seizures are typically low in purity – on average approximately 7 percent," the DEA’s 2017 report says. "Conversely, the smaller volumes seized after arriving in the mail directly from China can have purities over 90 percent and be worth much more than the fentanyl seized at the SWB." Would a wall work? Probably not. Trump has said that building a wall between the United States and Mexico would curb opioid use in America, and experts told PolitiFact in October they’re skeptical a wall would have a drastic impact. Even though a lot of heroin comes from Mexico, it’s not always walked across the border. As PolitiFact pointed out in this fact check of Trump, traffickers typically smuggle the drugs in through secret compartments in vehicles crossing the border (through legal checkpoints and illegal crossings), transport them to stash houses in hub cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Phoenix, and then distribute to the Midwest and East Coast. "Traffickers hide their illicit cargo in secret, state–of–the art compartments designed for cars, or under legal goods in trailer trucks. And they have learned many techniques for fooling the border patrol," Vanda Felbab-Brown wrote in an August 2017 essay for the Brookings Institute, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. As Trump once accurately noted, smugglers also attempt to get drugs into the United States using catapults, drones, boats and tunnels. At least 232 tunnels were discovered on U.S. borders from 1990 to January 2017, according to the 2017 DEA report. The report notes that the most common method employed by Mexican traffickers "involves transporting illicit drugs through U.S. ports of entry (POEs) in passenger vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor trailers." As for fentanyl, Trump’s opioid commission seemed more concerned with shipments from China than couriers from Mexico. "We are losing this fight predominately through China," the commission wrote in its interim report. "This must become a top tier diplomatic issue with the Chinese; American lives are at stake and it threatens our national security," it says. "Our inability to reliably detect fentanyl at our land borders and at our international mail handling facilities creates untenable vulnerabilities." Josh Stein, North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, summarized the issue in an email. "Traffickers predominately bring heroin from Mexico but usually through legal points of entry. Drug dealers import illicit fentanyl from China usually by air. To effectively combat the opioid epidemic … there are better investments than a wall." Our ruling Coulter, alluding to the opioid crisis, said the heroin and fentanyl epidemic was "100 percent" caused by America’s lack of a border wall. Heroin is mostly trafficked from Mexico, mostly hidden in cargo – not by crossing the border through the desert. Fentanyl comes from both Mexico and Canada, and can also be transported through the mail. Coulter’s "100 percent" claim is far off-base no matter how we parse it. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ann Coulter	None	None	None	2018-02-02T13:17:22	2018-01-30	['None']
-bove-00263	Fairness Miracle Or Fraud In A Bottle?: BOOM Investigates	https://www.boomlive.in/fairness-miracle-or-fraud-in-a-bottle-boom-investigates/	None	None	None	None	None	Fairness Miracle Or Fraud In A Bottle?: BOOM Investigates	May 29 2017 4:14 pm, Last Updated: Jun 14 2017 4:07 pm	None	['None']
-vogo-00324	Statement: “It wasn’t long ago that we were No. 3 in the nation for car thieves and now we’re down to 15,” District Attorney and mayoral candidate Bonnie Dumanis said during a Fox 5 interview Sept. 15.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-car-theft-rankings-drop/	Analysis: In September, Dumanis announced 33 indictments following a six-month undercover investigation. The felony charges included vehicle theft, burglary, stolen property and weapons violations, and she touted the case as example of local law enforcement’s crackdown on car thieves.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Car Theft Rankings Drop	October 7, 2011	None	['Bonnie_Dumanis']
-farg-00014	"Medicare will be $700 billion stronger over the next decade thanks to our growth."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/trumps-fuzzy-medicare-math/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['medicare']	Trump’s Fuzzy Medicare Math	September 20, 2018	2018-09-20 20:25:38 UTC	['None']
-pomt-04396	"Bill Nelson voted for higher taxes 150 times."	/florida/statements/2012/oct/17/connie-mack/connie-mack-says-repeatedly-bill-nelson-voted-incr/	Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson is a big fan of tax increases, says his Republican rival U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV of Fort Myers. "Bill Nelson voted for higher taxes 150 times, 150 times," Mack said during a debate at Nova Southeastern University in Davie Oct. 17. "I voted to cut taxes … if you voted for higher taxes 150 times, it's time for you to go." Later in the debate Nelson said that Mack’s claim was "simply not true." "Outside fact-check organizations have said it's not true," Nelson said. "You haven’t talked about all the tax cuts I voted for." Mack repeated the claim again: "Senator, your propensity to vote for higher taxes is shocking, absolutely shocking. Like I said, if you voted for higher taxes 150 times, it’s time for you to go." We fact-checked this claim by Mack in August and rated it False. We will summarize what we learned from our earlier research. Double-counting votes and other tallying tricks Mack’s campaign sent us a list of what they characterized as at least 157 votes in favor of higher taxes during Nelson’s Senate career, which started in 2001. (They sent us a similar list again the night of the debate.) About half of the votes on the list are Democratic budget resolutions, which set non-binding parameters for considering tax and spending legislation. So it's technically incorrect to say the budget resolution raised, lowered or even kept taxes the same. The documents cannot change tax law. Mack’s tally counts multiple votes on the same budget resolution. For example, Mack cites nine votes Nelson took in 2008 about Congressional Resolution 70, a five-year budget plan. Mack also counted multiple votes on actual legislation. It’s common for senators to take multiple votes as both parties engage in maneuvering and introduce competing amendments. For example, in 2001 Mack counts 15 of Nelson’s votes against H.R. 1836 -- the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush. That counts as one example of Nelson opposing tax cuts -- not 15 examples. Which brings us to another point: Is opposing a tax cut the same as "voting to raise our taxes?" Mack’s list counts several examples of Nelson opposing tax cuts. Some are minor, such as Nelson’s vote to table an amendment to get rid of the medical device tax in 2010. We sent Mack’s list to a three federal budget experts, who generally agreed that a vote against a new tax cut doesn’t equal a tax increase. Joshua Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a group that urges deficit reduction, said Mack’s long list was "ludicrous." "Voting to lessen the size of a tax cut in a budget resolution is not voting for a tax increase," he said. "So, I would argue the methodology represents a crazy way to look at this issue." Nelson supported some tax cuts Mack’s statement omits that Nelson has sometimes voted in favor of tax cuts. Here, we will focus on the Bush tax cuts. Nelson opposed a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001 because he said it didn’t do enough to reduce debt or help low- and middle-income taxpayers. He also said that as a congressman he had voted for President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and that led to huge deficits. "I don't want to see Congress make that mistake again," Nelson said in 2001. In 2003 on the second round of Bush tax cuts, Nelson voted against the $350 billion package on the conference report. But in 2006 and in 2010 Nelson, supported extending the tax cuts. This year, he went along with Obama’s plan and voted in July to keep tax cuts only for those earning less than $250,000, though he had said he would have preferred keeping the Bush-era tax cuts for those earning up to $1 million. "His favored position, and one he still holds, is to let the Bush cuts expire on those making more than $1 million," said his Senate spokesman Dan McLaughlin. Nelson called for other tax cuts at times. During his first Senate term he bucked his party in favor of repealing the estate tax and in 2007 he sponsored an amendment to reduce the tax on large cigars. Some of Nelson’s votes cited by Mack would only affect certain businesses -- for example he voted in favor of repealing exemptions for oil and gas companies in 2010. He took many votes in favor of eliminating corporate tax breaks to pay for projects such as port security. Mack’s spokesman told us that the largest tax increase Nelson voted for was "Obamacare." The health care law did raise taxes on the wealthy and health insurance companies. (Read about those provisions in a fact-check we did on a claim by Rush Limbaugh.) In an interview on debate night, Mack campaign consultant Gary Maloney defended including the budget resolutions and said they are important because they bind congressional committees on their spending and build in assumptions of revenue, taxes and spending. "A vote for a budget that assumes higher taxes is a vote that is designed to produce a revenue bill that will raise taxes," he said. Our ruling Mack said, "Bill Nelson voted for higher taxes 150 times." Mack arrives at that figure through some tricks: He counts non-binding resolutions and duplicative votes on the same bill. He counts a vote against a tax cut as a vote for a tax increase, even though it’s not the same thing. And Mack failed to tell debate viewers that Nelson has also voted in favor of tax cuts or extending tax cuts. In the list of votes that Mack supplied to PolitiFact after the debate, he included a note that explained it included non-binding votes and other caveats. But during the debate, Mack didn’t explain any of that -- he just repeated the claim without further explanation. We rate this claim False.	None	Connie Mack	None	None	None	2012-10-17T21:14:57	2012-10-17	['None']
-pomt-09394	The cost to implement Florida's class size amendment so far has been "$16 billion."	/florida/statements/2010/mar/24/don-gaetz/florida-don-gaetz-class-size-16-billion/	A school superintendent turned state Senator wants to relax a requirement that the state continue shrinking K-12 class sizes. State Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, says that while a 2002 constitutional amendment mandating smaller classes has produced positive results, the expensive cost in a weak economy don't justify a continued investment. Gaetz, the former superintendent in Okaloosa County, thinks voters might get sticker shock if they heard how much taxpayers already have spent implementing the state's class amendment. "The cost of class size so far: $16 billion," Gaetz said on the Senate floor March 23, 2010. That's an awful lot of money -- about a quarter of the total annual state budget. Put another way, with $16 billion the state could build new baseball stadiums in St. Petersburg and Miami ($1 billion), fund NASA's mission to put people back on the moon for two years ($2.5 billion) and give every Floridian $500 ($8.8 billion). With what's left over -- $3.7 billion -- the state could fund every Congressional campaign in 2010. Has the cost been that large? First, some background about the class-size amendment. In November 2002, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment that sets limits for how many students are allowed per class starting in the 2010-11 school year. The limits are no more than 18 students for grades K-3, no more than 22 students for grades 4-8 and no more than 25 students for grades 9-12. In 2003, the state started to slowly implement the changes. First, classroom reductions were measured at the school district average, then at the school average. This fall, districts are scheduled to meet the new limits in every classroom. But Gaetz wants to freeze the class-size reduction program. His proposed amendment to the constitution would require schools to meet class-size averages, instead of the exact numbers in every room. The proposal must be approved by three-fifths of the Legislature and 60 percent of voters in November if it is to become law. As for the costs, Gaetz is nearly right on. The House PreK-12 Appropriations Committee received a class size update from the state Department of Education in January. The report on class size, which you can see here (starts on page 36), includes a breakdown of the operating and capital costs to implement the class size amendment. The total cost listed in the report actually is slightly more than $19 billion, but that includes the money requested for the 2010-2011 school year. Counting only the money that's already been allocated, the cost so far is $15.8 billion, according to the same report. A Senate staff analysis of Gaetz's bill includes the same $15.8 billion figure. Gaetz said on the Senate floor that the cost so far implementing mandatory class size reductions has been $16 billion. The Florida Department of Education puts the bill at $15.8 billion to date, and could spend another $3.2 billion next year. We rate Gaetz's claim True.	None	Don Gaetz	None	None	None	2010-03-24T17:36:42	2010-03-23	['None']
-snes-06090	Actor James Woods said he observed and reported four suspicious men possibly making a hijacking trial run on an airline flight before the 9/11 attacks.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/out-of-the-woods-2/	None	September 11th	None	Snopes Staff	None	James Woods Saw the 9/11 Terrorists?	11 October 2001	None	['None']
-farg-00080	"We have a lot of job openings. And people that weren’t hiring for years and years and years — all of a sudden, we have jobs."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/trump-spins-rise-in-job-openings/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['jobs']	Trump Spins Rise in Job Openings	May 8, 2018	2018-05-08 18:46:10 UTC	['None']
-pomt-05598	"Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare, especially the individual mandate."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/29/rick-santorum/santorum-says-americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-heal/	Rick Santorum, in an op-ed for U.S. News and World Report, wrote about his opposition to the national health care reform law, calling it "a dangerous precedent" that "should be repealed in its entirety." And he says the American public is on his side. "Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare, especially the individual mandate," Santorum wrote in the March 26, 2012, column. The op-ed ran the same week that the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the law and the mandate. We decided to check if Santorum is right about how the law is currently polling. First, the law itself The law, commonly referred to as Obamacare, is a massive legislative package that seeks to extend health coverage to all Americans. The individual mandate is the centerpiece, requiring all Americans to have insurance, either through their employers, private plans or government programs. We contacted Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, and Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who studies health care polling. Both pointed us toward recent polls on the issue Here are some highlights: * A March 2012 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows a virtual draw, with 41 percent of respondents reporting a favorable opinion of the law and 40 percent an unfavorable opinion. * United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted March 22-25: 43 percent favor, 46 percent oppose * The Pew Research Center’s March 2012 poll found that 47 percent approve of the legislation, and 45 percent disapprove. * CNN, conducted March 24-25, 2012: 43 percent favor, 50 percent oppose * ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted March 10, 2012: 41 percent support, 52 percent oppose. * New York Times, conducted March 23-25, 2012: 36 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove * Ipsos Poll conducted for Reuters, March 2012: 44 percent favor the law, and 56 percent oppose. Bowman noted that "although responses differ from pollster to pollster, each pollster’s trend on the legislation has been remarkably stable for the 32 months we’ve tracked attitudes." The overall trend shows the country has remained split over the law since it passed in 2010, with negative opinion on the rise in some polls in the last few months. Next, the mandate The individual mandate consistently shows up as the most unpopular piece of the health care legislation, and recent polls are no different. A brief roundup: * Kaiser Family Foundation: 30 percent feel somewhat favorable or very favorable about the individual mandate, 67 percent feel somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable. * Pew Research Center: 32 percent had a favorable view of the provision, while 66 percent viewed it unfavorably. * National Journal: 28 percent of those surveyed said they supported the mandate, while 66 percent opposed it. * The ABC News/Washington Post poll asked a slightly different question and found 26 percent of Americans want to uphold the entire health care law, 25 percent want to throw out just the mandate, and 42 percent want to get rid of the whole thing. "In other words," Blendon told us, "the Washington Post finds that 67 percent of Americans want to get rid of the mandate." Said Bowman: "Nearly every poll I’ve seen (and there are dozens) shows the public opposed to the mandate. If Santorum was speaking about the mandate only, the polls show opposition (and much of it strong)." But both our experts were more measured about the extent of opposition to the entire law. Bowman noted that Americans like many sections of the law, such as the provision that allows children to remain on their parents’ health plan until age 26 and another that prohibits companies from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition. "The verdict on the law is not overwhelmingly negative, though in most polls it tilts negative," she said. Blendon said, "Santorum isn’t completely wrong with his claim because some of these polls show a majority of Americans not supporting the overall health care bill or the individual mandate." Our ruling Santorum wrote that, "Polls show Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Obamacare, especially the individual mandate." We consulted several recent polls and found that, in broad terms, opinion on the health care law is more unfavorable than favorable, but not overwhelmingly. As Bowman said, it "tilts negative." But it's also worth noting that four of the most recent polls show stronger opposition than when we have ruled on similar statements in the past. Objection to the individual mandate, however, is resounding. Some polls found approval rates in the low 30s and disapproval in the high 60s. That fits Santorum’s description of "overwhelming." We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2012-03-29T12:11:47	2012-03-26	['United_States', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-pomt-12933	Says Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email password was "password."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/11/reince-priebus/russian-hacking-case-did-hillary-clintons-campaign/	The first question posed to Reince Priebus on the Jan. 8, 2017 edition of CBS’ "Face the Nation" was on what President-elect Donald Trump believes about Russian efforts to meddle in the presidential election. Priebus, the Wisconsinite who is chairman of the Republican National Committee and Trump’s pick for White House chief of staff, responded with a catchy claim. The reference was to the unauthorized release of thousands of emails of John Podesta, an Illinoisan who was chairman of the campaign of the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. "The reason this particular hack was so large wasn’t necessarily because the effort was so great by the Russians. It was that it was so easy," he said. "I mean, John Podesta’s password into his system -- do you know what his password was? Password." Priebus didn’t offer any evidence to host John Dickerson and we didn’t hear back from Trump’s transition team or the Republican National Committee on our requests for information to back Priebus’ claim. But there doesn’t appear to be any evidence to support what he said. The hacking Here’s how the New York Times reported on what happened to Podesta: Russian hackers sent a "phishing" email -- which aims to get the recipient to click on a deceptive link that gives hackers access to their information -- to Podesta’s personal Google mail account in March 2016. The email said Podesta needed to change his password immediately in order to protect his account. Podesta correctly perceived that the email might be a hoax and sought advice from other campaign staffers. In a response, one campaign staffer meant to tell Podesta that the email was illegitimate, but wrote legitimate -- prompting Podesta to change his password. "With another click," as the Times put it, "a decade of emails that Mr. Podesta maintained in his Gmail account — a total of about 60,000 — were unlocked for the Russian hackers." The trove amounted to what The Guardian called "an unprecedented window into a presidential run." Trump used the emails as fodder for attacks on Clinton -- a number of which PolitiFact National found to need context or misinterpreted what the emails actually showed. Podesta would later say that WikiLeaks began publishing his emails about an hour after the October 2016 release of an "Access Hollywood" tape that showed Trump making lewd comments about women during a 2005 interview. His claim was rated True by PolitiFact National. Now back to Priebus. Previous claim Two days before the Priebus interview, our partners at PunditFact rated as False a claim by Jesse Watters. He has a "Watters World" a segment that appears on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor," which is hosted by conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly. Watters’ claim was essentially the same as Priebus'. He said Podesta’s email password was password, a claim that originated with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. Our colleagues found: → None of the emails published on WikiLeaks show Podesta’s email password. → Among the cyber analysts examining the phishing emails used to infiltrate Podesta’s and others’ accounts, none have made similar claims. → Podesta was using a Gmail account, and Google doesn’t allow users to make their passwords password. Our rating Repeating a claim that originated with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, Priebus said the email password of Podesta, Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, was password. His claim is catchy, but we’ve seen no material evidence to back it. Our rating is False. Share the Facts Politifact 4 6 Politifact Rating: Says Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s email password was "password." Reince Priebus Republican National Committee chairman In an interview Sunday, January 8, 2017 -01/-08/2017 Read More info	None	Reince Priebus	None	None	None	2017-01-11T05:00:00	2017-01-08	['None']
-tron-02059	The tooth that saved a soldier’s life	https://www.truthorfiction.com/toothmiracle/	None	inspirational	None	None	None	The tooth that saved a soldier’s life	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03596	The KKK marched on a bridge in North Carolina to celebrate Donald Trump's presidential victory.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/klan-marches-celebrate-trump-victory/	None	Politicians	None	Bethania Palma	None	Klan Marches in North Carolina to Celebrate Trump Victory	9 November 2016	None	['Ku_Klux_Klan', 'North_Carolina']
-snes-05920	Pope Francis said it's not necessary for one to believe in God in order to be a good person.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pope-francis-belief-in-god/	None	Quotes	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Pope Francis Say It’s Not Necessary to Believe in God?	15 December 2014	None	['God']
-pomt-07059	Says states that passed anti-illegal-immigrant legislation also had few Hispanic legislators.	/texas/statements/2011/jun/29/women-wall/rebecca-forest/	Addressing a rally outside the Texas Capitol, an advocate for requiring city police departments to check the immigration status of residents critiqued the makeup of the Texas Legislature. According to a video pointed out by the Texas Democratic Party, Rebecca Forest, co-founder and past president of the Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas, said June 11: "If you really want to know why in Texas we don’t get immigration legislation passed, it’s because we have 37--36--Hispanic legislators in the Texas Legislature. All of the states that have passed legislation have a handful. And I mean literally, some of them have no Hispanic legislators, maybe 3 or 5. So that's part of our problem and we need to change those numbers. We need to do something about that." We wondered if indeed states with laws targeting illegal immigration have few Hispanic legislators. Forest, who later told us she spoke at the rally on behalf of Women on the Wall, a group of conservative women, said in a June 17 interview with KRLD-AM’s Scott Braddock that she strayed from her notes at the rally and had solely intended to single out Hispanic legislators who are liberal Democrats--traditional opponents of legislation like the sanctuary-city proposal that did not pass into law. "I wish I would have said that," she said. Braddock posted the interview online with a statement he said he fielded from Forest. The statement says she’d previously endorsed a Latino Republican, state Rep. Larry Gonzales of Round Rock. "There are many things I should have said differently that day but I’ve always hated it when politicians (in particular) try to cover their tails when they mess up by saying ‘I misspoke’ though obviously — I did," the statement says. To our inquiry about Forest’s rally statement, Maria Martinez, the coalition’s executive director, replied by email: "Our whole thrust of border security has nothing to do with racial identity. Obviously as a Hispanic myself, that statement does not reflect mine or the organization's sentiments." To check Forest’s claim, we looked for states that have lately passed immigration enforcement measures and determined how many Latino legislators serve in the states. As Forest said, the Texas House and Senate include 37 Hispanic members, comprising 20 percent of the state’s 181 legislators, according to a state-by-state count by the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures. A council spokeswoman, Meagan Dorsch, pointed us to NCSL web pages tracking legislation related to immigration; one says that as of March 31, 26 states had enacted laws this year touching in some way on immigration, down from 34 states by the same date in 2010. Since Forest was currying support for legislation requiring law officers to check the immigration status of every arrested person, we narrowed our national look to states that approved proposals permitting or directing law officers to check the legal status of residents. This year, according to the NCSL, such proposals were introduced in 42 states, though only one such proposal had been signed into law by April 1. Utah’s House Bill 497 requires an officer to verify the immigration status of anyone arrested for a felony or a Class A misdemeanor and anyone booked for class B or C misdemeanors. In 2010, Arizona’s legislature drew national attention with its new law requiring officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person involved in a lawful stop, detention or arrest when they reasonably suspect the person is an illegal immigrant. According to the NCSL’s breakdown of 2010 state immigration measures, Tennessee and South Carolina also passed measures intended to encourage officers to check residents’ immigration standing. The group says Tennessee’s House Bill 670 mandated the development of standardized written procedures for verifying the citizenship status of individuals arrested, booked, or confined in a county or municipal jail or detention facility--and reporting individuals in possible violation of federal immigration laws. South Carolina’s HB 4657, NCSL says, directed the launch of a 24-hour toll-free telephone number and electronic website to receive, record, collect and report allegations of violations of federal immigration laws. A search of news archives showed that Georgia’s legislature this year advanced a proposal into law, effective July 1, authorizing police to check the immigration status of suspects and to hand over to federal authorities anyone who is in the country illegally, according to a Wall Street Journal blog post. The June 28 post says a federal judge just blocked parts of the law, ruling that challengers in court were likely to prevail in their claims that federal law preempts Georgia’s right to empower police to investigate the immigration status of suspects. And how many Hispanic members serve in the legislatures of the states whose laws we sketched out above? As of this year, NCSL says, the respective counts are: Utah, five of 104 legislators (nearly 5 percent); Arizona, 13 of 90 (14 percent); Georgia, 2 of 236 (1 percent); Tennessee, 1 of 132 (1 percent); and South Carolina, 0 of 170. To our query, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials provided identical figures for the states. Among all states, the NCSL says, New Mexico has the greatest share of Hispanic lawmakers, 45 of 112 (40 percent), followed by Texas, 39 of 181 (22 percent) California, 23 of 120 (19 percent), and Arizona. In more than 40 states, Latinos comprise less than 10 percent of each state’s legislature; about 15 states have no Hispanic legislators. Five percent or less of the legislators in four of five states that recently directed law officers to check immigration status are Latino Americans; in the fifth state, none is. We rate Forest’s statement True. UPDATE, 3:37 p.m., June 29, 2011: After we published this article, the NCSL told us the numbers it initially described as up to date were outdated. We've amended our story to reflect the group's state-by-state Hispanic legislator count for 2011. These changes did not affect the Truth-O-Meter rating.	None	Women On the Wall	None	None	None	2011-06-29T06:00:00	2011-06-11	['None']
-goop-01197	Nicki Minaj Pregnant, Says Re	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicki-minaj-pregnant-rep-denies-baby/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Nicki Minaj NOT Pregnant, Says Rep	2:19 pm, April 12, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05737	"One out of four of our young people say they are victims of this (dating) violence."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/mar/04/beatrice-lanzi/rhode-island-state-sen-beatrice-lanzi-says-1-4-you/	As part of the weekly Rhode Island Public Television show "A Lively Experiment," guests are often asked for their "outrage of the week." On the Feb. 24 program, state Sen. Beatrice Lanzi focused on attitudes toward dating violence and cited reaction to the performance of singer Chris Brown at the 2012 Grammy Awards. In 2009, Brown pleaded guilty to brutally beating his then-girlfriend, Rihanna. "After he performed, many women across the country took to social media and were making comments about dating violence in a joking way," Lanzi said. We located some of those Tweets. People were sending out messages such as "I'd let Chris Brown beat me up anytime," "Chris Brown u can punch me in the face any time u want!!!!" and "Any girl that hates on Chris Brown is stupid. Do you realize that it would be an honour if he hit you?" Said Lanzi: "One out of four of our young people say that they are victims of this violence. To me, it's outrageous." One in four is 25 percent. We decided to check to see whether that was on the mark. When we asked Lanzi for her source, she said she had actually understated the scope of the problem, and it was really one in three, which would be 33 percent. She referred us to the website of the Lindsay Ann Burke Memorial Fund, based in North Kingstown, R.I., where the Teen Dating Violence Statistics page says "1 in 3 teens experience some kind of abuse in their romantic relationships." The web page doesn't cite a specific reference, but Ann Burke, the organization's president, said it came from a 2001 study in the American Journal of Public Health by Carolyn Tucker Halpern at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It analyzed the responses of 7,267 adolescents who reported being in at least one exclusive heterosexual romantic relationship during the 1994-1995 school year. "Overall, 32% of respondents reported experiencing any violence in a heterosexual romantic relationship occurring in the 18 months before the interview," the researchers reported. "Most violent behaviors were psychological, with swearing being most common. Twelve percent reported being the victim of physical violence. Approximately 10% of respondents reported having been pushed and 3% reported that something was thrown at them. "The patterns of victimization indicate that about 1 in 5 adolescents reported only psychological violence and about 1 in 10 reported physical violence, usually accompanied by psychological violence," the report said. Males were just as likely to be victims as females, but the females were more likely to have been injured. There are a few caveats to the Halpern study. It only looked at heterosexual relationships so the findings do not apply to same-sex relationships or teens who were not dating at the time. In addition, it only asked about violence in the previous 18 months. Lanzi's comment suggest lifetime experience with dating violence. So the percentages would be higher. But on a key issue -- how many young people had reported physical violence -- the study doesn’t confirm Lanzi’s statement. She said the incidence was 25 percent. The study found it was closer to 12 percent. We consulted other, more recent, studies with their own strengths and limitations. Sample conclusions: * 9.8 percent of students nationwide reported dating violence from their boyfriend or girlfriend (being hit, slapped or physically hurt on purpose). It only covered the previous year and didn't include verbal assault. (Results from the national Youth Risk Surveillance System from 2009.) * Up to 35 percent of adolescent girls were victims of "interpersonal violence, according to a 2008 report by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. That summary defines that as "physical, emotional or verbal abuse by one partner towards another in a dating relationship." Lanzi didn't say she was only talking about girls, but other surveys show that males experience similar levels of dating violence. * 13 percent of 638 youth age 13 to 18 who had been in a relationship said in 2005 they had been repeatedly verbally abused, 11 percent said they had been punched, kicked, pushed, slapped or choked at one time, and 5 percent said they had been physically hurt, like a bruise or a punch. (Teenage Research Unlimited for Liz Claiborne) And when the Rhode Island Department of Health surveyed high school students in 2011, it found that the incidence of dating violence -- defined as having been hit by a boyfriend or girlfriend -- had declined from 14 percent in 2007 to 8 percent in 2011. But those rates are only for the previous year, not whether they had ever been hit by a partner. Our ruling Beatrice Lanzi said "one out of four of our young people say they are victims" of dating violence, following a reference to singer Chris Brown, known for physically assaulting his once-girlfriend, Rihanna. The studies we found, however, show that the risk of such physical attacks for teens isn't close to 1 in 4; it's more like 1 in 10. As with most social science research, the numbers can vary depending, for example, on how broadly dating violence is defined and the timeframe examined. A teen who is asked whether he or she has ever experienced dating violence may answer "no," but then respond with a "yes" if asked if she has ever been pushed in anger by a boyfriend or girlfriend. What is clear is that to get to the types of numbers Lanzi is talking about, one must include all kinds of aggression, from physical attack to swearing at someone. In fact, when we talked to her, that was how she defined dating violence. No matter what the definition, all relationship abuse is reprehensible. But because Lanzi’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, we rule it Half True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Beatrice Lanzi	None	None	None	2012-03-04T00:01:00	2012-02-24	['None']
-goop-02268	The Weeknd “Dissing” Selena Gomez With “Stranger Things” Tweet, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/the-weeknd-not-dissing-selena-gomez-stranger-things-tweet/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	The Weeknd NOT “Dissing” Selena Gomez With “Stranger Things” Tweet, Despite Claim	1:35 pm, November 1, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-14857	The "Democratic Party is getting smaller and smaller and smaller."	/texas/statements/2015/nov/15/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-democratic-party-shrinking/	After the first Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, Texas Republican Ted Cruz interpreted the crowd’s cheers for proposals to raise taxes as a reason for the decline of the Democratic Party. The day after the debate, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Cruz how he could appeal for votes from Americans cheering on Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination, who has stressed how much more the very wealthiest Americans have than the rest of us. "Well," Cruz replied, "it's why the modern Democratic Party is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. What does it say that they're having a hard time finding anyone to run for president who isn't nearly 207 years old? You're not getting new and fresh ideas." Ahem: Sanders is 74; fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is 68. And while we’re not going to gauge how Cruz appeals for more Democratic support, we did wonder if the Democratic Party is shrinking, as Cruz said. Cruz’s campaign spokesman said Cruz based his statement on the losses the Democratic Party suffered in recent elections. "Cruz is referring to all the Senate seats, House seats, governors and state legislative seats lost during this administration," said Rick Tyler, Cruz for President’s national spokesman. Democrats losing steam under Obama? Measuring the exact membership or size of either national party is difficult. Some states, including Texas, do not require voters to register with any party. As University of Texas-Austin government professor Brian Roberts, who studies American political institutions and interest groups, told us, there’s "no easy answer." But certain measures can give a relative sense of party size, despite variations in registration rules. University of Texas-Austin government professor Sean Theriault, who studies congressional decision-making and has published books on the power of the electorate and party polarization. He suggested three measurements for evaluating the size and strength of political parties: the party in the government, the party in the electorate and party organizations. The first component we looked at was the Democrats’ total electoral seats. That is what Cruz’s campaign spokesman said Cruz was referring to in his comment. During Obama’s administration, Democrats have lost 13 U.S. Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, and 910 state legislative seats. Another way to look at a party's health is the number of voters who claim affiliation. Based on this data, the Democratic Party’s support in the electorate fluctuates, but generally is stable. A Gallup poll measuring trends in party identification since 2004 found that 29 percent of Americans identified as Democrats in October 2015. In January 2004, when the poll data begins, 28 percent of Americans identified as Democrats. The 11-year high was 38 percent in March 2008 and March 2009. The poll asks respondents, "As of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?" For comparison, in October 2015, 25 percent of Americans identified as Republicans, and 42 percent identified as independents. Support for the Republican Party hit a high of 39 percent in September 2004. Each party’s voter demographics also suggest changes in size ahead. According to a 2014 Pew Research Center study, 51 percent of Millennials identified as Democrats in 2014, compared to their Republican peers’ 35 percent — the highest margin of any generation. The Democratic Party also claims more members among Generation X and Baby Boomer voters, by smaller margins. The only demographic in which Republicans have the advantage is the Silent Generation, with 47 percent identifying with the Republican Party, compared to 43 percent with the Democratic Party. That the country’s oldest voters are the only ones to lean Republican and that its youngest voters lean Democrat by a strong margin suggests growth for the Democratic Party, while the Republican Party’s strongest demographics are aging out. Party organizations, and their success in fundraising, are also a component of a political party’s health or size. In the 2010 off-year election cycle, the national Democratic Party raised $817.5 million. In the 2014 election cycle, the most recent available, the party raised $855 million, which suggests an increase of $37.5 million in the 2014 election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. Factoring in funds raised through the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and other party organizations, Theriault said, "the Democratic Party "is getting bigger and is bigger than the Republican Party." For comparison, the Republican Party raised $586,978,840 in 2010 and $665,608,564 in 2014. Our ruling Cruz said that the "Democratic Party is getting smaller and smaller and smaller." Democrats have lost a significant number of seats and federal and state offices throughout the Obama administration. The party as a whole, however, is stable or has grown both in terms of the electorate and its party organizations. Cruz’s claim is partly accurate, but leaves out important context about the Democratic Party beyond its elected officials. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2015-11-15T00:00:00	2015-10-14	['None']
-pose-00344	"Will help the New Orleans area develop regional transit partnerships so that public transit can be integrated across parish lines, providing seamless transportation options, including a possible light rail line to connect New Orleans and Baton Rouge through the petrochemical corridor in between."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/361/improve-transportation-in-new-orleans/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Improve transportation in New Orleans	2010-01-07T13:26:56	None	['New_Orleans', 'Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana']
-bove-00075	Nawaz Sharif Laundered $4.9 Bn To India? World Bank Says Not Our Report	https://www.boomlive.in/nawaz-sharif-laundered-4-9-bn-to-india-world-bank-says-not-our-report/	None	None	None	None	None	Nawaz Sharif Laundered $4.9 Bn To India? World Bank Says Not Our Report	May 09 2018 9:10 pm, Last Updated: May 09 2018 9:19 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-03990	Says Texas high school "graduation rates are at an all-time high—the third-highest in the nation—which represents a significant turnaround from just a few short years ago."	/texas/statements/2013/feb/11/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-has-third-highest-high-schoo/	Gov. Rick Perry said state leaders have worked hard to improve Texas public schools over the past decade, with more students faring well. Perry told lawmakers in his Jan. 29, 2013, State-of-the-State address: "According to the U.S. Department of Education, our graduation rates are at an all-time high—the third-highest in the nation—which represents a significant turnaround from just a few short years ago." His claim rang a bell. In a Nov. 27, 2012, press release, the Texas Education Agency said that according to preliminary data from its federal counterpart, Texas tied for the nation’s third-highest high school graduation rate in the 2010-11 school year, based on tracking individual students through high school. The agency said Texas was tied with Tennessee, New Hampshire, Indiana, Nebraska and North Dakota, all with 86 percent rates. Iowa, Vermont and Wisconsin had higher graduation rates by one to two percentage points, the agency said. News accounts diverged at the time on whether Texas placed third or should be considered tied for fourth, considering three states had better graduation rates. A Nov. 27, 2012, Dallas Morning News story said Texas was "tied with five other states for the fourth-highest graduation rate in the country." The San Antonio Business Journal published a similar summary. In contrast, the Nov. 28, 2013, Associated Press news story said Texas and five other states had tied for "America’s third-best high school graduation." The education agency said Texas ranked No. 1 in graduation rates for Asian and white students and tied for No. 1 with Montana for graduation rates for African American students, and No. 2 for Hispanic students, behind Maine. Perry spokeswoman Josh Havens told us the governor based his claim on that data released in November. That 2011 graduation rate was 5 percentage points better than the 2009 rate, he said, and there were more than 26,000 additional graduates. There were 11,100 more seniors in 2011, a 4 percent difference, according to a July 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. Two ways of counting From past fact checks, we recognize another method often used to gauge graduation successes. In this vein, we rated as True a 2010 claim by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White that Texas then ranked 43rd nationally for its 61.3 percent graduation rate in 2008-09. That conclusion was based on comparing the year’s number of graduates to the number of ninth graders four years earlier, an indicator often called "attrition." The intent is to get a snapshot of how many students graduate in four years. Applying the same kind of approach, just a week before Perry’s speech, a federal report placed Texas’ 2009-10 graduation rate in the middle of the states. An Associated Press news story said the cited rate of 78.9 percent was just above the national average of 78.2 percent, in itself the highest since 1976. The AP story also noted the difference between the sets of graduation data. The state education agency said the reason for the difference was that the January 2013 report, from the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the federal Department of Education, estimated high school attrition rates among ninth-graders over four years, while the state tracks actual cases that can be adjusted for things like students moving away before finishing high school. "We're basically counting noses, and they're doing an estimate," Debbie Ratcliffe, a Texas Education Agency spokeswoman, told the AP. "The good news is the trend lines for graduates are the same. There're a million different ways to count graduation rates" and "as long as they're showing similar trend lines, that's positive." By phone, Ratcliffe told us that at the direction of lawmakers, the state started calculating its graduation rates by the method behind its third-place ranking, starting in the 2008-09 school year, when the rate was 80.6 percent. She said the comparable Texas rate for 2009-10 was 84.3 percent. "It’s slow, steady growth," she said. An outside view For another take, we consulted Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and former director of the Institute of Education Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education. Whitehurst testified on behalf of the state in the court battle launched by school districts challenging the Texas school funding system. A Travis County state district judge, John Dietz, ruled in the districts’ favor, though appeals are expected. In the trial, a lawyer questioned Whitehurst about his interpretation of the declared 86 percent Texas graduation rate. According to a Dec. 6, 2012, pool report by Will Weissert of the Associated Press, Whitehurst testified that there likely were flaws in the new system used to create the federal data. He said, for instance, that it was possible for high schools to game the system and tamp down their dropout rates. He said what commonly happens is a student drops out but is instead listed as having moved or transferred when his classmates and even school administrators know the truth. Whitehurst said, "We know schools can cheat" and the new federal data-reporting system was too new to fully control for such cheating. More recently, Whitehurst told us by telephone that Texas appeared to be among several states to enjoy big jumps in graduation rates. But he said it would be an error to compare graduation rates using the new methodology, known as Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates, to estimated graduation rates in earlier years as gauged by the national center’s methodology for Averaged Freshman Graduation Rates (or attrition). "The two numbers are not comparable," he said. Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rates come from data submitted by high schools and school districts, taking into account individual students who had transferred in or out of each district as well as student deaths. In contrast, he said, Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate estimates graduation rates by taking the number of diplomas granted each year and dividing that by the average number of eighth-, ninth- and 10th-graders five years before. The National Center for Education Statistics’ methodology for Averaged Freshman Graduation Rates is spelled out in its Jan. 22, 2013, report on the 2009-10 results. By this measure, Texas has improved, the report indicates, though the measure does not suggest that Texas ranked among the best in the nation in 2009-10. Looking at this measure over time, we see that the Texas rate was 75.5 percent in 2002-03, dipped to 72 percent in 2006-07 and rose to 78.9 percent in 2009-10. Among the states, the Texas rate for 2009-10 was 25th highest. The Texas rate for 2002-03 tied with Indiana’s rate for 29th highest, according to the report. The center’s report says, too, that these rates are not the best way to pin how many students are graduating, but the methodology has been applied since the 1960s to give a sense of how schools were doing before most states collected data on the progress of individual students over time. Whitehurst said to us: "I don’t necessarily believe Texas is now third-ranked," though "I am not saying it’s untrue. It’s too soon to know exactly what these numbers mean." Federal distinctions Separately, we asked the U.S. Department of Education about Perry’s statement. Spokesman Daren Briscoe pointed us to the agency’s Nov. 26, 2012, press release announcing the state-by-state 2010-11 graduation rates. The release says: "The new, uniform rate calculation is not comparable in absolute terms to previously reported rates. Therefore, while 26 states reported lower graduation rates and 24 states reported unchanged or increased rates under the new metric, these changes should not be viewed as measures of progress but rather as a more accurate snapshot." We asked Havens of Perry’s office about the governor’s reference to a significant turnaround. Havens’ email reply singled out the three years of rates measured by the new method--stressing the five percentage point difference between the results in 2009 and 2011. Our ruling Perry said Texas has the nation’s third-highest high school graduation rate, which he called a significant turnaround from a few years ago. Texas tied with five states for the third-highest rate in 2011, of 86 percent. Then again, three states had higher rates, meaning Texas might better be described as fourth-ranked. Other nicks in Perry’s statement: These results are preliminary and might prove unreliable. Also, by another measure, comparing the number of graduates one year to students in ninth grade four years earlier, Texas remained among middling states for 2009-10, with a 79 percent completion rate. Finally, since it's not accurate to compare these rates devised in different ways, Perry’s reference to a "significant turnaround" depends on just the three years of rates measured in the newest way. But in this time window, there is no indication the rate was either stuck or plummeting before 2011, so the latest results do not indicate a turnaround. All told, Texas graduation rates are improving and the state looks strong compared to most others. We rate this statement as Mostly True.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2013-02-11T06:00:00	2013-01-29	['None']
-pomt-06188	"They say teachers only make on average in New Jersey 60,000 dollars a year. They only work 180 days."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/12/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-new-jersey-teachers-only-work-/	New Jersey teachers have a pretty cushy gig, to hear Gov. Chris Christie tell it. They only work about six months a year and are paid north of $50,000 annually, according to a speech about education that Christie gave Nov. 18 at Notre Dame’s law school in South Bend, Ind. "They say teachers only make on an average in New Jersey 60,000 dollars a year. They only work 180 days," the governor said between comments about the number of hours teachers work daily and how he supports higher pay for "excellent teachers." But Christie should have checked his work before making this claim. His numbers are a bit off from the true numbers, PolitiFact New Jersey found. Let’s first discuss teacher schedules. A minimum 180-day school year is required by state statute, but a majority of school districts in New Jersey exceed that minimum, according to the New Jersey Education Association. The NJEA provided us with documents showing the average number of school days for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years: 185, among school districts with settled contracts. That amounts to 257 districts for the current school year, 423 for last year and 511 for the 2005-06 year. New Jersey’s number of instruction days is the same as at least 30 other states, according to the Denver, Colo.-based Education Commission of the States. NJEA spokesman Steve Baker took exception to Christie’s statement that teachers "only" work 180 days a year. "The really misleading part of the statement is that it assumes teachers don’t work any additional days beyond those stipulated in their contracts, which is wrong," Baker said in an email. "Most – indeed, nearly all -- teachers spend many additional days setting up their classrooms, preparing lesson plans, attending professional development events, taking classes and otherwise engaged in additional work outside the contracted school day and school year. You can imagine the amount of work that goes into preparing to teach 180 days of student classes. "This is a common tactic that critics of public education use to denigrate the work of teachers, to make it sound as if they really don’t work that hard," Baker continued. "It’s a bit like saying that the Governor is only working on days when he signs bills. In other words, wrong, and intentionally misleading." The governor’s office did not return a request for comment. Michael W. Smith, a professor and chair of the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Technology in Education at Temple University in Philadelphia, said the work of a teacher neither begins nor ends in the classroom. In addition to instructing classes, teachers often work at home or outside the classroom preparing lessons, reviewing students’ work and providing feedback, meeting with students outside class, staying abreast of educational technology, meeting continuing education requirements and much more, said Smith, who chaired the Department of Learning and Teaching at Rutgers University New Brunswick from 1992-2005. William Gaudelli, an associate professor of Social Studies and Education, and the Social Studies program coordinator at Teachers College, Columbia University, agreed that the work teachers do goes well beyond 180 work days. "It’s really a misrepresentation of the vast majority of teachers who are dedicated to their work," Gaudelli, a member of the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education, said about Christie’s statement. As for teacher salaries, Christie underestimated those numbers. The average teacher salary in New Jersey for 2009-10 was $65,130 – the fourth highest in the country behind New York, Massachusetts and California, according to a 2011 report from the National Education Association. Our ruling In a speech last month to students at Notre Dame, the governor said New Jersey teachers on average only work 180 days a year and get $60,000 salaries. New Jersey’s school year averages 185 days and the average teacher salary in the state is $65,130. Christie was a bit off on both of his numbers, but not by much. Based strictly on numbers, we rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this statement, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2011-12-12T07:30:00	2011-11-18	['New_Jersey']
-goop-00514	Reese Witherspoon, Husband Jim Toth Having “Tension” Over Ryan Phillippe?	https://www.gossipcop.com/reese-witherspoon-husband-jim-toth-ryan-phillippe-tension/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Reese Witherspoon, Husband Jim Toth Having “Tension” Over Ryan Phillippe?	1:16 pm, August 6, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01563	Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines	https://www.truthorfiction.com/maine-welfare-reforms-have-led-to-big-welfare-declines/	None	government	None	None	None	Maine Welfare Reforms Have Led to Big Welfare Declines	Aug 25, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03262	Says "nearly 29,000 Oregonians — almost 5 percent of all homeowners — are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgage."	/oregon/statements/2013/aug/09/ellen-rosenblum/are-5-percent-homeowners-really-90-days-or-behind-/	Oregon’s housing market might be showing some improvement, but there’s still a ways to go. That was the general gist of an opinion piece Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum recently published in the Statesman Journal. The article was a chance for her to introduce Oregonians to a "rebooted and revamped foreclosure mediation program." "Homes are selling quicker and for more money," Rosenblum wrote. "Foreclosures, thankfully, are down." Still, she continued, "we’re not all the way back. The hangover from the housing crash lingers for thousands of Oregonians. Nearly 29,000 Oregonians — almost 5 percent of all homeowners — are 90 days or more delinquent on their mortgage." This caught our attention. We were curious not only whether the numbers she used were right, but whether the 5 percent figure she referenced was actually all that much higher than where we were before this whole recession began. First, we contacted Jeff Manning, Rosenblum’s spokesman. He told us their office got the numbers from Oregon Housing and Community Services, an agency that deals with state housing policy. That agency, in turn, had gotten the figures from a business called CoreLogic. CoreLogic is a company that specializes in information, data and analytics. In past news reports, The Oregonian has relied on its data regarding foreclosures and delinquency rates. We gave CoreLogic a call and got ahold of Andrea Hurst, who handles communications. She was able to send us a spreadsheet with the number of homeowners 90 days or more delinquent on their mortage for each month between January 2009 and May 2013. And, Rosenblum was right: the most recent figures put Oregon’s delinquency rate at 4.88 percent (or almost 5 percent). But, we came up short in two areas. First, there was no raw figure of how many homes that 4.88 percent figure represented. Second, we didn’t have much in the way of a baseline. See, the figure for January 2009 was a considerably lower 2.92 percent, but we wanted something from before the recession began. Generally, economists cite December 2007 as the turning point. The folks over at CoreLogic, however, couldn’t get us numbers stretching back that far. Manning, however, said that he had them and sent us over a spreadsheet that begins tracking monthly rates with January 2006. From January 2006 through November 2007, the average monthly delinquency rate was 0.73 percent, according to the data Manning sent us. In fact, in those 24 months it went over 1 percent once: In November 2007, when the rate began a fairly rapid rise. The numbers Manning sent also backed up the 29,000 figure Rosenblum used (technically the number of homes more than 90 days delinquent was 28,891 in May 2013.) Of course, we never like using data we get from the source that made the claim, so we asked Manning how he got these figures from CoreLogic when we couldn’t. He pointed us to Ben Pray with Oregon Housing and Community Services. Pray told us his department subscribes to data service from CoreLogic and he simply ran a data request for Rosenblum a week ago. We also did one last quick check to make sure that figures in the limited data set CoreLogic gave us matched with what Manning and Pray had given us. They did. There are, of course, other companies that try to discern and report delinquency rates and the figures can vary depending on which you use. However, CoreLogic’s data is the same data used by the federal reserve. If it’s good enough for them, we figure it’s good enough for us. In introducing a revised mediation program, Rosenblum wrote that the housing crash lingers and that nearly 5 percent of all homeowners are more than 90 days delinquent on their mortgage. We verified that her figures were right and that 5 percent does, indeed, represent a number well above what we’d experience before the recession. We rate this claim True.	None	Ellen Rosenblum	None	None	None	2013-08-09T15:19:03	2013-08-03	['Oregon_Territory']
-pomt-01068	Federal officials declared that grant funds "could be used only for Milwaukee's streetcar project," meaning it "isn’t possible" to redirect the money to "other modes of public transportation or to our public schools."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/jan/19/gwen-moore/gwen-moore-says-local-officials-cannot-repurpose-f/	In comments favoring a downtown Milwaukee streetcar system, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore tried to counter a key argument made by opponents regarding the $55 million in federal grant money tied to the project. "As much as opponents would like these federal funds to be redirected to other modes of public transportation or to our public schools, this just isn't possible," the Milwaukee Democrat wrote in an opinion piece published Jan. 14, 2015 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "Years ago, the Federal Transit Administration, a federal agency that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems, made it abundantly clear that these funds could be used only for Milwaukee's streetcar project." Milwaukee can take the money, Moore wrote, "or we can walk away and leave millions of dollars on the table." The Milwaukee Common Council is scheduled to vote Jan. 21, 2014 on the $124 million project. Two vocal opponents of Mayor Tom Barrett’s plan, Aldermen Joe Davis Sr. and Robert Donovan, have joined others in calling for spending the $54.9 million in federal transit funds for other projects or programs. Is Moore right that it’s streetcar or bust? Can this train change tracks? When asked for backup, Moore pointed us to a June 2011 letter from the FTA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation that provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems. The letter responded to questions from a streetcar supporter, Ald. Robert Bauman, concerning funds the FTA described as "directed to the city of Milwaukee for the construction of a downtown streetcar line." That letter, and comments to us by FTA officials, underscore that under current law the money is for the streetcar plan only. Bauman asked a question that is right on point: "Under what circumstances, if any, can the funds appropriated to the city of Milwaukee be redirected to another transportation project in the city of Milwaukee or County of Milwaukee?" In response, the FTA administrator at the time, Peter Rogoff, said it was his view that the DOT secretary had already approved the streetcar grant and therefore could not redirect the funds. He wrote that lawyers with the Federal Highway Administration concurred with his interpretation. When we followed up with FTA communications officials about the 2011 letter, we were told it still stands. Milwaukee officials signed an agreement in 2012 with the FTA to spend the money on the downtown streetcar system. Milwaukee City Comptroller Martin Matson, an independently elected official, did not express a definitive opinion, but told us he believed the city would lose the money if the project was stopped at this point. All this backs up the guts of Moore’s claim. The money train Since the funding was granted through federal law, it does raise the question of whether federal law could be changed to shift the money to something else -- such as the north side rail project Davis advocates. Even proponents of the streetcar acknowledge that Congress, having written the law, could change it. Indeed, congressional action was how the streetcar money became untangled after a years-long dispute among Wisconsin officials over how to use federal transit funds originally allocated to the Milwaukee area in, yes, 1991. In 2009, Wisconsin Democrats in Congress inserted a provision into a massive federal spending bill that called for handing 60 percent of that money to the city for a downtown rail line and 40 percent to Milwaukee County for buses. President Barack Obama signed the $410 billion package into law. Barrett, a former congressman, told the Shepherd Express in January 2015 that the reality is federal transit officials would take back the $55 million if the streetcar project is killed, and disburse it to another city. Two FTA officials told us that if the streetcar goes unbuilt, the grant money just sits there. At that point, they said, it would be up to Congress to put it back in circulation for some other project, in Milwaukee or elsewhere. "As a matter of law, the ($55 million) cannot be redistributed to another transportation project unless Congress acts to amend the statute," Rogoff, the FTA administrator, wrote in his 2011 letter. Even powerful Wisconsin lawmakers -- including incoming Ways and Means Committee chair Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican -- would need all of Congress to go along with picking another transit project, if they were inclined to get involved. And they would have to convince Congress that the city still deserves the money after 24 years of wrangling that has left the money unspent. It’s theoretically possible the money could be redirected for some other transit use in the area. But that is not something local officials can control, so the question before them is to use it for the street car or nothing at all. Our rating Moore said that federal officials declared that grant funds "could be used only for Milwaukee's streetcar project," meaning it "isn’t possible" to redirect the money to "other modes of public transportation or to our public schools." Current law, and grant contracts, tie the grant money specifically to the streetcar project. In theory, Congress could intervene and re-purpose the funding, but there’s far from any guarantee that would happen -- or that Milwaukee would be re-awarded the money if it did. In any case, we can only base our rating on where things stand today, not where they might stand under different scenarios. We rate Moore’s claim True.	None	Gwen Moore	None	None	None	2015-01-19T13:28:55	2015-01-14	['None']
-goop-02284	Russell Crowe Friends Worried About His Weight?	https://www.gossipcop.com/russell-crowe-weight-fat/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Russell Crowe Friends Worried About His Weight?	4:06 pm, October 28, 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00553	Statement: “There’s something like a $30 million franchise fee (to join the MLS), so somebody has to be willing to put up a lot of money. The big thing is the dollar issue,” said Anthony Fernandez, the CEO of Pazzo Sports, in a Union-Tribune column by Nick Canepa.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-pro-soccer-to-san-diego/	Analysis: Enthusiasm for the World Cup in San Diego has been quite high, with some outlets reporting that San Diego had some of the highest TV ratings among U.S. cities for the world’s largest sporting event.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Pro Soccer to San Diego?	July 14, 2010	None	['U-T_San_Diego']
-pomt-10567	"When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper . . . and we would fry squirrel."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/07/mike-huckabee/it-tasted-like-chicken/	In two recent appearances on MSNBC's Morning Joe , former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee boasted about frying squirrels in a popcorn popper. "When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper – because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorms – and we would fry squirrel," he said on Jan. 18, 2008. When he appeared on the show three weeks later, on Feb. 6, co-host Mika Brzezinski asked him if he would come back and demonstrate his cooking techniques. "I'm really ready to do that," Huckabee said. "Because I think the country needs to be able to somehow get into those kind of culinary delights that they've been missing for a long time." Forgive us, but we were skeptical. We wondered if the former governor was truly an aficionado of cooked rodents, or if he was just making a play for the all-important squirrel-eating Republican voting bloc. So we tracked down Huckabee's roommate from Ouachita Baptist University, Rick Caldwell, to ask if the governor really had eaten squirrel. "I was there," Caldwell said, quickly adding that "I was not a co-conspirator to the actual frying of the squirrel. But I admit to partaking." Indeed, they had a popcorn popper in their room in the Daniel North dormitory in 1973 and Huckabee was quite the enterprising chef, said Caldwell, a longtime friend who is now an adviser to his presidential campaign. Huckabee devised a way to make faux doughnuts by punching holes in the middle of biscuits and then frying them in the popcorn popper. Once they were cooked, Huckabee and Caldwell would roll them in sugar. Caldwell says it was as good as a Krispy Kreme. The squirrel fry was a one-time thing, Caldwell said. A student living down the hall admired the popcorn popper and suggested it would be good for frying a squirrel. Caldwell was out of the room when they cooked it, but he got to sample the meat when he returned. "It tasted like chicken," Caldwell said. No one on the PolitiFact staff had sampled a squirrel, so we turned to "Bayou Bill" Scifres, a retired outdoors writer from the Indianapolis Star who runs All Outdoors, a Web site that offers advice on cooking wild game. Bayou Bill loves a qood squirrel. "There are so many ways to cook 'em!" he told us. "With hot biscuits and gravy and fried squirrel and corn on the cob – it's like dying and going to heaven!" He said cooking them is easy: "Fry them to a beautiful golden brown on all sides and then turn the heat down; cover the skillet and put in water or maybe good cooking wine. You just let them steam in that for 15 minutes or half an hour," he said We found recipes on other Web sites that also looked promising: squirrel cacciatore, squirrel croquettes and squirrels in cream sauce. Yum!	None	Mike Huckabee	None	None	None	2008-02-07T00:00:00	2008-01-18	['None']
-chct-00304	FACT CHECK: Did Trump Make It Easier For The Mentally Ill To Get Guns?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/05/fact-check-did-trump-make-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-get-guns/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	4:27 PM 10/05/2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13991	"Our population has grown from about 1 million in the 1970s to almost 7 million today."	/georgia/statements/2016/jun/08/video/super-bowl-bid-video-overstates-atlanta-population/	There were high-fives all around last month when Atlanta was awarded the 2019 Super Bowl, a major coup for the city and its still-under-construction Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Part of the sales effort to win that bid was an upbeat five-minute video touting the city and its accomplishments over the years, from civil rights to the 1996 Olympics. "We are a booming, vital, diverse American city where the American dream is being realized each and every day." narrator and former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young says at one point. But it was another claim that caught our attention. "Our population has grown from about 1 million in the 1970s to almost 7 million today," Young says. Seven million souls residing in our fair city, or metro area or the megalopolis generically referred to as the ATL? It seemed a bit inflated to PolitiFact. We decided to check it out. What should be a simple answer turned out to be a bit complicated. And the confusion centers on that age-old question: What exactly is Atlanta? Just getting the Super Bowl to show up in your town is an expensive proposition, but one that backers contend will pay huge dividends in prestige and actual dollars flowing into local coffers. Total value of the Atlanta bid is $46 million. About $20 million will come from donations that have beenpledged by two dozen Atlanta businesses. An additional $16 million from a portion of the Atlanta hotel-motel tax that is designated for major events. And $10 million is the estimated value to the National Football League of a sales-tax exemption on Super Bowl tickets that the Georgia Legislature passed this year. The video was funded by the Atlanta Sports Council, a branch of the Metro Atlanta Chamber and a major force in landing the Super Bowl. Sports Council President Dan Corso emailed PolitiFact that the 1970 Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area was about 1.8 million but had climbed to 5.7 million by 2015. It is expected to increase by about 80,000 people a year. He based those numbers on census reports. "Further, if we expand the Atlanta MSA radius to the combined statistical area (CSA), which includes Athens, we get to over 6.2 million today, and the number increases to 6.5 million if we include Columbus," Corso said. The Atlanta Regional Commission estimates the population of the city of Atlanta at about 431,000, while the Census estimate is 463,000. The ARC puts the core 10-county metro Atlanta population at 4.5 million and the 20-county metro region at about 5.7 million. The CSA, which includes 29 counties and the Athens area, comes in at about 6.4 million. We also contacted population experts who generally categorized the 7 million figure as a stretch. William Frey of the Brookings Institution said the current Atlanta CSA -- a very broad population measure -- is on the way to 7 million but not there yet. "It’s below Washington DC, Dallas, Houston and Miami in the South," Frey emailed. "But if it continues its recent growth pace it could approach 7 million soon after the 2020 census. The ARC, meanwhile, estimates the 10-county metro Atlanta population will be 5.92 million in 2040. The 20-county metro area will be 7 million by 2030 and 8 million by 2040, the ARC estimates. Our ruling A video making Atlanta’s case for the 2019 Super Bowl said: "Our population has grown from about 1 million in the 1970s to almost 7 million today." You could make that case for the broadest possible definition of Atlanta -- if you add Columbus into the equation. But who does that? The 20-county area most people consider the broad definition of Atlanta is about 5.7 million and will not reach 7 million for another 14 years. It’s true that metro Atlanta’s population has soared since the 1970s. But it’s misleading to say the area now approaches 7 million people. We rate the statement Half True https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3906d20f-7a1b-48ff-9695-427c2ba61317	None	Video for Atlanta Super Bowl bid presentation	None	None	None	2016-06-08T06:00:00	2016-05-24	['None']
-pomt-03559	"This budget also reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century."	/florida/statements/2013/may/22/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-budget-sets-record-low-state-worke/	When Florida Gov. Rick Scott announced he approved a $74.1 billion budget, he portrayed it as having plenty of goodies for everyone, from school teacher raises to hot meals for the elderly. But he also claimed that the budget was lean. "This budget also reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century," Scott wrote in his May 20th veto and budget message. "The Florida Families First budget is one of our state's smallest budgets this century, when adjusted for population growth and inflation." PolitiFact Florida has separately tracked Scott's 2010 campaign progress to reduce the state workforce by 5 percent -- we rated that Promise Kept earlier this year. Here, we wanted to fact-check Scott's claim that the recently approved budget reflects the smallest state workforce in relation to population since 2000. Scott's data There are a few valid ways to measure the number of state workers. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles data on actual state workers while the state Department of Management Services annual workforce reports show both established positions (including vacant ones) and actual employees (some folks refer to that as ‘heartbeats'.) But here, Scott's office of policy and budget created their own chart by pulling together budget data. We did not review the full backup that shows all the details that went into the chart but we interviewed spokespersons in Scott's office who explained their methodology to PolitiFact. Here is how they arrived at their figures: They started with the state's general appropriations budget each year, which does not include the state university workers. Then they made some adjustments to provide apples to apples comparisons: Scott subtracted for vetoes -- his own and by recent past governors -- and by subtracting county health workers, who were not included in state budgets before 2009-10. Scott's office also added in positions that were included in separate bills not reflected in the general budget bill. That's how Scott's office arrived at a figure of adjusted positions. Then Scott's office examined population data from the state's Office of Economic and Democratic Research. That data includes some projections so it sometimes has slightly different figures from the Census Bureau. Let's look at Scott's figures: Year Population (in 1000s) Adjusted positions Positions per 1,000 residents 1999-2000 15,881.7 126,557 8 2000-01 16,228 124,843 7.7 2001-02 16,551.2 120,091 7.3 2002-03 16,892 117,869 7.0 2003-04 17,273.8 116,797 6.8 2004-05 17,677.3 116,317 6.6 2005-06 18,062.2 116,463 6.4 2006-07 18,378.2 113,634 6.2 2007-08 18,578.9 114,270 6.2 2008-09 18,671.4 112,867 6.0 2009-10 18,770.5 114,852 6.1 2010-11 18,879.1 113,202 6.0 2011-12 19,028.6 108,844 5.7 2012-13 19,218 105,023 5.5 2013-14 19,432 101,784 5.2 We spot-checked some of the math and the calculations were correct. The ratio declined before Scott, too Our task here is to fact-check whether Scott's claim about the declining state workers per capita was correct -- not whether or not that is the best policy or why the numbers declined. But we will briefly provide some background about the state workforce. First, we'll note that the ratio of Scott's adjusted positions compared to population has declined under not only Scott, but also his predecessors Charlie Crist (Republican turned independent while in office, and now a Democrat) and Jeb Bush (Republican). PolitiFact Florida fact-checked a claim by Alex Sink, Scott's Democratic opponent in 2010, who said at the time that "Compared to other states, Florida ranks last in the ratio of employees to residents: 118 per 10,000 compared to the national average of 216 employees per 10,000 residents. And Florida is dead last in the nation in state employee payroll expenditures per resident: $38 compared to the national average of $69 per resident." We rated Sink's claim True. (The National Conference of State Legislatures did not have an updated ranking to reflect Scott's tenure.) Since Scott took office, there have been about 60,000 staffers to leave because they quit, retired or for other reasons, and the state laid off 2,197 workers. (Those figures don't include state universities but do include temporary state workers who briefly work for the state.) One area Scott has targeted in the budget to save money is the state prisons. In January, his administration announced that it would outsource health care for more than 15,000 inmates including at prisons in Miami-Dade County. That has affected about 400 workers but about 97 percent were hired by the company, according to the state Department of Corrections. We sent Scott's claim to Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody's who studies Florida. (He used BLS data to examine Scott's claim.) "He's right if you look at it in terms of state government workers per capita, but this is partially because of all the retirees that have flooded into the state. If you look at the state government share of total employment, it is low, but not at an all time low. .... This number has been steadily declining since the mid 1990s, and Scott has continued it on the downward trend," Lafakis told PolitiFact Florida in an email. We also interviewed two professors of public administration at Florida International University -- chair Howard A. Frank and assistant professor Hai (David) Guo. Both said that Scott's claim may not tell the full story about the state's workforce. Frank raised a question about how to factor in privatization efforts. "Ideology aside, those employees are less burdensome in terms of direct outlays, but I suspect at least some are "quasi-governmental" if they are employed by entities that derive a significant part of their revenue from the state-local sector," he wrote. Guo said that additional indicators of government size include the budget per capita and its growth and whether the state has shifted any responsibilities to local governments. "The employee number of state government alone may not tell the whole story," Guo wrote in an email. Our ruling Scott said that the 2013-14 budget "reflects the smallest state government workforce per 1,000 residents in Florida in this century." To get there, Scott's office examined budgeted positions and made certain adjustments including subtracting for vetoes. They also projected the state's population for 2013-14. We think their assessment is largely fair, with some small caveats. First, there are other ways to measure both the state workforce -- either by using federal labor statistics, or other state data. And second, the size of the state workforce per capita has been declining for years. Minor points, though. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2013-05-22T14:51:48	2013-05-20	['None']
-pomt-11994	"The bill that I carried cutting MO’s income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018. #moleg @Eric_Schmitt"	/missouri/statements/2017/sep/26/andrew-koenig/first-cut-missouri-income-tax-over-100-years/	Taxes have been a hot topic in the political world lately. President Donald Trump has been calling for reduction of corporate taxes. This is something he talked about when visiting Missouri in August. However, income tax is a hot button topic in Missouri as well. State Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, boasted on Twitter that a law he helped pass would be the first cut to Missouri income tax in over a century. "The bill that I carried cutting MO’s income tax for 1st time in over 100 years will start its 1st phase in jan 1 2018," the senator tweeted on Aug. 30, 2017, with the hashtag "moleg" and tagging Missouri State Treasurer Eric Schmitt. Over a century? This seemed a little bit out there. When Koenig’s office did not answer our inquiry, we started digging for ourselves. The legislation Koenig was referring to Senate Bill 509 from 2014. Koenig was the House handler for the bill, as a state representative at the time. What does the now law actually do to income tax though? Simply put, income tax rates will decrease by a tenth of a percent every year until the top tax rate is a half of a percent lower, or 5.5 percent instead of the current 6 percent. There will also be an increase in income tax deductibles for business income until it reaches 25 percent. To trigger the start of the law, the state’s gross income had to exceed income in one of the three previous years by $150 million. That happened in the last fiscal year, so now the bill will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2018. The prospect of decreasing income tax is appealing for taxpayers, but is this really the first time it is happening in over a century? The timeline We talked to Anne Rottman, the library administrator at the Missouri Legislative Library, about the last time Missouri saw a reduction in income taxes. "I don’t think there ever has been a cut," she said. It turns out, she’s right. Missouri income tax was established in 1917. This tax was for a half of a percent annually on individuals’ income. Income tax saw revisions throughout the years. Graduated tax brackets were created in 1939 and have not been changed since 1972. The limit for deduction for federal income taxes was created in 1993. There were various other revisions and adjustments as well. However, none of these were decreases in the tax levied. For a century, tax law has been growing into what income tax looks like today. Why has there always been an increase and never a decrease? "No idea why this approach took so long," said Joseph Haslag, an economics professor at MU. Others seem to be stumped as well. The impact The half-percentage reduction of the tax rate per year gives the state legislature some time to adjust to having less revenue for the budget. Meanwhile, there’s a more immediate impact for individuals: Tax brackets will now be adjusted annually based on percent increase in inflation. However, when it comes to the economy overall, it isn’t as exciting as it sounds, Haslag said. "For a revenue-test state like Missouri, the tax cut reduction will have small, very small, positive effect on Missouri’s economic growth," Haslag said. And while Koenig is correct that the state’s income rate has never decreased, it’s important to note that the legislature has enacted many income tax deductions that have the same effect of lowering someone’s state income tax bill. Beginning in 2016, for example, 100 percent of a military pension income became exempt from Missouri state tax. The state also created a new deduction for people from Missouri who relocated a business to Missouri. Our ruling Koenig said that Senate Bill 509 would cut Missouri income tax for the first time in over 100 years. The truth of the matter is Missouri income tax has never been cut. Income tax laws were put in place in 1917. This was 100 years ago exactly. It’s not over 100 years, but Koenig was pretty close. It’s worth noting, however, that Missouri has created a long list of deductions that could reduce a person’s state income tax bill without having to decrease the overall tax rate. Koenig’s statement is accurate but needs that clarifying information. That meets our definition of Mostly True.	None	Andrew Koenig	None	None	None	2017-09-26T12:17:39	2017-08-30	['None']
-snes-03618	An e-mail written by Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to her brother reveals that she is a radical Muslim plant waiting to take over the country after Clinton is elected.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/e-mail-from-huma-abedin-to-brother/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	David Emery	None	Huma Abedin Admits in E-mail to Brother That She Is a Muslim Infiltrator?	6 November 2016	None	['Bill_Clinton', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Islam']
-pomt-04996	Unemployment among Oregon high school graduates aged 18 to 20 increased more than 200 percent from 2008 to 2011, while the U.S. average increased only 30 percent.	/oregon/statements/2012/jul/19/cascade-policy-institute/has-unemployment-among-oregon-high-school-graduate/	PolitiFact Oregon was easing into a new week, excited about the warm weather, when this tweet came over to shatter our calm: #Unemployment for #Oregon HS grads 18-20 jumps 300% compared to 30% nationally. It was a tweet from the Cascade Policy Institute, a think tank in Portland that advocates limited government. A research associate there had written a post called "Oregon’s Minimum Wage Prices Teens Out." Here’s a fuller explanation from the website: "Oregon’s unemployment among high school graduates aged 18 to 20 tops the national charts, with a rise of more than 300% from 2008 to 2011. This gigantic leap dwarfs the U.S. unemployment rate for the same demographic, which only shows an increase of around 30%." (Cascade later revised the claim to reflect a 200 percent increase.) How could we find out if this was all true? Does Oregon top the national charts? Was the increase in Oregon really that much worse than the national increase? And what about the underlying point: That Oregon’s minimum wage was to blame? The original post contained no links and -- more significantly -- no unemployment numbers, so we had little to go on. We put in a call to Cascade. A little background here for those unfamiliar with opposition to Oregon’s minimum wage. Oregon has the second highest-minimum wage among states, $8.80 this year, second only to Washington, at $9.04. What really annoys critics is that the wage automatically goes up every Jan. 1, as it is indexed to inflation. Voters approved the automatic indexing in 2002. Restaurants and small businesses hate it and argue that a high minimum wage hurts teen employment. So it makes sense that Cascade, which sides with free market principles, is among those critics. We spoke with Steve Buckstein, the group’s senior policy analyst. In doing so, Buckstein corrected the original write-up to reflect a 219 percent increase, and not a 300 percent increase, in Oregon’s 18-20 unemployment rate. He said the general argument still stands. "We have a very high minimum wage, and it makes it harder for teens and unskilled workers to get jobs," Buckstein said. Basic starting point: What are his numbers and where did he get them? Cascade turned to the Employment Policies Institute, a business-backed Washington, D.C., group that also dislikes the minimum wage. The institute even runs a website called MinimumWage.com. Michael Saltsman, a research fellow there, used Current Population Survey figures (which are compiled by the U.S. Census and used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) to figure out unemployment for high school graduates 18 to 20. Here are the numbers: In 2008, unemployment in Oregon was 11.1 percent. By 2011, it was 35.4 percent. That is a 219 percent increase. The U.S average was 18.3 percent in 2008 and 24.5 percent in 2011. That is a 34 percent increase. We were struck by two things in the data: The high 35 percent rate in Oregon in 2011, but also the low 11 percent rate in 2008. We were doing better than the national average five years ago. Obviously if we go from lower-than-average to higher-than-average, we’re going to get a larger-than-usual increase. That made us see the 200 percent increase in a new light. We then checked with the Oregon Center for Public Policy, another local think tank, but on the other side of the issue. Executive director Chuck Sheketoff suggested we try the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, which, unlike the Employment Policies Institute, supports raising the minimum wage. Economic analyst David Cooper shared his unemployment rates for the same age group, also using Current Population Survey figures. And you know what we found? The unemployment figures were different -- lower, generally, all around -- but the rates of increase were about the same. In 2008, unemployment for high school graduates 18-20 years old in Oregon was 8.3 percent, compared with 13.4 percent nationally. In 2011, Oregon unemployment had grown to 25.4 percent, compared with 18.4 percent nationally. Those figures correspond with a 206 percent increase in Oregon, and 37 percent nationally. Again, Oregon was doing better than the national average, before we did worse in 2011. (Cooper also argues youth unemployment jumped dramatically "across the entire country, and particularly in the Pacific Northwest" between 2008 and 2011. The increase in Washington was 85 percent and in Idaho, 83 percent. Again, Oregon had lower unemployment than both states in 2008 but ended with slightly higher rates in 2011, which made the increase more dramatic.) We checked with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provides the official unemployment figures, and Oregon’s Employment Department. We’ll spare you more numbers. Both agencies showed the same trend, albeit for slightly different age groups, education levels and years. Clearly, the numbers went up. Is any of this tied to Oregon’s indexed minimum wage? People disagree on this. Obviously when employers are shedding jobs, they’re not hiring. And when they do start hiring, they often hire more experienced adults. There’s no question the recession has hit teens and other young workers hard. But Nick Beleiciks, state employment economist, offers a different take on how unemployment intersects with a high minimum wage. Data show that teens in Oregon are more likely to look for work than teens across the country, he said. That’s called a participation rate. "Oregon has a higher participation rate and that could have to do with the higher minimum wage and because of that higher participation rate, we do have a higher unemployment rate among teenagers," he said. Buckstein argues that the high unemployment rate has to do with younger workers looking for jobs in a limited market, and not getting those jobs because they’re losing out to more experienced workers. Of course, neither explanation addresses why our rates were lower than the U.S. average in 2008, which was after Oregon voters approved indexing the minimum wage to inflation in 2002. We won’t rule on that argument. We’re sticking to the numbers. In case you’ve forgotten them, here’s a nifty table for easy review: Cascade 2008 Cascade 2011 percent increase Eco Policy 2008 Eco Policy 2011 percent increase Oregon 11.1 35.4 219 % 8.3 25.4 206 % U.S. 18.3 24.5 34 % 13.4 18.4 37 % The rates of increase cited by Cascade Policy are correct, as measured by its numbers and the numbers of an ideologically different institute. We will give Cascade a pass on the original increase cited because, in this context, the difference between 219 percent and 300 percent doesn’t really matter. The problem we have is we don’t think it’s fair to use the national average to highlight the apparently horrible nature of Oregon unemployment, without noting the actual unemployment figures. In every data set we checked, Oregon’s youth unemployment in 2008 was lower than the national average. Of course, the rate of increase will be higher when the starting point is lower. We think the actual unemployment rates are an important missing detail that should be considered when looking at increases. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Cascade Policy Institute	None	None	None	2012-07-19T11:01:06	2012-07-05	['United_States', 'Oregon']
-thet-00002	If Richard Leonard believes that the Leave campaign, which of course he supported, was also a tissue of lies, and that for that reason they should now go to a third (general election) vote in three years... then Labour has to get behind the democratic views of the people of Scotland.	https://theferret.scot/fact-check-labour-richard-leonard-leave-campaign-brexit/	None	Fact check Politics 	Keith Brown, SNP deputy leader	None	None	Claim Richard Leonard supported the Leave campaign in Brexit vote is False	October 10, 2018	None	['Scotland']
-snes-05330	A 17-year-old St. Cloud boy argued with a Muslim woman over his cross necklace at a Walmart or Scheels store.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-cross-necklace-argument/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did a Teenage Customer Argue with a Muslim Cashier Over His Cross Necklace?	21 January 2016	None	['Walmart']
-snes-00566	So far in 2018, the number of U.S. students killed in school shootings is greater than the number of U.S. military personnel who have been killed on active duty.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/school-shooting-military-deaths/	None	Military	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Which Has Killed More People in 2018: School Shootings or Military Service?	22 May 2018	None	['United_States']
-pomt-10051	"The average bonus [on Wall Street] is about $100,000...The bonuses on Wall Street are down 44 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/feb/05/fred-smith/fedex-chair-delivers-perspective-bonuses/	Reports about big bonuses for Wall Street executives have struck a nerve with people who wonder how the executives can justify large payments when their firms are in shaky condition or are seeking federal help. It's drawn the ire of President Obama, who called it "the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful." On Feb. 4, 2009, he said top executives at firms receiving federal aid will have their compensation capped at $500,000 and that bonuses would have to come as stock that they can't receive until the government is reimbursed. The New York State Comptroller reported in late January that Wall Street firms in 2008 handed out $18.4 billion in cash bonuses to employees who live in New York City, the sixth-largest amount on record. Critics have said the employees don't deserve the rewards because the firms lost more than $35 billion in 2008 and the federal government is spending hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out many of them. Fred Smith, chief executive of FedEx and supporter of George W. Bush, John McCain and other Republicans, tried to cool down the heated discussion with a bit of perspective on ABC's This Week on Feb. 1, 2009. Host George Stephanopoulos noted that Smith "actually took a pay cut in December. You announced a 20 percent pay cut because of the performance of FedEx over the last year, because of the tough economic times. And I wonder ... what do you think of the bonus structure now on Wall Street?" Smith replied that compensation on Wall Street is built on bonuses "much more so than in the industrial sector. As I understand it, the average bonus in that $18 billion is about $100,000 a year. The bonuses on Wall Street are down about 44 percent." Smith was not far off when it came to the average cash bonus. It was $112,000 in 2008, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's Jan. 28, 2009, report. And indeed bonuses were down 44 percent in a sense: The total amount given out in bonuses, $18.4 billion, was a decline of 44 percent from the $32.9 billion handed out in 2007. But due to job losses on Wall Street, there were fewer employees to split the pie in 2008. So the average bonus was down a slightly more modest 37 percent from the previous year's average. Also, it might have been worth pointing out that while bonuses were well below the 2007 level, that average of $112,000 was still the fifth-highest since the comptroller's office started keeping records in 1985. And the total haul of $18.4 billion was the sixth highest on record. Both were around the same as 2004, a vastly better year for the securities industry and its investors. And although it's true that bonuses generally make up a substantial portion of the compensation on Wall Street, $112,000 is still more than twice the average salary in the United States. But Smith is free to use statistics selectively — and the statistics he chose were off by just $12,000 and a few percentage points. We find his statement Mostly True.	None	Fred Smith	None	None	None	2009-02-05T20:55:29	2009-02-05	['New_York_Stock_Exchange']
-pomt-11665	"African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote!"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/08/donald-trump/how-accurate-donald-trumps-about-black-hispa/	President Donald Trump and his team found several positives to tout from the newest round of employment numbers. On Jan. 5, the day the new numbers were released, presidential daughter and White House official Ivanka Trump tweeted, "The unemployment rate for African Americans fell to 6.8 percent, the lowest ever recorded. We are working hard to bring this rate down even further." See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com The president himself echoed the talking point in his own tweet Jan. 8: "African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote! #NeverForget @foxandfriends." See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com How accurate is the president’s tweet? He’s right on the numbers but leaves out economic gains for those groups under Democratic control. Unemployment rates In December 2017, African-American unemployment fell to 6.8 percent. That’s a record low since the statistic was first calculated in 1972. The previous record low was 7 percent in April 2000 and September 2017. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The Hispanic unemployment also dropped by a full percentage point, from 5.9 percent in December 2016 to 4.9 percent in December 2017. As the president said, this is close to the data point’s all-time low, which was 4.8 percent in October and November 2017. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Did Democrats do "nothing" for black and Hispanic unemployment? The tweet would have been accurate if Trump had stopped after the numbers. But his dig on the Democrats marred his talking point. The unemployment rate for both groups declined dramatically on President Barack Obama’s watch. Black unemployment peaked at 16.6 percent in April 2010, when Obama was president. It then fell by more than half to 7.8 percent by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Hispanic unemployment, meanwhile, peaked at 13 percent in August 2009, then fell to 5.9 percent at the end of Obama’s term in January 2017 -- also a drop of more than half. We should note that presidents don’t deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. The White House did not reply to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Trump tweeted, "African American unemployment is the lowest ever recorded in our country. The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped a full point in the last year and is close to the lowest in recorded history. Dems did nothing for you but get your vote!" He’s right about the low unemployment rates for both blacks and Hispanics today. But his slam that the Democrats "did nothing" in this regard is an exaggeration. Under Obama, the unemployment rate for both groups fell by more than half. We rate his statement Mostly True. See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-01-08T13:25:51	2018-01-08	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'African_American']
-pomt-11506	"We have roughly between 85,000 (and) 95,000 open jobs in Wisconsin."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/23/rebecca-kleefisch/lt-governors-count-wisconsin-job-openings-includes/	Discussing the administration’s 2018 agenda on a Milwaukee radio show late last year, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch said Wisconsin had an "extraordinary amount of jobs" but not enough workers with the right skills. For proof she turned to a state-run jobs database. "The best illustration of this … is called JobCenterOfWisconsin.com," Kleefisch told Steve Scaffidi on his WTMJ radio show Dec. 21, 2017. "You're going to see that on a day-to-day basis, we have roughly between 85,000 (and) 95,000 open jobs in Wisconsin, and yet, we only have about 40,000 folks who are currently on unemployment." Does Wisconsin really have between 85,000 and 95,000 available jobs? Time to dive into the data. Database a mix of sources The site — run by the state Department of Workforce Development — includes jobs posted there directly by businesses or workforce department staffers and those provided by a third-party jobs aggregator. A snapshot of the database provided by DWD from Jan. 8, 2018, shortly after Kleefisch’s statement, showed a total of 83,077 jobs. About 39,000 jobs were posted directly to the site, 43,000 came from US.jobs and 1,000 from America’s Job Exchange. US.jobs, also called the National Labor Exchange, is a national jobs clearinghouse that retrieves jobs at least once a day from numerous companies’ internal job tracking systems. The service provides about 60% of the job listings to all state job databases in the country, said Hal Cooper, vice president of product development for the DirectEmployers Association, which coordinates the database. The number of jobs in the Wisconsin database varies by season. In 2017, it hit a high of 104,000 in May. It was just under 90,000 the day before Kleefisch’s comment, according to copies of the site maintained by archive.org. Out-of-state, old jobs included in listing So the totals are in line with Kleefisch’s claim. But a closer look at the data shows the matter is not quite that simple. The jobs database includes about 14,000 positions located in Wisconsin’s four neighboring states -- Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan. One of the 15 most common entries in the "employer" field in the database is Access Dubuque, a jobs clearinghouse in Iowa. John Dipko, a workforce development spokesman, said the jobs are included because job seekers "typically look for openings within a particular radius of their home," even if that crosses state lines. He said many of those jobs are "still performed" in Wisconsin through telecommuting or travel. Dan Suhr, Kleefisch’s interim chief of staff, noted the database topped 100,000 in the months preceding her comment, and removing the out-of-state jobs from that number would still leave a total near the low end of the range she cited. The database also contained some entries that appeared to be duplicates. For example, Arby’s restaurants had 16 identical postings that each sought three assistant managers to work in La Crosse County — a total of 48 jobs. Arby’s has one location in La Crosse County. There were also 12 postings for three Arby’s managers each in Brown County, more than the number of restaurants there. But such cases did not appear widespread. Several of the companies with the highest number of jobs in the database confirmed the tallies were accurate. A dozen companies in the database combined for more than 12,000 job listings as of Jan. 8. Roehl Transport had the highest number of jobs in the database at 2,174, and a spokesman said the nationwide driving shortage means there is essentially no limit to the number of drivers they would hire. Spokesmen for Ascension Health (1,080 jobs), Froedtert Health (663) and Walgreens (635) said those numbers are roughly accurate. Job listings on Kwik Trip’s website appear to show a roughly similar number of jobs to the state database. Among other large employers, a McDonald’s spokesman said they don’t maintain a jobs total for all Wisconsin franchises, and Pizza Hut and Dollar General did not respond to requests for confirmation. Dipko and Cooper said they have systems in place to keep outdated jobs out of the database. The internally posted jobs are removed after 90 days if employers don’t update them, and the outside ones from US.jobs are updated daily from the company servers, so those are also presumed up-to-date. The database provided included 3,900 listings that were first posted more than a year ago, but Dipko and Cooper attributed those to job listing IDs being reused or jobs remaining open. Our rating While making a point about the gap between Wisconsin’s job-seekers and available jobs, Kleefisch claimed in late December that Wisconsin had "roughly" 85,000 to 95,000 open jobs on a state website. The database stood at 90,000 the day before her comment and totalled 82,000 a couple weeks later in the version released to PolitiFact. But an examination of the 82,000 jobs showed only 69,000 were actually based in Wisconsin. It’s reasonable to include those out-of-state jobs in a database for Wisconsin job seekers, but those aren’t Wisconsin jobs. The in-state listings appear largely legitimate, based on checks with the largest employers and a search for repeated or out-of-date listings. But that is still short of the range Kleefisch asserted. The database changed somewhat between her statement and the data we analyzed, but not by enough to put the Wisconsin tally in line with her statement. We rate her claim Half True. (Editor's note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly listed Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin, rather than Froedtert Health, which covers jus tthe Froedtert portion of the operation).	None	Rebecca Kleefisch	None	None	None	2018-02-23T06:00:00	2017-12-21	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-12356	"Every single year that there's an increase (in temperature) it's within the margin of error -- meaning it isn't increasing."	/florida/statements/2017/jun/09/greg-gutfeld/fox-news-show-co-host-greg-gutfeld-denies-temperat/	Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld says people who cite statistics about the hottest year ever or high temperatures are spreading "B.S." He says people who make such claims are not telling the full story about temperature statistics. "If you asked them what the increase was, they wouldn't be able to tell you that every single year that there's an increase, it is within the margin of error, meaning it isn’t increasing," Gutfeld said June 2 on the show he co-hosts, The Five. "So, those are called real truths," he continued. "The poetic truth is the chaos and the hysteria, because that plays to the media. And it makes you feel so important. And you get to punish America for being so successful by doing these stupid deals. But if you read the facts about the high temperatures, about the reality of our past, it is all B.S." Gutfeld made the statement on The Five as the panel discussed President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. We interviewed several scientists who said Gutfeld’s statement -- that temperature increases are within the margin of error and therefore not increasing -- is wrong. Rather than point to "single year" increases, experts said that long-term trends clearly show the temperature has been rising for decades. Robert Jackson, chair of the department of Earth System Science at Stanford, said Gutfeld’s statement, scientifically speaking, "is rubbish." There are two main sources of data cited to look at temperature trends: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard institute for Space Studies. Both show a trend of rising temperatures. Rising temperatures should be measured over many years A Fox News spokeswoman sent us articles stating that 2016 data on rising temperatures was deceptive because of "uncertainty in the statistics" or because news reports hid information on the margin of error. Gutfeld focused on "single year" increases. Such comparisons don’t tell the full story about rising temperature, because there is natural variability year over year. It is more useful to look at long-term trends such as comparing decades, said University of Miami’s Ben Kirtman. The statement by Gutfeld "indicates a profound misunderstanding of climate science and statistics," Kirtman said. "Year over year you can’t be sure that one year is a statistically separate warming from the previous year, so you have to take a little bit longer view to remove some of the natural fluctuation," he said. But by looking at climate data over decades, it shows a clear rise in temperatures. NASA tracks the annual temperature anomaly which means a change, up or down, from a long-term average. NASA’s latest annual data released in January 2017 shows that temperatures have been rising upward since the 1960s: In January 2017, NASA reported that the Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and NOAA. Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean -- making 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures, NASA concluded. NASA stated that even taking into account the uncertainties in the interpretation of year-to-year temperature differences, NASA estimated 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty. NASA attributed the rising temperatures driven largely by "increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere." Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. According to NASA, for recent years the margin of error is about ±0.05 degrees Celsius. Uncertainties can arise in the data due to different methods in dealing with missing data and weighting the two hemispheres; however, the uncertainty is quite small, said Kevin Trenberth, a Distinguished Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth said that 2014 was the warmest on record at that point, but perhaps not outside uncertainty. But 2015 broke that record well outside the uncertainty, and then 2016 further broke that record, again well outside any uncertainty. So 2014-16 are the warmest three years on record, he said. Reto A. Ruedy, an expert at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said Gutfeld’s statement "lacks any logic." "It argues that anything that changes less than the margin of error within some arbitrarily selected time interval (here a year) necessarily does not change," he said. "By the same logic you can argue that babies don’t grow in size, since within a day or even a week they grow less than the margin of error in determining their size." The long-term trend which shows an overall rise in temperature since 1880, said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. "Gutfeld uses flawed logic to claim that there is no trend. But there is a trend," he said. "The lesson here? Always look at the actual data." Our ruling Gutfeld said, "every single year that there's an increase (in temperature) it's within the margin of error -- meaning it isn't increasing." While some years are within the margin, others definitely aren't, so Gutfeld is wrong when he says "every single" year is within the margin of error. Also, long-term trends over decades show that temperatures are clearly rising. So Gutfeld is wrong both on the details and and the big picture. We rate his statement Pants on Fire. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Greg Gutfeld	None	None	None	2017-06-09T14:01:15	2017-06-02	['None']
-snes-06031	Account by Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin describes his taking Communion on the moon.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/commoonion/	None	Glurge Gallery	None	David Mikkelson	None	Communion on the Moon	7 March 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-03122	"The CDC issued a report commissioned by President Obama just earlier this year, and it found some very inconvenient facts. Armed citizens are less likely harmed by attackers. Effectiveness of gun control laws is mixed. Gun buybacks don't work."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/18/se-cupp/crossfires-se-cupp-cites-cdc-armed-citizen-safety-/	Did a report commissioned by the president find "some very inconvenient facts" about gun control? Conservative CNN Crossfire host S.E. Cupp broke it down in an episode last week: "The CDC issued a report commissioned by President (Barack) Obama just earlier this year, and it found some very inconvenient facts. Armed citizens are less likely harmed by attackers. Effectiveness of gun control laws is mixed. Gun buybacks don't work. Shouldn't we be looking at irrefutable evidence, irrefutable evidence?" Her liberal co-host Van Jones quipped, "Oh, now Obama's CDC is irrefutable?" We’ve looked into the state of gun research, which has been starved of federal funding since the late 1990s. Did a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offer strong evidence? The report Cupp mentioned was inspired by mass shootings during 2011 and 2012 in Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; Oak Creek, Wis. and Newtown, Conn. In January 2013, President Barack Obama directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research causes and prevention of gun violence. The agency turned to the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council to bring together experts to come up with a "research agenda." They released a 113-page report in June that also summarized what’s known. Rather than break new ground, it focused on the need for more work. "In the absence of this research, policymakers will be left to debate controversial policies without scientifically sound evidence about their potential effects," it said. Later, it urged: "There is a pressing need to obtain up-to-date, accurate information about how many guns are owned in the United States, their distribution and types, how people acquire them, and how they are used." Here’s what it noted about armed citizens, gun control laws and gun buybacks. ‘Armed citizens are less likely harmed by attackers’ The research committee summarized research on the "defensive use of guns." It did cite specific studies that showed lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies," it said. It cited four studies, three involving criminal justice professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University, who was on the committee. But it also pointed out that effectiveness of such tactics likely varies depending on the type of victim, offender and circumstance. "So further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings," the report said. It also pointed out that "even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public — concealed or open carry — may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. "For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use." It cited three studies from the 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now a policy analyst at Rand Corp., then said: "Although some early studies were published that related to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration." ‘Effectiveness of gun control laws is mixed’ "Mixed" definitely describes the state of the research, according to the report, if not the effectiveness of the laws themselves. "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue," it said, noting that the "effectiveness of various types of control is inadequately researched." It goes on to cite studies that fall all over the map. Firearm legislation is associated with lower rates of fatal firearm violence. Except when it’s not. Even studies that show correlation have a hard time showing one thing causes the other. "A paucity of reliable and valid data, as discussed in the sections above, is a major barrier to the development of the most effective policies, strategies, and interventions for prevention of firearm violence. Nonetheless, many interventions have been developed and studied, and they point to areas requiring important additional research," the report finds. Gun buybacks don't work There’s evidence gun buybacks don’t work, the report says. "For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States … but gun buyback programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns," it said, citing two two studies. It mentioned that on the local level, buybacks may function to raise awareness of gun violence. But it also cited a 2002 study that showed in Milwaukee, Wis., for example, "guns recovered in the buybacks were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides." Our ruling Cupp said that a CDC report this year found: "Armed citizens are less likely harmed by attackers. Effectiveness of gun control laws is mixed. Gun buybacks don't work." The report, which summarized the state of gun research and outlined areas for new investigation, cited studies that showed crime victims who used guns had lower injury rates. But it also noted a need to explore other factors and "confirm or discount" earlier research. On gun control laws, the research itself is mixed — and there’s a "paucity of reliable and valid data" on which to base it. The report did cite evidence that gun buybacks don’t work. Cupp exaggerated the findings of the CDC report, which merely rounded up studies as it argued for more and better research. In most cases, the report was intended to spur more research, not settle controversial claims once and for all. We rate her claim Half True.	None	S.E. Cupp	None	None	None	2013-09-18T11:44:29	2013-09-13	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-12276	Minnesota imposed an Islamic anti-blasphemy law.	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/03/blog-posting/no-minnesota-did-not-pass-anti-blasphemy-law-s-isl/	You can still find parts of the world where blaspheming Islam is punishable by fines or even death. Minnesota, however, is not among these places. Nevertheless, fake news sites like Political Mayhem claim Minnesota recently passed an Islamic anti-blasphemy law dressed up to look like a municipal hate crime hotline. "It is not the way we roll in America, until now," reads one noxious fake news item. "Minnesota has just established" an anti-blasphemy law. We decided to hose off this dumpster fire. A hate crime hotline is not an anti-blasphemy law Defining blasphemy is easy enough: in legal terms it’s "any oral or written reproach maliciously cast upon God, His name, attributes, or religion." But it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to believe a hate crime hotline set up June 19 by the city of Minneapolis is actually an Islamic anti-blasphemy law. First, opening a hotline is not how you make law. Second, this hotline is not meant for suspected crimes against Muslims only. As a statement describing the new service makes clear, reports concerning "any crime against a person or property motivated by prejudice against someone’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity" are encouraged. Third, even if this hotline were law (it’s not), anti-blasphemy laws are unenforceable in the United States because blasphemy is considered protected speech under the Constitution. To suss out the raison d’etre of this fake news article, look no further than its inflammatory headline, which reads, "State Of Minnesota Has Just Handed Over FULL CONTROL To Muslims So They Can Take Down ‘Infidels.’ " This calculated effort to stoke Islamophobia among credulous readers at a moment when reports show anti-Muslim hate crimes have risen across the country is dangerous. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-03T07:00:00	2017-06-24	['Islam', 'Minnesota']
-tron-00455	Single Black Female Seeks Companionship	https://www.truthorfiction.com/singles-ad-companionship/	None	animals	None	None	None	Single Black Female Seeks Companionship	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05730	Video clip shows a middle-aged woman punching another woman in the mouth.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sucker-punch/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Old Lady Sucker Punch	5 July 2007	None	['None']
-goop-01215	Brad Pitt Has Been Dating MIT Professor Neri Oxman For “Six Months,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-neri-oxman-dating-six-months-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Brad Pitt Has NOT Been Dating MIT Professor Neri Oxman For “Six Months,” Despite Claim	10:26 am, April 10, 2018	None	['None']
-mpws-00005	Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., brought his populist message to Minneapolis last Sunday. His speech, which he gave to mark the start of his campaign here, focused largely on income inequality. PoliGraph looked at two statements Sanders made and found that, while Sanders tends toward hyperbole, his claims were mostly backed by facts. “In America today, we have more income and wealth inequality than any other major industrialized country on earth.” This line is standard fare in Sanders’ speeches, and not too long ago, FactCheck.org said it was an exaggeration. Since then, Sanders has fine-tuned his rhetoric a bit, saying America has the worst income and wealth inequality of any other industrialized nation on earth. By adding that qualifier, Sanders comes closer to the truth, but a lot depends on how you define industrialized countries. A Sanders spokesman pointed to a recent CNN article that said Israel and the U.S. are at the top of the list when it comes to income inequality. Other rankings put the U.S. in a similar position. According a report by the Credit Suisse Research, the U.S. is near the top of wealth inequality, too. But using a list of “advanced” or industrialized nations from the World Factbook, which is published by the Central intelligence Agency, the U.S. is outranked by Turkey and Hong Kong. Different sources use different standards for defining industrialized nations and income inequality, but Sanders is mostly correct in his statement: The U.S. is near the top of income and wealth inequality rankings when it comes to industrialized nations. “The truth is that unemployment in America is not 5.4 percent…. If you include those people who have given up looking for work, and those people who are working part time, real unemployment in America today is close to 11 percent.” Sanders is right that national unemployment is 5.4 percent. And Sanders is correct that the national unemployment rate doesn’t tell the whole story. For instance, the official unemployment rate doesn’t include people who are discouraged from looking for work, or who are marginally attached to the work force. Those people are captured in a separate statistic that also includes people who are working part-time but say they would like to be working more. Right now, this figure is roughly 11 percent. Politicians on the left and right have often pointed to the “U-6,” the technical term used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as the “real” unemployment rate. But the BLS routinely pushes back on that description in part because it does include people who are employed part time. Sanders is clearly using a higher number to make a political point. But what he does get right is the fact that the U.S. employment outlook is more complicated than just one number. And the U-6 is a legitimate figure sometimes used by politicians and economists to paint a broader picture of economy. 	https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/06/poligraph-sanders-claims-about-inequality/	None	None	None	Catharine Richert	None	PoliGraph: Sanders claims about inequality	June 5, 2015, 2:00 PM	None	['United_States', 'Bernie_Sanders', 'Hong_Kong', 'Minneapolis', 'Israel', 'FactCheck.org', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'The_World_Factbook', 'Central_Intelligence_Agency', 'CNN']
-pomt-01197	Immigrants "have captured all of the nearly 9 million jobs created since 2000."	/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/02/peter-morici/economist-immigrants-have-taken-all-new-jobs-creat/	President Barack Obama’s decision to defer deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants has stirred fear that a tough job market just got tougher. The concern is that if these people can now work in the country legally, it will take opportunities away from the people who were born here. In a newspaper op-ed, Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, faulted loose immigration policies for what he called the economy’s "lackluster performance." Morici cited a number of factors, including this striking statement about immigrants. "(They) have captured all of the nearly 9 million jobs created since 2000," Morici wrote. "Illegal immigrants hold many of these positions, and now the president threatens to legalize their status by executive action if the Republican Congress won't cave to his demands." A reader wondered if Morici was right about immigrants scoring all of the new jobs. Morici’s statement that "illegal immigrants hold many of these positions" is a bit vague, so this fact-check focuses only on his claim about immigrants, both legal and illegal, capturing "all of the nearly 9 million jobs created since 2000." Morici told PunditFact he got his numbers from a recent report by the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors reduced immigration. "The total number of working-age (16 to 65) immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job increased 5.7 million from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2014, while declining 127,000 for natives," the report said. While the report didn’t spell out how many jobs the economy gained since 2000, it provided a link to a table that showed a growth of about 5.5 million jobs. These numbers largely match data provided by the government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. So it might look as though Morici is on firm ground. The center’s study found that the number of jobs gained by the foreign-born was pretty much the same as the number of new jobs added to the economy. But there are a few hitches. First, that study focused on workers between 16 and 65 years old. In a footnote, the authors acknowledge that the results would look quite different if they had included older workers. Using the study’s table, we did that and saw that while foreign-born workers did better than those born in the United States, they didn’t account for all of the gains. For workers 16 years old and up, the total change in employment was about 8.8 million. Of that, the number of foreign-born workers grew about 6.2 million and for native-born, the number was 2.6 million. As this chart shows, the percentages change a lot. If you parse Morici’s statement, you can see where these numbers get him into trouble. If he wants to speak of nearly 9 million new jobs, then he has to accept that about 70 percent, not 100 percent, went to immigrants. If he wants to assert that all the new jobs went to immigrants, then he should have talked about 5.5 million new jobs in the 16-65 age range. As it stands, the two parts of his statement don’t fit together. The center’s study also noted that the time period you pick will change what the data show. The report said, "Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 43 percent of employment growth has gone to immigrants." That, obviously, is much less than "all" of the new jobs. It is worth noting that the study lumped legal and illegal immigrants together. Morici made a passing reference to illegal immigrants taking "many" of the new jobs. That claim is difficult to verify one way or the other because within the group of foreign-born workers, the ratio of American citizens to noncitizens has changed greatly in the past 15 years. In 2000, noncitizens outnumbered citizens by about 60 percent. In 2014, the difference was just 10 percent. Furthermore, it would be a mistake to treat all of the noncitizen workers as illegal immigrants. All these data show is that they were not born in this country and have not become citizens. They could have proper work permits, so their legal status is unknown. We told Morici about the issues we found in the data and didn’t hear back. Pia Orrenius is vice president and senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Orrenius said that foreign-born workers have found work faster than people born in America for many reasons. The demand for certain jobs has changed greatly, most likely thanks to new technology, she said. "Labor markets are polarizing and middle-skill jobs are disappearing," Orrenius said. "Natives tend to be middle-skilled compared to immigrants who are concentrated mostly on the low-skill end but also on the high-skill end." Orrenius also said that native-born workers face different choices than newcomers when looking for work. They might be able to take advantage of government programs (such as Social Security disability), or they might have more savings that allow them to get by without a job longer than an immigrant. Also, immigrants tend to move to parts of the country where growth is faster, while native-born workers tend to stay put. Our ruling Morici said that all of the nearly 9 million new jobs created since 2000 went to immigrants. His numbers don’t add up. The study he cited linked to numbers that showed that immigrants accounted for about 70 percent of the net job growth. While that study’s headline was that all of the new jobs went to immigrants, that only held true for a certain age range, which Morici misapplied to all workers. Morici is correct that foreign-born workers, both citizens and noncitizens, do disproportionately well in the job market. But the actual numbers fall well short of the 100 percent that he said. "All" is an overstatement. There is an element of truth in the claim, but it ignores certain critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Peter Morici	None	None	None	2014-12-02T17:12:41	2014-12-07	['None']
-pomt-10782	Mitt Romney boasts that he is "proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The others have not."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/16/mitt-romney/depends-on-the-definition-of-major/	In a radio ad airing in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney boasts that he is "proud to be the only major candidate for president to sign the tax pledge. The others have not." But former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee signed the same "no new taxes" pledge in March. So too have Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul – all Republicans vying for president. On a base level, then, Romney's ad is incorrect. But he did say he's the "only major candidate." And among the pledge signers, Romney is certainly the top candidate. So the ad's truthfulness comes down to the definition of "major." Huckabee, who has been feeling momentum after standout debate performances and a second place finish in the Iowa straw poll, views himself as a major candidate (don't they all?) and his campaign was quick to challenge the radio spot. (A Washington Post-ABC News poll released in October 2007 showed Romney with 11 percent support nationally and Huckabee 8 percent, his best showing so far. But in state polls, Romney does far better and his fund-raising advantage is enormous.) "There was no slight intended. The context was in line with comparisons between the top tier candidates in terms of fundraising and current poll numbers," Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said. The Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge was started in 1987 by Americans For Tax Reform, a group headed by national conservative figure Grover Norquist. Every Republican candidate since 1988 has signed the pledge, according to the group. But so far in the 2008 contest, other top GOP presidential contenders have not, including Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain. Romney has opposed a pledge in the past. In 2002, while running for governor of Massachusetts, he said he opposed all tax increases in principle but was not willing to put that in writing. His spokesman at the time called such pledges "government by gimmickry."	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2007-10-16T00:00:00	2007-10-16	['None']
-pomt-10855	"At least Obama didn't marry his cousin," as Giuliani did.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/06/obama-girl/giulianis-first-wife-was-his-second-cousin/	A wildly popular YouTube video featuring a scantily clad "Obama Girl" -- with no connection to Barack Obama's campaign -- criticizes Rudy Giuliani for marrying his cousin. Barelypolitical.com produced the video "Debate 08: Obama Girl vs. Giuliani Girl," a follow up to their successful video "I got a crush on Obama," which featured Amber Lee Ettinger lip-synching a song about the Democratic presidential candidate. In the debate video, another dancer is introduced and the two argue about the merits of their respective candidates. At one point, Obama Girl raps, "Giuliani Girl, just stop your fussing, at least Obama didn't marry his cousin." We find Obama Girl's claims are accurate. In 1968, Giuliani wed his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, who was the daughter of his father's first cousin. (Think of your son/daughter marrying your cousin's daughter/son.) Giuliani at different points labeled the family connection as "second cousins once removed" and "third cousins," before he was corrected, according to news reports. In a 1993 memo for his mayoral campaign, a Giuliani strategist noted the "weirdness" factor of the marriage, according to a copy posted on the Smoking Gun Web site. But such a marriage is completely legal. In New York, even first cousins can wed. Robin Bennett, senior genetic counselor at the University of Washington, said little scientific research exists about the risk of developmental difficulties for the offspring of second cousins. But she said, "for second cousins, the risks are likely similar to the risks of couples from the same ethnic population who also may have common ancestors." Giuliani and Peruggi did not have any children, and the marriage ended after 14 years.	None	Obama Girl	None	None	None	2007-09-06T00:00:00	2007-07-19	['Barack_Obama', 'Rudy_Giuliani']
-snes-06194	H. L. Mencken wrote that eventually "the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mencken-white-house-quote/	None	Quotes	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did H. L. Mencken Say the ‘White House Will Be Adorned by a Downright Moron’?	14 November 2004	None	['White_House']
-snes-00164	The medical term "vagina" has been replaced with the phrase "front hole."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/vagina-called-front-hole/	None	Sexuality	None	Dan Evon	None	Has the Medical Term ‘Vagina’ Been Replaced with the Phrase ‘Front Hole?’	27 August 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04166	Usain Bolt donated his entire $20 million earnings from the Olympic Games to his Jamaican high school.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usain-bolt-donates-earnings/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Usain Bolt Donates All His $20 Million Olympic Earnings to His Former School	26 August 2016	None	['Jamaica', 'Usain_Bolt']
-snes-03972	The Fraternal Order of Police have retracted their endorsement of Donald Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-union-cancels-trump-endorsement/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Police Union Cancels Trump Endorsement	22 September 2016	None	['Donald_Trump']
-snes-05915	Leah Remini found out during a phone prank Ellen DeGeneres' show that her husband was cheating on her.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/look-under-your-affairs-everyone/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Leah Remini and Ellen DeGeneres Cheating Prank	19 December 2014	None	['Ellen_DeGeneres', 'Leah_Remini']
-snes-02627	President Trump has signed visa-free travel policies for residents of a number of different countries.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-visa-free-travel-policy/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did President Trump Sign Visa-Free Travel Policies for Various Countries?	22 February 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05773	Rhythmically coughing during a heart attack increases your chances of surviving it.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cough-cpr/	None	Medical	None	Snopes Staff	None	How to Survive a Heart Attack When Alone	30 June 1999	None	['None']
-snes-03225	A photograph depicts a sign at Target informing customers purchasing pork or alcohol to choose another lane to accommodate Muslim employees.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/targets-sharia-compliant-lanes/	None	Business	None	Snopes Staff	None	Are You Shopping at One of Target’s Sharia-Compliant Stores?	2 March 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03414	Says Wendy Davis, "born into difficult circumstances," was the daughter of a single mother and a teenage mother herself.	/texas/statements/2013/jun/28/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-wendy-davis-daughter-single-mother/	Near the end of a 15-minute speech to the National Right to Life Convention in Grapevine, Texas, Gov. Rick Perry suggested the Democratic state senator who stood for more than a dozen hours toward defeating proposed abortion restrictions could draw a lesson from her own life. Perry edged toward talking about Wendy Davis, whom he did not name, by asking who "are we to say that children born into the worst of circumstances can’t grow to live successful lives?" "In fact, even the woman who filibustered the Senate other day was born into difficult circumstances," Perry continued. "She was the daughter of a single mother. She was a teenaged mother herself. She eventually graduated from Harvard Law School and served in the Texas Senate. It’s just unfortunate that she hasn’t learned from her own example that every life must be given a chance to recognize its full potential and that every life matters." A reader questioned whether the circumstances into which Davis was "born" included having a single mother. We also looked at if she was a teenage mother herself. Davis, who represents a Fort Worth district, has previously referred to her teenage motherhood and to her mother being single, according to web posts and news articles in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Her Senate website says Davis "began working after school at 14 to help support her single mother and three siblings. By 19, Wendy was a single mother herself, working two jobs to make ends meet in hopes of creating a better life for her young daughter." The biographical entry on her campaign website has the same sentences. Responding to our inquiry, Perry spokesman Josh Havens noted the campaign-site reference. "What the governor said is consistent with what the senator has written in her bio," Havens said by email. Davis’ Senate spokesman, Rick Svatora, said by telephone that the senator, whose June 25, 2013, filibuster drew national and international attention, was "booked up" and unavailable to immediately discuss this claim. But in 2012, Davis gave sworn testimony about her life in a lawsuit brought before a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C. "When I was only 18 I got married," Davis said, according to a transcript of her Jan. 20, 2012, testimony. "I had a baby, I got divorced by the time I was 19 years old. And I had started working, I actually started working when I was 14. I was raised by a single mother. My mother only had a 6th grade education. My parents divorced when I was 11 years old." Davis also testified that she was born in West Warwick, R.I., before moving to Tarrant County. She testified, too, that she graduated from Texas Christian University and then Harvard Law School, with honors. Jerry Russell, Davis’ father and the founder of a Fort Worth theater, returned our telephone call about Perry’s claim and challenged the reference to Davis being "born into difficult circumstances." Russell said it was "totally incorrect" to conclude that Davis was born to a single mother. Rather, he said, he and Davis’ mother were wedded in Rhode Island in 1958, some five years before Davis, the third of their four children, was born there, he said. Russell initially told us the couple moved to Fort Worth in 1973 and separated in 1976, around when the future senator was 13. He shortly called back and said the separation probably occurred "closer to" a couple years earlier, as Davis testified. "From that point on," Russell said, "I wasn’t present in the" family "home, but I was present in Wendy’s life." Russell said that his ex-wife remarried two or three years after their split and then another time later. He declined to elaborate. According to online Tarrant County records, Davis’ mother, Virginia, whom we failed to reach, married Ira Cornstubble in May 1994. Our ruling Perry said Davis, "born into difficult circumstances," was the daughter of a single mother and a teenage mother herself. His statement, offered in the cause of a law to curb abortions, could leave the incorrect impression that Davis was born to a struggling single mother, which is not so, best we can tell. Still, the senator’s parents divorced midway through her childhood and Davis spent at least part of her adolescence in a one-parent home. Also, Perry is correct that Davis was a teenage mother herself. This partially accurate claim distorts important details. We rate it as Half True.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2013-06-28T16:55:52	2013-06-27	['None']
-snes-06073	During a photo opportunity at a 1992 grocers' convention, President George Bush was "amazed" at encountering supermarket scanners for the first time.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-scanner-demonstration/	None	History	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was President Bush ‘Amazed’ by a Grocery Scanner?	1 April 2001	None	['None']
-tron-03528	ISIS Buys Stolen UPS Uniforms on Ebay	https://www.truthorfiction.com/isis-buys-stolen-ups-uniforms-on-ebay/	None	terrorism	None	None	None	ISIS Buys Stolen UPS Uniforms on Ebay – Fiction!	Nov 20, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-14605	"While our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/03/bernie-sanders/mixed-bag-bernie-sanders-claim-about-wages-hours-i/	A Bernie Sanders campaign ad, which regularly aired in Iowa and most recently in Nevada, tries to make a point that hard-working people have been falling behind economically. "If you're doing everything right but find it harder and harder to get by, you're not alone," Sanders says. "While our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent." We wanted to check the three claims wrapped up in that last sentence. Are Americans working longer hours, are their wages lower, and is almost all new income going to the richest? Sanders doesn't specify a time frame, which complicates matters somewhat, and his campaign wouldn't give us one, despite repeated inquiries. The background graphic, depicting skyrocketing income among the top 1 percent, comes from a 2013 blog post by Pew Research. The Pew graphic is clearly labeled to note that the data cover 1917 to 2007. That labeling is gone from the Sanders commercial, although both the Pew and Sanders version mark 1980, a reasonable starting point for a dramatic income growth among top earners. We'll start there and consider the three claims individually. Hours The work week has been steadily declining, not increasing, over the past five decades, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In 1980, the average work week was about 35 hours. It's now below 34 hours. There was, however, a significant decline to 33 hours in June 2009 during the Great Recession. To argue that we're working longer hours, you have to do a bit of cherry-picking and start then, not at 1980, at least according to the BLS. Workers might get the impression from their own lives that those numbers are too low. In fact, Gallup has consistently found from its surveys that full-time employees work, on average, seven hours longer than their 40-hour work week. Nonetheless, Gallup data from most of this century show no significant change in the work week of full-time employees from 2001 through 2014 and a decline in part-time hours, from 35.4 hours in 2001-02 to 25.9 hours for 2013-14. Neither measure shows hours increased, as Sanders claimed. However, it may be a different story if you look at families instead of individuals. The Sanders campaign referred us to a Washington Post article that references a 2011 Brookings Institution study. When Brookings looked at data through 2009 for the middle 10 percent of families, it concluded that income had increased by 23 percent since 1975. But that's not because wages had increased. It's because family members are working 26 percent more hours. Virtually all of that increase was seen among the mother, part of an effort to maintain the standard of living. "The numbers suggest that the typical American family is earning more, but almost entirely because parents are working more — not because they are earning more per hour," the report says. Which brings us to . . . Wages Are Americans really earning lower wages? We called up quarterly data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, specifically the annual averages for median, usual, weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary workers. We looked from 1980 through 2015. The numbers are adjusted for inflation in 1982-84 dollars. Over those 35 years, earnings rose from $318 per week to $342 per week, a 7.5 percent increase. If you want to create a decrease, you have to start tracking at 2009 (when weekly earnings hit about $345) or go back to early 1973, when hourly wages reached a peak. Again, timing is everything. As Pew's Drew DeSilver noted in October, "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then." But it's not the same for all income groups. Since 2000, the people in the lowest-paying jobs — the bottom 25 percent — have seen their weekly wages fall by 3 percent while the people at the top have seen a 9.7 percent rise. The Congressional Budget Office has used a different measurement. A 2014 report looked at data through 2011. It shows that since 1979, average after-tax income rose 40 percent for the poorest fifth and 29 percent for the middle class (those in the 21st to 80th percentile) once inflation was taken into account. (After-tax income takes into account tax policies designed to divert income from the wealthiest Americans.) So the overall trend is up. To say wages have gone down, you have to be very selective about where you start counting. The recovery brought things back up, but not as much as it did for the rich, which brings us to . . . New income By stopping at 2007 when he shows the rise in income for wealthiest Americans, Sanders misses some significant news. The great recession brought income for the top 1 percent down by more than a third. You can see it in the CBO after-tax data (above). From 1979 to 2007, the top 1 percent saw income grow by more than 275 percent. That growth fell dramatically the following year, and by 2011 it recovered to 175 percent over 1979 levels. There's no universally accepted way to calculate what percent of new income has gone to the top 1 percent. Sanders' claim came from the work of University of California Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez whose analysis concluded that the top 1 percent accumulated 91 percent of all income gains from 2009-12. That's because the "top 1 percent incomes grew by 34.7 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes grew only by 0.8," he said. One complication is that Sanders is looking at pre-tax income minus all government payments — think Social Security, unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit. That's more likely to show that income trends are favoring the rich, said Gary Burtless, an economist at Brookings and a former economist with the U.S. Department of Labor. "If you omit income items that go disproportionately to the poor and middle class, it is easier to make the case that income trends are favoring the very well off," Burtless said in an email. Saez subsequently released updated numbers from 2009 through 2014 showing that the 91 percent estimate had dropped to 58 percent, a ratio Sanders acknowledged during a Senate speech in September. In that most-recent analysis, Saez concluded that over the much broader period of 1993 to 2014, the top 1 percent has captured 55 percent of the real income growth. Our ruling In his ad, Sanders asserts that, "While our people work longer hours for lower wages, almost all new income goes to the top 1 percent." The question of hours is a mixed bag. The individual data suggest that people work the same or fewer hours. But family data analyzed by Brookings and only showing a limited slice of the population show that mothers are working longer hours. Wages have, in general, been going up, although barely at all compared to the gains seen among the rich. And while the super-rich may have accumulated 91 percent of the new wealth from 2009 to 2013 according to the economist Sanders has been relying on, the latest analysis shows that the ratio is now 58 percent since 2009, 55 percent since 1993. That's a huge amount of new income for just 1 percent of the population, but it's a stretch to say that it's "almost all." On balance, we rate his statement Half True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-02-03T10:00:00	2016-02-01	['None']
-pomt-06942	During his first year, President Obama said he "was going to visit Kim Jong-ll and Ahmadinejad and Assad and Chavez – the worst actors in the world."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/20/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-president-obama-was-planning-visi/	A persistent theme in Mitt Romney's campaign for president has been the complaint that President Barack Obama has been coddling U.S. enemies such as Iran, North Korea and Syria. So when Romney was asked about Iran during a town hall in Wolfeboro, N.H., on July 5, 2011, he noted that it is "the national sponsor of terror groups across the globe" and lamented that the U.S. doesn’t do a better job of promoting itself abroad. "The President, when he was running for office, said he was going to engage Iran, and engage North Korea. Remember in his first year he was going to visit Kim Jong-ll and Ahmadinejad and Assad and Chavez – the worst actors in the world. And how did that work out?" To check whether Romney was right, we explored two questions: Did Obama actually say he was going to meet in the first year of his presidency with North Korean leader Kim Jong-II, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? And did Obama say those meetings would take place in the leaders' home countries? Romney’s campaign pointed us to the transcript of the CNN/YouTube debate in Charleston, S.C. in July 2007. QUESTION: "In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous. Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them." Obama's remarks drew criticism from his Democratic rival, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, who called Obama’s position "irresponsible and frankly naive" and said that agreeing to meetings "without preconditions" risked that they could be used "for propaganda purposes." Republican nominee John McCain said Obama's position proved his much younger rival’s "inexperience and reckless judgment." Back in 2008, PolitiFact examined McCain’s contention that candidate Obama "said again and again" that he’d be willing to meet with the President Ahmidinejad without precondition, and rated it True. More recently, we've examined Romney’s claim that in his first year, Obama "traveled around the globe to apologize for America," which earned a rating of Pants on Fire. Here, Romney is returning to familiar turf to echo those themes. But in doing so, he exaggerated what Obama said at the debate. First, when he was in that town hall meeting in Wolfeboro, Romney didn’t say Obama said he was "willing to meet " the leaders; Romney said Obama "was going to." Those are two very different things in the precise language of diplomacy. And Romney didn’t use the word "meet," as Obama and McCain did. Instead, he substituted "visit." Diplomatic experts told us those changes significantly change the meaning of Romney's statement. "There is a big difference between visiting a capital and being willing to meet with another government, another government’s leaders -- so it would be unfair to suggest that’s what Obama said. He didn’t say that, and in international politics and diplomacy the difference is quite important," says R. Nicholas Burns, a professor of diplomacy and international politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Burns was Ambassador to Greece under President Bill Clinton and Ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush. Kurk Volker, of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, said Romney's statement is "an exaggeration." Volker, also a U.S. Ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush who is backing the Presidential campaign of Tim Pawlenty, said he doesn’t see Romney’s charge as coming "completely out of thin air" but says it stretches the facts. "It's more specific and more solicitous to say he’s going to visit them. And the imagery around that would be very different, to have the president photographed on the other guy’s turf, it would be a different thing." And as things stand, 30 months into President Obama’s term, he has visited none of these U.S. antagonists, nor are there any public plans to do so. In fact, the only documented direct contact Obama’s had with any of the leaders Romney’s named was with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the multilateral Summit of the America’s in 2009. Press accounts characterize their interactions as brief. They took place on the neutral ground of Trinidad. Our ruling There is a small amount of truth in Romney's claim, but his wording exaggerates what Obama really said. When asked if he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea -- "without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else" -- Obama said he would. But in the language of diplomacy, that is significantly different than saying he "was going to visit" them, which is how Romney characterized it. We find his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2011-07-20T06:00:00	2011-07-05	['Barack_Obama', 'Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad', 'Hugo_Chávez']
-pomt-15184	"Less than half of the poorest American households have a home Internet subscription."	/texas/statements/2015/aug/20/julian-castro/julian-castro-says-less-half-lowest-income-america/	This summer, Julián Castro touted actions on his watch in his first year as U.S. secretary of housing and urban development. But the former San Antonio mayor and Democratic vice presidential prospect also let it be known that work remains to be done, especially in closing the digital socio-economic divide. In an anniversary speech otherwise trumpeting anti-homelessness programs and public housing developments, Castro said: "Technology has transformed how we live, learn and work, but not everyone has been able to participate in these developments. "Less than half of the poorest American households have a home internet subscription," Castro said, which poses barriers when most college applications and job openings are handled over the web. Castro went on to describe the agency’s new ConnectHome project, which he said would accelerate broadband adoption, helping up to 200,000 children gain high-speed online access. We were curious about his "less than half" claim relating poverty and home Internet connections. Castro cites White House report Responding to our request for elaboration, Castro’s press secretary, Cameron French, emailed us a web link to a July 15, 2015, White House "fact sheet" stating that an analysis that day by the Council of Economic Advisers, which advises the president on economic policy, "illustrates that some Americans are still unable to benefit from high-speed broadband, especially America’s lower-income children." "In fact, while nearly two-thirds of households in the lowest-income quintile own a computer," the White House document said, "less than half have a home Internet subscription. While many middle-class U.S. students go home to Internet access, allowing them to do research, write papers, and communicate digitally with their teachers and other students, too many lower-income children go unplugged every afternoon when school ends. This ‘homework gap’ runs the risk of widening the achievement gap, denying hard-working students the benefit of a technology-enriched education." The council’s analysis, a 10-page report titled "Mapping the Digital Divide," said that according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey, "less than half of households headed by someone who did not graduate high school had a home Internet connection, compared to over 90 percent of households headed by a college graduate." The bureau says it annually conducts the survey to help Americans understand changes "taking place in their communities." The report also presented a chart suggesting high-income Americans widely have home Internet access: U.S. Census Bureau research Of course, Castro didn’t say he was limiting his "less than half" statement to households headed by non-high school graduates. To our follow-up email, French said the council drew on a census bureau report based on the 2013 ACS, titled "Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013." The bureau report cited specific questions in the survey asking if, in the household, there is access to computers, access to smartphones and a working Internet subscription. The authors then broke out the results by race, education and household income. Upshot: Slightly less than half of the lowest of five income groups — 48.4 percent of households bringing in less than $25,000 a year — reported having Internet access. Households with greater incomes reported home Internet subscription rates of 69 percent to 95 percent, the report said. Some 47.2 percent of the lowest-income households had high-speed web connections, according to the report, with higher-income households reporting high-speech connection rates of 68 percent to 95 percent. Another analysis Next, we sought other relevant research, landing a September 2013 poll of U.S. residents by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center asking adults if they used broadband Internet. Generally, Pew said, 70 percent of the surveyed residents reported broadband connections at home. But that didn’t hold across income categories. In contrast to the bureau, Pew separated annual income levels into four categories: less than $30,000, between $30,000 and $49,999, $50,000 to $74,999, and $75,000 or more. Pew said 52 percent of adults in the lowest-income group said they had broadband access at home — compared with 71 percent to 91 percent of higher-income adults. Separately, Pew said in a September 2013 web post that as of that May, 15 percent of American adults did not use the Internet or email. "Groups that are significantly more likely to rely on internet access outside the home include blacks and Hispanics, as well as adults at lower levels of income and education," Pew said. Our ruling Castro said that "less than half of the poorest American households have a home Internet subscription." About 48 percent of the nation’s poorest quintile of households--the bottom 20 percent--reported a home Internet connection in 2013. Home web access correlates with income, it appears. We rate this claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Julián Castro	None	None	None	2015-08-20T17:48:13	2015-07-27	['United_States']
-pomt-07285	"The turnout on May 14th was just 7 percent -- the lowest turnout in decades."	/texas/statements/2011/may/23/randi-shade/randi-shade-says-7-percent-turnout-city-council-el/	Austin City Council Member Randi Shade discounted her second-place finish in the May 14 election, saying in a statement that she can compete with challenger Kathie Tovo, who drew 46 percent in the election. Tovo ran a few percentage points shy of outright claiming the Place 3 seat over Shade, who garnered nearly 33 percent in the four-way race. Shade’s May 17 statement continued: "The turnout on May 14 was just 7 percent -- the lowest turnout in decades." Precisely, the turnout was 7.4 percent of registered Austin voters. Nothing to brag on, but was that the lowest in decades? We checked the city’s year-by-year election summaries covering the elections since 1965. By the percentage of registered voters casting ballots--a widely accepted way to gauge participation--turnout is listed as 7 percent in May 2000 when voters acted in races for mayor and some council seats. A closer look shows 38,166 of 513,072 registered voters participated, making the actual May 2000 turnout 7.4 percent--same as this May’s turnout. We suspect the web post--7 percent--reflects a rounding down of the actual turnout percentage, which appears the case for about 20 of the election result summaries we reviewed. Shade consultant Lynda Rife said by email that the number of voters (32,869) this May was less than the number of voters in any general election since April 1965, when 21,605 voters participated, according to the campaign's figures. Fewer voters (22,094) participated in March 1975 balloting for two council seats, according to the results posted by the city. However, Austin political consultant Mark Littlefield, a Shade supporter who culled the figures relied on by Shade, told us that was a special election, which he suggested shouldn’t be compared to general elections. Rife said another gauge is comparing the number of voters to the city’s population. Some 4 percent of the population voted this time, she said, less than any other city election the campaign could find. "This number," Rife said, "seems to provide the most insight into this election." Unsaid: The general population includes many non-voters including minors and non-citizens, arguably making this metric less meaningful. So, voter turnout May 14 was about the same as in the Austin municipal general election 11 years ago. Then again, fewer voters participated in the election than in any general council election in decades. Shade’s statement rates Mostly True.	None	Randi Shade	None	None	None	2011-05-23T06:00:00	2011-05-17	['None']
-snes-05871	The Fox News Channel won a 2004 court case allowing the cable channel to lie to viewers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/	None	Business	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did Fox News Sue for the ‘Right to Lie’?	2 October 2014	None	['None']
-goop-02894	Brad Pitt Did Have “Secret Reunion” With Angelina Jolie In Cambodia, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-reunion-cambodia-angelina-jolie-secret-trip/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt Did NOT Have “Secret Reunion” With Angelina Jolie In Cambodia, Despite Report	11:55 am, March 30, 2017	None	['Cambodia']
-vogo-00260	Statement: “They still have to agree that it saves roughly $1 billion if fully and faithfully implemented,” Carl DeMaio, a candidate for mayor, said on KPBS radio March 21.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/how-the-pension-initiative-saves-1-billion-and-0-fact-check/	Analysis: This week, the city of San Diego released its official financial analysis on Proposition B, the hotly contested pension reform initiative on the June ballot. The measure’s main feature is to give most new city employees 401(k)s instead of guaranteed pensions	None	None	None	None	How the Pension Initiative Saves $1 Billion and $0: Fact Check	March 22, 2012	None	['Carl_DeMaio']
-pomt-06063	Says in Newark "we’re paying 80 percent of the school budget from local property taxes."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/jan/10/ronald-rice/ronald-rice-claims-newark-schools-are-funded-large/	It’s a slogan colonists rallied behind in the 18th century to cast off British rule: "no taxation without representation." Now, state Sen. Ronald Rice is fighting a bill known as the Urban Hope Act on the same grounds. The legislation -- which was passed the state Senate and Assembly on Monday night -- allows private entities to build and operate public schools in three cities. Camden, Jersey City and Newark were originally included in the bill, but last week Jersey City was removed and replaced with Trenton. Rice argued in a senate budget hearing on Thursday that it did not make sense to remove Jersey City -- where "school board members have the ability to make a decision, yea or nay" -- and keep Newark -- "where we have school board members that can't say nothing." The state has been in control of the Newark school district since 1995. "We've been there 16 years, but yet we have elected school board members. We're paying taxes, we're paying 80 percent of the school budget from local property taxes," said Rice, a Democrat from Essex County. "In the meanwhile, we're losing jobs, foreclosures, etcetera, and regardless of how much you minimize the risk with this private quote-unquote investor, ultimately it can come back and it will come back to haunt the local taxpayers." Are Newark taxpayers footing 80 percent of the bill for the school district? A reader asked us to check out this claim and PolitiFact New Jersey found it’s far from the truth. According to budget documents, local taxes account for 11 percent of the Newark Public Schools’ overall budget in the 2011-2012 fiscal year. State aid, grants and entitlements make up the largest portion of the district’s revenues, at nearly 80 percent. Federal aid and various other funding sources make up the rest of the budget. Rice acknowledged that the state finances the bulk of the district’s budget, saying he meant to reference the dollar amount -- "about $80 million" or more -- not the percentage, of the budget funded by local taxpayers. Of the district’s $970 million spending plan for the 2011-2012 fiscal year, local taxes account for more than $106 million. The state is funding more than $775 million through aid and grants. Still, Rice argued in an interview Monday morning that if the Urban Hope Act passed, it would effectively impose "taxation without representation, because we have no voice to say ‘yea or nay’ on the project." "If they pass the bill with Newark in it, it’s going to hurt us a long time," he said. Our ruling In a legislative hearing, Rice claimed that Newark funds "80 percent of the school budget from local property taxes." Of a $970 million budget, more than $106 million, or about 11 percent, is raised from local taxes. State aid, grants and entitlements account for most of the budget, at $775 million. That’s nearly 80 percent. We rate the statement False. To comment on this ruling, to go NJ.com.	None	Ronald Rice	None	None	None	2012-01-10T07:30:00	2012-01-05	['Newark,_New_Jersey']
-pomt-07781	Says families now pay out 40 percent of their income to taxes.	/texas/statements/2011/feb/22/phil-king/phil-king-says-40-percent-family-incomes-goes-taxe/	State Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, recently advised a newspaper in his district that the Republican-dominated Legislature won’t raise taxes to balance the 2012-13 state budget, adding that conservatives believe in "living within our means," the Jan. 13 Azle News reported. "We’re going to have to do what businesses and families do," the newspaper quoted King saying. "You don’t spend what you don’t have – and you don’t go out and borrow. We’re not the federal government." King added that families already pay out 40 percent of their income to taxes. "Taxpayers just can’t afford to pay any more," King said. Forty percent of family income goes to the tax man? Responding to our inquiry, King said: "I use the 40 percent figure because it is a safe, low estimate for the total cost of government on citizens. I believe this indisputable." King noted that according to a 2010 report by the Center for Fiscal Accountability, about 63 percent of income went to taxes that year. The center is tied to Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington group that collects pledges from officeholders not to raise taxes, King traced the higher-than-40-percent to the center’s 2010 "Cost of Government Day" report, which says the average family worked until Aug. 19 last year -- 241 days or 63 percent of the year -- to earn sufficient income to cover their share of the costs of government. In Texas, the report says, residents had to work 225 days, 62 percent of the year, to cover such expenditures. We failed to land an interview on the study methodology, but according to an online post by the center, it calculates the cost of government to include federal, state and local expenditures as well as an estimate of the cost of state and federal government regulations. The total cost of government is divided by an estimated Net National Product, the post says, to determine the percentage of national income consumed by government. The post says that a 2005 report for the U.S. Small Business Administration by W. Mark Crain, a Lafayette College economics professor, "provided the framework for determining the cost of regulations." For more expertise, we touched bases with the liberal-leaning Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and the non-partisan Washington-based Tax Foundation. We also circled back to another study noted by King and asked a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs for her preferred approach to gauging taxes against family income. James Horney, the center’s director of federal fiscal policy, said in an interview that based on information in an appendix to President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget request, total state, local and federal government receipts accounted for 25 percent of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 2009. He said, though, that families earning well above the national income median would likely have paid a greater percentage of their income in taxes. While GDP is not the same as family or personal income, Horney said, it’s a reasonable barometer of income. Horney said the share of income supporting government has been higher in the past, exceeding 30 percent in 2000 and approaching 29 percent as recently as 2007. The recent national downturn depressed tax receipts, he said. Tax Foundation spokesman Richard Morrison said by e-mail that the foundation estimates that in 2010, Americans had to work until April 9, through 27 percent of the year, to cover their state, local and federal tax burdens, though April 5 was "tax freedom day" for Texas residents. A foundation economist, Kail Padgitt, said by e-mail that the "Cost of Government Day" report stressed by King is "not an accurate measure of the taxes paid by a family because it also attempts to take into account the cost of regulation." To buttress his statement, King also pointed us to a December 2006 study by Boston University economists Laurence J. Kotlikoff and David Rapson. King singled out a table in the study estimating marginal tax rates, which Padgitt later described as the tax rates workers pay on the next dollar they earn--which are, in some cases, high enough to discourage the work from happening. In the United States’ progressive tax system, a worker’s marginal rate tends to increase with income. The BU study says: "With the exception of certain very low-earning households, we find high to very high marginal net tax rates – ranging from 24 to 45 percent." We reached Kotlikoff, who cautioned against concluding his study means that 40 percent of family income goes to taxes. "It’s another politician who doesn’t know what they’re talking about," Kotlikoff said of King’s statement. "The way he said it is wrong." Finally, we asked Shama Gamkhar, an associate professor at the LBJ School, to speak to the share of family income that goes to taxes. She said the percentage can be pegged at different levels depending on which taxes and how much of a family’s income stream is taken into account. She pointed out a March 2000 Tax Foundation report that took into account the impact on family incomes of hidden taxes such as corporate taxes, which can brake worker salaries. In 1998, the study says, taxes accounted for 39 percent of the median income in two-earner U.S. families. That was down from 41 percent in 1996, thanks to congressional adoption of tax relief, but up from 32 percent in 1975. Median income is a reasonable marker, the study says, because half of all families have incomes that exceed that of the median family and half have incomes that are less than the median family’s. "After adjusting for inflation (to 1998 dollars), the taxes paid by the two-earner family are 4.9 times greater in 1998 than in 1955," the study says. "For the one-earner family, taxes are 3.4 times greater than they were in 1955." Gamkhar also noted a table in the foundation’s 2010 "tax freedom day" report showing how the share of U.S. income that goes to taxes has escalated since 1900, when it was 6 percent, reaching 27 percent in 2010, down from 32 percent for 2001. Historical nugget: World War I more than doubled the nation’s tax burden. All told, King overstates the family income that typically goes to taxes. Even if his statement is taken as a reference solely to marginal rates--there’s no indication in the newspaper account of that--marginal rates around 2006 ran from 24 percent to 45 percent, according to the BU study. King broaches a valid point about taxes absorbing a substantial share of income. But that share approaches 30--not 40--percent. We rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Phil King	None	None	None	2011-02-22T10:04:18	2011-01-13	['None']
-pomt-07846	"Financed the largest parking expansion program without a rate increase."	/florida/statements/2011/feb/12/dick-greco/dick-greco-says-parking-expansion-didnt-raise-rate/	In his run for a fifth term as Tampa’s mayor, Dick Greco often holds up a 75-page report as proof of his track record and experience. The report, titled "Mayor Greco’s Status Report: A Report of the 1995-2002 Accomplishments and Achievements," was produced by the city in May 2002. It since has been reprinted and distributed as a paid political advertisement by Greco's campaign for mayor. In a department-by-department breakdown of projects and programs, it offers this statement on page 47 under public works: "Financed the largest parking expansion program without a rate increase." The expansion added capacity to the Fort Brooke garage and built three new garages, one for police headquarters and two in Ybor City. We decided to check the statement that the city managed a multimillion-dollar expansion of its parking system without increasing rates. We found that soon after Greco left office, the city had to raise rates partly to repay the debt that financed the expansion. Moreover, those debt payments are more than the parking system can repay from its own revenues, so the city is taking money from its general fund to help make bond payments. In September 1997, when Greco announced plans for a $49 million parking system expansion, the St. Petersburg Times reported that "revenue from the city's parking system would provide the money to repay the bonds, and city officials do not anticipate that the expansion would force them to raise parking rates." But the day after she was elected to replace Greco in 2003, Pam Iorio learned otherwise in a meeting with Greco and his senior staff. "That was one of the first things they said," Iorio recalled. "They said, 'You're going to have to raise parking rates.' … It was just a situation that was presented to me that it was something that had to be done." Told of the Iorio's recollection, Greco said, "I don't remember meeting with her and saying you’ve got to raise parking rates." Iorio requested a 20 percent parking rate increase in 2003, though the City Council approved less than half that. That increase was needed partly to repay the money the city borrowed in the bond market to build new garages during the Greco administration, said Bonnie Wise, the city's chief financial officer. That debt has continued to burden the city's parking fund, which is supposed to support itself, as well as the general fund, which pays for things like police, fire and parks, officials say. In 2008, the Times reported that the city said it had about $60 million in outstanding debt on parking garages, including one the city built near the Marriott Waterside Hotel in 1995. Over the years, however, the parking system has not generated enough revenue to meet its operating costs and cover its bond payments, which total about $6.5 million a year. This year, the parking division's $13.5 million in revenue would not cover its annual operating expenses of $14.2 million, let alone make the annual bond payment. The economy, of course, plays a role. Fewer workers in downtown Tampa means less revenue. To reduce expenses, Iorio has cut the number of full-time positions in the parking division from 188 to 100, and turned more to automation. The city also converted a valuable asset to cash. In 2005, it sold the parking garage on Davis Islands to Tampa General Hospital for $29 million. Of that, $6 million went into the parking division's fund balance, in essence, its reserves. The city used the other $23 million to pay down five years' worth of parking fund debt payments in advance. That decision reduced the parking debt payments from $6.5 million to $2.7 million a year from 2005 through 2010. But now that the money from the fund balance has been exhausted, and the bond payments are rising back to $6.5 million a year. To cover the parking fund's debt payments this year, the city used the money that remained in the department's fund balance, about $5.4 million, and kicked in another $1.9 million from the city's general fund, according to the city's budget. Next year, city officials expect the parking division's fund balance to be empty. That means the city will have to find an estimated $7.3 million from somewhere else, most likely the general fund, to cover the parking division's operating deficit and debt payments. The city could have decided not to sell the Davis Islands garage. On the campaign trail, Greco has noted that it was making money. But the Davis Islands garage did not make enough to cover the debt payments. In early 2005, the Times reported that its revenues exceeded expenses by $1.2 million a year, not enough to make a $6.5 million bond payment. Greco also makes a larger point that the expansion of the city's parking system was not only necessary but helped drive a broader economic expansion. Once the city bought the former SunTrust Bank building across from City Hall to serve as a police headquarters, the Police Department needed parking nearby. The expansion of the Fort Brooke garage gave the facility more revenue-generating capacity at a time when it had a long waiting list for available parking spaces. Likewise, Greco said, the Ybor City garages, one of which helped facilitate the development of the Centro Ybor retail and entertainment complex, led the way for tens of millions of dollars in other economic activity in Ybor, including the construction of the Kforce staffing company headquarters, the development of the Camden Apartments and the expansion of Hillsborough Community College's campus. One thing the Ybor City garages have not done is help the parking division's bottom line. As part of the deal to build Centro Ybor, Greco agreed to charge $1 per car for the first three hours of parking. By comparison, most other city garages charge up to $1.60 per hour. An estimated 80 percent of the cars that park in the Centro Ybor garage pay only a dollar. Meanwhile, HCC contributed land and a state grant for the garage built near its campus, and it gets to use most of the spaces in that facility for free. True, Greco said, garages cost money, but they bring the city money through economic development and increased property tax revenues. "Without parking garages, without some of the things that were done there, you could never have accomplished some of the things that were accomplished," he said. Greco makes a valid point about building parking garages to stimulate economic development. Other Tampa mayors used other garages for similar purposes. The deal to build the St. Petersburg Times Forum in downtown Tampa came together partly because the city agreed to guarantee the Tampa Bay Lightning about $1.2 million a year from the South Regional parking garage. Similarly, part of event revenues from the William F. Poe parking garage go to a capital improvement fund for the David A. Straz Jr. Center for the Performing Arts. But the Greco campaign's statement that under his last administration the city "financed the largest parking expansion program without a rate increase" fails to mention the rate increase that took place immediately after he left office. Also, the funding problems since then can't be overlooked. They are a direct result of the expansion, so we rate this statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Dick Greco	None	None	None	2011-02-12T12:31:45	2002-05-01	['None']
-snes-03653	A computer virus is being spread via social media using pictures of Donald Trump being arrested.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-arrested-virus-warning/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Donald Trump Arrested’ Virus Warning	1 November 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12198	"Russian mansions Obama seized were meant to be illegal gifts to Sasha and Malia"	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/26/blog-posting/its-fake-news-obama-seized-russian-mansions-gifts-/	Two Russian diplomats’ mansions in New York and Maryland that were seized in December as punishment for Russia’s meddling in the election made headlines again last week when Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov demanded the properties be returned. "We think that the diplomatic property must be returned without any conditions and talks," Peskov told CNN Monday. The properties have sat empty since the sanctions were imposed, but a fake news story has come up with a creative repurposing for them. A post that appeared on Newsfeedhunter.com on July 12, 2017, said that Obama seized the mansions as gifts for his daughters, Sasha and Malia. "It looks like Obummer wasn’t actually trying to punish Russia for anything after all (since there’s nothing to punish them FOR) — he was actually just trying to get a couple of free mansions for his brats while kissing up to his ignorant base of drooling libtards," the post said. The intelligence community has already confirmed that Russia meddled in the election, but even so, there’s no way Obama could have gifted the mansions to his family. The Russian properties will be held by U.S. government until the issue with Russia is resolved, according to Harley Balzer, a government and international affairs professor at Georgetown University. It would then take years to transfer ownership to anyone. "Almost 40 years after the United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran (which we have certainly not done with Russia) the Iranian embassy on Massachusetts Avenue has still not been turned over to the Obama girls for parties," said Steve Sestanovich, the George F. Kennan senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Captions on photos of the two houses say the girls won’t be getting the mansions because President Donald Trump will return the mansions to the Russian government, but the fate of the properties hasn’t been confirmed yet, hence Peskov’s demand. "Those properties to which you refer are part of a larger dialogue with the Russian Federation," Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan told Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "There are a whole host of issues we're discussing with the Russian Federation, but my commitment is that we will consult with you on this issue before any final implementation of an agreement that we don't have yet with the Russian Federation," Sullivan said. The source of the fake news, Newsfeedhunter.com, even admits its stories are fabrications. "We present fiction as fact and our sources don’t actually exist," the disclaimer says. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-26T11:42:43	2017-07-12	['Russia', 'Barack_Obama', 'Family_of_Barack_Obama']
-vogo-00283	Statement: “There are 57,000 San Diegans losing their homes,” Lorena Gonzalez, head of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, said Jan. 11.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/san-diegos-foreclosure-hotspots-fact-check/	Analysis: At his State of the City address last week, Mayor Jerry Sanders outlined his priorities for his final year in office — a laundry list of familiar topics to San Diegans.	None	None	None	None	San Diego's Foreclosure Hotspots: Fact Check	January 19, 2012	None	['San_Diego']
-hoer-00206	ATM Security Advice Message : Enter PIN In Reverse to Call Police	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/reverse-pin-ATM.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	ATM Security Advice Message : Enter PIN In Reverse to Call Police	February 22, 2013	None	['None']
-hoer-00543	'Japanese Whaling Crew Eaten Alive By Killer Whales'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/japanese-whaling-crew-eaten-killer-whales-fake-news.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	FAKE-NEWS: 'Japanese Whaling Crew Eaten Alive By Killer Whales'	July 31, 2014	None	['None']
-snes-05347	A photograph shows snow-covered palm trees in Saudi Arabia.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/snowfall-in-saudi-arabia/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	MISCAPTIONED: Snowfall in Saudi Arabia	19 January 2016	None	['Saudi_Arabia']
-snes-01425	A photograph showing President Obama with a man sleeping on the subway is genuine.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-sleeping-man-subway/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Obama Ride the Subway Next to an Open-Mouthed Sleeping Man?	17 November 2017	None	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-04026	Says his plan to raise car registration to $56 would still leave Virginia with a fee that’s "equal to or lower than most states."	/virginia/statements/2013/feb/01/bob-mcdonnell/mcdonnell-says-56-car-registration-fee-virginia-wo/	Gov. Bob McDonnell’s plan to expand revenues for transportation includes a $15 increase in the state’s car registration fee. "Right now, $41 is our average registration. This will change it to $56," McDonnell said at a Jan. 8 news conference. "This registration fee, even at an average $56, still puts us at a rate equal to or lower than most states in the country." We asked the governor’s office to back up McDonnell’s claim that, even with the 37 percent increase, Virginia’s registration fee would compare equally or favorably to most states. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, said it’s difficult to get an apples-to-apples comparison of how Virginia’s registration fee measures up to other states, because of differences among the states in how the those fees are assessed. "However, when looking at the common vehicle fees that most states use, such as vehicle license fees (registration), title fees and title taxes (sales tax), Virginia is clearly one of the lowest in our region of the country even with the proposed $15 increase," Caldwell said in an e-mail. When comparing just registration fees, Caldwell said, Virginia’s proposed new fee would still be lower than states such as Maryland, Wisconsin, Montana, Illinois, Oklahoma and Vermont. We note that McDonnell’s statement compared registration fees to "most states" in the U.S. -- not one region or group of states. The governor’s statement also specifically focused on the $41 average registration fee for a passenger car -- a standard registration cost that doesn’t include the expense of getting a title or paying the sales tax. Given the narrow focus of McDonnell’s statement, we looked at how Virginia’s basic registration fee -- assessed annually at $40.75 for vehicles up to 4,000 pounds -- would compare to other states if it were increased by $15. As Caldwell wrote, it is difficult to get an apples-to-apples comparison among all 50 states. While Virginia and 25 other states levy a uniform registration fee for cars up to a certain weight, other states use an assortment of calculations that consider factors such as a vehicle’s horsepower, selling price, weight and the year it was first registered. We examined a list of registration fees from the National Conference of State Legislatures and one compiled by the American Automobile Association. The lists show 28 other states have registration fees that are lower than the $56 annual charge McDonnell seeks for Virginia. These states either had a set rate that is lower than the proposed new fee in Virginia, or a formula that put the maximum charge for a 4,000-pound vehicles below $56. By contrast, only seven states would have higher registration fees than Virginia -- the six Caldwell mentioned in his email and Hawaii. We couldn’t come to a conclusion on how Virginia’s proposed new fee would compare to 14 other states because of variables in their formulas for computing registration costs. For example, New Jersey’s fee ranges from $35.50 to $84 based on the age and weight of the car. South Dakota’s fees range from $30 to $92, again based on how old the car is and how much it weighs while Louisiana’s registration ranges from $20 to $82 based on a vehicle’s selling price. Our ruling McDonnell said that if his proposed $56 car registration fee is approved, Virginia’s annual registration costs would still be "equal to or lower than" most states. The governor’s office, when asked, offers no proof to this claim. Information from AAA and the National Conference of State Legislatures shows the governor is wrong. Under McDonnell’s plan, Virginia’s registration would be higher than 28 states and lower than seven. The 14 other states have variables in their formulas for computing car registration fees that could result in charges that are higher or lower than the $56 McDonnell has proposed. The bottom line is that Virginia would have a higher car registration fee than most states. McDonnell’s claim has no basis and we give it our lowest rating, Pants of Fire.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2013-02-01T14:40:51	2013-01-08	['Virginia']
-pomt-12227	Shepard Smith was fired from Fox News.	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/18/blog-posting/no-fox-news-anchor-shepard-smith-did-not-punch-sea/	Fox News anchor Shepard Smith made headlines when he accused the administration of President Donald Trump of employing lies and deception to conceal the details of a June 2016 meeting between Trump campaign officials, a Russian attorney and several others. In what the Washington Post dubbed a "Walter Cronkite moment" — a nod to the newsman of yore revered as "the most trusted man in America" for his penchant for speaking uncomfortable truths — Smith launched into a TV tirade after a week of shifting accounts about the Trump Tower meeting left the Fox News anchor exasperated. "Why is it lie after lie after lie? If you clean, come on clean, you know?" he said to colleague Chris Wallace on July 14. "My grandmother used to say ... ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.’ The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling." Now here’s where things get really weird. Several days after Smith’s on-air editorializing went viral, a website called America’s Last Line of Defense posted a story claiming Smith had been fired by Fox News for criticizing Trump. The story then takes a wild turn, claiming Smith reacted to his firing like a violent madman in the throes of a Godzilla-like meltdown during which Smith threw things across the Fox studio, kicked barrells and punched Fox News host Sean Hannity in the nose, drawing blood. There are two major problems with this story, however. First, as the screengrab below shows, the day after Smith’s supposed firing and meltdown, his hourlong Fox News show Shepard Smith Reporting aired according to its regularly scheduled time. Second, and most importantly, America’s Last Line of Defense admits it’s a satirical site with a stated mission is to draw readers, especially conservatives, into mistaking its extraordinary conspiracies for truth. "While everything on this site is a satirical work of fiction, we are proud to present it to those who will have called it real anyway," reads the disclaimer. At least one website, American News -- which does not explicitly state its satirical intent (if it has one) -- appears to have taken the bait. As the previous work of our friends at Snopes makes clear, this is not the first time Smith has been the center of a hoax claiming he was fired from Fox News for being too controversial. We rate this Pants on Fire.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-18T15:00:00	2017-07-16	['Shepard_Smith', 'Fox_News_Channel']
-pomt-12461	"Coffee is the second-most traded commodity after oil."	/global-news/statements/2017/may/08/starbucks/no-coffee-not-second-most-traded-commodity-after-o/	Starbucks has a reputation for serving a strong cup of joe, but the ubiquitous coffee retailer’s director of public policy offered a claim on Capitol Hill that turns out to be a thin brew. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee invited Starbucks’ Kelly Goodejohn to talk about how doing well can mean doing good. A 20-year veteran of the coffee trade, Goodejohn had some key points for the senators. "Coffee is grown in challenging regions, often with war-torn pasts, but we have seen coffee as a stabilizing force that provides prosperity and economic stability," she said. Coffee, Goodejohn said, is a big economic deal. "Coffee is the second-most traded commodity after oil, and 25 million farmers around the world rely on income generated from growing coffee," she said. Holy latte! We’ve all seen coffee take off in America, but are those beans really the other black gold? We decided to check Goodejohn’s ranking of oil and coffee. The hard numbers show her statement has been provably incorrect for about as long as Goodejohn has been in the business. Comparing the goods Part 1: Market size Since oil comes in barrels and coffee beans in 60 kilogram sacks, you can’t just stack them side by side. So the most obvious comparison is the dollar value of the world market for each. The United Nations trade statistics branch estimated the oil export market at $788 billion in 2015. The estimate for aluminum was $106 billion, for copper $104 billion, and iron ore and concentrates $67 billion. Calculating the world market for coffee is a little trickier because the United Nations trade data lumps coffee in with other products that contain even just a trace of coffee, such as powdered mixes. With help from John Baffes, senior economist at the World Bank’s Development Prospects Group, we estimated the size of the coffee export market at about $19 billion. (We got the amount of coffee sold from the International Coffee Organization and the average price per kilogram from the World Bank. Baffes confirmed our math.) The Starbucks press office pointed to a report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development that estimated the total market at $23 billion. The keen observer will note that the coffee market is about one-fourth as large as the markets for aluminum and copper, and also less than the market in iron ore. But what about other agricultural products? Based on sales data from the U.S. Agriculture Department and the World Bank’s price data, the world market for wheat was $29 billion and for soybeans, $57 billion. Both beat out coffee. Baffes, who co-authored a report on global commodity markets in 2000, said the claim about coffee being second only to oil is old news. "This used to be the case back in 1970," Baffes said. "However, later grains and metals overtook coffee." In that 2000 report, coffee ranked 15th, bested by, among others, hardwood logs, bananas and gold. Over the years, there have been several efforts to correct the record. Science writer Mark Pendergrast included the errant claim in his 1999 book Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World. Ten years later, he wrote a correction (and fixed the error in the second edition). "I was wrong, and so is everyone else who keeps repeating this myth," he wrote in 2009. Voices in the coffee industry itself have also tried to rebut the claim. At one time, coffee represented the second-most valuable commodity exported by developing countries, but there’s no evidence that’s still the case. Comparing the goods Part 2: Futures trading When we asked the Starbucks organization for the source behind Goodejohn’s claim, the press office suggested we look at a webpage on commodities trading. The site is a consumer guide to investing in commodities, and it said, "Coffee is the most traded commodity after oil." This seemed to suggest that Starbucks had another yardstick in mind -- the number or value of coffee contracts bought and sold by investors. In other words, we shouldn’t measure the amount of actual coffee or costs, but the bets on coffee prices. We found several similar websites that repeat the claim, such as Investorguide.com, Economics.help and a Kenyan-based training group called Institute of Trade Development. None of these sites say how they reached this conclusion. In contrast, the Futures Industry Association, a reliable source of commodity trading data, posts annual data. In its 2016 survey of the number of contracts traded, soybeans and rapeseed meal (or canola meal) top the list of the 20 highest volume-traded agricultural contracts. Coffee contracts don’t show up in the top 20. Coffee Co-mission, a group of small coffee roasters based in Winston-Salem, N.C., went through this comparison in 2015 and found that among commodities "whether the measure is by quantity or value, coffee does not even make the top 100." Pendergrast said, "I don't think that this urban coffee myth has ever been true, regardless of how you look at it." Our ruling A Starbucks executive said coffee is the second-most traded commodity after oil. We examined it two ways, and the statement failed on both. The markets for several commodities including soybeans, wheat, aluminum, copper and iron ore are larger than the coffee market -- in some cases, four times larger. The statistic also falls short in terms of the commodity contracts traded by investors. Both the number of coffee contracts traded and the value of contracts are much lower than for many other commodities. This claim has been challenged since 2000 by economists, journalists and voices in the coffee industry. But it still found its way into a congressional hearing despite being very, very wrong. We rate it Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Starbucks	None	None	None	2017-05-08T17:58:12	2017-05-04	['None']
-pomt-03862	The Legislature needs to spend $500 million to "shore up" the pension fund this year and the next 28 years to keep it "afloat."	/florida/statements/2013/mar/11/will-weatherford/will-weatherford-says-floridas-pension-fund-needs-/	Florida’s retirement system is not sustainable or modern, House Speaker Will Weatherford warned on the opening day of the annual legislative session. "This session, we will spend $500 million of general revenue just to shore up our pension fund," he said on March 5, 2013. "That’s above and beyond what we contribute to state employees’ retirement. And it’s just the down payment. We’re going to have to keep writing that check of a half a billion dollars for the next 28 years to keep our so called ‘great pension system’ afloat." Weatherford is proposing an overhaul of the state’s retirement system during the 2013 legislative session. He wants the only option for new public employees to be the 401(k)-like investment plan, which is less popular than the pension plan. Doing so will keep the fund, recently valued at $132 billion, in good health for the long-term without burdening taxpayers, he says. We thought it prudent to check out his claim about how much the Legislature needs to spend to "shore up" the pension fund. Is it really about to capsize? The pension fund ain’t what it used to be Fast facts about the pension plan: It’s the fifth largest in the country, with about 1 million current and retired participants. State government workers comprise only about 20 percent of active members, trailing school district employees (48 percent) and county employees (22 percent). About 1,000 different public agencies and groups participate. The pension fund was in the black from 1998 to 2008, earning billions more in investment returns than what was needed to pay out retirement benefits to workers. Then the stock market went thud, and the fund’s surplus disappeared. For the past four years, the pension fund assets have not been enough to cover what it would owe current and future beneficiaries if all retired at once. The gap between assets and liabilities has grown to $19.3 billion as of July 2012. (Nerd alert: the $19.3 billion shortfall is called the unfunded actuarial liability, or UAL.) The pension fund is 86.9 percent funded. Advocates of public workers, such as Democrats and labor unions, have honed in on that point to counter Weatherford’s argument that the fund is in financial jeopardy. They say it’s not realistic to think all current and future beneficiaries will somehow require retirement benefits at once. They say Florida’s underfunded status is still above the national average of 75 percent and above the funding level widely considered healthy at 80 percent. Only Wisconsin’s retirement system is 100 percent funded, our friends at PolitiFact Wisconsin found. Still, the Legislature’s fiscal conservatives are focused on pension reform. In 2011, they passed a sweeping law requiring employees to contribute 3 percent of their pay for retirement benefits. Fill the gap? State lawmakers expect a small budget surplus this year, but it’s not going to be nearly enough to close the pension fund’s liability gap in one fell swoop. To close the gap, actuaries and state economists have prescribed a payment plan that works kind of like a 30-year mortgage. Experts have recommended the state spend $537 million in the 2013-14 budget on the unfunded liability. Of that, $448 million would come from general revenue, according to a three-year financial outlook prepared by the Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research. (The House revised the general revenue estimate to $497 million in December.) This is what Weatherford is talking about when he says the state needs to pay this much to "shore up" the fund. So if the Legislature chooses to include the recommended amount to start plugging the pension hole in the budget -- and for the past three years, they did not -- it would be about $500 million this year. Weatherford mentioned this was "above and beyond" what the state pays to the retirement fund for its employees. According to the Florida House, that is expected to be $296.5 million based on current contribution rates. Universities, state colleges and school boards will add another $650 million. Preparing for the future Will the state fork over a half-billion dollars for the next 28 years, as Weatherford says? The simple answer: We don’t really know. The value of the pension fund shifts with market volatility. In 2007, it was valued at $136.3 billion. In 2009, it was $99.6 billion. At the end of 2012, it was $122.7 billion. In theory, the market could rebound and Florida could pay off its unfunded liability with extra earnings, as it did in the past. As the market changes, the liability could shrink or inflate. David Draine, a senior research analyst at the Pew Center for the States, said while it’s reasonable to tout projections for financing the unfunded liability, it’s helpful to also point out how much those projections could shift with the market. Alan Stonecipher, director of Florida Retirement Security Coalition, which is comprised of union groups, said, "To make an assumption 29 years out based on a snapshot of today doesn’t really hold water." Union representatives criticized Weatherford’s statement for leaving out a few key points about the pension’s growing unfunded liability. For one, Weatherford didn’t include how the Republican-led Legislature did little to address the unfunded liability over the last three years by not making full payments on it. He also didn’t mention that when the pension was overfunded, lawmakers spent the surplus by reducing employer contribution rates and increasing benefits for special-risk employees. The pension fund would have been in a better position to weather the economic downturn had they not made those choices, Stonecipher said. Stonecipher also took issue with Weatherford’s choice of words in describing the pension fund as needing to be kept "afloat." That makes it sound like the pension fund is on the brink of going under without this payment. Putting off full payments on the pension fund's liability gap is a bit like people who pay only the minimum due on a credit card bill. "It doesn’t immediately put you into insolvency or bankruptcy, but it does push that bill off into the future and ensures that when it does come due, the eventual payment will be even larger," Draine said. Our ruling Weatherford uses an accurate number to describe the cost of addressing the pension fund’s unfunded actuarial liability -- based on current estimates. But he loses points for holding this figure up as how much the state will affirmatively pay each year for the next 28 years. That’s based on predictions that could shift, for better or worse, depending in large part due to market performance. On that note, Weatherford’s comments on the need for big reform make no mention of the fact that the pension fund was in a surplus for the better part of the 21st century. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. That’s our definition of Half True.	None	Will Weatherford	None	None	None	2013-03-11T13:35:50	2013-03-05	['None']
-goop-02028	Katie Holmes Pregnant, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-not-pregnant-fans-convinced-bump-pictures/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Katie Holmes NOT Pregnant, Despite Stories Claiming “Fans Convinced” About Bump	1:47 pm, December 15, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02851	The United States "has never been richer, if you look at per capita GDP."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/18/jan-schakowsky/schakowsky-said-based-gdp-capita-united-states-has/	As congressional Democrats and Republicans sit down for high-stakes budget talks, the rhetoric has flown furiously to familiar territory. Republicans want cuts and reforms to entitlement programs, while Democrats insist that revenue must be on the table, too. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., made the case for the latter in an interview on MSNBC on Nov. 12, 2013. "This country has never been richer, if you look at per capita GDP," she said. "It doesn't feel that way when you hear about austerity and we have to cut this and we have to cut that. It's because the income inequality is greater than it has ever been." We wondered if she was correct. The numbers don’t lie Schakowsky’s office sent us figures from the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to those numbers, the GDP per capita, when adjusted for inflation, hit $45,633 this year, which surpassed the previous high of $45,360, which was set in 2007 prior to the most recent recession. It was barely higher, but higher all the same. (The government defines the GDP — gross domestic product — as the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property within the country.) We were curious how the data was calculated, so we contacted Mathew Shane, an economist with the USDA who put the figures together. He told us that the 2013 number was partially based on a projection, since the year is not yet completed. But if that projection is borne out, he said, then GDP per capita will be at its highest level ever. "It’s close," Shane said. "We hit a peak in 2007 when the crisis hit. There’s been no income growth in real terms since 2007. The difference between (2007 and 2013) is a very modest difference. We, essentially, finally regained what we were in 2007. I guess we could say we’re projected to be slightly better than we were in 2007." If "I guess" doesn’t sound definitive enough, we also sought out another source: the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the government agency that calculates the nation’s GDP. The bureau’s analysis also backs up Shane’s findings. By the second quarter of this year, GDP per capita had surpassed 2007 levels. "The third quarter of 2013 is the highest on record," said Thomas Dail, spokesman for the bureau. Finally, GDP per capita, even when adjusted for inflation, has gone up and up for more than a century. In other words, Schakowsky could have said what she said at virtually any given point during the last 150 years and had a pretty good chance of being right. Our ruling Schakowsky said, "This country has never been richer, if you look at per capita GDP." We found that GDP has trended upward throughout much of America's history and the current level is only slightly higher than pre-recession levels. But the numbers show Schakowsky is right. We rate her comments True.	None	Jan Schakowsky	None	None	None	2013-11-18T15:24:38	2013-11-12	['United_States']
-pomt-02918	"On day one, six people were able to sign up" for health insurance through the federal marketplace.	/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/03/jan-crawford/cbss-crawford-says-6-people-signed-obamacares-firs/	The failed launch of the Obamacare website healthcare.gov continued to draw plenty of attention Nov. 3, 2013, on the Sunday morning talk shows. Jan Crawford, CBS legal correspondent, said the website’s collapse stood out even more in light of the hype that led up to the opening day. "With great fanfare they pointed to that date," Crawford said on Face the Nation. "They had health care clinics across the country signing people up for appointments that day to get people in for this promise of affordable health care. On day one, six people were able to sign up." We wondered, was it true that just six people were able to successfully enroll in plans offered through the federal insurance marketplace created as part of the new health care law? That’s what we’ll look into. For the most part, Crawford got it right. The figure of six people comes from documents released by the House committee investigating the failed rollout of Obamacare. The documents are copies of notes taken by staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the website project. At the top of the notes are the words "War room." They were written two and three days after the site opened for business on Tuesday, Oct. 1. An entry from a meeting on Wednesday morning said "six enrollments have occurred so far." By the end of the second day, the notes reported 248 people had signed up and about 40,000 applications were pending. A spokesperson for the U.S. Health and Human Services Department told reporters that these were not official numbers and that people could also enroll through other means, including filling out paper applications. Some states are also operating their own insurance marketplaces. Joanne Peters, Health and Human Services spokeswoman, told Bloomberg that by the last week of October, about 700,000 people had submitted applications, with about half coming through the federal marketplace and half coming through the states. There were ongoing issues with sending enrollment information to insurance companies, Peters said. Official numbers might be released by mid November. Our ruling Crawford said that only six people had been able to sign up on the first day of open enrollment for the federal health insurance marketplace. That fits with the internal notes released by the House committee. But those were initial numbers and there is some possibility that other people could have enrolled without using the website. Official numbers are not available. With that caveat, we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Jan Crawford	None	None	None	2013-11-03T14:24:12	2013-11-03	['None']
-pomt-10931	If a lawsuit backed by Josh Hawley succeeds, "nearly 2.5 million Missourians with pre-existing conditions could lose their health care coverage."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/26/missouri-democratic-party/would-25-million-missourians-lose-health-coverage-/	In the closely watched U.S. Senate race in Missouri, Democrats have been going on offense over health care coverage. In a July 17 tweet, the Missouri Democratic Party trumpeted a lawsuit that was co-signed by Republican Attorney General Josh Hawley, who’s challenging the Democratic incumbent, Claire McCaskill. The Missouri Democratic Party tweeted, "Instead of defending vulnerable Missourians, @HawleyMO is putting them at risk. If his lawsuit succeeds, nearly 2.5 million Missourians with pre-existing conditions could lose their health care coverage—raising premiums for families across the state. #MOSen." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The lawsuit, filed in a U.S. district court in Texas on Feb. 26, 2018, was signed by 18 attorneys general and two governors, all of them Republicans. The suit challenges the Affordable Care Act, arguing that "the ACA is unlawful" and seeking to enjoin, or block, its operation. If the plaintiffs’ wishes are granted by the courts, then insurance companies would be able to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. So the tweet raises a genuine issue. However, we wondered whether the state party’s estimate of "nearly 2.5 million Missourians" was accurate. Could that many Missouri residents really "lose their health care coverage" if the lawsuit succeeds? Not really. The tweet relied on one estimate. However, it’s not the only estimate out there -- and the other ones are lower. Buckle up for a wonky ride! Where does the 2.5 million figure come from? When we checked with the Missouri Democratic Party, they pointed to a report published in April 2017 by the liberal Center for American Progress. The group found that 2,495,800 Missourians are living with a pre-existing condition. This estimate leveraged the data in a broader study released by the Department of Health and Human Services in the waning days of the Obama administration. That study found that nationally up to 51 percent of non-elderly Americans have a pre-existing condition. (Americans age 65 and over are covered by Medicare, so they were excluded from the count.) Using Census data, the Center for American Progress took the HHS numbers and devised estimates for every state and congressional district. So the tweet used a real number, and one that experts said was legitimate. However, it’s not the only estimate out there -- and the other ones are lower. For starters, the HHS study itself offered two definitions for "pre-existing condition," and of those, the Center for American Progress chose the broader estimate. HHS’s broader estimate tallied "common health conditions … that could have resulted in denial of coverage, exclusion of the condition, or higher premiums for individuals seeking individual market coverage" before the Affordable Care Act was enacted. By contrast, the narrower definition used by HHS only included conditions that would cause an applicant to be "outright rejected for coverage by private insurers." The difference between the two estimates is not trivial. Under the narrow definition, HHS found, 23 percent of non-elderly Americans nationally have a pre-existing condition, while under the broad definition, 51 percent of non-elderly Americans do. That’s more than double. Meanwhile, another independent estimate, by the Kaiser Family Foundation, mirrored HHS’ narrower definition. The Kaiser estimate produced a figure for Missouri of about 1.1 million people. Emily Gee, the Center for American Progress health economist who worked on the report, said her group chose to highlight the broad definition "because without the ACA’s protections, people with pre-existing conditions may not be able to obtain comprehensive coverage if they ever needed to turn to the individual market because they could be rejected, be offered plans that exclude essential benefits, or be priced out of the market." Why the tweet’s wording is misleading Outside experts we contacted said that the Center for American Progress estimate has value. But they added that the tweet is a bit misleading in how it describes the group’s numbers. First, while the tweet said that 2.5 million Missourians "could lose their health care coverage," it would be more accurate to say that 2.5 million Missourians could either lose their health care coverage, or be forced into an exclusion (which would eliminate coverage for that condition, but not all coverage entirely), or see a rise in premiums. Each of these is a problematic outcome for patients, but they are not all identical to losing health care entirely, as the tweet framed it. Second, a large fraction of people with pre-existing conditions are insured through an employer or through Medicaid, meaning that they could not be denied coverage immediately after the lawsuit became successful and changed the law, said Christine Eibner, a senior economist specializing in health policy with the Rand Corp. Someone who currently has employer coverage or Medicaid would have to lose their existing coverage first even to be considered at risk for losing out due to the lawsuit. If they lost their current coverage and couldn’t find other employer or government coverage, they would have to turn to the individual market. Only then could the lawsuit potentially have an impact on their insurance options. And that could play out over years, not immediately. The percentage of Missourians facing a more immediate risk to their coverage -- those who are already in the individual market for health insurance -- is about one-fifth as large as the figure cited in the tweet. According to the most recent figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation, 467,500 people in Missouri were insured on the non-group market -- the market that the Affordable Care Act opened access to, and, where the possibility of being denied or facing higher premiums for pre-existing conditions is the most acute. That’s only 8 percent of Missouri’s population. "It’s not right to say that the change leads to an immediate loss of coverage for 2.5 million people," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy fellow with the Urban Institute. "As with all these sound bites, they are a little loose with their wording for a wonk’s taste." Our ruling The Missouri Democratic Party said that if a lawsuit backed by Hawley succeeds, "nearly 2.5 million Missourians with pre-existing conditions could lose their health care coverage." That figure represents the larger of two credible estimates. The alternative estimate is sizable -- 1.1 million people -- but it’s less than half as large as the figure cited in the tweet. In addition, the tweet’s description is incomplete. In reality, the 2.5 million figure includes people who would face premium increases and coverage exclusions, not just those who would lose coverage outright. It also encompasses many people who currently have employer-based coverage or Medicaid -- people who would not be at immediate risk of fallout from a successful lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. We rate the statement Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Missouri Democratic Party	None	None	None	2018-07-26T15:05:23	2018-07-17	['None']
-pomt-10487	"He took on special interests and won, passing the toughest ethics law yet."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/apr/14/barack-obama/obama-not-driving-force/	In a renewed attempt to cement his credentials as an agent of change who's not beholden to special interests, Sen. Barack Obama highlighted his role in the 2007 congressional ethics debate in one of three TV ads he aired in advance of Pennsylvania's April 22 Democratic primary. The ad, called "Toughest," first aired on March 21. It depicts Obama as the protagonist of the overhaul of lobbying and ethics rules that became law last August after Democratic leaders made it a top priority following the 2006 midterm election that returned them to power. "He took on special interests and won, passing the toughest ethics law yet," an announcer intones, over still pictures of Obama interspersed with snippets of headlines and quotes from coverage of the debate from the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post. Obama has boasted about his accomplishments on ethics reform before; we've ruled that he overstated his influence on the legislation in the past. In addition, we have examined his legislative record . This new ad both exaggerates the role Obama played in the debate and fails to put the new ethics law in context. First, a little background. The lobbying and ethics overhaul was born in the aftermath of the Jack Abramoff political corruption scandal, which triggered calls for change in the legislative process. The new legislation was designed to give the public more information about the work of lobbyists and their political fundraising efforts while slowing down the revolving door from Capitol Hill to K Street, the heart of Washington's lobbying industry. The most noteworthy provisions require more reporting about the way lobbyists bundle contributions to presidential and congressional campaigns, and double to two years the "cooling off" period between the time a lawmaker leaves office and when he or she may lobby members of Congress or their employees. (A similar prohibition was put in place on senior executive branch personnel, up to the vice president.) The new law also requires the disclosure of members' so-called earmarks or spending requests in legislation. While it's true that Obama played an important role in the debate, credit for passing the law really goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who devised the procedural approach to finalizing the package and, in the process, did an end-run around holdout Republicans. Reid and Pelosi informally negotiated a compromise package, then had the House call up and pass an amended version of a Senate ethics bill, which the Senate then cleared and sent to President Bush. Obama had little to do with these machinations, which, to be fair, are usually the preserve of senior party leaders and committee chairmen, who control each chamber's agenda. Obama did join with Republicans who wanted stronger rules for disclosing earmarks in spending bills. He tried to set an example for his colleagues by releasing a lengthy list of funding requests he asked to be included in annual appropriations bills. In fact, Obama's advocacy is believed to have emboldened some other Democrats to vote for the Republican provision that was approved. Obama also successfully collaborated with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., on a provision that required senators to make full reimbursement for the market rate of corporate jet flights. Under old rules, senators flying on a corporate jet reimbursed their benefactors for the cost of a first-class commercial flight on the same route. In some cases, that meant paying $2,000 for a private jet flight that actually may have cost upwards of $20,000 per seat. The proposal was incorporated into a broader package of reforms. Obama might take credit for staring down special interests and winning on those two issues. But he failed in another effort to create an independent ethics counsel to probe allegations against senators. Under the proposal, such an investigator could not bring charges against a lawmaker but would turn over probe results to the Senate Ethics Committee for a disposition. The idea did not go over well with many veteran lawmakers and institutionalists, who bristled at the concept that an outsider would be involved in investigating a chamber that prides itself in its self-policing tradition. As for Obama's claim that the 2007 statute is the "toughest ethics law yet," it's a phrase he takes directly from an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post, though it's hard to tell if the editorial is referring to the law as historically significant or simply the best proposal to come out of Congress during that session. Many experts say the jury remains out, and that it will be up to regulatory bodies such as the Federal Election Commission to decide how stringently to enforce the new rules. While the law may have been the most all-encompassing package of ethics changes since the post-Watergate reforms, it has to be viewed in the context of the seemingly never-ending pattern of scandal and reform that pervades Washington. Each round of new rules begets new problems. Consider that the political action committees (PACs) that exert such influence today came into being after Congress limited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations in the 1970s. This latest ethics law mimicked the intent and scope of a 1978 law – enacted after President Richard Nixon was driven from office by Watergate and after Congress was rocked by a pair of ethics scandals involving defense contractors and the South Korean government – that mandated annual financial disclosure forms. And in 1989, Congress used a revamping of the congressional pay raise process to to ban public speaking fees for House members and gradually reduce them for senators. The law also prohibited lawmakers from keeping excess campaign funds when they left office and ban members of Congress from lobbying in the legislative branch for a year after leaving office. Then in the early 1990s, Republicans used public disgust over scandals involving the House bank and post office to indict the Democratic majority as the party of corruption and win a landslide in the 1994 elections. GOP leaders resisted major changes in law, however, until rank-and-file members from both parties pressed for enactment of a lobbyist registration requirement and House and Senate resolutions restricting gifts. The ad cites a Washington Post editorial that calls the 2007 law "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." And the editorial credits Reid as the key player, with help from Feingold and Obama. Still, Obama exaggerates his role in the ethics debate, and his depiction of the 2007 lobbying and ethics overhaul omits significant historical context. We rule his claim to be Half-True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-04-14T00:00:00	2008-04-14	['None']
-goop-00445	Kourtney Kardashian Pregnant, Marrying Scott Disick?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-scott-disick-pregnant-marrying/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kourtney Kardashian Pregnant, Marrying Scott Disick?	11:51 am, August 16, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12664	"USAID put $8 billion up and attracted more than $45 billion in a public-private partnership called Power Africa."	/global-news/statements/2017/mar/21/david-perdue/sen-perdue-touts-us-power-program-africa/	President Donald Trump’s budget outline is just the starting point for debate, but the cuts he’s seeking in foreign aid are among the deepest for any government activity. Under his plan, overall spending for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) would fall by about 28 percent. Congress controls the purse strings, of course, and in the Senate, David Perdue, R- Ga., likes at least one foreign assistance program. "USAID put $8 billion up and attracted more than $45 billion in a public-private partnership called Power Africa," Perdue told NBC News on March 1 (before the budget outline was released). Perdue cited Power Africa as an example of how well the public-private approach could work to finance infrastructure in America. Power Africa is the signature development project of President Barack Obama. Unveiled in 2013, the goal is to double access to power in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. With America playing the role of cheerleader and financier, Obama hoped to leverage money from private firms and other governments to build new power plants, transmission lines and small solar power generators to reach millions of people. Perdue used the example of Power Africa to buttress the value of public-private partnerships in the context of funding infrastructure construction in America. Our focus is simply on whether Power Africa racked up the numbers that he offered. It sort of did, and it sort of didn’t. The difference lies in the gap between money promised versus money committed to specific projects. Perdue’s office pointed to the exit memo of Obama’s USAID administrator Gayle Smith. She wrote, "The United States’ initial $7 billion commitment has mobilized more than $54 billion in commitments from the public and private sectors, including more than $40 billion in commitments from private sector partners." So give or take a few billion, Perdue’s statement was in line with Smith’s summary. Both the U.S. and the private sector amounts were less than he said, but in the ballpark. The real question is, what is a "commitment?" Todd Moss, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington who specializes in Africa and energy development, told us a commitment is a fairly open-ended term. "A commitment is a pledge from the United States that they will spend money in a certain area," Moss said. "It doesn't mean the money will be appropriated, and even if it is appropriated, that will be spent." And the same holds true on the other side. "These are funds private companies say they will invest, but they might not," Moss said. "These are high-risk commercial ventures. I would be shocked if everything that gets talked about happens. The fact that they are trying to do new things in difficult places is the whole point of the program." Setting "commitments" aside, a more demanding measure looks at the actual dollars the United States has tied up in projects that are moving forward. The USAID press office provided harder numbers. The total the United States has spent, loaned or guaranteed so far is about $2.8 billion. That money helped get $14 billion worth of projects underway. How does that compare to Perdue’s figures? He said $8 billion leveraged $45 billion, or a ratio of about 1 to 5.6. The current ratio ($2.8 billion to $14 billion) is about 1 to 5. Not quite as good but fairly close. These numbers only reveal so much. The American role can vary a lot, Moss said. In some cases, a bit of technical guidance is the linch pin. In others, multi-million dollar loans and loan guarantees are key. The influence of the United States across all projects can be tough to generalize. To take just one example, construction of a $900 million 450 MW plant in Nigeria got underway in early 2016 with backing from "20 international banks and equity funders." A $58 million loan from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation was part of the package. (It’s worth noting that most loans are repaid, so over time, American taxpayers get that money back.) Moss said Power Africa can’t take full credit for every power plant but he does think it can take some. "When you look at the number of actors who have jumped in, and are now working on energy deals, that would be a heck of a coincidence," Moss said. "They (USAID) deserve credit for motivating a lot of investment in the energy sector." Our ruling Perdue said the USAID Power Africa program put $8 billion up and attracted more than $45 billion in outside money. Perdue’s figures represent commitments, not hard money spent. USAID reported $7 billion committed and $54 billion promised from all other sources, with over $40 billion of that coming from the private sector. Actual expenditures are at about the same ratio, however, and experts generally say the Power Africa program is creating investment in Africa’s energy sector. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	David Perdue	None	None	None	2017-03-21T10:00:00	2017-03-01	['None']
-chct-00122	FACT CHECK: Are There 2,000 MS-13 Gang Members On Long Island?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/03/fact-check-2000-ms-13-long-island/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	8:54 PM 06/03/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08884	"There's nothing in the voting instructions that we've been getting in the last several elections that lets you know" about the limitations of the master lever.	/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/02/catherine-taylor/taylor-says-voters-havent-been-adequately-informed/	There's a lot of confusion over the master lever in Rhode Island general elections, in part because nobody seems able to clearly explain how it works. For the uninitiated, the master lever is actually a space on the ballot that, if filled in, automatically casts votes for all candidates of a particular party. (The phrase comes from the days of voting machines when there was actually a big lever voters could pull to make a straight-party-line vote.) It's typically used by about 20 percent of voters and three times more often among Democrats than Republicans, which reflects the ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans in the state. Reform groups don't like the lever because they want people to vote for each candidate, not a party. All of the candidates for governor support eliminating it, and Robert Healey, running as an independent for lieutenant governor, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging it. In discussions of the master lever in recent weeks, we've heard some misleading statements, including from incumbent Secretary of State Ralph Mollis, about how the master lever works. Some could be interpreted to mean that if you use the master lever and then vote for a candidate of another party, all your master lever votes will be lost. Holy disenfranchisement! On WHJJ's Helen Glover Show, Republican Catherine Taylor, who is running for Mollis' job, offered one of the better explanations we've heard and argued that information about the quirks of the master lever should be listed on the ballot But then Taylor said there's a reason people don't understand the issue: "No one tells them. There's nothing in the voting instructions that we've been getting in the last several elections that lets you know." First, with some candidates giving the impression that the master lever robs you of some votes, here are the key points you need to know: 1.) If you just mark the master lever and then put your ballot in the scanner, all members of the party you choose get a vote. 2.) However, if there are nonpartisan races on the ballot, none of those candidates will receive your vote. You have to mark them separately. 3.) The same is true for any referendum questions. 4.) If you use the master lever, you can still vote for candidates outside the party. Thus, if you mark the master lever for Party A, you can still vote for members of Party B or Party C in individual races. The computer ignores your master lever selection in those races. Voting outside Party A does not negate all your master-lever votes, only the ones you want it to. 5.) There's an important exception. In some local races, voters are offered more than one choice. You may be asked to select, for example, three members for the School Committee, and there could be up to three people from each party to choose from. In that case, if there are three candidates from Party A and you use the Party A master lever, all three will get your vote. But if you chose just one candidate from Party B, none of the School Committee candidates from Party A will get your vote. After all, the computer has no way of knowing which two of the three Party A candidates you favor. Thus, you must indicate the two Party A candidates you want for that contest. Your Party A votes are unaffected for other races, according to Chris Barnett, Secretary of State Mollis' communications director, who said the system is repeatedly tested just before each election to make sure the votes in such races are divvied up correctly. How do we know this? We checked with Mollis' office and Barnett to confirm how the machines are programmed. More to the point, we got copies of voter handbooks, mailed to all registered voters by the secretary of state's office, going back to the 1998 election, the first year the electronic scanners were put in place. It turns out that the early instructions failed to emphasize all the quirks people needed to know if they used the master lever. But beginning in 2002, the handbook instructions became quite clear. We asked Taylor's campaign about her claim. It responded by acknowledging that the handbooks are useful documents, but that information "does not reach every voter . . . not every voter reads the handbook, and it is difficult to reach voters with no fixed address. They are not a reliable way of telling voters the critical point: that their votes may not count if they pull the master lever." The Taylor campaign went even further in a July 26 press release, which said that voters need to be warned that "by choosing the master lever, they will not be able to cast a vote in many nonpartisan or multi-choice local races." That's dead wrong. In fact they can vote and their votes always count, with only one exception -- when a voter goes outside the party in contests where you can make more than one choice, they have to take extra care to mark the party members they want for that particular office. Taylor makes a good point when she says the master-lever issues should be addressed on each ballot or in polling places. But her contention that the issues have not been addressed in the voting instructions of the last several elections turns out to be dead wrong as well. A candidate running for secretary of state should know that, so we give her a False.	None	Catherine Taylor	None	None	None	2010-08-02T00:01:00	2010-07-27	['None']
-snes-05218	A photograph shows Russian soldiers wearing "exosuits" in Syria.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-exosuit-syria-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is the Russian Army Using Exosuits?	14 February 2016	None	['Russia', 'Syria']
-pomt-11850	Charles Francis "vows to slash funding for parks and open space."	/north-carolina/statements/2017/nov/06/nancy-mcfarlane/raleigh-mayor-my-opponent-vows-slash-park-funding/	Charles Francis has campaigned on the idea that Raleigh leaders aren’t paying enough attention to the city’s neediest. He’s said that Mayor Nancy McFarlane and other council members seem more enthusiastic about big projects, like building a new City Hall or planning Dix Park, than they are about providing more affordable housing or helping poor residents find jobs. This has prompted McFarlane, the three-term incumbent who’s in a runoff against Francis, to defend those projects. The city purchased the 308-acre Dix property from the state in 2014 for $52 million with the goal of transforming it into a destination park that people could walk to from downtown Raleigh. The deal is one of McFarlane’s proudest accomplishments. So perhaps it’s no surprise that she has cast Francis as someone who "opposed" the project, which she claimed in a recent debate. A campaign mailer she paid for goes a step further, saying Francis "vows to slash funding for parks and open space." Francis denies McFarlane’s claim, which implies that he has promised deep cuts. We caught up with him on the campaign trail on Nov. 4, where he called it a "flat-out lie." "I have never said that I would cut spending," Francis said. "What I’ve said is that park spending needs to be equitable." So we asked McFarlane’s campaign advisors, Perry Woods and James Sonneman, if they have evidence to support the claim on the mailer. What McFarlane says Woods pointed to Francis’ comments on Aug. 15, when both candidates attended the Raleigh Wake Citizens Association forum at Martin Street Baptist Church. Francis can be heard describing Dix Park as "tangential" and saying the city "can't be distracted by bike lanes and more parks." "Charles Francis has said several times that Dix Park is peripheral to the city and that money should be moved away from parks, like Dix, and into affordable housing and transit," Woods said. "That is not supporting Dix Park or the park system in general." Woods provided a link to a Sept. 14 News & Observer story about the mayoral candidates. Francis is quoted as saying the city has the wrong priorities. "That’s been the real conflict I’ve had with these pseudo-liberal Democrats," Francis said. "What’s important to them is bike lanes and parks and that kind of thing. What we have in mind is more basic." He also provided a link to an Oct. 8 N&O story, in which Francis’ position is summarized this way: The city should stop spending so much money on things like parks and downtown revitalization and focus on public transit and social services, such as mental health care. PolitiFact pointed out to Woods and McFarlane's other advisor, James Sonneman, that those examples don’t provide evidence of Francis "vowing to slash funding" for parks and open space. "Of course, no politician will spell out what their positions would do explicitly," Sonneman replied. "It is the same idea as when a politician like (U.S. House Speaker) Paul Ryan discusses entitlement reform, he doesn't explicitly state that he plans to cut medicare benefits, but taking the position that we need to stop spending so much money on a program means that cuts would be involved." It's one thing to be critical of government spending. But it's another to vow or promise to do something. We decided to review Francis’ statements in news stories, campaign materials and video footage to see what he said about Dix Park and parks funding in general. Did he make any promises? Other Francis statements Most recently, Francis was quoted on his stance on Oct. 28 in a News & Observer story. The writer describes Francis’ belief this way: that the fanfare surrounding Dix Park has distracted the city from attending to more basic services and needs, including smaller parks in Southeast Raleigh. Francis is critical of the city's decision to hire a New York-based firm to design the park instead of a local company. "Access to housing, transportation, jobs and education — the basic city services — are more important than bike lanes and parks," Francis is quoted saying. In a televised debate on Oct. 20, McFarlane accused Francis of opposing Dix Park early in his campaign. Francis responded by saying he supports Dix Park but wants to make the planning process more inclusive. "I believe in parks. But parks are not as important as good jobs with high pay and access to housing in terms of people’s quality of life." He continued: "We need to be concerned not about people who are going to be in Raleigh 50 years from now but about people who are in Raleigh right now and improving their quality of life." A story by Indyweek quoted Francis when he announced his plan to call for a runoff: He favors the development of the Dix Park, but not to the detriment of other city parks. "It's not acceptable to put all of our focus on Dix Park and neglect other parks," Francis said. A video posted on his campaign website is titled, "I support Dix Park – and equity for all of Raleigh." In it, he said he supports the Dix Park planning process but notes that other parks haven’t gotten the same attention and have only received partial funding for upgrades throughout the years. "Equity requires that we put just as much attention on our other parks as we do on Dix Park," he said. "Even more, the city has to put Dix Park in its proper priority. As nice as it’s going to be to have Dix Park as a thriving central park 50 years from now, Raleigh must right now — not two years from now — increase access to housing, preserve existing affordable housing and build new affordable housing." In an Indyweek questionnaire, Francis makes no mention of funding for Dix Park or other parks. Our ruling McFarlane’s mailer says Francis "vows to slash funding for parks and open space." Francis has certainly been critical of the city’s enthusiasm for Dix Park and bike lanes. But, as far as we can tell, he’s made no promises to cut the parks budget. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Nancy McFarlane	None	None	None	2017-11-06T12:03:39	2017-11-06	['None']
-pose-01339	"It (The Donald J. Trump tax plan) will provide a deemed repatriation of corporate profits held offshore at a one-time tax rate of 10 percent."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1431/create-10-percent-repatriation-tax/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Create a 10-percent repatriation tax	2017-01-17T09:01:40	None	['None']
-tron-03437	The meaning of the folded napkin in Jesus’ tomb	https://www.truthorfiction.com/folded-napkin/	None	religious	None	None	None	The meaning of the folded napkin in Jesus’ tomb	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Jesus']
-pomt-00549	The Islamic State "just built a hotel in Syria."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-isis-built-hotel-syria/	Donald Trump is facing a lot of competition these days. The Republican real estate mogul announced he’s running for president -- against at least a dozen other candidates. In his June 16 announcement speech, Trump said he also has a new competitor in the hotel biz: a group of entrepreneurial terrorists who call themselves the Islamic State. "Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East," he said. "They've become rich. I'm in competition with them. They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel." We weren’t sure if we could, in fact, believe Trump’s claim that the Islamic State built a hotel in Syria, so we decided to check it out. The grain of truth here is that the Islamic State has taken over a luxury hotel. But they didn’t build it. And it’s not in Syria. And it doesn’t really operate like a normal hotel. We couldn’t find any evidence that the Islamic State is running any sort of hotel in Syria. We tried to get in touch with a Trump spokesperson and didn’t hear back. However, this May, the Islamic State reopened a five-star hotel in Mosul that shut down when the terrorist group took over the city, one of the largest in Iraq. (Most of the information about this has come from Arabic language news sources.) So the Islamic State didn’t build the Ninawa International Hotel; they just occupied it. Also, it’s not really open for business. According to news reports, the Islamic State is using the hotel’s 262 rooms to house the group’s commanding officers, and they might use it as a wedding venue for the group’s members. You can’t book a room at Ninawa online, and the TripAdvisor page is now defunct. But pre-Islamic State reviews -- caught by Buzzfeed and others -- said the hotel had a good view of the Tigris river, a tennis court, gymnasium, swimming pool and two restaurants. News reports say that, keeping with Islamic law, the Islamic State banned drinking and smoking in the hotel, and workers have removed decorations they disapprove of. Our ruling Trump claimed the Islamic State "just built a hotel in Syria." The Islamic State does occupy a luxury hotel, which they took over about a month and a half ago. However, it’s in Iraq, not Syria, and they didn’t build it. It’s an old hotel that the group refurbished and occupied. As far as we know, the hotel’s rooms are reserved for Islamic State commanders, and the event spaces are for weddings. At least for now, Trump doesn’t have to worry about the Islamic State running him out of the hotel business. We rate his claim False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2015-06-16T16:10:22	2015-06-16	['Syria']
-pomt-05326	Says George LeMieux was one of two Republicans who voted for President Barack Obama's jobs bill.	/florida/statements/2012/may/16/connie-mack/did-george-lemieux-vote-barack-obamas-jobs-bill/	A new ad from Connie Mack says his Republican rival George LeMieux is a liberal -- and "once a liberal, always a liberal." The ammunition: LeMieux’s votes during his brief time in the U.S. Senate. Former Gov. Charlie Crist appointed LeMieux to serve out the term of Mel Martinez, who resigned. LeMieux served from September 2009 to January 2011. Mack and LeMieux are competing for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate to go against Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson. (Mack is now a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Fort Myers.) Mack’s ad shows President Barack Obama, mixing the president’s remarks with narration about LeMieux. It goes like this: Obama: "Two Republican senators, Sens. George Voinovich and George LeMieux … because of their decision, this jobs bill will finally pass.

" Narrator: "George LeMieux was one of only two liberal Republicans who voted for Barack Obama’s liberal jobs bill that failed to help our economy.

" Obama: "Sens. George Voinovich and George LeMieux .. and because of their decision, this jobs bill will finally pass, and I want to thank them.

" Narrator: "George LeMieux: once a liberal, always a liberal.

" (The ad closes with LeMieux huddling with Crist.) We’re going to take out the Mack campaign’s "liberal" adjectives and focus on the facts of the matter: Was LeMieux one of two Republicans who voted for Obama's jobs bill? The bill in question is the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5297), which Obama signed into law on Sept. 27, 2010. As the name suggests, the law was aimed at getting money to small businesses and stimulating the economy. The law made about $30 billion available to small business, primarily through the Small Business Administration and its lending program for community banks. The law also included $12 billion worth of tax breaks for small business, mostly by changing tax rules on business expenses. Opponents of the law said at the time that the lending program was similar to the Troubled Asset Relief Progam, or TARP. "It had the mini-TARP in there, with no real help to small businesses, as far as I'm concerned," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told the Washington Post in 2010. LeMieux and Voinovich were two Republican senators who voted with Democrats to move the bill through the Senate. The Mack campaign pointed us to these votes when we asked for evidence for their ad. LeMieux and Voinovich cited widespread unemployment in their respective states (Florida and Ohio) as reasons to support the bill. Back then, LeMieux answered questions about his support on MSNBC’s Morning Joe: "Well, there's not been much I could agree on with the Democrats in Congress, because most of it's been job-killing. But this bill that (Sen.) Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and I worked on together is actually going to help small businesses in Florida. You know, Joe, that we've got nearly 2 million in Florida. They're suffering, and this bill will cut taxes by $12 billion for small businesses and increase lending to your local community bank, so that they can give dollars to small businesses and put people back to work. Doesn't raise the deficit, doesn't raise the debt, doesn't raise taxes. It made a lot of sense to me." LeMieux spokesman Anna Nix responded with similar comments when we asked her on May 15, 2012, about the attack ad. Our ruling Mack’s ad puts a lot of spin on the basic facts when it says, "George LeMieux was one of only two liberal Republicans who voted for Barack Obama’s liberal jobs bill that failed to help our economy.

" Certainly that "liberal" tag is what gives the ad its bite. Here, we’re simply checking whether LeMieux was one of two Republican senators who voted for a jobs bill supported by the president. That is the case. We rate that statement True.	None	Connie Mack	None	None	None	2012-05-16T15:51:27	2012-05-14	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05154	"There is no Plan B" if the transportation referendum is not passed by voters.	/georgia/statements/2012/jun/20/terry-lawler/t-splost-supporter-says-options-are-slim-if-refere/	Next month’s monumental voter referendum to increase the sales tax rate to pay for dozens of transportation projects across metro Atlanta has brought up an interesting question. Can we do this over and come up with another list of projects if the referendum fails? PolitiFact Georgia wondered what was the answer after attending a town hall meeting last weekend where there was some disagreement about whether we could hit the reset button. "There is no Plan B," referendum supporter Terry Lawler said at the meeting organized by the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation. Lawler, a former state lawmaker, was the lone panelist in support of the referendum. His main point: If there is another referendum, the project list wouldn’t change much. Lawler is executive director of the Regional Business Coalition of Metropolitan Atlanta, a group that consists of some of the largest chambers of commerce in the region. As Lawler spoke, a man handed out fliers with the Georgia Green Party logo that contradicted Lawler’s statement. The flier had a list of top 10 "lies" about the referendum. No. 2 on the list was "If T-SPLOST doesn’t pass, ‘there is no Plan B.’ " On July 31, voters in 10 Atlanta-area counties will decide whether they want to increase the sales tax rate in their respective counties by a penny-per-dollar to fund 157 transportation projects that planners hope will ease congestion in the region. Projects include improvements at the busy interchange at I-285 and Ga. 400 in Dunwoody, a new rail line from the Lindbergh area to Emory University and the return of local bus service in Clayton County. If approved, the tax would last 10 years. It is projected to collect as much as $8.5 billion when adjusted for inflation. Georgia Sierra Club Director Colleen Kiernan, who was at the meeting, said the plan needs more mass transit options. John Evans, president of the NAACP’s DeKalb County chapter, was also at the meeting. He asked why taxpayers there should pay more in sales taxes, particularly since the plan doesn’t include a proposal to extend MARTA service to the area near the Mall at Stonecrest. The plan’s supporters say it required great effort to persuade the Georgia Legislature to put a referendum on the ballot, and if voters reject it, there may never be this kind of opportunity to create such a large funding source for transportation in the region. Nonsense, some say. "The corrupt pols and their contributors who came up with their take-it-or-leave-it plan say it’s Atlanta’s last and only chance to invest in transit. … It ain’t so," the Green Party flier read. "The law says we can come up with a new and better list and vote again in two years." PolitiFact Georgia read the state House of Representatives bill that was passed in 2010 to allow the referendum. In the last one-third of House Bill 277, there is a sentence that confirms that point. "If more than one-half of the votes cast throughout the entire special district are in favor of levying the tax, then the tax shall be levied as provided in this article; otherwise the tax shall not be levied and the question of levying the tax shall not again be submitted to the voters of the special district until after 24 months immediately following the month in which the election was held." Lawler said the bill does allow residents to vote on the matter two years afterward if the referendum fails, but he said there is some context to his claim. First, he said state leaders have said if the referendum fails, it is unlikely that they will try this again. Gov. Nathan Deal has said residents may not have another chance to fix so many transportation issues at once if they turn it down, according to media reports. House Speaker David Ralston has said it is unlikely that the Legislature would be willing to spend political capital to bring it up again. "If it fails, then I think it is going to be difficult to have the General Assembly go back and redo something that’s failed. I don’t think there’s going to be any point in trying to dress up a crashed car," Ralston said, according to a media report. Lawler’s other argument is that the list may not change much if lawmakers and planners went in reverse and tried to create a new list. For example, he said, every project on Fayette County’s list is geared toward road improvements while the bulk of money to be spent on projects in DeKalb County is for mass transit. "With a Plan B, you are implying that there is going to be something different," he said. "I don’t see a dramatic difference. There is no Plan B." We wondered whether some of these road projects in Fayette could change in a revised plan or could DeKalb decide to change course on the Clifton rail project and spend it on extending the MARTA line to Stonecrest? Lawler said DeKalb could make some changes, but it would be more difficult for smaller counties to change some projects because of the long list of criteria required for inclusion on the project list. "In Fayette, there were 13 projects to choose from. They chose 10 of the 13, again leaving only three potential substitutes," Lawler said. "In Rockdale [County], there were five eligible projects and Rockdale leaders chose three, leaving two potential substitutes." The Atlanta Regional Commission, which offered technical guidance to lawmakers who shaped the list of 157 projects, wrote a "what if" scenario in case the referendum fails and regional leaders want to try again. The ARC projects it would be four years before another referendum could be held. ARC Director Doug Hooker told us that the project list could change in that time if new officials are elected in various counties with different transportation priorities. Hooker also noted the distaste of lawmakers for another referendum. "What I’m told is a lot of officials don’t have an appetite to do it over again," Hooker said. To sum up, there is a possibility lawmakers could decide not to try another referendum, which could mean there may not be a Plan B. But the legislative bill that created the referendum does offer the option of another referendum if this one fails July 31. The projects on a new list could change. It’s unknown at this point by how much. There is a written document that says lawmakers can try again if the July 31 referendum fails. That is a critical factor that must be considered to fully examine Lawler’s statement. Under our rating system, we give him a Mostly False.	None	Terry Lawler	None	None	None	2012-06-20T06:00:00	2012-06-16	['None']
-pomt-09355	"Snitker has been virtually ignored by the major media."	/florida/statements/2010/apr/05/alexander-snitker/libertarian-senate-candidate-claims-he-ignored-mai/	Alexander Snitker's U.S. Senate campaign says the mainstream media has ignored the lone registered Libertarian candidate seeking to succeed George LeMieux on Capitol Hill, a race that has shone a bright spotlight on three more prominent contenders – Charlie Crist, Marco Rubio and Kendrick Meek. "What is most shocking about this phenomenon is that Snitker has been virtually ignored by the major media," a March 29, 2010, release on the candidate's campaign Web site said. "On an average news day, the other leading Senate candidates enjoy a 200-to-1 advantage over Snitker in media coverage." Snitker, a 34-year-old former Marine who grew up in Pasco County, entered the race on June 30, 2009, according to the Florida Division of Elections Candidate Tracking system. On April 1, 2010, the site showed 25 active candidates for the Senate elections – 11 Republicans, eight Democrats, three with No Party Affiliation, and one each for the Veterans Party of America and Constitution Party of Florida – plus Snitker as the lone Libertarian. He advocates adoption of the "FairTax," which raises federal funds not from income or payroll taxes but through a national retail sales tax and also vows to support term limits and a balanced budget amendment. "What I stand for, the tea party is all about," Snitker said at a March speech in Orlando. A video of the speech was posted on YouTube. To check Snitker's claim, we looked for media references. A recent Nexis search in the category of "Florida News Sources," an aggregator, found two mentions of Snitker in the past three months. Both were in the Orlando Sentinel's "What's happening" column, and both were bulletin-board style items letting readers know about an upcoming candidates forum. In comparison, Republican candidate Rubio got 861 and Democrat Meek 286. Crist, who's campaigning for the Senate while he serves as Florida's governor, got 2,292. We also found eight mentions of Snitker on the St. Petersburg Times political blog, "The Buzz." All were in the comments section of blog posts and all but one apparently posted by the candidate himself. Campaign media director Adrian Wyllie says the Snitker for Senate 2010 campaign periodically sends e-mail blasts to hundreds of reporters and media members across the state and "not one has gotten published in any paper, not one has gotten any follow up from any TV station." Wyllie says the only place the candidate has had success is on talk and Internet radio, an example of which was his February interview with a trio of Libertarians on KKNT in Phoenix’s weekly program, The Libertarian Solution Radio. We found a Podcast of it on iTunes. Wyllie concedes that the Snitker campaign has never scheduled a news conference. But the campaign’s claim is that the major media has ignored his campaign – not that the campaign has necessarily tried to lure it in. So, just to be sure, we rang up Justin Sayfie, Fort Lauderdale attorney and publisher of Sayfiereview.com, considered by some to be a daily must-click site for Florida political junkies. We asked if he’d ever seen an article about Snitker. Sayfie: "How do you spell his last name?" PolitiFact Florida: "S-n-i-t-k-e-r." Sayfie: "S-n-i-t-k-e-r. Snitker? Never heard of him." Sayfie boasts that his Web site reviews 10 to 15 major Florida daily newspapers "seven days a week, 365 days a year, and we do it manually, looking for news coverage about Florida politics." But when it comes to the Snitker for Senate campaign, he says, "I have not seen any news coverage at all. At all. Whatsoever." We find little reason to disagree. We have to rule Snitker's claim True.	None	Alexander Snitker	None	None	None	2010-04-05T16:20:09	2010-03-29	['None']
-snes-02777	Pacer Test Banned for Child Cruelty?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pacer-test-banned/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Was the Pacer Test Banned for Child Cruelty?	14 March 2017	None	['None']
-pose-01125	"Be No. 1 in nation for high school graduation rates."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/1211/be-no-1-high-school-graduation-rates/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Be No. 1 in high school graduation rates	2014-12-30T10:49:22	None	['None']
-pomt-12330	"There are currently 6 million jobs available in this country that are due in part to the skills gap."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/16/ivanka-trump/ivanka-trump-mostly-right-role-skills-gap-unfilled/	During an interview with Fox & Friends, Ivanka Trump discussed one of the challenges of the current economy -- that job vacancies exist, but many people who aren’t working aren’t qualified to fill them. Her comments came during a week that the White House had devoted to messages about the American workforce. "There are currently 6 million jobs available in this country that are due in part to the skills gap," she said. When we took a closer look, we found that Trump was generally on target, but that the impact of the "skills gap" -- the fact that many potential workers don’t have the right qualifications to take jobs that are currently open -- is worth some explanation. Are there 6 million jobs available? On the numerical side, Trump was spot-on. Every month, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics releases data from a survey called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS. One of the key statistics in the survey is job openings nationally. In the most recent month for which data is available -- April 2017 -- the survey found 6,044,000 job openings across the country. That represents the first time this statistic has ever crossed the 6 million line, going back to the earliest data reported in 2000. Since a measure of the raw number of job openings is affected by overall population growth over time, we’ll also note that the rate of job openings -- which is adjusted for the size of the U.S. population -- also tied a record in April, reaching a level equaled only in two previous months going back to 2000. So Trump has accurately portrayed the scale of how many jobs are available today in the United States. Is this large number of job openings 'due in part to the skills gap'? Trump used cautious wording; Economists agree that a mismatch of skills is clearly a "part" of the problem, as she put it. That said, they cautioned against making the oversimplified argument that the skills gap underlies all 6 million job openings. On the one hand, "some of the current job vacancies are unquestionably due to the skills gap," said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. "If job-seeking jobless workers and promotion-seeking but under-employed workers had exactly the right skills, many of the current job vacancies could be filled faster." At the same time, for many job openings, the barrier isn’t necessarily the lack of a college degree or specialized training, he said. In many cases, the "barrier" can be overcome with on-the-job training and experience. "There are many job openings with more modest skill requirements," Burtless said. "They require the new hire to learn some extra skills to become more proficient and productive in their new jobs. A large percentage of job seekers have the capacity to learn those skills on the job pretty quickly." He added that "employers who think every job opening can be filled immediately and with a perfectly trained worker are either living in a dream world or living through a Great Depression in which millions of highly trained workers are desperately seeking a job." The reality, he said, is that "for most current job vacancies, the skill set of today’s job seekers is sufficient to fill the great majority of the vacancies." Another economist, Aparna Mathur of the American Enterprise Institute, has testified that for many manufacturing jobs, a drag on hiring comes not only from a skills gap but also an "image gap." Millennials in particular, she said, may have a "tainted" image of what high-tech manufacturing jobs look like today, assuming instead that they are like such jobs decades ago -- "dirty, grimy, repetitive or dangerous." Survey data shows that "many workers are no longer interested in manufacturing jobs and there appears to be a stigma attached to manufacturing work," she wrote. "Few parents want their children to work in this industry, and manufacturing is the last career choice for people between the ages of 19 and 33." In an interview, Mathur said it’s difficult to tease out how much of a factor the skills gap is in today’s job openings. She suggested that it may be the biggest factor -- but she also cautioned that the image gap is particularly significant for younger workers and added that other issues exist as well, including an unwillingness among some Americans to relocate to areas with jobs. And of course, even in an efficiently humming economy, any survey taken at a given point in time will find many jobs that are simply open due to transition, or what economists call "churn." Many of these job openings will be due to happenstance rather than structural problems with the skills gap. Our ruling Trump said, "There are currently 6 million jobs available in this country that are due in part to the skills gap." The number she cites is correct, and she’s right to say that the skills gap plays a role. Economists warn against overestimating the role played by the skills gap in all 6 million job openings, both because other factors play a role (such as the image gap) and because the skills barriers posed are often more modest than having to earn an academic degree or to obtain specialized training. We rate her statement True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ivanka Trump	None	None	None	2017-06-16T14:42:42	2017-06-12	['None']
-chct-00228	FACT CHECK: MoveOn Says It's 'Totally Legal' To Stamp Money With Political Messages	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/17/fact-check-moveon-says-its-totally-legal-to-stamp-money-with-political-messages/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	10:57 AM 01/17/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02174	"No other country has a constitutional right" like the Second Amendment.	/florida/statements/2014/apr/29/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-second-amendment-unique-speech-nr/	Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., went all in for gun owners in a speech to the NRA as the potential presidential candidate sought to squelch any doubts about his commitment to gun rights. Rubio was one of a few 2016 Republican presidential hopefuls who spoke at the NRA’s annual convention in Indianapolis on April 25. He described the right to own a gun as part of the American Dream, highlighted the "futility" of existing gun laws and chastised the media for stigmatizing gun owners. At one point, Rubio described the Constitution of the United States as unique. "I'm always amused that those who come up to me and say no other country has a constitutional right like this," he said. "As if to imply that there is something wrong with us. But we say no other country has a constitutional right like this not with scorn, but with pride." Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president and CEO, made a similar statement during his own speech to the annual meeting, saying, "Our Second Amendment freedom separates us from every other country on earth." Is it correct that the United States is the only country that gives residents a constitutional right to bear arms? The Second Amendment The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." We asked several legal experts if the United States is the only such country that has a constitutional right to bear arms. Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago international law professor and co-director of the Comparative Constitutions Project, has studied gun rights in national constitutions dating back to 1789. Only a minority of constitutions have ever included gun rights, and the number has dwindled, Ginsburg concluded in a 2013 article he wrote with Zachary Elkins, a University of Texas government professor. But Ginsburg added in an interview with PolitiFact that "the precise language in each constitution is different, and no other country has the ‘well-regulated militia’ language." Of the constitutions that do have an explicit right to bear arms "ours is the only one that does not explicitly include a restrictive condition," wrote Elkins in a New York Times op-ed. The Constitutions Project zeroed in on two countries: "We code only Mexico, Guatemala and the U.S. as having a right to bear arms," Ginsburg told PolitiFact. While the constitutions of Haiti and Iran do mention guns, "the provision was too ambiguous for us to consider it a true right to bear arms." Here is how the Comparative Constitutions Project translates the right to own arms in Guatemala and Mexico: • Guatemala Article 38: "The right to own (‘tenencia’) weapons for personal use, not prohibited by the law, in the place of inhabitation, is recognized. There will not be an obligation to hand them over, except in cases ordered by a competent judge." • Mexico Article 10: "The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms in their residences for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law or which have been reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the circumstances, conditions, requirements, and places in which the bearing of arms by inhabitants will be authorized." The authors of the article concluded that "the U.S. Constitution is alone in omitting any written conditions under which the government can regulate arms and munitions. In other countries, the right is typically limited to self-defense, either of the home or the state itself." Guatemala, they note, "gives its citizens the right to own weapons for personal use in the home and states that citizens can only be forced to relinquish guns by judicial order. Haiti gives citizens the right to use guns to defend the home but explicitly denies a general right to bear arms." They added that in the United States, the judicial branch has ruled that some restrictions on gun ownership are permissible -- they just aren’t outlined in the Constitution itself. "U.S. courts have allowed some exceptions to unconditional gun ownership in the form of local, state and federal statutes restricting ownership or possession of firearms," the authors wrote. "In this way, the courts have served to render constitutional law somewhat less exceptional than the text itself would suggest." Other legal experts we consulted agreed that Mexican and Guatemalan constitutions come closest to the United States’, at least up to a point. "If the question is an express right to arms in the nation’s Constitution, there's also Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala," said David Kopel, research director at the Independence Institute and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University. "The Mexican and Haitian governments essentially ignore the right, and get away with doing so. For example, there is only one gun store allowed in the entire nation of Mexico." (There is a long list of criteria to buy a gun at this sole legal outlet, according to the Washington Post.) The NRA didn’t respond directly to our fact-check, but Kopel told PolitiFact that he frequently writes for the NRA’s magazine. One law professor also suggested we look at Switzerland. PolitiFact explained in a fact-check in 2013 that the Swiss government requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense. Anyone who wants to keep the weapon after their years of service can do so if they can provide an acceptable reason; the gun is then refitted to limit its firepower. Switzerland does not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, Kopel said. Rubio’s response We sent Rubio’s spokesman a 2010 article in Slate that stated Mexico, Haiti and Guatemala have the right to bear arms in their Constitutions though it stated that Guatemala was the only one as broad as our Second Amendment. Spokesman Alex Conant said the language in the Guatemalan Constitution isn’t as strong as the language in the U.S. Second Amendment, which includes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Conant also suggested we take a look at the characterization of Guatemala’s gun laws on www.gunpolicy.org, a website hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health that supports global efforts to prevent gun injury. The website calls Guatemala’s gun laws "restrictive" while it labeled our gun laws "permissive." "All you seem to have established is that one country has some language similar to ours, but in practice does not treat the right in the same way," Conant said. Our ruling Rubio said during a speech to the NRA that "no other country has a constitutional right" like the Second Amendment. Mexico and Guatemala have the right to bear arms in their constitutions. However, the Second Amendment is unique because it is the only one that doesn’t include restrictive conditions within the constitutional language. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/14f1a5cd-b5af-4306-9584-881b45ebd01b	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2014-04-29T11:03:02	2014-04-25	['None']
-snes-01641	Are the Spires on Disney World's Cinderella Castle Removable in Case of Hurricane?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cinderellas-castle-hurricane/	None	Disney	None	David Emery	None	Are the Spires on Disney World’s Cinderella Castle Removable in Case of Hurricane?	2 October 2017	None	['None']
-thal-00026	Explainer: Here's what the proposed legislation says about abortion up to six months	http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-six-months-3975235-Apr2018/	None	None	None	None	None	Explainer: Here's what the proposed legislation says about abortion up to six months	Apr 28th 2018, 12:05 AM	None	['None']
-farg-00152	"The Trump-Republican tax plan delivers a huge tax cut to millionaires, billionaires and wealthy corporations. And the middle class gets stuck with the tab."	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/tax-cut-ad-lacks-context/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Not One Penny	Eugene Kiely	['Not One Penny', 'tax cuts']	Tax Cut Ad Lacks Context	November 16, 2017	[' TV ad – Tuesday, November 14, 2017 ']	['None']
-snes-05771	Did a holy man disguise himself as homeless in order to test the compassion of his congregation?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pastor-present-2/	None	Glurge Gallery	None	David Mikkelson	None	Pastor Disguises Himself as Homeless Man	23 July 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-00735	$29 is what "families on SNAP (i.e. food stamps) have to live on for a week."	/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/22/gwyneth-paltrow/gwyneth-paltrows-29-weekly-food-stamps-budget-flaw/	Love or loathe Gwyneth Paltrow, her experiment buying groceries on a food stamp budget stirred up a lot of awareness about the nation’s anti-hunger programs. Which, you know, was kind of the point. Paltrow, a health-conscious actress who prefers to cook with fresh ingredients, accepted a challenge from celebrity chef Mario Batali to live on food stamps for a week and draw attention to the Food Bank for New York City earlier this month. Paltrow shared a photo of her grocery haul in an April 9 tweet, writing, "This is what $29 gets you at the grocery store—what families on SNAP (i.e. food stamps) have to live on for a week." The Internet quickly balked at her choices, particularly the green garnishes that do little to stave hunger — seven limes, really? But few people paid attention to whether the budget she shared is actually accurate or typical of a family that needs assistance. A reader saw the figure in a CNN story about Paltrow’s challenge, which she quit after four days, and asked us to look into it. If you want to know what Paltrow ended up cooking from her basket, check out her GOOP recipes for black bean taquitos and sweet potato saute served with kale, brown rice and a poached egg. If you want to know what’s wrong about her $29 SNAP budget, keep reading. SNAP in a snap The key to understanding SNAP starts with its full name — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The "Supplemental" is key because SNAP is not designed to provide low-income families with all the money they need to eat every single meal. It’s supposed to supplement grocery spending, not replace it. SNAP is one of the government’s biggest welfare programs, costing about $70 billion in 2014. Demand for SNAP grew over the course of the recession, reaching a high of more than 47 million beneficiaries in 23 million households. Program costs and payouts have come down amid the economic recovery. To receive SNAP benefits, a person must: Show assets less than $2,250; Report gross monthly income at or below 130 of the federal poverty line; Report net monthly income at or below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. How much a person or household receives depends on how much income they make and how big the household is. The sliding scale, which comes with monthly maximums, emphasizes how SNAP is indeed supplemental, and how Paltrow’s claim is wanting. Say a household of four qualifies for SNAP with a $1,136 net monthly income. While the maximum SNAP benefit is $649 a month, that household would receive only $308 a month (about $19 per person, per week), according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In this case, the USDA assumes the household would spend an additional $341 of their own money (30 percent of their monthly income) on food. The case of the person with no net income So the system is set up as supplemental food assistance. But what about people who have no income? They would get more SNAP money. A single person could receive $194 a month (about $48 a week). SNAP benefits for a household of four would be closer to $40 a week. Neither number is near Paltrow’s $29 a week figure. That figure is the amount of SNAP benefits for the average individual (all benefits divided by all people). The trouble is that calculation misses the point that SNAP is supposed to supplement people’s food budget, does not account for the fact that people with no net income receive more government support, and ignores other government programs that provide food aid. Many families bring in other income or benefits that complete the overall budget for food, said Greg Mills, who studies SNAP policy at the Urban Institute think tank. "Households on food stamps do typically receive some other benefits from the government, but it may be limited," he said. For low-income women who are pregnant or have infants, they may also utilize another USDA supplemental program for women, infants and children (WIC). School programs offer free and reduced breakfast and lunch to children (48.1 percent of all students were eligible for free or reduced lunch in the 2010-11 school year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, which is part of the U.S. Department of Education). D.C. public schools also offer after-school snacks and supper, Mills said. In 2013, 24 percent of SNAP households had Social Security income, 7 percent received welfare payments under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and 4 percent received unemployment assistance. Paltrow, whose "conscious uncoupling" from musician husband Chris Martin previously ignited the Internet, has two children, Moses and Apple. If we consider an alternate reality in which Paltrow applied for benefits for herself and her children, the average monthly benefit for a household with children may provide a more useful look than a per-person figure. In 2013, the average monthly benefit for a household with children was $410, or $95 a week. In reality, Paltrow abandoned the $29 a week challenge after four days. Our ruling Paltrow pointed to $29 worth of groceries as what "families on SNAP (i.e. food stamps) have to live on for a week." It’s clear Paltrow is trying to do a good thing. But her specific claim falls short. SNAP is not intended to feed families by itself. It is designed to help people with low incomes meet a government-approved budget for food by providing a benefit that helps them get there, sometimes in conjunction with other sources of meals, such as school food programs, and financial support. The government expects SNAP beneficiaries to spend 30 percent of their own income on food. That expectation is what makes the $29 a week figure look so low. A single person with no income could receive about $48 a week in SNAP benefits (65 percent more than Paltrow stated) and would not factor in other types of government support. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Gwyneth Paltrow	None	None	None	2015-04-22T11:24:00	2015-04-09	['None']
-faly-00015	Claim: Saubhagya to ensure electrification of 4 crore un-electrified homes by 31st December 2018.	https://factly.in/fact-checking-government-claims-on-electrification-of-villages-homes/	Fact: The scheme has been launched in 2017 with the aim of electrifying 4 crore households. Since this claim talks about a future target, we will only know in December 2018 whether 4 crore un-electrified households have been electrified. Hence the claim remains UNVERIFIED.	None	None	None	None	Fact Checking Government claims on Electrification of Villages & Homes	None	None	['None']
-pomt-04258	"Clayton County offers the lowest operating millage rate in Metro Atlanta."	/georgia/statements/2012/nov/14/clayton-county-government/officials-correct-outdated-claim/	PolitiFact Georgia was surfing some websites in the Atlanta area recently when it spotted an interesting claim listed under Clayton County "facts" on its government website. "Clayton County offers the lowest operating millage rate in Metro Atlanta," it said. Local governments are constantly boasting about various advantages to encourage people to move their business, or their families, into that city or county. The statement on Clayton’s website, which suggests homeowners could pay lower property taxes than any other part of metro Atlanta, intrigued us. PolitiFact Georgia called Wade Starr, a former state representative from Clayton who now manages the county’s government operations. He said the statement was probably posted on the website a long time ago, based on some outdated information. "It needs to be updated, probably," Starr said. "Right now, I think there would be some other counties that would be lower than we are." We decided to take a look. For those unfamiliar with the term millage rate, it is a formula governments use to determine how much property owners in a city or county should pay in taxes for police, firefighters and other government services. One "mill" equals $1 of property taxes for every $1,000 of assessed value. In Clayton County, the net 2012 tax year millage rate was 14.918. PolitiFact Georgia reviewed the most recent government millage rates we found in some counties that either border Clayton or have a population of similar size. In Cherokee County, which has a population slightly smaller than Clayton’s, the millage rate for operations, fire and a parks bond was lower, at 9.99 mills. Henry County, which abuts Clayton and has about the same population, raised its millage rate this year to 14.5 mills. In Cobb County, the millage rate was 11.11. DeKalb County’s millage rate was higher than Clayton’s, at 21.21. These millage rates do not include school operations, which are typically higher than the government operations. Starr said the recession, which officially began in 2008, hit the Clayton housing market worse than other counties. In 2008, Clayton had the region's largest price drop, with homes falling 43 percent in value, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Home Sales Report. The county's typical appraised value for 2010 was $90,589, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis, a decline of 25 percent from the prior year. The typical sale price, meanwhile, was $80,656. Starr talked about the decline in home values with us, saying he paid about $2,400 in property taxes in 2009. In 2011, Starr said he again paid about $2,400 in property taxes. In 2008, Clayton’s net millage rate was 8.962 mills, according to county records. That’s about 6 mills less than it is now. Around that time, the millage rate was the second-lowest among the five highest-populated counties in the region, according to a comparison done by Fulton County. Cobb had the lowest rate, the comparison showed. Starr said the information on that part of Clayton’s website was probably posted around that time. He said there was other information on that part of the website, such as the county’s population, that could be traced to that time. Starr said Friday that the claim about the millage rate would be removed from the county’s website. We checked on Monday and it was gone. In closing, the county’s website claimed it had the lowest operating millage rate in metro Atlanta. That information, the county now says, was based on outdated information and was going to be removed. Kudos to Clayton for correcting the information. The claim was False.	None	Clayton County Government	None	None	None	2012-11-14T06:00:00	2012-11-02	['Atlanta_metropolitan_area', 'Clayton_County,_Georgia']
-goop-00437	LeAnn Rimes Pregnant With Eddie Cibrian’s Baby?	https://www.gossipcop.com/leann-rimes-pregnant-eddie-cibrian-baby-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	LeAnn Rimes Pregnant With Eddie Cibrian’s Baby?	11:19 am, August 17, 2018	None	['LeAnn_Rimes']
-tron-01436	Chocolate Laced With Ebola Ships to U.S.	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ebola-chocolate/	None	food	None	None	None	Chocolate Laced With Ebola Ships to U.S.	 Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States']
-hoer-00135	Flat Tire Mall Abduction Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/flat-tire-mall.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Flat Tire Mall Abduction Warning	26th March 2010	None	['None']
-tron-00162	Candlelight vigil on the Friday after 9/11	https://www.truthorfiction.com/vigil/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Candlelight vigil on the Friday after 9/11	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01198	Jennifer Aniston, Will Arnett “Romance” Blossoming?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-will-arnett-romance-dating/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston, Will Arnett “Romance” Blossoming?	12:56 pm, April 12, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston', 'Will_Arnett']
-chct-00116	Cuomo Says He Dropped In The Polls After He Legalized Gay Marriage - Is That True?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/14/fact-check-cuomo-same-sex-marriage/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	12:56 PM 06/14/2018	None	['None']
-snes-02567	Due to an obscure Massachusetts legal doctrine, Aaron Hernandez's death vacates his conviction and entitles his family to $15 million under the terms of his severed NFL contract.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hernandez-abatement-ab-initio/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Will Aaron Hernandez’s Family Receive $15 Million from the NFL?	20 April 2017	None	['Massachusetts', 'Aaron_Hernandez', 'National_Football_League']
-tron-02088	The missionary son who found redemption in Timbuktu	https://www.truthorfiction.com/saint/	None	inspirational	None	None	None	The missionary son who found redemption in Timbuktu	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08476	Says Rick Scott gave a deposition in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times about his dealings as head of Columbia/HCA hospital chain	/florida/statements/2010/oct/12/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-dodges-answers-invoking-fifth-amendment/	Democrat Alex Sink is airing a new ad that whacks Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott for alleged fraud at Columbia/HCA, and in particular, for refusing to answer questions about his role in any wrongdoing. The ad, which will air Oct. 13, 2010, is two minutes long and crafted to look like a TV news magazine segment. It's called "Fraud Files," and pieces together the voice of a narrator with video news clips. "Is Columbia/HCA putting profits ahead of patients?" NBC's Brian Williams asks near the beginning of the ad. "Did Columbia treat a patient for a mild disease, then bill Medicare for something more expensive?" another reporter asks. A narrator and a Palm Beach County prosecutor help fill in the details. "A whistleblower revealed that Scott's company was cooking the books. Refusing to cooperate, Rick Scott gave a deposition in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times," the narrator says. "Which means a truthful answer to the questions that he was asked would incriminate him," adds Michael McAuliffe, Palm Beach County's Democratic state attorney, finishing the thought. The ad then cuts quickly to another news reporter ... "The Medicare fraud that cost his former company, Columbia/HCA $1.7 billion in fines ..." And then back to the narrator. "The fine was the largest in the history of the United States. Rick Scott resigned in disgrace with a $300 million golden parachute." We're dealing with McAuliffe's claim in another item. In this fact-check, we wanted to learn more about that deposition, and Scott's use of the Fifth Amendment. Columbia/HCA background First, a little bit of back story on Scott and Columbia/HCA. Scott started what was first called Columbia in the spring of 1987 by purchasing two El Paso, Texas, hospitals. He quickly grew the company into one of the country's largest publicly traded hospital chains, and in 1994, merged Columbia with Tennessee-headquartered HCA and its 100 hospitals. In early 1997, federal agents revealed they were investigating the Columbia/HCA chain for, among other things, Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Allegations included that Columbia/HCA billed Medicare and Medicaid for tests that were not necessary or ordered by physicians, and that the hospital chain would perform one type of medical test but bill the federal government for a more expensive test or procedure. Agents seized records from Columbia facilities across the country in Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah and Florida. Scott resigned in the middle of the federal investigation in July 1997. Scott said he wanted to fight the federal government accusations; the corporate board of Columbia/HCA wanted to settle, and did. In 2000, the company pleaded guilty to at least 14 corporate felonies and agreed to pay $840 million in criminal fines and civil damages and penalties. The company agreed to further settlements in 2002, paying an additional $881 million in fines. Scott's deposition Scott indeed did give a deposition in 2000 in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 75 times. The amendment reads in part that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Scott's deposition, however, was not part of the criminal fraud case being pursued by the federal government. In fact, Scott was never officially questioned during the federal criminal investigation. Instead, the case in question was a civil case involving Columbia/HCA and Nevada Communications Corp. Nevada Communications alleged that Columbia/HCA breached the terms of a communications contract. Scott's lawyer interjected after an opposing lawyer began the deposition by asking if Scott was employed. "Under normal circumstances, Mr. Scott would be pleased to answer that question and other questions that you pose today," Scott's lawyer, Steven Steinbach, said. "Unfortunately because of the pendency of a number of criminal investigations relating to Columbia around the country, he's going to follow my advice, out of prudence, to assert his constitutional privilege against giving testimony against himself. Scott then went on to read the same answer to every question Nevada Communications lawyers asked, even when asked if Scott is a current or former employee of Columbia/HCA -- "Upon advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer the questions by asserting my rights and privileges under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." The ad never clarifies, or tries to distinguish the deposition as being part of a civil case unconnected to the criminal investigation. It simply adds the claim into the middle of a series of claims about the criminal fraud case. On the other hand, Scott's reason for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege was because of the criminal investigations surrounding Columbia/HCA, his lawyer said. During the Univision debate on Oct. 8, 2010, Scott said he pleaded the Fifth so many times because the opposing lawyers were on a "fishing expedition." But that's not what the Fifth Amendment should be used for, legal experts say. The Fifth Amendment is a way to protect yourself from prosecution, regardless of whether you committed the crime. "The Fifth Amendment is not a shield against fishing expeditions," said Nancy Dowd, a UF Levin College of Law professor. "If you want to cloak yourself in the protection of the Fifth Amendment, it has to be for the reason that your answer could result in criminal liability." Added Bruce Jacob, a law professor at Stetson: "You should not use the Fifth Amendment privilege if you don't think there's possible criminal liability." Ruling Scott did give a deposition in 2000 where he invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege not to be a witness against himself 75 times (we counted). But that alone doesn't make the claim right. We think it's fair to look at the context of how the number's used, and what an average viewer will take away upon seeing the ad. The inference here is clear -- that Scott gave a deposition in the federal criminal investigation of Columbia/HCA and pleaded the Fifth Amendment 75 times. That's not true. Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times in an unrelated civil suit over a communications contract. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Florida Democratic Party	None	None	None	2010-10-12T17:35:20	2010-10-10	['Hospital_Corporation_of_America']
-pomt-12973	Because of its higher minimum wage, New York State is "already showing signs of various companies picking up and leaving."	/new-york/statements/2016/dec/23/michael-long/business-new-york-have-closed-because-minimum-wage/	New York State’s minimum wage has been climbing above the federal wage requirement since 2013. The state’s increases were supposed to stop when the minimum wage hit $9 an hour last year. But then Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo struck a deal with state lawmakers in March to raise it to $15 an hour over the next several years. The higher minimum wage is bad for businesses, which already struggle with taxes and regulations, said New York State Conservative Party Chairman Michael R. Long. The state is "already showing signs of various companies picking up and leaving," Long said. When asked about his claim, Long said he was not referring to any particular company. "All someone needs to do is look at upstate," Long said. So is Long right? Are some businesses leaving New York because of the higher minimum wage? What’s the minimum wage? The state’s hourly minimum wage has risen from $7.25 - still the federal level - to $9 since 2013. Tipped workers, like those in the restaurant and hospitality industries, also saw a minimum wage increase in the last year. They used to make around $5 an hour without tips. They are now paid $6.80 to $7.65, depending on the industry and tips earned. Starting at the end of this year, a new set of minimum wage increases will be phased in across the state. • New York City will reach $15 by the end of 2018. Small businesses in New York City have until the end of 2019. • Westchester County and Long Island will reach $15 an hour in 2021. • Upstate New York will reach $12.50 by the end of 2020. The Department of Labor will then determine the wage increase each year until the region hits $15. Wages for tipped workers will increase at a different rate. Starting in 2019, the governor can pause the increase if it appears to cause more harm than good. Companies moving out of New York When we spoke to Long about his claim, he said he did not have any particular company in mind. We also reached out to business groups, including two chambers of commerce across the state's southern border, to see if they knew of any business that had moved or plan to move because of the state's rising minimum wage. They were able to provide examples of businesses that closed, but could not point to a company that moved out of state because of the wage increase. We also could not find any reports of businesses relocating because of the wage increase. Some suggested minimum wage was a factor in Verizon's decision to relocate jobs from two call centers in New York, but a representative from Verizon said the state's wage was not a factor in the move. Impact on business We found a handful of small business owners who said that minimum wage increases – or the prospect of more increases – were a factor in the failure of their businesses. There is no way to prove that, but restaurants and other small business often operate with little margin for error. Anything that increases costs – higher rents, more expensive food or other costs, higher wages – can hurt their businesses. Bob and Ron’s Fish Fry in Albany County closed in April after the new wage increase became law. The restaurant posted on its Facebook page that rising costs sunk it. "Mainly the economy, high cost of seafood, demand," the business wrote in a post on the social media site, "And to be honest there is no way we could pay the high minimum wage that is coming and mandatory 3 months paid sick leave- this state is going in the wrong direction for small businesses- that's the main reasons." When the Del Rio Diner in Brooklyn closed in July, it also cited the higher wage. "The minimum wage, that’s what broke the camel’s back. It killed us," Larry Georgeton, the diner’s co-owner, told Brooklyn Daily. Not only restaurants complained. A family-owned Ramada Hotel in Buffalo closed in July. The owner told The Buffalo News that higher wages and stricter regulations influenced their decision. "It has been difficult to compete with all the new properties being built in Western New York, along with all the new proposed increases in wages and state regulations," Richard A. DiVita Jr., the hotel’s chief operating officer, told the newspaper. The owner of a restaurant that closed in East Aurora after 14 years of business also placed blame on the state’s rising minimum wage. The businesses also faced challenges outside of the minimum wage including the cost of resources and more competition. Our ruling Long, the state’s Conservative Party chairman, said New York State is "already showing signs of various companies picking up and leaving" because of the new minimum-wage legislation. We found a handful of businesses that cited the higher minimum wage as a factor for closing. But we couldn't find any companies that relocated out of New York State because of the wage increase. We rate this claim as Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/d6f479fb-183f-4a77-83f8-1503bb83f6c6	None	Michael Long	None	None	None	2016-12-23T00:00:00	2016-10-14	['None']
-afck-00214	The City of Cape Town’s “rate of unemployment” was 20.5% in 2013/14. This was lower than three other “major metros”, including the City of Tshwane (23.4%), Nelson Mandela Bay (30.6%) and the City of Johannesburg (27.9%).	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-the-da-create-change-that-moves-sa-forward-we-weigh-up-key-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does the DA create ‘change that moves SA forward’? We weigh up key claims	2016-06-02 06:07	None	['Johannesburg']
-pomt-03550	The state of Georgia lost 16 percent of its employees last year, and that percentage has risen over the past three years.	/georgia/statements/2013/may/24/nathan-deal/portrait-state-government-workers-has-gaps/	During a speech last month at the Atlanta Press Club, Gov. Nathan Deal lauded state workers for what they do and for doing it without pay increases. In fact, it’s been six years since an across-the-board merit pay bump, he said. And that’s led to some negative results. "The state of Georgia lost 16 percent of our employees last year and that percentage has risen over the last three years," Deal said. "So when people are being siphoned off out of state government into private business because the salaries are so much more favorable, then those are things the state has to be cognizant of." We wanted to know more about Deal’s 16 percent claim, so we decided to check it out. Deal spokesman Brian Robinson provided us a chart showing the turnover trend of employees leaving state government for fiscal years 2002 through 2012. The chart was produced by the state’s Department of Administrative Services, which acts as the central human resources agency for state employees. The numbers showed: Fiscal year % of state workforce state jobs 2012 16.43% 70,197 2011 15.60% 71,837 2010 13.84% 77,934 2009 13.62% 82,001 The state workforce figures for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 include part-time employees. But that amount is likely very small. For example, it accounted for 119 employees in fiscal 2012. So the governor was correct in his three years assessment. But what do those numbers mean? His statement was made in the context of employees leaving the state for better private-sector jobs. But do the turnover numbers only count those employees, or do they also include people who’ve left for other reasons? For answers, we went to Candy Sarvis, deputy commissioner of the human resources division of the Administrative Services Department. Sarvis could only provide detailed information on the fiscal 2012 data, which her department compiled. Data before then were compiled by the now-defunct State Personnel Administration. Sarvis’ division used the data prior to fiscal 2012 as it was presented and didn’t go back to verify the numbers, she said. For fiscal 2012, Sarvis said, the percentages include all full-time, benefit-eligible employees who have left their jobs voluntarily, as well as through firings, layoffs, retirements, etc. Also of note, the percentages do not account for employees of the University System of Georgia or the Board of Regents for that system. The University System employed 43,020 workers in fiscal 2012, but no information on employee turnover was available, a spokesman said. Also, based on provided jobs numbers, the decrease in state workers was about 14 percent over the past four fiscal years. And from fiscal 2011 to 2012 the drop in jobs was just 2 percent, which is likely to mean that many of the open or vacated positions were filled. For the state turnover data provided, the turnover trend was higher in the years leading up to the recession but dropped during the recession. Georgia’s trends mirror national trends, according to data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nationally, the turnover rate for all levels of government is about 16 percent. Gary Burtless, a senior economics fellow with the Brookings Institution, has studied the data. The quit rate -- or the number of employees who quit during a month as a percentage of total employment -- remains lower in the public sector than the private sector, according to multiyear BLS data compiled by Burtless. The quit rate has edged up, he said, but for both sectors, it is still lower than it was in the decade before the recession. "If experienced workers are afraid to quit their jobs, there is less pressure on employers -- including public employers -- to grant their employees sizable wage increases," Burtless said. Deal also discussed the state’s workforce last year. He touted personnel cuts made by his administration, but he left out University System data that changed the numbers and his statement was rated Mostly False. So, do Deal’s figures add up this time around? The governor said that 16 percent of the state government’s workforce was "lost" during the past fiscal year. Deal made the comments in the context of how employees receiving no raises has affected the state’s workforce, which has decreased the past four fiscal years. A closer look at the numbers shows that Deal’s 16 percent figure also includes employees who have left their positions through layoffs, retirement, and other reasons -- including voluntary resignations. And in the case of voluntary resignations, the state doesn’t track information on these employees to determine whether they left for other jobs. Also, the figure doesn’t include data for most of the state’s colleges and Board of Regents. Deal’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context. We rated his claim Half True.	None	Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2013-05-24T07:00:28	2013-04-30	['None']
-faly-00052	Fact Check: Has India improved in Global EoDB & Competitiveness Index rankings in the last 4 years?	https://factly.in/fact-check-has-india-improved-in-global-eodb-competitiveness-index-rankings-in-the-last-4-years/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Has India improved in Global EoDB & Competitiveness Index rankings in the last 4 years?	None	None	['None']
-snes-03587	President Obama has overruled Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 presidential election and ordered a revote.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-signs-executive-order-declaring-investigation-into-election-results/	None	Junk News	None	Snopes Staff	None	Obama Signs Executive Order Declaring Investigation Into Election Results	10 November 2016	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-01759	Because of the current immigration crisis, Republicans want to "repeal" a 2008 law that President George W. Bush signed and "want to be on record as not wanting to protect children from ... sex trafficking."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/31/lawrence-odonnell/msnbcs-odonnell-republicans-want-repeal-2008-bush-/	One of President George W. Bush’s last acts in office was signing the non-controversial William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which contained a provision guaranteeing formal deportation hearings for child immigrants not from Mexico and Canada and without family in the United States. This guaranteed hearing is now at the center of the crisis on our southern border, as thousands of children stream into this country from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. On the July 23 edition of Last Word, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell pointed to discussion of the 2008 Bush law as an example of the "misinformation" Republicans are spreading on immigration. O’Donnell played a clip where Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., implies that the 2008 law -- which was intended to provide protection for victims of sex trafficking -- shouldn’t apply to the children presently crossing the border. There’s no evidence, Brooks said, that "this 60-to-90,000 illegal alien children mass that has come to America are coming here to be sex slaves or something of that nature." O’Donnell took Brooks’ statement to what he saw as a logical conclusion. "One of the positions that these Republicans are holding," O’Donnell said, "is that they want to repeal the law that President Bush signed, which is about protecting children from sex trafficking. So they want to be on record as not wanting to protect children from this kind of sex trafficking." We were skeptical that the Republican position is to repeal the 2008 law entirely, so we decided to dig deeper. What happens when a child arrives at the border When unaccompanied minors from Mexico and Canada are apprehended at the border, they’re screened by Border Patrol within 48 hours to determine whether they are victims of trafficking or have credible asylum claims. Those that do get a formal hearing, and those that don’t are bussed back, often within 12 hours of their arrival. The process for children from other countries starts the same, with an initial Border Patrol screening. But the 2008 law mandates that these children -- most of them from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador -- are sent to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after their screening, regardless of whether or not they have asylum claims. The HHS subjects these children to a more thorough medical check, and then the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) transports them to a HHS shelter. From there, the children are released to relatives or other sponsors to await their guaranteed hearings. These hearings often don’t occur, though, for years, and shelters are getting overcrowded -- this is what pundits are referring to the immigration crisis. Compared to the roughly 3,000 non-Mexican minors apprehended at the border in 2009, the tens of thousands of minors crossing the border now are simply too much for the DHS and HHS to process. Laws are complicated While the provision dictating border policy is getting most of the attention, there’s more to the 2008 law. It also renewed funding for a 2000 anti-trafficking bill and laid out plans for sanctions and research to combat trafficking. There’s an ongoing debate about whether the Obama administration is properly enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Conservatives and groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports tighter immigration enforcement, say the 2008 law guarantees hearings only for "unaccompanied alien children" who do not have parents or legal guardians in the United States. Yet, according to the center, up to 77 percent of non-Mexican children arriving at the border without family members are being released to family members within the United States. These children, they argue, shouldn’t be eligible for a hearing. It’s unclear to what extent the 2008 law is the cause of the backlog of children -- but as we’ve addressed elsewhere, it’s certainly a major factor. What Republicans have proposed O’Donnell is right insofar that Republicans have honed in on the 2008 law as a major source of the current immigration crisis. But the prevailing thought among Republicans is that the law should be amended, not repealed. House Speaker John Boehner said July 17 that Congress couldn’t "begin to mitigate the problem" at the border "if you don’t do something about the ‘08 law that’s being abused. And it is being abused." The only Republican we found saying the law should be repealed is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "We insist on having the 2008 law repealed as part of" any immigration bill, McCain said on July 11. Senate Democrats, he said, are "not willing to do that." But it is fairly clear McCain misspoke. Legislation proposed by McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., specifically calls for amending the 2008 law, not repealing it, and McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told us on July 30 that McCain wants to amend the 2008 law. Other formal proposals from the GOP all call for revising, not repealing the 2008 law. Some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., also support revising the law. There have been nine proposals related to the 2008 law from Republicans in the Senate and the House. And, according to Grant Newman of immigration research group NumbersUSA, all of these proposals involve amending the 2008 law, albeit in different ways. There have been no formal proposals, Newman said, for repeal. "Most of the Republican attempts, their whole goal is to try to treat children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras and in some cases, any child, like we treat Mexican nationals, where we can expedite removal," Newman said. A proposal by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, for example, would eliminate the distinction between countries of origin. Under their proposal, called the HUMANE Act, all children -- not just those from Mexico and Canada -- would be screened by the Border Patrol within 48 hours, and those without claims to amnesty or evidence that they’ve been trafficked would be removed as soon as possible, like Mexicans are under current law. Children who pass the Border Patrol screening would be submitted to a second screening within seven days in front of a judge, with a higher burden of proof than the Border Patrol screening but a lower burden than a formal hearing. Migrants who meet that burden of proof would be sent to the HHS to await a formal hearing as in current law, and migrants who don’t would be removed. A House GOP working group formed by Boehner and led by Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, has released similar recommendations. The working group recommended an amendment to the 2008 law "so all unaccompanied minors are treated the same as Mexicans for the purpose of removals." So the Republicans who want to change the 2008 law have all proposed revisions, not repeal. It’s worth noting that Congress rarely repeals laws in full -- they’re too complicated for that -- but O’Donnell still mischaracterized Republicans’ stance on the 2008 law. Protections for trafficking victims O’Donnell does, though, have something of a point that Republicans are removing protections for victims of sex trafficking. Opponents of the Republican proposals about the 2008 law break mainly into partisan camps. According to NumbersUSA, many Republicans are unconvinced that the 2008 law even applies to the surge children, the majority of whom aren’t "unaccompanied alien children" under federal law. The burden to fix the immigration crisis, they say, falls solely on the executive branch. Democratic opponents of these proposals -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- have pointed instead their injustice towards child migrants. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., for example, criticized the HUMANE Act, saying it "undermines the due process rights of a child that exists under existing law." And advocates from Texas immigration rights group LUPE criticized the HUMANE Act on the grounds that it doesn’t provide children enough time to open up to officials. They gave the example of Sara, a sex-trafficking victim who wasn’t identified as such until she spoke to a social worker two months into her detention. Under the Cornyn-Cuellar proposal, they said, Sara would have been sent back to her abusers. But while proposals to revise the 2008 law may get rid of some safeguards for victims of sex trafficking, they don’t get rid of all of them. Current law gives immigrants from Mexico the opportunity to make their case when screened, and Republican proposals would give Central American children at least that much protection. The GOP working group’s recommendations, for example, would give children who don’t want to be returned to their home countries a screening by child welfare professionals and an expedited removal hearing within seven days after that screening. Our ruling O’Donnell took a soundbite from Republican congressman Mo Brooks to mean that Republicans "want to repeal the law that President Bush signed" in 2008 to protect victims of sex trafficking. O’Donnell concluded that Republicans "want to be on record as not wanting to protect children from this kind of sex trafficking." Republicans want to amend, not repeal the 2008 law. But it’s an open debate what these changes would mean for victims of sex trafficking. These proposals leave Central American children with some protections, but without what human rights advocates have characterized as a major protection. We rate O’Donnell’s claim Mostly False.	None	Lawrence O'Donnell	None	None	None	2014-07-31T10:59:10	2014-07-23	['George_W._Bush', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-04263	Says that over the past 20 years, Texas public school spending rose 142 percent and per-pupil spending more than tripled when adjusted for inflation.	/texas/statements/2012/nov/12/jason-isaac/jason-isaac-says-past-20-years-texas-school-spendi/	Texas doesn’t have a school funding problem, state Rep. Jason Isaac said in a voters guide to the Nov. 6, 2012, election. "We have a spending problem." The Dripping Springs Republican, who went on to win his second term, said: "Over the past 20 years, expenditures for education have increased 142% and Texas’ per-pupil costs have increased from $3,659 to $11,024 after adjusting for inflation." He was responding to this question in the guide produced by the Austin and Texas chapters of the League of Women Voters: "Since 2006, state educational funding has been reduced and student enrollment has increased. What measures would you propose to restore adequate funding to Texas schools?" Since the 2011 Legislature modified school finance formulas -- sending schools $4 billion less than if the formulas had stayed the same -- PolitiFact Texas has fielded a range of related claims. Recently, lawmakers have said Texas did not cut education spending (Pants on Fire), raised education spending (Pants on Fire) and raised education’s share of the budget (Mostly True). But none of those claims stretched back to the days of Guns ’N Roses. We asked Isaac’s campaign for the backup on his statement. Spokeswoman Ellen Troxclair replied with a June 2010 report from the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation citing 1988-2008 total expenditures from the Texas Education Agency. Some perspective: Texas enrollment has grown substantially in recent decades. Agency data showed an increase of 47 percent in Isaac’s chosen time span, from 3.2 million pupils to 4.7 million. Looking at the foundation report’s data on expenditures, we first realized that Isaac’s per-pupil statement had not been adjusted for inflation, in contrast to what he said in the guide. He gave a starting point of $3,659, which is the unadjusted amount for 1987-88. In 2008 dollars, it comes out to $6,659, confirmed by the foundation report and our math using the federal Consumer Price Index online calculator. Working from 2008 dollars at both ends of the 20-year period yields a 66 percent increase, rather than the 201 percent increase Isaac’s numbers indicated. That is, per-pupil spending increased at about one third the rate he suggested. The first part of Isaac’s claim came straight from the report, Troxclair said. And it checks out, according to our math and the education agency’s data. From 1987-88 through 2007-08, using 2008 dollars to adjust for inflation, Texas’ total expenditures on education rose 142 percent. Experts suggested other flaws in Isaac’s statement. First, operating expenditures would be a better measure than total expenditures, we heard in interviews with Texas Association of School Boards spokesman Dominic Giarratani and school funding expert Lori Taylor, an associate professor at Texas A&M University’s Bush School of Government and Public Service. That’s because total expenditures fluctuate due to big-ticket construction projects that school districts mostly pay for on their own by issuing bonds. Operating expenditures more accurately reflect state budget dollars, they said. We found that over the 20 years singled out by Isaac, inflation-adjusted operating expenditures more than doubled, rising 112 percent, or 42 percent per pupil. Troxclair acknowledged what she called the "wording error" on the per-pupil inflation adjustment, but disagreed with the idea that Isaac should have relied solely on operating expenditures. "Money spent on construction projects is still money being spent," she said. Second, Taylor noted that although Isaac said "the past 20 years," his data set ends in 2008, overlooking the three most recent school years including the two affected by the cuts lawmakers approved in 2011. That’s understandable in the case of the foundation’s report, which was written in 2010. However, Isaac made his statement more than a year after lawmakers completed the 2012-13 budget. Even so, Isaac would not have been able to compare actual spending numbers for 2011-12, because they won’t be published until spring 2013. The 2010-11 data was out, but also would not have included the 2011 legislative cuts. Troxclair told us Isaac relied on the 2010 report because it was the most comprehensive analysis available from the foundation. The state’s budgeted amounts, rather than dollars actually spent, came out March 8, 2012, so we ran those over a 20-year period to see how the cuts might change the picture. Budgeted amounts for 1992-2012 showed mostly smaller increases than actual spending in 1988-2008, particularly in operating costs: Total budgeted spending was up 72 percent compared to 1992, or 20 percent per pupil. Operating budgeted spending was up 69 percent, or 17 percent per pupil. Pencils down! Our ruling Isaac said, "Over the past 20 years, expenditures for education have increased 142% and Texas’ per-pupil costs have increased from $3,659 to $11,024 after adjusting for inflation." He’s correct that, adjusted for inflation, total spending went up 142 percent from 1988 through 2008. But that leaves out recent years, including those affected by 2011’s legislative changes. And focusing on the increase alone without taking into account growth factors, especially enrollment, can be misleading. A different measure, budgeted total spending, rose 72 percent from 1992 through 2012. Isaac indicated that per-pupil spending had tripled after adjusting for inflation. The correct amounts show it didn’t even double. So while Isaac’s comment has an element of truth -- spending did increase -- his first declared fact lacks vital context and the second is a substantial overstatement. We rate the overall statement as Mostly False.	None	Jason Isaac	None	None	None	2012-11-12T06:00:00	2012-10-22	['Texas']
-snes-03756	Hillary Clinton revealed a classified response window of "four minutes" for a U.S. president to launch nuclear weapons.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/	None	Ballot Box	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Hillary Clinton Leak a Classified ‘Four-Minute’ Nuclear Response Window?	20 October 2016	None	['United_States', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-09372	Charlie Crist "worked with Acorn" to give felons voting rights.	/florida/statements/2010/mar/29/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-charlie-crist-acorn-felon/	In their first U.S. Senate primary debate broadcast on FOX News Sunday, former state House speaker Marco Rubio continued to bash Gov. Charlie Crist's conservative credentials. "In 2006, governor, I voted for you because I trusted you when you said you would be a Jeb Bush Republican," Rubio said during the March 28, 2010, debate moderated by FOX's Chris Wallace. "Your record was something very different. You signed a budget that raised taxes. You tried to (propose) the cap and trade system in Florida. You appointed liberal supreme court justices to our supreme court. "In addition to that, you worked with ACORN and groups like that to give felons voting rights in Florida." We've already checked several claims from the Crist/Rubio showdown. In this item we wanted to explore Rubio's claim about felon voting rights, and Crist's alleged association with the community organizing group known as ACORN. First, on felon voter rights. Restoring voting rights for felons was a Crist campaign promise in 2006. And sure enough, in 2007 Crist and two state Cabinet members -- Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson, a Republican, and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, a Democrat -- agreed to relax rules that kept felons from voting. Florida at the time was one of three states that required all felons to go through a cumbersome process requesting clemency, which dates back to 1868, to regain their civil rights -- which include the right to vote, serve on a jury, run for public office or apply for a professional license. Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican and the fourth member of the state clemency board, opposed the changes. The new rules automatically granted civil rights to an estimated 30,000 men and women whose clemency cases have been awaiting action, so long as they completed all terms of their sentences, including payment of restitution. "I believe in the appropriate punishment. I'm Chain Gang Charlie," Crist said, referencing a nickname he earned for proposing to restore chain gangs to Florida. "But when someone pays their debt to society, it is paid in full." The new rules didn't go as far as some wanted -- Maine and Vermont allow even incarcerated felons the right to vote -- but by June 2008 Crist said more than 115,000 ex-offenders had regained their civil rights. But what about the association with the big, bad wolf of social issue advocacy groups -- ACORN. ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, dissolved in March 2010 in the wake of a video sting that showed ACORN employees telling people posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to conceal their criminal activities. The group, which sought more affordable housing options, a universal health care system and increased voter access, also faced questions -- mainly from conservatives -- about voter registration drives. The allegations caused an uproar across the country, and led Congress to cut off grant funding to the group. The group had three offices in Florida -- Margate in Broward County, Orlando and Miami. Crist has been tied to ACORN in the past. The Huffington Post reported that Crist partnered with ACORN in March 2008 for a "Homeownership Promotes The Economy" task force. Crist also met with ACORN leaders to discuss the foreclosure crisis, the St. Petersburg Times reported. And in October 2008, Crist downplayed concerns from the Republican National Committee that the integrity of Florida's voting system is at risk thanks to the registration efforts of ACORN. That was at least enough of a connection to prompt a letter in 2009 from then-underdog candidate Rubio. "The St. Petersburg Times also reported yesterday that your office may have partnered with ACORN in the past on several initiatives, including your 2007 effort to restore voting rights to convicted felons in Florida," Rubio wrote Crist on Sept. 17, 2009. "I believe it is now in the best interest of all Floridians for your office to provide a thorough accounting of its relationship with ACORN and what, if any, influence ACORN may have had in any actions you have taken on behalf of the people of Florida." In his letter, Rubio referenced a St. Petersburg Times report from Sept. 16, 2009. The only item discussing ACORN and Crist -- an online blog entry -- noted the Huffington Post item about Crist's choice not to attack ACORN ahead of the 2008 election. It also mentions that ACORN approved of Crist's effort to restore felon's rights, but it did not say he and the group worked together to do that. So we went to Stephanie Porta, ACORN's former Florida director. Porta said the Florida offices have been closed since December 2009. Porta laughed when she heard Rubio's claim. (She knows that ACORN is a pejorative in most Republican circles). "We've always been supportive of felon rights," Porta said. "We help people get their rights restored. But we never worked with the Crist campaign or Crist to make it happen." "We were just as shocked as everybody else that he did it," Porta said, noting that she ultimately hoped Crist would have gone further. In their first debate, Rubio tried to nick Crist's conservative credentials by claiming Crist worked with the beleaguered social advocacy group ACORN on a plan to restore felon voter rights in Florida. But we found no evidence that he did work with ACORN on felon voter rights and the Rubio campaign provided none itself. In fact, ACORN's top Florida executive said the group had nothing to do Crist's plan and was surprised he was considering it at all. We rate Rubio's claim False.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2010-03-29T20:03:26	2010-03-28	['Charlie_Crist']
-snes-01591	As of October 2017, there was an "epidemic of child abduction" in the state of Kansas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/child-abduction-kansas/	None	Crime	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Is There an ‘Epidemic of Child Abduction’ in Kansas?	13 October 2017	None	['Kansas']
-hoer-00741	Cave of Giant Crystals	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/crystal-cave-of-giants.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Cave of Giant Crystals	8th February 2010	None	['None']
-snes-05192	Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution holds a "lame duck ... candidate" cannot seek to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/article-iii-section-iv/	None	Legal	None	Kim LaCapria	None	‘Lame Duck’ Supreme Court Clause	18 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-06490	Wisconsin bill "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/oct/14/robert-kraig/health-care-advocate-says-wisconsin-bill-would-giv/	When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called state lawmakers into special session on Sept. 28, 2011, he touted two dozen legislative initiatives he said would put Wisconsin back to work. Reiterating his campaign promise to create 250,000 private-sector jobs, the Republican governor asserted that more than anything else, "employers and workers want a sense of certainty." Health care advocate Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin, was certain he didn’t like what he saw in some of the bills on the table. Kraig’s Milwaukee-based group describes itself as a coalition that works to "advance progressive values and shape the public and political debate around health care, economic development and consumer protection." In a news release and in a blog post on Oct. 3, 2011, Kraig said several bills were "masquerading as job-creation measures which damage the civil justice rights of consumers who are injured by corporate malfeasance" -- in other words, curbing the rights of injured people to sue. "Shockingly," Kraig added, "one bill in the current session dangerously grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products." Immunity from lawsuits -- even in cases of injury and death? The bill Kraig criticized was proposed by Sen. Rich Zipperer, R-City of Pewaukee. As long as a drug or device is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the manufacturer or seller of that drug or medical device would be immune from liability, according to the non-partisan Legislative Reference Bureau. Zipperer spokewoman Hannah Huffman said, however, that there are exceptions. Immunity would not apply if FDA approval were gained through fraud, she said. And although manufacturers could not be sued for a defect in the design of a drug or device if the design had been approved by the FDA, the manufacturer could be sued if it failed to follow the design in the manufacturing process, she said. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families in Washington, D.C., told us she believes the immunity bill would apply to all drugs but perhaps not to all medical devices. Zuckerman, who has done research on the FDA approval processes, said it would depend on how the word approved is interpreted in the bill. Every year, only about 3 percent of new medical devices gain FDA approval, while the rest are "cleared" under a less-stringent process by the agency, she said. So, Zipperer’s bill gives broad immunity, with some exceptions, to drug makers but perhaps less immunity to device makers. We asked Kraig for evidence to back what essentially was a blanket statement that the bill "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity." Kraig initially said his statement was "over broad and should have included the qualification that this bill covers drugs and medical devices approved by the FDA." Later he argued the statement was fair because most people, when they hear a reference to drug makers or medical device manufacturers, would understand that those companies make products that in the vast majority of cases must be approved by the FDA. Kraig also argued that the bill is dangerous because in recent years the FDA’s regulatory powers have been weakened and therefore its approval of a drug or device does not provide as much protection as it once did. As evidence, he cited a report that is critical of a Michigan law that gives immunity to drug manufacturers and that Kraig said is similar to the drug manufacturers part of the Wisconsin’s bill. And he cited a national report on problems people encountered after using drugs and medical devices that had received FDA approval. But arguing a bill is unnecessary or unwise does not get at the question we are examining: Whether the bill does what Kraig said it does in terms of immunity. Our conclusion Kraig said a bill proposed by a Wisconsin lawmaker "grants drug companies and medical device manufacturers immunity from injuries and deaths caused by their products." He acknowledged that his statement was "over broad," in that immunity applies only when FDA approval has been granted. The bill doesn’t give blanket protection to drug and device makers. But its primary intent is to give them immunity, with some exceptions. We rate Kraig’s statement Mostly True.	None	Robert Kraig	None	None	None	2011-10-14T09:00:00	2011-10-03	['None']
-pomt-14213	Says Republican presidential candidate and Gov. John Kasich has spent 177 days out of state and used $350,000 in taxpayer money on his "costly campaign."	/ohio/statements/2016/apr/19/ohio-democratic-party/ohio-democratic-party-bashes-john-kasichs-costly-c/	In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens — with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governor’s out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on its Facebook page on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasich’s "costly campaign," the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The party’s communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to a March 26 Columbus Dispatch story reporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. The Dispatch tally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. An Associated Press story contains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mike’s Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety department’s non-highway program, which includes the governor’s security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But the Dispatch story describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasich’s run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governor’s detail was previously listed as the "executive protection unit." Officials told the Dispatch that that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers’ identities. "To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail," is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governor’s campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable "checkbook" of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of his nationally recognized transparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details ("General Travel Expenses" is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasich’s campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. It’s not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christie’s security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated $614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up $400,000 in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walker’s security team $577,000 in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasich’s campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasich’s security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasich’s camp will confirm any details on the governor’s security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurer’s open records data. We rate this claim True. Update, April 20, 2016: After this item published, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel's checkbook tool updated to show expenditures for Feb. 2, 2016, through March 2, 2016, bringing Kasich's security travel spending to $475,976. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596	None	Ohio Democratic Party	None	None	None	2016-04-19T17:30:00	2016-04-08	['John_Kasich', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pose-01345	"No family will have to pay the death tax."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1437/eliminate-estate-tax/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Eliminate the estate tax	2017-01-17T08:40:59	None	['None']
-tron-03630	Cell phone cameras being used at check stands?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cellcameras/	None	warnings	None	None	None	Cell phone cameras being used at check stands?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-05568	Says Barack Obama "is the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/04/mitt-romney/romney-obama-only-president-cut-medicare/	As Mitt Romney begins to pivot from the long Republican primary fight to a likely November duel with President Barack Obama, he is re-launching some of his most repeated -- and inaccurate -- attacks of the incumbent president. During an April 4, 2012, speech to the Newspaper Association of America -- a group Obama addressed the day prior -- Romney repeated several variants of claims that have gotten him in trouble with the Truth-O-Meter. He said that the Obama administration pledged to keep unemployment below 8 percent, a comment that we have previously rated Mostly False. He said repealing the federal health care law would save money, a comment we twice have ruled False. And Romney said Obama apologized for America abroad, a comment we first ruled False but later called Pants on Fire as Romney recycled the line. We’re not focusing on those falsehoods in this item. Rather we’ll explore a variation of something else Romney has said on the campaign trail and repeated in his speech to the newspaper editors’ group. Romney said that Obama is "the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare." This, in many ways, is a mash-up of two claims Romney has made before. Any PolitiFact regular has heard the $500 billion Medicare line before. We’ve fact-checked claims about the basic point several times from several officials. We’ve rated claims anywhere from Half True to False depending on how the attack was specifically worded. We checked Romney on a similar $500 billion claim from 2011. That reporting remains germane today. The reference point is the federal health care law, which makes several changes to Medicare. In a few cases, the law increased Medicare spending to provide more benefits and coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a trusted independent source that analyzes the health care system. For instance, the health care law added money to cover preventive services and to fill a gap for enrollees who purchase prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program. (That coverage gap is sometimes called the doughnut hole). Other provisions are designed to reduce future growth in Medicare spending, to encourage the program to operate more efficiently and to improve the delivery and quality of care in ways including reducing hospital re-admissions. The law does not take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase, however. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. So as we said then, and repeated several times since, the health care law reduces the amount of future spending growth in Medicare. But it doesn't cut Medicare. The rest of Romney’s statement implies that Obama is doing something no other president has done -- making cuts (which he isn’t). He made the same point in a December 2011 debate. We rated that particular claim False. John Rother, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care, a coalition of trade associations, labor unions and advocacy groups that supports health care reform, offered some historical perspective for us for that fact-check. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan in his first year in office signed an omnibus budget reconciliation act that raised Medicare deductibles for beneficiaries. Rother said he considers that a cut in benefits. Two years later, Reagan and Congress enacted legislation that changed the way Medicare reimbursed hospitals. The program’s costs had been growing exponentially as hospitals treated patients and then sent the federal government the bills. It was known as "retrospective cost-based reimbursement." The new law established a "prospective payment system," which categorized inpatient admission cases into what were called diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). In this system, Medicare pays hospitals a flat rate for each inpatient case. "The system was intended to motivate hospitals to change the way they deliver services. With DRGs, it did not matter what hospitals charged anymore -- Medicare capped their payments," according to a 2001 report by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. The resulting savings to Medicare was $21 billion in the first three years, exceeding even Congressional Budget Office projections. It cut the program, Rother said, but did not affect benefits. In 1987, Reagan signed a law that expanded Medicare benefits, including drug and catastrophic illness coverage. But when George H.W. Bush took office, he repealed it. So Rother puts Bush in the column of presidents who cut Medicare for seniors. The Medicare program saw another major overhaul in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the Balanced Budget Act, which tightened payments to doctors, nursing homes, home health agencies and health insurance plans and expanded the types of private plans that could participate in Medicare (the part of the program now known as Medicare Advantage). Its goal was to trim $393.8 billion in spending over 10 years. But it’s a trickier question to answer whether that law cut benefits. "With Clinton, it’s an indirect effect," Rother said. "It did cut reimbursements to several providers who claimed they would not be able to serve the beneficiary population." The tally, then: Reagan cut Medicare by reducing payments to hospitals, and he cut benefits by raising deductibles. George H.W. Bush cut benefits by repealing a law that would have expanded coverage for drugs and catastrophic illness. Clinton cut Medicare by changing payments to doctors and other providers, which could be considered to have an indirect effect on beneficiaries. Obama cut future Medicare spending but expanded benefits. Our ruling Romney said Obama "is the only president to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare." It wasn’t a cut, rather a reduction in future growth (the size of the Medicare program will increase dollar-wise). And other presidents have cut Medicare in the past, though you can debate whether specific changes to the program constitute a "cut" in some of those cases as well. That’s a historical footnote, however, that doesn’t affect our ruling. We rate Romney’s statement False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-04-04T16:54:16	2012-04-04	['None']
-pomt-01994	"Already in Wisconsin we have seen fewer people pursuing education as a career" due to the Act 10 collective bargaining law.	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jun/13/mary-burke/act-10-has-cut-interest-teaching-careers-mary-burk/	Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Mary Burke charges that Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s move to curtail collective bargaining for most public employees is hurting Wisconsin in the classroom. Burke, a Madison School Board member, argues the prospect of limited raises and costlier benefits under the Act 10 measure is turning people away from teaching. "Already we have seen in Wisconsin fewer people pursuing education as a career," she said April 18, 2014 in a meeting with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporters and editors. She attributed the trend to Act 10, adding: "We even see people certainly dropping out and saying, ‘I’m not sure I see a future in front of me in terms of pay and benefits where I’m going to be able to cover my student loans, be able to support myself and my family long term, and whether this is a profession that is going to be one that keeps good people.’" As a candidate, Burke says she would have sought greater pension and health insurance contributions from public employees -- but at the bargaining table with unions. When asked to back up her claim, Burke spokesman Joe Zepecki offered statistics and anecdotal evidence. "During the course of the campaign Mary has had the opportunity to speak with teachers, students and experts from across Wisconsin who have shared their concerns about staying in or joining the educational field, and what the impacts of fewer educators will be on the state economy," he said. Burke also cited a December 2013 Wisconsin State Journal article. It reported two straight years of modest enrollment declines in UW-System undergraduate teacher education programs starting in 2011-12. That was the first full academic year after the enactment of Act 10 in early 2011. The total two-year enrollment drop was 2.9%, or 207 fewer students from a base of 7,166. In contrast, before 2011-12, the enrollment had risen 7% in two years.. We confirmed those figures and obtained new UW-System data showing the decline picked up steam in the most recent academic year, 2013-14. The three-year drop is 8.3 percent. Cause and effect Burke directly blamed Act 10 for the enrollment fall-off. But when we took a closer look at the numbers and interviewed leaders in teacher training, several problems emerged. First, the enrollment downturn was not just a Wisconsin phenomenon. Nationally, enrollment in teacher training programs dropped 8 percent in 2011-12 over the year before, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education. (The 2012-13 figures were not available as of June 10, 2014). Among neighboring states, Minnesota and Illinois saw double-digit downturns that year. Iowa and Michigan saw little change, but had seen major declines in 2010-11. All this strongly suggests broader forces at work. Second, the downturn in the UW-System’s undergraduate education-training enrollment is a long-term trend. Between 2003 and 2013, enrollment declined in eight of the 10 years, falling a total of 14 percent, or 1,110 students. The exception to that trend came in the uptick from 2008 to 2010, right before Act 10. Setting that aside, there’s an even bigger problem for Burke’s claim. The UW-System totals Burke cited as backup do not include thousands of students enrolled in education programs at more than 25 private colleges and universities, or those in alternative training programs not connected to higher education institutions. The federal Department of Education data covers all sources, and at first glance it helps Burke. It shows that in the post-Act 10 year, 2011-12 Wisconsin enrollment dropped 7% from the year before, from 11,780 to 10,998. But the decline actually started a year earlier, in the 2010 academic year -- six months before Act 10 even was proposed. All this makes it dicey at best to draw a straight line between Act 10 and enrollment drops. Leaders debate trends Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell, associate dean of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says applications are down there, but not enrollment. As for the recent drop-off in the broader UW-System, she told the State Journal in December and PolitiFact Wisconsin that it’s unclear what’s behind it. "We have no way of attributing changes to Act 10," she told us. "I don’t know that it’s Act 10." The drop may prove an anomaly, Hanley-Maxwell said, or reflect the economic downturn, cutbacks in teacher positions and education courses, and a "beat up on teachers" attitude in today’s polarized political circles. Other experts mention the proliferation of costly exams and assessments that would-be teachers face before getting a license. For a perspective on private and public schools, we spoke with Reid Riggle, an education professor at St. Norbert College. He’s led the Wisconsin Independent Colleges of Teacher Education and is president-elect of the Wisconsin Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, which includes public and private schools. At St. Norbert’s, enrollment has fallen significantly in his introductory education classes, and he wonders if it’s the economy, a need for more scholarships or other factors. "We are in a trough right now," Riggle said. "It doesn’t mean we won’t get out of the trough or that Act 10 was the cause." Riggle told us the reduced financial security caused by the Walker legislation makes it less desirable to be a Wisconsin teacher than it was prior to Act 10. But he added: "It is difficult to clearly provide specific numbers on the impact of Act 10." A final note about enrollment in master’s level continuing education courses taken by existing teachers. Those students were not part of our analysis because Burke’s claim and her evidence centered on undergraduates trying to get their initial license. It’s worth noting, though, that a gradual decline in master’s level enrollment in education has accelerated dramatically since Act 10. Melanie Agnew, UW-Whitewater’s education dean and president of the Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, joined others in attributing that dropoff to Act 10, which allowed school districts to discontinue giving salary credit for higher education courses and degrees. Our rating Burke claimed that, "Already in Wisconsin we have seen fewer people pursuing education as a career" due to the Act 10 collective bargaining law. There’s an element of truth here, in that enrollment has declined since Act 10’s adoption. But that correlation doesn’t prove that Act 10 caused the drop. In fact, the Wisconsin trend predates Act 10 and coincides with a national drop in students in teacher training. And education-school leaders offer a host of other possible explanations for the fall-off. We rate Burke’s claim Mostly False.	None	Mary Burke	None	None	None	2014-06-13T05:00:00	2014-04-18	['Wisconsin']
-tron-01585	Presidential Hopeful Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada	https://www.truthorfiction.com/presidential-hopeful-ted-cruz-was-born-in-canada/	None	government	None	None	None	Presidential Hopeful Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada	Mar 25, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01612	Tom Hanks Angry That Meryl Streep Got Nominated For An Oscar Instead Of Him?	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-hanks-meryl-streep-oscar-nomination-snub/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Tom Hanks Angry That Meryl Streep Got Nominated For An Oscar Instead Of Him?	11:20 am, February 9, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03161	More than 30,000 cows froze to death during a winter storm because farmers could not be bothered to take care of their animals.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-30000-cows-freeze-to-death-in-a-winter-storm/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Did 30,000 Cows Freeze to Death in a Winter Storm?	11 January 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-01229	a Circulating X-Ray Image Shows a Live Cockroach in a Human Chest	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-a-circulating-x-ray-image-does-not-show-a-live-cockroach-in-a-human-chest/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, a Circulating X-Ray Image Does NOT Show a Live Cockroach in a Human Chest	April 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05594	A black woman named Amelia Bassano has been proved the true (uncredited) author of all of William Shakespeare's plays.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amelia-bassano-william-shakespeare/	None	Language	None	Dan Evon	None	Amelia Bassano: The True Shakespeare?	20 August 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-01096	2 Free Air India Tickets	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/2-free-air-india-tickets-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	2 Free Air India Tickets Facebook Scam	October 2, 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02849	Bradley Cooper Forcing Lady Gaga To Use Real Name For “A Star Is Born” Credits?	https://www.gossipcop.com/bradley-cooper-star-is-born-lady-gaga-real-name-stefani-germanotta/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Bradley Cooper Forcing Lady Gaga To Use Real Name For “A Star Is Born” Credits?	2:39 pm, April 19, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08894	"In renewable and advanced energy manufacturing projects, Ohio now ranks first among the 50 states."	/ohio/statements/2010/jul/30/ted-strickland/ohio-gov-ted-strickland-touts-two-year-old-advance/	Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is on a mission to prove that a traditionally blue-collar, manufacturing state can make the transition to become a leader in the futuristic green energy industry. And he is touting his leadership for bringing the state recognition. "In renewable and advanced energy manufacturing projects, Ohio now ranks first among the 50 states," Strickland said during a July 6 speech at the Ohio Democratic Party headquarters in Columbus. The governor said he was convinced when he took office more than three years ago that the right energy policies, coupled with Ohio’s manufacturing history and infrastructure, could be the foundation to build the state into an energy leader. And he rattled off a list of green energy accolades for the state, including this No. 1 ranking in renewable and advanced energy manufacturing projects. But is it true? Ohio got the ranking in July 2008 for bringing in more new facility projects than any other state between 2005 and 2007. Strickland took office in January 2007. The ranking was contained in The Conway New Plant Report and reported in the July 2008 issue of SITE Selection magazine, an economic development trade publication. The Ohio Business Development Coalition touted the ranking in a news release in August 2008. But the report and rankings have not been updated since 2008 and there are no plans to do so, said Adam Bruns, SITE Selection’s managing editor. The magazine has moved on to analyzing, reviewing and ranking cities and states on other advanced energy-related projects, he says. In some respects, that means Ohio could argue that it’s still No. 1 and Strickland would be correct. But we think it’s a significant omission by the governor to not mention that the ranking is two years old, particularly when he is touting it as an example of successful policy. In fact, some of the accomplishments for which the state was recognized by SITE’s report actually occurred before Strickland took office. So we rate Strickland’s statement Half True. Comment on this item.	None	Ted Strickland	None	None	None	2010-07-30T12:00:00	2010-07-06	['Ohio']
-pomt-07240	It is estimated that Arizona "has lost more than $100 million in hospitality industry revenues since passage of the Arizona immigration laws."	/georgia/statements/2011/may/31/anti-defamation-league/adl-makes-claims-about-losses-arizonas-tourism-ind/	Critics accused Georgia’s new Arizona-style illegal immigration enforcement law of violating civil and human rights. "Inhumane," they called it, and "the civil rights issue of the 21st century." The Anti-Defamation League also accused the law of crimes against the economy. The law, they said, is "anti-business." Major cities and organizations voted to boycott or avoid travel to Arizona after that state passed its tough law last year. "Convention and tourism business will likely dip, as it did in Arizona, where it is estimated the state has lost more than $100 million in hospitality industry revenues since passage of the Arizona immigration laws," the ADL said in a news release April 15. The claim that estimates show Arizona lost $100 million in hospitality industry revenue intrigued us. Is the ADL right? Atlanta business leaders fear it is. Last month, the Atlanta Convention & Visitors Bureau's executive committee unanimously passed a resolution opposing Georgia’s law, called House Bill 87. Arizona’s law requires police to ask a person about his immigration status if they have "reasonable suspicion" he or she is in the country illegally. One provision of Georgia’s law gives officers more authority to check a suspect’s immigration status. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a separate 2007 Arizona law requiring certain employers to use the federal database E-Verify to check whether their new employees are eligible to work in this country legally. We asked Bill Nigut, the ADL’s Southeast regional director, for evidence backing his group’s claim about economic losses. He referred us to news accounts from Foxnews.com, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Phoenix Business Journal. Two May 2010 articles from The Wall Street Journal said the city of Phoenix estimated Arizona’s immigration crackdown could cost it $90 million in convention and hotel business. The Foxnews.com article cited a report from the Center for American Progress, a progressive group that thinks Arizona’s immigration approach is bad for the economy, that put the loss at $141 million. The rest did not give specific estimates but quoted experts who said the controversy hurt Arizona’s tourism business. We took a closer look at the Phoenix and Center for American Progress estimates. Both have limitations. Hotels and convention centers are not required to report lost business to the city or the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association, which did some of the research on which estimates are based. Not all major convention sites are part of the association, and the group did not poll its members for more data. Plus, it’s hard to measure how many conventions would have booked in Arizona if there were no boycott. The city of Phoenix released its $90 million economic loss projection in May 2010. The figure was based on a list of about 20 events whose organizers either canceled or expressed concerns over the state’s illegal immigration crackdown, according to The Arizona Republic. The figure represents how much conventioneers would have spent in the region over five years. Actual boycott losses are unclear. So far, four groups have canceled their events at the city-run Phoenix Convention Center at an estimated loss of $26 million in business, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact Georgia. They would have brought 18,100 delegates, who on average spend $1,451 each on hotels, restaurants, entertainment, transportation and other expenses. Phoenix’s figure does not include losses from conventions canceled at venues that are not city-run or future declines from events that never booked. It also does not account for indirect losses (the money businesses would have spent on supplies to serve conventioneers) or induced losses (household spending by people who would have been employed). Now, we look at figures from the Center for American Progress. It contracted with Elliott D. Pollack & Co., an established economic research and analysis firm in Scottsdale, Ariz., to determine the boycott’s impact on the state’s convention industry. The November 2010 report found the state had already lost $141 million in direct spending on hotels and lodging, restaurants and other areas. With indirect and induced spending, Arizona lost $253 million in economic output. Jim Rounds, an economist with Elliott D. Pollack & Co., noted that while tourism did lose money because of the cancellations, a portion of the declines were likely due to cuts in state funding for tourism advertising. Also, because few businesses would comment on the record on their losses, his estimate captures only "roughly half" of the total impact on tourism from the Arizona controversy. We asked economists Bruce Seaman of Georgia State University and Tom Smith of Emory University’s Goizueta Business School to review the Center for American Progress study. They brought up shortcomings that were similar to ones Rounds acknowledged but otherwise said the analysis made sense. Let’s sum up: The ADL’s claim that "it is estimated the state has lost more than $100 million in hospitality industry revenues" has some significant shortcomings. No group the ADL cited placed the losses at $100 million. The Center for American Progress placed the direct losses more than 40 percent higher. Phoenix’s estimate was 10 percent lower, limited to city losses and expected to take place over five years. These, however, are all just estimates and projections. The ADL’s point was that the tourism industry has and will lose millions of dollars. The overall idea that Arizona will likely lose big money because of the new immigration law is correct. The ADL statement, however, leaves out important details and context. That fits our definition of Half-True.	None	Anti-Defamation League	None	None	None	2011-05-31T06:00:00	2011-04-15	['Arizona']
-chct-00120	Trump Says He Has The 'Absolute Right' To Pardon Himself - Does He?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/06/fact-check-president-pardon-himself/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	6:17 PM 06/06/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11269	"Kanye (West) looks and he sees black unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees Hispanic unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees (women’s unemployment) the lowest it’s been in now almost 19 years."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/apr/26/donald-trump/donald-trump-target-remarks-unemployment-kanye/	President Donald Trump took to the airwaves to tout his budding bromance with rapper Kanye West. The hosts of Fox & Friends asked Trump during an April 26 telephone interview about the enthusiastic tweets exchanged between the two men, such as this one. See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com Trump turned his sudden friendship with West into a commentary about the economic results on his watch. Trump said, "Kanye looks and he sees black unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees Hispanic unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees (women’s unemployment) the lowest it’s been in now almost 19 years." Trump has previously made claims of this sort, but it’s been a few months, so we thought we’d take a new look at the numbers. African-American unemployment In March 2018, the African-American unemployment rate stood at 6.9 percent. That’s not a record low, but it’s close — and the record low was 6.8 percent in December 2017, also on Trump’s watch. Here’s the full data for the black unemployment rate since the statistic was first calculated in 1972: See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Hispanic unemployment The Hispanic unemployment rate was 5.1 percent in March 2018. That’s not a record either, but once again, it’s close. The Hispanic unemployment rate was as low as 4.8 percent three times in 2017, in June, October and November. Those low points all occurred on Trump’s watch. Here’s the full historical data: See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Women’s unemployment Currently, the unemployment rate for women is 4.0 percent. It was slightly lower during an earlier point in Trump’s presidency — 3.9 percent in October 2017. The women’s unemployment rate was lower still in December 2000, when it hit 3.8 percent. That falls within the 19-year windowTrump cited. Here’s the full run of data: See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com Some additional context Economists agree that presidents don’t deserve either full credit or full blame for the unemployment rate on their watch. The president is not all-powerful on economic matters; broader factors, from the business cycle to changes in technology to demographic shifts, play major roles. And to the extent that a president does deserve credit for low unemployment, Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, deserves at least as much as Trump does. As these charts show, the unemployment rate for blacks, Hispanics, and women declined dramatically on Obama’s watch as the country pulled out of the Great Recession. Black unemployment peaked at 16.6 percent in April 2010, when Obama was president. It then fell by more than half to 7.8 percent by the time Obama left office in January 2017. Hispanic unemployment, meanwhile, peaked at 13 percent in August 2009, then fell to 5.9 percent at the end of Obama’s term in January 2017. And unemployment among women peaked at 9 percent in November 2010, before falling to 4.8 percent by the time he left office in January 2017, a drop of nearly half. Our ruling Trump said, "Kanye looks and he sees black unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees Hispanic unemployment at the lowest it’s been in the history of our country. He sees (women’s unemployment) the lowest it’s been in now almost 19 years." The unemployment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics have hit all-time lows in recent months on Trump’s watch, and the rate for women was recently the lowest it’s been in more than 18 years. But it’s worth remembering that,to the extent that presidents deserve any credit for economic conditions on their watch, the heavy lifting in getting rates that low occurred before Trump became president. We rate the statement Mostly True. See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-04-26T13:47:50	2018-04-26	['None']
-tron-00980	Apple iOS 7 Will Make Your iPhone Waterproof	https://www.truthorfiction.com/apple-ios7-h2o-proof-092413/	None	computers	None	None	None	Apple iOS 7 Will Make Your iPhone Waterproof	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-afck-00399	“The W Cape Govt spends R33.6mil on its Premier’s Advancement of Youth Project & its youth wage subsidy programme every year. #DADelivers”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-south-africas-democratic-alliance-really-deliver-we-assess-their-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does South Africa’s Democratic Alliance really deliver? We assess their claims	2014-03-25 08:47	None	['None']
-snes-06442	Man who uses a Taser stun gun on himself describes the experience.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stun-of-a-gun/	None	Humor	None	Snopes Staff	None	Man Uses Taser on Himself	17 March 2007	None	['None']
-tron-00035	Hobby Lobby Refuses to Sell Jewish Holiday Items, Cater to Jewish Customers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hobby-lobby-refuses-to-sell-jewish-holiday-items/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['business', 'christianity', 'Christmas', 'Judaism']	Hobby Lobby Refuses to Sell Jewish Holiday Items or Cater to Jewish People	Oct 11, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-01770	Says Mark Pryor "continues to insist" that Obamacare is "an amazing success."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/29/tom-cotton/tom-cotton-says-mark-pryor-continues-insist-obamac/	Tom Cotton says Mark Pryor is out-of-touch on a lot of things, especially health care. Cotton, the representative from Arkansas running for Senate, ties the incumbent Democrat’s vote for the Affordable Care Act to an unbridled loyalty to President Barack Obama and his party, rather than to Arkansas. In numerous ads, interviews and releases, the Cotton campaign has blasted his opponent’s support of the health care legislation, frequently bringing up that Pryor said the law has been an "amazing success." "Sen. Pryor voted for Obamacare, and he continues to insist that it’s an 'amazing success,'" a recent email to supporters said. Yes, Pryor voted for the Affordable Care Act in 2009, and he doesn’t shy away from that vote. But has he been such a valiant supporter throughout his campaign? First, we looked to see if and when Pryor first said the Affordable Care Act was an "amazing success." We found that the statement comes from comments Pryor made Aug. 6, 2013, during a visit to Mercy Hospital in Rogers, Ark. This was months before the rocky rollout of healthcare.gov, the Affordable Care Act online exchange. "Well, I would say if you want a good opinion about Obamacare, go right here to Mercy Hospital and ask them how they feel about it. It’s been an amazing success story so far. Now the other side won’t ever tell you that. They won’t tell you all the good things that are working," he said to a local television reporter. We can’t be certain if he was saying the legislation was an "amazing success" overall, or if it was a success at Mercy Hospital, specifically, though his campaign says it was the latter. The same week he made those comments, he also said at a different event that Mercy Hospital added 100 new jobs because of the Affordable Care Act. A few months later, at an event with voters Dec. 4, an attendee asked Pryor whether he still believes the law was an "amazing success," according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Pryor said he had made that comment immediately after meeting with hospital administrators who believed the health care law would benefit them because so many of their patients are poor. "For a lot of hospitals, that is going to keep the doors open, and that is a success right there to try to keep the rural hospital doors open," he said at the event. Cotton’s campaign said Pryor "continues to insist" that the law has been an "amazing success." But looking through news reports, it seems that his August comments were the only time Pryor has used the phrase "amazing success" in conjunction with the Affordable Care Act. Throughout his campaign, Pryor has followed the pattern of other Senate Democrats running for re-election by saying he supports the Affordable Care Act, but there are still changes and improvements to be made. "Let me say on the front end: The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect. We need to go in and reform it and fix it," he said on Aug. 8, the same week he made the "amazing success" comment. He has publicly held that stance as early as March 2010, when he released a statement discussing potential amendments to the law, and he has maintained it through recent months. This June, he told Politico that "the law ‘isn’t perfect’ and that he would ‘work to make it better,’ but ‘something needed to be done’ to rein in the insurance industry." Here are some of his other statements on the Affordable Care Act since the "amazing success" comment: Dec. 4, 2013 -- At the Political Animals Club in Little Rock, he said the law would be beneficial to Arkansas’ rural hospitals, according to Arkansas News Bureau. He said of the vote, "I do remember that there were a lot of other things included in there. You run into this sometimes, where maybe you like one idea in something but they put a bunch of other stuff in there that makes it to where it’s something I couldn’t vote for." Feb. 8, 2014 -- Pryor gave an interview to the Pine Bluff Commercial in which he said, "With large pieces of legislation like this, if you get 80 percent of it right, then you are doing well," and that he would vote for the law again. April 14, 2014 -- KARK television asked Pryor if he would vote for the law again. "You know, I would have," he said. "Of course, I would want to see changes back then. But I think on something like this, it's big, it's complicated, it's difficult. If you get 80 percent of this right, you've really done something. We probably did get 80 percent of it right. We need to go back and really work on that other 20 percent and get it going in the right direction." June 13, 2014 -- At the Delta Grassroots Caucus Conference, he said the law is not perfect, but he is working on ways to fix it. "When I talk to my Republican friends about it I say, give me something better and I’ll vote for it," he said, according to Arkansas News Bureau. Our ruling The Cotton campaign said Pryor "continues to insist" that Obamacare is "an amazing success." We found that Pryor said the Affordable Care Act was an "amazing success," but he was likely saying it was a success for a particular hospital he was visiting at the time. That comment came a year ago, and Pryor has not repeated it since. The comment also doesn’t fit with Pryor’s usual talking point -- that the law is not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. There’s some truth in Cotton’s claim, but it leaves out crucial context and distorts Pryor’s comments, so we rate this Mostly False.	None	Tom Cotton	None	None	None	2014-07-29T15:32:38	2014-07-25	['Mark_Pryor']
-tron-01061	11 States Agree to Motorcycle Curfew	https://www.truthorfiction.com/11-states-agree-motorcycle-curfew/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	11 States Agree to Motorcycle Curfew	Mar 7, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14011	Says "Donald Trump says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/	During her take-no-prisoners foreign policy speech on June 2, Hillary Clinton reminded listeners of controversial things that Republican presidential rival Donald Trump has said over the years. At one point, Clinton said, "Donald Trump says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese." Did he? Yes, though he later said it was a joke. The original source of this claim was a tweet Trump sent on Nov. 6, 2012, as we noted in a January 2016 fact-check of a similar claim by Clinton’s Democratic opponent, Bernie Sanders. Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." So Clinton certainly has evidence to support her claim. But we should also note that Trump backed off his claim after Sanders noted them in January on NBC’s Meet the Press, calling the Chinese link a "joke." On Jan. 18, after Sanders had attacked Trump’s climate change views in the Democratic debate, Trump told Fox & Friends, "Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I'd be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn't care less. They have very — you know, their standards are nothing. But they — in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it's very hard on our business." Trump may call the mention of China’s role a joke, but he certainly has a lengthy record of using the word "hoax" to describe climate change. (For the record, in 2014 we rated the claim that climate change is a "hoax" Pants on Fire.) On Dec. 30, 2015, Trump told the crowd at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C., "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, okay? It's a hoax, a lot of it." That’s three times using "hoax" in one sentence. Trump has also used the word on Twitter since his 2012 tweet. On Jan. 25, 2014, Trump tweeted, "NBC News just called it the great freeze — coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?" On Jan. 29, 2014, Trump tweeted: "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" That same day, he tweeted, "Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense." Trump also called climate change a "hoax" on the Jan. 6, 2014, edition of Fox & Friends. In addition, he said on the Sept. 24, 2015, edition of CNN’s New Day, "I don’t believe in climate change." And on Jan. 18, 2016, Trump said that climate change "is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change." We didn’t find Trump using the word "hoax" in the months since our previous fact-check, but he hasn’t backed off his aggressive skepticism of climate change and policies designed to alleviate it. In fact, he’s enshrined opposition to climate change efforts as a key part of his platform. In a high-profile speech on energy policy in North Dakota on May 26, 2016, Trump attacked "draconian climate rules." He advocated rescinding "all the job-destroying Obama executive actions, including the Climate Action Plan" and said he would "cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs." "President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords unilaterally and without the permission of Congress," Trump said. "This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America." Our ruling Clinton said, "Donald Trump says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese." Trump did tweet that view in 2012, though he made efforts earlier this year to describe that remark as a "joke." However, Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" in speeches, tweets and media appearances, and while he hasn’t necessarily repeated the charge that China "invented" climate change, he has said as recently as Jan. 18, 2016, that action on climate change "is done for the benefit of China." We rate the claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-06-03T12:00:53	2016-06-02	['None']
-pose-00280	"Will sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law and charge the Voting Rights Section with vigorously enforcing that law and the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The act will will enable investigations into deceptive and fraudulent practices. It establishes significant, harsh penalties for those who have engaged in fraud, and it provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/296/sign-the-deceptive-practices-and-voter-intimidatio/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Sign the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law	2010-01-07T13:26:54	None	['None']
-tron-00274	Former Marine Dad Banned from Daughter’s High School over “Islamic indoctrination” claims	https://www.truthorfiction.com/former-marine-dad-banned-from-daughters-high-school-over-islamic-indoctrination-claims/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Former Marine Dad Banned from Daughter’s High School over “Islamic indoctrination” claims – Truth!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Islam']
-tron-01943	Last words of drivers in fatal auto crashes	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ntsb-study/	None	humorous	None	None	None	Last words of drivers in fatal auto crashes	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-06190	More Hispanics "have been elected statewide (in Texas) on the Republican ticket than on the Democratic ticket."	/texas/statements/2011/dec/12/republican-party-texas/texas-gop-chair-says-more-hispanics-have-won-state/	Questioning how a panel of San Antonio federal judges redrew legislative districts that had been passed into law by the Republican-controlled 2011 Legislature, the Republican Party of Texas also challenged the idea that the judges protected Hispanic voting rights. Republican Chairman Steve Munisteri said in a Dec. 5, 2011, email blast that the court "seems to fail to take into account the fact that more Hispanics have been elected statewide on the Republican ticket than on the Democratic ticket." Wait a sec. We recall that Texans elected Democrat Dan Morales, a San Antonio state representative, as attorney general of Texas in 1990. He won re-election in 1994. No other Latino candidate has been elected to a statewide executive position. In the judiciary, Texans elected Democrat Raul Gonzalez to the Texas Supreme Court. He was initially appointed to the highest Texas civil court by Democratic Gov. Mark White in late 1984 before becoming the first Hispanic elected statewide in 1986. He stayed on the court through 1998. So, have Republicans elected more Hispanics to statewide office? Refresher: There are 29 statewide elected posts -- two U.S. Senate seats, six executive-like positions (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state comptroller, land commissioner and agriculture commissioner), three seats on the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the energy sector, and nine seats each on the Texas Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. By email, Munisteri told us that he based his count of Hispanic winners on Texas state directories listing elected officials. Munisteri said he identified only two Democrats of Hispanic descent elected to statewide office -- Gonazalez and Morales, who did not seek re-election in 1998 and ultimately served prison time for financial misdeeds. Latino Republicans elected statewide have included Al Gonzales, who won a race for the Texas Supreme Court in 2000 before joining George W. Bush in Washington, and Tony Garza and Victor Carrillo, who won Texas Railroad Commission races in 1998 and 2004, respectively. Garza later resigned to serve as U.S. ambassador to Mexico. Also, Munisteri noted, Republicans David Medina and Eva Guzman were each elected to the Supreme Court. Medina and Guzman, both initially appointed by GOP Gov. Rick Perry, won election in 2006 and 2010, respectively, according to election results from 1992 through 2010 posted online by the Texas secretary of state’s office. Both are currently on the nine-person court. Carrillo attempted to win another term last year, but lost his party’s nomination to David Porter of Giddings, who went on to win the seat. After the primary, Carrillo said his Hispanic surname doomed him, writing supporters: "Early polling showed that the typical GOP primary voter has very little info about the position of Railroad Commissioner, what we do, or who my opponent or I were. Given the choice between 'Porter' and 'Carrillo' — unfortunately, the Hispanic surname was a serious setback from which I could never recover although I did all in my power to overcome this built-in bias," according to a March 3, 2010, news article in the Austin American-Statesman. That article also quoted an unidentified Republican official saying Carrillo tumbled because he didn’t energetically campaign. Notably, too, Latino candidates have occasionally been appointed to statewide offices only to lose at the polls. The late Lena Guerrero, an Austin Democrat, lost her 1992 bid to remain on the Texas Railroad Commission to Republican Barry Williamson. In 2002, Republican Xavier Rodriguez, appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Rick Perry, was defeated in his party’s primary by little-known Stephen Wayne Smith. Also, Texas Democrats have nominated multiple Latinos for statewide posts who went on to lose, in great part because Republicans have won every statewide contest since 1996. Defeated Democratic nominees include Senate nominees Victor Morales and Rick Noriega, gubernatorial aspirant Tony Sanchez, land commissioner nominees Richard Raymond and Hector Uribe, Supreme Court nominees Margaret Mirabal and Linda Yanez and four-time Court of Criminal Appeals nominee JR Molina. Side note: Perry named Elsa Alcala to the Court of Criminal Appeals in May 2011 to a term through 2012. She has filed her candidacy for election next year to a full six-year term. So, the tally comes out to five Republican Hispanics elected statewide and two Democrats. End of story? Not entirely. Munisteri’s omits some important context about Texas politics: No Democrat, regardless of ethnicity, has won statewide office for 15 years. Put another way, no Latino Republicans won statewide until after every statewide Republican nominee started prevailing.Conversely, Democrats weren’t electing many Hispanics when they dominated Texas politics, either. We rate Munisteri’s statement Mostly True.	None	Republican Party of Texas	None	None	None	2011-12-12T06:00:00	2011-12-05	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Texas', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-14136	Says Bruce Springsteen "only had 8,000 tickets sold" for a Greensboro show and canceled after "they didn’t get the ticket sales they wanted."	/north-carolina/statements/2016/may/04/pat-mccrory/pat-mccrory-says-springsteen-canceled-north-caroli/	Gov. Pat McCrory took shots at critics of North Carolina’s controversial new law, commonly known as HB2, during a morning radio appearance May 3 on The John Boy and Billy Big Show. The law banned transgender people from using the bathroom of the gender they identify as, banned cities from enacting their own minimum wages or LGBT-friendly discrimination laws and got rid of anyone’s ability to file a discrimination lawsuit in state court. It was widely panned by progressive politicians as well as entertainers, some of whom even canceled shows in the Tar Heel State. On the show McCrory, with encouragement from John Boy and Billy, went through a laundry list of critics he said were mistaken or hypocritical. The show’s titular hosts – two down-home comedians with a conservative bent – are based in Charlotte and are broadcast in the morning rush hour throughout the country, primarily on rock stations. So it was no surprise that Bruce Springsteen’s name was brought up – although it was McCrory, not the hosts, who broached the subject of the rocker who is arguably the biggest name to have canceled a show in North Carolina over the new law. "Some things are more important than a rock show, and this fight against prejudice and bigotry – which is happening as I write – is one of them," Springsteen wrote April 8 in announcing the decision to cancel his April 10 show. McCrory, however, implied that perhaps The Boss doesn’t command the adoration he once did – and that his cancellation was actually a ploy to avoid the embarrassing optics of a half-empty concert. "I love Bruce Springsteen," McCrory said. "I love his music. But he canceled a concert in Greensboro. By the way, they only had 8,000 tickets sold, with all respect. Hmm. But Bruce doesn’t mention that. They didn’t get the ticket sales they wanted." That got a hearty laugh from everyone on set, and McCrory later repeated that 8,000 number. Where'd he hear that? Here at PolitiFact North Carolina, we’ve seen our fair share of videos from Springsteen’s live shows (mostly to marvel at Nils Lofgren’s guitar solos). The crowds are always sizeable, if not sold out. We would be quite surprised if Springsteen had sold only half the tickets to his Greensboro show just two days before the concert. The Greensboro Coliseum, where he had been scheduled to play, can seat more than 20,000 people. Stadium officials said the capacity for the Springsteen concert was actually about 16,000 due to stage and seating logistics. So that 8,000 number, if true, would say a lot about Springsteen – especially keeping in mind that the Coliseum tracks attendance for all of its shows, and Bruuuuuuuuuuuce has two of the 20 largest crowds in stadium history. But those were years ago, in 2002 and 2009. Is McCrory right that North Carolinians in 2016 don’t care much for the Jersey rocker’s music, much less his liberal views? Was he really only using a convenient political stance to cover up embarrassing sales numbers? No, according to the Greensboro Coliseum. Andrew Brown, the arena’s PR director, told us Springsteen had sold more than 15,000 tickets. "No idea where 8,000 may have come from," Brown said, adding that there were fewer than 100 tickets left when Springsteen canceled with two days’ notice. "It’s safe to say it would have sold out," he said. Like Brown, we also have no idea where the 8,000 number came from. McCrory’s campaign hasn’t responded to our questions, but we’ll update this if we hear back. The Greensboro Coliseum previously reported that Springsteen’s cancellation cost it $100,000. Pearl Jam, Ringo Starr, Demi Lovato/Nick Jonas and Ani DiFranco have also canceled, while such acts as Jimmy Buffett, Beyonce and Mumford & Sons have played but spoken out against the law from on stage or in written statements. As for Springsteen, the more-than-15,000-tickets number is the same figure the coliseum reported immediately after the cancellation, which was weeks before McCrory questioned the attendance. We appreciate the consistency, which keeps us from dancing in the dark to try to figure out the truth. Our ruling McCrory was way off on the number of tickets sold, which was widely reported before his radio appearance. What's more, he used that incorrect number to suggest that was why Springsteen canceled. In fact, the arena said the show was on the verge of selling out, not half empty. That’s not just false – ooooh, ooooh, ooooh, it’s on fire. Pants on Fire! UPDATE: McCrory apologizes The night after our fact-check went up, we heard back from Pat McCrory’s office about his claim that only 8,000 tickets had been sold. Although he’s standing by another claim he made – that he loves Springsteen’s music – McCrory admitted he was wrong about the sales figure and that it was the reason for the cancellation. "The governor apologizes for using the wrong number," wrote his spokesman, Josh Ellis, in an email to PolitiFact North Carolina. "It’s too bad Bruce Springsteen actually canceled on nearly 15,000 people at the last minute. Regardless, the governor is still keeping his Springsteen albums despite their political disagreements." https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/8810b36b-ac00-4caf-bcc4-42e9dba89087	None	Pat McCrory	None	None	None	2016-05-04T18:31:36	2016-05-03	['Greensboro,_North_Carolina', 'Bruce_Springsteen']
-vogo-00483	Statement: “The waste we collect powers over 1 million homes,” Waste Management says on the side of some of its trash trucks in San Diego.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/fact-check-the-powerful-garbage-trucks/	Analysis: Garbage, strange as it might seem, can be an electricity source.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: The Powerful Garbage Trucks	November 19, 2010	None	['San_Diego']
-vees-00492	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Is the EDCA invalid because it wasn’t signed by Aquino?	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-edca-invalid-because-it-wasnt-signed-a	FACT CHECK: Was the EDCA signed by Aquino? Does the lack of his signature make it invalid?	None	None	None	Fact check,EDCA,PH-US	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Is the EDCA invalid because it wasn’t signed by Aquino?	October 05, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05733	Pasco County schools have graduation rates "substantially higher than the state average" and dropout rates "below the state average."	/florida/statements/2012/mar/04/heather-fiorentino/pasco-county-schools-have-graduation-rates-above-s/	In seeking reelection to a third term, Pasco County schools superintendent Heather Fiorentino is touting the district’s record as proof of her successful leadership. In a press release announcing her bid, she cited statistics ranging from graduation rates to the number of new schools built as evidence that "the District School Board of Pasco County continues to shine with Fiorentino at the helm." Fiorentino’s facts and figures are generally correct, but they don’t always tell the full story. We evaluated several statements from her press release. Here, we're looking at whether the district has graduation rates "substantially higher than the state average" and dropout rates "below the state average." The press release puts it this way: The district "increased graduation rate of 88.5 percent (Florida calculation) and 85.5 percent (National Governors Association calculation), which are substantially higher than the state average." It also "secured [a] dropout rate of 1.0 percent, which has plummeted below the state average." State reports show that Fiorentino rightly states the district’s graduation rates, and that they are higher than state averages, which were 81.2 percent and 80.1 percent, according to the two different calculations. Pasco’s rates are also up significantly from 2006-07 on both the state (73.7 percent) and governors association (67.8 percent) measures. Pasco also was among a small handful of districts that did not have significant gaps in the rates among its various demographic groups. Fiorentino accurately touts the district’s improved dropout rate. State reports show the district dropout rate was 1.0 percent for 2010-11, down from 3.5 percent in 2006-07. The overall state rates were 3.3 percent in 2006-07 and 1.9 percent in 2010-11, so Pasco did show better improvement than the state. Fiorentino is on solid ground in these two numeric claims about the district’s academic performance. We rate this claim True.	None	Heather Fiorentino	None	None	None	2012-03-04T12:43:13	2012-01-06	['None']
-hoer-00511	Eating Fido in LA? - American Restaurant Given Permission To Sell Dog Meat	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/american-restaurant-permission-sell-dog-meat.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Eating Fido in LA? - Hoax Report Claims American Restaurant Given Permission To Sell Dog Meat	November 15, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-03658	Says more Austinites voted in the city’s 1973 election featuring a mayor’s race than in the city’s most recent mayoral election.	/texas/statements/2013/apr/30/bee-moorhead/austin-resident-says-turnout-higher-1973-city-elec/	Austin resident Bee Moorhead, attending a "civic summit" hosted by Austin’s KLRU-TV, Channel 18, said in a Twitter message posted from the scene: "More people voted in 1973 election when Roy Butler was elected mayor than in the most recent Austin mayoral election." Did more voters turn out out for the election involving Butler, who served as mayor from 1971 to 1975, than the May 2012 election giving Mayor Lee Leffingwell another term? After all, Austin kaboomed in size and population in the intervening decades. By phone, Moorhead said her April 23, 2013, tweet echoed a remark by Ryan Robinson, the city’s demographer, during discussion at the summit of voter-adopted plans to elect Austin City Council members from separate districts rather than citywide. Moorhead told us Robinson might even have said that Butler by himself drew more votes in 1973 than Leffingwell got in 2012. Robinson confirmed his reference to total voter turnout in 1973 and 2012, but told us by phone he did not compare how many votes the mayors drew in the elections nearly four decades apart. It’s no secret that citizen interest in local elections has been on a downslide. According to a Sept. 13, 2012, Austin American-Statesman news article, in the spring of 1971, 57 percent of the city's 93,597 registered voters came to the polls for that year’s mayoral election. In 1981, 38 percent of registered voters turned out for the city’s mayoral election, the story said, with turnout dipping to 23 percent in the 1991 mayoral election, 15 percent in 2003 and 10 percent in the 2012 election that gave Leffingwell a second term. Given that Moorhead’s claim referred to the voters turning out in 1973 and 2012, we checked city records for precise details. According to one city web page, 63,478 of 151,368 registered voters, 42 percent, turned out for the April 7, 1973 election in which Butler won reelection as mayor. On May 12, 2012, according to another city web page, 49,336 of 461,146 registered voters, 11 percent, participated in the election including Leffingwell’s reelection bid. (Also, Butler drew 43,753 votes, Leffingwell 25,446.) The city web pages indicate the city’s population nearly tripled in the years in between, rising from 290,300 in 1973 to 824,205 in 2012. Upshot: There were 14,142 fewer voters in the 2012 city election compared to 1973. Our ruling Moorhead tweeted that more Austinites voted in the city’s 1973 election featuring a mayor’s race than in the city’s most recent mayoral election. Nearly 63,500 voters cast ballots in April 1973. Less than 49,400 participated in May 2012. We rate this claim as True.	None	Bee Moorhead	None	None	None	2013-04-30T06:00:00	2013-04-23	['None']
-pomt-12850	"About three-quarters of (Syrian refugees) are women and children. A full third of them are kids under 12 years old."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/02/keith-ellison/rep-keith-ellison-correct-demographic-overview-syr/	Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., pushed back on an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to indefinitely suspend admission of Syrian refugees, calling it a Muslim ban and arguing that the order affects many women and children. "When you try to ban refugees, these folks go through an 18-to-24-month vetting as it is," Ellison said Jan. 29 on CBS’ Face the Nation. "The fact is, is that Syrian -- if you talk about banning Syrians, about three-quarters of those folks are women and children. A full third of them are kids under 12 years old." Ellison, who is vying to lead the Democratic National Committee, accurately cited data from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We previously explored the demographic makeup of Syrian refugees when Trump, as a candidate, made false claims that most Syrian refugees were actually strong men. (For background on Trump’s immigration executive order, check out our explainer.) UN’s refugee agency data There are more than 4.89 million Syrian refugees according to the UN’s latest count. That total accounts for about 2 million refugees registered by the UNHCR (in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon), 2.8 million registered by the Turkish government and more than 29,000 registered in North Africa. Ellison referenced a UNHCR regional demographic breakdown based on refugees registered in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon. To determine a figure for women and children, Ellison summed the percentage of registered Syrian males under 18 years old with the percentage of women of all ages -- it comes out to about 73 percent, according to data last updated Jan. 19. Factoring in women of all ages and boys under 12 years old, it's about 66 percent. Ellison’s other point about "a full third" of refugees being younger than 12 years old also checks out for the UNHCR group. About 17 percent relocated to Egypt, Jordan, Iraq or Lebanon are boys and about 16 percent are girls. We wanted to know if the demographics were similar for the larger pool of 2.8 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. They are. In Turkey, about 70 percent of registered Syrian refugees are women of all ages and males under 18. About 30 percent are children under 12 years old, according to data last updated Jan. 12. Women of all ages and boys under 12 years old represent about 62 percent of the population. A demographic report for the estimated 29,000 refugees in North Africa (Egypt included in other UNHCR report) was not available. Geoffrey Mock, Syrian country specialist for Amnesty International USA, said there's a large Syrian community in Libya and that it's likely many Syrian refugees there have not been registered. The flow of Syrians to Libya after 2011 has been much greater than 29,000, Mock said. Syrian refugees have also gone to Tunisia, though the number there is less than 1,000 registered Syrian refugees according to a UNHCR fact sheet, he said. The United States accepted 12,587 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016 (Oct. 1, 2015-Sept. 30, 2016) and fewer than 2,000 in fiscal 2015. Prior to that, the most Syrian refugees the Obama administration had accepted was 105, according to data from the State Department's Refugee Processing Center. Here's a breakdown of fiscal year 2016 admissions: - Total: 12,587 - Male: 6,571 - Female: 6,016 - Boys and girls under 14 years old: 6,118 (about 48.61 percent of admissions) Our ruling Ellison said, "About three-quarters of (Syrian refugees) are women and children. A full third of them are kids under 12 years old." With only slight rounding, Ellison is correct on average for Syrian refugees registered in Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. A demographic breakdown is not available for more than 29,000 refugees in other North African countries, which represent less than 1 percent of all registered Syrian refugees. We rate Ellison’s statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/dd2e1314-5477-467a-8b94-ec08ba31dcb2	None	Keith Ellison	None	None	None	2017-02-02T16:23:52	2017-01-29	['Syria']
-pomt-04612	"The Providence Economic Development Partnership . . .which you [Cicilline] chaired, loaned $103,000 in taxpayer funds to one of your campaign workers. The worker never paid back the loan."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/sep/18/brendan-doherty/brendan-doherty-says-cicilline-campaign-worker-nev/	EDITOR's NOTE: On Sept. 16, 2012, PolitiFact Rhode Island rated as Mostly False a statement by Republican congressional candidate Brendan Doherty that was directed at U.S. Rep. David Cicilline. Doherty said: "The Providence Economic Development Partnership . . which you [Cicilline] chaired, loaned $103,000 in taxpayer funds to one of your campaign workers. The worker never paid back the loan." In light of additional evidence, we are changing our rating to Mostly True and providing this new analysis. Republican congressional candidate Brendan Doherty leveled a host of charges against his Democratic opponent U.S. Rep. David Cicilline one day after Cicilline’s primary win. Among what Doherty called Cicilline’s "most serious deceptions" was this claim directed at the former mayor: "The Providence Economic Development Partnership ... which you chaired, loaned $103,000 in taxpayer funds to one of your campaign workers. The worker never paid back the loan." The borrower in question was Erasmo Ramirez, who worked on Cicilline’s 2002 campaign. He was thrust into the public spotlight last month when he surfaced in an undercover video talking to an aide to Anthony Gemma, Cicilline’s primary opponent. Ramirez is heard saying he manipulated absentee ballots when he worked for Cicilline’s campaign and he could do the same for Gemma if he was put on the Gemma payroll. After the release of the taped solicitation, The Providence Journal published a story showing that the city’s Economic Development Partnership program had given Ramirez a $103,000 loan in 2004 to help start a restaurant on Union Avenue. Cicilline spokesman Eric Hyers told The Journal at the time that the loan "has been repaid in full." But Doherty’s campaign cited an Aug. 30 story by GoLocalProv which reported Ramirez never paid back the loan. One campaign had the story wrong, so we decided to check the records ourselves. Minutes of the partnership’s meetings show the development agency first approved loaning Ramirez $103,000 on Feb. 17, 2004. The loan was just one of several Ramirez had taken out for his proposed El Portal Family Restaurant, at 207 Union Ave. -- a project estimated to cost $706,000. To secure the loan, Ramirez offered up as his main collateral two other pieces of property he owned, but the project met immediate obstacles. On four separate occasions, between January 2005 and June 2006, Ramirez sought and received from the development agency permission to delay making loan payments. (He also requested a second, $65,000 loan, but was denied.) Ultimately the restaurant never opened. The city moved to foreclose on the restaurant property when Ramirez failed to pay his taxes. And on Sept. 8, 2006, real estate records show, the city sold the property at public auction. Westcott Development Inc. bought it for the amount owed in outstanding taxes: $10,485.22. But what about Ramirez’s defaulted $103,000 loan? In our initial story, we said that Ramirez sold one of his collateral properties to cover the loan, a house at 529 Union Ave. But further investigation shows that the travel of that transaction was anything but that simple. Paperwork describing in detail what happened with that property was missing from the public files we examined at the Providence Economic Development Partnership. The agency’s new lawyer, John Garrahy, told us Tuesday that a previous city attorney considered the documents private under attorney/client privilege and did not place them in the public file. Garrahy was reluctant to immediately turn them over to PolitiFact until he checked whether they were still considered private. But he explained over the phone that while the development agency did eventually receive a check for $96,016.74 to cover most of Ramirez’s loan debt -- as PolitiFact reported Sunday -- the check did not come from Ramirez. As it turns out, when Ramirez sold the collateral property at 529 Union Ave., the title insurance company failed to discover the lien that the development agency had placed on it. The lien didn’t come to light until the agency sought to foreclose on the property, which didn’t make its new owner, Larry King, of Warwick, happy. He sued both Ramirez and the agency, alleging that he had been duped. Ultimately, in January 2007, the title insurance company paid the $96,000 to the development agency and King’s complaint against the development agency was settled. As for King’s complaint against Ramirez? King’s lawyer Brian LaPlante told us Tuesday it wasn’t pursued because Ramirez filed for bankruptcy. The development agency also waived the remaining $16,016.74 Ramirez owed it in interest, late fees and penalties. Our ruling Republican congressional candidate Brendan Doherty said to Cicilline, "The Providence Economic Development Partnership . . . which you chaired, loaned $103,000 in taxpayer funds to one of your campaign workers. The worker never paid back the loan." It’s true the worker, Ramirez, never paid back the loan. However, Doherty’s statement implies the city got nothing back when in fact it recouped most of his loan obligation. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True.	None	Brendan Doherty	None	None	None	2012-09-18T18:02:18	2012-09-12	['None']
-pomt-02316	"Wisconsin now ranks among the top 10 states for out-migration."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/mar/30/mary-burke/wisconsin-losing-residents-other-states-high-rate-/	Mary Burke’s 40-page jobs plan not only lays out what she would do as governor, it critiques the policies of Gov. Scott Walker, whom she hopes to defeat in the November 2014 election. "Wisconsin needs government to work with business to train and educate tomorrow’s workers, to build the infrastructure and attract the capital necessary to grow business activity, and to make the investments in communities and quality-of-life that make businesses and workers alike want to call a place ‘home,’" Burke wrote. "We’re clearly not doing that now." The plan, released March 25, 2014, then cites three statistics, including this one: "Wisconsin now ranks among the top 10 states for out-migration." We have had some rough winters. Are that many people leaving? A moving study In making the migration claim, the jobs report refers to the 2012 version of an annual study done by United Van Lines, the national moving company. Two problems here: -- The 2012 version isn’t the latest. -- United Van Lines tracks only household moves within the 48 contiguous states that are made by its customers. So, at best, the study is an indicator of state-to-state movement, and only by those who used one particular company. Yet Burke cites it as an authoritative document. In the mover's 2012 study, Wisconsin was among 10 states labeled "high outbound" -- meaning, 55 percent or more of the moves handled by United Van Lines in Wisconsin were for people leaving Wisconsin. But in the 2013 study, released nearly three months before Burke issued her jobs report, only nine states were labeled high outbound and Wisconsin was not one of them. Wisconsin was among 31 states labeled as "balanced" -- that is, the difference between the number of United Van Lines customers moving into and out of Wisconsin was negligible. So, Burke cites outdated data from a source that is not comprehensive. But outmigration is something that is tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau. Is it possible she’s still right? Census, tax data The Census Bureau counts state-to-state migration in two ways. Estimates based on census counts, tax returns and Medicare enrollment are cited by leading demographers such as William Frey of the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan policy research group, and Robert Scardamalia, former chief demographer for the State of New York. The latest one-year figures -- for July 1, 2012 to July 1, 2013 -- show Wisconsin ranked 12th in terms of states that suffered a net loss of residents to other states: State State-to-state net domestic migration 1. New York -104,470 2. Illinois - 67,313 3. California - 49,259 4. New Jersey - 45,035 5. Pennsylvania - 30,718 6. Michigan - 28,539 7. Ohio - 23,094 8. Connecticut -17,224 9. Kansas -12,557 10. New Mexico -10,526 11. Maryland - 8,525 12. Wisconsin - 8,158 (Expressed another way that accounts for differences in population among the states, Wisconsin ranks a little further from the top 10 -- 15th -- losing 1.4 people per 1,000 to state-to-state moves.) So, Burke’s top-10 claim is off, though not by much. Indeed, Wisconsin makes the top 10 if you consider a slightly longer period of time. Another set of the census- and tax return-based data covers April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013 -- a period that includes the 10 months before Walker took office. For the longer period, Wisconsin ranked 10th, with a net loss of more than 28,000 people to other states. Survey data Another way the Census Bureau measures migration is through a survey in which residents are asked whether they lived in the same residence one year ago. Joseph Henchman of the Tax Foundation, which tracks out-migration, favors the survey data. The latest survey data indicate that Wisconsin actually posted positive net migration from 2011 to 2012. The estimate is 99,192 people moved into Wisconsin and 97,724 moved out, for a net gain of 1,468. However, like other surveys, this one has a margin of error. In this case, the margin of error means that Wisconsin could have actually posted a slightly larger net gain, or even a small net loss. Regardless, the survey figures don't support Burke’s claim. Our rating Burke said: "Wisconsin now ranks among the top 10 states for out-migration." Her statement contains an element of truth. In one census estimate, Wisconsin ranked 10th in terms of a net loss of residents from state-to-state migration from roughly 2010 to 2013. But the latest one-year census estimate shows Wisconsin ranked 12th in raw numbers, 15th on a percentage basis. Also, a one-year measure based on a census survey indicates Wisconsin actually gained more residents than it lost through people moving from one state to another. Given that Burke’s claim emphasized where Wisconsin ranks now, it goes too far. We rate it Mostly False. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.	None	Mary Burke	None	None	None	2014-03-30T05:00:00	2014-03-25	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-07944	"Republican (small business tax cut) bill spends $80 million for better Google searches, not job creation"	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jan/26/cory-mason/wisconsin-state-rep-cory-mason-says-republican-bil/	Most of us would probably hate to wake up sober in the middle of a meeting of the Wisconsin Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economy and Small Business. But the committee proceedings on Jan. 13, 2011 so rankled one member, state Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, that he fired off a news release the same day. Compared with most news releases, the headline on this one could jolt you: "Republican bill spends $80 million for better Google searches, not job creation." As they sometimes say on the Internet: Whaaaa? The headline reminded us of one we might see in The Onion, but we knew Mason wasn’t writing satire, so we set out to see what he meant. After all, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has made job creation the keystone of his administration. The Walker-requested measure in question is Assembly Bill 7, which would give tax credits to small businesses. What ticked off Mason, a four-year state lawmaker and former union organizer, were comments about the bill made during the committee meeting by freshman Rep. John Klenke, R-Green Bay, a retired businessman. Klenke, according to Mason, defended spending $80 million on the tax credits bill in an effort to improve how Wisconsin shows up in Google searches. Let’s start with the $80 million part of Mason’s claim. The measure is a Republican-sponsored bill with an estimated impact of $79.2 million over two years, but Mason is flat wrong to say it spends anything. It’s a tax reduction, not a spending increase. Now, what about the Google part, and that the bill is not about job creation? Mason has a point about job creation -- but only to a point. We rated as False a job creation claim by Walker, who had said the bill would allow businesses to create new jobs. We found the average tax credit would be $145. And some small business owners would get as little as $1. In advancing the measure, neither Walker nor GOP leaders have said anything about improving how Wisconsin shows up in Google searches being a goal. Mason told us he is basing his claim on comments Klenke, the freshman lawmaker, made in the committee meeting. But we don’t have to rely on Mason’s characterization of what Klenke said. We can go to the video. Klenke, who joined the Assembly after defeating two-term Democratic incumbent Jim Soletski in November 2010, said the bill was a way to show Wisconsin is "open for business." In referencing Google, he told the committee: "If you Google ‘business climate in the state of Wisconsin,’ you will find that the state of Wisconsin has dropped 16 spots and is now number 42 in business friendliness." (True -- five-year drop: CEO Magazine 2010 survey) Klenke went on to say that Wisconsin ranks among the 10 states with the highest overall tax burden (True as of 2008: Tax Foundation study); is one of the 10 states most likely to go bankrupt (Not quite -- Wisconsin in "fiscal peril": Pew Center 2009 report); and is one of the least attractive states for retirees (True: TopRetirements.com 2010 rankings). "What we are trying to do," Klenke said about the tax credits measure, "is change the trend." In an interview, Klenke told us the tax credits bill is one action the state could take to improve Wisconsin’s business climate. If more such steps are taken, people who use Google to learn about Wisconsin’s business climate will get more positive information, he said. So, he framed it in terms of the state’s overall business trends and what people may find when they use Google for a search -- not around getting a higher-ranking on a Google search, as the news release headline suggests. (Note: The tax credits bill was amended after it was considered by the Assembly jobs committee. The changes would make more businesses eligible for the credits, but with a smaller estimated loss -- $33.5 million per year -- in state revenue, according to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo. The amended bill, which would net businesses an estimated $92 to $316 for each new job created, was approved Jan. 20, 2011 by the Joint Finance Committee and sent it to the full Assembly.) No need to search for our conclusion. Here it is: Mason was flat wrong when he said the tax credits bill "spends $80 million." The bill would not spend any money; it would reduce state revenue by nearly $80 million. On his larger point, it does not appear the tax credits alone would create jobs. But Mason cherry picks and trivializes comments by one GOP lawmaker -- Klenke -- to suggest the aim of the tax credits is to improve Google searches. In our analysis, Mason’s claim contains some element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Cory Mason	None	None	None	2011-01-26T09:00:00	2011-01-13	['Google']
-goop-01295	Kylie Jenner Flipped Out On Travis Scott For Almost Crashing Golf Cart?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-travis-scott-crash-golf-cart/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kylie Jenner Flipped Out On Travis Scott For Almost Crashing Golf Cart?	5:56 pm, March 28, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01813	Synagen IQ Boosts Brain Function and Overall Health	https://www.truthorfiction.com/synagen-iq-boosts-brain-function-and-overall-health/	None	health-medical	None	None	None	Synagen IQ Boosts Brain Function and Overall Health	Sep 2, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-06239	"(Chris Christie) has not paid one dollar of state money into our pension system, and then states that the system is broke."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/02/loretta-weinberg/loretta-weinberg-criticizes-chris-christie-for-not/	Sen. Loretta Weinberg isn’t shy about attacking Gov. Chris Christie, but when it comes to him not making pension payments, she could show a little patience. The Bergen County Democrat took aim in a recent column on bluejersey.com at the Republican governor’s record of making no payments to the state’s pension funds. "He has not paid one dollar of state money into our pension system, and then states that the system is broke," Weinberg wrote in a Nov. 21 column on the left-leaning blog. PolitiFact New Jersey determined that Weinberg’s claim is technically correct, but still somewhat misleading. The Christie administration has not yet made a pension contribution, but a payment of nearly $500 million is scheduled to be made before the current fiscal year ends in June 2012. That amount represents a fraction of the nearly $3.4 billion needed to fully fund the state’s fiscal year contribution. Even though one is scheduled, Weinberg argued in a phone interview that Christie has not made any pension payments. "Whether he’ll do it in the future, we’ll see," said Weinberg, before referring to her statement. "I don’t think it’s misleading....It’s a statement of fact." Let’s review Christie’s track record with the pension system. In the fiscal year 2011 budget -- Christie’s first spending plan -- the governor did not make any pension contributions, even though a payment of about $3 billion was required to fully fund the state’s share in that fiscal year. But in March 2010, Christie signed a law passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, requiring the state to make one-seventh of the full contribution. That policy kicks off with fiscal year 2012, which began in July of this year. The state’s payment is slated to increase by at least an additional one-seventh in each succeeding fiscal year until the full amount is paid in the seventh fiscal year and afterwards. Christie approved a fiscal year 2012 budget that includes that one-seventh payment for a combined contribution of about $484 million to six pension funds. The full contribution would be nearly $3.4 billion. In fact, Weinberg also agreed to make a pension payment by way of voting for the fiscal year 2012 budget. The actual payment will be made at some point during the next seven months in order to use cash on hand, according to Andrew Pratt, a Treasury Department spokesman. Making the pension payment now would likely mean borrowing money, Pratt said. Historically, pension payments are made in the final few weeks of a fiscal year, Pratt told us. Toward the end of a fiscal year, more tax revenue is coming in and most other expenses have been paid, he said. "It’s a fiscally prudent thing to do," Pratt said. "It’s always better to pay in cash." State officials also approved pension and health benefit reform last summer, requiring greater employee contributions toward the benefits. The Christie administration has said the reform would save $120 billion in pension costs over the next 30 years. Our ruling In an online column, Weinberg claimed Christie "has not paid one dollar of state money into our pension system." It’s technically true that Christie has not yet made a pension contribution, but the governor has agreed to make a combined payment of about $484 million to six pension funds during fiscal year 2012. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Loretta Weinberg	None	None	None	2011-12-02T07:30:00	2011-11-21	['None']
-pomt-13356	"Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year."	/punditfact/statements/2016/oct/02/maria-teresa-kumar/how-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/	Donald Trump may not have paid federal income taxes for 20 years, but the undocumented immigrants he rails against certainly have, according to the head of a Latino civic engagement organization. Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO and president of Voto Latino, said on NBC’s Meet the Press that "no one is surprised" by the New York Times report on Trump’s personal finances and pointed out Trump’s "hypocrisy." "He keeps talking about undocumented immigrants. Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year. They pay their taxes. They have skin in the game. He is not contributing to a system that he says he's going to go in and fix," Kumar said. (Editor's note, March 30, 2017: Subsequent news reports have indicated that Trump paid at least some taxes, specifically $38 million in 2005.) Kumar referred us to an Atlantic piece about undocumented immigrants paying Social Security taxes. It cites a note issued by the Social Security Administration in 2013 that contains the $12 billion figure. But the calculation is based on contributions from immigrants and their employers, not just the immigrants themselves. According to the Social Security Administration, there were nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States in January 2009. Factoring out kids, nonworking immigrants and those working in the underground economy and not paying taxes, the Social Security Administration estimated about 3.1 million unauthorized immigrants who worked and paid Social Security taxes in 2010. This group and their employers generated about $13 billion in payroll taxes in 2010. The administration then subtracted about $1 billion in benefits that could’ve been received in 2010 from earnings in years when workers were unauthorized. Workers and employers contribute roughly the same amount. In a 2014 Vice News piece, the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary Stephen C. Goss affirmed the $12 billion contribution. Social Security Administration analysts said "a relatively small portion" of those who could draw benefits do so. Laws enacted in 1996 and 2004 block Social Security benefits paid to unauthorized immigrants or to any noncitizen without a work-authorized Social Security number at some point in time, the administration said. An analysis by the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a lower figure: $7 billion, excluding payments from employers. Though Kumar told us she meant Social Security taxes in an email interview with PolitiFact, she didn’t specify this on Meet the Press. Without the specification, her figure would have been more accurate about taxes overall. A 2016 study by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, a left-leaning research organization, estimated that undocumented immigrants pay $11.64 billion in state and local taxes in 2013, equivalent to about 8 percent of their total income. This includes sales and excise taxes on goods and services ($6.9 billion), property taxes ($3.6 billion) and personal income taxes ($1.1 billion, assuming a 50 percent compliance rate). The Heritage Foundation came up with a similar result in a 2013 report. It found that the average undocumented immigrant household paid $10,334 in taxes. About half of these 3.4 million households do not pay any taxes. Using Heritage’s analysis, that would translate to about $17.6 billion paid in taxes. Heritage noted that the average undocumented immigrant household received about $24,721 in government benefits and services (i.e. public education, welfare benefits and services like police and highways), resulting in a deficit of $14,387. Our ruling Kumar said, "Undocumented immigrants pay $12 billion of taxes every single year." A left-leaning research organization estimated that undocumented immigrants paid about $12 billion in total taxes in 2010, while a conservative think tank pegged it at $17.6 billion. Kumar told us she meant Social Security taxes, but that would make her figure less accurate. According to the Social Security Administration, half of the $12 billion in payroll taxes comes from employers. (But she didn’t say it this way.) We rate Kumar’s claim True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	María Teresa Kumar	None	None	None	2016-10-02T17:12:25	2016-10-02	['None']
-pomt-04926	President Ronald Reagan sent troops into conflict "only in one circumstance, which was in Grenada … We were in a peacekeeping setting in Lebanon."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/mitt-romney/romney-said-reagan-sent-troops-conflict-only-once/	Mitt Romney’s trip to Europe and Israel gave him the opportunity to talk about foreign affairs, a subject that has received relatively little attention so far in the campaign. During the trip, Romney praised the military strategies of President Ronald Reagan. "(He) was able to accomplish extraordinary purposes for our country," Romney said in an interview on Face the Nation. "Without having to put our military forces into conflict. Only in one circumstance, which was in Grenada, did our forces go in a conflict setting. We were in a peacekeeping setting in Lebanon." The implication is that Reagan did not get American forces bogged down in protracted wars. But for this fact check we will focus on whether Romney had his history right. Under Reagan, did U.S. soldiers go into a conflict setting just once and does calling Lebanon a "peacekeeping setting" mean that conflict was any less of a threat? (We asked the Romney campaign about this but didn't hear back.) For those who may have forgotten, the invasion of Grenada took place in late October 1983. About 5,000 troops subdued Grenadian and Cuban soldiers and laborers in about two days of fighting. The U.S. and six Caribbean nations were concerned about Cuba extending its reach in the region. Deaths included 19 Americans, 45 Grenadians and 59 Cubans. The U.S. Navy’s History and Heritage Command has compiled a list of the use of U.S. forces abroad from 1798 to 1993. It makes no distinction between deployments into areas where there was open conflict and those that were more tranquil. During the Reagan administration, from 1981 to 1988, American forces were active on overseas missions 16 times in a total of 12 countries. Often, they played a support role, such as the AWACs electronic surveillance aircraft that provided intelligence to Saudi Arabian fighter jets as they shot down two Iranian fighter planes in 1984. But on five or six occasions, U.S. forces took a more direct role. In 1986, the U.S. Navy and Air Force struck targets in Libya. While there was no long-term military engagement, two Air Force flyers died on that mission when their F-111 was hit over Libya. In 1987 and 1988, U.S. Navy ships escorted Kuwaiti tankers in the Persian Gulf. They were fired upon, hit mines, or encountered some other military action six times. A mine strike nearly sank the USS Samuel Roberts. "The crew heroically fought fires for five hours to save their ship," said Lance Janda, chair of the History Department at Cameron University. "A number of crew members were seriously burned and injured." "One might quibble over the use of the word ‘conflict,’ " Janda said. "As I see it, any time U.S. forces are sent into a region where fighting is taking place, then I think it's fair to say those forces are at risk." Stephen Knott, professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, agrees. "Reflagging Kuwaiti tankers was definitely inserting American forces into a ‘conflict setting’," Knott said. "That is, the war between Iran and Iraq." Several historians and foreign policy specialists took issue with Romney calling the Lebanon mission a ‘peacekeeping setting.' In 1982, the United States sent 1,200 troops as part of a U.N. effort to hold the Lebanese government together after the country was splintered by fighting among Christians and Muslims. Bruce Jentleson, professor of public policy and political science at Duke University, says the situation was anything but stable. "As the Marine barracks bombing demonstrated," Jentleson told PolitiFact, "there was plenty of danger." A suicide truck bomber detonated explosives inside a Marine compound at the Beruit airport, killing 241 soldiers. It was the largest single-day loss of life for Marines since the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima. Jentleson said that until that attack, the troop "commitment was pretty open-ended. It only ended because of the bombing." Knott interviewed then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had tried to persuade Reagan against that deployment. Weinberger told Knott he said to Reagan, "They’re in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and they’re terribly vulnerable." The consensus among the experts we reached is that under Reagan, the U.S. did avoid putting troops on the ground for extended periods of time. Government professor William Wohforth at Dartmouth College said Reagan "was quite chary of actual military action with U.S. troops." However, the U.S. was very much engaged in other ways. "In the cold war, the superpowers fought lots of proxy conflicts," said Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Leading to huge loss of life from Central America to the Horn of Africa to Central and Southern Africa to Afghanistan." Some of those conflicts, such as Afghanistan, began during the Carter administration. O’Hanlon notes that the U.S. didn’t always follow through with money and efforts to stabilize those countries after the fighting stopped. He points to Afghanistan as a place where the U.S. likely paid a price for that policy when the country became a haven for al Qaeda. Our ruling Romney said the U.S. stayed out of conflict settings under Reagan, except once in Grenada. Romney put Lebanon in a separate category of "a peacekeeping setting." The record shows multiple military engagements and a large loss of life in Lebanon. Reagan was wary of the actual use of troops, but he did not stick to that as much as Romney suggests. Romney may have been thinking of long-term deployments, but he spoke only of whether American soldiers were placed into conflict settings which did take place. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-07-31T15:55:23	2012-07-29	['Lebanon', 'Grenada', 'Ronald_Reagan']
-tron-02202	Kids Are Catching Staph Infections from Bounce Houses	https://www.truthorfiction.com/staph-infections-bounce-houses/	None	medical	None	None	None	Kids Are Catching Staph Infections from Bounce Houses	Jun 9, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03063	A video investigation showed that Planned Parenthood lies about providing prenatal care.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/planned-parenthood-prenatal-care/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Does Planned Parenthood Provide No Prenatal Care, Only Abortions?	25 January 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13837	"We have lower family incomes in Illinois today than we had 17 years ago in Illinois ... because of the control of (House) Speaker (Michael) Madigan and his Democrats."	/illinois/statements/2016/jul/13/bruce-rauner/gov-bruce-rauner-says-illinois-family-incomes-lowe/	If you were to boil down the guiding theme of Bruce Rauner’s governorship, it would be: "For 12 years, Illinois Democrats and the unions to whom they are beholden ran the state economy into the ground and now they refuse to help me fix it." Rauner, Illinois’ first Republican governor since 2003, has been sharply critical of Illinois’ declining business and job climate under Democratic leadership from 2003 to 2015. His insistence that he will not engage in budget negotiations until Democrats pass business and government reforms led to a historic impasse that has left the state with no budget -- and a fast-growing pile of debt -- since June 30, 2015. To back his case for business-friendly reforms, Rauner frequently cites figures intended to demonstrate the toll Democratic policies have exacted on the state economy. Such was the case June 1, when Rauner appeared with local Republican lawmakers and school officials at the administrative offices of Community Unit School District 3 in Mahomet. Rauner’s visit came a day after, for the second straight year, the Democrat-controlled General Assembly adjourned without passing either Rauner’s various reforms or a state budget. "We’ve had massive out-migration of people and jobs. We have the highest unemployment rate of any state in America," Rauner said, detailing a litany of Illinois’ problems on the business and government front. "We have the highest level of corruption and cronyism and patronage of any state in America. We have lower family incomes in Illinois today than we had 17 years ago in Illinois. We are fundamentally in decline because of the control of (House) Speaker (Michael) Madigan and his Democrats." Rauner made several claims here, but we’re going to focus on the part about family incomes. Is it true that Illinois has lower family incomes today than in 1999? According to his office, Rauner based his claim on U.S. Census Bureau data (click here and scroll to Table H-8) for median household income from 1984 to 2014. The 2015 figure won’t be out until September, so Rauner’s "last 17 years" really means from 1999 to 2014. The top chart below shows average annual household incomes for Illinois and Indiana in the period mentioned by Rauner. The lower chart shows Illinois and its neighboring states. Indeed, the 2014 median household income in Illinois was $54,916 and the 1999 median household income, adjusted for inflation, was $65,850. That’s a decline of 16.6 percent. Pretty bad, right? But look at neighboring Indiana, which saw its median household income plummet 17.2 percent -- to the current $48,060 -- in the same time period. Or Wisconsin, which had a 10.5 percent drop. Missouri went from $58,819 in 1999 to $56,630 in 2014 -- a 3.7 percent decline. Nationwide, the inflation-adjusted median income went from $57,843 in 1999 to $53,657 in 2014. That’s a drop of 7.2 percent. So there’s no disputing that Illinois’ median household income fell between 1999 and 2014, but Rauner presented the figure as if Illinois were an outlier among other states; that its political leadership had chartered a uniquely disastrous course. A look at the same time period for Indiana -- a state repeatedly cited by Rauner as a beacon of economic growth -- shows Illinois was far from alone. In fact, only four states in the nation -- Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and Oregon -- had higher median household incomes in 2014 than at some other point in the Census Bureau's 30-year survey. (Only North Dakota had a Republican governor in 2014.) And 1999 is no ordinary year for Illinois in this set of numbers. It’s the year with the highest median household income in the 30 years covered. Had Rauner gone for a 25-year comparison and used 1991’s median household income, he would have found an increase of 1.5 percent ($54,068 in 1991 and $54,916 in 2014). Pinpointing whether and to what extent state government policy influenced an economic trend like median household income is difficult, says Darren H. Lubotsky, a professor in the economics department at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a member of the university’s Institute of Government and Public Affairs. A state’s industrial base is the greatest indicator of how it will reflect or resist an economic downturn like those that hit the national economy after 9/11 and in the Great Recession, Lubotsky says. "Is it accurate to blame state government leadership? Maybe. Is it the unfunded pension liability? The quality of schools? Crime? The so-called culture of corruption? Maybe they all play a role or maybe only some do. I am not sure one could credibly point to what policies really matter," Lubotsky says. Our ruling "We have lower family incomes in Illinois today than we had 17 years ago." Rauner is stretching the time frame when he says income is lower "today" than it was 17 years ago. The Census Bureau won’t even have 2015 figures for three more months. But the bigger problem here is that by choosing the peak income year among 30 years’ worth of data and presenting Illinois as an isolated case, Rauner tacitly asserts that Illinois is unique in seeing lower income "today" than in 1999. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Bruce Rauner	None	None	None	2016-07-13T07:00:00	2016-06-01	['Illinois', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-08573	"Florida seniors are exempt" from losing Medicare Advantage under the federal health care bill.	/florida/statements/2010/sep/27/george-pataki/george-pataki-says-florida-seniors-get-gator-aid-p/	Did Florida seniors get a deal dubbed "Gator Aid" that protected their Medicare Advantage unlike the rest of the nation? That's the case, according to former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, who is now chairman of Revere America, an organization that aims to repeal the health care bill. Pataki announced his campaign to target members of Congress who voted for the bill at a Sept. 8 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Here is the full context of what Pataki said about Medicare Advantage and Florida around minute 9:25 on the video: "In addition, there are a lot of lawsuits out there. Attorney General McCollum in Florida has one on behalf of Florida and other states. And Revere America will be involved in a lawsuit being brought by the lieutenant governor of Missouri, which is very interesting because it's not government-versus-government; it's based on some of the corrupt deals in this bill -- in this case, the fact that if you're a senior citizen on Medicare Advantage, you will lose in the overwhelming number of cases that ability to have Medicare Advantage, unless you live in the state of Florida, because they made a corrupt deal for a Florida vote, so that Florida seniors are exempt. And we believe that is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection." For this Truth-O-Meter we wanted to check: Are Florida seniors exempt from losing Medicare Advantage? First, some background on Medicare Advantage. A Dec. 23, 2009, Truth-O-Meter item about Medicare Advantage explained it this way: "Medicare Advantage is an optional program that lets Medicare recipients 65 and older receive their benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the traditional Medicare program. The idea behind the program was to save the government money, but it hasn't worked out that way. "Under the program, the government pays Advantage companies a set amount per enrollee, about $10,000, and they make a profit if they keep average costs below that level. The reimbursement amounts to about 14 percent more, on average, than the government spends on a traditional Medicare beneficiary. "The extra money allows companies to offer Medicare Advantage members additional services, such as prescription drug, vision and dental coverage at a much lower cost, as well as other perks like gym memberships. About 11 million people are enrolled in the program nationwide." According to a September 2010 fact-sheet about Medicare Advantage from the Kaiser Family Foundation, the health reform law "reduces federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans over time, bringing them closer to the average costs of care under the fee-for-service Medicare program." About 24 percent of the 47 million people enrolled in Medicare are on Medicare Advantage, according to Kaiser. The December 2009 PolitiFact provides us with background regarding an initial plan that would have helped Florida seniors on Medicare Advantage. But remember, that Truth-O-Meter item was written before the final version of the bill passed in March 2010. That PolitFact report examined a claim by Karl Rove that U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat of Florida, got a "$25 billion to $30 billion carve-out for Medicare Advantage patients," for Florida. Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said on Fox News: "Every Medicare Advantage policyholder in America, except those in Florida, will see a huge cut in the federal support for those policies, and as a result, a dramatic decline in their benefits and an increase in their premiums, except if you live in Florida." We ruled that comment by Rove Barely True. Nelson had initially sought to grandfather in all seniors on Medicare Advantage at the time, said Nelson spokesman Bryan Gulley. But the Senate said that was too expensive so Nelson proposed an amendment that protected Medicare Advantage for seniors who lived in areas where services cost the highest. But the bill itself didn't mention Florida -- it was based on a formula and would have benefitted a few states. The previous PolitiFact quoted a spokesman for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., as saying that the protection would help seniors in their states, too. Nelson's amendment, part of the broader health care bill, passed the Senate in December 2009 and the House in March. But it was changed in the reconciliation bill -- the final bill President Barack Obama signed into law. Under the president's plan, Gulley said, "Florida would not benefit over anybody else ... because the cuts were more evenly spread across the whole country, meaning that seniors in states like Florida wouldn't be unfairly penalized." We asked Gulley to send us the provision in the bill that passed with Nelson's language and the final version, which cut it. Note that HR 3590, which was approved by the House and Senate and includes Section 3201 on Medicare Advantage Payment, doesn't state "Florida" but includes a series of formulas. HR 4872, the reconciliation bill, includes the following language in Section 1102: "a) Repeal- Effective as if included in the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sections 3201 and 3203 of such Act (and the amendments made by such sections) are repealed." A March 28, 2010, article in the Miami Herald stated that Nelson "successfully amended an early version of the health care bill to soften cuts to Medicare Advantage, a privatized Medicare program. But the amendment was killed after Republicans denigrated it as a backroom deal for Florida that was nicknamed 'Gator Aid.' " We contacted Pataki spokesman David Catalfamo Sept. 16. He sent us this: "Section 3201 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as 'PPACA,' or 'Obamacare' (as amended by H.R. 4872, Sec. 1102) reduces Medicare Part C ('Medicare Advantage') supplemental coverage for most Americans by eliminating the Medicare Advantage Stabilization Fund. This process begins on January 1, 2011, by freezing payments at 2010 levels. Medicare supplemental coverage reimbursements are then reduced to an unsustainable level beginning in 2012. This prohibition on Medicare Advantage supplemental coverage applies to all U.S. citizens, except individuals living in certain qualifying Florida counties described in Section 3201(c)(3)(B) of PPACA. This is the provision that it opponents labeled 'Gator Aid.' " We asked Catalfamo if he was quoting from a document or if this was his own analysis. And we summarized for him what we had learned from Nelson's office and asked him to point to a specific section in the final bill that included an exemption for Florida. On Sept. 20, he sent us this response and attached bills: "The exact 'Gator Aid' provision that was in the first bill was removed when the House reconciliation bill was passed, and replaced with a provision that did the same thing, but did not name counties outright and instead provided very narrow criteria to isolate certain counties in Florida and 2 counties in other states." Then he sent us links to the bills. We asked Catalfamo on Sept. 20 to allow us to speak directly to his policy expert providing the information on Medicare to point us to the specific provision in the final bill that would provide a unique benefit to Florida. A week later, we had not heard from anyone willing to speak on the record. We reached three experts about Medicare Advantage who disputed Pataki's claim. Our sources: Brian Biles, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University; Marc Steinberg, deputy director of health policy at Families USA, a nonprofit health consumer organization; and Peter Ashkenaz, a spokesperson for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Steinberg put it the most bluntly: "I really think they are 100 percent wrong,'' he said. Congress is scaling back the payments to Medicare Advantage plans to bring them more in line on average to what is paid in Medicare. But it's too soon to say what that means for the average senior in various parts of the country while the reductions are being phased in over a few years. It's possible some Medicare Advantage providers will get out of the business, cut services or increase costs, he said. The change in the payment formulas isn't flat across the country -- it takes into account geographic differences, Steinberg said. For example, the payment rates to health care companies will be scaled back more in counties that were well above the Medicare average while counties that were below the Medicare average could see the health care providers receive higher reimbursements. That means that some Florida seniors could see a reduction in benefits to their plans, Steinberg said. "I think it's really a misreading of the law,'' Steinberg said. "It doesn't seem to understand what Medicare Advantage is or how the new payment formula works and it really misinterprets the geographic adjustment." Biles, who co-wrote a paper on Medicare Advantage comparing costs in various states including Florida, said in an interview "in the final bill again some of the South Florida counties are paid among the lowest amounts relative to fee for service of any counties in the country." In fact, Biles' paper shows that in 2009, the level of Medicare Advantage payments in Florida had been 103 percent of the payments to the traditional fee-for-service costs, while the national average was higher at 113 percent. Under the new payment plan, Florida Medicare Advantage providers will be paid 94 percent of traditional Medicare, still lower than the national average of 101 percent. Biles said in an e-mail that "Florida was never a significant part of the extra payment to MA plans problem." Nonetheless, he said, some plans in South Florida under the new law will be paid a lower percentage of traditional Medicare "than any plans anywhere in the nation at any time in the 25-year history of the Medicare private plan program." That's not exactly a sweet "Gator-Aid" drink for Florida seniors. Ashkenaz, after reading Pataki's claim, responded in an email: "there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that impacts MA (Medicare Advantage) in this way." Let's review: Does "Gator-Aid" exist in the form of a special deal for Florida seniors and Medicare Advantage? U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's spokesman said that Nelson tried to get a break for a few high-cost areas including parts of Florida, but that provision was repealed in the final version of the law. The experts we spoke to are adamant and unanimous that Pataki's description is wrong. We rate this claim False.	None	George Pataki	None	None	None	2010-09-27T17:16:33	2010-09-08	['None']
-pomt-05909	Congressman Scott DesJarlais "is spending his one year anniversary on vacation -- only working 6 days in all of January."	/tennessee/statements/2012/feb/02/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/dccc-says-republican-freshman-scott-desjarlais-vac/	Oh, the leisurely life of a congressman. Work a few days, take off the rest of the month. Right? That’s what Democrats are saying about U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Jasper. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to the U.S. House, blasted the freshman lawmaker’s work schedule in a press release on Jan. 5. The Tennessee Democratic Party posted the release on its web site. The release marked the anniversary of DesJarlais’ swearing-in as the congressman for Tennessee’s 4th Congressional District, which takes in Middle Tennessee and parts of East Tennessee. Identical press releases targeted other first-term Republicans. "With so much work to do to get the economy back on track and Americans back to work," the release said, "DesJarlais is spending his one year anniversary on vacation – only working 6 days in all of January." Really? We contacted the DCCC and asked them to back up the claim. They pointed us to the official House calendar, which shows just six official work days in January: the 17th, 18th, 23rd, 24th, 25th and the 31st. We then called DesJarlais’ office to see how he was spending his time away from Washington. DesJarlais’ spokesman, Robert Jameson, said being a congressman is a lot like being a doctor. Neither is a 9-to-5 job. DesJarlais, by the way, happens to be both. In fact, Jameson said, only one day during the entire month of January was blocked off for the congressman’s personal use. The other days were spent meeting with constituents, talking with staff and taking care of other official business. "To say he was on vacation is completely ridiculous," Jameson said. "Part of being an elected member of Congress is going back and talking to your constituents. One of the things the congressman has been very good at is maintaining an open dialogue with his constituents about what goes on up here in Congress." Jameson even provided a few examples from the congressman’s work schedule for some of the days that the DCCC says he was on vacation. On Monday, Jan. 9th, for example, DesJarlais met with business leaders and local legislators in Crossville. The next day, Jan. 10th, he met with "job creators" in Warren County and with county officials in White and Warren counties. The next day, Jan. 11th, he met with business leaders and constituents in Manchester. The following Monday, Jan. 16th, was Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which is a federal holiday, but the congressman met with business leaders in the Chattanooga area to discuss upcoming legislation. "The principles of elected representation mean you need to go back and talk to constituents," Jameson said. "I really have a problem, and so does the congressman, with anybody categorizing this as vacation. They’re not sitting there hanging out all day. They are meeting with constituents, figuring out what their needs are and their priorities." Our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio recently looked into an identical claim against Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio. We think some of their points merit repeating: "Travel days" and "home district periods" are facts of congressional life, whether the district time is used for constituent services, meetings or fundraising. "To be sure, few members will head to the beach," The Christian Science Monitor noted last year. "Between fundraisers, town-hall meetings, and constituent services, they tend to work at least as hard out of session as they do in it." Committees can meet and hold hearings during a recess. And congressional offices in Washington and in the district remain staffed and open, even if the House is not in session. House GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor drew criticism for setting a light, 109-day calendar for 2012. But the scheduled 123-day calendar for 2011 became 175 days in session, according to figures from the Office of the House Clerk. The 104-day calendar that a Democratic majority set for 2008 – another election year – became 119 days. House sessions have averaged 135 days since 2000. Something else to consider: The legislative calendar is set not by individual members, but by Cantor and congressional leadership and is followed by all lawmakers, including Democrats. As Jameson points out, based upon the DCCC standard, Democrats also would have been working only six days in January. Our ruling Just because Congress is on recess does not mean that lawmakers are on vacation. To make such a charge is to imply that a congressman’s work ends whenever he or she leaves Washington – a totally ridiculous claim. The DCCC is rehashing a favorite talking point that grossly distorts the congressional calendar. The DCCC offers no specifics to back this up other than the schedule. That's not just false, it's a ridiculous distortion. Pants on Fire!	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2012-02-02T16:30:19	2012-01-05	['None']
-pomt-01526	"Super Bowl Sunday has the highest rate of domestic violence."	/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/18/mika-brzezinski/mika-brzezinski-repeats-myth-super-bowl-sunday-has/	Two decades ago, a group of women’s rights advocates came out with a disturbing warning about professional football’s biggest day: Super Bowl Sunday is also the biggest day of the year for violence against women. The claim at a Pasadena, Calif., press conference ahead of the 1993 Super Bowl was backed by groups such as the California Women’s Law Center and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, setting off a raft of fearful news headlines and airtime on Good Morning America. It wasn’t until a Washington Post reporter interviewed experts about the claim that the truth emerged: The claim was bogus. Even the Old Dominion University researchers whose work was cited as support for the connection said it was wrong. But by then it was too late to correct the record. The claim has found new life amid cable news coverage of former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice and Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson. Morning Joe host Mika Brzezinski used it to support her argument that there is a connection between violence at home and aggressive play on the football field on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. "You look at Super Bowl Sunday. Super Bowl Sunday has the highest rate of domestic violence," she said Sept. 16. "There’s something about the game!" Minutes later, she said, "This is a violent game. And domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday. We've seen the numbers. Why is that?" The truth is that Super Bowl Sunday is not a unique day for domestic violence, says Callie Rennison, a University of Colorado Denver public affairs professor who studies domestic violence. "This is not to be confused with there being no violence or a lower amount of violence on Super Bowl Sunday," Rennison said. "It happens on holidays, it happens on weekends, and it happens on weekdays." Rennison sent us a 2007 study published in Human Organization, the journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology, which concluded that the belief that domestic violence crisis calls increase during drink holidays in general, including the Super Bowl, is unsubstantiated. Press coverage of the original news conference 20 years ago said a California Women’s Law Center official cited research to bolster her comments. The lawyer, Sheila Kuehl, was reported as citing an academic study that found a 40 percent uptick in police reports of beatings and hospital admissions after Washington Redskins victories between 1988-89. But "that’s not what we found at all," Janet Katz, the Old Dominion University criminology professor who worked on the study, told the Washington Post. Katz said her "tentative findings" did not correlate an increase in ER admissions of women with football games in general or with men upset by a team loss. A spokeswoman for MSNBC did not offer comment by deadline. Our ruling Brzezinski invoked a widely debunked claim that Super Bowl Sunday has the highest rate of domestic violence on Morning Joe. It’s no more true now than 20 years ago. Experts say this myth persists in spite of long-lasting academic rebuke. We rate it Pants on Fire!	None	Mika Brzezinski	None	None	None	2014-09-18T17:32:32	2014-09-16	['None']
-snes-04519	Dwayne Johnson was arrested for illegally importing human growth hormone (HGH) into Australia.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dwayne-johnson-arresting-for-importing-hgh/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Dwayne Johnson Arrested	4 July 2016	None	['Australia', 'Growth_hormone']
-hoer-00804	Bacteria on Restaurant Lemon Slices Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/bacteria-lemon-slices.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Bacteria on Restaurant Lemon Slices Warning	February 2008	None	['None']
-pomt-05583	"Obama opposed exploring for energy in Alaska."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/02/american-energy-alliance/energy-group-says-obama-objects-energy-exploration/	Bearing the bold title "Nine Dollar Gas," a new ad by the American Energy Alliance attacks President Barack Obama’s energy policies and blames him for high gasoline prices. It mentions the solar technology company Solyndra and the controversial Keystone oil pipeline, two issues with a tenuous-at-best relationship to what we’re currently paying at the pump. The ad, released March 27, 2012, also says this: "Obama opposed exploring for energy in Alaska." That’s the claim we’ll check here. Source of the claim On the screen beneath the Alaska claim is a citation for an Associated Press story dated Feb. 17, 2012. A spokesman for the American Energy Alliance, a conservative group tied to the industry-funded Institute for Energy Research, sent us a link to the story headlined "House passes drilling-friendly energy package." The story was about a House plan to expand oil and gas drilling that was included in a $260 billion transportation bill. "The legislation, which 21 Republicans voted against and 21 Democrats voted for, would open the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida and areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling, lift a ban on drilling in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and order leases to be offered for Western oil shale," the story said. "Obama has said he would not pursue drilling off the Pacific and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and has pushed back offering leases in the Atlantic until at least 2017," it continued. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area about the size of South Carolina managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service to preserve habitat and protect birds, plants and animals such as caribou, polar bears and gray wolves. While Obama has resisted efforts to drill for oil in the refuge, we found another Associated Press story dated the same day that clears the way for other drilling in the 49th state. Under the headline "With Obama's OK, Shell may soon start drilling for oil in arctic," the story said the White House had okayed Shell’s response plan for dealing with a spill in the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska's northwest coast, an important step before drilling can go forward. The company, which called the plan’s approval a "major milestone," said it hopes to drill up to three wells there during the summer of 2012. It also plans two wells in the Beaufort Sea, off the northern coast. Shell’s disaster response plan for that area won approval in March. The moves angered some environmentalists and native Alaskan groups, who questioned Shell’s claim in the Chukchi Sea plan that it would be able to clean up nearly all oil in the event of a spill. But Obama’s interior secretary, Ken Salazar, said any exploration in Alaska would be done "under the strongest oversight, safety requirements and emergency response plans ever established," according to the AP story. Our ruling The American Energy Alliance ad said that Obama "opposed exploring for energy in Alaska." That’s a narrow slice of reality. It’s true that the president opposes opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, but the administration has approved plans that allow for expanded drilling in other parts of Alaska, including clearing a process that could let Shell sink new rigs in two Alaskan offshore areas as soon as summer 2012. The ad leaves out that significant piece of the picture. We rate it Half True.	None	American Energy Alliance	None	None	None	2012-04-02T18:11:16	2012-03-27	['Alaska', 'Barack_Obama']
-goop-01637	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston “Caught Kissing” Or Rekindling Romance, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-jennifer-aniston-caught-kissing-rekindling-romance-not-true/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston NOT “Caught Kissing” Or Rekindling Romance, Despite Report	10:14 pm, February 6, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Aniston']
-snes-00246	Winston Churchill once said that the "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fascists-called-anti-fascists-quote/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Winston Churchill Say ‘The Fascists of the Future Will Call Themselves Anti-Fascists?’	7 August 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-15130	"It has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born ... abroad are American citizens by birth."	/texas/statements/2015/sep/04/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-its-always-been-law-babies-born-us-c/	Ted Cruz says that in a way, his bona fide citizenship traces to the birth of the United States. The Texas senator was born in the western Canada city of Calgary, Alberta, in 1970 to a Cuban father and American mother. His mother’s citizenship automatically made her son a U.S. citizen and, most legal authorities concur, eligible to run for president. (In May 2014, too, Cruz renounced his dual Canadian citizenship.) Yet in August 2015, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor bidding for president, suggested Cruz had benefited from the 14th Amendment’s birthright grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States, Politico said in a news story. Cruz, who had said that he wanted to end the granting of "automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally," told reporters Bush seemed confused about legal versus illegal immigration. "With regard to legal citizens," Cruz said, "I am a United States citizen because my mother was a United States citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware. And," Cruz said, "it has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born here or abroad are American citizens by birth." We were curious about his recap of legal history. For starters, the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2013 American Community Survey suggests that Cruz ranks among about 2.75 million citizens born abroad (including this reporter, ahem) to at least one U.S. citizen-parent. Cruz’s campaign did not respond to our requests for back-up information. But legal experts and, ultimately, a Supreme Court justice’s writings helped us realize that children born to citizens living abroad have been granted citizenship by law from the country’s earliest years, though the way Cruz got his citizenship — through his mother — wasn’t statutorily settled until the 1930s. A 1790 law To our inquiries, experts on U.S. citizenship advised us that an act passed into law by the very first Congress in March 1790 said children born abroad to citizens could be U.S. citizens — a form of "derivative citizenship." Christopher McKnight Nichols, an Oregon State University historian, said by email: "Since the Naturalization Law of 1790, it is clear that Congress attempted to establish a citizenship right for children born of citizens abroad." The 1790 law, less than 300 words long, initially said any "free white person" may become a citizen after satisfying residency requirements of two years (later amended to five years) and satisfying a court that "he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States." Likewise, the law said, non-adult children of a person "so naturalized" shall be considered citizens. The law then turned to children born abroad, stating: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens," though it added that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." John Trasviña, dean of the University of San Francisco School of Law, pointed out a March 2008 article in the student-edited NYU Annual Survey of American Law stating that when Congress agreed to citizenship for children born abroad, it acted much like England’s Parliament, which had earlier moved to grant citizenship to such children. Citizenship through fathers only? Then again, the student-written article and legal experts prompted us to wonder if children born abroad to mother-citizens were always granted U.S. citizenship. By various accounts, including a 2000 Supreme Court dissent, Congress didn’t settle on citizenship through mothers until 1934. The 1790 law, the article noted, "created the first distinction between citizen-fathers and citizen-mothers. Although the first clause uses the gender-neutral ‘citizens,’ the residency requirement limited the ability of citizen-mothers to pass citizenship to their foreign-born children." That is, the article says, the "foreign-born child of a citizen-father and alien-mother would definitely receive derivative citizenship, but the foreign-born child of a citizen-mother and an alien-father would receive derivative citizenship only if the alien-father had been" a U.S. resident. Additional changes may have led to more confusion. In 1802, Congress revised the born-abroad law to say: "And the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States." In 1855, Congress revised the law afresh to offer citizenship to children born abroad to citizen-fathers who had previously lived in the country. Citizenship at birth through a mother And what about citizenship through mothers? To get a peg on that, we turned to a 2011 article by Kristin Collins, a Boston University law professor. Collins wrote that Congress addressed this gap in 1934 after "years of persistent lobbying by women’s organizations" and "finally equalized parent-child derivative citizenship with respect to married citizen mothers and fathers, at least as a formal matter." We reached Collins, who said by email that from 1790 on, it would be fair to say that "some foreign-born children of American parents are citizens at birth. On the other hand, Sen. Cruz’s characterization of the history of American citizenship law is a tad misleading, especially with respect to individuals like him who are the foreign-born children of American mothers." Collins summed up: "Until 1934, under the federal citizenship statute that determined the citizenship of foreign-born children of American parents, foreign-born children of American mothers did not acquire citizenship at birth – only (some) foreign-born children of American fathers were citizens at birth. But in 1934, Congress liberalized the law so that citizenship passed through mothers as well as fathers." Collins said it would be more accurate to say it’s been the law since the country’s beginning that some children of American citizens born abroad are citizens by birth. We also enlisted North Carolina-based historian Candice Bredbenner, who wrote a 1998 book on women and citizenship. By email, she replied that generally, "the policies on granting citizenship at birth to children born abroad to a married citizen mother have undergone considerable change over time. So, Cruz’s assumption that, since the country’s founding, the federal government has recognized a mother’s right to transfer her U. S. citizenship to a child cannot be supported by the evidence." In fairness to Cruz, she followed up, "even the person with some modest interest in this subject could be easily confused." Justice Ginsburg's dissent Collins also emailed us a copy of a May 2000 article she wrote analyzing a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent, took note of the 1790 law establishing the pathway to citizenship through a child’s parents so long as the father had been a U.S. resident. Ginsburg further wrote: "Statutes passed in 1795 and 1802 similarly conditioned the citizenship of the child born abroad on the father’s at least one-time" (U.S.) residence. "This father’s residence requirement," Ginsburg wrote, "suggests that Congress intended a child born abroad to gain citizenship only when the father was a citizen. That, indeed, was the law of England at the time." On the other hand, she wrote, the "statutory language… was ambiguous. One could read the words ‘children of citizens’ to mean that the child of a United States citizen mother and a foreign father would qualify for citizenship if the father had at some point resided in the country." In the 1800s, Ginsburg wrote, there was an unsuccessful push to change the law to grant citizenship to children born abroad to U.S.-born citizen mothers as well as fathers. Instead, Ginsburg wrote, Congress in 1855 "clarified that citizenship would pass to children born abroad only when the father" was a U.S. citizen. The same law, she said, automatically granted citizenship to women who married U.S. citizens. In 1934, Ginsburg wrote, "Congress moved in a new direction. It terminated the discrimination against United States citizen mothers in regard to children born abroad," amending the law to say: "Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child." At the time, Ginsburg wrote, Senate and House Reports on the act stated the change was made "to establish complete equality between American men and women in the matter of citizenship for themselves and for their children." The law today A 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service on qualifications for president and the "natural born" citizenship hurdle noted the existing citizenship provisions for children born abroad. The law says individuals shall be a citizen at birth including "a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years." Our ruling Cruz said: "It has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born ... abroad are American citizens by birth." From 1790 on, federal law has held that children born abroad to American citizens become citizens, provided other conditions are met. But the law wasn’t explicit about mothers conveying citizenship (how Cruz became an American at birth) until 1934. We rate this statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2015-09-04T09:00:00	2015-08-21	['United_States']
-vees-00202	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post with previously published story of Vietnam PM praising Duterte	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-online-post-misleads-previously-publis	None	None	None	None	misleading	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post MISLEADS with previously published story of Vietnam PM praising Duterte	May 15, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11292	Says Facebook shut down a "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day."	/texas/statements/2018/apr/23/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-correct-facebook-shut-down-chick-fil-appr/	U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, fresh from questioning Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg at a hearing, asserted that Facebook inappropriately killed an appreciation day for Chick-Fil-A, the chicken restaurant that serves customers in more than 150 Texas places. We hadn’t heard that before. Was Facebook down with that? Cruz’s April 11, 2018, commentary on the Fox News website centered on what the Texas Republican described as Facebook’s suppression of conservative news stories and the like, making Facebook, Cruz wrote, far from a neutral public forum--a critique that Zuckerberg hadn't embraced. Cruz put Facebook’s suppression of chicken appreciation this way: "Facebook’s actions have ranged from seemingly petty things – like shutting down a ‘Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day’ to blocking posts from journalists, specific religious groups and most recently, grassroots Trump supporters Diamond and Silk," Cruz asserted. Cruz cites 2012 account Asked the basis of Cruz’s Chick-Fil-A claim, Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier provided a web link to a July 2012 Huffington Post news story that said that for some time over perhaps two days, a Facebook "events" page urging people to patronize Chick-Fil-A had been taken offline. According to the story, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee created the page -- urging Aug. 1, 2012, visits to the chain -- because he was upset that Chick-Fil-A was the target of criticism in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s saying that "his company supports ‘the biblical definition of the family unit.’" We saw that the HuffPo story mentioning Huckabee’s Facebook events page touting the intended appreciation day debuted at 10:09 a.m. July 24, 2012. Nearly eight hours later, a 5:55 p.m. update of the story quoted Huckabee saying the page had been yanked down that morning. "The Facebook event is no longer available," HuffPo reported, "and Gov. Huckabee has written the following on his Facebook page: ‘A number of you are asking questions about the Chick Fil-A event. The event disappeared from my page this morning and we have asked Facebook to look into this. I will update you as soon as I know more. The event is still on and the info should be back up soon.’" The next day, at an unspecified time, the HuffPo story was updated to say: "The Facebook event is back and more than 125,000 people have signed up to participate." Huckabee said on the restored Facebook events page, which was live when we started to fact-check Cruz’s claim: "I ask you to join me in speaking out on Wednesday, August 1 ‘Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.’ No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm traditional values, we’re considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant. This effort is not being launched by the Chick Fil-A company and no one from the company or family is involved in proposing or promoting it. "There's no need for anyone to be angry or engage in a verbal battle. Simply affirm appreciation for a company run by Christian principles by showing up on Wednesday, August 1 or by participating online – tweeting your support or sending a message on Facebook." After Cruz made his claim, we reached out to Huckabee and didn’t hear back. But Huckabee specified in a July 25, 2012, Facebook post pointed out to us by Frazier that the Facebook page he’d created to talk up Chick-Fil-A had been taken down for 12 hours. It seems, Huckabee wrote then, "we caught a 12 hour bug… We still aren’t sure why it happened, we have been told by Facebook ‘it was a mistake,’ clearly we think it was a mistake too but aren’t so convinced it was an accident. "Could it be," Huckabee went on, that "we were were attacked because of our beliefs? Could it be that Facebook has a glitch in their system with a VERY NARROW target? Who knows if we will ever know for sure, but one thing we do know for sure is that we are back up and running…" Huckabee’s post closed: "So we got knocked down, but hey! WE ARE BACK UP!" The page’s temporary vanishment evidently didn’t stop the appreciation day. According to the Facebook events page launched by Huckabee, some 653,000 people participated that day. Facebook responds We also asked Facebook and Chick-Fil-A about the accuracy of Cruz’s claim. By email, Facebook spokeswoman Sarah Pollack responded that the events page devoted to celebrating Chick-Fil-A was "mistakenly removed by our automated systems after we received a report that content on the page violated our policies." Pollack went on: "The event did not violate our policies and we worked to restore it as soon as we were aware. The event page was restored within ten hours and is still live today." Asked which policies were at issue, Pollack replied that she didn’t have more detail because the event page "didn’t violate any of our policies." See Facebook’s "community standards" policies here. We also heard back from Jackie Jags, a Chick-Fil-A spokeswoman. Jags advised by email that the one-time appreciation day "was not initiated by the company." We told Frazier, of Cruz’s campaign, that we’d learned that Facebook restored Huckabee’s pro-Chick-Fil-A page within 12 hours and that it looked like the declared appreciation day occurred after all. By email, Frazier reiterated that the page was initially yanked off-line by Facebook. Cruz’s claims about Facebook, she wrote, "are based in fact." Our ruling Cruz wrote that Facebook shut down a "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day." This claim delivers only half the bird--we mean, story. In 2012, Facebook says, it responded to an objection by removing an events page encouraging turnout at Chick-Fil-A restaurants. But the appreciation day page didn’t violate Facebook’s community standards, the company says, and it was put back online within 12 hours; the celebration occurred after all. On balance, we rate Cruz’s claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2018-04-23T11:12:06	2018-04-11	['None']
-snes-04357	Incarcerated former abortion provider Kermit Gosnell made a surprise appearance at the Democratic National Convention.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kermit-gosnell-as-surprise-dnc-speaker/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Kermit Gosnell as Surprise DNC Speaker	28 July 2016	None	['Kermit_Gosnell']
-pomt-06934	"Since 2000, nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/20/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-says-12-million-have-slipped-middle/	In a tweet sent on July 18, 2011, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said that "since 2000, nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty." Sanders ended the tweet with his signature hashtag, #SharedSacrifice. A reader asked us to check his claim, so we did. First we contacted Sanders' office, but we didn't hear back from them. We then turned to Census Bureau data on poverty. In 2000, almost 31.6 million Americans were officially classified as having incomes below the poverty line. By 2009, that number had risen to 43.6 million. The difference? Exactly 12 million. So while the data for 2010 is unavailable, the most recent figures confirm that Sanders used a verifiable statistic. However, we see a number of issues that undercut Sanders’ interpretation and framing of the data. • Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate have increased from 2000 to 2009, but the increase in the poverty rate hasn't been in a straight line. The poverty rate -- the percentage of Americans officially counted as in poverty -- started at 11.3 percent in 2000, then climbed every year until 2004, when it hit 12.7 percent. Then it fell for two years in a row, to 12.3 percent in 2006, before climbing for the next three years to 14.3 percent in 2009. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that the poverty rate in 2009 -- the year Sanders used as his benchmark -- is still lower than some of the rates in the 1990s. In fact, the poverty rate was higher in 1992, 1993 and 1994, and it barely missed being higher in 1991. The highest rate was 15.1 percent in 1993. • Some people started out in poverty, rather than slipping into it. Every year, some American babies are born into poverty, and some newly arrived immigrants end up in poverty when they arrive on these shores. This complicates Sanders’ claim that "nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty." Obviously, neither the impoverished infants nor the new immigrants in poverty "slipped out of the middle class." These cases probably represent a small minority of all Americans in poverty, but they can’t be ignored, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution. "There is no reason to think that all the people newly classified as poor were members of middle class U.S. families in the previous year," Burtless said. • Some people who slip into poverty may not have been living in the "middle class." Sanders has a point if you break down the U.S. population into three classes -- impoverished, middle class and rich. And if Sanders defines the middle class as stretching all the way down to the poverty line, he’d be right that, on a net basis, "nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty" between 2000 and 2009. Defining the American middle class a fuzzy question -- and one that’s likely impossible to settle -- but we’re skeptical about the idea of extending "the middle class" all the way down to the poverty line. Both common English and public policy studies have long referred to "the working poor." It seems a lot more plausible that many of the people falling into poverty are members of the working poor than they are the middle class. If we’re right, this would make Sanders’ formulation an exaggeration. • Sanders’ tweet misses that people move in and out of poverty America. The incomes of many Americans are volatile. Someone may lose a job, or get hit by an expensive illness, or lose a spouse. Then, a year later, the same person may get a new job, enjoy improved health or remarry -- and those life changes may well spell the difference between poverty and improved economic fortunes. "A proper understanding of poverty would show that many Americans do not stay poor for very long," Burtless said. "They become poor temporarily, and then their incomes recover and they become non-poor." Burtless said the number of Americans who go from poverty to riches essentially overnight is small (think lottery winners, pro sports draftees and the like). Much more common is to travel from below the poverty line to a level not too far above the poverty line. A different data set -- a Census Bureau study known as the Survey of Income and Program Participation -- provides a window into how many Americans fall into, and climb out of, poverty every year. This study is useful because it’s "longitudinal" -- that is, it tracks what happens to people and families across time. The study found that there were nearly 243 million Americans who were not poor in 2004. Of these, 8.8 million, or 3.5 percent, became poor in 2005, and 10.1 million, or 4.2 percent of, were poor in 2006. At the same time, the study found 28.1 million poor Americans in 2004, and of those, 8.8 million, or 31.4 percent, exited poverty in 2005. By 2006, 11.7 million of them, or 41.6 percent, were no longer in poverty. So, not only did nearly one-third of poor Americans exit poverty between 2004 and 2005, but the numbers of people leaving and entering poverty (not counting babies and immigrants) were exactly in balance -- 8.8 million out, 8.8 million in. (Because the SIPP data set is different than the official poverty statistics, the numbers don’t square exactly, but the official numbers do show that the poverty rate was pretty static in 2004 and 2005, falling only slightly, from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent.) So on the one hand, fewer than the 12 million Americans he cited fell into poverty and stayed there. There was simply too much flux for 12 million Americans to have stayed in poverty year after year. On the other hand, many more than 12 million Americans experienced a taste of poverty between 2000 and 2009. But in most cases, that taste of poverty was temporary. So where does this leave us? On Sanders’ side, he used a solid number, and he’s clearly right about the underlying trend -- despite some ups and downs, there are more impoverished Americans today than there were in 2000, both measured by raw numbers and as a percentage of the population. But we think he goes too far when he suggests these 12 million Americans simply fell from the middle class into poverty. And he ignores the fact that as those 12 million Americans were slipping into poverty, many, many Americans were simultaneously climbing out of poverty. On balance, we rate Sanders’ statement Half True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2011-07-20T15:01:47	2011-07-18	['None']
-pomt-10058	"The House Democrats' so-called 'stimulus' has been stuffed with an astonishing $335 million to fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/29/national-republican-congressional-committee/std-spending-economic-stimulus-plan/	Republicans have large philosophical differences with the $819 billion economic stimulus package that passed the House on Jan. 28, 2009, and they have tried to discredit the plan by singling out relatively small spending proposals they see as inappropriate. One of the most widely cited claims from Republican leaders has been that the stimulus plan includes millions for sexually transmitted disease education. On the day of the the House vote, the National Republican Congressional Committee circulated a news release in the districts of 29 freshman House Democrats, chastising them for supporting a massive spending plan that the NRCC said includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease prevention programs. A version of the news release circulating in Florida, for example, begins, "Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-08) and Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) are set to cast their vote today on a so-called 'stimulus' package, which has shattered the trillion dollar mark. The question is: Will Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas still support the massive spending bill now that it has become public that the House Democrats' so-called 'stimulus' has been stuffed with an astonishing $335 million to fund prevention programs of sexually transmitted diseases?" Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, had been making the same point for days, including in an interview with Fox News on Jan. 23. But the STD spending issue gained considerable momentum as a Republican attack after the Drudge Report posted an alert about it at the top of its popular political Web page on Jan. 28. So is there really STD prevention spending in the stimulus bill passed by House Democrats on Jan. 28? Yes, there is. In a section of the plan that includes funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the bill states that "not less than $335,000,000 shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director." In an interview on CBS's Early Show on Jan. 29, the day after the House passed the stimulus package, anchor Maggie Rodriguez asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi how $335 million in STD prevention would stimulate the economy. Said Pelosi: "I'll tell you how. ... I'm a big believer in prevention. And we have — there's a part of the bill, on the health side of it, that is about prevention. It's about it being less expensive to the states to do these prevention measures." We note that while the NRCC news release specifically calls out House Democrats for the STD spending, the Senate version of the bill also includes it — in fact, slightly more. A portion of the stimulus plan approved by the Senate Appropriations committee on Jan. 27 states that "not less than $400,000,000 shall be transferred to the CDC for an additional amount for the screening and prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases, including HIV." A committee report on the bill backs up the HIV and STD prevention spending with this analysis: "CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new STD infections occur annually in the United States, with 1 in 4 teenage girls currently infected. This epidemic is estimated to cost the U.S. healthcare system $15,000,000,000 annually, all of which is preventable. The Committee has included $400,000,000 for testing and prevention of these conditions. The Committee intends that funds be used for grants to States for testing activities, and the prevention of STD infections like chlamydia that have been increasing dramatically in recent years." We're not going to wade into the debate over whether the spending is appropriate for an economic stimulus bill. We're only ruling on whether there is $335 million in the House version of the bill for STD prevention programs. We note that while the proposed $335 million in the House bill includes prevention programs for STDs, it also includes prevention programs HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis and tuberculosis prevention programs, which are not always transmitted sexually. So we find the claim Mostly True.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2009-01-29T16:20:37	2009-01-28	['None']
-pomt-09720	"For the last decade the climate has been cooling."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/27/mary-matalin/matalin-claims-earth-cooling/	Skeptics of climate change often say the world has been cooling in the past decade. Conservative pundit Mary Matalin made that claim on CNN's Situation Room on Oct. 22, 2009. Matalin warned that the Obama administration is pushing too many big legislative initiatives such as a cap-and-trade plan to slow global warming when the administration should be focusing on the deficit. "If they care about reducing the deficit, which should be their No. 1 priority ... they're not going to be able to do this — all this other nonsense, cap and trade and all the rest of it. Too much, too fast," Matalin said. "Climate change is a fake issue anyway. ... There is not consensus science on what is causing global climate change. There is climate change, but for the last decade the climate has been cooling. There is the science. There is the data on that. They want to do this because they like to have all these programs being controlled by the government." So, Matalin acknowledges that the Earth's temperature is changing, but she's not so sure that those changes are man-made. We'll save the debate over whether climate change is caused by human activity for another day. For now, we're going to check Matalin's claim that the Earth has been cooling in recent years. Last spring, we checked a similar claim made by the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank. The group claimed that there has been no net global warming for over a decade; we found that False because the climate scientists we spoke with said that, while temperatures have remained relatively static over the last decade, very little can be learned about climate change in a 10-year window. Matalin's office sent us a few articles pertaining to the issue, two about a new book by Christopher Booker, a British author and climate change skeptic, who wrote in the Oct. 25 issue of the British newspaper the Telegraph that, "as the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for (carbon dioxide) threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale." Another study , published by Bob Carter, a professor of geology at Australia's James Cook University, in the Jan. 20 issue of the Australian newspaper argued that "global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002." Carter is correct that global temperatures hit a high point in 1998. Several entities — including NASA, the Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the United States — track temperature changes. Generally speaking, their records show that 1998, a year when a warming pattern called El Nino ruled the weather, is the hottest we've had since scientists started collecting temperature information in the mid 1800s. NASA, on the other hand, pins 2005 as the hottest year on record. But no matter how you slice the data, temperatures have indisputably fluctuated in the last decade, contrary to Matalin's suggestion that they have cooled. This graph from NASA shows that the temperature increased slightly between 2000 and 2001, dropped in 2002, and rose once again the following year. In this case, the annual mean temperature goes up and down, and the five-year mean is on a steady rise. This graph from NOAA shows a similar trend, with temperatures dipping slightly at the beginning of the decade and peaking once again in 2005. We asked Richard Heim, a meteorologist at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center Climate Monitoring Branch, what to make of all these ups and downs. At the most, it shows a plateau, he said. But certainly not a cooling trend. "With climate change, not every year is going to be warmer," Heim said. "It's two steps up, two steps down — that's not a indication we're on a massive cooling trend." NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt recently told the Associated Press the same thing: "The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," he said. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming." If 1998 is the starting point, a year many climate skeptics tend to cite, everything looks cooler in comparison, said Raymond Bradley, a climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts. He also pointed out that, when evaluating the impact of climate change on temperature, it's misleading to look at only the last 10 years. A decade is such a small period of time that "it's like saying, 'It was cold here last week. What happened to climate change?'" Bradley said. It's a point we heard repeatedly from the climate experts we interviewed. They all agreed that, while climate temperatures may dip from year to year, it's shortsighted to say changes within a decade mean that climate change is going away. "If you just take a one-year comparison — say that it's cooler in 2008 than it was in 2007 — that's an improper use of statistics" to make judgments about climate change, said John Reilly, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It still remains much warmer than it was in the 1960s. To the extent that there has been some slight cooling, we still remain half-a-degree above what it was then." Indeed, climate records show that temperatures have been on the rise since the middle of the century, and that fluctuations between recent years are relatively small compared to overall increase. NASA estimates that global temperatures have risen a total of 2.3 degrees since 1895, and that 13 of the warmest years since 1850 have occurred in the last 14 years. Jim Hurrell, a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., says these natural temperature variations are expected. "In the same way that El Nino made 1998 warm, in 2007 and 2008, La Nina made global temperatures a bit cooler than they have been running, but still much warmer than the long-term average," Hurrell said referring to El Nino's cooler counterpart. Citing just the last 10 years "is a classic case of taking the data and letting it tell a very misleading story," he said. Matalin said, "for the last decade the climate has been cooling." That suggests there has been a distinct reversal of the steady warming that scientists have documented for many years. But a review of the data shows that's not the case. The numbers show that in the past 10 years, global temperatures have not continued their sharp increase. But they have not cooled either. In fact, some years in the last decade have been hotter than the previous years. At most, they could be described as hitting a plateau. But they haven't cooled as Matalin said. We find her claim False.	None	Mary Matalin	None	None	None	2009-10-27T18:50:03	2009-10-22	['None']
-tron-03529	Vladimir Putin “To Forgive Terrorists Is Up to God” Quote	https://www.truthorfiction.com/vladimir-putin-to-forgive-terrorists-quote/	None	terrorism	None	None	None	Vladimir Putin “To Forgive Terrorists Is Up to God” Quote	Nov 19, 2015	None	['Vladimir_Putin']
-snes-05281	Men's rights activist "Roosh V" organized a "make rape legal" event across 43 countries on 6 February 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roosh-v-43-countries/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Cancelled: So-Called ‘Make Rape Legal’ International Event	1 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-00321	On investigating during the Supreme Court confirmation process, "The FBI doesn’t do that."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/20/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrong-fbi-limits-kavanaugh-supreme-co/	As the Senate Judiciary Committee moves to assess the allegations of sexual assault during Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s high school years, President Donald Trump dismissed a role for the FBI. When a reporter asked if he would ask the FBI to investigate the allegations, Trump said that "it would seem that the FBI really doesn’t do that." Here’s how the exchange with reporters unfolded as Trump left the White House for North Carolina: Reporter: "Why don't you have the FBI investigate Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh?" Trump: "Well it would seem that the FBI really doesn’t do that." Reporter: "They would if you asked them to." Trump: "They’ve investigated about six times before, and it seems that they don’t do that." Reporter: "Would you consider asking them to?" Trump: "Well, I would let the senators take their course. I would let the senators do it. They’re doing a very good job. They’ve given tremendous amounts of time." Here, we explore Trump’s claim that the FBI doesn’t investigate issues that emerge during the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. Key takeaways • The FBI has participated in the confirmation process in the past. • In 1991, during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, the FBI investigated Oklahoma law professor Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Thomas. • The FBI investigated because the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the White House to make it happen. Looking back to 1991 Today’s controversy involves allegations from California researcher Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh attempted to force himself on her sexually when she was 15 and he was 17. Senate Republicans are pressing for Ford and Kavanaugh to testify immediately. Ford and her lawyers say the FBI should first investigate. Republicans reject the idea. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Sept. 19 letter that "we have no power to commandeer an Executive Branch agency into conducting our due diligence." For any confirmation, the FBI conducts a background check. It is routine, and generally, the report it sends to the White House and the Senate requires no follow-up. We reached out to the White House and didn't hear back, but that might be what Trump had in mind when he mentioned six previous cases. However, there are examples of senators asking for more detail from the FBI. Most notably, in early September 1991, Senate Judiciary staff contacted Oklahoma law professor Anita Hill and specifically raised questions about sexual misconduct by nominee Clarence Thomas. Hill told them about sexual harassment when she and Thomas worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to Hill, in mid September, committee staff suggested an FBI investigation as a way to get the information in front of committee members. "Sen. Biden's office then arranged for the investigation," Hill said Oct. 7, 1991, referring to Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., who chaired the committee. How did Biden arrange that? NPR reporter Nina Totenberg became part of the story when the FBI material on Hill and Thomas was leaked to her. Hill agreed to talk to Totenberg, and the ensuing coverage unleashed turmoil in the hearing process. Totenberg told us how the FBI was drawn in. "A couple of senators went to Biden -- Leahy (Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy ) was one -- and said, 'You have to do something,' " Totenberg said. "So Biden requested from President George Bush — that was the elder Bush — to please have the FBI interview Hill and Thomas." Totenberg said in less prominent nominations, Senate committee members request FBI follow-ups "all the time," although not usually on such charged topics as sexual misconduct. The legal view Stephen Vladeck, law professor at the University of Texas, said Trump’s assertion that the FBI doesn’t look into things of this nature "is wrong." "The FBI is responsible for background checks of nominees, and routinely updates those checks as new, potentially relevant information comes to light," Vladeck said. Stephen Wermiel at the Washington College of Law at American University echoed that point. "The Judiciary Committee could say to the White House, the background check is now incomplete and could they please resume their work," Wermiel told us. "There is no criminal investigation. This is part of the character and fitness questions they explore." Our ruling Trump said that in investigating matters like the allegations against Kavanaugh, "it seems that they (the FBI) don’t do that." History says otherwise. The FBI was brought in to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct by Thomas during his confirmation process. The Senate Judiciary Committee lacks the power to order the FBI to investigate, but if it wanted, it could ask the administration to put the FBI on the case. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-09-20T14:10:28	2018-09-18	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-pomt-14712	"Bicycle ownership drops by half while obesity in Rhode Island rises by 154 percent"	/rhode-island/statements/2016/jan/03/my-city-bikes/advocate-links-ri-obesity-and-bike-ownership/	An organization trying to rally support for cycling sent us a news release highlighting what it said was a "shocking trend." The release from My City Bikes, a website and a mobile app that promotes cycling, was headlined: "Bicycle ownership drops by half while obesity in Rhode Island rises by 154 percent." So, Rhode Islanders’ are fatter because we own fewer bicycles? The claim caught our attention and we read on in search of the senders’ sources. The release says the data on declining bicycle ownership came from a recent Johns Hopkins study that analyzed data from 1.25 billion households around the world. And the My City Bikes press release links declining bicycle ownership with rising obesity in Rhode Island. The group even created a graph charting obesity in Rhode Island and the "global bicycle ownership rate." The authors aren’t fazed by the fact that they don’t have any Rhode Island-specific data on bike ownership. Their release, which has a Providence dateline, goes on to state: "While bicycle ownership has been on the decline, locally obesity rates in Rhode Island have more than doubled, from 10.1% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2012." Yes, obesity here has increased and the My City Bikes obesity data comes from a credible source, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which gets its information from the Rhode Island Department of Health. So, part of My City Bikes statement is correct. But, what use is the "global" bike ownership data? Is it relevant? Has My City Bikes even cited it properly? The text of the release says that Johns Hopkins researchers identified a decline in bike ownership — from 60 percent in 1989 to 32 percent in 2012. They suggest that statistic came from the analysis of data from 1.25 billion households "around the world." They got that wrong. In fact, the Johns Hopkins researchers saw no significant decline when they analyzed bike ownership in those 1.25 billion households. The decline cited by My City Bikes is for 148 countries and does not include China and India. In the United States, Olufolajimi Oke, a civil engineer and lead author of the Johns Hopkins study, said there’s been a renaissance of bicycle use in many American cities. "Ownership globally and ownership in the U.S. are two very different things," Oke said. "And one has to be very careful about assuming any correlation between ownership and other indicators of public health." And Oke had no data on Rhode Island. We did find an analysis of Census data by the League of American Bicyclists found that the percentage of Rhode Islanders commuting to work via bicycle rose from 0.23 percent in 2005 to 0.50 percent in 2014. Those are very small numbers. There is not much else out there, says Alex Krogh-Grabbe, executive director of the Rhode Island Bicycle Coalition. So, why did My City Bikes in the headline to its press release state: "Bicycle ownership drops by half while obesity in Rhode Island rises by 154 percent?" And what’s the benefit of comparing statistics on rising obesity in Rhode Island’s with statistics on bike ownership around the world? Tina Schmidt, one the authors of the news release, told us in an email: "The answer is relevance." "As a local reporter you know first hand that to have a news story published a local angle is a standard prerequisite for a community based media outlet regardless of the story's merit." Schmidt acknowledged that the ownership decline of 60 percent to 32 percent ignores China and India. But she insisted that My City Bikes’ reference to a global decline was still correct, even though the press release did not point out that the statistic excludes data from two of the world’s most populous countries. And she denied making any cause-and-effect relationship for Rhode Island. Our Ruling But she did. That’s the way the headline is cast. Sadly, obesity is on the rise, but My City Bikes has no data on bike ownership in Rhode Island and yet it names Rhode Island in its headline and datelines its release in Providence. The claim is bogus. Pants on Fire!	None	My City Bikes	None	None	None	2016-01-03T00:00:00	2015-12-07	['Rhode_Island']
-abbc-00017	From mid-September, Australians will begin receiving survey forms for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, which the Government has commissioned in place of a plebiscite.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-25/fact-check-english-speaking-countries-same-sex-marriage/8827842	Mr Leigh's claim is overstated. Most of the countries that Australia shares political, economic and social links with have legalised same-sex marriage. However, we are not the only "advanced English-speaking country" that has failed to do so. Singapore, an advanced English-speaking country with a population of almost 6 million people, has not even decriminalised sexual acts between two men, let alone legalised same-sex marriage. And not all parts of the United Kingdom have same-sex marriage — it is still not legal in Northern Ireland.	 ['gays-and-lesbians', 'marriage', 'alp', 'australia']	None	None	['gays-and-lesbians', 'marriage', 'alp', 'australia']	Fact check: Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?	Thu 30 Nov 2017, 2:55am	None	['Australia']
-snes-04482	Philando Castile was a member of the Crips gang.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/philando-castile-crips-member/	None	Crime	None	Dan Evon	None	Philando Castile: Crips Gang Member?	10 July 2016	None	['Crips']
-pomt-10940	Says Beto O’Rourke is "the only candidate to the U.S. Senate to call for" impeaching President Donald Trump.	/texas/statements/2018/jul/25/ted-cruz/beto-orourke-only-senate-candidate-call-donald-tru/	There’s no sign of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas favoring the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Now Cruz says his Democratic challenger, U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke of El Paso, stands alone nationally for tilting the other way. Cruz’s campaign said in a July 17, 2018, press release that O’Rourke "continued today his reckless and radical Senate campaign based on impeaching Pres. Donald Trump. He is the only candidate to the U.S. Senate to call for impeachment," the release said. We wondered: Is O’Rourke alone among Senate hopefuls in advocating the Republican president’s impeachment? Not so, we found, though it looks like he's the only Senate nominee to date to say he'd vote to launch impeachment proceedings. Refresher: The Constitution gives the House the power to impeach the president, vice president and other civil federal officials for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors while it gives the Senate the power of trying impeachments. Convictions and consequent removals from office require the concurrence of two-thirds’ of senators in attendance. In recent history, President Bill Clinton was impeached; he wasn’t convicted or removed. O’Rourke has repeatedly said he’d vote to impeach Our search of the Nexis news database showed that as early as August 2017, O’Rourke said he’d vote for Trump’s impeachment. Most recently, the Dallas Morning News quoted O’Rourke saying in July 2018 that Trump merited impeachment for his performance in the just-completed summit with Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin. O’Rourke responded to a News reporter: "Standing on stage in another country with the leader of another country who wants to and has sought to undermine this country, and to side with him over the United States — if I were asked to vote on this I would vote to impeach the president. Impeachment, much like an indictment, shows that there is enough there for the case to proceed and at this point there is certainly enough there for the case to proceed." Then again, O’Rourke in December 2017 was among 364 House members to vote for tabling a proposal by Rep. Al Green, D-Houston, to impeach Trump, records show. Before that vote, Democratic leaders released a statement referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry that said impeachment wasn’t timely. When we asked Cruz’s campaign how the senator determined that O’Rourke was alone among Senate candidates calling for impeachment, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier pointed out by email that the News story noting O’Rourke’s willingness to vote for impeachment quoted Cruz’s campaign manager, Jeff Roe, leveling a more limited claim. Roe called O’Rourke "the only major-party candidate in America to call for impeachment." Another Cruz contact, Emily Miller, emailed us a web link to a November 2017 Reuters news story describing O’Rourke saying that Trump’s racially charged rhetoric and divisive governing style had led O’Rourke to support impeachment. O’Rourke was quoted saying: "I’m now convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that Donald Trump is unfit for that office." O’Rourke spokesman says he’s not ‘called’ for impeaching Trump When we reached out to O’Rourke about Cruz calling him the only Senate candidate to call for impeachment, campaign spokesman Chris Evans said by email: "Beto has never called for the impeachment of President Trump." Evans maintained that O’Rourke’s responses to reporters and voters about voting in favor of impeachment weren’t the same as the candidate calling for impeachment. Evans elaborated that O’Rourke hasn’t brought up impeachment "at town halls or rallies, has not sent fundraising or petition emails on it, has not posted social media advocating for it, and has not used his current position of public trust to do so through floor speeches, letters or resolutions." Evans also pointed out an interview we’d missed. For an episode of Showtime’s "The Circus," posted online in May 2018, O’Rourke replied that as a member of the House, he’d vote right then to impeach Trump. Asked if he’d vote as a senator to convict Trump, O’Rourke replied: "Until I'm in that position and am able to hear the case made by each side, all the facts laid out, I can't give you an answer on that--nor would you want me to." Other Senate candidates? Our search for other Senate candidates favoring impeachment turned up a couple. Responding to our inquiries, nonpartisan observers said by email that while O’Rourke appeared to be the only Democratic Senate nominee to speak out for Trump’s impeachment, he was likely not the only Senate candidate to do so. Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, pointed out a May 2018 TIME news story quoting Richard Painter, a longshot Democratic challenger to Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, saying he favors Trump’s impeachment. The story said too, though, that Painter’s "emphasis on impeachment talk sets him apart from most other Democratic candidates." Duffy called Painter a "second-tier candidate who is notable for a couple of reasons: he used to be a Republican and he is taking on an appointed incumbent. Generally, the Senate and House Democratic leadership is dissuading their candidates from talking about impeachment because they are afraid such talk will energize Trump voters and entice them to the polls in November. "O'Rourke is a break-the-mold candidate," Duffy wrote, "so it doesn't surprise me that he is talking about it." Generally, Duffy commented, the "challenge here is that literally hundreds of second- and third-tier candidates file to run for the Senate and get very little attention. I suspect that some of the Democrats in these categories have called for Trump's impeachment, but no one is paying attention." Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia expert who analyzes federal races, described O’Rourke as alone among Democratic candidates in "somewhat-to-very competitive Senate races" to call for impeachment. "However," Sabato wrote, "we do not keep up with uncompetitive Senate states. Sometimes long-shot candidates will take positions that more cautious nominees who have a real chance to win will avoid." Our Nexis search turned up another candidate backing impeachment. In June 2018, Kevin de León, a Democrat running for the Senate in California, called for Trump to be impeached immediately, the Sacramento Bee reported in a June 21, 2018, news story. De León, who faces incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein on the November ballot, was quoted saying: "What this president has done easily surpasses what Richard Nixon did back in Watergate. ... What I've seen to date easily, in my mind, qualifies for impeachment." Our ruling Cruz said O’Rourke is "the only candidate to the U.S. Senate to call for" impeaching Trump. Since August 2017, O’Rourke has been saying that he’d vote to impeach Trump, which would start with a vote in the House, where he serves. O’Rourke might be the only Senate nominee to say as much. However, Democratic Senate contenders in Minnesota and California also have talked up Trump's impeachment. We rate this claim about O'Rourke's uniqueness False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2018-07-25T15:14:52	2018-07-17	['United_States', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-09223	Elena Kagan "violated the law of the United States at various points" with her opposition to military recruiters.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/16/jeff-sessions/sessions-says-kagan-violated-us-law-regarding-mili/	In a discussion of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on ABC's This Week on May 16, 2010, the back-and-forth between Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the committee's ranking Republican, largely focused on Kagan's position on military recruitment while she was dean at Harvard Law School from 2003-2009. We examined a claim from each of the senators, and here we're focusing on one from Sessions. "She disallowed them from the normal recruitment process on campus," said Sessions. "She went out of her way to do so. She was a national leader in that, and she violated the law of the United States at various points in the process." There's no debate that Kagan challenged the law regarding military recruiting on campuses. But is it true that Kagan "violated the law of the United States at various points in the process"? The military recruiting issue long predated Kagan's tenure at Harvard Law School. Since 1979, the law school had a policy that requires employers who want to recruit on campus through the school's Office of Career Services to sign a statement that they do not discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation. The 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- which denied entry to openly gay people -- precluded U.S. military officials from signing, and so they were prohibited from using the Office of Career Services. But that didn't mean military recruiters were barred from campus altogether. Rather, the military recruited through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student organization (now called the Harvard Law School Armed Forces Association). "The symbolic effect of this special treatment of military recruiters was important, but the practical effect on recruiting logistics was minimal," wrote Robert C. Clark, a professor and dean at Harvard Law School from 1989 to 2003, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on May 11, 2010. However, Clark wrote, in 2002 the military officials "took a hard line with Harvard" and threatened to yank all the university's federal funding because they said Harvard was not providing equal access to military recruiters in violation of the 1996 Solomon Amendment. Here's what the Solomon Amendment says: "No [federal] funds...may be provided by contract or by grant to an institution of higher education (including any subelement of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense determines that that institution (or any subelement of that institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents...the Secretary of a military department or Secretary of Homeland Security from gaining access to campuses, or access to students (who are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer." In light of the threat to school funding, Harvard relented in 2002. Military recruiters were allowed to use the school's Office of Career Services, though administrators essentially put out statements saying they didn't like it and that they felt the military policy was discriminatory. That's where things stood when Kagan took over in 2003. In 2003, Kagan penned a letter to the law school community expressing her thoughts on the issue: "I abhor the military's discriminatory recruitment policy. The importance of the military to our society -- and the extraordinary service that members of the military provide to all the rest of us -- makes this discrimination more, not less, repugnant. The military's policy deprives many men and women of courage and character from having the opportunity to serve their country in the greatest way possible. This is a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community, because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country." Nonetheless, she allowed military recruiters to use the Office of Career Services. Meanwhile, an association of law schools known as the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights was mounting a legal challenge to the Solomon Amendment. In January, 2004, Kagan and several dozen of her colleagues at Harvard Law filed an amicus brief (sometimes known as a "friend of the court" brief) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (which has jurisdiction over district courts in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania), arguing that the federal government should not be able to withhold funding if the schools applied the same policies to all recruiters. The withholding of funds interfered with the schools' freedom of expression to oppose what they felt were discriminatory policies, they argued. In November 2004, the Third Circuit court concluded that "the Solomon Amendment cannot condition federal funding on law schools’ compliance with it" and that "FAIR has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits" of the case. Kagan immediately reinstated the ban on military recruiters’ use of Harvard Law’s Office of Career Services. She wrote in a letter to the faculty that the military could still recruit through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association (as it did prior to 2002). But with that case pending before the Supreme Court, the Pentagon threatened to withhold all federal funding to Harvard, and Kagan reversed course and allowed recruiters to again avail themselves of the Office of Career Services. So the ban lasted one semester in 2005. Kagan signed on to another amicus brief, again making its case to the Supreme Court, but on March 6, 2006, the Supreme Court rejected that circuit court ruling with a resounding 8-0 ruling. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the claims of Kagan and the other law professors that the school had the right to enforce non-discrimination policies against the military. "Under the statute, military recruiters must be given the same access as recruiters who comply with the policy," the opinion said. So did Kagan violate the law when she banned military recruiters from using the Office of Career Services for that one semester? First off, the law didn't say universities may not bar military recruiters. It said certain types of federal funds may not go to those schools if they bar the recruiters. There's a big difference. It's certainly fair to say Kagan tested the law, but it's another thing to claim she violated the law. Kagan barred military recruiters from using the Office of Career Services only after a Third Circuit court ruled the Solomon Amendment was "likely" unconstitutional. And she reversed course even before the Supreme Court ruled against the universities -- so she didn't willfully flout the law after the Supreme Court made the law unmistakably clear. Some may argue that the Third Circuit decision didn't affect Massachusetts, which is in the First Circuit, and that the Supreme Court was decisive in its reversal of that circuit court decision. So one could also argue that Kagan didn't comply with what the law required, but we think it's a stretch for Sessions to say Kagan "violated the law of the United States at various points in the process." There was at least some legal ambiguity -- for a time -- about Harvard's obligation. And, we note, no money was ever denied to Harvard. And so we rate Sessions' comment Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Jeff Sessions	None	None	None	2010-05-16T19:35:10	2010-05-16	['United_States', 'Elena_Kagan']
-pomt-04439	"We weren't told they wanted more security " for diplomatic facilities in Libya.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/12/joe-biden/biden-says-we-werent-told-Libya-security-requests/	The attack on the consulate in Libya that took the life of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans has put the Obama administration on the defensive. In the vice presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz pressed Vice President Joe Biden to explain why administration officials at first described the attack as something that emerged from a protest: RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on? BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That's why there's also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there. BIDEN: Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. In this fact check, we'll look at whether the administration was told that that U.S. officials in Libya wanted additional security. In a House hearing on Wednesday, a State Department employee, Eric Nordstrom, said he told his superiors twice that the embassy mission needed more armed security. Nordstrom was the regional security officer for Libya in the months before the attack. In a July cable, he said he wanted 12 guards plus military trainers. Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary at the State Department who reviewed his request, confirmed at the hearing that she opposed keeping the security team in Libya. Beyond putting his assessment on paper, Nordstrom made that request verbally to a State Department officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. "His response to that was, 'You're asking for the sun, moon, and the stars,'" Nordstrom said. Nordstrom, who still works for the State Department, described a phone call with that officer and his frustration with the department's bureaucracy. "I said, ' It's not the hardships. It's not the gunfire. It's not the threats. It's dealing and fighting against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me," Nordstrom said. State Department officials at the hearing argued that they met other security requests and that the additional personnel would have been of little use since they would have been based in Tripoli. The attack took place in Benghazi. Nordstrom was seeking more forces for the embassy mission nationally, not exclusively Benghazi. In fact, the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that Biden was aware of the House testimony and was answering the debate question in terms of what the White House knew, not the entire administration. "The vice president was speaking for himself and the President, Vietor said. "In over four hours of testimony the other day, no one suggested that requests for additional security were made to the president or the White House. These are issues that are appropriately handled by security professionals at the State Department." Our ruling Vice President Biden said, "We weren't told they wanted more security." That statement is accurate only if you define "we" to mean "people at the White House." A State Department officer in Libya said that he requested additional guards and was turned down by at least one other official in the State Department. The White House said Biden meant that the security requests had not been conveyed to him and others in the executive office. It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2012-10-12T15:53:24	2012-10-11	['Libya']
-snes-06296	Pop star Lady Gaga is a 'hermaphrodite.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lady-gaga/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Is Lady Gaga a Hermaphrodite?	29 January 2010	None	['Lady_Gaga']
-pomt-12370	"Since the fourth quarter of last year until most recently, we've added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/05/scott-pruitt/are-coal-mining-jobs-50000-last-year-not-exactly/	Just days after President Donald Trump announced that he would be pulling the United States out of the Paris international climate agreement, his Environmental Protection Agency administrator went on the Sunday shows to defend Trump’s decision. During the June 4 interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd asked Scott Pruitt whether it was disingenuous for the administration to promise a rebirth of coal. On the one hand, coal is a high-carbon-emissions fuel that is at a disadvantage under the Paris agreement and could potentially benefit from the United States’ exit from the accord. On the other, some experts have said that the demise of coal as an energy source has less to do with emissions than with lost market share to a competing fossil fuel -- natural gas -- and technological improvements that have bolstered renewable energies such as wind and solar. Here’s how Pruitt answered Todd’s suggestion that the administration was making a "false promise." "Dead wrong, because the numbers show exactly the opposite," Pruitt said. "In fact, since the the fourth quarter of last year until most recently, we've added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs." Is that correct? Calculating job figures for the coal industry is tricky, as we have previously noted, but we found reason to be skeptical of Pruitt’s numbers. The EPA pointed us to a separate interview Pruitt had on ABC’s This Week, when he said, "We've had over 50,000 jobs since last quarter -- coal jobs, mining jobs -- created in this country. We had almost 7,000 mining and coal jobs created in the month of May alone." This is also not firmly backed by data. The BLS numbers Let’s start with the official Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. Currently, the BLS counts about 50,000 coal mining jobs in the United States -- total. That makes it all but impossible for the first half of Pruitt’s claim -- 50,000 more mining jobs since the end of last year -- to be accurate. Indeed, according to the BLS data, the actual increase in coal jobs since the end of last year was 1,300, while the monthly increase in May was 400. That’s far below the increases of 50,000 and 7,000 that Pruitt cited, respectively. Based on his comments to ABC, Pruitt appears to have been referring to the broader "mining and logging" sector in the BLS data. But even by that standard, his numbers are inflated. The mining and logging sector has grown by 38,000 jobs since the end of last year and grew by 6,000 in May. He’s close when he calls 6,000 "almost 7,000," but 38,000 is well short of 50,000. And if Pruitt meant to refer to these statistics, they include logging jobs as well -- a sector he didn’t reference on the shows. Are there other job numbers to analyze? The coal industry has long chafed at the BLS’ definition of coal-sector jobs. Terry Headley, the director of communications for the American Coal Council, said that coal employment numbers compiled independently by states are typically much larger than what BLS has found, perhaps because many states use broader definitions of who should be counted. For instance, Headley said, coal truck drivers -- probably numbering several thousand nationally -- are not broken out from the BLS data for "truck drivers." The situation is similar for electricians, surveyors, mechanics, and equipment service technicians, he said. In West Virginia alone, he said, state data for 2015 show 48,327 in the category of miners, mine support, and onsite processing staff. "If you look purely at the federal numbers you will only get about 12,000 for the state," he said. Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, doesn’t dispute that this can have an effect on the numbers. "It’s possible that the added employment connected with moving the coal once it is removed from the ground, such as transportation and warehousing, and the use of the coal in downstream industries, such as in electric power generation and integrated steel plants, would produce a somewhat bigger employment effect," Burtless said. Official BLS data for the coal mining industry "does omit many workers who work in the industry," said Jed Kolko, the chief economist for the jobs site Indeed.com. "Related industries, like support activities for mining, presumably include some who work in the coal mining industry, though related industries might combine coal with oil and gas and therefore make it hard to come up with a broader total of coal-mining employees." Still, Burtless said that getting from 1,300 official coal-mining jobs to 50,000 additional jobs that can be credited to the sector would likely require an even more generous definition -- one that estimates how many additional jobs in the overall economy stem from the added purchasing by newly flush coal companies and miners. Headley said that such calculations for the coal sector have historically ranged from a multiplier of three to a multiplier of 11 -- that is, from three times to 11 times as many jobs created in the broader economy for every job created in coal mining. Such a wide range of estimates should serve as a yellow light, economists say, since they are subject to advocates’ rosy estimates. Is there an upswing in coal production? Pruitt is at least able to point to data showing a recent increase in coal production. Data calculated by the federal Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration shows that year-to-date coal production has been 17.6 percent higher than the comparable figure for 2016. And data from the Association of American Railroads shows that, the amount of coal loaded onto rail cars has been significantly higher so far this year than it was during first few months of 2016. Such data indicates that more coal has been mined and shipped in the first part of this year, even if actual job gains aren’t showing up in the data yet. Still, this begs the question of whether this increase had anything to do with the Trump administration’s policies. The increase in coal jobs began before Trump was elected. The job gains in the coal sector during the final five months of the Barack Obama administration -- an administration that Trump’s camp blamed for waging a "war on coal" -- were actually slightly larger than the equivalent number for the first five months of the Trump administration, namely 1,400 versus 1,300. Moreover, good and bad times in the coal sector tend to stem more from industry-specific developments and international factors than domestic policy changes, experts said. "Coal mining is a highly cyclical industry, making it hard to attribute ups and down to policy or political factors," Kolko said. A recent report in NPR put its finger on one possible factor that has boosted the coal sector in recent months -- unusually high demand for "metallurgical" coal, which is used for making steel, rather than for electricity generation. Metallurgical coal accounts for about about one-sixth of coal production worldwide. Art Sullivan, a mining consultant and former coal miner in Washington, Pa., told NPR that Australia, the world’s leader in metallurgical coal, has faced supply-chain troubles in recent months due to rail and weather problems. This, plus higher Chinese steel production, has caused the price for Australian metallurgical steel to spike, making U.S. firms more competitive recently than they would ordinarily have been, Sullivan told NPR. Our ruling Pruitt said, "Since the fourth quarter of last year until most recently, we've added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs." The official Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows strikingly smaller increases than what Pruitt said, even when taking into account his comments on other Sunday shows. Meanwhile, there is evidence that coal production and shipment is higher this year compared to early 2016, but the rise actually began under Obama and it’s not clear that Trump policies have been the driving factor. We rate the statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Scott Pruitt	None	None	None	2017-06-05T16:36:47	2017-06-04	['None']
-pomt-03472	"More than half of last year's U.S. college graduates are unemployed or underemployed."	/florida/statements/2013/jun/14/don-gaetz/florida-leaders-say-more-half-2012-college-graduat/	Senate President Don Gaetz and House Speaker Will Weatherford say changes are needed to Florida’s education system to match the realities of Florida’s economy. In a column published June 11, 2013, in the Tampa Bay Times, the two wrote that Florida’s K-12 system should emphasize rigorous vocational training for students who want it, arguing that those are the jobs that are in demand. The stakes, Weatherford and Gaetz wrote, are critical. "While more than half of last year's U.S. college graduates are unemployed or underemployed, the ironic truth is that there are thousands of jobs in Florida unfilled because employers can't find workers whose skills meet industry specifications," the two Republican leaders wrote. We decided to focus on how last year’s college graduates are faring. (We are putting Gaetz on the Truth-O-Meter because his spokeswoman said he was the one who contributed that fact to the piece.) The statement is actually an old line that Mitt Romney used during the 2012 presidential campaign. Its genesis is based on research by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, which in turn is based on data from the federal Current Population Survey, as well as Labor Department measures of what level of education is required to perform each of some 900 jobs. The findings were published by the Associated Press on April 22, 2012, under the headline "In Weak Job Market, One In Two College Graduates Are Jobless Or Underemployed." "Young adults with bachelor's degrees are increasingly scraping by in lower-wage jobs – waiter or waitress, bartender, retail clerk or receptionist, for example – and that's confounding their hopes a degree would pay off despite higher tuition and mounting student loans...," the AP wrote. "About 1.5 million, or 53.6 percent, of bachelor's degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed … Out of the 1.5 million who languished in the job market, about half were underemployed, an increase from the previous year." While the Gaetz/Weatherford statement appears to mirror the AP’s reporting, there actually are a few distinctions. Gaetz and Weatherford did err in referring to "last year’s U.S. college graduates," when the study -- which came out in 2012 -- studied all bachelor’s degree holders under 25. Andrew Sum, the Northeastern professor who did the research, said the bigger issue with the claim is how the figures may be interpreted and the difference between using "jobless," as the AP did, and "unemployed" as Gaetz and Weatherford said. To most non-labor economists they are the same thing, but they can have a different technical definition, said Gary Burtless, a labor market expert with the Brookings Institution. Unemployed means someone who wants a job but cannot find one. Jobless means anyone who doesn’t have a job -- whether they want one or not. As such, Sum says that Gaetz and Weatherford inflated their claim. "About half the jobless were not actively looking for work partly due to college attendance," Sum said. Put another way, about half of recent college graduates who are "jobless" do not want a job because they are pursuing some other degree. Sum said his staff ran the numbers again using the first four months of 2013 and essentially found the same results. As far as those underemployed, it’s important to note that it might not all be the economy -- or public education’s -- fault. "There are many perfectly respectable things a new college graduate may be doing (like getting an advanced degree or having and raising a new child) that might leave them jobless and underemployed," Burtless told us via email. Our ruling In defending changes to the state’s education system, Gaetz and Weatherford said that "more than half of last year's U.S. college graduates are unemployed or underemployed." To get there, the two relied on articles citing research by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, which found that of recent bachelor’s degree earners -- those under 25 -- 53.6 percent were either jobless or underemployed. There are two factors for us in issuing our rating: 1) How big of a mistake was it for Gaetz and Weatherford to say "last year’s U.S. college graduates" when the study looked at all bachelor’s degree earners under 25, a time frame that would span beyond 2012? And; 2) How big of a difference is it for Gaetz and Weatherford to use "unemployed" when "jobless" might have been better? On the first question, it’s likely that the statistics would be different by looking just at 2012 graduates compared to a longer period of time (that data isn’t available). On the second, economists we talked to said it’s commonplace for people to interchange "jobless" and "unemployed," though some experts would argue they mean different things. While we don’t quibble with Weatherford and Gaetz using the term unemployed, it’s important to note in this particular context that researchers looked beyond people unable to find work and included people who were not looking for work. That difference in approach changes the figure. After reviewing all the evidence, we think it’s safe to say that the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. That’s exactly our definition of Half True.	None	Don Gaetz	None	None	None	2013-06-14T10:57:52	2013-06-11	['United_States']
-pomt-01695	Says Mitch McConnell voted "two times against the Violence Against Women Act."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/13/alison-lundergan-grimes/alison-lundergan-grimes-ad-claims-mcconnell-twice-/	Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes says in a new ad that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has forgotten that "over half the voters in Kentucky are women." The proof? Grimes turns to Ilene Woods, an elderly Kentucky woman, who sums it up in a question for Mitch McConnell: "Senator, why did you vote two times against the Violence Against Women Act and against enforcing equal pay for women?" Silence. "I can never get him to answer this one either," Grimes offers. Does Grimes’ evidence hold water? Let’s take a look at McConnell’s record on the Violence Against Women Act to find out. This is a case where the literal truth is still somewhat misleading (as FactCheck.org dutifully laid out in its own review). The Violence Against Women Act was introduced in 1990 by Joe Biden, then a senator from Delaware. The bill created federal penalties for sex crimes, provided federal grants to law enforcement agencies to combat crimes against women, created the National Commission on Violent Crime Against Women, aided victims of sexual assault, funded women’s shelters and changed how courts can weigh a victim’s past sexual experience in sexual assault cases. McConnell was one of just three Republican cosponsors of the bill, along with 22 Democrats. It was sent to a committee but never came up for a vote. Biden tried again in 1991. Support was building. This time, McConnell was one of 10 Republican cosponsors and 56 overall. But again, it didn’t make it out of committee. The bill was introduced a third time by Biden in 1993. This time, there were 67 cosponsors, but McConnell wasn’t one of them. (His campaign would not say why.) While the bill once again died in committee, the language of it was adopted into the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a $30 billion omnibus crime bill that was also sponsored by Biden. The bill won widespread bipartisan support, passing the Senate in 1993 on a 95-4 vote. McConnell joined the majority of the Senate in voting for it. The House bill also contained the Violence Against Women Act, but included as well a much more controversial assault weapons ban. This was opposed by a majority of Senate Republicans, including McConnell. It passed the Senate 61 to 38, with McConnell voting against it, and Clinton signed it into law. The Violence Against Women’s Act was twice reauthorized, once in 2000 and again in 2005, passing the Senate unanimously on each occasion. The 2005 reauthorization occurred under Republican control of the Senate (McConnell was in the party leadership at the time) and included additions such as enhanced penalties for stalking and programs for American Indian victims, according to the Congressional Research Service. Grimes’ campaign, though, pointed to more recent votes against the Violence Against Women Act twice. Indeed, in 2012 and 2013, McConnell opposed the measured put forward by the Democratically controlled Senate. What were his objections in reauthorizing a bill he had supported many times throughout the previous two decades? McConnell contended that Democrats added a number of contentious provisions in the legislation that Republicans, who backed the overall legislation, could not sign off on. Republican angst was centered on three new components: including victims of discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity among "underserved populations"; increasing the cap on U-Visas, a visa that grants nonimmigrant status to immigrant victims of domestic violence who assist police in prosecuting their attackers; allowing non-American Indian residents on tribal land to be prosecuted by tribal courts for domestic violence against Native women. In both 2012 and 2013, Republicans put forward their own legislation that reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act without these three elements. In 2012, McConnell voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. It failed 37 to 62. Later that day, the Senate passed the Democratic bill, but it couldn’t get through the GOP-controlled House. In 2013, the Senate again passed the Democratic measure. McConnell voted against the Democrats’ bill and for an unsuccessful amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassely, R-Iowa, that did not contain the provisions for LGBT victims, American Indians and immigrants. This time, the Senate bill passed the House, and President Barack Obama signed it into law. Our ruling Grimes’ ad claims McConnell twice voted against the Violence Against Women Act. The claim paints a very incomplete picture. McConnell supported the act repeatedly when it was first introduced and when it first passed the Senate in the early 1990s, and twice voted to reauthorize it. While he voted against the Democratic versions of the bill in 2012 and 2013 that included new provisions for sexual orientation, immigration status and tribal lands (and eventually became law), he voted for Republican measures that largely maintained the status quo. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details and context. Therefore, we rate it Half True.	None	Alison Lundergan Grimes	None	None	None	2014-08-13T11:35:40	2014-07-30	['None']
-pose-01160	Candidates would be barred from spending contributions of over $5,000 made in the last 30 days before an election -- until they are reported to the Texas Ethics Commission.	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/abbott-o-meter/promise/1250/bar-spending-certain-contributions-until-theyre-re/	None	abbott-o-meter	Greg Abbott	None	None	Bar spending of certain contributions until they're reported to the state	2015-01-20T14:00:00	None	['None']
-snes-00978	A photograph shows President Trump holding crib notes during a listening session with survivors of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-crib-notes-parkland/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Trump Use ‘Crib Notes’ During Listening Session with Parkland Survivors?	22 February 2018	None	['None']
-afck-00032	“Our health worker proportion is therefore still below the ideal minimum health worker to population ratio of 23 doctors, nurses and midwives per 10,000 population recommended by WHO…”	https://africacheck.org/reports/hit-or-miss-5-claims-by-kenyan-governors-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Hit or miss? 5 claims by Kenyan governors fact-checked	2018-07-04 01:06	None	['None']
-goop-01099	Jennifer Aniston, Justin Theroux Having “Major Regrets” Over Their Split, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-regret-split-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston, Justin Theroux NOT Having “Major Regrets” Over Their Split, Despite Claim	5:00 pm, April 28, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-01377	Republicans "made it easier to buy a gun" in states they won in 2010.	/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/16/mark-shields/shields-gops-2010-statehouse-gains-eased-rules-gun/	If the polls are to be believed, most voters are approaching the upcoming midterm elections with less zest than in the past. Republicans hold the enthusiasm edge over Democrats, but their advantage is about half as big compared to 2010, when they made major gains at the state and federal levels. Still, Republicans are poised to do well and liberal columnist Mark Shields warned about the consequences of GOP victories. "When the Republicans swept all these statehouses and state legislatures (in 2010), they did two things," Shields said on Oct. 10 on PBS’ Newshour. "They made it easier to buy a gun and tougher to vote." The part about gun purchases caught a reader’s ear and she asked if Shields had it right, so in this fact-check, we see what happened to the laws about buying guns after 2010. To cut to the chase, relatively modest changes took place in few states. But we found no evidence that Republicans across the country made sweeping changes to make it easier to purchase a firearm. According the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states saw at least one legislative chamber or a governorship shift from Democratic to Republican control. Within that group, we found just three instances of new laws that you could say made it easier to buy a weapon. (There are examples of states relaxing rules on carrying concealed weapons and the places where guns are allowed, but Shields specifically spoke about it being easier to buy guns.) Out of 16 states, only Michigan, Ohio and Florida relaxed some rules on gun purchasing. We'll explain the changes in each state. Changes in Michigan, Ohio and Florida Michigan emerged from 2010 with Republicans in charge of everything -- the governor’s office and both the House and the Senate. With large majorities in both chambers, they did away with the state system of requiring handgun buyers to get a purchase permit. Until then, a person who wanted to buy a handgun had to correctly answer at least seven out of 10 questions on gun safety. If they managed that, they got a card that they could take to a gun dealer and buy a weapon. Steven Howard is a lawyer and firearms expert based in Lansing, Mich. Howard said doing away with the purchase permit made little difference. "The Brady background check remained in effect," Howard said. "If you didn’t pass the Brady test, they didn’t sell you the gun." But on a gun owner’s online discussion board, the end of the purchase permit was well received. A Michigan user called "Mike the Greek" was surprised to see notice of the relaxed rules in the window of his local gun store. "Not sure if this is everywhere, but it sure makes it easier for some people to buy!" he wrote. Looking around at other states, according to records kept by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Ohio passed a law in 2011 that allowed people convicted of misdemeanor drug offenses to purchase firearms. In the midterm election, Republicans had taken the governor’s office and the Ohio House. In Florida, where the governor’s office also changed hands (from an independent to a Republican), counties were barred from imposing their own waiting periods on firearm purchases. (Most of the discussion in creating the Florida law was centered around where people could carry weapons, not about purchasing firearms.) Experts on both sides agree Laura Cutilletta is senior staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Cutilletta said there was no significant easing of gun buying rules. "There were certainly some laws that affect purchase, but they are not the majority by any means," Cutilletta said. Joseph Olson, a retired professor of law at Hamline University, and former board member of the National Rifle Association, also saw little change. "A few states made it more difficult in some instances but almost all states did nothing regarding this issue," Olson said. Erich Pratt, director of communications for Gun Owners of America, told us the same thing. A couple of notes: • In 2012, Virginia repealed the restriction against the purchase of more than one handgun in a 30-day period. However, 2010 had no effect on the party balance of power in Virginia. • A review of state gun laws passed after the December 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., found that states with full Republican controll accounted for nearly three quarters of the changes that enhanced gun rights, mainly easing the rules for carrying weapons. But again, those change are distinct from the rules for buying a gun. Our ruling Shields said that when Republicans took control of state legislatures in 2010 they made it easier to buy a gun. Out of 16 states won by the GOP, three passed laws that relaxed the rules for some gun buyers. The experts we reached said the changes were modest and not as widespread as Shields implied. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Mark Shields	None	None	None	2014-10-16T10:27:40	2014-10-10	['None']
-farg-00129	Said he is “very proud” that “on my watch” there are “more women in the workforce today than ever before.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/misleading-talking-point-women-workers/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Eugene Kiely	['employment']	A Misleading Talking Point on Women Workers	January 25, 2018	[' White House – Tuesday, January 16, 2018 ']	['None']
-pomt-05140	"My opponent, in 2008, had contributions investigated by the federal government."	/ohio/statements/2012/jun/22/jim-renacci/jim-renacci-says-government-investigation-targeted/	Attacking a political rival when one of their donors runs into trouble is a campaign tactic that’s as old as dirt. Republican Rep. Jim Renacci tossed plenty of that dirt two years ago when the incumbent Democrat he defeated, former Rep. John Boccieri of Alliance, hung onto campaign cash he got from veteran New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel after the House Ethics Committee chided Rangel for taking a Congressional Black Caucus trip that was improperly funded by corporations. "As if John Boccieri’s voting record isn’t troubling enough, the fact that his campaign coffers have been fueled by the fruits of Washington’s culture of corruption raises further questions about his judgement and his ethics," said a March 1, 2010 statement from Renacci’s campaign. Similar attacks have been leveled at Renacci since a May 18 article in The New Republic revealed that federal law enforcement authorities were examining donations that Renacci’s campaign got from employees of a North Canton direct marketing firm called Suarez Corporation Industries. Federal agents sought contribution records from the campaigns of Renacci and GOP U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel after the Toledo Blade published a report about large donations Suarez employees made to the two campaigns. Wealthy political donors sometimes try to skirt limits on the amount they can give campaigns by having other people write checks and reimbursing them. That practice is illegal. The company and its employees deny any wrongdoing, as do the political campaigns. Mandel subsequently returned the money. But Renacci held on to the cash, pending the investigation’s outcome, and that has prompted the same sort of attacks as this year’s election looms that Renacci directed at Boccieri two years ago. "Since news broke that over $100,000 in questionable donations to Congressman Jim Renacci’s re-election campaign are the focus of a federal investigation, Jim Renacci has yet to do the right thing and return or donate them," says a notice on the campaign website of Renacci’s Democratic election rival, Rep. Betty Sutton of Coply Township, near Akron.. Renacci was queried about the controversy at a June 14 town hall meeting in Rocky River. He responded with an attack against Sutton: "My opponent, in 2008, had contributions investigated by the federal government." Sutton, he said, "kept them for two years until there was a final decision made, and then she returned them." PolitiFact Ohio wasn’t aware that the federal government had investigated political contributions that Sutton received, so we asked Renacci’s campaign to explain his assertion. Campaign spokesman James Slepian said the congressman misspoke, and that he instead meant to reference a past investigation into Rangel, her campaign donor. Slepian said Renacci accidentally referred to Sutton’s campaign "contributions" rather than using the word "donor." "When he said ‘contributions’ under investigation in reference to Sutton, what he clearly meant to say was ‘donor’ under federal investigation," said an email from Slepian. "As you know, Jim has issued numerous statements to the press (including The Plain Dealer) that one of Sutton’s donors was under investigation for two years and that he is following the same course she took by waiting for the outcome of the investigation before deciding whether or not to return the donations. That is what he was trying to communicate." Slepian also blasted Sutton and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of House of Representatives’ Democrats, for stating that Renacci himself is under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The DCCC made that claim in a June 1 press release. PolitiFact Ohio rated that it False after the head of the FBI’s Canton office debunked the accusation. Sutton was among dozens of Democratic office holders to whom Rangel donated money. It is true that allegations about Rangel began to surface in 2008, when The New York Times ran a series of articles about Rangel that suggested irregularities. Allegations in those articles included abuse of rent-stabilized apartments and failure to report $75,000 in income, as well as his protection of a tax loophole that favored one of his donors. Within a week of the House Ethics Committee's Feb. 25, 2010, report on Rangel’s improper junket, Sutton announced that she was giving the $7,000 she got from Rangel to charity. Sutton subsequently called on Rangel to resign from the House of Representatives. Slepian says Renacci’s decision to wait until the FBI probe is complete before deciding whether to get rid of the the Suarez money parallels Sutton’s decision to wait. But does it? The Rangel conduct under investigation had nothing to do with Sutton or the donations Rangel made to her campaign. The FBI’s investigation specifically involves donations made to Renacci. Also, Rangel was being probed by the House Ethics Committee for violating House of Representative rules. The FBI is probing donations to Renacci as potential crimes. And the amounts of money involved are significantly different: $7,000 from Rangel to Sutton’s campaign; more than $100,000 from Suarez employees to Renacci’s campaign. Data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics says Suarez is Renacci’s biggest political donor. Regardless, the claim on the Truth-O-Meter is Renacci’s statement to the town hall audience that "my opponent, in 2008, had contributions investigated by the federal government." PolitiFact Ohio doesn’t play "gotcha" games. To their credit, the folks in the Renacci camp acknowledged he provided incorrect information to the crowd in Rocky River. But to those in attendance, the information they have to go on is what Renacci told them that night. That’s why the comment merits a check from PolitiFact Ohio. On the Truth-O-Meter, Renacci’s statement rates False.	None	Jim Renacci	None	None	None	2012-06-22T06:00:00	2012-06-14	['None']
-snes-03077	President Trump tweeted that drug testing would soon be mandatory for all recipients of government assistance.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/drug-test-benefits-trump-tweet/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Trump Tweet That Drug Testing Will Be Mandatory for Public Benefit Recipients?	24 January 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01223	Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson Marrying In $3 Million Caribbean Wedding?	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-tristan-thompson-marrying-caribbean-wedding/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson Marrying In $3 Million Caribbean Wedding?	10:21 am, April 9, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04554	A photograph shows a sign hanging from the Palacio Cibeles in Madrid, Spain, welcoming British refugees.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/british-refugees-welcome-sign/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	‘British Refugees Welcome’ Sign on Madrid Building	24 June 2016	None	['Spain', 'Madrid', 'United_Kingdom']
-afck-00237	There are “8.3 million jobless people” in South Africa.	https://africacheck.org/reports/fact-checking-the-sona2016-debates/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact-checking the #SoNA2016 debates	2016-02-16 02:07	None	['South_Africa']
-pomt-11649	"Atlanta is on its strongest financial footing in 40 years."	/georgia/statements/2018/jan/12/keisha-lance-bottoms/atlantas-finances-best-40-years/	In her inaugural speech, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms told the crowd that the city was well-positioned to move forward in the coming years. "We came back from the Great Recession and worked hard for eight years to put Atlanta’s finances in a good place," Bottoms said. "Atlanta is on its strongest financial footing in 40 years." Four decades is a long time, and we wanted to give that assertion a harder look. In large measure, the claim holds up. But there are some caveats about the exact numbers that support it. Plus, measures of financial strength are always somewhat subjective. A few key indicators give a broad picture of how well any municipality is doing. There is the bond rating, which companies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor's use to indicate the risk of lending money to the city. The rating firms bumped up Atlanta in 2016. Standard & Poor’s raised its rating to AA+ from AA. Moody’s raised its rating to AA1 from AA2. Fitch increased its rating to AA+. As far as anyone can tell, those are the best ratings the city has ever enjoyed. Fiscal analysts also look at pension fund exposure. As the number of retirees grows, live longer, and the cost of health care continues to rise, the future costs have become much larger than the cash in the pension fund needed to cover them. One of the mavens of municipal finance data, Richard Ciccarone at Merritt Research Services, gave Atlanta a mediocre grade on its pension position. "Their funding ratio is only 65.9 percent, which is not that good," Ciccarone said. "It’s been worse. It has been low as 55.4 percent in 2006." City spokeswoman Jenna Garland said the decision in 2017 to merge three pension boards into one would tighten up fund management and increase investment returns. "Improved pension fund performance will result in a reduced need for the city to fund pension benefits, freeing those funds for use for city services," Garland said. Not so fast, said Katherine Willoughby, professor of public administration at the University of Georgia. "I would be in a wait-and-see mode," Willoughby said. "These are volatile things, and you hope the money will come in, but you don’t know until it happens." The pension fund issue was not a significant factor in the late 1970s. A big boost in the general fund Perhaps the biggest feather in the city’s cap is the hefty balance of the general fund at the end of 2017. The general fund is Atlanta’s main account to pay for everything from fixing potholes to keeping police on the beat. It went from $153 million in 2016 to $200 million in 2017. Measured against the city’s $553 million budget, the percentage — 35.8 percent — had never been higher "Never before in the city’s history have we both had a AA+ credit rating alongside record reserves and a record percentage of the budget in reserves," Garland said. "We believe the historical record would reflect that at no point from 1978 until 2016 when the city’s credit was upgraded was the City in a stronger financial position than today." The city’s fiscal team dug into the financial archives of old Consolidated Annual Financial Reports and sent us a spreadsheet. This table is an excerpt showing four key years.: 1978, 1979, 2016 and 2017. (Other financing resources include one-time dollars that flowed in or out of the general fund apart from the usual revenues or expenses. The total budgeted number is the amount city leaders approved at the start of the year. Total expenditures are the actual spending for the year.) Year Beginning Fund Balance Total Revenues Total Expenditures Other resources End Fund Balance Total Budgeted Expenditures Percent of budget 1978 31,213,421 101,955,596 95,055,812 (1,451,941) 36,661,264 141,848,805 25.85% 1979 36,661,264 113,507,631 110,880,579 (833,375) 38,454,941 162,465,755 23.67% 2016 38,454,941 530,310,000 545,822,000 17,647,000 40,589,941 543,311,000 7.47% 2017 153,149,000 572,908,000 597,180,000 71,205,000 200,082,000 558,379,000 35.83% The city’s main yardstick to make comparisons across 40 years is to look at the general fund’s ending balance as a share of the total budget at the start of the year. In those terms, 2017 is much stronger than 1978, 35 percent compared to 25 percent. Michael Pagano, dean of the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said it’s difficult for large cities to enjoy the margin that Atlanta has. "To have 35 percent for a city the size of Atlanta is remarkable," Pagano said. On the other hand, while it’s fair to compare the fund to the original budget, Pagano said it’s equally fair to compare to the actual spending. "If you are asking how well you performed, then you want to compare to the actual expenditures," he said. Willoughby agreed, saying the budget is more theoretical, and "it’s more anchored in reality to look at the actual spending." When we did that, the results flipped and the early years looked better than the recent ones. Year Total Expenditures Fund Balance Percent of Expenditures 1978 95,055,812 36,661,264 38.57% 1979 110,880,579 38,454,941 34.68% 2016 545,822,000 153,149,000 28.06% 2017 597,180,000 200,082,000 33.50% At the same time, after correcting for inflation, the shear size of the fund is larger today than in the past 40 years. Neither Pagano nor Willoughby took anything away from the gains Atlanta has made, particularly in the way it has risen from the fiscal wreckage of the Great Recession. Their point was that there are different ways to crunch the numbers. And they also offered several cautionary thoughts about what lies beneath the data. In the mid-1980s, Pagano collected surveys from financial officers at the 100 largest cities. The numbers he got from Atlanta for those years (included in the full spreadsheet, but not in the excerpt above) didn’t match what the city sent us. Conclusion? Pinpoint accuracy is not in the cards. Numbers that are broadly correct are about the best you can expect, especially when looking across several decades. Willoughby and Pagano cautioned against reading too much into the one-time $71 million bolt of cash that came in 2017. Our research found that money came from the decision to liquidate two city funds, with tens of millions from the Underground Atlanta project accounting for the bulk of it. "It was a benefit for this year," Willoughby said. "But you can’t count on it happening again. To pin your good fiscal health on one big drop of money is probably not appropriate." All of the experts we reached told us that there’s always a subjective element in municipal finance. "This is more of an art than a science," said Tracy Gordon, senior fellow at the Urban Institute. "How you combine the metrics and how you rate them involves some value judgments." Our ruling Bottoms said the city was on the strongest financial footing in 40 years. Several indicators point in that direction, though the weakest factor centers on pensions. Atlanta faces significant challenges in funding its future pension obligations. That was not a factor in 1978. However, the situation is better than a decade ago. More promising is the city’s bond rating. It is higher than ever. The relative size of the general fund also falls in the plus column. In constant dollars, the 2017 general fund is larger today than it was 40 years ago — one long-time researcher called it "remarkable." The fund did rely on some one-time cash infusions and a different, also reasonable, approach shows that the situation was a little better in 1978. There are factors that detract from the claim’s accuracy but the facts support the general thrust. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Update: We added new sources after this item published.	None	Keisha Lance Bottoms	None	None	None	2018-01-12T11:42:28	2018-01-02	['None']
-pose-00655	Refuse to "consider House legislation that includes earmarks."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/685/refuse-to-consider-house-legislation-that-includes/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	Eric Cantor	None	None	Refuse to consider House legislation that includes earmarks	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['None']
-pomt-07732	"We’ve now gained private sector jobs 12 months in a row."	/virginia/statements/2011/mar/02/tim-kaine/weve-now-gained-private-sector-jobs-12-months-row/	Amid cheers of "Run, Tim, run," former Gov. Tim Kaine was the star attraction at the Virginia Democratic Party’s annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Feb. 19. With fellow Democrat Jim Webb’s announcement that he will not seek a second term in the U.S. Senate next year, Kaine is under intense pressure to run for the seat. He tossed the hungry crowd slabs of red meat by criticizing the Republican Party’s economic record. Kaine, now chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said the economy has performed better under President Barack Obama than it had under his predecessor, George W. Bush. "Two years into a Democratic administration gross domestic product is not shrinking; it is growing again," he said. "We’ve now gained private sector jobs 12 months in a row." With the U.S. unemployment rate at 9 percent and millions still out of work from the recession, we wondered if this jobs claim is true. Private sector jobs cover workers not employed by the federal government, a state, city or county. Of the roughly 130 million Americans who currently hold jobs counted by BLS, about 83 percent of them, or 107.8 million, worked in the private sector last month. There are two sources for job data. One is the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, which releases information on job creation and the unemployment rate each month. The second source is Automatic Data Processing, a business outsourcing company that conducts a wide-ranging, monthly employment survey of private businesses. According to BLS, private payrolls climbed by 144,000 people during March 2010 and have risen every month since then, meaning they have increased for 11 straight months. In January, the most recent month for which data are available, private payrolls added 50,000 jobs, according to preliminary estimates. It’s worth noting that total payrolls, which include government jobs as well as private ones, have been on a roller coaster during the past year. Total payrolls posted big gains in March, April and May of 2010, helped by the hiring of short-term Census Bureau workers. But as those short-term jobs ended during the summer and fall, total payrolls slumped, falling each month from June through September. State and local budget cuts also meant fewer government jobs. Since October, total payrolls have been on the climb. What about the data from ADP, which focuses solely on private-sector jobs? Data show slow job growth began in March 2010 and continued until September, when 2,000 private jobs were lost. Growth resumed in October and has lasted four straight months. In 2009, the private sector lost about 5 million jobs, and during the first quarter, the economy was shedding more than 700,000 jobs every month. Now it is gaining 700,000 jobs over the course of six to eight months. That suggests we face a long road to full recovery. William Johnson, a labor economist at the University of Virginia, said this recession and the dot-com recession in 2000 were different from past slumps. In previous downturns, he said, output declined more than payrolls ebbed. Companies, in effect, kept more employees than were strictly necessary because they wanted to retain their skills for better times ahead. That paradigm shifted in 2000 and 2008, Johnson said. Companies cut employees faster than they reduced production, asking the remaining staff to work harder and pick up the slack. "It’s a new pattern, and nobody has really been able to explain it," Johnson said. "Some people say it is the health care law introducing uncertainty about the cost of hiring new employees, but it also happened in 2000 when there was no health care bill." Top officials at the Federal Reserve have projected that the national unemployment rate will remain at or slightly below 9 percent for the rest of 2011 and stay above 7 percent into 2013. The national unemployment rate was roughly 5 percent before the recession began in 2008. Let’s review. The official government source on employment says private sector job growth has occurred in each of the last 11 months. ADP, another nationally respected source on job growth, says private payrolls grew in 10 of the last 11 months and fell by just 2,000 jobs in the one month where a decline was reported. Speaking as an advocate of the president and his party’s policies, Kaine presented private sector job growth in the best possible light. But it is important to remember that the economy has recovered just 20 percent of the private sector jobs lost in 2009. Kaine said private sector jobs have been created for "12 months in a row." He was close, but missed the bull’s eye. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2011-03-02T07:56:09	2011-02-19	['None']
-pomt-12563	Says Al Jazeera, "a mouthpiece for terrorists, has been paying Jon Ossoff thousands of dollars. ... What is he hiding?"	/georgia/statements/2017/apr/13/congressional-leadership-fund/attack-ad-ties-jon-ossoff-al-jazeera/	No Democrat has held Georgia’s 6th Congressional District since 1979. Now, in a race to replace Republican Tom Price who joined the administration as secretary of Health and Human Services, 30-year-old Democrat Jon Ossoff stands out. In a field packed with 16 candidates from both parties, the latest poll shows Ossoff with about 40 percent. He needs to break 50 percent on Election Day, April 18, to avoid a runoff. Republican groups and their allies aim to block that. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with House Speaker Paul Ryan, posted a web video that ties Ossoff to Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based news organization. The ad opens with shots of Islamic fighters followed by a grainy television snippet of Osama bin Laden talking. The voiceover says: "Al Jazeera, a media outlet that has been described as a mouthpiece for terrorists, has been paying Jon Ossoff thousands of dollars. But Jon refuses to tell voters exactly how much money he’s received. Just like Jon refuses to tell voters the truth about his experience. What is he hiding?" The focus of this fact-check is on the ad’s statement, combined with the imagery that accompanies the claim, that Al Jazeera, "a mouthpiece for terrorists, has been paying Jon Ossoff thousands of dollars." A mouthpiece for terrorists? The ad cites an article from the American Journalism Review to back up its description of Al Jazeera. The article, entitled "The Al Jazeera Effect," centered on the news organization’s strategy of getting on-the-ground camera footage and reporting in the early days of the Arab Spring protests. The article relays a variety of opinions that have been offered about Al Jazeera. The ad chose one from this passage: "For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists." But the article also quotes David Marash, a former Nightline correspondent who joined and then left Al Jazeera over concerns about anti-American bias. Despite that history, the article said Marash described "Al Jazeera as ‘the best news channel on earth.... Al Jazeera has become the model all around the world. Video reporting from the field sets them apart and makes them the best.’" Congressional Leadership Fund spokeswoman Courtney Alexander offered several other examples of criticism of Al Jazeera. A 2001 New York Times Magazine article said "day in and day out, Al Jazeera deliberately fans the flames of Muslim outrage." A 2013 USA Today article quoted an Israeli center analyst who said Al Jazeera’s Arab language broadcasts "very often promote a very radical Islamist approach." Alexander also pointed to reports that the news network is backed by the Qatari government, and Qatar has been linked to financing terrorist groups. On the other hand, in 2011, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described Al Jazeera in glowing terms for its work during the Arab Spring. "I’m very proud of the role that Al Jazeera has played," McCain said. "I congratulate you and I mourn for those who have sacrificed in the service of providing the information, which is knowledge, which is power." The point is, some people have a bad opinion of Al Jazeera and others think it’s done good work. The ad cherry-picked images and a quote that cast Al Jazeera in the most dubious light possible. That characterization was the basis for the rest of the ad. Al Jazeera payments to Ossoff The video said Al Jazeera has been paying Ossoff thousands of dollars. Its source is an article from the conservative website the Washington Free Beacon, based on Ossoff’s congressional financial disclosure form. The report covered all of 2016 and nearly three months in 2017, and in it, Ossoff includes Al Jazeera as one client out of 13 that paid his firm Insight TWI at least $5,000. Insight TWI is a British-based documentary film production company. Ossoff became its CEO in 2013. Here’s the key section from his disclosure: The Washington Free Beacon asked Ossoff to go beyond the federal requirements and say how much he received from Al Jazeera. He didn’t respond. As a technical matter, according to the experts we reached, the Al Jazeera payments went to the firm, not Ossoff as the video said. He was CEO and shared in the proceeds, but all we know is that Al Jazeera paid Insight TWI at least $5,000. In a statement, Ossoff’s campaign said his firm’s clients include broadcasters in Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden. "Under Jon’s leadership, the company’s investigations have resulted in the arrest of foreign officials stealing U.S.-taxpayer-funded aid and quack doctors who mutilate women, as well as exposed atrocities committed by ISIS in Iraq, including sexual slavery," the statement said. According to the Insight TWI website, the company produced 10 film projects since Ossoff took the helm. Of those, nine were for Al Jazeera. During the time period covered by Ossoff’s financial disclosure, 2016 and 2017, there is only one film project reported for Al Jazeera. The other was for the BBC. The most recent Al Jazeera project was a six-part series on Latin America. Topics covered included child trafficking and sexual exploitation across the Argentina-Bolivia border, allegations of slave labor in Brazil’s garment industry and deaths in police custody in Mexico. Over the years, Al Jazeera paid Ossoff’s company for investigations that revealed government corruption in Africa, extra-judicial killings, corrupt doctors selling HIV/AIDS drugs on the black market, and related themes. One film dealt with terrorists. It was produced for the BBC and followed a group of Yazidi women turned soldiers who seek revenge on ISIS fighters. Alexander of the Congressional Leadership Fund noted that Ossoff mentions the BBC but not Al Jazeera on his website. Ossoff’s resume When Ossoff launched his campaign, he touted his national security background, saying he had five years under his belt as a congressional staffer. We found that was an exaggeration. By our count, he spent about three years in middle-to-senior level foreign policy posts. The ad says Ossoff "refuses to tell voters the truth about his experience." On the contrary, the campaign provided a timeline (at the bottom of this link) showing what he did and when. Alexander told us that on the stump, Ossoff doesn’t go out of his way to acknowledge his exaggeration. Our ruling The Congressional Leadership Fund video says Al Jazeera, "a mouthpiece for terrorists, has been paying Jon Ossoff thousands of dollars and asks "what is he hiding?" This is a case when a series of partial truths are strung together to promote the worst possible conclusion. Some Americans have called Al Jazeera a mouthpiece of terrorists. Others, including a U.S. senator, have praised it as a beacon of reporting in the Middle East and Africa. The ad cherry-picks its evidence to characterize Al Jazeera only as aligned with terrorists. Al Jazeera did pay Ossoff's company. During the time frame covered in his financial disclosure, Ossoff’s firm produced two film projects, one for Al Jazeera and one for the BBC. Al Jazeera has been a major client over the years, but going back to the start of 2016, it is one out of 13. In addition, the films Al Jazeera have commissioned focus on wrongdoing in Africa and Latin America and have nothing to do with the Middle East or terrorism. The ad suggests Ossoff is hiding something. Given the evidence at hand, the answer appears to be that he is unwilling to open the books of his business beyond what the law requires. The ad’s description of Al Jazeera strikes us as particularly selective and central to the suspicions the ad raises. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Congressional Leadership Fund	None	None	None	2017-04-13T13:28:20	2017-04-05	['None']
-pomt-06910	On campaign contributions from electric utilities.	/virginia/statements/2011/jul/25/ward-armstrong/armstrong-changes-stance-taking-campaign-money-ele/	With TV cameras whirring, House Minority Leader Ward Armstrong strode to the door of his enemy on July 21 and proclaimed there is a conspiracy against him. In a news conference in front of Appalacahian Power Co.’s Roanoke headquarters, Armstrong, D-Henry, said electric utility companies have indirectly funneled $100,000 to his opponent in this fall’s election -- Del. Charles Poindexter, R-Franklin County. The electric companies, he charged, donated cash to four Republican leaders who then gave the money to the Southside Victory Fund, a political action committee that benefits Poindexter. Armstrong has been fighting electric companies for several years, saying they are taking advantage of weak regulations to gain exorbitant rate increases. He said Poindexter’s campaign contributions suggest the Republican will be friendly to the power companies. Poindexter said Armstrong has scaled "the height of hypocrisy" in condemning others for accepting money from the electric industry. So we thought we’d look into the affair and see if the minority leader’s position on the taking contributions from the utilities has changed. Armstrong has unsuccessfully introduced bills during the last two years that would give the State Corporation Commission greater regulation of electric rates. Most of Armstrong’s ire has been directed at Apco, which serves his Southside constituents and has sought 14 increases over the last four years that have raised residential rates by 42 percent. At the news conference, Armstrong promised to continue fighting Apco and portrayed Poindexter as the power company’s pet. "What it says is that Apco thinks they’re going to get favorable treatment out of my opponent, certainly more so than they’re going to get from me," Armstrong said. "You know what, they’re right." Armstrong pointed to the campaign finance records of Gov. Bob McDonnell, Speaker Bill Howell, House Majority Leader Kirk Cox, and Del. Bill Janis. The records show a correlation between sums each Republican received from electric companies and the amounts he gave to Poindexter’s PAC. But suppose we go a step further and conclude -- as Armstrong does -- that this is an open-and-shut case of money being funneled from the utilities to Poindexter. Does that prove the Republican is a reliable friend of electric companies? Well, let’s go back a few years and consider the case of another legislator who accepted money from electric companies. His name is Ward Armstrong. Between 2007 and 2010, Armstrong received $100,750 in contributions from electric companies according to the Virginia Public Access Project. The Majority Leader accepted $81,000 from Dominion Power, $5,250 from Appalachian Power, and $14,500 from other electric utilities and industry lobbyists. How does Armstrong square his past acceptance of contributions from electric companies with his condemnation of Poindexter for possibly receiving utility money? Claire Wilker, Armstrong’s chief of staff, said her boss stopped taking contributions from electric companies in late 2009. "Ward hasn’t accepted any money from them since he realized that they were taking advantage of state laws to get as much money as they can," she said. Armstrong did receive one last contribution -- $250 -- from Apco in January 2010. Wilker said the minority leader gave the money to a charity, Grace Network of Martinsville. Wilker said Armstrong is not turning down money from the utilities, it just doesn’t come in anymore. And if it did, Armstrong said he would take it and donate it to a charity that helps Southside residents pay their electric bills. So Armstrong, who once campaigned with money from electric companies, will no longer do so. And he criticizes an opponent who may have received indirect contributions from the utilities. Although Armstrong has his reasons, a shift has clearly occurred. Full Flop!	None	Ward Armstrong	None	None	None	2011-07-25T06:00:00	2011-07-21	['None']
-goop-02802	Selena Gomez Trying To Trap The Weeknd By Getting Pregnant With His Bab	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-trap-the-weeknd-pregnant-baby/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Selena Gomez NOT Trying To Trap The Weeknd By Getting Pregnant With His Baby	5:29 pm, May 11, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01671	Will Smith, Jada Pinkett Getting “$270 Million Divorce,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/will-smith-jada-pinkett-divorce/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Will Smith, Jada Pinkett NOT Getting “$270 Million Divorce,” Despite Report	1:30 pm, February 1, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12974	Says an arms control treaty supported by Barack Obama "could give the U.N. some authority to regulate guns."	/texas/statements/2016/dec/22/greg-abbott/false-greg-abbotts-claim-arms-treaty-could-give-un/	Greg Abbott warned in a December 2016 tweet that President Barack Obama seeks Senate ratification of a treaty that could empower the United Nations to regulate guns. The prospect of the U.N. mucking with American guns should sound familiar. That’s because the treaty has long sparked similar claims--many of them short on facts. Abbott's tweet, Republican concerns The Texas governor tweeted: "This Treaty by Obama could give the UN some authority to regulate guns. Tell the Senate to reject it." Abbott further pointed to a Guns.com story stating, in part, that the Arms Trade Treaty, recently urged on the Senate by the lame-duck Democratic president, seeks to regulate the world’s annual exchange of $70 billion in conventional weaponry including tanks, helicopters and missiles. That Dec. 13, 2016 story doesn’t say the U.N. deal would regulate guns within the U.S. Still, it notes opposition from Republicans including Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, who signed legislation in April 2016 prohibiting the enforcement of international laws, such as the treaty, "that could affect the Second Amendment," Guns.com says. The Democratic-led Senate signaled its concerns in 2013, voting by a 53-46 margin against the U.S. going along with any such treaty. That move occurred a month before the U.N. General Assembly approved the treaty with 154 nations in favor, 3 opposed and 23 absent. The U.S. voted for it; North Korea, Iran and Syria opposed it. The 2016 Guns.com story also recaps that when Abbott was attorney general of Texas, he "promised to slap the federal government with a lawsuit if the treaty was ratified." On Sept. 25, 2013, Guns.com then reported, AG Abbott said in a press release: "By signing this treaty, the Obama administration has attempted to subject Americans’ right to bear arms to the oversight of the United Nations." Abbott said in an April 2013 Fox News interview: "The concern is that the United States is trying to use the United Nations as a back-door mechanism to try to legislate here in the United States, in this instance trying to impose gun control." In that interview, Abbott was pressed to elaborate on the treaty’s threat to domestic gun rights. He then conceded the treaty focuses on international trade in armaments. Still, he expressed concern the U.N. would exploit the treaty to impose gun registration and other requirements. Past fact checks We’ve spotted flawed claims about the treaty before. In May 2012, we found Pants on Fire a Texas candidate’s statement that the treaty--then still under negotiation--would ban the use of firearms. In an April 2012 speech, Thomas Countryman, an assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, said any treaty provisions limiting domestic gun rights would not be embraced. "We will not support outcomes that would in any way infringe on the Second Amendment," Countryman said. Later, we rated False a Texas claim that the U.N.-advanced treaty mandated an international guns registry. Nations that ratify the treaty must track conventional arms that move across their borders, share information about the transfers with the U.N. and other countries and then annually report the imports and exports in broad categories such as "battle tanks" to the U.N. Treaty rests on self-regulation So what does the treaty do? The treaty states its purpose is to "establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms" and to "prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion." It requires each participating country to establish its own controls over the export of ammunition and conventional arms. The pact prohibits sending the weapons to nations that are under a U.N. arms embargo or where the arms will be used for terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, attacks against civilians or other war crimes. The treaty calls on participating nations to take "appropriate measures" if they determine that a shipment has been diverted, although it does not clearly define those steps. The accord applies to tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and helicopters, warships, missiles, missile launchers and small arms such and handguns and rifles. Participating nations would be required to send annual reports to the U.N. on their imports and exports of conventional weapons. The treaty gives no body including the U.N. any enforcement power, but supporters have expressed hope it will create common standards among countries for international trade of weapons. To go into effect, the pact must be ratified by the governments of 50 U.N. nations. As of mid-December 2016, it had been accepted or ratified by 91 countries including France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Australia and Mexico. The State Department has said the treaty, if joined by the U.S., would not put additional controls on the import or export of guns in America. Instead, it would require other countries to establish "control systems that are closer to the high standard the United States already sets with its own national standards," the State Department wrote in a September 2013 fact sheet. Also, the pact’s preamble affirms "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system." We called and emailed Abbott so he could otherwise offer backup for his regulation claim and didn’t hear back. Our ruling Abbott said the treaty advocated by Obama "could give the U.N. some authority to regulate guns." This statement, which fits with other incorrect claims about the U.N. gaining the power to preempt U.S. gun laws, doesn't hold up because the treaty doesn’t regulate gun traffic within countries and also doesn’t hand the U.N. enforcement powers. We rate this claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. CORRECTION, 10:15 a.m., Dec. 27, 2016: This story has been amended to say the Senate was led by Democrats in 2013, not Republican-majority. The Senate that year consisted of 53 Democrats, 45 Republicans and two Independents, who caucused with the Democrats. This correction didn't affect our rating of the claim. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f9667fd1-f8c0-441e-97f7-4f762d932bee	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2016-12-22T16:39:48	2016-12-13	['United_Nations', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-10278	McCain, "voted against renewable sources of energy, against biofuels, against solar power, against wind power.... "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/22/barack-obama/mccain-has-done-a-little-for-renewable-energy/	As part of a volley of accusations over competing energy plans, Sen. Barack Obama suggested that Sen. John McCain has opposed efforts to develop alternative sources of fuel. In an Aug. 5 speech in Ohio, Obama said of McCain, "He voted against renewable sources of energy, against biofuels, against solar power, against wind power, against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country." It's true that McCain has voted against measures on the Senate floor that included provisions aimed at encouraging the development and production of alternative energy. In 2005, for example, McCain voted against a series of amendments to an energy bill that set higher goals for the use of renewable energy. One proposal required refineries to use 8-billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012 and another required 10 percent of electricity sold by utilities by 2020 be produced by renewable energy. Both passed and were included in the final bill, which McCain voted against. But the Obama campaign is somewhat selective in the evidence it cites about McCain's position on alternative fuel. While McCain has long voiced his opposition to subsidizing ethanol, he recently softened his position on the biofuel. PolitiFact examined his change in position during the Republican primary. The Obama campaign also forgets to mention McCain's vote in favor of a 1992 energy law that required some government agencies to begin using vehicles that ran on alternative fuels and authorized more than $500-million in Energy Department research on renewable energy. The Obama campaign is trying to portray McCain as a friend of big oil on energy issues, and that hasn't always been the case. As we point out in another item, McCain burnished his "maverick" reputation a bit in 2002 when he and Democratic Sen. John Kerry pushed a plan to raise mileage standards for cars. The effort failed. The Obama campaign cites McCain's vote against the 2005 energy bill, which was signed into law by President Bush, as evidence of him voting against wind power. McCain did vote against the measure, in part because he thought a federal tax credit for alternative energy production was too generous and not cost-effective. But his opposition to the legislation was much broader than that. We'll note, too, that former presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton also voted against the bill. Said McCain at the time: "This bill does little to address the immediate energy crisis we face in this country." For us, though, the issue is the claim made by Obama. He attacks McCain for voting against the 2005 energy bill, which carried federal subsidies for a host of renewable energy programs. And it's true that one of the things McCain said in voting against that bill was that it was too generous in those subsidies. Still, that energy bill vote doesn't reflect the whole of McCain's record on renewable energy, as Obama's statement makes it sound. There is at least one exception to McCain's record in opposing subsidies for renewable fuels, which leads us to conclude that this Obama claim is Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-08-22T00:00:00	2008-08-05	['None']
-pomt-13810	"The Cleveland police has issued a stand down order to officers."	/ohio/statements/2016/jul/18/mike-cernovich/no-cleveland-police-are-not-standing-down-rnc/	Attorney, author and motivational speaker Mike Cernovich announced a big "scoop" on his blog the week before the Republican National Convention. Cernovich, a California lawyer and ruckus-starter who backs Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump, quoted "anonymous sources" as saying police in Cleveland were taking a hands-off approach at the huge event amid expected protests. "Although the radical left has days of protests planned and has a history of protests, the Cleveland police has issued a stand down order to officers, I can exclusively report," Cernovich wrote. The same day, he tweeted: On his blog, Cernovich elaborated that this was akin to "when thugs from the left attacked Trump supporters at his San Jose rally," referring to an accusation that the California city’s police failed to protect pro-Trump activists, for fear of their own safety, during a scrappy demonstration last month. His message reverberated across social media, reaching, for example, the Nevada Tea Party: But this was news to us, so we checked with our hometown source to learn if it was true: Cleveland police. Department spokeswoman Jennifer Ciaccia was blunt in an email: "It is totally untrue." Steve Loomis, the head of the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association, said, "Wildly false report! No such order exists!" As of 5 p.m. Monday, the first day of the convention, at least one image of a protester being arrested surfaced on Instagram. The protester, activist and journalist Kathy Wray Coleman, had just finished speaking when she was handcuffed by police, allegedly for an outstanding warrant from University Heights. This doesn’t look like a police "stand-down" to us. We heard from Cernovich just as we were publishing this fact-check. In an email, he suggested his story helped thwart the stand-down order from being enforced. "I stand behind my story and am proud that efforts by (Ohio Gov. John Kasich) and those friendly with him were stopped by my exclusive story regarding a stand down order," Cernovich wrote. "Local police are great and want to defend people. But many higher ups ... took the primary too personally." Our rating Cernovich claimed on his blog and Twitter that Cleveland Police have issued a "stand down" order for the RNC. Cleveland police vociferously proclaim this statement 100 percent false. The scene on the ground shows plenty of law enforcement doing their jobs. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4cf751e2-fbbe-4e79-ab95-32b09245a0ed	None	Mike Cernovich	None	None	None	2016-07-18T18:53:18	2016-07-14	['None']
-snes-01744	Stan Lee fired Jennifer Lawrence from an upcoming film due to his belief she disrespected President Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stan-lee-fire-jennifer-lawrence/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Stan Lee Fire Jennifer Lawrence for Comments About Trump?	12 September 2017	None	['Jennifer_Lawrence']
-pomt-07854	Says Ohio is one of just 17 states with an estate tax, and it has "the lowest threshold in the nation."	/ohio/statements/2011/feb/11/jay-hottinger/rep-jay-hottinger-says-ohios-threshold-taxing-esta/	The new Republican majority in the Ohio House of Representatives has made repealing the state's estate tax a priority. Opponents of the tax say it hurts Ohio's competitive position with other states, and drives away residents and business. Among its staunchest supporters are cities and towns. They received about $270 million of nearly $334 million that the tax generated in fiscal 2009, according to the Ohio Department of Taxation. The rest went to the state. PolitiFact Ohio is not looking at the debate on merits of the estate tax. But we did decide to check a couple of basic claims made by State Rep. Jay Hottinger, a leading estate tax opponent, on the "Sound of Ideas" on WCPN 90.3 FM. The Newark Republican said Ohio is one of only 17 states with an estate tax. And, he said, Ohio has "the lowest threshold in the nation" for taxable estates, making it a tax that affects the middle class as well as the wealthy. We found Hottinger's count of states is accurate, or as close as anyone is likely to get. State tax laws change frequently, if not constantly, and at least six states dropped or reinstated an estate tax -- or did both -- in the past six months alone. Ohio does have the lowest threshold among them. The state's tax is levied on estates valued above $338,333 (although there is a 100 percent exemption for surviving spouses). Data from the Ohio Department of Taxation shows that one in 14 estates (about 7 percent) in Ohio are subject to the tax, the Associated Press reported. More than 7,400 estates owed the state money in the fiscal year that ended in mid-June. Among the other states, the thresholds ranged from a low of $675,000 in New Jersey to a $5 million threshold in North Carolina. Looking at those levels made us wonder about a related claim we've heard from both opponents and supporters of the estate tax -- that Ohio's threshold is low because it is outdated, reflecting an earlier generation's measure of wealth. We checked the history and talked with an analyst at the Department of Taxation, and learned that the current rate of taxation and the $338,333 deduction were set by the General Assembly in 2000. The previous threshold was $25,000. It was set after the state's 75-year-old inheritance tax was repealed and the estate tax was adopted in 1968. Twenty-five thousand dollars meant more in 1968 than it does today, but it didn’t equal wealth, and adjusted for inflation, it wouldn’t equal $338,333. According to the consumer price calculator of the Federal Reserve Bank, its 2011 equivalent would be $158,601. Hottinger, a sponsor of pending legislation to repeal the tax, has described it as "the most unfair and most egregious tax in the state of Ohio." We’re not running that statement through the Truth-O-Meter. But we do rate his claims about the number of states that levy the tax and Ohio’s low threshold as True.	None	Jay Hottinger	None	None	None	2011-02-11T06:00:00	2011-02-09	['Ohio']
-pomt-11512	Says Gov. Rick Scott "ended $20 million in funding for mental health care despite Florida already ranking at the bottom."	/florida/statements/2018/feb/21/florida-democratic-party/florida-democatic-party-says-gov-scott-ended-strea/	In the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., the Florida Democratic Party issued a list of grievances against Gov. Rick Scott for what it called a "long record" of opposing gun safety and money for mental health initiatives. Scott "ended $20 million in funding for mental health care despite Florida already ranking at the bottom," the group said in a news release Feb. 19. Florida’s bottom-rung ranking for mental health funding came up a year earlier, after another Broward County shooting, this one at the Fort Lauderdale airport that killed five people. State Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, said Florida ranked 50th in the nation for mental health care funding, which we rated Mostly True. A year later, we wanted to see if anything had changed with Florida’s ranking on mental health spending and if Scott really ended $20 million in mental health funding. Florida is consistently at the bottom of the pack for mental health funding A key source of data for ranking states on mental health spending is the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute. According to the Institute, Florida ranked 51st in per capita spending in the fiscal year 2014. The institute collects annual data on expenditures by state mental health agencies from the states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The total amount of expenditures is divided by the state population to compare the amount per capita. For Florida, the group tracked money spent through Florida’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Office, managed by the Department of Children and Families. So it doesn’t include services paid from other sources, including Medicaid or local funds, on mental health programs. Still, Florida has consistently been near the bottom of the rankings for years, Ted Lutterman, senior director of the institute previously told PolitiFact. We did not hear back from the institute to see if there was a more updated ranking, but mental health experts in the state said nothing had meaningfully changed. Did Scott end $20 million in funding for mental health? The biggest thing to know about the $20 million grant is it was never intended to be permanent. The $20.4 million was part of a federal block grant for substance abuse and mental health services. It was administered by the Florida Department of Children and Families and expired when the 2017-18 budget took effect. Again, Scott didn’t set the expiration date or cut if off early — he allowed the grant to expire. The Florida Democratic Party argues that it was Scott’s responsibility to fill the funding gap, and when he had the opportunity to fill it, he did not. "It is the state’s job to manage the federal funds they receive and fill in gaps that may arise," said Florida Democratic Party spokeswoman Caroline Rowland. But Scott’s press office said it’s "completely false" to say that the grant’s expiration led to budget shortfalls. News reports, such as the Naples Daily News story included in the Florida Democratic Party’s news release, noted how mental health and substance abuse providers were struggling to provide their normal services "after the Legislature and a state agency quietly allowed $20.4 million in federal money to expire without replacing it." Even though the money was nonrecurring after the 2016-17 year, advocates said they were not expecting it to expire. "No one was really aware that those funds were going away," said Linda McKinnon, Central Florida Behavioral Health Network president and CEO. McKinnon said the grant funds in questions were used for the "full gamut" of mental health treatments and substance abuse services. One area that took a hit when the grant expired, she said, was the availability of children’s crisis units across Central Florida’s network of providers. When word began to spread, several lawmakers called on Scott to do something about the issue. Former state Sen. Jack Latvala, R-Clearwater, wrote a letter to Scott in August urging him to use his executive authority to fill the budget hole and extend Florida’s state of emergency over the opioid crisis. During a state of emergency, the governor can spend money appropriated for other purposes or spend unappropriated surplus funds, according to Florida statute. This way, Latvala argued, Scott could have used state reserves for the $20 million gap without the Legislature’s approval. Scott did not do this. Rep. Kathleen Peters, R-Pasadena, immediately called Scott about the funding shortfalls. But Scott pointed to a different $27 million grant that was included in the 2018-19 budget, according to a Tampa Bay Times column by John Romano. However, that grant was targetted to be spent on drugs such as methadone and Vivitrol, which are used to help wean addicts off opioids. The 2018-19 budget says it "continues the state’s investment of more than $1 billion in funding" for mental health and adds another $21.7 million to address other behavioral health needs. "Gov. Scott’s executive order allowed the state to immediately draw down $27 million in federal funds, and he has proposed significant investments for mental health and the fight against opioids in his 2018-2019 recommended budget," said Scott’s spokeswoman Kerri Wyland. Regardless of other grants and the new budget, Candice Crawford, the CEO of the Mental Health Association of Central Florida, described Scott’s proposed amount of funding for mental health as short of where it needs to be. "The governor has never really recommended a substantial amount of funding for mental health," Crawford said. What’s the relevance of this money to the Parkland shooting? We wondered how the grant money might be related to the situation of Nikolas Cruz, who authorities say admitted to shooting the students at the school he once attended. Not long before the shooting, DCF investigated Cruz after he posted "violent" social media posts, according to records obtained by the New York Times. The report mentioned that Cruz had been visited by a counselor from Henderson Behavioral Health, which provides mental health services in South Florida. Mental health advocates said it is fair to assume that a portion of the grant money would have gone to services that might have helped Cruz. Our ruling The Florida Democratic Party said that Scott "ended $20 million in funding for mental health care despite Florida already ranking at the bottom." There’s little doubt that Florida ranks near the bottom when it comes to mental health funding, but the first half of the Florida Democratic Party’s claim needs context. A nonrecurring funding stream for substance abuse and mental health block grants did end under Scott’s watch. Scott could have used his executive authority to fill the gap, but chose not to do so. In other words, Scott did not end the grant, he just didn’t do anything to fill the gap in funding despite having the opportunity to do so. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Florida Democratic Party	None	None	None	2018-02-21T15:27:10	2018-02-19	['None']
-pomt-04349	Says, "Carl proposed a 'windfall' tax on real estate development when he was a Metro Councilor."	/oregon/statements/2012/oct/24/promote-oregon-leadership-pac-oregon-house-republi/did-carl-hosticka-propose-windfall-tax-property/	Oregon House Republicans have sent a mailer in District 37, claiming that Democrat Carl Hosticka has been trying to raise voters’ taxes for two dozen years. Hosticka is a Metro councilor from Tualatin running against freshman Rep. Julie Parrish, R-West Linn. The mailer lists two ways Hosticka supposedly tried to squeeze more money out of the public, including this: "Carl proposed a ‘windfall’ tax on real estate development when he was a Metro Councilor." Hosticka requested a fact check, saying he didn’t propose the tax. We obliged, as we did when Parrish asked for one on a statement that sounded interesting. First, we need to remind readers of Measure 37, a contentious land-use and property rights ballot proposal that voters approved in 2004. Property owners had complained for years that under Oregon’s strict land-use regulations, they could do little with their land — like sell to developers — and were losing money. The passage of Measure 37 required government to compensate owners for the loss of land value, or waive the regulations. In November 2005, the Metro Council created six policy committees and divided them among the councilors. One committee, created in response to a proposal by an earlier Measure 37 task force, dealt with the possibility of levying a tax on land that appreciates in value when brought into the urban growth boundary — the "windfall" — to pay for farmland protection and infrastructure. Robert Liberty, also a Metro councilor, took the lead. Hosticka was named as a council liaison, a deputy if you will. The "Fair Growth and Farmlands Project Committee" was made up of Realtors, business people and government officials. In April 2006, the committee reported its recommendations for proceeding — if the Metro Council should choose to pursue a windfall tax. Voters should get a chance to weigh in, the report said, and the first 100 percent of profit should be exempt from tax. The Council voted unanimously to budget money to study the issue, but the tax went nowhere. As evidence for the mailer, House Republicans provide a 2006 legal article written by Liberty and an April 2006 news article from The Oregonian. In the legal article, Liberty describes how the windfall tax committee came to be, and named himself and Hosticka as project leaders. The news article describes Liberty and Hosticka as initiating the project. Hosticka "was supportive of the concept," says Nick Smith, spokesman for House Republicans’ political action committee. "In our research, it’s pretty clear that he, along with Liberty, were behind a windfall profits tax on real estate values, and just because the council didn’t move forward and actually implement it doesn’t mean that his fingerprints were not on it." Clearly, Liberty was in favor of the idea. Hosticka, however, tells PolitiFact Oregon he was more non-committal. "I remember that Robert Liberty was talking a lot about it, and that conceptually it could make sense," Hosticka says. "But that in terms of practicality, there was no real way of designing anything that would make sense, and politically there was no chance, so there was no reason to go forward." We caught up with Liberty, who proudly claimed ownership of the windfall tax. "That was my project and my proposal that we look at a windfall tax. That was something I led; that was not Carl’s," said Liberty. "I still think it’s a good idea, and I still think it’s a logical way to pay for infrastructure." We also talked with Tom Linhares, executive director of the Multnomah County Tax Supervising & Conservation Commission. He served on the tax mechanism subcommittee and admits being fuzzy on the details, but his recollection is committee members knew the tax would not get far. "It was really Robert’s show," Linhares said. "It was something he was passionate about. That was my sense, as I remember it. ‘Well, let’s put this together, but don’t hold your breath because council’s not going to adopt it.’" In the plain meaning of words, PolitiFact Oregon doesn’t think Hosticka proposed a windfall tax on real estate development. To us, proposing an idea indicates a major degree of ownership by a public official or staff. In this case, the idea of a tax came from a task force that went to a Metro committee formally led by Liberty, who championed it. If anything, it’s fair to say Liberty proposed it. That’s not to say Hosticka shouldn’t be held responsible for his actions while on the committee. He supported the idea of exploring a taxing option, and he probably would have backed a proposed tax had it gone anywhere. Hosticka was tapped to help lead a large civic committee that eventually recommended ideas for a windfall tax. That’s the element of truth. But to state that this was Hosticka’s idea, one that he or his staff proposed and pursued, ignores the critical facts of Liberty’s advocacy as well as all the other members on the committee who agreed to make the recommendation to Metro. We rate this Mostly False.	None	Promote Oregon Leadership PAC (Oregon House Republicans)	None	None	None	2012-10-24T00:00:00	2012-10-13	['None']
-pomt-04348	Says Jim Renacci "opposed increasing combat bonuses for our troops."	/ohio/statements/2012/oct/24/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/dccc-says-jim-renacci-voted-against-combat-bonuses/	The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives, has released a series of localized TV ads attacking incumbent congressional Republicans as self-serving pols who opposed pay for U.S. troops. One of the targeted incumbents is Jim Renacci, who faces another incumbent, Democrat Betty Sutton, in the newly drawn 16th Congressional District. The ad aimed at him, narrated by a Northeast Ohio veteran of Operation Desert Storm, mingles black-and-white footage of combat troops with shots of Renacci. "Renacci tried to skip out on paying over a million in taxes," the narrator says, "but opposed increasing combat bonuses for our troops. "And when Congressman Renacci wants to place tax cuts for himself and his rich friends, and take away veterans services for those serving in country and out of country, I think it's an atrocity." PolitiFact Ohio rated as True a claim from the Sutton camp about Renacci trying to avoid taxes. For this fact check, we’ll look at the claim that Renacci "opposed increasing combat bonuses for our troops." The DCCC cites a vote in a footnote at the bottom of the screen in support of the claim, but that footnote doesn’t tell the whole story. Not even close. As our colleagues at PolitiFact Wisconsin noted, that vote -- and others cited by the DCCC in other ads -- come from spring 2011, when an extended partisan tussle over spending cuts brought the federal government close to a shutdown. One of the sticky issues was how to deal with congressional pay and military pay if a shutdown occurred. There was plenty of maneuvering for partisan advantage and both parties claimed they were on the side of the troops. On May 26, 2011 -- after the funding crisis was averted with passage of a bill with military appropriations through the remainder of fiscal 2011 -- the House debated a defense authorization bill for the following year, 2012. Democrats called for a vote on a motion to boost pay for combat troops. U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, called it transparently political: "We had all kinds of time to bring an amendment that would be helpful like this, then they bring this one. There's no offset. This would just put us again above the allocation from the chairman. This is really more Democrat increasing spending." The motion failed, with Renacci in opposition. What the DCCC ad doesn’t say is that the full bill -- supported by Renacci, nearly all Republicans and 95 Democrats, including Betty Sutton -- already included a pay hike of 1.6 percent in the monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services. That covered combat troops as well. So, Renacci didn’t vote for the additional bump proposed at the very end of the process, but he voted -- the same day -- for the increased pay level in the underlying bill. Think of it this way: There is a bill to increase spending by $500,000 for a particular program. An amendment is offered to increase it to $750,000. If a person votes against the amendment but for the bill, are they "voting against an increase in spending" for the program? We also note that the Democratic amendment in question, like the others cited by the DCCC, was a "motion to recommit," a prerogative of the minority party since the first Congress. They are motions, partly procedural, that attempt to send a bill back to committee just before passage. "Both parties, when in the minority, have used these to make political statements and embarrass the majority for partisan advantage," said Donald Wolfensberger, an expert on parliamentary rules who was a key Republican staffer for the House Rules Committee in the 1990s. "It is well understood in modern times that these are designed for partisan campaign purposes and usually have little to do with better policy." Both parties, when in the minority, contend the motions can have merit and are not purely procedural. What is the merit of the Democratic TV ad charging that Renacci "opposed increasing combat bonuses for our troops"? The claim is based on Renacci’s vote on a "motion to recommit" that preceded a final vote on military pay. Such motions are routinely denied by the majority party as procedural moves. That gives the minority party the chance to structure them for partisan advantage. That’s what is playing out in the ad now. On the Truth-O-Meter, the claim rates False.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2012-10-24T06:00:00	2012-10-24	['None']
-pomt-07087	"Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election."	/florida/statements/2011/jun/24/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/ad-claims-rep-vern-buchanans-old-business-illegall/	When it comes to illegal campaign cash, the wheels of justice move slowly. So when a May 2011 court filing brought fresh attention to old claims involving illegal campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, Democrats jumped, airing a radio ad in his Florida district. "Congressman Vern Buchanan. His old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election," the narrator of the ad says. "Tell Buchanan to come clean." The ad ran from June 13-17 and was paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It relied on news articles about a lawsuit filed by the Federal Election Commission against a business Buchanan once owned, the DCCC said. The 'old business' Buchanan, 60, is a wealthy Republican from Longboat Key serving his third term in Congress representing Florida's 13th Congressional District. He built his wealth founding a chain of print shop franchises in Michigan, leaving for Florida in the 1980s as the chain struggled and investing in a range of new businesses, including Florida auto dealerships. One of those dealerships is at the heart of this claim. Buchanan had owned a majority interest in Hyundai of North Jacksonville, the FEC says, when his business partner Sam Kazran arranged for dealership employees and relatives to donate to the Vern Buchanan for Congress committee, then be reimbursed by the business. This went on during the 2006 and 2008 campaigns, the FEC says. (We should note that the date Buchanan legally parted ways with the dealership is a matter of disagreement. The FEC says Buchanan owned 51 percent of the dealership until Kazran completed his purchase of Buchanan's stake to become the sole owner in 2008 — after the suspect contributions were made. Buchanan spokeswoman Sally Tibbetts says Buchanan sold the dealership to Kazran in 2005, putting more distance between the congressman and the illegal contributions.) What's the big deal with reimbursing contributions? It violates federal election law, which says "(n)o person shall make a contribution in the name of another person." The Federal Election Campaign Act also limits how much a single contributor may give to candidates' campaign committees. Funneling cash through employees would have made it possible for the dealership to bust through that limit. The Buchanan campaign said they brought the questionable contributions to the attention of the FEC, which then launched the investigation. We can't independently confirm if that's the case, because the FEC does not comment on open cases. However, we found no evidence to the contrary. The commission combined the complaint with one filed in 2008 by a Washington group and two employees of a Venice dealership, which you can read more about here. The FEC investigated, finding probable cause to believe that the Hyundai dealership and Kazran had illegally reimbursed $67,900 in campaign contributions, but it didn't go after Buchanan. Instead, it's now seeking $67,900 in fines from Kazran. Kazran, for his part, admits reimbursing campaign contributions, but told the Bradenton Herald he did it at Buchanan's direction. "I've been caught in this political nightmare that I have nothing to do with," he told PolitiFact Florida. But he failed to reach an agreement with the Federal Election Commission — and failed to respond to the complaint on behalf of Hyundai North Jacksonville, which is no longer in business. That means facts in the case stand uncontested. So the commission voted to sue him to collect the fines, asking a judge for a default judgement. The FEC told the U.S. District Court that the dealership "illegally spent $67,900 in an attempt to influence an election for Congress, presumably believing this to be a worthwhile investment." And that's the May suit that prompted stories in a WSJ.com blog, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and the Bradenton Herald that the DCCC cited as it released the script for its Florida radio ad. Jesse Ferguson, speaking on behalf of the committee, the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the U.S. House, used partial quotes from the lawsuit when he said, "The FEC is seeking fines from a business that Vern Buchanan owned at the time for an 'extensive and ongoing scheme' of 'secret illegal contributions' to help his campaign and we’re going to make sure his constituents know about it." Buchanan's response What does Buchanan's team say? That the FEC has cleared Buchanan himself — so the ad linking the behavior of Kazran and his dealership to the congressman is "misleading and dishonest." "It creates the false impression that Vern Buchanan has done something wrong when in fact he has been fully exonerated by the FEC," said Sally Tibbetts, his spokeswoman. A related news release that says Buchanan "has been completely exonerated" is the subject of its own fact-check, and we found the claim to be Barely True. But we'll summarize here by saying that what little information is available so far from the FEC doesn't fully clear Buchanan — though it does mean the commission won't take any further action against him in the case. Information's limited because the case isn't yet closed, so confidentiality rules apply. That means for the purposes of this fact-check, we'll rely on what's in the public record — information that the DCCC had access to when it scripted its ad. The ruling That ad starts by naming the congressman, then says his "old business was caught illegally funneling over $60,000 in campaign donations to Buchanan to influence his election." The FEC and Buchanan's team agree that he owned a significant stake until at least 2005, when suspect campaign contributions started. The FEC says the dealership reimbursed more than $60,000 in contributions. The money went to Buchanan's main campaign committee, and the FEC says the money was spent "in an attempt to influence an election for Congress." What is contested is Buchanan's role in the scheme. The FEC has said it will take no further action against him, closing his file. But it didn't go further to declare it had no probable cause to believe he was involved — which would have better supported his team's claim that he's been cleared. Meanwhile, his former business partner still says Buchanan put him up to it, and says he plans another lawsuit to prove it. While we think the DCCC could have done a better job noting it was Buchanan who turned in the illegal contributions, we rate this ad Mostly True.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2011-06-24T11:23:35	2011-06-13	['None']
-hoer-00105	300km Winds for Johannesburg Region This Weekend	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/johannesburg-300k-winds-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Hoax Warning - 300km Winds for Johannesburg Region This Weekend	14th October 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-03285	Says Greg Abbott "converted over $1 million in federal grant money intended for use to prosecute online sexual predators and other cyber crimes and instead used it to harass and prosecute senior citizens who were assisting other senior citizens in applying for mail-in ballots."	/texas/statements/2013/aug/02/lone-star-project/democratic-group-says-abbott-misspent-1-million-pl/	A pro-Democratic group says Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican aspirant for governor in 2014, misspent $1 million-plus bothering elderly Texans. The Lone Star Project said in a July 14, 2013, blog post, "Just a few years ago, Abbott converted over $1 million in federal grant money intended for use to prosecute online sexual predators and other cyber crimes and instead used it to harass and prosecute senior citizens who were assisting other senior citizens in applying for mail-in ballots." That's a familiar claim; the project said in a May 18, 2006, press release that Abbott and Gov. Rick Perry had decided to divert "part of $1.4 million in federal funds." Abbott aides countered that the grant-aided voter investigations were legitimate expenditures, in response to referrals. What's what? Grant spending aired before In 2006, Abbott touted his office’s efforts to prosecute and deter voter fraud and Abbott spokesman Jerry Strickland recently told us by email that the initial grant aid helped the office carry out an array of initiatives from June 2005 through September 2006. Strickland sent a spreadsheet indicating too that the grant was renewed through September 2008. Ultimately, about $3.2 million was spent on multiple initiatives, the spreadsheet indicates, while Strickland told us $93,579 in grant funds ended up being spent investigating possible violations of election law. The amount of grant money spent on election-law cases has previously been publicized. A Nov. 13, 2009, Austin American-Statesman news story quoted the attorney general’s office as saying that about $93,000 in grant funds went toward voter investigations, with the rest of some $690,000 in costs covered by state funds, though total spending was expected to grow because cases were pending. At the time, 22 voter cases had ended with guilty pleas or verdicts, Abbott’s office said, and one had been dropped. By email, Angle pointed out that Abbott earlier ballyhooed much more spending against voter fraud. A Jan. 25, 2006, Abbott press release said the agency’s new Special Investigations Unit, poised to help local authorities identify, investigate and prosecute voter fraud offenses, was established with a $1.5 million grant from Perry’s office. Similarly, a March 1, 2006, Abbott release said officials in the agency’s unit, "working through a $1.5 million grant from the governor’s office," had been visiting key counties to conduct voter fraud training for law officers. An Abbott commentary at the time had nearly identical language. Then again, the governor’s earlier grant announcement listed other priorities--not even specifying voter fraud. Perry’s Aug. 23, 2005, press release said $1,476,848 awarded under the federal Byrne Grant program would be spent on assisting local law enforcement agencies in investigations of cyber crimes, child pornography, organized crime, fugitives, criminal consumer fraud, public corruption and other criminal activities. Byrne grants noted for flexibility Amounts aside, did Abbott have permission to spend grant funds on voter investigations? By email, Angle conceded Byrne dollars could be spent investigating voter fraud, though he said the Lone Star Project is unaware of such aid being used that way in any other state. At the federal level, the National Center for Justice Planning, which teams the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Criminal Justice Association, refers to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grant, which originated in 1968, as the nation’s "cornerstone federal justice assistance program." Byrne’s strength, the center says, lies in its flexibility with states and local communities permitted to spend the funds on areas including law enforcement, crime prevention and education. Separately, Strickland emailed us the attorney general’s June 1, 2005, grant application, which said the sought funds would enable additional staff to focus on Internet criminal investigations, fugitive apprehensions, criminal consumer fraud investigations and "fraudulent voter and public corruption investigations." The application also said: "There seems to be a generally accepted method in which groups of campaign workers have gone door-to-door for years to help elderly or disabled voters obtain a mail-in-ballot, then the workers collect the voted ballots from the voters with intent to mail them outside of the presence of the voter. These investigations take several weeks or months to complete, as there are numerous documents to collect and analyze, and multiple witnesses." Prosecutions as persecutions? Finally, did the state harass and prosecute senior citizens? Senior Texans were pursued in connection with a 2003 state law requiring individuals conducting absentee ballot campaigns to disclose certain information, including their names, if they handle a ballot or ballot application. According to an April 18, 2008, story in the liberal Texas Observer magazine, Willie Ray of Texarkana, 69, was indicted after she and her granddaughter, Jamillah Johnson, helped homebound senior citizens get absentee ballots and, once they were filled out, put them in the mail. In a Feb. 17, 2006, press release, Abbott said that Ray, a member of the Texarkana City Council, and Johnson were charged with illegally possessing and transporting ballots of several voters before the November 2004 elections. "The integrity of our election process must be protected," Abbott said. The release also mentioned largely similar voter indictments in Reeves, Hardeman, Bee and Nueces Counties. A Jan. 31, 2008, Abbott press release described indictments of several Duval County residents, aged 55 to 71, for helping voters misrepresent themselves as disabled. The release said the helpers also did not identify themselves on the outside of ballot envelopes. The Observer and Dallas Morning News each referred to an incident described in a lawsuit joined by the Texas Democratic Party against the state. The Observer story said Fort Worth's Gloria Meeks, 69, was a community activist who helped homebound seniors vote by mail. Its story said, "Meeks is in a nursing home after having a stroke, prompted in part, her friends say, by state police who investigated her--including spying on Meeks while she bathed--and then questioned her about helping" others vote. According to the lawsuit, later settled, Meeks said she had seen two investigators "peeping at her through her bathroom window" while she was taking a bath on Aug. 10, 2006 and "later learned that these two persons were investigators" with the attorney general’s office. By email, Strickland said the agency denied that the investigators intentionally peeped. The agency’s legal response said the investigators were standing on Meeks’ porch when their attention "was drawn to a nearby window because of movement from inside the window, and the investigators looked toward the window." In a May 18, 2008, Morning News story, the newspaper said it had tallied 26 cases, largely involving mail-in ballots, that had been prosecuted by Abbott, all of them against Democrats and almost all involving blacks or Hispanics, with no revelations of "large-scale" voter fraud schemes with the potential to swing elections. In 18 cases, the newspaper said, the "voters were eligible, votes were properly cast and no vote was changed -- but the people who collected the ballots for mailing were prosecuted. Eight cases, the story said, involved ineligible voters or manufactured votes: "They include a woman who voted for her dead mother, another in which a Starr County man voted twice, and three South Texas women who used false addresses to get voter registration cards for people who did not exist." By email, Strickland sent a roster showing agenc involvement from late 2005 through June 2013 in prosecuting individuals on election-law charges including alleged violations tied to carrying ballots for others. About 25 cases resolved from November 2005 through November 2008, the chart indicates, with 13 guilty pleas, three guilty jury verdicts, two "nolo contendere" pleas, five pre-trial diversions, one deferred adjudication and one dismissal. Most of the convictions related to possessing someone else’s ballot or carrier envelope. Strickland emailed another chart indicating that 23 election-law cases developed by state investigations were resolved and seven are pending. Angle said by email that the point of the claim holds. "The entire process was intended to harass and intimidate minority senior voters," he said. Our ruling The Lone Star Project said Abbott "converted over $1 million in federal grant money intended for use to prosecute online sexual predators and other cyber crimes and instead used it to harass and prosecute senior citizens who were assisting other senior citizens in applying for mail-in ballots." Actually, less than $100,000 of a grant—less than one-fifteenth of it--was spent investigating alleged violations of election law. The grant aid also wasn't restricted, or necessarily intended for, other purposes. So there was no conversion. Senior citizens were pursued, but our sense is it’s an eye-of-the-beholder question whether the investigations were harassment. We rate this claim as False.	None	Lone Star Project	None	None	None	2013-08-02T14:19:46	2013-07-14	['None']
-pomt-05774	"(President Barack Obama) said unemployment was never gonna go over 8 percent if we passed the stimulus plan."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/27/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-obama-said-unemployment-woul/	When Gov. Chris Christie began his interview Sunday on CBS News’ "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer said he enjoys having him on the show, because the Republican governor has an unusual habit of answering questions. But with one of those answers, Christie rehashed an old -- and mostly inaccurate -- GOP talking point about President Barack Obama guaranteeing that the stimulus program would keep unemployment below 8 percent. With the next round of Republican primaries set for Tuesday in Arizona and Michigan, Christie continued on Sunday making his pitch that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would ultimately prevail and take on Obama in the Nov. 6 general election. Obama will be a very formidable candidate, but the president still has weaknesses, according to Christie. "He said unemployment was never gonna go over 8 percent if we passed the stimulus plan," Christie told Schieffer. "We went up over 10 percent." PolitiFact National and its state affiliates have debunked similar claims several times before, starting with U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) in July 2009. More recently, Romney faced the Truth-O-Meter for repeating that statement earlier this month after winning the Nevada caucuses. Each time, the claim has received a Mostly False. Here’s what the fact-checks have revealed: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus, was signed into law on Feb. 17, 2009. The stimulus was meant to dole out billions of dollars as a way to boost the economy. The nation’s unemployment rate stood at 8.3 percent in February 2009 and gradually increased before peaking at 10 percent in October 2009, according to seasonally-adjusted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate has since decreased to 8.3 percent as of last month. But PolitiFact has never found evidence of an administration official making a public pledge to hold unemployment below 8 percent. The source of the Republican claims is a Jan. 9, 2009 report from Christina Romer, who would soon become chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, who would serve as chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden. The purpose of the study was to estimate the potential effects of a stimulus program on job creation. Romer and Bernstein estimated that the recovery package would create between 3 million and 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. On one chart, they estimated the unemployment rates both with and without the stimulus plan. Without the stimulus, the unemployment rate was projected to top 9 percent in early 2010, the report states. With the stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009, according to the report. But throughout the report, the authors cautioned that their estimates are subject to significant "uncertainty." Check out this passage from the report: "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error. There is the obvious uncertainty that comes from modeling a hypothetical package rather than the final legislation passed by the Congress. But, there is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. "Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." So, the claim about unemployment not exceeding 8 percent was a projection subject to "uncertainty," and far from the guarantee suggested by Christie and other Republicans. The governor's office did not respond to an email seeking comment. Our ruling During his "Face the Nation" interview, Christie repeated the GOP talking point that Obama "said unemployment was never gonna go over 8 percent if we passed the stimulus plan." As PolitiFact has determined numerous times before, neither Obama personally nor his administration never made such a promise. Two economic advisers offered that projection, but stressed repeatedly that their estimates were subject to considerable "uncertainty." Although Christie's statement represents a gross exaggeration, it contains an element of truth. That's why this claim is rated Mostly False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/bc2a6c75-dc32-491f-a41b-65820cee2611	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2012-02-27T18:45:00	2012-02-26	['None']
-hoer-01168	Mercedes Benz E63 AMG Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/mercedes-benz-e63-amg-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Mercedes Benz E63 AMG Giveaway Facebook Scam	February 8, 2016	None	['None']
-abbc-00361	The Coalition pledged to lower the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points if it won government at the 2013 federal election.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/cut-the-company-tax-rate-promise-check/5429954	None	['tax', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'hockey-joe', 'australia']	None	None	['tax', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'hockey-joe', 'australia']	Promise check: Cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Coalition_(Australia)']
-tron-00383	Footage of “A Dog’s Purpose” Movie Shows Animal Abuse	https://www.truthorfiction.com/footage-of-a-dogs-purpose-movie-shows-animal-abuse/	None	animals	None	None	['animals', 'celebrities']	Footage of “A Dog’s Purpose” Movie Shows Animal Abuse	Jan 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01860	An "anti-fascist" stabbed a man in Colorado after mistaking him for a white supremacist because of his haircut.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/antifa-stab-neo-nazi-haircut/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did an ‘Anti-Fascist’ Stab a Man Over a ‘Neo-Nazi’ Haircut?	22 August 2017	None	['Colorado']
-snes-04679	A photograph shows a misaligned bridge.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/misaligned-bridge-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Misaligned Bridge	1 June 2016	None	['None']
-snes-06129	Video clip shows police ignoring a getaway car full of bank robbers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photo-bank/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Bank Robbery – World’s Dumbest Cops	18 February 2014	None	['None']
-wast-00095	The Obama Administration is now accused of trying to give Iran secret access to the financial system of the United States. This is totally illegal."	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/08/trumps-claim-that-the-obama-administrations-action-on-iran-was-totally-illegal/	None	None	Donald Trump	Glenn Kessler	None	Trump's claim that an Obama administration effort on Iran was \xe2\x80\x98totally illegal'	June 8	None	['United_States', 'Iran']
-tron-02277	HIV infected needles found in theater seats	https://www.truthorfiction.com/needles-theaters/	None	medical	None	None	None	HIV infected needles found in theater seats	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00602	Robert Richie, AKA Kid Rock, Dies in Meth Lab Explosion at 44	https://www.truthorfiction.com/robert-richie-kid-rock-dead/	None	celebrities	None	None	['celebrities', 'death hoax', 'facebook']	Robert Richie, AKA Kid Rock, Dies in Meth Lab Explosion at 44	Jul 6, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00770	A photograph shows serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer standing next to an ice bong.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jeffrey-dahmer-next-ice-bong/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This Jeffrey Dahmer Next to an Ice Bong?	13 April 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01476	Amazon chose San Diego as the site for its second headquarters, a.k.a. "HQ2."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-amazon-choose-san-diego-for-its-hq2/	None	Technology	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Amazon Choose San Diego For Its ‘HQ2’?	6 November 2017	None	['San_Diego']
-goop-00110	Bradley Cooper Wants Irina Shayk To Give Up Modeling?	https://www.gossipcop.com/bradley-cooper-irina-shayk-modeling/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Bradley Cooper Wants Irina Shayk To Give Up Modeling?	1:55 am, October 20, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04073	Obama twice described Americans as "lazy" during a town hall meeting in Laos.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-calls-americans-lazy/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Did Obama Call Americans ‘Lazy’ in an Overseas Speech?	8 September 2016	None	['United_States', 'Laos', 'Barack_Obama']
-pose-00329	"Will appoint an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy who will report directly to the president, and be deeply involved in establishing research priorities that reflect the nation's needs based on the best available advice from experts around the country."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/346/appoint-an-assistant-to-the-president-for-science-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy	2010-01-07T13:26:55	None	['None']
-pomt-14734	Says the Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015 would not "pause" the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States.	/new-hampshire/statements/2015/dec/18/ann-mclane-kuster/kuster-says-republican-backed-bill-she-voted-would/	U.S. Rep Annie Kuster raised eyebrows earlier this month when she claimed on NHPR’s Morning Edition that a bill putting extra restrictions on Syrian refugees wouldn't actually slow down the program. "The bill would not prohibit Syrian refugees from entering the nation. I think there's been a lot of misinformation frankly about the bill," she said. "It doesn't pause the program. It doesn't apply a religious test. It's a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States." The bit that caught our attention was Kuster’s statement that the the bill "doesn’t pause the program." Could that be true? Or did the Democrat go overboard in defending her support of a GOP-backed proposal? We decided to check it out. The bill in question is called the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. It passed the U.S. House with nearly unanimous Republican support and with the backing of 47 Democrats, including Kuster. According to behind-the-scenes reporting from the Huffington Post, the White House lobbied Democrats to oppose the measure, but ultimately couldn't persuade them all to oppose the bill. So, what's in the SAFE Act? What does it do, and would it actually slow down Syrian refugees coming into the country? It's useful in this case to go to the bill itself. And luckily for us, the SAFE Act is a relatively simple read. Unfortunately, its implications are murkier. Here are the two most pertinent sections of the bill. They’re worth quoting in full, as we’ll see soon enough. "In addition to the screening conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take all actions necessary to ensure that each covered alien receives a thorough background investigation prior to admission as a refugee. A covered alien may not be admitted as a refugee until the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation certifies to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence that each covered alien has received a background investigation that is sufficient to determine whether the covered alien is a threat to the security of the United States. ... "A covered alien may only be admitted to the United States after the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the unanimous concurrence of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director of National Intelligence, certifies to the appropriate Congressional Committees that the covered alien is not a threat to the security of the United States." The rest of the bill adds reporting requirements and defines the refugees in question as those coming from Iraq or Syria. It does not institute any penalties or consequences for failure to comply with its requirements. A simple distillation of that text comes from the govtrack.us website, which describes it thusly: "H.R. 4038 would expand the screening process for those refugees attempting to enter the United States by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct its own background checks in addition to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS). Any refugee would be prohibited from entry until the FBI certifies that they pose no security threat. Refugees would only be admitted with the unanimous agreement of the FBI, DHS, and Director of National Intelligence." In other words, it adds layers of certification beyond what’s already on the books requiring that refugees are safe before entering the United states. But as Kuster said, the bill does not bar Syrian refugees from the United States, nor does it impose a religious test. What would the legislation mean in practice? The White House certainly had its interpretation, which was the extra requirements would cause big delays. According to an official statement from the executive branch, the bill would "create significant delays and obstacles in the fulfillment of a vital program that satisfies both humanitarian and national security objectives." U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey made the same arguments during a news conference after the bill passed. "To ask that we have my FBI director make personal guarantees would effectively grind the program to a halt," Lynch told reporters last month. And that seemed to be the goal of House Republicans who supported it, at least in part. According to National Public Radio’s reporting, "Supporters of the bill say it would require a ‘pause’ in admitting Syrian and Iraqi refugees, as current applications would be halted while a new vetting process was established." But the House Democrats who broke ranks with their party to support the bill disagreed with both the president and Republicans. According to the Huffington Post report mentioned earlier, a Democrat told lawmakers that the bill "doesn't hurt the refugee process, so put a certification stamp at the bottom and move on." A top House Democrat cited in the article also said that the defectors had "a sense that the underlying reforms weren't severe." In other words, Kuster and 46 other House Democrats decided that if all that was needed was extra certifications, surely they could be put into place without many problems. And while the bill seems to suggest that the FBI would need to conduct an extra background check -- and the bill summary says as much -- the actual text is less clear about what that would entail. It instead reads that "the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall take all actions necessary to ensure that each covered alien receives a thorough background investigation." That’s not specifically calling for another check. We contacted Kuster’s office, which said the congresswoman’s intention was to protect the American people. Our ruling U.S. Rep Annie Kuster said the Republican-backed bill she voted for wouldn't pause the resettlement of Syrian refugees. While a number of House Democrats agree with her, the White House and Republicans believe the contrary, saying the bill would either slow down or stop the flow of refugees. Although there’s nothing in the bill that says it will specifically cause a pause, a reasonable reading of the legislation could lead to such an interpretation. Kuster’s claim ignores critical evidence that could lead to an opposite conclusion. We rate her statement Half True.	None	Ann McLane Kuster	None	None	None	2015-12-18T19:38:13	2015-12-03	['United_States', 'Syria']
-snes-05199	A video shows a "7D Hologram" of a whale inside a school gymnasium.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/7d-hologram-whale-video/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	‘7D’ Whale Hologram	17 February 2016	None	['None']
-afck-00209	“Drug abuse is costing South Africa R20 billion a year.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/do-15-of-s-africans-have-a-drug-problem-we-fact-check-4-shocking-drug-statistics/	None	None	None	None	None	Do 15% of SA’s population have a drug problem? We fact-check 4 ‘shocking stats’	2016-06-23 05:37	None	['None']
-goop-00280	Ryan Seacrest Has Stories He Doesn’t Like Deleted From E! Website?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ryan-seacrest-e-website-stories-removed/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ryan Seacrest Has Stories He Doesn’t Like Deleted From E! Website?	4:35 pm, September 13, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-02425	The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross shaped headstones removed	https://www.truthorfiction.com/aclu-markers/	None	military	None	None	None	The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross shaped headstones removed	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-13965	The rifle used by Omar Mateen "shoots off 700 rounds in a minute."	/florida/statements/2016/jun/14/alan-grayson/orlando-democrat-alan-grayson-700-rounds-minute/	Rep. Alan Grayson, an Orlando-area Democrat, made a case against assault rifles after the shooting in Orlando, arguing that the gun’s rate of fire is what made the death toll so catastrophic. If the shooter, Omar Mateen, "was not able to buy a weapon that shoots off 700 rounds in a minute, a lot of those people would still be alive," Grayson said June 12, in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett. "If somebody like him had nothing worse to deal with than a glock pistol which was his other weapon today, he might have killed three or four people and not 50," Grayson said. Law enforcement officials have not released specific details regarding the nature of the rifle Mateen used in the shooting as of this fact-check. Law enforcement officials have described it as an "AR type rifle." The gun shop owner who sold Mateen the weapon told the New York Post it was a Sig Sauer MCX rifle. Grayson told PolitiFact he was referring to the AR-15 weapon more generally, which was modeled off the military style M16. All these details matter, and what makes Grayson's claim problematic. Experts told us the weapon Mateen used could not fire 700 rounds in a minute without serious alterations that require the resources of a gun manufacturer. Even if Mateen had those resources, and there is no indication from sounds recorded from the shooting or from investigators that he did, experts are not even sure if Grayson’s 700-rounds-per-minute claim is possible. Experts said that firing 700 rounds per minute is unrealistic due to the time it would take for a shooter to reload magazines and because the gun would overheat. What Grayson said later Both the AR-15 and Sig Sauer MCX rifle are sold for civilian use as a semiautomatic rifle, meaning a shooter has to pull the trigger to fire each round. This is different from an automatic weapon where the shooter can hold down the trigger and shoot multiple rounds. The AR-15 weapon was used in the 2015 San Bernadino and 2012 Sandy Hook shootings, and has since been the subject of controversy, including a lawsuit against an AR-15 manufacturer. Mateen used an "AR type rifle," according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Some people, like Grayson, took that to mean an AR-15. The Sig Sauer MCX, however, looks like an AR-15 and is considered an AR type rifle. Grayson clarified his specific claim in other interviews to say that rifle Mateen used was only capable of 700 rounds per minute when modified to become an automatic weapon, such as the M16 military version of the civilian AR-15. Grayson told PolitiFact that there are various ways of converting weapons from semi-automatic to automatic, some legal (purchasing a shoulder mount) and others illegal ("machining" the weapon). Gary Kleck, Florida State University criminologist, said that it would be possible to "convert" a semiautomatic rifle into an automatic rifle, but only "if you had the resources of a modern rifle manufacturer" and sufficient tools. Kleck’s research on guns recovered by police suggests that rarely happens. If shooters do use an automatic weapon, they probably stole it from a military armory rather than repurposing a civilian version, Kleck said. Theory vs. reality Grayson’s claim distorts what we know about the Orlando shooting and the number of rounds a standard semiautomatic rifle can fire. The 700-round-a-minute figure is only a theoretical benchmark, not something achievable in reality. Army documents list the M16 as having a "cyclic rate of fire" of 700-900 rounds per minute. However, the "cyclic" rate of fire is a theoretical measurement of speed, not how many rounds could actually be shot out of the gun in 1 minute, said Michael O’Shea, a constitutional law professor at Oklahoma City University. "That only means how rapidly the firing mechanism operates while there is ammunition in the gun," O’Shea said. "It is not the same as being able to actually discharge 700 rounds of ammunition from the gun in 60 seconds." For starters, a shooter would have to reload his magazines to achieve that volume — at least 20 times with 30 round magazines or 6 times with 100 round magazines, which are less commonly used, O’Shea said. Grayson told PolitiFact that there are videos online of people shooting at 700-900 rounds per minute. However, we searched online for such videos and found that they actually confirmed O'Shea's point. The Army document designates the "maximum effective rate of fire" — "the highest rate of fire that can be maintained and still achieve target hits" — as 150-200 rounds per minute for an automatic M16. Kleck added that, from his research on mass shootings, most shooters rarely fire more than 50 rounds per minute. Even if you could overcome the need to reload — by installing a belt of ammunition — reaching 700 rounds in one minute remains infeasible, said Steven Howard, a lawyer and gun expert who has consulted with various law enforcement agencies. "In reality, you’ll get to 500 rounds and the gun will just melt," Howard said. Our ruling Grayson said that the rifle Mateen used "shoots off 700 rounds in a minute." On CNN, he includes this claim without any clarification. In other forums, he noted that his claim is only true for the hypothetical semiautomatic rifle converted to an automatic weapon. Even then, however, experts say the 700-round-per-minute figure is not an accurate portrayal of rounds fired. This is true for many reasons, they said, including reloading time and the potential of overheating the gun. The debate over how assault weapons ought to be regulated is ongoing and contentious, but the claim Grayson uses is nonetheless misleading. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3d2e9d05-7942-4a9b-b6c1-efbf9096fc5f	None	Alan Grayson	None	None	None	2016-06-14T17:28:08	2016-06-12	['None']
-pomt-14502	"People (are) paying more in taxes than they will for food, housing and clothing combined."	/florida/statements/2016/feb/23/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-americans-pay-more-taxes-food-clt/	A Web ad from Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio has gotten a lot of attention for a case of geographic mistaken identity: The narrator says "It’s morning again in America" -- while showing a video clip from Vancouver, Canada. The Rubio campaign told BuzzFeed it was unintentional. But there’s also a serious public policy claim in that ad. "Today, more men and women are out of work than ever before in our nation’s history," the narrator says. "People paying more in taxes than they will for food, housing and clothing combined." Help PolitiFact raise $15,000 to hire a fact-checker to cover the immigration debate. We’ve looked how many people are out of work in other fact-checks. In January 2016, the unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, its lowest level since February 2008. Here, we wanted to look at the claim that people are paying more in taxes than for food, housing and clothing. Taxes versus food, housing and clothing The Rubio campaign sent us an April 2015 blog post by the Tax Foundation, a pro-business think tank. A bar graph showed that America will pay a total of $4.8 trillion in taxes and about $4.4 trillion in food, clothing and housing combined. Kyle Pomerleau, who wrote the blog for the Tax Foundation in April 2015, said it was based on a projection of what Americans would spend for the year based on information from the Congressional Budget Office. So let’s look at the actual numbers using the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis. Since the BEA doesn’t have full tax data yet for 2015, we used tax and spending data for 2014. We used the same method the foundation did and found that total receipts for the federal, state and local government taxes were about $4.8 trillion. On the spending side in 2014, Americans laid out $886 billion for food and beverages purchased for use at home, $751 billion on food services and accommodations, $369 billion on clothing and footwear and $2.1 trillion on housing and utilities. If we add that up, we get about $4.1 trillion. So by this method, Americans are spending more in taxes -- about $4.8 trillion -- than on food, clothing and housing combined of about $4.1 trillion. But this is just one method to compare taxes and spending. The foundation’s method is an aggregate of what all Americans pay combined -- the amount that any individual or family spends on taxes compared with food, clothing and shelter can vary widely. That means that Rubio’s statement is likely true for some Americans but not others. "Looking at the chart, this is an aggregated figure, and what is true of the whole is not true of all the parts," said Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida’s Institute of Economic Competitiveness. "Clearly there are lower income individuals who do not pay all the taxes that higher income people do. For those folks, they are spending more on food, housing and clothing." Indeed, as a general rule, poor Americans pay relatively little in taxes compared to what they spend on food, clothing and housing. This matters for judging Rubio’s statement because, for many of them, his statement is inaccurate. It’s more often true for richer Americans. Another way to look at taxes and spending is by what individuals spend on average. Americans spend an average of 39 percent of their money on food, housing, apparel and services in 2011, according to the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Taxes -- federal, state and local combined -- claim roughly 30 percent of income, said Roberton Williams, a tax expert at the Tax Policy Center. So by this measure, "taxes claim a smaller share of income than do food, housing, and clothing," Williams said. Our ruling Rubio said that "people (are) paying more in taxes than they will for food, housing and clothing combined." Rubio’s statement only measures up if we look at aggregate spending on those basics by all Americans. But whether individuals spend more on taxes than food, housing and clothing varies widely depending upon their income. Wealthier Americans do spend more on taxes than food, housing and clothing combined, while those with low incomes do not. We rate this statement Half True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2016-02-23T10:00:00	2016-02-14	['None']
-goop-02432	Gigi, Bella Hadid Upset Over Mom Yolanda’s Book?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gigi-bella-hadid-upset-mom-yolanda-book-memoir/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gigi, Bella Hadid Upset Over Mom Yolanda’s Book?	2:49 am, September 22, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-01635	Police in the United States are allowed to use tear gas even though it "has been classified as a chemical weapon and banned in international conflict since 1993."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/26/facebook-posts/tear-gas-was-banned-warfare-1993-police-1997/	Law enforcement officers in Ferguson, Mo., have used tear gas extensively in the wake of the police-shooting death of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old unarmed African-American. The conflict in Ferguson led one PolitiFact reader to ask us to check the accuracy of a social-media meme now circulating that addresses the legality of tear gas. The meme -- posted by the group OurTime.org, an advocacy group for young Americans -- said, "Tear gas has been classified as a chemical weapon and banned in international conflict since 1993. Why is its use allowed by U.S. police forces?" The post had garnered 143,000 likes, 42,000 shares, and 35,000 comments by late August. We wanted to know if it was accurate. First, some background on tear gas. It is a broad term for chemical compounds that temporarily make people unable to function by causing irritation to the eyes, mouth, throat, lungs, and skin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pepper spray and CS gas are among the most commonly used. The CDC says that "prolonged exposure, especially in an enclosed area, may lead to long-term effects such as eye problems including scarring, glaucoma, and cataracts, and may possibly cause breathing problems such as asthma." However, the agency adds that "if symptoms go away soon after a person is removed from exposure to riot control agents, long-term health effects are unlikely to occur." Has tear gas been 'banned in international conflict since 1993'? This is close to being accurate. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons. And tear gas qualifies under the convention as a chemical weapon. Specifically, Article I (5) of the convention says, "Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare," while Article II (7) defines "riot control agent" as: "Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure." The meme is incorrect, however, when it comes to the year the convention came into force. It was finalized in 1993 but took effect on April 29, 1997 -- 180 days after the 65th country, Hungary, ratified the treaty, as the convention set forth. The United States is covered by this provision, the Senate having ratified the convention five days before it went into force. In addition, there may be a gray area for use by the military. When President Gerald Ford signed an earlier, decades-old agreement covering chemical weapons, the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925, the United States reserved the right to use tear gas in a limited number of contexts, such as for controlling a riot at a prisoner-of-war detention area -- just not against troops engaged in battle. Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service, said he believes that this limited exception would also hold water under the Chemical Weapons Convention. How relevant is that to police? This part is more murky, because the same convention being touted by the meme’s authors specifically states that law enforcement use within a country is permitted. "Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes" is "not prohibited under this convention," says Article II (9) (d). This bifurcation between a permitted domestic use and a banned international use is unusual in such accords, said Brian Finlay, managing director of the Stimson Center, a think tank that focuses on global security issues. As for how it happened, there’s a backstory. According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international group that helps enforce the Chemical Weapons Convention, riot control agents were "the topic of long and heated debates" during negotiations of the convention. In the end, a compromise was reached, the group says, allowing the use of tear gas for riot control but prohibiting it for warfare. Indiana University law professor David P. Fidler, who has studied the issue, said that while there’s been some controversy over what this article of the convention permits in some contexts, "law enforcement use of tear gas has not been one of them." When we contacted OurTime.org, co-founder Jarrett Moreno told us that "the focus of our post was raising an ethical and moral question: If we can't use tear gas on our enemies, why is it acceptable to use on our own citizens? After Ferguson where we saw children, disabled people, and members of the press being hit with tear gas while exercising their First Amendment rights, why are they being contained with something that we don't even use on the battlefield?" Experts acknowledged that the treatment of tear gas under the convention is somewhat paradoxical, and it stems in part from horse-trading by convention negotiators. But they added that there are other, more substantive reasons as well. • The use of any type of gas on a battlefield is problematic. "Part of the thinking is that soldiers in the field don't have the ability to readily distinguish in the heat of battle if a gas being used is tear gas or something more lethal," said Richard Price, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia who has studied the issues. The negotiators, he said, thought that, "as a practical matter, it was best to ban them all" on the battlefield. • There are few immediate alternatives to tear gas for riot control. There are strategies to prevent riots, including better community relations, a less militaristic appearance, and improved training, all of which have been raised in relation to Ferguson. But once rioting is under way, police need tools to control it -- and "even though tear gas is far from perfect," said David A. Koplow, a Georgetown University law professor, "it continues to be used in that role because there’s nothing else better." Israel has deployed an organic riot-control agent dubbed "skunk water," described by a BBC journalist as the "worst, most foul thing you have ever smelled. An overpowering mix of rotting meat, old socks that haven't been washed for weeks -- topped off with the pungent waft of an open sewer." However, it is sprayed from water cannons, which in the popular imagination are associated with their use against civil rights protesters in the 1960s, making them highly unsuitable for use in a scenario like the one in Ferguson. Projectiles such as rubber bullets can be effective, but they can cause serious injury or, if poorly aimed, death. An emerging technology called the Active Denial System -- or more colloquially, the "pain ray" -- creates millimeter-wave frequencies that impart a searing sensation of heat on the skin, but amid concerns, the United States military has been slow to adopt it. Meanwhile, new forms of "incapacitating chemical agents" that use anesthetic chemicals have been proposed, but they have drawn the concern of such groups as the International Committee of the Red Cross. The problem with new-generation chemical techniques, said Fidler of Indiana University, "is that their physiological effects are stronger than tear gas, which creates the potential for more injuries and other health harms. Tear gas is well understood as a riot control agent, and it seems to function well enough for law enforcement purposes. • A lack of desire for change. There is little sign that the convention’s signatories have any desire to reconcile the tear gas paradox. "There is certainly an argument to be made that the fundamental segregation of these two issues is inherently unreasonable," said Finlay of the Stimson Center. "That said, this is very unlikely to change, as it is both a matter of treaty law as well as customary international law today. There is not much appetite among states to alter the status quo." Our ruling The meme said police in the United States use tear gas even though it "has been classified as a chemical weapon and banned in international conflict since 1993." The Chemical Weapons Convention did outlaw the use of tear gas in warfare, though that went into effect in 1997, not 1993. However, the meme glosses over some context. It tries to leverage the Chemical Weapons Convention’s decision to ban tear gas as evidence of why the technique should be illegal for policing, yet that very same convention explicitly allows its use for domestic law enforcement purposes. The claim is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2014-08-26T11:08:39	2014-08-25	['United_States']
-snes-01567	Officials say the October 2017 California wildfires were started by Mexican drug cartels in order to gain a strategic advantage over the legal marijuana industry.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-fires-drug-cartels-marijuana-farms/	None	Crime	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did ‘Mexican Drug Cartels’ Start the California Wildfires?	17 October 2017	None	['Mexico', 'California']
-snes-02377	A developmentally disabled adult captured a delivery person, Jehovah's Witness, or salesman after mistaking him for a troll.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/for-whom-the-doorbell-trolls/	None	Embarrassments	None	Snopes Staff	None	Delivery Person Mistaken for Troll	28 February 2010	None	['None']
-pose-01314	“I'm putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria, as part of this mass migration, that if I win, if I win, they're going back.”	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1406/remove-existing-syrian-refugees/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Remove existing Syrian refugees	2017-01-17T09:09:57	None	['Syria']
-tron-02631	Mother of Eight on Welfare Said She was the Family Breadwinner	https://www.truthorfiction.com/breadwinner/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Mother of Eight on Welfare Said She was the Family Breadwinner	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07070	"Under Barack Obama the last two years, the number of federal limousines for bureaucrats has increased 73 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/27/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-federal-limousines-73-perc/	In an interview on CBS' Face the Nation on June 26, 2011, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann managed to turn a question about farm subsidies into an attack on President Barack Obama's administration for a "reprehensible" increase in the number of federal limousines. "What about farm subsidies?" host Bob Schieffer asked Bachmann on the eve of her formal announcement of a 2012 presidential bid. "...Do you think we ought to think about cutting those back?" "I think everything needs to be on the table right now, every part of government," Bachmann said. "I'll tell you one thing that should be on the table, under Barack Obama the last two years, the number of federal limousines for bureaucrats has increased 73 percent, in two years. I can’t think of anything more reprehensible than seeing bureaucrats on their cell phones in the backs...73 percent increase in the number of federal limousines in the last two years, for heaven's sake." She made a similar statement during an appearance in New Hampshire on June 28: "In the last two years under the Obama administration, the number of federal limousines have increased 73 percent under President Obama. So if it isn't bad enough that we have all these czars, now they have limousines at their service and they can sit in their back seats and talk on their cell phones. This is the level of waste we've got in Washington, DC." The claim is based on a May 31, 2011, story from iWatchNews.org, a project of the Center for Public Integrity, which ran under the headline, "Limousine liberals? Number of government-owned limos has soared under Obama." The story, written by Joe Eaton, begins: "Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News." The statistic is based on annual fleet reports provided by the U.S. General Services Administration. According to the Fleet Report for Fiscal Year 2010 (Table 2-5 and 2-5T), the number of federal limousines by year went from 318 in 2006; to 217 in 2007; to 238 in 2008; to 349 in 2009; and to 412 in 2010. So the data suggests there was a 73 percent increase between 2008 and 2010. But information in the iWatch News article itself casts doubt about whether this is a firm statistic and whether the increase is rightly pegged entirely to the Obama administration. For starters, the GSA itself is not standing behind the numbers. Because of a loose definition of "limousines," GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam told iWatch News that GSA "cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines." "The categories in the Fleet Report are overly broad, and the term 'limousine' is not defined," Merriam told us via e-mail. "Vehicles represented as limousines can range from protective duty vehicles to common sedans, and many of these vehicles serve in a law enforcement or protective capacity. This is a flaw in the report that GSA will fix to ensure that the Fleet Report can serve as a useful tool to help agencies right-size their fleets to achieve cost and energy savings as directed by the Presidential Memorandum." The iWatch News report noted that according to GSA, "law enforcement" limousines means the vehicles "are equipped with sirens or lights, high-performance drivetrains or are used for surveillance or undercover operations." Indeed, the data shows that the number of "law enforcement" limousines went from 193 in 2008 to 288 in 2010. In other words, limos used for law enforcement accounted for 95 of the new limousines (more than half the entire increase). Law enforcement vehicles with sirens and used for surveillance or undercover operations, didn't jibe with our concept of limousine. So we went to our Merriam-Webster dictionary, which defines limousine as "a large luxurious often chauffeur-driven sedan that usually has a glass partition separating the driver's seat from the passenger compartment." It's also unclear how many of the new "limousines" can be tied to the Obama administration. The bulk of the limousine fleet increase occurred between the fiscal years of 2008 and 2009 (when the number jumped 47 percent -- from 238 to 349). When Obama took office in late January 2009, it was already nearly four months into the 2009 fiscal year. The GSA report doesn't note how many were ordered in the first four months as opposed to the final eight. Moreover, the GSA's fleet acquisition data notes when vehicles were delivered, not when they were ordered. A bulk of the vehicles in the FY2009 report would have been ordered in 2008 under the prior Bush administration (and a Democrat-controlled Congress). The iWatch News story also notes that much of the increase in the fleet of limousines was in the State Department. "The State Department in a statement said its limos are deployed by overseas diplomats and in the United States by Secretary of State Clinton and 'distinguished foreign visitors,'" the story states. "Many of the limos in its fleet are armored to protect against attack. The department said its Obama-era increase in armored limos is 'both in proportion to the increased threat to diplomats serving overseas and is in proportion to the increase number of diplomats we have serving in high threat environments.' Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007." In other words, some of the State Department increase has been in the works for at least two years prior to Obama taking office. Accusing the Obama administration of significantly increasing the federal limousine fleet in the midst of a recession and spiraling deficits may make for a great red meat line on a Republican campaign stop. But Bachmann's claim that "under Barack Obama the last two years the number of federal limousines for bureaucrats has increased 73 percent," is based on squishy figures from the GSA (according to the GSA itself). And it's also impossible to tell from the numbers exactly how many of the new "limousines" were ordered by the Obama administration, and how many were ordered by his predecessor. Given those qualifiers, we rate it Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Michele Bachmann	None	None	None	2011-06-27T18:09:53	2011-06-26	['None']
-pomt-03261	"If we don't spend money on a pier, then that money does wipe into the general funds of the city or the county, and if you send it to the county, you never see it again."	/florida/statements/2013/aug/09/bill-foster/st-pete-pier-money-lost-county-foster-says/	St. Petersburg Mayor Bill Foster and challenger Kathleen Ford tangled over paying for the Lens, the proposed pier replacement, at a debate last week. Foster said the money was use-it-or-lose-it, while Ford said the plan takes money from the city’s general funds. "If we don't spend money on a pier, then that money does wipe into the general funds of the city or the county, and if you send it to the county, you never see it again," Foster said. After the forum, Foster confirmed the intent of his comments to PolitiFact Florida, telling us that money needs to be spent or part of it will be lost to the county. We decided to check it out. (We looked at Ford's comments in a separate fact-check.) First, some background: In 1969, the Florida Legislature passed the Community Redevelopment Act. The intent was to allow a city and a county to target a specific geographic area -- say, a downtown -- for improvements. The law allows local officials to create a Community Redevelopment Area, so that a portion of property taxes collected in the area can be used for major development projects there. In 1981, the city of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County set up such an area with the goal of paying for projects downtown. Each time the property taxes within the area rise above the 1981 level, that additional money goes into an improvement fund, usually called TIF, which stands for tax increment financing. We should note that a pier project of some kind has long been on the drawing board. The inverted pyramid made its debut in 1973 and underwent a major renovation in 1987. Since at least 2005, city officials have been looking at either another renovation or a total replacement, paid for with TIF money. Community Redevelopment Areas usually only last 30 years, and then the districts dissolve. But in 2005, the Board of County Commissioners granted the city a 30-year extension until 2035, said Ken Welch, a Pinellas County commissioner. Right now there’s about $50 million in TIF money available for a pier project, with about $37 million of that intended for construction. If the money isn’t spent by 2035, only then could the county reclaim its 44 percent share. The city would take the remaining money. We should note that city leaders have never supported abandoning the pier without a replacement. Refurbishment money would likely come from the TIF fund. Voters will approve or reject the Lens on Aug. 27. If the Lens fails and a different pier project goes forward, the same method of financing would apply, Welch said. So Foster said that if money isn��t spent on a pier, it will go back to the city and county. He’s technically right. But that doesn’t happen for another 22 years, in 2035. The odds of the city not spending the money -- on the Lens, a different construction project or a refurbishment of the inverted pyramid -- are slim. We rated Foster’s claim Half True.	None	Bill Foster	None	None	None	2013-08-09T16:13:32	2013-08-06	['None']
-goop-01750	Queen Elizabeth Did Order Meghan Markle To “Royal Boot Camp,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-royal-boot-camp-queen-elizabeth-rules/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Queen Elizabeth Did NOT Order Meghan Markle To “Royal Boot Camp,” Despite Report	10:54 am, January 24, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01123	Australian officials are deploying a genetically-modified vaccine aerially without consent from residents.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-australia-chemtrails-vaccinate-residents/	None	Junk News	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Is Australia Using Chemtrails to Forcibly Vaccinate its Residents?	25 January 2018	None	['Australia']
-pomt-06163	"I never lobbied under any circumstance" for Freddie Mac.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/16/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-said-he-never-lobbied-freddie-mac-un/	Is Newt Gingrich a conservative firebrand who can take the fight to Obama? Or just more Washington same-old, same-old? Put Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., down for the second option. She laid into him at a Republican debate for the presidential nomination for his work with Freddie Mac, a mortgage company giant connected to the federal government. "Well, it's the fact that we know that he cashed paychecks from Freddie Mac. That's the best evidence that you can have, over $1.6 million," Bachmann said on Dec. 15, 2011, in Iowa. She added, "We can't have as our nominee for the Republican Party someone who continues to stand for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They need to be shut down, not built up." When asked for his response, Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said, "Well, the easiest answer is, that's just not true. What she just said is factually not true. I never lobbied under any circumstance. I never went in and suggested in any way that we do this." The conversation got weird after that, with Bachmann claiming that "after the debates that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything that I said was true." That’s not true, and we gave her a Pants on Fire for saying it. Gingrich, meanwhile, said his policy now is to break up both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He also claimed that he was too well off to sell influence: "I want to state unequivocally, for every person watching tonight, I have never once changed my positions because of any kind of payment, because the truth is, I was a national figure who was doing just fine, doing a whole variety of things, including writing best-selling books, making speeches." Here, we decided to examine Gingrich’s statement, "I never lobbied under any circumstance." Our research showed that Gingrich is technically correct: If you search public records databases for registered lobbyists, you won’t find Gingrich’s name. But his statement doesn’t tell the whole story. To be clear, Gingrich acknowledges that he worked for Freddie Mac, and his campaign released a statement affirming that Nov. 6, 2011. The statement, which you can read in full, said that Gingrich’s consulting group was retained by Freddie Mac in 2006. "To be clear, Speaker Gingrich did no lobbying of any kind, nor did his firm. This was expressly written into the Gingrich Group contracts. Instead, the Gingrich Group was hired to offer strategic advice to Freddie Mac on a number of issues," the statement said. The statement said Gingrich advised Freddie that it was dangerous to buy mortgage-backed securities based on questionable home loans. He also told Freddie on how to lower prescription drug costs for its employees. Finally, Freddie Mac "was interested in advice on how to reach out to more conservatives." Because he was not a registered lobbyist, neither Freddie Mac nor Gingrich is required to disclose how much Gingrich was paid nor the exact dates of his work. Bachmann said it was $1.6 million. This number likely came from news stories from Bloomberg News, which reported last month that Gingrich received between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in fees from two separate contracts. We've seen nothing questioning the accuracy of that report, but the number also came from unnamed sources, so we can’t confirm or refute the number Bachmann mentioned. Bloomberg also reported that Gingrich worked with Mitchell Delk, Freddie's chief lobbyist. Delk told Bloomberg that Gingrich provided "counsel on public policy issues," but did not do formal lobbying work. So Gingrich was paid for "strategic advice" without having to register as a lobbyist. How does that work? To be a registered lobbyist, one has to meet a number of detailed rules laid out in federal law. One of the main rules is that a person has to register if he or she holds two or more meetings with elected officials or staff in any quarter of the year n behalf of a client. Also, the lobbying activities must constitute 20 percent or more of the lobbyist’s time during any three-month period. (Want more detail? Read 27 pages of guidance on disclosing lobbying activities via the U.S. Senate website.) Experts we spoke with and the research we reviewed showed the "strategic advice" category is a way of using influence without having to register as a lobbyist. They said strategic advisers can do quite a bit for clients like Freddie Mac without acquiring the lobbyist label. They can stay at the client’s office and give their best advice on with whom to meet and what to say. They can give instructions to someone who is a registered lobbyist, again telling the lobbyist with whom to meet and what points to address. They can take their clients to meetings with groups that aren’t part of the government, such as grassroots political groups. They can even have one big meeting with an elected official to make a case for a client. "There’s a lot of activity that ordinary people would think of as lobbying that doesn’t trigger the obligation to register as a lobbyist under federal law. Strategic advice is one of those kinds of things that doesn’t," said Joseph Sandler, an attorney with the Washington law firm Sandler Reiff Young & Lamb. Sandler was one of four co-chairs of an American Bar Association task force that recommended changes to federal lobbying laws to improve disclosure and reduce conflicts of interest. One of its recommendations was that people who give strategic advice disclose their work under a new category of "lobbying support." We should also note that both parties play this game. Former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., was a "policy adviser" at the lobbying firms Alston & Bird and DLA Piper. He had to answer many questions about his work when President Barack Obama selected him to be U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. (Daschle ended up withdrawing over tax issues connected to another client giving him the use of a car and driver.) "Newt Gingrich is certainly not alone among well-heeled political players who say they just offer consulting services or strategic advice -- without needing to register as lobbyists. But it's a stretch to claim that they aren't part of the influence game," said Michael Beckel, a spokesman with the Center for Responsive Politics, via e-mail. The nonpartisan group monitors lobbying and campaign spending. "The distinction isn't as important as Gingrich is making it out to be," he added. Our ruling Gingrich is technically correct that he was not a registered lobbyist for Freddie Mac. But it appears he took pains to avoid being subject to the rules. Giving strategic advice is widely considered a way of using political influence without having to register. We rate his statement Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a3809163-f465-4790-89e5-46d3c3a5af8a	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-12-16T14:08:27	2011-12-15	['Freddie_Mac']
-snes-04913	A California man was arrested in April 2016 for dressing in women's clothes and surreptitiously filming women in a public bathroom.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-filming-women-restroom/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Man Claiming to Be Transgender Arrested for Filming Women in Restroom	15 April 2016	None	['California']
-hoer-00198	Christmas Cards for Recovering American Soldiers	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/soldier-christmas-card.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Christmas Cards for Recovering American Soldiers	October 29, 2013	None	['None']
-tron-01296	Founder of Oracle speaks to students	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ellison-yale/	None	education	None	None	None	Founder of Oracle speaks to students	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-11170	Says James Clapper said "that the FBI was spying on (Trump's) campaign."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/23/donald-trump/did-ex-intelligence-chief-clapper-say-fbi-spied-tr/	President Donald Trump has hinted that the Obama administration inserted a mole in his presidential campaign to undercut his candidacy. In an early morning tweet, he offered what seemed to be proof, from none other than former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. In a tweet, Trump appeared to quote Clapper as saying, "Trump should be happy that the FBI was SPYING on his campaign." Trump followed that with, "No, James Clapper, I am not happy. Spying on a campaign would be illegal, and a scandal to boot!" See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Whatever people might think amounts to spying (and we wrote that there’s no agreed-upon definition), Clapper didn’t say what Trump claimed. Clapper said the opposite. Clapper was interviewed May 22 on ABC News’ The View. Here’s the exchange with co-host Joy Behar: Behar: "I ask you, was the FBI spying on Trump's campaign?" Clapper: "No, they were not. They were spying on — a term I don't particularly like — but on what the Russians were doing. Trying to understand were the Russians infiltrating, trying to gain access, trying to gain leverage and influence which is what they do." Behar: "Well, why doesn't he like that? He should be happy." Clapper: "He should be." The White House press office confirmed that Trump was referring to Clapper’s ABC interview. But that wasn’t the only time Clapper addressed the question of spying. Clapper repeated his point the same day in an interview on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360. "The objective here was actually to protect the campaign by determining whether the Russians were infiltrating it and attempting to exert influence," Clapper said. After Trump's tweet, Clapper said May 23 on CNN it was "a distortion of what I said." The FBI’s guidelines say direct investigation of a campaign should only come after a high-level review. "It is not invariably illegal to spy on a campaign or people in it," said Robert Litt, former general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence. "The question is, why are you doing it? Are you doing it for legitimate investigative purposes – for example if you have information that people in the campaign are engaged in criminal activity – or is your purpose to glean information that you would provide to the candidate’s opponents for political use?" Our ruling Trump said that Clapper had affirmed that the FBI had spied on the Trump campaign. That does not reflect Clapper’s words. In two separate interviews Clapper said that the FBI was looking for Russian interference in the election with the aim of protecting the campaign. He specifically said that the FBI had not spied on the campaign. Trump turned Clapper’s statements upside down and for that, we rate this claim False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-05-23T17:25:22	2018-05-23	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-snes-03202	Gender Confusion	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/express-gender-symbol/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did ‘Express’ Use the Male Gender Symbol for a Women’s Rights Cover?	5 January 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-01271	Obama Bans Christmas Cards to Overseas Servicemen	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-obama-bans-christmas-cards-to-overseas-servicemen/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News: Obama Bans Christmas Cards to Overseas Servicemen	November 12, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00806	General Peter Cosgrove Interview on Australian TV	https://www.truthorfiction.com/general-peter-cosgrove/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	General Peter Cosgrove Interview on Australian TV	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00609	If Milwaukee approves reducing its maximum forfeiture for marijuana possession to $50, the city would have "23 different bicycle violations that have a higher forfeiture."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/jun/01/robert-puente/would-milwaukees-maximum-forfeiture-marijuana-be-l/	On June 2, 2015, the Milwaukee Common Council is scheduled to decide whether to reduce the maximum city portion of the fine for possession of a sandwich-size bag of marijuana. That portion of the total fine -- known formally as a forfeiture -- would be a maximum of $50, down from the current limit of $500. When the council debated the proposed ordinance change on May 12, 2015, it was opposed by Ald. Robert Puente, who served for 27 years on the Milwaukee police force. "We have 23 different bicycle violations that have a higher forfeiture than this," said Puente, before adding: "I just think this is really disproportionate." Is that right? If the council approves reducing the maximum forfeiture for marijuana possession, would it be lower than the forfeiture for 23 bicycle violations? Marijuana When you get a ticket, think of the amount shown on the ticket as the fine. The total fine is composed of various parts. Those parts include the forfeiture, the part cited by Puente, which is paid to the city’s general fund. Added to that are various city, county and state fees and surcharges. In Milwaukee, the Common Council sets not only the range of forfeiture amounts for a given violation, but also a standard forfeiture amount that should be imposed in most cases. Those standard forfeiture amounts are reviewed regularly and can be adjusted within the range. Let’s start with marijuana as an example. The city ordinance applies to possession of 25 grams or less of marijuana. Twenty-five grams is slightly less than 1 ounce (0.88), or roughly a sandwich bag full of marijuana. Currently, the minimum forfeiture for marijuana possession is $250 and the maximum is $500. The standard forfeiture amount is $265.87. In other words, the forfeiture amount of the fine you’re given for marijuana possession typically would be $265.87. But the judge in your case could reduce the forfeiture portion to $250 -- or, in rare circumstances, increase the forfeiture. Ald. Nik Kovac has led the effort to reduce the marijuana possession forfeitures. He has said African-Americans in Milwaukee are cited for marijuana possession much more often than other people. And he has argued that the disproportionate jailing of black men is due in part to those who are ticketed for marijuana possession and end up in jail because they can’t pay the forfeiture and fees. Kovac’s initial proposal, in September 2014, was to reduce the forfeiture range dramatically. The minimum would have been $1 and the maximum $5. But his proposed range was later amended to zero to $50 -- which is what the council is being asked to approve. The Milwaukee Municipal Court, in a May 26, 2015 memo signed by the three municipal judges, opposes lowering the $500 maximum. But it suggests reducing the minimum from $250 to zero. That way, the judges would have more flexibility, being able to impose forfeitures anywhere from zero to $500. The memo also made two other points: 1. Since 2012, municipal judges have issued only 12 orders for incarceration for marijuana possession and only eight of those individuals actually served time in jail. 2. Setting a maximum forfeiture for marijuana possession that is lower than that for many other violations "that are arguably less serious" would "send the wrong message to our community." Bicycles As for the 23 bicycle violations cited by Puente, they include abandonment of a bicycle, failure to comply with a traffic signal and brakes not in good working condition. Nine of the violations carry a maximum forfeiture of $500 -- much higher than the $50 maximum for marijuana, should the marijuana ordinance be changed. But as a practical matter, the standard forfeiture for all 23 bike violations is only $20. Our rating Puente said if Milwaukee approves reducing its maximum forfeiture for marijuana possession to $50, the city would have "23 different bicycle violations that have a higher forfeiture." In practice, the actual forfeiture that is imposed for the 23 bicycle violations is only $20. However, the maximum forfeiture for nine of those violations is $500. For a statement that is partially accurate, we rate Puente’s claim Half True.	None	Robert Puente	None	None	None	2015-06-01T16:10:45	2015-05-12	['None']
-tron-00200	“You Worry Me,” an Editorial by an American Airlines Pilot	https://www.truthorfiction.com/youworryme/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	“You Worry Me,” an Editorial by an American Airlines Pilot	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-11110	Say President Donald Trump "dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article" about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/07/president-trumps-lawyers/was-initial-trump-statement-ny-times-accurate-lawy/	The New York Times made a splash when it published a document prepared by President Donald Trump’s legal team to special counsel Robert Mueller. The letter made several bold assertions, including that the president "could, if he wished, terminate (Mueller’s) inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired," and that ordering the end to an investigation "could not constitute obstruction of justice." We’ve looked at some of those possibilities before. But one part of the letter that caught our eye is an assertion about how the White House responded to media disclosures of a June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower between Trump campaign officials and Russian nationals. This meeting, involving Trump's eldest son and first reported by the New York Times, has attracted intense interest from Mueller’s investigators, as well as from congressional committees. The lawyers’ memo acknowledged that President Trump had indeed dictated an initial statement to the New York Times. It went on to defend the president's message as "short but accurate." "You have received all of the notes, communications and testimony indicating that the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump Jr.," said the Jan. 29, 2018, letter from attorneys Jay Sekulow and John Dowd. However, the original explanation for the meeting was not as accurate as the lawyers’ asserted. The statement from Donald Trump Jr. said the meeting focused "primarily" on Russian adoptions. But while the adoptions were indeed mentioned at the meeting, there is evidence that the broader topic of sanctions against well-connected Russians under the Magnitsky Act received significant attention. The statement also offered incomplete characterizations of how much Trump Jr. knew about meeting participants and what he expected to get out of it, and it ignored later efforts by the Russian side to follow up on the meeting. The White House did not respond to multiple inquiries for this article, and a separate inquiry to Sekulow was not returned. Trump Tower tick-tock An email chain to coordinate the meeting shows that Donald Trump Jr. accepted help from what was described to him as a Russian government effort to aid his father’s campaign with damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The younger Trump forwarded the email chain to the candidate’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, his campaign chair at the time. All three Trump campaign officials ended up attending the meeting on June 9, 2016. One of the participants was Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was described in an email to Trump Jr. as a "Russian government attorney." Veselnitskaya has represented Russian state-owned businesses and the son of a senior government official, according to the New York Times. Other participants included Russian-American Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet soldier with experience in military counterintelligence, and Georgian-American Ike Kaveladze, who was once the subject of a congressional inquiry into Russian money-laundering through the U.S. banking system. The meeting became public knowledge after the New York Times reported on it 13 months later. For that article, Donald Trump Jr. gave the newspaper a statement (the one that is central to this fact-check): "It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand." That statement was later supplanted by other, conflicting statements from the Trump camp, including contradictions about whether Donald Trump himself dictated the statement in the name of his son — which his lawyers now say he did. The question of adoptions The most misleading part of the statement is that the meeting "primarily" entailed "a program about the adoption of Russian children." While that topic did come up in the meeting, the statement leaves out an apparently detailed discussion of the 2012 Magnitsky Act sanctions, as well as "dirt" on Bill Browder, the businessman who had pushed for the act. Veselnitskaya came to the meeting armed with talking points that were primarily critcisms of the Magnitsky Act that placed strong sanctions on prominent Russians and which Putin and his allies have worked hard to quash. Veselnitskaya’s five pages of talking points only mentioned "adoptions" in passing at the end, saying that the law "became a basis for open confrontation between our countries, complicating relations on all key geopolitical issues and leading to the ban on Americans adopting Russian children." Under questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee — transcripts of which have been released publicly — Trump Jr., Kaveladze and Rob Goldstone, a business associate of Trump who helped organize the meeting and attended it, said that adoptions were discussed at the meeting. Trump Jr., for instance, testified that "it started off with that sort of tax scheme (about the Democratic National Committee) and, you know, quickly migrated to Russian adoption and ultimately the Magnitsky Act." The evidence suggests that the other topics took up a significant portion of the meeting. Kaveladze testified that Veselnitskaya offered remarks in the meeting "about Magnitsky Act and about destructive role played by Bill Browder, the initiator of that act, in ruining relationship between U.S. and Russia. … She also suggested that the repeal of that act could significantly improve the relationship between Russia and the U.S." At some point, Akhmetshin "gave a little bit more details" on this argument and segued into the act’s impact on adoptions, Kaveladze testified. Also in the meeting, Kaveladze added, Veselnitskaya talked at some length about the owners of Browder’s company being major Democratic donors and how that could be "a negative for the Democratic Party." This account is supported by a page of notes taken by Manafort and released by the committee. The document includes 11 bullet points, including "Bill Browder," "Offshore - Cyprus," "Active sponsors of RNC," and, only as the final bullet point, "Russian adoption by American families." "If it’s what you say I love it" It’s also worth mentioning that adoptions were hardly the meeting’s draw for the Trump camp, according to emails Trump Jr. released three days after the initial New York Times story. The meeting was set in motion on June 3, 2016, when Trump Jr. received an email from Goldstone. He informed the younger Trump that Moscow supported his father’s candidacy, and told of his connection to a Russian government official with incriminating evidence against Clinton. "This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump," Goldstone told Trump Jr. The younger Trump replied: "If it’s what you say I love it." Other points of context Several other elements of the statement paint an incomplete picture. One is the question of whether there was follow-up after the meeting. That may be true for actions by the Trump side. Trump Jr. has said that he "never discussed the meeting again" with Goldstone or fellow meeting organizer Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian billionaire Aras Agalarov. He also told Fox News’ Hannity that Goldstone apologized about the likely "bait and switch about what it was really supposed to be about." However, there is evidence that the other side tried to reach out to the Trump campaign on more than one occasion. For instance, congressional investigators obtained an email from Goldstone to Trump aide Dan Scavino that "encourages Scavino to get candidate Trump to create a page on the Russian social networking site VK, telling him that ‘Don and Paul’ were on board with the idea," a reference to Trump Jr. and Manafort, CNN reported in December 2017. In addition, there were attempts at outreach after the election, CNN reported in April 2018. Goldstone told congressional investigators that he proposed a second meeting with Veselnitskaya, the New York Times reported. Goldstone sent an email on Nov. 28, 2016, to Trump's assistant, Rhona Graff, that said, "Aras Agalarov has asked me to pass on this document in the hope it can be passed on to the appropriate team." The email, which had an attachment about the Magnitsky Act, was forwarded to then-Trump adviser Steve Bannon with the notation, "Not sure how to proceed, if at all," CNN reported. A meeting never took place. Another area where the statement tells only part of the story is its claim that Trump Jr. was not told a specific name in advance. While we found no evidence that he knew a name in advance, Trump Jr. possessed a fair amount of more general information, judging by the email chain with Goldstone that was made public. The first email in the chain said in part, "Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin." Later in the email chain, Goldstone wrote, "Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday." Our ruling The White House legal document said that then-candidate Trump "dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article" about the Trump Tower meeting with Russians. The accuracy of the statement was misleading, at least. The statement's most inaccurate suggestion was that the meeting was primarily about Russian adoptions. That wasn't what the Trump officials came to hear about, and adoptions weren't atop the list of topics for the Russian figures, either. There was a significant amount of discussion about the Magnitsky Act sanctions and allegations of wrongdoing by the act’s champion. Further, the initial statement obscured what we now know about Trump Jr.’s motivation for taking the meeting: the prospect of compromising material on Clinton from the Russians. We rate the statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	President Trump's lawyers	None	None	None	2018-06-07T15:01:09	2018-01-29	['The_New_York_Times', 'Donald_Trump', 'Russia']
-bove-00125	26% Gujarat MLAs Face Criminal Charges, 141 Are Crorepatis	https://www.boomlive.in/26-gujarat-mlas-face-criminal-charges-141-are-crorepatis/	None	None	None	None	None	26% Gujarat MLAs Face Criminal Charges, 141 Are Crorepatis	Dec 28 2017 5:17 pm	None	['None']
-tron-02804	President Obama Confused State Flag for Union Banner	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-master-lock/	None	obama	None	None	None	President Obama Confused State Flag for Union Banner	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-02455	Katie Holmes Embracing Therapy And Jamie Foxx To Get Revenge On Tom Cruise, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-revenge-tom-cruise-jamie-foxx-scientology/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Katie Holmes NOT Embracing Therapy And Jamie Foxx To Get Revenge On Tom Cruise, Despite Report	2:00 am, September 17, 2017	None	['Tom_Cruise']
-tron-03279	George Bush’s horse-thief ancestor	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bushancestor/	None	politics	None	None	None	George Bush’s horse-thief ancestor	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04736	Students of Sunny Oaks Elementary School in California were forced to cross dress for LGBT week.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sunny-oaks-elementary-forces-kids-to-cross-dress-for-lgbt-week/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Sunny Oaks Elementary Forces Kids to Cross Dress for LGBT Week	20 May 2016	None	['California', 'LGBT']
-tron-00304	Media Ignoring Protest Over Mosque Planned Near New York’s Ground Zero	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ground-zero-mosque/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Media Ignoring Protest Over Mosque Planned Near New York’s Ground Zero	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-farg-00484	“Three Democrat Senators Busted Running Underage Prostitution Ring.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/no-democratic-prostitute-ring-n-j/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['fake news']	No Democratic Prostitute Ring in N.J.	January 17, 2018	2018-01-17 21:36:32 UTC	['None']
-tron-01440	Canola oil is not a healthy choice for cooking	https://www.truthorfiction.com/canolaoil/	None	food	None	None	None	Canola oil is not a healthy choice for cooking	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02695	Says New Jersey has "the highest unemployment rate in the region" and "stagnant job growth."	/new-jersey/statements/2014/jan/05/marie-corfield/marie-corfield-says-new-jersey-has-highest-unemplo/	Marie Corfield may no longer be a candidate for state office, but that doesn’t mean the Democrat is shying away from important Jersey topics. Take jobs, for example. Corfield, a public school teacher who ran unsuccessfully in November for the District 16 Assembly seat against incumbent Republican Donna Simon, criticized the state of jobs in New Jersey in a Dec. 30 column on the Democratic blog BlueJersey.com. Corfield framed her comments around the departure of the state's comptroller, whom Gov. Chris Christie said was leaving to better support his family. The comptroller's salary was $140,000. Corfield commended the comptroller's accomplishments, adding that the position's salary is a "comfortable" one for a family of four in the Garden State. Corfield then called out Christie -- "the governor of the state with the highest unemployment rate in the region, stagnant job growth" and a low minimum wage – as pompous, for suggesting that Boxer may have been struggling on such a salary. For this fact check, though, we’re looking only at the claims about New Jersey’s unemployment rate and job growth. First, unemployment rates. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics lists unemployment rates for the nation, each state, Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico on its website. We looked at unemployment rates from November – the most recent data available – to see how New Jersey ranked against Connecticut, Delaware, New York and Pennsylvania. New Jersey’s rate was the highest among that group, at 7.8 percent. Here are the others: Connecticut, 7.6 percent; Delaware, 6.5 percent; New York, 7.4 percent; and Pennsylvania, 7.3 percent. The nation’s unemployment rate for November was 7 percent. So Corfield is correct that New Jersey’s unemployment rate is the highest in the region. It’s worth noting that eight states had unemployment rates higher than New Jersey: California, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Rhode Island and Tennessee. Arizona’s rate was the same as New Jersey’s. Also, the states are evenly split between Democratic and Republican leadership. Now let’s turn to the claim about "stagnant" job growth. Here, Corfield is off base. New Jersey’s unemployment rate barely moved downward for the first half of Christie’s first term in office, but experts have told us that the governor doesn’t bare all the blame. The after-effects of the recession had a lot to do with it, too. The National Bureau of Economic Research has defined the recession as lasting from December 2007 to June 2009. Christie took office in January 2010. Although New Jersey’s job growth hasn’t been a race to the top of the economic growth heap, the state has gained new private-sector jobs, particularly in the past year, putting it "in the middle of the pack" among other states in terms of job growth, Rutgers University economist Joseph Seneca told us in November. Seneca’s analysis found that the state gained 60,300 private-sector jobs from August 2012 to August 2013. In addition, New Jersey’s job growth rate of 1.8 percent for that time period exceeded that of New York and Connecticut, both with 1.3 percent growth, and Pennsylvania, which had job growth rates of 0.9 percent, Seneca said. Seneca told us that much of the state’s job growth during the period he analyzed was in education, health services, leisure and hospitality, trade, transportation and utilities. It’s important to note that Seneca and the BLS have told us it’s best to measure year-over-year job data that has been seasonally adjusted in order to get the most accurate picture of job growth within a 12-month span. Using that methodology, New Jersey has increased its number of private-sector jobs by 130,700 from November 2012 to November 2013. There have been some job losses in recent months, but on the whole, the state is gaining private-sector jobs. Corfield said she used the same BLS data as us to determine New Jersey’s unemployment rate, and looked at an analysis on www.governing.com that showed the Garden State excels in giving tax incentives but lags in job growth. She also pointed us to a Wall Street Journal article that address New Jersey’s slow job growth. Further, Corfield said that while she was out campaigning for an Assembly seat, she spoke with many unhappy and unemployed constituents who "are having a tough time finding a job." Our ruling Corfield claimed in a recent column that Christie is "the governor of the state with the highest unemployment rate in the region, (and) stagnant job growth." She’s right that the unemployment rate is the highest in this region, but wrong on whether New Jersey’s job growth has been sluggish. BLS data shows clearly that while the Garden State’s unemployment rate is the highest among its neighboring states, it’s not the worst in the country. And it’s also clear from BLS data that private-sector jobs are growing in New Jersey. We rate Corfield’s claim Half True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Marie Corfield	None	None	None	2014-01-05T07:30:00	2013-12-30	['None']
-pomt-14117	Says $15-an-hour proposal in Cleveland is "the most aggressive minimum wage increase in the country."	/ohio/statements/2016/may/09/joe-roman/15-minimum-wage-proposal-cleveland-most-aggressive/	Superlatives like "the most" and "the greatest" catch our fact-checking eyes. So we felt compelled to look into a statement by Joe Roman, the CEO and president of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, a regional pro-business organization, on a proposal to raise the city’s minimum wage. On April 25, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that Raise Up Cleveland, a union-affiliated PAC, delivered 28,000 signatures to the city council from registered Cleveland voters who support a minimum wage of $15 per hour. The current minimum wage across Ohio is $8.10. "We have serious concerns about a Cleveland-only wage hike that could put the city in a competitive disadvantage in the region and state," Roman said, according to the Plain Dealer. "As proposed, the hike is the most aggressive minimum wage increase in the country." National awareness of the movement called Fight for $15 has been boosted by Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, and $15 minimum wage increases have been enacted by cities in California, Washington and New York. So what could make the Cleveland proposal the "most aggressive?" Here’s what we found out. Judith Malone, the director of communications at the Greater Cleveland Partnership, sent us this statement, expanding upon the CEO’s definition of "most aggressive:" According to our examination, no other municipality or state has enacted a +80% increase in their minimum wage. If passed, Cleveland would have the highest broadly applied municipal minimum wage in the nation on January 1, 2017....If the current proposal is approved, Cleveland’s minimum wage would be two times higher than 24 states in the nation and by far the highest in the Midwest region. A chart created by the left-leaning National Employment Law Project backs up this claim. A $15 per hour minimum wage has been enacted by the Washington cities of Seattle, SeaTac (a suburb of Seattle that went to $15.24 in 2013) and Olympia. California cities that approved the $15 minimum include San Francisco, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Mountain View, El Cerrito and Santa Monica. As proposed, the Raise Up Cleveland increase would go into effect Jan. 1, 2017. This is a departure from the way other states and cities have imposed new minimum wage hikes, according to Allison Laffen, a policy associate with the National Conference of State Legislatures, which studies state labor and wage policies. "Often in legislation, the increases are proposed incrementally, as in New York and California, where it reaches $15 by 2018 and 2022," Laffen said. "A one-step increase to $15, effective immediately, could be described as more aggressive." Laffen also pointed out that Cleveland’s minimum wage, at $8.10, is lower than any other municipality that has passed or is considering a $15 minimum hike. Only Flagstaff, Arizona, at $8.05, is lower than Cleveland’s, and their $15 per hour proposal would phase in by 2021. Mark Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that the low cost of living in Cleveland is another factor to consider. For example, the cost of living in San Francisco is 206 percent pricier than in Cleveland. "A $15 minimum wage in a city like San Francisco would only be equivalent to about a $5 minimum wage in Cleveland," Perry said. "Therefore, adjusted for the cost of living, it would be hard to justify a $15-an-hour minimum wage in a city like Cleveland, with a cost-of-living that is about 20 percent below the national average." But the union pushing the Fight for $15 in Cleveland defends its stance. Anthony Caldwell, the director of public affairs for SEIU District 1199, said in an email, "Our Fight for $15 movement has broad support among members of the community. When polled on support for a $15 per hour minimum wage beginning this January and indexing it to inflation, 77 percent of Cleveland voters supported our cause. And that support crossed all racial, gender and geographical lines within Cleveland." When asked whether the Greater Cleveland Partnership would be more supportive of a minimum wage increase that stepped up gradually, or was more in line with Cleveland’s cost of living, they declined to comment further. Our ruling A proposed $15 minimum wage in Cleveland is the "most aggressive minimum wage increase in the country," according to the head of the Greater Cleveland Partnership, a chamber of commerce group. It turns out that Cleveland, with a minimum wage of $8.10, is at the lowest starting point of any municipality that has passed or is considering a $15 hike. Also, the Cleveland proposal would increase the wage to $15 at once instead of building up gradually, as most other cities have done. We rate this statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/e1eee872-2aa8-40b6-860e-9ce97fbe2ca3	None	Joe Roman	None	None	None	2016-05-09T14:24:30	2016-04-25	['Cleveland']
-goop-02294	Ben Affleck Annoying ‘SNL’ Cast With Tips To Improve Show?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-snl-cast-tips-improve-show-annoying/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ben Affleck Annoying ‘SNL’ Cast With Tips To Improve Show?	4:08 pm, October 26, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03413	Says Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton voted to provide Congress with "taxpayer-funded health care for life."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/patriot-majority-usa/pro-democratic-group-says-rep-tom-cotton-voted-giv/	Ahead of what’s expected to be a bruising battle for an Arkansas Senate seat, a pro-Democratic group called Patriot Majority USA is out with an ad attacking Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., a potential challenger to incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor. Here’s the voice-over from the ad: "Tom Cotton -- just elected and already seeking the national limelight. Behind the glitz, Tom Cotton forgot about us. Supporting a plan the Wall Street Journal said essentially ends Medicare, costing some seniors $6,000 more a year, while voting Congress taxpayer-funded health care for life. Congressman Cotton: Out for himself, not us." As our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker recently noted, the major fact-checking outlets, including PolitiFact, have been critical of the ending-Medicare claim repeated in the ad. But in this item, we’ll look at the ad’s second claim, which we hadn’t seen before -- that Cotton voted to provide Congress with "taxpayer-funded health care for life." PolitiFact didn’t hear back from the ad’s sponsors, but Ty Matsdorf -- a spokesman for Senate Majority PAC, a group apparently involved in the ad alongside Patriot Majority USA -- explained the group’s logic in an email to the Post’s Fact Checker. Matsdorf said that in March, Cotton voted for a repeal of President Barack Obama’s health care law. So how does this relate to health care for life? It gets a little complicated, so bear with us. Before Obama’s law was approved by Congress in 2010, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, proposed an amendment that won enough votes to be attached to the measure. The amendment required lawmakers and their aides to obtain their health care through the new insurance marketplaces that were a cornerstone of the bill. So, if the health care law is ever repealed, the requirement that lawmakers and aides buy their health insurance through the insurance marketplace would be repealed as well. In its place, lawmakers and aides would return to what they’ve already been doing for years, which is to purchase insurance through the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. This decades-old program was something of a model for the exchanges themselves: Under the program, federal employees under the age of 65 can choose among a variety of health insurance offerings; they pay a share of the premiums and their employer, the government, pays the rest, just as private-sector employers typically do for their employees. First off, we'll note that the vote in question was to repeal Obamacare, and that the impact on congressional health coverage amounted to only a tiny portion of the repeal effort. The ad portrays Cotton's vote as one that's greedy and self-interested for a member of Congress. But in reality, achieving the complicated legislative bank-shot suggested by the ad was not the point of the repeal vote. The claim also faces some important substantive problems: • "Taxpayer-funded" is technically correct, but misleading. "Taxpayer-funded" suggests that the employee is getting a free ride because the taxpayer is picking up the entire tab for health insurance. That’s not the case -- the worker pays a share of the premiums, roughly 25 percent, although the exact share can vary by plan. "Federal employees still pay a portion of premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, and can face a deductible," said Joshua Archambault, director of health care policy at the Pioneer Institute, a free-market think tank. And while it’s technically true that taxpayers are indirectly paying the government’s share, this is no special perk for federal employees. The government simply happens to be their employer, filling the same role that most private employers above a certain size do when they offer health insurance to their workers on a shared-cost basis. • It’s not "health care for life." The federal health plan doesn’t last forever: At age 65, Medicare kicks in. And before age 65, it’s no freebie gravy train. Unlike Medicare recipients, a federal health plan beneficiary "has to elect to remain in the program -- if they stop paying, the coverage ends," said John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, which promotes government service. (Federal workers on Medicare can choose to continue to purchase insurance off the federal plan as supplemental coverage, but it’s not mandatory.) And, of course, if the voters don’t send you back to Congress, or if you’re an aide who leaves to join a lobbying firm, your new employer will be picking up a share of your health insurance -- not the taxpayer. In all, Jonathan Oberlander, professor of social medicine and health policy and management at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said the ad makes "a misleading and peculiar claim." Our ruling The ad suggests that Cotton, in a self-interested fashion, voted to provide lawmakers and aides with free ride from the taxpayers -- a boondoggle, basically. But viewed in context, the vote wasn't about that. Moreover, it’s a stretch to say the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program amounts to "taxpayer-funded health care for life." While the government does fund a portion of federal employees’ health insurance costs, it does so in the same capacity as any private-sector employer that offers health insurance to its workers. And the coverage doesn’t last "for life." We rate the claim Pants on Fire!	None	Patriot Majority USA	None	None	None	2013-06-28T17:37:13	2013-06-27	['United_States_Congress']
-pomt-13827	Says Sen. John McCain spent the July 4 weekend in Islamabad, Pakistan, selling "F-16s and advanced weapons to the folks who harbored Osama bin Laden."	/arizona/statements/2016/jul/14/kelli-ward/image-claims-john-mccain-visited-pakistan-sell-wea/	Sen. John McCain's primary challenger accused him of selling military weapons to allies of Osama bin Laden, on the Fourth of July of all weekends. The campaign of former state Sen. Kelli Ward, R-Lake Havasu City, sent out a July 3 news release attacking McCain for his alleged plans. It included this graphic: McCain did go to Pakistan that holiday weekend, as well as Afghanistan for his annual visit to American troops on Independence Day. But is Ward right that he carved out time to sell F-16 fighter jets, which are used for aerial attacks, and sophisticated weaponry to "the folks who harbored Osama bin Laden" in Pakistan? Ward’s claim distorts the point of McCain’s trip. A meeting in Pakistan Ward spokesman Stephen Sebastian provided us with news reports about McCain’s meeting with Pakistani officials, which included Sartaj Aziz, advisor to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif. McCain was part of a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee delegation with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Sen. Benjamin Sasse, R.-Neb., and Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind. The meeting was billed as an effort to strengthen relations between the two countries and defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. While ISIS does not have a major presence in Pakistan, the United States has expressed concern over indirect connections between the terror group and Pakistani militants. At the meeting, McCain emphasized that Pakistan needs to do more to take on terrorist groups, such as the Haqqani Network, an insurgency group with ties to al-Qaeda and Pakistan, that threaten America, according to his spokeswoman. She also said McCain’s visit was within his oversight as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. So the point of the delegation's visit was not to make a deal on aircrafts — especially since Congress had balked at a military proposal for the United States to finance eight fighter jets for Pakistan. The stumbling block: Pakistan's terrorism ties. "Sen. McCain conveyed to Pakistani leaders that U.S. financing for those (F-16) aircrafts will not be supported by Congress unless and until Pakistan demonstrates more robust efforts against terrorists that threaten America," McCain campaign spokeswoman Lorna Romero said. F-16s The United States has sold F-16s to Pakistan for decades. But after the U.S. military approved the sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan in February, congressional leaders said they would block U.S. financing and Pakistan would have to pay for the F-16s with its own money. "Given congressional opposition to financing the F-16 sale with Foreign Military Financing (FMF), we asked the Pakistanis to fund the sale entirely," said State Department spokesman Josh Paul. "Pakistan did not accept this offer, and the terms of the sale have expired." McCain wanted a hearing on the F-16s then, saying he was "conflicted" with the proposed sale, noting potential consequences in the U.S.-India relationship. (There was concern that Pakistan could use the weapons against India.) Romero reiterated that McCain can only see a scenario where the United States finances F-16s is if Pakistan bolsters its anti-terrorism efforts. Ward’s campaign cited Pakistan news website Business Recorder, which quotes Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Nafees Zakaria as saying McCain’s visit was related to "defense cooperation." The Ward campaign also referenced a June 24 meeting between McCain and former Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari in Los Angeles. McCain’s campaign confirmed this meeting, saying it was part of his regular meetings with world leaders. A Pakistani government account of the meeting recounts Zardari making the case for American F-16s and drones to fight terrorists. Sebastian also noted that most of the senator’s itinerary was not available in advance because of security concerns. McCain’s daily schedule is not released publicly. "While F-16s and weapon sales were not the only, or even primary, purpose of the CoDel (congressional delegation) trip, it certainly seems to have been a prominent part of the agenda," he said. That's a much softer take than the message of the campaign ad. Pakistan on terror Now for the Ward attack's characterization of Pakistan as the "folks who harbored Osama bin Laden." Yes, bin Laden was found and killed at a compound in Pakistan in 2011. But University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole, who has written extensively about the Middle East, questioned the graphic’s portrayal of Pakistan in the terrorism fight. "The implication is that Pakistan is an enemy of the U.S., whereas it is designated as a non-NATO ally," Cole said. "McCain's trip is not about arms sales but broader diplomacy." Pakistan has a mixed history dealing with terrorism, despite aiding in the 2003 capture of suspected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shiekh Mohammed. "Pakistan has failed to attack, and in some cases even provided support and safe haven to a variety of other militant/terrorist groups, including the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Taiba, that have attacked U.S. troops in Afghanistan and have killed U.S. citizens in India," said Daniel Markey, an international relations professor at Johns Hopkins University. Pakistan does have an Anti-Terrorism Act, which was established in 1997. But the U.S. Institute of Peace even concludes in a August 2015 report that it offers a "very weak deterrence" against terrorism, as conviction rates remain low. "Pakistan has a lot of problems, it has not been a great ally," said Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Alyssa Ayres. "(But) it also is the supply route to support our troops in Afghanistan." As for the accusation that McCain was engineering a sale to people who "harbored" bin Laden, that is also unproven. Ward’s campaign referenced a October 2015 Washington Post story that quotes Pakistan’s former defense minister as saying it was "probable" that the Pakistani military knew of bin Laden’s whereabouts. But Markey said the ad's claim jumps too far. "We don't yet have evidence that top Pakistani military or civilian leaders knew of bin Laden's whereabouts or ‘harbored’ him, as it says in the graphic," he said. Our ruling Ward said McCain was in Pakistan during the Fourth of July weekend selling "F-16s and advanced weapons" to the folks who "harbored Osama bin Laden." Experts we spoke with disagreed. The ad distorts McCain’s mission in Pakistan to stir up questions about his patriotism. While McCain has discussed F-16 fighter jets with Pakistani officials, the meeting over the holiday weekend was part of a larger effort to fight terrorism. Further, the ad oversimplifies Pakistan's complicated relationship with the United States. There is plenty of legitimate concern about the country's approach to terrorist groups, but there is no definitive proof that Pakistan (particularly the ones who met with McCain) harbored bin Laden. We rate Ward’s claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/76ddba0b-4e0a-4071-b0aa-a23573c3cc48	None	Kelli Ward	None	None	None	2016-07-14T17:00:00	2016-07-03	['Pakistan', 'Islamabad', 'John_McCain', 'Osama_bin_Laden']
-tron-01978	A sign from God after hurricane Charlie	https://www.truthorfiction.com/signfromgod/	None	natural-disasters/hurricane	None	None	None	A sign from God after hurricane Charlie	Mar 17, 2015	None	['God']
-obry-00020	Democrat Kathleen Vinehout released a Jan. 24 statement prior to Gov. Scott Walker’s State of the State address to a joint session of the Legislature. In it, she contended, “Wages are 18th lowest in the country. We are last in business startups. We are third worst for affordable family-based infant childcare, making holding a job difficult and expensive.” Vinehout is a member of the Wisconsin Senate from Alma. She is currently running for governor in a crowded Democratic field against the Republican Walker. The Observatory fact-checked Vinehout’s statement as three separate claims — that wages in Wisconsin are 18th lowest in the country; that Wisconsin is last in business startups; and that the state has the third least affordable family-based infant child care. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2018/03/20/vinehouts-critique-of-wisconsin-wages-child-care-costs-and-startup-activity-largely-hold-up/	None	None	None	Teodor Teofilov	None	Vinehout’s critique of Wisconsin wages, child-care costs and startup activity largely hold up	March 20, 2018	None	['Wisconsin', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-10340	"We've heard talk about curbing our use of fossil fuels in nearly every State of the Union address since the oil embargo of 1973."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/18/barack-obama/senator-did-you-check-all-those-state-of-the-union/	Sen. Barack Obama called on the nation to "end the tyranny of oil" in a July 11, 2008, speech on energy security. He said it's an issue we've been talking about for decades. "We have heard promises about energy independence from every single U.S. president since Richard Nixon," Obama said in Dayton, Ohio. "We've heard talk about curbing our use of fossil fuels in nearly every State of the Union address since the oil embargo of 1973." The first part sounded true enough — what president hasn't waxed poetic about liberating us from foreign oil? But the latter line about fossil fuels struck us as the sort of thing speechwriters might throw in without fact-checking, on the assumption that no one else would be crazy enough to do so. They didn't count on PolitiFact. We scoured the past 35 State of the Union speeches for "talk about curbing our use of fossil fuels." It was about as fun as a root canal. But it prompted us to put together this quiz showcasing presidents' State of the Union chestnuts. And it enabled us to tell you this about Obama's claim: It's true that the oil embargo of 1973 — when Arab countries cut oil exports to punish the West for supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli war — prompted serious concern among U.S. leaders about our reliance on oil. Richard Nixon kicked off his 1974 State of the Union speech by commenting on how it was the first of its kind to feature energy as the No. 1 priority. He went on to say that even if the embargo is lifted, "conservation will continue to be necessary." And private enterprise will "develop the new resources, the new technology, the new capacity America will require for its energy needs in the 1980s." In our view, that constitutes "talk about curbing our use of fossil fuels." (Fossil fuels are fuels like coal, oil and natural gas that come from the fossilized remains of plants and animals). Gerald Ford picked up the thread, calling in 1975 for more synthetic fuels, home insulation, efficient cars and the like. And in 1976 he advocated "technology to capture energy from the sun and the Earth." Jimmy Carter was an avid conservationist, and talked at length about the subject during his State of the Union speeches, such as in 1981 when he endorsed technology such as "photovoltaics, which generate energy directly from the sun." Ronald Reagan? Not so much. His first three State of the Union speeches had only glancing references to the environment, and his last four had nothing even remotely related to curbing fossil-fuel use. President George H.W. Bush had just one reference to new energy sources in his State of the Union addresses, and Bill Clinton omitted the subject from his in 1994 and 1995. Since then, every State of the Union has included talk of new ways to power our cars and homes, culminating in the President George W. Bush's call this year to trust American researchers and entrepreneurs to "pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology." The bottom line: 23 of the 35 State of the Union speeches since the Arab oil embargo contained endorsements of the idea of curbing the country's use of fossil fuels. (That's being generous, and including, for example, Clinton's endorsement in 1993 of an energy tax because it "promotes energy efficiency.") The 12 State of the Union addresses in '82, '83, '84, '85, '86, '87, '88, '89, '90, '92, '94 and '95 — though some had references to air pollution — could not reasonably be considered to contain any "talk about curbing our use of fossil fuels." We should note that the first part of Obama's quote — that every president has made promises about energy independence — was startlingly accurate. State of the Union speeches were rife with lines like this one, from Richard Nixon, in 1974: "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need." But what we are evaluating is Obama's claim that "nearly every" State of the Union speech since 1973 included talk about curbing fossil fuels. And the fact is, about two-thirds of the speeches in question contained a reference. And that is substantial, but not "nearly every." We rule Obama's claim Mostly True. UPDATE: In our original posting of this item on July 18, 2008, we mistakenly attributed a 1976 quote from President Gerald Ford to President Jimmy Carter. The item was corrected on July 21, 2008.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-07-18T00:00:00	2008-07-11	['None']
-pomt-06265	On advancing state money for a Formula One race	/texas/statements/2011/nov/28/susan-combs/susan-combs-u-turns-advancing-state-money-formula-/	Years before the Formula One racetrack agreement became public knowledge in Central Texas, state Comptroller Susan Combs was a strong supporter. Yet on Nov. 15, 2011, she hit the brakes: Texas would not disburse $25 million in advance of the first race, she announced. We put her statement through PolitiFact’s Flip-O-Meter. Did Combs do a high-speed turn? Combs’ statement says she has supported bringing a Formula One race to Texas "since 2008." And when the deal became public in May 2010, Gov. Rick Perry praised her efforts. In the 2010-11 budget, approved in 2009, lawmakers sent $25 million to Combs to be placed in the Major Events Trust Fund, whence she could distribute the money under the terms of a 2003 statute. Combs’ agreement to pay in advance was spelled out in a May 10, 2010, letter: "With the understanding that the first Formula 1 United States Grand Prix race will be held in Texas in 2012, full funding on the entire sanction for 2012 will be paid to Formula OneWorld Championship Limited (‘FOWC’) no later than July 31st, 2011." The sanction, reported by the Statesman to be $25 million under the original contract, is the first of ten $25 million annual payments Texas committed to in writing. Payment was delayed when Austin’s race date was put back from June 17, 2012, to Nov. 18, 2012. But Combs’ Nov. 15 statement was the first official notice that Texas would not pay until after the race was held. It unequivocally says, "The state of Texas will not be paying any funds in advance of the event." Does her announcement constitute a flip flop? Combs says no. Specifically, Combs spokeswoman Brooke Botello told us, "It is not a change of position; rather, it’s adhering to the statute." "The ability to advance funds, according to the statute, is discretionary," Botello emailed us Nov. 22. "Considering the events of late, we used that discretion and decided – due to the events outlined in the attached – it would not be prudent to advance the funds." In the attachment Botello mentions, which is Combs’ Nov. 15 statement, the comptroller lists the recently announced Formula One race in New Jersey, set for 2013; slowed construction at the Central Texas site; and disagreements between Formula One and race promoters that "prompted speculation about whether the Austin race will even occur." Our ruling: Combs may have been justified in her recent statement that no state money would go to the race in advance. Still, it’s a reversal of her earlier promise. This is a Full Flop.	None	Susan Combs	None	None	None	2011-11-28T06:00:00	2011-11-15	['None']
-hoer-00479	'Pastor Sentenced to Prison for Refusing to Marry Gay Couples'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/pastor-prison-refusing-marry-gay-couple.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News: 'Pastor Sentenced to Prison for Refusing to Marry Gay Couples'	July 14, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-09702	"I didn't endorse" the federal stimulus bill.	/florida/statements/2009/nov/05/charlie-crist/charlie-crist-says-he-didnt-endorse-stimulus-bill/	Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, facing a potentially bruising Republican primary for the U.S. Senate, continues to run from any assertion that he is linked to President Barack Obama. Last week Crist told reporters he didn't know Obama was traveling in Florida. On Wednesday, Crist told a national television audience he didn't endorse the $787 billion federal stimulus bill pushed by Obama and passed by Congress in February. "I didn't endorse it," Crist told CNN host Wolf Blitzer. "I — you know, I didn't even have a vote on the darned thing. But I understood that it was going to pass and I wanted to be able to utilize it for the benefit of my fellow Floridians." This, from the same man who skipped a Florida Cabinet meeting to campaign with Obama for the stimulus in Fort Myers in February? Who went on national talk shows and across the state selling the plan? As the interview continued, Crist got on a roll. "You know, unfortunately, the president thinks that everything we need to do for every problem that comes along is spend more money and that's just wrong," he said. "Frankly, enough is enough. And I know that the people understand that. And I understand it. And I understand it because I'm the grandson of a Greek immigrant who came to this country with nothing, really taught me the value of a dollar, because his first job in America, in Altoona, Pa., was shining shoes for a living for $5 a month." Crist's comments about the stimulus startled conservatives, Democrats, and frankly, us, who all remember things differently. The conservative Club for Growth responded Thursday with an online television ad, criticizing Crist's support for the stimulus plan. And the Democratic National Committee blasted Crist's comments to reporters across the country. Let's go back to earlier this year, to see what Crist had to say then. From Hardball with Chris Matthews on Feb. 3: Speaking of the stimulus, Crist said, "It's going to help (Floridians') children. It's going to help their traffic situation. It's going to help produce more jobs here in the Sunshine State. That's a perspective that I have to have as, in essence, the CEO of Florida. And that's why I support it." From Time on Feb. 10: "I see this package as a pragmatic, commonsense opportunity to move forward. I didn't campaign for Obama, we don't agree on everything, but he's my president, and my job is to help Florida stay in the black." From Meet the Press on Feb. 22: Q: Why would you buck your own party, which did not vote for this plan in Congress, as you know, to support the stimulus? Crist: "It's not a matter of bucking the party, it's a matter of helping the people. I mean, I really view it as an issue of what can I do that's best for the people of Florida? We've got almost 20 million people that live in the Sunshine State now. I think my obligation is in essence the CEO of the state, to do everything I can to help us get through this tough economy. Certainly this stimulus package, about $12.2 billion to Florida, will help Florida an awful lot." And that's just a sampling. But then there's the rally in Fort Myers Feb. 10. Crist skipped a Florida Cabinet meeting and a lunch with former Gov. Jeb Bush to tout the stimulus bill in person. If you've forgotten, here's a photo and video to jog your memory. Here's the retelling of that day from the St. Petersburg Times : "We know that it's important that we pass a stimulus package,'' Florida's popular Republican governor said amid "Yes, we can!" cheers as he introduced the Democratic president. "This is not about partisan politics. This is about rising above that, helping America and reigniting our economy." Crist went as far earlier this year as to lobby members of Florida's congressional delegation from both parties to support the stimulus package. The Miami Herald reported that Crist lobbied Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and his brother, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, along with Democratic Reps. Kathy Castor and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. In fact, he was one of the few prominent Republicans to support the stimulus at any level, a choice that won him accolades from Obama. And Crist was among a group of governors to write Obama on Feb. 3 to express support for the stimulus plan. "As stewards of the economies of our respective states and regions, we urge the Congress to reach prompt resolution of all outstanding differences and you to sign the bill when it reaches your desk," the letter read in part. Oh, oh, oh. One more. In May, according to the Orlando Sentinel , Crist himself said he would have made the "pragmatic" decision to vote for the stimulus bill that ultimately passed. On Thursday, Crist tried to expand on his CNN comments. When asked by state Capitol reporters if he were changing his position on the stimulus, Crist said, "I don't think so. I don't think so." "The bill that passed wasn't exactly what I would want to vote for. But it's what passed," Crist said. "And once that happened, you need to realize you need to do everything you possibly can to fight for Florida and our fellow Floridians, whether they're school teachers, construction workers or whatever it might be. And so once this happens, you know, I think it's important to embrace it, fight for Florida's fair share and do what's right for the state." That sounds a lot like Obama, actually, who has said several times that the stimulus wasn't perfect. Crist even said as much during his interview on Meet the Press in February. Back to Crist's original statement. He said Wednesday that he didn't endorse the stimulus and offered the fact that he didn't have a vote on the proposal as evidence. Of course, Crist, as governor, couldn't vote for the stimulus. But, strictly speaking, neither could Obama as president. So that's hardly a proper measure to justify a claim that Crist didn't endorse the stimulus bill. What is a proper measure are Crist's actions in January and February. Crist broke ranks with many in the Republican Party by publicly campaigning for the stimulus package on television and with the president. He lobbied Florida's congressional delegation to vote for the bill. And he signed Florida's budget, which was balanced because the state received billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. (The stimulus provides Florida $15.7 billion over three budget years ending next budget year.) White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Thursday even acknowledged Crist's support. "I think his words at that (Fort Myers) event speak for themselves," Gibbs said. "I think he was very supportive of the legislation and supportive of the benefits that it would have and has had for — for the state of Florida in seeing positive economic growth." Facing a primary challenge from the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Crist appears to be trying to rewrite history. But there are mountains of evidence that he not only supported the stimulus, he sang its praises. The meter is ablaze: Pants On Fire.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2009-11-05T15:20:39	2009-11-04	['None']
-pomt-13984	"Austin ISD has the highest graduation rate of every major city in Texas."	/texas/statements/2016/jun/10/austin-independent-school-district/austin-districts-claim-highest-graduation-rate-amo/	An ad posted in Austin’s Erwin Center during June 2016 high school graduation ceremonies made us wonder: "Austin ISD has the highest graduation rate of every major city in Texas." That seemingly takes in a lot of school districts. Asked the basis of the message, a spokesman for the Austin school district, Reyne Telles, said by phone that marketing officials focused on 2014 graduation rates for "signature" districts in the state’s five most populous cities. For each district, Texas calculates one graduation rate by counting students in keeping with federal law and another rate that comports with state law. Upshot: The Austin district’s 2014 graduation rate — 88.6 percent or 86.3 percent, depending on which result you choose — outpaced comparable rates for the Houston, San Antonio, Dallas and Fort Worth districts, Telles noted. The district emailed us a spreadsheet presenting its figures, which we checked against Texas Education Agency data confirming that among the five districts, Austin had the highest graduation rates--though it was close: The Dallas district had graduation rates of 86.9 or 86.1 percent, respectively, TEA posts indicate. Statewide, the agency in 2015 announced the 2014 state graduation rate was 88.3 percent, a record high. Texas High School Graduation Rates, Selected Districts, 2014 DISTRICT 2014 GRADUATION RATE USING FEDERAL STUDENT EXCLUSIONS 2014 GRADUATION RATE USING STATE STUDENT EXCLUSIONS Austin 86.3 percent 88.6 percent Dallas 86.1 86.9 Fort Worth 81.0 84.1 Houston 78.6 81.8 San Antonio 78.2 80.8 SOURCES: Online searches using website, "Search Four-Year Graduation and Dropout Data by District, Class of 2014," Texas Education Agency (accessed June 6-7, 2016) Other slices of data We recognized other ways to compare the Austin district to other districts in major Texas cities. For instance, TEA classifies Austin and 10 other districts as "major urban" districts, meaning each one is located in a county with a population of at least 870,000; its enrollment is the largest in the county or at least 75 percent of the largest district enrollment in the county; and at least 35 percent of enrolled students are economically disadvantaged. The "major urban" districts include the districts AISD singled out for its ad plus the Arlington district in Tarrant County, the North East and Northside districts in San Antonio and several districts in El Paso County--El Paso, Socorro and Ysleta. And among these additional districts, per the state, the North East and Northside districts had the highest 2014 graduation rates (93.4 or 94.1 percent depending on the calculation). More than half the North East district lies within San Antonio, the district says, though it takes in smaller cities including Castle Hills. Northside describes itself as located in the northwest quadrant of San Antonio. The Socorro district, with 88.2 to 89.8 percent graduation rates, similarly fared better than the Austin district. The Socorro district says its serves students in East El Paso, the city of Socorro and Horizon City. You could also look at districts based on enrollment, an approach that arguably elevates a suburban Houston district, the 110,000-student Cypress-Fairbanks district, into consideration. Its graduation rates of 91.4 and 92.4 percent, respectively, outpaced the 80,000-student Austin district’s rates. We ran these alternate comparisons past Telles, who said it’s always a challenge to convert educational "speak" and/or data into something digestible for the general public. "We’re dealing with marketers that tell us billboard advertising is kind of complicated when you go more than six words," Telles said. Telles said the district could have compared Austin with its fellow "major urban" districts. Then again, he said, "if you say Northside, the average person, I’d venture to say, would not know where that is." The ad statement, he said, came down to "consumability." In a follow-up email, Telles noted that more than half the Austin district’s student population is considered at risk of dropping out — which is also the case in the four districts it chose for the comparison. But that wasn't so, Telles wrote, for the Northside, North East or Socorro districts. In 2014, according to TEA data, 56 percent of Austin students were considered "at risk." Half of Socorro students were at risk, the agency says, as were 43 percent of Northside students and 36 percent of North East students. Our ruling The Austin district says it has the "highest graduation rate of every major city in Texas." This declaration is rooted in the faulty premise that Texas has only five major cities and only the districts named for those cities are worthy of comparison. Applying those filters gives the statement an element of truth. On the other hand, we identified other districts in the same cities with higher graduation rates than the Austin district. We’re flipping the Truth-O-Meter’s tassel and rating this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/7f2f78c3-c2e7-44ac-89fc-419a504b97dd	None	Austin Independent School District	None	None	None	2016-06-10T10:11:40	2016-06-02	['Texas', 'Austin_Independent_School_District']
-pomt-11437	"Seattle police begin gun confiscations: no laws broken, no warrant, no charges."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/14/liberty-headlines/no-seattle-police-didnt-use-red-flag-law-seize-man/	Seattle police seizing a man’s gun under the state’s "red flag" law has led to numerous false reports on right-wing websites that police arbitrarily took away a man’s Second Amendment rights. "Seattle police begin gun confiscations: no laws broken, no warrant, no charges," stated a March 7 headline on Liberty Headlines. The story was attributed to Zero Hedge, which used a story from the website SHTFplan that claimed that Seattle police used "Nazi style gun confiscation." The same or similar stories have appeared on many right-leaning websites. The Liberty Headlines story said that police seized the man’s gun after neighbors had complained the man had been "staring" at people through storefront windows while wearing a holstered firearm. Other residents complained that the man’s open carrying made them feel "uncomfortable" and "unsafe." The story declared "tyranny has officially taken hold on American soil" and that "a citizen’s Second Amendment rights have been ripped away from him by the government." Sounds alarming. But it’s not accurate. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. We found that the headline was wrong and that the story failed to explain that police obtained a warrant from a judge after the 31-year-old man failed to turn over his gun and appear at a hearing, as ordered by the court. ‘Red Flag’ laws in Washington and other states In 2016, Washington state voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 1491 to allow courts, upon petition by police or a family or household member, to issue an extreme risk protection order. The order prevents an individual from accessing firearms for a specified time period if the court determines the person poses a significant danger. A handful of other states, including California, have similar "red flag" laws, and many other states are considering passing them. Following the Parkland shooting, Florida passed such a law to allow law enforcement to seek a risk protection order. While the NRA argues the laws violate a person’s rights by taking away a gun when no crime has been committed, law enforcement argues it is a tool they can use to take away a gun before a catastrophe occurs. Details about the Seattle police seizing a man’s handgun PolitiFact interviewed Sgt. Eric Pisconski, who heads up the unit that oversees extreme risk protection orders, as well as Seattle police spokesman Det. Patrick Michaud. Police did not released the suspect’s name. PolitiFact submitted records requests to the King County prosecutor and obtained the criminal complaint that explains the charge against Alexander Sinclair McKenzie, an Army veteran with post traumatic stress disorder. Police said they had received multiple calls about McKenzie’s escalating behavior in the past year. McKenzie voluntarily surrendered a gun in 2017 after he was served with an anti-harassment order, even though he wasn’t required to do so. He acknowledged he was experiencing "stress" and did not want the gun around, Michaud said. Months later, McKenzie, who lives above a restaurant, had several interactions with the restaurant staff. In one instance, he stood in front of the restaurant and yelled obscenities and accused people of talking to him through the floor. "No crimes were committed at that time, but his behavior was erratic and unnerving to all; resulting in contact" by police, Michaud said. McKenzie declined services, but shortly thereafter he called police again to report "taunting and voices" coming from the restaurant below through the floor. He also told police that he was armed with a gun and wanted a female employee "arrested or shot" by police, Michaud said. McKenzie was ultimately taken to a medical facility. On Feb. 13, police petitioned the court to get an extreme risk protection order to take away McKenzie’s gun. A King County Superior Court Judge approved the order and police served it to McKenzie in person at a medical facility. He agreed to call police when he was discharged to hand over the firearm. After he left the medical facility on Feb. 23, police attempted to contact McKenzie multiple times to obtain his firearm. After McKenzie didn’t show up for his Feb. 27 court date about the order to turn over his gun, the judge granted a search warrant based on probable cause to arrest. McKenzie was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a person prohibited by extreme risk protection order, a gross misdemeanor. On March 1, police went to McKenzie’s apartment and took his gun. He was placed into custody and booked at the King County jail. The case remains pending. Pisconski said that since the law went into effect in 2017, Seattle police have received 16 extreme risk protection orders that resulted in collecting about 26 guns. This was the only case in which the suspect didn’t voluntarily surrender a gun. One of the websites that wrote that police took the gun without a "warrant" added an editor’s note about errors in its original article. The SHFTplan website, which has the tagline "when it hits the fan, don’t say we didn’t warn you," updated the article to state that law enforcement did have a warrant. Our ruling Liberty Headlines said, "Seattle police begin gun confiscations: no laws broken, no warrant, no charges." The headline and the story make it appear that Seattle police arbitrarily took away a man’s gun, and that’s not the case. Interviews with police officials showed that after police received numerous reports about a man’s troubling behavior, so they sought an extreme risk protection order from the court to remove the man’s gun. Police tracked down the man to inform him about the order. When the man failed to appear in court as ordered and didn’t turn over his gun, the judge signed off on the order that allowed police to arrest McKenzie. We rate this claim False. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Liberty Headlines	None	None	None	2018-03-14T17:54:21	2018-03-07	['None']
-tron-03139	Drilling for oil in ANWAR	https://www.truthorfiction.com/anwar/	None	politics	None	None	None	Drilling for oil in ANWAR	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00880	Warning - Johannesburg Freeways 'Complete Shutdown 25th April'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/joburg-freeway-shutdown-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Unsubstantiated Warning - Johannesburg Freeways 'Complete Shutdown 25th April'	11th April 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-02726	The economic impact of new Atlanta Braves stadium includes 9,241 new jobs and $295 million in wages.	/georgia/statements/2013/dec/20/revitalize-cobb/braves-stadium-jobs-and-wages-numbers-fall-short/	Backers of constructing a taxpayer-subsidized Atlanta Braves stadium in Cobb want residents to know that the new field of dreams will grow jobs and money. Revitalize Cobb, a pro-business interest group, announced the expected yield in a glossy mailer. "9,241 New Jobs + $295,000,000 in Wages + $0 Tax Increase for Homeowners + $3,000,000 Annually for Cobb Schools = 1 Great Deal for Cobb Residents," said the ad, which was sent to residents late last month. Should county taxpayers bet the farm on these numbers? Supporters of major publicly subsidized projects have made similar claims to fend off criticism that taxpayers are getting a bad deal. The Truth-O-Meter has checked a few that reference economic impact studies they say prove their point. But in many cases, they don’t come close. An earlier PolitiFact analyzed the claims that the stadium would require no tax increase for homeowners and provide $3 million for Cobb schools. They were rated Half True. Now it’s time to look at Revitalize Cobb’s jobs and wage figures. The group’s source is an economic impact study commissioned by the Cobb Chamber of Commerce, which has championed the stadium. It estimates the effects of two phases of the project — construction and the stadium’s operations over 10 years. Analysts assumed the ballpark will have 41,500 seats and attract 3 million fans during its first year. (The stadium is projected to open in 2017.) Attendance will stabilize at 2.7 million three years later. Construction will require 5,227 jobs over three years, according to the report, which was prepared by program management firm Brailsford & Dunlavey. The report also states that each year, operating the park will require 1,187 full-time jobs, 1,753 part-time jobs, and 1,074 "nonprofit jobs," an unusual category that we will explain later. Add them up and you get 9,241 jobs, which is the figure used by Revitalize Cobb. The estimate of $295 million in wages combines the salaries earned over three years of construction with one year of wages for workers operating the park. We found a few problems with Revitalize Cobb’s portrayal of the study’s findings. Most jobs will not go to Cobb residents. And from a metro Atlanta and state perspective, by and large, these jobs aren’t "new." First, let’s consider construction jobs. These were calculated using a measurement called a "job year," which is equivalent to one full-time job lasting one year. Economists use this measure to express the number of jobs created during the construction phase of a project because in this industry, positions can last for only a few months. So if four different plumbers worked three months each on the stadium, their combined efforts would equal one job year. According to the study, only 784 of these jobs -- or about 15 percent -- will go to Cobb residents. However, because of the nature of a job year, the stadium may put more than 784 Cobb residents to work. For the ballpark’s operation phase, the study counted a "job" as one position. Only about 27 percent of the full-time jobs and 30 percent of the part-time jobs are expected to go to county residents, the study states. Revitalize Cobb’s claim that the Braves move will result in $295 million in wages is also based on a regional number. "The overall amount of wages is absolutely not the Cobb County payroll. No way," said Bruce Seaman, a professor at Georgia State University who has studied the economic impact of the Braves. Revitalize Cobb did not hide this fact. Some of this breakdown appears in smaller type on the other side of the mailer. But because the group used these numbers as proof that the stadium is "1 Great Deal for Cobb Residents," readers could get the impression that the 9,241 jobs and $295 million in wages would go to locals, Seaman noted. From a state or regional perspective, these are not "new" jobs. For the most part, jobs that already exist in downtown Atlanta are simply moving to Cobb. "You’re taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another," said Robert Baade, a Lake Forest College professor who studies the economics of sports. And many workers at the downtown stadium may not move with the Braves. If these current workers stay behind, Cobb residents have a good shot at the vacancies. "It’s a more direct opportunity for Cobb County residents," said Jason Thompson, a vice president at the firm that produced the study. Plus, new ballparks often provide services that require teams to boost their staffing, he said. Another problem with Revitalize Cobb’s claim is the group’s decision to count 1,074 "nonprofit" jobs among the new positions that would be created by the Cobb stadium. These positions are the result of a Braves program where nonprofit volunteers work for free in stadium jobs, Thompson said. The wages they would have earned go to their nonprofit. This volunteer work does have an economic impact. Their labor infuses money into the economy. However, this isn’t what your average person counts as jobs. By including them, Revitalize Cobb boosts its job numbers by 13 percent. While the study’s annual jobs figures seem a little high, the study’s findings appear to be in the ballpark, said Georgia State University professor Seaman, who reviewed the study at the request of PolitiFact Georgia. Our ruling: Revitalize Cobb used numbers generated by an economic impact study commissioned by the county’s Chamber of Commerce, which supports the stadium. The study’s findings are not unreasonable. But the mailer published by Revitalize Cobb uses its findings in a confusing way that could give the impression that a new stadium’s impact on Cobb is greater than the study predicts. While the interest group tried to provide context through the mailer, it didn’t do enough. It also added projected "nonprofit" positions to its jobs figures, which gives an inflated impression of the number of jobs the stadium is estimated to provide. The pro-stadium mailer had an element of truth, but was a less-than-accurate portrayal of a flawed study commissioned by stadium boosters. Revitalize Cobb earns a Mostly False.	None	Revitalize Cobb	None	None	None	2013-12-20T00:00:00	2013-11-22	['Atlanta_Braves']
-goop-02048	Jim Carrey Did Say “Illuminati Is Brainwashing Children Into Worshipping Satan,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jim-carrey-illuminati-satan-brainwashing-children-worship-fake-news/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jim Carrey Did NOT Say “Illuminati Is Brainwashing Children Into Worshipping Satan,” Despite Fake News	5:08 pm, December 11, 2017	None	['Satan']
-snes-02804	An individual stumbled upon a network of mysterious caves in Shropshire, once used by the Knights Templar for secretive rituals.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/knights-templar-caves-shropshire/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Were Mysterious Caves Used by the Knights Templar Recently Discovered in Shropshire?	9 March 2017	None	['Shropshire', 'Knights_Templar']
-pomt-12156	Says Russian President Vladimir Putin said Pope Francis "is not a man of God."	/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/08/blog-posting/vladimir-putin-said-pope-francis-not-man-god-blogg/	Internet posts claim Russian President Vladimir Putin declared Pope Francis "is not a man of God," but we could find no proof of Putin saying such a thing. An Aug. 5, 2017, post on USAConservativeReport.com said that Putin condemned Pope Francis in a speech at the Naval Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg. "Pope Francis is using his platform to push a dangerous far-left political ideology on vulnerable people around the world, people who trust him because of his position," Putin is quoted. "If you look at what he (the Pope) says it’s clear that he is not a man of God. At least not the Christian God. Not the God of the Bible. "He dreams of a world government and a global communist system of repression," Putin added. "As we have seen before in communist states, this system is not compatible with Christianity." Facebook users flagged the story as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media site’s efforts to fight fake news. There are no dates given for Putin’s supposed comments, nor is there any indication to whom he was speaking. The post includes a YouTube video apparently generated by a computer that repeats the information. Comments found in the USAConservativeReport.com post appeared on other outlets, none of which provided an original source for the comments. USAConservativeReport.com has no contact information, and our attempts to reach other outlets that shared similar stories, MacedoniaOnline.eu and YourNewsWire.com, went unanswered. After a thorough search online and through Nexis archives, we didn’t find any record of Putin saying the Pope was "not a man of God." Putin did make an official visit to the Naval Cathedral on July 30, which is Navy Day in Russia, an annual celebration of nautical military might. Putin also spoke to about 5,000 sailors. But he did not discuss the pope. The speech was available on YouTube, with a translation that jibed with Western reports: See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church have a strained relationship, with Russian believers accusing the Vatican of deliberately working to convert worshippers. The Catholic Church has denied doing so. Putin and Pope Francis have met on two occasions, when the Russian president visited Vatican City in 2013 and 2015. While the pair discussed Christian persecution on both visits, topics also included Russian involvement in Syria and Ukraine. Putin isn’t Catholic, but there’s no record we can find of him berating the pontiff in such a way. We rate this claim Pants On Fire! See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-08-08T12:20:57	2017-08-05	['Vladimir_Putin', 'Russia', 'God']
-wast-00175	"The policies put into place by Rudy ultimately brought down crime by 76 percent and murder by 84 percent."	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/22/recidivism-watch-trumps-claim-attributing-new-york-city-crime-decline-to-giulianis-policies/	None	None	Donald Trump	Michelle Ye Hee Lee	None	Recidivism Watch: Trump's claim attributing New York City crime decline to Giuliani's policies	September 22, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13514	Under the current procedure, if someone "on a terror watch list" tries to buy a gun, authorities are notified.	/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/02/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-if-someone-terror-watch-list-tries-buy-g/	A week after Omar Mateen gunned down 49 people and injured more than 50 others at a gay nightclub in Orlando in June, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press." Days earlier, the FBI disclosed that Mateen had previously been under investigation and was, for a time, on a terrorist watch list. Ryan was asked about legislation intended to delay or prevent people on those lists from obtaining guns. "The question right now," Ryan said, "is if someone is on a terror watch list, are the authorities notified as to whether a person on that list is trying to purchase a gun or not? That is the procedure right now." Is Ryan right that under the current procedure, if someone "on a terror watch list" tries to buy a gun, authorities are notified? https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/147e8831-dbe4-4d9a-9465-f16b248bd0bc How gun screening works When we asked Ryan’s office to provide backup for his claim, a spokesman pointed to a 2010 U.S. Government Accountability Office report. That report states the FBI is alerted when a federal background check for a gun transfer is performed on someone whose name is on a terrorist watch list. We confirmed the same with Dave Joly, a spokesman for the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, and Second Amendment expert Adam Winkler, a law professor at the UCLA School of Law. Such background checks are mandated under a federal law called the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act — commonly known as the "Brady Bill." States can choose to conduct the background checks themselves, or have the FBI perform them. Either way, a background check involves verifying the buyer’s identity and searching for information in databases that would determine if the gun purchase is illegal. For instance, someone who is under indictment, has a felony conviction, uses illicit drugs or is an illegal immigrant is not permitted to buy a gun. Background checks typically result in approving the gun purchase, denying it or imposing a three-day delay to allow for further investigation. While conducting such checks, the federal government can screen for people whose names appear on terrorist watch lists — though the fact someone is on such a list does not alone disqualify that person from buying a gun under the Brady Bill. Indeed, the vast majority of people on terror watch lists have been allowed to purchase guns. The federal government began cross-referencing gun background checks with terrorist watch lists in 2004, and through 2015, there were 2,477 instances when someone on a terrorist watch list was involved in a gun background check. About 91 percent of those transactions were permitted, according to the Government Accountability Office. If federal authorities are notified someone on a terrorist watch list is trying to buy a gun, they can take steps to thwart the purchase. For instance, investigators can review paperwork the prospective gun buyer completed to check for other new, potentially disqualifying information. Private sales excluded Importantly, the Brady Bill does not require background checks for all gun transfers: It applies only to gun sales by federally licensed firearm dealers. Unlicensed sellers are not required to document or report sales under the law. At least 18 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that go beyond the Brady Bill and require background checks in some private gun sales, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a nonprofit organization that tracks firearm laws and litigation in the United States and seeks to reduce gun violence. But the other states — including Wisconsin — have no such requirement. There is no definitive figure of how many private gun sales occur, although experts have made some informed estimates. A National Institute of Justice study estimated there were 13.7 million gun transfers between 1993 and 1994 in the United States; roughly 60 percent involved licensed dealers, while about 40 percent were "off-the-books transfers" through unlicensed sellers. Preliminary data from a more recent, yet-to-be-published survey suggests the proportion of unlicensed gun sales has decreased, but such sales still involve millions of guns each year, according to Northeastern University Professor Matthew Miller, who co-directs the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Our rating Ryan said that under the current procedure, if someone "on a terror watch list" tries to buy a gun, authorities are notified. That is accurate as it applies to gun sales in which a federal background check occurs. But a significant amount of gun sales or other transfers lack background checks, so there would be no red flag when someone on the list tries to buy a gun. For a statement that is partially accurate, but leaves out important details, we rate Ryan’s claim Half True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2016-09-02T10:30:00	2016-06-19	['None']
-pomt-11553	"Smoking in cars with children is illegal starting January 30, 2018."	/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/08/lovethispiccom/no-law-banned-smoking-cars-children-effective-jan-/	The days of mom puffing away on a cigarette in the car while her children are in the back seat are over, according to a misleading viral story on Facebook. "Smoking in cars with children is illegal starting January 30, 2018," stated a Feb. 3 headline on Lovethispic.com, a blog that encourages users to share images. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat hoaxes online. We found that the story was misleading because no such federal law kicked in at the end of January. The blog said that the law applies to any private vehicle and that violators would face up to a $100 fine. It included a photo of a woman smoking in the driver’s seat while children sat in the backseat. The blog didn’t explain if it was a federal or state or local law -- as evident by comments posted by confused readers who asked what jurisdictions would fall under the new law. The broad statements in the blog could leave the false impression that it refers to a federal law. The story linked to a Feb. 1 Yahoo Lifestyle story and lifted many paragraphs from that article. The Yahoo story stated that on Jan. 30, the Alabama state House of Representatives passed a bill to ban smoking in vehicles with any riders under the age of 19. So that means the bill itself wasn’t enacted as a law by that date -- it still has additional legislative hurdles. However if it becomes law, Alabama would be the ninth state to do so since 2006. There is no federal law -- or proposed federal legislation -- prohibiting smoking in vehicles with children. Alabama is one of 12 states that are considering similar bills this session, said Liz Williams, project manager for Americans for Nonsmokers’ rights. The blog included a few sentences describing of the type of vehicles that it applies to, which closely mirrored the wording of an announcement in July 2015 by the government of the United Kingdom, which banned smoking in cars with children effective Oct. 1, 2015. The lovethispic blog appears to recycle a similar story from 2016, Snopes found. We emailed the lovethispic blog and did not hear a reply. The headline "smoking in cars with children is illegal starting January 30, 2018" is misleading because it could lead readers to believe that a national ban started in January. In reality, the Alabama House did pass such a ban on Jan. 30, but it’s not state law yet. We rate this statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	lovethispic.com	None	None	None	2018-02-08T10:33:35	2018-02-03	['None']
-pomt-06611	Says Mitt Romney wrote that if Social Security was done "in the private sector, it would be called criminal."	/texas/statements/2011/sep/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-mitt-romney-wrote-if-social-securi/	Defending his published characterization of Social Security as a failure of legally questionable origin, Texas Gov. Rick Perry turned the tables on Mitt Romney, saying: "You said if people did it in the private sector it would be called criminal. That's in your book." Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, shot back in the Sept. 12, 2011, Republican presidential debate: "Gov. Perry, you've got to quote me correctly. You said it's criminal. What I said was Congress taking money out of the Social Security trust fund is like (a) criminal (act) and that is and it's wrong." We wondered if Perry accurately recapped Romney’s description of Social Security. Let’s start from a fuller excerpt of their debate exchange. At the debate, Romney challenged Perry’s repeated description of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. Romney, addressing Perry, said the Ponzi term is "what scared seniors, number one. And number two, suggesting that Social Security should no longer be a federal program and returned to the states and unconstitutional is likewise frightening. "Look, there are a lot of bright people who agree with you," Romney continued. "And that's your view. I happen to have a different one. I think that Social Security is an essential program that we should change the way we're funding it. You called it a criminal--" Perry jumped in: "You said if people did it in the private sector it would be called criminal. That's in your book." We’ve run several looks at Perry’s Social Security descriptions in his 2010 book, Fed Up!, rating False his claim that the government program is a Ponzi scheme. Unlike such a criminal enterprise, Social Security is obligated to pay benefits and participants are aware of how the system operates; it’s public. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, too, Social Security is accountable to Congress and the American people. More recently, PolitiFact in Washington rated True Romney’s charge in the Sept. 12 debate that Perry called Social Security a "failure" in his book and rated Mostly True Romney’s claim that Perry also called Social Security unconstitutional. Perry’s book lacks such an explicit statement, but Perry argues that the Supreme Court should not have ruled significant pieces of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal constitutional and by doing so, "we’ve been forced to accept (Social Security) for more than 70 years now." And did Perry accurately recap Romney’s own Social Security moan? In chapter two of his 2010 book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Romney says reporters did not press the 2008 presidential candidates on how they would shore up or reform Social Security, which could be forced to trim benefits starting in the late 2030s if changes aren’t adopted. In chapter six, Romney says Social Security has grown exponentially since its inception in the mid-1930s. He adds that the program’s "trust fund" is a fiction. How so? Payroll taxes fund Social Security. Last year, for the first time since 1983, payouts exceeded receipts. So before last year, Social Security ran an annual surplus that was placed into a trust fund that earns interest. But Congress has routinely borrowed Social Security’s surplus to cover other government spending and left behind IOUs from the U.S. Treasury to cover future costs. "There is no fund" in the conventional sense, Romney writes. Romney’s reference to criminality comes next, in an analogy. "To put it in a nutshell, the American people have been effectively defrauded out of their Social Security," Romney writes, adding later: "Let’s look at what would happen if someone in the private sector did a similar thing. Suppose two grandparents created a trust fund, appointed a bank as trustee, and instructed the bank to invest the proceeds of the trust fund so as to provide for their grandchildren’s education. Suppose further that the bank used the proceeds for its own purposes, so that when the grandchildren turned 18, there was no money for them to go to college. What would happen to the bankers responsible for misusing the money? They would go to jail. But what has happened to the people responsible for the looming bankruptcy of Social Security? They keep returning to Congress every two years." For this article, we’re not judging the accuracy or adequacy of this analogy. Instead, to refresh, we’re drilling in on whether Perry accurately aired Romney’s characterization of Social Security. True, Romney mentions the private sector, as Perry claims. In the book, Romney then shifts into his analogy about a bank spending money from a trust fund that was set up to cover a future expense -- a grandchild’s college education. The bankers in charge of the trust fund in Romney’s example would face prosecution for, in effect, stealing the trust fund’s money. Romney says their behavior would be called criminal, again as Perry says. However, as Romney said in the debate, this reference to criminal behavior focuses on the trust fund’s "surplus" not being socked away and kept safe until needed, a diversion he blames on Congress. By our read, it’s not reasonable to interpret the analogy as saying that if the entire Social Security program were in the private sector, it would be called criminal. Perry’s claim echoes some of Romney's language, but ultimately overreaches.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2011-09-22T06:00:00	2011-09-12	['None']
-pomt-03419	The immigration bill "has a specific provision that says that Secretary Napolitano does not have to build any fence if she chooses not to."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/27/jeff-sessions/sen-jeff-sessions-says-immigration-bill-has-provis/	Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says he opposes an immigration bill working its way through the Senate because it offers "a mere promise of enforcement in the future." For example, the bill’s promised 700 miles of border fencing — it just isn’t going to happen, he argues. He told Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer on June 23, 2013, that even with a security-boosting amendment from Republican Sens. Bob Corker and John Hoeven, the bill "doesn’t fulfill its promises." "It has a specific provision that says that Secretary (Janet) Napolitano does not have to build any fence if she chooses not to," Sessions said. Senators are expected to vote on the amended bill this week. Does it give Napolitano a choice about how much fencing to build — including none? ‘No fewer than 700 miles’ The border fence is one of five so-called "triggers" that must be in place before most immigrants who get provisional status under the law are eligible for permanent residency. The bill requires a "Southern Border Fencing Strategy" to be submitted to Congress — and implemented — with certification from the Homeland Security secretary "that there is in place along the Southern Border no fewer than 700 miles of pedestrian fencing." There are right now 350 miles of such fencing. The law requires that to be doubled for provisional residents to change status. So: No fence, no path to citizenship. But Sessions’ press secretary, Jack Bonnikson, told us that there’s "an opt-out provision" that allows the secretary to avoid fence-building. It’s in a different section of the bill. Here’s what it says: "Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location." The "notwithstanding" language trumps other language in the bill, Bonnikson said, giving Napolitano the freedom to decide that no fence is the best option, no matter what the trigger says. Now, we’re not attorneys. So we talked to a few. They said the "notwithstanding" language (which means "in spite of") isn’t nearly as broad as Bonnikson suggests. The provision mentions a particular paragraph and subsection of the bill, neither of which are anywhere near the trigger that requires 700 miles of fencing. Meanwhile, the provision very specifically addresses not the amount of fencing, but its location. Since the southern border is nearly 2,000 miles long, there will be plenty of choices to make. So, while we can’t say for certain a judge wouldn’t take liberties interpreting the language of the legislation, on its face, what Sessions’ office calls an "opt-out" provision just offers the administration considerable choice about where to put fencing — not whether to build it. "This provision just gives DHS discretion not to build a fence at a particular location, not discretion to not build a fence at all," said Stephen Yale-Loer, an immigration attorney who teaches at Cornell Law. Sen. Corker offers the same explanation on his website. Meanwhile, at least one pro-immigrant group has withdrawn its support for the bill because of its focus on "militarization of the border." Our ruling Sessions said the immigration bill "has a specific provision that says that Secretary Napolitano does not have to build any fence if she chooses not to." His press secretary pointed to an "opt-out" provision in the bill. But it would take a dramatic leap of legal interpretation to argue that provision allows Napolitano to skip fence-building altogether. Legal experts we spoke to said, instead, it gives her discretion about where to build border fencing. We rate Sessions’ claim False.	None	Jeff Sessions	None	None	None	2013-06-27T10:25:05	2013-06-27	['Janet_Napolitano']
-pomt-02425	The Redskins Training Camp deal "generated $40 million in new private investment in the city."	/virginia/statements/2014/mar/04/dwight-jones/mayor-jones-says-redskins-training-camp-deal-gener/	Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones says the development deal that brought the Washington Redskins’ summer training camp to the city has paid off in a big way. "The plan generated $40 million in new private investment in the city," he said in his Jan. 30 State of the City Address. We wondered whether Jones’ figure is correct. The deal, signed at the close of 2012, set up a series of agreements between the city, the Redskins and Bon Secours Richmond Health Systems involving three properties. The Redskins camp opened last summer on a 17-acre parcel on West Leigh Street that the city’s Economic Development Authority is leasing from the state. The city shelled out $10 million for construction of a two-story office building and practice fields. Bon Secours agreed to pay the city $3.2 million for the naming rights to the facility, and that’s why it’s officially called The Bon Secours Washington Redskins Training Center. The hospital system also is leasing the first floor of the new building for use as a men’s health center when the Redskins are not in their three-week training camp, a deal that could generate another $3.1 million for Richmond over six years. So Bon Secours will invest as much as $6.3 million in the training facility over the next six years. The city is hoping to generate more money by finding tenants for the vacant second floor of the building. In exchange for being the major sponsor of the Redskins camp, Bon Secours was given a 60-year lease to the city-owned Westhampton School site on Patterson Avenue to house its School of Nursing and School of Imaging. The final part of the deal calls for Bon Secours to expand Richmond Community Hospital in the city’s East End, which needs medical facilities. Jones’ claim that the plan has generated $40 million in private investment "is based on taxable improvements" from the development of the three properties, according to Tammy Hawley, the mayor’s press secretary. The figure comes from adding the projected construction prices for the improvements on each site: $10 million for the training camp; $24 million for development of the Westhampton School; and $8.5 million for the expansion of Richmond Community Hospital. That comes to a total of $42.5 million. Jones spoke in the past tense, as if the investments already have been made. But in fact, very little private money has been spent so far. Construction at the Westhampton School and Richmond Community Hospital has not begun. Both projects are in planning stages with no firm dates set for start or completion, according to Charlotte Perkins, performance management officer for Bon Secours. In addition, the contracts for these two projects can be voided. Bon Secours can pull out of the Richmond Community Hospital expansion if it is unable to acquire needed properties. It would have to pay a $2.5 million penalty to the city over 10 years. Bon Secours can withdraw from the Westhampton School project if it is unable to meet zoning requirements. As for the Redskins camp, the $10 million construction cost was paid by the city, not private investors. Jones, in his speech, said Richmond has largely recouped that money through selling naming rights and leasing office space in the building to Bon Secours. But by the end of March, the city is due to have received only about $1.82 million. According to contracts, Bon Secours will have paid seven months rent totaling $160,400 and made the first two of four annual installments of $831,250 for the naming rights. We’ll mention again that Bon Secours could be obligated to make as much as $6.3 million in total rent and naming rights payments to the city through the summer of 2019. Richmond is hoping to add to its take by leasing the vacant second floor of the building at the training site. The Redskins do not pay rent for use of the building and fields during their summer training. If the Westhampton School project pans out, the city will receive $5,000 in annual lease payments from Bon Secours over 60 years. That comes to a total of $300,000. In addition, the hospital system has agreed to pay the city $1 million over 10 years to help public schools. Our ruling Jones said the three-part development deal that brought the Redskins training camp to Richmond "generated $40 million in new private investment in the city." The mayor offered a solid estimate of the total construction costs. But he spoke in past tense, as if the money already has been spent. For the most part, it hasn’t. No start dates have been established for two of the projects totaling $32.5 million: Bon Secours’ expansion of Richmond Community Hospital and its redevelopment of Westhampton School. Important contractual conditions first must be fulfilled. The Redskins training facility, which opened last summer, was built with $10 million of city money. Richmond, at the end of March, will have recovered $1.82 million of that money through the sale of naming rights and the leasing of office space at the facility to Bon Secours. That number could grow to as much as $6.3 million over the next five years. No doubt, the three projects have the potential to generate $40 million in private investment. But the mayor is counting the checks before they’ve been written. We rate his statement Half True.	None	Dwight Jones	None	None	None	2014-03-04T12:33:11	2014-01-30	['None']
-pomt-10353	Barack Obama has "reversed" on his commitment "to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/10/john-mccain/obama-shifts-emphasis-on-iraq-but-not-position/	The day before the Fourth of July weekend, Barack Obama talked about the likelihood that he will soon travel to Iraq and what it means for his foreign policy. "I've always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies." The John McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee pounced on those comments, charging Obama with flip-flopping. "Since announcing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama's candidacy was his commitment to begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately," said Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesman. "Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground." "There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party. "Obama's Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician." We reviewed Obama's statements on Iraq from the campaign to try to uncover whether he was back-tracking on earlier promises. Iraq was one of the most pressing issues of the Democratic primary, discussed and dissected during more than 20 debates. We found that Obama has made a few points about Iraq over and over again: that he opposed the war "from the start"; that U.S. troops should leave Iraq quickly and in an orderly fashion ("as careful getting out as we were careless getting in"); and that the U.S. should not have permanent bases inside Iraq. How quickly should troops leave? His campaign Web site says the following: "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." The McCain campaign and the RNC have pointed to the "16 months" statement as an indication that Obama favors a "precipitous withdrawal", presumably as early as the middle of 2010. (We checked that claim earlier here and found it Half True.) They also point to a March 2008 statement from Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe. "On Iraq, he has been very clear," Plouffe said in March 2008. "He offered a withdrawal plan well over a year ago. It's essential to his candidacy and a rock-solid commitment. ... It will be 16 months at the most where you can withdraw combat troops." Plouffe's statement appears to be the best evidence to support the McCain campaign's argument. Plouffe was responding to comments from former Obama adviser Samantha Power, who had said the 16-month timeframe was a "best-case scenario" that Obama wouldn't necessarily follow once he was in office. Power was forced to resign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." But does this mean a sixteen-month clock starts ticking the moment Obama enters office? We could not find a direct statement from Obama saying that, and found statements he made throughout the campaign that contradicted that. For example: • At a Democratic debate in Hanover, N.H. on Sept. 26, 2007, the late Tim Russert pressed Obama as to whether he would have all troops out by the end of his first term. "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there," Obama said. "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don't want to make promises not knowing what the situation's going to be three or four years out." • At a Democratic debate in Cleveland on Feb. 26, 2008, Obama said, "As soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will initiate a phased withdrawal, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up, to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed." • At a debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said, "Now, I will always listen to our commanders on the ground with respect to tactics. Once I've given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberately in an orderly fashion out of Iraq and we are going to have our combat troops out, we will not have permanent bases there, once I've provided that mission, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration; but ultimately the buck stops with me as the commander in chief." • On "Meet the Press" on May 4, 2008, Russert asked Obama what he would do if advisers thought "a quick withdrawal" from Iraq would result in genocide. Obama replied, "Of course, I would factor in the possibilities of genocide, and I factored it in when I said that I would begin a phased withdrawal. What we have talked about is a very deliberate and prudent approach to the withdrawal -- one to two brigades per month. At that pace, it would take about 16 months, assuming that George Bush is not going to lower troop levels before the next president takes office. We are talking about, potentially, two years away. At that point, we will have been in Iraq seven years. If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years." Taken in their entirety, Obama's comments reflect a philosophy of "about 16 months" for withdrawal. He also appears to be willing to take advice from commanders on the ground that might affect the general pace, but not the overall goal of withdrawal. Yet Obama has been artful in his rhetoric. His campaign has clearly emphasized "16 months" when speaking to anti-war audiences and " about 16 months" when answering questions from withdrawal skeptics. But Obama never urged a "precipitous" withdrawal; even a bill he offered in January 2007 that set a deadline for getting out of Iraq contained an exemption for national security. The Plouffe statement, however, stands out. Plouffe said the 16-month time frame was a "rock solid commitment." But it's the only statement we found that supports the idea of withdrawal with no allowances made for circumstances on the ground. After the McCain campaign attacked Obama as a flip-flopper, the candidate responded with another press conference the same day. "I intend to end this war," Obama said. "My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in, and I will give them a new mission. And that is to end this war. Responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month. And again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16 months' time." Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-10T00:00:00	2008-07-03	['United_States', 'Iraq', 'Barack_Obama']
-pose-00388	"Obama will implement a $250,000 [farm commodity] payment limitation so that we help family farmers, not large corporate agribusiness. Obama will close the loopholes that allow megafarms to get around the limits by subdividing their operations into multiple paper corporations."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/407/limit-subsidies-for-agribusiness/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Limit subsidies for agribusiness	2010-01-07T13:26:57	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-00337	Boys rescued after being trapped in a cave for weeks preferred to return there rather than meet with President Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cave-rescue-trump-meet/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did Rescued Thai Boys Opt to Return to Cave Rather Than Meet with Trump?	16 July 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14781	The Charleston, S.C., shooter "should have never been given a gun, but the universal background check was not fast enough."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/06/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-background-check-charleston-c/	Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her call for stricter gun control in the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. Clinton’s Republican rivals have criticized her for pushing gun control following a terrorist attack. But lax firearms laws, Clinton said on ABC’s This Week, allow people on the no-fly list to purchase guns, just as they enabled Dylann Roof, accused of killing nine African-Americans in a Charleston, S.C., church attack in June. "(Roof) should have never have been given a gun, but the universal background check was not fast enough," Clinton said Dec. 6. "We should be able to approach both of these with some sense of, you know, unity about how we prevent terrorist attacks and how we prevent the wrong people from getting ahold of guns." Is Clinton right that this system didn’t catch the Charleston shooter in time? She omits some important details in her description, but it largely checks out. How Roof obtained a gun Under current federal law, the FBI performs background checks on would-be gun buyers in South Carolina and 29 other states through its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (the rest of the states do their own background checks). If the check isn’t denied or completed in three days, the gun seller can proceed with the sale. What happened in Roof’s case comes down to clerical errors. Here’s how FBI Director James Comey explained why Roof’s background check wasn’t finished in time to prevent his purchase of a .45-caliber Glock pistol. Roof tried to buy a handgun in West Columbia, S.C., a suburb of Columbia, on April 11. A West Virginia-based FBI examiner began vetting him the next business day, April 13, and found that Roof had been arrested for a felony drug charge March 1 (the charge was later corrected as a misdemeanor). Because the records didn’t show a conviction, the examiner couldn’t deny the purchase but continued to look into Roof’s criminal history. Roof’s rap sheet mistakenly listed the neighboring county’s sheriff office as the agency that arrested him, leading the FBI examiner to request more information on Roof from the wrong county sheriff’s and prosecutor’s offices. The examiner then contacted the West Columbia police, who replied they had no records of Roof’s arrest. Had the database listed the correct police station (Columbia) or included the report in which Roof admitted to possessing drugs, things would have turned out different, according to Comey. "If a NICS examiner saw that, Roof would be denied permission to buy a gun. But the examiner never saw that," he said. When the three days were up on April 16, the case was still listed as "pending" and Roof was able to purchase the gun. Two months later, on June 17, Roof allegedly shot and killed nine worshippers and injured one in a historically black church in Charleston. Clerical error or ‘Charleston loophole’ Both sides of the gun debate came to very different conclusions about this news. Clinton and some advocates for tighter gun laws argued Roof was abetted by the three-day time limit for background checks, dubbing it the "Charleston loophole." Supporters of gun rights say the onus is actually on the FBI and its botched paperwork. Daniel Webster, the director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins University, agrees with Clinton that the FBI would have been able to catch Roof’s conviction if it had more than three days to track down the details. "The follow-up investigation found that the FBI analyst doing the check was still in the process of tracking down the information on the case and hadn’t given up because of the clerical error," Webster said. CNN reported that FBI examiners officially denied Roof’s gun purchase application a week after the shooting, when he was already in custody. Usually when the FBI denies a gun purchase after the fact, the agency notifies the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which then retrieves the firearm. In 2014, the FBI denied approximately 1.1 percent, or 91,000, of would-be gun purchases within three days. Of the transactions that required more than three days to vet, the FBI referred 2,511 for retrieval. Back in 2000, the Government Accountability Office reported it took an average of 25 business days for the FBI to determine whether a gun purchase should have been denied. We could not find more recent data. Our ruling Clinton said the Charleston shooter "should have never have been given a gun, but the universal background check was not fast enough." Dylann Roof admitted to a drug offense a few weeks before he tried to buy a gun, so the FBI said he should have been denied one. However, it wasn’t the three-day time limit by itself that undermined Roof’s background check. There were clerical errors in the FBI’s database that prevented the examiner from seeing Roof’s drug admission. Clinton’s characterization misses some important information about Roof’s case. We rate it Mostly True. Note to readers: A previous version of this fact-check incorrectly said Roof "admitted to a felony drug offense" before attempting to buy a gun. That is not what the FBI news release said. The release said that a police report about his arrest included Roof's admission to possessing illegal drugs, which Comey said would have been enough to deny the sale of the handgun. The story has been updated to reflect that point.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-12-06T17:54:49	2015-12-06	['South_Carolina', 'Charleston,_South_Carolina']
-snes-02387	Ancestry.com can retain the rights to your genetic information if you sign up for their DNA testing.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ancestry-dna-steal-own/	None	Legal Affairs	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Can Ancestry.com Take Ownership of Your DNA Data?	22 May 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00550	'Mother Suing Marvel Due to Son's Spider-Man Death Jump'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/mother-suing-marvel-boy-died-spider-man-jump.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	HOAX - 'Mother Suing Marvel Due to Son's Spider-Man Death Jump'	May 26, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-00982	"92 million Americans aren't working."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-92-million-americans-arent-working/	The federal government may have announced a good jobs report just days earlier, but Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wasn’t impressed with the state of the American labor market. On the Feb. 8, 2015, edition of CNN’s State of the Union, host Dana Bash asked Cruz whether he would run for president. He responded: "I think we're facing enormous challenges in this country. The Obama economy has led to the lowest labor force participation since 1978. Ninety-two million Americans aren't working. Obamacare is a train wreck. We're seeing our constitutional rights under assault. And abroad the Obama-Clinton-Kerry foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. Leading from behind doesn't work. We’ve previously checked a claim by Cruz that "we’ve got the lowest labor force participation in over three decades, since 1978." We rated that Mostly True at the time, and it’s still an accurate claim today. But we wondered whether Cruz was right that "92 million Americans aren't working." So we took a closer look. In one sense, Cruz’s estimate is actually too low. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 249.7 million non-institutionalized civilians 16 years of age and older last month. Of those, 148.2 million were employed, leaving 101.7 million not employed. But neither Cruz’s 92 million figure nor the actual 101.7 million figure is especially meaningful -- because they lump in both the young and the old. Of the 101.7 million people who are not employed, 37.5 million are age 65 and over -- an age when Medicare kicks in and many Americans head into retirement. Another 11.9 million are between 16 and 19, meaning they’re either high-school-age or starting college. And another 8 million are age 20 to 24, when many are in college or graduate school. Combined, these groups account for 57.5 million Americans -- or more than three-fifths of the number Cruz cited. Could one quibble with our calculation? Sure -- one could exclude the 20 to 24 category since not everyone that age is college-bound. And improving senior health means that Americans can effectively work past 65. Still, we don’t see much justification for Cruz counting high-school-age kids (roughly 10 million) and Americans 75 and up (17.6 million). Even this far more restrictive definition leaves almost one-third of Cruz’s number questionable. Another point worth noting: Just because someone in the prime working-age range (25 to 64) isn’t working doesn’t mean that they are unemployed. They may be disabled, taking care of children full-time or have gone back to school. The actual number of officially unemployed Americans in January was a little under 9 million -- just one-tenth of the figure Cruz cited as "not working." Our ruling Cruz said that "92 million Americans aren't working." Once you strip out senior citizens and school-age Americans, the number is less than half that. The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False. UPDATED, Feb. 11, 2015: After this fact-check was published, Cruz’s office got back to PolitiFact with sourcing for the statistic. The statistic, they said, came from the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- Table A-1, for the total civilian, non-institutionalized population not in labor force, seasonally adjusted, for January 2015. The total for that month was 92.5 million. Spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said that Cruz was "relying on objective federal labor statistics" in making his statement. However, our fact-check didn’t question the veracity of the BLS statistics – only their relevance to Cruz’s point. We continue to believe the statistic includes Americans too young and too old to be expected to work, and we stand by our rating of Mostly False.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2015-02-10T10:00:00	2015-02-08	['United_States']
-pomt-11348	"USPS loses $1.46 each Amazon package it delivers."	/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/06/eric-bolling/usps-amazon-lose-146-every-package-delivers/	Conservative pundit Eric Bolling joined in on the Amazon-USPS firestorm President Donald Trump initiated recently, putting a price tag on the post office’s purported losses. "USPS loses $1.46 (on) each Amazon package it delivers," Bolling tweeted. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Is the Postal Service losing $1.46 on each Amazon parcel? No. This number is a suggestion from a detailed report of how much more the post office should charge to increase its revenues. It doesn't represent losses. For the record, Bolling acknowledged that Amazon wasn’t even the cause of the Postal Service’s losses. "Without Amazon, @usps would owe us a ton more $$ than they already do," Bolling tweeted. Bolling pointed us to Wall Street Journal and Washington Examiner op-eds that cited the same April 2017 Citigroup study as the source of the $1.46 number. The study focused on how to make the post office break even, given they have lost $65.1 billion since 2007. The Postal Service reported a net loss of $2.7 billion for 2017. Citigroup acknowledges much of the red ink is due to a 2006 law requiring the Postal Service to pre-fund future retirees’ health benefits. Citigroup came up with two responses. One was increasing competitive package deliveries; the other was increasing prices on them. (Competitive packages are those USPS delivers for private companies like Amazon.) They focused only on competitive products, which they determined to be the Postal Service’s main hope for solvency. The report recommended the post office increase prices on package deliveries by $1.46, and that’s where Bolling got his number. That number was arrived at using theoretical pricing models, given that shipping rates for competitive products are kept private between the Postal Service and the company. Another issue is that the price increase was suggested for all of the Post Office’s competitive products clients, not just Amazon. That’s crucial, as the rates the Post Office charges private companies varies depending on the deal each strikes. The Postal Regulatory Commission, which audits these deals, currently mandates that at least 5.5 percent of the Postal Service’s overhead costs be covered by competitive products. USPS factors in overhead costs when charging companies for shipping their packages. We don’t know the actual cost USPS passes onto its individual clients, because those contracts are kept under wraps. UPS, a primary competitor, believes the Postal Service should be charging higher rates, according to a complaint UPS filed to the Postal Regulatory Commission. UPS said the overhead costs were outdated, as they were determined in 2006, when packages comprised a much smaller fraction of the Postal Service’s operations. UPS instead suggested the Postal Service charge a minimum of 24.6 percent to calculate overhead costs. This represents the average share of competitive products in the Postal Service revenue in 2012-14. The Postal Regulatory Commission didn’t see the merit in that calculation in response to UPS. It did, however, propose a higher floor rate that is under review. "Such an approach, which would allocate institutional costs to products based on those products’ relative shares of total attributable costs, has long been rejected by the Commission and by economists in general as being inherently arbitrary," the report reads. In order to arrive at the $1.46 price tag, Citigroup subtracted the price they assumed USPS was charging clients if they only had to cover 5.5 percent of overhead costs from the price USPS would have to charge clients if they had to cover 24.6 percent overhead costs. But 5.5 percent is a floor, not a ceiling rate. We don’t know how much USPS charges clients, just how much the law mandates they charge at a minimum. In fact, in 2017, competitive products covered 22.9 percent of the Postal Service’s overhead costs. That’s after accounting for their individual attributable costs (which are the ones the postal commission determines wouldn’t exist if USPS didn’t have a deal with that company). Citi had suggested 24.6 percent. Competitive prices, then, would only have to increase by 10 cents to contribute the 24.6 percent target in fiscal year 2017. Our ruling Bolling said "USPS loses $1.46 each Amazon package it delivers." The $1.46 figure comes from an April 2017 Citigroup analysis, but Bolling cites the figure inaccurately. The number is what Citigroup suggested the post office charge if it wanted to make more money by using a new pricing formula. The report made no suggestion that the post office was losing that much money on current, actual deliveries. Bolling’s statement is not accurate and we rate it False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Eric Bolling	None	None	None	2018-04-06T10:49:22	2018-04-04	['None']
-tron-02083	Herman Rosenblat and “The Girl with the Apple”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/rosenblat/	None	inspirational	None	None	None	Herman Rosenblat and “The Girl with the Apple”	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00792	Said striking public employees should be fired and that binding arbitration provisions from outside negotiators hurt financially-strapped cities.	https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/823/revamp-states-collective-bargaining-law-public-emp/	None	kasich-o-meter	John Kasich	None	None	Revamp the state's collective bargaining law for public employees	2011-01-07T15:00:21	None	['None']
-pomt-00667	"During the Bush administration, you actually had a prominent liberal write a book about how Bush was preparing for a fascist takeover of this country."	/punditfact/statements/2015/may/12/rich-lowry/did-liberal-writer-warn-about-bush-fascist-takeove/	CORRECTION: Soon after publishing this fact-check on May 12, 2015, with a rating of Mostly True, Lowry pointed us to an interview given by Wolf in 2008. Wolf's comments from that interview are now included in this fact-check and we have changed the rating to True based on the new information. * * * There’s a theory going around that the federal government is using a massive military training exercise as a foundation to take over parts of the West, including Texas. The military has said, no, that’s not the case. But the air remained sufficiently thick with rumors on May 10, 2015, that ABC’s This Week took a few minutes to discuss the matter. Pundits Greta Van Susteren, Rich Lowry, Gwen Ifill and Jamelle Bouie all seemed to brush the talk off as conspiratorial hogwash. "Federal control of Texas is something that was pretty much established in the mid-19th century by President (James) Polk," Lowry said. "So, the idea that the federal government is going to go in and retake over Texas is just nonsense." (Polk was president when Texas became a state.) Lowry wanted to make clear, however, that conspiracies are not only for conservatives. "We've always seen distrust, and it's on both sides," Lowry said. "I don't see liberals worried about military takeovers," said Bouie, a writer for Slate. "Well, look at the left," Lowry said. "They have the anti-vaxxers. They have unscientific fears about nuclear power and GMO foods. During the Bush administration, you actually had a prominent liberal write a book about how Bush was preparing for a fascist takeover of this country." We were curious about Lowry’s point, and honed in on the claim about George W. Bush. Lowry said what he had in mind was a 2007 book by Naomi Wolf called The End of America: Letter of warning to a young patriot. Wolf, a feminist and activist, cast the book as a dire warning about the trajectory of the country. In it, Wolf lists 10 changes that she said typically mark a country’s descent into totalitarianism. Her case studies included the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China, Italy under Benito Mussolini, and Chile under Augusto Pinochet. "There are 10 steps that would-be dictators always take when they are seeking to close down an open society," Wolf said in a 2007 interview on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report. Wolf’s thesis, which she also shared in a newspaper opinion piece titled "Fascist America in 10 easy steps," is that the United States had taken the 10 steps during the George W. Bush administration. "It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society," Wolf wrote. Here’s Wolf’s list, and how Wolf alleges that Bush aligned himself with despots. (We’re simply re-posting her arguments, which obviously are controversial.) 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: The war on terror with its warning of a global caliphate that threatens civilization. 2. Create a gulag: The Guantanamo Bay prison and the CIA "black-sites." 3. Develop a thug caste: Private security guards, such as the Blackwater contractors. 4. Set up an internal surveillance system: Government tracking of phone calls, emails and banking transactions, as reported in 2005 and 2006. 5. Harass citizens' groups: Government tracking of anti-war organizations and their activities. 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: An airport security list that flags people like Wolf for extra scrutiny. 7. Target key individuals: The outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband publicly challenged the Bush administration assertion that Iraq had acquired yellow cake uranium from Niger. 8. Control the press: The distribution of false information, such as the yellowcake uranium claim. 9. Dissent equals treason: Bush administration assertion of the power to label an American citizen as an "enemy combatant." 10. Suspend the rule of law: Increased presidential authority to deploy the National Guard. Wolf never actually claimed Bush had a plan to convert the nation into a totalitarian state in the book. Wolf argued that what she saw laid the groundwork for a fundamental loss of liberty. Wolf said "our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion." However, Wolf was much more matter-of-fact in an October 2008 interview on KEXP 90.3 FM Seattle. Wolf was there to discuss her follow-up book, Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. In the interview, Wolf warned that Bush may declare martial law if Congress failed to pass the 2008 financial bailout bill. In that scenario, Wolf mused that Bush would stop the 2008 election. "There is not going to be an election, as usual, if he can declare on Oct. 3 that he’s going to engage in martial law if people don’t do what he wants," Wolf said. "Why on Earth would he hand over the power to Barack Obama?" In another part of the interview, Wolf said a coup was already underway. "We have to wake up," Wolf said. "On Oct. 1, the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division was deployed in the United States of America for the first time since 1807 when a bright line was placed preventing the military from policing American streets. A military brigade -- that's 3/4,000 soldiers -- has been brought in to police our streets." Wolf goes on to say that "the president now has an army." "The coup is here rather than looming," said Wolf, who went on to tell listeners she would be posting instructions on how to arrest the president on a website. Our ruling Lowry said that a leading liberal had written a book about how Bush was preparing for a fascist takeover of this country. The book Lowry cited does not allege a specific plot. Rather it uses events during the Bush administration and compares them to events that happened in the build-up of totalitarian regimes around the world. But in an interview in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Wolf said a coup was underway and that Bush may declare martial law and prevent the 2008 election. Lowry’s claim rates True.	None	Rich Lowry	None	None	None	2015-05-12T18:37:43	2015-05-10	['George_W._Bush']
-pomt-12455	"We have 5 percent of world population. 80 percent of opioids."	/missouri/statements/2017/may/10/claire-mccaskill/mccaskill-cites-long-disproven-figure-opioid-use/	The state of opioid abuse in America has been deemed an epidemic. Overdose related deaths involving prescribed opioids have reached an all-time high, jumping from 19,000 in 2014 to 22,000 in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Considering all opioids (not just prescribed ones), the figures get even worse: In 2015, 33,091 died from opioid related overdoses. Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill has set her sights on curbing the issue, writing an op-ed in the Kansas City Star and dedicating a page of her website to facts and figures. One tweet in particular caught our eye: "We have 5% of world population. 80% of opioids." Such drastic numbers paint a dire picture for the state of opioid use and abuse in America. We wanted to fact-check her claim. What we found was that while America certainly consumes more opioids than any other country, the notion that we consume 80 percent of the global supply is greatly exaggerated. ‘One startling number’ Checking the first part of McCaskill’s claim was simple: The United States’ population is, according to the U.S. Census bureau, 324.8 million. The global population is 7.4 billion. That means the United States accounts for roughly 4.4 percent of the total world population. Checking the other half was more complicated. We reached out to McCaskill’s spokesperson, Drew Pusateri, and he supplied us with the source of the figure: a CNBC article published on April 27, 2016. And while the article provides the figures McCaskill cited, it is vague about where exactly the 80 percent figure comes from. Upon its first reference it is simply "one startling number from recent years," and later it is noted that the figure was "cited in various studies," including one by Express Scripts. The Express Scripts study, "A Nation In Pain," was released on Dec. 9, 2014. And while it does cite the 80 percent figure, it was not a study designed to measure American opioid consumption or global consumption. The reality, according to Christopher Jones, the director of the Division of Science Policy in the Department of Health and Human Services, is that America consumes 30.2 percent of globally distributed opioids. 30.2 percent According to data collected by the International Narcotics Control Board, the United States consumed roughly 30.2 percent of opioids in 2015. A Vienna-based "quasi-judicial expert body," the International Narcotics Control Board is tasked with tracking global opioid consumption, among a myriad of other things. The board releases three annual reports on narcotic drugs. "Narcotic Drugs: Estimated World Requirements for 2017; Statistics for 2015" is the most recent publication, and includes data for the year 2015. Using the International Narcotics Control Board figures, Jones calculated that the United States consumed 173,332 kilograms of 574,693 kilograms of opioids consumed globally (382,131.6 of 1,266,981.2 pounds), or 30.2 percent. The drugs Jones included in the measurements are: codeine, dihydrocodeine, ethylmorphine, hydrocodone, morphine, oxycodone, pholcodine, dextropropoxyphene, diphenoxylate, methadone, pethidine and tilidine. The figures also include the calculated consumption of buprenorphine. To be clear, Jones noted, such data is limited in several ways. The first is that it is government-reported data. The second is that many drugs are marketed in one country and not another; while used frequently in the United States, hydrocodone is virtually unused elsewhere. Additionally, some of the data include drugs that may have been exported from the country of manufacture and consumed in another country. Thus, data from INCB should be considered with great care when comparing consumption levels of narcotic drugs across countries. And finally, the board makes special note that comparing countries by the weight of opioids consumed is not recommended. Instead they suggest using a statistical measurement called "defined daily doses." Defined daily doses A defined daily dose is the quantity of a particular narcotic drug used in a day by one individual. It is not a recommended dosage, but rather it is a calculation created by the International Narcotics Control Board to statistically measure opioid use with a ratio that directly relates a country’s population to its consumption. For example, the daily dose of hydrocodone is 15 milligrams. So, if 60 milligrams are consumed, four defined daily doses would be recorded. The final results are calculated per million inhabitants. The United States consumed the most using this measure from 2013 to 2015: 47,580 doses of narcotic drugs were consumed per day per million people. Canada comes in second with 34,444 defined doses consumed per day, and Germany in third with 30,796. Using such a measurement, it is easy to see that consumption in America, while noticeably higher than in similarly developed countries, is not as astronomical as McCaskill’s cited figure makes it appear. ‘A life of its own’ Jones said it’s common for people to cite the 80 percent figure that McCaskill did, despite its inaccuracy. "I would say it is a commonly quoted statistic...people across a variety of disciplines, who even are somewhat expert on the topic, have repeated that statistic," he said. Jones said he believes the number originated as the percentage of oxycodone that America consumes compared to the world. From there, he said, the figure has "taken a life of its own. It’s now a ‘fact’ because it’s been repeated so many times." But it’s not the full picture. Because while America does consume over 75 percent of oxycodone, and 99 percent of hydrocodone, it doesn’t consume even half of all opioids globally, according to the International Narcotics Control Board data. Which, in part, according to Jones, has to do with marketing. Oxycodone and hydrocodone are marketed in America. Similar opioids are more prevalent elsewhere. Drug control systems Despite conflated numbers, experts agree there is a problem. Martha Maurer, a policy program manager and researcher at the Pain and Policy Studies Group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, agreed that opioid abuse in the United States was an epidemic. But part of the solution, she said, was continuing to figure out how to view the problem. "It’s clear that there has been a lot of harm associated with overdose and abuse," Maurer said, "but it goes back to the question of where (abused) medication is coming from, which we just don’t know." Something worth noting, Maurer said, was that when you look at the milligram-per-person statistics, "some countries, including Germany, Austria, Denmark and Switzerland, have opioid-consumption levels comparable to that in the US, but they are not having the same problems with harms caused by overdose. Their drug-control systems ensure a balanced approach to opioid access." For Jones, it’s about finding the right balance. "From a policy perspective, we’re trying to ensure that opioids are available when they are needed, but that they are being used as a part of comprehensive evidence-based pain care," he said, "not that we’re relying on them just because they’re the easiest thing to prescribe, or there are other external pressures to prescribe them." Our ruling In setting out to combat America’s opioid epidemic by holding pharmaceutical companies accountable, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said that with just 5 percent of the population, the United States consumes "80 percent of opioids." McCaskill’s figure, widely cited as it is, is inaccurate. It presents a narrow view of opioid consumption globally, where some opioids are marketed in select countries, but not others. It also discounts using defined daily doses, which provide a far more accurate representation of consumption when comparing nations. So, while the United States is clearly the largest consumer of opioids, it, at most, accounts for roughly 30 percent of global consumption. We rate McCaskill’s claim False.	None	Claire McCaskill	None	None	None	2017-05-10T10:32:48	2017-03-28	['None']
-goop-02708	Julianne Hough Wedding Did Take Place Yet, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/julianne-hough-wedding-tabloid-cover-story-ok-magazine/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Julianne Hough Wedding Did NOT Take Place Yet, Despite Tabloid Cover Story	3:04 pm, June 28, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04345	"As governor, I cut $5 billion in spending."	/virginia/statements/2012/oct/24/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-says-he-cut-5-billion-spending-governor/	Democrat Tim Kaine says he knows how to cut budgets, and that will be helpful if he’s elected to the U.S. Senate this fall. "As governor, I cut $5 billion in spending," Kaine says in opening words of a TV commercial that began airing Oct. 8. That same day, Kaine boasted of his budget prowess in his opening comments of a debate with Republican George Allen. "I was the governor that drew a tough, tough straw," he said. "I was governor during the worst recession since the 1930s and I had to cut $5 billion from the state budget." Did Kaine really cut state spending by $5 billion? We took a look. Kaine says the reductions were made in the general fund, the portion of the state budget that pays for schools, health programs and public safety. It is largely funded by income taxes and sales taxes. When Kaine took office in January 2006, he inherited a general fund budget of $15.1 billion for the fiscal year that started July 1, 2005. The economy was healthy at the start of his term and the general fund for the budget year that started in July 2007 was pegged at $17 billion. But trouble began that October when the nation began sliding into recession. Kaine announced there was a $300 million shortfall in tax revenues needed to pay for general fund programs and took steps to balance the budget, as required by law. By the time he left office in January 2010, Kaine and the General Assembly had filled in cumulative budget holes totaling about $7.28 billion, according state documents from the final three years of his administration. About 85 percent of the shortfall was caused by dwindling tax receipts; the rest was caused by increased expenses, mainly in providing Medicaid. Kaine and the General Assembly closed the gap by drawing on emergency funds, transferring state funds, using bookkeeping techniques and cutting programs. There’s no single document that lists each action Kaine and legislators took to balance the general fund. But a solid summary can be constructed by piecing together figures contained in a variety of reports issued by the General Assembly’s money committees, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission and the Kaine administration. Actions approved during Kaine’s term How did Kaine and the General Assembly balance the $7.34 billion in general fund shortfalls? For starters, they made about $4.03 billion in budget adjustments that did not require cuts in spending. *They used $1.5 billion in federal stimulus money to pay for programs. *They withdrew $895 million in emergency reserves from the state’s Rainy Day Fund. *They found $525 million in short-term savings by switching the financing on some construction projects from cash to bonds. *They wiped $240 million off the books by rescinding a 2 percent raise for state employees and teachers before it went into effect in 2008. *They transferred $244 million into the general fund from other state accounts. *They collected $234 million in unspent money in state accounts at the end of budget years. *They gained $171 million by changing tax and fee policies. *They saved $133 million by delaying the reimbursement of Medicaid providers. *They saved $93 million by changing business practices, such as delaying purchases. As we noted, these steps erased about $4.03 billion of the shortfall without imposing spending cuts. That leaves about a $3.31 billion portion of the shortfall that was eliminated with cuts to general fund programs. So how does Kaine get to $5 billion in cuts? Kaine’s farewell budget During the final weeks of his term in late 2009, Kaine confronted an additional $4.2 billion shortfall facing the state for the fiscal year starting the following July 1. On Dec. 18, 2009, Kaine proposed an outgoing budget with steps to balance the future shortfall. He called for a $1.9 billion tax hike and $2.3 billion in other budget-balancing steps. Kaine left office four weeks later, before the General Assembly took up his proposals. Lawmakers eventually rejected the tax hike. Brandi Hoffine, a spokeswoman for Kaine, said the General Assembly embraced the rest of Kaine’s plan and the campaign adds its entire $2.3 billion impact to Kaine’s tally of cuts -- pushing him well above a $5 billion total. But a different picture emerges from documents issued by the General Assembly’s money committees in January and June of 2010. They show that the $2.3 billion portion of Kaine’s plan included $660 million in adjustments that did not require general fund cuts; half it coming from an additional draw on federal stimulus funds and half coming from increased fees and transfers from other state accounts. That leaves us with about $1.64 billion in spending cuts proposed by Kaine and, of them, the General Assembly adopted about $1.33 billion worth. Our rating Kaine said, "As governor, I cut $5 billion in spending." As governor, Kaine approved about $3.31 billion in general fund spending cuts. After he left office, the General Assembly adopted additional budget cuts recommended by Kaine totaling about $1.33 billion. If we count everything, we come to about $4.64 billion. Should Kaine receive some credit for cuts that he recommended but were enacted after he left office? We think so. But the actual spending cuts still fall short of $5 billion. We rate Kaine’s statement Mostly True.	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2012-10-24T12:00:00	2012-10-08	['None']
-pomt-11104	Says most of Austin’s biggest parks have recycling though as "many as 293 out of 300" Austin city "parks have no recycling, including almost every neighborhood park."	/texas/statements/2018/jun/08/texas-campaign-environment/most-austin-city-parks-lack-recycling-zilker-park-/	Despite’s Austin’s "zero-waste" commitment, an advocacy group says that nearly every city park lacks recycling. We wondered about that declaration by the Texas Campaign for the Environment, which describes itself as the state’s largest environmental group organizing support through door-to-door canvassing. An April 2018 handout from the group notes that the city adopted a zero-waste commitment in 2011 requiring businesses and landlords to provide recycling. The city has a goal of reducing trash sent to landfills by 90 percent by 2040. "Unfortunately," the TCE handout says, the "zero-waste" requirement "does not apply to city government operations" and parks rank among big missed opportunities. "As many as 293 out of 300 parks have no recycling, including almost every neighborhood park," the handout says. There’s also good news, the handout says, in that the city has launched recycling in every recreation and cultural center and in most of Austin’s biggest parks. Still, 293 of 300 parks, including nearly every neighborhood park, have no recycling? By email, Andrew Dobbs, the group’s Central Texas program director, said he based his statement on an April 2018 city staff presentation to Austin’s Parks and Recreation Board. A slide in the presentation says the city has 300 parks. Two subsequent slides say a pilot program has introduced recycling to Zilker, Town Lake, Walnut Creek, Bull Creek and Ramsay parks plus Walsh Boat Landing. Other slides say recycling also has been added to more than five city swimming pools, five of six city golf courses and two softball complexes. Dobbs told us the campaign knows of one other park with recycling bins thanks to a neighborhood association. The group’s handout, Dobbs said, says "as many as 293 out of 300" parks have no recycling "because we aren’t 100% certain if other parks might have recycling added on an ad hoc basis." Records show Austin’s Parks and Recreation Department made the recycling presentation to two city boards. By phone, we separately confirmed TCE’s count of parks without recycling from Charles Vaclavik, a parks department official, who told us that plans are in motion next to expand recycling mostly along the south side of Lady Bird Lake through Roy G. Guerrero Colorado River Park. Vaclavik said Austin’s parks-with-recycling count would be higher if the department had started its pilot recycling program in 2017 by concentrating on small neighborhood parks rather than installing recycling bins in large "metropolitan" parks the city’s jewel, 351-acre Zilker Park. "We concentrated (instead) on the activity centers that have the most people," Vaclavik said, seeking a "bigger bang for the buck." To date, he said, the recycling pilot has diverted about 35 percent of materials previously destined to move from trash cans to a landfill. Another factor: The city has yet to budget for recycling in its parks. Liana Kallivoka, the department’s assistant director, told the city’s Zero Waste Advisory Commission at its April 11, 2018, meeting that department officials were drafting a request for $250,000 in recycling-specific funding in the next city budget. If approved by the Austin City Council, Kallivoka said, the money would fund a program coordinator and hundreds of pairs of waste-recycling receptacles with tops, which run $1,100 each, to follow on 150 pairs already installed in park facilities and outdoors. Shelley Parks, a city spokeswoman, told us by phone that the cost of the installed bins was covered largely by donors including the Austin Parks Foundation, the Trail Foundation, neighborhood associations and the office of City Council Member Alison Alter, who represents District 10. Generally, Kallivoka told the commission, the department’s goal is to extend recycling to all parks and facilities in three phases wrapping up with the addition of recycling to neighborhood parks. Commission members approved a resolution calling for the city to create a Parks & Recreation Recycling Task Force. The resolution says, in part, that "approximately 4 of 300 City of Austin parks and 14 of 51 City of Austin aquatic facilities currently provide recycling opportunities." Austin’s Parks and Recreation Board voted to urge creation of the same task force at its April 24, 2018, meeting. Dobbs also spoke to the commission, saying: "The good news is that we’re at a point where everybody wants to do this." Our ruling TCE’s handout says that most of Austin’s biggest parks have recycling though as "many as 293 out of 300" Austin city "parks have no recycling, including almost every neighborhood park." City figures support this analysis. The city hasn’t funded a parks recycling program. We rate the statement True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Texas Campaign for the Environment	None	None	None	2018-06-08T16:27:18	2018-04-26	['Austin,_Texas']
-tron-00230	Valerie Jarrett is a Muslim and Controls the White House	https://www.truthorfiction.com/valerie-jarrett-is-a-muslim-and-controls-the-white-house/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Valerie Jarrett is a Muslim and Controls the White House – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Valerie_Jarrett']
-pomt-14302	North Carolina spent "almost as much as it spends on government rape crisis programs in a year" to convene a special session for HB2.	/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/01/lgbt-progress/lgbt-group-says-nc-spent-much-hb2-special-session-/	The North Carolina General Assembly convened a special session last week and passed a sweeping bill that prohibits schools from letting transgender students use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. It also prohibits cities and counties from raising the minimum wage or passing local anti-discrimination laws. The bill was supported by every Republican member of the N.C. House and Senate, as well as 11 House Democrats. Some critics cried foul that it took away discrimination protections from the LGBT community. Others, including the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, criticized the GOP for calling a special session at an extra cost to taxpayers. When the legislature is in session it costs the state approximately $42,000 a day, on average. The LGBT Progress branch of the Center for American Progress compared that figure unfavorably to state spending that helps rape victims. A few minutes after the bill passed, the group tweeted: "NC spent $42K today to ban trans ppl from bathrooms. That’s almost as much as it spends on government rape crisis programs in a year." The tweet’s premise itself is slightly misleading, perhaps due to the forced brevity in Twitter’s 140-character limit. North Carolina did not ban transgender people from bathrooms. It banned them from the bathroom of the gender they identify as. They may still use whichever bathroom corresponds with the gender on their birth certificate. But let’s look at the second part of the tweet. Did North Carolina really just spend nearly as much meeting to overturn the Charlotte ordinance – citing fears over sexual assault as a major motivation – as it spends in a year to help victims of rape? Yes and no. The state spends about $45,000 a year on government-run rape crisis program. That’s close to the $42,000 estimated price tag for the special session. But the state also spends another $2.8 million annually on funds that get distributed to the charities that run the vast majority of rape crisis centers throughout the state. But the tweet did specify government rape crisis programs. Sarah McBride, the campaigns and communications manager for the think tank’s LGBT branch, said it was carefully worded that way. "The government rape crisis program appropriations was $44,678 in the NC certified 2015-2016 budget and the same in the 2016-2017 budget," she wrote in an email, providing a budget document as proof. "Note that the spending for NGO rape crisis programs is much higher, but that the tweet specified "government programs." NGO means non-government-organization – in this case, charities like the North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which maintains more than 100 rape crisis centers and emergency hotlines for victims all over the state. In addition to donations, these NGOs also rely on some government funding. In recent years, that support has equated to $2.8 million – in addition to the nearly $45,000 that the state spends on government-run rape crisis initiatives. We appreciate McBride’s transparency. But the average person reading that tweet isn’t going to be familiar with the government-versus-NGO breakdown of rape services in North Carolina, which makes it fairly misleading. In fact, even a spokesman for the N.C. Department of Administration – the agency that distributes the state’s $2.8 million rape crisis budget – said he had no idea what the tweet was referring to. Our ruling LGBT Progress said North Carolina spent "almost as much as it spends on government rape crisis programs in a year" to convene a special session for HB2. While that’s technically not wrong, due to careful wording, it’s highly misleading. The vast majority of government spending to help aid victims goes to local charities, not government rape crisis programs, which is less than 2 percent of annual spending on assistance to rape victims. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	LGBT Progress	None	None	None	2016-04-01T19:08:38	2016-03-23	['None']
-tron-00543	Dunkin Donuts Giving Away Free Box of Donuts	https://www.truthorfiction.com/dunkin-donuts-giving-away-free-donuts/	None	business	None	None	['coupons', 'facebook', 'scams', 'warnings']	Dunkin Donuts Giving Away Coupon for a Dozen Donuts	Apr 17, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13626	Says President Bill Clinton did not sign NAFTA.	/punditfact/statements/2016/aug/11/nowthis/nowthis-news-site-says-donald-trump-wrong-and-bill/	Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement and pointed out that it was signed by President Bill Clinton, husband of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. NowThis, which spreads stories on social media, has accused Trump of getting it wrong — repeatedly. On Aug. 10, 2016, NowThis posted a video on Facebook headlined "Fact Check: Everything Donald J. Trump says about NAFTA is wrong," and on YouTube titled "Donald Trump Can't Get The Facts Right About NAFTA.". It shows five clips of Trump saying that Bill Clinton signed the treaty and follows four of them with these superimposed comments (in order): "False," "Nope," "Donald Trump Keeps Lying About the North American Free Trade Agreement," and "False: Bill Clinton Didn't Sign NAFTA." Others, such as the liberal site Anti-Republican Crusaders, shared the video as well. As of Thursday afternoon it had been viewed over 1.1 million times. We wondered how we could have repeatedly missed Trump being so wrong so often when it comes to the treaty. It turns out that Trump isn't wrong. Clinton signed the deal on Dec. 8, 1993. His speech that day is available in print form and on YouTube. However, it should be noted that Clinton isn't the only one responsible for the deal. It was inaugurated by his Republican predecessor, George H.W. Bush, who signed the initial version of the treaty in December 1992, before it was submitted to Congress for ratification and after he had lost to Clinton. But Clinton had campaigned for changes to the deal and sought side agreements requiring Mexico to enforce labor standards, improve working conditions and create better environmental safeguards. Negotiations were begun and those side deals were signed by Clinton in August 1993. After a tough political battle in which Clinton campaigned hard for the pact, the agreement was ratified by the House 234-200 and the Senate by 61-38. Republicans provided the margin of victory in both chambers, leading to Clinton's signature on the final version. When we contacted NowThis, editor Sarah Frank focused on the original signing by Bush. acknowledging that "Clinton signed the legislation into law after it was passed by Congress." "Trump is saying 'Clinton signed NAFTA' as though it was his deal. It was Bush's deal," Frank said in a followup email. Our ruling NowThis repeatedly says in its video that Trump's statements accusing Clinton of signing NAFTA are "False: Bill Clinton didn't sign NAFTA." It's true that the George H.W. Bush administration first negotiated the deal and that Trump is ignoring that element. But Clinton got it modified, pushed hard for the final version, and signed it with enthusiasm once Congress ratified it. The statement is not accurate, and we rate it False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f3d8de22-bdfa-4558-a964-cd4c46f0ad04	None	NowThis	None	None	None	2016-08-11T17:50:36	2016-08-10	['Bill_Clinton', 'North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement']
-snes-04527	The UN stated that taking children to church is a violation of their human rights.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taking-kids-to-church-violates-rights/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	UN Says Taking Kids to Church Violates Their Human Rights	29 June 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02852	Kim Kardashian Trying To “Strike Up Royal Friendship” With Meghan Markle?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-meghan-markle-friends-look-alike/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian Trying To “Strike Up Royal Friendship” With Meghan Markle?	1:33 pm, April 18, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-06441	According to a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, "ogling women's breasts is good for a man's health."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/breast-gazing-healthy/	None	Humor	None	David Mikkelson	None	Breast Gazing Healthy	31 May 2000	None	['The_New_England_Journal_of_Medicine']
-vogo-00003	Statement: “This district has gone down in enrollment every single year, for I don’t know how many years, and yet we have not reduced the workforce commensurately with that. I mean that’s the reality,” San Diego Unified School District board member Sharon Whitehurst-Payne said at the April 25 board meeting.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/fact-check-san-diego-unified-has-more-staffers-but-fewer-students/	Analysis: To help cut more than $124 million from next year’s budget, San Diego school leaders planned to let go of roughly 1,000 employees, though district officials said final layoff numbers are still not available.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: San Diego Unified Has More Staffers but Fewer Students	June 27, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01906	Kylie Jenner “Delivery Drama” Story Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-delivery-drama-birth/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kylie Jenner “Delivery Drama” Story NOT True	12:20 pm, January 4, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01639	In September 2017, truck drivers' unions in Puerto Rico went on strike and refused to take part in relief efforts after a series of hurricanes.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/puerto-rico-teamsters/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Puerto Rico’s Teamsters Union Go on Strike During Hurricane Maria Relief Efforts?	2 October 2017	None	['Puerto_Rico']
-pomt-13939	Says Kelly Ayotte "voted again yesterday against a proposal to expand background checks -- (buyers) can continue to simply go online or to gun shows to purchase guns without background checks."	/new-hampshire/statements/2016/jun/21/maggie-hassan/challenger-maggie-hassan-says-kelly-ayotte-voted-a/	In the wake of a mass shooting in Orlando, lawmakers in Washington have refocused their efforts on federal gun laws. But on Monday the U.S. Senate shot down a number of firearm bills, designed to expand or strengthen background checks and prevent sales to people on terror watchlists. And now the issue is becoming a central line of attack against Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is seeking re-election in one of the most competitive races this year. The New Hampshire Democratic Party took the first swing, followed by Gov. Maggie Hassan, who is running for Ayotte’s senate seat. "Ayotte voted again yesterday against a proposal to expand background checks -- meaning dangerous individuals, including suspected terrorists, can continue to simply go online or to gun shows to purchase guns without background checks," Hassan’s campaign said in an email on Tuesday, June 21, 2016. We decided to take a look at Ayotte’s votes and see if she voted against expanded background checks, as Hassan said. The U.S. Senate took four votes June 20 on a variety of firearm proposals, all of which failed to earn the necessary 60 votes to progress. Hassan’s campaign pointed us to an amendment sponsored by U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. Current law requires background checks only for purchases from federally licensed gun dealers. Murphy’s proposal would have expanded the checks to include sales at gun shows, over the internet and those between friends and family members. Ayotte joined Republican colleagues on a mostly partisan vote to defeat the measure 44-56, well short of the 60 votes needed to advance. "The Murphy legislation is very broad ... and I think that there are concerns about it," Ayotte said Monday, according to The Hill. "I’ve previously said that I think it’s important to fix the current system." Ayotte voted against a similar background check amendment in 2013, sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, which would have expanded background checks to cover gun shows and internet sales. Back then, Ayotte instead supported an amendment by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, which would have increased the mental health records given to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and provided money for prosecuting background check violations. But it did not expand background checks to cover firearms sales at gun shows or over the Internet. It failed 52-48. On Monday, Grassley introduced a similar amendment, and Ayotte supported it, again. Like the amendment from three years earlier, it would have increased money for the background check system and further defined what it means to be "mentally competent" to buy a firearm, but did not expand background checks to cover any new firearms sales, including gun shows and internet sales. It resulted in a familiar outcome as three years ago: It failed 53-47. For the most part, Democrats favored the Murphy amendment, while Republicans supported Grassley. Ayotte backed the Grassley amendment because she said it improves on the current system. Ayotte’s campaign spokeswoman said Hassan’s claim is misleading. "The Murphy amendment, which was opposed by one of the Senate’s top Democrats, is a broad expansion of a flawed system, and does not require law enforcement notification when an individual who was on the terrorist watchlist in the past five years attempts to buy a firearm," spokeswoman Liz Johnson said in a statement. Ayotte did vote for two competing proposals Monday that sought to block the sale of firearms to suspected terrorists. One, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, would let the attorney general stop anyone on the federal terrorist watch lists from buying a gun, according to the Washington Post. Another, put forward by Republican Sen. John Cornyn, would let the government delay a sale to known or suspected terrorists for 72 hours while it investigated. Neither proposal passed, failing to win the needed 60 votes. Ayotte had previously voted against the Feinstein amendment, but voted Monday in support. Our ruling Maggie Hassan said Kelly Ayotte "voted again yesterday against a proposal to expand background checks -- (buyers) can continue to simply go online or to gun shows to purchase guns without background checks." In 2013, Ayotte voted against the bi-partisan Manchin-Toomey amendment that sought to expand checks for firearms purchased online and at gun shows. On June 20, Ayotte voted against a Democrat-sponsored amendment that similarly sought to expand background checks. Both times, Ayotte instead voted for a different amendment that would have strengthened the current system, but did not expand background checks to cover firearms sales at gun shows or over the Internet, two things cited by Hassan. We rate the statement True.	None	Maggie Hassan	None	None	None	2016-06-21T19:06:08	2016-06-21	['None']
-pomt-15024	About "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns."	/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/joe-scarborough/msnbcs-joe-scarborough-tiny-fraction-crimes-commit/	The public debate to the shooting in Oregon so far has followed a familiar script. Some observers focus on cracks in mental health services. Some highlight families who fail to keep weapons away from disturbed sons and fathers. Others talk about background checks and reining in the firepower available to private citizens. Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, trained his sights on the underground market in guns. "Isn't it true that only like 3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually purchase those guns?" he asked a guest on his Oct. 2 show. "Isn't this a big trafficking problem, too?" Scarborough supports background checks, but his focus on black market guns caught our eye. We decided to dig into the stat that only a tiny fraction of violent crimes involve guns that were purchased on the up-and-up. From the data and experts we reached, we learned Scarborough might be correct, but the data don’t precisely confirm it. Before we review the data, we should note that Scarborough’s claim is a bit ambiguous. He might have meant that out of all violent crimes, 3 percent involve a legally purchased firearm. But it’s also possible that he was thinking that out of a smaller set of violent crimes -- those involving a firearm -- the firearm was purchased legally 3 percent of the time. (We reached out to Scarborough and did not hear back.) Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University, has done some of the most recent and detailed research on where criminals get their guns. But note: His work begins with the criminals, not the crimes -- which was Scarborough’s approach. Cook knows of no study that takes the crime as the starting point. And for good reason. "The problem is that only a very small fraction of gun crimes result in the recovery of the weapon or in any other way allow us to determine how the gun was acquired by the person who committed the crime," Cook told us. On the other hand, if Scarborough had said that 3 percent of criminals who use guns get them legally, he would have come closer to the truth. There are still big issues with that, but he would have found some support in Cook’s work. The Chicago Crime Lab study Cook and colleagues Susan Parker and Harold Pollack at the University of Chicago interviewed 99 inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago. They were looking for criminals who were likely to have used a gun or had ready access to one. The authors described the group of participants as "a convenience sample of gun-involved, criminally active men living in greater Chicago." "It is difficult to say how representative they are of the larger population with that description," they wrote. "For that reason, we do not place much emphasis on the statistical results, as opposed to the qualitative patterns that emerged from these data." That said, of the 70 inmates who had possessed a firearm, only 2, or 2.9 percent, had bought it at a gun store. The report found that percentage was in line with the findings of the Chicago Police Department when it traced weapons seized from suspected gang members. (For a glimpse into how guns move through a community, Cook's full article is good reading.) There are some important caveats however. First, Cook noted that it’s possible to buy a gun illegally from a gun store. You can use a fake ID or employ a straw purchaser (someone who can pass a background check who buys the weapon on your behalf). Furthermore, just because the rest of the people interviewed didn’t purchase a gun at a gun store doesn’t mean they acquired it illegally. "It’s possible to make a legal acquisition from another source – a gift from a family member, a purchase from a private seller, etc.," Cook said. "Whether transactions of that sort are legal depend on the details of the transaction and local regulations." Cook also cautioned that the numbers from the Chicago study might not apply across the country. The national data In 2004, the government conducted its periodic Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. It found that among inmates who had a gun when they committed their crime (16 percent of all prisoners), about 11 percent had bought the firearm at a retail store, a pawn shop, a flea market or a gun show. Another 37 percent had gotten it from a friend or family member. About 40 percent said they got it illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer or by stealing it. But the same caveats apply. A retail purchase might not have been legal and a gift from a family member might not be illegal. A 1994 study by researchers James Wright and Peter Rossi came up with a larger percentage of potentially legal purchases. They surveyed prisoners in 10 states. About 21 percent said they acquired their weapons from a gun or other "customary retail outlets" as the researchers put it. About one out of four came through gray or black market sources. However, gun laws were looser when that data was collected. The Brady Bill and its background check provisions passed the year the study was published. Ultimately, there are holes in the data. But Cook said while 3 percent or 10 percent might not be the exact number of legally purchased firearms used by criminals, the fraction is in that ballpark. "I think it’s safe to say that a low percentage of criminal assaults and robberies are committed with guns that were acquired by legal purchase from a gun store," Cook said. Joseph Olson, a professor at Hamline University School of Law and former board member of the National Rifle Association, believes that the number of legally acquired firearms used by criminals is negligible. "Criminals don’t go through background checks because they know they wouldn't pass them," Olson said. Olson said with homicides, there are two key exceptions. Legal firearms are often found when the killings occur duing domestic violence or mass shootings. Our ruling Scarborough said that about "3 percent of murders and crimes are committed with guns from people who actually (legally) purchase those guns." Recent studies that look at prisoners who had a gun when they committed a crime found that between 3 and 11 percent purchased the weapon at a store or gun show. But the studies only tell us where the guns came from, not whether they were acquired legally, and there are issues with using the data to reach the conclusion Scarborough did, experts told us. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joe Scarborough	None	None	None	2015-10-05T11:55:18	2015-10-02	['None']
-pomt-02668	Members of the military don’t "contribute toward their pension."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/12/paul-ryan/do-members-military-unlike-other-federal-employees/	House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has drawn some praise -- but also fire, especially from veterans -- for co-brokering a federal budget deal that includes smaller pension payments for younger military retirees. The two-year agreement reached by Ryan and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., became law in December 2013. To help reduce the deficit, pensions for those who retire from the military before age 62 won’t be as large. Those younger retirees will receive annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to their pensions that are 1 percent lower than the rate of inflation (full COLAs will continue to be given to military retirees who are over 62). In defending the move, Ryan made a claim about military pensions that we want to check. "Civilian public employees have a 401(k) with the match, a defined-benefit pension and health care. They don't have (pension) COLAs at all if they retire before the age of 62. And they do contribute some to their pensions, and now we're having (newly hired employees) contribute more," the Janesville Republican told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board Dec. 19, 2013. "The military doesn't contribute toward their pension. They don't have a paycheck – payroll deduction -- toward their pensions. And they do have a COLA before they're 62." With more public employees -- notably state and local government workers in Wisconsin -- contributing more toward the cost of their benefits, we wondered if Ryan was right. Do members of the military contribute nothing toward their pensions? Evolution of military pensions Military pensions have expanded in scope since the first national pension law was passed in 1776, in the early stages of the Revolutionary War. At that time, pensions were strictly for those "losing a limb in any engagement, or being so disabled in the service of the United States as to render him incapable of earning a livelihood." Over the next several decades, pensions were awarded to Revolutionary War veterans based on need and later they became full pay for life, regardless of need. In 1948, 20 years was established as the minimum requirement for voluntary retirement for the Army and Air Force, putting those services on par with the Navy. Since 1986, military pensions have been "inflation protected," with annual cost-of-living adjustments tied to the Consumer Price Index. The military retirement system now provides some $52 billion per year in pension payments to more than 2 million military retirees and their survivors. (By the way, pensions for civilian federal employees were created in 1920. Social Security was created in 1935.) At the individual level, members of the military are guaranteed a specific monthly pension payment after 20 or more years of service. However, it is essentially an all-or-nothing proposition: Those who serve at least 20 years are fully vested, but those who leave the military earlier usually receive no retirement benefits. Only 17 percent of those who serve in the military end up getting a retirement benefit, according to the Defense Business Board and the House Budget Committee. But, as Ryan indicated in his comments, military retirees begin receiving their monthly pension payments immediately, regardless of age. So, many begin drawing military pensions in their early to mid-40s, often while working in another career. Other public-sector employees, and those in the private sector, typically do not begin receiving an annuity until age 55, 60, or 65. Pension contributions So, what about contributions toward pensions? In other words, where does the money for the military retirement checks come from? A Congressional Budget Office report and a Department of Defense report cited by Ryan press secretary Kevin Seifert say members of the military make no contribution toward their pensions. So does a report we found from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And, Andrew Biggs, a public employee retirement expert at the American Enterprise Institute, told us the same. That contrasts with all other federal employees (including civilian employees in the military). They contribute a portion of their pay toward pensions; the rates mainly depend on when they were hired. Here’s a breakdown of pension contributions, according to data we collected from the Congressional Research Service, the federal Office of Personnel Management and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, which advocates for pay and benefits for federal employees. Type of federal employee Percentage of pay contributed by employee Percentage of pay contributed by employer Military personnel 0 41.8 Civilian, hired before 1984* 7 19** Civilian, hired 1984-2012 0.8 11.9 Civilian, hired in 2013 3.1 9.6 Civilian, hired in 2014 4.4 9.6 *Generally do not pay into or receive Social Security; employees hired after 1984 pay 6.2% toward Social Security. **An aggregate figure. For most federal employees, the government contributes 12.7%; the employer and employee percentages are higher for law enforcement officers and certain other types of federal employees. Our rating Ryan said members of the military don’t "contribute toward their pension." Civilian federal employees contribute a portion of their pay toward their pensions, but members of the military don’t. We rate Ryan’s statement True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2014-01-12T05:00:00	2013-12-19	['None']
-chct-00138	FACT CHECK: Did The Trump Admin Dispose Of A Record Number Of Prescription Drugs?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/05/07/fact-check-trump-record-opioids/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	2:03 PM 05/07/2018	None	['None']
-snes-00963	In February 2018, Amnesty International officially declared U.S. President Donald Trump a "human rights violator."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amnesty-donald-trump-human-rights/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Amnesty International ‘Officially Declare’ Donald Trump a ‘Human Rights Violator’?	26 February 2018	None	['United_States', 'Amnesty_International']
-snes-04975	All Trader Joe's grocery stores will be closed by 2017.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trader-joes-april-fools-day/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Trader Joe’s to Close All Stores by 2017, Plans to Discontinue Products	31 March 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00097	"As president, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will initiate a 50-state strategy to encourage all of the states to adopt paid-leave systems (as part of the Family and Medical Leave Act). Barack Obama and Joe Biden will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers. Obama's Department of Labor will also provide technical information to the states on how to craft paid-leave programs consistent with their local needs."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/100/provide-a-1-5-billion-fund-to-help-states-launch-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave	2010-01-07T13:26:48	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Joe_Biden', 'United_States_Department_of_Labor']
-pomt-13596	Kim Myers "voted repeatedly to raise taxes on the people of Broome County, but made millions off of tax savings when her family business relocated its headquarters."	/new-york/statements/2016/aug/16/claudia-tenney/myers-raised-taxes-dicks-moved-aiport/	Dick’s Sporting Goods announced in July that it will spend $100 million to build a distribution facility in Broome County. Still, Republican congressional candidate Claudia Tenney uses the company’s history in the area to attack her Democratic opponent, Kim Myers, whose father founded the retailer. The company grew for more than four decades in the area before relocating its headquarters to the Pittsburgh area in 1994. "After all, Myers is an Albany-style liberal politician who voted repeatedly to raise taxes on the people of Broome County, but made millions off of tax savings when her family business relocated its headquarters and jobs to Pennsylvania for a more favorable tax climate." This is Tenney’s second run for the 22nd Congressional District seat. Current U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna will leave office at the end of this term. It is Myers' first campaign for Congress. Did Myers vote to raise taxes in Broome County, but make millions off of tax savings when her family’s company relocated? Who’s Kim Myers? Kim Myers is the daughter of Richard "Dick" Stack, who founded Dick’s Sporting Goods in Binghamton in 1948. He was 18 years old at the time. Myers worked in the family business after college, but she left in 1987 - seven years before Dick's left Binghamton - to start a children’s clothing store. That small business no longer exists. She served 18 years on the Vestal Central School District board, eight years as president. In 2014, she won election to the Broome County Legislature. Voting on taxes She has voted on one county budget since her election to the legislature. In November 2015, Myers voted for a budget with a 1.88 percent tax levy increase. That was lower than the 2.21 percent increase Broome County Executive Debbie Preston proposed. She also voted to raise property taxes when she served on the Vestal School Board. That only affected residents in the school district, not Broome County overall. In New York State, it’s not unusual for school districts to increase taxes. The Vestal Central School District’s board one year approved an increase of less than 1 percent. Another year it approved a 3.9 percent increase. The tax levy decreased by 1 percent for the 2009 - 2010 school year. Moving to Pennsylvania Seven years before Dick’s Sporting Goods moved its headquarters to Pennsylvania, Myers had left her direct role in the company to start her own business. Tenney claims that Dick’s saved enough money on taxes from the move for Myers to make millions. Tenney’s campaign could not provide us with any evidence to support that claim. Dick’s Sporting Goods did not reply to our questions about its move from Binghamton to the Pittsburgh area. Broome County Historian Gerald Smith found a print article in Binghamton’s newspaper, The Press & Sun Bulletin from 1994. No mention was made of tax savings in the article. Instead, the article cited the new location's proximity to Pittsburgh International Airport. An article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also cited the airport. A copy of the International Directory of Company Histories says Dick’s chose Pittsburgh "because of its access to airports and its national sports teams and as an area of extensive growth for the company, with a local population of outdoor enthusiasts." Tax incentives were not mentioned. The state would not give us a list of financial incentives given to the company. In our search, the first mention of incentives comes four years later, when Dick’s had considered moving out of the Pittsburgh area. Dick's was given a $1 million loan from Allegheny County, a $350,000 grant from the state and local school tax abatements for five years on a sliding scale. Our analysis of historical data from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue reveals the corporate tax rate in the early 1990s was higher in Pennsylvania than New York. The personal income tax rate in Pennsylvania was less than half of New York State’s rate, but at that point Myers was not directly involved in Dick’s Sporting Goods. Family company stock Myers did not own shares in Dick's Sporting Goods until the company went public in 2002, almost a decade after it relocated to Pennsylvania. A financial disclosure form Myers filed on May 29 with the House of Representatives shows she received between $100,000 and $1 million in dividends in 2016 from her share in the company, the same as in 2015. The form allows candidates to report their assets and income in ranges, not exact amounts. Our ruling Claudia Tenney said in July that Kim Myers voted "to raise taxes on the people of Broome County, but made millions off of tax savings when her family business relocated its headquarters and jobs to Pennsylvania." In her only budget vote since joining the Broome County Legislature, she supported a spending plan that raised the tax levy by under 2 percent. She also voted to increase property taxes while president of the Vestal School Board. Dick’s Sporting Goods relocated its headquarters to Pennsylvania 20 years before Myers’ election to the Broome County Legislature. We could not find any information to support Tenney’s claim that the company saved millions in taxes by moving to Pennsylvania. We rate this claim as Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b6815b53-19e1-4b4c-88dd-5bd51c4d7346	None	Claudia Tenney	None	None	None	2016-08-16T21:50:00	2016-07-07	['None']
-snes-03666	An audio tape captures VP candidate Tim Kaine yelling at his mistress.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kaine-yelling-at-his-mistress/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Recording Captures Tim Kaine Yelling at His Mistress	30 October 2016	None	['None']
-farg-00131	Mexico is “now rated the number one most dangerous country in the world.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-false-claim-mexicos-violence/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Robert Farley	['crime']	Trump’s False Claim About Mexico’s Violence	January 19, 2018	[' Twitter – Thursday, January 18, 2018 ']	['Mexico']
-pose-00204	Barack Obama and Joe Biden "will increase the size of the Foreign Service, fully fund the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization and create a new Office of Conflict Prevention and Resolution with senior Ambassadors to support high-level negotiations and provide the expertise and capacity to seize opportunities or address crises as they arise. An Obama administration will also build a ready reserve corps of private civilians that can participate in post-conflict, humanitarian and stabilization efforts around the globe."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/219/strengthen-the-state-departments-ability-to-respo/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Strengthen the State Department's ability to respond to conflict	2010-01-07T13:26:51	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Joe_Biden', 'United_States_Foreign_Service']
-pomt-05005	Says President Barack Obama promised a "pathway to citizenship" to undocumented immigrants and "didn't deliver jack squat on any of it."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/18/reince-priebus/obama-didnt-deliver-jack-squat-pathway-citizenship/	In one of his most famous "Saturday Night Live" skits, the late Wisconsin-born comedian Chris Farley portrayed Matt Foley, a motivational speaker who lived "in a van down by the river." Lecturing two slacker teens, Foley bellowed: "Well, I’m here to tell you that you’re probably going to find out as you go out there, that you’re not going to amount to jack squat!" In other words, that the kids wouldn’t amount to anything. On June 26, 2012, Wisconsinite Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, invoked the same colloquialism in arguing why President Barack Obama shouldn’t be re-elected. Addressing immigration with conservative radio talk show host Vicki McKenna, whose show airs in Madison and Milwaukee, Priebus charged that Obama "promised ‘pathway to citizenship’ and he didn't deliver jack squat on any of it. So, he's already lied to Hispanics -- or, either did that or was so grossly negligent in following through on his promises that it amounts to a lie." Obama did indeed promise a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Has he failed to deliver "on any of it"? The pathway As a candidate for president, Obama pledged to support "a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens." It’s one of more than 500 promises that PolitiFact National tracks on its Obameter. (PolitiFact Wisconsin is using the Walk-O-Meter to monitor the 2010 campaign promises of Gov. Scott Walker.) Our colleagues found that Obama, after being elected in 2008, said he would not push immigration reform until 2010, after first tackling issues such as health care reform and financial regulations. In 2010, Obama and his fellow Democrats pressed forward with the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, better known as the DREAM Act. The measure was intended to give a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, as long as they completed schooling or served in the military, and maintained "good moral character." The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives, but a Republican filibuster prevented it from coming up for a vote in the Senate in December 2010. Chances for passage dimmed when Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. In its most recent update on Obama’s promise, in May 2011, PolitiFact National found that Obama had recently held meetings on immigration reform, which primarily appeared to be an effort to rally supporters. That was enough for our colleagues to upgrade the status of Obama’s promise from Stalled to In the Works. In June 2012, Obama signed an executive order allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children to obtain work permits. Under the change, the Department of Homeland Security no longer initiates the deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the country before age 16, have lived here for at least five years, and are in school, are high school graduates or are military veterans in good standing. The immigrants must also be not more than 30 and have clean criminal records. Those qualifications are similar to those in the DREAM Act. However, Obama himself said at the time: "This is not a path to citizenship. It is not a permanent fix." So, it's clear that Obama pushed for but was not able to enact legislation that would provide a path to citizenship. As an alternative of sorts, he signed an order giving protections to younger illegal immigrants. Priebus’ evidence When we asked Republican National Committee spokesman Ryan Mahoney to back Priebus’ claim, he cited a number of news articles about Obama’s promise and how Obama would make it a priority during his first year in office. Priebus’ claim, however, did not just apply to Obama’s first year, rather that he has not delivered, period. Two articles Mahoney provided were more on point. The Los Angeles Times in October 2011 cited what it called "a lack of progress toward revamping the nation's immigration system" as one of two reasons for what it described as Obama’s diminished popularity among Latinos. The article said Obama "promised in 2008 to push for a comprehensive solution that would offer a path to legal status for the estimated 10 million living here illegally. It never happened." In November 2011, The Washington Post reported: "Immigration advocates have been agitating against Obama since 2009, angry that overhauling immigration policy seemed to take a back seat even as he amped up (deportations)." Obama's response Joe Zepecki, spokesman for Obama’s campaign in Wisconsin, said Obama’s immigration reform efforts have been blocked by Republicans. Zepecki also cited news articles about meetings Obama held with lawmakers and immigration reform supporters, statements Obama has made supporting reform and statements he has made criticizing Republicans for blocking his reforms. And Zepecki cited Obama's executive order. Our rating Priebus said Obama promised a "pathway to citizenship" to immigrants "and he didn't deliver jack squat on any of it." Obama has not delivered the pathway to citizenship, although Priebus does not make it clear that Obama’s effort -- the DREAM Act -- was blocked by Republicans. That makes Priebus’ statement accurate but needing additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Reince Priebus	None	None	None	2012-07-18T09:00:00	2012-06-26	['None']
-snes-02489	A photograph shows Martin Luther King Jr. flipping the bird at a photographer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mlk-flip-off/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Martin Luther King Jr. ‘Flip the Bird’ at a Photographer?	4 May 2017	None	['None']
-tron-02520	Distribute Money for the U.N.	https://www.truthorfiction.com/unscam/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Distribute Money for the U.N.	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01013	"More people have watched ‘Morning Joe’ than CNN and HLN 5 years in a row."	/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/02/joe-scarborough/scarborough-morning-joe-topped-cnn-and-hln-5-years/	It was a message designed to get Joe Scarborough’s goat, and it worked. CNN ran a full-page ad in the New York Times on Jan. 29 to crow, "CNN’S New Day beat MSNBC’S Morning Joe for the 4th month in a row in Total Viewers and 7th month in a row among Adults 25-54." To rub more salt in the wound, the ad added, "HLN’S Morning Express beat MSNBC’S Morning Joe for the 9th month in a row among Adults 25-54." Soon after he got off the air, Scarborough, the co-host of Morning Joe, shot back in a tweet: "Cute ad but CNN is firing people. Morning Joe is hiring. Oh yeah. And more people have watched Morning Joe than CNN & HLN 5 years in a row." A reader asked us if Scarborough was on solid ground. Has his show topped CNN and HLN in the morning time slot? And if Scarborough is right, does that mean CNN is wrong? Not necessarily. When you pick apart the details in each claim, you find that both have merit. Neel Khairzada, director of communications for CNN, basically said as much. "The difference in the claims is that New Day is going by the coveted 25-54 demo, which is the metric advertisers care about, and Joe is tweeting about total viewers," Khairzada told PunditFact. PunditFact got the monthly Nielsen numbers for the three morning shows. The following chart shows the average daily viewers each month for two groups -- everyone over 2 years old and people 25-54. Average daily viewers 2+ (1000s) Average daily viewers 25-54 (1000s) Month MSNBC CNN HLN MSNBC CNN HLN Jan. 2015 316 393 284 88 138 132 Dec. 2014 330 339 264 95 116 125 Nov. 2014 358 367 224 100 125 113 Oct. 2014 342 346 232 86 108 112 Sept. 2014 363 341 237 105 107 110 Aug. 2014 340 388 250 80 133 111 July 2014 312 302 208 79 93 95 June 2014 332 249 214 83 77 106 May 2014 331 283 215 98 80 102 April 2014 338 364 203 106 119 92 March 2014 350 357 206 116 124 89 Feb. 2014 379 232 212 127 79 83 Jan. 2014 373 210 215 132 74 108 On these terms, CNN’s ad was accurate for New Day and Morning Express. For adults 25-54, New Day did better in the past seven months, and Morning Express did better in the past nine. In terms of total viewers, the numbers jump around. Sometimes Morning Joe wins the time slot, sometimes it doesn’t. However, you can also use the Nielsen data to tell a different story that paints a stronger picture for Morning Joe. PunditFact got the average daily viewers each year (not by month) for Morning Joe and the CNN programs. The data for MSNBC looks like this. Avg. daily viewers per year 2+ (1000s) Avg. daily viewers per year 25-54 (1000s) Year MSNBC CNN* HLN MSNBC CNN* HLN 2014 347 317 223 100 104 104 2013 407 294 238 135 109 122 2012 458 235 248 166 95 128 2011 449 292 315 148 125 154 2010 387 308 316 118 120 185 * CNN’s New Day didn’t launch until midway through 2013; earlier years in the table relate to previous CNN programs in the same time slot, 6 a.m. to 9 a.m.) Crunch the Nielsen numbers this way, and Scarborough is correct. Based on all viewers in the course of a year, including those as young as 2, his program comes out on top for the past five years. It’s a mixed bag in the 25-54 demographic. This sort of ratings battle is old hat to James Webster, a professor at Northwestern University’s School of Communications. Webster told PunditFact that this sort of squabble over who is in the lead happens pretty regularly. "They are both looking at numbers that work to their advantage," Webster said. Another communications researcher, Bob Thompson at the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, saw a certain vagueness in Scarborough’s tweet. The reference to CNN is broad, Thompson said, and he was confident Scarborough was looking beyond a narrow demographic. "The ‘more people’ gives no demographic qualification, so his claim here is for total viewers," Thompson said. Webster cautioned that small differences of a few thousand viewers might not be statistically significant. "Technically, you can claim victory but these surveys only measure a tiny sample of the viewing audience and that means they are subject to large sampling errors," Webster said. For example, for the 25-54 age group in September 2014, CNN was ahead by 2,000 viewers, but statistically, that was a tie with MSNBC. Webster said consistent trends provide the most reliable perspective. We took the yearly averages, the framework most favorable to MSNBC, and looked at the difference each year in total audience. Over the past three years, CNN and HLN have greatly narrowed the gap with MSNBC. There’s a similar trend in the 25 to 54 age group, and by the most conservative interpretation of the numbers, the three programs tied in 2014. Our ruling Scarborough tweeted that more people have watched Morning Joe than CNN and HLN 5 years in a row. In the most general sense, the average daily audience each year for anyone 2 years old and up, he is correct. But there are many other ways to slice the apple that paint a more complicated ratings picture. Looking at the more valuable television demographic for advertisers, 25-to-54-year-olds, MSNBC has been in a dogfight with CNN and HLN. And more recent month-by-month data shows CNN clearly is gaining ground and has surpassed Morning Joe. Scarborough’s claim is literally accurate, but experts we consulted said it’s a bit deceiving given the other data that exists. That most closely fits our definition of Mostly True.	None	Joe Scarborough	None	None	None	2015-02-02T11:24:57	2015-01-29	['CNN', 'HLN_(TV_channel)']
-farg-00321	"BREAKING: Michael Jordan Resigns From The Board At Nike-Takes ‘Air Jordans’ With Him"	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/the-michael-jordan-nike-fallout-that-wasnt/	None	askfactcheck	FactCheck.org	Angelo Fichera	['national anthem']	The Michael Jordan-Nike Fallout That Wasn’t	September 6, 2018	2018-09-06 20:28:05 UTC	['None']
-snes-04634	A video shows a hunter getting attacked by a lion while posing with a recent kill.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lion-revenge-trophy-hunter-video/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Lion Take Revenge on a Trophy Hunter?	9 June 2016	None	['None']
-tron-03351	Muslim Cashier Confronts Christian Boy at St. Cloud Sporting Goods Store	https://www.truthorfiction.com/muslim-cashier-confronts-christian-boy-at-st-cloud-sporting-goods-store/	None	religious	None	None	None	Muslim Cashier Confronts Christian Boy at St. Cloud Sporting Goods Store	Jan 22, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-06191	"We've got a personal tax system that's so complicated it costs Americans about $500 billion a year to comply with the current tax code."	/ohio/statements/2011/dec/12/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-it-costs-americans/	As the deadline neared last month for the congressional "supercommittee" on deficit reduction, House Speaker John Boehner defended a proposal by GOP members against criticism that it broke the party's pledge on taxes. The proposal called for higher tax revenues in exchange for lowered tax rates. Boehner called it a "fair offer" that would begin reform of the tax code, to "make America more competitive and produce more economic growth." "It's important for us to reform the tax code," the Ohio Republican told reporters. "We've got a personal tax system that's so complicated it costs Americans about $500 billion a year to comply with the current tax code." That statement rang a bell for PolitiFact Ohio, and we decided to take a look. The claim is similar to a remark Texas Gov. Rick Perry made Oct. 28, 2011, during the New Hampshire speech that became famous for its animated banter and went viral online. "You know, we spend half a trillion dollars a year in tax preparation," he said. "Any accountants or tax lawyers out there -- I'm sorry, dude, but that's too much money, a half a trillion dollars." PolitiFact took a look at Perry’s statement, starting with a 2005 paper by the Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that studies tax issues. Boehner’s staff acknowledged that was their source for the information, just as did Perry’s campaign staff. The paper noted at least three burdens caused by the tax code: tax planning, or efforts to limit one’s taxes; defending against tax audits and tax litigation; and tax compliance, which includes record-keeping, education about tax laws, form preparation and packaging and sending tax forms. The foundation decided to look only at the third category, tax compliance, for 2005. Its researchers concluded that the costs of compliance for individuals was 2.8 billion hours, or $110 billion; the cost for businesses was 3.1 billion hours or $148 billion; and the cost for nonprofits was 141 million hours or $6.8 billion. Where did those figures come from? To estimate the cost of compliance for individual filings, the Tax Foundation used the weighted average compensation rate of individuals who prepare their own returns and of those who hire tax professionals. The report used an hourly compensation rate for individuals -- estimated at $23.75 nationally for 2004, the latest year available. For tax returns prepared by tax professionals, the foundation said it used the average compensation rate for tax accountants. For business filings, the average compensation cost was the hourly rate for the average tax accountant, $45.37. Data about the time spent on tax returns came from the Internal Revenue Service, the report said. It found that Form 1040—which accounts for almost half of the compliance cost borne by individuals—takes 13.6 hours to complete. The total cost of compliance was estimated as than 6 billion hours and nearly $265 billion -- a figure that the Tax Foundation called "staggering," but is still significantly lower than the estimate from both Perry and Boehner. But not all of that is money that changed hands, meaning it was not all money that was spent. That’s significant, because it raises the question of whether you can call it a cost, as Boehner did. Consider the case of the individual who prepares his own return. The individual expends a certain number of hours on record keeping, learning how to prepare the return and the actual preparation and filing of the return. But an individual completing his own return does not pay himself for that time. The Tax Foundation report, as do other estimates of compliance cost, puts a value on that time. That’s where the hourly compensation figures come into play. "Some may argue that individuals would value their time more or less highly than their hourly salary rate since it is their leisure time (time not spent in formal work) that is given up to file taxes. However, to avoid speculation, the Tax Foundation believes that the hourly compensation rate represents the best estimate of a compliance cost level for individuals," the report says. The same paper projected that compliance costs would rise by 2015 to $483 billion -- or $406 billion adjusted for the 2005 value of the dollar. But PolitiFact found that the figure was an overstatement of today’s cost. Using the same study’s projections, the amount for 2011 should be $392 billion, or $354 billion in 2005 dollars. PolitiFact also checked a 2005 report from The Government Accountability Office. "Estimating total compliance costs is difficult because neither the government nor taxpayers maintain regular accounts of these costs, and federal tax requirements often overlap with record-keeping and reporting that taxpayers do for other purposes," the GAO wrote. "Although available estimates are uncertain, taken together, they suggest that total compliance costs are large. For example, combining the lowest available estimates for the personal and corporate income tax yields a total of $107 billion per year." Other studies, GAO added, estimate costs as 1.5 times as large. Finally, PolitiFact checked in with Eric Toder, a fellow at the Urban Institute who has studied tax compliance costs. He estimated that current compliance costs for all individual filers is about $100 billion, plus nearly another $100 billion for small businesses, plus an undetermined amount for nonprofits and large businesses. Added together, this is likely a bit lower than the Tax Foundation’s projected 2011 figure of $392 billion and significantly lower than the $500 billion figure. Boehner, as did Perry, made a valid point -- that a whole lot of money is spent on tax preparation in the United States today. But their numbers are not close to accurate, and a huge part of the dollar cost they mention is not money that anyone actually spends. Rather, it is the value placed on the time people take for preparation. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate the claim Mostly False.	None	John Boehner	None	None	None	2011-12-12T06:00:00	2011-12-15	['United_States']
-snes-03280	An image shows a real flyer for a "Freedom Concert" scheduled for Inauguration Day.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/freedom-concert/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	‘Freedom Concert’ Being Planned, But No Details Announced	23 December 2016	None	['United_States_presidential_inauguration', 'Sean_Hannity']
-pomt-02244	During Lyndon B. Johnson’s first 20 years in Congress, "he opposed every civil rights measure that came up for a vote."	/texas/statements/2014/apr/14/barack-obama/lyndon-johnson-opposed-every-civil-rights-proposal/	President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas was lauded by four successor presidents as a Lincoln-esque groundbreaker for civil rights, but President Barack Obama also noted that Johnson also had long opposed civil rights proposals. "Now, like any of us, he was not a perfect man," Obama said in his April 10, 2014, speech at the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library. "His experiences in rural Texas may have stretched his moral imagination. But he was ambitious, very ambitious, a young man in a hurry to plot his own escape from poverty and to chart his own political career. And in the Jim Crow South, that meant not challenging convention. "During his first 20 years in Congress," Obama said, "he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame." On one level, it’s not surprising that anyone elected in Johnson’s era from a former member-state of the Confederate States of America resisted civil-rights proposals into and past the 1950s. But given Johnson’s later roles spearheading civil-rights measures into law including acts approved in 1957, 1960 and 1964, we wondered whether Johnson’s change of course was so long in coming. Johnson initially won election to the U.S. House in 1937, outpacing nine other aspirants on April 10, 1937, to fill the seat opened up by the death of Rep. James P. Buchanan, according to Johnson’s biographical timeline posted online by his presidential library. He advanced to the Senate in the November 1948 election, later landing the body’s most powerful post, majority leader, before resigning after his ascension to vice president in the 1960 elections. So, Obama was speaking to Johnson’s position on civil rights measures from spring 1937 to spring 1957, a stretch encompassing many votes. For this fact check, we asked our Twitter followers (@PolitiFactTexas) for research thoughts. A reader guided us to excerpts of an interview with historian Robert Caro, who has written volumes on Johnson’s life, presented on the Library of Congress blog Feb. 15, 2013. The applicable portion: The nation will be marking the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. Like Lincoln, Johnson’s true motives on promoting racial equality have been questioned. Have you come to any conclusions about that? Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln. Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson. The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote. We found that excerpt in the book as well as these vignettes: --In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty." --In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another." Next, we asked an expert in the offices of the U.S. Senate to check on Johnson’s votes on civil rights measures as a lawmaker. By email, Betty Koed, an associate historian for the Senate, said that according to information compiled by the Senate Library, in "the rare cases when" such "bills came to a roll call vote, it appears that" Johnson "consistently voted against" them or voted to stop consideration. (See detail in her email, here.) Our ruling Obama said that during Johnson’s "first 20 years in Congress, he opposed every civil rights measure that came up for a vote." That was the case for Johnson, who broke this pattern by steering passage of civil rights acts starting in 1957. We rate this statement as True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2014-04-14T10:00:00	2014-04-10	['United_States_Congress']
-vogo-00168	What Last Week’s Democratic Sweep Means for San Diego: Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/what-last-weeks-democratic-sweep-means-for-san-diego-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	What Last Week’s Democratic Sweep Means for San Diego: Fact Check TV	November 12, 2012	None	['San_Diego']
-tron-00346	9/11 Survivor stories: Chaplain Seth Castleman	https://www.truthorfiction.com/survivor6/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	9/11 Survivor stories: Chaplain Seth Castleman	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08444	Says he's so bipartisan that "12 of my bills were signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton."	/ohio/statements/2010/oct/16/rob-portman/republican-rob-portman-touts-ability-work-democrat/	U.S. Senate candidate Rob Portman is a Republican and a fiscal conservative. Those are facts you can measure by his record in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for 12 years before joining President George W. Bush’s administration. On a scale of liberal to conservative, Portman’s ratings by special interest groups and by National Journal, an impartial magazine covering Washington, trended toward the conservative end, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t cross the aisle to work with Democrats. Just how bi-partisan was Portman? Votes can vary depending on the agenda, and Portman has said he would have opposed the major legislative initiatives passed at the behest of the current president, Barack Obama. But he also said during the Oct. 8 debate with Democrat Lee Fisher at the City Club of Cleveland that he has a record in Congress "of constantly reaching across the aisle and focusing on solutions." "I often joke in front of Republican crowds, and probably people are a little nervous by the fact that 12 of my bills were signed by President Clinton," Portman said. This, too, is measurable. Did the Cincinnati-area Republican really get 12 of his bills signed by a Democratic president? The short answer: It depends on how you count bills. The long answer: More or less. We are being conservative here because lawmakers sometimes claim credit for bills they supported when others really did the heavy lifting. That is not the case with Portman’s count. But counting bills isn’t as simple as it may sound, and to show how Portman arrives at 12 we must show you, quite briefly, how the sausage is made. A member of Congress introduces a bill. Other members might sign on as co-sponsors. The bill may get assigned to a committee for review or hearings, and it might get a vote in the full House, then get a vote in the Senate and, if successful, become law with a president’s signature. Very few bills go that route. Most never make it out of committee. Some get dissected in committee, only to be reassembled in new bill with different sponsors. So here’s the question we faced in reviewing Portman’s claim: Did 12 of his bills actually become freestanding laws signed by Clinton? No. Four did, according to the official legislation tracking service called THOMAS (in honor of Thomas Jefferson), maintained by the Library of Congress. The bills provided relief for states from the burdens of federal mandates; authorized the renaming of a federal courthouse; established and paid for programs to promote drug-free communities, and helped alleviate debt for countries that conserve and restore tropical rain forests. But that number is misleading. THOMAS credits another successful Portman-sponsored bill to Sen. George Voinovich, the Republican whom Portman hopes to succeed. That’s because Voinovich sponsored a Senate companion to Portman’s House measure. The bill made it simpler for individuals and organizations outside of government to apply for federal financial assistance, and its supporters included Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland. That makes five. But it’s unfair to stop there, because Portman sponsored another dozen bills that were folded into other legislation that Congress passed and Clinton signed. We know this because when was asked Portman’s campaign to back up its claim, it gave us a list of 17 bills, and we researched them all -- examining not only the original bill’s language and sponsorship but also the language in the final legislation to see how closely it tracked to the original. For example, Portman sponsored bills to make it easier for small employers to set up pensions, and for individual workers to establish retirement accounts. The components for those bills got folded into tax and small business bills -- with precise language coming from Portman’s initial efforts. He also sponsored two additional anti-drug bills that got folded into a big government spending bill that Clinton signed. Just to be purists, we excluded a couple of bills from the 17 because, according to THOMAS, Portman was not the sponsor but was, rather, the first and principle co-sponsor. One was to reform the Internal Revenue Service and strengthen taxpayer rights (although Portman had in fact introduced the same bill earlier). Another was to promote Underground Railroad sites (former Rep. Louis Stokes of Shaker Heights was the sponsor of that one). But Portman was the sponsor of another bill a year later that assured federal funding for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center in Cincinnati. Supported by such colleagues as the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat of Cleveland, the bill became a provision in a government spending bill sponsored by yet another former Ohio lawmaker, Republican Ralph Regula of Stark County. So let’s do the math. Portman’s campaign gave us a list of 17 bills. We quickly credited Portman on five of them. Twelve more got dissected in the course of legislative sausage-making, but the Portman provisions survived in others’ legislation. But we subtracted two of those bills, because Portman was not the actual sponsor, even though he handled heavy lifting. So we were now down to 15. But now we faced a question of double counting. If two bills get dissected and their provisions subsequently wind up in a single bill that the president signs, does that mean the president has signed both pieces of legislation? Or does the single new bill only count as one, despite its myriad components? Who knew that lawmaking had existential questions? This occurred twice. The first was when separate Portman-sponsored pension and retirement bills (he worked on a number of these) wound up in a single 1996 measure helping small businesses. The other time was when separate anti-drug bills (another recurring theme of his) were folded into a spending measure in 1998. Just for sport -- we started with a surplus of bills, after all -- we only counted these as one in each instance. So four four of bills got cut down to two. That left us with 13, or one more than even Portman claimed. If you think we were too harsh by removing two, go ahead and add them back in so the total becomes 15 again. Portman’s campaign won’t mind, then, if you dismiss a few of his bills as insignificant. One named the federal courthouse in Cincinnati after Potter Stewart. One transferred Army Corps of Engineers property to the village of Mariemont, near Cincinnati. And one established the CIA headquarters as the George Bush Center for Intelligence (the measure got wrapped into the broader Intelligence Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1999). Do all of this and you still wind up with an even dozen. We bounced this method of counting off Stephen Hess, a senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution and an expert on the ways of Washington. Hess said that Portman appears to be taking credit where due, and no more. Comparing it with the standards of academia, Hess said, "If you were writing your dissertation at Wayne State, could you get away with that? Probably so. It would probably just require a footnote." When asked, Portman’s campaign was clear about that footnote. Portman’s statement was accurate but needed clarification, which on the Truth-O-Meter is measured this way: Mostly True	None	Rob Portman	None	None	None	2010-10-16T13:30:00	2010-10-08	['Bill_Clinton', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-02869	NRA President Jim Porter: 'It's Only a Matter of Time Before We Can Own Colored People Again'?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-president-jim-porter-matter-time-can-colored-people/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	NRA President Jim Porter: ‘It’s Only a Matter of Time Before We Can Own Colored People Again’?	7 May 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-09606	Says Gov. Rick Perry was for Wall Street bailout before he was against it.	/texas/statements/2010/jan/15/kay-bailey-hutchison/hutchison-says-perry-was-wall-street-bailout-he-wa/	Amid economic turmoil, the U.S. Senate voted Oct. 1, 2008, to approve a $700 billion rescue of Wall Street, a decision joined by Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. It wasn’t long afterward that Hutchison drew the unflattering nickname of "Kay Bailout" from Gov. Rick Perry’s camp, which was wary of Hutchison challenging Perry for governor this year. The two revisited the bailout vote in Thursday's GOP gubernatorial debate when Hutchison reminded Perry that he’d signed a letter sent members of Congress on the day of the pivotal Senate vote widely interpreted as urging lawmakers to proceed full speed ahead. "You wrote a letter to Congress saying pass this bill, we need to shore up the financial markets," Hutchison said. "…Governor, you asked for it too. You were for it before you were against it." Perry conceded that he co-wrote a letter with West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin. But, he said, the governors "thought you were smart enough to understand what we were talking about, stop the spending and cut the taxes." "Governor," Hutchison replied, "that’s not what the letter said." "I wish we’d made it a little clearer for you," Perry said. Maybe Perry could have made it clearer for everybody. We wondered if Perry initially urged lawmakers to pass the bailout proposal after all. This much is certain: On the morning of Oct. 1, 2008, the Republican Governors Association and Democratic Governors Association publicized a letter signed by their respective chairmen — Perry and Manchin — described by the groups as urging passage of an economic recovery package. The three-paragraph letter states: "We strongly urge Congress to leave partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package... If Congress does not act soon, the situation will grow appreciably worse." The letter doesn’t explicitly endorse the plan then before the Senate. But no other plan was in play that day amid national fears of an economic collapse. And The Associated Press cast the governors' letter as part of a frantic national push for the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street sought by President Bush. That was before Perry issued a contradictory-sounding second statement later in the day, partly headlined: "On Protecting Taxpayers." "In a free market economy," Perry said, "government should not be in the business of using taxpayer dollars to bail out corporate America." Asked to clarify at the time what Perry wanted the Senate to do, his spokeswoman, Allison Castle, demurred. "The senators have to make their own decisions," Castle said. Hutchison spokesman Matt Mackowiak stepped into the breach, opining: "Texans can only conclude that Gov. Perry opposes the sales tax deduction, protecting them from the Alternative Minimum Tax, extending tax credits for refinery expansion and providing over $600 million in tax credits to help rebuild Texas communities damaged by Hurricane Ike, all of which are contained in this bill." Asked several months ago about Perry's dual messages, Perry spokesman Mark Miner saw nothing confusing. Miner said Perry simply favored tax and spending cuts over bailouts. "You call on Congress to take action, nine times out of 10, the action they take is wrong," Miner said. After the debate, we took the candidates' advice and sought out Manchin (per Perry) and former President George W. Bush (per Hutchison) for their takes on this issue. Bush declined to comment while Manchin indicated he and Perry hadn't advocated any specific legislation. In a comment delivered by a spokesman, Manchin said: "You had to look at the situation our country was facing then. What we were urging was for Congress to work together in a bipartisan effort, and to follow the lead of the governors... to move the states ahead. That effort continues today." At the time of the Senate action in 2008, Manchin said he supported his state's two senators, who voted for the Wall Street package. But he too sounded a contradictory note: "I do not support a bailout. Nobody supports bailing somebody out on the backs of working people … for someone to profit on Wall Street." All in all, it's easy to see Hutchison’s rationale for charging Perry with being for the legislation before he was against it. The Manchin-Perry letter did urge action on the day the Senate was poised to take up the bailout package. But Perry is correct that the joint letter didn’t explicitly advocate the Senate plan. And his second Oct. 1, 2008, statement could be taken as a timely signal he didn’t want Congress to rescue Wall Street the way it did Of course, Perry could have held his tongue entirely and spared himself the resulting questions and explanations. In the end, we rate Hutchison’s claim Half True.	None	Kay Bailey Hutchison	None	None	None	2010-01-15T21:01:00	2010-01-14	['Rick_Perry']
-goop-00481	Reese Witherspoon, Ellen DeGeneres In Talk Show Feud, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/reese-witherspoon-ellen-degeneres-feud-talk-show/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Reese Witherspoon, Ellen DeGeneres NOT In Talk Show Feud, Despite Report	3:05 pm, August 10, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04047	Leaked medical records, combined with viral images and videos, prove that Hillary Clinton is suffering from subcortical vascular dementia and has only one year to live.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-1-year-to-live/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	David Emery	None	Hillary Clinton Diagnosed with Vascular Dementia, Has One Year to Live?	12 September 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-08533	"Rick Scott's prison plan would cut Florida's prison budget in half, close prisons, and release tens of thousands of prisoners early -- murderers, rapists, sex offenders, armed robbers, drug dealers."	/florida/statements/2010/oct/04/florida-police-benevolent-association/police-union-attacks-rick-scotts-budget-plan-sayin/	The state's two big police unions are backing Democrat Alex Sink for governor. Now one of them is bringing out its big guns to attack Sink's opponent, Republican Rick Scott. The Florida Police Benevolent Association debuted a new television ad Sept. 27, 2010, that claims that Scott's plan to cut state budgets will result in fewer prisons and the early release of tens of thousands of violent criminals. The ad shows a Rick Scott look-alike (wearing a T-shirt that says "Rick Scott") waiting at the prison gate happily greeting a gaggle of departing inmates dressed in classic black-and-white striped prison uniforms. "Rick Scott's prison plan would cut Florida's prison budget in half, close prisons, and release tens of thousands of prisoners early -- murderers, rapists, sex offenders, armed robbers, drug dealers," a baritoned narrator says over a series of haunting, low minor chords. The ad closes with the same group of inmates, led by a tattooed man with a chain, mocking Scott's famous slogan. "Let's get to work," the inmate says directly into the camera. "Yeah," the inmates reply, smiling. The ad is powerful in its prose, and its visuals get the attention of viewers. But do the facts support the PBA's rhetoric? The basis of the group's claim is rooted in Scott's 7-7-7 economic plan, something we've dealt with before. The bottom line: Scott says the 7-step plan will create 700,000 new private sector jobs in 7 years. Actually, if you read the plan it says it will only create about 660,000 new jobs, PolitiFact Florida found. But why let math get in the way of a catchy slogan? Anyway, Scott has released what we consider an executive summary of the plan -- meaning it has some high-level ideas but little in the way of how Scott would accomplish them or how they'd create jobs, per se. Step 2 of the 7-step plan is to reduce government spending. Included in that section is Scott's discussion of the state Department of Corrections. Here's what he says: "Paying competitive market-based salaries for corrections' staff, utilizing inmate labor to grow prison food, and competitively bidding health care contracts, prisoner costs would be reduced by $1 billion." Even the thought of cutting $1 billion out of the state Department of Corrections budget, in part by cutting salaries, has raised plenty of objections. In an article published by the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald -- and the source for the PBA ad -- former Corrections Secretary James McDonough, who served for two years under Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, called Scott's plan a "shell game." The Florida Department of Corrections is the nation's third-largest prison system, with more than 100,000 inmates in 139 facilities. Scott's proposed cut represents more than 40 percent of the agency's $2.4 billion budget. This is probably the point in the fact check where the two sides -- Scott and the PBA -- would stop agreeing. So let's break it down using each point of view. What Scott says Scott's plan to cut prison costs has three planks -- pay competitive salaries for staff (read, pay them less), have inmates grow their own food and competitively bid health care contracts. There is no mention of closing prisons or releasing violent criminals early to make the numbers work. Joe Kildea, a Scott spokesman, said that's because that isn't part of the plan. At all. "Nowhere in Rick's plan does he discuss closing prisons. Rick Scott's budget 'plan' is to take every program and service through accountability budgeting; a cost benefit analysis to determine if tax dollars are being spent most effectively. As part of that process, we will look at what other states are doing well. There are other states that have lower prison budget costs than Florida, because they have some less expensive facilities and have lower recidivism rates. One billion dollars represents the gap between Florida's and Texas' costs, and is an example of where the accountability budgeting process will begin, but is not a final budget plan." What the PBA says The PBA counters that it's impossible for Scott to cut the budget that much without closing prisons and releasing inmates. They point to a quote from prison system spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger, who after digesting Scott's plan told the Times: "You would have to close prisons." (That's what she said). PBA executive director David Murrell noted that in 2010, Department of Corrections Secretary Walt McNeil talked about having to close five state prisons and release 2,519 prisoners early when the Senate was debating shedding $100 million from the DOC budget. State law requires prisoners who committed crimes on or after Oct. 1, 1995, to serve 85 percent of their sentence before being released, but that might need to be waived to comply with a court order related to prison overcrowding, McNeil said. "Multiply a $100 million cut by 10 ($1 billion) and you have tens of thousands of inmates released to overcrowding," Murrell said. Scott also promises voters in his 7-7-7 plan that he will cut the state workforce 5 percent. One in four state employees works in corrections. What Scott says We fired off a series of questions to Kildea, hoping to clarify Scott's position. Here's the result of that exchange. Would Scott rule out closing prisons? Because the number of state prisoners is on the rise in Florida, it seems extremely unlikely that there would be a need to close prisons. (Florida's prison population has grown from about 62,000 in 1995 to 85,000 in 2005 to more than 100,000 today). Would Scott release prisoners early to make his budget figures work? No. And he never indicated he would. Does Scott even have the authority to release prisoners early? No. But that's irrelevant because he wouldn't anyway. What the PBA says Saying you can cut $1 billion from the budget without closing prisons ignores reality, Murrell says. "If Scott says that prisons will not have to be closed and dangerous inmates won't be released on his extreme budget cut idea, I would submit that he is engaging in the same sort of creative accounting which enabled him and his company to steal billions from American taxpayers in Medicare and Medicaid fraud," he said (we rated claims about Scott's time at Columbia/HCA here and here and here and here). Time for us to jump in First things first, the PBA says "Rick Scott's prison plan would cut Florida's prison budget in half, close prisons, and release tens of thousands of prisoners early." His plan doesn't call for that. It calls for cutting $1 billion from the Department of Corrections budget, but not by closing prisons and releasing inmates. That's immediately misleading in the PBA ad. When we asked whether Scott wants to, plans on, or will agree to release inmates early, the answer was no. But the PBA argues there is no other way to cut $1 billion from the department's $2.4 billion budget. And maybe, they have a point. PolitiFact Florida looked at the numbers. One of the ways Scott says he'll save $1 billion is by paying corrections employees competitively. Currently, the agency spends more than $1.5 billion on salaries and benefits for its nearly 27,700 employees. If Scott cut the compensation package for each and every employee 10 percent, the state would save $151 million in total, using DOC budget figures. That's less than one-fifth of the way to $1 billion. And that's using the example of a hefty 10 percent pay cut. Another way Scott wants to save money is by having inmates grow their own food. But having inmates in charge of their own meals may only provide minor cost savings. The agency fired two private food service vendors two years ago and now cooks all prison meals in house to save money. The daily food cost per inmate in August 2010 was $2.30. The Department of Corrections also already grows its own food. Inmates harvested over 4.7 million pounds of produce last year, including broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, and watermelon. The crops supplement inmate meals, but cannot sustain inmates because of unpredictable weather and the large inmate population, officials said. The agency is also already competitively bidding some of its health care contracts, which is the third part of Scott's plan to reduce costs. Contracts for lab services, X-rays and pharmaceuticals are competitively bid, said DOC spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger. Contracts for physicians and hospitals are negotiated on a percentage of Medicare. The agency spent a total of $413 million in health care costs, including for employees, last year. According to the DOC, it costs an average $52.00 a day or $18,980 per year to house an inmate in a Florida prison. The Department of Justice, in 2006, said Florida's cost per prisoner was $71.93 -- Scott relies on that number, not the state produced figure. In its ad, the Florida Police Benevolent Association says "Rick Scott's prison plan would cut Florida's prison budget in half, close prisons, and release tens of thousands of prisoners early." That's a prediction more than anything, though it doesn't come across that way in the 30-second commercial. Scott's plan is to cut the prison budget by 40 percent, but not by closing prisons or releasing prisoners early. The Scott campaign maintains they can reach their targeted spending levels without closing prisons or releasing prisoners early, and has taken the option of releasing inmates off the table. The PBA is editorializing, in essence, what would happen if Scott is elected and has a say over the Department of Corrections budget. At PolitiFact Florida, we shy away from trying predictions, so we're specifically not ruling on what would happen if the state cuts $1 billion out of its prison budget. But we can say the PBA is about right on the size of the budget cuts being suggested by Scott, and wrong that's Scott's plan is to close prisons and release inmates. We rate the group's claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Florida Police Benevolent Association	None	None	None	2010-10-04T09:40:24	2010-09-27	['None']
-snes-00070	As of September 2018, Coca-Cola was in talks with Aurora Cannabis over the production of cannabis-infused beverages.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca-cola-cannabis/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Has Coca-Cola Entered Negotiations to Produce Cannabis-Infused Beverages?	18 September 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03778	A postal worker was caught destroying absentee ballots with Trump votes in the swing state of Ohio.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/postal-worker-caught-destroying-absentee-trump-ballots-in-major-swing-state/	None	Ballot Box	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Postal Worker Caught Destroying Absentee Trump Ballots in Major Swing State	17 October 2016	None	['Ohio']
-pomt-01560	Jorge Elorza "wants to impose a municipal income tax."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/sep/12/vincent-buddy-cianci/buddy-cianci-says-jorge-elorza-wants-impose-munici/	Political candidates seldom recommend raising taxes or implementing new ones. So it caught our ear when Vincent A. "Buddy" Cianci Jr., the independent running for mayor of Providence, said during an interview on WHJJ-AM radio that one of his opponents, Democrat Jorge Elorza, wants to impose a municipal income tax. During the interview, host Ron St. Pierre asked Cianci, a former mayor of the city, a popular talk show host and twice-convicted felon, how he would try to get undecided voters to consider him. (St. Pierre previously worked with Cianci on his WPRO-AM talk-show.) "Just run a good campaign and talk about the issues and talk about what the city of Providence can be and it should be a learning experience for the city," Cianci said. Then he added, "My opponent, for instance, proposes a municipal income tax. . . . He wants to impose a municipal income tax. I think the last thing the City of Providence needs is another tax. It’s going to be simple in this election. If you vote for Elorza, you want an income tax." A municipal income tax would be a first for Rhode Island. We wanted to see if Elorza really wants to impose such a tax. During Elorza's successful primary campaign, one of his fellow Democrats, Brett Smiley, criticized Elorza for the same reason. On Aug. 3, Smiley posted a YouTube video of a July 31 interview, in which Elorza, speaking before a group of progressive Democrats, pledges to advocate for more state aid for Providence. Then he says, "In conversations that we've had before, I've mentioned that I am very much in support of a municipal income tax." Cianci told us that was the video he was relying on. But in the 44-second clip, Elorza also makes it clear that he supports the idea of using a municipal income tax to replace other taxes. He never says he’s proposing it nor wants to impose it. "It's been tried in many, many cities throughout the country and it's functioning effectively and it's much more progressive than what we have right now, where folks are paying so much for car taxes, real estate taxes and so many other taxes," he said. "So I certainly am committed and I certainly support more progressive tax policies." (A progressive tax is designed to be less of a burden on the people who are least able to pay for it. In contrast, a regressive tax, such as a sales tax, tends to place a greater burden on people who are least able to pay.) We asked Cianci about the rest of Elorza's statement. Cianci said the video raised many unanswered questions about a municipal income tax, including which taxes it would replace. "There are no facts. He's just saying he's considering it very strongly. The mere fact that he's proposing it is an anathema," said Cianci. "We don't need new taxes. We need to lower the ones we have." After PolitiFact Rhode Island began inquiring about the video, it was removed. Elorza told us his statement in the YouTube video was taken out of context. "It’s absolutely been misconstrued. I have never proposed a municipal income tax. To say I proposed a municipal income tax is flat out wrong." Elorza said that during the video interview, "I had just finished saying I am not raising taxes … I was asked a direct question about how I felt about the municipal income tax. I said I’m supportive of the idea, supportive of the concept." Elorza was unable to provide the full video, but he pointed to a statement he made in a six-item questionnaire from the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce on Aug. 18 in which he was asked if he would oppose the adoption of a municipal tax. It was the one question where he didn't check Yes or No. But he did offer this comment: "Raising taxes in Providence is not an option, period. I have said this repeatedly throughout the campaign. Some states and municipalities around the country have adopted municipal income taxes as an alternative to raising revenues through property or excise taxes. "I like the concept of a municipal income tax, but whether it makes sense for Providence is a different question. This type of sweeping reform is not a part of my platform, and I will not make it part of my agenda as Mayor." Our ruling Vincent "Buddy" Cianci said Jorge Elorza "wants to impose a municipal income tax." Elorza has said he favors the tax in the context of using it to replace other taxes that he regards as less fair. But he has also made it clear that raising taxes in the city is not an option and has said it would not be part of his agenda. We found no evidence that Elorza wants to impose a municipal income tax. We rate Cianci’s claim False. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Vincent "Buddy" Cianci	None	None	None	2014-09-12T00:01:00	2014-09-10	['None']
-pomt-02373	"We’re at the point of reaching 2 million deportations ... this is a historic level, more than any other president of the United States."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/17/janet-murguia/activist-janet-murguia-calls-obama-deporter-chief-/	Editor’s note: After we published this report, we got questions from readers about why we didn’t rely on more current numbers used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, opting instead to use other numbers from the Department of Homeland Security. So we expanded parts of this report to explain our reasoning in more detail. The rating remains the same. Last week President Barack Obama told immigration reform activists he would look into reducing deportations of illegal immigrants. This follows criticism that Obama is falling short of his promises on comprehensive immigration legislation. Not only that, but over the last few years, some have gone as far as to call him "deporter-in-chief." On Univision’s talk show Al Punto, a Spanish-language political talk show, host Jorge Ramos interviewed a political activist on March 9, 2014, about her choice to use that nickname in a recent speech. "The truth is we’re at the point of reaching 2 million deportations," said Janet Murguía, National Council of La Raza president, in an interview PolitiFact translated from Spanish. "For us, this is a historic level, more than any other president of the United States. Our community is in crisis, and this isn’t acceptable." PolitiFact has looked into deportation statistics under the Obama administration, but not since he’s started his second term. Let’s see how deportations under Obama compare to those under previous presidents. Laura Vazquez, a senior immigration legislative analyst at La Raza, told us that Murguía was referring to deportation numbers from the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE publishes yearly immigration statistics. However, ICE numbers lump together two separate statistics: removals and returns. Removals are formal orders to leave the country issued by a judge. A return is a more desirable option for Mexican nationals that allows them to leave the country without a restriction on when they can re-enter with a visa. There aren’t formal consequences attached with returns, and returns technically don’t count as "deportations,"according to Homeland Security themselves. Media outlets routinely cite ICE numbers. Here, we chose not to. Those numbers aren’t an accurate count of deportations, because they include returns. Also, ICE numbers don’t include deportations conducted by Border Patrol officers. So when we hear the word "deportations," the public’s definition doesn’t line up with how ICE defines the action. Instead, we elected to reference the other common source for deportation numbers, Homeland Security’s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Here, we can count all the removals by fiscal year. This isn’t a perfect assessment, because presidents’ terms don’t start on the same day new fiscal years do. We only have access to this data through fiscal year 2012, so we can’t track Obama’s most recent deportations. The more comprehensive Homeland Security data dates back to 1892. Here, we’ll take a closer look at deportations under Obama and other recent presidents. Deportations ramped up starting during the Clinton years. President Fiscal years Total deportations Average deportations/year Ronald Reagan 1981-1988 168,364 21,046 George Bush 1989-1992 141,326 35,332 Bill Clinton 1993-2000 869,646 108,706 George W. Bush 2001-2008 2,012,539 251,567 Barack Obama 2009-2012 1,582,756 395,689 On average, Obama is outpacing Bush by year. But since Obama hasn’t yet served two full terms, Bush has still overseen more deportations than any other president. Because ICE data is a year ahead of this chart, we can see how Murguía pegged Obama’s deportations at closer to 2 million. The most recent spike in deportations started at the end of the George W. Bush administration, said Pew Research Center associate Ana Gonzalez Barrera. In 2007, Bush increased the consequences for people illegally crossing the border, a strategy Obama has continued so far. Our ruling Murguía defended her "deporter-in-chief" nickname for Obama by saying he’s deported more people than any other president. Her office pointed to a set of statistics that counts departures in a different way than what most people would think of as deportations. We looked at statistics that used more a literal definition of deportation. By that standard, Obama is on track to outpace Bush by the end of his term, but he’s not quite there yet, according to Homeland Security data. At nearly 1.6 million deportations, that's still some distance from "approaching 2 million." It’s too soon to say that Obama has deported more people than any other president. But with the information available, it looks like he’s on track to do so. We rate her claim Half True.	None	Janet Murguía	None	None	None	2014-03-17T17:55:19	2014-03-09	['United_States']
-pomt-07351	There is "a situation in this country where you're nearing 50 percent of people who don't even pay income taxes."	/virginia/statements/2011/may/09/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-almost-50-percent-americans-dont-/	House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been unequivocal in demanding a "real" deficit reduction plan if House Republicans are to consider raising the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Cantor, R-7th District, recently appeared on CNBC’s "Squawk Box" to talk about various crises: namely the "debt crisis," the "spending crisis" and the overall fiscal crisis the nation might face if we don’t cut spending. Entitlements must be addressed, said Cantor, who last month voted for a House Republican budget plan that would redesign Medicare and Medicaid. Cantor rejected increasing tax rates. But he acknowledged the need for a "pro-growth tax proposal" that would eliminate some special interest tax deductions and loopholes to modestly increase revenue. "We also have a situation in this country where you're nearing 50 percent of people who don't even pay income taxes," he said. Is it true that half of all Americans pay no income tax? Let’s take a look. First, a technical note. When Cantor says people, he means "tax-filing units," which refers to individuals or couples that either file a tax return or would have if they had earned enough income, according to his staff. To support his assertion, Cantor’s camp provided a variety of studies and media reports that do indicate about 50 percent of U.S. households owed no federal income tax in 2009 -- the most recent year tax data are available. In 2009, for example, the Tax Policy Center projected 47 percent of people would pay no income tax that year, up from previous estimates of 38 percent -- largely due to additional tax credits through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. Still, that’s a bit dated. Anything newer? The Joint Committee on Taxation, sent a letter to Congress on the matter only days after Cantor’s "Squawk Box" appearance. Using 2009 tax data, the committee estimated that slightly more than 50 percent of tax-filing units actually paid no income tax. "In summary, for tax year 2009, approximately 22 percent of all tax units, including filers and non filers, will have zero income tax liability, approximately 30 percent will receive a refundable tax credit, and approximately 49 percent will have a positive income tax liability," the letter reads. "That’s consistent with the numbers we’ve come up with," said Roberton Williams with the Tax Policy Center. "The main reason is the fact that we don’t specifically use the tax system to collect taxes; we use it for tax collections and to deliver social policy," he said. "Because of that we end up giving people money that could be provided to them through spending programs." But because the U.S. uses the tax system to distribute money, it reduces the tax liability for 51 percent of tax filing units to, or below, zero. Williams said that’s largely due to popular tax breaks, or tax expenditures. "There are lots and lots of them. We estimate they total more than a trillion dollars a year in reduced taxes and in fact the bulk of those go to the top end of the income distribution," he said. Even so, because high earners have so much income liability, the breaks still don’t bring them down to zero. But popular lower and middle income breaks like earned income tax credits, child credits and mortgage interest deductions do get a majority of the population off the hook. So let’s look back. Cantor acknowledged the need for eliminating certain tax loopholes and deductions while also pointing out that "we also have a situation in this country where you're nearing 50 percent of people who don't even pay income taxes." Not only are we nearing that situation, but as the Joint Committee on Taxation pointed out shortly after Cantor’s statement, we moved beyond it. So we find the Majority Leader’s statement True.	None	Eric Cantor	None	None	None	2011-05-09T09:43:05	2011-04-27	['None']
-wast-00172	"As far as tax return, you don't learn that much from tax returns.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/27/fact-checking-the-first-clinton-trump-presidential-debate/	None	None	Donald Trump	Glenn Kessler	None	Fact-checking the first Clinton-Trump presidential debate	September 27, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10866	"In state after state, polls make clear that the American public understands the Kelo ruling is a disaster."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/aug/30/john-mccain/the-ruling-was-unpopular-but-some-polls-unreliable/	His full statement: "In state after state, polls make clear that the American public understands the Kelo ruling is a disaster: 82 percent of Ohioans oppose using eminent domain to take property for economic development, 91 percent of Minnesotans, 92 percent of Kansans, 95 percent of Coloradans, and 86 percent of Missourians. The American public has spoken with one voice, and they're saying that this is not right." McCain is correct that the ruling in Kelo vs. New London, Conn. , a 2005 Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to take land from property owners for the purpose of economic development, is unpopular in the United States. But some of the numbers he uses to illustrate his point are unreliable and inflated. McCain's numbers are gleaned from a list put together by the Castle Coalition, an activist group launched to fight eminent domain seizures in the wake of the Kelo decision. Of the numbers he cites, only the Ohio figure comes from a scientific and disinterested poll. The rest of the numbers are from surveys commissioned by interest groups, or from unscientific polls conducted by local news organizations on their Web sites. McCain did not ignore more reliable polls, he just didn't have them. There has been little, if any, national polling on eminent domain since the Kelo decision. A Gallup poll conducted immediately after the Kelo decision found that the ruling contributed to a plunge in Americans' approval of the Supreme Court. And in 2006, 12 states considered ballot initiatives on legislation limiting eminent domain power. Ten of those measures became law, most with more than 60 percent of the vote: Louisiana (55%), Nevada (63%), Arizona (65%), Oregon (67%), North Dakota (68%), Florida (69%), Michigan (80%), Georgia (83%), New Hampshire (86%) and South Carolina (86%). UPDATE: Previously we reported that no ballot initiative passed by more than 68 percent of the vote. We were wrong. Five of them did. See the numbers above.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2007-08-30T00:00:00	2007-08-06	['United_States']
-pomt-05363	Says Gov. Scott Walker approved a "gutting" of two tax credits that help the poor and elderly.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/may/10/gwen-moore/rep-gwen-moore-says-gov-scott-walker-gutted-tax-cr/	Eager for a post-Scott Walker era, U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Milwaukee led Democrats in a politicized version of "Hit the road, Jack" at the party’s Founder’s Day Gala in April 2012. "Great Scott, Scott Walker, you gotta go baby. We don’t want you no more," she sang, asking those in attendance to join a "Hit the road, Scott" refrain. A video of the song made its way to YouTube (You knew it would, didn’t you?), so anyone could listen to Moore’s verbal walloping of Walker ("My therapist said you can’t internalize the pain"). Moore closed with a line about Walker’s budget having "raised taxes on the poor and the elderly by gutting the Earned Income and Homestead Tax Credits." "What were you thinkin’ baby?" Moore said. Moore and her swaying backup singers -- among them lobbyist Gary Goyke and former Democratic state Rep. Peter Bock, who is married to gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Falk -- seemed a bit, um, out of sync. But what about the claim of "gutting" tax credits that benefit the poor and elderly? Did Moore hit the right notes on that one? It was a humorous bit, but it contained a serious claim. And when we spot political humor, we always look for a chance to, well, drain all the humor from it and write a technical piece about the ins and outs of tax policy. So with apologies to the song’s writer, Percy Mayfield, and Ray Charles, who made it famous, here we go: On the Walk-O-Meter, we’ve already noted that Walker’s 2011-’13 budget raised taxes on lower and moderate income working families and others by cutting back the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit and the separate Homestead Credit. We gave Walker a Promise Broken, since he had pledged to oppose all tax increases. But did the cuts amount to a "gutting" of the credits? Asked for backup, Moore’s office pointed us to March 6, 2011 Wisconsin State Journal article headlined, "Walker budget slashes tax credits that aid poor." That certainly suggests a "gutting." But we ran the numbers ourselves, with much help from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, tax experts and the state Department of Revenue. Homestead Credit This credit gives renters and homeowners a state income tax break if their incomes and property taxes or rent are low enough to qualify. It can put more than $1,100 back in people’s pockets. The credit has been around for years. Walker’s predecessor, Democrat Jim Doyle, approved a change that starting in 2010 pegged various eligibility factors -- such as income -- to rise annually with inflation for the first time. At times over the years the lack of "indexing" squeezed eligibility for the credit, as people bumped into the income limit. In his budget, Walker ended the "indexing" of the program after one year. It carried an estimated $13.6 million value over two years -- money that would go to the state and not the homeowners. The move wiped out a projected 7.9 percent rise in the total credits claimed over two years. The move also meant an erosion in the credit over time because it is tiered and gets smaller as people’s incomes rise. That can affect, for instance, elderly recipients whose Social Security payments can go up with inflation. Seniors make up about 30 percent of the recipients of the credit. "For seniors who have been struggling with trying to stay in their homes, the combination of a gradually reduced Homestead Credit and a higher property tax bill could be the straw that pushes them to the decision to sell their home and live elsewhere," said Jon Peacock, a budget expert with a liberal advocacy group, the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. But the program remains intact as it was for most of its life. The income limit and maximum property tax or rent are set at the same level in 2011, under Walker’s move, as they were the year before. Earned Income Tax Credit This is the state version of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit, which originally was approved by Congress in 1975 to partially offset Social Security taxes and provide an incentive to work. You have to be working to get it, and in a low or moderate income bracket. The state version (you get a percentage of the federal credit) started in 1989 under Republicans, though some GOP officials -- including Walker -- have criticized it as a redistribution of wealth. About half the states offer a similar credit. Among those, Wisconsin’s credit is very generous for some families and stingy for others, depending on family size. More than 268,000 working Wisconsinites claimed the credit in 2010. Under the budget Walker signed, about 140,000 recipients will see their credits cut. Walker’s original plan, before legislative action, cut a similar number of credits. At the time, according to a fiscal bureau report, his administration estimated "approximately 1,000 additional families with 2,400 children would fall below the poverty line due to the changes in the bills." Under the final budget, the total payouts will drop an estimated 19 percent, falling from $289 million to $233 million, or by $56 million. A 19 percent cut is a major change. By comparison, the most-publicized cut in Walker’s budget -- $792 million in state aid to local school districts -- amounted to a 7.4 percent cut. Here’s the real-world impact in 2011: The maximum state credit for families with two children fell from $716 to $562. The maximum credit for families with three or more children fell from $2,473 to $1,955. The maximum credit for families with one child was unchanged at $124. Does that amount to "gutting" the credit? The state Department of Revenue points out that Walker’s move still means the credit is refundable -- even if a family has zero tax liability, they can still get the credit as a refund check. For a majority of recipients, the credit comes in the form of a full or partial tax refund, because the credit exceeds their net tax liability. Even staunch advocates of the credit think Moore’s "gutting" description went too far. Peacock, the budget expert with Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, thinks the tax increase is significant, but he said it was not a fatal blow as "gutting" suggests. "For low-wage workers with two or more children, the change to the EITC is more like the loss of an appendage than a vital organ," Peacock said. David Riemer, a former top budget aide to Doyle now at Community Advocates’ Public Policy Institute, argues that Walker’s move made work less attractive and made the tax system less fair. He believes the moves "seriously damaged" the credits. But he, too, disagreed that Walker "gutted" the EITC. The same for the Homestead Credit. "Both of these important credits remain on the books," Riemer wrote in an email. Our conclusion (Yes, we know those words are music to your ears.) In a send-up of the song "Hit the Road, Jack," Moore said Walker’s reduction in two credits meant a "gutting" of the tax breaks, which help moderate and lower income working families. "Gutting," in our dictionary, is "to remove the vital or essential parts." While the percentage cut was deep in one of the credits, Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature left them largely intact. We rate Moore’s claim False. (And hope we don’t come back to this one no more, no more, no more...) (You can comment on this item on the Journal Sentinel web page)	None	Gwen Moore	None	None	None	2012-05-10T09:00:00	2012-04-28	['None']
-snes-00923	A photograph shows a young girl in South Africa who had a "Joker smile" carved into her face.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-girl-smile-carved-face-south-africa/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Little Girl Have a ‘Joker Smile’ Carved Into Her Face in South Africa?	6 March 2018	None	['South_Africa']
-pomt-10300	John McCain offers "billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/11/barack-obama/tax-breaks-for-all-companies-credit-for-kids-/	Barack Obama's campaign unveiled an attack ad that portrays John McCain as a creature of Washington beholden to special interests. "The lobbyists – running his low road campaign," the ad says. "The money – billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours." We've looked at lobbyists and the McCain campaign previously and found that many former lobbyists work for his campaign, though he does not hire active lobbyists for his campaign staff. In this instance, we'll look at whether McCain offers "billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for families like yours." Under McCain's proposed tax plan, it is true that oil and drug companies will get reduced taxes, but this is because McCain advocates lowering the overall corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent. He's not doling out special breaks for particular industries as the ad implies. The Obama campaign points to an analysis by the Center for American Progress to show that oil companies and drug makers will receive "billions" in tax breaks. The center looked at corporate profits reported in publicly available Security and Exchange Commission filings, and then computed tax reductions under McCain's plan. The center acknowledges that company profits could differ substantially from the reported taxable income because of accounting rules. Corporations' tax returns are not public records. So it's not possible to know if their analysis is technically accurate, though it seems at least somewhat reasonable that a 10 percent reduction in corporate tax rates could result in billions saved for highly profitable industries. Still, we find the singling out of oil and drug companies to be a significant distortion of McCain's plan. The ad also says that McCain offers "almost nothing for families like yours." This too isn't entirely accurate. McCain proposes increasing the tax exemption for dependents (usually children) from today's $3,500 to $7,000. So he does offer some tax cuts for families that include children or other dependents. Obama, on the other hand, proposes several different tax cuts aimed at the middle and lower incomes: a $500 tax credit for workers to offset payroll taxes, mortgage interest deductions for people who don't itemize their returns, expansion of the earned income tax credit, and eliminating taxes for seniors who make less than $50,000. The statement that McCain offers "almost nothing for families like yours," though, depends on what your family is like and how you define "almost nothing." McCain does propose increasing the exemption for dependents. Some families will consider that a significant tax savings while others might rate it "almost nothing." His tax cuts for oil and drug companies, though, are part of an across-the-board reduction of corporate taxes that McCain says will make the United States more competitive with countries around the world. When we look at Obama's overall statement -- billions in tax breaks for oil and drug companies, but almost nothing for "families like yours" -- we find accuracy problems on both halves of the claim. (The tax breaks aren't just for oil and drug companies, and McCain does offer some tax breaks for families.) Putting the statements together like that only makes it worse, leading us to rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-08-11T00:00:00	2008-08-11	['None']
-snes-04439	Photograph shows Donald Trump with "no wig or makeup."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-no-wig-or-makeup/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Image of Donald Trump with No Wig or Makeup	16 July 2016	None	['None']
-tron-00488	Man Eating Catfish from China	https://www.truthorfiction.com/man-eating-catfish/	None	animals	None	None	None	Man Eating Catfish from China	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02947	"We have about six school districts that are in school 140 to 150 days this year."	/georgia/statements/2013/oct/29/john-barge/barges-count-tad-school-calendars-message-mark/	A few flakes of snow on Georgia’s red clay is often welcomed by cheers from many schoolchildren. No school! But in some parts of Georgia, students are missing more than a handful of days each school year because of other factors. The school year is now 30 to 40 days shorter in six districts, says the man in charge of Georgia’s public schools. "We have about six school districts that they’re in school 140 to 150 days this year," Georgia schools Superintendent John Barge said. "Guys, that is significant. That’s over a month of instruction gone." PolitiFact Georgia was curious whether Barge’s math was correct. Barge, a Republican, made the comments at Stockbridge City Hall during a forum on the much-debated Common Core education standards. The forum was organized by state Rep. Demetrius Douglas, D-Stockbridge. As superintendent, Barge has supported the national standards despite opposition from some Republican lawmakers and tea party and advocacy groups. The resistance could hurt Barge politically. He’s running for governor. Before taking office, Barge was critical of Common Core, and PolitiFact Georgia recently rated his position on the standards as a Half Flip. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported this summer that four districts had 150 or fewer days of classroom instruction. Were there as many as six now? The state of Georgia requires that schools offer between 810 and 990 hours a year in instructional time for students, depending on the grade level. Most Georgia school districts hold classes for 180 days. Matt Cardoza, the communications director for the state’s Education Department, sent us a spreadsheet with the number of days of instruction for each school district for the 2012-13 school year and the projected days of instruction for this year. The 2012-13 list showed there were four districts with 150 or fewer days of instruction. They were Chattooga County (144 days), Haralson County (147 days), Webster County (148 days) and Stewart County (150 days). Chattooga, Haralson and Webster are the only three counties that were projected to have fewer than 150 days of instruction. Stewart and Wilcox counties are projected to have 151 days of instruction this year. No metro Atlanta districts fell that far below 180 days of instruction. The school districts in Clayton, Cobb and Henry counties were projected to have 175 days of instruction this year. DeKalb and Fulton counties have scheduled 177 days of instruction. The districts serving the cities of Atlanta and Decatur, and Cherokee, Fayette and Gwinnett counties were scheduled to have 180 days of instruction. So why are some districts opening their doors for so many fewer days? Money, they say. Some districts, such as Stewart, raised their property tax rate by four mills in one year, the AJC reported. The district adopted a four-day week to cope with budget cuts. Barge was a bit off on his numbers. There were not six school districts that had 150 or fewer days of classroom instruction during the last school year. The total was four. Three districts have scheduled fewer than 150 days of instruction while two plan 151 days of classroom instruction. Barge was close. And he did qualify his statement by saying "about" six districts have 150 or fewer days of instruction. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	John Barge	None	None	None	2013-10-29T00:00:00	2013-10-17	['None']
-pomt-10207	"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/12/barack-obama/mccain-is-not-computer-savvy/	The latest ad from Barack Obama's campaign, called Still , sets the clock back to John McCain's first year as a congressman. The ad begins with 1982 on the screen, a disco ball in the background. "1982," the announcer says. "John McCain goes to Washington." The screen flashes a picture of the freshman legislator in large, dated glasses. "Things have changed in the last 26 years. But McCain hasn't." Images flash of a record player and a Rubik's Cube. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail. Still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200-billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." The suggestion is clear: McCain is out of touch. We looked at a claim about whether McCain has said he doesn't understand the economy, when then-Republican primary opponent Mitt Romney brought it up. See our ruling here . We've also looked at whether McCain would offer any tax relief to middle class people . Here, we will look at the claims about McCain's computer acumen. In an interview for Yahoo News in January, Mike Allen, chief political correspondent for Politico , a Washington-based newspaper, asked several Republican candidates at the time whether they prefer a Mac or a PC. "Neither," McCain replied. "I am an illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." In a July 11 interview with the New York Times, McCain hardly sounded like he has since gone techie. In answer to a question about what Web sites he looks at regularly, McCain said aides "show me" the Drudge Report, Politico.com and sometimes Real Clear Politics. He also noted that he reads the blog written by his daughter, Meagan. "But do you go online for yourself?" McCain was asked. "They go on for me," McCain said. "I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need — including going to my daughter's blog first, before anything else." "Do you use a blackberry or e-mail?" "No," McCain said, but then explained. "I use the Blackberry, but I don't e-mail, I've never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do — could I just say, really — I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of the New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion." Although McCain has never blamed injuries suffered as a Vietnam POW for his lack of computer skills, articles in the Boston Globe and Forbes in 2000 noted that those injuries make it difficult for him to use a keyboard. According to Forbes: "McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. 'She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious,' McCain admits." Still, McCain admits that he just isn't much of a technology user. Two years ago, McCain told CNN, "I read my e-mails, but I don't write any. I'm a Neanderthal--I don't even type. I do have rudimentary capabilities to call up some websites, like the New York Times online, that sort of stuff. No laptop. No PalmPilot. I prefer my schedule on notecards, which I keep in my jacket pocket." The Obama campaign ad says McCain "can't send an e-mail." That seems to paint McCain as a bit more out of touch than he is. He does own a Blackberry and he says he regularly gets and reads e-mails. McCain admits he doesn't send them, but never said he can't. And it sounds like McCain is at least starting to dabble on the Web. But as of July, not without help. Unless McCain has boned up in the past couple months, if he is reading this post, we assume someone else navigated to the page and showed it to him. One can argue how relevant this is to McCain's ability to lead the country, but even according to McCain, he is not very computer savvy. We rule the claim in the ad Mostly True. Update: On Sept. 15, 2008, we updated this story with information about how injuries sustained by McCain as a POW make it difficult for him to use a keyboard. However, given McCain's acknowledgment that he is learning to get online, this additional information did not change our ruling.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-09-12T00:00:00	2008-09-12	['None']
-faly-00051	Claim: More than 1.01 crore additional workers enrolled with EPFO and more than 1.3 crore workers registered with ESIC post-demonetization	https://factly.in/fact-checking-the-governments-claims-over-formalization-of-economy/	Fact: 1.01 crore employees were enrolled into EPFO under the enrolment campaign, 2017 between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2017. A new set of 1.03 crore people who came under the ambit of the ESIC between the years 2015-16 and 2016-17. Hence the claim is TRUE.	None	None	None	None	Fact Checking the Government’s Claims over formalization of Economy	None	None	['None']
-pomt-06130	"Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.? Not one person has ever come forward from his past."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/26/chain-email/obamas-former-girlfriends-sought-conspiracy-theori/	The conspiracy theorists out there want to know where President Barack Obama’s former girlfriends are. A chain e-mail circulating in New Jersey raises that question and others about the allegedly murky past of the man sitting in the Oval Office. Americans know "every little tidbit about every other president," but Obama’s past remains a mystery, according to the e-mail. "Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.?" the e-mail states. "Not one person has ever come forward from his past." It’s amazing this e-mail was even sent over the Internet, because PolitiFact New Jersey found that it only takes a few Google searches to realize how ridiculous the claim is. In books and various other media accounts, friends and former classmates have provided memories of the future president, from body surfing in California and cooking in a New York City apartment to running the Harvard Law Review. Our PolitiFact colleagues gave a Pants on Fire to a similar claim from Donald Trump, who said Obama’s former classmates "never saw him" and "don’t know who he is." In that ruling, PolitiFact outlined different news articles with people remembering Obama. So, let’s review some of what PolitiFact New Jersey found: Obama began his higher education in 1979 at Occidental College, a small liberal arts college in Los Angeles. In a video interview with The Gazette in Colorado, Barbara Thummalapally recalled how she and her husband became friends with Obama at Occidental. After partying until about 4 a.m. one weekend, Thummalapally said, "Barack says, ‘Oh, I got to go to my room, and they’re like, ‘Why are you leaving now?’ He said, ‘Well, I’ve got a paper to write.’" One of Obama’s freshman roommates at Occidental, Paul Carpenter, also "recalled Obama as ‘a good bodysurfer’ who had ‘a funky red car, a Fiat’ and who also played intramurals — flag football, tennis and water polo," according to a May 2008 Associated Press story. In 1981, Obama transferred to Columbia University and shared an apartment with Phil Boerner. In a 2009 column in Columbia College Today, Boerner wrote about living with Obama and spending time with him in New York City. Regarding their apartment’s irregular heat, Boerner wrote: "When the heat wasn’t on, we sometimes sat with sleeping bags or blankets wrapped around ourselves and read our school books. We also didn’t have regular hot water and sometimes used the Columbia gym for showers." Sohale Siddiqi, who also shared an apartment with Obama during his time in the city, recalled how women thought Obama was a "hunk," according to that Associated Press story. "You know how it is. You go to a bar and you try hitting on the girls," Siddiqi told the Associated Press. "He had a lot more success. I wouldn't outcompete him in picking up girls, that's for sure." More recollections can be found from Obama’s years at Harvard Law School between 1988 and 1991, where he would meet several individuals who later joined his transition team. Harvard classmate Cassandra Butts, who served as the team’s general counsel, spoke of Obama’s Harvard experience in a 2008 interview on the PBS show Frontline: "He was very mature, and he was very directed. He knew what he wanted to do: get his law degree and learn as much as he possibly could and take that experience back to Chicago and work in the same communities that he had worked as an organizer." Our ruling A chain e-mail making the rounds in New Jersey claims "no one ever came forward from Obama’s past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend." As various news accounts indicate, this claim is bogus. Friends and former classmates have participated in numerous interviews, telling tales of Obama’s years leading up to his run for the White House. That’s why this chain e-mail deserves just three words: Pants on Fire! To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2011-12-26T07:30:00	2011-12-14	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-02333	The melody known as 'Taps' was found in the pocket of a dying boy on a Civil War battlefield.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tapping-the-admirable/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	The Origins of ‘Taps’	28 October 2008	None	['None']
-vogo-00306	Statement: A San Diego restaurant can’t add a pool table “without going through some additional regulations because that pool table was deemed a negative element in the 1950s or ’60s,” City Council President Tony Young said in a Q&A the Union-Tribune published Nov. 27.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-a-city-councilmans-billiards-scratch/	Analysis: The Union-Tribune published a Q&A with three City Council members Sunday that emphasized their push to improve San Diego’s economy. They cited a bipartisan eagerness to cut red tape, improve the business climate and create jobs.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: A City Councilman's Billiards Scratch	November 30, 2011	None	['San_Diego', 'U-T_San_Diego']
-pomt-00523	"Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-tweets-us-gun-homicide-rate-much-high/	Ever since nine people were killed by a gunman at a historic African-American church in Charleston, S.C., President Barack Obama has taken to various forums to discuss the issue of gun violence in the United States. In a tweet sent from his @POTUS account on June 20, 2015 -- three days after the killings -- Obama said, "Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel." The tweet clearly struck a nerve; within the first three days, Obama’s message was retweeted almost 40,000 times and favorited almost 30,000 times. The data appear to come from a credible source, a study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The Guardian, a British newspaper, used raw data from that U.N. report to create a streamlined, country-by-country table showing selected measurements. One of the metrics included in that table was homicide rate by firearm per 100,000 population. Here are the rates for the four countries Obama cited, according to the Guardian: United States: 2.97 per 100,000 Japan: 0.01 per 100,000 France: 0.06 per 100,000 Israel: 0.09 per 100,000 Using this data, the United States has a rate 297 times higher than Japan, 49.5 times higher than France and 33 times higher than Israel -- precisely as Obama said. We will note a few caveats, all of them common for this kind of claim. The data is a bit old. It's from 2007 (for the United States, France and Israel) and 2008 (for Japan). The data is not ideally standardized. The data is culled from various international sources that have different standards and degrees of quality control. There is at least one different data set. A website produced by the University of Sydney in Australia, gunpolicy.org, has data from the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that is slightly different. The ratio was 3.4 times higher than Israel in 2011, and almost 18 times higher for France in 2010. (Japan can't be easily calculated because its rate approaches zero.) Still, the broad patterns held. David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, urged caution in making international comparisons, but he added that Obama seems to use the available data responsibly. "The exact numbers change every year and can change a fair amount since the number of homicides from these other countries are so low each year," he said. Still, he added, "the story the data tell is largely the same whichever source or year is used." Our ruling Obama tweeted, "Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel." It’s always worth being cautious of international comparisons of crime statistics, given technical limitations with the data. But even if some data sources produce different numbers than the ones Obama cited, the general pattern is the same -- the United States has firearm homicide rates many times higher than those in the three countries mentioned. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2015-06-22T17:07:06	2015-06-20	['Japan', 'France', 'Israel']
-snes-02891	Did Trump Golf Six Times After Complaining About Obama's Golfing Habits?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-obama-golf/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Trump Golf Six Times After Complaining About Obama’s Golfing Habits?	23 February 2017	None	['None']
-vees-00454		http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-duterte-flip-flops-familys-wealth	None	None	None	None	Duterte,fact-check,Fact check,Trillanes,SALN,Wealth	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte flip-flops on family’s wealth	February 18, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05539	"99.97 percent of the kids live in poverty that attend Cleveland public schools."	/ohio/statements/2012/apr/10/sandra-williams/rep-sandra-williams-says-9997-percent-cleveland-pu/	It is an unfortunate but well known fact that the city of Cleveland owns one of the highest poverty rates for any big city in the United States. At 34 percent, Cleveland is the third poorest for cities with a population of at least 200,000 people, behind Detroit and San Bernardino, Calif., according to 2010 U.S. Census data. And about 53 percent of all people under 18 in Cleveland live in poverty. Still, a recent comment by state Rep. Sandra Williams, a Cleveland Democrat who represents one of the poorest areas of the city, was startling. During a news conference at the Statehouse on March 21 to express support for legislation that would revamp how the Cleveland Metropolitan School District operates, Williams rattled off a list of disturbing traits for students studying in schools with subpar academic performance. She also noted poverty as a factor. "So, the fact is, 31,000 kids in failing schools, 99.97 percent of the kids live in poverty that attend Cleveland public schools," Williams said. "The district is majority African-American. And the 11th House district that includes most of the Cleveland public school system is the poorest district in the state of Ohio." PolitiFact Ohio thought that the claim that essentially every student who attends a Cleveland public school lives in poverty was worth a check. The 31,000 figure is for students attending Cleveland schools that individually have been rated as academic watch or academic emergency buildings. But the district has roughly 42,000 students and if Williams’ figure is correct, all but about 13 of those students are poor. It seems to be a stretch, even for a city and school district racked with poverty. Williams told Politifact Ohio that she got the figure from notes provided by Cleveland schools CEO Eric Gordon in preparation for the news conference. The school district said it doesn’t recall giving Williams such an exact percentage but that it believes the state lawmaker is close. The Ohio Department of Education, which also keeps similar statistics for every district in the state, says its numbers are similar to Williams’ but also not exact. So what gives? Because it has so many students who for so long have come from impoverished families, the district in 1999 began applying a federal provision allowing it to essentially claim its entire student population as eligible for free and reduced meals. The federal government agreed that it would be more cost efficient by saving on mountainous paperwork for the district to be able to claim 100 percent poverty. The criteria for that provision requires the district to have at least 80 percent of its students qualifying for the free meals. To qualify for the free meals, students had to come from poor families based upon government income guidelines. The district continues to use the designation which is renewable every four years. "When you have such a high degree of poverty, (you) are eligible to feed all the students under the free and reduced lunch program rather than to charge fees or reduced fees for the few," explained school district spokeswoman Roseann Canfora. That would mean that the true number of students in poverty attending Cleveland schools is somewhere between 80 and 100 percent. Canfora said the district could not provide an exact percentage. The state Education Department does its own calculations based on information it receives from the school district, said spokesman Patrick Gallaway. He said the state considered 89 percent of Cleveland students eligible for free and reduced meals for the 2010-11 school year, the most recent data available. But Gallaway said the state also does a separate poverty calculation it calls the economically disadvantaged flag. By that calculation, Gallaway said the state considers 95 percent of Cleveland schools students living in poverty. The economically disadvantaged number includes students who might not have filed an application for free and reduced meals but are known to come from households that would qualify, perhaps because there is an application on file for a sibling. "The economically disadvantaged flag is more broad and could capture students who may not be included in the free and reduced totals," Gallaway said. "That is the recommended figure if someone is looking to show the percentage of economically disadvantaged in a district." So where does that leave us with Williams’ statement? The district’s calculation used for determining eligibility for free and reduced-price meals puts the poverty figure somewhere between 80 and 100 percent and guesses the actual number could be in the high 90-percent range. A separate calculation by the state puts the figure at 95 percent. Williams is partially accurate. She clearly is correct that poverty is a significant problem in the Cleveland school district. But based on the figures supplied by the school district and the state, it appears Williams’ figure is overstated. PolitiFact Ohio is not in the business of playing Gotcha! But the difference between Williams’ precise figure and the percentages the state came up with mean that there could be thousands fewer students living in poverty. That’s an important detail. Her figure of 99.97 percent would mean all but roughly 13 students in the district live in poverty. If the state’s 95 percent figure is correct, that would mean about 2,100 students are not living in poverty. If the poverty percentage is at 89 percent (the figure the state used for students eligible for free and reduced meals for the 2010-11 school year), it would mean 4,600 students are not living in poverty. On the Truth-O-Meter, Williams’ claim rates Half True.	None	Sandra Williams	None	None	None	2012-04-10T06:00:00	2012-03-21	['Cleveland']
-tron-01128	Help find Erin from Cedar Rapids	https://www.truthorfiction.com/erin/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Help find Erin from Cedar Rapids	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00368	Essential Oils Are Harmful to Cats and Small Animals	https://www.truthorfiction.com/essential-oils-harmful-cats-small-animals/	None	animals	None	None	['animals', 'medical', 'natural health', 'social media']	Essential Oils Are Harmful to Cats and Small Animals	 Jan 10, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-01243	"We have a lot of programs for small businesses, but it can be time consuming for employers to find the best resources for them. ... As governor, I will launch “NC Business Made Easier."	https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/promises/coop-o-meter/promise/1334/reform-state-services-small-business-owners/	None	coop-o-meter	Roy Cooper	None	None	Reform state services for small business owners	2017-01-05T19:34:11	None	['None']
-pose-01244	"I will shift a greater percentage of incentive dollars to small businesses with 200 or fewer employees."	https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/promises/coop-o-meter/promise/1335/more-state-incentives-small-businesses/	None	coop-o-meter	Roy Cooper	None	None	More state incentives for small businesses	2017-01-05T19:36:01	None	['None']
-snes-02215	The Golden State Warriors basketball team announced on 13 June 2017 that they had unanimously voted to skip a visit to the White House after winning the NBA Championship.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warriors-white-house-visit/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	The Golden State Warriors Voted Not to Visit the White House?	13 June 2017	None	['White_House', 'Golden_State_Warriors', 'NBA_Finals']
-tron-01676	There Will Be No Cost of Living Increase in 2010 for those receiving Social Security	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ssa-cola/	None	government	None	None	None	There Will Be No Cost of Living Increase in 2010 for those receiving Social Security	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00224	Alison Watkins, the group managing director of Coca-Cola Amatil, has argued against a sugar tax, emphasising that despite a fall in the consumption of added sugars since 1995, obesity rates have continued to rise.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-03/fact-check-sugar-consumption-and-obesity/9999182	Ms Watkins's claim is spin. Yes, the consumption of added sugar, particularly of carbonated drinks, has fallen since the mid-1990s. Meanwhile, obesity rates have indeed continued to rise. But this is not the full story. In attempting to put the case against a sugar tax, Ms Watkins paints an incomplete picture of the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity, ignoring the weight of scientific evidence. Authoritative research shows a consistent association between a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity. Indeed, research shows that adolescent boys, who are the biggest consumers of sugar-sweetened drinks, also have the fastest rates of weight gain. Ms Watkins refers to the fact that just 2 per cent of the average Australian's kilojoule intake comes from soft drinks. But "soft drinks" refers only to carbonated drinks, not the full gamut of available sugar-sweetened beverages, including sports drinks, iced teas and fruit juices. This was because overall averages could mask increased consumption of sugary drinks among a particular group, which could be underpinning a rise in obesity. In her article, Ms Watkins also refers to an Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis showing a relative decrease in the consumption of added sugars in people's diets between 1995 and 2011-12, but she does not mention significant caveats the ABS attached to its analysis. Also, she does not mention that Australia's consumption of sugary drinks per capita exceeds the World Health Organisation's recommended energy intake from sugars.	['sugar', 'adolescent-health', 'diet-and-nutrition', 'health-policy', 'australia']	None	None	['sugar', 'adolescent-health', 'diet-and-nutrition', 'health-policy', 'australia']	Fact check: Is sugar consumption down while obesity rates have risen?	Thu 6 Sep 2018, 7:07am	None	['None']
-pomt-07080	"Under Randi Shade," Austin has "had the highest cost of living of any large Texas city."	/texas/statements/2011/jun/26/better-austin-today-political-action-committee/political-group-says-austin-has-had-highest-cost-l/	A mailer that reached voters just before the June 18 Austin City Council runoff made pocketbook claims about the state capital, suggesting residents couldn’t afford another three-year term for incumbent Randi Shade, who was then defeated by challenger Kathie Tovo. Topping the leaflet’s charges: Under Shade, who joined the council in 2008, "we have had the highest cost of living of any large Texas city." Jeff Jack, chairman of the Better Austin Today political action committee, which sponsored the mailer, told us the No. 1 conclusion was based on information posted on the city-data.com website. He said Austin has lately had a cost-of-living index of 94.8 on a scale where the national average is 100. The Austin result, he said, exceeds the indexes on the site for Dallas, Houston, El Paso, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Arlington, Laredo and Plano. "We were just trying to find a site that gives reasonable comparisons," Jack said. And why is Shade at fault? Jack said there’s blame to go around, but Shade’s votes to build water treatment and biomass energy plants and have the city spend money on water and wastewater lines to the Formula One race track being built east of the airport helped keep costs high. So did her failure to support a city homestead exemption on property taxes, he said, or a remedy for reported under-valuation of commercial property for tax purposes. "The leadership of the council with regard to fiscal responsibility has to start somewhere," Jack said. We looked up his cited website. It showed Austin with a January 2011 cost-of-living index of 94.8, as Jack said. The next-highest big Texas cities were Dallas and Fort Worth, both at 94.4, followed by Arlington at 94.2. The least costly big Texas city was El Paso, at 83.2, according to the site. Noting the site does not say how the indexes were reached, we emailed the site’s administrators and didn’t hear back. Separately, we asked Austin’s city demographer, Ryan Robinson, for guidance on the local cost of living. He referred us to the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, whose vice president of research, Beverly Kerr, told us many communities participate in regular surveys gauging the cost of living around the country. Kerr was referring to a composite cost-of-living index managed by the Virginia-based Council for Community and Economic Research, a nonprofit. According to council information, the index "measures regional differences in the cost of consumer goods and services, excluding taxes and non-consumer expenditures, for professional and managerial households in the top income quintile" and is "based on more than 90,000 prices covering 60 different items for which prices are collected quarterly by chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and university applied economic centers in each participating urban area." Finally, it’s "based on six component categories – housing, utilities, grocery items, transportation, health care and miscellaneous goods and services." Kerr forwarded the council’s composite index results for Texas cities for the first three months of 2011 and its annual indexes for 2007 through 2010, a period covering Shade’s council years and the year before. On a scale where 100 is the national average, Austin’s index was 93.4 in this year’s first quarter. Two big Texas cities had higher indexes: Arlington (93.5) and Dallas (95.8). Similarly, in 2010, Austin had the third-highest cost of living index among the state’s big cities, 95.5. San Antonio’s index was 95.6, the one for Arlington was 99.3. In 2009, though, Austin ranked No. 1 among the state’s big cities, at 96.5. In 2008, it landed narrowly second with an index of 95.5 to San Antonio’s 95.6. And in 2007, Austin led the state’s big cities, at 94.5. We sought out Dean Frutiger, project manager for the council’s cost-of-living index, who noted that the most expensive city in Texas appears to be less costly than the national average. Austin’s costs, he said, are "still way below the national average. What’s the big deal?" Then again, Frutiger said, it may be significant to any Texas comparisons that the index doesn’t consider property taxes, which are a big deal in the state. So we made a run at seeing how property taxes in Austin stack up compared to those in the state’s other big cities. The Texas state comptroller’s office nudged us to its web page showing 2009 property tax rates for every government unit in every county. We combined the 2009 rates for Austin, the Austin school district and Travis County and compared that to similar combined rates in the big cities of Arlington, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Austin’s combined rate of $2.044 came out the lowest of the seven cities; next-lowest was San Antonio’s combined rate of $2.137 with the highest proving Fort Worth’s $2.441. Upshot: Austin’s cost of living has consistently run ahead of most of the state’s other big cities, but Austin wasn’t No. 1 in the latest three-month period or 2010. This statement includes another troubling facet. It’s illogical to pin the relative cost of living on a one-term council member. In this instance, it would make just as much sense to say Shade personally drove down the cost of living. We rate the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Better Austin Today Political Action Committee	None	None	None	2011-06-26T06:00:00	2011-06-18	['Texas', 'Austin,_Texas']
-pomt-11402	West Virginia "has the highest overdose death rate in the nation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/23/evan-jenkins/does-west-virginia-lead-nation-overdose-drug-death/	As he runs for a U.S. Senate seat, Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va., is seeking targeted funding for states grappling with opioid addiction. Jenkins co-sponsored the Federal Opioid Response Fairness Act with Democratic Rep. Annie Kuster of New Hampshire and several other lawmakers, including fellow West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley. The legislation, which awaits action in a House committee, would clarify that per capita overdose deaths should be a factor in distributing funding from the 21st Century Cures Act, a law passed in 2016 by overwhelming majorities in Congress and then signed into law by President Barack Obama. In a March 20, 2018, press release to promote the bill, Jenkins wrote, "The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration announced on Monday that West Virginia will be receiving $330,000 in additional funding, as our state has the highest overdose death rate in the nation." Is Jenkins correct that West Virginia has "the highest overdose death rate in the nation"? Yes, according to official statistics from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For the most recent full year for which data is available, 2016, the CDC reported that West Virginia had the highest death rate due to drug overdoses. Here’s a list of the top five states, which also include Kuster’s home state of New Hampshire. State Drug overdose death rate, per 100,000 residents West Virginia 52.0 Ohio 39.1 New Hampshire 39.0 Pennsylvania 37.9 Kentucky 33.5 The comparison isn’t close: West Virginia’s drug overdose death rate is a full one-third higher than the state with the second-highest rate, Ohio. On May 8, Jenkins will face West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in the Republican Senate primary. The winner will challenge the state’s Democratic senator, Joe Manchin. Our ruling Jenkins said that West Virginia "has the highest overdose death rate in the nation." That is accurate according to official federal data -- in fact, the comparison is not even close. We rate the statement True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Evan Jenkins	None	None	None	2018-03-23T09:00:00	2018-03-20	['None']
-snes-01450	Facebook has instituted a 'no swearing' campaign and threatened to lock the accounts of users who employ profanity.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-no-swearing-campaign/	None	Computers	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Has Facebook Launched a ‘No Swearing’ Campaign?	4 March 2014	None	['None']
-tron-02812	Barack Obama’s Social Security Number Actually Belonged to a Man Named Jean Paul Ludwig	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-ssn/	None	obama	None	None	None	Barack Obama’s Social Security Number Actually Belonged to a Man Named Jean Paul Ludwig	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00883	Today in Selma, Ala., "the poverty rate is roughly nine times that of whites."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/mar/10/henry-sanders/todays-poverty-rate-selma-ala-nine-times-higher-bl/	In its coverage of the 50th anniversary of the landmark civil rights clash in Selma, Ala., NBC’s Meet the Press talked to several people who live there about "what has changed and what hasn't," as host Chuck Todd put it. One of those interviewed was Henry Sanders, a state senator whose district includes Selma. Here’s what he said: "I was elected to the Senate in 1983. So I've been here more than 32 years. It's still two Selmas. The unemployment rate for African-Americans is roughly three times that of whites. But the poverty rate is roughly nine times that of whites. So there are two Selmas. I don't know of a black-owned business here on Main Street. All the blacks go to their churches and all the whites go to their churches, most of the children are in separate schools." It didn’t surprise us that there is a racial gap between rich and poor in Selma. But is the poverty rate really nine times as high for blacks as it is for whites? We turned to figures from the U.S. Census Bureau to find out. To cover our demographic bases, we looked at the poverty measures for not one but two jurisdictions -- the city of Selma, and the county to which it belongs, Dallas County. In the city of Selma, the Census Bureau counted 3,562 white residents and 15,908 black residents on average between 2009 and 2013. The poverty rate for the white population was 14.4 percent, compared to 48.4 for the black population. That’s a stunningly high percentage of people in poverty -- nearly half of all African Americans in the city are counted as impoverished. Still, Sanders exaggerated the degree of difference between black and white poverty rates in the city. The black rate is about 3.4 times the white rate, not nine times higher. Dallas County, meanwhile, had 12,413 white residents and 29,402 black residents. The poverty rates were 13.6 percent for whites and 44.9 percent for blacks. That makes the ratio almost identical to Selma itself -- 3.3 times higher for blacks. Even taking into account the Census Bureau’s stated margins of error -- roughly plus-or-minus 5 percentage points for Selma and plus-or-minus 3 percentage points for Dallas County -- Sanders' claim is off base for the poverty rate. He’s closer when comparing the unemployment rate -- unemployment is about 2.3 times higher for blacks in Selma and 2.5 times higher for blacks in Dallas County. That’s a little less than the "roughly three times" Sanders cited. Experts said that Sanders has an underlying point, despite the inflated numbers. "The transformational changes of the past few decades, including the election of black leaders, have not transformed the local economies of most small, rural, poor areas of the southern ‘Black Belt,’ "said Glen Browder, a former Democratic congressman from Alabama and emeritus political science professor at Jacksonville State University. "Whether that reflects racial or educational or economic factors or a combination of factors is debatable, but the reality is that economic development is a difficult assignment in such communities." William H. Stewart, a University of Alabama political scientist, said impoverished communities sometimes "look" worse than the statistics officially say they are. "The mostly poorer housing conditions endured by blacks reinforce the impression that a much greater disparity exists between whites and blacks than is shown from the objective statistics," Stewart said. Sanders did not respond to a voicemail and an email. Our ruling Sanders said that today in Selma, Ala., "the poverty rate is roughly nine times that of whites." There’s no question that a substantial economic gap exists between blacks and whites in Selma and Dallas County, even a half-century after "Bloody Sunday." But documented poverty rates are a little over three times higher for blacks -- not nine times, as Sanders said. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Henry Sanders	None	None	None	2015-03-10T10:46:25	2015-03-08	['Alabama']
-pomt-11965	"Black Americans still earn less than 73 percent of what white men make."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/04/andy-gronik/do-black-workers-earn-73-what-their-white-counterp/	Making the case for his election in a campaign email, gubernatorial hopeful Andy Gronik cited a racial pay gap as one reason Wisconsin needs new leadership. Before laying out his pledge to "fight for the rights of everyone in Wisconsin," Gronik highlighted a gap between the earnings of black and white workers. "When black Americans still earn less than 73 percent of what white men make in America, we have work to do," the Democratic businessman from Fox Point wrote on Aug. 27, 2017. "It's time to stand up and say that people of color deserve all of the opportunities and privileges that the rest of us have." In other words, Gronik says the "wage gap" is 27 percentage points between the two races. Let’s see if Gronik’s numbers add up. Cited gap doesn’t account for differences When asked for evidence to back up Gronik's claim, a Gronik spokesman pointed to a 2016 Pew Research Center report. But the candidate’s email misstates the comparison. The email compares "black Americans" with just white men, while the Pew report is saying black men have 73 percent the hourly earnings of white men. The Pew report uses 2015 data and is based on median hourly earnings for each race. It does not take into account differences between the education levels of white and black workers, their experience, occupation or other factors. (The unadjusted earnings data from Pew showed Asian men earn 117 percent what white men do and Hispanic men earn 69 percent what white men do.) "From a statistical standpoint you’d want to compare apples v. apples, and those comparisons with unadjusted data would be comparing apples to oranges really," said Mark Perry, a scholar at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics at the University of Michigan-Flint. "You’re not controlling for any of the factors that could explain differences in earnings." The left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank, examines these factors each year and put the black-white wage gap at 14.5 percent for 2016. The calculation controls for gender, race, education, experience and geographic division. Their data shows the gap has steadily widened in recent years. The wage gap was around 9 percent in the late 1970s and 10 percent in the 1980s, rising to a record 15.2 percent in 2015 before dropping slightly in 2016. The wage gap varies greatly between men and women. The institute’s detailed 2016 study tabbed the gap as 22 percent between white men and black men and 11.7 percent between white women and black women, when adjusted for education, experience, metro status and region. Differences in factors such as education and experience levels explained only about one-fourth of the black-white wage gap for men and one-third for women, the study said. The study struggled to identify a cause for the rest, saying the gaps are growing due to either discrimination "or racial differences in skills or worker characteristics that are unobserved or unmeasured in the data." Segments show larger, smaller gaps More detailed data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows the wage gap rises and falls between various educational and occupational groups. Examples from a 2016 comparison of median weekly earnings: · Among college graduates, black workers earned 78 percent of what their white counterparts earned. · Among those with less than a high school diploma, black workers earned 89 percent of what their white counterparts earned. · Black workers in management, professional and related occupations earned 80 percent of what white workers did. · Black workers in natural resources, construction and maintenance occupations earned 93 percent of what white workers did. · Black men earned 76 percent of what white men did overall. · Black women earned 84 percent of what white women did overall. Our rating Gronik said "black Americans still earn less than 73 percent of what white men make." His claim runs into problems on several levels. First, he garbled the statistic, comparing all black workers to only white men. He also referred to unadjusted earnings data, which does not account for differences between workers’ experience and backgrounds that explain some of the wage gap. He also used 2015 data, when 2016 data is available from various sources. But his central point — that there is an observable difference between what black workers and white workers make — is supported by the data. Experts vary in their methodologies and definition of a wage gap, and more nuanced calculations show it is notably smaller than the figure Gronik cited. But a gap does exist, both between all workers and between workers who are similarly situated. We rate Gronik’s claim Half True.	None	Andy Gronik	None	None	None	2017-10-04T05:00:00	2017-08-27	['United_States']
-pomt-03401	Bob Barr has changed his position on the Defense of Marriage Act over the years.	/georgia/statements/2013/jul/03/ed-lindsey/barr-has-not-always-been-faithful-doma/	On the final day before the Supreme Court went on summer break, the court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act -- a federal law that denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages -- was unconstitutional. The DOMA decision provided an opportunity for some of Georgia’s Republican congressional candidates to lob political grenades at each other. State Rep. Ed Lindsey of Buckhead, one of the four major announced candidates for Georgia’s 11th Congressional District seat, accused fellow Republican candidate Bob Barr of waffling in his position on DOMA over the years. The 11th Congressional District seat is currently held by Marietta Republican Phil Gingrey, who’s running for the U.S. Senate. "Bob must have been so busy working for the ACLU that he missed that protecting traditional marriage was on the ballot in Georgia in 2004," Lindsey, R-Atlanta, said in a campaign email last week. "... Given Bob’s gymnastic changes in his position on DOMA over the years, we do not know what his position was on traditional marriage in 2004, but I campaigned for it then and I will stay the course for my constituents now." Has Barr changed his position on DOMA over the years? PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether Lindsey’s claim had any merit, so we decided to investigate. The Supreme Court’s DOMA ruling came on a 5-4 vote. On the day of the ruling, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens made it clear that Georgia’s definition of marriage, as that between a man and woman, would stand. (In 2004, about 76 percent of Georgia voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.) On the same day as the court decision, Barr -- a former federal prosecutor and a former member of Georgia’s congressional delegation -- released his own statement about the DOMA ruling on his Facebook page: "I personally believe marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman and, if it were on the ballot in Georgia, I'd vote that way. However, I have come to believe that it's yet one more example of the federal government's delving into areas that throughout our history have been best left to the states. I trust the judgement of the people of Georgia more than that of Washington, D.C." We checked with Lindsey’s campaign spokesman, who said his candidate’s criticism of Barr was a reference to Barr’s Facebook statement. Lindsey’s statement also seems to play to the 11th District’s conservative base by making a pointed jab at Barr and reminding voters of Barr’s past consulting work with the liberal-leaning American Civil Liberties Union. (The group brought Barr on back in 2002 to consult on informational and data privacy issues.) Barr’s history with DOMA spans several decades. Barr -- who was the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential candidate -- actually introduced DOMA in the U.S. House of Representatives in May 1996. Barr, then a Republican, was still fresh in his congressional tenure, which stretched from 1995 to 2003. Then-President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law in September 1996. Years later, after leaving Washington and switching his party affiliation, Barr apologized for his role in DOMA’s passage. At the May 2008 Libertarian National Convention, Barr said to the audience: "Standing before you, looking you in the eye, the Defense of Marriage Act -- in so far as it provided the federal government a club to club down the rights of law-abiding American citizens -- has been abused, misused and should be repealed, and I will work to repeal that." In 2009, Barr called for DOMA to be repealed. In a Los Angeles Times editorial, Barr said, "I have concluded that DOMA is neither meeting the principles of federalism it was supposed to, nor is its impact limited to federal law." Two years later, in an interview posted on the national gay and lesbian news magazine website Advocate.com, Barr said DOMA had become "the tail wagging the dog" and that the eventual goal was to "get the government out of the marriage business." When he announced his congressional candidacy this time around, Barr told an Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter in March: "The federal government has become so big, so intrusive ... we really need to start pulling that back." Barr has not directly commented on the Supreme Court’s ruling to us or other media outlets. Through a spokesman, Barr said he stands by his Facebook post on the issue. "Some believe in a top-down approach from Washington on every issue that faces this country. The conservative approach, Bob’s approach, is to let the people of the states decide these issues for themselves," Barr’s spokesman told us in an email message. So does Lindsey’s claim live happily ever after? Congressional candidate Ed Lindsey said former congressman and DOMA author Bob Barr has changed his position on DOMA over the years. Barr guided DOMA to passage as a Republican in the mid-1990s. But then Barr became a Libertarian and apologized for his role in getting the bill passed. As a Libertarian, Barr has said DOMA has been used by the government to overstep its authority. Now, seeking office as a Republican, Barr says he has come to understand that this is a matter for states to handle. Barr has refused to directly comment on the Supreme Court’s decision last week striking down a part of DOMA. But his silence doesn’t dismiss his past. We rated Lindsey’s claim True.	None	Edward Lindsey	None	None	None	2013-07-03T00:00:00	2013-06-26	['Bob_Barr']
-tron-02852	Women in Afghanistan, a petition to help them	https://www.truthorfiction.com/afghaniwomen/	None	pleas	None	None	None	Women in Afghanistan, a petition to help them	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Afghanistan']
-pomt-13470	Says crime is ‘rising’ in Manchester and has gone up 19 percent under Mayor Ted Gatsas.	/new-hampshire/statements/2016/sep/12/chris-sununu/republican-candidate-governor-chis-sununu-says-cri/	In recent weeks, crime rates and drug problems in Manchester, the state’s largest city, have come to the fore in New Hampshire’s race for governor. That’s no surprise, as one of the Republican candidates is Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas. On the campaign trail, Gatsas often talks about making Manchester a safer city and fighting the ongoing heroin crisis. Executive Councilor and fellow Republican Chris Sununu targeted Gatsas’ record on crime. "Ted Gatsas has let down Manchester: rising crime, higher taxes, the heroin crisis," Sununu said in an ad titled "Fresh Leadership." As Sununu spoke, a statistic flashed on screen: "Manchester’s crime rate has increased by 19 percent." We decided to see if crime in the Queen City has increased that much under Gatsas’ tenure. Sununu’s staff cited a WMUR article as evidence of a rising crime rate. Data from the Manchester Police Department showed that from 2008 to 2015, "Part 1" crimes, the most serious crimes, rose by 19 percent. Part 1 crimes include violent crimes such as homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, as well as property crimes such as burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle theft and arson. In his ad, Sununu lays the blame at Gatsas’ feet. It’s important to note that Gatsas took the mayor’s office in 2010, after the crime trend cited by Sununu started. To see the bigger picture, we analyzed the FBI’s Uniform Crime Statistics for Manchester in five year increments from 2000 to 2015. The data shows an overall 17 percent increase in crime rates in Manchester, however, the biggest spike occurred from 2005 to 2010, before Gatsas took office. After Gatsas became mayor, crime went up about 9 percent, far less than Sununu’s statistic. Looking at year-over-year statistics while Gatsas has been mayor shows crime rising and falling in alternate years, rather than increasing steadily throughout. Crime rose the most dramatically in 2010 and 2012, when it shot up by 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively. Years 2011 saw a decrease of 8 percent while 2013 saw a decrease of 6 percent. Manchester police Chief Nick Willard also challenged Sununu’s claim and said crime has actually been going down in Manchester this year. Statistics released by the department show a 22 percent drop in property crimes between 2015 and 2016, which has driven the overall crime rate down 27 percent so far this year (the rates of violent crime have stayed on par with last year). Of course, the year isn’t over, so that number is subject to change. Manchester police attribute this drop to a new computer model they’ve implemented that allows them to predict where a crime is likely to occur. Using a crime-mapping program, the computer model analyzes where crimes have occurred in the past to predict where they might occur again. Willard said that program combined with more community policing and beefed up patrols has so far helped drop the city’s crime rate to drop this year. It’s important to note that economic factors and demographics have a greater influence over crime rates than a city’s elected leader. A chief executive can have some influence over crime rates through police funding, and Gatsas has been a law enforcement backer. Our ruling Chris Sununu says crime is ‘rising’ in Manchester and has gone up 19 percent under Mayor Ted Gatsas. Sununu didn’t specify a time range for his claim about crime in the state’s largest city. But looking at recent crime stats from the Manchester Police Department shows crime did increase by 19 percent from 2008 to 2015. However, Gatsas wasn’t in office that whole time and more recent data shows crime in the Queen City to be dropping or holding steady. It’s also dubious to link a crime rate, for good or ill, to any specific administration. On balance, we rate it Half True.	None	Chris Sununu	None	None	None	2016-09-12T18:45:27	2016-09-07	['Manchester']
-goop-00528	Caitlyn Jenner Addicted To Facelifts?	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-facelift-plastic-surgery/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Caitlyn Jenner Addicted To Facelifts?	11:03 am, August 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-15255	"Every year the First Coast Guard District saves 350 lives in the Northeast."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/aug/02/Coast-Guard/coast-guard-needs-work-its-math/	A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter from Cape Cod had plucked three Canadian fishermen from a raft after their vessel sank more than 150 miles off the coast. The resulting news release prepared by a Coast Guard public-affairs unit did not make an outright declaration that the Coasties had saved the men’s lives. But the news release did conclude with this: "Every year the First Coast Guard District saves 350 lives in the Northeast." We know the Coast Guard does some amazing things, but 350 lives, year in and year out? We reached out to the public-affairs staff of the Boston-headquartered First Coast Guard District, whose jurisdiction ranges from the waters of northern New Jersey to Canada. Right away, Petty Officer Ross Ruddell told us that the 350 number is an average. An average of what, we asked. After a day of research, Ruddell got back to us with the numbers: 385 for 2014, 338 for 2013 and 427 for 2012. So based on those numbers, Ruddell pointed out, the average was actually 383 -- not 350. Which brings us to a second question: What does the Coast Guard mean by a life saved? The organization, with a history dating to the U.S. Life-Saving Service in 1878, distinguishes between cases where people in peril were "saved" and other cases where individuals, even people with injuries, were "assisted." So the Coast Guard does not tally a life saved every time it tows in a vessel with mechanical trouble. Fair enough. We’ll accept the way they tally a life saved. And we have not tried to audit that number. What’s odd is the way the Coast Guard keeps using the number 350 in its news releases. In a 2012 news release, a public-affairs officer declared that the Coast Guard saves "more than 350 lives" in the Northeast "per year." In a news release in 2013, the agency claimed that it saves 350 lives "each year." In 2014, it sent out a release saying, "In an average year, the Coast Guard assists 3,300 lives and saves 350 lives across the Northeast." And of course this summer, a news release concerning the fishing boat that sank 150 miles out at sea concluded: "Every year the First Coast Guard District saves 350 lives in the Northeast." Our Ruling That’s not strictly correct. It was 385 lives saved in 2014, 338 lives saved in 2013 and 427 lives saved in 2012. In its news release, the Coast Guard failed to say that 350 was an average, as they did in 2014. And the average for the past three years is 383 not 350. So the news release understates the value of the Coast Guard’s work. The service is strong on the sea, weak in math. But because in two of the last three years the service saved more than 350 lives, we rate this claim Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Coast Guard	None	None	None	2015-08-02T00:00:00	2015-07-20	['None']
-goop-02139	Ariel Winter “Hoping For Christmas Proposal” From Levi Meaden, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/ariel-winter-christmas-proposal-levi-meaden-engaged/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Ariel Winter NOT “Hoping For Christmas Proposal” From Levi Meaden, Despite Report	10:46 am, November 27, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00002	"Democrats and their allies (...) are manufacturing voters."	/punditfact/statements/2018/nov/13/ken-blackwell/no-evidence-democrats-and-their-allies-manufacturi/	A recount is underway in Florida, where three statewide races remain undecided a week after Election Day. Despite no final vote tally in the gubernatorial U.S. Senate and agriculture commissioner contests, some conservative pundits have accused their political opponents of fraud. "The forces on the left, the Democrats and their allies, are trying to push this to what I call within the margin of litigation," Ken Blackwell, a former Republican Ohio secretary of state, said during an appearance on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. "They are manufacturing voters. And they're doing it with an architect, Superintendent (Brenda) Snipes, who has a record of gross incompetence and fraud." We previously looked at the Broward election supervisor's track record. Here, we found no evidence to support the claim Democrats and their allies and manufacturing voters. No sign of manufactured voters Florida law stipulates that races separated by razor-thin margins trigger mandatory recounts. By law, a recount was implemented in the too-close-to-call governor’s race between Republican Ron DeSantis and Democrat Andrew Gillum, where DeSantis’ winning margin was less than 0.5 percent. A recount is underway in the Senate race between outgoing Republican Gov. Rick Scott and Democratic incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson, who trails Scott by less than 0.25 percent. The contest for state agriculture commissioner is also under recount. Blackwell accused Democrats and their allies of fraud during an appearance on Fox News on Nov. 9, three days after polls closed, but while votes were still being counted. It’s unclear exactly what Blackwell meant with the term "manufacturing voters," and he did not respond to our request for comment. According to David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, a non-profit focused on election integrity, the claim is baseless. "There’s zero evidence to support these allegations," Becker said. "It’s unfortunate that some extreme partisans will work so hard to delegitimize our elections process just to win an election." Eugene Pettis, an attorney representing Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes in election-related litigation, dismissed Blackwell’s comment as "political noise." "Unfortunately it’s not advancing the integrity of our electoral system," Pettis said. "If you have evidence of fraud put it on the table and notify authorities. If not stop the reckless rhetoric." The Florida Department of State did not respond to our request for comment but it has previously said it has found no evidence of voter fraud or criminal activity. Same goes for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. "Our staff has seen no evidence of criminal activity at this time," Department of State spokeswoman Sarah Revell told PolitiFact. Our ruling Blackwell said, "Democrats and their allies (...) are manufacturing voters." We found no evidence, nor has the state, to support this claim. Blackwell provided no evidence to support his statement. We rate this Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ken Blackwell	None	None	None	2018-11-13T14:24:19	2018-11-09	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-tron-01583	Detroit Cuts Off Water to 30,000, Builds 1,000-Foot Water Slide	https://www.truthorfiction.com/detroit-cuts-off-water-to-30000-builds-1000-foot-water-slide/	None	government	None	None	['Trending Rumors']	Detroit Cuts Off Water to 30,000, Builds 1,000-Foot Water Slide	Apr 10, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03260	Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chelsea-clinton-mezvinsky/	None	politics	None	None	None	Chelsea Clinton’s Father-In-Law is Edward Mezvinsky	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Chelsea_Clinton']
-pomt-06975	Says for the first time in the history of the United States, the government cut taxes during wartime	/new-jersey/statements/2011/jul/14/cory-booker/newark-mayor-cory-booker-says-first-time-history-u/	Newark Mayor Cory Booker said in a recent radio interview that one of the nation’s problems is "sedentary agitation": Americans get upset, but don’t do anything it. The Democrat, further describing his point, told NPR host Michel Martin, "I worry that we've gotten to the point in our history, and we see this with us involved in two wars, but yet for the first time ever we've gotten tax breaks during wartime. It's never happened in the history of our nation. But we seem to be expecting more but willing to sacrifice less." Have taxes ever been cut during wartime? PolitiFact New Jersey found taxes have generally increased during war, but there are exceptions -- most notably in the last decade. The mayor’s spokeswoman said Booker was "referring to the tax cuts that were enacted during the tenure of President [George W.] Bush," specifically reductions in the federal income tax rate. In summer 2001, Bush, a Republican, lowered federal income tax rates and enacted other tax breaks. In 2003, amid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush signed legislation that sped up the timeline for when those cuts took effect. So, taxes have been cut during wartime recently, but what about historically? The national PolitiFact site researched a similar issue two years ago. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said "if you want to talk firsts for Bush, this was the first time in American history that a president took us into a war and cut taxes." Let’s review that article. PolitiFact started with the Civil War and found that then, as well as during World Wars I and II, taxes increased. Congress hasn’t officially declared war since World War II, but PolitiFact also looked at taxes during the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and Iraq. During those wars, taxes were cut only once: President John F. Kennedy lowered the income tax rate in a bill that took effect in 1964. But experts dismissed the Kennedy tax cut because it was passed before the conflict in Vietnam seriously escalated -- and when the war intensified, taxes increased. PolitiFact also noted that in 2009 President Barack Obama signed the economic stimulus package, a bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks. But Krugman said Bush was the first president that "took us into war" and cut taxes, whereas Obama inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Krugman’s statement was rated Mostly True. We need to note two differences between what Krugman said and Booker’s statement. First, Krugman made his statement in 2009, before the Bush tax cuts were extended under Obama. And second, Booker did not make the distinction, as Krugman did, that Bush was the first president to take us into war and cut taxes. Several experts we spoke with argued that in extending the Bush tax cuts, Obama maintained the status quo. "If a tax rate is scheduled to go up and you don’t allow it to rise, is that a tax cut or the avoidance of a tax increase? I consider it the extension of current law," said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group. As for the stimulus plan, some experts argued that the tax breaks included in the package differ from the Bush tax cuts because of how they worked or because they intended to jumpstart a weak economy. But, Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, said they’re still tax cuts "I’m of the opinion that if it is in the tax system, and if it raises or lowers your taxes, it is either a tax cut or a tax increase," he said. But the measures enacted by Obama came during the same wartime -- the "war on terrorism" -- when Bush first reduced taxes. Let’s recap. Booker claimed that "for the first time ever we've gotten tax breaks during wartime." The national PolitiFact website rated a claim that Bush was the first president to lead us into war and cut taxes Mostly True. Booker’s spokeswoman told us the mayor was referring to the Bush tax cuts. Though Booker didn’t make the same distinction Krugman did regarding Bush, we find his overall point sound. Taxes technically were cut in 1964. But as the war in Vietnam escalated, taxes increased. Since the start of the "war of terrorism," taxes have only gone down -- first under Bush, then under Obama. We rate Booker’s statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. CORRECTION: This item has been updated to reflect that the economic stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama included hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, not hundreds of millions.	None	Cory Booker	None	None	None	2011-07-14T05:15:00	2011-07-06	['United_States']
-tron-01145	Rumors among survivors of hurricane Katrina	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hurricane-rumors/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Rumors among survivors of hurricane Katrina	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-12642	Obamacare "is in a death spiral."	/punditfact/statements/2017/mar/26/hugh-hewitt/obamacare-death-spiral/	Republican leaders say they will table health care talks following the defeat of the House GOP to replace Obamacare. As House Speaker Paul Ryan put it, "Obamacare is the law of the land." But some conservatives say that President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation can’t last much longer, regardless of whether Congress finds a legislative compromise. "It is in a death spiral," conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt said March 26 on Meet the Press. "The New York Times yesterday pointed out that — the president of Aetna — that you will lose coverage in many places in America for everyone, and that to me is a death spiral for those people." The idea that Obamacare is in a "death spiral" — a specific term used in the health insurance industry — is a claim that we’ve heard before. Experts say Hewitt is incorrect. We reached out to Hewitt through his radio program but did not hear back. Still no ‘death spiral’ "Death spiral" is a health industry term built around three components: Shrinking enrollment; Healthy people leaving the system; Rising premiums. Specifically, a death spiral occurs when shrinking enrollment leads to a deteriorating risk pool (or when healthy people leave the plan due to the cost). That leads to higher premiums for the people remaining in the insurance pools, which causes enrollment to shrink even further, continuing the cycle until the entire system fails. The latest government figures show enrollment in the Affordable Care Act is slightly down from last year. Through Jan. 31, 2017, some 12.2 million people were signed up for coverage through a federal or state marketplace, which is a decrease of 500,000, or 4 percent, from the same point last year. Experts noted that marketplace sign-ups were running in line with their 2016 pace as of the middle of January, which experts said might suggest the decline in sign-ups was somehow related to the Trump administration, not an impending death spiral. For example, the Trump administration decided to at least partially halt marketing and outreach encouraging people to sign up for health coverage. But experts say the enrollment decline isn’t an indication the health care law is in a death spiral. There is no direct connection, they said, showing that the declining enrollment is causing premiums to increase. Why not? Because federal government subsidies in the form of tax credits are largely shielding customers from feeling the premium increase. As we have reported, premiums are increasing. But that isn’t affecting the cost for most consumers, due to built-in subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The subsidies cap premium prices at a certain percentage of income for anyone below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (in 2016 that would be $47,520 for a single person). Among the people who have signed up so far for 2017, 81 percent will receive a subsidy. Data also shows no uptick in healthy people leaving the health insurance market. The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports the share of people signing up for health care in the low-risk demographic — ages 18-34 — remains about the same in 2017 as it was in 2016, at 26 percent of enrollees. "There is no data to indicate a drop in the number of younger enrolled, although the announced policy not to enforce the IRS penalty, if not reversed, could result in a decline over time," said John Rother, president and CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care. Hewitt referred to a New York Times article that quotes the president of Aetna saying that in many places people will lose health care insurance. We couldn’t find that article, but a simple remark on how premiums are rising and insurers are leaving the marketplace is not enough evidence to meet the actuarial definition of a death spiral. CBO, independent analysis: No death spiral Others have also concluded that the Affordable Care Act is not in a death spiral. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as part of its recent analysis of the GOP legislation, described the Affordable Care Act as stable. Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, similarly concluded in a recent analysis that the Affordable Care Act is not in a death spiral. Fiedler found that marketplace premium increases had little if any impact on health insurance sign-ups and that the impact on the individual market risk pool will more than likely be minor, despite the small decline in enrollment numbers. "It therefore remains likely that insurers’ individual market business will return to a roughly break-even or slightly profitable position in 2017, absent other policy changes," Fiedler wrote. Our ruling Hewitt said Obamacare is "in a death spiral." That’s a specific phrase that describes a process where health people leaving the insurance market causes insurance premiums to rise to the point that more healthy people leave the market. At some point, the system becomes unsustainable. Experts say there is no evidence that cycle has started with Obamacare, because federal subsidies are keeping people from feeling the brunt of premium increases. The CBO and other independent analyses have found the health care system to be stable. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Hugh Hewitt	None	None	None	2017-03-26T16:24:24	2017-03-26	['None']
-hoer-00480	'10,000 Signed Petition to Change American Flag to Rainbow Flag'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/rainbow-flag-petition-fake-news.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News: '10,000 Signed Petition to Change American Flag to Rainbow Flag'	July 2, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00073	The claim: Jenny Macklin says the Government has twisted priorities because it wants to cut the conditions for age pensioners while paying wealthy women $50,000 to have a baby.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-12/jenny-macklin-pension-claim-unfounded/5433926	The claim: Jenny Macklin says the Government has twisted priorities because it wants to cut the conditions for age pensioners while paying wealthy women $50,000 to have a baby.	['business-economics-and-finance', 'welfare', 'parenting', 'community-and-society', 'alp', 'aged-care', 'social-policy', 'money-and-monetary-policy', 'budget', 'australia']	None	None	['business-economics-and-finance', 'welfare', 'parenting', 'community-and-society', 'alp', 'aged-care', 'social-policy', 'money-and-monetary-policy', 'budget', 'australia']	Jenny Macklin's attack on Abbott's age pension, parental leave plans unfounded	Tue 13 May 2014, 3:28am	None	['None']
-tron-01591	Members of Congress don’t have to pay Social Security	https://www.truthorfiction.com/congressionalpensions/	None	government	None	None	None	Members of Congress don’t have to pay Social Security	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-thal-00061	Claim: Catholic primary schools are more socially diverse than other kinds of primary schools	http://www.thejournal.ie/catholic-primary-schools-diversity-divestment-facts-ireland-3252590-Mar2017/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: Are Catholic schools more socially diverse than other schools?	Mar 24th 2017, 10:22 AM	None	['None']
-pose-00818	"The governor also is proposing legislation requiring the active monitoring of high-risk sex offenders using tracking technology as part of the sex offender's sentence, and requiring all high-risk registered sex offenders who have served their entire prison sentence be actively monitored for three years upon release from prison."	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/perry-o-meter/promise/850/require-active-monitoring-of-high-risk-sex-offende/	None	perry-o-meter	Rick Perry	None	None	Require active monitoring of high-risk sex offenders for three years on release from prison	2012-11-23T16:18:50	None	['None']
-pomt-07262	Says that Tim Pawlenty eliminated health insurance for 33,000 to 35,000 people when he was governor of Minnesota.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/26/democratic-national-committee/tim-pawlenty-eliminated-health-insurance-33000-min/	An ad from the Democratic Party suggests Tim Pawlenty doesn’t have any good reason for running for president. The text of the ad asks, "Why is Tim Pawlenty running for president? Is it his track record as governor?" while really annoying oompa music plays in the background. The ad then shows what looks like local news coverage from 2009. "Gov. Pawlenty eliminated the program that provides health care to 33,000 low-income residents," says a narrator. "(The) governor has systematically been cutting programs to the core since he took office." Another person says, "All of a sudden we’re going to have 35,000 people without health insurance." The ad makes some other claims, too. It said that Pawlenty has flip-flopped on his position on cap and trade (accurate; we gave him a Full Flop for that) and that he’s said he doesn’t know why he’s running for president (inaccurate, according to FactCheck.org). Here, we wanted to focus on the claim that Pawlenty eliminated a health insurance program for approximately 33,000 low-income people in 2009. We asked the Democratic National Committee and the Tim Pawlenty campaign for responses on this, and didn’t hear back from either one. But journalists in Minnesota thoroughly covered the big political fight over a health care program that covered about 33,000 people back in 2009. We found that Pawlenty ultimately reduced the size of the health program and limited benefits, but care wasn’t entirely eliminated. The program was called General Assistance Medical Care, and it was a health plan for very low-income adults who were not eligible for the federal Medicaid program. (At that time, Medicaid was only open to people who were both low income and elderly, disabled, young or pregnant.) Minnesota needed to trim its budget in 2009, and Pawlenty proposed changing the program to save money. The changes would limit benefits and discourage emergency room visits by transferring some, but not all, of the beneficiaries to a program called MinnesotaCare, which required premiums. Advocates for the poor and hospital officials said the cuts would be devastating. Pawlenty used his line-item veto to eliminate funding for the old program in May 2009, but he continued to negotiate with the Democratic-controlled legislature for the rest of the year and into 2010. "We are open to considering health care reforms during the 2010 session, but they need to be financially responsible," Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said on Jan. 13, 2010. By February, though, Pawlenty vetoed General Assistance Medical Care again, which led to a public outcry and another round of negotiations with the Democratic-controlled legislature. In April, a compromise was reached to continue the program through May and then begin scaling it back, forcing beneficiaries to get care through hospitals or the hospitals’ approved clinics. The compromise reduced funding from an estimated $400 million to $132 million for the year, according to the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune. The compromise itself wasn’t without problems. Pawlenty’s administration had to negotiate with hospitals on limits for how many beneficiaries each hospital had to accept. As a footnote, the program changed yet again once Pawlenty left office. Pawlenty was succeeded by a Democrat, Mark Dayton, who campaigned on using the federal health care law of 2010 to expand the Medicaid program in Minnesota. Signing an executive order to do so was one of Dayton’s first acts as governor, which moved the General Assistance Medical Care program into Medicaid. The ad from the Democrats says that Pawlenty eliminated a health care program for 33,000 to 35,000 people. He did veto the program, but then he negotiated a change to lower costs by reducing benefits. So we rate the ad’s claim Half True.	None	Democratic National Committee	None	None	None	2011-05-26T11:51:26	2011-05-22	['Minnesota', 'Tim_Pawlenty']
-snes-04555	A 9-year-old killed his parents after they turned off wi-fi in their home.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nine-year-old-murders-parents-turn-off-wi-fi-punishment/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Nine-Year-Old Murders Parents After They Turn Off Wi-Fi for Punishment	24 June 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14691	"We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/	President Barack Obama defended American might in the face of attacks from critics who say the United States has become a weak player on the national stage. "I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker," Obama said in his last annual State of the Union address Jan. 12, 2016. "Let me tell you something: The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. Period. It’s not even close. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." We wondered if that last statement on military spending was accurate, so we decided to check it out. We found Obama’s claim is in the ballpark. One set of international military spending figures comes from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a think tank. The institute maintains an online database of military expenditures since 1988 for more than 170 countries. By their calculation, the United States spends more than the next seven countries combined. In 2014, the most recent year available, the United States led the world in military spending at $610 billion, marking 34 percent of the world total, SIPRI found. U.S. expenditures were nearly three times higher than China, the second-highest nation with an estimated $216 billion in military spending. Russia was in third place at $84.5 billion. But counting together military spending from the eight countries after the United States comes out to $646.4 billion, surpassing the United States’ $610. Omitting No. 9 on the list, Japan, the calculation comes out to about $601 billion. This graph, put together by the fiscal policy-focused Peter G. Peterson Foundation, shows the United States’ spending in stark contrast to the next seven highest spenders: Another data set matches Obama’s claim exactly. The United States does spend more than eight countries combined according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a London-based think tank that also tracks military spending. The United States spent $581 billion on the military in 2014, according to IISS, while the eight next-highest spenders combined spent about $531.9 billion. Calculating military expenditures for worldwide comparisons is inherently challenging, in part because there is no common definition of what constitutes military spending. Further, a country’s expenditures does not necessarily correlate perfectly with its military capabilities. While Obama has a point that U.S. defense spending is significantly larger than that of every other nation, spending has gone down under his presidency. Overall spending on national security includes the Pentagon budget, as well as spending by other agencies, like the Energy Department’s work on nuclear weapons. Spending increased in 2010 and 2011, but it has fallen every year for four years since then by a cumulative 15 percent. National security spending made up 20.1 percent of the federal budget in 2010, but in 2015 it was 15.9 percent. There are two main reasons for the spending drop. The first is the Obama administration’s decision to start removing U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The second has to do with sequestration, the automatic, across-the-board cuts originally designed to force bipartisan negotiations in Congress. Our ruling Obama said, "We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined." Obama’s statement is accurate by one measure, while another measure says the United States spends more than the next seven countries combined. So depending on the data set you use, he’s either right or close. So we rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2016-01-13T00:29:32	2016-01-12	['None']
-pomt-04241	"Secular Americans are the fastest-growing religious identification demographic in this country."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/18/freedom-religion-foundation/secular-americans-fastest-growing-demographic-athe/	In terms of religious identification, are "secular" people the fastest-growing segment of American society? That’s the argument made by the Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national group that includes atheists, agnostics and "skeptics." As we often say at PolitiFact, words matter. And as we’ll see, terms such as secular and non-religious are key in evaluating this claim. With an "action alert" sent Nov. 9, 2012, the Freedom From Religion Foundation asked its members to call on President Barack Obama not to utter "so help me God" when he takes the presidential oath for the second time. The alert included this assertion: "Secular Americans are the fastest-growing religious identification demographic in this country." Secular is defined as "not overtly or specifically religious" and as "pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious." But scholars differ on who should be classified as secular. With the January 2013 inauguration approaching, let’s see whether secular Americans, as the foundation flatly states, are the fastest-growing religious identification demographic. The foundation The Freedom From Religion Foundation describes itself as a nonprofit with more than 18,000 members that "works to educate the public on matters relating to non-theism and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state." Formed in 1978, the group has an "honorary" board that includes media commentator Ron Reagan, former "Saturday Night Live" cast member Julia Sweeney and Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker. The foundation is among groups that call for the elimination of "so help me God" in presidential inaugurations. "So help me God" is, in fact, not part of the presidential oath of office, and historian debate about whether George Washington used it. But the phrase has been added to the end of the oath by modern-day presidents, including by Obama during his first swearing-in in 2009. In a letter to Obama, the Freedom From Religion Foundation amplified its claim, using non-religious in place of secular in telling the president: "In 1990, 8 percent of Americans were non-religious. When you were elected in 2008, 15 percent of Americans identified as non-religious. Now that number is 20 percent." Annie Laurie Gaylor, the foundation’s co-president, told us the foundation’s claim is based on two studies -- one by Trinity College, a Hartford, Conn. school founded by Episcopalians and known for religious freedom; and another by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which conducts surveys and other social science research. We’ll review the studies and consult some other sources. The studies The Trinity College study was produced by the college’s Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture in March 2009. The study utilizes the term nones -- Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, or having no religious preference. Here’s some of the Trinity College data: 1990 2008 Est. # of People Percentage Est. # of People Percentage Catholic 46,004,000 26.2 57,199,000 25.1 Other Christian 105,221,000 60 116,203,000 50.9 Total Christians 151,225,000 86.2 173,402,000 76 Other religions 5,853,000 3.3 8,796,000 3.9 ‘Nones’ 14,331,000 8.2 34,169,000 15 Don’t Know/ Refused 4,031,000 2.3 11,815,000 5.2 Total 175,440,000 228,182,000 So, comparing 1990 to 2008, the percentages of Catholics and other Christians declined. The percentage of people identifying with a non-Christian religion rose, but the percentage of people categorized as nones rose even faster, nearly doubling. Barry Kosmin, one of the study’s co-authors, said the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim is "not controversial" if secular is taken to mean not identifying with a particular religion. Kosmin also estimated that the current nones figure is 15 to 17 percent, not the 20 percent that the foundation cited. The higher figure comes from the Pew study, released in October 2012, which utilizes the term unaffiliated. The study found that nearly 20 percent of Americans do not identify with any religion -- up from 15 percent five years earlier -- even though more than two-thirds of the 20 percent say they believe in God. Here’s some of the Pew data: Religious affiliation 2007 2012 Christian 78% 73% Other faith 4% 6% Unaffiliated 15.3% 19.6% Don’t know 2% 2% So, like the Trinity College study, Pew found a decline in the percentage of Americans identified as Christian, an increase in those with a non-Christian designation and a larger increase in the unaffiliated category. But there are some caveats from people involved in both studies. Kosmin noted his study is different from Pew’s in that Pew’s unaffiliated definition includes some people who are regular churchgoers. And Pew spokeswoman Jemila Woodson told us Pew does not state that any particular group is the fastest growing, partly because defining growth isn’t easy. A wave of immigrants from Brazil, for example, could cause a significant increase in the U.S. Catholic population, while another group could experience a significant decline due to religious conversion, Woodson said. Growth "at a higher rate than all other groups doesn’t necessarily mean that people are joining this particular faith at a faster rate than all others," she said. Other views Two experts, Robert Glenn Howard of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Patrick Carey of Marquette University in Milwaukee, told us the terminology used by Pew more accurately reflects where Americans are. Howard, a specialist in contemporary religious belief, said the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s statement is basically on target in the sense that "people are increasingly moving away from claiming a specific religious affiliation for themselves. "However, the majority of those are not ‘secular’ but instead see religion as important and describe themselves as either ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual,’" he said. Carey, chairman of Catholic theology at Marquette, said that from the Pew study and others he follows, unaffiliated Americans are the fastest-growing segment in terms of religious identification. But aside from atheists and agnostics, who make up a small portion of that group, it’s not correct to say that segment is secular or non-religious, he said. We'll also note a news story about the Pew study, in which the national religion writer for Associated Press observed: "Scholars have long debated whether people who say they no longer belong to a religious group should be considered secular. While the category as defined by Pew researchers includes atheists, it also encompasses majorities of people who say they believe in God, and a notable minority who pray daily or consider themselves ‘spiritual’ but not ‘religious.’ "Still, Pew found overall that most of the unaffiliated aren't actively seeking another religious home, indicating that their ties with organized religion are permanently broken." Our rating The Freedom From Religion Foundation said: "Secular Americans are the fastest growing religious identification demographic in this country." It also used the term non-religious in place of secular. The statement is partially accurate, in that surveys identify unaffiliated Americans as the fastest-growing group. But the statement leaves out important details, namely that many Americans not affiliated with a particular religion are still religious. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Freedom From Religion Foundation	None	None	None	2012-11-18T09:00:00	2012-11-09	['None']
-tron-02327	Veteran CNN Reporter Breaks Down On The Air After Being Touched by the Quality of American Soldiers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/savidge/	None	military	None	None	None	Veteran CNN Reporter Breaks Down On The Air After Being Touched by the Quality of American Soldiers	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00834	Photos of Lady Hand-Feeding Hummingbirds	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/hand-feeding-hummingbirds.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Photos of Lady Hand-Feeding Hummingbirds	November 2006	None	['None']
-pomt-13943	"Assault rifles already are banned."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/jun/20/ron-johnson/aftermath-orlando-gop-sen-ron-johnson-says-assault/	The day after a man with a semiautomatic rifle killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at a gay nightclub, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton renewed her call for a federal ban on assault weapons. On the same day, June 13, 2016, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson responded to an interviewer’s question about the Orlando incident by stating: "Assault rifles already are banned." So, are they prohibited in the United States, or not? It depends on what assault means. But Johnson, who is chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is off-target in suggesting there is a blanket ban on assault rifles. Johnson’s claim Johnson was interviewed by Charlie Sykes, a conservative talk show host on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee, who asked: "Should we be more concerned with the possible violation of Omar Mateen's Second Amendment rights, as opposed to the constitutional rights of the 50 people who are now dead?" Mateen, who was shot dead in the club by police after the rampage, had been armed with a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle and a 9mm handgun. (Orlando police officials initially said Mateen used an "AR-15-type assault rifle." Both an AR-15 and the Sig MCX can fire the same type of ammunition at roughly the same speeds, are aesthetically similar and equally lethal, according to the Washington Post. The manufacturer describes the Sig MCX as "the first true mission-adaptable weapon system.") Johnson answered Sykes’ question by saying: "That's that delicate balance, Charlie. And that's what we need to have an honest and legitimate conversation about, as opposed to leaping to conclusions. "To say things like we've got to ban assault rifles. Well, assault rifles already are banned. OK? So, we need to actually have an honest discussion about these issues and understand that this is very difficult, very complex." One thing to understand up front is the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons. Automatic weapons -- banned Automatic weapons -- sometimes known as fully automatic, or machine guns -- fire continuously when the trigger is held down. Two federal laws have essentially banned them in the United States. One law in 1935 all but banned automatic weapons like the Tommy gun. And another in 1986 prohibited fully automatic weapons, except for pre-existing weapons that were grandfathered in. Semiautomatic weapons -- not banned Semiautomatic weapons, like the rifle Mateen carried, reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed. They are not banned by federal law. From 1994 to 2004, there was a federal law that banned the sale of certain types of new semiautomatic weapons, including some types of AR-15 rifles. A limit on high-capacity magazines also was set. The law, which was adopted to last for 10 years, was not renewed by Congress when it expired. The takeaway Johnson takes the position that only automatic weapons qualify as assault weapons. It’s worth noting that in at least one other interview the same day — with conservative Green Bay radio talk show host Jerry Bader — he spelled that out, saying "an assault weapon is a fully automatic." His office made the same argument to us, citing technical military definitions. However, that’s not a generally accepted line of separation. The federal law that became defunct in 2004 was called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and at the time the Department of Justice defined some semiautomatic guns as assault weapons. A number of state laws still have that wording on their books. And law enforcement agencies consider certain semiautomatic weapons, including the one used by Mateen, as assault weapons — or at minimum, assault-style weapons. Indeed, the weapons used in the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., Aurora, Colo. and Newtown, Conn. -- all of which were semiautomatic -- were all described by police as assault rifles. Our rating In the wake of the mass shooting in Orlando, in which the killer used a semiautomatic rifle was used, Johnson stated: "Assault rifles already are banned." Some, including Johnson, contend that only weapons that are automatic — firing continuously when the trigger is held down are assault weapons — are assault weapons. Those are essentially prohibited by federal laws. But that definition is narrow, and Johnson’s claim gives a misleading impression of a comprehensive ban. Lawmakers, law enforcement officials and others widely refer to many semiautomatic weapons like the rifle used in Orlando and other mass shootings — which reload automatically but fire only once each time the trigger is depressed — as assault weapons. Those are not banned by federal law. For a statement that has an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False.	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2016-06-20T06:00:00	2016-06-13	['None']
-pomt-06197	Says "our unemployment insurance trust fund is broke. We're over a billion dollars in debt to the federal government."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/11/jay-webber/new-jerseys-unemployment-benefits-fund-broke-more-/	New Jersey has gone into debt to cover unemployment benefits for people who lost their jobs in the Garden State. Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris) made that argument in a recent NJToday interview about his opposition to proposed legislation aimed at providing unemployment benefits to certain individuals whose hours at work have been reduced. "It might be a good idea. The problem I have is that our unemployment insurance trust fund is broke," Webber said during the Nov. 28 interview. "We're over a billion dollars in debt to the federal government, and what this bill does is create another stream of income out of the fund." PolitiFact New Jersey found that Webber is right. After more than two and a half years of borrowing money to cover unemployment benefits, New Jersey still owed about $1.3 billion to the federal government as of Dec. 6, according to federal and state officials. Kerri Gatling, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development, said the state expects to pay off the loan in late 2013. "There is currently a negative fund balance resulting from the severe economic downturn whereby unemployment insurance benefit payments exceed contributions to the fund," Gatling said in an email. Webber told us the fund must be protected and its solvency ensured. "Regardless of how we got there, now we’ve got to fix it," Webber said. Here’s how we got into so much debt: New Jersey’s unemployment insurance trust fund is made up of payroll taxes paid by employers and employees. The fund is used to pay unemployment benefits to people who worked in New Jersey. The idea behind such trust funds is to build up reserves when the economy is performing well in order to pay unemployment benefits during economic downturns. But state officials repeatedly diverted money from the trust fund to cover charity care payments to hospitals, ultimately reaching a total of about $4.6 billion in funds by 2005, according to the state’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services. Then, as more people lost their jobs during the recent recession and sought unemployment benefits, the trust fund was depleted by March 2009 and the state began borrowing from the federal government to cover the payments, according to OLS. The borrowing reached its height in April 2011, when New Jersey owed $2.1 billion for the loan, Gatling said. On Sept. 30, New Jersey paid nearly $48 million to the federal government to cover interest on the loan, she said. The state anticipates an interest payment of between roughly $55 million and $60 million to be made in September 2012, Gatling said. "As we minimize the interest expense, we take excess funds and pay the loan balance," Gatling said. "Payroll taxes are used to pay benefits and pay the loan balance." In November 2010, New Jersey voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the diversion of money from the unemployment insurance trust fund and other benefit funds for any other purposes. But New Jersey isn’t the only state that owes the federal government money to cover unemployment benefits. As of Dec. 6, 27 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands owed a total of roughly $38.3 billion in principal alone, including New Jersey’s roughly $1.3 billion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. California owes the most, about $9.4 billion, according to the department. Our ruling Webber claimed in a television interview that New Jersey’s "unemployment insurance trust fund is broke. We're over a billion dollars in debt to the federal government." The assemblyman’s statement is on target. New Jersey currently owes more than $1 billion to the federal government for money borrowed to pay unemployment benefits. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Jay Webber	None	None	None	2011-12-11T07:30:00	2011-11-28	['None']
-pose-00401	"I'll appoint an American Indian policy adviser to my senior White House staff to work with tribes. I'll host an annual summit at the White House with tribal leaders to come up with an agenda that works for tribal communities."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/421/appoint-an-american-indian-policy-adviser/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Appoint an American Indian policy adviser	2010-01-07T13:26:58	None	['White_House', 'Native_Americans_in_the_United_States']
-pomt-07206	U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., "and his fellow Democrats went on a spending spree and now their credit card is maxed out"	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jun/06/national-republican-congressional-committee/republican-group-says-rep-ron-kind-and-other-democ/	The National Republican Congressional Committee, which is dedicated to preserving the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, hammered Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., and 59 other House Democrats with a news release and e-mail on May 18, 2011. Kind "and his fellow Democrats," the committee declared, "went on a spending spree and now their credit card is maxed out." The committee was talking about government funds, not private credit cards. So let’s flesh out the committee’s claim, particularly with regard to Kind, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate in 2012 for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Herb Kohl. Our colleagues at the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper who run PolitiFact Ohio have already assessed the Republican committee’s spending claim as it pertained to Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio. It’s the same claim made against Kind, a 15-year congressman from La Crosse in western Wisconsin. Here’s what PolitiFact Ohio found: Our government gets some of the cash it needs by borrowing from foreign governments and other investors. As happens when your bills come due and your current income cannot keep up, the United States now needs to borrow even more. To get the money, Congress first must approve a debt limit higher than the current one of nearly $14.3 trillion. This is a lot like living on a credit card and asking the bank for a higher limit, an analogy that Republicans happen to like, too. For our item, the question is whether spending by Kind and his fellow Democrats are the reason the federal credit card has been maxed out. PolitiFact Ohio went on to say that taxes are one part of the equation, spending the other. Here is there central analysis: Tax cuts championed by congressional Republicans and that were adopted during the presidency of George W. Bush were extended in December 2010 for two years under President Barack Obama. While some economists say the tax cuts were needed to give the economy a kick, the Congressional Research Service said that the Bush tax cuts, with a 10-year price tag of $1 trillion, played a substantial role in the nation’s annual deficits. Then there’s the recent economic downturn, which also played a role. And the nation is still engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with billions of dollars flowing out to pay for them. These began during the tenure of Bush, a Republican, and continue under Obama, a Democrat. The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities posits that just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 "and will account for $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs." That’s deficits, but it applies to the debt (formed by cumulative and mounting deficits), says the center. The "Bush-era tax cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars — including their associated interest costs — account for almost half of the projected public debt in 2019 (measured as a share of the economy) if we continue current policies," the center noted on May 20, 2011. On the conservative side, Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said "one could cherry pick" any number of spending or tax policies and blame them for the entire debt problem. Unlike the liberal think tank, he said, "one could have just as easily singled out Social Security and Medicaid (combined cost: $13 trillion), Medicare and net interest costs ($13 trillion), or discretionary spending ($15 trillion) for blame. So, spending, as the National Republican Congressional Committee argued in its news release, contributes to the nation’s debt. But Republicans as well as Democrats were responsible for key expenditures. And, by bringing in less revenue, tax cuts also add to the debt -- and members of both parties put tax cuts in place, too. We asked the Republican committee for specific evidence to back its claim about Kind’s "spending spree." The committee cited his votes for Obama’s stimulus plan, a "bailout" plan for the states and the 2010 federal budget resolution. The committee also cited his votes in 2009 and 2010 to raise the debt limit, but those measures did not authorize spending. Kind’s staff, meanwhile, cited Bush’s "two unfunded wars," in Iraq and Afghanistan, for contributing to the debt -- although Kind voted for that spending. His staff said Kind voted against against the Bush tax cuts and against another Bush spending proposal, which created the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan. Where does all of this leave us? In a reference to the nation’s debt limit, the National Republican Congressional Committee said Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind and 59 other House Democrats "went on a spending spree and now their credit card is maxed out." It’s true House Democrats including Kind backed measures that contributed to the debt, but so did House Republicans. And the debt is a result of tax cuts as well as various spending measures, and both Democrats and Republicans supported such measures. PolitiFact Ohio rated the Republican committee’s claim Barely True. We do, too. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2011-06-06T09:00:00	2011-05-18	['United_States', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Ron_Kind']
-pomt-12331	Says Loretta Lynch was part of "a stunning collection of calls to violence and murder from the intolerant, unhinged leftists in the Democrat party."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/16/infowars/infowars-ridiculous-claim-dems-called-violence/	The shootings of congressional Republican baseball players by a drifter fan of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., triggered outrage among conservative media. Infowars, the conspiracy website of Alex Jones, accused top Democrats of instigating this sort of violence. The June 14 headline basically said it all: "FLASHBACK: Tim Kaine, Loretta Lynch Called For Blood and Death In Streets." The article said Kaine, the 2016 Democratic vice presidential candidate, and Lynch, Barack Obama's former attorney general, were part of "a stunning collection of calls to violence and murder from the intolerant, unhinged leftists in the Democrat party, mainstream media, Hollywood, and the spider web of interwoven organizations and cabals like Antifa and Black Lives Matter who have effectively transformed into domestic terrorists in Trump’s America." Regarding Lynch, Infowars said she used "incendiary language in a bizarre one-minute video in which she seemed to call upon fellow ‘progressives’ to march, bleed, and die in the streets ... in resistance to the Trump agenda." This fact-check focuses on the Lynch allegations and whether the video shows what Infowars said it does. The video On Feb. 28, 2017, the Senate Democrats posted a video on its Facebook page with the introduction, "If you need to hear some words of inspiration tonight, take a moment for our friend, former Attorney General, Loretta E. Lynch." It’s not clear when or where Lynch was speaking, but she seems to speaking in the context of President Donald Trump’s recent inauguration. While she never mentioned Trump, the video went up a few hours before Trump would address a joint session of Congress. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com About a week before the video, the Homeland Security Department implemented tough new policies on deportations. The Trump administration undid civil rights protections for transgender students. Both ran counter to Obama era policies. Here’s the full text from Lynch: "I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people. I know it’s a time of concern for people who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on, and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our founding fathers. And it has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals, who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled — yes, some of them have died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before; we can do this again." On the face of it, Lynch didn’t say what Infowars asserted. She didn’t call for anyone to commit violence. The violence she described was inflicted on those who marched to defend the rights of individuals. She said they bled and they died. She didn’t say they caused others to bleed or others to die. The Infowars web post recycled virtually identical claims that ran in early March from many conservative corners, including Fox News, Bill O’Reilly (then a Fox News host), and WND. A fact-check from the conservative Daily Caller website also declared the Infowars article false. Our ruling Infowars said Lynch advocated "violence and murder." She did not. She said that people who have marched for political change have bled and been killed. That would be the opposite of what Infowars said. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Infowars	None	None	None	2017-06-16T12:36:02	2017-06-14	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-02235	Maxine Waters attended only ten percent of Congressional meetings in more than three decades holding office.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maxine-waters-congressional-meetings/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Maxine Waters Has Shown Up to Only a Tenth of Congressional Meetings for 35 Years?	9 June 2017	None	['Maxine_Waters', 'United_States_Congress']
-pomt-10836	"I'm pro-life. He's not."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/12/sam-brownback/romney-now-opposes-abortion/	In an effort to distinguish himself from Romney, Brownback calls himself "pro-life" but says Romney is not. Brownback accurately describes his own position. He has consistently supported increased restrictions on abortion and opposed federal funding for stem-cell research. Romney says he is pro-life, but acknowledges that he has not been consistent on the issue over the years. In his 1994 Senate race against incumbent Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Romney said in a televised debate, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country . . . I believe that since Roe V. Wade has been the law for twenty years, it should be sustained and supported. And I sustain and support that law, and support the right of a woman to make that choice. " Romney reiterated his position in his 2002 campaign for governor, saying "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard." Romney said he changed his mind on abortion after meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher in 2004. In July 2005, he wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed, "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." Brownback's statement about Romney would have been true if he had referred to the former governor's past position. But since Brownback was clear that it was present-tense, we find the claim to be false.	None	Sam Brownback	None	None	None	2007-09-12T00:00:00	2007-08-21	['None']
-pomt-04936	Says Chris Christie "has refused to fund pensions by billions of dollars," and got legislative approval to begin "properly funding pensions" in 2018.	/new-jersey/statements/2012/jul/29/dannel-malloy/chris-christie-slammed-connecticut-gov-dannel-mall/	New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy have a mutual distaste for each other’s policies -- and they do not mind letting the public know it. Last year, Republican Christie blasted a plan by Democrat Malloy to raise taxes. Malloy fired back in a July 23 radio interview, criticizing Christie for refusing to make pension payments in the Garden State. During an interview on WNPR’s Colin McEnroe Show, Malloy charged that Christie "has refused to fund pensions by billions of dollars," and got legislative approval allowing him to delay "properly funding pensions" until 2018. It is accurate that Christie’s first spending plan outlined in March 2010 did not include billions in recommended pension payments, and the governor did sign legislation delaying a full annual contribution until fiscal year 2018. But Malloy failed to mention in his interview that Christie later started making partial payments. "Gov. Malloy stands by what he said," his senior adviser, Roy Occhiogrosso, said in an e-mail. "If Gov. Christie feels like delaying pension payments is what works for New Jersey, then it’s of course his right to pursue that as public policy." In March 2010, Christie outlined his proposed budget for fiscal year 2011, which did not include any pension payments. Soon after, he signed legislation requiring the state to make one-seventh of the full fiscal year pension contribution, starting in fiscal year 2012. Under that legislation, state payments are to increase annually until the full amount is paid in the seventh fiscal year and each year afterward. In keeping with the March 2010 law, the Christie administration made its first contribution in fiscal year 2012 and has scheduled an even larger payment in fiscal year 2013, which started July 1. But those payments are a fraction of the total recommended contributions. In each fiscal year, the recommended contribution stood at more than $3 billion. However, the fiscal year 2012 payment was roughly $484.5 million and the scheduled fiscal year 2013 payment is $1.03 billion. Andrew Pratt, spokesman for the state Department of the Treasury, argued that pension reforms approved by Christie will save billions in coming decades. The bottom line "is that after decades of neglect, Governor Christie led the state to passage of historic, bipartisan reforms that both reduced pension costs for taxpayers and put the funds on course for permanent solvency," Pratt said in an e-mail. "Pension reforms will save taxpayers an estimated $122 billion over 30 years, greatly reducing the pressure on both state and local government to make drastic cuts in services or reduce taxes." Our ruling In a radio interview, Malloy claimed Christie "has refused to fund pensions by billions of dollars," and got legislative approval to begin "properly funding pensions" in 2018. In March 2010, Christie introduced his first budget without including billions’ worth of recommended pension payments, and then signed legislation delaying a full annual contribution until fiscal year 2018. Christie made a payment in fiscal year 2012 and an even larger payment is scheduled for fiscal year 2013, but those payments still fall short of full contributions by billions of dollars. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Dannel Malloy	None	None	None	2012-07-29T07:30:00	2012-07-23	['None']
-snes-06012	A school of killer whales attacked and ate 16 crew members of a Japanese whaling boat.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whale-storm/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	Japanese Whaling Crew Eaten Alive by Killer Whales, 16 Dead	5 August 2014	None	['Japan']
-pomt-03548	Says "we allow more people into America legally than all other countries on the planet combined."	/oregon/statements/2013/may/24/greg-walden/does-us-really-admit-more-legal-immigrants-rest-wo/	You can’t really escape the immigration debate these days. Even with a bipartisan proposal, there are detractors on both sides. Add to the list: Lars Larson, Oregon’s very own conservative talk radio host. Recently, Larson took his show on the road to Washington, D.C., to chat up politicians about the immigration reform debate and make it pretty clear he was having none of it. One of his guests, Oregon’s sole Republican Rep. Greg Walden, was more measured in his comments -- he hadn’t had a chance to read the just-released immigration proposal. At the beginning of the interview, Walden pointed out that the United States was a country of immigrants, adding that’s even true today. "I would say this, I believe, and somebody will correct me if I'm wrong because everything gets fact checked, which is good, I think we allow more people into America legally than all other countries on the planet combined," he said. He basically invited PolitiFact Oregon to go after that one -- so we did. We sent the representative’s office a note asking if they could provide us with a source for the claim. They did us one better and sent three sources. The primary source was a fact sheet from the U.S. State Department, which notes "the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than the rest of the world combined." It didn’t offer any basis for the claim, but Walden’s office provided one. In a separate piece written for The New York Times, Jan C. Ting, a law professor at Temple University, meditates on the downside of high immigration and uses a very similar statistic. Specifically, in his piece, he notes that "If we count only those receiving comparable permanent residence and a clear path to full citizenship, the U.S. admits more legal immigrants than all the nations of the world combined." We sent an email to see if he could expand on that. His reply: "I'm comparing green cards to green cards, not H1-B temporary work permits or tourist visas, or illegal immigration. The first question to ask is how many countries in the world even issue green cards for permanent legal residence with a clear path to full citizenship? The answer is very few. Most countries don't welcome immigrants at all." Comparable countries to the United States, he said, are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We checked with the immigration figures provided by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ting was right. Together, Canada, Australia and New Zealand recorded about 530,000 permanent immigrants in 2010, compared to 1 million recorded in the U.S. But we were curious about the broader world beyond Ting’s definition, because people immigrate to other places, like to England, France, Germany. We understand that those countries don’t have a green card system similar to the United States, but they do allow immigrants to become permanent residents. So we set out to check on those systems. We went back to the OECD and asked if the organization broke down figures between permanent and temporary immigrants. And they did. Here they are: The United Kingdom recorded more than 414,000 permanent immigrants in 2010; this figure does not include temporary workers, international students or tourists. Also in 2010, about 241,000 people were granted "settlement," which is akin to getting a green card in that a person has permission to reside indefinitely, and 190,000 immigrants were granted citizenship. India is the leading source of people moving to the United Kingdom. Other countries record permanent immigrants -- Italy (330,000), Spain (300,000) and Germany (220,000) -- but they don’t break down their data in the same way the U.K. does. Basically, immigration statistics are complicated and it’s hardly an ideal, apples-to-apples situation. One chart that OECD puts together, however, specifically addresses the idea of "permanent immigrants." The chart doesn’t catalog the entire world’s immigration figures, just specific OECD countries. That said, if you do some simple math, you find out that in 2010, the U.S. let in just over 1 million permanent immigrants. Altogether, the other 23 countries listed let in more than 3 million. That’s more than the U.S. even if you were to include things like HB-1 visas and other temporary residents. To be clear, we’re not talking about countries like Qatar here, which let in a significant number of immigrants but give them few rights. Of course, we wanted to make sure we were reading this chart right, so we sent an email to OECD policy analyst Jonathan Chaloff. He said our take on the information was accurate and offered some context: "The million annual entries in the USA are green cards, which grant permanent residence. Similar permanent residence statistics are used for Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Most other countries grant renewable temporary permits which eventually lead (usually after 3 to 8 years) to permanent residence. We classify such entries as "permanent-type" because in practice the long-term stay rates for recipients of these visas/permits are similar to those for ‘permanent’ immigrants to USA, Canada, etc." Chaloff pointed out something else: The U.S. receives fewer "permanent-type" immigrants per capita than most other OECD countries. For that fact, he offered us a table which shows, indeed, the U.S. is in 18th place in that measurement. By all means the United States is a wonderful country, and PolitiFact Oregon is intimately associated with persons who have immigrated to the U.S. and become citizens. But we’re hardly alone. Which brings us back to Walden’s statement. The representative said that "we allow more people into America legally than all other countries on the planet combined." That’s true only when specifically talking about a small group of countries that have a green-card-like immigration system that provides a path to citizenship. We understand that this metric is in wide use -- by academics, opinion writers and, at one point, even the state department. We also appreciate that Walden was measured in his statement, saying "I believe" and "I think." He even invited fact checkers to look into the issue. But ultimately, none of that changes the fact that to focus on only four countries while making a statement about the entire world is misleading, even if it’s not on purpose. When we compare permanent immigrants in other countries -- green-card and permanent-type residents -- we find that Walden’s statement is not accurate without significant context. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Greg Walden	None	None	None	2013-05-24T15:15:18	2013-04-18	['United_States']
-snes-00847	Did President Donald Trump Slap the Mayor of Mexico City?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trump-slap-mexico-city-mayor/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did President Donald Trump Slap the Mayor of Mexico City?	26 March 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00325	The POW confronts anti-war protestors in Moscow, Idaho	https://www.truthorfiction.com/pow-idaho/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	The POW confronts anti-war protestors in Moscow, Idaho	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Moscow']
-pomt-10643	"You said you would vote against the Patriot Act, then you came to the Senate, you voted for it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/06/hillary-clinton/he-fought-to-improve-it-then-voted-for-it/	Sen. Hillary Clinton, trying to retrieve momentum after losing the Iowa caucuses, went after Sen. Barack Obama in a Jan. 5, 2008, debate in New Hampshire and charged him with being a flip-flopper. "You've changed positions within three years on ... a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate," Clinton said. "You said you would vote against the Patriot Act, then you came to the Senate, you voted for it." Clinton questioned how serious Obama is about scrapping the 2001 antiterrorism law, noting that he voted to extend it in early 2006 after pledging as a Senate candidate to scrap or replace the law. A closer examination reveals that while Clinton's charge is technically correct, Obama went further than she did in trying to expand civil rights guarantees and give Democrats more chances to change the law. As a candidate for the Senate in 2003, Obama said he supported repealing or replacing the Patriot Act, branding it "shoddy and dangerous" in a response to a National Organization for Women survey of candidates. Obama never got a clear-cut opportunity to make good on the pledge, but was active during a debate in late 2005 and early 2006 on reauthorizing 16 expiring provisions in the law. House and Senate negotiators had deadlocked for months on whether to include more protections for civil liberties and to impose time limits on some of the most contentious provisions in the sweeping law. After consultations with the White House, Republican chief negotiators presented a compromise that won enough Democratic support to reauthorize the act. However, Obama and 29 fellow Democrats along with one independent voted against limiting debate in an effort to allow Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against the original law in 2001, to offer amendments that would have, among other things, put in place stronger judicial reviews of administration actions. It also imposed shorter time limits on so-called "sneak-and-peek" searches, in which law enforcement secretly enters a suspect's premises without the suspect's knowledge or permission. Clinton, in contrast, joined 14 fellow Democrats and all of the Senate's 55 Republicans in voting to shut off debate and proceed to a final vote on the compromise. Once Obama's faction lost the bid to keep the debate going, he voted for the compromise. The final tally was 95-4. Clinton was also among those senators voting yes. Obama said the final deal was not ideal but was an improvement over earlier Republican proposals. "This compromise does modestly improve the Patriot Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe," he said, adding, "I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized." So while Obama did vote to reauthorize the Patriot Act, he did so after working to improve the law by expanding civil rights guarantees. We rule Clinton's statement Half True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2008-01-06T00:00:00	2008-01-05	['None']
-pomt-11039	Says Adam Putnam "endorsed the Schumer-Obama Gang of Eight immigration amnesty."	/florida/statements/2018/jun/29/ron-desantis/did-adam-putnam-endorse-gang-eight-immigration-amn/	Republican candidate for Florida governor Adam Putnam has been accused of not being conservative enough — especially when it comes to immigration. The attacks continued during a nationally televised Fox News Republican debate. Putnam’s opponent, U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, accused Putnam of voting for amnesty on immigration three times. "When he was acting commissioner (Putnam) endorsed the Obama-Schumer Gang of Immigration amnesty," DeSantis said. "The biggest amnesty in history, it would have lowered wages for American workers and it would have created an incentive to come illegally." We have looked at Putnam’s record on immigration multiple times, but this time we wanted to take a close look at the specific "Gang of Eight" legislation. Did Putnam endorse the "Obama-Schumer Gang of immigration amnesty?" Putnam did voice support of the Gang of Eight bill, but it’s worth noting that the bill was bipartisan and supported by several prominent Republicans. Characterizing the bill as amnesty requires additional context, too. "Gang of Eight" legislation In June 2013 while he was Florida’s agriculture commissioner, Putnam told reporters that he supported the "Gang of Eight" bill, which he saw as a benefit to multiple industries including agriculture. "It makes improvements at the border and employee verification, while also creating a more modern visa program so that jobs in our economy can be filled when there is a shortfall of domestic labor," he told the Lakeland Ledger. "That has been particularly acute in agriculture." The bill would have eliminated the diversity lottery program, set up a path to legal status and an eventual opportunity for citizenship. It also would have allowed the president to designate certain groups outside the United States as particularly at risk, and other officials to label certain refugees in the United States as having nowhere to go. It further would have repealed the deadline for refugees already here to apply for asylum. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was one of the four Democrats who supported the bill, and it was endorsed by former President Barack Obama. But the "Gang of Eight" actually refers to a bipartisan group of eight United States senators Democrats and four Republicans. So, the bill also -- at least for a time -- had support of prominent senators Jeff Flake, R-Az., Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., and John McCain R-Az. The bill passed the Senate, 68-32. Fourteen Republicans joined 52 Democrats and two independent Senators in voting for the bill. The bill did not get a hearing in the House. Is it immigration amnesty? DeSantis called the bill "immigration amnesty" and that requires additional context. As we’ve concluded in the past, defining amnesty is tricky. Some view it as blanket permission for undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, while others view amnesty as any measure that is favorable to any undocumented immigrants, even if it includes a list of tough measures they have to meet. Republicans who supported the legislation emphasized the bill was not amnesty. "This is not amnesty," Rubio said on Fox News Sunday on April 14, 2013. "Amnesty is the forgiveness of something. Amnesty is anything that says do it illegally, it will be cheaper and easier." We rated Rubio’s claim Half True. We found that the bill does not offer blanket legal residency to unauthorized immigrants. The bill mandated fines, background checks and waiting periods, and it’s tougher than its 1986 predecessor. But it also offered a measure of clemency to those immigrants, who would not be required to return to their home countries. "This bill includes numerous punishments for unauthorized immigrants who broke the laws, including paying fines and other legal sanctions," Alex Nowrasteh with the libertarian Cato Institute told PolitiFact in 2013. "If it was amnesty they would be legalized immediately with no punishment, no process. They would just be forgiven and handed a green card." Our ruling DeSantis said Putnam "endorsed the Schumer-Obama Gang of Eight immigration amnesty." Putnam endorsed a bill that laid out a path to legal status and eventual opportunity for citizenship, but several prominent Republicans also supported it, including Rubio. Calling the bill amnesty is also at least partially misleading. The bill did not offer blanket legal residency to unauthorized immigrants. The bill mandated fines, background checks and waiting periods DeSantis has the endorsement right but the details beyond that require some clarification. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ron DeSantis	None	None	None	2018-06-29T14:06:58	2018-06-28	['Adam_Putnam']
-pomt-03850	"There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there aren’t enough qualified applicants to fill them."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/14/virginia-foxx/rep-virginia-foxx-warns-mismatch-between-skills-av/	Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., recently took to the House floor to tout a bill she’s sponsoring that would change the structure of job training programs. She warned that the economy faces a paradox -- despite historically high unemployment rates, many jobs are going vacant. "There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there aren’t enough qualified applicants to fill them," Foxx said in the March 12, 2013, speech. To check Foxx’s claim, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government’s scorekeeper on employment data. We easily found the source of her 3.6 million figure. It comes from a monthly survey called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS. The most recent seasonally adjusted data at the time of Foxx’s speech covered January 2013. It showed that there were just under 3.7 million job openings in January, which was up slightly from 3.6 million in December 2012. So Foxx essentially got the number right. However, her use of the term "sitting vacant" and her warning about a "shortage of qualified applicants" suggests that employers are having trouble filling these 3.6 million jobs. A close look at the survey reveals it doesn’t actually support that thesis. The bureau’s official definition of a "job opening" is "a specific position of employment to be filled at an establishment" that satisfy these conditions: "there is work available for that position, the job could start within 30 days, and the employer is actively recruiting for the position." But there are always job openings -- even in a healthy economy. In a phenomenon known as "churn," people change jobs. Just because their old job is unoccupied when the BLS takes its monthly data snapshot doesn’t necessarily mean that the employer is having trouble filling the job. Rather, the employer could simply be going through the process of hiring, with the job filled a month later. The data from this survey "has important limitations," said Steven J. Davis, an economist at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, because it "provides little information about the distribution of vacancy durations" and "no direct information about the reason why some job openings take a long time to fill." In some ways, vacancies are actually a hallmark of a healthy economy. Job openings often arise either because someone leaves one job for a better one, or because a company is hiring new workers. Both are positive signs. If you look at the monthly December job opening totals going back a decade, the years just prior to the recession had the most job openings, while the years during and immediately after the recession hit had the least job vacancies: 2012: 3.6 million 2011: 3.5 million 2010: 2.9 million 2009: 2.5 million 2008: 3.2 million 2007: 4.0 million 2006: 4.4 million 2005: 3.9 million 2004: 3.5 million 2003: 2.9 million But while the number Foxx used doesn’t provide much support for her claim, other evidence, both anecdotal and statistical, suggests that she has a point that there’s a problem with unfilled jobs today. The most solid evidence for a lengthening of job vacancies comes from a study by Davis, R. Jason Faberman and John C. Haltiwanger. It found that the time before a vacancy is filled has expanded from 15 days in 2009 to 23 today. As a result, the job vacancy rate and the unemployment rate, which historically have moved in tandem, began to diverge during the most recent recession and have not yet returned to their historical pattern. Why is this happening? Foxx’s office provided links to a variety of news reports that suggest a mismatch between applicants’ job skills and the ones employers are seeking. Economists agree that that is part of the issue, particularly with high-skill jobs. But it’s probably not the only reason. For instance, there appears to be a "hiring paralysis" among employers who are acting with unusual caution because they are uncertain whether the economy will remain strong rather than stagnating, according to economists and hiring professionals quoted in the New York Times earlier this year. This has sometimes led to employers piling on extra tests and rounds of interviews as a way of stalling, experts told the Times. Our ruling Foxx said, "There are 3.6 million jobs sitting vacant, in part because there aren’t enough qualified applicants to fill them." She’s right that there are 3.6 million vacancies and she's right that there aren't enough qualified job applicants, but she wrong to link the two because that statistic doesn’t take into account how long a job has been open. Still, there is strong evidence that the duration of job vacancies has grown since the onset of the most recent recession, and the skills mismatch Foxx cites is likely part of the reason. We rate her claim Mostly True.	None	Virginia Foxx	None	None	None	2013-03-14T11:54:27	2013-03-12	['None']
-tron-00722	Robin Williams Goodbye Video	https://www.truthorfiction.com/robin-williams-goodbye/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Robin Williams Goodbye Video	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04974	Donald Trump announced that his 2016 Presidential campaign was an April Fool's Day joke.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-campaign-joke/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Donald Trump Announces His Campaign Is a Joke	1 April 2016	None	['Donald_Trump']
-pomt-06992	"Our crime rate continues to plummet."	/virginia/statements/2011/jul/11/bob-mcdonnell/gov-bob-mcdonnell-says-virginias-crime-rate-contin/	At a ceremonial signing of seven bills strengthening Virginia’s prisoner re-entry laws, Gov. Bob McDonnell touted the state’s achievement in combating crime over the years, offering tough talk for would-be offenders. "There’s no place in society for those people that want to violate the rights of others," McDonnell said. "They need to be taken off the streets and incapacitated for a significant amount of time. That’s why we abolished parole 15 years ago. Then you can see the enormous positive results in Virginia as our crime rate continues to plummet." Is Virginia’s crime rate in a free fall? We decided to take a look. First, for context’s sake, let’s consult our old friend Merriam-Webster, which defines McDonnell’s verb of choice -- "plummet" -- as, "To drop sharply and abruptly." Asked to support McDonnell’s claim, Tucker Martin, a spokesman for the governor, directed us to two reports: The Virginia State Police’s "Crime in Virginia" and Department of Criminal Justice Services’ "Virginia Crime Trends 2000-2009." Using the data, there are a few ways to look at things. Crime rates are measured in two primary areas: violent crime, which includes offenses such as murder, manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault; and property crime, which includes burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft. According to the state police report, violent crime in Virginia dropped 4.9 percent (per 100,000 people) from 2009 to 2010. Not too shabby, but actually less of a decline than than the national average, which showed a 5.5 percent decline, according to the FBI. Property crime decreased 2.8 percent in Virginia from 2009 to 2010, on par with the national average. But by mentioning the abolition of parole, achieved in 1995 by then-Gov. George Allen, the governor points to a long-term decline. And he’s right, at least going back to 2000, when crime reporting standards changed to the current incident-based system. According to the DCJS report, violent crime in Virginia fell dramatically over the last decade, 19 percent from 2000 to 2009. That’s actually a sharper drop than the national average of 15 percent over the same time period. Property crime rates in Virginia have also fallen significantly,12 percent over the decade, though that’s less than the national average of 16 percent for the same time period. But what of the governor’s assertion that the decline is linked to the abolition of parole. Well, that’s less convincing. "I’m not aware of any studies that connect the abolition of parole release to reduced crime rates," said Jay Albanese, a criminologist and a professor of criminal justice studies at Virginia Commonwealth University. "The majority of the offenders on parole, when you look at the studies that have been done, do not commit new crimes." What is clear, Albanese said, is that prisoner re-entry programs designed to ease the transition back into society, like the ones McDonnell was signing when he made his claim, have been instrumental in keeping the crime rate trending downward. Other factors, he said, include evolving police strategies, a decline in crack cocaine and the rising median age of Americans. Nonetheless, Albanese said McDonnell’s core assertion was correct, regardless of the factors. "Crime rates nationwide have continued to decrease," Albanese said. "This is good news, and everyone’s taking their share of credit for it." So let’s look back. McDonnell’s contention is that Virginia’s "crime rate" continues its downward spiral since parole was abolished in 1995. And he’s right that overall crime has gone down significantly, not just here, but across the country. Does it "continue to plummet"? Not by the definition of the word. The declines have been steady but not sharp and abrupt. There have even been years with minor increases. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2011-07-11T08:02:09	2011-06-21	['None']
-pomt-13092	Under Donald Trump's tax plan, "51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/06/hillary-clinton/would-51-single-parents-see-taxes-rise-under-donal/	Campaigning in the final stretch of the presidential election, Hillary Clinton took a brief break from knocking Donald Trump’s character to hammer his tax plan. "He's taking care of himself, he's taking care of his family, he's taking care of the super wealthy and corporations," Clinton said at a rally in Pittsburgh on Nov. 4, 2016, adding that under Trump, "51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up." Briefly, Trump’s tax plan would collapse the seven federal income tax brackets into three (12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent). He would also raise the standard deduction (the amount everyone can deduct from taxable income) but repeal personal exemptions and head of household filing status. Tax analysts have found that Trump’s plan would deliver, on average, tax cuts across all income brackets. So how is it possible that single parents would pay more? The Clinton campaign referred us to analysis of Trump’s tax plan from the Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the left-leaning Urban Institute. According to the report, authored by New York University professor Lily Batchelder, about 20 percent of households and more than half of single parents would wind up paying more in federal taxes. How? First, Trump’s proposal to increase the standard deduction wouldn’t be enough to offset the amount many single parents could have deducted with personal exemptions (which Trump would take away). For example, a single mother with one child can take a $9,350 standard deduction and two $4,050 exemptions, one for herself and one for her child in 2017 under the current system — or $17,450 in exemptions in total. Under Trump’s plan, she would be able to take just a $15,000 standard deduction. The end result? That mother would have to pay income tax on an additional $2,450 under Trump’s plan. Second, the head of household filing status currently applies to unmarried filers with dependents, and their standard deduction and tax rates are between those of married filers and single filers. Repealing this provision as Trump proposes would require single parents to file as individuals with higher tax rates. Third, Trump’s three brackets would increase taxes for many head of household filers. For example, the current lowest bracket is 10 percent, but Trump’s lowest bracket is 12 percent. "For example, in 2017 a single parent with one child who claims the standard deduction would face a 25 percent tax rate on adjusted gross income between $53,050 and $68,550, compared with just a 15 percent rate under current law," Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center, wrote in Forbes. Put it altogether, 51 percent of single parents or about 5.8 million households would see a tax increase under Trump’s plan, Batchelder calculated. As our colleagues at FactCheck.org noted, "single parents tend to do worse under Trump’s plan than under current law." For example, a single parent with an income of $75,000 and two school-age children would see his or her taxes increase by $2,440 or by $1,640 if the family had child care costs that could be deducted under Trump's plan, according to Batchelder. Similarly, a single parent making $50,000 and who had three children would face an increase of $1,188. The Tax Foundation, a free market-oriented think tank, has not released similar analysis. But its director of federal projects, Kyle Pomerleau, found no faults with Batchelder’s report. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Our ruling Clinton said, under Trump's tax plan, "51 percent of single parents would see their taxes go up." Trump’s proposal would simplify the federal tax code and provide tax cuts for many. But, analysts say, Trump’s plan would make changes that would affect some people negatively. Trump’s proposal to eliminate the head of household filing status and personal exemptions would raise federal income taxes for many single parents. We rate Clinton’s claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/45507710-0102-420f-8e0b-4b12522480ce	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-11-06T17:16:01	2016-11-04	['None']
-pomt-03946	"There are 3 million jobs that go vacant each month in this country."	/ohio/statements/2013/feb/19/dave-joyce/rep-dave-joyce-says-millions-us-jobs-go-unfilled-e/	While the rest of the nation celebrated Mardi Gras on Feb. 12, official Washington was transfixed by a different spectacle: delivery of President Barack Obama’s yearly State of the Union speech. Newly elected Congressman Dave Joyce watched the hour-long oration on the House of Representatives floor with his House and Senate colleagues and was up the next morning to discuss it with radio talk show host and Plain Dealer columnist Mike McIntyre on WCPN’s "The Sound of Ideas" call-in program. The Russell Township Republican told McIntyre he heard plenty of familiar themes in Obama’s speech, and said many of the president’s solutions to problems "seemed to involve more big government." But Joyce said he was intrigued by Obama’s call for providing high school students with a more technical education that will help them get better jobs after graduation. During the speech, Obama highlighted a school in Brooklyn, N.Y. that graduates students with both a high school diploma and an associates degree in computers or engineering. "We need to better prepare our workforce for the jobs that we have," Joyce said. "There are three million jobs that go vacant each month in this country, so the idea of trying to better prepare our children for the workforce by reforming high schools and stressing technical degrees in engineering, that is something that intrigues me. It’s something that people in other districts hear from their people, who said we have difficulty finding competent workers." PolitiFact was intrigued by Joyce’s assertion that three million U.S. jobs go unfilled every month. Could that be true that a nation with a 7.9 percent unemployment in January, 2013 actually has so many job openings? Joyce’s press secretary referred us to monthly job openings reports produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Feb. 12 report that covered statistics from December 2012 said there were 3.6 million job openings on the last day of the year, a number that varied little throughout 2012. The report said that during 2012, hires totaled 51.8 million and separations totaled 50.0 million, yielding a net employment gain of 1.8 million. Reports the office issued for previous months in 2012 indicated there were 3.8 million job openings in June, 3.7 million job openings in November, October , July, May and March, 3.6 million openings in September and August, 3.5 million vacancies in January and February, and 3.4 million unfilled jobs in April, So why are there so many unfilled jobs? Employers maintain there’s a skills gap, while some labor economists say that skilled workers desire more pay than employers want to provide. A Bloomberg.com article on the subject said U.S. companies have reported more than 3 million job openings every month since February 2011. The article quoted Anthony Carnevale, who heads the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce in Washington, D.C., saying there’s a demand for workers with highly specific skills. The article described a growing skills gap as a global problem, quoting a McKinsey Global Institute study that said employers worldwide could face a shortage of 85 million high- and medium-skilled workers by 2020. It also highlighted a Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center program that helps unskilled workers train for better paid, skilled jobs in fields such as nursing. "‘Qualified’ used to mean a high school degree," Carnevale told Bloomberg. "Now the qualification level has gone up so they’re pressing for better people." A Nov. 11 segment on CBS News’ "60 Minutes" said that manufacturers nationwide say the lack of skilled workers is the reason for hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs. But it quoted management professor Peter Capelli of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business saying that if companies paid better, they might be able to get the higher skilled workers they say they need. "This is a market. And so, you know, if you're not willing to pay more, don't expect to get better quality people," Capelli said. "One of the things we know now is wages are not going up. In fact, they've been stagnant and some cases even declining over time. So where is the shortage?" Capelli also noted that a generation ago, companies provided workers with the training they needed. "Companies are now saying, for all kinds of reasons, "We're not going to do it anymore," Capelli told "60 Minutes." "And maybe they're right, they can't do it. But what they probably can't do is say, ‘We're not going to do it, and it's your problem. It's your problem to provide us with what we need, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer. You need to pay for this for us." Alcoa Inc. CEO Klaus Kleinfeld provided a counterpoint to Capelli’s views. Kleinfeld said he believes manufacturing jobs pay "very, very well," and that Alcoa is making efforts to fill the skills gap as are many other businesses. Asked why there’s still a skills gap if manufacturing is attempting to close it, Kleinfield replied: "This is not a society where you can tell somebody what - where to go, or where to - what education to get, right?’ Joyce’s claim that 3 million jobs go vacant each month is accurate. We rate his statement True.	None	Dave Joyce	None	None	None	2013-02-19T11:39:40	2013-02-13	['None']
-snes-01273	A man was arrested for showing an officer an "A-OK" hand sign during a traffic stop in an attempt to get the officer to play the "finger circle" game.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-arrested-finger-circle-officer/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Was a Man Arrested for Playing the ‘Finger Circle Game’ With Law Enforcement?	3 January 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01119	Mitt Romney Set Up A Command Center To Help Find Partner’s Missing Daughter	https://www.truthorfiction.com/romney-nyc-missing-teen/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Mitt Romney Set Up A Command Center To Help Find Partner’s Missing Daughter	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03547	The Obama administration disinvited Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer from the Marine Corps' 241st birthday ball in Kabul, Afghanistan, because he criticized the President.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dakota-meyer-banned/	None	Military	None	David Emery	None	Medal of Honor Recipient Banned from Marine Corps Ball for Criticizing Obama?	14 November 2016	None	['Afghanistan', 'Barack_Obama', 'Kabul', 'United_States_Marine_Corps', 'Medal_of_Honor']
-pomt-02303	The Austin Independent School District’s graduation rate reached an all-time high of 82.5 percent in 2012.	/georgia/statements/2014/apr/02/meria-carstarphen/grad-rates-rise-austin/	Education trends come and go. But calls for better high school graduation rates have only intensified as technology demands a higher-skilled workforce. Results on that front were a top achievement noted by Atlanta school board members last week as they announced that Meria Carstarphen, the superintendent of the Austin Independent School District, is their choice to succeed Erroll B. Davis Jr. as Atlanta Public Schools superintendent. The school district in Texas’ capital city announced in July that the graduation rate for its Class of 2012 had hit an all-time record of 82.5 percent. That’s a great rate by most standards and well above Georgia’s 69.73 percent grad rate and APS’ rate of 50.87 percent that year. But is it accurate? And is it something Carstarphen deserves credit for? We thought we’d look deeper into the numbers. Carstarphen, 44, took the helm of the Austin district -- with 87,000 students, 12,000 employees and a $950 million annual budget -- in July 2009. At that time, the district’s high school graduation rate was 74.3 percent, based on data for the Class of 2008. Austin’s grad rate has climbed steadily since then. It was 75.6 in 2009, 78.6 percent in 2010 and 80 percent in 2011, before reaching 82.5 in 2012, according to data from the Texas Education Agency. During Carstarphen’s tenure, the graduation rate improved most among Austin’s African-American students, going from 71.5 percent for the Class of 2010 to 79.6 percent for the Class of 2012, for a difference of 8.1 percentage points. In that period, the rate improved for all students by 3.9 percentage points, by 5.7 percentage points for Hispanic students and by a tiny 0.1 percentage points for white students, according to district data. But Austin still has the lowest graduation rate among the state’s large urban districts for economically disadvantaged students, at 78.9 percent. The upward trajectory of Austin’s overall graduation rate mirrors that of the state. Texas, in fact, has one of the nation’s highest high school graduation rates. Its graduation rate climbed almost 10 percentage points in six years to 87.7 percent for 2012. Only one state -- Iowa -- had a better record that year for on-time graduations, with 89 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Education. Nationwide, the average grad rate was 81 percent in 2012. Getting an accurate gauge of the high school graduation rate seems like a simple task. But for years, some states and local school districts were allowed to calculate their rates by more than one method. As a result, any national figure was, at best, a rough estimate, and state-by-state comparisons were difficult and discouraged. But beginning in 2011, the federal government mandated that all states and school districts calculate their graduation rates by counting the number of students who completed high school four years after starting ninth grade. That meant states such as Georgia could no longer count students who took five, six or more years to complete high school. They also could no longer write off students who left school as transfers, potentially masking the magnitude of their dropout problems. As a result, Georgia’s rate was recalculated downward more than 13 percentage points, from 80.9 percent to 67.5 percent in 2011. It’s risen since then, to 69.7 percent in 2012 and 71.5 percent in 2013. There also was some bounceback for APS, which saw its graduation rate jump to 58.6 percent in 2013. The rates in Texas and its local school districts weren’t affected by the federal policy change. The state has been reporting a four-year graduation rate for years, said Debbie Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency. Graduation rates factor into Texas’ school accountability ratings, and Austin closely tracks student attendance, Ratcliffe said. Parents in Austin get an automated message in the evening if their child was tardy or absent that day, she said. In some neighborhoods, teachers visit children at home if they drop out or are at risk of quitting school, Ratcliffe said. The Austin school district also has as its No. 2 person the state’s former "dropout czar." When they announced the 2012 grad rate last year, Austin school officials said they had implemented an early warning system to stop students headed for trouble. The system allows counselors and administrators to track student progress and step in when they see students falling behind, missing classes or facing other obstacles to long-term success, they said. Late last week, Carstarphen put out a release highlighting some of the district’s efforts to improve student outcomes in her tenure. They included the creation of alternative graduation pathways, including an after-hours chance at recovering lost credit hours at the district’s Twilight School. She said Austin was one of the first districts in the nation to incorporate social and emotional learning into its curriculum to help students manage their emotions, develop positive relationships and handle challenging situations constructively. The program was in 27 schools when it launched two years ago and will be in all schools at every grade level by 2015-2016, Carstarphen said. The Atlanta Board of Education is slated to formalize Carstarphen’s appointment April 14. Our conclusion Austin’s high school graduation rate has risen in Carstarphen’s tenure as school superintendent to 82.5 percent. It’s not as good as Texas’ overall graduation rate, but it is better than the national average and far better than the rates for Atlanta Public Schools and Georgia. It’s difficult to say how much of the increases can be attributed to policies she’s pushed. But it appears accurate. We rate the statement True.	None	Meria Carstarphen	None	None	None	2014-04-02T00:00:00	2014-03-27	['None']
-tron-03479	NASA Confirms 15 Days of Darkness in November 2015	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nasa-confirms-15-days-of-darkness-in-november-2015/	None	space-aviation	None	None	None	NASA Confirms 15 Days of Darkness in November 2015	Sep 24, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-01223	News Report Claims Casey Anthony Found Dead	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-report-claims-casey-anthony-found-dead/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News Report Claims Casey Anthony Found Dead	June 27, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-00544	Warning from Shell Oil Company About Climate Change	https://www.truthorfiction.com/warning-shell-oil-company/	None	business	None	None	['climate change', 'energy', 'science']	Warning from Shell Oil Company About Climate Change	Mar 30, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00993	Selena Gomez, Justin Theroux “More Than Friends,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-justin-theroux-more-friends-dating-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez, Justin Theroux NOT “More Than Friends,” Despite Report	10:57 am, May 16, 2018	None	['None']
-farg-00331	"FOX Network Picks Up ‘Roseanne'"	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/roseanne-fox-and-a-satire-story/	None	askfactcheck	Extra Newsfeed	Angelo Fichera	None	‘Roseanne,’ Fox and a Satire Story	June 1, 2018	[' Wednesday, May 30, 2018 ']	['None']
-snes-05473	Burger King has "bowed to Sharia law" and will no longer serve bacon at their restaurants.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/burger-king-sharia-law/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Burger King Bows to Sharia Law?	17 December 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02092	"Idaho was the only Republican-led state in the nation that chose to partner with President Obama" by creating a state-based marketplace under the Affordable Care Act.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/19/russ-fulcher/idaho-debate-went-viral-challenger-misfires-obamac/	A recent gubernatorial debate in Boise was so -- um -- unusual that it reverberated far beyond Idaho. The debate featured Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, who’s seeking his third term, and three Republicans seeking to defeat him in a primary. One, Russ Fulcher, is a state senator who’s running against Otter from the right. The other two were more colorful -- Harley Brown, a biker sporting leather gear and fingerless gloves, and Walt Bayes, a homeschooling activist with a prodigious beard and "77 descendants." The debate produced enough colorful moments that it quickly went viral -- for instance, when Brown said, "I'm about as politically correct as your proverbial turd in a punch bowl," or when Bayes closed with a warning about nuclear contamination. As intriguing as those claims are, we’re going to focus instead on a wonkier assertion made by Fulcher. Referring to Otter’s decision to create a state-based marketplace under President Barack Obama’s health care law, Fulcher said Otter didn’t oppose Obamacare strongly enough, adding, "Idaho was the only Republican-led state in the nation that chose to partner with President Obama." We decided to see if he was correct. (Fulcher’s campaign did not reply to an inquiry for this fact-check.) First, some background. Under the Affordable Care Act, states had three choices for creating an online marketplace that residents could use to browse health insurance plans and purchase the one that would best fit their needs and budget. States were allowed to create their own online marketplace; they could partner with the federal government to create a hybrid state-federal site; or they could do nothing, in which case residents would instead use the federal healthcare.gov site by default. Idaho took the first option of starting its own marketplace. The Affordable Care Act has been a target of Republican criticism generally, nowhere more than in strongly conservative states like Idaho. But while Otter was -- and is -- critical of the law overall, he said he decided to push for a state-run online marketplace in order to make sure Idaho would be able to have some control of how the law is implemented. In pushing for the creation of a state-run marketplace, Otter faced resistance within the GOP-dominated state House and Senate. But he ultimately cobbled together a coalition of Democrats and some Republicans to pass legislation that authorized a state-based marketplace. Otter signed the law on March 28, 2013. So despite opposition by many GOP legislators, Idaho was certainly a "Republican-led state" that "chose to partner" with the Obama administration on creating a health insurance marketplace. But was Idaho the only state with a Republican governor who was willing to start a marketplace? The short answer is no. There were four others: • Michigan. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder supported the creation of a full state-based marketplace, but he was stymied by a Republican-controlled legislature that delayed the effort long enough that the federal deadlines lapsed, making that option impossible. Instead, Snyder pursued a state-federal marketplace, while also leaving the door open to an entirely state-based site if the legislature eventually changed its mind. • Iowa. Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, who governs a state with a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, also opted for the state-federal hybrid. He even floated the prospect of creating a joint marketplace with Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, according to the Quad-City Times. • Nevada. In June 2011, Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval signed a bill passed by the Democratic legislature to create an entirely state-run marketplace. Politico reported that Sandoval is "arguably doing more to put the Democrats’ signature law into place than any other Republican," while risking "his national ambitions because he’s not actively blocking the president’s law." • New Mexico. Gov. Susana Martinez -- who, like Nevada’s Sandoval, is a Hispanic seen by some as a rising star within the GOP -- signed legislation passed by the Democratic legislature to create an entirely state-based marketplace. This list does not include the states with GOP governors that decided to expand Medicaid -- another provision of the health care law that has drawn fire from many Republicans. Beyond Michigan and Iowa, Republican governors that signed off on expanding eligibility for Medicaid include Arizona’s Jan Brewer, North Dakota’s Jack Dalrymple and Ohio’s John Kasich. All had Republican-controlled legislatures, populated by GOP lawmakers who, to one degree or another, opposed the governor’s support for expanding Medicaid. Idaho, for its part, did not expand Medicaid. Our ruling Fulcher said that "Idaho was the only Republican-led state in the nation that chose to partner with President Obama" by creating a state-based marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. While most states with a Republican governor did refuse to create their own state-run marketplace, Idaho was not the only one. Four other states with Republican governors also created a marketplace that was either fully state-run or was a partnership between the federal government and the state. We rate Fulcher’s claim False. UPDATE, May 19, 2014, 4:00 p.m.: After our story appeared, the Fulcher campaign responded that they had used a different standard than we did to define the term "Republican-led state." We interpreted it to mean a state with a Republican governor. The campaign, however, says it was only counting states that had all of the following: a Republican governor, a completely Republican-controlled legislature, and support for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. Using that standard would indeed, make the statement correct. However, we don’t think a listener would find that to be the most obvious interpretation of "Republican-led state." In addition, the campaign’s calculations only counted fully state-run marketplaces and excluded the 11 states that use a federal-state partnership for their marketplace, even though Fulcher specifically claimed during the debate that he was talking about states that chose "to partner with President Obama." Our rating stands at False.	None	Russ Fulcher	None	None	None	2014-05-19T11:02:08	2014-05-14	['Barack_Obama', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Idaho']
-pomt-14579	"There really isn’t any kind of foreign policy network that is supporting and advising Sen. Sanders."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/07/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-really-isnt-any-foreign-policy-net/	Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton questioned Sen. Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy knowledge during an interview on Meet the Press. Clinton told host Chuck Todd on Feb. 7, 2016, that her Democratic rival was inexperienced with the subject. She said Sanders was markedly unprepared compared to her 2008 primary opponent, then-Sen. Barack Obama. "There really isn’t any kind of foreign policy network that is supporting and advising Sen. Sanders," Clinton said. Clinton has used her years heading the State Department to her advantage, building a council of advisers to help her campaign. But we wondered if she was correct that Sanders was lacking a team of his own, and at that stage, just how unusual that is. Fleeting meetings It’s no secret Sanders’ campaign has been much more focused on the economy and domestic issues. His foreign policy credentials have become a bigger issue as his threat to Clinton’s campaign has grown. And it’s also no secret, that as a former secretary of state, Clinton has many experts to whom she can turn. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for instance, is supporting Clinton’s campaign. Also in Clinton’s circle are former defense secretary and CIA chief Leon Panetta, and former national security adviser Tom Donilon. Sanders’ campaign did not respond to our requests, but Sanders addressed Clinton’s criticism on Meet the Press. "I’ll tell you that we have met recently with people like Larry Korb, who actually worked in the Reagan administration," Sanders said. "We talked to people like Jim Zogby, talked to the people on J Street, to get a broad perspective of the Middle East, and I’ve been meeting with a whole lot of people." Sanders has mentioned these same sources before. He told CNN host Jake Tapper on Jan. 31 that he consulted Korb, and gave Politico a list of consultation sources that included Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of pro-Israel group J Street. Politico reported that many of the people on Sanders’ list did not consider themselves advisers, but did say they had spoken with the Vermont senator. Ben-Ami said he briefed Sanders, but noted he met with many members of Congress and presidential candidates. Tamara Coffman Wittes, director of the Brookings Institution Center for Middle East Policy, told Politico she met with Sanders once in August 2015, but couldn’t remember any details of the discussion beyond some points about Islamic State. Korb, a former assistant defense secretary under Ronald Reagan and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told PolitiFact he met with Sanders, likely in early December. The discussion ranged from defense policy to the Middle East to climate change. Korb said they talked for a couple of hours and found Sanders to be "insightful" and "knowledgeable." Korb said he didn’t necessarily consider one meeting a qualification as being a Sanders adviser, but he had advised on subjects for other presidential campaigns, too — including for Obama, who had a much more extensive and sophisticated foreign policy group during his 2008 run. "I’m not involved with the Sanders campaign or have an official role," Korb said. "As far as being an adviser, I have provided advice to him, so …" All of that said, it’s probably fair that Sanders doesn’t have the same established network of foreign policy experts that Clinton has, or Obama did. But Sanders has talked to experts, who have offered him advice on pressing foreign policy issues. Eliot Cohen, who advised Mitt Romney in 2012 and is a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins, said it may not matter much that Sanders lacks a roster of well-connected foreign policy experts and assistants. "Some campaigns have in-house staffs, others have a policy person or two and a group of people that they consult more or less regularly — but not highly organized," Cohen said. "This early on, I’m not sure you have to have a formal organization, as opposed to some experts to bounce things off of." Some 2016 Republicans are in the same position. Donald Trump, who is leading the polls in New Hampshire, appears to have no organized foreign policy network of advisers. Our ruling Clinton said, "There really isn’t any kind of foreign policy network that is supporting and advising Sen. Sanders." It’s not a network in the same sense of Clinton’s, but Sanders has met with several foreign policy experts. It doesn’t appear he has any team with which he regularly discusses foreign policy. An expert who advised Mitt Romney said that’s not all together distressing or upsetting, giving the nature of the campaign. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-02-07T15:27:56	2016-02-07	['None']
-vogo-00395	Statement: More weddings happen every week at the County Administration Center than any other place in the county, Supervisor Ron Roberts said at a panel April 25.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-san-diegos-wedding-hotspot/	Analysis: Grooms in tuxedos and brides in white dresses file through the security lines at the County Administration Center each day to — assuming all goes as planned — sign a few papers, exchange a few words, share a kiss and begin married life together.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: San Diego's Wedding Hotspot	April 29, 2011	None	['None']
-snes-01595	In 2018, Halloween will fall on Friday the 13th for the first time in 666 years.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/halloween-friday-13th/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does Halloween Fall on Friday the 13th for the First Time in 666 Years?	8 October 2014	None	['None']
-goop-02559	Selena Gomez Mom Mandy Teefey Does Call Justin Bieber “Satan,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-mom-not-call-justin-bieber-satan-mandy-teefey/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez Mom Mandy Teefey Does NOT Call Justin Bieber “Satan,” Despite Claim	11:29 am, August 21, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02883	Democratic Congressmen Busted Planning to Assassinate Trump?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/democratic-congressmen-busted-planning-assassinate-trump/	None	Junk News	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Were Democratic Congressmen Busted for Planning to Assassinate Trump?	24 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11560	"If the Dow Joans ever falls more than 1000 ‘points’ in a Single Day the sitting president should be 'loaded' into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!"	/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/06/tweets/fake-trump-tweet-about-dow-joans-dropping-called-t/	As the Dow Jones plunged Feb. 5, not long after President Donald Trump boasted about the stock market gains, a fake Trump tweet surfaced in which he vowed that such a drop in the "Dow Joans" should result in the president being shot out of a cannon into the sun. Though it was a hoax, that didn’t stop the Twitterverse from going nuts over it. At 4:38 p.m. Feb. 15, Shaun Usher, who lives in Manchester, England and author of the Letters of Note website, wrote on Twitter: "There’s *always* a tweet," and then linked to a supposed Trump tweet from Feb. 15, 2015: "If the Dow Joans ever falls more than 1000 ‘points’ in a Single Day the sitting president should be 'loaded' into a very big cannon and Shot into the sun at TREMENDOUS SPEED! No excuses!" See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The tweet took off, and within 19 hours drew more than 22,000 retweets and 47,000 likes. Minutes later, Usher followed up by making it clear the tweet was a hoax: "Sweet mother of god. Not for one second did I think people would believe that to be genuine." "omg it's everywhere. What have I done." "siri can i be arrested for making a fake tweet." Some users on Twitter called on Usher to delete the tweet. He replied: "Many people asking why I haven't taken it down. Literally within minutes of me posting it, it had legs. It was everywhere within about 10mins. I had lost control of it in an instant. Deleting mine--its place of birth--felt wrong & maybe more dangerous?" Many in the Twitterverse seemed to realize it was a hoax and enjoyed the joke: "You just gained a follower. Me. Thanks for the laugh." "Does this mean he's NOT getting shot out of a cannon??" tweeted another with a sad face emoji. "We will build a sun cannon, and we will have the sun people pay for it," one tweeted, a reference to Trump’s plan to build a wall at the border of Mexico and make Mexico pay for it. Some in the twitterverse adopted an investigative tone and noted that the alleged Trump tweet had more than 140 characters, which wasn’t possible in 2015. Another took a scientific approach: "Important question: would one want said president to make it to the sun, or simply impart the amount of inertia required to get something of their mass to the sun? One is much more complex the other and could create many jobs," linking to a diagram and math formula for shooting Trump to the sun. Some on Twitter appeared to fall for the hoax: "OMG, did the dumb SOB really spell it ‘Joans’?" "Is this real?" "Oops. I fell for it." It wasn’t a surprise that someone poked fun at Trump for the stock market drop after Trump had repeatedly touted gains in the stock market. On Jan. 5, Trump tweeted that the Dow Jones Industrial Average "jumped 1000 points in last 5 weeks, Record fastest 1000 point move in history." We rated that statement True, though no president can take full credit for the economy. Trump made a comment about stock market records in Nashville days later and again Jan. 26 in a speech to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Usher has been critical of Trump in the past. Hours before Usher posted the fake tweet, he bashed Trump over his criticism of the UK health care system. In January, Usher called Trump the "dumbest sack of meat" in response to his comments about climate change. We attempted to reach Usher but did not hear back. The White House declined to comment. We rate this fake tweet Pants on Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tweets	None	None	None	2018-02-06T12:14:56	2018-02-05	['None']
-goop-01726	Jennifer Aniston Did “Unexpectedly” Meet Brad Pitt’s Children At His Hous	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-met-brad-pitt-children-house-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Did NOT “Unexpectedly” Meet Brad Pitt’s Children At His House	2:55 pm, January 25, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00475	15-ton Prehistoric Shark Captured in Pakistan	https://www.truthorfiction.com/giant-shark/	None	animals	None	None	None	15-ton Prehistoric Shark Captured in Pakistan	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00056	The claim: Peter Dutton says the Federal Government has provided $18 million to services like the Red Cross to fight Ebola in Africa.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/red-cross-ebola-funding-peter-dutton-misleading-fact-check/5826522	The claim: Peter Dutton says the Federal Government has provided $18 million to services like the Red Cross to fight Ebola in Africa.	['diseases-and-disorders', 'health', 'world-politics', 'government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'relief-and-aid-organisations', 'australia']	None	None	['diseases-and-disorders', 'health', 'world-politics', 'government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'relief-and-aid-organisations', 'australia']	Fact check: Health Minister Peter Dutton misleading on Red Cross Ebola funding	Wed 29 Oct 2014, 1:09am	None	['Africa', 'International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement', 'Ebola_virus_disease']
-snes-02308	Trump Wants Executive Order Abolishing Impeachment?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-wants-executive-order-abolishing-impeachment/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Trump Wants Executive Order Abolishing Impeachment?	31 May 2017	None	['None']
-tron-00646	“Monkey Wrench” a Derogatory Term for Inventor Jack Johnson	https://www.truthorfiction.com/monkey-wrench-name-insult-to-inventor-jack-johnson/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	“Monkey Wrench” a Derogatory Term for Inventor Jack Johnson	Dec 16, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01441	Did a Woman Say the Washington Post Offered Her $1,000 to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-washington-post-offer-accuse-roy-moore/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did a Woman Say the Washington Post Offered Her $1,000 to Accuse Roy Moore of Sexual Abuse?	13 November 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00649	Is Willie Nelson Seriously Ill?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/willie-nelson-seriously-ill/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Willie Nelson Seriously Ill?	7 May 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12232	"One in three people who’s receiving treatment for (opioid) drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/18/elizabeth-warren/are-third-people-drug-problems-medicaid-elizabeth-/	In a video denouncing the Senate health care bill’s slashing of Medicaid funding, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., emphasized the importance of Medicaid in battling the opioid crisis. Warren called an additional $45 billion introduced in the new Senate health care bill to fight the opioid crisis insufficient if spending on Medicaid is to decrease. "Right now, Medicaid is the principal way we deal with opioid abuse," Warren said. "One in three people who’s receiving treatment for drug problems gets some help from Medicaid to pay for that." A reader asked us to check out her claim. Are one in three people receiving treatment for drug problems on Medicaid? When we asked her office to clarify her statement, they said Warren referred specifically to opioid users, rather than all of those who suffer from drug problems. Warren was referencing a study by Richard Frank, a professor of Health Economics in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School who testified before the Senate’s Joint Economic Committee. Frank calculated the percentage of the non-elderly adult population with opioid use disorder covered by Medicaid, which came to 34.3 percent. He used data from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the latest study from the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Thirty-four percent effectively comes to 1.029, or one, person for every three. Warren said those people are receiving treatment, but Frank’s research looked at people suffering from opioid use disorder whether or not they are currently in treatment. But other research supports her point. When the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for us, they found that of the 880,000 nonelderly adults with opioid addiction who received treatment for opioid use disorder in 2015, 39 percent were covered by Medicaid. They looked at the same information as Frank. When we extended the population size to include people of all ages, the number was similar: 38 percent. Breaking down these numbers further, 51 percent of the 880,000 treated adults got outpatient treatment only (which refers to visits that don’t warrant an overnight stay), 6 percent got inpatient treatment only, and 43 percent got both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Julia Zur, a senior policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation, explained that outpatient treatment is more popular and that patients who start in inpatient treatment will often go on to receive outpatient treatment. When we asked why the number of those who are receiving treatment and covered by Medicaid is higher than those who are simply covered, Frank explained that Medicaid programs tend to be more generous in covering costs than private programs, and Medicaid plans cover at least some medication-assisted treatment to treat substance use disorders. The Medicaid expansion was particularly helpful in securing coverage, as it reached high-need segments of the low-income population in states that have been hard hit by the opioid crisis. Our rating Warren said that one in three people receiving treatment for opioid addiction were covered by Medicaid, basing her estimate on 34 percent of people with opioid use disorder. The number was higher when we looked at only those receiving treatment: 39 percent. So while the numbers differ slightly, one in three is still a fair estimate. We rate this statement Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Elizabeth Warren	None	None	None	2017-07-18T10:13:36	2017-07-13	['None']
-chct-00336	FACT CHECK: Are DACA Recipients Eligible For Federal Benefits?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/09/05/fact-check-are-daca-recipients-eligible-for-federal-benefits/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	9:58 PM 09/05/2017	None	['None']
-snes-01370	The 2017 tax reform bill eliminates personal deductions for state and local taxes (primary sources of public school funding), while offering tax breaks for parents who send their children to private schools.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tax-bill-private-schools/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Does the 2017 Tax Reform Bill Help Private Schools and Hurt Public Schools?	5 December 2017	None	['None']
-tron-01267	Oxford Pushes Back Letter About Cecil Rhodes Statute	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oxford-pushes-back-letter-cecil-rhodes-statute/	None	education	None	None	None	Oxford Pushes Back Letter About Cecil Rhodes Statute	Mar 30, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-00938	On supporting right to work legislation in 2015	/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/23/scott-walker/supporting-2015-right-work-legislation-scott-walke/	Gov. Scott Walker has gone from saying "I'm not supporting" so-called right to work legislation in Wisconsin's 2015 legislative session, to saying he will sign a bill that's being fast-tracked to his desk. Flip-flop? Let's turn to our Flip-O-Meter, which simply determines whether a politician's stance on an issue has changed. It does not test whether any change in position is good policy or good politics. We’re not addressing Walker on right to work per se; he’s been a backer for more than two decades. Rather, we’re looking specifically at whether he has changed his position in terms of supporting a right to work law in Wisconsin in 2015. Right-to-work laws -- derided by some opponents as "right to work for less" laws -- are in place in 24 states. They prohibit businesses and unions from reaching labor deals that require workers to pay union fees. Generally speaking, we have found there is some evidence of economic advantage in right to work states. But evidence is lacking that right to work, rather than other factors, is the cause. (Go here to see a summary of our work on right to work.) Walker has been an advocate of right to work dating back to 1993, when he sponsored such legislation as a Wisconsin state lawmaker. But in recent months -- as he has transitioned from campaigning for re-election to pursuing a potential run for the White House – Walker has repeatedly called the issue a "distraction," saying he has higher legislative priorities. Leadership committees in the Senate and Assembly voted Feb. 23, 2015 along party lines to open what is known as an extraordinary session, to take up only the labor legislation. Leaders expect it will be passed and sent to Walker within a week or so. Three points in time reveal a shift on Walker's part. Stating opposition On May 11, 2012, Walker told reporters at the state Republican Party convention he had "no interest in pursuing right-to-work legislation in this state." "It’s not going to get to my desk," he said. "I’m going to do everything in my power to make sure it isn’t there because my focal point (is) private sector unions have overwhelmingly come to the table to be my partner in economic development." Walker would later renew that opposition with regard to 2015. Restating opposition for 2015 On Sept. 2, 2014, Walker -- in the midst of his campaign against Democrat Mary Burke to win re-election -- said he was not advocating for right to work. And he said he did not expect the Legislature to send such legislation his way in the session that would start in January 2015. "I think it's pretty clear the Legislature has worked with us hand in hand in the past and I'm making it clear in this campaign, as I'll make it clear in the next (legislative) session, that that's not something that's part of my agenda," Walker said. "My point is I'm not pushing for it. I'm not supporting it in this session." Walker declined to say whether he would veto the measure if it reached him. But that would change. Promises his signature On Feb. 20, 2015, Walker -- now a 2016 presidential hopeful riding a wave of momentum -- committed to signing the right to work bill being fast-tracked. "I've never said that I didn't think it was a good idea," Walker told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I've just questioned the timing in the past and whether it was right at that time." But Walker had an opportunity to discourage GOP lawmakers from pursuing it, or to tell them he would not sign it if it reached his desk at this time. The Journal Sentinel reported that GOP Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said he brought up the right-to-work proposal as a possibility to the governor on Feb. 18, 2015. The next day he alerted Walker's chief of staff, Eric Schutt, to the plan to act on the bill quickly. And the day after that, Walker announced he would sign the bill. According to Fitzgerald, neither Walker nor Schutt discouraged him from putting the bill forward. Fitzgerald called Walker "supportive" but said "he still probably believes there is a potential this could turn into something that would be disruptive." Our rating Echoing comments he made in 2012, Walker stated in September 2014 that "I'm not supporting" right to work legislation in the 2015 legislative session. But on Feb. 20, 2015, with Republican lawmakers poised to send him such legislation, Walker said he would sign it. That is certainly a form of support. For a major reversal of position, we give Walker a Full Flop. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2015-02-23T14:44:44	2015-02-20	['None']
-obry-00030	When the United States was hit with a recession nearly a decade ago, Wisconsin was not spared from widespread economic downturn and unemployment. But in the years following the Great Recession, Wisconsin’s unemployment rates have been looking up. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development released a report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics June 22 outlining the state’s unemployment statistics. Four months later, now-Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, penned a column published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette boasting Wisconsin’s low unemployment rate statistics. “Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is at 4.2 percent and our state now has a record number of people working. Workers who want full-time employment are now having an easier time finding it,” Tiffany wrote. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/12/19/examining-wisconsins-unemployment-rates/	None	None	None	Hayley Sperling	None	Examining Wisconsin’s unemployment rates	December 20, 2016	None	['United_States', 'Wisconsin', 'Great_Recession']
-pomt-08965	"The health care numbers are going up."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/20/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-health-care-approval-increasing/	Jake Tapper, the host of ABC's This Week, asked Vice President Joe Biden in an interview aired Sunday July 18 if the Obama administration was getting enough credit for its accomplishments, and if not, why not. Biden responded that it takes time for people to feel the effects of legislation. "For example," said Biden, "here you had the insurance industry spending hundreds of millions of dollars to make the health care bill out to be this godawful tragedy. Now what's starting to happen? The health care numbers are going up." That made us wonder whether public opinion polls have shown a marked increase in approval of President Obama's health care reform bill since it was signed into law on March 23, 2010. The problem with statistics and public opinion polls is that numbers can be cherry-picked to make just about any assertion. Looking at polling numbers in different ways paints a clearer picture, so that's what we did. And we found that there is no clear trend in approval, positive or negative, since the health care bill passed. Our data primarily comes from Pollster.com's aggregation of polls measuring opinions towards the new health care bill. If you look closely, shortly after the bill passed there was a slight move upwards, followed by a move downwards, resulting in a negligible net change. Within a week of passage, a USA Today/Gallup poll found that 47 percent of those polled thought the health care law was a "good thing." When they polled again in June, 49 percent responded favorably. While that marks a two percentage point increase, since the poll's margin of sampling error is four percent, the difference is statistically insignificant. At the end of March, CBS News took a poll that found 32 percent approved of the new law. When the same question was asked in July, 36 percent approved. With a sampling error of three, this means a slight increase in those viewing it favorably. However, a Pew poll taken in early April and then again in July shows a five percent decrease, with a sampling error of four percentage points. The three polls mentioned above come to three different conclusions, but they all share one thing in common-- the changes in opinion are very small when accounting for sampling error. "I would say there is no clear trend," said Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "The healthcare reform legislation Congress passed in late March divided the public then and has not gained support in the three months since," read a report published by Gallup in late June. If you look over the last six months and use live interviewer polls, which are usually considered more reliable, as opposed to just looking at polls since March when the bill passed, then you can see a small trend upward, according to Charles Franklin, co-founder of Pollster.com. However, Franklin agrees that using the time around the bill was signed into law is "an obvious point of comparison." Franklin added that the lack of polling over the last three months makes it difficult to accurately detect trends using Pollster.com data. Since the poll results reflect no clear trend up or down in the public's view of the health care bill since its passage in March, we rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2010-07-20T16:05:42	2010-07-18	['None']
-vogo-00279	Statement: Community colleges can’t legally charge high school students tuition, Joe Radding, who oversees the state Department of Education’s college preparation program, said in an interview with voiceofsandiego.org on Jan. 9.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/update-whats-illegal-in-schools/	Analysis: Earlier this month, mayoral candidate Bonnie Dumanis received a False rating because her education plan incorrectly claimed that state laws prohibit high school students from attending community college classes.	None	None	None	None	Update: What's Illegal in Schools	February 1, 2012	None	['None']
-hoer-00500	'Remains of Egyptian Army Discovered in Red Sea'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/remains-egyptian-army-red-sea-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News: 'Remains of Egyptian Army Discovered in Red Sea'	December 29, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-11173	"Jeff Sessions Caught Colluding with Obama"	/punditfact/statements/2018/may/23/blog-posting/false-claim-jeff-sessions-caught-collud/	A website called the Conservative Patriot falsely claimed Attorney General Jeff Sessions was "caught colluding with Obama." There are no legitimate news reports to back up the headline of the April 1 post published on theconspatriot.com, and the story does not offer any evidence either. The Justice Department declined to comment. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on Facebook's News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Conservative Patriot’s story recaps President Donald Trump’s displeasure with Sessions’s recusal from the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russians. The story includes comments on Fox News’ Hannity from legal and political analyst Gregg Jarrett, who said Sessions "betrayed the president" because he didn’t tell him that he would recuse himself from the investigation. In the same interview, Sara Carter, a Fox news contributor, said Sessions "was being advised badly" at the time, and Jarrett interjected to say, "by Obama’s holdovers." In March 2017, Sessions said he consulted "senior officials" about his role in the investigation and that "my staff recommend recusal." In a press release, Sessions said he "met with the relevant senior career Department officials" and after meetings, decided to recuse himself from investigations related to the campaigns for presidency. Still, that does not prove "colluding with Obama." Here’s what Sessions then said in a press conference about the recusal: "I have been here just three weeks today. A lot has been happening in this three-week period. I wish I'd had more of my staff on board, but we're still waiting for confirmation for them. "Much has been done. Much needs to be done. But I did and have done as I promised. I have met with senior officials shortly after arriving here. We evaluated the rules of ethics and recusal. I have considered the issues at stake. … "I asked for their candid and honest opinion about what I should do about investigations, certain investigations. And my staff recommended recusal. They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation. I have studied the rules and considered their comments and evaluation. I believe those recommendations are right and just. Therefore, I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign." A headline on the Conservative Patriot blog claimed Sessions was "caught colluding with Obama." But there is no evidence of that. We rate the claim Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-05-23T13:02:17	2018-04-01	['Barack_Obama']
-hoer-01010	Free Sharpie Marker Set	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/8094-2/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Free Sharpie Marker Set Facebook Scam	May 19, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-00009	Red Cross Spends 92 Cents of Every Dollar on Salaries	https://www.truthorfiction.com/red-cross-donations-salaries/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Red Cross Spends 92 Cents of Every Dollar on Salaries	Apr 30, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00803	Duck Dynasty vs. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad	https://www.truthorfiction.com/duck-dynasty-vs-iran/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Duck Dynasty vs. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-11725	"Morgue employee cremated by mistake while taking a nap."	/punditfact/statements/2017/dec/14/worldnewsdailyreportcom/its-fake-news-texas-morgue-employee-cremated-while/	In case you need an incentive to stay awake on the job, a nap cost a Texas morgue employee his life, claims a fake news story. "Morgue employee cremated by mistake while taking a nap," states the headline on worldnewsdailyreport.com, a website that posts a disclaimer stating that it is satirical. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. This fake article has been circulating on Facebook at least since March and a more recent version copies the story but changes the location to Macomb, Mich. The story has gained enough attention that Texas police have had to publicly refute it. The article stated that an employee of the Jefferson County morgue, Henri Paul Johnson, decided to take a nap on a stretcher after working for 16 hours straight. "While he was sleeping, another employee mistook him for the corpse of a 52-year-old car accident victim and carried him to the crematory," stated the website. Jenna Davis, a morgue employee, claimed that the coworker who caused the accidental cremation was a new employee and had forgotten to check for the toe tag to make sure he had the right body. The Beaumont Police opened a criminal investigation, the website stated. Actually, the police department did no such thing. Carol Riley, public information officer for the police department, told PolitiFact that her department was inundated with phone calls about the story when it first appeared months ago. "People were sharing it on our Facebook messenger, they were calling our local media, calling to see if it had any teeth to it," Riley said. The story is "absolutely fake news," she said. "It did not happen." Helga Briscoe, administrator for Forensic Medical that does autopsies for 14 counties including Jefferson County, told PolitiFact that the privately-run facility doesn’t even do cremations. A search of the photos in Google Images shows that the photos were lifted from other news stories. The photo of the alleged Jenna Davis, the morgue coworker, is actually Dr. Lisa Funte, a forensic pathologist at the morgue photographed by the Beaumont Enterprise newspaper in 2012. But the photo of the wide-eyed smiling man who was allegedly cremated was totally unrelated to the morgue: it matches the image of a DeSoto County constable arrested for DUI in 2015, Snopes found. A worldnewsdailyreport.com headline stated, "morgue employee cremated by mistake while taking a nap." The Beaumont police department confirmed that this allegation is fiction. This story is ridiculous, and we rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	worldnewsdailyreport.com	None	None	None	2017-12-14T10:07:05	2017-03-03	['None']
-tron-02908	Sarah Huckabee Sanders Answers “Where is President Trump Hiding His Tax Returns?”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-where-is-president-trump-hiding-tax-returns/	None	politics	None	None	['donald trump', 'media', 'sean spicer', 'white house']	Sarah Huckabee Sanders Answers “Where is President Trump Hiding His Tax Returns?”	Sep 21, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11371	"FBI RAIDS OBAMA – Find Massive Secret That Was Hidden For YEARS."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/30/blog-posting/obama-raided-fbi-not-so-fast/	A website trying to trick voters into a click says in a headline, "FBI RAIDS OBAMA – Find Massive Secret That Was Hidden For YEARS." But the story is not nearly as explosive as it sounds. The website maxipolitics.com posted the story originally in February, but it’s continuing to be shared on Facebook. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. The Facebook post comes with a photo collage of FBI agents in jackets and a mugshot of Barack Obama. But this story has nothing to do with the former president. Neither does the FBI. In January, the South Carolina Department of Revenue arrested Murad A. Alhanik, owner of Obama Mart in Columbia, S.C., of tax evasion. According to the state agency, "From tax years 2013 to 2016, Alhanik filed monthly sales tax returns reporting a total of $971,935 in gross sales. However, the SCDOR investigation revealed actual sales to be $2,688,533. Due to the underreported sales, the defendant evaded paying $136,753 in sales taxes due to the state of South Carolina." Maxipolitics.com took that real story and distorted it by adding details about the FBI and an image of the former president. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-03-30T11:18:46	2018-02-07	['None']
-pomt-00634	"One person has been fired" at the Veterans Administration for withholding services.	/florida/statements/2015/may/22/jeb-bush/was-only-one-person-fired-va-withholding-services-/	Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says that the Obama White House has seen "scandals of epic proportions" at the Veterans Administration under its watch. "It is scandalous that we treat our military coming home from service in the veterans’ department and veterans’ administration in a way where people should be fired," Bush said at a GOP Lincoln Day dinner in Iowa May 16. "One person has been fired. There should be scores of people fired for withholding services for people who truly need it." Has only one person been fired related to the VA scandal? We decided to check. Health care scandal at VA In 2014, news reports revealed secret waiting lists at VA hospitals, while whistleblowers claimed that VA employees manipulated wait-time data. That ultimately led to the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki amid growing calls for him to be fired. A Bush spokeswoman said that when Bush said only one person was fired he was referring to Shinseki’s forced resignation. (But the day after his speech Bush wrote that eight had been fired.) "You can't just make a change at the top," Bush spokeswoman Allie Brandenburger said. Shinseki wasn’t the only one who lost his job, though. Pinpointing the exact number is difficult, though, for a number of reasons. Numbers vary depending on if we count only permanent employees who were fired or include people who were in their one-year probationary period. We can also count people who retired or quit rather getting fired. The numbers also vary depending upon the reasons for terminations and whether they were directly related to the VA scandal. Finally, the VA produces a new report each week of disciplinary actions, so the numbers can change frequently. PolitiFact obtained a list of disciplinary actions from the VA supplied to the House and Senate committees on Veterans Affairs between June 3, 2014, and May 14, 2015. That information, shows employees disciplined for patient scheduling, record manipulation, appointment delays, and/or patient deaths. (Bush mentioned firings in the context of "withholding services" -- that term itself isn’t mentioned on the document though it could certainly overlap with the ones mentioned here.) The data shows 21 regular employees were removed, six probationary employees were removed and 10 resigned or retired when they faced being fired, for a total of 37 removals. Another 12 removals remained pending. We confirmed the numbers with a spokesman for the VA. But those 21 include three medical center directors who were ultimately fired for reasons unrelated to the waiting times scandal, such as accepting improper gifts and failure to oversee employees, including one who took a patient to a crack house. So if we don’t count those three, the number would be 18. (A judge threw out most of the reasons the medical center director in Phoenix was fired including about waiting times but upheld her firing for accepting improper gifts.) The numbers are larger than those reported in a widely quoted April 22 article in the New York Times, which stated that VA data showed at best three people were fired for manipulating wait times through April 8. That number included the medical director fired for accepting gifts, one who retired while facing being fired and a pending case. We asked VA for updated figures on the number of people it has fired for manipulating wait times, the problem that precipitated the scandal. VA did not provide those figures. Both sides have exaggerated claims about VA firings. In February, Shinseki’s replacement, Robert McDonald, said on Meet the Press that 900 people "have been fired since I became secretary (of Veterans Affairs). We’ve got 60 people that we fired who have manipulated wait times." McDonald inflated that figure in part by counting proposed firings. Data in February showed that 14 people were either removed, received probationary termination or resigned in lieu of removal. Another nine individuals had removals against them pending. PolitiFact rated that claim False. Our ruling Bush said "one person has been fired" related to withholding services at the Veterans Administration. Bush was referring to Shinseki, who technically resigned but that was amid growing calls for him to be fired. Data through May 14 showed that 18 permanent employees have been fired for patient scheduling, record manipulation, appointment delays, and/or patient deaths. Bush has a point that few have been fired, but he exaggerated when he said it was only one. We rate this claim Mostly False. EDITOR'S NOTE: This version incorporates additional language clarifying what information VA provided PolitiFact.	None	Jeb Bush	None	None	None	2015-05-22T10:00:00	2015-05-16	['None']
-snes-01550	Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/robbers-throwing-eggs-car-windshields/	None	Crime	None	Snopes Staff	None	Robbers Throwing Eggs at Car Windshields?	7 December 2009	None	['None']
-pomt-15278	When President Abraham Lincoln signed his Emancipation Proclamation, "there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army."	/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/27/chuck-baldwin/no-300000-slave-owners-did-not-fight-union-side-ci/	A common argument in the dispute over official displays of the Confederate battle flag is that most people misunderstand the reasons behind the Civil War. It was not about slavery, these advocates say, but about the right to secede from the Union. Chuck Baldwin, a fundamentalist pastor and columnist, made this case in a recent essay that appeared on his website and many others, including a fan page for Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. Baldwin gave many reasons to back up his conclusion, but a reader asked us to examine one in particular: Slavery was not the pivotal reason for the war because thousands of slave owners supported the North. "Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his (Emancipation) proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army?" Baldwin wrote. "Check it out." The first thing we did was reach out to Baldwin to learn his source. We did not hear from him. As we researched this, we found that Baldwin’s statement was vague on one key point -- he didn’t say which states the slaveholders came from. When the war began, slavery was legal in four Union states. Those were Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. West Virginia fell somewhere in between because it split off from Virginia in 1863 to join the Union. So in theory, there were slaveholders from Union states and slaveholders from Confederate states that could have fought on the Union side. That distinction might make no difference to Baldwin’s argument, but it makes a big difference in the underlying math. Keep your states straight We don’t know where Baldwin got his number, but it could be tied to an 1889 book written by Thomas Seaman Townsend, a private historian with a passion for recording the role of soldiers from New York in the Civil War. Townsend had a brief passage about the number of West Point graduates who remained loyal to the Union. West Point is located in New York. "It will be seen that the disloyalty of West Point was not as great as is generally supposed. In the navy about one-third of the officers came from slaveholding States, yet remained faithful to the Union; while one-eighth of the Union army, or 300,000 men, were contributed by the Southern States." Townsend doesn’t say which "Southern" states he had in mind. Fortunately, one of the leading Civil War historians, James McPherson at Princeton University, knows Townsend’s work and told us that he included the Confederate states, plus Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. In addition to McPherson, we reached historians Robert Tinkler at California State University-Chico and Gary Gallagher at the University of Virginia. All of them agree on these approximate totals: White Union soldiers from Confederate states -- 75,000-100,000 White Union soldiers from slaveholding Union states -- 200,000 So, in round figures, it is reasonably accurate to say that 300,000 white men from slaveholding states fought on the Union side. (In addition, as many as 200,000 black former slaves became Union soldiers and sailors.) But there is no reason to believe that all or even a hefty minority of these white soldiers were slave owners themselves. In fact, all three historians we reached told us there was no evidence to back up that assertion and plenty of reasons to suggest it does not fit the facts that are known. Few slaveholding Union soldiers Gallagher told us that there is no breakdown of which Union soldiers came from slave-owning families. However, we do know where slavery was common and where it wasn’t, and the Union soldiers in question came from places where it wasn’t. For the men from the Confederate states, Tinkler said the pattern is clear. "These soldiers generally came from low slaveholding areas, such as the mountain regions of Tennessee, and small, non-slaveholding families," he said. The upland residents of what became West Virginia fit the same mold. Tinkler said across Appalachia, support for secession was thin at the start of the war and as time went by, resistance increased. The Confederate Congress played a role in that. "In October 1862, Congress amended the Conscription Act with what became known as the ‘Twenty Negro Law,’ a provision that exempted from the draft one white man of military age on plantations with at least 20 slaves," Tinkler wrote. "Designed to help secure plantation districts against slave revolts, this exemption policy inspired much class-based opposition to the Confederacy. ‘A rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight’ became the cry of many southerners of modest means." Needless to say, men of modest means were less likely to own slaves. For the Union states that allowed slavery, the 1860 census shows that they had much lower rates of slave ownership than the Confederate states. The average fraction of slaveholding families was about 11 percent for those Union states, while in the Confederacy, it was about 40 percent. All three historians told us that the number of men on the Union side who owned slaves was quite small. "Very few of them were slaveholders, probably not more than a very few thousand," McPherson told us. "Among those Southern whites who did own slaves, even in the Unionist border slave states, many supported the Confederacy, and fought for it." McPherson said in researching his book For Cause and Comrades, he read the letters of about 60 Union soldiers from slave states and he can't recall a single one who owned slaves. Implausible numbers Data from another direction also throws Baldwin’s figure into question. The nation’s 1860 census counted a bit under 1.6 million men of military age (18-45) in slaveholding states. This included men in all the Confederate states, plus Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. The census also reported the percentage of families that owned slaves in each state. State-by-state, we applied that percentage to the total number of military age males. In 1860, there were about 412,000 men from slaveholding families who could serve as soldiers. We can only take this as a rough guide for several reasons — in the course of the war, young men would be killed, others would come of age, and later in the war, the Confederates broadened the age of conscription to span from 17 to 50 years old. But the general scale shows how Baldwin’s figure stretches belief. If 300,000 Union soldiers were slave owners, it would mean that somewhere in the ballpark of three-quarters of the available slave owning men put on the Union blue. If that were true, it is hard to see how the Confederacy would have had enough men to deliver any success on the battlefield. For the record, in 1863, Confederate forces totaled about 300,000. Gallagher noted that over the four years of the war, the South put 800,000-900,000 men under arms. It was a mobilization effort that he called "astonishing." "That could only be accomplished by putting the vast majority of males from slaveholding families into service," Gallagher said. Our ruling Baldwin said that 300,000 slaveholders fought in the Union army. The closest we can get to that figure is an estimate that 300,000 men from states that allowed slavery put on the Union blue uniform. But that provides no evidence that all of them owned slaves, either directly themselves or through their families. The historians we reached said the actual number of slaveholders who fought for the Union was tiny, perhaps a few thousand. The data from the 1860 census show that if Baldwin were correct, an overwhelming fraction of all of the young men from slave-owning families across the Deep South and beyond would needed to have broken with their communities and fought for the Union. Had that happened, it is hard to see how the Confederacy would have been able to fight at all. The chance that a few thousand slaveholders fought for the Union, rather than the 300,000 as Baldwin said, does little to keep this statement in the realm of reality. We rate it Pants on Fire.	None	Chuck Baldwin	None	None	None	2015-07-27T14:21:28	2015-07-09	['Abraham_Lincoln', 'Emancipation_Proclamation']
-fani-00003	CLAIM: 60% of sales from Northern Ireland go to Great Britain.	https://factcheckni.org/facts/does-northern-ireland-sell-60-of-its-goods-to-great-britain/	None	brexit	None	None	None	Does Northern Ireland sell 60% of its goods to Great Britain?	None	None	['Northern_Ireland']
-pomt-02149	In discussing the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "Ms. Rice did say 'a terrorist attack.' It’s not that she put the whole thing on the video."	/punditfact/statements/2014/may/04/cokie-roberts/cokie-roberts-susan-rice-didnt-put-whole-benghazi-/	Following the release of a new White House email, discussion on the Sunday morning shows turned back to the Sept. 11, 2012, deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. President Barack Obama and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice both came under scrutiny for downplaying a potential terrorist attack in the days following. Though government officials eventually said the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al-Qaida, White House officials initially said the violence was the result of a mob protesting an anti-Muslim film that had been posted on YouTube. On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace criticized Rice. "Under court order, the administration had to release an email from a presidential adviser that indicates the White House helped shape Susan Rice’s talking points when she appeared here and on other Sunday talk shows five days after the attack," he said. "In those interviews Rice blamed reaction to a video and ruled out a pre-planned act of terror." Others defended Rice and the White House. On ABC’s This Week, political strategist David Plouffe said the president referred to Benghazi as a terrorist attack in his Rose Garden address Sept. 12. We’ve noted before, though, that the White House wasn’t consistent in describing the event as a terrorist attack until two weeks later. Similarly, ABC political commentator Cokie Roberts argued that Rice mentioned the prospect of terrorism in comments on the Sept. 16 Sunday shows. "When you read the transcript of those Sunday shows, actually Ms. Rice did say a ‘terrorist attack,’ " Roberts said. "It’s not that she put the whole thing on the video." PolitiFact has broken down Rice’s on-air comments before, but PunditFact wanted to revisit the issue since it’s still a point of contention among pundits a year and a half after the attack. PunditFact found that Roberts misrepresented Rice’s talking points during that first round of Sunday show appearances after the attack. ABC did not return our request for comment. We excerpted each interview at the bottom of our report. Here are the main points: Rice referred to the video as the source of the conflict in all five interviews. On Fox and ABC, she said the attacks were not pre-planned but rather were related to the video protest. She mentioned "extremists" on CBS, CNN, NBC and ABC, but again connected them to the protest of the video and implied the uprisings were not planned as an act of terrorism. On CNN, for example, she described the attack as a "horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists." She mentioned al-Qaida only on CBS and cautioned that she wasn’t sure they were involved. In no interview did she use the word "terror" or any variation. Technically, Rice did mention extremism in most of her appearances, but she certainly wasn’t saying that the Benghazi attack was a pre-planned act of terror. In fact, she repeatedly emphasized that it wasn’t. Rice’s appearances on Sunday Sept. 16 were consistent in that she repeatedly said that the federal government was investigating what happened and that "we'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms." But when asked to offer her assessment of what happened, Rice stressed protests related to the anti-Muslim video and downplayed connections to terrorism. Our ruling Roberts said that when talking about Benghazi on the Sept. 16, 2012, Sunday shows, Rice said, "terrorist attack" and didn’t put the entire blame on protests related to an anti-Islam YouTube video. Our review of the transcripts from Rice’s appearances showed the opposite. She consistently emphasized the importance of the video, and the only times she brought up the possibility of a terrorist connection was to downplay it. We rate Roberts’ claim Mostly False. • • • CBS’ Face the Nation Rice: "Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent." Host Bob Schieffer: "But you do not agree with (Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.) that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?" Rice: "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned." Schieffer: "Do you agree or disagree with him that al-Qaida had some part in this?" Rice: "Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaida affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaida itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine." • • • CNN’s State of the Union Rice: "Let’s recall what has happened in the last several days. There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the Internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it's one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It's been offensive to many, many people around the world. "That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it's not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video. "And, frankly, we've seen these sorts of incidents in the past. We've seen violent responses to (Salman Rushdie’s novel, The) Satanic Verses. We've seen violent responses to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an evil way. So this is something we've seen in the past, and we expect that it's possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the future. What we're focused on is securing our personnel, securing our facilities. ... "(It was a) horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists." • • • NBC’s Meet The Press Rice: "We can't predict with any certainty, but let's remember what has transpired over the last several days. This is a response to a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. ... "Let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today -- our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo -- almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. "What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation." • • • Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace: "The top Libyan official says that the attack on Tuesday was, quote, his words ‘preplanned.’ Al-Qaida says the operation was revenge for our killing a top al-Qaida leader. What do we know?" Rice: "Well, first of all, Chris, we are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation. The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a pre-planned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control. "But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment." • • • ABC’s This Week Rice: "First of all, it's important to know that there's an FBI investigation that has begun and will take some time to be completed. That will tell us with certainty what transpired. But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous -- not a premeditated -- response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. "We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to -- or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in the wake of the revolution in Libya are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present."	None	Cokie Roberts	None	None	None	2014-05-04T16:50:50	2014-05-04	['United_States', 'Libya', 'Benghazi']
-pomt-09404	"The Federal Reserve system has presided over about a 95... percent decline in the U.S. dollar."	/texas/statements/2010/mar/22/barbara-cargill/barbara-cargill-says-federal-reserve-presided-over/	The dollar ain't what it used to be, and State Board of Education member Barbara Cargill wants Texas students to know it. The board hammered out more than 300 proposed changes to the state's social studies curriculum in its January and March meetings, among them revisions to an economics course that touches on the role of the Federal Reserve in establishing monetary policy. Cargill, a former science teacher from The Woodlands near Houston, proposed an amendment requiring students to "analyze the decline in the U.S. dollar since the inception of the Federal Reserve system in 1913." When Gail Lowe, the board chair, asked Cargill if she'd like to speak to her amendment at the March 11 meeting, Cargill said: "Well, I think it stands for itself. The Federal Reserve system has presided over a 95... percent decline in the U.S. dollar." Board member Patricia Hardy questioned Cargill's statement: "It's amazing how this board knows so much about so many different subjects but I think this is innately biased in its statement and there would be lots of economists who would have a question on the role in this way." Another board member, Mavis Knight, asked: "Is the Federal Reserve System the only reason why there has been a decline in the U.S. dollar since 1913?" We wondered the same thing. In search of an answer, we first delved into the Fed's history. On Dec. 23, 1913, Congress created the the Federal Reserve System to serve as the nation's central bank. Its primary responsibility is to influence the flow of money and credit in the economy, returning all excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury. Currently, the system's seven board members, including Chairman Ben Bernanke, are responsible for U.S. monetary policy. They constitute a majority of the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee, which makes decisions affecting the cost and availability of money and credit. But does that mean the Fed is responsible for the dollar's decline in value over 90-plus years? Cargill didn't respond to our inquiries. (Board members wound up approving a revision of her amendment stating: "Analyze the decline in value of the U.S. dollar including abandonment of the gold standard.") Meanwhile, Dan Hamermesh, an economist at the University of Texas at Austin, called Cargill's connection between the Federal Reserve and the declining dollar "propaganda" that ignores the impact of inflation from 1913 to 2010. The buying power of a dollar in 1913 would be almost $22 today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index inflation calculator. That matches up with Cargill's claim that the dollar has dropped in value by 95 percent. Then again, annual income per person is about $32,000 today, compared to about $400 in 1913 ($8,757 in 2010 dollars) — a hefty increase in earning power. Barry Bosworth, an economist at the left-leaning Brookings Institute, similarly said the Federal Reserve isn't responsible for the U.S. dollar's value, which he called "pretty constant" relative to other currencies. "The decline in the value of the dollar is the result of inflation, but advocates of the gold standard may argue that it could have been avoided if the U.S. had stayed on the gold standard, so they blame the Federal Reserve Bank," Bosworth said. The value of U.S. dollar was tied to gold until 1973, when the United States, switched from a system of fixed exchange rates to floating rates. In simple terms, inflation is when the price of goods and services rises and buying power erodes. Do Federal Reserve critics blame the Fed for that, too? Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, said the congressman agrees with Cargill's claim. Benton said that Paul, a former Libertarian candidate, believes inflation is caused by increases in the money supply — which the Fed controls — rather than prices going up. Dollar-driven "inflation (then) causes a rise in prices," Benton said. "We think that it's very important to keep that in mind." Robert Auerbach, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, former banking committee investigator and author of the book, "Deception and Abuse at the Fed: Henry B. Gonzalez Battles Alan Greenspan's Bank," told us Cargill's amendment was misleading because it oversimplified both the dollar's and the Federal Reserve's history. Auerbach was trained by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, one of two free-market economists who board members recently voted to add to the state's curriculum. In his career, Friedman famously championed killing inflation by keeping the supply of money growing at a steady but slow pace, though he later backed off that view, Auerbach said. Monetary policy offers two basic choices, Auerbach said: Letting the money supply grow, fueling inflation, or keeping the reins tight, which can cause severe recessions. "If you're limited from printing money, you'd put a huge number of people out of work," he said. Upshot: Cargill's correct that a dollar now has about 5 percent of the buying power it did in 1913, when the Federal Reserve System was created. That's basic math. Yet while a dollar now buys far less than in 1913, Americans also have far more earning power. And the dollar has generally held its value compared to other countries' currencies. The thrust of Cargill's statement is that the Fed presided over, or caused, that decline in value. In contrast, most experts we spoke with trace the decline to inflation over the years rather than specific actions by the Federal Reserve Bank. Though some Federal Reserve critics echo Cargill's point, such debates are best left to the economic experts who have waged them for decades. All in all, we rate her statement as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barbara Cargill	None	None	None	2010-03-22T16:56:32	2010-03-11	['United_States', 'Federal_Reserve_System']
-para-00151	More employers are "doing the wrong thing" in their use of foreigners here on 457 temporary skilled worker visas.	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/12/brendan-oconnor/oconnor-more-employers-doing-wrong-thing-457-visas/index.html	None	['Immigration', 'Industrial relations', 'Workers rights']	Brendan O'Connor	David Humphries, Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	O'Connor says more employers are "doing the wrong thing" with 457 visas	Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 11:13 a.m.	None	['None']
-tron-01209	Muslims Are Meeting to Pray on the Capitol Steps on September 25, 2009	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jumamah-capitol-steps/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Muslims Are Meeting to Pray on the Capitol Steps on September 25, 2009	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01984	Says Eric Cantor "was the co-author of the House GOP principles on immigration reform. Both the 'New York Times' and the 'Washington Post' said that that captured the essence of what was in the Senate immigration bill."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/15/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-said-eric-cantor-co-wrote-house-gop/	Guests on the Sunday news shows traded explanations for last week’s stunning primary defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor -- including Cantor himself. Some pundits said the loss to professor Dave Brat showed Cantor was out of touch with his Virginia constituents. Others brought up the role immigration reform played in his race. ABC’s This Week fill-in host Jonathan Karl asked Cantor about controversial comments from conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham, who led the charge against Cantor and quipped that President Barack Obama should have traded him for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl instead of five Taliban members. Cantor dismissed her rhetoric as "just not serious and, frankly, it cheapens the debate." Minutes later, Ingraham responded from her seat on This Week’s Powerhouse Roundtable, highlighting Cantor’s immigration strategy as proof he lacks grassroots credentials. "Eric Cantor wrote, he was the co-author of the House GOP principles on immigration reform," she said. "Both the New York Times and the Washington Post said that that captured the essence of what was in the Senate immigration bill." PunditFact wanted to know if her retort was accurate. The House GOP’s ‘Standards on Immigration Reform’ Ingraham is referencing a one-page document that emerged at a Maryland retreat for House GOP members in late January 2014. Politico called the list "one of the most hotly anticipated documents in recent memory." Entitled "Standards for Immigration Reform," the memo detailed what should be included in a "step-by-step" immigration package. It was handed down from House leadership, which included Cantor as the No. 2 ranking member in the House. Though the document was unsigned, several reports that either previewed the release of the immigration principles or spotlighted Cantor’s defeat referred to him as part of the leadership team that drafted the immigration standards. (A spokesperson for Cantor did not respond for comment.) The leaders said this would serve as a jumping off point for developing a substitute for the Senate’s comprehensive immigration bill, a bipartisan measure that passed in June 2013. The Senate bill included billions for border security and a route to citizenship for the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants. The process could take up to 13 years and prevented people from an initial provisional status if they had felony convictions and did not reside in the U.S. before Dec. 31, 2011. Applicants would have to pay penalties and back taxes. The House standards for reform stressed the need for border security, an electronic employment verification system, and granting legal status and citizenship to children who entered the country with their parents if they serve in the military or get a college degree -- a point Cantor reiterated as important to him on This Week. By contrast, the House principles did not include a possibility of citizenship, but they did include (at the very bottom) a vague avenue for people to remain in the country legally "only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits)." The document generated plenty of news coverage and editorials, partly for its poor reception among rank-and-file members who disagreed with House leaders. The New York Times characterized it as "more of an attempt to test the waters than a blueprint for action." The next week, Boehner succumbed to the rebellion, saying he likely could not pass an immigration bill and blaming Obama for not being trustworthy in enforcing immigration laws. For all of the talk of Cantor being an immigration softie, Cantor is hardly the immigration cheerleader that Ingraham and Brat presented him to be. He is often blamed for holding up House votes on immigration legislation. His campaign highlighted this in a mailpiece in the closing weeks of his campaign, describing the legislation as the "Obama-Reid plan to give illegal immigrants amnesty" (a characterization PolitiFact rated Mostly False.) In an op-ed for Politico Magazine, conservative National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that Cantor’s immigration offense was showing support for a law like the DREAM Act "and making occasional favorable sounds about more far-reaching legislation, including by signing off on those January principles." Ingraham claimed the New York Times and Washington Post characterized the GOP principles as having "captured the essence of what was in the Senate immigration bill." We could not find examples of those newspapers straight-up saying the principles essentially amounted to the Senate bill, but the newspapers did portray the document as a much-anticipated starting point for negotiations with the upper chamber. A Jan. 31 Times editorial, for instance, listed the legalization language among "a palmful of blessings to count" from the document, but criticized the blueprint for not including "the real possibility of immigrants becoming Americans." The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, had described the document as voicing "support for the major planks of the comprehensive bill that cleared the Senate last summer." Our ruling Ingraham did not back down from her criticism of Cantor, saying he "was the co-author of the House GOP principles on immigration reform" and adding "both the New York Times and Washington Post said that this captured the essence of what was in the Senate immigration bill." As the second highest-ranking member in the House, Cantor was part of top-level conversations that led to a (swiftly rejected) one-page document outlining the House GOP’s starting points for immigration reform. The New York Times and Washington Post did not describe the House’s principles as capturing the essence of the Senate bill. (For one thing, it was only a page long.) Their reports often highlighted the House document’s lack of opportunity for citizenship for most undocumented immigrants and explored whether that was a deal-breaker for Democrats. Her statement is partially accurate but needs more context. We rate it Half True.	None	Laura Ingraham	None	None	None	2014-06-15T18:17:58	2014-06-15	['Eric_Cantor', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'The_New_York_Times']
-snes-04457	Bernie Sanders was forced to endorse Hillary Clinton under DNC rules, but can go on to win a contested convention like FDR (who also endorsed his opponent before winning).	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-fdr-and-contested-conventions/	None	Ballot Box	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bernie Sanders, FDR, and Contested Conventions	13 July 2016	None	['Bernie_Sanders', 'Franklin_D._Roosevelt', 'Democratic_National_Committee', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-hoer-00290	'Temporarily Blocked From Liking Pages' Facebook Message	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/blocked-liking-pages-facebook.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'Temporarily Blocked From Liking Pages' Facebook Message	October 29, 2013<	None	['None']
-snes-05434	Cold Stone Creamery is giving free or discounted ice cream to female customers that appear to be pregnant.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-cold-stone-pregnancy-discount/	None	Business	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Facebook Cold Stone Pregnancy Discount	29 December 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02856	Says New Jersey has gained "143,000 new private-sector jobs."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/nov/17/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-states-gained-143000-new-pri/	The state and national economies might not exactly be robust since the recession ended four years ago, but Chris Christie claims New Jersey has been seeing steady and sustained job growth in that time. Christie touted that growth during his four appearances Nov. 10 on the major Sunday morning news programs including Face The Nation, ABC News This Week, Fox News Sunday and Meet The Press. In fact, The Colbert Report, a faux news program on Comedy Central, poked fun at the governor’s appearances during a tightly edited clips sequence shown Nov. 11. The sequence starts by Christie downplaying on each show claims of a presidential run in 2016 and instead focusing on his being New Jersey’s governor. To illustrate that point, the clips then lead into Christie saying the state has gained "143,000 new private-sector jobs." Christie’s number is generally accurate, but the methodology used to measure the jobs gains isn’t exactly ideal, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. First, the numbers. Christie’s timeframe for measuring jobs was February 2010 -- his first full month in office -- to August 2013, the most recent month for which preliminary employment data is available. New Jersey had 3,192,000 private-sector jobs in February 2010, BLS data shows. By August 2013 that figure was 3,334,400. The difference? 142,400 jobs. So Christie rounded up a bit when he cited a gain of 143,000 jobs, but his number is generally solid. Those numbers also match employment data on the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development website. Next, the methodology. The timeframe cited by Christie isn’t even. Experts have told PolitiFact New Jersey on numerous occasions that the best way to evaluate employment trends is to measure seasonally adjusted, year-over-year data. Seasonally adjusted data is best for review because it takes into account jobs that result from seasonal hiring patterns. So when looking at annual data, we often review December over December to get the most accurate picture of employment for that 12-month period. But in Christie’s case, we’re evaluating February 2010 over preliminary data for August 2013. Joseph Seneca, an economics professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, agreed that it’s best to review seasonally adjusted data within the context of a year. He reviewed the BLS numbers from August 2012 to August 2013 and then looked at how New Jersey’s job growth compares with neighboring states. Seneca’s analysis found that nearly half the state’s private-sector job growth came during the year that he reviewed: 60,300 private-sector jobs. In addition, New Jersey’s job growth rate of 1.8 percent exceeded that of New York and Connecticut, both with 1.3 percent growth, and Pennsylvania, which had a growth rate of 0.9 percent. "The latest year-over-year data indicate that New Jersey is right in the middle of the pack in terms of the rate of private-sector job growth," Seneca said in an e-mail, adding that much of the growth has been in education, health services, leisure and hospitality, trade, transportation and utilities. Our ruling A recent segment on The Colbert Report shows Christie emphasizing his work as governor by saying New Jersey has gained "143,000 new private-sector jobs." BLS data and an analysis by a Rutgers economics professor back up Christie’s figure, which is rounded up a bit from the actual figure of 142,400 new private-sector jobs created. The governor’s overall point is that private-sector employment in New Jersey is increasing, and he’s right. We rate the statement True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2013-11-17T07:30:00	2013-11-10	['None']
-pomt-14054	"The only two (Donald Trump tax returns) we have show that he hasn't paid a penny in taxes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/24/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-claim-about-donald-trump-paying-no/	Releasing federal tax returns has become a rite of passage for presidential candidates. Donald Trump, who has marched to his own drummer in many ways this campaign season, has been the exception, refusing to release them. During an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton chided Trump for keeping his returns secret. When Todd asked Clinton if Trump had done anything that should be praised, Clinton offered a non sequitur, saying Trump "needs to release his tax returns. The only two we have show that he hasn't paid a penny in taxes. "And yet he goes around talking about 'make America great.' You know, that means paying for our military. That means paying for our roads. That means paying for the V.A. That means a lot of things. And if you've got someone running for president who's afraid to release his tax returns because it will expose the fact that he pays no federal income tax, I think that's a big problem," Clinton said. We decided to see whether the only two tax returns made public show that Trump didn't pay a penny. Clinton has one thing correct here -- public records do indicate that there were two years in the 1970s when Trump paid nothing in federal taxes. But she got a few key points wrong. Namely, the same public records show three other years in which Trump did pay federal income taxes. Also, the public records Clinton referred to are not Trump's actual tax returns. When we checked with the Clinton campaign, they referred us to a Washington Post story headlined, "Trump once revealed his income tax returns. They showed he didn’t pay a cent." The source for the story is a document uncovered and posted online by the Washington Post's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler. He used it to show that, contrary to Trump's claim that "there's nothing to learn" from his tax returns, the returns can reveal a great deal about a presidential candidate. Kessler gave Trump's statement that there was "nothing to learn" four Pinocchios. The key document relevant to Clinton’s statement is a 1981 report by New Jersey gambling regulators analyzing Trump's finances as part of his efforts to get a casino license for a proposed casino-hotel complex. Page 33 reports on Trump's income and federal tax payments for 1975 through 1979. The report says that Trump did, in fact, pay federal taxes for three of those five years, a fact omitted in the Washington Post headline and story. It does not include the actual returns. The report says Trump paid no federal income tax in 1978 and 1979 because, according to the tax rules, he lost money. Here's the rundown. For perspective, we've also listed the amounts in 2016 dollars. Year Income Federal tax Income (in current dollars) Federal tax (in current dollars) 1975 $76,210 $18,714 $338,923 $83,225 1976 $24,594 $10,832 $103,416 $45,548 1977 $118,530 $42,386 $467,980 $167,348 1978 $406,379 loss $0 $1,491,268 loss $0 1979 $3,443,560 loss $0 $11,348,617 loss $0 New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement, which verified his income, losses and deductions, said Trump's losses came from the operation of his various properties. But the report reveals no specifics, so the details of his tax returns for those years remain a mystery. Trump has made it clear in interviews and debates that he works aggressively to pay as little in taxes as possible. We also contacted Trump's campaign. We didn't hear back. Our ruling Clinton said, "The only two (Donald Trump tax returns) we have show that he hasn't paid a penny in taxes." We don't know a lot about Trump's tax situation, a fact exacerbated by his unwillingness to release his full tax returns. Public records show that Trump did not pay federal income taxes in two years -- 1978 and 1979 -- which is what Clinton was referencing. But the same records include information from three other years -- 1975, 1976, and 1977 -- when Trump did pay federal income taxes. The records we have are not full tax returns, which makes learning more about those years (or any others) difficult. Clinton’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/57f065ce-c900-41c3-890a-b356b3dbd8a8	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-05-24T13:00:00	2016-05-22	['None']
-snes-05994	Mohammed Atta, a convicted terrorist released by Israel at the insistence of the U.S., participated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/atta-boy/	None	September 11th	None	David Mikkelson	None	Mohammed Atta Released by Israel	7 November 2001	None	['United_States', 'Israel']
-chct-00250	FACT CHECK: Does The VA Have Over 30,000 Job Vacancies?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/12/21/fact-check-does-the-va-have-over-30000-job-vacancies/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	8:54 AM 12/21/2017	None	['None']
-snes-06388	A cactus can explode and spew baby tarantulas everywhere.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cactus-attacked-us/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	David Mikkelson	None	Spiders in Cactus	5 December 1998	None	['None']
-pomt-14883	"We’re losing now over $500 billion a year in terms of imbalance with China."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/10/donald-trump/trump-says-trade-imbalance-between-us-and-china-to/	Donald Trump turned a question about the Trans-Pacific Partnership into an opportunity to discuss the United States’ trade deficit with China during the Nov. 10, 2015, Fox Business debate. For the record, the TPP involves Asian nations, but not China. Still, Trump said that "We’re losing now over $500 billion a year in terms of imbalance with China." Last month at a campaign rally in Sioux Falls, Iowa, Trump said "we have almost a $400 billion trade imbalance with China." A jump of more than $100 billion in less than a month? Really? No. We reached out to Trump’s campaign for more information on the figure, but did not hear back. However, according to data from the Census Bureau, the U.S. trade deficit with China clocked in at $343 billion in 2014. That makes Trump off by more than 31 percent. For comparison, a $343 billion trade gap is roughly the entire Gross Domestic Product of Denmark. So far, the trade deficit for 2015 has been calculated through September 2015, totalling almost $274 billion. Over the last 12 months of available data, the trade deficit has totaled $364 billion. That’s a big deficit but not more than $500 billion as Trump said. Since 1986, the yearly U.S. trade deficit with China has grown from year to year except in 2001 and 2009. See our chart for more information. Our ruling Trump said that "we’re losing now over $500 billion a year in terms of imbalance with China." Last month, Trump said almost $400 billion during a speech in Iowa. He should have stuck to that figure. The 2014 trade deficit totaled $343 billion, and it’s expected to be larger in 2015 but not more than $500 billion. Trump’s claim rates Mostly False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2015-11-10T22:44:21	2015-11-10	['China']
-pomt-12335	A national paid leave program "would potentially put into the economy $21 billion dollars annually."	/new-york/statements/2017/jun/15/kirsten-gillibrand/gillibrand-claim-ignores-cost-paid-leave-program/	Here’s something worth noting: President Donald Trump agrees with Democrats in the U.S. Senate on at least one issue. Trump and the Democrats want a national paid leave program. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York says such a program would boost the economy. "If we had a national paid leave plan, it would potentially put into the economy $21 billion annually," Gillibrand said at a conference hosted by the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy and advocacy organization. Gillibrand has sponsored a bill that would provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave annually through a weekly payroll deduction. Trump’s plan provides six weeks of paid leave by expanding unemployment insurance funds. Both plans would allow paid time off work after the birth of a child. Gillibrand’s plan would also allow paid leave for a temporary disability or to care for a relative. Both proposals face an uphill climb in Congress because many Republicans oppose a national paid leave program. Gillibrand hopes her claim of an economic benefit persuades other senators to support her bill. But is she right? Where the number came from Gillibrand cites a 2016 report from the Center for American Progress. The report found people who take unpaid or partially paid leave lose $20.6 billion in wages each year. Researchers used federal data on the number of people who take unpaid or partially paid leave and their median wage to come up with the number. "I was trying to figure out how much these people are losing … because they have to take unpaid and partially paid leave while they’re out either because of caregiving responsibilities or temporary disability," said Sarah Jane Glynn, former director of women's economic policy at the Center for American Progress and a co-author of the report. The cost of a national paid leave program is not included in the report. Glynn said that was intentional. "Until we come to a consensus on what this program should look like it’s kind of difficult to say what it’s going to cost to taxpayers," Glynn said. Gillibrand touts a $21 billion boost to the economy, but that’s not what the report says. "That paper did not say including paid family leave would increase the economy by $21 billion. It said it would give workers $21 billion more and that’s a key distinction," said Ben Gitis, director of labor market policy from American Action Forum, a center-right policy research organization. "It sounds like they kind of looked at one side of the coin," said Vanessa Brown Calder, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, a libertarian public policy research foundation. "There’s also some consequences and costs to instituting paid parental leave policies." Any plan would be paid for with tax dollars or a payroll deduction. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research, a nonpartisan research group focused on women’s issues, released a report earlier this year that said close to $33 billion would need to be raised each year to fund Gillibrand’s plan. "There was some flippage in the language," said Jeff Hayes, program director for job quality and income security at the institute, of Gillibrand’s claim. "An economist might tell you that just the uncompensated wages don’t actually grow the economy." Hayes did not dispute the Center for American Progress report’s estimate of lost wages. The number may even be higher, he said. Our ruling Gllibrand said a national paid leave program "would potentially put into the economy $21 billion dollars annually." Researchers say workers would receive at least $20.6 billion in paid leave. But Gillibrand’s claim ignores the money that would be taken out of the economy to pay for it. The program would be adding money to the same pot it’s being taken from. Her claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kirsten Gillibrand	None	None	None	2017-06-15T12:47:53	2017-05-16	['None']
-snes-04582	A photograph shows a baby moose holding a rainbow flag.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/moose-rainbow-flag/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Baby Moose Holds Rainbow Flag	20 June 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01408	"At least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas" and there are "dozens more that did not get caught by the Border Patrol."	/texas/statements/2014/oct/10/duncan-hunter-2/duncan-hunter-makes-unconfirmed-claim-border-patro/	U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter this week declared terrorists have been crossing the Rio Grande. The California Republican, speaking to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Oct. 7, 2014, said he’d learned from the U.S. Border Patrol that Islamic State fighters had been nabbed trying to enter the country from Mexico. "ISIS is coming across the southern border," Hunter said, adding a moment later: "I know that at least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas." Border Patrol agents "caught them," Hunter also said, but "you know there's going to be dozens more that did not get caught by the Border Patrol." Our eyebrows were raised. We sought detail. No federal or state confirmation No state or federal law enforcement agency confirmed Hunter’s account when we inquired, and Hunter spokesman Joe Kasper declined to reveal the congressman’s sources. Fox News, in its original Oct. 8, 2014, online news report on Hunter’s declaration, quoted the Department of Homeland Security disputing his account. Homeland Security told PolitiFact Texas that no such apprehensions have occurred. An agency spokeswoman, Marsha Catron, emailed: "The suggestion that individuals who have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the Southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or the facts on the ground. DHS continues to have no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border." And after Hunter spoke, the Texas Department of Public Safety wrote state legislators, saying in an Oct. 8, 2014, email it "does not have any information to confirm" statements about Islamic terrorists or ISIS fighters entering the country. A DPS spokesman, Tom Vinger, confirmed the message’s authenticity. In the message, a DPS deputy director, Robert Bodisch, mentioned the Hunter interview and an Oct. 8, 2014, news report by Judicial Watch, a conservative news website, stating Islamic terrorists had entered the country from Mexico. According to unidentified Homeland Security sources, Judicial Watch said four terrorists had been apprehended in the previous 36 hours by federal authorities and the DPS in McAllen and Pharr. In the message to legislators, Bodisch further wrote: "An unsecure border is certainly a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds, and it would be naïve to rule out the possibility that any criminal organization would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our international border. That said, DPS does not have any information to confirm the specific statements recently reported in the press." On Sept. 17, 2014, PolitiFact in Washington analyzed an August 2014 Judicial Watch story, finding Mostly False another congressman’s claim that "we know that ISIS is present in Ciudad Juarez," which neighbors El Paso. Research did not turn up any law enforcement official or news outlet that independently verified or corroborated the claim, making the declaration that "we know" with certainty ISIS is in Juarez a big stretch. For this fact check, a terrorism expert said Hunter’s claim doesn’t make much sense. "It’s implausible given the way the criminal-justice system works to have 10 ISIS fighters arrested at the border and never charged," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, director of the Center for the Study of Terrorist Radicalization at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington. Gartenstein-Ross said by phone he knows of "no reporting coming through DHS suggesting that a large number of ISIS fighters have been intercepted at the border. I’ve talked to a large number of people within the department, and the department has unequivocally denied it. There’s not one shred of evidence this is the case." Kasper, informed we'd not confirmed Hunter's statement, said Hunter stands by what he said. Kasper also expressed doubt federal agencies are revealing the facts about fighters getting caught. "Problem here is that this is always a zero-sum game," Kasper wrote. "We make the point. Official channels deny. Then, maybe in a few years from now the information will pop up on the front page of the Washington Post," much like that newspaper this week reported new details about the Secret Service prostitution scandal, Kasper said. Our ruling Hunter said "at least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border in Texas" and there are "dozens more that did not get caught by the Border Patrol." No government agency confirms anything remotely close to the idea that at least 10 ISIS fighters have been caught coming across the Mexican border. Notably, too, the lead Texas agency entrusted with public safety alerted legislators of its own lack of confirmation. Similarly, the idea there are "dozens more that did not get caught by the Border Patrol" is missing a factual basis. All told, this statement strikes us as incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Duncan Hunter	None	None	None	2014-10-10T13:00:54	2014-10-07	['Texas', 'Mexico', 'United_States_Border_Patrol']
-goop-02158	Justin Bieber Joining Selena Gomez Family In Texas For Thanksgiving, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-not-joining-selena-gomez-thanksgiving-texas/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Justin Bieber NOT Joining Selena Gomez Family In Texas For Thanksgiving, Despite Speculation	3:36 pm, November 22, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02020	Says when armed civilians stop mass shootings with guns, an average of 2.5 people die; otherwise, an average of 18 people die.	/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/	As a longtime gun owner, New Hampshire Republican Jim Rubens made his support for Second Amendment rights one of the early themes of his campaign for U.S. Senate. Rubens launched a "2nd Amendment Protection Tour" earlier this year, traveling to gun shops around the state to pledge his support for firearms owners. It was a move that invited comparisons between himself and the man he views as his strongest challenger in the GOP primary, former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Brown has voiced support for increased gun control after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., and has since faced blowback from gun owners in New Hampshire. During a stop at Lee’s Gun Shop in Hudson, Rubens said he would oppose a ban on assault weapons or high-capacity magazines if voters send him to Washington to replace Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Rubens also provided recommendations to address gun violence and mass shootings, such as encouraging schools to hire armed security personnel. The presence of armed civilians would send the message that shooters won’t achieve their aims, he said. "In mass shooting incidents where you had a person inside the premises during the incident, you have an average of 2.5 people killed if there is someone with a firearm able to stop the crime in progress," he said. "In similar instances where there’s no such person with a firearm, you have an average of 18 people killed and dead as a result of it." This seemed like a sharp contrast, so we asked Rubens to back up his claim about shooting deaths. His campaign pointed us to an article by Davi Barker, who runs a website called Daily Anarchist. In July 2012, Barker wrote that he studied several mass shootings and determined the average number of people killed in mass shootings when the shooter is stopped by police is 18.25. "I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere," he wrote. "I honestly don’t even remember where." Barker was challenged when he posted these statistics on Facebook, leading him to conduct a more thorough study, according to his website. After reviewing 100 "rampage shooting" incidents, Barker revised his calculations, claiming that the number of people killed when the shooter is stopped by police is really closer to 14.29. He pegged the average for incidents in which civilians stop the shooter at 2.33. The Rubens campaign acknowledged that the figures he provided were incorrect, saying that Rubens now stands behind Barker’s latest figures. "Bottom line remains: an on-premises armed citizen saves lives in a shooting rampage in a public place," communications director Brian Tilton wrote in an email. We looked for a separate analysis of shooting incidents to determine whether those casualty figures are accurate. One of the best sources we found is an academic study published in January in an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin by Dr. Pete Blair, director of research for the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center (ALERRT) and an associate professor of criminal justice at Texas State University. Blair and two other researchers examined more than 100 shootings between 2000 and 2012, investigating factors such as the average response time of law enforcement and the outcomes based on the actions taken by civilians at the scene. Looking at "active shooter" incidents, the study found the median number of people shot is five (excluding the perpetrator). Blair said shooting incidents that lead to deaths in the range of 18 people -- the number Rubens initially offered -- are rare. "Eighteen would be really out there," he said. The study documented only nine incidents in which the number of people killed or wounded was 14 or higher. Blair also pointed out problems with the terminology Rubens used in his statement. The term "mass shooting" is widely understood to mean an incident in which four or more people are shot, he said. Therefore, incidents in which only two or three people are shot -- the average Rubens offered when civilians take action -- would generally be excluded from the category of mass shootings. Blair said it’s logical to assume casualties would be lower when civilians intervene before police arrive, but his research documented very few incidents that were actually stopped because a civilian was carrying a gun. Roughly half of all active shooter events Blair studied ended before law enforcement officers arrived. The most common occurrence was that the shooter stopped the attack spontaneously on their own. The decision was often made after an initial burst of violence, in which the shooter attacked everyone who was in the immediate area, Blair said. When those who remained either ran away or barricaded themselves in secure areas, shooters often made the decision to leave the attack site or commit suicide, he said. Blair said he also documented cases in which civilians took direct action. Civilians stopped about one out of every six active shooter events, but their actions rarely involved the use of firearms, he said. The most common method was tackling the attacker, as was the case during a campus shooting in Seattle this week. Blair said he found only three cases in which an armed civilian shot the attacker, and in two of those incidents, the civilian who took action was an off-duty police officer. Blair said it would be difficult to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of armed civilians in stopping active shooter events based on the limited data that exists. In general though, Blair said, fewer people were killed or injured in the events that ended before police showed up at the scene -- either because civilians took action, or because the shooter spontaneously stopped or committed suicide. Data suggests the best course of action for civilians is first to avoid the attacker, and if that’s not possible, to deny access by barricading themselves in locked rooms or other secure areas. Blair teaches training courses for law enforcement and civilians on how to respond to active shooter events through ALERRT, which receives funding from the Bureau of Justice Administration at the U.S. Department of Justice and from the Texas governor’s office. Blair said he encourages civilians to take physical action to defend themselves only when it’s impossible to escape. "We see the firearm as being an adjunct to that part," he said. Blair said there are pros and cons to having armed civilians at the scene of a shooting. Confronting the shooter with a gun would likely provide the fastest resolution, he said. But if multiple civilians are wielding guns at the scene, it could also create confusion about who the shooter is -- particularly for police who are arriving to render aid. Our ruling Rubens said when armed civilians stop mass shootings with guns, an average of 2.5 people die; otherwise, an average of 18 people die. One of the most comprehensive studies of recent active shooter events suggests the average of 18 deaths when police stop the shooter is far too high. The study of more than 100 incidents determined the median number of people killed or wounded in all active shooter situations was five. The study documented only nine incidents out of dozens in which the number of people shot was 14 or higher. Conclusions about the number of deaths when an armed civilian takes action are also problematic because very limited data exists. The author of the study agrees it’s logical to assume casualties would be lower when civilians intervene before police arrive, but his research documented very few incidents that were actually stopped because a civilian was carrying a gun. Finally, both Rubens and the internet blogger who first offered the statistics that Rubens cited have acknowledged the figures were incorrect. Rubens has since revised his estimate to be in the range of 2.33 and 14. Overall, this statement is not accurate. We rate this claim False.	None	Jim Rubens	None	None	None	2014-06-06T12:36:40	2014-03-24	['None']
-vees-00059	Andanar in a Sept. 8 radio interview was asked to comment on the nine-year high 6.4 percent inflation rate recorded in August.	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-andanar-falsely-downplays-inflation-fi	Andanar’s statement is wrong; the two figures he mentioned represent different things, are both considered high, and were not misrepresented in media reports.	None	None	None	Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,andanar,inflation	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Andanar falsely downplays inflation figures, accuses media of ‘painting negative picture	September 17, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07957	Texas leads "the nation in the percentage of residents without health insurance."	/texas/statements/2011/jan/24/paul-krugman/new-york-times-paul-krugman-says-texas-leads-natio/	In a Jan. 6 New York Times op-ed column, liberal economist Paul Krugman warns that Texas is the future, and it isn’t pretty: "What we’re seeing right now is a future that doesn’t work." Among his charges is that Texas is "leading the nation in the percentage of residents without health insurance," the column says. Texas has so long been cited as the state with the highest percentage of uninsured residents that factual corroboration seldom follows. When we asked Krugman for backup, he pointed us to 2007-2009 data from the U.S. Census Bureau comparing the percentage of uninsured residents between states. According to to the bureau’s estimates, Texas ranked first at that time, with 25.5 percent uninsured. New Mexico followed, with 22.6 percent, and then Florida, 20.9. Nationally, 15.8 percent were uninsured, according to the data, with Massachusetts having the fewest uninsured, 5.1 percent. An October 2008 policy paper by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation notes that "Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation in the number of uninsured citizens," but takes issue with the Census Bureau’s methodology, which "includes anyone uninsured at the time the survey is taken." Separately, we found a national poll indicating Texas ranked No. 1 in uninsured residents the first half of 2010. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of Texas residents were uninsured. Mississippi trailed in second (25.8 percent), followed by Louisiana (24 percent). California landed fifth, with 21.9 percent. And Massachusetts, which requires residents older than 18 to have health coverage, ranked again as the state with the smallest percentage of uninsured residents: 4.9 percent. Gallup said it interviewed 176,193 adults from Jan. 2-June 30, 2010. By available indicators, Texas has the nation’s highest percentage of uninsured residents. We rate Krugman’s statement as True.	None	Paul Krugman	None	None	None	2011-01-24T10:00:00	2011-01-06	['Texas']
-goop-00104	Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga ‘Flirty Friendship’ Upsetting Irina Shayk?	https://www.gossipcop.com/bradley-cooper-lady-gaga-flirty-friendship-irina-shayk/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga ‘Flirty Friendship’ Upsetting Irina Shayk?	12:18 pm, October 22, 2018	None	['Lady_Gaga']
-tron-02359	Gideons Banned From Military Bases	https://www.truthorfiction.com/gideons-military-bases/	None	military	None	None	None	Gideons Banned From Military Bases	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03168	About 40 percent of U.S. illegal immigrants "came in on an airplane, with a legal visa, and just overstayed their visa and have never gone home."	/texas/statements/2013/sep/06/john-carter/john-carter-claim-40-percent-nations-illegal-resid/	A Texas congressman who took a three-day tour of the Rio Grande Valley near the Mexico border stressed afterward that many U.S. residents lacking legal permission to be here do not enter by tromping across the Rio Grande. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, said: "The reality is that about 40 percent of the people came in on an airplane, with a legal visa, and just overstayed their visa and have never gone home." His comment appeared in a news story posted online by the Round Rock Leader on Aug. 31, 2013. Carter, who did not respond to our requests for elaboration, was referring to a well-known facet of illegal immigration. A July 2013 General Accountability Office report said: "Each year, millions of visitors come to the United States legally on a temporary basis either with or without a visa. Overstays are individuals who were admitted legally on a temporary basis but then overstayed their authorized periods of admission." PolitiFact researchers previously found substance to similar claims. In 2012, PolitiFact New Jersey said that according to most studies, visitors who overstayed visas ranged from about one-third to roughly half of all the country’s illegal immigrants. And relying largely on a 2006 study, PolitiFact in July 2010 rated as Mostly True a claim that 40 percent of the "undocumented workers in this country" entered the U.S. legally and "overstayed their visa." This is obviously an iffy topic and not just because quantifying the total number of illegal immigrants is tricky--they are, after all, evading detection. Of late, it’s widely estimated that 11 million U.S. residents are unauthorized to be here. According to the GAO, federal law requires the Department of Homeland Security to estimate the number of individuals overstaying their visas, though that has not occurred in recent years. In April 2011, the report said, Homeland Security officials said that they have not reported overstay rates because DHS has not had sufficient confidence in the quality of its overstay data. Also, the report says, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified in early 2013 that the agency planned to report overstay rates by December 2013. If such a tally were available, it might reflect those individuals who checked in with immigration officials as they entered the country for whom authorities have no record of their checking out on departure. As of April 2013, Homeland Security had more than 1 million "unmatched" arrival records, the GAO report said, meaning those records were not accompanied by indications the individuals had left the country. The report said that some of the records reflected people overstaying their visas. The 40 percent statistic was floated as authoritative by several House members in a May 21, 2013, House subcommittee hearing, according to a transcript by CQ Transcriptions. Among them, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, asked James Dinkins, executive associate director for Immigration Customs Enforcement, to estimate how many of these "millions of individuals" likely pose security threats. Few, Dinkins replied, adding that the government had checked on about 480,000 names of potential new visa overstays that year. "And of that 480,000 names, about 3,000 of them actually hit a potential national security or public safety threat," Dinkins said, with criminal cases opened on each one of the 3,000. On March 14, 2013, Edward Alden, a senior fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank, told a Senate committee: "The commonly accepted estimate is that more than 40 percent of the unauthorized migrants currently resident in the United States did not cross the borders illegally. Instead, they arrived in the United States on a lawful tourist, student, business, or other visa and then violated the terms of that visa by remaining in the United States." In a footnote, Alden pointed out that the Pew Hispanic Center issued a "fact sheet" in 2006 spelling out "overstay" estimates that have been deemed credible, a source also previously cited by PolitiFact. On the sheet, the center estimated that "nearly half of all the unauthorized migrants now living in the United States entered the country legally through a port of entry such as an airport or a border crossing point where they were subject to inspection by immigration officials." Specifically, the estimate ranged from 38 percent to 50 percent. The center split the difference by proposing a figure of up to 45 percent. Specifically, the center estimated, some 4.5 million to 6 million of the 11.5 million to 12 million unauthorized residents as of 2006 entered legally through ports of entry. The bulk of these entrants came in as tourists or as business visitors, the center said. According to the government, the center said, there were 179 million nonimmigrant admissions in 2004, meaning individual entries by foreigners authorized for temporary stays. The center said its estimate came from modifying a methodology devised by a government demographer who analyzed internal files in the 1990s to estimate the size and key characteristics of individuals who overstayed their visas. In 1997, the demographer, Robert Warren, concluded that the unauthorized migrant population totaled 5 million and that 2.1 million, or 41 percent, consisted of visa overstayers, according to the center, while Homeland Security later estimated that about one third of unauthorized residents in 2000 were visa overstayers and the GAO, drawing on alternate data sources, put the percentage of such overstayers at 27 percent, 31 percent and 57 percent. Of course, the data in the report, in addition to being estimates, are several years old, causing us to wonder what has changed. By email, Jeffrey Passel, the center’s senior demographer, told us the information has not been updated, though he also has seen "no evidence of a significant change in the makeup of the resident unauthorized population in terms of method of arrival." Of Carter’s focus on airplanes, Passel said: "Not all of them ‘fly here,’ although most do. Some come through border ports of entry and some come by ship." Alden noted in his testimony that while the government has fingerprinted each legal visitor since 2004, it has not taken an electronic approach to checking people heading home. (The Senate-approved immigration overhaul stipulates that electronic exit systems be implemented at all air and sea ports where immigration officers are present, according to a summary by the Immigration Policy Center, an arm of the American Immigration Council, which says its mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration.) Yet Alden also said the "scale of the problem may be exaggerated. In May 2011," he said, Napolitano "ordered an investigation into nearly 1.7 million records of individuals that the department believed had overstayed" since fingerprinting on entry started. The "review determined," Alden said, "that more than half of those had actually left the country or had adjusted status and were living in the United States legally." On April 25, 2012, Napolitano testified to a Senate committee that people overstaying their visas may have been accounting for fewer than 40 percent of illegal immigrants. "That may be a high number, because what we have found is a lot of people who were marked as visa overstays had, in fact, left," Napolitano said, according to a transcript. We did not draw any elaboration on her comment from Homeland Security. Next, we asked academic experts about Carter’s cited statistic. Gary Freeman, a University of Texas government professor, said by phone the 40 percent figure is "widely used and rarely studied in any detail. You can’t say" Carter is "wrong," Freeman said, "but we don’t know the right answer." By email, Frank Bean, director of the Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public Policy at the University of California-Irvine, suggested that because the cited percentage is rooted in data for the 1990s, it may well be low. "Since then," Bean said, "the pool of persons" who are "candidates to overstay their visas has grown immensely. Even if the rate at which persons on visas overstay them has remained constant, the raw numbers of those doing so could have increased, and done so disproportionately enough to make the 40 percent figure rise. Unfortunately, we have no way of estimating this with accuracy." Our ruling Carter said about 40 percent of U.S. illegal immigrants "came in on an airplane, with a legal visa, and just overstayed their visa and have never gone home." That percentage aligns with an oft-repeated estimate, supported by a 2006 report by the Pew Hispanic Center, of the share of unauthorized residents who have overstayed visas. Many presumably arrived by plane, though we found no such breakdown. And the percentage could be off--too high or even too low. Homeland Security’s chief testified that 40 percent might be too high, while another expert told us there may now be more visitors who overstay. A precise up-to-date calculation doesn't seem to exist. We rate this claim, which relies on a seven-year-old estimate and could have used clarification about not all visitors coming by airplane, as Mostly True.	None	John Carter	None	None	None	2013-09-06T12:00:59	2013-08-31	['United_States']
-pomt-03542	The proposed raises for the Norcross City Council would put it in line with other liked-sized communities.	/georgia/statements/2013/may/28/norcross-city-council/do-raises-line-other-cities/	A few lucky souls in a Gwinnett County city could see their paychecks rise by 50 percent. So how did they become so fortunate, and do they have any openings? Well, they voted themselves the potential raises. Norcross City Council members recently voted 4-1 to increase the pay for their positions from $5,400 a year to $8,100. The mayor’s pay will rise from $6,900 a year to $10,350. The increases will take effect in January, two months after the next municipal election. WXIA-TV recently did a story about the raises and criticism of the idea. The station reported that Mayor Bucky Johnson said the raises would bring Norcross in line with other liked-sized communities. Johnson told us a councilman made the initial claim. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the officials are right. A Norcross official sent us a salary survey of elected officials in 43 cities in metro Atlanta. The annual pay for top elected officials ranged from $147,500 for Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed to Buford City Commission Chairman Phillip Beard, who doesn’t receive a salary. Atlanta, which has a population of more than 400,000 residents, isn’t necessarily the most appropriate city for such a comparison with Norcross, which had 9,116 residents in the 2010 U.S. census. The city's population rose to an estimated 15,000 residents in 2012 after Norcross an annexation, Johnson said. We looked at cities with similar populations. Since serving on the Norcross City Council is considered a part-time position, our second criteria was finding elected officials who are also part-time. Lilburn, the closest municipality to Norcross, has a part-time City Council and pays its elected officials slightly less than what Norcross approved. The population is slightly higher, nearly 12,000 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. That city’s mayor makes $5,000 a year and council members are paid an annual salary of $3,500, a Lilburn official told us. Another part-time City Council further east in Gwinnett County, Loganville, offers compensation to its elected officials that’s pretty close to Norcross. Loganville’s mayor is paid $12,000 a year while its council members make $6,000 a year. Loganville officials are part-time. The city’s population in 2010 was 10,458. We also looked at Doraville, which had 8,330 residents, according to the 2010 U.S. census. The mayor and council members receive annual salaries of $70,000 and $8,400, respectively, city officials say. The council voted in 2011 to cut their annual pay by $6,000 as City Hall grappled with across-the-board budget cuts, The Champion Newspaper reported. For three decades, Doraville’s mayor handled the city’s daily operations. Residents voted to put a city manager in charge of running Doraville on a daily basis and hired one in February 2012. In all, we looked at 10 cities in the region with populations that seemed reasonably close to Norcross’. The average annual mayoral salary was $19,418. The average yearly city council salary was $8,437. The salaries are higher than what Norcross adopted. But only six of those cities have mayoral salaries that are higher than what Norcross passed. Just four of those cities have city council salaries that are more than what Norcross approved. To sum up, Norcross officials claimed the salary increases for its mayor and City Council would put them in line with other liked-sized communities. If you consider the average salaries for 10 similarly sized cities, Norcross officials would still make less than their counterparts. If you examine each of those cities separately, the Norcross officials would make more in some cases and less in other instances. From what we’ve reviewed, Norcross has a pretty good argument here. The council will be in the middle of other liked-sized communities concerning pay. We rate the claim True.	None	Norcross City Council	None	None	None	2013-05-28T06:00:00	2013-05-09	['None']
-afck-00004	“Almost one in 10 teenage deaths in South Africa every year are the result of suicide.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/teen-suicide-in-south-africa-getting-the-facts-right-helps-combat-the-problem/	None	None	None	None	None	Teen suicide in South Africa: getting the facts right helps combat the problem	2018-10-23 12:28	None	['South_Africa']
-pomt-00977	"When I came into office, our vaccination rate in Texas was 65 percent. When I left two weeks ago, it was 95 percent."	/texas/statements/2015/feb/12/rick-perry/rick-perry-texas-vaccination-rates-rose-65-per/	Rick Perry, saying parents should get their children vaccinated, went on to say his home state greatly stepped up vaccinations in his 14 years as Texas governor. In a Feb. 5, 2015, interview with The Washington Post and Texas Tribune, Perry said national and state leaders should use their power to encourage the childhood shots. "I think governors, elected officials, people in positions of authority and power and influence, should use those positions to make sure that the people they either represent or have the opportunity to work for are as healthy as they can be," Perry said. "Obviously vaccines are a very important part of that." In the interview, Perry also said that when he came into office, "our vaccination rate in Texas was 65 percent. When I left two weeks ago, it was 95 percent." He continued, according to video placed online by the Tribune: "We know that vaccines — science backs it up every day — that vaccines are a very very important tool to keep our citizens safe." The next morning, the Post’s Fact Checker gave Perry three Pinnochios for those declared percentages, saying that according to federal data, nearly 64 percent of preschool children in Texas obtained all recommended vaccinations in 2000, the year Perry became governor, and about 73 percent of such children did so in 2013, his second-to-last year in office. Also, the story said, the latter rate was a decrease from 2007. (A Perry spokesman later told the Tribune Perry had used "incomplete numbers.") State-provided charts For our own review, we asked Perry how he reached his figures and we turned to the Texas Department of State Health Services, whose spokeswoman, Carrie Williams, emailed us a couple charts indicating the state’s vaccination rates over the years. In 2000, one chart says, 69.5 percent of Texas children aged 19 months through 35 months had received recommended shots against diptheria/tetanus/pertussis, polio and measles, mumps and rubella, in accordance with state law. In 2013, the latest year on the chart, 80.1 percent of children in the age range had received those shots. On Perry’s watch, according to the chart, year-by-year shot rates for preschoolers ranged from a low of 71.3 percent in 2002 to a high of 81.7 percent in 2010. One takeaway: The share of Texas preschool toddlers getting basic shots was up about 10 percentage points toward the end of Perry’s time as governor. Perry's '95 percent' backup So, how did Perry arrive at his statement that 95 percent of Texas children were immunized? Perry spokesman Travis Considine offered as backup for this part of Perry’s statement an October 2014 CDC press release stating that in the 2013-14 school year, 97 percent or more of Texas children enrolled in kindergarten had gotten required-for-enrollment shots for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); diptheria and tetanus toxoids as well as acellular pertussis (DTaP); and varicella. Another chart in the release indicates 7,803 children were exempted from getting all the shots, amounting to 2 percent of all the kindergartners. Then again, the statistic for kindergartners getting shots is a different measure than the statistic for toddler immunizations. Indeed, the second State Health Services chart shows that nearly all the state’s kindergartners got fully vaccinated in all the years Perry was governor--and nearly all students had done so for years before. In 2000, Texas children in kindergarten had vaccination rates for different shots ranging from 95 percent to 99 percent, according to the chart. In 2013, the last year on the chart, kindergartners had vaccination rates of 97.2 percent to 98.1 percent depending on the shot being gauged. Shot rates for kindergartners were in the high 90s since the earliest year on the chart, 1993. We figure those particular rates have remained high because the shots are required by law before a student enters public school, as a state handout makes clear. A wrinkle: Parents may seek to exempt their children from the required shots for "medical contraindications" and "reasons of conscience, including a religious belief," according to state regulations. To claim an exemption due to reasons of conscience, a student's parent or legal guardian must submit a State Health Services affidavit to the child's school; it’s valid for two years, the agency says. In 2013-14, 0.76 percent of children received conscientious exemptions, according to an agency chart. We forwarded what State Health Services gave us to Considine and didn’t hear back. Finally, for scientific perspective we reached Catherine Troisi, an epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. By phone, Troisi looked over CDC figures and the charts we fielded from the state. She said the contrast between young preschoolers' vaccination rates in 2013 to rates in 2000 reflected a "statistically significant" improvement. As governor, Troisi said, Perry had some oversight of State Health Services. But she said she also credits the federal government, through the CDC, for improved immunization rates; federal aid helps low-income residents get shots, she said. Our ruling Perry said: "When I came into office, our vaccination rate in Texas was 65 percent. When I left two weeks ago, it was 95 percent." These percentages trace to reported immunization rates for different populations of youngsters. And by inappropriately pairing the figures, Perry left the incorrect impression of great progress on his watch when there actually was less dramatic improvement--with kindergartners almost uniformly getting all their shots, as required by law, as they did before his reign. With all this in mind, we rate the statement False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. UPDATE, 3:48 p.m., Feb. 12, 2015: After this story published, a reader prompted us to notice that a Perry spokesman had told the Texas Tribune the ex-governor used "incomplete numbers." We amended our fact check to note that. This did not affect our rating of what he said.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2015-02-12T14:37:28	2014-02-05	['Texas']
-pomt-13205	Says electric utilities "are trying to fool you into amending your state Constitution in a way that gives them the authority to shut down net metering."	/florida/statements/2016/oct/21/al-gore/utilities-behind-amendment-1-are-trying-trick-vote/	In the Miami area to stump for Hillary Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore wanted to enlighten a crowd of supporters about a controversial ballot measure on solar energy. Gore said the utility companies that back Amendment 1 make it sound like it fosters solar, but the true aim is darker than that. He called it a "phony baloney" initiative propped up by utilities. "The things they claim protect solar are protections you already have," Gore said at Miami Dade College’s Kendall campus on Oct. 11, 2016. "But they are trying to fool you into amending your state Constitution in a way that gives them the authority to shut down net metering and do in Florida what they did in Nevada and just kill the solar industry." Does Amendment 1 allow utility companies to stop net metering? And what is net metering, anyway? We wanted to shine some light on a very contentious energy proposal. Solar squabble Amendment 1, called "Rights of Electricity Consumers Regarding Solar Energy Choice," has drawn fire for crowding out a more grassroots solar power amendment that failed to make this year’s ballot because it didn’t garner enough signatures — in part because utility companies contributed millions to Amendment 1’s war chest. The Florida Supreme Court determined the language of the amendment was not misleading and approved it 4-3. It is widely considered a deliberate attempt by utilities to erect barriers to competition and prevent third-party leasing of solar. Utility companies have given most of the almost $22 million being poured into the amendment campaign. Florida is one of five states that do not allow a property owner to have a third-party installer put solar panels on their roof and sell the power back to them. The amendment will leave that ban in place, but, if the ban on solar leasing and sales were removed, the language in the amendment could discourage third-party sales. It gives utility companies the right to impose new fees on all solar customers to compensate for the loss of revenue when solar customers don't buy their power, making solar sales and leasing less economical. Audio surfaced this month of Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the utilities-backed James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, at an energy summit calling the amendment "an incredibly savvy maneuver" that "would completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road," according to the Miami Herald. He also said that because solar power is a popular idea among customers, "we can use a little bit of political jiu-jitsu" to get voters to approve protections for non-solar customers. Before that story, environmentalists and solar advocates said they were tipped off by the very wording in the amendment: "State and local governments shall retain their abilities to protect consumer rights and public health, safety and welfare, and to ensure that consumers who do not choose to install solar are not required to subsidize the costs of backup power and electric grid access to those who do." The first clause protects a person’s ability to put solar panels on their house. That’s really not a big deal at the moment, since current law already allows that. The second half is the controversial part, because critics like Gore say it will allow utility companies to end a process called net metering. What’s that, you ask? Say you have solar panels on your roof. When the sun is out, the panels are generating power. They may even generate more than your house needs. Meanwhile, most homes still need traditional electric service from utility companies so that they can have power at night. Net metering allows someone to sell excess solar-generated power to the utilities. Those people would also enjoy a lower bill because they draw less electricity from the traditional, power plant-supplied grid. Utility companies nationwide have argued that this is unfair, because homes with solar panels are getting all the benefit of being connected to the grid without having to pay as much for the upkeep of generators and transmission lines as other customers. Traditional customers, they say, are subsidizing solar customers. "The concern is that if you get all your power for free, you’re not paying your fair share," Stetson University law professor Lance Long said. Solar promoters disagree with those claims. They argue that instead of costing non-solar customers more, solar energy brings more value to the electricity distribution system than it takes away. A Brookings Institution study in May looked at net metering in several states and concluded that when solar customers sell their power back to the electric utility through net metering, it actually helps non-solar customers in a few ways. The study said adding solar power reduces the need to build new power plants to meet peak demand, curtails costly grid maintenance, lowers reliance on oil and gas power generation, lowers utility rates, increases energy security and saves customers money. Amendment 1 opponents therefore fear that utilities will lobby the state to allow a surcharge on solar customers or, as Gore said, change the policy for net metering. If Amendment 1 is approved, state officials could define what it means to "subsidize" solar power and lessen the economic benefits of third-party solar power for homes and businesses. It’s a reasonable concern, since Florida utility providers have already grumbled about ending net metering. Florida Power & Light told the state Public Service Commission in June 2015 that it didn’t see the practice as sustainable, repeatedly referring to "subsidies required to support rooftop solar." Ending net metering would strangle a vital revenue source for those third-party solar companies. Those businesses often install solar panels on houses for free or reduced cost, then make money by leasing the equipment and selling excess power to utilities. The chance to cripple competitors would give utilities a big incentive to kill net metering. As Gore mentioned, that’s what happened in Nevada, which reduced net metering payments so much that major third-party companies left the state, dropping new panel installations by 92 percent in the first quarter of 2016. That follows a national trend of utility companies being hostile to some types of solar arrangements. But no one, not even Oscar-winning environmentalist Gore, knows for certain what Florida’s utility companies would do about net metering, or potential extra fees. Both are possible, or even likely, depending on your point of view. But neither are definite if Amendment 1 passes. Changes wouldn’t be automatic, either. A spokeswoman for Consumers for Smart Solar, the utility-backed group behind the initiative, pointed out "Amendment 1 gives utilities no authority whatsoever." Legal experts we contacted said that’s accurate; Florida’s Public Service Commission, which sets rates and handles utility regulations, would have to approve utilities’ requests. And since net metering is a part of state statute, the matter would likely end up before the state Supreme Court. That’s when Amendment 1 would really kick in: It would give utilities a much stronger argument that one way or another, solar customers should be paying a higher electric bill. "It (the amendment) would create a constitutional right for utilities, and not just a regulation," Florida State University law professor Hannah Wiseman said. "It raises the stakes." Our ruling Gore said electric utilities "are trying to fool you into amending your state Constitution in a way that gives them the authority to shut down net metering." Amendment 1 doesn’t immediately give utilities authority to do anything, on its face. But it would potentially give them a constitutional argument to eventually charge solar customers more, or change net metering policies. There’s no certain proof that Florida regulators would approve either, but experts told us it’s a very reasonable suspicion. The amendment is widely considered to be deceptively worded and erects barriers to solar power that would favor traditional utilities. Gore is right to warn solar proponents it would work against their broader efforts. Nonetheless, he went a bit too far to say the amendment would automatically grant utilities unchecked "authority" to kill net metering. We rate his statement Half True. Clarification, Oct. 24, 2016: This fact-check was updated to clarify that third-party sales of electricity from solar power are banned in Florida. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b5fa6588-4ecc-454f-9a48-028843014ede	None	Al Gore	None	None	None	2016-10-21T12:16:04	2016-10-11	['None']
-goop-02173	Kim Kardashian “Taunting” Taylor Swift By “Liking” Selena Gomez Photo, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashia-taunting-taylor-swift-liking-selena-gomez-photo-instagram/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian NOT “Taunting” Taylor Swift By “Liking” Selena Gomez Photo, Despite Speculative Claim	2:30 pm, November 20, 2017	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-13507	Says "Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare for illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/02/donald-trump/donald-trump-strays-key-facts-hillary-clinton-amne/	Donald Trump is claiming that Hillary Clinton wants to give immigrants who are in the United States illegally access to federal benefits that they haven’t earned and that the country can’t afford. "Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days," he told a crowd in Phoenix on Aug. 31, "and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare for illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget." We'll deal with the amnesty issue first. The 100-day pledge Clinton's website page on immigration doesn't mention amnesty at all. It does, however, promise to "introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office." That would require a series of steps before an immigrant who is here illegally would be eligible for citizenship. That's not bestowing amnesty within 100 days. Clinton is, however, in favor of allowing many of those immigrants the chance to stay in the United States and be temporarily free from the threat of deportation. She supports two programs that give them a "deferred action" designation by the Department of Homeland Security. The first is known as DACA (for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). It's been in effect since 2012 and protects nearly 730,000 people who came to the United States as children. The second, called DAPA (for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents), was proposed for the 4 million or so people whose children are already U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. It's an attempt to keep families together. But the U.S. Supreme Court had blocked its implementation. The programs are designed to provide temporary relief; the immigrants who qualify must renew their designation every few years. They are still considered to be in the country illegally. Again, that's not amnesty. In the past, Clinton supported "Gang of Eight" legislation calling for enhanced border security, using E-Verify to check a person's eligibility for employment and a system to prevent people from overstaying their visa. It also required illegal immigrants to learn English, pay a fine and pay back taxes, and it gave higher preference to the applications of immigrants already seeking citizenship. During the process, those immigrants would not have been eligible for federal public benefits. Some critics characterized the measure, which didn't pass, as amnesty. Supporters said it’s not amnesty, a claim we’ve generally rated Half True. One legal dictionary defines amnesty as "a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out. ... The basis for amnesty is generally because the war or other conditions that made the acts criminal no longer exist or have faded in importance." In modern American politics, though, the usual standard for amnesty is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. That law, supported by President Ronald Reagan, said that illegal immigrants could become legal permanent residents if they could prove they were in this country by Jan. 1, 1982, and met a few other minimal requirements. The law was widely described as an amnesty program, both then and now. And its failure to stem the flow of illegal immigration is partly why "amnesty" is such a poisonous word today. When we asked the Trump campaign about that part of the claim, immigration adviser Julie Kirchner said Clinton has promised to propose it during the first 100 days. Social programs Clinton does support proposals that would make some illegal immigrants eligible for Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare. But it wouldn't be all illegal immigrants for all programs, as Trump says. On Obamacare, Trump is correct. Clinton's website says, "We should let families — regardless of immigration status — buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so." Also, note that Trump doesn't mention welfare, food stamps or Medicaid health care for the poor. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for those programs now, and they wouldn't be eligible for the first two, even if they were granted amnesty for coming to the United States illegally. They would have to become citizens or lawful permanent residents. (If Clinton got them covered by Obamacare, Medicaid might be in play.) But on the issue of Social Security and Medicare, if Clinton manages to get a DAPA-like program implemented, nearly 4 million to 5 million illegal immigrants (out of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants) would get a "deferred action" designation and, as a result, become eligible to work here. That, in turn, would require them to pay into the Social Security and Medicare programs and — if they grew old enough and had a work history of at least 10 years — they would be eligible for those benefits under a system set up in the President Ronald Reagan years. So on this point, Trump is mostly correct, although he's giving the false impression that illegal immigrants would be entitled to all social programs under Clinton. Which brings us to . . . Breaking the federal budget? Is this going to cripple the federal budget, as Trump claims? As we noted in an earlier fact-check when Trump was making similar claims, undocumented workers have been a boon to Social Security. They added about $12 billion to the Social Security trust funds in 2010. The reason: They're paying into the system, but they are not — and may never be — eligible to take benefits out. In fact, a 2015 report by the Social Security Administration estimated that if both DACA and DAPA had been implemented, it would have initially increased the short-term solvency of Social Security. The payments of those working immigrants would have generated a small overall increase in revenue through 2045, a smaller overall decline from 2046 through 2082, and be neutral after 2082. They're not going to break the federal budget that way — or break it anymore than it's already broken. As for Obamacare, that's not free health care. It's an insurance program that people have to purchase. The more young people it enrolls, the healthier the program is. Normally if someone is poor and enrolls in Obamacare, they are then added to Medicaid or the federal Children's Health Insurance Program instead. It would be costly to enroll illegal immigrants in Medicaid or CHIP, although whether it would "break" the federal budget is a matter for debate. We received varying ballpark estimates from experts on how much it could potentially cost if all of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants were put on Medicaid or CHIP, which would be highly unlikely. Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said the maximum cost would be about $11 billion on a $4 trillion federal budget. But Jeffrey Clemens, a professor of health economics at the University of California San Diego, said a more reasonable estimate was $33 billion, or up to "$66 billion if there is a large number of disabled or otherwise high-cost individuals. "These numbers would still overstate the expenditures that would actually unfold," he said, "because only some difficult-to-estimate fraction of the relevant population would actually obtain ACA-financed coverage." In fact, as the Clinton campaign later told us, Clinton is on the record as saying that there should be no significant extra cost with her plan because undocumented immigrants won't be eligible for a subsidy for private insurance or Medicaid. Whether that changed would depend on how the laws are revised. Clinton told Anderson Cooper on March 21, 2016: "If they can afford it, they should be able to go into the marketplace and buy it. But it is not going to apply to people who are in need of subsidies in order to afford that because the subsidies in question have to be worked out in comprehensive immigration reform." Our ruling Trump said, "Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare for illegal immigrants, breaking the federal budget." She has not pledged to grant amnesty in her first 100 days. She's promised to submit immigration legislation. Her plan doesn't "provide" Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare to immigrants. They'll have to pay into the system to get those benefits just like everybody else. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, it would be at least a decade — perhaps several — before they get any benefits. In the case of Obamacare, even if all 11 million undocumented immigrants were so poor they qualified for Medicaid, it would not "break" the $4 trillion federal budget. But Clinton has said they would not automatically be eligible for Medicaid or subsidies. Trump has gotten so much wrong here, we rate his statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3878d3cf-2365-43a5-895f-219cac443911	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-09-02T17:07:18	2016-08-31	['Medicare_(United_States)', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Social_Security_(United_States)']
-para-00143	The Howard government "never did anything" for school education, "they never did one thing that has endured for the long term".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/20/julia-gillard/howard-government-never-did-anything-school-educat/index.html	None	['Education']	Julia Gillard	David Humphries, Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	The Howard government "never did anything" for school education, "they never did one thing that has endured for the long term".	Thursday, June 20, 2013 at 3:59 p.m.	None	['None']
-obry-00055	Mark Holbrook, Democratic candidate for Wisconsin’s 70th assembly district, claimed on his campaign website that his GOP opponent was complicit in a $250 million budget cut to the UW system pushed by Gov. Scott Walker. Holbrook said, “In addition, our representative (Nancy VanderMeer) voted to preserve the $250 million cut to the UW System and Colleges: one of the highest cuts to higher education in the country.” Lawmakers voted 52-46 to pass the 2015-17 biennial budget, which included $250 million worth of cuts to the UW system over a two-year period, alongside the removal of protections for tenured faculty. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/11/02/holbrook-ties-vandermeer-to-massive-uw-cuts/	None	None	None	Peter Culver	None	Holbrook ties VanderMeer to massive UW cuts	November 11, 2016	None	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Scott_Walker_(politician)', 'University_of_Wisconsin_System', 'Legislator', 'Wisconsin']
-snes-02554	Peanut butter can be used to diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can-you-use-peanut-butter-to-diagnose-alzheimers-disease/	None	Medical	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Can You Use Peanut Butter to Diagnose Alzheimer’s Disease?	28 December 2016	None	['None']
-vees-00422	Screengrab from Carlos Celdran's facebook page	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-plaza-moriones-intramuros	So why is the Plaza Moriones rehabilitation, and renewing heritage spaces for that matter, an issue? VERA Files looked into the matter and reached out to experts. Here are some facts about the historic site.	None	None	None	fact-check,Fact check,Plaza Moriones	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Plaza Moriones in Intramuros	May 12, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-02036	Giant Toilet Spider Attacks Foot	https://www.truthorfiction.com/giant-toilet-spider-attacks-foot/	None	insects	None	None	None	Giant Toilet Spider Attacks Foot	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00251	'Shovel Girl' Miranda Fugate is Dead	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/shovel-girl-miranda-fugate-not-dead.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'Shovel Girl' Miranda Fugate is NOT Dead	May 7, 2014	None	['None']
-goop-01084	Khloe Kardashian Marrying Tristan Thompson, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-tristan-thompson-getting-married-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian NOT Marrying Tristan Thompson, Despite Late And Wrong Report	1:30 pm, May 1, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01607	Justin Bieber Partying Ruining Selena Gomez Reunion?	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-selena-gomez-partying-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Justin Bieber Partying Ruining Selena Gomez Reunion?	11:36 am, February 10, 2018	None	['None']
-afck-00415	“Since 1994, nearly 5,000 farms, comprising 4.2 million hectares, have been transferred to black people, benefiting over 200,000 families.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/a-first-look-at-president-jacob-zumas-2014-state-of-the-nation-address/	None	None	None	None	None	President Jacob Zuma’s sixth State of the Nation address fact-checked	2014-02-14 12:39	None	['None']
-pomt-07248	Says the Obama administration approved a major disaster declaration for Oklahoma in 2009, when nine of the state’s 77 counties burned for "about three days," while Texas wildfires have been burning for longer without such a declaration.	/texas/statements/2011/may/30/todd-staples/agriculture-commissioner-todd-staples-says-obama-a/	Todd Staples, the Texas agriculture commissioner, takes issue with the Obama administration’s refusal to declare a major disaster in response to wildfires scorching parts of Texas. During a May 12 Texas Tribune interview, Staples, a Republican eyeing a run for lieutenant governor, said: "It’s just unconscionable that FEMA and this administration is denying our request for a general disaster declaration. And to put it in context, just in June of 2009, the same administration approved the type of declaration request that we’re asking, when nine counties out of the 77 in Oklahoma burned for about three days. We’ve had wildfires that have been out of control for two weeks." Asked whether the Obama administration had explained the denial, Staples said: "Well, it is what it is. It’s indifference, or it’s political posturing, who knows what the real issue is." We wondered whether the feds really responded to fires in the Sooner State with a "major disaster declaration," while spurning the Texas request for wildfires that lasted longer. A governor can trigger federal aid is by asking the president to declare a major disaster in the state. That request must show the disaster "is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the local governments and that federal assistance is necessary," according to information on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s website. An April 10, 2009, "situation update" from the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management said that 10 counties had been affected by the wildfires, which had injured at least 62 people and destroyed more than 100 homes. According to an Associated Press article from the same day, Oklahoma's Democratic governor declared a state of emergency for 31 counties hit by wildfires and severe weather. On April 22, the governor requested the major disaster declaration that would "deliver individual assistance to residents and business owners" in nine counties, according to a press release from the governor’s office. Nearly 270 homes and businesses — including 228 homes — were damaged from the fires that started April 9, burning more than 100,000 acres. On June 19, 2009, President Barack Obama declared a major disaster for Oklahoma, infusing federal aid into the state’s "recovery efforts in an area struck by wildfires during the period of April 9-12, 2009," according to a FEMA press release, which Staples spokesman Bryan Black pointed us to. "Assistance can include grants for temporary housing and home repairs, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses, and other programs to help individuals and business owners recover from the effects of the disaster," according to the press release. According to a July 28, 2009, FEMA press release, disaster assistance for Oklahomans affected by wildfires exceeded $2.9 million, including $1,590,000 in housing assistance grants. A total of 260 individuals from nine counties registered for federal assistance, the press release says. What about Texas? As of May 16, according to the Texas Forest Service, 10,123 Texas fires had burned nearly 2.6 million acres in 237 counties. Since the fire season began in November, 435 homes and 1,302 additional structures have been lost. Two volunteer firefighters have died. In an April 16 letter to Obama, Gov. Rick Perry requested a "major disaster declaration" as a result of wildfires that have burned through the state. Perry’s request covered all but two of the state’s counties, including Travis. Perry sought Category B aid through FEMA’s public assistance program, making the state eligible to be reimbursed up to 75 percent of firefighting costs already expended and to help the state fight burning fires. His request didn’t include federal aid for individuals, though some affected residents are eligible for other federal help, including low-interest loans and assistance to ranchers and farmers who lost livestock in the fires. The federal government denied Perry’s request after FEMA concluded recovery needs from wildfires did not exceed what the state and local governments could handle, according to a May 4 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article. On May 26, Perry appealed the Obama administration's decision to deny the declaration. FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen told us that the administration has provided Texas with 27 fire management grants to fund many of the same emergency response activities Perry sought assistance for. The grants covered 75 percent of the firefighting costs associated with the 27 fires, which burned about 1 million acres in 31 counties, and the state expects to be reimbursed about $23 million as a result, Forest Service spokeswoman April Saginor told us. From Sept. 1 through May 15, local fire departments and the state spent about $97.5 million on wildfires, she said. Of that, the state has pitched in $90.8 million. Where does that leave us? Staples correctly says that the Obama administration denied Texas’ request for a disaster declaration due to long-burning wildfires: The same administration approved a similar disaster declaration request from Oklahoma in 2009, in response to wildfires that burned for only a few days. But the statement leaves out a crucial relevant fact. FEMA has not denied federal aid for the Texas wildfires; it’s approved fire-fighting grants adding up to $23 million — far more than Oklahoma’s approximate $3 million in disaster aid. We rate Staples statement Mostly True.	None	Todd Staples	None	None	None	2011-05-30T06:00:00	2011-05-12	['Texas', 'Oklahoma', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-05357	A photograph shows Hillary Clinton in blackface and Bill Clinton dressed as a hillbilly.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-blackface-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Hillary Clinton Wear Blackface at a Costume Party?	15 January 2016	None	['Bill_Clinton', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-12095	Says Foxconn didn't keep a promise to build a plant in Pennsylvania because "Pennsylvania changed governors."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/aug/25/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-pennsylvania-lost-foxconn-plant-/	Critics of Wisconsin’s $3 billion-for-13,000 jobs deal with Foxconn keep bringing up Pennsylvania. In 2013, the Taiwanese manufacturer promised a $30 million factory in the Harrisburg area that would employ 500 people. There were big headlines, but the factory was never built. Asked by a reporter on July 28, 2017 why Foxconn wouldn't do the same to Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker responded by saying the difference is simple: "Pennsylvania changed governors." The Republican governor has since repeated that explanation in at least three other interviews -- with Wisconsin reporters, on conservative talk radio in Milwaukee and on the Fox Business Network. "Our understanding from the company is that Pennsylvania wanted to change the deal" with Foxconn" after a new governor was elected," Walker spokesman Tom Evenson told us when we asked for information to back Walker’s statement. Pennsylvania did replace a Republican governor with a Democrat. But that election occurred a year after the factory announcement -- and in that time, virtually no progress on the factory had been reported under the GOP governor. After Foxconn made its announcement, "it was very, very quiet, then it just kind of faded away," recalled Jay Pagni, who was a spokesman for then-Republican Gov. Tom Corbett. We heard the same from Nathan Benefield, chief operating officer at the Commonwealth Foundation in Pennsylvania, which monitors government incentive packages to businesses. And we heard it from local news reporters and others. Steven Kratz, who was spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development under Corbett, told us that when Corbett left office in January 2015, the state and Foxconn were continuing to have talks about the proposed plant. But no site had been chosen and no agreement had been made on any incentives the state might offer, he said. And for its part, Foxconn has given different explanations for not building the Pennsylvania plant. In short, the explanation isn’t as simple as Walker makes it, as the following review shows. Foxconn-Pennsylvania timeline Nov. 2013 Announcement: Foxconn and Corbett announce Foxconn plans to invest $30 million in a factory that would employ up to 500. Jan. 2014 Initial plans: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development spokesman says he expects Foxconn to do aggressive site search, starting in January 2014. Feb. 2014 Questions arise: Weeks later, news reports say only that Foxconn might invest in Pennsylvania; and that there was intense competition among states for a Foxconn plant. Nov. 2014 Change in governors: Businessman Tom Wolf, a Democrat, defeats Corbett to win election as governor. Wolf takes office in January 2015. Jan. 2017 Sites had been scouted: Reflecting on the 2013 announcement, a Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development spokeswoman in the Wolf administration says department officials had met with Foxconn representatives on various occasions after the 2013 announcement and showed them potential locations for the planned site, but the project didn’t materialize. (The department confirmed to us it worked with Foxconn under both the Corbett and Wolf administrations.) Mar. 2017 Foxconn takes responsibility: The Washington Post reports that, according to a Harrisburg-area official, the project "just seemed to fade to black" after it was announced. "It was the start of a mystery, created by a chief executive known to promise projects all over the world that never quite pan out," according to the Post. Foxconn attributes the failure to build the factory to "material changes to the business and operating climate at that time." Aug. 2017 Foxconn blames Pennsylvania: The China Post reports that Foxconn chairman Terry Gou has said the plant wasn’t built because, in the Post’s words, Pennsylvania "elected a new governor who refused to honor the deal." Foxconn did not single out either administration in a statement to PolitiFact Wisconsin. The company said it didn’t build the factory because the Pennsylvania "state government, unlike the state government in Wisconsin, was not able to present a joint investment program that would make the project economically viable." Our rating Walker says Foxconn didn't keep a promise to build a plant in Pennsylvania because "Pennsylvania changed governors." But the record indicates that by the time the Democratic administration took over, little progress had been made more than a year after Foxconn and the GOP governor announced Foxconn’s plans. It's not as though there was a deal in place that fell apart after the election. Foxconn, meanwhile, has given explanations ranging from "material changes to the business and operating climate at that time," to Pennsylvania not making an economically viable to proposal to, reportedly, blaming Pennsylvania’s change in governors. In short, Walker’s statement contains an element of truth, but leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression -- our definition of Mostly False. 5 fact checks on Foxconn and Wisconsin's $3 billion deal See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2017-08-25T11:48:52	2017-07-28	['Pennsylvania']
-pomt-00901	Says "President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country ... with a ban on one of the most-used" assault rifle bullets.	/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/04/paul-bedard/columnist-obama-presses-gun-control-t/	Segments of the gun-rights community are trying to block a proposed ban on certain kinds of bullets by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Paul Bedard, a columnist with the conservative Washington Examiner, recently took up the cry. "President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation," Bedard wrote Feb. 27, 2015. "Targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters." We left phone messages and sent emails several times to Bedard and did not hear back. Our focus is whether Obama is using executive action to impose gun control through a bullet ban. There’s some information to unpack here. Where the claim comes from Though we didn’t hear back from Bedard, he’s talking about the ATF’s plan for one particular type of bullet -- a 5.56 mm "green tip." It is found in SS109 and M855 cartridges, and it’s one of the more popular types of ammunition in America, experts told us. But this February, the ATF announced a proposal to remove an exemption that allowed gun owners to use this particular kind of ammunition. The agency’s reasoning? It can pierce the sort of body armor often worn by police, and it can be fired from a handgun. The ammunition isn’t new, nor is its ability to pierce body armor. What is new is that gun manufacturers are making handguns that use a 5.56 mm "green tip." That, ATF says, violates the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 that aimed to ban armor piercing bullets. "The AR-based handguns and rifles utilize the same magazines and share identical receivers," the ATF wrote in an explanatory brief. "These AR-type handguns were not commercially available when the armor piercing ammunition exemption was granted in 1986. To ensure consistency, upon final implementation of the sporting purpose framework outlined above, ATF must withdraw the exemptions for 5.56 mm "green tip" ammunition, including both the SS109 and M855 cartridges." The public has until March 16 to comment on the proposal. ATF will assess those comments and then issue a final ruling. It has not said when it will decide. Nearly 240 members of Congress signed a letter to ATF opposing the change. ‘Using executive actions’ That’s the background. Now how does that jibe with Bedard’s claim? Bedard called this an executive action by the president. That is a stretch of the common reading of the phrase. Yes, ATF is part of the executive branch, but there’s no evidence this was a decision made by Obama (compared to, say, Obama’s executive action on immigration.) ATF said the proposal came after it received 30 requests for exemptions to permit this sort of bullet in handguns between 2011 and today. Until then, the agency said it had received few such requests. ATF spokeswoman Janice Kemp told PunditFact "this started with us." When this issue came up in a daily White House press briefing, press secretary Josh Earnest said this was an ATF process that was open to public comment. (The comment period ends on March 16.) However, he said the administration supports the proposal as a "common sense" step. "This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk," Earnest said. ‘Impose gun control on the nation’ Bedard also said Obama’s actions "impose gun control on the nation." That claim is also a stretch of the common meaning of the phrase. The ATF says that banning this particular kind of bullet would leave gunowners with 168 other varieties of bullets to use in the same weapons. Bullets made with copper or lead remain legal under the 1986 law. Steven Howard, a Michigan attorney and firearms specialist, agrees with ATF’s basic point. "Instead of shooting this particular cartridge with the forbidden bullet, you’d still have a whole bunch of different ones that you could run through," he said. "A lot of this is fear mongering more than anything else. People are afraid that the list of banned ammo will grow." (Howard among them, he told us.) Another important point: People who already have these bullets could still use them, but they wouldn’t be able to get any more in the future. That said, removing the exemption for this type of bullet would have consequences. Sam Raheb owns Close Focus Research, a ballistics testing lab in California. Raheb said the main impact on shooters is that their ammunition might cost more. "Before this, you could get a green-point for about 40 cents a round," Raheb said. "If you had to buy a commercial hunting grade cartridge, it could cost you $1 a round." Kyle Weaver, the National Rifle Association’s executive director of operations also cited cost during a recent interview. Weaver was asked about the effect on shooter training. "This is the inexpensive ammo they train with and shoot with," Weaver said. "This is not the high-end stuff. This is what they shoot every day." And Wes Mason, manager of technical operations at another testing center, HP White Laboratory, said the proposal wouldn’t address other types of handgun ammunition that could pierce armor and would still be legal under the proposed change. "Its counterparts have the same characteristics when you’re talking about piercing body armor," Mason said. That would make the proposal ineffective in protecting police. Lastly, Bedard said the administration was targeting the rifle version of the AR-15. That is his interpretation. It is the pistol version that drew the ATF’s attention. The agency’s proposal would leave both the pistol and rifle versions untouched, although the ammunition for both would be affected if the "green tip" is banned. Our ruling Bedard said Obama was using executive action to impose gun control through a ban on certain bullets. An executive agency, the ATF, has proposed removing an exemption for a specific type of ammunition because gun manufacturers have started selling handguns that fire the rounds. That violates a 1986 federal law, the ATF says, aimed at protecting police from armor piercing bullets. Bedard’s shorthanding this as "executive action" is misleading, though Obama does support the proposal. Also, it’s worth noting that the ban would not amount to gun control per se; the ATF notes that 168 other varieties of bullets will work in the same weapons. The primary impact would be a higher price for ammunition. And while Bedard says the move targets the rifle version, it is the pistol version and the cartridges it uses that lie at the center of the ATF proposal. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give another impression. We rate it Mostly False. Note: This claim was fact-checked as part of a reward to our Kickstarter campaign to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union. Thanks to all who contributed.	None	Paul Bedard	None	None	None	2015-03-04T16:35:53	2015-02-27	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-13134	Says Russ Feingold "got paid $8,000 a lecture at Stanford University."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/02/ron-johnson/ron-johnson-opponent-russ-feingold-got-paid-8000-l/	An Oct. 6, 2016 campaign ad from U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson delves into former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold’s finances. Feingold "got paid $8,000 a lecture at Stanford University," the ad claims. We decided to check it out. Johnson’s campaign sent us three links as backup: -- Feingold’s 2015 personal financial disclosure form, in which he reports that he was paid $150,000 by Stanford in 2015. -- The description of the cross-listed class he taught at Stanford in the spring of 2015, "Implications of Post-1994 Conflicts in Great Lakes Region of Africa: an American Perspective." -- The description of the class he taught at Stanford in the fall of 2015, "The United States Senate as a Legal Institution." Feingold was a visiting professor at the School of Law and a distinguished lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, according to Stanford University. By our math, based on the course descriptions on Stanford’s website, there were 10 lectures in the first class and nine in the second, for a total of 19 lectures in those classes over the two terms. If you take $150,000 and divide it by 19, you get approximately $7,895 per lecture. That’s pretty close to the $8,000 mentioned. But that math ignores the work Feingold did outside of class. According to the campaign, Feingold graded term papers, prepared for each lecture and held office hours for two hours a week for both classes. He also gave lectures for the campus and was a guest lecturer in other courses, according to the campaign. Larry Kramer was the Law School’s dean at the time and said he recruited Feingold for the expertise Feingold could offer the university and its students. Feingold was a U.S. senator from 1993 to 2011, after losing the 2010 election to Johnson. He soon became the United States Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo at the State Department. Kramer said Feingold’s duties included teaching but also many other responsibilities. (Kramer gave $2,000 last year to Feingold’s campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.) He said that the university does not pay per lecture. "Of course we don't pay that way," he said. "Nobody gets paid that way at the university. We don’t even think about it that way." Stanford wouldn’t comment on its compensation programs, including whether pay is at all tied to the number of classes or lectures taught. However, Brad Hayward, senior director of strategic communications at the university, confirmed that Feingold had responsibilities outside of the lectures. "The responsibilities of teaching at Stanford do involve significant work outside of in-class time," Hayward wrote in an email. "In addition to those teaching responsibilities, Mr. Feingold guest-lectured in other classes, delivered a public lecture, and was available to students and colleagues as a member of our academic community." Our rating Johnson claims Feingold "got paid $8,000 a lecture at Stanford University." While the math may be right, or close to it, the claim implies that the number of lectures is somehow tied to pay grade and ignores the other work required outside of class. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ad0a1329-e0f2-4d66-a1df-a5b93e6ca2c4	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2016-11-02T09:00:00	2016-10-06	['Russ_Feingold', 'Stanford_University']
-pomt-14630	"A third of the budget for the city of Ferguson (Missouri) was being reaped by civil fines."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/28/rand-paul/budgets-ferguson-mo-dont-support-rand-pauls-claim-/	How to relieve the tension between police officers and the communities they serve was a topic during the Jan. 28, 2016, Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa. The question specifically focused on Ferguson, Mo., the site of protests and riots after a police officer fatally shot Michael Brown in August 2014. When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was asked to address the issue, he said, "I've been trying to look for solutions to our criminal justice problem. One thing I discovered in Ferguson was that a third of the budget for the city of Ferguson was being reaped by civil fines. People were just being fined to death." "Now you and I and many of the people in this audience, if we get a $100 fine, we can survive it. If you're living on the edge of poverty and you get a $100 fine or your car towed, a lot of times you lose your job," Paul said. We wondered whether fines actually represented a third of Ferguson's budget. The short answer: No. Ferguson's annual operating budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, lists actual revenue and expenditures for 2012, forecasted revenues and expenditures for 2013, and budgeted estimates for 2014. In 2012, revenue from "fines and public safety" was $2.2 million out of a budget of $19.5 million. That's 11 percent. That revenue was expected to go up to $2.6 million on a $25.9 million budget, or 10 percent. And for the 2014 fiscal year, Ferguson was expecting fines and public safety revenue to jump even higher, to $2.7 million in a budget of $26.4 million. That means that that line item would be bringing in, once again, 10 percent of the revenue needed to run the city. Even if you look at income from the "fines and public safety" line item and only compare it to revenue -- and not the total budget -- you don't come close to the 33 percent or so Rand is talking about. It's 13 percent for 2012, 13 percent for 2013 and 14 percent for 2014. When Paul's spokesman got back to us, she directed us to the probe of the Ferguson Police Department by the U.S. Justice Department. Released in March 2015, it reports on efforts by the city to use Municipal Court fees and fines to increase revenue, particularly on missed court appearances and missed payments. The report notes, "The court’s practices also impose unnecessary harm, overwhelmingly on African-American individuals." The Justice Department report says that for the 2015 fiscal year, the city was expecting to collect $3.09 million in fees, fines and costs, with all revenues expected to total $13.26 million. That's 23 percent of revenue from fees and fines. However, that didn't happen. The city's latest budget, submitted June 24, 2015, specifically declares, "It is not the city's policy to maximize its government finances through the use of the judicial process. Therefore, court fines are not considered a targeted revenue source that the City strives to achieve." That's reflected in the numbers. While the city said it actually collected $2.1 million for its $13.2 million budget in 2014, it was expecting to get just $1 million in fines and public safety revenue in 2015 on a $14.4 million budget. That's 16 percent and 7 percent respectively. Our ruling Paul asserted during the Republican debate that, "A third of the budget for the city of Ferguson (Mo.) was being reaped by civil fines." The evidence is clear that the city was heavily dependent on fines and fees for its revenue, and Paul's comments about the effect on residents is noted. But we found that Paul seriously overstated that reliance. It went as high as 16 percent in 2014 and was expected to drop to 7 percent the following year in reaction to public outrage. Because his statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False.	None	Rand Paul	None	None	None	2016-01-28T23:43:36	2016-01-28	['Missouri']
-pomt-00731	"Rosalyn Dance voted against President Obama’s Medicaid expansion."	/virginia/statements/2015/apr/23/joe-morrissey/joe-morrissey-says-rosalyn-dance-opposed-medicaid-/	Former Del. Joe Morrissey is raising Virginia’s refusal to expand Medicaid as a key issue in his bid to unseat state Sen. Rosalyn Dance, D-Petersburg. At the announcement of his candidacy last month, Morrissey distributed a flier that accused Dance of apostasy in representing her heavily Democratic district. At the top of Morrissey's complaint list was this: "Rosalyn Dance voted against President Obama’s Medicaid expansion." We wondered whether Morrissey was right. When he made the claim, Morrissey was planning to oppose Dance in a June 9 primary. But the district’s Democratic committee blocked him from the primary ballot, ruling that he had not gathered enough valid signatures on petitions to qualify. Morrissey, who lost a legal bid to get on the ballot, now plans to run as an independent. Dance still faces competition in the primary from state Del. Joseph Preston, D-Petersburg. She won the Senate seat in a November special election after serving nine years a state delegate. Medicaid expansion has cleaved a deep partisan rift into Virginia in recent years. Under Obamacare, the state could opt to expand eligibility for its program to about 400,000 additional low-income and disabled citizens. Uncle Sam would pay all of the expansion costs through 2016 and phase down to 90 percent after that. Democrats have strongly backed expansion and Republicans have vehemently resisted, saying Medicaid is already inefficient and predicting that the debt-burdened federal government will renege on its promised payments. The GOP has prevailed because it has controlled either both legislative chambers in recent years or the House of Delegates and the governorship. Morrissey, in his campaign flier, sought to back up his claim that Dance opposed Medicaid expansion by citing votes she cast in favor of entire state budget bills in 2013, 2014 and this year that did not include the enlargement. Let’s look at Dance’s votes in each of those years. 2013 Morrissey points to Dance’s vote on Feb. 7, 2013, backing a House budget bill that that made any expansion contingent on first reforming the state Medicaid program to weed out inefficiency. Twenty-two House Democrats voted against the proposed budget; Dance was among nine who supported it. Passing a budget is a complicated process, however. The bill -- hundreds of pages long and containing funding for all state programs -- takes different shapes and requires a number of votes as it moves through the House and Senate. When the final version of the measure passed the House all Democrats, Morrissey included, voted for it even though it didn’t expand Medicaid. Ed Reed, a spokesman for Dance’s campaign, emailed us a statement that said she voted for the 2013 budget thinking, as many Democrats did, that it put the state on a path to Medicaid expansion, because it included a provision that said expansion could take effect after a state panel signed off on reforms. 2014 There was a long battle over Medicaid expansion last year, and there’s a lot that Morrissey is leaving out. The bottom line is that in the regular session Dance voted for an initial version of the 2014-2016 budget that did not include Medicaid expansion. But she did so only after backing a failed amendment that called for the state to enact Marketplace Virginia, an alternative to traditional Medicaid expansion where low income residents would still get coverage through a private insurance network. But most importantly, Dance sponsored a McAuliffe budget alternative that called for expanding Medicaid under a two-year pilot program. She told the House in a March 25, 2014, floor speech that under the measure "400,000 Virginians could benefit from Medicaid expansion. By taking no action at all, we are doing a huge disservice to our citizens, some of the most vulnerable." Dance’s bill was defeated and she voted against the final version of the budget, which did not include Medicaid expansion. Dance also backed an unsuccessful bill by Del. Tom Rust, R-Fairfax, that would have provided another alternative to traditional Medicaid expansion that would use federal funds from Obamacare to extend coverage to the uninsured. 2015 Morrissey points to Dance’s Feb. 26 vote for an updated 2014-2016 budget without Medicaid expansion. It’s true Dance backed a budget without Medicaid expansion. But before that final vote, Dance opposed a successful Republican amendment that blocked Medicaid expansion from the budget. The day Morrissey made his charge, Dance’s campaign fired an email to reporters saying she wanted the spending plan to expand Medicaid. Even though that didn’t happen, she said she still voted for the budget because contained "well-deserved and needed pay raises for teachers and other state workers." "Budgets are overall documents that fund the government and ensure that other priorities are funded," Dance’s statement said. "Voting against a budget simply because it leaves out one priority (however significant that priority may be) also puts at risk all of those other priorities." We should note that the final budget bill passed the Senate by a 38-1 vote and sailed through the House, 95-5. Morrissey was among the handful of delegates who opposed it. Our ruling Morrissey says Dance "voted against President Obama’s Medicaid expansion." Dance, as Morrissey points out, has voted for state budgets that didn’t expand Medicaid. But that doesn’t mean she was voting against the Medicaid growth specifically. Budgets are huge documents that fund more than $44 billion in state programs a year and go through many votes. Sometimes Dance shunned protest votes against the budgets that did not expand Medicaid because, she says, she supported many other priorities in the spending plan. In 2014, however, she joined all fellow Democrats in voting against the a final budget. It’s important to note that Dance always voted in favor of expanding Medicaid when faced with specific floor votes on the issue. So Morrissey’s statement is highly misleading and we rate it Mostly False.	None	Joe Morrissey	None	None	None	2015-04-23T12:00:00	2015-03-25	['None']
-tron-03434	Billy Graham-revival in the streets in New Orleans	https://www.truthorfiction.com/graham-neworleans/	None	religious	None	None	None	Billy Graham-revival in the streets in New Orleans	Mar 17, 2015	None	['New_Orleans']
-pomt-04081	Virginia "spends less per student today than we did in 2008."	/virginia/statements/2013/jan/21/david-toscano/toscano-says-state-spending-student-down-2008/	House Minority Leader David Toscano called on the state government to increase funding for public schools during his Democratic response to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s State of the Commonwealth address. "We spend less per student today than we did in 2008," Toscano, D-Charlottesville, said in his Jan. 9 speech. We wondered if Toscano is right. Carmen Bingham, Toscano’s chief of staff, told us the claim was based on a Senate Finance Committee report from November that contained a graph breaking down the state’s general fund spending on schools over 10 years. The general fund is largely supported by sales and income tax dollars and mostly used to pay for education, public safety and health programs. Many Democrats in recent years have opposed Republican efforts to expand a small portion of the general fund used for transportation, saying that would strip money from public schools. The graph shows that in fiscal 2008, which ended June 30 of that year, Virginia spent $4,451 per student. During this fiscal year, the state will spend $4,286 per student from the general fund. The $165 per pupil decrease is about 3.7 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the drop is about 11.4 percent. The drop corresponds with Virginia’s fall into the national recession midway through fiscal 2008. Revenues from the sales tax and income tax plunged and have been slow to recover. The general fund fell from $17 billion in 2008 to $14.8 billion in 2010. It has climbed back and this year is expected to hit $17.1 billion. Some of the losses in revenue were temporarily patched with stimulus money from the federal government. The general funds going to education have followed a similar arc, although they have not returned to their level of five years ago. In 2008, $5.3 billion went to education. That dropped to $4.7 billion in 2011 and this year is budgeted at $5.2 billion. Meanwhile, the number of students in Virginia public schools has grown by 30,000 -- from 1.19 million in 2008 to 1.22 million this school year. The education cuts were made in state budgets that were backed by majorities of Democrats and Republicans. The cuts largely came in the way of reduced funding for support positions -- such as guidance counselors, nurses, secretaries -- and by easing some education standards that the state had taken responsibility for funding, according to the Senate Finance Committee report. We should note that the graph Toscano sent us does not give a complete picture of state funding for public education. It omits about $630 million each year of non-general state funds that are spent on schools each year, about three-quarters of which come from lottery profits. We wondered whether per-student spending is still lower than the 2008 level when the total amount of state aid for schools is considered. The answer is yes. In the 2008 school year, the state put a total $5.96 billion into education and spent an average of $5,003 per student. This school year, Virginia has budgeted $5.83 billion for schools, or an average of $4,774 per student. All told, state funding has dropped by $229 per student since -- or 4.6 percent -- since 2008. Adjusted for inflation, the decrease is about 12.2 percent.. We should note that the state pays an total about 44 percent of public education costs. Local governments pay about 49 percent, the remaining 7 percent comes from the federal government. Our ruling By any measure, the state is spending less per public school student this year than it did in 2008. We rate Toscano’s statement True.	None	David Toscano	None	None	None	2013-01-21T06:00:00	2013-01-09	['None']
-pomt-08762	"There is already a mosque four blocks away."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/26/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-argues-against-no-mosque-z/	In the debate over the inaccurately named "Ground Zero Mosque," New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been one of the strongest and most consistent political voices in favor of it. In what the AP described as an "impassioned speech" at an event on Aug. 24, 2010, marking the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Bloomberg said not allowing the proposal for a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would be "compromising our commitment to fighting terror with freedom." And Bloomberg dismissed those who have called for a compromise solution, moving it to another location. "The question will then become how big should the no-mosque zone around the World Trade Center be," Bloomberg said. "There is already a mosque four blocks away. Should it, too, be moved?" With all the hand-wringing over the proposal for an Islamic cultural center with a mosque just two blocks away from Ground Zero, we wondered whether Bloomberg was right that there is already a mosque just four blocks away from the World Trade Center site. In short, yes. The mosque Bloomberg is referring to is Masjid Manhattan, which is located in the basement floor of a building at 20 Warren Street. And it's four blocks from the World Trade Center. Masjid Manhattan has been a fixture of the Lower Manhattan neighborhood since 1970. According to its website, hundreds gather there daily for five "Congregational Salahs" and more than 1,000 regularly attend Congregational Friday Sermons. The home page of the mosque's website currently carries the following "disclaimer": "Please be advised that we are by no means affiliated with any other organization trying to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan. "Since 1970, Masjid Manhattan has been a peaceful, not-for-profit organization located in the area of downtown Manhattan. Our members are City, State and Federal employees, as well as professional employees of the Financial area who come to our Masjid to perform their daily prayers. "Masjid Manhattan and its members condemn any type of terrorist acts. In particular, the attacks of 9/11 where non-Muslims as well as Muslims lost their lives. Islam always invites for peace; therefore Islam is not responsible for the actions of some ill individuals who, independently from what Islam advocates, have hatred against humanity. As Muslims and as Americans, we will never forget the beloved ones who perished that terrible day of September 11, 2001." For some perspective on the relative distances between Ground Zero, the proposed mosque and the existing Masjid Manhattan, we direct you to the Washington Post's interactive online map showing the location of all three sites. There's also a mosque 12 blocks from Ground Zero, Masjid al-Farah, where Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a longtime prayer leader. Rauf is one of the principals behind the plan for the cultural center and mosque proposal at 45-51 and 49-51 Park Place, two blocks north of the northern edge of the World Trade Center site. While Masjid Manhattan is conservative and Masjid al-Farah more progressive, a New York Times profile of the two mosques notes that both are essentially one-room operations. And they share another similarity, the story notes: both "routinely turn people away for lack of space." In fact, due to the spillover from Masjid al-Farah, Rauf has been leading prayer services since 2009 in one of the buildings at the heart of the controversy. Plans for the new property are much more ambitious than the settings of the existing mosques, calling for a $100 million, 15-story community center with a swimming pool, gym and basketball court, a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and culinary school, exhibitions, education programs, a library, reading room, art studios, childcare services and a September 11 memorial. The plans also include a mosque that the site's organizers estimated could attract as many as 2,000 worshippers on Fridays, according to the Washington Post. Again, in making his argument against a "no-mosque zone around the World Trade Center," Bloomberg said there's already a mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero. He's right. We rate his statement True.	None	Michael Bloomberg	None	None	None	2010-08-26T13:49:37	2010-08-24	['None']
-snes-04814	All three Speakers of the House involved with the impeachment of President Clinton later had sex scandals of their own.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/republican-impeached-clinton-scandal/	None	Politicians	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Clinton Impeachment House Speakers’ Sex Scandals	4 May 2016	None	['Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-14867	"When Chuck Schumer and Marco Rubio tried to push amnesty, it was Ted Cruz who stopped them."	/florida/statements/2015/nov/13/courageous-conservatives-pac/pac-supporting-ted-cruz-says-when-marco-rubio-trie/	U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s leadership role on a 2013 bill to change immigration laws continues to draw fire for him in the GOP presidential primary. The Courageous Conservatives PAC, which supports U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, has attacked Rubio’s position in a radio ad in Iowa: "We all loved how Marco Rubio took apart Jeb Bush in the debate. Wasn’t it great? But what’s Rubio ever done? Anything? Other than his Gang of Eight Amnesty bill, can anyone think of anything Marco Rubio’s ever done? Anything at all besides amnesty?" says the narrator who then switches to praise Cruz. "When Chuck Schumer and Marco Rubio tried to push amnesty, it was Ted Cruz who stopped them." We decided to research Cruz’s role in the death of Rubio’s bill, and we’ll explain the problems with labeling it as "amnesty." Both Rubio, of Florida, and Cruz, of Texas, are freshmen senators with Cuban roots who represent states with large Hispanic populations. (Rubio was elected in 2010, while Cruz was elected in 2012.) But the two disagreed over the 2013 immigration bill, and now both are running for president. We found that while Cruz was a vocal opponent of the bill, he can’t take credit for its death in the House. Immigration bills and amnesty So was the 2013 bill amnesty? As we have noted before, "amnesty" is tricky to define. When Rubio characterized the bill as "not amnesty" in 2013, we rated that claim Half True. One standard for defining amnesty in recent decades has been the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed by President Ronald Reagan. That law said that illegal immigrants could become legal permanent residents if they could prove they were in this country by 1982, and met other minimal requirements such as paying a $185 fine and back taxes and demonstrating "good moral character." The law was widely described as amnesty, both at the time and later. But the 2013 bill had far tougher requirements than the 1986 bill, which is why it’s not a convincing case that it is amnesty, although it has elements of it. In 2013, Rubio and seven other senators dubbed the Gang of Eight crafted bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate. The bill required more border security before unauthorized immigrants could pursue legal status -- and that path had significant hurdles, including paying fines, undergoing background checks and waiting periods. If they met that criteria, they could seek "registered provisional immigrant status," and after 10 years, they could seek a green card. House leadership refused to bring the bill to a vote, and it died. (Rubio still supports changing immigration laws but now calls for a piecemeal approach.) What was Cruz’s role in the immigration bill? We reached out to the pro-Cruz PAC to ask for the back-up to their ad. The super PAC was formed in September and over two weeks that month raised $5,000 from a single donor -- Christopher Ekstrom, a self-employed investor in Dallas. The PAC has now raised a total of around $30,000, said Rick Shaftan, a consultant to the PAC told PolitiFact. (He also bashed another pro-Cruz super PAC for ads he described as "boring crap.") In a Facebook message Shaftan said the ad was based on Cruz's comments in an Oct. 29, 2015, interview with Bret Baier, chief political anchor for Fox News. "I led the fight against Obama’s amnesty, against the Gang of Eight bill, which was championed by Barack Obama, by Chuck Schumer, and Marco Rubio," Cruz said, referring to the New York Democratic Senator who was part of the Gang of Eight along with Rubio. "And I led the fight, standing side by side with (Alabama Sen.) Jeff Sessions, and we defeated it in Congress. Amnesty did not pass." (Obama’s amnesty refers to the plan Obama unveiled at the end of 2014 to prevent deportations for millions of people.) We also reached out to spokespersons for Cruz’s Senate office and presidential campaign office, as well as for Rubio’s campaign, and did not get a response. We found that Cruz spoke out against the bill often in press releases, on the Senate floor, before the Senate judiciary committee on which he serves and in media interviews. He proposed amendments to triple border security, among other changes. The bill passed the Senate 68-32 on June 27, 2013, with 52 Democratic votes, 14 Republican votes and two independents. Cruz voted against it. Cruz continued to criticize the bill after the Senate vote -- but so did other lawmakers, including Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions. In November 2013, Speaker of the House John Boehner said that the House would not hold talks with the Senate on the bill and preferred a piecemeal approach signaling the death of the bill for the year -- and as it turned out, beyond that, too. In 2014, Politico wrote a post-mortem explaining why immigration reform died, noting that House and Senate staffers for lawmakers opposed to the bill met together to strategize. "Sessions and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) were the most active senators, while Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) played supporting roles," the article stated. But even without the Senate agitators, there were conservatives in the House who were also vocal about opposing the bill. Because of that opposition, the bill never came up for a vote. Our ruling A super PAC supporting Cruz said in a radio ad, "When Chuck Schumer and Marco Rubio tried to push amnesty, it was Ted Cruz who stopped them." Whether you consider the bill "amnesty" or not -- and there are arguments that it is not -- Cruz was one of 32 senators who voted against the bill. The bill actually passed in the Senate. Cruz did speak against the bill leading up to the Senate vote and after, but we found no evidence that he should get credit for stopping the bill from reaching a vote in the House. During the summer of 2013, Cruz was one of many voices in the Senate opposed to the bill. It was House Republicans who blocked the bill, and they were already calling for its defeat. So Cruz was one voice against the bill out of many, and it's not at all clear that his voice was a decisive one. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Courageous Conservatives PAC	None	None	None	2015-11-13T10:52:47	2015-11-06	['Ted_Cruz', 'Marco_Rubio', 'Chuck_Schumer']
-pomt-15354	Says Jeb Bush "doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does."	/florida/statements/2015/jul/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-jeb-bush-no-longer-supports-p/	In a rare national interview with CNN, Hillary Clinton took aim at Donald Trump’s comments bashing illegal Mexican immigrants and former Gov. Jeb Bush’s stance on pathway to citizenship. "I feel very bad and very disappointed with (Trump) and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, 'Enough. Stop it,' " Clinton said July 7. "But they are all in the same general area on immigration: They don't want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants." CNN’s Brianna Keilar then asked: "But what about Jeb Bush's approach to that?" Clinton replied: "He doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does. As I said, they're on a spectrum of hostility, which I think is really regrettable in a nation of immigrants like ours." Does Bush no longer believe in a path to citizenship? Jeb’s long history on immigration reform Bush has flip-flopped extensively on the question of a path for citizenship during his long political career. In his 2013 book Immigration Wars, Bush and co-author Clint Bolick wrote that permanent residency "should not lead to citizenship. It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship." But in the wake of the book’s release, Bush backtracked. He supported the Senate bill that included a path to citizenship, telling ABC that people entering the country legally "should be easier with less cost than coming to the country illegally. And if you can create a system like that — as is being discussed in the Senate and in the House — through a path to citizenship, that’s fine." When we contacted the Bush campaign, the staff referred us to his statement in March in New Hampshire: "The book I wrote is a pathway to legal status. And we created a conservative alternative to the dead end conversation as to what was going on in Washington, D.C. Now if you could get a consensus done, where you could have a bill done, and it was 15 years as the Senate ‘Gang of Eight’ did, I’d be supportive of that. But the position I have, the view that I have, the one I’ve expressed and the one I continue to express is the one that a path to legal status is more than enough to allow people to come out from the shadows and that’s what they want." That statement suggests Bush would support a path to citizenship if it were politically viable, but since it’s not, he’s in favor of a path to legal status. On the campaign trail, Bush has said he’s not suggesting a path to citizenship. While "citizenship" and "legal status" may sound similar, they are not identical. Immigrants who have green cards are allowed to legally stay in the country, while citizenship brings it with it certain extra rights, including the right to vote. Under current immigration laws, once greencard holders wait five years, they can apply for citizenship. A path to only legal status would have to be created, immigration experts told us. "You could have a program for legal status -- permanent status -- without a path to citizenship," said Marc Rosenblum, a deputy director at the Migration Policy Institute, noting that such a proposal in 2006 for a blue card failed. "It doesn’t exist in current law." In a May 11 interview, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly asked Bush directly if he supported a path to citizenship. Bush replied: "No, I’ve said as long as there — if that was the way to get to a deal where we turned immigration into a catalyst for high-sustained economic growth, where we did all the things we need to do in border security, where we narrow the number of people coming through family petition and dramatically expanded a like-kind number for economic purposes, which will help us grow and help the median rise up, in return for that as a compromise, sure. But the plan in the book, and the plan that I’ve suggested when I go out and speak, which is almost every day on this subject, I’m talking about a path to legalized status." He repeated those comments in a June 16 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News. One final note: In a June 17 interview with David Muir of ABC News, Bush said he would support a path to citizenship for young people brought to the United States as children, often called Dreamers, because proposed legislation that would give them legal status followed by a path to citizenship is known as the DREAM Act. "DREAM Act kids (are) kids that are here because their parents came, they had no control over it," Bush said."There ought to be some recognition that we're not going to send them back to a country they know nothing about." Our ruling Clinton said that Bush "doesn't believe in a path to citizenship. If he did at one time, he no longer does." At times, Bush has supported a path to citizenship, and at other times he hasn’t. He has said he might support a path to citizenship if it could make it through the political process. But in recent interviews Bush has emphasized a path to legalized status instead of citizenship. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-07-08T16:33:09	2015-07-07	['None']
-snes-01879	A bust of Abraham Lincoln was vandalized in Chicago in protest of confederate statues.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-bust-vandalized-confederate/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Was a Bust of Abraham Lincoln Vandalized in Chicago in Protest of Confederate Statues?	18 August 2017	None	['Chicago', 'Abraham_Lincoln']
-snes-00410	Immigration and Customs Enforcement hurled a pregnant woman over a border wall so she wouldn't have her baby on U.S. soil.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-hurl-pregnant-woman-border-wall/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did ICE Hurl a Pregnant Woman Over a Border Wall?	26 June 2018	None	['United_States']
-snes-02525	Death Row Inmate Eats an Entire Bible as His Last Meal?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/inmate-bible-last-meal/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Death Row Inmate Eat an Entire Bible as His Last Meal?	28 April 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01871	A photograph captures a solar eclipse as seen from space.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/solar-eclipse-from-space/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Solar Eclipse from Space	21 May 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-09565	The president's health care proposals will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/nancy-pfotenhauer/health-care-reform-does-not-increase-premiums-and-/	In an interesting display of chutzpah from a television pundit, Republican strategist Nancy Pfotenhauer claimed on CNN that she understood perfectly the president's health care proposals, then proceeded to distort them. "You've got an extremely talented man here who's a great orator," she said after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address. "I don't think anybody could challenge that. But if there's a sin, it's hubris, and at one point, when he was talking about health care, he literally said, you know, hey, you're not with me, but that's okay. I understand. I just didn't speak clearly enough to you. Like if I slow down and talk in smaller words, maybe you'll get it." "And so the response is, no, no, you explained it, I heard it and I disagreed with you," she added. "You're talking about a proposal that increases taxes by half a trillion dollars, that cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, that causes most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people to lose their current insurance coverage. This is not something that's good." (That didn't get challenged by host Larry King, who then went to a commercial.) Pfotenhauer boiled down some complicated issues we've been reporting on for quite a while into a zinger of a soundbite. A bit of what she said was true, but most of this is a significant distortion of Obama's reforms. Here, we're going to rule on the most dramatic part of her claim, that the plans cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage." We contacted Pfotenhauer, who served as an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, and asked what the basis of her claims were. But we didn't hear back. We've written before about the Democratic proposals to increase taxes to pay for expanded health care coverage. The House bill increases income taxes on the wealthy, and the Senate bill has an excise tax for high-cost health care plans, or "Cadillac" plans. Add up those taxes, plus other revenue provisions in the form of fees, and those revenues do approach $500 billion over 10 years. On Medicare spending, both bills seek to curb spending on Medicare by trimming excess payments to private insurers under the Medicare Advantage program, as well as other freezes on payments intended to reduce waste. (Check out this comparison on the details on Medicare created by the independent Kaiser Family Foundation. You'll find details on Medicare changes on Page 14.) Those provisions too approach $500 billion over 10 years. But the measure also includes more funding for Medicare's prescription drug plan. Then Pfotenhauer said most Americans would "have their premiums increased, not decreased," and that "hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage." On Nov. 30, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, released a detailed analysis on how health insurance premiums might be affected by the Senate Democrats' health care bill. The CBO is an independent agency whose estimates for pending legislation are considered nonpartisan and rigorous. The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop. As for "hundreds of millions of people" losing their coverage, there is little evidence to support this. Republicans have been making the claim based on a study by the Lewin Group, which stated that 123 million people would choose a public option for health insurance if it were cheaper than their current coverage. (The Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, whose primary business is private health insurance.) There were other problems with how Republicans have used the Lewin study to claim that people would be pushed out of their coverage, and you can read more about those problems in another item we reported back in October. But it's not necessary to go into those details because the Senate has since rejected a public option. So it's not clear where Pfotenhauer is getting her numbers now. Certainly there will be some churn among plans, just as there is now, when companies change insurance plans. (For this reason, we gave Obama a Half True for saying that people could keep their current coverage. Under the plan, employers would still be able to choose new plans.) But the CBO has found that the numbers of uninsured will be lower under the Democratic plans. The Senate Democrats plan would increase the percentage of the insured from 83 percent to 94 percent. So we don't see how millions of people would lose their current coverage. It's true that there is a lot of confusion among the public about the health care proposals. The independent Kaiser Family Foundation recently conducted a poll and found that "even after a year of substantial media coverage of the health reform debate, many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate." The poll also found tremendous differences based on political affiliations: Democrats supported the proposals, Republicans opposed them, and independents were roughly split. In Pfotenhauer's appearance on CNN, though, she said she understood the proposals but disagreed with them. Then she said -- and this was not phrased as an opinion -- that the plans will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people to lose their current insurance coverage." There's not an independent, nonpartisan analysis out there on the current Democratic proposals that shows that. These are Republican talking points that have repeatedly been proven false, but they keep coming back. Pfotenhauer's statement is not just false, it's ridiculously so. Pants on Fire!	None	Nancy Pfotenhauer	None	None	None	2010-01-28T18:08:51	2010-01-27	['United_States']
-pomt-05702	A socially conservative group sponsored a "prayer vigil" to stop people from buying Girl Scout cookies because it thinks the Girl Scouts are affiliated with Planned Parenthood.	/georgia/statements/2012/mar/09/hank-johnson/congressman-conservative-group-prayed-against-girl/	Mom and apple pie, move over. Nowadays, U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson is fighting for Brownies and Girl Scout cookies. Johnson serves on the House Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing Feb. 28 on whether insurance companies should be required to cover contraception as parts of the health care overhaul go into effect. Johnson appeared with a box of Thin Mints and a passel of questions for Jeanne Monahan, an official with the socially conservative Family Research Council. She was testifying against the requirement. "Your organization, ma'am, sponsored a ‘prayer in’ -- a prayer vigil -- to stop people from buying Girl Scout cookies because you allege Girl Scout cookies is affiliated with Planned Parenthood. Isn’t that correct?" Johnson asked. "Sir, I am not aware of any prayer vigil that my organization has organized for to stop people from buying Girl Scout cookies," Monahan replied. A prayer vigil against buying Girl Scout cookies? We had to find out more. We contacted Johnson spokesman Andrew Phelan, who sent us links to stories from left-leaning websites about the Family Research Council. He also sent us a link to a posting on the FRC’s website that displayed the text of an email sent out by the organization’s Prayer Team. Every week, this email asks readers to say prayers on public policy issues. The FRC Prayer Team’s email Feb. 8 asked that they pray against the health care overhaul’s contraception coverage requirements, the U.S. military’s treatment of religion and Planned Parenthood. It mentioned Girl Scout cookie sales. "Girl Scouts, whose leadership has been collaborating with Planned Parenthood for years, have found out that their cookie sales are suffering. This is very sensitive for the Scouts," it said. "The Scouts had better confess their errors and make a clean break while they can." (This item does not address whether the Girl Scouts have been "collaborating" with Planned Parenthood.) The email suggested a prayer: "May Congress expose and defund Planned Parenthood and may private organizations refuse to submit to shakedowns by Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion advocacy industry. May the Pro-life Majority grow in America until abortion has been abolished." This prayer does not target the Girl Scouts by name -- just "private organizations." But the email does single out the Scouts and mentions no other private organizations. The Family Research Council’s leaders have repeatedly warned the group’s supporters that Girl Scout cookie profits go to an organization that they think is on the wrong side of the family values debate. In op-eds "Say no to Girl Scout Cookies" and "Planned Parenthood, Girl Scout cookie monster," Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, blasted the Scouts for what she described as working in partnership with Planned Parenthood and deciding to admit a transgendered boy into a Colorado troop. FRC President Tony Perkins said that "when they’re not partnering with Planned Parenthood, they’re promoting sexual diversity." But FRC spokesman J.P. Duffy told PolitiFact Georgia that the group has "neither held nor called for a ‘prayer vigil’." We found no evidence that one took place. And the FRC knows how to call for a prayer vigil. Last year, it held one against Planned Parenthood and sex trafficking, which it said are connected. (We’re not going to address that claim in this item, either.) Our ruling: Johnson said the Family Research Council sponsored a "prayer vigil" to stop people from buying Girl Scout cookies because the group’s members think that Girl Scouts are affiliated with Planned Parenthood. We can say that an op-ed on the FRC website asks consumers to say no to Do-Si-Dos. It’s also fair to say that the FRC prayer team singled out the Girl Scouts in one of its prayers. But the FRC did not call for an actual prayer vigil. And while the FRC came close to asking people to pray that consumers stop buying Thin Mints, it stopped just shy of doing so. We give Johnson a Mostly False.	None	Hank Johnson	None	None	None	2012-03-09T06:00:00	2012-02-28	['Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA', 'Planned_Parenthood']
-snes-04003	NASA admitted that they were in contact with aliens but failed to officially disclose that information, presuming everyone already knew about it.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nasa-admits-contact-with-alien-species/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	NASA Admits It Is in Contact with Alien Species and Just Forgot to Mention It	19 September 2016	None	['None']
-vogo-00348	FAQ: The San Diego Fact Check	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/faq-the-san-diego-fact-check/	None	None	None	None	None	FAQ: The San Diego Fact Check	August 16, 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-14340	"Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/	Bernie Sanders is often criticized for "pie-in-the-sky" proposals and impractical ideals, but his campaign argues the Vermont senator actually gets things done. "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member," according to a TV ad paid for by the Sanders campaign. A version of this ad appears on Sanders’ YouTube channel, and Sanders has made this claim on Twitter and Facebook as well so we wondered if it was true. The Sanders campaign didn’t get back to us, but we found that this carefully worded statement is accurate for his earlier years in Congress. The ‘amendment king’ Sanders served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 2006 and has been in the Senate since then. Republicans were in control of the House from 1995 to 2007 and of the Senate from 2015 to present. In 2005, Rolling Stone named Sanders the "amendment king" of the House. At the time, the title held true with a specific qualification: amendments agreed to by record votes. (Amendments can also be passed with voice votes, in which the volume of yeas and nays dictates passage, or by unanimous consent, in which no one raises an objection.) Out of 419 amendments Sanders sponsored over his 25 years in Congress, 90 passed, 21 of them by roll call votes. Here’s a breakdown (bold indicates Republican Congresses): Total amendments passed Passed by roll call vote 2015 to present 4 1 2007 to 2015 37 3 1995 to 2007 49 17 1991 to 1995 0 0 Total 90 21 From 1995 to 2007, Sanders passed 17 amendments by a recorded roll call vote — more than any other member in the House. Ohio Democrat James Traficant came in second with 16 roll call amendments, but he served five less years than Sanders after being indicted on several corruption charges in 2002 and then expelled from Congress. If we look at all amendments, not just those passed by roll call votes, Traficant passed 72 more than Sanders. New Jersey Republican Chris Smith, who served in the same time period as Sanders, finished third with 14 roll call amendments (and 32 overall amendments). Craig Volden, an expert on the legislative process at the University of Virginia, told PolitiFact that records like these are rather unusual in the House. "There are so few members with large numbers of substantive and successful amendments," he said. "Sanders and Traficant were exceptions to that rule." In comparison, Hillary Clinton passed zero roll call amendments during her tenure as a senator from New York from 2001-09. Overall effectiveness In the current Congress, Sanders ranks fourth when it comes to the number of career roll call amendments passed, according GovTrack founder, Josh Tauberer. The three lawmakers who top him are Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., with 27 in 15 years in Congress; Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., with 24 in 33 years; and Rep Steve King, R-Iowa, with 22 in 13 years. Roll call amendments aside, Sanders isn’t shattering any legislative records, though he’s not doing poorly either. Tauberer’s research places Sanders at No. 14 in Congress with 90 amendments. The other senator from Vermont, Democrat Patrick Leahy, on the other hand, has passed 226. Of course, amendments are just one of the ways lawmakers press their agendas. Sanders has had much less luck with passing bills. During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders introduced 324 bills, three of which became law. This includes a bill in a Republican Congress naming a post office in Vermont and two more while Democrats had control (one naming another Vermont post office and another increasing veterans’ disability compensation). Clinton, for the record, also passed three bills in eight years. But the sparse number of bills isn’t surprising. Volden and Vanderbilt University’s Alan Wiseman assess the legislative effectiveness of House members by comparing their records to a benchmark. According to this analysis, Sanders has either met or exceeded expectations during his tenure in the House (bold indicates Republican Congresses): Congress Grade Benchmark score Effectiveness score 1991-1992 Meets expectations 0.422 0.335 1993-1994 Meets expectations 0.411 0.219 1995-1996 Exceeds expectations 0.199 0.463 1997-1998 Exceeds expectations 0.258 0.347 1999-2000 Meets expectations 0.397 0.231 2001-2002 Meets expectations 0.439 0.343 2003-2004 Meets expectations 0.493 0.266 2005-2006 Meets expectations 0.514 0.379 Lawmakers who belong to the party in control are five times more likely to have their bills go anywhere than minority party members, according to Volden. So Sanders’ legislative approach may seem like fixating on small potatoes, but for an independent who caucuses with the minority party, it’s a smart strategy. "He could have either resigned himself to that fate, changed the nature of his legislation and coalition-building strategy, or offered amendments on the floor," Volden said. "He chose the third of these paths, making him more influential in shaping policy than if he had taken the first path. Why he did not take the second path is an open question — likely linked to his ideological views." Our ruling A campaign ad for Sander said, "Bernie Sanders passed more roll call amendments in a Republican Congress than any other member." That’s a very specific way of slicing and dicing Sanders’ effectiveness as a lawmaker, but it’s accurate. From 1995 to 2007, when Republicans controlled Congress, Sanders passed the most roll call amendments (17) out of anyone in the House of Representatives. We rate his claim True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-03-24T15:00:45	2016-02-13	['Bernie_Sanders', 'United_States_Congress', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-03803	The phone number of a woman who accused Donald Trump of sexually aggressive behavior matches that of a Clinton Foundation staffer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jessica-leeds-phone-number-tied-to-clinton-foundation/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Jessica Leeds’ Phone Number Tied to the Clinton Foundation?	14 October 2016	None	['Clinton_Foundation', 'Donald_Trump']
-pose-00479	"I support collective bargaining rights for all workers. As President, I will review decisions by the Bush Administration that have denied these rights to federal employees and seek to restore them."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/499/restore-collective-bargaining-rights-to-federal-em/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Restore collective bargaining rights to federal employees	2010-01-07T13:27:00	None	['None']
-pomt-14835	While Americans pray for Paris, the government has acted on mandatory national vaccinations.	/georgia/statements/2015/nov/20/viral-image/paris-vaccination-meme-base-fact/	Shots for everyone! Now that’s the kind of sentiment PolitiFact Georgia could get behind. Then we opened the email with that subject line and saw our alert reader meant vaccinations, not Fireball. The question was about a meme that appeared on Facebook and other social media sites in the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris. The wording, over the image of a syringe with a skull inside and the words National Mandatory Vaccinations stamped on top, was awkwardly clear: "While Americans pray for Paris, France, their government sent HR (House Resolution) 2232 to Congress," it read. The implication, of course, is that politicians took advantage of an international tragedy to quickly enact controversial legislation (all with a complicit press). Thank goodness for Internet memes, right? The facts Wrong. To be clear, HR 2232 exists. U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Florida, introduced the Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015 on May 1. Her proposal would restrict the federal government from awarding preventive health service grants to state-level entities unless that state required all public schoolchildren be vaccinated. Exemptions are in place, only for medical reasons. While in theory that means it would remain a state decision to enact vaccination rules for public schools, the federal government’s deep pockets have historically brought states in line. The most famous example was the Reagan administration’s decision in 1984 to use of the Highway Trust Fund to get states to raise the drinking age to 21. States that didn’t comply with the new national standard would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds cut. Eventually, every state agreed – and ensured that what amounted to several million dollars in some places would continue to flow. So while the proposal does not officially make vaccinations mandatory, that would likely be the end result if it were passed into law. Except for one major flaw with the meme. There was no movement on the bill since the massacre in Paris. In fact, there hasn’t been any action on the proposal since the GOP-controlled House assigned it to a subcommittee a week after Wilson introduced it. And there likely won’t be. "It’s a Democratic bill, and it doesn’t look like a coordinated move by the Democrats," said Kerwin Swint, chairman of the political science department at Kennesaw State University. "This looks like a lone wolf type bill. It hasn’t moved because it’s not going to." The conspiracy So then why the meme? Several discredited claims about vaccines – most notably the thoroughly debunked link between the shots and autism – reared up again after a measles outbreak traced to Disneyland in California sickened 147 people in the United States. The theme park outbreak – and the first reported American death from measles in 12 years – led to a new law in California that revoked "personal belief" exemptions and required all children in public schools without medical reasons to be immunized. "While I absolutely understand the freedom to say no to healthcare, I don’t think it’s a freedom to extend when it’s to protect your child or to you put others at risk with your choice," said Arthur Caplan, the director of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. "It’s not a bad idea to consider this on a national level." Pushback and skepticism, though, has been fierce, from everyone from Hollywood celebrities who long objected to immunizations to the two physicians running for the Republican presidential nomination. The anti-vaccination movement is one place where the left and right converge and from that, can move onto greater conspiracies, said Mark Fenster, University of Florida law professor who studies conspiracy theories. The Paris attacks, then, are a "false flag," an operation designed by conspiring forces – this time the media, government and pharmaceutical companies – to distract Americans from the goal of dangerous immunizations. A similar "false flag" theory is touted by some in connection with the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There, the conspiracy goes, the government staged a horrible massacre in a bid to take citizens’ guns. "The anti-vaccine movement is obsessed with their fear of vaccines, and they view any government effort to require their use as a threat," Fenster said. "Vaccines may have nothing to do with Paris, but the movement views it as a way to ram through this law while no one is watching," he added. Our ruling A meme making the rounds on social media takes a different tack on the Paris terrorist attacks. It claims the tragedy has been a distraction to government efforts to mandate vaccinations for all public schoolchildren. There is a proposal for a similar law, but there has been no movement on the proposal since a week after it was introduced last spring. That’s the last bit of truth to the meme. The rest of the message and implication border on the ludicrous. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Viral image	None	None	None	2015-11-20T00:00:00	2015-11-17	['United_States', 'Paris']
-pomt-09366	On oil drilling	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/31/barack-obama/once-wobbly-obama-not-inconsistent-latest-oil-dril/	President Barack Obama is back to doing his shake and shimmy on the offshore drilling issue. On March 31, 2010, he announced that he'd be opening up new coastal areas to oil production. "And in the short term, as we transition to cleaner energy sources, we’ll have to make tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development in ways that protect communities and coastlines," he said in his announcement at Andrews Air Force Base. "This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly... But the bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs, and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." In 2008, we gave him a Half Flip because early in his campaign he said he intended to maintain the long-standing moratorium barring drilling off the Florida coast, telling oil companies to drill on the land they already had leased. Then, amid soaring gas prices in the summer of 2008, he shifted and announced he was receptive to a plan for opening new areas for drilling. On Aug. 1, 2008, Obama said he would compromise and support the New Energy Reform Act of 2008, a bipartisan bill that, in addition to spending $84 billion on the development of better batteries and energy-and-fuel saving technologies, would have allowed for drilling for oil and natural gas as close as 50 miles from Florida's west coast. "Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama said in his announcement. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact. But I've always believed that finding consensus will be essential to solving our energy crisis, and today's package represents a good faith effort at a new bipartisan beginning." By the time he won the race for the White House, Obama was squarely behind some new efforts to produce more oil domestically. Before Obama took office, former President George W. Bush lifted that ban on new oil and gas leases and ordered a five-year plan for awarding new leases. After Obama took office, Department of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended the public comment period on those proposals. And that brings us to Obama's most recent announcement, which would open even more areas for drilling -- including some originally proposed under the Bush administration. We wondered whether Obama had shifted even further since he took office. His strategy calls for developing oil and gas resources in new areas, including in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and increasing exploration in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. Other areas, such as the environmentally vulnerable Bristol Bay in Alaska, would remain protected. At the same time, Obama also announced new efforts to green the federal fleet of vehicles and the upcoming finalization of a new rule establishing greenhouse gas emission reductions for some vehicles. Defenders of Wildlife, a national environmental group, pointed out that Obama's plan may reverse a 2006 effort to protect waters near Florida through 2022 that Obama had voted for as a senator. But again, our benchmark for this analysis is where Obama stood on the issue back in the summer of 2008, when we last visited the issue. We asked a number of environmental groups if they thought the announcement represented a dramatic shift for the Obama administration, and the resounding response is that they oppose the plan, but it's also no surprise given where Obama was on the issue the day he was elected to office. Josh Dorner, a spokesman for Sierra Club, said that it "doesn't seem to be a huge step away from where he ended up at the end of the campaign. We're disappointed, but we're not surprised." Adam Rivera, an advocate for Environment Florida, said it's a dramatic change from where Obama started out when he was first running for office, but "it isn't necessarily that surprising given the rhetoric on the campaign." And Enid Sisskin, a representative for Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, agreed that she was not surprised, although she thought it was a "terrible, stupid idea." So, has Obama gone from a Half Flip to a Full Flop on the issue of offshore drilling? Not if you're basing the ruling on his position on Election Day. Back in August 2008, he did clearly change his stance on the issue. This time, according to all the environmental advocates and experts we spoke with, his latest announcement isn't much of a departure from his rhetoric during the last part of the campaign and during his first year in the White House. As a result, we say there's been No Flip in Obama's latest stance on offshore drilling.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-03-31T15:17:38	2010-03-31	['None']
-tron-00320	Food Stamps Can Buy Cigarettes and Alcohol	https://www.truthorfiction.com/food-stamps-can-buy-cigarettes-and-alcohol/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Food Stamps Can Buy Cigarettes and Alcohol – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01960	Cindy Crawford Daughter Kaia Gerber Wants To Join “KUWTK”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/cindy-crawford-kuwtk-kaia-gerber-kendall-jenner-friends/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Cindy Crawford Daughter Kaia Gerber Wants To Join “KUWTK”?	11:54 am, December 26, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04130	There is "over 20 times more energy" in a proposed Southside uranium mining site than "there is in all the oil that’s estimated to be off Virginia’s coast"	/virginia/statements/2013/jan/07/patrick-wales/wales-says-virginias-uranium-deposits-far-exceed-i/	The General Assembly will consider a bill this winter that would end the state’s 31-year ban on uranium mining. If approved, the state will begin drafting regulations that will allow Virginia Uranium Inc. to develop a mining and milling operation on a 3,000-acre site in Pittsylvania County. Opponents say the operation poses long-term threats to the environment and the sources of drinking water for many, including those in Virginia Beach, the state’s largest city. Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium, expressed confidence during a Dec. 6 symposium that the operation would be safe. He spoke enthusiastically about the project’s potential to provide jobs. And he said the abundance of uranium would produce a domestic energy source that far outstrips the oil reserves Virginia hopes to tap off its Atlantic coast. There’s "over 20 times more energy in this property than there is in all the oil that’s estimated to be off Virginia’s coast," Wales said. That’s a big claim, so we decided to check Wales’ math. Wales said the mining and milling would result in 119 million pounds of U308, or uranium oxide, which is the product his company will sell to electric utilities. The estimate comes from a 2008 study of the project that was commissioned by Virginia Uranium and conducted by Behre Dolbear Group Inc., Chicago, a mining engineering company.. No independent assessment of the uranium oxide yield exists. The 119 million pound estimate was cited and not questioned in a study of the risks of the mining enterprise conducted last year by the National Academy of Science. As for oil reserves, Wales turned to estimates made by the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy when a section off the coast of Virginia was considered for a lease sale in 2008 and 2009. It was estimated that 165 million barrels of oil could be pumped from the beds. President Barack Obama eventually canceled the lease sale. The federal government, the governor and Sen. Mark Warner and Sen. Jim Webb used a slightly smaller figure in 2009 and 2010 -- 130 million barrels. Estimates of the oil resources are wide-ranging. As we reported in an earlier offshore drilling claim, the surveys of the seabed off the coast are 40 to 50 years old, so all estimates are speculative. Let’s look at the conversion from uranium and oil to the common measure for energy, the British thermal unit or Btu. A pound of uranium oxide contains the energy equivalent of 31 barrels of fuel oil, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Under those conversions, the 119 million pounds of uranium oxide would produce as much energy as 3.7 billion barrels of oil. That dwarfs the 130 million to 165 million barrels expected to come from offshore drilling. When we divide 3.7 billion by 165 million, we get 22.4 -- or the factor of how much more energy would come from the uranium than the estimated offshore oil. Wales said his company has received a more recent, and higher, estimate of the project’s output from engineering firms Lyntek Inc., Lakewood, Colo., and BRS Engineering, Riverton, Wyo., at about 133 million pounds, but like the oil reserves, this wouldn’t greatly affect Wales’ statement. Our ruling Wales, in advocating the need and potential of a uranium mine in Southwest Virginia, called attention to its energy-production possibilities. He said the mine will yield enough uranium oxide to produce more than 20 times the power that would come from oil the state hopes to tap off Virginia’s shore. The math works out for Wales with room to spare. We caution that the claim is dependent both on an estimate from the uranium project developer’s consultant and the wide-ranging, unproven estimates of oil off Virginia’s coast. Wales’ statement is based on the best available information and, as such, we rate it True.	None	Patrick Wales	None	None	None	2013-01-07T06:00:00	2012-12-06	['None']
-pomt-04053	A Republican-sponsored Wisconsin mining bill "will take at least seven years to create jobs."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/jan/27/chris-larson/wisconsin-bill-speed-mine-approval-wont-create-job/	Thousands of jobs are the promise of a four-mile-long iron ore mine proposed for far northern Wisconsin, which would be the first such operation in the Badger State in more than 15 years. But how quickly would the mother lode of jobs come? State Senate Minority Leader Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, sees a lengthy wait, even if the Legislature adopts a Republican bill to speed part of the process of approving the mine. On Jan. 15, 2013, Larson gave a Democratic response to GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s state of the state address, which also dangled the prospect of several thousand jobs connected to the mine. "Tonight, we should be honest with the people of Wisconsin," Larson said. "You just heard calls for bipartisanship from our governor. But the policies he proposed were not bipartisan. Funding an unproven, unaccountable gamble with our children’s future is not bipartisan. "Forcing through an extreme mining bill that will take at least seven years to create jobs is not bipartisan." Is Larson right about how long it would take? Digging into history Mining in northern Wisconsin dates to 4,000 B.C., when Native Americans extracted copper along the shores of Lake Superior. By the 19th century, iron in Iron County, where part of the new mine would be located, had created prodigious prosperity. "Hundreds of people are arriving daily from all parts of the country and millionaires are being made by the score," gushed an 1886 article in the Chicago Tribune. Over time, the industry fell off. The state’s last operating mine, which held gold and copper near Ladysmith in northwestern Wisconsin, shut down in 1997. But talk of new boom times returned in November 2010. That was when Gogebic Taconite said it wanted to invest $1.5 billion to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in Iron and Ashland counties, some 300 miles northwest of Milwaukee. (Gogebic refers to the iron-bearing region of northern Wisconsin and northwestern Michigan; taconite is low-grade iron ore.) The company is a subsidiary of the Cline Group, a privately owned coal-mining company headed by college dropout and Florida billionaire Christopher Cline, whose yacht is named Mine Games. The economic impact of such an investment could be big -- once the mine is up and running. An April 2011 study by an economic consultant hired by Gogebic Taconite estimated that once operating, the mine would create 2,834 long-term jobs, including 700 direct mining jobs -- with the direct jobs averaging nearly $83,000 per year in salary and benefits. Two months later, we rated Mostly True a statement from Wisconsin’s largest business organization that the mine could operate for 100 years and generate billions of dollars of economic activity. There was a big hitch, however: Gogebic Taconite said it needed new regulations to provide more certainty in seeking a state permit. Republicans controlled the Legislature. But a GOP-sponsored bill to ease the state part of the state-federal permit process failed on a 17-16 vote in the Senate in March 2012. Gogebic said it was abandoning its plans. On the day after the Walker and Larson speeches, Republicans introduced a new bill, similar to the previous one. It reignited job creation claims and warnings, including some made by Native Americans near the site, about threats to water and land. Hundreds of people and extra security were on hand at the state Capitol for a Jan. 23, 2013, hearing on the bill. How long for jobs? We asked Larson spokeswoman Gillian Morris for evidence that it would take at least seven years under the bill for jobs to be created. She cited three things: -- A January 2013 letter from the the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which says the GOP bill might require the corps to do an environmental analysis separate from one done by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. That could add time to the corps’ review process, which "generally takes from two to four years or more," according to a corps timeline. -- Comments by Tim Sullivan, then-chairman of the Wisconsin Mining Association, who told state lawmakers in November 2012 it would take years to construct a mine. "We're not talking a year or two years. You're talking five, six years out, potentially even further, depending on how the permit process goes," he said. -- Likely delays caused by litigation. Indeed, state Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, called a lawsuit "inevitable," but Larson didn’t cite any time frame on litigation delays. We’ll also note that Gogebic Taconite itself, when first announcing its plans, said the regulatory process alone could span five to seven years. So, there are indications the permitting process could take up to seven years, but not evidence that it would take at least that long. And jobs would be created along the way. For his part, Assembly Majority Leader Scott Suder, R-Abbottsford, a sponsor of the new GOP mining bill, envisions a shorter timeline. He told us the environmental review and permitting process would take about two years and that the mine could be up and running in less than two years after that. Suder also emphasized that some number of jobs would be created long before the mine opens. He said preliminary tasks would include groundwater well drilling, water and soil testing, metallurgical, hydrological and other engineering, and design for a water supply and a railroad line. DNR mining expert Ann Coakley concurred. Gogebic Taconite would need people to do environmental studies and to drill at least several hundred wells, she told us. Surface and groundwater testing would need to be done for up to two years. That and other work would need to be done in order for the company to write an environmental impact statement, which is needed to obtain permits. "That’s a large-scale undertaking," costing probably $10 million and likely requiring at least dozens of jobs, Coakley said. Coakley also noted that while the process for obtaining permission from the Corps of Engineers could take several years, the DNR, under the GOP bill, would have to finish its review of Gogebic Taconite’s application within 420 days. If the DNR gave its permission, the company could start construction on facilities such as a wastewater treatment plant, creating more jobs. After permission from the Army Corps is granted, construction of the mine itself -- which Gogebic Taconite says would take two years and create 3,175 jobs -- could begin. Coakley said she didn’t expect it would take seven years to get to that point. Our rating Larson said a Republican-sponsored mining bill "will take at least seven years to create jobs." The evidence Larson cited referred to how long it would take to open the mine, which is the when the largest number of jobs will be in play. But there’s not hard evidence that it would take at least seven years to open the mine and it’s clear that a significant number of jobs would be created before the opening. For a statement that contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we give Larson a Mostly False.	None	Chris Larson	None	None	None	2013-01-27T09:00:00	2013-01-15	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-02404	On delaying a health care mandate on business.	/new-hampshire/statements/2014/mar/07/ann-mclane-kuster/ann-kuster/	When Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster, D-N.H., sat down recently for an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio, the conversation quickly turned to President Barack Obama’s health care law. Kuster said she’s dead set against repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but she agreed that it should be revised -- particularly in areas that affect small businesses. Kuster said she wants to reexamine guidelines that define a "full-time" work week as being as little as 30 hours, and also supports Obama’s decision to further delay the so-called "employer mandate." The employer mandate is a provision in the health reform law that requires businesses with 50 or more employees to offer affordable insurance coverage for workers or face penalties. The federal government was set to begin enforcing that aspect of the law in 2014, but the Obama administration has pushed back the deadline twice, moving it to 2016. Kuster said delaying the employer mandate will provide an opportunity for New Hampshire’s insurance exchange to get more competition that could drive down costs. "That’s one reason that I support the president in the delay of the small business mandate for another year," she said. "Get more competition into the New Hampshire marketplace and then we’ll find that there will be insurers that will compete on convenience as compared to cost." Kuster’s remarks on NHPR drew fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee, which said Kuster’s statement was at odds with her voting record. That’s because in July 2013, Kuster voted against a House bill that called for delaying the employer mandate. In a blog post, NRCC spokesman Ian Prior wrote that Kuster either lied or has "absolutely no idea what she is voting for." Kuster did vote against the bill. But does that mean that Kuster has reversed her position on the employer mandate, as NRCC claims? Shifting dates The politics surrounding any vote on the House floor is complex. In this case, by the time last year’s vote was held, the Obama administration had already announced it would postpone enforcing the employer mandate for one year. So the vote was essentially symbolic. The White House’s preemptive move left some House Republicans peeved, since Obama made the change through his executive authority, rather than by going through Congress. In response, House Republican leaders devised a series of showdown votes aimed at driving a wedge between Democrats and the White House. For instance, Republicans called a vote on delaying the employer mandate, even though the change had already taken place. They also introduced a second bill to delay the health care law’s mandate on individuals to secure health insurance. Democratic leaders called these measures further attempts to dismantle Obamacare. Obama threatened to veto the bills, specifically calling H.R. 2667 -- the bill delaying the employer mandate -- "unnecessary." Despite such calls from the Democratic leadership, House Republicans picked up some Democratic support for the measure. It passed, 264-161, with 35 Democrats voting for it. (The bill delaying the individual mandate also passed the House, though with less Democratic support.) Kuster’s stand Kuster voted against both bills, saying they undermined implementation of the health care law. But at the time, Kuster didn’t specifically address the merits of delaying the employer mandate. By contrast, U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter -- another New Hampshire Democrat who voted against both bills -- spelled out her opposition in greater detail. "H.R. 2667 is unnecessary and redundant because President Obama already delayed the employer responsibility provision for one year; a provision that affects only 4 percent of all businesses in America," Shea-Porter said. We asked Kuster’s office for the congresswoman’s views on the employer mandate. Spokeswoman Rosie Hilmer said Kuster supported the president’s decision to delay the mandate in 2013, but voted against the Republican bill because it was a "symbolic bill that would not have helped a single business." "Congresswoman Kuster takes her votes very seriously and addresses bills on their value, so she voted against this unnecessary bill because it was a redundant, meaningless stunt by House Republicans, not a serious attempt to address and fix problems with the law," Hilmer wrote. Our ruling Kuster recently said she supports the president’s move to delay the small business mandate for another year, saying the delay would provide more time for the New Hampshire marketplace to develop competition among health plans. Critics say that’s a contrast with her vote against a House bill to delay the employer mandate. We agree that there is a contrast between those two positions, but there’s also some nuance. Kuster didn’t say she opposed the bill because she thought that delaying the employer mandate was a bad idea -- a position that would have been a clear contrast with her more recent position. Rather, she voted against it because the bill was symbolic and tantamount to a stunt, since the White House had already delayed that provision of the law. We rate Kuster’s position on the employer mandate a Half Flip.	None	Ann McLane Kuster	None	None	None	2014-03-07T17:27:34	2014-02-20	['None']
-tron-03438	Dollar Bills Circulating with “No God But Allah” Stamped on Their Backs	https://www.truthorfiction.com/dollar-allah-stamp/	None	religious	None	None	None	Dollar Bills Circulating with “No God But Allah” Stamped on Their Backs	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00230	The Liberal Party has again come under fire for the low number of women in its federal parliamentary team after Jane Prentice, the Assistant Minister for Disability Services, lost preselection for her safe Brisbane seat.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-06/fact-check-liberal-women-in-parliament/9796976	Ms Troeth's claim is in the ballpark. There were, indeed, three more Liberal women in parliament during 1996 compared to May 2018. But the party also held an extra 22 seats. That's why, in determining whether "the level of women" has declined, it is more meaningful to consider the numbers as a proportion of seats held. Viewed this way, female representation in the Liberal Party has actually increased over the 22 years — from 21 per cent of Liberal parliamentarians to 24 per cent. But it still remains below the level for women in Parliament overall, and roughly half that of Labor party members. So while the "level of [Liberal] women" is indeed low, it has not "dropped to a low level" since 1996. Ms Troeth specifically identified 1996 in her claim. However, female representation during John Howard's prime ministership peaked not in his first term but in his second (1998-2001), when it reached 25 per cent. Across Mr Howard's four terms, female representation averaged 23 per cent of Liberal seats held, which is just below the party's current level.	['feminism', 'government-and-politics', 'australia']	None	None	['feminism', 'government-and-politics', 'australia']	Fact check: Is the level of Liberal women in Parliament lower now than it was in 1996?	Thu 6 Sep 2018, 7:05am	None	['Brisbane']
-pomt-09492	"Congresswoman Bachmann actually said we should be 'weaned' off our Social Security and Medicare. She wants to privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with some kind of voucher system."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/24/americans-united-change/ad-says-bachmann-wants-wean-nation-entitlements-pr/	Americans United for Change is after Minnesota's most outspoken lawmaker, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Comments made by the two-term Republican are the subject of a recent radio spot by the liberal group, which was founded in 2005 in opposition to former President George W. Bush's effort to privatize Social Security. The ad features a husband and wife discussing Bachmann and a proposal to "wean" people off Medicare and Social Security. Wife: "Did you hear what that Michele Bachmann said this time?" Husband: "No, what was it?" Wife: "Congresswoman Bachmann actually said we should be 'weaned' off our Social Security and Medicare. She wants to privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with some kind of voucher system that won’t even cover the full cost of medical care or prescriptions." We wondered if the ad by Americans United for Change accurately portrays Bachmann's positions. The first part of the statement -- that Bachmann said she wanted to wean people off the two entitlement programs -- is easy to find. At the Constitutional Coalition conference in St. Louis the weekend of Feb. 5, 2010, Bachmann told a group of attendees, including a reporter from the liberal blog Think Progress, that serious cost-cutting measures to Social Security and Medicare would be necessary to reduce the deficit. Those already collecting benefits should remain in the program, she suggested. To lower the deficit, Bachmann said that the government must reorganize Social Security and Medicare. "What you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet." So the Americans United for Change ad is correct that Bachmann said that people should be weaned off the entitlement programs. But in her comments, Bachmann did not say anything about trying to privatize Social Security or replacing Medicare with a voucher system. Via e-mail, Bachmann's spokesman Dave Dziok told us that he has "no clue where they got the voucher comment from and she’s never once used the word privatize -- not in her initial comments in St. Louis, and not in subsequent interviews or statements. Furthermore, she never stated that she wants to eliminate these programs all together, but that younger generations should have other options in the way these programs are administered. While her critics are certainly doing their best to put words in her mouth, I don’t see how they can factually back it up." Dziok said that Bachmann has not offered specific legislation on Social Security and Medicare reform. So we asked Jeremy Funk, communications director for Americans United for Change, for sourcing on the second part of the group's claim. He sent us a list of links to stories about Bachmann's comments, including one to an interview with the congresswoman in the St. Cloud Times, a Minnesota newspaper. Bachmann was asked what she thinks should be done about the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare, and here's what she said: "What we know right now (is) that going forward, Social Security and Medicare will be bankrupt and they will be broke. ... We have to take up the issue and we need to address it. There are a number of proposals on the table. One, my colleague from Wisconsin Paul Ryan has a proposal. I have taken a look at that. I am open to a number of different ideas. The one thing we do know, the current system isn’t sustainable. The system is going to be dead broke by 2017." So, Bachmann didn't endorse any specific plan or idea, but indicated that she's open to proposals, perhaps including Ryan's. Ryan, who is the top Republican on the House Budget committee, has been touting his "Roadmap for America's Future," a budget proposal meant to reduce the deficit by changing Social Security, Medicare and tax policy, among other things. Specifically, it would reduce federal Social Security benefits for those who are 55 or younger in 2011, and supplement the reduction with private accounts. Under Medicare, the elderly would be given vouchers to buy private insurance. His proposal (H.R. 4529) has made waves, mostly for two reasons. First, in its analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that Ryan's proposal would eventually balance the budget. By 2080, it would generate a surplus equal to about 5 percent of GDP, according to the CBO. But that prediction has come under fire from tax experts because the CBO assumes that the revenue portion of Ryan’s plan will generate the equivalent of 19 percent of the GDP in taxes -- an optimistic assumption. And importantly for this analysis, the CBO predicts that the value of Ryan's Medicare vouchers would not keep pace with the cost of health care. Although the program would begin in 2021, the value of those vouchers would be pegged to 2010 dollars. "According to CBO’s estimates, that average growth rate would be 2.7 percent over the long term," the CBO report says. "In comparison, CBO projects, nominal per capita GDP will grow at an average rate of 3.4 percent annually over the next 75 years, implying that the value of the Medicare voucher would grow 0.7 percentage points more slowly." In plain English, that means medical expenses will grow faster than the vouchers. So the vouchers will buy less medical care as time goes by, say opponents. Ryan responded to the criticism, saying that, "Yes, Medicare costs will grow more slowly under the Roadmap than they would otherwise. ... That’s the point. Even the president acknowledges that, absent reform, Medicare will go bankrupt. ... After the program goes bankrupt, it will drag down the entire federal budget and U.S. economy." But back to the claim made by Americans United for Change. The group said that Bachmann wants to wean people off Medicare and Social Security, which is true. But the group is exaggerating in the second part of its claim that Bachmann wants to "privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with some kind of voucher system that won’t even cover the full cost of medical care or prescriptions." To date, Bachmann has no specific proposal for how she would like to overhaul the two entitlement programs. Rather, she mentioned a separate proposal made by fellow Republican Paul Ryan, though she's made no commitments to his -- or anyone else's -- plan. As a result, we find the Americans United for Change claim Half True.	None	Americans United for Change	None	None	None	2010-02-24T19:56:11	2010-02-18	['Medicare_(United_States)', 'Social_Security_(United_States)']
-pomt-08136	Republicans "created a trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement program without paying for it."	/virginia/statements/2010/dec/07/bobby-scott/bobby-scott-says-republicans-created-1-trillion-pr/	As Congress approaches a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, Rep. Bobby Scott has taken the unpopular position of not only opposing the extensions for the wealthy, but for everyone. Scott says allowing all cuts to expire would pare the deficit -- something he says the Republicans have been unwilling to do. "Fiscal responsibility in the federal budget requires making tough choices," Scott wrote in a recent release. "For the six years that the Republican Party held both chambers in Congress and the White House, they failed time and time again to make these tough choices. They enacted $1.3 trillion in tax cuts in 2001 and another $300 billion in 2003 without offsets. They created a trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement program without paying for it." That’s a smorgasbord of claims ripe for the checking, but we thought we’d look into the latter claim. Scott’s office did not respond to a request for the source of the claim. First, a definition: The Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 -- better known as the Medicare Modernization Act -- created a new benefit called Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs. Gauging its price is tricky. How do you measure the cost of something that will continue to accumulate over the years and and has no end date? Brian Riedl, a federal budget expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, gave us a hint. "Most people talk about costs in a 10-year period," he said. "When the Congressional Budget Office scores a bill, they often will score the 10-year costs." OK, so we’ll look at the CBO’s Nov. 20, 2003 cost analysis of the program over its first decade, 2004 through 2013. It’s just shy of $400 billion. That’s a long way from Scott’s $1 trillion. What about a more recent estimate? According to a fiscal 2011 analysis from the Office of Management and Budget, the cost of the program from 2011 to 2020 would be more than $950 billion, close enough to $1 trillion. Is that a fair measure? Well, better than the $400 billion from 2004-2013, says Riedl, noting that the program wasn’t fully implemented until 2006. But he added that Scott could have been more clear in what period of time he measuring. "I know as a budget geek what people mean, but I think a regular layman may think he means a trillion dollars a year," he said. But here’s the other thing Scott leaves out -- Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, had pitched an even more expensive Medicare Part D plan scored by the CBO to cost $800 billion in its first 10 years, double the cost of the Republican plan. (Scott voted against the Republican plan when it came to the House floor.) With a big budget surplus in 2000, then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore pledged on the campaign trail to add prescription drugs to Medicare coverage. "No one ever talked about how to pay for it," Riedl said. "There was never any serious discussion on any side of offsets because at the time, that’s when we were supposed to have a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years." He added: "Then the budget collapsed and now we’re in deep doo doo." To review: Scott says Republicans created a trillion dollar prescription drug entitlement program without paying for it. The true cost of the program is unknown since it will continue to grow. In fact, the Government Accountability Office shows that the cost could exceed $7 trillion in 75 years. If we use a 10-year cost measure, Scott would be wrong looking over the first decade of the program, which is estimated to cost shy of $500 billion. But if we look at the cost over the next 10 years, Scott is close to correct based on current projections. So we find the claim to be Mostly True.	None	Bobby Scott	None	None	None	2010-12-07T10:30:00	2010-11-16	['None']
-snes-04258	The CIA found a "dead man's switch" on the computer of the deceased father of a doctor treating Hillary Clinton for dementia.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/person-who-leaked-hillary-clintons-medical-records-found-dead/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Person Who Leaked Hillary Clinton’s Medical Records Found Dead	12 August 2016	None	['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Central_Intelligence_Agency']
-snes-00392	Mark Twain said, "Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mark-twain-quote-fear-media/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	David Emery	None	Did Mark Twain Say ‘Fear the Media, for They Will Steal Your Honor’?	1 July 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-00166	Says Rick Scott’s "hospital company stole millions, defrauding the military’s health care program."	/florida/statements/2018/oct/23/votevetsorg/rick-scotts-companys-fraud-focus-attack-veterans-g/	When disaster strikes in Florida, Gov. Rick Scott dons his Navy cap. Scott served in the Navy back in the 1970s. A left-leaning veterans group used the cap as a jumping-off point in a new attack ad against Scott, saying he cheated veterans when his former health care company defrauded government health care programs. VoteVets endorsed U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson over Scott in the Nov. 6 matchup. "I see Rick Scott wearing that Navy hat everywhere he goes. But let me tell you what he did to veterans," Navy veteran Alan Madison of Vero Beach says in the ad. "His hospital company stole millions, defrauding the military’s health care program. Scott pled the Fifth and walked away with a fortune. And today he’s worth over 200 million bucks. But veterans like me, we got cheated. A few days later, Scott fired back with a TV ad featuring images of himself wearing, yep, that Navy hat as he toured damage from Hurricane Michael. (Scott joined the Navy in 1979 and served 29 months, ending as a radar technician, according to the Tampa Bay Times.) After touting his hurricane relief efforts, Scott’s ad pivots to Democratic opponent and Sen. Bill Nelson: "And Sen. Nelson? Running false attack ads mocking Gov. Scott's service in the Navy." The VoteVets ad is tough, but it isn’t inaccurate. Scott’s former health care company defrauded government health care programs, including Tricare, which serves the military and their families. Scott is wrong to refer to it as an ad by Nelson. "We have nothing to do with it," said Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin. Company fined for defrauding Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare The Medicare fraud case is well documented. Its connection to the military health care program is also real but has been less discussed in Scott’s political campaigns. Scott started what was first Columbia in 1987, purchasing two El Paso, Texas, hospitals. Over the next decade he added hundreds of hospitals, surgery centers and home health locations. In 1994, Scott’s Columbia purchased Tennessee-headquartered HCA and its 100 hospitals, and merged the companies. In 1997, federal agents went public with an investigation into the company, focused on whether Columbia/HCA had committed fraud of government programs. Scott resigned as CEO in July 1997, less than four months after the inquiry became public. Company executives said had Scott remained CEO, the entire chain could have been in jeopardy. During his 2010 race, the Miami Herald reported that Scott had said he would have immediately stopped his company from committing fraud — if only "somebody told me something was wrong." But there were such warnings in the company’s annual public reports to stockholders, which Scott had to sign as president and CEO. Scott wanted to fight the accusations, but the corporate board of the publicly traded company wanted to settle. (Scott did give a deposition in 2000 in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment multiple times.) In December 2000, the U.S. Justice Department announced that Columbia/HCA agreed to pay $840 million in criminal fines, civil damages and penalties. Assistant Attorney General David Ogden spoke about the claims related to government health care programs, including Tricare. "We will make sure that crime against the federal government does not pay," Ogden said. "Under today's agreement, HCA is resolving civil claims that the company, generally during the 1990s, engaged in fraudulent billing practices affecting Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Defense Tricare program and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program." The Justice Department’s announcement in 2000 stated that Columbia billed government programs for lab tests that were not medically necessary, not ordered by physicians, as well as other violations. The government settled a second series of claims with Columbia/HCA for $881 million. The total for the two fines was $1.7 billion, setting a record at the time. When the government announced the conclusion of the case in 2003, it again mentioned Tricare as one of the government programs defrauded by the company. (The Justice Department’s 2003 press release is shown during the VoteVets ad.) A Pentagon spokeswoman, Major Carla M. Gleason, told us that as a result of the federal government's settlements with Columbia/HCA, Tricare received two recovery payments — one for about $4.7 million and the other for $6.9 million. Gleason said she no longer had direct access to the case files and therefore wasn’t certain if that was the total amount of the fraud against Tricare. We asked the Scott campaign for any evidence to refute the allegations and why his campaign said the VoteVets ad was Nelson mocking Scott’s Navy service. Scott spokeswoman Lauren Schenone didn’t respond directly to those questions. "Scott took accountability for mistakes his company made," Schenone said, "and made certain every penny that was owed was paid." But Scott resigned years before the fines were settled. Our ruling VoteVets said Scott’s "hospital company stole millions, defrauding the military’s health care program." Scott stepped down as CEO of Columbia/HCA in 1997 as the federal government was investigating his company. A few years later, the company reached a $1.7 billion settlement with the government for defrauding Medicare and other government programs including Tricare which serves the military. A Pentagon spokeswoman said that Tricare received recovery payments in the millions. We rate this claim True.	None	VoteVets.org	None	None	None	2018-10-23T13:02:38	2018-10-12	['None']
-pomt-03031	"Many don’t know that Bill Young was once the minority leader in the Florida Senate...because he was the only Republican senator."	/florida/statements/2013/oct/09/chris-latvala/did-cw-bill-young-serve-only-republican-florida-se/	U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young announced he will not seek re-election in 2014, setting off tributes from Florida politicos to the Pinellas County Republican’s 53-year career in public office. One tweet about Young’s early years caught our eye. "Many don’t know that Bill Young was once the minority leader in the Florida Senate," tweeted Chris Latvala, a Republican running for the Florida House and son of Sen. Jack Latvala, "because he was the only Republican senator." It’s an interesting claim, if for no other reason than the Senate for the past decade has been dominated by Republicans. We did not have to go far to confirm Latvala’s tweet. All it took was a trip to the Tampa Bay Times library, which keeps records on local candidates and officials and state handbooks from way back in the day. Young identified himself as the minority leader of the Florida Senate in an undated questionnaire that includes this key line: "In 1960, at age 29, elected as the youngest Senator and the only Republican Senator in Florida." Young was elected to the Democrat-controlled Senate in 1960 and was the sole Republican member. He was re-elected in subsequent years, serving through 1970 when he won his first congressional election. Senate records from the time don’t list party affiliation -- a sign of how powerful Democrats were -- but we confirmed the party affiliation of senators by combing through the State Library and Archives of Florida. It’s also not clear Young had the official title of minority leader -- the records we found were silent on the point -- but as the only GOP senator until 1963, he offered the lone voice of party dissent. Young’s 1960 election to the Senate set into motion a GOP resurgence in that chamber, said Curt Kiser, a lawyer-lobbyist who represented Pinellas County in the state House in 1972 and the Senate in 1984. "He was the minority leader because he was the only one," Kiser said. "That was the beginning of the modern history of the Republican Party." Young gained more GOP company as the ‘60s rolled on, starting with Warren Henderson of Venice in 1963. By 1967, 20 Republicans served in the Senate. (The Senate back then had 48 members; today it has 40.) The increase reflected Florida’s evolving demographics, with conservative Democrats in the northern part of the state switching parties and new residents moving from conservative states casting votes for GOP candidates and running for office themselves. Democrats remained in control of the Senate until Republicans took over in 1994. Latvala’s tweet is accurate. We rate it True.	None	Chris Latvala	None	None	None	2013-10-09T18:09:46	2013-10-09	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Florida_Senate']
-snes-01621	In September 2017, Tennessee businessman and CEO of Hardwick Clothes Allan Jones withdrew all NFL-related advertising for his companies, in response to "unpatriotic" national anthem protests.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/allan-jones-nfl/	None	Sports	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did the CEO of Hardwick Clothes Cut Ties With the NFL Over ‘Unpatriotic’ Protests?	5 October 2017	None	['Tennessee']
-pomt-08978	The Obama administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to pay for health insurance plans that cover "any legal abortion."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/16/national-right-life-committee/abortions-pennsylvania-paid-federal-dollars-not-so/	Anti-abortion groups have long been warning that Democrats would sneak federal abortion funding through the back door into the health reform law passed earlier this year. Now they say in blogs and news reports around the Web that they're being proved right. A typical statement: "The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million in federal tax funds, which we've discovered will pay for insurance plans that cover any legal abortion," said Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee in a statement on the group's website. We fact-checked abortion many times during the health care debate. It's a complicated subject due to the many different parts of the health care law. So yes, this latest controversy takes some time to explain. As you may recall, the major provisions of the new health care plan -- health insurance for everyone and exchanges for buying health plans -- don't kick in for several years. To help people who are uninsured right now, the federal law is encouraging states to create temporary health plans for people who have trouble finding affordable insurance. The government is calling the plans Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans, or PCIPs, though sometimes they're referred to as high risk insurance pools. The plans would typically be for people who can't get insurance through work but have pre-existing conditions that make it impossible to buy insurance on their own. Policy makers say they're particularly concerned with older people who aren't yet eligible for Medicare. Pennsylvania was among the first states to put together a plan, submitting it to the federal government on June 2. It was approved a few weeks later on June 28. Pennsylvania quickly issued guidelines asking insurance companies to submit bids to run the state plan. On July 12, the National Right to Life Committee sounded the alarm, saying those guidelines for insurance companies revealed the plan to fund abortion. The 60-page proposal from Pennsylvania outlines what looks like a pretty standard health care plan: It says the plan should include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, and prescription medications. It will charge people $283.20 a month for coverage and accept people without access to other coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions. On abortion, the proposal says this: "Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105. ... Elective abortions are not covered." Those statute numbers refer to Pennsylvania's abortion laws, where abortion is, for the most part, legal. We looked up the code and it says that abortions may be performed if a doctor determines that "in his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary." The only mention the statute makes of forbidding an abortion is when it is "sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child." Those statute numbers mean that the proposal intended to include any legal abortion, said Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. "We know how this stuff works," Johnson told us. "He'll say 'It's not elective, it's necessary.'" After the anti-abortion groups made the charge, the Obama administration was quick to say that it had not yet put forward formal regulations for the state plans, and that it would include restrictions so that abortion would only be covered if it met the tests of a well-known restriction known as the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment, which traditionally applies to federal dollars used in the Medicaid health plan for the poor, forbids abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Pennsylvania officials said their plan never intended to cover elective abortion -- hence the "elective abortions are not covered" language. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department released a sharp statement after getting questions from PolitiFact and other news outlets: "This program will provide much-needed assistance for the sickest of the sick. The likelihood that any of those covered will seek abortion services is remote, but if they do need such services, they will have to pay for them out their own pocket. ... Pennsylvania's position is not a statement about the broader abortion debate. It simply recognizes that health care reform, particularly extending health coverage to those with preexisting conditions, is too important a priority to be hijacked by those who seek to turn common-sense health reforms into a rancorous debate about whether the federal ban on abortion funding is too broad or too narrow. These efforts failed to derail health reform this spring and they will fail to stop much-needed coverage for thousands of Pennsylvanians now." The controversy over the Pre-existing Condition Health Insurance Plan has kicked off a larger debate about how abortion is handled for in lower-profile parts of the health care bill that did not get a full airing during the health care debate. President Obama signed an executive order on abortion, which he had promised to do soon after the law passed, to secure support from anti-abortion Democrats. The executive order says that it should be government-wide policy that federal funds "are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment." The executive order then goes into specifics about health care exchanges and community health centers, which were the most talked about provisions before the bill was passed. The lesser known provisions of bill are all up for debate now. Johnson said the executive order is essentially meaningless, and is silent on a host of other provisions in the health bill. "Each of these things will have its own timeline and its own administrative trajectory," Johnson said. "We're going to have to watch each and every one of them." We asked Johnson on July 15 if he thought, given the Obama administration's statement, that the Pennsylvania plan would cover any legal abortion. "If the federal (Health and Human Services Department) does what they now say they're going to do, or at least what they said they would do late yesterday, then I think that Pennsylvania will conform to the directive." But, he added, "We will see this episode as part of a pattern where they try to get away with what they can on abortion, and then when a light shines on them they blow smoke and scurry for cover." Meanwhile, those who favor abortion rights are unhappy that the administration is accepting restrictions on abortion. "Based on the Obama administration's statement, we are deeply disappointed that the administration has voluntarily and unnecessarily decided to impose limits on private funds used to purchase health insurance coverage for abortion care in the new high-risk insurance pools," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards in a statement. "This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country." Finally, we should also point out that the Department of Health and Human Services is indeed still developing regulations for many aspects of health care, and they're trying to do it with some haste. New Mexico, for example, submitted a plan for the Pre-existing Condition Health Insurance Plan that explicitly included abortion services, but then withdrew it quickly when it learned that the federal government would forbid the services, according to July 14 story from the Associated Press. Getting back to our rating: The National Right to Life Committee said the Obama administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to pay for health insurance plans that cover "any legal abortion." If we had looked at this case before the Obama administration issued its statements, we might have been a little torn. While the Pennsylvania proposal referred to statutes about legal abortion, it also said that "elective abortions are not covered," and that is potentially contradictory. But it's important to keep in mind that this plan is intended to cover older people who have health problems, not young, healthy women who might seek abortions, and that the regulations are being created quickly. In short, we don't see pre-meditated intent to cover elective abortion. And as soon as the issue of abortion was raised, the Obama administration stated that the plans would not be allowed to cover elective abortions and that forthcoming regulations would reflect that. Given those assurances, we rate the National Right to Life Committee's statement False.	None	National Right to Life Committee	None	None	None	2010-07-16T12:44:23	2010-07-13	['Barack_Obama', 'Pennsylvania']
-pomt-11008	"Facebook removes, censors Declaration of Independence as ‘hate speech’"	/punditfact/statements/2018/jul/10/blog-posting/did-facebook-remove-post-quoting-declaration-indep/	In the lead-up to the Fourth of July holiday, Facebook removed a post containing sections of the Declaration of Independence as hate speech. Stories detailing the incident have been gaining traction ever since, so we decided to examine what happened. "Facebook removes, censors Declaration of Independence as ‘hate speech,’" said a July 5, 2018, headline from Geller Report, a website run by Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim activist and commentator. "It’s not surprising," the story said. "The left hates our freedoms, and so designating the Declaration of Independence, the most magnificent document in all of human history, as hate speech is in line with their agenda. The left means to criminalize lawfulness. The left means to criminalize freedom of speech. The left means to criminalize individual rights. The left means to criminalize Americanism." What the story does not tell you: Facebook said removing the post was an accident and restored it a day later. Facebook users flagged this story as part of the company’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The Geller Report cited an article from the Guardian, and Geller pointed in an email to multiple other outlets that also reported on the incident, including the Washington Post, USA Today, Fortune and the Independent. Here’s what happened: In anticipation of July 4, the Liberty County Vindicator, a small local newspaper in Texas, posted sections of the Declaration of Independence to Facebook. The Vindicator soon received notice from Facebook indicating that one of the posts was removed because it "goes against our standards on hate speech," according to a July 2 write-up from Casey Stinnett, the paper’s managing editor. Stinnett said the section was likely removed for its reference to "merciless Indian savages." "The removal of the post was an automated action," Stinnett wrote. "If any human being working at Facebook were to review it, no doubt the post would be allowed." Later, Stinnett updated the article and posted to Facebook to announce that the post had been restored. He said the Vindicator received an email from Facebook that said, "It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action." Geller acknowledged in her email that Facebook apologized and restored the post, but her story did not mention the apology or the fix. "We restored the post and apologized to The Vindicator on July 3 as soon as we saw our error," said Sarah Pollack, a spokesperson for Facebook. "We process millions of reports every week, and sometimes we make mistakes." This is not the first time Facebook’s censors have removed posts of historical significance. In 2016, Facebook suspended one user’s account after he posted an image of The Terror War, a Pulitzer-prize-winning photograph that depicts a naked girl fleeing a napalm attack during the Vietnam War. The photo, removed as nudity and child porn, was eventually restored. Our ruling The Geller Report story had a point that a newspaper’s post of the Declaration of Independence was temporarily removed from Facebook for appearing to violate "hate speech" standards. But the website did not mention that Facebook said it was a mistake and restored the post. It did not censor the entire speech. We rate this statement Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-07-10T15:30:01	2018-07-05	['None']
-pomt-00032	Says Brendan Kelly "allowed half of the criminals he faced to walk free" and "failed to protect women who were violently assaulted," allowing "those guilty of sexual assault to cut inexcusable plea deals."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/05/mike-bost/illinois-mike-bost-attacks-brendan-kellys-record-p/	How do you define "soft on crime?" Mike Bost, a Republican congressman from southern Illinois, says his Democratic challenger, Brendan Kelly, embodies the definition. In a Bost-sponsored ad still running in the congressional campaign’s final days, an announcer says Kelly, a state’s attorney (the county prosecutor) for St. Clair County, "allowed half of the criminals he faced to walk free." "That's 50 percent walk free!" the ad in Illinois’ 12th Congressional District says. "Kelly failed to protect women who were violently assaulted, allowed those guilty of sexual assault to cut inexcusable plea deals. That's a failed record." Fifty percent sounds like a lot of criminals out on the street. So we looked to see if the numbers are accurate, and how they fit in the general scheme of crime and prosecution. We can tell you already that the numbers are correct if "free" means probation -- not only for cases prosecuted by Kelly but for those throughout Illinois. Bost's scary ad fails to note the reality of prosecution. Walking free Kelly became his county’s prosecutor in 2010. The Bost ad says Kelly "allowed half of the criminals he faced to walk free." We asked Bost’s campaign where it got that 50 percent figure, and were told it came from public records in the court system. What was the exact figure? Did Bost’s campaign look at every case Kelly and his office prosecuted, or did it use a sample? Bost’s campaign would not say, repeating in a series of emails with us that the source of the claim was public records. So we looked at a variety of data nationally, getting figures from the The Sentencing Project and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. It seemed like the 50 percent figure was somewhere in the ballpark of cases everywhere. Then we got specific data for every felony conviction in Illinois, thanks to annual reports from the state courts. The year 2016 is the most recent, so we'll use those figures here: Of the 1,895 felony defendants prosecuted by Kelly's office that year, 1200 were convicted. That's a 63 percent conviction rate. So what happened to those 1,200 convicts? State records show 392 of them, or 33 percent, were sentenced to prison. Far more, 788, got probation. That means 66 percent of the criminals Kelly prosecuted "walked," to use Bost's term, with probation. But how does that compare with the statewide figures? The statewide conviction rate -- for every felony defendant in Illinois in 2016 -- was 65 percent, making Kelly's conviction rate a near match. Of those convicted, 42 percent went to prison. That's higher than in Kelly's county, but Cook Couty, whose seat is Chicago, skews the totals. Looking only at other counties, Bost is 1 point higher than the average. The trend was similar in 2015: 32 percent of convicted felons were sent to prison in Kelly's county, and 43 percent were statewide. Take out Cook County and the statewide average is 33.5 percent. So prosecutors across the state let criminals, in Bost's phraseology, "walk free." Sexual assaults The ad claims that Kelly allowed "those guilty of sexual assault to cut inexcusable plea deals." The commercial also cites St. Clair County Circuit Court records, without specifics, as the source for this. We asked for more information, and Bost’s campaign sent us synopses of four cases -- each involving a separate woman who was violently assaulted. In each case, the punishment for the men involved could have been more than a decade in prison. But in each of these cases, a plea deal from Kelly’s office resulted in probation -- 24 months in three of the cases, 30 months in the fourth. "These plea deals allow predators to go right back on the street and put women and children in our communities at risk," Bost’s campaign said in an email. Kelly’s decisions on how to handle cases has been a theme for attacks from Bost or Bost’s allies throughout the campaign. Some of the discussion stems from stories in the Belleville News-Democrat, including its 2015 series, "Violation of Trust." An online headline said it best: "Sex crime victims in Southern Illinois find that police, prosecutors typically do not charge their attackers. From 2005 to 2013, 70 percent of sex crimes never made it to a courtroom." The newspaper’s investigation covered cases from 2005 through 2013. It found that in St. Clair County, the state’s attorney prosecuted just 18 percent of felony sex crimes reported to police. Part of the problem was that prosecutors didn’t deem all reports of sexual abuse eligible or strong enough for prosecution. The trend in southern Illinois was not unique. The Minneapolis Star Tribune found that in the two-year period of 2015 and 2016, fewer than one in 10 reported sexual assaults produced a conviction. Other studies have shown this, too. Kelly took office in 2010, so his office prosecuted cases covered in only three of the nine years the newspaper investigation covered. But prosecution rates improved under Kelly. In 2012 and 2013, about 30 percent of sex crime reports resulted in charges being filed, the News-Democrat said, and conviction rates for adult defendants in those cases was relatively high. Asked why prosecutors didn’t take on more cases, Kelly told the News-Democrat, "We want to justly convict the guilty, but more importantly seek as much justice as possible for the public and for victims. That’s what drives us. ... There is no cookie-cutter answer." He also said some accused sex crime suspects may wind up being prosecuted for non-sex crimes such as aggravated battery and unlawful restraint that might not show up in the newspaper’s investigation. He cited an example of a defendant tried and convicted of non-sex felonies in a case that also involved rape. Kelly and his campaign have said they cannot disclose all the details that go into a case but the factors can include the best resolution for the victim. Asked about the cases presented to us by Bost’s campaign, Kelly spokeswoman Elana Schrager said, "In each of these four cases, Brendan worked closely with each of the survivors to ensure justice was achieved while respecting her wishes." Our ruling Bost says that Kelly "allowed half of the criminals he faced to walk free" and "failed to protect women who were violently assaulted," allowing "those guilty of sexual assault to cut inexcusable plea deals." Bost’s campaign did not provide precise information when we asked repeatedly, but we found it anyway. If probation is viewed as letting a criminal walk free, Kelly is guilty -- as are prosecutors throughout Illinois. Very few counties had the opposite trend. Similarly, we also found, based on data from the Belleville News-Democrat as well as federal court data, that Bost’s general use of plea bargains is within the norms of state and national plea bargain rates. As for the ad’s claim that Kelly "failed to protect women," Bost’s campaign said it based this on court cases. The information it sent us showed four men getting probation rather than prison. The information does not provide any nuances in the prosecution of each case. With all this in mind, we find Bost’s numbers are fine but shade the truth substantially about prosecution across his state. There are undoubtedly critics of the way Kelly has handled cases, just as there are people who praise him. This is a lot context to consider. Based on what we could measure and on the principles of the Truth-O-Meter --- specifically, the rating for a claim that contains an element of truth but is misleading -- we rate this Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mike Bost	None	None	None	2018-11-05T14:29:10	2018-10-22	['None']
-hoer-00303	Carnival Cruise Free Vacation Packages Survey	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/carnival-cruise-survey-scam.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Carnival Cruise Free Vacation Packages Survey Scam	September 4, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-06558	"If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era . . . we would have 14 million more jobs today."	/georgia/statements/2011/oct/03/herman-cain/herman-cain-recovery-14-million-jobs-behind-typica/	GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain wants voters to put the blame for the nation’s stubborn unemployment squarely on the shoulders of the Commander-in-Chief. Cain called President Barack Obama’s stimulus package "failed" in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. He said he "pays no mind" to the economy. He also presents evidence in the form of economic data: "If our recovery were more typical of the postwar era . . . we would have 14 million more jobs today," Cain wrote Sept. 15. Fourteen million more jobs? Since economic estimates are often complicated to evaluate, we talked with Cain economic advisor Richard Lowrie. We also took a look at a Wall Street Journal op-ed written by former Texas U.S. Senator Phil Gramm that Cain referenced in his own column Gramm wrote a piece that appeared April 15 called "The Obama Growth Discount." It argued that under Obama’s economic policies, job growth is uniquely dismal, even among the postwar era’s deepest recessions. "Forty months after the start of the 1953, 1957, 1973 and 1981 recessions, total employment was on average 4.7% higher than the pre-recession peaks, while total employment today is still down 4.7%—that's a total employment gap of 13.9 million jobs." Lowrie told PolitiFact Georgia that he used Gramm’s method to do his own calculations, so we did as well. We compared total employment figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics at their pre-recession peak, calculated their percentage difference from employment 40 months later, and averaged the results for what Gramm considered the four worst postwar recessions. Lowrie found employment typically grew at about 4.8 percent, for total jobs gap of 13.6 million. Cain rounded up to 14 million. PolitiFact Georgia came up with figures ranging from some 12.4 million to 13.6 million, depending on how we chose our data. Some downturns, such as those in 1957 and 1981, start less than 40 months after the last recession, so there’s room for debate on how to account for downturns that don’t fit the mold. So Cain cherry picked higher numbers, plus he rounded up a good bit, but his math makes sense. But we wanted to dig a little deeper. His calculation depends heavily on what one considers the nation’s worst postwar recessions. So we asked around. Economists told us that there are a lot of ways to measure the depth of a recession. You can look at its length, how much it shrinks the size of the economy, and how it affects jobs, to name a few metrics. This means that while economists widely consider certain recessions, such as the most recent one, as among the worst in the postwar era, there might be room for debate if you tried to rank some of the others. Still, while you might disagree with some of Gramm’s choices of ‘worst’ recessions, they are reasonable. According to our calculations, the four recessions he cited boasted the postwar’s largest reduction in gross domestic product, a measure that describes the size of the nation’s economy. We also found it’s possible to argue that Gramm’s way of comparing recessions is invalid. Emory economics professor Tom Smith said each recession is so unique that Gramm’s calculation is only useful as political rhetoric against Obama. It conveys little, if any, useful information about the recession or Obama’s record, Smith said. "It’s a trickster move," Smith said. "It’s a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat," Smith said. So Cain’s statement does have weaknesses. The number he used in the Wall Street Journal is on the high side of the calculations. It’s also rounded upwards by about 400,000 jobs. And it’s fair to dispute whether this is a good way to measure Obama’s economic record. Also, Cain could have been more clear. He should have emphasized that he meant that there would be 14 million more jobs if this recession were more typical of the most severe postwar recessions, rather than postwar recessions in general. That said, Cain’s calculation that we would have 14 million jobs was within reason, if a bit high. We therefore rate Cain’s statement Mostly True.	None	Herman Cain	None	None	None	2011-10-03T06:00:00	2011-09-15	['None']
-faan-00052	 On voting for Quebec sovereignty, Tom Mulcair carries “two different discussions at the same time.”	http://factscan.ca/justin-trudeau-two-different-discussions/	Mulcair did not say different things in English and French on Quebec sovereignty as Trudeau alleged. In the appearances in question, Mulcair’s position on vote count rules was consistent. 	None	Justin Trudeau	None	None	None	2015-10-08	mber 28, 2015	['None']
-goop-00065	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Had Secret Reunion In London To Repair Marriage?	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-secret-reunion-london-marriage/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Had Secret Reunion In London To Repair Marriage?	12:35 am, October 30, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'London']
-pomt-00826	"EPA wants to regulate … the family BBQ."	/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/26/allen-west/allen-west-says-obama-epa-wants-regulate-backyard-/	Hands off our backyard barbecues, says former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla. West -- now the president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a Dallas-based free-market think tank -- leapt to the defense of home-cooked meat in a signed item posted on his personal website on March 19, 2015. The article was headlined, "Two things the EPA wants to regulate in your life," and referred to alleged interest by the Environmental Protection Agency in backyard barbecues and hotel shower water. Here’s an excerpt of West’s post: "Ladies and gents, I just cannot ascertain when the absurdity of this current administration will cease. The weather is finally warming up and one of the rituals of spring and summer is the family BBQ. Well, it is for now until the Environmental Protection Agency has its way. "As reported by Fox News, ‘the EPA is funding a $15,000 University of California-Riverside study to look at the particulate emissions you breathe when grilling over an open flame. … Why is the EPA concerned about BBQ grill emissions? Who are these people and why are they using one single dime of American taxpayer dollars for this tomfoolery?" A reader saw West’s claim about barbecue and asked us to check it out. So we took a look at whether West was correct that the EPA wants to regulate the family BBQ. According to the Fox News article cited by West, "the EPA is funding a $15,000 University of California-Riverside study to look at the particulate emissions you breathe when grilling over an open flame." The study in question can be found on an EPA webpage for "extramural research" -- that is, research funded by EPA but carried out by external researchers. This particular study was titled, "Technology for the Reduction of Particulate Matter Emissions for Residential Propane BBQs," and was to be undertaken by four researchers at the University of California-Riverside between Aug. 15, 2014, and Aug. 14, 2015. The project amount was $15,000. The objective? "To perform research and develop preventative technology that will reduce fine particulate emissions ... from residential barbecues. This technology is intended to reduce air pollution as well as health hazards in Southern California, with potential for global application," according to the EPA website. So West’s claim hasn’t been made up from whole cloth. But it’s still pretty misleading. Most importantly, there’s a big difference between funding a small scientific grant and actually seeking to regulate an activity. The EPA makes clear that this grant isn’t exactly the camel’s nose under the tent. "EPA does not regulate backyard barbecues and does not plan to in the future," the agency said in a statement to PolitiFact. (The Fox News article did mention this disclaimer toward the end of its story.) The difference between supporting a study and setting national policy is especially wide in this case, because the funding comes from a national student design competition -- the "P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet." The other study mentioned in West’s post, the one about hotel water monitoring, also stemmed from the same student design competition. This project "aims to develop a novel, low-cost, wireless device for monitoring water use from hotel guest room showers," that could eventually be "marketed to the hotel industry to reduce costs by promoting water conservation among hotel guests," according to the EPA’s summary. By West’s standard, would projects hosted by the White House at its science fair on March 23 also constitute a roadmap for future policymaking? Will the high school projects for a wearable breathalyzer wristband, or a system for turning algae into a biofuel -- two real projects hosted at the science fair -- automatically become guideposts for future federal rulemaking? We don’t think so. (West’s press office didn’t reply to two emails for this article.) Our ruling West said the "EPA wants to regulate … the family BBQ." Reasonable people can disagree over whether the research projects in question are worth spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds. But it’s wrong to say, as West does, that their existence demonstrates that the EPA "wants to" regulate backyard barbecues. The EPA says it isn’t seeking to do so, and the projects in question are examples of scientific inquiry, not examples of federal rulemaking. We rate the claim False.	None	Allen West	None	None	None	2015-03-26T12:01:00	2015-03-19	['None']
-snes-00494	Have Children Been Fined for Operating Lemonade Stands?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-children-fined-lemonade-stands/	None	Business	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Have Children Been Fined for Operating Lemonade Stands?	8 June 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00912	Tee markers emblazoned with the U.S. presidential seal were manufactured for and installed at a golf course owned by the Trump Organization.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-presidential-seal/	None	Politicians	None	David Emery	None	Did a Trump Golf Course Use the Presidential Seal on Tee Markers?	8 March 2018	None	['United_States', 'The_Trump_Organization']
-vees-00378	In a speech during the mass oath-taking of his new appointees, Duterte said the family of the late dictator told him they are willing to “open everything, and probably return iyong nakita lang (what have been found)."	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-duterte-and-imelda-tell-contradicting	None	None	None	None	Duterte,Marcos	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte and Imelda tell contradicting stories about Marcos gold	September 07, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04290	On support for U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reform plan	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/01/tommy-thompson/testing-thompsons-position-ryans-medicare-reform-p/	In the homestretch of the U.S. Senate race, Republican Tommy Thompson offered a plan to slow rising Medicare costs that threaten the solvency of the government-run health insurance program for seniors. The "Tommy Thompson plan," as he called it, would give future seniors the option of staying in the program or joining one of the private health plans offered to federal employees. The campaign of his opponent Democrat Tammy Baldwin cried foul, saying Thompson was "trying to run away from" his firm embrace of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s controversial plan to reform Medicare. Another case for the Flip-O-Meter, which tests whether candidates have changed their position. As usual, we’re not rating the political or policy merits of any switch, just whether the candidate has been consistent. In the 2012 race, Thompson has ripped Baldwin for failing to propose a solvency plan for Medicare. Baldwin, in turn, has tried at every turn to link the former governor to Ryan’s plan, which critics paint as "ending Medicare as we know it." Ryan’s "Path to Prosperity" budget resolution in 2012 -- the latest in a series of similar fiscal plans he’s released in recent years -- included proposed changes in tax policy and entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan’s plan, which is nearly identical to Mitt Romney’s, allows beneficiaries under 55 a choice. They can use their payment to buy private insurance or for a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. Critics call this a "voucher" plan that could leave seniors dipping deeper into their own pockets, while Ryan says it’s a "premium support" plan that will lower health care costs. Let’s look at Thompson’s statements and actions: October 2011: Thompson, already an unofficial Senate candidate, says an earlier version of Ryan’s budget plan, this one in 2011, was "on the right track". But unlike Ryan in that earlier plan, Thompson makes clear he wanted to give people under 55 a choice of staying on traditional Medicare or not when they reached retirement age. Thompson did not have a formal plan at the time. Thompson says those who chose the traditional system would pay higher-out-of-pocket costs than seniors pay now because the system "is going broke." March 29, 2012: The House approves Ryan’s budget plan on a 228-191 partisan vote. The plan’s Medicare proposal -- modified from Ryan’s earlier plan -- offered the choice of using a government payment for private insurance or for a plan akin to traditional Medicare. May 11-13, 2012: At the Republican Party state convention, Thompson endorses Ryan’s 2013 budget plan as a whole. The plan included the Medicare changes, allowing beneficiaries a choice. "I will pass Paul Ryan’s budget plan in the U.S. Senate," he says. "It is the right plan, at the right time, for America." On the "deficit reduction" section of his campaign website, Thompson says he "fully and wholeheartedly endorses Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity and will take all necessary steps to ensure the U.S. Senate takes up the plan. "It makes Social Security solvent, preserves Medicare for our most needy seniors, maintains a safety net for the poor and provides for sufficient defense to protect our security," Thompson says on the site. It adds: the plan "emanates from Wisconsin and the values we hold dear." Thompson, the site says, would have "additional entitlement, tax and budget reforms to add to Paul Ryan’s plan" during the campaign. August 13, 2012: A Thompson radio ad after Ryan’s selection as Romney’ vice presidential nominee says Thompson would be the 51st vote to pass Ryan’s 2013 budget plan. August 14, 2012: Thompson wins a four-way GOP primary election. Sept. 28, 2012: During his first debate with Baldwin, Thompson briefly mentions a new wrinkle: People who opt not to stay in Medicare would be put in the health plan that federal employees, including members of Congress, are in. "If it’s good enough for the Congress, why isn’t it good enough for the seniors," Thompson asked. Oct. 5, 2012: Appearing at the Milwaukee Press Club Newsmaker luncheon, Thompson pointedly says his Medicare plan now is "different than Ryan’s," again noting the federal employee plan option. Thompson says his plan would make the changes for those under 55 in 2020. The timeline in Ryan’s plan is under 55 in 2023. Oct. 19, 2012: Thompson told the Wisconsin State Journal editorial board of his new plan: "This is a plan by Paul Ryan. I’ve modified it. I think my plan is better." Oct. 23, 2012: The Journal Sentinel, in a story entitled, "How Thompson, Baldwin differ on Medicare," writes that Thompson for months touted a plan that would allow people a decade from now to remain in the current program or receive a subsidy from the government to buy health insurance from the private sector. "In recent weeks, he has modified his course by saying he wants to allow people to stay in Medicare or sign up for the private healthcare plans offered to federal employees," the story said. Oct. 26, 2012: In the final Senate debate, Thompson again outlines his plan, changing a detail: those under 50 in the year 2020 would get the choice. Thompson said Democrats’ plan was to "play our harp while Rome burns and see Medicare collapse," while Baldwin said the federal health care law she backed had improved Medicare’s fiscal outlook. Our rating Thompson has praised Ryan’s various Medicare plans since 2011, and for much of the 2012 campaign indicated he fully embraced Ryan’s latest plan. In the last month or so he’s partially changed his approach on Medicare reform, while edging away from Ryan. Really, though, he has only tweaked Ryan’s Medicare plan, and has not renounced Ryan’s budget blueprint -- Thompson still endorses it on his website. That amounts to a Half Flip on our meter.	None	Tommy Thompson	None	None	None	2012-11-01T16:36:05	2012-10-26	['United_States', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-tron-01900	President Obama Declared November National Muslim Appreciation Month	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-muslim-appreciation-day-092813/	None	humorous	None	None	None	President Obama Declared November National Muslim Appreciation Month	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07884	"Illegal aliens cost the state of Rhode Island $400 million a year."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/feb/06/terry-gorman/gorman-says-illegal-immigrants-cost-rhode-island-4/	There's been a lot of debate over the cost of illegal immigration, both nationally and to individual states. Terry Gorman, president of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement, believes he knows the price tag for Rhode Island. And it’s big. During an appearance on the Jan. 6 Helen Glover Show on WHJJ radio, Gorman stated that "illegal aliens cost the state of Rhode Island $400 million a year." We wondered if Gorman's number was accurate. In an interview with PolitiFact, he broke the costs down into four categories: Incarceration, education, Medicaid and hospital care. We’ll examine each individually. INCARCERATION This is the easiest category to deal with because there’s reliable data. It’s also the only one where Gorman is even close. Gorman used three numbers to conclude that Rhode Island pays $7.2 million a year to keep illegal immigrants in prison. He said there were about 200 illegal immigrants incarcerated, at an annual cost of $43,000 per prisoner. He multiplied those two numbers and then subtracted $1.2 million -- the amount he said the federal government pays the state to help cover the cost of their imprisonment. (The actual total is $7.4 million.) We confirmed that annual cost (now $43,252) and the latest federal payment ($1 million) but discovered that the 200 number was a bit high. In 2010, the average quarterly count was 168, not all of whom turned out to be here illegally. Gorman's total: $7.2 million. Our total: $6.2 million. That’s as close as he got. In the other categories, Gorman's numbers quickly fell apart. EDUCATION Gorman says it costs the state $239 million a year to educate illegal immigrant children and children of illegal immigrants. To determine whether that number is accurate, you have to know how many illegal immigrant children there are and what the per-pupil cost of educating them is. That’s not as easy as it sounds, because finding reliable data is difficult. First, let’s consider the number of children. Gorman says the Census Bureau estimated that in 2004 there were 8,740 illegal immigrant children and children of illegal immigrants in Rhode Island. No it didn't. The Census Bureau told us there was no such count of illegal immigrant children in 2004, or any other year. "That's not something we collect," said spokesman Thomas Edwards. The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey does estimate the number of foreign-born children age 5 to 17. In 2009, that number was about 7,070. Using data from the survey, we calculated that about 4,700 of those were not naturalized U.S. citizens. That’s more than 4,000 fewer than Gorman’s number. And that number includes foreign-born children whose parents are in the country legally, such as youngsters whose parents were granted asylum. So we looked for other ways to determine how many of those 4,700 children were here illegally. The Census Bureau estimated that in 2009 there were 133,458 foreign-born people in Rhode Island in 2009. The bureau doesn’t count how many of those are here illegally. So we contacted the Department of Homeland Security, which offers estimates of the number of "unauthorized immigrants" in the United States. But DHS spokesman Michael Hoefer told us "we only provide estimates for the larger states due to uncertainty in the precision for smaller states." Looking for some way to zero in on Rhode Island, we looked at DHS data for two of those larger states, which, like Rhode Island, are both urban and in the Northeast: New York and New Jersey. The DHS estimated in 2009 that 3.3 percent of the population of those states was in the U.S. illegally. Applying the same rate to Rhode Island's population -- a big assumption -- would give us about 35,000 unauthorized immigrants. Then, just last week, the Pew Hispanic Center issued a report estimating that there were roughly 30,000 illegal immigrants in Rhode Island in 2010. The key question: what percentage of those are school-age children? Let’s go back to the Census Bureau estimate of 133,458 foreign born people in Rhode Island. If 30,000 (the Pew number) or 35,000 (the DHS number) are illegal immigrants, that’s about 22 to 26 percent. Apply those percentages to the total number of foreign-born children in Rhode Island age 5 to 17 years -- which, remember, the Census pegged at 7,070 -- and you get 1,589 to 1,854 school age children. That's about one fifth of Gorman's 8,740 figure. OK. So now that we have a more accurate number of children, how much does it cost to educate them? Gorman says the price is $23,000 per child. Plus, he reasoned, 20 percent of those students would need special education, including English instruction. For those students, he adds another $22,000. But the Rhode Island Department of Education told us the statewide average per-pupil cost for 2009, the latest for which complete data are available, is $14,186 per student -- which includes special education, English instruction and other special programs like career and technical education. So Gorman’s per-pupil cost is off by nearly $9,000. Even if we accept his special education cost estimate and assumed that every child needs extra English language instruction, the total would be no higher than $40 million to $47 million. That’s not even close to $239 million. MEDICAID COSTS Gorman asserts that 35 percent of the money spent on Medicaid and RIteCare -- programs that provide health care to low-income people -- goes to illegal immigrants or the children of illegal immigrants. His estimate of that cost: $125 million. He said he based his claim on a 2005 Providence Journal story that talked about how much of the RIteCare budget goes to "undocumented clients." But we were unable to find any such story in our database. And David Burnett, associate director of the state’s Office of Health and Human Services, said the only undocumented people covered by Medicaid are 350 pregnant women currently covered by the RIteCare program through a special plan funded by the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That's a tiny fraction -- less than three-tenths of a percent -- of the state's 121,000 RIteCare enrollees. Not even close to 35 percent. According to Burnett, the state’s Medicaid budget is $1.7 billion; RiteCare makes up $602 million of that total. Two thirds of that is federal money, according to Linda Katz, co-founder of The Poverty Institute. So Rhode Island's share of RIteCare is about $201 million. And 0.289 percent of $201 million is $579,926, which brings the state's RIteCare cost for pregnant illegal immigrants down to under $600,000. What about children of illegal immigrants who were born here? Those children are citizens and the state does not track them in a separate category. As a result, those costs are unknown. Gorman's estimate: $125 million. Our estimate: less than $600,000, plus the unknown cost of those U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. FREE HOSPITAL CARE Finally, we looked at Gorman's estimate that half the money the state gives local hospitals to cover the costs of uncompensated care is spent treating illegal immigrants. (Hospitals are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay.) He says the hospitals get $139 million a year. Half of that would be $69.5 million. The last state payment to the hospitals was actually $127 million, according to Michael Souza, vice president for finance at the Hospital Association of Rhode Island. But the state only paid out $60 million; the rest was federal money. How much of that uncompensated care goes to illegal immigrants? Nobody knows. Gorman says his source is a hospital translator who appeared on a public access cable show in 2010. He declined to name the source but said, "We stand by our figures." The hospital association says hospitals don't even collect that data. "Patients are not required to provide SSN or even green card numbers if they have them," said Gail Leach Carvelli, media relations for Lifespan, a consortium of five Rhode Island hospitals. "It’s entirely optional. So to even try to put a percentage around it would be misleading." So Gorman says uncompensated care for illegal immigrants costs the state $70 million a year. But the state is paying out only $60 million for all uncompensated care. Even if he is correct that half the money goes to illegal immigrants -- and at this point, needless to say, we have our doubts -- that's $30 million, not $70 million. IN SUMMARY . . . We recognize that illegal immigrants impose a cost to the state, and there are costs that Gorman did not include, such as the added burden on law enforcement. At the same time, he ignores mitigating factors, such as the taxes -- particularly sales taxes -- that even illegal immigrants pay to the state. The $400 million figure he repeatedly cites sounds authoritative. But three of his four categories are based on numbers that are outdated, grossly inflated or have no documentation. Thus, the inflammatory assertion that illegal immigrants drain the state of $400 million a year -- $400 for every man, woman and child in Rhode Island -- is ridiculously high. And because inflammatory, ridiculous assertions qualify for our worst rating, we rule Pants On Fire!	None	Terry Gorman	None	None	None	2011-02-06T00:01:00	2011-01-06	['Rhode_Island']
-vees-00057	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Posts on PH submarine acquisition plan	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-posts-ph-submarine-acquisition-plan-mi	None	None	None	None	false news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Posts on PH submarine acquisition plan MISLEAD with inaccurate photos	September 19, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07233	"Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/01/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-says-obama-has-accumulated-more-debt-p/	During a family bus trip, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made a claim about the size of the debt accumulated under President Barack Obama. "Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years," Palin, a Republican, told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren on May 31, 2011, as her bus rolled down the highway. "It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined." This claim is similar to ones we’ve checked in the past -- with varying ratings -- so we thought we would check Palin’s as well. A few preliminaries. First, there are two common measures for debt. One, called public debt, tallies up the debt held by the public, while gross federal debt is a larger figure that combines publicly held debt plus debt held by the government itself, such as in the Social Security or Medicare trust funds. Both figures are considered legitimate, and since Palin didn’t specify which one she was referring to, we’ll run the numbers for both categories of debt. Second, we’ll assume that all the debt accumulated under Obama should be attributed to him. In reality, this isn’t a logical allocation, since the first budget he wrote was actually for the 2010 fiscal year, and because he -- like all presidents -- inherited the fiscal legacy of his predecessor. Still, calculating it this way is much simpler -- and as we’ll see, it won’t matter to the outcome. We turned to the Treasury Department’s "Debt to the Penny" calculator, where we found that on Obama’s first day in office, Jan. 20, 2009, the public debt stood at $6.307 trillion; gross federal debt stood at $10.627 trillion. For the most recent date available -- May 27, 2011 -- these two debt figures stood at $9.718 trillion and $14.345 trillion, respectively. That means that under Obama, the public debt rose by $3.411 trillion and the gross federal debt rose by $3.718 trillion. That’s a huge amount of money -- but it’s far less than what was accumulated by Obama’s 43 predecessors. Because debt is cumulative (minus any intervening surpluses) the debt level for the previous 43 presidents is equal to the amount of debt on the day Obama was inaugurated. So even by the standards we used -- which aren’t especially favorable to Obama -- the debt he accumulated amounts to either 54 percent of his predecessors’ combined debt (using the public debt figure) or 35 percent (using gross federal debt). Neither of these figures is "more … than all those other presidents combined," as Palin had said. Palin would have been correct if she had said the same thing that Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said last fall, that "the budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined." We rated that True. In other words, Cantor didn’t use the two-year timeline that Palin did -- and making that change improves the accuracy of the claim. But Palin didn’t say that. She said, quite specifically, that Obama had accumulated more debt in two years than the previous 43 presidents had collectively. And while Obama (along with Congress) has indeed accumulated a lot of debt for various reasons, his two-year debt total, even if you use the most generous standards for judging Palin’s comment, is still $3 trillion to $7 trillion short of the amount needed to make Palin’s statement accurate. So we rate her claim False.	None	Sarah Palin	None	None	None	2011-06-01T15:49:33	2011-05-31	['None']
-snes-00160	Did a Google Exec Admit to Rigging Search Results Against Donald Trump?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/google-exec-rigging-trump/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Google Exec Admit to Rigging Search Results Against Donald Trump?	28 August 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-06127	Says Ron Paul doesn’t believe in marriage licenses.	/texas/statements/2011/dec/27/gail-collins/columnist-gail-collins-says-ron-paul-doesnt-believ/	New York Times op-ed columnist Gail Collins zinged presidential aspirant Ron Paul in a recent piece. Saying everyone agrees the Texas congressman has a great organization in Iowa, where voters caucus in January, Collins said that’s important, "particularly for a Republican candidate who doesn’t believe in marriage licenses, the war on drugs, the war in Afghanistan or prosecuting flag burners." For this article, we evaluated her first claim — that Paul, who wedded his wife, Carol, in 1957, does not believe in marriage licenses. Collins’ aide, Isabella Moschen, told us by email that Collins reached that conclusion based on a 2011 collection of Paul writings, "Liberty Defined." Separately, Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard advised: "You should read the book." We focused on Paul’s chapter in the book titled "Marriage." In it, Paul writes that most Americans "do not question the requirement to obtain a license to get married." But ideally, he says, each individual could define marriage as he or she pleases, so long as force is not used to impose the definition on others. It’s a matter of free speech, he says, in keeping with the First Amendment. This week, Paul said he favors leaving regulations involving marriage up to the states, according to a Dec. 21, 2011, news article posted by The Boston Globe. According to the newspaper, Paul said at a New Hampshire stop: "Why should the government be telling you what marriage is all about? You might have one definition. I have another definition." Speaking later to reporters, Paul said: "My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter," the Globe reported. In his book, Paul also points out that some states recognize couples as married without requiring that they get a license. A "common law" marriage is generally defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as a non-ceremonial relationship that requires "a positive mutual agreement, permanent and exclusive of all others, to enter into a marriage relationship, cohabitation sufficient to warrant a fulfillment of necessary relationship of man and wife, and an assumption of marital duties and obligations." We spotted this definition in an April 2011 web post by the National Conference of State Legislatures that also says nine states (Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Iowa, Montana, Oklahoma and Texas) recognize all common-law marriages and five states (Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) recognize common-law marriages that were established before a certain date. In Texas, according to information posted online by the Texas Department of State Health Services, a couple may register their "informal marriage" by appearing together before a county clerk to file such a declaration. Alternatively, a couple can establish their common-law marriage by showing they agree they are married, that they live together in the state and that they represent themselves to others that they are married to each other, the post says. Paul refers to the licensing mandate in another part of the marriage chapter, saying: "The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." "Licensing for social reasons reflects the intolerant person’s desire to mold other people’s behavior to their standard," Paul writes. "Both depend on the use of illegitimate government force." We rate Collins’ claim True.	None	Gail Collins	None	None	None	2011-12-27T06:00:00	2011-12-14	['None']
-snes-04605	A photograph shows Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau kissing opposition leader Thomas Mulcair.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/justin-trudeau-kiss-thomas-mulcair/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Canadian Prime Minister and Opposition Leader Share Kiss to Denounce Orlando Massacre	15 June 2016	None	['Canada', 'Justin_Trudeau']
-pomt-12271	"Donald Trump plans to step down as President of the United States and resign from office within the next 30 days."	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/05/stgeorgegazettecom/story-about-ryan-announcing-trumps-resignation-com/	A fake news story that claimed House Speaker Paul Ryan announced President Donald Trump’s resignation is actually the brainchild of one of the Internet’s most prolific hoax authors. The headline on a June 29, 2017, article on StGeorgeGazette.com read, "Paul Ryan: ‘Donald Trump plans to resign from office within the next 30 days’." Facebook users flagged the story as part of the social media site’s efforts to combat fake news. "Donald Trump plans to step down as President of the United States and resign from office within the next 30 days," the post quoted Ryan. "Amid the fury of scandals with Russia, the growing criticism from world leaders, the numerous problems his administration and cabinet have had, his lack of care for the environment; Republicans and myself believe this is the best thing to happen, and with some persuasion, Trump has also agreed this was for the best." Now, it’s obvious that Ryan hasn’t announced Trump is resigning. But other clues also show that the story is bogus. There is no media outlet called the St. George Gazette. The website implies it is based in St. George, Utah, but the newspaper there is called the Spectrum. The story also quoted one Paul Horner, which is the name of a big-time writer of fabricated news stories. One of his trademarks is always putting his own name into his stories. Horner, formerly a writer at fake news site NationalReport.net, is credited with writing stories ranging from Bill Murray running for president to President Barack Obama opening a Muslim museum to Banksy getting arrested. You can read a roundup of some his work at NewsExaminer.net, which also is a fake news site. Among his often-used calling cards in online stories are the use of the byline Jimmy Rustling, numerous references to "Fappy the Anti-Masturbation Dolphin" and a plea to donate socks to the homeless. The footer note posted on the bottom of the website lists a "complaint department" phone number that is actually the number for the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. It’s another Horner staple to use that number: The Ryan article cites the same number as a hotline set up by the White House for people to comment on Trump’s resignation. There’s otherwise no contact information for the website. We reached out to Horner, who responded to us with a cheeky reply on Facebook, but did not address this particular story. The story is made up, in any case. We rate it Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	StGeorgeGazette.com	None	None	None	2017-07-05T12:00:00	2017-06-29	['United_States', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-05869	A photograph shows an STD-related infection known as 'blue waffle disease.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blue-waffle-disease/	None	Risqué Business	None	David Mikkelson	None	Blue Waffle Disease	1 April 2013	None	['None']
-tron-02254	Forward an email to help a badly burned 6-year old injured in a fire at Wal-Mart	https://www.truthorfiction.com/help-sandy/	None	medical	None	None	None	Forward an email to help a badly burned 6-year old injured in a fire at Wal-Mart	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-wast-00223	Hillary Clinton "released more emails and more pages of emails" than "any of her predecessors."	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/08/democrats-still-misleading-claim-that-clinton-turned-over-more-emails-than-any-of-her-predecessors/	None	None	Sen. Sherrod Brown	Michelle Ye Hee Lee	None	Democrats' still-misleading claim comparing Clinton emails to her predecessors'	July 8, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-06305	After losing 750,000 jobs a month before this administration, the U.S. economy under Barack Obama has had 20 straight months of growth, has added 2.8 million jobs in the private sector and added "millions of jobs in manufacturing."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/15/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-obama-has-created-mi/	Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla, and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee touted President Barack Obama’s record on the economy in an interview on the Nov. 13, 2011, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, The host, David Gregory, asked Wasserman Schultz whether she would concede that Americans aren’t any better off after nearly three years of Obama’s policies. "Well, what I concede is that we do have a long way to go," she said. "But we absolutely have begun to turn things around, and we have made steady, but not quick enough, progress. I mean, before President Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, David. And now we've had 20 straight months of growth in the private sector. We've added 2.8 million jobs in the private sector alone. We've begun to add millions of jobs in manufacturing. We're starting to focus on making things in America again." Let’s take her points one by one: "Before President Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month." Strictly speaking, in November and December 2008 -- that is, the final full months before Obama took office -- the nation lost 802,000 and 619,000 jobs respectively. If you throw in January 2009, the month Obama took office, the nation lost 820,000 jobs. Rounding that off to 750,000 jobs per month seems in the ballpark. "We've had 20 straight months of growth in the private sector." Given the context from the rest of the quote, we’re assuming that Wasserman Schultz meant job growth. By that metric, she’s right. "We've added 2.8 million jobs in the private sector." If you start counting at the low point of the past few years -- February 2010 -- she’s right. Since that time, the number of private-sector jobs has risen by 2.77 million, or 2.8 million if you round up. (Over the same period, the number of government jobs has shrunk, weakening the overall jobs picture.) But using other date ranges will produce lower -- even negative -- totals. Since the Obama presidency began in January 2009, the number of private-sector jobs has actually decreased by more than 1.4 million. Reasonable people can disagree about where the best starting point is for measuring a new president’s impact on the economy, but Wasserman Schultz’s number is the most positive one you can come up with. We’ve added "millions of jobs in manufacturing." This is the one claim where Wasserman Schultz is far, far off. The lowest point for manufacturing jobs was December 2009, almost a year into the Obama administration. Since then, the number of manufacturing jobs has rebounded, increasing by 303,000. That’s nothing to sneeze at -- but it’s far from even a million, much less the "millions" Wasserman Schultz claims. And if you look at the numbers since the day Obama took office, manufacturing jobs have actually fallen by 800,000. A final point: When we rate statements that seek to assign credit or blame to a politician, we also look at whether the politician in question was really responsible. As we’ve written before, presidents do have a role in job creation, but there are many other factors at play as well, so we don’t think it’s fair for Wasserman Schultz to give Obama all the credit for the gains she cited. (Just as it would be unfair to give him all the blame for losses.) Our ruling On Wasserman Schultz’s first two points, we have no major quibbles. On the third, the number is accurate according to one calculation, but it is cherry picked in a way that sheds the most favorable light on the president. And on the fourth -- manufacturing jobs -- Wasserman is flat-out wrong. We realize that she said "we've begun to add millions of jobs," suggesting more to come. But a rebound of 303,000 jobs is too few to support a claim that big. Meanwhile, we’re downgrading her for overselling Obama’s role in job creation. On balance, we rate her statement Half True.	None	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	None	None	None	2011-11-15T15:19:08	2011-11-13	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-01290	Animal brothels opened in Germany amidst a surge of immigration.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/animal-brothels-open-germany-migrant-population-hits-22-percent/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	‘Animal Brothels’ Open in Germany as Migrant Population Hits 22 Percent?	28 December 2017	None	['Germany']
-pomt-07545	When you compare our state pension system "to other systems throughout the country, our benefits are not gold-plated. They are not rich. They are actually average or below average."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/apr/03/james-cenerini/state-union-lobbyist-says-rhode-island-pension-ben/	With Rhode Island facing a financial crisis, the expensive and underfunded state employee pension system is once again in the cross hairs. The conventional wisdom is that state workers who get a pension have a great deal, so it's not surprising that some legislators are looking to scale back benefits, while Governor Chafee wants workers to contribute more. During testimony before the Senate Finance Committee, James Cenerini, a lobbyist for Council 94 of the American Federation of State, Council & Municipal Employees, argued that the state pension system is not as lucrative as most people believe. "When you take a look at, comparatively, our system, to other systems throughout the country, our benefits are not gold-plated," he said. "They are not rich. They are actually average or below average." When we asked Cenerini how he made that comparison, he sent us to the latest report of the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council, which has been comparing public pension systems every two years since 1982. The latest report, released in December 2009, is based on data from 2008. The 2010 report isn't due out until early next year, said author Daniel Schmidt. Neither Cenerini nor the Wisconsin report addressed health insurance benefits for retirees, so they are not considered in this analysis. Even a cursory look at the 87 public employee retirement systems examined in the report (at least one per state) shows that the systems have their own quirks that make comparisons tricky. In addition, some of the information is outdated. The provisions of Rhode Island's pension system, for example, are now less lucrative for employees than they were in 2008. Thus, the data in the report should be regarded as a snapshot in time. But that's the snapshot Cenerini said he used, so we decided to see how Rhode Island stacked up based on the information in that report. We'll take the easy comparisons first. NORMAL RETIREMENT: For Rhode Island state employees and teachers, it was age 60 with 10 years of service, or at any age with 28 years of service. Of the 86 other plans, 42 had a more liberal standard. For example, in Massachusetts, it was age 55 with 10 years of service or at any age with 20 years of service. Rhode Island was right in the middle of the pack. EARLY RETIREMENT: Ten plans had no early retirement provision. Rhode Island allowed early retirement, with a reduced payout, at age 55 with 20 years of service. Sixty three other plans were more liberal, putting Rhode Island well below average. EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION: Rhode Island state employees contributed -- and continue to contribute -- 8.75 percent of their salary to retirement. Only nine plans required a greater contribution and in every one of those plans, except one, retirees would presumably need to set aside extra money because they were not covered by Social Security. (Rhode Island teachers, some of whom are not eligible for Social Security, pay 9.5 percent.) Among plans where workers were eligible for Social Security, only Arizona made employees pay a greater share -- 9 percent. In Kentucky, for example, teachers were paying 9.86 percent, but they were not covered by Social Security; state workers who were eligible paid just 5 percent. (The Chafee administration wants to increase the contribution rate for teachers and non-teachers alike to 11.75 percent.) VESTING: In nearly every retirement plan, you must work for the state for a certain number of years before you are eligible to receive retirement benefits. For Rhode Island, that "vesting" period is 10 years. Seventy of the 86 other plans had a shorter vesting period. TAXED BENEFITS: Rhode Island is one of only a dozen states where state retirement payments are fully taxed by the state. In 12 states they were exempt, in 2 states they were exempt for some workers, in 18 states some retirement income was exempt and 7 other states have no state income tax. So far, based on 2008 data, Rhode Island's system seemed to rank at or below average. Now, it gets a little more complicated. ANNUAL INCREASES: At the time of the report, Rhode Island retirees were entitled to annual cost of living increases of 3 percent. This was the one area where Rhode Island's system clearly offered more money than most. And it was an expensive feature of the plan. Only nine other states were giving 3-percent annual increases, the highest guaranteed increases among the states. Most states -- 18 -- tied increases to the Consumer Price Index, but 7 of those capped the increase at 3 percent; 5 had a lower cap and 6 had a higher. Thirteen states had no system for guaranteed increases, according to the report. STARTING RETIREMENT SALARY: This is the other element that's really important -- the amount of money you make when you begin your retirement. The Wisconsin report didn't compare starting retirement salaries. It simply catalogued the elements each state used to calculate the amount. To do the calculation, you take a worker's final average salary (usually the average of the last three, four or five years of employment), multiply that by the number of years of service, and multiply that by a percentage that varies widely. We couldn't come up with a calculation for every state. Alaska, for example, had a defined contribution plan without a multiplier. A few had a tiny multiplier combined with an annuity. In a few other cases, the report offered only enough information to make a rough guesstimate. Rhode Island, like the majority of states, based the payment on the last three years of service. But while a typical multiplier nationally was around 2 percent, Rhode Island offered 3 percent for the 21st through 34th years of employment. Only workers in Kentucky, New Mexico and New York could get that amount, or more. To get a rough comparison between states, we took the hypothetical case of an employee who was 65 years old, earned $50,000 per year, received 2-percent raises for each of the last 5 years, and was retiring in 2008 after 25 years of service. When we ran the numbers, the hypothetical Rhode Island retiree in 2008 would have received about $25,000 in his first year. Only 11 other states would have paid out more. Suddenly, we didn't rank average or below average. If we had assumed 30 years or more of state employment, Rhode Island's ranking would have been even higher, because of the benefits structure that particularly rewards those who work for the state for more than 20 years. But if we assumed just 20 years of service, Rhode Island's ranking dropped from 12th to 34th. Cenerini correctly points out that pension benefits for Rhode Island employees have been scaled back in recent years. In 2005, for anyone with less than 10 years of service, the minimum age was raised to 59. In addition, the multipliers used to calculate future retirement checks were cut back. The highest -- 3 percent -- was scaled back to max out at 2.5 percent after 30 years of service. (Those changes would not have applied to our hypothetical Rhode Island retiree.) In 2009, the retirement age was raised again, to 62, and the lower multipliers were applied to more people. In addition, the future retirement pay of many workers would be based on the last five years of service instead of the last three, and cost of living increases were tied to inflation, with a 3-percent cap. And in 2010, benefits for future retirees were further restricted: cost of living increases didn’t kick in for three years or longer and they were restricted to the first $35,000. If those changes had been in place years earlier, retirees from 36 states would have had pension checks higher than our hypothetical Rhode Islander. Cenerini said that when he asserted that Rhode Island's pension benefits were average or below average, he was comparing current features of the retirement system to the 2008 national statistics in the Wisconsin study, which offers the best data available. But because the economic crisis is not restricted to Rhode Island, we're not sure that's the best comparison. Other states have dialed back their retirement packages as well. For example, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, in 2010, seven other states scaled back their cost of living increases. In short, the formulas used to determine how much a retiree received in that first check in 2008 made the Rhode Island plan, combined with the 3-percent annual cost of living increase, among the most lucrative in the nation -- if you were employed by the state for more than 20 years. If your tenure was less, the payout was well below average. Other elements of the system would give Cenerini good reason to argue that Rhode Island's state employee retiree benefits are not as good as people think. In 2008: * The amount state workers had to pay for their retirement benefits was second-highest in the country * Employees had to work longer to be eligible for retirement * Most other states let their workers retire at an earlier age or with fewer years of service than Rhode Island * When they retired, Rhode Island was one of a dozen states that fully taxed those retirement checks. But the disadvantages (from the retiree point of view) seem to be more than offset by both the larger initial payouts -- if you worked for the state longer than 20 years -- and the higher cost of living increase that were in place for most who would have retired in 2008. It is true that the benefits have how been scaled back significantly. But retirement packages in other states have been scaled back as well. We do know that in 2008, some retirees got a benefit package that was below the national average while others received above-average retirement pay. The situation may be different today, but we won't know until the 2010 numbers come out next year. So for now, we rate his statement as Half True.	None	James Cenerini	None	None	None	2011-04-03T00:01:00	2011-03-24	['None']
-pomt-05832	"We are poised to get rid of over 1,000 more regulations in 2012."	/florida/statements/2012/feb/17/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-will-repeal-1000-regulations-2012/	Gov. Rick Scott really doesn't like regulations, and he's been pretty clear about that since his first day in office. This year, he says he's got 1,000 regulations in his sights. "My administration eliminated burdensome regulations to make it easier to do business in Florida," he said at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C. on Feb. 11, 2012. "And we're poised to get rid of over 1,000 more regulations in 2012," he added. His statement left the audience applauding and us wanting to know more. Is that repeal count right? In his first executive order Jan. 4, 2011, Scott ordered state agencies to freeze all pending administrative rules -- developed with permission from the Legislature by agencies to implement state law -- and examine existing ones that could be ripe for repeal. His campaign against rules also made the first year in office more complicated. In a brush with the Florida Supreme Court, a majority of justices argued Scott overstepped his constitutional authority by requiring a newly created office to sign off on proposed agency rules. The court didn't overturn his order, so Scott's three-person team of reviewers -- known as the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform -- continued to analyze and issue recommendations on these rules and existing rules. Rules cover a lot of ground, including education, environment, elections, restaurants, barbering, interior design, real estate ... you get the point. One target was a rule related to the illegal act of dwarf-tossing, a September 2011 Tampa Bay Times story reported. A total of more than 20,000 rules are in the Florida Administrative Code. Scott's rule-reviewing office keeps track of these efforts at FloridaHasARightToKnow.com. You can see here how many rules have been identified for repeal. At one point that was above 1,000, but it's now around 800. There's no tally for how many of those have been wiped from the books (unless you look up each rule and cross-check it at www.flrules.org). So we asked Scott's staff to tally how many rules have been repealed and how many were "poised" for repeal. Since June 1, 2011, agencies have repealed 478 rules, said Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz, with 173 being repealed in 2011, and 305 so far in 2012. Plus, 351 rules are progressing through the necessary procedure for repeal as set in the Administrative Procedure Act, involving notices, waiting periods and opportunities for public comment. Another 270 rules, relating primarily to water management districts, could be repealed during the 2012 legislative session. For 2012, that's 926 rules (305+350+270) that have been or are slated for repeal. Wait, there's more! Scott's not the only leader with rules on his mind. Florida legislators embarked on their own mission, ordering agencies in 2011 to review the economic impact of their rules and present biennial reports. Combining the efforts of Scott and the House gives you a bigger number: 2,210 rules and rule subsections recommended for repeal, and 1,624 recommended for revisions, according to a Feb. 13, 2012, House staff report. Most of the rules came from the departments of Environmental Protection, Health, and Business and Professional Regulation. We should be clear that we're not passing judgement on the public good of getting rid of these various rules. Frankly, the rules are too diverse to make sweeping judgments about them, and some simply wipe out rules that accompany outdated, and meaningless, statutes. Instead, we wanted to to see if Scott was accurately describing the magnitude of the changes he's pushing through. Scott is proud of his focus on eliminating state rules (even bragging about it on pre-recorded messages to callers of the governor's office placed on hold). We looked at the numbers and saw he's around where he said he would be, at 926 rules set to be repealed. But a good chunk -- 270 -- would come with the help of the Legislature. We rate this Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2012-02-17T10:27:22	2012-02-11	['None']
-snes-02956	"Obamacare" mandates that no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by an ethics panel.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seniors-beware/	None	Medical	None	David Mikkelson	None	Seniors Beware	3 January 2012	None	['None']
-pose-00860	"This next session of the Legislature ... One thing they (lawmakers) do understand and that is the governor has the ability to keep them in town until they address some issues. So I guess I might as well put them on notice today: We're going to do voter ID in 2011. We can either do it early, or we can do it late. Their call."	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/perry-o-meter/promise/892/ensure-legislature-acts-proposal-requiring-voters-/	None	perry-o-meter	Rick Perry	None	None	Ensure Legislature acts on a proposal requiring voters to present photo IDs	2011-01-25T13:00:07	None	['None']
-hoer-00533	'Meteorologists Predict Record-Shattering Snowfall'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-news-record-shattering-snowfall-report.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	FAKE-NEWS - 'Meteorologists Predict Record-Shattering Snowfall'	September 9, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-04829	Says President Obama said of the national debt, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."	/florida/statements/2012/aug/16/americans-prosperity/obama-national-debt-held-accountable-one-term/	A new commercial from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity accuses Obama of breaking his promises on the national debt. The ad notes, "In 2009, Barack Obama said," then cuts to Obama: "I’m pledging to cut the deficit by half by the end of my first term in office." The words "Feb. 2009, Debt: $10 trillion" flash onscreen. A giant meter titled "the national debt clock" then appears on screen, reading $10.6 trillion. As talking heads recount the upward spiral of the nation’s debt, the clock frantically spins above $15 trillion. Obama is then heard saying, "I will be held accountable" before appearing in a video and continuing, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." The debt clock returns, reading in excess of $15.9 trillion with the tagline, "Let’s make this a one-term proposition on November 6th." In a voice-over, the president is heard repeating, "I will be held accountable." Well, time’s up, Mr. President. Did Obama say he would be held accountable for not halving the deficit in three years? When we went to the tape, we found Americans for Prosperity was pulling together two different interviews, and on two different topics. The deficit debate First off, it should be no secret Obama did, in fact, promise to cut the deficit in half during his first term. We’ve confirmed that before, rating that very claim by Republican Party of Florida chairman Lenny Curry quite True. That ruling pointed out the federal budget deficit -- the difference between what the government spends versus what it takes in -- was $1.4 trillion when Obama took office. It decreased each year, projected to reach $901 billion in the fiscal year 2013 budget, but that’s still over the promised amount, which would have been in the neighborhood of $700 billion. With the presence of the debt clock, Americans For Prosperity is confusing the deficit with the national debt, which is the aggregated total of the nation’s public debt, not its annual budget deficits. AFP didn’t return our request for clarification, so we can only guess if they know the difference. Most Americans don’t seem to know the specifics, either. The promise Obama made was from a White House meeting called the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" on Feb. 23, 2009. "Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office," Obama said. "Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." Note the phrase "we inherited" was removed from the ad’s version. That alone doesn’t make AFP’s usage of the sentence for the purposes of this attack ad untrue; Despite the president’s reasoning that high unemployment, wartime costs and the Great Recession prevented deeper cuts, budget numbers are still budget numbers. Staying on message The selective editing gets worse in the second half of the ad. Obama’s admission that the voters will likely break out the torches and pitchforks if he doesn’t follow through in three years is from a 2009 interview with Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today show. It’s from Feb. 2, however, almost three weeks before his pledge to cut the deficit. And the president is speaking about the Troubled Asset Relief Program, not halving the deficit. During the interview, Lauer asked Obama if the bank bailouts he inherited would be curtailed if spending appeared to be ineffective. (President George W. Bush signed TARP into law October 2008, before Obama was elected.) "Look, I'm at the start of my administration," Obama said. "One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years, and --" "You're going to know quickly how people feel about what's happening," Lauer interjected. "That's exactly right. And, you know, a year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress, but there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." For the record, TARP officially expired in October 2010. The net cost of the program to U.S. taxpayers was reported earlier this year to be in the neighborhood of $34 billion, although questions remain as to exactly how some banks repaid the bulk of some $428 billion in disbursements and whether many banks in the program were going to survive. But no more money is being lent from the TARP fund. We should note there’s been a troubling trend this election season of campaigns splicing together unrelated or out-of-context video of a candidate’s statements. Mitt Romney’s campaign used Obama’s "you didn’t build that" quote out of context, but Democrats have also deceptively quoted Romney’s stance on his Massachusetts ban on assault weapons and dealing with foreclosures. Editing video to make a person say what you want is not a new tactic, nor is it that hard to do -- here’s a video of Obama singing Carly Rae Jepsen’s Call Me Maybe. The ruling Clearly this commercial is edited to remove references to the Bush administration and muddy the context of the president’s comments. Obama irrefutably made the promise in 2009 to slash the deficit in half by the time his first term expired, and that doesn’t look at all possible. But Americans For Prosperity overreaches, splicing together footage from two unrelated interviews to distort the message it wants to convey. Obama wasn’t talking about the deficit or the debt when he said, "If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." In this instance, the piling on is unnecessary to make the group’s point, and it’s intentionally misleading. The ad takes Obama’s comments from an interview about bank bailouts and TARP and makes it look as if he’s talking about the national debt. The use of the debt clock also purposely detracts from the president’s initial statement about the federal deficit. We rate this claim False.	None	Americans for Prosperity	None	None	None	2012-08-16T06:00:00	2012-08-14	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-05157	A woman named Amanda spared her child from blatant human trafficking agents in a checkout line.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amanda-in-longview-trafficking-claim/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Amanda in Longview Trafficking Claim	25 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13617	"Ted Strickland stands in lockstep with Hillary Clinton and the abortion lobby in their desire to force Americans to pay for abortion on demand, up until the moment of birth, with their taxpayer dollars."	/ohio/statements/2016/aug/12/ohio-right-life/ohio-right-lifes-faulty-claims-ted-strickland-abor/	The anti-abortion group Ohio Right to Life circulated a stinging release about Democratic senate candidate (and former Ohio governor) Ted Strickland recently. "Ted Strickland stands in lockstep with Hillary Clinton and the abortion lobby in their desire to force Americans to pay for abortion on demand, up until the moment of birth, with their taxpayer dollars," the Aug. 2 press release reads. Spokeswoman Katherine Franklin of Ohio Right to Life told PolitiFact Ohio that the 2016 Democratic platform inspired their media message. On reproductive rights, the platform reads, "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment." Clinton’s chosen running mate, Tim Kaine, recently faced scrutiny on the subject of the Hyde amendment, which has barred federal funding for most abortions since being signed into law in 1976. In a weekend interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Kaine said that he is personally in favor of the Hyde restrictions, but would support Clinton and the party’s platform to repeal it, as vice president. Because Kaine was somewhat compromised on the issue, Franklin said, Ohio Right to Life wanted to tease out Strickland’s stance on the Hyde amendment. Ohio Right to Life has endorsed Strickland’s opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Rob Portman. Strickland, on Hyde Congress passed the Hyde amendment three years after U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, which upholds a woman’s right to abortion. Its sponsor, Rep. Henry Hyde, a Republican from Illinois, said during a congressional debate, "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody from having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the (Medicaid) bill." By prohibiting federal funding of abortion, the Hyde restrictions primarily affect low-income women on Medicaid. Hyde acts as a rider on federal appropriations bills. As such, it doesn’t have to be "repealed" to be deactivated. Bills on federal spending could just cease to include it. Some states have Hyde-like restrictions on their Medicaid dollars, and would have to change their guidelines to open an avenue to fund abortions if Hyde disappeared at the federal level. When asked his position on the Hyde amendment, Strickland’s spokeswoman Liz Margolis told the Columbus Dispatch, that he favors getting rid of the Hyde restrictions. "Ted stands with the people of Ohio who believe that women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions, and that includes all women regardless of income," Margolis said. As a congressman in 2003, NARAL Pro-Choice America rated his voting record as in line with "pro-life" legislators. On his website, Strickland says he believes that "a woman’s healthcare choices are between a woman and her doctor," which is an indication that he favors abortion rights. But does he agree with abortions "up until the moment of birth?" Due-date abortions? PolitiFact has heard this claim before, directed at Clinton. In a New Hampshire debate in February, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said that Clinton "believes that all abortions should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child." We rated this claim False, because abortions at the nine-month mark just don’t happen. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, told PolitiFact, "If the mother’s life was at risk, the treatment for that is delivery, and the baby survives." Twenty-three states prohibit abortions after "viability," the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, or at about 23 weeks.The reproductive health nonprofit Guttmacher Institute reports that just 5 percent of abortions occur after 16 weeks, and 1.2 percent of abortions occur after 21 weeks. A 2015 documentary followed the practices of the four remaining doctors in the country who will perform a third-trimester abortion. On-demand? Seven states and the District of Columbia have not passed time-frame restrictions on abortions. Franklin, of Ohio Right to Life, uses these as examples of places where a woman could have an "on-demand abortion." But it rarely happens that way, in practice. Even prior to viability, on-demand abortions are impossible in most of the country. Twenty-eight states have legislated waiting periods for an abortion procedure, and 14 states require physician counseling that necessitates two trips to a medical facility prior to an abortion. New Hampshire, Oregon and Vermont have the fewest abortion restrictions. But "on demand" is still a stretch, even in these states. In New Hampshire and Oregon, almost 80 percent of counties have no abortion clinic. In Vermont, there is no abortion provider in 50 percent of the counties. Taxpayer-funded abortions? The Kaiser Family Foundation determined that 13 percent of women of reproductive age are on Medicaid, compared with the 65 percent that had private insurance, as of 2014. Most states have created laws similar to the Hyde amendment and do not fund abortions for low-income women on Medicaid, but fifteen states have mechanisms to use state funds to cover abortions for Medicaid recipients. By the Kaiser Family Foundation’s count, 2.7 million women live in a state where coverage of abortion services under Medicaid, ACA Marketplace plans and/or private policies is limited to cases of rape, incest, and where the mother’s life is in danger. Were the Hyde amendment to be nixed, the number of abortions among Medicaid-eligible women would be expected to increase by approximately 33,000, or an increase of 2.5 percent, according to the Guttmacher institute. Our ruling Ohio Right to Life’s press release said, "Ted Strickland stands in lockstep with Hillary Clinton and the abortion lobby in their desire to force Americans to pay for abortion on demand, up until the moment of birth, with their taxpayer dollars." Strickland supports the Democratic party platform, so although "lockstep" sounds sinister, it simply means Clinton and Strickland hold similar positions when it comes to abortion rights. Those positions are not accurately described by Ohio Right to Life. Abortions "on demand, up until the moment of birth" are a hypothetical non-event, according to health care professionals. As for abortions being paid for with tax dollars, this is a vast oversimplification of rules surrounding Medicaid, which provides health care for poor women. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9c664b20-be6e-46f5-93f4-bb96a98299e7	None	Ohio Right to Life	None	None	None	2016-08-12T14:08:01	2016-08-02	['Ted_Strickland', 'United_States', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-06055	"What’s clear is (Romney) likes firing people."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-accuses-mitt-romney-enjoying-firing-p/	Republican primary front-runner Mitt Romney set off a firestorm on Jan. 9, 2012, when he said, "I like being able to fire people." Or, at least, when he said something along those lines. Romney’s comments, made at the Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, fed into an existing narrative, boosted by other candidates and the media, focusing on Romney’s record at Bain Capital. Supporters and critics sparred over the question of whether Bain, a private-equity firm, was a job creator or a corporate carnivore. So the notion that Romney not only fired people while at Bain but enjoyed it was catnip for news outlets in full New Hampshire primary mode. But did the critics take into account the quote’s context? Not necessarily. For instance, one of Romney’s primary opponents, Jon Huntsman, took a shot at Romney in Concord later that day. "It’s become abundantly clear over the last couple of days what differentiates Gov. Romney and me," he said, according to the New York Times. "I will always put my country first. It seems that Gov. Romney believes in putting politics first. Gov. Romney enjoys firing people; I enjoy creating jobs. It may be that he’s slightly out of touch with the economic reality playing out in America right now, and that’s a dangerous place to be." We wondered whether Huntsman was accurately portraying Romney’s remark. Once you look at the full context of Romney’s quote, it becomes clear that he was talking about the ability to get rid of a health insurance provider if its services are inadequate. "I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me." So Romney wasn't referring to his work at Bain Capital -- or being a boss who relishes firing employees -- but rather the notion of switching service providers. He might as well have been talking about switching cell phone carriers or cable TV companies. Romney himself said as much later in the day: "Things can always be taken out of context. And I understand that that's what the Obama people will do. But, as you know, I was speaking about insurance companies and the need to be able to make a choice. And my comments entirely reflected that discussion, which is we should be able to choose the insurance company of our choice." Our ruling Romney certainly phrased his comment awkwardly enough to give Huntsman support for his attack. But Huntsman distorted the comment by making it sound like Romney was heartlessly firing employees. Huntsman zeroed in on the "firing people" part of Romney’s quote while ignoring the fact that Romney was talking about switching insurance companies. Worse, Huntsman said it’s "clear" that Romney feels that way. In fact, it’s not clear at all. We rate Huntsman’s statement Mostly False.	None	Jon Huntsman	None	None	None	2012-01-11T11:31:28	2012-01-09	['None']
-pomt-14821	"I spent 18 months putting together the sanctions against Iran so that we could force them to the negotiating table."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-helped-usher-iran-negotia/	If it weren’t for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, there likely wouldn’t yet be an Iran nuclear deal, according to the former Secretary of State . While her Republican rivals who oppose the Iran deal might use that line against her, Clinton has touted progress with Iran as one of the hallmarks of her tenure at the State Department. "I spent 18 months putting together the sanctions against Iran so that we could force them to the negotiating table," she said at the MSNBC Democratic forum Nov. 6. She’s said this line a few times throughout her campaign, so we decided to dig into it. According to her campaign, Clinton was referring to her first 18 months as secretary -- from January 2009 to June 2010. During this time, U.S. and global sanctions on Iran increased, it’s fair to say that Clinton and the State Department played a major role in this development. The invitation Upping sanctions on Iran was a clear priority for Clinton’s State Department. She talked at length about the importance of pressuring Iran to discontinue nuclear activity, including through sanctions, at her nomination hearing in January 2009. She and other members of President Barack Obama’s administration regularly spoke publicly about the topic throughout her first 18 months in office. During this time period, the State Department -- top aides and Clinton herself -- led the diplomatic lobbying effort to get other countries to join the U.S. plan to pressure Iran, overcoming large hurdles such as getting Russia and China to get on board. In her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton recalls hashing out final details of a plan over drinks with a Chinese official. In June 2010, the United Nations Security Council approved tough new sanctions on Iran -- including expanding an arms embargo and restricting certain financial and shipping enterprises. At the time, Obama called them "the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government." Those sanctions enabled even tougher measures from the United States and the European Union, which were passed immediately. Congress passed several more bills containing additional sanctions on Iran during the rest of Clinton’s tenure, which ended in early 2013. While the Treasury is the primary agency responsible for enforcing sanctions, Clinton appointed a special adviser in 2010 to oversee U.S. efforts "to ensure full and effective implementation of all U.N. Security Council resolutions related to Iran, including most recently UNSCR 1929." Experts told us that Clinton is correct to take some of the credit for the rapid increase in international sanctions on Iran, and these sanctions were a big part of the reason why Iran rejoined multilateral talks about its nuclear program. The RSVP The State Department was key to getting other countries to go along with and add to U.S. efforts to pressure Iran, said Patrick Clawson, senior fellow and research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He added that her claim doesn’t give enough credit to other players but is essentially correct. Clawson specifically noted that he is "not a fan nor a political supporter of Clinton." The international sanction ramp-up "shocked Iran's leaders," Clawson said. "Besides the pain the sanctions inflicted, they raised the possibility more -- worse -- was coming. That was a key factor pushing Iran to resume more serious talks." There is room for subjective interpretation on who deserves the credit for effective sanctions because many corners of the U.S. government are involved in the Iran effort, said Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution. But the State Department had its hands in every aspect of new sanction-making and implementation, she said. And in the absence of the United Nations resolution -- Clinton’s lobbying success -- it would have been challenging to get a global coalition to significantly ramp up the sanctions, she said. But whether sanctions were a big factor in bringing Iran to the negotiating table is not crystal clear, Maloney said. Iranian officials have historically denied the significance of sanctions, but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said recently that Iran negotiated the deal specifically to have sanctions lifted. Beyond the multilateral effort, Clinton’s team also played a role in the sanctions that Congress passed, said Richard Nephew, an expert on sanctions with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. Lawmakers would not have written that legislation without consulting the State Department and the administration (as evidenced in this 2010 New York Times article). Nephew noted, though, that Congress did pass some sanctions that went further than the administration’s wishes. "Without Secretary Clinton's good diplomacy -- and the message that she radiated down the system to make this a priority and so forth -- you can argue that the reductions would not have been as steep or as lasting," Nephew said. Congress’ sanctions that affect Iran’s oil exports resulted in a 50 percent reduction in oil exports and were instrumental in getting Iran to the negotiating table, said Nephew, who worked at the State Department under Clinton. Our ruling Clinton said, "I spent 18 months putting together the sanctions against Iran so that we could force them to the negotiating table." Clinton’s claim is for the most part accurate, though a little exaggerated. During her first 18 months as secretary, the State Department was at the helm of a global effort to increase sanctions on Iran, culminating in an important U.N. resolution. Clinton was personally involved in these diplomatic efforts and pushed them publicly. And experts said these sanctions, on top of other sanctions passed before and after, were crucial to getting Iran to the negotiating table. However, Clinton wasn’t singularly responsible for the sanctions, just as the sanctions passed under her watch likely weren’t singularly responsible for opening up Iran to talks. We rate her statement Mostly True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-11-23T11:26:02	2015-11-06	['Iran']
-pomt-09016	Says Rep. Ken Legler "voted against installing fire sprinklers and emergency power generators in nursing homes."	/texas/statements/2010/jul/09/boyd-richie/texas-democratic-party-chairman-says-rep-ken-legle/	In an e-mail soliciting donations to the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie calls three Texas House members "tone-deaf Republicans whose agendas don’t align with Texans’ priorities." "It’s time to throw the bums out," the Democratic Party chairman writes in the June 16 blast. Among the D-designated bums: state Rep. Ken Legler, R-Pasadena, who Richie says "voted against installing fire sprinklers and emergency power generators in nursing homes." For real? That fired us up. Kirsten Gray, the party’s communications director, pointed us to a supplemental appropriations bill the House voted on in April 2009. During floor action, Rep. Kristi Thibaut, D-Houston, introduced an amendment to earmark state funds for the Department of Aging and Disability Services to determine the need for back-up generators in Texas nursing facilities, establish a priority list of facilities in case the need exceeded available state funds and allocate state aid to purchase and install the generators. Rep. Carol Kent, D-Dallas, amended the amendment (everyone still with us?) so the study and subsequent installation would also take into account fire sprinklers. Jennifer Brader, Thibaut’s chief of staff, told us Thibaut’s amendment was motivated by Hurricane Rita, which she said disrupted electric power at nursing homes on the coast. "After Rita, it was a couple weeks before everyone got their electricity back on," Brader said. "A constituent in the district brought it to Kristi’s attention." The revised amendment, penciling in about $46.7 million for the department to focus on emergency generators and sprinklers, passed 75-66. Legler was recorded as voting "no." Legler voted for the overall supplemental appropriation act — including the sprinkler amendment — which passed the House 141-5. However, the amendment was subsequently removed by the Senate Finance Committee and did not pass into law. Legler told us that he voted against the nursing home amendment because it was too vague; there were "no parameters on how to spend $47 million of taxpayers’ money," he said, including no direction on how the department would determine that facilities needed back-up generators. Legler also said he didn’t see the point in appropriating money to make improvements in nursing homes when they would soon have to do so themselves anyway. In August 2008, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services had ruled that all nursing homes had to install automatic sprinkler systems by Aug. 13, 2013. Homes are required to pay for the systems, DADS spokeswoman Allison Lowery told us. According to DADS, there are 1,165 licensed nursing homes in Texas, including 26 that do not have sprinkler systems throughout. In August 2008, 40 homes lacked sprinklers throughout and as of March 2009, shortly before the House voted on the amendment in question, 27 homes didn’t have sprinklers throughout. Lowery said the agency doesn’t have a formal plan in place to bring the 26 facilities up to code, but by 2012 facilities will need to show that they’re working to comply with CMS — getting bids from contractors to install the sprinkler system, for example. While nursing homes aren’t required to have back-up generators, Lowery said, all but a few do, because homes are required by state law to have emergency lighting. Where does this history leave Chairman Richie’s charge? All told, his statement leaves out a lot. Legler voted against an amendment that would have paid for DADS to survey which Texas nursing homes needed emergency generators and fire sprinklers and to purchase and install them. At the time of the vote, nearly all Texas nursing homes already had backup generators, according to the state, and more than 97 percent of Texas nursing homes had installed sprinklers. Remaining facilities without sprinklers were facing a federal mandate to follow suit, at their own expense; the amendment could have enabled them to do so at no cost to themselves. By implying that Legler was an opponent of nursing home safety, Richie’s statement painted the situation as far more dire and widespread than it really was. His statement is Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Boyd Richie	None	None	None	2010-07-09T09:54:35	2010-06-16	['None']
-pomt-13428	Says Charlie Crist "stood there, over 3 African-American prisoners in chains, on their knees, on the side of the road. Saying that it was a great sight. Saying we needed to bring it to Florida. And you did this — whether you know or not — on the eve of Juneteenth, the day the African-American community celebrates the end of slavery."	/florida/statements/2016/sep/19/david-jolly/david-jolly-attacks-charlie-crist-saying-alabama-c/	During a congressional debate, Republican U.S. Rep. David Jolly attacked his Democratic opponent Charlie Crist for a proposal to bring chain gangs to Florida when Crist served as a Republican state senator. At a televised debate in St. Petersburg Sept. 19, 2016, moderators from the Tampa Bay Times and 10 News WTSP allowed the candidates to ask the other a question. Crist declined, saying he’d rather save the time for a question from a college student. Jolly used the time to paint a vivid picture of Crist traveling to Alabama in 1995 with Florida’s first African-American corrections secretary to inspect a chain gang in operation. "You stood there, over three African-American prisoners in chains, on their knees, on the side of the road. Saying that it was a great sight. Saying we needed to bring it to Florida," Jolly said. "And you did this — whether you know or not — on the eve of Juneteenth, the day the African-American community celebrates the end of slavery." Crist replied that he was in favor of chain gangs because of the state’s high crime rate at the time (we fact-checked Crist’s rebuttal). He called Jolly’s insinuation that race had anything to do with it "appalling." Did Crist loom over black prisoners in chains and call it "a great sight"? Jolly is right about Crist taking a trip to Alabama to view work crews in that state, but his details need to be revisited. Crist in Alabama Crist earned the moniker "Chain Gang Charlie" by being a champion of bringing chained prison work crews back to Florida, a practice not used since 1946. He sponsored a state Senate bill allowing chain gangs during the 1995 legislative session. Despite criticism that making humans work in chains was inhumane and echoed the days of slavery, the idea gained traction in the state Legislature. In May 1995, he tacked his Senate bill onto an omnibus corrections bill as an amendment, and it passed. "The Department of Corrections shall implement a plan by Dec. 1, 1995, to require that selected inmates perform labor wearing leg irons in chain gang work groups," the measure read. The next month, Crist and state Corrections Secretary Harry Singletary, who had reluctantly agreed to the chain gangs provision, visited the state of Alabama, which had earlier revived the practice. Jolly said the visit was on "the eve of Juneteenth," the anniversary of the June 19, 1865, announcement of the abolition of slavery in Texas. At least one newspaper (the New Orleans Times-Picayune) did run a Cox News Service story about the visit on June 18. But Crist and Singletary actually visited Decatur, Ala., on June 8, the same day the Associated Press snapped the photograph to which Jolly is referring (see above). In the photo, Crist and Singletary are shown watching over at least four inmates having their legs chained together prior to starting work. It’s difficult to determine the races of the inmates in the 21-year-old, black and white photograph, but it was clear from coverage that the vast majority of inmates in the work program were African-American. According to the Cox News Service article, which ran in the Palm Beach Post on June 11, 1995, Crist did say he wanted to bring a similar program to Florida, but he did not call it "a great sight," as Jolly alleged. Jolly spokeswoman Sarah Bascom pointed to that article, in which the reporter wrote, "For Crist, it was a mighty fine sight." But that’s the reporter writing, not Crist talking. The story later quotes Crist as saying, "I see justice. I see justice being done." In an Associated Press story that accompanied the photo, Crist said, "I’m very impressed by what I’ve seen so far." Singletary, meanwhile, had agreed to enforce the law, but was cool to the idea of chaining prisoners together. He said during the trip that he favored chaining a prisoner’s ankles, but not linking a group of people, as Crist and other lawmakers had envisioned. (Crist’s 1997 plan to have chained groups of inmates work along state highways was not heard in committee.) Eventually, the state prison system began the program in December 1995 using only leg irons, calling the groups of inmates "restricted labor squads" instead of chain gangs. Our ruling Jolly said, Crist "stood there, over three African-American prisoners in chains, on their knees, on the side of the road. Saying that it was a great sight. Saying we needed to bring it to Florida. And you did this — whether you know or not — on the eve of Juneteenth, the day the African-American community celebrates the end of slavery." Jolly missed the mark on the finer points of the visit and the photograph. Crist went to Alabama to observe chain gangs in action more than a week prior to Juneteenth. He also didn’t say it was "a great sight," although he expressed his approval of the practice. He also wanted to bring the same style of chain gangs to Florida, which had just passed a law allowing it. The Department of Corrections only implemented individual leg irons later that year. The statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a70ef2b5-29a4-481c-9367-3307b97d5cbe	None	David Jolly	None	None	None	2016-09-19T21:21:19	2016-09-19	['Charlie_Crist', 'Juneteenth']
-pomt-01009	"The reason we even have colleges is that at some point there were politicians who said, ‘You know what? We should start colleges.’ "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/03/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-politicians-get-credit-founding-/	President Barack Obama recently went around the mainstream media and offered sit-down interviews to a trio of YouTube celebrities -- Bethany Mota, GloZell Green and Hank Green. The interviews were live-streamed on Jan. 22, 2015. In the interview, Mota -- a California teen who makes "videos about hair, makeup, fashion, DIY projects, and basically anything that I love" -- asked Obama, "Why should the younger generation be interested in politics, and why should it matter to them?" Here’s how Obama answered: "Well, basically, politics is just -- how do we organize ourselves as a society? How do we make decisions about how we're going to live together? So, young people care about how college is paid for. Well, the truth of the matter is, the reason we even have colleges is that at some point there were politicians who said, ‘You know what? We should start colleges.’ Dating back to Abraham Lincoln, who started something called the land-grant colleges. He understood that government should invest in people being able to get an education and the tools to succeed. You guys are going to be the ones who are using these colleges and universities, and if they are not getting enough funding from government, and your tuition goes up, and you've got more debt, you're the ones affected. So you'd better have a voice and know what's going on about who's making decisions about that." A reader asked us to check out the claim that "the reason we even have colleges is that at some point there were politicians who said, ‘You know what? We should start colleges.’ " Initially, we wondered whether checking this claim would amount to an unfair "gotcha" game, but we were persuaded to rate it after hearing from higher-education historians who found Obama’s claim problematic. The White House told PolitiFact that Obama was basing his claim on the federal government’s longstanding role in creating land-grant colleges, which began with enactment of the Morrill Act on July 2, 1862. The purpose of the law "was to teach agriculture, military tactics, and the mechanic arts as well as classical studies, so members of the working classes could obtain a liberal, practical education," according to the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. The term "land grant" stems from the granting of federal lands to states for the creation of universities. By citing the Morrill Act, the White House has a point. Since 1862, the act has been used to establish more than 100 land-grant colleges in all 50 states, plus additional institutions in U.S. territories. They include such major institutions of higher education as Cornell, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas A&M and the University of Wisconsin. "The fact is, politicians get enormous credit for creating our public universities, and most notably the land-grant colleges," said Barry Toiv, the vice president for public affairs at the Association of American Universities. "It's one of the country's great, democratic, truly American accomplishments." Still, despite the clear achievements of the Morrill Act, Obama outstrips the evidence when he says that "politicians" are "the reason we even have colleges." To start, we looked at the data for public colleges vs. private colleges, as well as the enrollment for each. For institutions, data from the federal Education Department shows that, among four-year institutions, fully 77 percent of them are private. The rate is lower for two-year institutions -- 45 percent are private -- but if you include both categories, it works out to 66 percent private. Since private universities were not typically established by "politicians," this data shows that just one-third of institutions of higher education have a good claim to having been created by "politicians." As it happens, private colleges tend to be smaller than public colleges, so the data for enrollment skews more strongly toward public institutions. But even if you measure by enrollment, private institutions comprise a significant minority, undercutting Obama's sweeping claim. For four-year institutions, 40 percent of enrollment is at private institutions, and for two-year institutions, 6 percent of enrollment is at private institutions. Overall, 28 percent of enrollment is at private universities. It’s also worth noting that many colleges and universities were established in the United States -- and even in colonial America -- before the Morrill Act was passed. More than 70 colleges and universities were founded in what is now the United States prior to 1862, including seven of the eight Ivy League schools (the only exception being Cornell, a land-grant school). More than a dozen universities considered public were established prior to 1862, including the University of North Carolina, the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia. Historians of American higher education told PolitiFact that, in their view, Obama’s description is glib enough to demand a correction. John R. Thelin, a professor at the University of Kentucky and author of A History of American Higher Education, said it’s not even entirely accurate to claim credit for politicians in the founding of "state" schools. "I doubt many of the ‘public (or, ‘state’) colleges and universities were founded by politicians," Thelin said. "Usually some individual or group petitioned and prodded to obtain a charter for the state university. Often, some politicians opposed and obstructed such initiative." More than a century ago in South Carolina, Thelin said, populist lawmaker "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman wanted to close down the elite University of South Carolina, while in the 1920s and 1930s, the University of Georgia continually had to defend itself against a governor who wanted to punish and close down the state university. Meanwhile, in New Hampshire in the early 19th century, a hostile state Legislature wanted to take away Dartmouth College’s charter, he said. Roger L. Geiger, an education professor at Penn State and author of The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II, went so far as to say that Obama’s comment is "an egregious misstatement" that "reflects supreme ignorance of higher education." "Most American colleges and universities were founded when groups of private individuals decided, ‘We should start a college," Geiger said. Geiger said that many urban universities, such as those in Akron and Youngstown, were privately founded; only later were these schools taken over by their states. Temple and Pitt also fall into this category, he said. The pattern of privately founded colleges later being taken over by state governments is clear in the history of "normal schools," the institutions that are now called teachers’ colleges. While some states, such as Illinois, Michigan and New York did establish public normal schools, many other such schools were established privately, including institutions in Pennsylvania and Indiana. After World War II, many of these private normal schools became regional state universities, Geiger said. "Typically the expansion of state systems occurred through the takeover of existing, privately founded institutions," he said. Our ruling Obama said "the reason we even have colleges is that at some point there were politicians who said, ‘You know what? We should start colleges.’ " Even allowing for some oversimplification in a live interview, Obama is exaggerating. Public colleges and universities are a distinct minority of all such institutions, and while they comprise a majority of enrollment nationally, private schools account for a significant minority of enrollment. Meanwhile, historians of American higher education note that even in the case of "public" universities, "politicians" can’t automatically claim credit. The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rated it Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2015-02-03T10:34:14	2015-01-22	['None']
-pomt-14227	Statistics show "you are about nine times more likely to be assaulted by a taxi driver" in Austin than a driver for a ride-hailing service.	/texas/statements/2016/apr/15/ellen-troxclair/ellen-troxclair-lacks-facts-behind-claim-about-sex/	An Austin City Council member made a honk-the-horn statement about passenger assaults as she advocated for voter approval of a proposition that would shrink what the city requires in background checks of drivers who work with ride-hailing services. If approved, the proposal on Austin’s May 7, 2016, ballot would rescind a city ordinance requiring ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft to submit drivers to background checks that include fingerprinting. The revised mandate, preferred by the services, would require background checks but not fingerprinting--unlike what the city requires of taxi drivers and ride-for-hire workers like shuttle, limousine and pedicab drivers. The pro-proposition member, Ellen Troxclair, opened by saying "ride-sharing is safe" during her appearance at an April 10, 2016, forum hosted by the League of Women Voters of the Austin Area. Troxclair, who represents District 8 in southwest Austin, elaborated: "The truth is, if you look at the statistics, based on when TNCs came to town and today, you are about nine times more likely to be assaulted by a taxi driver." TNC means a Transportation Network Company summoned through a mobile phone app. "Let me say that again," Troxclair said. "When you look at the number of taxi drivers and the number of TNC drivers and the number of complaints that APD," the Austin Police Department, "has received over that time, you are about nine times more likely to be assaulted by a taxi driver." Is this so? We ultimately found no one can definitively rule on the relative chances of an assault resulting from riding in an Austin taxi versus a ride-hailed vehicle. Meantime, experts on statistics agreed that Troxclair relied on the wrong indicators to reach her dramatic conclusion. Those analysts included Matthew Hersh, a University of Texas lecturer and proposition opponent who called the calculation fueling Troxclair’s statement one of the worst misrepresentations of statistics he’s seen. Austin Police Department data To our request for Troxclair's backup information, her aide Michael Searle emailed a document he said Troxclair received from the Austin Police Department listing all reported complaints to the police about assaults in taxi cabs or ride-hailed vehicles since 2014. Searle told us Troxclair’s office fielded the APD document in a Jan. 27, 2016, email from Brian Manley, APD’s chief of staff, who wrote: "Please find attached the information you requested on sexual assault allegations against cab drivers and TNC drivers." Manley’s email also included a cautionary note about making safety comparisons based on the raw counts--a note he re-sounded when we asked him about the council member’s "nine times" analysis. His email to Troxclair’s office said: "Keep in mind these are only allegations of a crime, not cases that have been prosecuted," he said. "Also, it is hard to say whether there are more allegations against cab drivers than TNC drivers because we don't know how many rides each provider gave in a given year so we cannot come up with a rate, only the raw number." The document lists 37 reported incidents from Feb. 26, 2014, through Jan. 21, 2016, breaking out to 14 complaints about cabs, 21 complaints tied to vehicles driven for Uber or Lyft and two complaints related to "independent" ride-hailed vehicles. Each date-and-time entry indicates a crime ranging from assault "sexual nature" to sexual assault to rape. Noted: The presented timeframe rolled in a stretch of months before ride-hailing services were city-approved though Searle pointed out that the council approved a resolution in March 2013 stating Austinites had been using phone apps to share rides. Uber has said it routinely offered rides in Austin starting in June 2014. But it wasn’t until October 2014 that the council gave permission to the Uber and Lyft companies to operate, effective a month later. If we limit our focus to the 15 months through January 2016 that taxi cabs and ride-hailing services each rolled with city permission, APD's count of cab-connected assault complaints decreases to six. Shrinking the timeframe leaves unchanged the 23 assault complaints the department lists as related to ride-hailed vehicles. Troxclair’s equation So, how did Troxclair reach her conclusion about the chances of an Austin assault being nine times higher with a cab driver? Searle wrote: "If the estimate is that there are 15,000 TNC drivers, subject to name-based background checks, and there are 913 cab permits, subject to fingerprint background check, then you are 9 times more likely to be assaulted by a cab driver than a TNC driver in Austin." A city spokesman, Bryce Bencivengo, told us by phone the city had issued 915 cab permits at the time Troxclair spoke at the forum though he also said that shouldn’t be read as a count of taxi drivers. Bencivengo said the city also has fielded figures from Uber and Lyft indicating their respective counts of Austin drivers, but each company also says the tallies are proprietary, not to be released to the public. We asked Uber and Lyft for such counts; an Uber spokeswoman, Jaime Moore, said by email it has 15,000 Austin-area drivers, though she later said it’s accurate to say it has over 10,000 drivers in that the count fluctuates. Searle said Troxclair reached her "nine times" conclusion by dividing the 14 cab-connected complaints since June 2014 by the 913 cab permits (getting 0.015) and comparing that to what you get from juxtaposing the 23 ride-hail complaints versus 15,000 ride-hail drivers in Austin (or 0.0015) -- which actually suggests a 10-fold difference. Other analysts We ran Troxclair’s equation and statement past experts on statistics, each of whom flinched. Hersh, who told us he’s donated services to an anti-proposition group, brought up the timeline weakness in considering several months when taxi cabs were legally operating but ride-hailing services were not. He further said it’s not logical to assume driver counts deliver sufficient information to reach relative safety conclusions. Separately, Rachelle Wilkinson, an adjunct professor of statistics at Austin Community College, said the calculations offered by Troxclair aren’t valid ways to gauge the relative incidences of sexual assaults. It’s "comparing apples to oranges (number of sexual assault reports to number of drivers)," Wilkinson said by email. "A much more valid way to look at the data would be to compare the sexual assault reports to the number of rides given---NOT the number of drivers. Taxi drivers tend to drive as their profession or job whereas ride-hailing drivers often do it on the side." That is, the number of rides "given by taxi drivers is likely much higher (per driver) than the number of rides given by ride-hailing drivers (per driver)," Wilkinson wrote, adding that ride counts didn’t appear to be part of Troxclair’s backup. Also, Wilkinson suggested, the probability of such assaults appears to be extremely small whether riding in a taxi or a ride-hailed car, she wrote. Carol Gee, a math professor at Austin’s St. Edward’s University, similarly said by email that from the perspective of a passenger seeking a safe ride, "it is likely more appropriate to measure safety by the number of incidents per trip, rather than the number of incidents per driver." But absent trip data, the experts concurred, there isn’t a fact-backed justification for Troxclair’s statement. Comparisons possible? So, is there a way to compare the chances of assault in the different kinds of rides? Hersh suggested we consult Julio Gonzalez Altamirano, who writes the Keep Austin Wonky blog. By phone and email, Altamirano noted that Austin ride-hailing services lately carry 200,000 "riders" a month, according to a pro-proposition video ad posted April 7, 2016. Meantime, he noted, the Austin Business Journal earlier posted data leading him to estimate there were about 353,000 Austin taxi riders a month in a recent 12-month period. Still, Altamirano said, passenger estimates don’t speak to the types or lengths of trips in taxi cabs versus ride-hailed vehicles. "The more relevant measure for risk assessment is the share of trips or or time spent in vehicle that lead to an incident. We also have to account for potential differences in the underlying populations," Altamirano said. "If almost everybody that takes a taxi is a businessperson going from or to the airport, there might be fewer drunk men and women relative to" passengers in ride-hailed vehicles. "If so, assessing the true risk of each service gets more complicated," he said. "And given that there are millions of trips for both services and a relatively small number of reported incidents, it's very hard to feel confident that there are any clear patterns." We reached out to Uber and Lyft about Troxclair’s statement, also asking for data on trip counts and lengths. By email, Uber’s Moore said Uber trip counts are "not public." A Lyft contact didn’t respond. We also heard back from Troxclair, who stressed by phone that she was clear at the forum that she was qualifying her conclusion by saying it was based on the driver counts for taxi cabs and ride-hailing services. She agreed it would be helpful to have detailed trip-count information. Our ruling Troxclair said statistics show "you are about nine times more likely to be assaulted by a taxi driver" in Austin than a driver for a ride-hailing service. This claim shakes out to dividing oranges into apples and getting grapefruits--a ridiculous notion. Vital data, at the least about the number and length of trips by taxi cabs or ride-hailed vehicles, remains to be seen, making it impossible to definitively say which type of driver or ride more likely risks an assault. It's also worth mention that the chances of assault in either seem very low. This leaves the "nine times" statement incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Ellen Troxclair	None	None	None	2016-04-15T12:52:57	2016-04-10	['Austin,_Texas']
-pomt-02715	Says President Barack Obama "came into office very concerned about" wiretappings but "then he became president of the United States, he got all the briefings … (and) he decided … the balance is probably pretty appropriately struck."	/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/22/bill-kristol/was-barack-obama-against-wiretapping-he-was-it/	Pundits got their turn Sunday to weigh in on the news of the week regarding the National Security Agency’s once-secret surveillance programs, dissecting recommendations to restrict the program from an advisory panel and a ruling from a federal judge that the phone data collection program is likely unconstitutional. Was the news of the week a validation of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, an obvious affirmation of Americans’ privacy rights? On ABC’s This Week, conservative pundit Bill Kristol seemed to downplay the events of the week, calling the judge’s ruling an outlier. "I don’t agree with all the stuff, ‘Thank God for Edward Snowden, we wouldn’t be having this debate.’ We had a big debate in Congress on this in 2006, 2007, and in fact we passed legislation in 2007. We had a big debate about this, President (Barack) Obama discussed this. President Obama is a constitutional law professor, he came into office very concerned about the terrible ..." ABC political analyst Matthew Dowd jumped in as Kristol spoke to say Obama’s performance in this area is "exceedingly disappointing." "I’m sorry, then he became president of the United States," Kristol replied. "He got all the briefings, he saw seriously what was going on, and basically he decided, I think, correctly, that you know what, the balance is probably pretty appropriately struck. Now he’s shifting ... entirely because of optics." PunditFact wanted to know if Kristol is correct about Obama’s evolution on government spying programs. Obama in the Senate In his early years in the Senate, Obama was a reliable critic of the post-Sept. 11 surveillance efforts launched by President George W. Bush. In 2005, the New York Times exposed a Bush executive order allowing the National Security Agency to tap Americans’ international phone calls and emails in effort to track terrorists without seeking search warrants from the courts. The Times reported the agency was still seeking warrants for monitoring domestic communications. As the Senate voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act that same week, Obama decried the administration’s "fishing expedition" of Americans’ everyday electronic records in a floor speech: "This is just plain wrong. ... Giving law enforcement the tools they need to investigate suspicious activity is one thing – and it’s the right thing – but doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans and the ideals America stands for." In a 2006 speech explaining why he would vote against confirming Michael Hayden as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency in 2006, Obama said: "We don’t expect the president to give the American people every detail about a classified surveillance program. But we do expect him to place such a program within the rule of law, and to allow members of the other two co-equal branches of government — Congress and the Judiciary — to have the ability to monitor and oversee such a program." And: "We need to find a way forward to make sure that we can stop terrorists while protecting the privacy, and liberty, of innocent Americans. As a nation we have to find the right balance between privacy and security, between executive authority to face threats and uncontrolled power. What protects us, and what distinguishes us, are the procedures we put in place to protect that balance, namely judicial warrants and congressional review. ... These are concrete safeguards to make sure surveillance hasn’t gone too far." Obama as a candidate for president Fast forward to 2007. Obama is running for president -- and still criticizing Bush for operating without enough oversight. He said the Bush administration "puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide." According to the Des Moines Register (via National Review Online), he said, "When I am president, there will be no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war." The next year, however, he faced charges of flip-flopping on warrantless wiretapping by his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain. At issue was legislation in 2008 that rewrote the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that lays out rules for spying in the country and created a secret court of judges to oversee it. Congress amended the law amid backlash. One of the most controversial questions was whether to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had turned over network data to the government, as the companies were vulnerable to lawsuits following the Times exposé. Obama’s campaign said he would oppose a bill that provided retroactive immunity for the companies. But he ended up joining 68 senators who voted for it, disappointing some on the left as well as advocates of civil liberties. The changes to FISA in 2008 essentially legalized warrantless wiretapping that had been going on, Molly Bishop Shadel, an expert in foreign intelligence law at the University of Virginia School of Law, previously told PunditFact. "Congress expanded the scope of FISA even though it knew or should have known that the NSA had done something questionable," she said. Obama defended his vote to supporters by saying the new law includes checks and balances that weren’t in place before. "Senator Obama has said before that the compromise bill is not perfect," his campaign said in a statement at the time. "Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Senator Obama chose to support the FISA compromise." Obama explained the bill "is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year... (because it) makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court." Still, PolitiFact rated McCain’s claim that Obama flip-flopped after promising to filibuster a bill that provided retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies as True. Obama as president No substantial legislative oversight has been added to the Patriot Act since Obama took over the White House. Obama signed a five-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act in December 2012. The Senate rejected amendments that would have required intelligence agencies to report more information about their work to Congress. Following Snowden’s revelations, Obama defended two surveillance programs using some of the language Kristol mentioned. "You can't have 100 percent security and also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a government," Obama said. "You can complain about Big Brother and how this is a potential program run amok, but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance." We’ll close by looking at Obama’s performance on campaign promises on this subject, including his promise to update the FISA law so there is greater congressional oversight and his promise to "revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision." Obama said he would restrict warrantless wiretapping by strengthening intelligence agencies’ accountability to Congress, which is rated Compromise. Obama signed a reauthorization of the Patriot Act in 2011 that did not include more oversight, though his Justice Department did voluntarily move to add additional measures included in a bill that failed in the Senate. Obama also promised to "revisit the Patriot Act to ensure that there is real and robust oversight of tools like National Security Letters, sneak-and-peek searches, and the use of the material witness provision," which PolitiFact also rated as a Compromise. Our ruling Kristol said Obama "came into office very concerned about" wiretappings but "then he became president of the United States, he got all the briefings … (and) he decided … the balance is probably pretty appropriately struck." That’s true, to a point. Obama’s concerns for Bush-era surveillance tactics have certainly dwindled since he took office -- and he has defended ongoing, recently exposed confidential surveillance programs. But Obama’s opinions shifted even before he moved into the White House. Most notably, he voted for a bill that essentially approved warrantless wiretapping in July 2008. The shift was so notable that his presidential rival at the time called him a flip-flopper. We rate this statement Mostly True.	None	Bill Kristol	None	None	None	2013-12-22T16:13:05	2013-12-22	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-10627	Barack Obama's middle name is Mohammed and he's a "covert" Muslim.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/11/chain-email/not-a-muslim-not-mohammed/	An anonymous chain e-mail claims Barack Obama could be a covert Muslim and his middle name is Mohammed. (For more on this e-mail and its claims, read our story here .) First off, Barack Obama's middle name is not Mohammed; it's Hussein. He was named after his father, a Kenyan who came to the United States from Africa as a student. The e-mail also raises the possibility that Obama is a "covert" Muslim at the same time it attacks his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ, a Christian denomination. This claim seems contradictory at best. Earlier this year, Obama spokeman Robert Gibbs said, "To be clear, Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago." We find this claim to be so wrong we give it our Pants on Fire rating. UPDATE: Barack Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ on May 31, 2008, after church pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. made controversial remarks about U.S. foreign policy and other matters. Obama said he intends to join another church after the election.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-01-11T00:00:00	2008-01-11	['Islam', 'Muhammad']
-snes-01846	Cleveland Browns running back Isaiah Crowell once posted to his Instagram profile an artist's rendering of a hooded man cutting the throat of a police officer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/isaiah-crowell-police/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did NFL Player Isaiah Crowell Post an Image of a Police Officer Being Killed?	24 August 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13353	On Tim Kaine: "In exchange for campaign contributions, he appointed a radical jihadi to the Virginia Immigration Commission."	/virginia/statements/2016/oct/03/chain-email/chain-email-spreads-bogus-claim-kaine-appointed-ra/	A chain email says of Tim Kaine: "In exchange for campaign contributions, he appointed a radical jihadi to the Virginia Immigration Commission." A reader sent us a copy of the Sept. 21 email and asked if it’s true. No group or individual takes credit for the email, but its content is a verbatim copy of a 20-paragraph blog that was posted July 25 by American Thinker, a conservative website. The blog was headlined "Clinton’s VP pick Kaine: Promoting jihadis in America in exchange for cash." The blog names Esam S. Omeish, a Fairfax County surgeon and Muslim activist, as the jihadi with whom Kaine had a "quid pro quo" relationship. Omeish, born in Libya, has lived in Virginia since 1982 and is a U.S. citizen. He’s been chief of the division of general surgery at Inova Alexandria Hospital since 2006. In August 2007, Kaine, then governor, appointed Omeish and nine others to the Virginia Commission on Immigration, a new panel that was set up to advise Kaine on state immigration policies. A month later, Kaine was on a radio show when a caller complained about Omeish’s appointment, saying the surgeon had made controversial statements about jihad and Israel. Kaine said he was unaware of the statements and would look into them. Later that day, Kaine announced that Omeish had resigned from the commission at his urging. Newspapers reported then that the controversy sprang from internet-posted speeches Omeish had given as president of the Muslim American Society, a nonprofit set up to promote charitable, religious and educational causes. In December 2000, Omeish spoke at a rally across the street from the White House protesting Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem. He told the crowd, "... you have learned the way and you have known that jihad is the way to liberate your land." At an August 2006 rally in Washington, when Israel was fighting a border war with Lebanon, Omeish criticized the "Israeli war machine." He called the Israeli action "criminal" and accused the nation of "massacre and genocide against the Palestinian people." Omeish called on people "not to allow an Israeli agenda that controls our Congress and holds us hostage." The day after Kaine ousted him from the commission in 2007, Omeish held a news conference. He said his call for jihad came before the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center and, in using the term, was referring the concept of Islamic struggle rather than a holy war. Omeish said the word "jihad" can be misunderstood in a post 9/11 environment. The Merriam-Webster dictionary says the full definition of "jihad" is "a holy war based on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also: a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline." As for Israel, Omeish said he favored a two-state government in the city with Israel and Palestine. "It is not a call for violence. We never condone terrorists," Omeish said of his speeches. Kaine, in a prepared statement announcing Omeish’s resignation, praised him as a "respected physician and community leader." A spokesman for Kaine said then that the governor was concerned Omeish’s controversial comments would "distract" the commission’s work. The spokesmen also said the governor’s office would improve its vetting of potential political appointees. We tried to reach Omeish, but he did not reply to messages we left with personnel at his office. The money The email, based on American Thinker’s blog, says Kaine appointed Omeish "in exchange for campaign contributions." American Thinker, in making that claim, points to a July 23 blog posted by the Clarion Project, a nonprofit that says it’s "dedicated to exposing the dangers of Islamist extremism while providing a platform for the voices of moderation and promoting grassroots activism." Clarion’s effort to establish a quid-pro-quo link starts with the New Dominion PAC - an organization founded by Arab-Virginians that contributes almost exclusively to state and local Democrats. The blog notes that the PAC from 2003 to 2005 contributed $43,050 to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign, a figure we confirmed through records kept by the Virginia Public Access Project. The blog offers no evidence that the money came in exchange for Omeish’s appointment which, again, didn’t occur until 2007. And records show that Omeish never has contributed money to the PAC. Clarion also seeks to link a payback through the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Fairfax County-based think tank whose stated goal is "to bridge the intellectual divide between Islamic tradition and western civilization." The Washington Post reported in 2006 that a federal grand jury was investigating whether the institute and other Islamic organizations in Northern Virginia were financing terrorist organizations. The blog notes that in May 2011, the institute donated $10,000 to the New Dominion PAC - the organization which years earlier given money to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign. Kaine’s term as governor ended in January 2010 - more than a year before the institute’s contribution to the PAC. The New Dominion PAC did not contribute money to Kaine’s successful 2012 campaign for the U.S. Senate; it was ineligible to give money to a federal candidate, because it never registered with the Federal Election Commission. Records show Omeish never personally contributed money to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign or his Senate campaign. We should note that a small money link can be traced between Omeish and the International Institute for Islamic Thought. In 2009, Omeish ran unsuccessfully in a Democratic primary for a Fairfax seat in the House of Delegates. The institute contributed $3,500 to the campaign - a small fraction of the $143,734 Omeish raised. We found no record, in contrast, of Omeish contributing money to the institute. Our ruling A chain email, based on postings by two conservative blogs, says that Kaine "in exchange for campaign contributions … appointed a radical jihadi to the Virginia Immigration Commission." This refers to a 2007 appointment. The appointee, Esam Omeish, a surgeon and Muslim activist, said in a 2000 speech that the "jihad way is the way to liberate your land." Kaine, when told of the comment seven years later, immediately obtained Omeish’s resignation from the panel. In the aftermath, Omeish said the word jihad has several meanings, and that he was referring to it as an Islamic concept of personal struggle - not a call for holy war. As for the supposed payoff, the email refers to $43,050 in contributions that the New Dominion PAC, representing Arab-Virginians, made to Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign years before Kaine created the advisory commission and appointed Omeish to it. It also refers to $10,000 the PAC - not Kaine -- received from an Islamic nonprofit group four years after the appointment. Kaine was out of office at the time, and there’s no evidence he benefitted from the donation. Federal laws, in fact, barred that money from being advanced to Kaine’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2012. So the claim that Kaine appointed Omeish "in exchange" for political money is based on flimsy happenstance, not fact. We rate it False.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2016-10-03T06:00:00	2016-09-21	['None']
-hoer-01078	Mini Cooper Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/mini-cooper-giveaway-scam-targets-singaporean-facebook-users/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Mini Cooper Giveaway Scam Targets Singaporean Facebook Users	November 2, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-00250	"Dark money is paying for over 80 percent of (Kavanaugh’s) ads."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/05/jon-tester/how-much-dark-money-fueling-kavanaugh-confirmation/	Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., waded into Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination and the millions of dollars that has been spent both for and against the would-be justice. "Dark money is paying for over 80 percent of (Kavanaugh’s) ads," Tester said in Sept. 29 debate. Tester has said he would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Much of that funding has taken the form of "dark money," which refers to political spending by unknown donors for the purpose of influencing public opinion. We found no one who knows how much money in total has been spent in support of Kavanaugh's nomination. On top of that, the dark money groups aren't required in most cases to report their expenditures. But many of those organizations like the publicitly and announce that they're spending millions to get Kavanaugh on the court. And those amounts are substantial. Amount of 'dark money' unknown Tester’s campaign pointed us to a slew of announcements from eight groups that are funding pro-Kavanaugh ads. Here’s their tally as of Oct. 2: Funding for pro-Kavanaugh ads Group Amount Judicial Crisis Network > $6 million Great America Alliance ~ $4.5 million America First Policies ~ $2 million NRA-ILA > $1 million Americans for Prosperity > $1 million Citizens United > $250,000 45Committee $650,000 Great America PAC $448,000 TOTAL: ~ $15.84 million With the possible exception of Great America PAC, none of these groups needs to disclose their donors or their expenditures. In addition to data flagged by Tester’s campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice compiled data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks television ad buys in national markets. Here's their list of pro-Kavanaugh ads as of Oct. 3: Kantar Media data (via Brennan Center for Justice; current as of Oct. 3) Judicial Crisis Network $3,692,730 NRA-ILA $1,243,070 America First Policies $1,109,950 State Government Leadership Foundation $473,230 One Nation $404,440 45Committee $118,490 Citizens United $27,490 Great America PAC $5,550 TOTAL: $7.07 million To be clear, this is an estimate of dark money spending. However, groups like the National Republican Congressional Committee have also spent on advertisements in support of Kavanaugh. Such groups do have to disclose their donors and expenditures, but don't need to do so until the next deadline for the Federal Elections Commission. That means no one can put together a total ad budget favoring Kavanaugh. Without those reports, no one can have a complete accounting of the pro-Kavanaugh ad spending. Nevertheless, this type of spending played a significant role in the Kavanaugh confirmation fight, said Anna Massoglia, an analyst who tracks the flow of dark money at the Center for Responsive Politics. " 'Dark money' does make up a substantial portion of spending on the Supreme Court confirmation fight," she said. "But I would be reluctant to classify all spending on Kavanaugh as 'dark money' due to the structure of some of the entities spending on ads." Our ruling Tester said, "Dark money is paying for over 80 percent of (Kavanaugh’s) ads." We did our best to tally up the outside spending on the Kavanaugh confirmation fight. But it’s difficult if not impossible to conclusively say how much money is involved. Experts said dark money comprises a substantial portion of spending on the Supreme Court confirmation fight. It’s even possible dark money makes up 80 percent or more of the overall share, as Tester said. But we simply can’t be sure. Neither can Tester. And his precise-sounding statement leaves out that important context. We rate this statement Half True.	None	Jon Tester	None	None	None	2018-10-05T15:05:08	2018-10-04	['None']
-snes-05125	Criminals have devised a new cell phone-like gun to fool police officers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cell-phone-pistol-alert/	None	Guns	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Cell Phone Guns	3 March 2016	None	['None']
-goop-01968	Dakota, Elle Fanning “At War”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/dakota-elle-fanning-war-relationship/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Dakota, Elle Fanning “At War”?	1:06 pm, December 24, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11998	"NFL fines Pittsburgh Steelers $1 million each for skipping national anthem."	/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/25/thelastlineofdefenseorg/nfls-goodell-didnt-say-he-would-fine-steelers-play/	A fake news story that said players for Pittsburgh’s NFL team were being fined seven figures for remaining in the locker room during the Star-Spangled Banner is the work of a self-described liberal troll looking to fool conservatives. A story posted Sept. 24, 2017, on TheLastLineOfDefense.org ran with the headline, "Breaking: NFL fines Pittsburgh Steelers $1m each for skipping national anthem." Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially bogus, as part of the social network’s efforts to cut down on fake news. The post noted that "everyone fell in line" with President Donald Trump’s Twitter demand that NFL players "stop disrespecting our Flag & Country" by kneeling during the national anthem to protest racism in America. The website ran an excerpt from a real ABC News story about the Steelers largely electing to not leave the locker room during the song during their Sept. 24 game against the Chicago Bears. More than 200 players across the league chose not to stand to show their opposition to Trump’s criticism. Then the post said NFL commissioner Roger Goodell "announced shortly after the game began that every player who ‘protested’ the National Anthem and showed ‘immense disrespect to our nation’ would be fined a cool million dollars." That isn’t the case, because the article is fake. The same story was reported in posts on many other websites, many without attribution to TheLastLineOfDefense.org. That’s important to note, because TheLastLineOfDefense.org runs only fabricated stories. A footer note on the bottom of the page said "everything on this site is a satirical work of fiction." The site’s "about us" page included a disclaimer that read, "We present fiction as fact and our sources don’t actually exist." TheLastLineOfDefense.org is the source of dozens upon dozens of fake news stories. The website is the brainchild of a man named Christopher Blair, who has told PolitiFact he writes absurd claims strictly to trick conservative readers into believing wild stories. In this case, the website attempted to trick readers into thinking the NFL was punishing the Steelers for refusing to come onto the field for the Star-Spangled Banner. Former Army Ranger Alejandro Villanueva, who served for three tours in Afghanistan, was the only Steelers player to leave the locker room to stand for the anthem. The Tennessee Titans and Seattle Seahawks, who played each other in Nashville, also refused to come to the sidelines for the song. It’s not clear who wrote the Goodell story, as the author is only identified as "Freedom." The author replied to an email we sent but would not provide their real name. In reality, Goodell didn’t fine any team or player, and told Sports Illustrated he supported the teams and players. "The way we reacted today, and this weekend, made me proud," Goodell said. "I’m proud of our league." TheLastLineOfDefense.org was looking to troll readers with a fake news story. We rate this claim Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	TheLastLineOfDefense.org	None	None	None	2017-09-25T15:27:01	2017-09-24	['Pittsburgh_Steelers', 'National_Football_League']
-pomt-09267	Says Texas General Land Office “has earned the school children of Texas $451,932.89 on wind leases that haven't produced a watt of energy."	/texas/statements/2010/apr/30/jerry-patterson/land-commissioner-jerry-patterson-says-wind-leases/	Jerry Patterson, the state land commissioner seeking re-election this year, champions the prospect of gathering electricity from ocean winds in a recent column in the Austin American-Statesman even though no wind turbines have been built in the Gulf of Mexico. “Regardless of any delays,” Patterson says in the column published Tuesday, “the Land Office has earned the school children of Texas $451,932.89 on wind leases that haven’t produced a watt of energy.” Half a mil for school kids without producing electricity? We wondered if Patterson was sparking on extra cylinders. Responding, Patterson said that since the state started leasing the rights to erect wind turbines in about 163,000 acres of Gulf waters in 2005, two companies have paid in the cited money in bonus royalties and delay rentals even though no wind turbines have been built. Land office spokesman Jim Suydam said the total, paid to the state since January 2005, also reflects nomination fees, application fees and interest earned on the collected money. Suydam said nomination fees are what someone pays to nominate a tract of state land for an energy lease. The state then puts the tract up for bid, with the high bidder winning the lease. Rental or bonus payments are the amount someone pays (as determined by their lease with the state) to lease the tract of land for a period of time. Application fees are what they pay to apply for the lease. The agency shared a breakdown showing $44,117 of the total Patterson touts came from leaseholders of acreage on land where turbines have not yet been built. That makes the total income from Gulf leases $407,815. We nudged Patterson about saying he "earned the school children of Texas money” -- does he mean kids are getting checks from the state? “Of course not,” Patterson said. “I don’t think anybody would believe I meant the school children get a check.” (Indeed, land commissioners traditionally mention the "schoolchildren of Texas" in connection with proceeds from state-owned lands; it's hallowed parlance.) Patterson said the described proceeds—like mineral royalties from state lands—went instead to the Permanent School Fund, the state's public education endowment, which had a $22.6 billion balance as of the end of August. The State Board of Education receives a share of earnings from the fund for distribution to school districts on a per-student basis. Also, districts use the fund to back bonds for capital projects, according to the endowment's 2009 annual report. We rate Patterson’s statement as True.	None	Jerry Patterson	None	None	None	2010-04-30T17:42:14	2010-04-27	['Texas']
-pomt-10713	"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right-to-life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment, which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/27/mike-huckabee/the-facts-behind-the-numbers/	Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister and the former governor of Arkansas, has been trying to win over the same social and religious conservatives that Thompson is wooing, and abortion is a big issue for many of them. Huckabee's claim here is technically true: As a U.S. senator from Tennessee from 1994 to 2002, Thompson never earned a 100 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee, the nation's largest and most politically powerful antiabortion group. The group grades each member of Congress on their votes on its key issues, and Thompson's grades, at times, appeared downright dismal: During the last session he served in Congress, 2000 to 2002, he earned a grade of just 33 percent from Right to Life. In 2000, the group gave him a 77. In 1998, his grade was 87. In 1996, he scored 86 percent. But Thompson wasn't losing points for his position on so-called life issues. Rather, he was penalized mainly for supporting a series of campaign finance reform bills that limited how much outside interest groups could give to political parties, and when they could advertise during election campaigns. Many advocacy groups, including National Right to Life, opposed these bills on grounds that they would thwart their influence on Capitol Hill. On issues dearest to the antiabortion movement -- abortion rights, fetal tissue research, cloning, euthanasia and the like -- Thompson was solidly with them. In fact, his staunch opposition to those practices helped earn him the endorsement this month from the National Right to Life Committee, which boasts 3,000 chapters in 50 states. His record includes a vote against a resolution supporting Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that requires all states to permit abortion, and he consistently voted for a ban on late-term abortion, called partial-birth abortion, except when the life of the mother -- not her health - is at stake. He voted to ban abortions in U.S. military hospitals and clinics, voted to block federal funding for assisted suicide, and voted to make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion. "He's got a very pro-life record, and that was a big part of our endorsement – it's not just talking the talk, but walking the walk," David O'Steen, executive director of National Right to Life, said of Thompson recently. "He was there, and he wasn't one of the members that vacillated and you wondered where he was going to be. He was solid." As for Huckabee's claim that Thompson doesn't support a constitutional amendment banning abortion nationwide, that's true. Thompson has consistently opposed such an amendment. He has said he would like the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that each state should then be able to decide whether to allow abortion. Consider this exchange on the Nov. 4 edition of NBC's Meet the Press with Tim Russert: Thompson: I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That's what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that's true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But... Russert: Each state would make their own abortion laws? Thompson: Yeah. But ... to have an amendment compelling — going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go. We find Huckabee's claim about Thompson's antiabortion bona fides to be Half-True. But Huckabee should be careful about casting stones. Last year, citing the 10th Amendment, Huckabee told Right Wing News that abortion should be left to the states.	None	Mike Huckabee	None	None	None	2007-11-27T00:00:00	2007-11-18	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-03197	Dogs and Cats Living Together, Mass Hysteria	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-economy-crashing-quote/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did Donald Trump Say the Economy’s Crashing Would Cause People to Riot for ‘When We Were Great’?	6 January 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05714	"If you look up the dictionary definition of happiness at the time of our founders … happiness was not doing what you want to do but doing what you ought to do."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/07/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-happiness-time-our-founders-was/	When Thomas Jefferson wrote, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," into the Declaration of Independence — just what did he mean by happiness? Probably not what you think he meant, according to Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. "If you actually go back and look up the dictionary definition of happiness at the time of our founders ... happiness was not going out and doing whatever you want to do to make yourself feel good," Santorum explained in a campaign speech near Knoxville, Tenn., on Feb. 29, 2012. "Happiness was not doing what you wanted to do but doing what you ought to do, because that's what leads to true happiness." Doing what you ought to do, huh? We had to know: What did dictionaries say about happiness when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence? Was "happiness" about doing your duty, rather than chasing your desires? We tracked down dictionaries Jefferson would have had in his library, consulted historical references in the Oxford English Dictionary, read source documents for the Declaration of Independence and spoke with historians. As it turns out, Santorum was right in some ways — and very wrong in others. The speech Santorum invoked the wisdom of the founding fathers during his hourlong campaign speech. The Constitution of the United States should be "central to the conversation," along with its companion document, the 1776 Declaration of Independence from the British empire, he said. "You really can't have one — and understand the country — without the other," he said. "While the Constitution is the how of America, the declaration is really the soul of America, the why of America." God is mentioned four times in the declaration, he said, starting with the word "creator" in its most famous sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Santorum mentioned that "life, liberty and property" was the other phrase used at the time — but that for the founders, the term "property" wasn’t enough. "It was insufficient, because ‘property’ is about stuff," he said. "They put the sights at a higher calling: happiness." He continued: "When we think of the word happiness today, we're thinking, is that a higher calling? To go out and do what makes you happy? To go out and seek enjoyment and pleasure? Because of course, that's what we think of today when we think of happiness — things that make you feel good. "But our founders had a fundamentally different understanding of that word, because they understood what true happiness — what process it took to create true happiness. And if you actually go back and look up the dictionary definition of happiness at the time of our founders, it was even there. It was something that was discussed and written about. Happiness was not going out and doing whatever you want to do to make yourself feel good. Happiness was not doing what you wanted to do, but doing what you ought to do, because that's what leads to true happiness." For this fact-check, we’re looking at the claim, "If you look up the dictionary definition of happiness at the time of our founders … happiness was not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do." 'Happiness' We asked Santorum’s campaign for support for his statement but didn’t hear back. Instead, we turned to the Jefferson Library in Charlottesville, Va., down the road from Jefferson’s historic plantation, Monticello. In 1776, a committee of five was assigned the task of writing the Declaration of Independence, but Jefferson wrote the rough draft, including the key phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." So we figured his understanding of "happiness" would be most relevant to this fact-check. Research librarian Anna Berkes pointed us to two dictionaries among those known to be in Jefferson’s collection, by Samuel Johnson and Nathan Bailey. (Jefferson owned the 1775 edition of Johnson’s dictionary, and we consulted the 1773 version, but bear with us. We consulted the matching version of Bailey’s reference work.) Did their definitions of "happiness" talk about "what you ought to do"? Not so much. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language had this to say (we’ve changed some of his F’s to S’s to make it more readable to the modern eye): Happiness 1. Felicity; state in which the desires are satisfied 2. Good luck; good fortune. 3. Fortuitous elegance Bailey’s Universal Etymological English Dictionary defined the word merely as, "Felicity, good Fortune." So, if anything, Johnson’s "state in which the desires are satisfied" would seem to contradict Santorum’s claim that "happiness was not going out and doing whatever you want to do to make yourself feel good." How else would you satisfy your desires? We marched on toward another historical perspective, provided by the Oxford English Dictionary. Jefferson wouldn’t have had the benefit of the authoritative reference — the earlier version wasn’t published until 1898. But the OED catalogs the use of words over time, so it offers a snapshot of "happiness" as Jefferson might have understood it. OED’s basic definition is the "quality or condition of being happy," and includes this citation from Isaac Watts’ book Logick in 1725: "Happiness consists in the attainment of the highest and most lasting natural good." That’s more in line with Santorum’s discussion of "true happiness" but still doesn’t get to the idea of "what you ought to do." Meanwhile, when we looked up definitions of "happy" in the OED, the lengthy entry included the "colloquial, humorous" definition of "slightly drunk: ‘elevated,’" based on two citations, one from the Gentleman’s Mag in 1770. So it seems the understanding of "happiness" in the founder’s era wasn’t entirely divorced from seeking "enjoyment and pleasure." The dictionaries weren't definitive. It was time to move on to other writings. John Locke’s ‘happiness’ We spoke with three historians with expertise in the time period, including one who wrote the entry on "happiness" for the Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution. They agreed Santorum was right in the sense that " ‘pursuit of happiness’ is the pursuit of fulfillment in a wider sense than immediate gratification," said Jan Lewis, a history professor at Rutgers University at Newark who wrote the encyclopedia entry. That’s relatively consistent with Santorum’s claim that happiness "was not doing what you want to do." But Santorum’s claim that to the founders it instead meant "doing what you ought to do" lands him on the wrong side of history, experts said. That’s a puritanical definition out of line with the world of Jefferson. "It wasn't a sense of obligation. It wasn't a sense of oughtness. Rather, it was a more expansive sense of property," Lewis said. "... I guess the closest we could say is ‘well-being,’ being well-situated, being fulfilled." And Jefferson may not have been referring to individual happiness at all, she said — a point of debate among scholars. He may have been writing about a general sense of social well-being, a good standard of living — not about individual desire or duty. "It wasn't an individualist, libertine happiness or individualist pleasure-seeking," she said. "But it wasn't a sense of duty." The founders were rebels, she pointed out. "Jefferson and the founding fathers were not about duty. Duty would have been your obligation to obey the monarch. Duty would have been your obligation to obey priests, to obey the church hierarchy, to find fulfillment in obeying your hierarchy," she said. "… That was not the way Jefferson and the founding fathers thought." Rather, Jefferson was likely drawing on the "happiness" that John Locke wrote about in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, said Richard Beeman, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania to whom we were referred by the National Constitution Center. Locke, a 17th century English philosopher, provided key inspiration for the Americans’ withdrawal from Great Britain, especially with his Second Treatise on Government written in 1682. "Life, liberty and property." That was derived from a phrase of Locke’s. But he had plenty to say about happiness in his essay. Pursuing true happiness was the foundation of liberty, he wrote. And true happiness may mean being "obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases." At last! That’s far more in line with Santorum’s speech than early dictionary definitions. Locke’s happiness required some sense of deliberation, rather than knee-jerk pleasure-seeking. "Whatever necessity determines to the pursuit of real bliss, the same necessity, with the same force, establishes suspense, deliberation and scrutiny of each successive desire, whether the satisfaction of it does not interfere with our true happiness, and mislead us from it," he wrote. And yet, Locke wasn’t opposed to pleasure or feeling good. In his world, the definition of happiness would vary individual to individual. "Men may choose different things and yet all choose right," he wrote. "The mind has a different relish, as well as the palate; and you will as fruitlessly endeavour to delight all men with riches or glory (which yet some men place their happiness in) as you would to satisfy all men's hunger with cheese or lobsters; which though very agreeable and delicious fare to some, are to others extremely nauseous and offensive; and many people would, with reason, prefer the griping of an hungry belly, to those dishes which are a feast to others. Hence it was, I think, that the philosophers of old did in vain inquire, whether summum bonum consisted in riches or bodily delights or virtue or contemplation? And they might have as reasonably disputed whether the best relish were to be found in apples, plums, or nuts; and have divided themselves into sects upon it. For as pleasant tastes depend not on the things themselves, but their agreeableness to this or that particular palate, wherein there is great variety; so the greatest happiness consists in the having those things which produce the greatest pleasure; and in the absence of those which cause any disturbance, any pain. Now these, to different men, are very different things." So to Locke, the pursuit of happiness could mean the pursuit of "doing what you want to do," unlike Santorum what said. Locke just wanted people to be deliberate about their choices and make decisions in their long-term favor. If a man believed there to be no heaven, he might decide, " ‘let us eat and drink’ let us enjoy what we delight in, ‘for tomorrow we shall die,’ " Locke wrote. That example was, to Locke, "why, though all men’s desires tend to happiness, yet they are not moved by the same object." For him, happiness was in the eye of the beholder — and not merely in "doing what you ought to do." In the era, happiness was "a many-definition term, and it's very hard to nail down," said Peter Onuf, a history profesor at the University of Virginia who specializes in the American Revolution. Certainly, "ought" wasn’t part of Jefferson’s definition, according to Lewis and Beeman, also deeply familiar with his writings. "Jefferson would not have said happiness is 'doing what you ought to do,' " Beeman said. Our ruling Santorum said, "If you look up the dictionary definition of happiness at the time of our founders … happiness was not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do." We took him up on that and checked two dictionaries that would have been in Jefferson’s library and one published after the fact with historical references and found no such mention. Although we did read work by philosopher John Locke that might be read as supporting part of Santorum's assertion, Locke went on to say that happiness means different things to different individuals. And historians told us that the notion that happiness means doing your duty or "doing what you ought to do" ran counter to Jefferson's nature and to the nature of other founders. We rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2012-03-07T11:37:28	2012-02-29	['None']
-snes-06022	Former president George W. Bush was arrested in Dallas for cocaine possession.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/burning-bush/	None	Media Matters	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was George W. Bush Arrested for Cocaine Possession?	29 July 2014	None	['Dallas', 'George_W._Bush']
-pose-01137	"Gov. Scott will propose legislation to increase penalties to ensure fines match the value of Florida’s natural resources, and also provide agencies with the flexibility to analyze the past actions of those seeking environmental permits in Florida."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/1223/enact-tougher-penalties-violating-environmental-re/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Enact tougher penalties for violating environmental regulations	2014-12-30T10:51:35	None	['None']
-pomt-14448	"President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/07/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-set-new-wall-street-f/	Just because you've taken money from Wall Street doesn't mean you can't regulate Wall Street. That was the message Hillary Clinton tried to promote during the March 6 debate with fellow Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in Flint, Mich. Sanders has attacked Clinton for accepting a lot of contributions from the financial industry, an industry both Sanders and Clinton say they want to tighten the screws on. Sanders argued that you can't do it when you've accepted as much money from Wall Street as Clinton has. Clinton countered Sunday night that the case of President Barack Obama shows you can. "President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had," she said. "And when it came time to stand up to Wall Street, he passed and signed the toughest regulations since the Great Depression, with the Dodd-Frank regulations." For this fact-check, we're looking at whether Obama set a record for campaign donations from Wall Street in 2008. Given the context, we're only looking at direct contributions made to candidates, not super PACs or other organizations that can accept unlimited contributions. Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin cited a 2012 analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations. It found that Obama received $44.3 million in 2008 from the "finance, insurance and real estate" sector. Four years earlier, George W. Bush had received $36 million. Adjusted for inflation, Bush received $41.1 million in 2008 dollars, making Bush and Obama close, but still putting Obama ahead. But the "finance, insurance and real estate" sector includes industries that go beyond what people traditionally think of as Wall Street. The Center for Responsive Politics has told PolitiFact that the best way to determine what Wall Street is donating is to look at donations from the "securities and investment" category. By that measure, Obama received $17.3 million in 2008 (with Republican Sen. John McCain a distant second at $9.7 million and Clinton in that cycle at third, at $7.5 million). Four years earlier, George W. Bush received $10 million, which is $11.4 million in 2008 dollars. So when it comes to Wall Street contributions, Obama broke the record in 2008. But Obama's support of financial reform may have cost him. When he ran for reelection in 2012, Wall Street sent him $10 million less. He received $7 million for that election cycle. It was Republican Mitt Romney who set the new record — $23.7 million, which would be $22.2 in 2008 dollars. And, for the record, in the current race, the most recent data supplied by the center's website, OpenSecrets.org, shows Clinton with $3.4 million from the securities and investment industry, Marco Rubio with $1.6 million, Ted Cruz with $754,583, John Kasich with $274,317 and Sanders with $108,761. Our ruling Clinton said, "President Obama took more money from Wall Street in the 2008 campaign than anybody ever had." Adjusting for inflation, Obama garnered about $3 million more than George W. Bush if you look at the broad "finance, insurance and real estate" sector. But using the "securities and investment" category, a tighter measure of Wall Street contributions, Obama clearly set a new record in 2008. Yet that record only lasted four years. Romney upped that ante by $5 million in 2012. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True. HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-03-07T12:03:52	2016-03-06	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05878	"President Obama is shrinking our military."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/08/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-shrinking-our-milita/	Is President Barack Obama weakening America’s military? As part of our analysis of a typical Mitt Romney presidential campaign speech, we’ll look at a line he has used about spending on the U.S. military. "President Obama is shrinking our military and hollowing out our national defense," Romney said in a speech after winning the Nevada caucuses on Feb. 4, 2012. First, the president’s official proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 is scheduled to be released later this month. After that happens, Congress will have to pass spending bills and present them to the president for his signature. So there’s a long way to go before the future course of military spending becomes official. In addition, we’re at an unusual period in federal budgeting. On Aug. 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 became law (P.L. 112-25). That was the bill that was passed to head off a looming crisis over the federal debt ceiling. The bill -- which cleared the House, 269-161, and the Senate, 74-26 -- established limits on discretionary spending between fiscal years 2012 and 2021. Some of the budgetary caps mandated by the law were to become effective right away. Other reductions were to be worked out later by a handpicked "supercommittee" made up of House members and senators from both parties. However, the supercommittee failed to reach an agreement on how to make the additional cuts, meaning that -- barring some intervening development -- the required budget reductions will be automatic, across-the board cuts. Though some items such as Social Security benefits were exempted from the automatic cuts, the military budget is not exempt. In other words, a reduction in the military budget was all but destined once the Budget Control Act passed and the supercommittee failed to prevent across-the-board cuts. It’s important to remember that -- despite Romney’s explicit criticism of Obama -- these actions were carried out by both parties. When the House voted on the Budget Control Act, Republicans voted for it by a 174-66 margin, and when it came up in the Senate, Republicans voted for it by a 28-19 margin. And seats on the supercommittee were equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. "The administration’s hands are essentially tied," said Todd Harrison, a fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "Plenty of Republicans voted for this bill, so they are equally culpable." Finally, this is a notable moment for the military budget because the Obama Administration has wound down the U.S. combat presence in Iraq and is aiming to do the same in Afghanistan. This means that money required to fund these operations is poised to decline significantly over the next few years. Iraq cost about $600,000 per troop per year, Harrison said, and Afghanistan costs twice that, once you consider factors including fuel, ammunition, food and support services. Since war funding isn’t subject to Budget Control Act caps, the distinction between war funding and the regular Pentagon budget needs to be noted. Even so, reductions in overseas operations has historically had an impact on the U.S. military budget. "Throughout American history, defense spending has risen and fallen in irregular cycles driven in part by changes in the security environment," Harrison wrote in a new paper. "Since the end of World War II, the defense budget has experienced three such cycles following the end of the Korean War, Vietnam War, and the Cold War." (We took a closer look at this phenomenon last year, in a fact check here.) Now let’s look at the numbers. The Budget Control Act requires $487 billion in defense cuts over 10 years relative to the level of spending the Pentagon was anticipating a year ago. "This means that the Obama administration must for the first time propose a real decrease in defense spending from the previous year’s enacted budget," Harrison wrote. By contrast, he wrote, the administration proposed real increases for defense in each of its previous budgets. On top of this initial round of cuts come the automatic cuts required because of the supercommittee's failure. These amount to $472 billion in the defense budget, to be evenly spread across nine years, from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2021. (That works out to an additional annual reduction of $52 billion a year.) The cuts are to take effect Jan. 2, 2013. The administration has not yet developed a blueprint for living under the across-the-board cuts set in motion by the supercommittee’s failure, but it has discussed some details of its proposal for living under the Budget Control Act’s initial round of spending caps. Here’s a summary table reproduced from Harrison’s report, showing the "base discretionary Defense Department budget" in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. (This chart excludes funding for overseas military operations such as Afghanistan.) Fiscal year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Budget request made in fiscal 2012 $553 billion $571 billion $587 billion $598 billion $611 billion NA Budget request made in 2013 (initial Budget Control Act caps only) $531 billion $525 billion $534 billion $546 billion $556 billion $567 billion Budget under additional across-the-board cuts NA $472 billion $482 billion $491 billion $502 billion $515 billion So even before factoring in across-the-board cuts, the administration is requesting $46 billion less for fiscal 2013 than it had projected would be needed when it released its 2012 budget proposal and $6 billion less than Congress enacted for fiscal 2012. Factoring in the across-the-board cuts only makes these declines steeper. The fiscal 2013 request for overseas military operations -- which is not included in this chart -- amounts to $88.4 billion, mostly in Afghanistan. That’s down from $115 billion for overseas military operations in 2012. How do these reductions translate into boots on the ground and planes in the sky? On Jan. 26, 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta unveiled highlights of the administration’s budget proposal. Harrison summarizes it this way: "Army and Marine Corps end strength will decline by 72,000 and 20,000 respectively, bringing them back to roughly the level they were in 2005. The Army will lose at least eight brigades, two of which will come from Europe. … The Navy will lose some 17 ships ... and the Air Force will cut 10 percent of its 60 fighter squadrons. Overall, $60 billion of the proposed reductions are projected to come from unspecified ‘efficiencies,’ on top of $178 billion in ‘efficiency’ savings projected in last year’s budget. DOD also announced it will propose another round of base closures. Such a move is likely to cost money in the near term and thus does not help the Department achieve the savings it needs" in the short term. It’s worth noting that despite the cuts, the size of the base defense budget -- that is, the budget outside of overseas operational costs -- is poised to increase eventually from its low in 2013, at least in non-inflation-adjusted dollars. Still, if the across-the-board cuts are adhered to, the base defense budget in fiscal 2017 would still be $16 billion lower than it was in fiscal 2012. Our ruling Romney is right that the military is "shrinking," partly due to a winding down of overseas wars and partly due to congressionally enacted budget limits. But to say, as Romney did, that this is being done by Obama -- without acknowledging Republican actions -- ignores what really happened. A majority of House and Senate Republicans voted for the initial caps in the Budget Control Act, and the supercommittee was evenly divided between the parties, meaning that its failure was bipartisan. So we rate Romney’s statement Half True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-02-08T18:21:33	2012-02-04	['Barack_Obama']
-abbc-00362	Ahead of the 2013 federal election the Coalition promised to "build better roads in Perth".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/686-million-to-finish-the-perth-gateway-promise-check/5505064	None	['road-transport', 'industry', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'australia', 'perth-6000', 'wa']	None	None	['road-transport', 'industry', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'australia', 'perth-6000', 'wa']	Promise check: Invest $686 million in the Perth Gateway project	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Perth', 'Coalition_(Australia)']
-snes-00329	Mandalay Bay, the Las Vegas hotel from which a gunman opened fire on a concert crowd of 20,000, filed lawsuits against mass shooting victims.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mandalay-bay-suing-mass-shooting-victims/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Is the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas Suing Mass Shooting Victims?	17 July 2018	None	['Las_Vegas']
-abbc-00125	The Coalition's promise to give Australians a say on whether same-sex marriage should be legal has changed from a planned compulsory plebiscite to a voluntary postal survey, sparking anger from same-sex marriage supporters.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-22/fact-check-same-sex-marriage-postal-survey/8826300	Mr Kirby is correct. The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey — as it is formally known — is not a plebiscite. It will ask people whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. It is voluntary and non-binding, and, indeed, "completely novel". Normally, Parliament would legislate on matters within its power without directly consulting the people. As in federal elections, only Australians named on the Commonwealth electoral roll will be allowed to participate. Mr Kirby's suggestion that it is a "vote of a few citizens" cannot be tested as it remains unclear how many people will actually send in their response.	['gays-and-lesbians', 'marriage', 'sexuality', 'australia']	None	None	['gays-and-lesbians', 'marriage', 'sexuality', 'australia']	Fact check: Is the same-sex marriage survey a completely novel idea that is not actually a plebiscite?	Mon 16 Jul 2018, 8:57am	None	['Coalition_(Australia)']
-snes-04307	Will Mars Soon Appear as Big as the Moon in The Sky?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mars-spectacular/	None	Science	None	David Mikkelson	None	Mars Spectacular	25 July 2003	None	['None']
-snes-01100	At the 2018 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, President Trump told billionaire George Soros to "go to hell."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-george-soros-go-to-hell/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Did Trump Tell George Soros to ‘Go to Hell’ at Davos?	30 January 2018	None	['George_Soros', 'Switzerland', 'World_Economic_Forum']
-tron-01910	Embarrasing first date	https://www.truthorfiction.com/leno-first-date-story/	None	humorous	None	None	None	Embarrasing first date	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04877	Says Mitt Romney opposes requiring employers to cover contraception and would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/08/barack-obama/obama-slams-romney-on-contraception-and-planned-pa/	Barack Obama's campaign must see an opportunity to peel support among women voters away from Mitt Romney because it is running its second ad in two weeks attacking Romney for his stand on reproductive issues. The latest television commercial features two women, Dawn and Alex, talking about Romney. Dawn: "I think Mitt Romney’s really out of touch on women’s health issues." Alex: "This is not the 1950s. Contraception is so important. It’s about a woman being able to make decisions." (As she speaks, a picture of Romney appears beside the words "Opposes requiring employers to cover contraception.") Dawn: "I don’t remember anyone as extreme as Romney." Romney event video: "I’ll cut off funding for Planned Parenthood." Alex: "I don’t think Mitt Romney can understand the mindset of someone who has to go to Planned Parenthood." Romney interview video: "Planned Parenthood. We’re going to get rid of that." Dawn: "I think Mitt Romney would definitely drag us back." The ad is airing in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. Given that PolitiFact recently found the Obama campaign exaggerated other claims about Romney on abortion, we thought it would be worthwhile to check the claim that Romney opposes requiring employers to cover contraception and would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. The contraceptive mandate Romney’s stance on contraceptive coverage became clear during the Republican primaries. Early this year, congressional Republicans made a big push to roll back a provision of the health care law that requires all employers except religious ones to provide birth-control services without any out-of-pocket costs. In the Senate, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., sponsored an amendment that would exempt employers from providing any service that went against their "beliefs or moral convictions." At the time, the issue put the Obama administration on the defensive and the president himself appeared at the White House briefing room to explain a work-around for religious affiliated hospitals, universities and the like. A few weeks later, with a vote on the Blunt amendment pending, Romney was asked where he stood. He told a Boston radio interviewer "Of course I support the Blunt amendment." CNSNews.com, a conservative news service, seeking clarity, wrote about putting the question directly to the Romney campaign. "Will Mitt Romney, on day one, rescind this mandate in its entirety — as the Catholic Church has urged the current administration to do — so that individuals, employers and insurers who have a ‘moral or religious objection to contraception or sterilization’ will not be forced to violate the tenets of their own faith or act against their consciences?" Romney campaign spokesman Ryan Williams responded: "Yes--Gov. Romney would rescind the mandate in its entirety." In April, Romney reiterated his opposition to the current rule at a meeting of the National Rifle Association. He said, "As president, I will abolish it." We conclude from those comments that Romney would not just abolish the requirements for religious organizations, but for any employer that had a moral or religious objection. When the new Obama ad first ran, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul called it a "false ad," but her statement did not provide specifics and the Romney campaign did not respond to our inquiries. Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood, a national network of clinics that provide a range of health services including abortion, has been in the crosshairs of social conservatives for a long time. The federal government pays Planned Parenthood about $75 million a year to offer cancer screenings, breast exams and other care to lower income women. That money cannot be spent on abortion services. But conservatives argue that the federal dollars free up money which the organization uses to underwrite the cost of doing abortions. Mitt Romney has linked that concern to his effort to reduce the deficit. Asked by a Missouri interviewer what he would cut, Romney gave some examples. "Of course you get rid of Obamacare," Romney said. "That’s the easy one. But there are others. Planned Parenthood. We’re going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak. We would eliminate that." We should note that the latest Obama ad edits Romney’s words down to "Planned Parenthood. We’re going to get rid of that." This might give the impression that Romney plans to do away with Planned Parenthood, an interpretation that forced the Romney campaign to clarify what he meant when he first made the statement in mid-March. Campaign officials said he would eliminate the federal payments to Planned Parenthood but would not be getting rid of the organization. Planned Parenthood is a private entity with a total budget of about $1.1 billion, an amount much larger than the direct federal payment. Romney has repeated his plan to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood many times. He said it in a letter to voters that was published in Life News, a self-described pro-life news service. On his website, he goes further and says he will eliminate all family planning funds under the Public Health Service Act. That program, Title X, costs about $300 million and was created in 1970 under the Nixon administration. Our Ruling The Obama campaign ad said that Mitt Romney opposes requiring employers to cover contraception and would eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. Romney has said he would abolish the contraceptive coverage requirement and he has said repeatedly that he would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. We rate the statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-08-08T15:26:45	2012-08-04	['None']
-pomt-03540	An 11-year-old girl was investigated by the FBI and had to pay a $500 federal criminal fine "because she found an injured woodpecker and put it in a cage to make sure that the bird was OK."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/may/28/jim-sensenbrenner/girl-had-pay-500-federal-criminal-fine-rescuing-wo/	U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner went on national TV on May 9, 2013, to talk up the Over-Criminalization Task Force, a new venture praised by groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Heritage Foundation. Supporters say the work of the panel, created by the House Judiciary Committee, could lead to a reduction in federal regulations and a reduced federal prison population. Sensenbrenner, one of the two co-chairmen of the task force, told the Rev. Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club" that some of the roughly 4,500 federal crimes now on the books need to be eliminated. Then the Wisconsin Republican illustrated his point with this claim: "I think the FBI has got much better things to do, for example, than investigate an 11-year-old girl that ended up having to pay a $500 criminal fine because she found an injured woodpecker and put it in a cage to make sure that the bird was OK and that violated the Migratory Bird Treaty Act." That got high marks on our curiosity meter. But how does Sensenbrenner’s claim fare on the Truth-O-Meter? Woodpecker case We found news accounts and a news release from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describing the following incident: On June 13, 2011, Skylar Capo, 11, rescued a baby woodpecker that she believed was about to be eaten by the family cat at her dad’s home near Fredricksburg, Va. Skylar’s mom, Alison Capo, agreed to let Skylar take the bird to their home for a day or two to make sure it was OK. On the way home, the family stopped at a Lowe's store, bringing the bird with them in a cage to spare it from the heat in the car. So, part of Sensenbrenner's claim is accurate: The girl took a woodpecker she thought might be injured and put it in a cage. Back to the story. Inside the store, a woman confronted the Capos, saying she was from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and that it was against the law to take or transport a woodpecker. Capo said that as soon as she and her daughter returned home, they released the bird and reported the release to the Fish and Wildlife Service. But two weeks later, on June 27, 2011, the same woman from the Lowe's store, accompanied by a state trooper, arrived at the Capos’ home. She had already drafted a citation for violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects woodpeckers and numerous other birds. Violation of the act is a misdemeanor and carries a fine, up six months in jail, or both. After the visit, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the agent determined no further action was necessary; and the next day, she canceled the citation she had drafted. Several weeks later, however, Capo received a letter of violation, notifying her of a $535 fine, the possible jail time and a date to appear in federal court. But no fine was ever paid. The Fish and Wildlife Service issued an apology, saying the citation had been processed "unintentionally" and should never have been issued. Our rating Arguing that the federal criminal code should be downsized, Sensenbrenner said an 11-year-old girl was investigated by the FBI and had to pay a $500 federal criminal fine "because she found an injured woodpecker and put it in a cage to make sure that the bird was OK." The FBI didn’t investigate the girl, the citation issued was withdrawn and no fine was paid. We rate Sensenbrenner's statement Mostly False.	None	Jim Sensenbrenner	None	None	None	2013-05-28T09:00:00	2013-05-09	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-pomt-04738	In Massachusetts under Mitt Romney, "unemployment went down, household incomes went up," and the state "saw its credit rating upgraded."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-touts-mitt-romneys-record-massachusetts/	As part of the Republican Party’s continuing effort to celebrate business success and private-sector ingenuity, Paul Ryan offered Mitt Romney as Exhibit A during his convention speech in Tampa. "Mitt has not only succeeded, but succeeded where others could not," the Wisconsin congressman and vice presidential nominee said. "He turned around the Olympics at a time when a great institution was collapsing under the weight of bad management, overspending, and corruption – sounds familiar, doesn’t it?" Ryan then turned to Romney’s four years as governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007 "He was the Republican governor of a state where almost nine in ten legislators are Democrats, and yet he balanced the budget without raising taxes. Unemployment went down, household incomes went up, and Massachusetts, under Mitt Romney, saw its credit rating upgraded." Let’s look at the last three claims. PolitiFact fact-checked the household income trends and found an increase of $5,500 under Romney without considering inflation -- but a decrease in real dollars after adjusting for inflation. That earned a Romney surrogate a Half True for noting only the positive side of the equation. On unemployment, PolitiFact tested a Romney claim that he reduced Massachusetts unemployment to 4.7 percent. We rated that claim Half True; the number was correct, but we ruled that Romney did not deserve as much credit as he was giving himself. The employment situation in Massachusetts was subject to many factors, not just the governor’s policy. Finally, the credit rating. Multiple media accounts, including stories in the Tampa Bay Times and The Hill, have noted that Romney was among the governors who achieved a credit rating upgrade while in office. This was how the Tampa Bay Times put it in a July 15, 2012, story: Romney had an advantage of entering office as the economy was improving — though the state budget did not yet reflect it. He also had the benefit of a 2002 tax increase without having to shoulder any responsibility. In 2004, Romney's administration lobbied Standard & Poor's to improve Massachusetts' credit rating based in part on the extra money generated by that tax hike — which raised capital gains tax rates, eliminated charitable deductions, delayed a planned cut to the state income tax and raised the state cigarette tax 75 cents. A presentation to Standard & Poor's, which was first obtained by POLITICO, included the tax increases on a computer slide that said Massachusetts "acted decisively to address the fiscal crisis. The state's credit rating was upgraded four months later, from AA- to AA." Our ruling Ryan said in his convention speech that when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, unemployment went down, household income went up, and the state’s credit rating was upgraded. Ryan’s claim was well grounded mathematically on the unemployment and credit-rating claims. The income claim comes with a significant footnote: That increase turned to a decrease when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. We also have noted that no governor can take major credit for economic trends in his or her state. Many other facts are at work than just a governor’s actions. On balance, we rate this triple-header a Half True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2012-08-29T23:53:02	2012-08-29	['Massachusetts', 'Mitt_Romney']
-pomt-04280	Says Connie Mack "wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation in order to get $29 million in stimulus for his congressional district."	/florida/statements/2012/nov/02/bill-nelson/bill-nelson-said-connie-mack-asked-stimulus-money-/	Make no mistake, U.S. Rep. Connie Mack, R-Fort Myers, opposes the federal stimulus. He’s decried President Barack Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which poured $787 billion into the economy, a "waste of money" and a move "to ignore the will of the American people." He’s released media statements and ads accusing Obama and Sen. Bill Nelson, whom he wants to unseat from the U.S. Senate, of pushing a stimulus that wasted "millions in taxpayer dollars" on things like cocaine-addicted monkeys. (PolitiFact pegged that ad as Mostly False.) "I’ve said time and time again, we cannot spend our way to prosperity," Mack said in a 2010 media release about the stimulus. That’s why, on the night of the Oct. 17 Senate debate, Nelson was prepared to use Mack’s own political weight against him. "(Mack) rails against the stimulus bill, he didn’t tell you he wrote a letter to the Department of Transportation in order to get $29 million in stimulus for his congressional district," Nelson said. Mack, perhaps prepared for the comment, absorbed Nelson’s punch unruffled. But he also didn’t refute it. That’s why we decided to fact-check for ourselves. We started by asking Nelson’s campaign for evidence. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin gave us a copy of a letter Mack wrote to Secretary Ray LaHood at the U.S. Transportation Department asking for the money on behalf of Charlotte County. Mack’s letter, dated September of 2009, asked the federal government for $29 million to build the Southwest Florida Intermodal and Logistics Center, a project to introduce high-speed rail transportation to Southwest Florida. To read the letter, you’d think Mack not only approves of the stimulus, but believes it’s a potential boon to Southwest Florida’s economy. "This project will establish a connection between Southwest Florida economic centers and the seaports of Tampa and Manatee counties, advancing the region’s economic competitiveness," Mack wrote. The letter continued: "This project is shovel-ready and will facilitate the transportation of goods and people throughout Southwest Florida, spurring economic development in a region crucial to the economic health of the state. These aspects make Charlotte County’s project an excellent candidate for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was designed in part to encourage economic growth through investments and infrastructure." The Transportation Department denied the grant, and the project never got off the ground, said Charlotte County administrator Jason Stotzfus. But Mack also sent at least two other letters to help the county apply for different stimulus grants. "Chances are better if we have the support of our legislators," Stotzfus said. Pietro Nivola, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Mack’s approach to the stimulus is common. "Constituent services is all about responding to appeals and requests," Nivola said. " If people in (Mack’s) neighborhood were thinking here's some money, here's an opportunity...it's incumbent upon him to follow up." In fact, Vice President Joe Biden used a similar gotcha against Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., during the Oct. 11 vice presidential debate. Ryan, looking flustered, replied that all representatives ask for stimulus money for their constituents. Mack political consultant Gary Maloney had a similar analysis, and he offered this analogy. In 2001 and again in 2003, Nelson voted against tax cuts. But when Floridians wrote him for help on tax issues, Nelson didn’t tell those constituents to take a hike because he opposed those bills, Maloney said. "In 2009, Mack voted against the stimulus on principle. Nelson voted with Obama, and the Democrat majority prevailed," Maloney said. "Once the stimulus bill was the law of the land, Mack still represented his constituents. And when Charlotte County applied for funds, Connie naturally helped the taxpayers of his district." Our ruling During the U.S. Senate debate, Nelson accused Mack of denouncing the stimulus but asking for money. It’s no secret: Mack frequently bashes the stimulus as an impediment to economic growth. Yet, his letters suggest he thinks the stimulus money would boost his area’s economy. We rate Nelson’s claim True.	None	Bill Nelson	None	None	None	2012-11-02T16:36:19	2012-10-17	['None']
-goop-02255	Rihanna Expanding Closets To Fit Plus-Sized Wardrobe?	https://www.gossipcop.com/rihanna-closet-weight-gain-wardrobe/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Rihanna Expanding Closets To Fit Plus-Sized Wardrobe?	6:09 pm, November 3, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04367	A cardinal announced that the Catholic Church no longer believes that Jesus will return.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jesus-is-not-coming-back-vatican-says/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Jesus Is Not Coming Back, Vatican Says	27 July 2016	None	['Jesus', 'Catholic_Church']
-pomt-07956	More people die from "medical misadventures" than firearm accidents nationally and in Florida.	/florida/statements/2011/jan/24/national-rifle-association/nra-claims-more-die-accident-medical-misadventures/	Are you more likely to die as a result of an accident involving medical care or an accident involving a gun? The National Rifle Association claims that in Florida and nationally, you are far more likely to die at the hands of a medical professional or procedure -- by accident -- than you are as a result of an accidental firearm incident. We found a reference to that claim in a Jan. 16, 2011, Miami Herald article about Florida lawmakers filing bills related to firearms. The bills are attracting much interest after the Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona that killed six and injured Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. One of the bills, Senate Bill 432 sponsored by state Sen. Greg Evers, R-Crestview, aims to prevent doctors from asking patients questions about their access to firearms and makes violations a felony punishable by up to a $5 million fine. Doctors argue against the proposed law. It also would prohibit physicians from refusing to see patients who won't answer questions about guns and bans the medical staff from writing down information about patients and their guns. This bill, then, is a battle between the gun lobby and the doctors' lobby, two powerful groups in Tallahassee. This Truth-O-Meter isn't going to weigh in on the argument about gun control. Our question: Are the fatality comparisons between medical mishaps and firearms correct? NRA's accident facts The Miami Herald article said NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer cited "statistics showing that medical mishaps kill more people than guns," but did not cite the actual statistics. Hammer said she gave the Herald a one-page document called "Firearms Accidents Facts" compiled by the Unified Sportsmen of Florida in June 2010. The document compares accidental death by firearms to other types of accidents -- from choking to tricycles -- both nationally and in Florida. The Unified Sportsmen of Florida is the state's affiliate of the NRA. The fact-sheet includes comparisons to accidental deaths by "medical misadventures" -- both in raw numbers and in rates per capita -- but doesn't specify the year. Medical misadventures, the handout says, "is a term used by some statisticians to cover 'accidents' by doctors and other medical personnel." Note that this claim covers only gun accidents -- it doesn't include firearm deaths due to murder or suicide. According to the sheet: • Nationally, "4 times more die from 'medical misadventures' " than firearms. • In Florida, "6 times more die from 'medical misadventures' " than firearms. Hammer on Jan. 17 directed us to Mark Overstreet, NRA Institute for Legislative Action research coordinator. He told us that the figures -- compiled by the NRA for Hammer -- were from 2007. He pointed us to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) -- an interactive database that provides customized reports. The death data is compiled by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. This information comes from death certificates filed in state vital-statistics offices and includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners and coroners, according to the CDC. All of the states comply with providing this data. Firearm accident data On the WISQARS website, we searched Fatal Injury Reports 1999-2007 for "unintentional," "firearms," "2007" and "United States." That produced a chart that showed 613 deaths in the U.S. for 2007. Then we queried the same data for Florida and found 16 deaths. CDC's adverse effects data The death data about medical care was far more complex. We'll walk you through the numbers and explain why it doesn't provide a complete picture. We'll also discuss the "medical misadventures" label. On WISQARS, we marked "all intents" and "medical care, adverse effects" for 2007 and saw 2,248 deaths nationwide. For Florida, the number was 108 deaths. We thought those figures sounded awfully low for deaths as a result of medical errors. A 1999 study by the Institute of Medicine, "To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System," concluded that medical error deaths range from about 44,000 to 98,000 a year. Let's summarize what we found before we delve into why the government's data is so low on such deaths: Accidental deaths 2007 Nationwide Florida Firearms 613 16 Medical care adverse effects 2,248 108 What the stats mean We interviewed Robert N. Anderson, chief of mortality statistics at the CDC, to explain what the numbers mean. The deaths are coded by categories, and one category is indeed labeled "misadventures to patients during surgical and medical care." Some examples are an unintentional cut, a foreign object accidentally left in the body during surgery, and contaminated medical substances. Other categories included in "adverse effects:" • Breakdown or malfunctioning of a medical device. • "Surgical and other medical procedures as the cause of abnormal reaction of the patient, or of later complication, without mention of misadventure at the time of the procedure." Anderson told us that refers to procedures such as a patient reacting badly to an organ transplant. • Complication of medical care, which was a significant factor even though the care (such as surgery) occurred more than one year prior to death. This is also often referred to as "late effects," Anderson said. So overall, "medical care, adverse effects" includes both errors and complications. How many errors? We asked Anderson: Are the majority medical errors? "I’m not sure," he wrote in an e-mail. "Only a very few in adverse effects category are explicitly medical misadventures." He added, "Just because a misadventure is not specified, doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. My guess is that many ... (in some categories) are indeed medical errors, but have been characterized as complications." Anderson also explained a key limitation of the data: It is only as accurate as the information provided on the death certificates by doctors. The WISQARS system tabulates types of deaths based on the "underlying cause of death." Suppose a man had heart disease and needed a heart procedure, a doctor punctured his artery during surgery and the patient bled to death. If the doctor reports the underlying cause of death as heart disease, then it won't be counted in the "medical care, adverse effects" category. The CDC offers another source of online data called the WONDER system, which tabulates if a cause of death was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, even if it wasn't listed as the "underlying cause." The most recent year we could look up for WONDER was 2006. The WONDER database showed 22,116 deaths from "medical care, adverse effects" nationwide in 2006 and about 1,319 for Florida. Anderson acknowledges that even that figure is low. The reason, according to Anderson: "The physician who makes the error doesn't have any incentive to report it. Actually they have a disincentive to report it even though it's in the interests of medical care in general to have that information reported. ... We are at the mercy of the cause of death certifier and how thorough they are in their reporting of cause of death." Anderson said he personally finds some studies more believable than others -- for example he disagrees with counting all hospital infections as errors. But he says he agrees with the Institute of Medicine study that put the figure between 44,000 and 98,000 -- and says even though that study is from 1999, he believes little has changed since then. Firearm data is also uncertain Anderson also raised a concern with the firearm data, that self-inflicted gun deaths could be accidental or a suicide, and some could be mis-classified or labeled as "intent undetermined." It's worth repeating that the vast majority of firearm deaths are by suicide and murder -- only a small slice of firearm deaths are accidental. According to the WISQARS data, in 2007 there were 31,224 firearm deaths nationwide -- the largest category was suicide followed by murder. That total number of firearm deaths is many multiples higher than the CDC's count for "medical care, adverse effects" deaths. We asked Hammer, why make the comparison solely on accidents? "When doctors claim that they have a right to question children and the parents of children because they want to prevent deaths by accidents with firearms, the facts speak for themselves," Hammer said. "There are a number of areas dealing with medical care over which they have some control that (doctors) should focus attention on." And Overstreet, the NRA researcher, defends the use of WISQARS data, even knowing its limitations. "We are not looking to jack the numbers up," he said. "We are saying this is what the federal government is reporting." Anderson doesn't disagree. "With the data issues surrounding medical errors, it's a fairly difficult comparison," he said. However, "I don't think they are off base. I don't think they are doing something making an invalid comparison. ... What they are basically doing is looking at the government's underlying cause data. They are not even saying it's a gross underestimate. They are being very conservative here." Our ruling So, is the NRA right to state that, nationwide, people are four times more likely to die from medical misadventures than firearm accidents and that figure drops to six times more likely for Florida? The government's 2007 data shows 613 accidental firearm deaths nationwide compared to 2,248 deaths from medical care adverse effect. That's close to four times, as the NRA handout says. In Florida, there were 16 accidental firearm deaths compared to 108 medical care adverse effect. That's almost seven times, even worse than the six times cited by the NRA. We have two concerns: The WISQARS data comes with a lot of caveats when examining medical errors, and even the gun data may not be perfect. And the NRA's fact-sheet ignores gun deaths from murders and suicides, which take a significantly higher toll than accidents and can't be ignored in the gun debate. For the point the NRA is making -- accidents only, guns v. medical misadventures -- the numbers back up their claims but need clarification and context. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	National Rifle Association	None	None	None	2011-01-24T11:13:24	2011-01-16	['None']
-snes-03132	Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mlk-our-lives-begin-to-end/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	David Emery	None	Did Martin Luther King Say ‘Our Lives Begin to End the Day We Become Silent’?	16 January 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00723	St. Augustine Find - Huge Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/staugustine-giant-rattlesnake.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	St. Augustine Find - Huge Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake	9th July 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-07857	Says his tax and fee cuts will save households "$540 over two years."	/florida/statements/2011/feb/10/rick-scott/rick-scotts-budget-includes-some-big-tax-cuts-not-/	One of the best ways to show voters the impact of tax cuts is to break them down in a way people can appreciate. Take Gov. Rick Scott's budget roll-out the week of Feb. 7, 2011. Scott says his spending plan includes $4.1 billion in tax and fee relief over two years. That sounds good, but it means little to someone unfamiliar with the inner workings of the state budget. So Scott's budget team decided to boil that figure down to show the impact on Florida households. In a graphic showing the proposed tax relief for 2011-2013, Scott's budget gurus added this simple-to-digest sound bite: "Total Savings Per Household, $540 Over Two Years." The figure got repeated by various media outlets. So we wondered, is it right? No doubt about it, Scott's budget proposal includes a variety of tax and fee reductions. Among them: • Reduce the corporate income tax from 5.5 percent to 3 percent in 2011-2012 and from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2012-2013. The rate cut will save those who pay the tax $459 million this year and a little more than $1 billion in 2012-2013. • Reduce the required local effort, a property tax to fund schools, saving taxpayers around $600 million in 2011-2012. The tax cut would carry forward in 2012-2013. • Reduce the property tax collected by state water management districts 25 percent for two years, saving taxpayers $180 million annually. • Reduce unemployment compensation taxes by shortening how long Floridians can collect benefits and making it more difficult for them to be eligible. Scott's office says that will save $630.8 million over two years. • Roll back 2009 Legislature-approved fee increases for driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle fees. Scott says the rollback would save drivers $492 million over two years. • Repeal or alter other small taxes on ammonia, pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, dry cleaning, tires and lead acid batteries, among other things. The changes would save $77 million over two years, Scott's office says. Taken together, Scott's says the savings for taxpayers is $4.1 billion over two years. (For the record, we question that overall figure because most cuts in the second year of Scott's budget aren't additional cuts; they are just the same cuts rolled over.) But what's critical in determining a per-household savings is remembering just who will get the tax breaks. And, who won't. Two of the three biggest tax cuts -- the reduction of the corporate income tax and the changes to the unemployment compensation tax -- apply only to corporations. So unless your household is like Rick Scott's and you own a corporation, you'll see no direct savings under Scott's plans. Supporters of the cuts argue that the benefits could trickle down to average Floridians through additional jobs or cheaper prices for goods and services. But there's no guarantee either will happen. The cuts to the corporate income tax and the unemployment compensation tax make up $2.1 billion of Scott's overall $4.1 billion impact. In comments to the Senate Budget Committee on Feb. 9, 2011, Scott budget chief Jerry McDaniel said Scott's top tax priority was to remove taxes that he says inhibit job creation. McDaniel said Scott particularly wanted to reduce and eventually eliminate the state's corporate income tax. We asked McDaniel after the Feb. 9 meeting if he knew whether the per-household figure accounted for the corporate tax cuts. McDaniel said he did not know and suggested we e-mail the governor's press office seeking clarification. We did, but did not hear back. So we did the math ourselves. According to the U.S. Census, Florida had 6,337,929 households in 2000 (the last year that precise data is available). However, the state's Demographic Estimating Conference meets annually to project the number of Florida households, among other things. At their most recent meeting on Oct. 25, 2010, the group estimated that as of Jan. 1, 2011, Florida would have roughly 7.5 million households. The group's estimates are based on the active number of residential electric customers and residential building permits. Using the most recent household estimate, it's easy to see the error in Scott's tax cut math. Not counting the cuts to the corporate income tax and the unemployment compensation tax, the average household would see in the neighborhood of $267 in tax savings over two years, not $540. ($2 billion / 7.5 million = $267 per household). That's an annual savings of around $134, or less than half of what Scott suggested. The $540-per-household figure Scott used to sell his budget plan is intended to appeal to voters who would relish a hefty tax cut, even over two years. But he failed to factor in that more than half of those tax cuts would apply only to employers, not regular Floridians. In calculating the savings, it appears clear that Scott and his office simply divided the entire tax cut as projected by Scott -- $4.1 billion -- by the entire number of Florida households -- 7.5 million -- to reach their average savings of $540. That's easy math. But it's deceptive. We rate this claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-02-10T16:05:30	2011-02-07	['None']
-pomt-10472	"Hillary Clinton has taken over $800,000 from lobbyists."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/apr/17/barack-obama/clinton-accepts-lobbyist-money/	If you were wondering how Washington works, an ad from the Barack Obama campaign ostensibly offers a primer – "A Guide to Understanding Washington Lobbyists" — while it attacks Hillary Clinton. The Web-only ad outlines the following steps with on-screen text: Step 1: "Lobbyists donate to politicians." Step 2: "Politicians defend lobbyists." Step 3: "Americans pay the price." As part of the first step, the ad states: "Senator Hillary Clinton has taken over $800,000 from lobbyists, more money than any other candidate — Republican or Democrat: * Over $130,000 from energy lobbyists * Over $130,000 from drug company lobbyists * Over $125,000 from health care and insurance lobbyists." We asked the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which categorizes and analyzes political contributions, whether this text was accurate. The $800,000 number is correct. A recent analysis by the center showed Clinton has accepted $865,290 from lobbyists, based on data released on March 20, 2008. The threshold of contributions by industry the ad lists for Clinton is probably too low, said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the center. The center's analysis found the following amounts that lobbyists gave to Clinton: * Energy: $442,800 * Pharmaceuticals/health products: $450,450 * Hospitals, health services/HMOs and insurance companies: $552,050 * Health professionals: $114,755. Based on these numbers, we find Obama's statement that Clinton has taken more than $800,000 from lobbyists to be True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-04-17T00:00:00	2008-04-17	['None']
-snes-05908	The character 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer' was created by a father to bring comfort to his daughter as her mother was dying of cancer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rudolph-red-nosed-reindeer/	None	Holidays	None	David Mikkelson	None	Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer	16 December 1999	None	['None']
-pomt-02068	Since 2000, Texas has reduced "harmful pollutants in the air like nitrogen oxide by 62.5 percent, and ozone by 23 percent--a reduction that is 12 percent greater than the national average."	/texas/statements/2014/may/26/rick-perry/perry-correct-reductions-ozone-industrial-nox-emis/	Gov. Rick Perry visited a familiar boast about the clearing skies of Texas in a May 19, 2014, letter to President Barack Obama that may have tested possible themes of another gubernatorial run for president. Saying Texas employs an "all-of-the-above energy strategy" tapping fossil fuels plus solar, biofuel and wind resources, Perry wrote: "Even as our population has grown by more than 5 million since 2000, we've led the U.S. energy revolution while protecting our environment and reducing harmful pollutants in the air like nitrogen oxide by 62.5 percent, and ozone by 23 percent — a reduction that is 12 percent greater than the national average." 62, 23, 12 — sounds like a quarterback’s call before the snap. We were curious about his numbers. Is Perry right about the pollution reductions as well as the cuts outpacing decreases nationally? A 2010 fact check Perry made a similar claim in June 2010, saying in a press release the "Texas clean air program (has) achieved a 22 percent reduction in ozone and a 46 percent decrease in NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions." He’d earlier cited the same statistic in a letter to Obama. Half True, we found then. Perry accurately recapped improvements in ozone levels. But as for the NOx emissions contributing to ozone levels, his statistic included only one NOx source — industrial — which he did not note. Notably, nearly three-quarters of NOx emissions come from other sources. Also, whether state government merited credit for the improvements struck us as worthy of pause. Even if the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality was responsible for the drop in industrial NOx emissions, federal efforts — in particular, vehicle emission regulations — were a key factor. Significantly, too, the state's ozone-related programs existed to help Texas comply with federal expectations. As noted then, a goal of the federal Clean Air Act is to reduce the levels of what the Environmental Protection Agency calls "commonly found air pollutants." Among those is ground-level ozone, which forms when nitrogen oxide emissions mix with volatile organic compounds in sunlight and heat. Common sources of nitrogen oxides: cars and trucks, power plants and industrial boilers. EPA sets limits on the concentration of ozone, the primary component of smog, in the air. Areas that fail to meet the standard are designated in "nonattainment." Under the Clean Air Act, the state is required to submit plans to EPA that outline how it will clean up areas and meet the federal standard. Figures hold up As in 2010, we asked David T. Allen, a University of Texas professor of chemical engineering, about Perry’s statement. By email, Allen noted that per figures posted online by the TCEQ, Perry’s analysis holds up. Allen also pointed out an EPA web page indicating that nationally ozone levels in 2012 were down 9 percent compared to 2000 with NOx levels down 29 to 50 percent, depending on the measurement applied. Separately by email, commission spokesman Terry Clawson sent us a spreadsheet he described as the basis of the charts. Clawson said the data came from the EPA. Let’s recap the charted changes in ozone, then NOx. Ozone down 23 percent According to a commission chart on a web page last updated April 17, 2014, ozone in Texas decreased 23 percent from 2000 through 2012, as Perry said. (The comparisons reflect what officials call "fourth-high" ozone readings. Clawson emailed us this technical explanation.) A headline on the chart says the ozone decrease for the other 49 states averaged 11 percent. Texas ran 12 percentage points ahead of that. The chart shows ozone decreasing in all but a few states--Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Hawaii and Alaska--with the drop in Texas bested only by Tennessee, California and Georgia. Source: Web page, "Air Quality Successes - Criteria Pollutants," Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, last updated April 17, 2014 (accessed May 21, 2014) NOx from industrial sources down 62.5 percent In the period, Allen emailed, industrial emissions of NOx (not including motor vehicles) in Texas dropped 62.5 percent. He pointed out a commission chart indicating that industrial NOx emissions of more than 300,000 xx tons in 2011 compared to a shade less than 800,000 xx tons per year in 2000, which works out to a 62.5 percent reduction, as Perry said. Source: Web page, "Air Quality Successes - Emissions Inventory," Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, last updated April 17, 2014 (accessed May 21, 2014) Sierra Club stresses federal role For another perspective, we turned to Neil Carman of the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club. By phone, Carman called Perry’s figures accurate though he suggested the cited reductions occurred mainly thanks to federal laws and enforcement. Carman, director of the club’s Clean Air program, said the federal government still considers the multi-county Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas as not attaining minimum ozone standards. He pointed out a Sierra Club press release stating the club on May 20, 2014, filed suit against the EPA for failing to classify Dallas-Fort Worth as having a "severe" ozone problem, an action that would have required polluters to clean the air, the press release says. By email, Carman said the governor's claim misleads by "lumping together Texas' ozone woes in Houston and" Dallas-Fort Worth "with all the other ozone areas in the nation, including areas that have minimal or no problems." A "comparison to other states with few ozone problems is roughly analogous to comparing a driver who gets 30 speeding tickets a year and reduces it by 50% over ten years to 15 per year," Carman said, "while a second driver only had 3 tickets and reduces it by 33% to 2 tickets per year. The first driver had the greatest (percentage) reduction at 50% and the greatest volume reduction but also had the worst speeding record." Earlier, Clawson indicated the gains noted by Perry weren’t entirely due to federal oversight. By email, he noted a 1999 Texas law that required power plants to reduce NOx emissions, also saying other state laws enacted since 2000 stressed energy efficiency, reductions in pollution and renewable energy sources like wind power. Clawson, asked about the bulk of NOx pollution coming from vehicles and non-industrial sources, which Perry’s statement did not take up, said NOx emissions from non-industrial sources in Texas in 2011 were 42 percent less than what such sources emitted in 1999. Our ruling Perry said that since 2000, Texas has reduced "harmful pollutants in the air like nitrogen oxide by 62.5 percent, and ozone by 23 percent — a reduction that is 12 percent greater than the national average." Those figures are accurate, but the claim (like Perry’s 2010 statement) takes into account only one NOx source — industrial — which it failed to note. Nearly three-quarters of NOx emissions come from other sources. Perry’s declaration also didn't reflect on federal laws and oversight that figure into pollution reductions. Texas didn’t make the gains in isolation. We rate the claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b398cd7d-b142-4589-9226-15f4c422d557	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2014-05-26T06:00:00	2014-05-19	['Texas']
-snes-01168	Did the White House Change Outgoing Message on Comment Line to Blame Democrats?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/white-house-comment-line-trump/	None	Politics	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Did the White House Change Outgoing Message on Comment Line to Blame Democrats?	20 January 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00377	"Will work to ensure intellectual property is protected in foreign markets, and promote greater cooperation on international standards that allow our technologies to compete everywhere."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/396/protect-american-intellectual-property-abroad/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Protect American intellectual property abroad	2010-01-07T13:26:57	None	['None']
-pomt-08957	"We have more kids take the SAT than any other state in the nation. I mean a high percentage of our kids take the SAT."	/texas/statements/2010/jul/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-has-high-percentage-students/	As CNBC pronounced Texas the nation's best state for doing business, Gov. Rick Perry offered reasons why Texas is "still on top" during an interview with the business-news network. One of them: the number of Texas students participating in a national college-admissions' exam. "We have more kids take the SAT than any other state in the nation," Perry said on the July 13 CNBC broadcast. "I mean a high percentage of our kids take the SAT." Which is it? Bill White, the Democratic nominee for governor who has stressed education as an important issue, thinks it's neither. "Rick Perry proved again yesterday that he simply can't tell the truth when it comes to education," a July 14 press release from White chided, saying that Perry gave "blatantly false information about SATs." Later that day, the governor's office issued a press release pointing reporters to a July 14 Fortune magazine article that offered four reasons why "Texas beats California in a recession." However, the article also notes that "SAT scores in the state have declined over the last few years, and the state ranked 34th among the 52 states and jurisdictions graded on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) last year." Confused? When we checked with Perry's campaign, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier tweaked the first of Perry's CNBC statements by saying Texas has more students taking the SAT than "nearly" any other state. According to the College Board, which manages the SAT exams, Texas ranked third in 2009 in the number of SAT takers — 141,733 public and private school students. Of course, Texas was also the second-most populous state. California, the most populous state, had the most SAT participants (207,301), followed by New York (159,886). We turned next to Perry's second statement, that a high percentage of "our kids" take the SAT — arguably a powerful talking point because a state's percentage of SAT takers signifies its share of potential college students. According to the College Board in 2009, Texas had the 22nd highest SAT participation rate (21st if you don't count the District of Columbia): 51 percent of Texas students in the class of 2009. The national average was 46 percent. Maine had the highest participation rate (90 percent), followed by New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and D.C. In recent years, neither the percentage of SAT-takers in Texas nor the state's place in the College Board rankings has changed much. In 2008, Texas again came in 22nd, with 50 percent of students taking the test. In fact, as long as Perry has been governor, Texas has ranked 20th, 21st or 22nd. Its share of students taking the test has ranged from a high of 57 percent (2003) to, most recently, a low of 51 percent. So how does the governor's two-part statement score? We'll cut him slack for saying Texas has the most students taking the SAT, since he immediately backed off when questioned. And Texas did have the third-highest number of high-school students who took the SAT in 2009. Perry's statement that Texas has a high percentage of students taking the SAT begs the question: High compared to what? While the share of Texas students who took the test in 2009 exceeded the national average, 20 other states had greater shares of students taking the test including similarly high-population states such as Florida, Pennsylvania and New York. California had a smaller share: 49 percent. We figure "high" means better than barely above average. To stick with the school metaphor, 51 percent is a failing grade. We rate Perry's statement as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2010-07-22T06:00:00	2010-07-13	['SAT_Reasoning_Test']
-pomt-12420	"President Obama became the first president since Carter to leave the White House with a smaller federal prison population than when he took office."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/18/charles-schumer/did-federal-inmate-population-drop-under-obama-fir/	Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently charged federal prosecutors with taking a more aggressive approach to charging defendants, including seeking mandatory minimum sentences. The guidelines, signed on May 10, 2017, moved in a very different direction from what the Department of Justice had been doing under President Barack Obama. Under Obama, the department focused on prosecuting the most serious criminals and finding ways to keep minor or low-level offenders from serving long, mandatory sentences. During a May 18 floor speech, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., made clear that he thought Sessions’ new guidelines were ill-advised. "Thanks in part to this initiative, President Obama became the first president since (Jimmy) Carter to leave the White House with a smaller federal prison population than when he took office," Schumer said. We wondered if that comparison was correct. When we checked with Schumer’s office, a spokesman pointed us to research by the Pew Research Center, a widely trusted independent source. Pew looked at federal Bureau of Prisons data going back to the 1920s and produced this graph showing a sharply increasing federal prison population between about 1980 and 2010. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The graph shows that not only was Obama the first president to see a drop in the federal prison population since Carter, but that only four other presidents (Johnson, Kennedy, Truman and Hoover) oversaw a decline on their watch. Most of the presidents studied -- nine, starting with Coolidge and ending with George W. Bush -- oversaw inmate increases on their watch. We wondered whether Schumer was cherry-picking data from the much smaller pool of federal inmates. In 2015, the number of inmates in state-run prisons was almost seven times larger than the number of federal inmates, and the total number of inmates in state and local facilities was more than than 10 times larger than the number in federal custody. However, we found that the same trends held for state and local inmate populations -- the number declined under Obama for the first time since at least the Carter years. Here are the trend lines for state inmates (dark blue) and local inmates (lighter blue), which we compiled from federal prison statistics: See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Meanwhile, a credible argument can be made that Obama’s policies made a difference in driving the decline. As we’ve reported, Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 into law. It dramatically reduced a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine. And his administration advocated for, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved, the retroactive application of some of the new sentencing guidelines. Ironically, Sessions was among a number of Senate Republicans who spoke in favor of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. "I will not favor alterations that massively undercut the sentencing we have in place, but I definitely believe that the current system is not fair and that we are not able to defend the sentences that are required to be imposed under the law today," he said in a 2009 Senate speech about the bill. James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, said he sees no significant omissions from Schumer’s statement. "The assertion is correct," Fox said. "The reasons are partly strategic and partly being in the right office at the right time. "During Obama's administration, prosecutors were discouraged from seeking unnecessarily long prison sentences for non-violent drug offenders, a practice that the Trump administration wants to change. In addition, the cumulative impact of a declining crime rate had an impact on prison populations." Our ruling Schumer said, "President Obama became the first president since Carter to leave the White House with a smaller federal prison population than when he took office." The statistics bear out Schumer’s assertion, so we rate it True. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Charles Schumer	None	None	None	2017-05-18T17:21:53	2017-05-18	['White_House', 'Barack_Obama', 'Jimmy_Carter']
-pomt-12917	"By funding the authorization that’s already happened a decade ago (in the Secure Fence Act of 2006), we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump’s campaign pledge to secure the border."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/17/luke-messer/rep-luke-messer-correct-2006-act-allows-border-wal/	With Donald Trump days away from taking the presidential oath, Republicans have been examining ways to help him meet his campaign promise of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Critics have called out the proposed wall as a tremendous expense. But Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind., has said the Secure Fence Act of 2006 already supports construction of the border wall. "By funding the authorization that's already happened a decade ago, we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump's campaign pledge to secure the border," Messer said in a CNN story published Jan. 6. We wondered if the 2006 law gives Trump the green light to get started on his immigration promise. Experts told us Messer’s claim is on point. A 2006 law The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush. The act allowed the Department of Homeland Security to "take all actions the secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States." Those actions include the use of personnel, technology and physical infrastructure enhancements, the law says. That authorization of physical infrastructure enhancements could include a fence, wall, barrier, et cetera, said Molly Gillaspie, a spokeswoman for Messer. The 2006 law defined "operational control" as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the country, "including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband." It also directed the department to build two-layered fencing along five stretches of the border, amounting to about 850 miles, according to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report. That double layer requirement was revised by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, the report said. The modification directed the Homeland Security secretary to construct reinforced fencing "along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective and provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational control of the southwest border." Currently, there are 702 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That includes 652 miles of primary fencing, 36 miles of double-layered fencing and 14 miles of tertiary fencing, according to the agency. In a post-election interview Nov. 13, Trump told CBS's Lesley Stahl he would accept fencing "for certain areas … but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate." In a press conference Jan. 11, Trump told reporters, "It’s not a fence. It’s a wall. You just misreported it. We’re going to build a wall." The Secure Fence Act of 2006 gives the Department of Homeland Security some discretion on how they choose to secure the border and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 gave the department greater flexibility, said Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center, a nonpartisan think tank researching global issues. "It is our belief that U.S. Customs and Border Protection can build additional barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border — whether you call these ‘walls,’ fences or other sorts of barriers — in the regular course of its work and without requiring additional authorization from Congress," said Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications and public affairs at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank studying migration policies and trends. A limitation for the construction of the southwest border wall would rise from Congress’ willingness to pay for it, not from needed authorization, said Edward Alden, an expert on border security and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank. The REAL ID Act of 2005, passed by Congress, even gave the Homeland Security secretary the authority to "waive all legal requirements" that may get in the way of constructing border barriers, Alden noted. That authority was used in 2008 by then Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to waive environmental reviews. Our ruling Messer said, "By funding the authorization that’s already happened a decade ago (in the Secure Fence Act of 2006), we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump’s campaign pledge to secure the border." The 2006 law authorized the Department of Homeland Security to "take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States." Those actions include the use of personnel, technology and physical infrastructure enhancements. Experts told us that what’s now needed from Congress to build a wall are funds, not additional permission. Messer’s claim is accurate, we rate it True. Share the Facts Politifact 0 6 Politifact Rating: "By funding the authorization that’s already happened a decade ago (in the Secure Fence Act of 2006), we could start the process of meeting Mr. Trump’s campaign pledge to secure the border." Luke Messer Representative in a CNN story Thursday, January 5, 2017 -01/-05/2017 Read More info	None	Luke Messer	None	None	None	2017-01-17T11:44:02	2017-01-05	['None']
-pomt-11258	"We have spent $7 trillion, trillion with a T, $7 trillion in the Middle East."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-and-7-trillion-dollar-cost-war/	At a campaign-style event in Washington, Mich., President Donald Trump upped the ante on the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When running for president in 2016, Trump said America had spent $6 trillion on its response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks. In Michigan, he added another trillion. "We have spent $7 trillion — trillion with a T — $7 trillion in the Middle East," he told the crowd April 28, 2018. "You know what we have for it? Nothing. Nothing." We found that Trump inaccurately treated money that university researchers have predicted will be spent decades in the future as if it were already spent. The White House pointed to a couple of studies to back up Trump’s number. A 2016 analysis from a Boston University political scientist Neta Crawford calculated that by August 2016, the United States had "already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security." But after adding an estimated $1 trillion for the future cost of treating wounded veterans through 2053, plus money for the Defense Department to fight wars, the total reached nearly $4.8 trillion. Crawford’s paper included this table: In the last row of her table, Crawford adds about $3 trillion in cumulative interest to reach a figure of nearly $8 trillion — over 35 years. She told us she used unpublished projections from the economist who wrote a 2011 paper on the macroeconomic impacts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The estimated future cost of veteran care and debt service also played a role in a 2013 Harvard Kennedy School working paper that estimated long-term costs of $4 trillion to $6 trillion. "The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid," the authors wrote. The key costs in the years ahead were veterans care, replacing military hardware, and interest on the debt that financed the fighting. According to the Congressional Budget Office, recent tax and spending bills make rising debt more likely in the years ahead, adding weight to the projected finance costs associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The authors of both papers acknowledge that there are large uncertainties in predicting costs so many years in the future. Looking at direct spending, the Congressional Research Service estimated in 2014 that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars had cost the United States about $1.6 trillion from 2001 to 2014. That figure did not include ongoing care for veterans. Our ruling Trump said that America has spent $7 trillion on the Middle East. The key flaw is Trump treated long-range estimates as money already spent. The money actually spent so far is closer to $2 trillion. The reports cited by the White House estimated costs about 30 years into the future. The highest estimate in those reports supports Trump’s $7 trillion figure. Still, wounded veterans will need care and debt must be repaid with interest. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-05-01T10:19:50	2018-04-28	['Middle_East']
-snes-06324	Buddhist extremists in India plan to burn down 200 churches and kill 200 missionaries within 24 hours.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buddhist-rampage-in-india/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Buddhist Extremists in India Burning Churches?	7 April 2010	None	['India']
-snes-01305	Redesigned challenge coins given out by President Trump replaced the familiar 'E pluribus unum' motto with Trump's campaign slogan.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-challenge-coins/	None	Politicians	None	Megan Alpert	None	Did Trump Put ‘Make America Great Again’ on Presidential Challenge Coins?	23 December 2017	None	['Donald_Trump']
-vogo-00253	Congress Rescued a Sailboat Race? Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/congress-rescued-a-sailboat-race-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	Congress Rescued a Sailboat Race? Fact Check TV	April 9, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-04141	Says "10 days after Hurricane Katrina, this chamber passed two separate bills amounting to $60 billion. It has been nearly two months since we had Superstorm Sandy, and nothing has passed."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/jan/03/robert-menendez/hurricane-sandy-aid-still-pending-us-sen-robert-me/	Two months after Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of the Garden State, New Jersey officials and residents are still waiting for Congress to sign off on roughly $60 billion in emergency relief aid. But after Hurricane Katrina pummeled New Orleans in August 2005, it only took 10 days for a similar level of federal aid to be approved for that disaster, according to U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez. Raising his voice, the New Jersey Democrat offered that comparison during a Dec. 27 speech on the Senate floor in regard to a $60.4 billion aid package for Sandy victims. The Senate approved the package Dec. 28, but the House has delayed action on the funding. "I want my colleagues to remember that 10 days after Hurricane Katrina, this chamber passed two separate bills amounting to $60 billion," Menendez said. "It has been nearly two months since we had Superstorm Sandy and nothing has passed." Menendez is right. In the 10 days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana, the Republican-controlled Congress approved two bills providing $62.3 billion in emergency funding, and President George W. Bush immediately signed them into law. In this fact-check, we’re not comparing the levels of damage caused by Katrina and Sandy. Our focus is on the timing of emergency appropriations approved by Congress. Here’s how the timing breaks down: Katrina made landfall Aug. 29, 2005, near Buras, La., and continued north toward New Orleans, leaving about 80 percent of the city flooded, according to a report from the National Hurricane Center. On Sept. 2, 2005, Congress passed a bill to provide $10.5 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief related to Hurricane Katrina. Then, on Sept. 8, 2005, Congress passed another bill for an additional $51.8 billion in emergency appropriations. So, 10 days after Katrina reached New Orleans, Congress had approved $62.3 billion in emergency funding. Now, let’s talk about federal aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy. Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City on Oct. 29, ultimately damaging more than 70,000 homes and businesses in New Jersey alone, The Star-Ledger has reported. Parts of New York and Connecticut suffered extensive damage as well. On Dec. 7, President Obama requested $60.4 billion in emergency appropriations to assist the states affected by Sandy. In a 62-32 vote on Dec. 28, the Democrat-controlled Senate approved that amount. But around the same time when the GOP-led House passed legislation dealing with the so-called "fiscal cliff," Speaker John Boehner canceled a vote on the disaster relief Tuesday night. Boehner is expected to schedule a vote tomorrow on $9 billion for the National Flood Insurance Program and another vote on Jan. 15 for the remaining $51 billion in the aid package. Our ruling In a Dec. 27 speech on the Senate floor, Menendez said that "10 days after Hurricane Katrina, this chamber passed two separate bills amounting to $60 billion. It has been nearly two months since we had Superstorm Sandy, and nothing has passed." The senator’s claim is on the mark. Within 10 days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana in August 2005, Congress approved two separate bills providing a total of $62.3 billion in disaster relief funding. The Senate on Dec. 28 approved a $60.4 billion aid package for Hurricane Sandy, but the House has delayed action on the emergency funding. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Robert Menendez	None	None	None	2013-01-03T07:30:00	2012-12-27	['Hurricane_Katrina']
-pomt-03852	"More than 64 percent of minimum-wage earners are women."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/13/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-64-percent-minimum-wage-earners-/	On news of the stock market hitting an all-time high, U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said it’s time to raise the minimum wage. In a news conference on March 7, 2013, Pelosi, D-Calif., announced her support for a bill raising the federal minimum wage from the current $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour. "If we are to honor our commitment to a middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy, we have to reflect ... that intention in our public policy," she said. Then she added, "It is important to note in this Women's History Month, that more than 64 percent of minimum-wage earners are women. So this has a big impact on the financial security of our women." A reader asked us on Facebook about the statistic -- that nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage earners are women. We thought it was an interesting fact to check, and it turns out Pelosi is right. The best source for this information is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. BLS figures show there were slightly more than 3.5 million men and women earning minimum wage or less in 2012, and nearly 2.3 million women at those wage levels. So dividing the total by the women workers gets you to 64.4 percent. It’s interesting to note, however, that people earning the minimum wage account for a very small percentage of people working -- in this case, 2.6 percent of working women. Our ruling Pelosi said 64 percent of minimum-wage earners are women. Government figures from 2012, which are based on census data, back up her assertion. We rate the claim True.	None	Nancy Pelosi	None	None	None	2013-03-13T13:49:07	2013-03-07	['None']
-pomt-10925	"Every time they’ve done those border patrols, they’ve taken out people who have trafficked drugs. That’s the federal government’s role. They’re doing their job."	/new-hampshire/statements/2018/jul/27/chris-sununu/sununu-says-nabbing-drug-traffickers-border-patrol/	As the country was debating a federal policy of separating children and parents when they illegally enter the country, New Hampshire has been home to its own immigration debate. For almost a year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents have set up shop on Interstate 93 in Woodstock, conducting a mandatory checkpoint for southbound vehicles on summer weekends. Motorists passing through are lined up, stopped and questioned by agents on their citizenship. Some applauded the checkpoints as a useful front in northern border control, but civil libertarians bristled at what they see as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Recently, Gov. Chris Sununu defended the use of the checkpoints, invoking a well-publicized side effect of the stops: drug enforcement. "Every time they’ve done those border patrols, they’ve taken out people who have trafficked drugs," Sununu said on June 26. "That’s the federal government’s role. They’re doing their job." PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to explore whether arresting people for drug offenses is part of the federal government’s role at immigration checkpoints within the Granite State. Backing up the statement, Sununu’s spokesman pointed to the Customs and Border Patrol mission statement relating to the drug checks, which is two fold: "Traffic checks are conducted on major highways leading away from the border to (1) detect and apprehend illegal aliens attempting to travel further into the interior of the United States after evading detection at the border and (2) to detect illegal narcotics," the agency states on its website. And Sununu is correct that the federal government has used the checkpoints in the recent past to facilitate drug arrests, according to Customs and Border Patrol and widespread media coverage of the stops. But a series of court decisions indicate that Sununu’s characterization is at odds with state and federal law. To start, the drug arrests were carried out by local law enforcement, not by federal agents directly. Over two multi-day stops in 2017, federal agents netted 984 grams (2.2 pounds) of marijuana and other drugs in narcotics, news releases said. But the 18 arrests for drug possession were handed over to the town of Woodstock Police Department, according to a CBP spokeswoman and Ryan Oleson, Woodstock Police Chief. In other words, the federal agents aren’t the ones making drug arrests. Local police are. During the same checkpoint, federal agents said they arrested eight people who did not have a valid immigration status, two of whom had overstayed their visa. The individuals were from Bulgaria, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala. In total, 55 undocumented people have been detained and turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the four checkpoints set up since August 2017, according to CBP. Four more are planned this summer. Still, regardless of which agency brought out the handcuffs, Sununu’s comment raises a more basic question: Do drug arrests conducted at checkpoints fall under "the federal government’s role" - specifically Customs and Border Protection’s role? And Sununu’s comment about the "federal government's role" raises a larger question about the purpose of the checkpoints -- are they to catch illegal immigrants or drug offenders? On this, the U.S. Supreme Court and state Supreme Court are clear: The checkpoints must be intended for immigration enforcement, not drug searches. The federal precedent Inland border checkpoints -- those positioned up to 100 miles of the physical border -- have been in use since at least 1953, when a U.S. Department of Justice rule was passed authorizing the practice. They cleared their first major legal test in 1976, in the Supreme Court case U.S. vs. Martinez-Fuerte. In that case, three people arrested at a checkpoint at an interstate between San Diego and Los Angeles were appealing their immigration charges on constitutional grounds. The court held that immigration checkpoints did not constitute a violation on the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure -- even without specific probable cause. The decision gave the green light to inland CBP checkpoints in dozens of other states, including New Hampshire. But Martinez-Fuerte did not uphold the use of those checkpoints for searches of vehicles. The majority opinion made clear that the role of the checkpoints was to into citizenship status and papers, and expressly forbade automatic searches. "Neither the vehicle nor its occupants are searched, and visual inspection of the vehicle is limited to what can be seen without a search," wrote Justice Lewis Powell, Jr. for the majority. That distinction was made even more clear in Indianapolis v. Edmond, a 2000 decision that centered on a targeted drug enforcement initiative. In 1998, Indianapolis operated a series of vehicle checkpoints specifically designed to interdict drugs. But the Supreme Court took issue, finding the practice of mandatory vehicle searches without probable clause a clear Fourth Amendment violation. In that decision, the court drew a line between the drug searches and other forms of stops. Immigration checkpoints near the border were established by Martinez-Fuerte, the court held. And the court had already separately held that sobriety checkpoints — directly connected to the act and dangers of driving — were not overly-intrusive. But the drug possession checkpoints were inappropriate, the justices decided. Today, Customs and Border Patrol officials are careful to characterize any drug arrests as ancillary to the primary purpose of the checkpoints: immigration checks. Shortly after the second New Hampshire checkpoint of 2017 — held in September — Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman Stephanie Malin made clear the boundaries of permitted behavior in a statement to the Monitor. "At a Border Patrol checkpoint, an agent may question a vehicle’s occupants about their citizenship, place of birth, and request document proof of immigration status, how legal status was obtained and make quick observations of what is in plain view in the interior of the vehicle," she said. However, she added: "While running immigration checkpoints agents will sometimes encounter subjects with illegal contraband. In these instances, we will work with our state and local partners to mitigate the case accordingly." The ‘Live Free or Die’ exception Even though the Supreme Court has made clear what the primary purpose of the checkpoints should be, it hasn’t prevented the drug arrests that sometimes accompany them. In fact, courts in several states have held that those arrests are valid, even when done using drug sniffing dogs and a lack of specific probable cause. That’s where New Hampshire differs. In a May 1 state circuit court decision, Judge Thomas Rappa, Jr. moved to suppress drug evidence collected during the 2017 checkpoints. Federal officers walked drug sniffing dogs between the cars and those vehicles that the dogs "alerted" were pulled aside and searched. The evidence collected in this manner was used to support possession charges against 18 people charged with drug offenses, all U.S. citizens. "The CBP (border patrol) and the WPD (Woodstock Police Department) were working in collaboration with each other with the understanding that the WPD would take possession of any drugs seized below the federal guidelines for prosecution in federal court and bring charges in this court based on that evidence," Rappa wrote. "The evidence was seized in violation of constitutional rights recognized by the New Hampshire Supreme Court." Rappa indicated that the underpinning reasons have more to do with the state constitution than the federal constitution. While courts have allowed such drug arrests to stand in neighboring states like Vermont and Maine, New Hampshire’s Supreme Court has long established stringent search and seizure limits, rooted in Part I, Article 19 of the state constitution. A 1990 decision in State v Pellici, a New Hampshire case, established that the arbitrary use of drug sniffing dogs by state police would violate that article. Rappa said that precedent would apply to federal officers as well. "This Court finds that given that the defendants in this matter are facing prosecution in the State court for violations of State laws the constitutional protections of the New Hampshire Constitution should apply," Rappa wrote. As to the first part of Sununu’s statement that Border Patrol agents have "taken out people who have trafficked drugs" every time they’ve held a checkpoint, that’s not the case if he’s referring to arrests. Since that circuit court ruling, the Woodstock Police Department has ended its involvement with the the checkpoints, Sgt. Kevin Millar said earlier this year. And while drugs have been seized by CBP agents, no drug-related arrests have been made since the decision. Our ruling Gov. Chris Sununu said federal border checkpoints in New Hampshire help "take out" drug traffickers and were a key tool in the opioid crisis. "That’s the federal government’s role. They’re doing their job," he said. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that drug interdictions and arrests cannot be the intended role of Customs and Border Patrol agents, but rather ancillary actions taken if the situation arises. So, border patrol agents may seize drugs during checkpoints, but they turn over drug cases to local police. Meanwhile, state courts have ruled that New Hampshire’s constitution prevents drugs found at vehicle checkpoints by drug sniffing dogs from being used as evidence in court. In fact, local-federal cooperation on drug cases has stopped, and no drug-related arrests have been made since the decision. While drug detection is not the primary purpose of the checkpoints, it is a secondary aim, according to the Border Patrol. Sununu’s defense of the checkpoints leaves out important details. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Chris Sununu	None	None	None	2018-07-27T16:57:33	2018-06-26	['None']
-tron-03561	Comedian Michelle Wolf Was Arrested for Bestiality	https://www.truthorfiction.com/comedian-michelle-wolf-was-arrested-for-beastiality-fiction/	None	trump	None	None	['donald trump', 'media', 'sarah huckabee sanders', 'white house']	Comedian Michelle Wolf Was Arrested for Beastiality	May 2, 2018	None	['None']
-vogo-00468	Statement: There used to be an unidentified petroleum-based build up underneath San Diego called “the blob,” readers said in response to our call to Fact Check local urban legends.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/fact-check-the-blob-lurking-below-downtown/	Analysis: This tale sounds like the beginning of a spooky campfire story that parents tell their children to nudge them toward good behavior. Remember little Johnny Hanson down the street? When he didn’t eat his vegetables, the blob swallowed him up, sneakers and all.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: The Blob Lurking Below Downtown	December 14, 2010	None	['San_Diego']
-goop-00633	Gwyneth Paltrow Making Jennifer Aniston Maid Of Honor At Her Wedding?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwyneth-paltrow-jennifer-aniston-maid-honor-wedding-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwyneth Paltrow Making Jennifer Aniston Maid Of Honor At Her Wedding?	3:25 pm, July 16, 2018	None	['Gwyneth_Paltrow']
-ranz-00026	And changing [eligibility for immigrants] up to 25 years is still generous. In Canada it's 40 years; the UK 35 years	https://www.radionz.co.nz/programmes/election17-fact-or-fiction/story/201858316/fact-or-fiction-a-superannuation-special	None	Elections	Winston Peters	None	None	Fact or Fiction: A superannuation special	13 September 2017	None	['Canada']
-snes-06184	Giant mutant killer hornets created by exposure to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant have killed several people in Nebraska.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-killer-hornets/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	Mutated Fukushima Giant Hornet Responsible For Multiple Nebraska Casualties?	4 October 2013	None	['Nebraska']
-tron-00426	Vote for the Palm Beach Zoo in Microsoft Contest!	https://www.truthorfiction.com/palmbeachzoon/	None	animals	None	None	None	Vote for the Palm Beach Zoo in Microsoft Contest!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03654	Accuses Ed FitzGerald of "pay-to-play and corruption politics."	/ohio/statements/2013/apr/30/republican-governors-association/republican-governors-association-portrays-ed-fitzg/	Before officially declaring his candidacy for governor last week, Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald spent months preparing for his run against Republican incumbent John Kasich. Kasich’s allies have been preparing for FitzGerald nearly as long. There is little doubt FitzGerald will trade heavily on his experience as an FBI agent and his reputation for turning the page on a corrupt chapter of county government. But the GOP prefers to focus on FitzGerald’s largely inconsequential mention as "Public Official 14" in the indictment of Jimmy Dimora, the county commissioner later convicted on racketeering and other charges. Consider how the Republican Governors Association (RGA) welcomed FitzGerald to the race. "After failing to recruit a more experienced candidate, Democrats are now stuck with Ed FitzGerald’s brand of pay-to-play and corruption politics," said Executive Director Phil Cox. PolitiFact Ohio decided this was a good time to reexamine FitzGerald’s tangential connections to the widespread federal investigation of county corruption. The RGA statement was not the first -- nor will it be the last -- reference to the case. The Ohio Republican Party has launched a web site -- www.publicofficial14.com-- to blast FitzGerald, known in GOP shorthand as P.O. 14. But how fair and truthful are these tactics? The Plain Dealer wrote extensively in 2010 about FitzGerald’s bit role in the Dimora investigation. FitzGerald at the time was the mayor of Lakewood and the Democratic nominee for the powerful new position of county executive. Federal prosecutors charged Dimora a week after FitzGerald won the primary. They described a Lakewood deal for which Dimora had been bribed. On March 6, 2008, Dimora called FitzGerald on behalf of developer William Neiheiser, who was interested in leasing Lakewood’s ice rink. Neiheiser had been having trouble reaching the mayor. Neiheiser "wants to make a proposal to you ... that he thinks will be advantageous to the city and to you if you wanted to talk to him," Dimora told FitzGerald, according to a wiretap transcript. FitzGerald replied: "I’ll make the time … I’ll make time to talk to him." Dimora added: "If there’s anything we can do, uh, let us know …. any help we can provide." Neiheiser pleaded guilty to charges that he bribed Dimora with free home improvements and other gifts in exchange for favors involving the ice rink and other public contracts. Essentially Dimora, then the chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, flaunted his ability to get lower-level party leaders on the telephone when a patron such as Neiheiser was in need. Prosecutors did not accuse FitzGerald of wrongdoing in the Dimora indictment, let alone charge him or even identify him by name. But as The Plain Dealer found, Neiheiser contributed $250 to FitzGerald’s political campaign the following month. And in June 2008, the Lakewood City Council unanimously agreed at FitzGerald’s urging to lease the ice rink to a Neiheiser company. FitzGerald and those who served on the Lakewood council at the time defended the deal as a smart financial move for the city. The lease called for Neiheiser’s company to operate the rink and pay the city about $75,000 a year in rent. Neiheiser’s attorney told The Plain Dealer in 2010 that his client had spent more than $2 million to refurbish the city-owned complex. Matt Dolan, the Republican nominee for county executive in 2010, raised questions about FitzGerald’s involvement in the Dimora deal and branded his opponent as Public Official 14. FitzGerald rid his war chest of contributions from Dimora, Neiheiser and others caught up in the investigation by making a charitable donation. And after beating Dolan and taking office as county executive he rid the county payroll of many patronage hires loyal to Dimora’s political machine. But in January, FitzGerald’s name again surfaced in a case, this time at a trial for another crooked contractor, Michael Forlani. An FBI agent testified that Forlani used two intermediaries in 2008 to disguise his campaign contributions to the then-mayor. FitzGerald told The Plain Dealer at the time that the agent’s testimony was the first he had heard of the donations. Then came an extraordinary announcement from Ann Rowland, the lead prosecutor in the corruption case. In a statement U.S. attorneys rarely make, Rowland cleared FitzGerald. "Ed FitzGerald is not a target of the investigation," Rowland said. "We have no evidence Ed FitzGerald knew Michael Forlani had anything to do with these contributions." After seeing Cox’s statement last week on FitzGerald, PolitiFact Ohio asked RGA spokesman Jon Thompson to specify what the group meant by FitzGerald’s "brand of pay-to-play and corruption politics." Thompson specified the Public Official 14 designation. Thompson also noted that the Ohio GOP has tied FitzGerald to the corruption probe. And he shared a link to the conservative Third Base Politics blog, which reported that the left-leaning Plunderbund blog had deleted posts from 2010 that presented FitzGerald as Public Official 14. So, let’s review. Cox accused FitzGerald of perpetuating a "brand of pay-to-play and corruption politics." More than 60 other public officials, government employees and contractors have been convicted of charges stemming from the federal investigation. But the agents and prosecutors who tore up county government never accused FitzGerald of a crime. And though FitzGerald has surfaced a couple of times in the investigation, the lead prosecutor has said he is not under suspicion. The "brand" in question is one Republicans no doubt prefer as they gear up for Kasich’s re-election battle. But they have no proof that FitzGerald engaged in corrupt politics. And they misleadingly hide behind the cryptic and nuanced "Public Official 14" designation while ignoring the much more direct and meaningful exculpatory statement from the lead prosecutor. They also ignore the work FitzGerald has done to clean up after the corrupt regime that preceded him. Facts lay waste to any effort like this one that explicitly brands FitzGerald as a corrupt politician. Pants On Fire!	None	Republican Governors Association	None	None	None	2013-04-30T18:18:13	2013-04-24	['None']
-goop-02883	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck Renewing Vows, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-renewing-vows-ben-affleck-vow-renewal-april-2017/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck NOT Renewing Vows, Despite Report	10:33 am, April 6, 2017	None	['Jennifer_Garner']
-pomt-14238	"Senate Bill 1070, simply, just mirrors federal law."	/arizona/statements/2016/apr/13/jan-brewer/former-arizona-gov-jan-brewer-claims-states-immigr/	Arizona knows a thing or two about controversial laws. As Mississippi and North Carolina deal with the fallout of passing anti-LGBTQ laws, losing out on a Bruce Springsteen show, for example, former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reflected on a controversial Arizona immigration law in a March 28 Fox Business interview about President Barack Obama’s plan to admit 100,000 refugees by 2017. Brewer, who has endorsed Donald Trump for president, was asked about criticism that followed the former governor after she signed the 2010 Arizona measure into law. The interviewer singled out a provision in the law, that gave "law enforcement the right to ask people to see their papers." "The Arizona law, Senate Bill 1070, simply, just mirrors federal law," Brewer said. "What we need is the federal government to do their job, they need to secure our borders, it’s their job to protect the people." SB 1070, signed into law by Brewer in April 2010, allows law enforcement officers to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. It sounded a bit of an odd response by Brewer, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down most of the law since then, which included provisions such as making working in the country illegally a crime. Does Arizona’s immigration law really mirror federal law? We did not hear back from Brewer’s press office. SB 1070 a shell of its former self The law on the books today is a shell of the legislation that passed in 2010. Federal courts struck down every provision of the law with the exception of Section 2(B). That section allows state and local law enforcement to ask for proof of citizenship if that person is detained on a non-immigration related offense and the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person is undocumented. Because that portion of the law was not tossed out by the courts, you can reasonably conclude that it does not conflict with federal immigration law, said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law. "It does not really ‘mirror’ federal law, which delegates enforcement power to federal immigration authorities, not state and local law enforcement," Johnson said. But it’s close. UC Davis law professor Gabriel "Jack" Chin noted that there is a federal statute that allows the exchange of immigration information between the federal government and state and local police. And a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Muehler vs. Mena found that local police can ask someone lawfully stopped for their name, date of birth or immigration status. "It is not inaccurate to say that the state policy of gathering immigration information is consistent with federal law," Chin said. "As the Supreme Court held, it is certainly possible that SB 1070 could be interpreted in ways that violate federal law, but the basic step of gathering information does not." What about the rest of the law Brewer signed? The problem with this narrow view of Brewer’s statement is that it ignores the host of other provisions passed by the Legislature that were deemed inconsistent with federal law. SB 1070 initially included several provisions. According to Northern Arizona University criminology professor Raymond Michalowski, the law originally: 1. Made it a crime of "trespassing" to be undocumented in Arizona; 2. Allowed citizens to sue a local entity if they feel immigration laws are not properly enforced; 3. Made it a crime to stop your car to pick up a day laborer; 4. Made it a crime to transport an undocumented immigrant; 5. Made it a crime to work without papers and allowed state police to arrest individuals without a warrant if they believed the person was in the country illegally. All of these provisions, in the opinion of the courts, contradicted -- not mirrored -- federal law. "Federal immigration and criminal law contains none of these provisions," Michalowski said. "So the claim that SB 1070 ‘mirrors’ federal law is a fundamental misrepresentation of what that law sought to do." Stephen Legomsky, an immigration expert and professor emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis, said Brewer "clearly misspoke." SB 1070 once made it a state crime, without probation, for people who failed to carry their papers. This is still a misdemeanor at the federal level, but probation is allowed. As far as making working without papers a crime, Legomsky said Congress made that an "authorization for removal," not a criminal offense. And police arresting people without a warrant they suspect are undocumented is only permitted under federal law when the person is "likely to escape" before a warrant is issued. It is prohibited otherwise. Again, all these provisions were stripped, with the exception of police stops. "The Supreme Court in its decision over SB 1070 indicated that it did not believe that the statute mirrored the federal law, and in fact, even if it did, it felt that it was improper for the state to engage in the activity that they wanted to do under that statute," said Evelyn Cruz, Arizona State University’s Immigration Clinic Director. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the SB 1070 case makes this clear: "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," he wrote. Our ruling Brewer said, "Senate Bill 1070, simply, just mirrors federal law." The law on the books today comes close to mirrored federal law. But that’s only because the majority of the law was tossed out by the federal courts because it conflicted with federal law. It’s an odd thing for Brewer to be bragging about. Brewer’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4da56f6c-dc6b-4c5b-a867-f213f0ac5b84	None	Jan Brewer	None	None	None	2016-04-13T19:00:00	2016-03-28	['None']
-pomt-13677	Says Donald Trump "is going to go out and carpet bomb" the Middle East.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/02/joe-biden/joe-biden-wrong-say-donald-trump-has-called-carpet/	The morning before he was scheduled to speak at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, Vice President Joe Biden made an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, where the topic quickly turned to foreign policy and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. "Some of the things he says, like for example, I know he's trying to be tough but he's going to go out and carpet bomb," said Biden. "You want to make friends and influence people in the Middle East? So you're going to go carpet bomb innocent people and bad people at the same time, and that's going to help us fight against ISIS and Daesh?" Biden said. "I mean, the things he says are — are — are — make absolutely no sense." Carpet bombing is the strategy where the military indiscriminately bombs everything within a predetermined area regardless of whether civilians are present. A few hours later, at a news conference, Trump said Biden had lied about his position. "I never said I wanted to carpet bomb," Trump responded. "That was Ted Cruz." Who's correct here? We contacted a Biden spokeswoman but didn't receive a reply. So we searched the transcripts of major interview shows and Trump rallies and could find no instance where Trump called for carpet bombing. Instead, the Republican has repeatedly said he would "bomb the hell out of ISIS," with no reference to carpet bombing or any comparable tactic. Some examples: He's said he would "bomb the hell out of them" to destroy ISIS's oil-producing capacity, then send in United States oil companies to take that oil because "there is no Iraq" (Fox News, June 16, 2015); "I'd bomb the hell out of the oil fields. I'd then get Exxon, I'd then get these great oil companies to go in. They would rebuild them so fast your head will spin" (CNN, July 8, 2015). And this July 8, 2015, exchange with NBC's Katy Tur: Trump: "With ISIS, you kill them at the head. You take the oil. That’s where they’re getting their money. If you bomb the hell out of it, you bomb the hell out of it. You’ve got to stop their wealth. They have tremendous wealth." Tur: "What about civilians?" Trump: "I'm talking about oil. I’m talking about oil areas. I'm not talking about civilian areas." Tur: "Civilians are near oil areas." Trump: "Oh, give me a break, Katy. Go ahead. Next question." Trump is also correct that Cruz was the candidate who called for carpet bombing. The Texas senator proposed the strategy in a Dec. 5, 2015, speech, promising that "we will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out." Cruz repeated it several times throughout the campaign but tried to redefine carpet bombing by saying he did not want civilians to be targeted. (PolitiFact concluded in December 2015 that Cruz's definition, saying that only enemy soldiers would be bombed, was essentially the opposite of carpet bombing.) So Trump was right and Biden was wrong. We should also note that Biden isn't the only Clinton enthusiast to level that accusation against Trump. Four days later, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, retired Marine Corps General John Allen, who commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan, made a similar claim. Allen, who spoke at the Democratic convention, has endorsed Clinton. "What we do have to do, George, is listen to what (Trump) has been saying about our military," Allen said. "He's called it a disaster. He says our military can't win anymore. That's a direct insult to every single man and woman who's wearing the uniform today. He's talked about needing to torture. He's talked about needing to murder the families of alleged terrorists. He's talked about carpet-bombing ISIL." "Who do you think is going to (be) carpet-bombed when all that occurs?" Allen said. "It's going to be innocent families." Our ruling Biden said that Donald Trump "is going to go out and carpet bomb." Trump has made it clear that he's not going to be reluctant to bomb ISIS, but the candidate has not, as far as we could find, called for a practice that includes bombing civilians, which is what carpet bombing can entail. It was another GOP candidate, Ted Cruz, who called for carpet bombing. We rate Biden's claim as False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f4590925-b207-4146-81aa-f6940c99f7c6	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2016-08-02T15:57:26	2016-07-27	['Middle_East']
-snes-02316	President Trump raised his middle finger to make an obscene gesture at Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni during a meeting at the 2017 G7 summit in Italy.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/president-trump-gives-finger/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Did President Trump Give the Finger to the Italian Prime Minister?	30 May 2017	None	['Italy', 'G7']
-pomt-08938	"The Arizona law basically parrots the federal immigration law."	/ohio/statements/2010/jul/24/tom-ganley/congressional-candidate-tom-ganley-says-arizonas-n/	The Obama administration’s decision to sue Arizona over its newly adopted immigration law provoked howls of outrage from Republicans around the country. While the Justice Department said the lawsuit was needed to avoid racial profiling and stake out the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called it "another instance of hollow, political gamesmanship from a White House unwilling to take the bold action necessary to solve one of the country’s most pressing issues." House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio opined that border violence is "out of control," and that states have "a right and responsibility to ensure order and the safety of their citizens, especially when the federal government is asleep at the wheel." Even 13th District Congressional Candidate Tom Ganley of Brecksville got into the act, authoring a column on his campaign website blog that asks: "Why is the Obama Administration Suing Arizona?" Like Boehner, Ganley said states should step in if the federal government isn’t enforcing immigration laws. "Interestingly, the Arizona law basically parrots the federal immigration law," Ganley continued. "I wonder what part of the federal law the Obama Administration doesn’t like?" Ganley’s claim about the Arizona law parroting federal immigration law itself parrots statements that conservatives have made since the Arizona law was adopted. We looked at a version of the claim that that columnist George Will floated on an April 25th talk show. "What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is a crime, a federal crime," Will opined on ABC This Week. Legal scholars we talked to highlighted two key sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which duplicate the "meat" of the new Arizona law. Section 1304e of the federal law requires that "every alien, 18 years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days. Section 1306a of the federal law says that, "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both." The new Arizona law makes it a state crime if immigrants are in violation of either of those codes. Gabriel Chin, a professor of law at the University of Arizona, said that the claim is generally correct, but those sections of the law are "among the least prosecuted in the U.S. Code." "For the relevant offense at issue here, failure of a non-citizen to register in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1306(a), there were five convictions across the U.S. in FY 2008," Chin said in an email to PolitiFact. "So to be precise, the statement would be 'What the Arizona law does is make a state crime out of something that already is . . . a federal crime that the federal authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances.'" In fact, proponents of the Arizona law have argued that's why new state immigration rules are needed; federal authorities are not doing a consistent job of enforcing immigration laws that are already on the books. So, in the two cases above, the bill does make what are already federal crimes state crimes. There are other parts of the new law that also overlap with federal statute. For instance, section 5 of the Arizona law, which deals with the transportation of non-citizens, is nearly identical to section 1324 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. However, the Arizona law does break new ground. For example, Section 5 also would make it illegal to pick up day laborers on the street for hire, "which has nothing to do with federal law. It's essentially a traffic law," Chin wrote. Those violating this section are guilty of a misdemeanor. And it also makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to solicit work. Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, pointed out another aspect of the bill that she finds particularly troubling: Section 2 of the Arizona law would allow citizens to sue local and state authorities if they do not believe the new law is being enforced effectively. State and local authorities could be fined between $1,000 and $5,000 a day for each day the policy remains in effect. The bill also includes new language about how the law applies to employers and specifies the circumstances under which an officer can question and arrest someone he or she thinks is in violation of the law. When it comes to some of the most talked about parts of the law, having to do with aliens who fail to carry proper paperwork and failing to register, Ganley is correct about the core of the law; federal statutes already makes those two provisions a crime. But the law also includes a new prohibition barring picking up day laborers on the street for hire and soliciting for work. That's not in the federal code. As a result, we find the claim to be Mostly True. Comment on this item.	None	Tom Ganley	None	None	None	2010-07-24T12:00:00	2010-07-06	['Arizona']
-snes-00541	Social media users can get a free Target gift card by texting the word "TARGET" to 83361.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/text-target-gift-card/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Snopes Staff	None	Can You Text to 83361 to Receive a Free Target Gift Card?	28 May 2018	None	['None']
-snes-02983	Vice President Mike Pence openly lamented God never asked him to sacrifice one of his children, but he was prepared in the event that a sacrifice of a grandchild was requested of him.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mike-pence-laments-no-sacrifice/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Vice President Mike Pence Lament That God Never Asked Him to Sacrifice His Children?	7 February 2017	None	['God', 'Mike_Pence']
-pomt-08862	Georgia has lost more than 124,000 jobs and the unemployment rate has increased since the stimulus passed	/georgia/statements/2010/aug/05/republican-national-committee-republican/obamas-stimulus-hasnt-helped-georgia-gop-says/	President Barack Obama rarely comes to Georgia, so when he arrived in Atlanta on Monday for two events, the Republican Party wanted to make sure everyone here was aware of the problems it has with his economic policies. "Since the stimulus was passed, Georgia has lost over 124,000 jobs and the unemployment rate has risen from 8.7 percent to 10 percent," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote in a statement. AJC Politifact Georgia had some questions about the statement and contacted the Georgia Republican Party because it appeared on the state party's Web site. The party forwarded us some comments from Henneberg that highlighted its larger point about Obama: The stimulus package he signed in February 2009, a month into his presidency, has been a dud, according to the GOP. "With an unemployment rate far above what the White House claimed we would ever reach with the stimulus, and with Georgia continuing to shed jobs even since last August, there is simply no way to argue that the stimulus is working," Henneberg wrote. We looked at the numbers to see whether Henneberg's numbers were correct. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, slightly more than 4.8 million Georgians were in the labor force in February 2009. By June 2010, there were slightly less than 4.7 million Georgians in the labor force, the data show. The decrease was slightly more than 124,000 workers. According to the BLS data, the unemployment rate in Georgia in February 2009 was 8.7 percent. In June 2010 -- the latest numbers available -- it was 10 percent. In both areas, the RNC's numbers are accurate. But some economists say there's a larger point to make. They argue that job losses and unemployment would have been higher without the stimulus. Jeff Humphreys, a well-known economist at the University of Georgia, thinks the RNC's numbers do not tell "the full story." Humphreys, director of UGA's Selig Center for Economic Growth, said the stimulus helped counter the lack of growth in the private sector. Mark Vitner, managing director and a senior economist for Wells Fargo, agrees that the job losses would have been greater if the stimulus hadn't been approved. Both men agree the stimulus could have done more for Georgia. They say more money should have been allocated for infrastructure projects that would create jobs, such as building new roads and bridges. "It takes longer to do infrastructure, but in my mind, it would had been an acceptable trade-off," Humphreys said. It appears Georgia has a mitigating factor in regards to how the stimulus has helped unemployed residents. A USA Today analysis reported Wednesday found states with higher unemployment rates received less stimulus money per capita than states with lower unemployment rates. Georgia, the analysis shows, was tied with Kentucky and North Carolina for having the 14th-highest unemployment rate in the nation. Georgia, meanwhile, received $1,353 per person in stimulus money, USA Today reported. Only three states (Florida, Texas and Virginia) received less money per person, the newspaper found. Vitner, who recently completed a report on Georgia's economy, said the Peach State's primary problem in this recession is the glut of vacant housing; some of it never sold, some it was lost in foreclosure. Aside from first-time home buyer credits, there are few silver bullets for Georgia, he said. "Georgia hasn't really benefited that much from the stimulus," Vitner said. Georgia's unemployment rate peaked in February and March at 10.5 percent, according to BLS data, and it has dropped each consecutive month. A comparison of monthly unemployment data in 2010 with 2009 shows Georgia's labor force declined at a slower rate than a similar comparison of monthly data between 2009 and 2008. Interestingly, Georgia's unemployment rate saw its greatest 12-month increase in the past 10 years from February 2008, when it was 5.2 percent, to February 2009, when it was 8.7 percent. In February 2008, Congress approved and then President George W. Bush signed into law the first stimulus package. So is it fair to reach the conclusion in the RNC statement by solely focusing on the 2009 stimulus? The RNC said yes, directing us to comments the president made in an interview with NBC News. "That's my job -- as president -- is to take responsibility for moving us in the right direction [on the economy]," Obama is quoted as saying. Obama also said in the interview that the Bush administration created policies that put the nation into a recession. So where does that leave us? The RNC's numbers are correct, but a closer look at all of the data shows Georgia's unemployment woes would have been worse without the stimulus. The USA Today report shows Georgia may not be getting its fair share in stimulus funds. It seems there are some mitigating factors to consider when looking at the RNC's statement. We rate it as Mostly True.	None	Republican National Committee	None	None	None	2010-08-05T06:00:00	2010-08-02	['None']
-farg-00440	“Breaking: Clinton-Abedin PedoGate Video Found On Dark Web”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/no-evidence-of-horrific-clinton-video/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Angelo Fichera	['conspiracy theories']	No Evidence of ‘Horrific’ Clinton Video	April 23, 2018	2018-04-23 19:19:03 UTC	['None']
-pomt-13398	Says Donald Trump "was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.’ "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donald-trump-rooted-housing-c/	In the opening skirmish of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton cast her rival as a man who put his own business interests ahead of the welfare of average Americans. "Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis," Clinton said. "He said back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.’ What does the record show? We found many examples from 2006 to 2009 when Donald Trump spoke of the "great opportunity" that came with falling real estate prices. One of the earliest instances was in a Trump audiobook from 2006. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, "There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism?" "Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position — which I'm in a good cash position today — then people like me would go in and buy like crazy," he says in a portion of the audiobook posted by CNN. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money." Now that was before the collapse that led to the Great Recession, and arguably, Trump was simply offering sound business guidance. Trump touted the same view a couple of times in 2007. But at that point, the country still was not looking at an economic catastrophe. The situation was quite different by early 2009. The investment house Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in U.S. history. The Dow had suffered its worst weekly loss ever. Washington had bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Foreclosures were rising weekly. Trump was on CNN Feb. 17, 2009, talking about the economy with host Wolf Blitzer and said the moment was a "great opportunity." Blitzer asked Trump why. "If you get something really prime, really good, eventually it's going to be worth a lot more than you paid," Trump explained. "I used to tell people two years ago, don't buy real estate and I used to preach it hard. And now I'm saying, I think that this is a good time. Whether you hit the exact market or not, I can't tell you. But I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy." To be clear, Trump was speaking as an investor. He was not necessarily rooting for the housing crisis. But it was under way as he spoke. We reached out to the Trump campaign and did not receive any information to add to this picture. Our ruling Clinton said Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of Americans, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities the overall situation created for an investor such as himself. Clinton’s statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trump’s words. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/22c6df0a-1ffe-421d-b06a-b6c208a27038	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-09-26T21:30:31	2016-09-26	['None']
-pose-01215	"I will work to repeal HB2 and restore the worker protections that were taken away by Governor McCrory."	https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/promises/coop-o-meter/promise/1306/repeal-hb2/	None	coop-o-meter	Roy Cooper	None	None	Fully repeal HB2	2016-12-20T13:50:26	None	['None']
-pomt-10876	"Let's pay attention to kids who are not going to college, which ends up being about 60 percent of the kids... and get them trained for the jobs that are there. Because, you know, there are auto mechanic jobs paying $50,000, $60,000 that they can't get filled. There are airline mechanic jobs paying a lot of money that can't get filled." Remarks at AFSCME forum 6/19/2007	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/aug/21/hillary-clinton/there-are-plenty-of-jobs-available-for-trained/	Clinton is correct that about 60 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 are not enrolled in college. She also is correct that the automobile and airline industries are facing significant mechanic shortages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there will be 34,000 unfilled jobs for auto mechanics and 4,000 for airline technicians each year through 2014. However, she exaggerates the pay that graduates of vocational schools can expect to earn in these professions. An auto mechanic earning $50,000 to $60,000 would be in the 90th percentile of earnings for that occupation, according to government data. The average salary for an auto technician is $32,450; for an airline mechanic it's $45,290.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2007-08-21T00:00:00	2007-08-21	['None']
-pomt-07186	"The (national) debt really added up $75 trillion in 2010 and is on track to hit $99 trillion this year."	/virginia/statements/2011/jun/09/scott-rigell/rep-rigell-says-us-debt-could-hit-99-trillion-year/	U.S. Rep. Scott Rigell issued a dire warning recently about the country’s fiscal problems. "When $14.3 trillion is cited as the total of our national debt, that is only taking into account one part of the equation," Rigell, R-2nd, said in a June 3 newsletter e-mailed to constituents. "When the unfunded liabilities of mandatory entitlement spending are accounted for, the debt really added up to $75 trillion in 2010 and is on track to hit $99 trillion this year." It’s widely known that last month, the U.S. government hit its $14.3 trillion "debt ceiling" -- the maximum amount it’s allowed to borrow without further congressional authorization. But when you lump in entitlement spending, was the national debt really $75 trillion in 2010 -- more than five times the debt ceiling? Is the debt really on track to jump another $24 trillion by the end of 2011? We decided to find out. First, we asked Rigell’s office where these colossal numbers came from. Kim Mosser, Rigell’s communications director, pointed to an April slide-show presentation on the debt from the House Budget Committee. It included a graph detailing "unfunded promises." For 2010, the graph showed a tally of $76.4 trillion. For 2011, it showed a total of $99.4 trillion -- close to Rigell’s figures. But exactly what costs are included in those numbers? Conor Sweeney, the communications director for the Budget Committee, told us the figures come from reports by the Government Accountability Office on the nation’s fiscal outlook. Looking at those studies, it’s clear the tallies Rigell cites are not, as he suggests, overall debt totals. They are complex and long-term projections used to estimate the 75-year costs of maintaining Social and Medicare under present-day conditions. Technically, the numbers are GAO estimates of the amount of money needed to keep the level of publicly held debt at its present ratio of debt to gross domestic product for 75 years. The GAO calls it the "fiscal gap," a measure of the shortfall between revenues and spending promises for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. For example, under one scenario, it would take $99.4 trillion in new revenues, measured in current-day dollars, to keep publicly-held debt 75 years from now at 62 percent of GDP -- its level at the beginning of 2011. That money could come from higher taxes, decreased spending or a combination of both. In a 2010 report, the GAO estimated it would take $76.4 trillion to keep publicly held debt at its January 2010 level of 53 percent of GDP. But these are pessimistic projections of the nation’s long-term finances. The $99.4 trillion and $76.4 trillion figures arise from assumptions that most tax cuts will be extended for 10 years, discretionary spending will grow at the pace of GDP, and physician fees under Medicare will grow with inflation. Under a moderate set of assumptions, the GAO projects the level of money needed to keep the publicly held debt level constant would be much lower -- $31.9 trillion would be needed to keep the debt 75 years from now at its January 2011 level. Regardless of which scenario is used, the country needs to change its long-term fiscal trajectory, according to the GAO. Rigell mischaracterizes the GAO’s numbers as total debt, when in reality they measure something different. Let’s turn to another point. Rigell calls the projected shortfalls in funding entitlement programs for the next 75 years "unfunded liabilities." Many economists dispute that contention, noting that Congress is free at any time to reduce or alter the programs. "Legally, they are not liabilities," said J.D. Foster, an economist with the right-leaning Heritage Foundation. "They can be referred to accurately as promises or obligations." But Edward Mazur, a former member of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, said some social insurance programs should be counted as liabilities until the government alters the parameters of its promises. To summarize: Rigell said that the national debt was $75 trillion in 2010 and is projected to be $99 trillion in 2011 when unfunded entitlement costs are factored into the equation. But his numbers are not based on actual totals of entitlement spending and the debt in any given year. His figures are based on pessimistic 75-year projections of what it would cost to continue entitlement programs under present-day conditions. A lot can change over 75 years. Rigell is mischaracterizing the nation’s debt level. We rate his claim False.	None	Scott Rigell	None	None	None	2011-06-09T13:40:25	2011-06-03	['None']
-goop-02358	Teresa Giudice “Done” With Joe Giudice, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/teresa-giudice-not-done-joe-divorce/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Teresa Giudice NOT “Done” With Joe Giudice, Despite Report	9:55 pm, October 11, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02611	Kris Jenner Offered Lamar Odom $20 Million To Scrap Memoir?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kris-jenner-lamar-odom-book-offer-scrap-memoir/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Kris Jenner Offered Lamar Odom $20 Million To Scrap Memoir?	5:44 pm, August 3, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09716	A president must "obtain Congress' consent before formally accepting the Nobel Prize."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/29/ginny-brown-waite/does-president-need-permission-congress-accept-nob/	Three Republican members of Congress wrote President Barack Obama a letter telling him he needs to "obtain Congress' consent before formally accepting the Nobel Prize." The members — Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite and Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida, and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas — point to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which reads, in part: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." In their letter, they write, "As the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway, the Storting, the prize is clearly subject to the requirements set forth in Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution. Obtaining permission from Congress should be straightforward." They said the precedent was set when President Theodore Roosevelt created a committee to hold his prize money and then obtained the consent of Congress to send the money to various charities. Roosevelt received the prize in 1906 for mediating a peace agreement between Russia and Japan. We wanted to know if the representatives were correct that Obama has to obtain the permission of Congress before accepting the prize, which he was awarded for his diplomatic efforts on international cooperation and nuclear disarmament. We went down many avenues of research here. The Nobel Peace Prize includes a cash gift of about $1.4 million, so that seems to fit the definition of a "present." The Republican members are also correct that the members of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee are appointed by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting. But it's not clear that the Nobel Peace Prize could be considered as being given by "a foreign state." The committee's Web site says it "is formally independent even of the Storting, and since 1901 it has repeatedly emphasized its independence" and that it was "appointed by the Storting (the Norwegian Parliamant), but without the committee being formally responsible to the Storting." Over the years, the Storting has taken steps to distance itself from the committee to emphasize that the award is "not an act of Norwegian foreign policy." The Nobel prizes are administered by a foundation, the Nobel Foundation, and the only reason the Norwegian parliament is involved is because prize founder Alfred Nobel said in his will that he would like members of the Storting to pick the committee members for the peace prize. The other prizes have other selectors. Here's the quote from his will, dated Nov. 27, 1895: "The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical work by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting." (By the way, the Nobel Foundation is based in Sweden, not Norway, which has also been a source of confusion and controversy over the years.) We asked White House officials for their thoughts on the matter, and they firmly said that the Nobel Prize is not awarded by a foreign government. Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield gave us this statement: "The President is donating the money to charity. The statute cited does not apply because the gift is from the Nobel Foundation — a private foundation — not a foreign government. The President is free to do what he likes with the money, and he has chosen to donate it to charity." Even if the Nobel Prize would be considered as coming from a foreign government, there is compelling evidence that a president does not have to seek special permission from Congress, because Congress already allows it, via statute. Law professor David Kopel researched the issue and posted a detailed analysis on the respected legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy . Kopel located a statute, which we reviewed, that allows American officeholders and government employees to accept foreign prizes if the recipients meet a number of requirements. The statute specifically mentions that the president and the vice president are included. Kopel said the statute allows a president to accept the prize without any additional permission, as long as he turns the prize money over to his "employing agency," which would likely be an office of the White House. "Thus, it seems clear that the statute already supplies the constitutionally-required congressional consent for President Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and no further action by Congress is needed, provided that President Obama signs the check over (to) the government, as the statute requires," Kopel wrote. Kopel told us that the statute appears to have been written in 1966, with several revisions since then, so it wouldn't have applied to Roosevelt or Wilson. The problem Obama might run into, Kopel said, is if he wants to direct the money to a specific charity. For that, he would need permission from Congress, because the Constitution says "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That might be the more pertinent reason Roosevelt sought permission from Congress when it came to giving the money to charity. Roosevelt wanted to use his prize money for a new "Industrial Peace Committee" so Congress created a commission, according to news reports. The committee must have never gotten off the ground, because years later, Roosevelt asked Congress to direct the money toward war relief. We looked for formal Peace Prize authorizations from Congress for Roosevelt and President Woodrow Wilson, the two sitting presidents who have previously received the prize. (Wilson received the prize in 1920 for his work the previous year establishing the League of Nations, a forerunner of the United Nations.) We couldn't find any authorizations, and we double-checked with librarians who specialize in historical congressional research, and they couldn't find anything either. We were also unable to find out what Wilson did with his money; one biography said Wilson was worried about his finances and suggested that he simply kept the money. In his defense, he was in poor health when he left office, and presidents didn't get a pension back then. Finally, a more contemporary comparison to the flap over Obama's prize might be the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize. That year, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger won the prize along with Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam for their efforts to negotiate a peace agreement for the Vietnam War — though Le Duc Tho rejected the prize. We found op-eds from American liberals who thought Kissinger didn't deserve it, and many protests from university students and faculty. Members of the Norwegian parliament were also reportedly infuriated and said they planned to look into the committee's operations. But we didn't find that Kissinger received any special permission to accept the prize. Kissinger told the press he wanted the prize money to go to scholarships for the children of soldiers killed or missing in action. Kissinger donated the money — back then it was $50,000 — to Community Funds Inc., a companion organization of New York Community Trust, and it created a scholarship fund that was expected to last about 10 years, according to a 1974 news report. There was no mention in the news report of Congress authorizing this, and we couldn't find anything in the Congressional Record on the donation, either. This is a tricky one for us. This is a matter of legal interpretation that may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We understand the Republicans' point — although it's a tenuous one, in our view — that the Nobel committee might be considered a governmental panel. We believe much evidence points to the contrary — that the Storting's sole task is to appoint members, and then the government's connection to the prize ends. The Nobel Foundation is not part of the Norwegian government; it's a private Swedish foundation. And we haven't found any evidence to show that Roosevelt, Wilson or Kissinger sought permission from the government to accept the prize. But the tenuous link is enough to earn a Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Ginny Brown-Waite	None	None	None	2009-10-29T17:36:42	2009-10-26	['United_States_Congress', 'Nobel_Prize']
-hoer-00091	Nine Zero Hash Phone Scam	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/nine-zero-hash-hoax.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Nine Zero Hash Phone Scam Hoax	31st May 2012	None	['None']
-tron-00804	Clint Eastwood Saved Life of Choking Man with Heimlich	https://www.truthorfiction.com/clint-eastwood-choking-man/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Clint Eastwood Saved Life of Choking Man with Heimlich	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01255	Pink, Carey Hart In “Marriage Crisis” Over Her Career?	https://www.gossipcop.com/pink-carey-hart-marriage-crisis-career-tour/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Pink, Carey Hart In “Marriage Crisis” Over Her Career?	9:24 pm, April 3, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00942	Virgin Australia Facebook Page Promises Hawaiian Holiday As Bait	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/scam-virgin-australia-facebook-page-promises-hawaiian-holiday-as-bait/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Scam Virgin Australia Facebook Page Promises Hawaiian Holiday As Bait	October 2, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04937	Says Democrats racked up a $1 billion state deficit, while Republicans under Bill O'Brien balanced the budget.	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/jul/29/new-boston-republican-committee/new-boston-gop-says-dems-left-deficit/	If spring is lilac season in New Hampshire, summertime is election season, and campaign signs sprout like weeds on every corner. One sign, posted recently around the Nashua area by the New Boston Republican Committee, boils down the upcoming state election to a simple, 11-word statement, describing the difference between recent Democratic and Republican legislatures. "NH DEMOCRATS $1 BILLION DEFICIT," the sign reads. "NH REPUBLICANS UNDER BILL (House Speaker William) O’BRIEN BALANCED BUDGET." Certainly, the recession has had its effect on New Hampshire, and state revenues have taken a hit. But did the Democrats, who lost the majority in the Statehouse in 2011, really leave a $1 billion deficit? We decided to crunch the numbers. First, it's important to note that New Hampshire lawmakers are legally required to balance the budget. So it's not accurate to suggest that the last Democratic budget had a deficit. And as you'll see below, they ultimately produced a surplus. We found that the New Boston Republican Committee was using the same tactic PolitiFact National had seen in an attack against Mitt Romney, portraying an interim budget projection as if it was a final outcome. To start our research, we reached out to the Republican committee in New Boston, a small farming community not far from Mont Vernon, the hometown of House Speaker William O’Brien. Committee members confirmed that the sign refers to the last Democrat-led budget, for Fiscal Year 2010-11. That year, the Democratic legislature boosted state spending and accepted federal stimulus funding, according to committee chairman Patrick Murphy. But, the Democrats failed to cover the spending with corresponding revenue increases, leaving the state far in the hole, he wrote in an email. To support his point, Murphy directed us to the Speaker’s office, which then pointed us toward a 2011 report by the Legislative Budget Assistant, a nonpartisan office that conducts investigations, analyses and research into the state government. In January 2011, days after the current Republican-led legislature took office, Jeffry Pattison, the budget assistant, issued a report identifying about $845 million in spending items that could pose concerns for the new legislature if all fiscal policies and structures remained the same. The report highlighted that the federal stimulus had provided $350 million that helped the state pay for schools and the Medicaid program. This was understood at the time to be a one-shot deal.The report also listed $141 million in state education payments set to go into effect if the legislature failed to act, as well as $92 million projected for municipal and school building aid. "I was talking about appropriations that would go up by virtue of formula driven things," Pattison said last week. "Things that would happen if nothing was done about them." Add to the $845 million figure another $50 million shortfall, projected by the House of Representatives at the time, and you reach $895 million -- most of the way to the New Boston Republicans’ $1 billion figure and closer to the $900 million quoted often by O’Brien, the House Speaker. "Combining these items left an anticipated, unresolved deficit, according to the LBA, for the FY2012-13 budget," Greg Moore, chief of staff to the House of Representatives, wrote in an email to the Telegraph. "That is where the Speaker identified that figure and why he uses ‘nearly $900 million’ number regularly." Still, whether $900 million or $1 billion, the numbers didn’t hold up over time. Like in the numbers cited in past PolitiFact items, Pattison never considered his estimates as a final budget tally. Instead, he intended them to be a point-in-time projection to give legislators an idea of what could happen over the years to follow. "These are snapshots in time," Pattison said last week. "I wanted to make sure they had their eyes open, that they knew coming in what was ahead of them." This is a routine situation for both parties. Budget analysis predict when spending will exceed revenues and lawmakers have to balance them. And legislators took note, crafting a 2012-13 budget that responded to the projected deficits. "At the time of the implementation of the new budget, ALL parties expected that the budget would end in deficit," wrote Moore, the House chief of staff. But, by the time the budget accountant office finished its formal audit early this year, the final report told a different story. In the end, the Fiscal Year 2011 budget didn’t show a billion dollar deficit, or any deficit at all. The Democrats actually produced a surplus in their last year. That year, the state, which is required by statute to keep a balanced budget, took in $1.385 billion in revenues, spending $1.325 billion, according to the final audit. Factoring the state’s $64 million surplus entering the 2011 fiscal year, and subtracting the $124 million contributed to the education trust fund, among other fund transfers, the state closed the Fiscal Year 2011 with a $17.7 million surplus. Legislators also maintained the state’s $9.3 million rainy day fund. Some political leaders contend the numbers are skewed because lawmakers relied heavily on borrowing and federal funds to balance the budget, as required by state statute. "It was not solved by any cuts the Democrats made but by a one time infusion of federal money," Murphy, the New Boston Republican chairman, wrote in an email. "A ‘Hail Mary Pass’ thrown by Obama is what made the difference." Still, others say it came through a range of budget cuts and tax hikes common to the budget cycle. "There was an increase in the tobacco tax. Programs were cut. … You have to make budget choices," added Pamela Walsh, an advisor for the state Democratic Party who served as deputy chief of staff to Gov. John Lynch at the time. "The numbers they used, it was as if the state government was on autopilot with no revenue growth." That brings us now to the current budget, for Fiscal Year 2012. The House Republican leadership team have credited themselves with cutting more than $1 billion, nearly 10 percent, from the state operating budget, now totaling $10.48 billion. But, according to initial projections, the state is running about $17 million short of initial revenue projections, Pattison said. "We’re in the process of closing the state books as we speak, but, as of right now, they’re a little off," he said. "This is just starting. (The Fiscal Year) isn’t even 30 days old. We’ll see where it’s at at the end." But here, too, those are projections, not a final deficit. Our ruling: The New Boston Republicans’ sign makes some big claims in only a few words. It wrongly describes a $1 billion interim projection as a deficit, ignoring the state law that mandates a balanced budget and the fact that the Democrats actually produced a $17.7 million surplus. The Republican group's sign is twisting the reality of the state budgets for partisan reasons and leaving people with a false impression. We rate it False.	None	New Boston Republican Committee	None	None	None	2012-07-29T06:00:00	2012-07-23	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-02370	Prince Charles Does Think Buckingham Palace Is Haunted, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-charles-buckingham-palace-haunted/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Prince Charles Does NOT Think Buckingham Palace Is Haunted, Despite Report	4:20 am, October 9, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02887	"In fact, there’s more state funding for education today than any other time."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/nov/10/chris-christie/chris-christie-tells-teacher-school-funding-highes/	Chris Christie’s heard the complaints often. He cut education funding. He supports charter schools. He’s hard on teachers, and his quest for tenure and other reforms is over the top. But the governor continues responding to those complaints with various versions of this refrain: New Jersey has the most funding put toward education in state history. And Christie said it again Nov. 2 during a gubernatorial campaign stop in Somers Point, when he and a public school teacher got into an argument. Christie was re-elected Tuesday. "In fact, there’s more state funding for education today than any other time," Christie said when the teacher cited the governor’s education funding cuts for why he has referred to New Jersey schools as "failure factories." Technically Christie is right about the level of education funding in New Jersey, but as we’ve pointed out in the past, there’s a bit more to this story that he doesn’t address. First, let’s get back to that remark about ‘failure factories.’ Christie used it during a speech he gave Oct. 6 to the Orthodox Union in Teaneck, where he promoted his education policies. "I would be happy to take as many dollars as possible away from failure factories that send children on a no-stop route to prison and to failed dreams, if we could take that money and put it into a place where those families have hope," Christie said. Now, to the governor’s point about education funding. Christie’s proposed fiscal year 2014 budget called for nearly $9 billion in education funding, about $1 billion more than the previous year. Under that spending plan, state aid to schools increased $97 million. While no district saw a state aid decrease, many either received an increase of $1 or their funding stayed the same as the previous year. At the time, Christie released a statement through the state Department of Education in which he touted the funding level while also emphasizing fiscal restraint. "However, even as we continue to fund education at the highest levels in state history, we must remain willing to reflect on how we are spending our money and work towards solutions that make every dollar we invest count," he said in the statement. We’ve previously run Christie’s claim past Steve Wollmer, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teacher’s union. Wollmer agreed that in terms of dollars, it’s correct that the state has its highest-ever level of education funding. But that doesn’t mean there hasn't a been long-lasting downside to cuts that Christie made during his first year as governor. He took office in January 2010. "But what he doesn’t mention is that he cut $1.3 billion from state aid in his first year – Withholding $475 million in aid in January, which was the amount that the state’s nearly 600 districts had in total surpluses for unanticipated expenses (a new roof, a bus that needed replacing, an unanticipated special ed placement), and another $820 million in the FY11 budget (which began for schools in September of 2010)," Wollmer said previously in a statement to PolitiFact New Jersey. "Districts cut back dramatically, and 10,000 teachers and staff were laid off, programs were cut, and class sizes increased." Those cuts continue to sting, Wollmer said. In addition to the cuts, the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2011 ordered Christie to increase aid to the now-former Abbott districts by about $500 million. Our ruling Christie last week said during an argument with a teacher, "In fact, there’s more state funding for education today than any other time." Critics frequently call the governor out for the massive funding cuts he’s made to education since taking office, and for either increasing state aid by a minimal amount or not at all. But the fact of the matter is that despite the cuts, New Jersey’s education funding level is the highest it’s ever been. For that reason, we rate Christie’s statement True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2013-11-10T07:30:00	2013-11-02	['None']
-tron-00693	Comparing the backgrounds of the stars versus the politicians	https://www.truthorfiction.com/starsandpols/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Comparing the backgrounds of the stars versus the politicians	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01002	On the status of illegal immigrants	/wisconsin/statements/2015/feb/04/scott-walker/did-scott-walker-flip-flop-pathway-citizenship/	Editor's note: We rated this a Half Flip on Feb. 4, 2015 based on Gov. Walker's statements to date at that time. Subsequently, the governor disavowed his previous endorsement of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. We revisted his position in an item published March 6, 2015, with a new ruling of Full Flop. The left-wing group Media Matters for America cried flip-flop after Gov. Scott Walker bluntly told ABC News he opposed "amnesty" for illegal immigrants living in the United States. Walker, the group said in blog post, previously had supported a pathway to citizenship advocated by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. With Walker garnering plenty of attention amid a crowded field of potential 2016 GOP presidential candidates, let’s put this one to the Flip-O-Meter. Our standard disclaimer applies: The Flip-O-Meter is not designed to say whether any change in position is good policy or good politics. Rather, it strictly looks at whether a public official has been consistent in his or her stated views on a topic. In this case, we have visited Walker’s statements on immigration before, notably in August 2013, when we examined how Republicans were framing the issue in the wake of President Barack Obama’s re-election win with strong support from Hispanics. In the past, Walker has been hard to pin down on the question, and has made seemingly contradictory statements. So we were struck by Walker’s direct language and tone Feb. 1, 2015 in the "This Week" interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz. Raddatz: "We know you want to fix the border and fix the immigration system, but what would you do about the 11 million undocumented who are still here? Walker: "I think for sure, we need to secure the border. I think we need to enforce the legal system. I'm not for amnesty…" In making the comments, did Walker change his position? Here are some key past statements he’s made, all in 2013: -- At a February 2013 national conference hosted by Politico, Walker said fixing the legal immigration system should come first, but said the next step is we "gotta embrace" a "legal pathway" for those here unlawfully. He did not elaborate on what he meant. -- In a July 2013 interview with Wausau (Wis.) Daily Herald staffers, Walker said "it makes sense" that people could not only stay here but get citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods and other requirements. -- In 2013 and later, Walker didn’t endorse any specific bill in Congress that would have allowed illegal immigrants to stay here. But at the Politico conference, he didn’t dismiss legislative action if some "nuances" were addressed. -- At that conference he flatly opposed deporting people who are here unlawfully, saying "you’ve got to find a way to make it legally possible for people moving forward." Soon after Walker’s reported comments sympathetic to some kind of path to citizenship made headlines, he started to walk back the idea he had supported such a thing. His spokesman told us in August 2013 that Walker had endorsed no specific policy or bill. And Walker said in November 2013 on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he had not meant to back a pathway. Now let’s revisit the recent ABC interview in more depth. In that interview, Walker also said, "I’m not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed here in Washington" to allow those here to remain. That’s arguably more dismissive than he’s been before. But Walker added that he would roll out a plan of his own to address the issue. And he tossed in what sounded like softening remarks, saying "we’ve got to have a healthy balance. We’re a country both of immigrants and of laws. We can’t ignore the laws in this country, can't ignore the people who come in, whether it’s from Mexico or Central America." Finally, Walker told Raddatz he was not advocating deporting the estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the country. He summed up his position this way: "I am saying in the end, we need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty." What to make of Walker’s remarks? Walker campaign spokesman Tom Evenson said they were consistent with his past comments on what to do with those living here illegally. Walker does not consider the penalty-laden pathway to legal status that he endorsed in 2013 "amnesty," and he’s not advocating amnesty now, he said. For help, we turned to two groups advocating on this issue. An advocate with a group that backs a path to citizenship agreed Walker’s comments were vague, but detected a change in his words and actions. Lynn Tramonte, deputy director of America’s Voice, noted Walker said nothing in the spirit of his 2013 comments on finding a way, eventually, to allow people to stay. His goal "is to be as vague as possible so that he can court hard-right anti-immigrant voters while remaining viable in the general election," she said. Tramonte said Walker has indirectly backed deportations by joining a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s authority to issue a November 2014 executive order on immigration. That order protected from deportation some 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, and hundreds of thousands more young people. We also spoke with Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The group is a leading critic of legalizing the status of people who jumped the line to get in. Walker’s description of his views as anti-amnesty doesn’t necessarily mean much, Mehlman said. Republicans, even if they want to find a way to let illegal immigrants remain here, reject the "amnesty" label for political reasons, he said. On the substance of Walker’s remarks, Mehlman said that, coming in such a brief exchange, Walker’s comments were too cryptic to really evaluate his position. Mehlman’s view: Walker really hasn’t backed away from his 2013 statements, so in they eyes of FAIR, he still supports what some might term amnesty. "Politicians from both parties who support granting legal status to millions of illegal aliens go to great pains to define what they support as something other than amnesty," he said. Our rating We don’t see a Full Flop by Walker here. Walker didn’t directly disavow his 2013 remarks -- or repeat them for that matter. And the truth is that we don’t really know whether he has a completely new position, because he wasn’t asked to clarify his views in detail. All we know is he’s not going to call his plan "amnesty" when it comes out. We do see inconsistencies in Walker’s framing of his views and the tone of his remarks as he begins to court conservative GOP primary voters -- including leaving a tough-sounding impression about handling illegal immigrants. On the meter, inconsistent statements or a partial change of position earn a Half Flip. That fits here. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2015-02-04T12:09:12	2015-02-01	['None']
-hoer-01132	Yet Another Free Mercedes Benz	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/yet-another-free-mercedes-benz-scam-hitting-facebook/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Yet Another Free Mercedes Benz Scam Hitting Facebook	June 8, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-00640	Hedge fund managers "pay less in taxes than nurses and truck drivers."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/20/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-hedge-fund-managers-pay-less-/	During a visit to Mason City, Iowa, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton resurrected an old Democratic theme -- that the rich pay less in taxes than working people do. "Hedge fund managers themselves make more and pay less in taxes than nurses and truck drivers," she said during the May 18, 2015, visit. This is a topic we’ve delved into several times previously, but the way Clinton worded this claim makes it particularly off-base. Usually, the claims we’ve seen specifically refer to whether a nurse or truck driver pays a higher tax rate than a millionaire -- in other words, a higher percentage of their income in taxes, rather than a higher dollar amount. But Clinton didn’t make that distinction in her remarks, at around 12:45 in this video. (Later that day, Clinton appeared at another event in Iowa and used the term "tax rates.") Let’s take a closer look. The available data isn’t perfect for making this sort of comparison, but we’ll use the most appropriate data we can find and note the caveats. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median 52-week earnings for industrial truck and tractor operators was $30,888 a year. For registered nurses, it was $56,680 a year, and for nurse practitioners it was $87,516 a year. Let’s take the most extreme example. Say a nurse makes $100,000, which is actually well above the median for the most well-compensated category of nurse. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, taxpayers earning between $75,000 and $100,000 pay an average tax rate of 15.7 percent, which includes not just income taxes but also payroll and other federal taxes. So that nurse earning $100,000 is going to pay, on average, $15,700 in federal taxes for the year. Nurse practitioners earning the median income level, or registered nurses, would pay less. So would truck drivers, who earn less to begin with. Now let’s look at the hedge fund manager. The IRS calculated that in 2012, the 400 highest-income households in the country averaged $336 million in income, and the cutoff to make that list of 400 was about $140 million in income. We can be pretty sure there’s overlap between the IRS list of 400 and hedge fund managers, since the most recent top 10 list of highest-earning fund managers runs from annual earnings of $425 million all the way up to $1.3 billion. These 400 households paid an average of $56 million in taxes each. In other words, these fund managers were paying multi-million-dollar tax bills to the IRS, compared to an above-average example of a nurse paying $15,700. So using taxes paid, Clinton is incorrect. What if Clinton meant tax rates? Roberton Williams of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center told us he suspects that the point Clinton intended to make was that the primary source of income earned by hedge fund managers, known as "carried interest," is taxed as capital gains and not as earnings, and as a result, they face a rate of 20 percent plus surtaxes of 3.8 percent and 1.2 percent. In addition, there is no payroll tax payable on this income. By contrast, the income of ordinary workers is subject to both income and payroll taxes. This can narrow or erase the tax-rate gap between the two groups, at least in some cases. Is it theoretically possible that a particular nurse pays a larger share of his or her income in taxes than a particular hedge-fund manager? Yes -- each category has some variation in tax rates paid. But if you look at the typical case, Clinton’s claim paints a distorted picture of the nation’s tax structure -- and that’s if you grant that she meant to say "tax rates" rather than "taxes." Looking at income taxes alone, the average tax rate -- income taxes paid divided by adjusted gross income -- for the IRS top 400 is 16.7 percent. By comparison, the median trucker is paying approximately 6 percent of income in taxes (and there’s a decent likelihood that they are paying no income taxes at all, after consideration is made for exemptions and credits). So the median trucker is paying a much smaller percentage of income in taxes than a hedge fund manager. We should note that the definitions of income and taxes used by the Tax Policy Center and the IRS top-400 study are not exactly the same. The Tax Policy Center used a broader definition of both income and taxes than the IRS study did, which casts some doubt on the merits of comparing tax rates. When comparing total tax paid, however, the difference is so vast that methodological variations are not going to make much of a dent. Also, Williams noted that focusing on the top 400 earners effectively zeroes in on the best-compensated hedge-fund managers. We don’t have comprehensive data on the full spectrum of compensation for hedge-fund managers. However, even if one lowers the estimated income threshold for hedge fund managers to $1 million a year, the Tax Policy Center, using its methodology, suggests that people in that income bracket pay 34.6 percent of their expanded income in taxes, which is quite a bit higher than nurses and truck drivers do. (The lower tax rate in the top-400 list likely stems from the particular mix of income streams among the very wealthiest, which tend to get more favorable tax treatment.) Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin told PolitiFact that, as she has in other appearances, Clinton was "making the point that a nurse making $66,000 per year is in the 25 percent tax bracket while many hedge fund managers are paying less than a 24 percent rate on millions of dollars they earn." However, we'll note that a person's tax bracket refers to the rate paid on the last dollar they earn, not what they pay overall in taxes compared to their full earnings. The latter is what Clinton's phrasing suggests. Our ruling Clinton said that hedge fund managers "pay less in taxes than nurses and truck drivers." She is certainly wrong for dollar amounts, which is what her statement was about. If she meant to say tax rates, that's more complicated, and the data doesn't clearly back up the point. Here, we're looking at just taxes paid, so we rate her claim False. UPDATE, May 20, 2015, 2:30 p.m.: This article has been updated to reflect a comment from Clinton's campaign staff. The rating has not been changed.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-05-20T11:37:58	2015-05-18	['None']
-tron-02748	President Obama Sworn into Office on Quran	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-sworn-office-quran/	None	obama	None	None	None	President Obama Sworn into Office on Quran	Jul 1, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-06213	Photograph shows Barack Obama carrying the book The Post-American World, "a Muslim's view of a defeated America."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-does-obama-read/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	What Does Obama Read? ‘The Post-American World’	8 October 2008	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama', 'Islam']
-pomt-13142	When asked about bills in Congress important to the North Country, Derrick responded ‘I just don’t know enough about it.’	/new-york/statements/2016/nov/01/elise-stefanik/stefanik-ad-takes-derricks-comments-out-context/	A television ad from U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Willsboro, charges her Democratic opponent doesn’t know enough about the North Country to represent the 21st Congressional District. The ad, which began airing in early October, portrays Mike Derrick as out of touch with the region. A narrator in the ad says, "When asked about bills in Congress important to the North Country, Derrick responded, ‘I just don’t know enough about it.’ Elise Stefanik does." The narrator then highlights Stefanik’s positions on a handful of issues important to the district. Derrick, a native of the Clinton County, attended schools in the town of Peru and Plattsburgh before embarking on his Army career. The West Point graduate served for 28 years in both the active and reserve forces, retiring in 2013 and then moving back to the region. He’s challenging Stefanik, a first-term member of Congress who previously worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and also led debate preparation for Paul Ryan when he ran for vice president in 2012. Is Stefanik’s ad right? Did Derrick say he didn’t know enough about legislation important to the North Country to take a position? When did he say that? We read the article Stefanik’s campaign quotes in the ad. It was published more than a year ago on the website of the Post-Star newspaper in Glens Falls. Derrick was participating in a discussion held by the Glens Falls chapter of Democracy for America, a progressive grassroots political organization led by Jim Dean and his brother, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Derrick was asked about his position on single-payer health care at the October 2015 event. In a single-payer system, one entity handles health care claims and costs for customers instead of multiple insurance companies. Proponents say it would guarantee health care for people who may now lack it, while opponents believe such a system would drive up taxes and limit access to adequate care. Derrick did not take a position on single-payer health care at the time. "Whether or not we should move to a single-payer program in this country right now, I’m not ready to come out on that yet. I just don’t know enough about it," Derrick said, according to the article. Derrick’s views on health care A year after the event, Derrick’s position has evolved. Derrick, who supports the Affordable Care Act, believes Congress could build on the current health care system to create a single-payer system. "When my wife, Kathy, and I served in the military, we had access to health care through the TRICARE system. For us and so many other men and women in uniform, it was incredibly successful and effective," Derrick said. "I believe that we can use that as a model to build a single-payer health care system for all Americans. With a uniquely American single-payer health care system, we can finally ensure that everyone has access to the health care that they and their family need. This is what we should be working toward." He also said in an article in North Country Now that moving in the direction of a single-payer health care system similar to what the military uses would eventually drive down costs for consumers. Our ruling Stefanik began airing an ad in October accusing Derrick of not knowing enough about the issues that affect the North Country. The narrator in the ad says, "When asked about bills in Congress important to the North Country, Derrick responded, ‘I just don’t know enough about it.’ " Derrick said that about a particular kind of health care coverage - not other issues in the North Country. We rate this claim as Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3e5b1a1f-1410-4e39-b6ef-6b459e4bf60a	None	Elise Stefanik	None	None	None	2016-11-01T11:59:48	2016-10-06	['United_States_Congress', 'North_Country_(New_York)']
-pomt-10524	"John McCain says it's okay with him if the U.S. spends the next thousand years in Iraq."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/05/votevetsorg/a-fair-summary-of-what-he-said/	Two new videos — a TV ad from a veterans group and a parody of a popular YouTube video — quote John McCain as saying the United States could be in Iraq for 1,000 years. "John McCain says it's okay with him if the U.S. spends the next thousand years in Iraq," Rose Forrest, an Iraq war veteran, says in an ad for VoteVets.org that aired in Washington, D.C., in late February and is still available on the Web. "That's some commitment to the Iraqi people, Sen. McCain." A YouTube video known as "John He Is" uses humor to make the same point. It spoofs a pro-Obama music video called Yes We Can . The parody has grainy footage of McCain saying, "I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for a hundred years or a thousand years or 10,000 years" and ends with these words on the screen: "IRAQ WITHDRAWAL DATE: 12,008 . . . . GOOD LUCK WITH THAT IN NOVEMBER." (We're not putting the parody to the Truth-O-Meter, but it's worth checking out for a funny perspective on McCain's comments.) Sen. Barack Obama made a similar charge (but without the catchy music) during the Democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Feb. 26, 2008, when he said, "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." The videos and Obama's statement made us wonder about the full context of McCain's remarks and whether the comments were portrayed accurately. We've previously addressed Sen. Hillary Clinton's claim about the 100-year remark with this item, but McCain has elaborated since then. It's well known that McCain has been a strong supporter of the Iraq war, even when his position harmed his presidential campaign. At a town hall in Derry, N.H., on Jan. 3, 2008, McCain was glib about the need for a long-term U.S. commitment: QUESTION: "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — " McCAIN: "Make it a hundred." Q: "Is that — " McCAIN: "We've been in South Korea . . . we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that's fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day." Three days later, he was asked about the remark on CBS's Face the Nation. He likened the future U.S. role in Iraq to other nations where the United States has a military presence: "My point was and continues to be, how long do we have to stay in Bosnia? How long do we have to stay in South Korea? How long are we going to stay in Japan? How long are we going to stay in Germany? All of those, 50-, 60-year period. No one complains. In fact, they contribute enormously, their presence, to stability in the world," McCain said. "The point is, it's American casualties. We've got to get Americans off the front line, have the Iraqis as part of the strategy, take over more and more of the responsibilities. And then I don't think Americans are concerned if we're there for 100 years or 1,000 years or 10,000 years. What they care about is a sacrifice of our most precious treasure, and that's American blood. So what I'm saying is look, if Americans are there in a support role, but they're not taking casualties, that's fine." When McCain was asked about the remark Jan. 9 on ABC's Good Morning America, he said the U.S. presence could last 1-million years: "Could be 1,000 years or a million years," he said. "We have bases in Kuwait right now. We have bases in South Korea and Japan, Germany. I mean (the allegation by critics is) a straw man. It's a fallacious argument by people who don't understand that it's not American presence, it's American casualties. If we can get American casualties down and eliminate them, Americans are not concerned — in fact, they may be glad we have a secure base in that part of the world as we do in Kuwait." The interviews show McCain is not advocating that the war in Iraq continue for a thousand years (or a million). But once combat ends and U.S. casualities dwindle, he expects the United States could have troops in Iraq similar to the presence in South Korea and Germany. That presence could continue for many years. Clinton correctly described the first remark by saying "Sen. McCain said the other day that we might have troops (in Iraq) for 100 years." We gave that a True. But Obama twisted McCain's words in the Cleveland debate. He said, "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years." As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama's statement False. VoteVets is a veterans group that opposes the Bush administration policy in Iraq and is backing nine Democratic congressional candidates who are veterans. VoteVets has joined a coalition of liberal-leaning groups such as MoveOn.org that will be running ads against McCain. The VoteVets ad does not make the mistake Obama does. It says, "John McCain says it's okay with him if the U.S. spends the next thousand years in Iraq." That careful wording might imply the war might drag on that long, but it does not say it explicitly and we find the words are a fair summary of McCain's remarks. We find the statement to be True.	None	VoteVets.org	None	None	None	2008-03-05T00:00:00	2008-02-25	['United_States', 'Iraq', 'John_McCain']
-goop-00529	Johnny Depp Facing ‘Deadly Liver Crisis,’ 	https://www.gossipcop.com/johnny-depp-health-deadly-liver-crisis/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Johnny Depp NOT Facing ‘Deadly Liver Crisis,’ Despite Report	6:11 pm, August 2, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08759	"Paul Broun Jr. sides with sexual deviants to support sale of 'crush videos.' "	/georgia/statements/2010/aug/27/russell-edwards/congressman-sides-sexual-deviants-no-vote-opponent/	Does a Georgia congressman approve of the sale of sexually deviant videos? Democrat Russell Edwards leveled the attack on his website against U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican from Athens and his opponent in the Nov. 2 election. Edwards' claim is based on Broun's vote against a resolution to prohibit the sale of "crush videos." The videos typically show women wearing high heels stomping on kittens, rabbits or rodents. For some, it is a sexual fetish. To most, it's animal cruelty. "Paul Broun Jr. sides with sexual deviants to support sale of 'crush videos,' " Edwards said. The resolution passed 416-3. Broun, a former physician, voted against the resolution, along with Reps. Tom Graves, R-Ga., and Ron Paul, R-Texas. The accusation is an eye-opener, so we decided to check it out. Is Edwards right about the congressman? No, said Broun, who called the videos "morally reprehensible." For those unfamiliar with them, crush videos surfaced in the 1990s. In 1999, federal legislation was signed into law banning the videos and they "vanished overnight," said Michael Markarian, chief operating officer of the Humane Society of the United States. The videos seemed to disappear, although there were no federal prosecutions of such cases, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker reported. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law in April, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech. Congress worked on a more focused law more specifically targeting animal crush videos. House Resolution 5566 calls for punishing anyone who sells or distributes such videos with five years in prison. The resolution passed July 21. Broun said he voted against the bill for two reasons. One, he believes the federal government has limited criminal justice powers, aside from those outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Broun said in a statement his office e-mailed to AJC PolitiFact Georgia that the bill is another example of the federal government encroaching upon the rights afforded each state under the Constitution. The other reason Broun said he voted against the bill is because each state has laws against animal cruelty. "If states feel that they need to toughen their laws, they can do so," Broun said. "There is no need to create federal laws that are duplicative and unconstitutional." Broun is known for taking a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He believes Social Security is unconstitutional and has said he supports repealing the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to collect taxes. He believes his ideas would resurrect the Founding Fathers' vision of the Constitution, saying they would be disturbed by the size and scope of today's federal government. In fact, Broun, who carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution, caught flak in 2008 for calling then President-elect Barack Obama a "Marxist." He later apologized to anyone who took offense. The American Conservative Union, which describes itself as the nation's oldest grass-roots conservative organization, gave Broun its Defender of Liberty Award. Jason Pye, a former chairman of the Georgia Libertarian Party and close observer of state politicians, said he's not surprised that Broun voted against the amendment. "Paul Broun has always cast himself as a constitutional conservative," Pye said. Pye called Edwards' comments about Broun's vote "demagoguery." Edwards, making his first run for political office, doesn't believe he went too far in criticizing Broun, a two-term incumbent. "[Broun] is picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution he wants to uphold and which ones he wants to dismiss." Not surprisingly, the Humane Society's Markarian also disagrees with Broun's vote. He said the measure is necessary because it is difficult for states to track down crush video traffickers. The payments for videos are often made via Western Union, he said. Many are sold from other countries. Bob Barr a former congressman and U.S. attorney from Georgia, agreed that federal officials have advantages over state officials in investigating and prosecuting "crush video" type cases. He cited the investigative tools of the FBI and statutes to prosecute mail and wire fraud, which carry longer prison sentences. Still, Barr is not a supporter of HR 5566 and cited many of the same reasons cited by Broun. Barr, then a Republican House member, voted against the 1999 law. And Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent to the April ruling that "the videos record the commission of violent criminal acts," alluding to state animal cruelty laws. To say a congressman sides with "sexual deviants" is a hefty claim. Broun did vote against the resolution, but he articulated reasons that fall well within his political ideals and record. Whether those reasons trump pragmatic concerns about how best to crack down on distribution of the videos is another question. We had a problem with Edwards saying that Broun "supports" the sale of the videos, particularly since Broun condemned them. Voting against the resolution on constitutional grounds is not the same as supporting the sale of deviant material. We rate Edwards' statement about Broun's vote on HR 5566 as False.	None	Russell Edwards	None	None	None	2010-08-27T06:00:00	2010-07-22	['None']
-pomt-01321	"My opponent supported policies that increased tuition by 18 percent."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/oct/27/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-mary-burke-supported-18-percent-/	Reaching out to students and their check-writing parents, Gov. Scott Walker is promising another tuition freeze at UW System schools. And now in the final weeks of his re-election showdown with Democrat Mary Burke, the first-term Republican is blaming her for past tuition hikes. "With two sons in college, I know how hard it is to pay for school," Walker says in a TV ad released Oct. 20, 2014. "That’s why we froze tuition at UW campuses. I want to freeze it again in my next term. My opponent supported policies that increased tuition by 18 percent." In the campaign, Burke has said she’d like to freeze tuition -- but only if more aid can go to the University of Wisconsin System at the same time. She’s emphasized larger income tax deductions for tuition and refinancing student loans. But, looking back, is the governor right about Burke’s support of policies that led to an 18 percent increase? Let’s hit the books. Walker’s evidence The ad itself lists no footnote as evidence for the 18 percent figure and does not cite any specific policies backed by Burke, who served as head of the state Commerce Department under Gov. Jim Doyle from 2005 to 2007. A Walker campaign news release about the ad simply offers the history of UW tuition increases approved in state budgets back to 1967, and Burke’s statement to a reporter in April 2005 that she supports Doyle’s positions "entirely." A campaign spokesperson pointed us to Burke’s general praise of two of Doyle’s budgets in place during her state government career. None of that makes any direct link between Burke and tuition hikes. That’s not surprising, given that Burke’s job was to grant and track state aid to businesses, not run the UW System, which sets tuition rates in conjunction with lawmakers and the governor. We did a search of news stories from the time and found no statements by Burke about raising tuition. She did, in 2007, praise a Doyle budget investment in more financial aid to help families better afford college. More broadly, Burke promoted Doyle’s overall 2007-’09 budget as a "smart, responsible budget for Wisconsin businesses" that is "fiscally responsible, identifies our priorities for success, and invests in those priorities" while including "more than a dozen separate tax cuts, saving the taxpayers and businesses of Wisconsin $1.7 billion." Tuition history There’s no doubt UW tuition rose rapidly in the Doyle era, which ran from 2003 through 2010. Tuition rates jumped 18 percent his first year, and 15 percent the second. But that was in the 2003-’04 and 2004-’05 school years -- before Burke arrived. After that, increases ranged from 0 percent to 9.3 percent, depending on the year and whether it was a four-year or two-year school, UW-Madison or UW-Milwaukee. Increases were capped at about 5 percent for several years. When Doyle took office, tuition at the system’s flagship UW-Madison campus was $3,854. When he left in 2010 it was $7,933. If you look specifically at Burke’s time in state government, tuition rose 19 percent in those three years, with some variations for different UW campuses. Under Walker, tuition went up 11 percent over his first two years, then was frozen for 2013-’14 and 2014-’15. The difference -- and it’s a big one -- is that Walker directly controlled those changes while Burke had little or nothing to do with them. We’ve been here before. In March 2014, we rated False a Republican Party of Wisconsin claim it was Burke’s budget in 2007-’09 that contained a series of tax hikes. We concluded it is off base to put responsibility for the state budget and its thousands of provisions on an appointed cabinet secretary. Likewise, it is wrong to blame a secretary for spending changes in another department. Our rating Walker said, "My opponent supported policies that increased tuition by 18 percent." Burke was in state government when that happened, but Walker offers no evidence that she backed tuition hikes other than Burke lauding her boss as she went to work for Doyle. We rate his claim False.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-10-27T05:00:00	2014-10-20	['None']
-goop-00836	Kendall Jenner ‘Jealous’ Blake Griffin Has ‘Moved On,’ 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kendall-jenner-blake-griffin-jealous/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kendall Jenner NOT ‘Jealous’ Blake Griffin Has ‘Moved On,’ Despite Report	2:49 pm, June 12, 2018	None	['Kendall_Jenner']
-goop-02902	Kim Kardashian Getting “Bikini Body” In Case Of Kanye West Divorce, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-bikini-body-kanye-west-divorce/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian NOT Getting “Bikini Body” In Case Of Kanye West Divorce, Despite Report	2:25 pm, March 28, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-12713	"We raised the minimum wage to $15 first in city government. Now, working together with people in Albany, it's the law of the state."	/new-york/statements/2017/mar/08/bill-de-blasio/who-led-way-15-minimum-wage-new-york/	New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says lawmakers in Albany followed the lead of city government when they passed a statewide minimum wage increase last year. De Blasio, who is up for reelection this year, made the claim in his 2017 State of the City address. "We all together -- so many partners in this room did again what was said to be impossible," de Blasio said. "We raised the minimum wage to $15 first in city government. Now, working together with people in Albany, it's the law of the state." De Blasio raised the minimum wage for city employees in January 2016, about three months before the New York State Legislature passed a new statewide minimum wage in April. The minimum wage will be phased in to $15 at different rates across the state over the next several years. So is de Blasio right about New York City paving the way for the wage increase? The fast food wage board Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo took the first statewide action on a $15 minimum wage in May 2015 when he convened his fast-food wage board. The governor cannot unilaterally raise the statewide minimum wage, but the Department of Labor has the authority to raise wages for a specific industry. The fast-food wage board was charged with recommending a pay increase for workers in that industry. After four public hearings, the wage board recommended a phased-in minimum wage of $15 for fast-food workers. Acting State Labor Commissioner Mario J. Musolino approved the recommendation in September 2015. State and SUNY workers Cuomo, two months later in November 2015, announced a minimum wage increase to $15 for state workers. The order applied to 10,000 New York state employees. Cuomo announced the same increase for employees of the State University of New York in January 2016. The increase applied to 28,000 SUNY employees. Both actions were scheduled to be fully phased in by 2018 in New York City and 2021 statewide. New York City De Blasio announced a $15 minimum wage for city workers on Jan. 6, 2016 -- two days after Cuomo announced the wage increase for SUNY workers. De Blasio’s announcement applied to more public workers than Cuomo’s two major announcements combined. He said 50,000 workers would see a raise in the city, compared with Cuomo’s combined 38,000 employees between the state and SUNY workers. De Blasio’s raise will be fully phased in by the end of 2018, like state and SUNY workers in New York City. Other cities Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner was the first elected official in New York state to raise the minimum wage to $15 for public employees. Miner made the announcement in October 2015, about three weeks before Cuomo announced the raise for state workers and three months before de Blasio. The action only affected 61 city employees in Syracuse, but the raise took effect immediately. The cities of Buffalo and Rochester announced their own minimum wage increases to $15 about a month later in November. Both cities were scheduled to phase in the wage increase by 2021. The action affected 479 city workers in Buffalo and 116 in Rochester. Our ruling De Blasio said during his State of the City address that "we raised the minimum wage to $15 first in city government. Now, working together with people in Albany, it's the law of the state." De Blasio trailed the pack on this issue. Three other cities in New York state gave their public employees a raise before New York City. An increase for state and SUNY workers also came before his action. Fast-food workers were the first to get a raise. He did raise the New York City wage before the State Legislature enacted a statewide wage increase. While that part of his statement is accurate, his claim leaves out important details and ignores other facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bill de Blasio	None	None	None	2017-03-08T11:45:00	2017-02-13	['Albany,_New_York']
-farg-00057	"The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/calls-to-abolish-ice-not-open-borders/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Robert Farley	['border security']	Calls to Abolish ICE Not ‘Open Borders’	July 3, 2018	2018-07-03 19:15:49 UTC	['None']
-snes-03185	Women in a dangerous situation at a bar can order an angel shot to ensure safe passage into an Uber and away from a frightening man.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ordering-angel-shot-potentially-life-saving-women/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Ordering an ‘Angel Shot’ Potentially Life-Saving for Women?	9 January 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00264	Christina Aguilera “Diva” At Restaurant?	https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-aguilera-diva-restaurant/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Christina Aguilera “Diva” At Restaurant?	11:00 am, September 15, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08749	Says most of Perry's chiefs of staff have been lobbyists.	/texas/statements/2010/aug/30/bill-white/bill-white-says-most-gov-rick-perrys-chiefs-staff-/	Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White has vowed to tighten rules restricting state employees from working as lobbyists, recently noting that Perry's top staffers have kept the revolving door spinning. "Most of his chiefs of staff have been lobbyists," White said to a crowd of about 35 people in the North Texas town of Crowell on Aug. 14. White was more specific in an ethics reform proposal he released in April: "Five of seven Perry chiefs of staff have been lobbyists." Quick aside: State law regulates lobbying, defined as "direct communications" with members of state agencies, the legislative or executive branch of state government to influence legislation or administrative action. That includes the offices of the governor. White proposed to prohibit the governor's senior staff from working on issues related to their former employment for two years. And "when departing, they will be prohibited from lobbying the governor's office or their state agency for two years," according to White's plan. Mark Miner, a spokesman for Perry's campaign, has said that "the governor has some of the toughest ethics policies anywhere in the country," according to a Aug. 19 article in the Dallas Morning News. "You cannot lobby his office for one year and a legislative session." Still, we wondered if White's chiefs-of-staff complaint was true. So we went down the roster of the governor's chiefs of staff and combed through the Texas Ethics Commission's online database of registered lobbyists, who are required to report their compensation and expenditures. But that list only dates back to 1998, so we reached out to the former chiefs of staff themselves. Introducing ... Barry McBee chief of staff, December 2000-August 2001; registered lobbyist 2001-02McBee was the first of the seven chiefs of staff Perry has had during his gubernatorial tenure. McBee has also been chairman of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, deputy commissioner at the Texas Department of Agriculture and an aide to former Gov. Bill Clements. McBee was a lobbyist when he worked for the law firm Bracewell & Patterson (now Bracewell & Giuliani). The ethics commission lists nine clients for McBee, including AT&T and defense contractor Northrop Grumman, in 2002, his most recent year as a lobbyist. The commission reports McBee's compensation from the law firm that year as at least $200,000. Where's McBee now? At the University of Texas System, where's he's worked as vice chancellor for governmental relations since 2006 — also a lobbying job, albeit for a public institution. Mike McKinney chief of staff, September 2001-November 2002; registered lobbyist 1999-2001 McKinney served in the Texas House of Representatives from 1984 to 1991 and led the Texas Health and Human Services Commission during George W. Bush's first term as governor. McKinney was registered as a lobbyist from 1999 to August 2001 while he was a vice president of Centene Corp., a St. Louis-based health insurance company. Rod Davis, a spokesman at the Texas A&M University System, where McKinney is now chancellor, said he had "registered as a lobbyist as a standard precaution for having any contacts with legislators" but "was not primarily a 'lobbyist' by any means." Mike Toomey chief of staff December 2002-September 2004; registered lobbyist 1990-2002, 2004-present The ethics commission database lists more than 30 clients, including Merck and Philip Morris, for Toomey in 2002, the year he became Perry's chief of staff. Since leaving the Perry administration, Toomey has resumed lobbying. Among his 25 clients listed for 2010 on the ethics commission report are AT&T, Corrections Corp. of America, Hewlett-Packard and Texas Instruments. This year, Toomey reported a minimum of $800,000 and a maximum of about $1.5 million in prospective compensation, according to the commission. Deirdre Delisi chief of staff September 2004-June 2007 Delisi has been with Perry since he was lieutenant governor. She served as his chief of staff until Perry tapped her to serve as the chairwoman of the Texas Transportation Commission, which governs the Texas Department of Transportation. Delisi told us that she has never been a registered lobbyist, and after searching news clips and lobbyist registries dating from 1998 on the ethics commission website, we confirmed as much. Brian Newby chief of staff July 2007-October 2008; registered lobbyist 2009-present Newby rejoined the law firm Cantey Hanger in 2009 after working for Perry and registered as a lobbyist the same year. This year, the Tarrant Regional Water District was listed as his client, and his prospective compensation from the district was reported as $10,000 to $24,999.99. Jay Kimbrough chief of staff October 2008-June 2009 Kimbrough, a former Marine, has in recent years filled a troubleshooter role at the Texas Youth Commission and the Texas Department of Transportation. Prior, he was a special adviser to the Texas A&M board of regents. Kimbrough told us that he's never been a lobbyist, and we didn't find any evidence to the contrary. Ray Sullivan chief of staff July 2009-present; registered lobbyist 2002-09 Katherine Cesinger, a spokeswoman for Perry, told us that Sullivan first registered as a lobbyist in late 2002, although he doesn't show up in the ethics commission database until 2003. Before that, he worked in various capacities for Perry. Perry appointed him as chief of staff in July, prompting Wayne Slater at the Dallas Morning News to single Sullivan out as an example of "how things work in Austin." According to the Aug. 19 article, "Ray has shuttled between top jobs on Perry’s staff and as a lobbyist representing interests with business before the state. His wife has directed the governor’s political fundraising. They haven’t broken the law or the rules governing the practice of politics and policy, and they’ve made between $4 million and $5.7 million since Perry’s been governor, according to campaign reports, lobby filings and state payroll records." In 2009, Sullivan had seven clients listed to his name on the ethics website, including HNTP Corp., a toll-road engineering company. Seven chiefs of staff later, what have we learned? Far as we can tell, five have been registered as lobbyists, as White stated. Three of those — McKinney, Toomey and Sullivan — were lobbyists before Perry hired them as chief of staff. We rate White's statement as True.	None	Bill White	None	None	None	2010-08-30T06:00:00	2010-08-14	['None']
-pomt-04953	President Obama was saying success "is the result of government," not "hard-working people," when he said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/	For nearly two weeks, the Romney and Obama campaign have been arguing about whether President Barack Obama insulted entrepreneurs. The argument started with comments Obama made about the intersection of business and government during a July 17, 2012 campaign appearance. Romney, in comments at public events and in several ads, has argued that the remarks show a general disdain for business. The Republican National Committee and the National Federation of Independent Business are among the groups have released their own videos and statements echoing Romney that the president is out of touch. In one fundraising e-mail, Matt Rhoades, Romney’s campaign manager, decried Obama’s "naïve view that government, and not the hard work, talent, and initiative of people, is the center of society and the economy." In another campaign e-mail, Amanda Henneberg, a Romney spokeswoman, said Obama had "denigrated Americans who built their own businesses." The issue has become so big that the Obama campaign felt the need to address the issue head-on in a Web video titled "Tampered" that quoted media accounts saying the quote had been taken out of context. Earlier, we looked at the full context of Obama’s statement. Here we will put a recent Romney claim about Obama’s comment to the Truth-O-Meter. To do this, we’ll look at the latest Romney web video in the seemingly endless back and forth. Here's how the Romney campaign prefaced the video on its website: "President Obama recently said: ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ "Clearly, this President doesn't understand how our economy works. "Mitt Romney understands that we have to celebrate people who start enterprises and employ other people rather than devalue them. Success is not the result of government, it is the result of hard-working people who take risks, create dreams, and build lives for themselves and for their families. "Stand with Mitt today and stand up for Americans who work hard to build their businesses, their homes, their families and their communities." In this item, we’ll rate the claim that Obama was saying success "is the result of government," not "hard-working people," when he said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." In case you didn't catch it the first 5,000 times the snippet ran on cable, yes, those words were uttered by Obama. But as you can see when you read the full text of his remarks, that quote distorts the meaning of Obama's claim. (Romney himself has been a victim of this kind of shenanigans, when opponents claimed he said he liked firing people.) Here is the full context, from Obama's speech in Roanoke, Va.: "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together." We believe, as do our friends at FactCheck.org and the Washington Post Fact Checker, that Romney has seriously distorted Obama’s comments. Romney cherry-picked a quote that made it sound like Obama was dismissive of businesses when in fact he was making a point that success comes from the combination of "individual initiative" and the fact that "we do things together." The biggest problem is that the Romney campaign has left out the lead-up to the statement -- that "if you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges." These words indicate that Obama was referring to infrastructure and educational opportunities that were paid for by taxpayers through the government -- things that established a necessary foundation for making private businesses successful. We think his meaning is clear -- that both business people and government play a role in the American enterprise system, not purely one or the other. Our ruling In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning. The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses. Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-07-26T18:04:46	2012-07-25	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-03509	Cops Take a Knee, Strand Redskins Players in Locker Room Overnight	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cops-take-a-knee-strand-redskins-players-in-locker-room-overnight/	None	sports	None	None	['fake news', 'National Anthem', 'nfl', 'protests']	Cops Take a Knee, Strand Redskins Players in Locker Room Overnight	Oct 26, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03044	Anywhere Visa is Accepted	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-immigration-order-obama/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did the Obama Administration Select the Countries Affected by President Trump’s Immigration Order?	30 January 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05416	Criminals are furtively wedging coins into car door handles in order to more easily break into vehicles.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coin-car-handle-warning/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Coins in Car Door Theft Warning	5 January 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-02264	"Before Congress, (Tom) Cotton got paid handsomely working for insurance companies and corporate interests."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/09/senate-majority-pac/democratic-pac-says-tom-cotton-got-paid-handsomely/	This election cycle, we’ve seen vulnerable Senate Democrats attacked by the billionaire Koch brothers in costly TV ad spots. It’s safe to say, though, that Democrats are fighting back. Take the Senate Majority PAC, an outside group formed in 2011 to support Democratic Senate candidates. They launched a statewide ad in Arkansas attacking Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who’s up against Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor come November. "Corporate special interests are spending millions to smear Mark Pryor and elect Tom Cotton," the narrator said. "Why? Before Congress, Cotton got paid handsomely working for insurance companies and corporate interests." PolitiFact wanted to know if Cotton really worked for insurance companies before taking office in 2013. Cotton’s campaign didn’t respond to our requests for comment. What most people know about Cotton’s work experience is the years he spent serving in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2005 to 2009. That experience has come under fire from Pryor, who accused his opponent of having a "sense of entitlement" about his decorated military past. Shortly after Cotton’s honorable discharge from the military, he worked at a global consulting firm called McKinsey & Company. The firm employs 17,000 people across 60 countries. Democrats like Chelsea Clinton and Susan Rice have also worked there. The Senate Majority PAC pointed us to Cotton’s Facebook biography, which says, "As a businessman, Tom has advised some of America’s most respected companies on business strategy, operations, finance, and marketing. His industry experience includes agribusiness, health care, oil and gas, food processing, insurance, and aerospace." That’s not work directly for an insurance company. And Glenn Kessler, our Washington Post fact-checking colleague, noted that Cotton has never even worked for an insurance company in a consulting role. Cotton worked on an assignment with the Federal Housing Authority to improve insurance offered to lenders who finance apartment buildings in the government’s multifamily housing programs, according to a statement from his former boss. So Cotton didn’t work for an insurance company. But did he get paid handsomely? That’s a subjective judgment we won’t weigh in on. But we can see from his financial disclosure statement that Cotton earned $85,000 from McKinsey in 2011. For comparison, he makes $174,000 per year in Congress. Our ruling The Senate Majority PAC ad claimed, "Before Congress, Cotton got paid handsomely working for insurance companies and corporate interests." Cotton’s never worked for an insurance company, nor has he served as a consultant for one. We rate the statement False.	None	Senate Majority PAC	None	None	None	2014-04-09T15:03:46	2014-03-28	['None']
-pomt-12041	Wisconsin is "guaranteeing Foxconn almost $3 billion, but Foxconn is not contractually guaranteeing how many full-time employees it will hire, for how long and at what pay."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/sep/12/andy-gronik/wisconsin-guaranteeing-nearly-3-billion-foxconn-no/	Andy Gronik, one of the leading Democratic candidates for governor in 2018, has bashed Republican Gov. Scott Walker for Walker’s deal with Foxconn, which is nearing final approval. The Milwaukee-area businessman calls the offer to get a manufacturing plant that could employ 13,000 people "nothing but a con to Wisconsin." "We are guaranteeing Foxconn almost $3 billion, but Foxconn is not contractually guaranteeing how many full-time employees it will hire, for how long and at what pay," he wrote in an op-ed published Sept. 5, 2017, in the MIlwaukee Journal Sentinel. Gronik’s right that the Taiwanese manufacturer hasn’t made any jobs guarantees. But the state is guaranteeing to pay Foxconn nearly $3 billion only if the company meets certain investment and payroll requirements. The Foxconn announcement Foxconn drew big headlines -- and a July 26, 2017, announcement at the White House with President Donald Trump -- by saying it plans to invest $10 billion to build a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel manufacturing plant in Wisconsin. On Sept. 5, 2017, the state Legislature’s budget committee approved the $3 billion incentives package, which still needs the approval of the full Legislature. Walker said Foxconn "is bringing" 13,000 jobs, but we rated that claim Half True. Foxconn has said it plans to initially employ 3,000 people, with the potential for 13,000. We also rated Half True a claim that Wisconsin’s offer could amount to more than $1 million per job. That could occur If Foxconn invests $9 billion in the plant and equipment, but hires only 1,500 workers. But there is no evidence the company would invest that much and only employ 1,500 people. Now to Gronik’s claim. The incentive offer The incentive package is worth up to $3 billion, but $150 million of that is sales tax exemptions -- in other words, Foxconn wouldn’t have to pay up to $150 million in sales taxes on construction materials for the plant. That leaves $2.85 billion -- the nearly $3 billion Gronik referred to. It comes in two parts. 1. The state would pay Foxconn based on how much the company invests in the plant and equipment. The maximum payment is $1.35 billion, if Foxconn invests at least $9 billion. So, the $1.35 billion is not tied directly to jobs at the Foxconn plant, though the investment would clearly employ construction people. It’s theoretically possible, if unlikely, that Foxconn could receive the $1.35 billion, or some portion of it, if it builds the plant but then -- say, if market conditions change -- abandons it without employing anyone. It’s also possible the plant could be built to maximize automation, which would require fewer workers. 2. The state would also pay Foxconn based on the size of its payroll at the plant. The maximum would be $1.5 billion, if payroll reaches $8.8 billion within a 15-year period, Wisconsin Budget Project director Jon Peacock told us. For example, the $1.5 billion could be earned if Foxconn employs 13,000 people who make at least $30,000 and have an average salary of about $54,000, he said. In other words, the more people hired by Foxconn, the more the state would pay to the company. In sum: There is no flat guarantee from the state of nearly $3 billion. Roughly half of the incentives would be based on how much is invested in the manufacturing plant, and roughly half would be paid based on employment. In both cases, the incentives are paid, on a pay-as-you go basis, based on what the company does. A parting note: Walker's administration is negotiating a final contract with Foxconn. So, it’s possible a minimum jobs requirement could be made part of the deal. Our rating Gronik says Wisconsin is "guaranteeing Foxconn almost $3 billion, but Foxconn is not contractually guaranteeing how many full-time employees it will hire, for how long and at what pay." Wisconsin is guaranteeing to pay Foxconn up to $2.85 billion -- but the full amount would be paid only if the company invests at least $9 billion in its plant and, in rough numbers, employs at least 13,000 people earning at least $30,000 per year. The payments would be less, if Foxconn doesn’t meet those targets. It’s true that Foxconn is not guaranteeing how many people it will hire, for how long and at what pay. That means it’s theoretically possible the company could earn up to $1.35 billion in investment incentives but not employ anyone, if it built the facility but never operated it. But the other $1.5 billion would be paid, on a graduated basis, only as people are employed at the plant. For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Andy Gronik	None	None	None	2017-09-12T10:43:14	2017-09-05	['Foxconn', 'Wisconsin']
-pomt-06846	Says Republican Sen. John McCain won more votes for president in Cuyahoga County in the 2008 general election than he did in seven states.	/ohio/statements/2011/aug/05/kevin-dewine/ohio-gop-chair-says-democrat-stronghold-cuyahoga-c/	The Ohio Republican Party hosted its annual state dinner and fund-raiser in Cleveland on July 22, 2011, that rallied its members around state and national issues and candidates. The annual event, which is moved outside Columbus during off-year elections, featured Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel of Lyndhurst (near Cleveland), who is running for the U.S. Senate next year, and Louisiana’s Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, a conservative who regularly speaks about GOP priorities. The two politicians and others at the dinner easily revved up the crowd by blaming Democrats for the nation’s debt problems and by praising themselves for passing a collective bargaining law for public workers in Ohio that limits the power of unions. Cuyahoga County Republicans deserved to have the event in their backyard because they provide the GOP a big chunk of votes in state elections, Ohio Republican Party chair Kevin DeWine said during the dinner. To illustrate this point, he noted that in 2008 Republican Sen. John McCain garnered more votes for the presidency in the Democratic-dominated county than he did in seven states. PolitiFact Ohio thought the statistic was worth examining given the GOP’s view that Cuyahoga County, Ohio’s most populous, is a battleground within a battleground state that could have a big say in the fate of the new collective bargining law, which will be before voters in November. "The Republican Party must compete aggressively in Cuyahoga County in order to carry the state," explains DeWine, who sees the recent public corruption scandal involving Democratic officials as helping the GOP cause. So how many votes did McCain win in the county? The last amended 2008 general election results on file with the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections shows that McCain received 199,880, or about 30 percent. Democrat Barack Obama received 458,422 votes. Comparing this figure against the state vote totals, McCain indeed racked up more votes in Cuyahoga County than he did in seven states. Obama carried these four states, shown here with McCain’s vote totals: Vermont (98,974 votes) Hawaii (120,566) Delaware (152,374) Rhode Island (165,391) McCain carried three of the states with fewer votes than he got in Cuyahoga County: Wyoming (164,958 votes) North Dakota (168,601) Alaska (193,841) It’s not hard to see why Cuyahoga County offers so much. The county’s population in the 2010 census of 1,280,122 makes it more populous than six of the seven states in the comparison. Only Hawaii, which has 1,360,301 residents, is bigger. Wyoming is the smallest with 563,626 residents. All of this leaves DeWine’s claim right on the mark. On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates True.	None	Kevin DeWine	None	None	None	2011-08-05T06:00:00	2011-08-22	['John_McCain', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-wast-00169	"That was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms"	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/28/trumps-claim-that-a-racial-discrimination-suit-was-brought-against-many-real-estate-firms/	None	None	Donald Trump	Glenn Kessler	None	Trump's claim that a racial discrimination suit was \xe2\x80\x98brought against many real estate firms'	September 28, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02443	A Giant Squid Carcass was Found in Indonesia?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-squid-indonesia/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Was a Giant Squid Carcass Found in Indonesia?	12 May 2017	None	['None']
-pose-00857	"Under the Cuyahoga CountyStat system, departments will develop, measure, track and report specific performance measures that detail service quality and responsiveness."	https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/fitz-o-meter/promise/889/save-money-and-increase-accountability-through-a-d/	None	fitz-o-meter	Ed FitzGerald	None	None	Save money and increase accountability through a data-based system called CountyStat	2011-01-20T13:56:11	None	['None']
-pose-00357	Under the current federal work-study program - which provides nearly $1 billion dollars a year to about 3,400 colleges and universities to subsidize part-time jobs for students - at least 7 percent of that funding is supposed to go to community service jobs like tutoring. Obama believes we need to raise the service threshold to 25 percent "so that more students can afford to engage in public service. This will help more than 200,000 college students a year complete part-time public service while they are in school. Obama ... will work to help colleges and universities reach the goal of 50 percent in serve-study advanced by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and by General Colin Powell as the chair of America's Promise."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/376/encourage-more-public-service-by-college-students/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Encourage more public service by college students	2010-01-07T13:26:56	None	['Colin_Powell', 'Bill_Clinton', 'Barack_Obama', 'United_States', 'George_W._Bush']
-pomt-13170	"Paul Ryan’s already spent millions to try and permanently derail Brad (Schneider)’s progressive, energized campaign."	/illinois/statements/2016/oct/27/barney-frank/Barney-Frank-claim-against-Paul-Ryan-teeters/	The race between Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Dold and Democratic challenger Brad Schneider in Illinois' 10th Congressional District is one of the most expensive House races in the country. It's a race both parties consider winnable and money from national sources is pouring in for support. Schneider was elected to the seat in 2012, but as an incumbent in 2014, lost to Dold by 5,000 votes. That race was the poster child for extremely high spending by national parties on a local race. Schneider’s friends won’t let voters forget it. Former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts sent out a fundraising email in September supporting Schneider and criticizing top Republicans for donating to Dold’s campaign. In fact, in his email, Frank calls out one Republican leader by name. "Paul Ryan’s already spent millions to try and permanently derail Brad’s progressive, energized, campaign." That made us wonder: Has Ryan really spent millions of dollars to try to ensure Dold would be re-elected? We took a deep look at Super PACs and national committees to get to the bottom of this claim. Why is the 10th District so important? In a year where Democrats could take back the United States Congress, competitive races are getting attention. Both parties are sending more to incumbent congressional candidates in tight races. In February, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) selected 12 candidates, including Dold, to receive extra money through a funding model called The Patriot Program. The Patriot Program describes itself as an organization that "plays a vital role in keeping our Republican team on offense and helps build a lasting and productive Republican Majority for the American people." Schneider, too, is receiving money from national PACs like the Democrats Win Seats PAC set up by former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Contributions to Dold’s campaign Schneider campaign spokesman Steven Kirsch sent us a list of contributions the NRCC and the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) donated to the effort to oppose Schneider’s campaign during the 2012, 2014 and 2016 elections. Kirsch also included the money Republicans spent to support Dold in 2014 and the current election. We used the Federal Election Commission website and OpenSecrets.com to verify those figures showing the NRCC and CLF have spent roughly $7.6 million in those campaigns. Of that amount, $1.8 million came while Ryan was speaker of the House. Kirsch explained that because Ryan is the speaker of the House, he is the nominal head of these organizations. Ryan wasn’t elected speaker of the House until October 2015. That means Ryan would not have been in charge of the CLF and NRCC spending in the 2012 and 2014 elections. Kirsch explains: "While he was not speaker during the cycles where this money was spent, we feel that it is appropriate to use him as a representative of the group as a whole," he said. Did Ryan spend that money? Ryan serves as an ex-officio member of the NRCC’s executive committee and we found the PACs Team Ryan and Ryan for Congress gave a combined $31.4 million to the NRCC since Oct. 30, 2015, a day after he was elected speaker of the House. But that is only about a third of the total amount the NRCC raised this campaign cycle and there is no indication Ryan dictates how the NRCC spends its money. In fact, the CLF and the NRCC websites do not explain the decisions behind organizational spending strategy. Neither organization returned multiple emails and calls to PolitiFact Illinois. And while Ryan has attended fundraisers for Dold in Illinois and his committees have donated to the NRCC, we could not find any instances where Ryan directly contributed to Dold’s campaign or spent his own money to oppose Schneider. For analysis on this issue, we turned to Paul S. Herrnson, a political science professor at the University of Connecticut and author of several books including The Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Intimates. Herrnson said looking too far into Frank’s statement might be considered "splitting hairs," but Frank’s characterization of Dold’s funding model is misleading. "It’s not exactly fair," he said. "It’s not exactly his money. It’s not a direct contribution from Ryan and it’s not a contribution from Ryan’s personal campaign or congressional campaign committee." Herrnson said Frank’s motive is to paint a negative picture of Dold, saying he relies heavily on outsider money. "They want people to come away with the idea that this campaign is being directed by a political insider of the opposite party," Herrnson said. "It sort of makes the source of the money an issue." But he said neither Democrats nor Republicans are immune. They both point fingers and both accept outsider money. "It happens on both sides of the aisle," he said. Our ruling In a September fundraising email supporting candidate Brad Schneider, former U.S. Congressman Barney Frank said, "Paul Ryan’s already spent millions to try and permanently derail Brad’s progressive, energized, campaign." Ryan’s committees, Team Ryan and Ryan for Congress, have donated $31.4 million to the NRCC since he became speaker of the House. As speaker, Ryan does represent the NRCC, which has given $1.8 million to support Dold and oppose Schneider this election cycle. That's not "millions," but it's not far off. Also, the wording of Frank's statement implies has received a direct contribution from Ryan when the money came from political committees Ryan represents. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Barney Frank	None	None	None	2016-10-27T16:21:58	2016-09-28	['None']
-pomt-02842	A Census Bureau worker says he was told to skew information to bring the unemployment rate down "as we headed into an election season."	/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/20/elisabeth-hasselbeck/elisabeth-hasselbeck-suggests-census-worker-admits/	A drop in the unemployment rate right before the 2012 election has given conservatives a whiff of conspiracy. On the Fox News Channel morning show Fox and Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade and Elisabeth Hasselbeck discussed a New York Post report that alleged Census Bureau workers cooked the books between August and September 2012, dropping the unemployment rate from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. Hasselbeck said the report, from a Post columnist, identified one Census Bureau worker who admitted to fudging data in the past. "Now we're finding out there was someone on one side of the scale," Hasselbeck told viewers. "There was a name, Julius Buckmon. ... He told in an interview that he was told to make up information as he went along. This is on crucial information as we headed into an election season." The report was also cited on Fox News’ The Five and later on Hannity. We decided to see if Buckmon is indeed a smoking gun about the reported 2012 fraud. We also wanted to learn a little bit more about how the unemployment rate is calculated and what impact a Census Bureau employee can have. The 'Post' report The original New York Post report from columnist John Crudele essentially reaches the same conclusion as Hasselbeck, though perhaps not as definitively. Using an unnamed source, Crudele builds a case that Census Bureau workers were told by their supervisors to help drive down the unemployment rate ahead of the 2012 presidential election. The source also handed over a piece of evidence -- the case of Census Bureau worker Julius Buckmon. Buckmon was part of a Census Bureau team that helped collect information used to calculate the unemployment rate, which is based on a survey of about 60,000 households. The Census Bureau is in charge of the people who ask the questions. The data is then collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Labor Department, which in turn creates monthly employment statistics. Buckmon said he made up at least some of his results instead of surveying households. Buckmon told the Post about a conversation with his supervisor at the bureau. "It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was," Buckmon said. The problem for Hasselbeck is that Buckmon wasn’t working for the Census Bureau in 2012. According to the Post, the alleged incident he described took place in 2010. Buckmon left the Census Bureau in August 2011, Census Bureau officials told us. So Hasselbeck incorrectly overlapped Buckmon’s story with the rest of the Post article, which relies on an anonymous source. (Buckmon did not return our calls seeking comment.) The unemployment report To be clear, we cannot say if the Post article is correct in its other points. But experts we spoke with agreed that it would be extremely difficult to alter the nationwide unemployment rate. William Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia and head of the Virginia chapter of the Association for University and Business Economic Research, said it’s important to remember that there are many measures of unemployment, including privately produced surveys. "And they all agree, within the margins of error," Shobe said. "The immediate conclusion that you can draw from that is that no rogue interviewer or group of rogue interviewers have managed to budge the unemployment far (or at all, mind you) from the value it would have had otherwise." Shobe added that any effort to fudge the national numbers would require the participation of interviewers across the country. "Otherwise you would see only a localized move which would wash out as noise in the national stats," Shobe said. Former Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner Katharine Abraham backs up Shobe’s point. Abraham, who served as commissioner from 1993-2001 under presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said that the typical interviewer handles between 35 and 55 households. That would translate to anywhere between about 1,000 and 1,700 interviewers to cover 60,000 households. "Even if an interviewer made up all of his or her interviews," Abraham said, "each interviewer's share of the full sample is small enough that it would be rather unlikely for the made-up interviews to have affected the topside unemployment numbers at all." In addition, Abraham said the Census Bureau doesn’t trust its staff blindly. It has a regular and random process of going back to the same households that were interviewed and interviewing them again. As for the drop in the unemployment rate that led to suspicions of manipulation, Abraham remembers the popular reaction at the time, but says the monthly numbers can jump around. "It's just not that surprising that, in the context of an unemployment rate that was generally trending downwards, there would be months when it took a big drop," Abraham said. We should note that the Post story has gained traction beyond the media. Rep, Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chair of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to the head of the Census Bureau, saying he found the allegations "shocking." Issa told the bureau to deliver many documents, including emails to or from Buckmon and any investigations of alleged falsification of data. Our ruling Hasselbeck said Julius Buckmon was "on one side of the scale" and his fabricated interviews helped push the unemployment rate lower in September 2012. Buckmon did not work for the Census Bureau in 2012 and even if he had, people familiar with the workings inside the bureau doubt it would have made a difference. If he had slanted all of his reports to show a brighter employment picture, he would have likely been found out. If he slanted a smaller number, it would have no statistical impact. We rate the claim False.	None	Elisabeth Hasselbeck	None	None	None	2013-11-20T09:48:55	2013-11-19	['None']
-tron-01720	President’s Campaign Bus Was Made In Canada at a Cost of $1,100,000	https://www.truthorfiction.com/greyhound1/	None	government	None	None	None	President’s Campaign Bus Was Made In Canada at a Cost of $1,100,000	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Canada']
-snes-03483	Theodore Roosevelt said that speaking out against criticism of the President "is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/theodore-roosevelt-on-criticizing-the-president/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Theodore Roosevelt on Criticizing the President	22 November 2016	None	['United_States', 'Theodore_Roosevelt']
-pomt-03926	"The National Science Foundation spent $1.2 million paying seniors to play World of Warcraft to study the impact it had on their brain."	/virginia/statements/2013/feb/22/eric-cantor/cantor-says-us-paid-seniors-12-million-play-world-/	House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says Washington’s spending habits are so bad that they’ve entered the realm of fantasy. "The National Science Foundation spent $1.2 million paying seniors to play World of Warcraft to study the impact it had on their brain," Cantor, R-7th, claimed in a Feb. 19 news release identifying examples of what he said are wasteful spending. World of Warcraft, also known as WoW, is a popular fantasy game in which players create virtual characters and enter an online world to battle orcs, kobolds, giant spiders, roving packs of wolves and other adversaries. Gamers pay a monthly fee to play the subscriber-based game in which they join other players to fight monsters and win treasure. A September 2012 article in Wired magazine said the game peaked at 12 million users in 2010 and has since dropped to 9.1 million. Were some of those gamers senior citizens that Washington paid to play to the tune of $1.2 million? We decided to check. Cantor’s statement has drawn attention from The Huffington Post and WoW Insider, an online publication devoted to World of Warcraft. We asked Cantor’s office where the majority leader got his information. Megan Whittemore, a deputy press secretary, sent us information about a $1.2 million grant by the National Science Foundation in mid 2009. The money was awarded to North Carolina State University and Georgia Tech to study whether computer games can slow the mental decline in elderly people and, if so, to develop specific "brain games" to achieve that goal. The premise is that the memory, problem-solving and strategies needed to master some online games may be beneficial to seniors. The first part of the research involves seniors frequently playing Boomblox -- a spatial puzzle game on the Wii entertainment system in which players knock down blocks. About 200 participants undergo cognitive testing before they are introduced to the game and then again at a later date to see if playing has produced any changes. The N.C. State researchers hope to identify the elements of Boomblox that led to mental improvements. That information will be shared with experts at Georgia Tech, who hope to incorporate data to develop new games that will help the elderly retain or improve their everyday cognitive skills. The grant runs out this August. You may have noticed that our explanation of the research has yet to mention the World of Warcraft, the game Cantor says U.S. taxpayers paid seniors $1.2 million to play. There’s a good reason: The National Science Foundation’s abstract on the grant makes no mention of anyone playing WoW. Is any part of the $1.2 million federal grant being used to pay seniors to play World of Warcraft? "The answer is an unequivocal no," said Anne McLaughlin, the principal researcher on the project and co-director of the Gains through Gaming Lab at N.C. State. The information sent to us by Cantor’s office -- media reports, research publications and grant abstracts -- do not undercut McLaughlin’s answer. WoW does have a tiny role in this story, however. In the spring of 2009, McLaughlin’s lab briefly studied how playing World of Warcraft affected seniors’ cognitive ability before receiving the federal grant. The research, on 39 elderly subjects, was funded with $5,000 provided by N.C. State. No federal money was involved, according to Jason Allaire, a co-director of the lab. An experimental group of the seniors played WoW on their home computers for about 14 hours over the course of two weeks and were tested at the start and end of the period. A control group did not play the game, but also was tested at the same intervals. The researchers concluded that seniors who scored well on the pretest for cognitive skills were not aided by playing WoW. But those who scored low on the initial test "saw significant improvement in both spatial ability and focus." The purpose of the $5,000 study, in part, was to run a pilot project to help win the National Science Foundation grant, McLaughlin told us. It "helped us look at what we wanted to measure in a big study and how to do it," she said. Some media coverage of the Gains Through Gaming studies have noted there are skeptics of whether gaming has any potential to slow the effects of aging on senior’s brains. Our ruling Cantor said the federal government spent $1.2 million "paying seniors to play World of Warcraft," a popular fantasy game. His facts are all messed up. He’s referring to federal grant for a study to determine whether computer games can slow mental decline in the elderly. But the grant application never mentioned WoW and participants in the federally-funded study did not play that game. Before applying for the federal money, the researchers conducted a small, pilot study in which seniors played WoW over the course of two weeks and were tested to see if it improved their cognitive abilities. This study was funded with a $5,000 grant from N.C. State. No U.S. money was involved. The federal study involves hours of testing each participant and efforts to identify the aspects of computer games that might help seniors better deal with life offline. Cantor’s statement ridiculously suggests that Washington is sponsoring a geriatric gaming club. We rate his claim Pants on Fire.	None	Eric Cantor	None	None	None	2013-02-22T10:24:57	2013-02-19	['None']
-goop-02100	Selena Gomez Did Lose Diary At Gym, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-lost-diary-journal/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez Did NOT Lose Diary At Gym, Despite Report	4:55 pm, December 2, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04373	Says Barack Obama "said when he was running for office four years ago that he would halve the annual deficit by the end of his first term. That simply has not happened."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/oct/21/leonard-lance/barack-obama-broke-promise-cut-annual-deficit-half/	President Barack Obama hasn’t kept his promise to cut the nation’s annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, according to Rep. Leonard Lance. The Republican congressman pointed to the president’s broken promise during an Oct. 11 debate against Democratic state Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula. The two will face off in the Nov. 6 election to represent the 7th Congressional District. "President said when he was running for office four years ago that he would halve the annual deficit by the end of his first term," Lance said. "That simply has not happened, ladies and gentlemen, and it is greatly disturbing." Lance’s claim is correct: Obama vowed to cut the annual deficit in half by the end of his first term and, nearly four years later, he hasn’t done so. The federal deficit represents how much the government's spending exceeds its revenues in a given fiscal year. Lance claimed Obama offered that promise "when he was running for office," but actually the president made the pledge soon after taking office. Obama made those remarks on Feb. 23, 2009 at an event called the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit." Here’s what he said: "And that's why today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay -- and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control." The president repeated the pledge the following day during a joint session of Congress: "And yesterday, I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office." But as the deficit figures show, that bold promise has gone unfulfilled. Obama took office in the middle of fiscal year 2009. At the time of his initial pledge, the president said his administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, but the deficit for that fiscal year ultimately reached about $1.4 trillion. In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the annual deficits were roughly $1.3 trillion. For fiscal year 2012, which ended Sept. 30, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated an annual deficit of about $1.1 trillion. That is the last full fiscal year during Obama’s first term. So, the annual deficit has dropped during Obama’s time in office, but not by half. In a February 2012 interview on Atlanta’s WAGA-TV, Obama said he wasn’t able to keep that promise because "this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized." Obama added, "So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn't understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we're helping states more so they don't lay off teachers, etc. "The key, though, is we're setting ourselves on a path where we can get our debt under control. The most important thing we can do, though, to reduce our debt is to make sure that we continue growing this economy." Our ruling In a debate against his Democratic challenger, Lance claimed that Obama "said when he was running for office four years ago that he would halve the annual deficit by the end of his first term. That simply has not happened, ladies and gentlemen, and it is greatly disturbing." Lance should have said Obama made that pledge soon after he took office, but the congressman’s overall point is solid. The president vowed in February 2009 to cut the annual deficit in half by the end of his first term, and he hasn’t done it. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Leonard Lance	None	None	None	2012-10-21T07:30:00	2012-10-11	['None']
-pomt-15320	"134,000 (criminal) aliens have been released by the (Obama) administration in just the past two years."	/punditfact/statements/2015/jul/16/hans-von-spakovsky/heritage-analyst-obama-administration-released-134/	The sanctuary city movement has drawn much fire since the shooting death of a young woman visiting San Francisco in early July. The man accused of the killing should never have been in the country in the first place but, despite a request from federal immigration officials, had been released from a San Francisco jail. By local ordinance, San Francisco employees generally don’t help enforce immigration laws. In a column published by the conservative Heritage Foundation July 9, 2015, Heritage analyst Hans von Spakovsky charged that the sanctuary movement leaves Americans vulnerable to crime at the hands of non-U.S. citizens. For von Spakovsky, this is all in keeping with White House policy. "In fiscal year 2013, the Obama administration released over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens awaiting the outcome of deportation hearings upon an unsuspecting public, and another 30,558 in fiscal year 2014 according to the House Judiciary Committee," von Spakovsky wrote. "And in 2013 alone, the administration didn’t even bring removal proceedings against an additional 68,000 criminal aliens convicted of everything from homicide to sexual assault." Von Spakovsky added it up and issued a chilling warning. "If the over 134,000 aliens released by the administration in just the past two years follow the pattern of those aliens studied by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) in 2005, they will commit hundreds of thousands of more crimes, victimizing countless innocent Americans in crimes that could have been prevented." In this fact-check, we focus on the claim that the administration moved to release about 134,000 criminal aliens. We exchanged emails with von Spakovsky but ultimately did not get any answers to the questions we raised. However, his column pointed to his sources. Convicted criminals As you might guess from von Spakovsky’s words, there are two sets of criminal aliens -- one group of about 66,000 (36,000 + 30,558) and another of about 68,000. We’ll take each in turn. The group of 66,000 stems from a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that favors reduced immigration. The people in this category have been convicted of a crime, served their sentence in jail or prison and were then turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. The center’s director of policy studies Jessica Vaughan looked at the federal numbers for 2013, and the House Judiciary Committee took a similar approach for 2014. Federal officials confirm the accuracy of the overall numbers. According to ICE data, the agency released 36,007 criminals in 2013 and 30,558 in 2014 (both are fiscal years.) The most significant caveat comes from Vaughan, who told us that by her calculations (not included in the report), about 45 percent of the releases were the result of a court order, not administration policy. In some instances, an immigration judge issued the ruling. In a smaller number of cases, the driving force was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that limits how long immigration authorities can hold people once they’ve served the sentence that put them behind bars. Either way, the judiciary said the government could no longer detain the person as it waited to move forward with deportation. ICE spokeswoman Jennifer Elzea told us that "the majority of releases of serious criminal offenders were made pursuant to federal court decisions or bond decisions by immigration judges." How you apportion responsibility depends on your point of view. "Just over half of the releases came because ICE decided to release them," Vaughan said. Plus, Vaughan noted that ICE has the option to challenge a court’s ruling but rarely does. Investigative reporters at the Atlanta Journal Constitution and the Boston Globe also found that pattern. (Those articles documented the failure of ICE to monitor violent criminals after release or warn their past victims, sometimes with deadly consequences.) For the purposes of this fact-check, the prime significance of these court orders is that the administration did not choose on its own to release nearly half of these criminal aliens. When von Spakovsky faulted the Obama White House for releasing these people, he failed to note the role of the courts, which reduces by some large percentage the overall total of 66,000 attributable to the administration . A failure to deport There is no doubt that all of these people were deportable. They were sitting in ICE custody as their case was processed which raises the question, why wasn’t the government able to follow through? In some cases, the person’s home country refused to accept them. A hat tip goes to investigative reporter Jeremy Redmon at the Atlanta Journal Constitution who used the Freedom of Information Act to get hard numbers from ICE. When we crunched that data, we found that in FY 2013, home country refusal led to the release of 3,746 people. Over 80 people convicted of homicide were on that list. Nearly half of them came from Cuba, a country that routinely rejects any prisoners from the United States. Vietnam came in second, refusing to take back 15 convicted killers. 68,000 criminal aliens This second group in von Spakovsky’s tally is much harder to pinpoint. Von Spakovsky said their crimes range "from homicide to sexual assault." In reality, the range is much wider. According to Vaughan, the great majority of these people have come to ICE’s attention because they were reported by local police or some other law enforcement agency. Their crimes include misdemeanors and felonies. And in some cases, Vaughan said the criminal alien label comes when an ICE agent decides that the person represents a criminal threat (meaning they haven’t been accused of a crime), an obviously subjective assessment. The meaning of "criminal alien" itself is broad. The term includes anyone who is not an American citizen and includes both those who are here legally and those who aren’t. The label can apply to a wide range of crimes from breaking immigration laws, to driving without a license, to more serious offenses like sexual assault, rape and murder. Some people are deportable and some are not. Von Spakovsky cited Vaughan’s work. But Vaughan told us the data available from ICE is limited. The agency reported the total number of criminal aliens who came to its attention in 2013. It reported the number of deportation orders it initiated with that group. The difference came to nearly 68,000. The government data show that ICE decided not to deport the person. However, it doesn’t show what happened to the person beyond that. "If ICE doesn't pursue deportation, that person might be released immediately or not," Vaughan said. "They might serve out the duration of their sentience. There are a variety of possible outcomes." The point is, while von Spakovsky said the administration released these people, there are several missing pieces. Most of them were not in federal custody to begin with. We don’t know that they were released. And given the broad meaning of criminal alien, it isn’t certain that every person was deportable in the first place, and so ICE wouldn’t have that option. That said, as a matter of policy, ICE picks and chooses the sort of criminals to deport. The Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines in November 2014 that established a hierarchy of criminal offenses. Adam Cox, a law professor at New York University, has studied this for several years. Cox said ICE discretion is crucial. "These data show clearly that the agency is not simply arresting every person it identifies," Cox said. "The data also show, however, that the likelihood that ICE chooses to detain a person identified through fingerprint screening goes up as the person's criminal record becomes more serious." In a prepared statement, ICE told us that the agency "prioritizes its available resources on those who pose the biggest threat to national security, border security and public safety." Our ruling Von Spakovsky said that the Obama administration had released about 134,000 criminal aliens. There are several flaws in this statement. About half of von Spakovsky’s total, 66,000, involved convicted criminals who had completed their sentences but remained in custody pending deportation. For some large fraction of that group, perhaps as high as 45 percent, it was a court ruling that drove the release, not a decision by the administration. Regarding the other half of von Spakovsky’s total, 68,000, it is likely that in most cases ICE decided not to pursue deportation. However, some portion of that group might not have been deportable, and some portion might have continued to serve out a locally imposed sentence and not been released. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.	None	Hans von Spakovsky	None	None	None	2015-07-16T11:13:39	2015-07-09	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05846	Newt Gingrich "co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy."	/georgia/statements/2012/feb/15/restore-our-future/newt-supported-chinas-one-child-policy-super-pac-s/	There they go again. With Georgia’s Republican presidential primary just a few weeks away, the four remaining candidates and their supporters are expected to blanket the airwaves with attack ads in this delegate-rich state. One that we’ve seen -- scheduled to hit the airwaves Wednesday -- takes aim at former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who represented portions of Atlanta’s western suburbs for 20 years in Congress. "He co-sponsored a bill with Nancy Pelosi that would have given $60 million a year to a U.N. program supporting China’s brutal one-child policy," says the voice in the ad paid for by Restore Our Future. The super PAC is run by supporters of Republican hopeful Mitt Romney. There’s nothing that makes conservatives see more red than a reference to Pelosi, the liberal California congresswoman and House minority leader. Or talking about China for that matter. The ad that will soon be on your TV screens in Georgia is different than what Restore Our Future aired in Florida and South Carolina before their primaries. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Florida looked into this claim and rated it a Pants On Fire. We wondered: Did the group get its facts right this time? Gingrich is ahead in the polls in Georgia, a state where he desperately needs to do well to keep his campaign from becoming an episode of "The Walking Dead." His GOP rivals, particularly Romney, are trying to make Gingrich work hard for every vote here. Romney made a campaign stop in Atlanta last week and took a couple of shots at Gingrich. Restore Our Future has another ad on its website that says Gingrich "is no Ronald Reagan." The Georgia ad contains the same language as the one that aired in Florida and South Carolina. Here’s some more detail about the issue: Restore Our Future refers to House Resolution 1078, which was introduced on Feb. 22, 1989, before Gingrich became speaker and when Democrats had control of the House of Representatives. The legislation was called the Global Warming Prevention Act of 1989. It set national goals to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and encouraged international agreements to address global warming, PolitiFact Florida reported. It required the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor global warming and create plans for future action. It supported stricter fuel standards for cars and alternative energy. It also sent money to developing countries to encourage practices that reduce carbon emissions. The bill had several hearings but received unfavorable reviews from the administration of George H.W. Bush and never became law. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Claudine Schneider, a Rhode Island Republican who left Congress in 1991. Yes, Gingrich and Pelosi co-sponsored the bill. In all, there were 144 House members who sponsored the legislation. Most were Democrats, but there were a handful of Republicans in the mix, such as Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jim Kolbe of Arizona. China’s one-child policy generally refers to the government’s efforts to limit population growth to one child per couple. Human rights advocates say the policy has resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions. The Restore Our Future website says the $60 million went to the United Nations Population Fund and that President Ronald Reagan withheld funds from the program after he determined the program, which supports family planning and contraception, was supporting Chinese actions. The bill did propose money for the United Nations Population Fund. But Section 1102, Part C, of the bill prohibits using any of the funds for "the performance of involuntary sterilization or abortion or to coerce any person to accept family planning." That is the exact opposite of the language in Restore Our Future’s ad about Gingrich. As we mentioned, PolitiFact Florida rated this claim Pants On Fire. The language is the same in this ad. And the facts haven’t changed. Pants On Fire.	None	Restore Our Future	None	None	None	2012-02-15T06:00:00	2012-02-15	['Nancy_Pelosi', 'United_Nations', 'Newt_Gingrich', 'China']
-pomt-03491	Says Democratic Party created the Ku Klux Klan.	/virginia/statements/2013/jun/10/stephen-martin/state-sen-stephen-martin-says-democratic-party-cre/	State Sen. Stephen Martin was recently asked to weigh in on controversial comments by GOP Lieutenant Governor candidate E.W. Jackson that denounced the Ku Klux Klan, Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party in the same breath. In defending Jackson, Martin sparked a controversy of his own. "The fact is that both the KKK and Planned Parenthood are creations of the Democratic Party," Martin, R-Chesterfield, said in a May 23 interview with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. We decided to check whether the KKK really was spawned by the Democratic Party. We’ll post another Truth-O-Meter that examines Martin’s contention Planned Parenthood was created by Democrats. When we asked Martin for the facts behind his KKK statement, he said he had misspoken. "What I should have said is it was started by Democrats, not by the Democratic party," the senator said. "It wasn’t an official subdivision of the party, obviously … It was definitely founded by Democrats." Soon after our conversation, Martin released a statement saying he "regretted the carelessness and inaccuracy" of his comments regarding the KKK, calling his statement an "impromptu" response to questions about Jackson’s comments that Planned Parenthood has been more lethal to blacks than the KKK. PolitiFact Virginia respects when people tell us they erred, but we still feel obliged to complete our fact checks of their statements. So we asked several historians about the origins of the KKK. Details about the hate group’s founding are murky -- including the exact year it began. Some cite 1865 as its start, others say it was 1867. Historians generally agree it was founded by a handful of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tenn. as a social fraternity and it quickly changed into a violent group that terrorized newly empowered black and white Republicans in the South. J. Michael Martinez, the author of a 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Calvary and the KKK," told us many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats and a smaller number of them joined the KKK. So there is some historic link between Democrats and the KKK. But Martinez said it is misleading to say that the hate group was started by the Democratic Party because it was more of a grassroots creation. There’s another point to consider. "To say that the Ku Klux Klan was started by the Democratic Party -- it’s not the Democratic party of today," Martinez said. "(From the) 1930s until today, you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised." Other historians had similar takes. Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote in an email that various "Klans" that sprung up around the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest -- believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon -- even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, said Emberton, author of "Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence and the American South after the Civil War." But Emberton added a major caveat: "The party lines of the 1860s/1870s are not the party lines of today," she wrote to us. "Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By then, the Democratic Party had become the party of ‘reform,’ supporting a variety of ‘liberal’ causes, including civil rights, women’s rights, etc. whereas this had been the banner of the Republican Party in the nineteenth century." Elaine Frantz Parsons, an associate professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh said that most post-Civil War southern whites were Democrats who were unhappy with Republican policies on Reconstruction while large numbers of newly-freed slaves were Republicans. "So it is not surprising that the Reconstruction era Klan would have been very largely Democrats attacking Republicans," Parsons said in an e-mail. "But this simply does not map well at all onto the party structure we know today. Among other things, the Republicans (during Reconstruction) were condemned as the party of big government and as wanting to centralize authority on the federal level." Our ruling Martin said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong. Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today. Recognizing that Martin has expressed regret for his statement. We rate his claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Stephen Martin	None	None	None	2013-06-10T10:05:53	2013-05-24	['None']
-pomt-08126	When it comes to the state deficit, Wisconsin is "proportionally in as much trouble as the State of California."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/dec/09/alberta-darling/state-sen-alberta-darling-says-wisconsins-state-de/	When the state owes you money, you expect to get a check, not an IOU. But in California, budget problems got so bad that in 2009, the state issued temporary IOUs to state employees and business contractors. In 2010, it delayed issuing tax refunds as well as payments to schools, community clinics and day care providers. In October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed nearly $1 billion in spending from the 2011-2012 budget. Then, less than two months later, he ordered the legislature into special session to address a $19 billion deficit in that budget as well as a $6 billion shortfall in the 2010-2011 one. Now those are some serious budget problems. Believe it or not, Wisconsin’s budget situation is just as bad, according to Wisconsin state Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills). On the "Upfront with Mike Gousha" TV news program Dec. 5, Gousha asked Darling about contracts the state is negotiating with state employee unions. Darling said the contracts should not be finalized until after Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker replaces Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle on Jan. 3. "I think what we need to do is say, Can we afford the benefits and salaries that we pay for our state employees? That is the question," said Darling, who will co-chair the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee starting in January. "We are in deep debt. Our spending is over the top. "And we are proportionally in as much trouble as the State of California, who we hear about all the time in national news." Hey, we were planning on getting a state tax refund from Madison in a few months. If cautious Wisconsin is in as much of a fiscal mess as crazy California, we’d like to know now. Let’s sort it out. One of Darling’s aides said the 20-year state lawmaker based her comment on a December 2009 article by Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. Using the most recent figures available at the time, Berry said that Wisconsin’s 2007-2008 state budget deficit of $2.5 billion amounted to $445 per person -- tops in the nation. California, according to Berry’s analysis, ranked fourth at $113 per person. So, as of mid-2008 Wisconsin was actually worse off than California. But Darling’s claim was that Wisconsin is in as much trouble as California is now. Berry provided us state deficit numbers for 2008-2009, the most recent period, and suggested we use 2008 U.S. Census population figures to make the same per-capita calculation. He said that’s what the census bureau does when generating per-person state statistics for budget periods that start in one calendar year and end in another. Our calculations show Illinois had the highest state budget deficit per person ($595.39) for 2008-2009. Wisconsin was second ($481.81) and California was third ($437.58). So by that measure, Wisconsin was still in worse shape than California as of mid-2009. But let’s look at a more common measure used by a number of national research organizations -- budget shortfall as a percentage of a state’s budget. Jon Shure, an official at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the percentage is preferred over deficit per capita because it compares a budget shortfall to the state’s budget, rather than to an "artifice" such as population. Shure’s group, based in Washington, D.C., found that Wisconsin’s 2008-2009 budget gap was 11.7 percent of its budget. California, at 36.8 percent, was much worse off. We checked with other outside groups as well, some of which have made projections into the future. That helps provide perspective on the comparison Darling is making. 2009-2010 In a November 2009 report, Beyond California: States in Fiscal Peril, the Pew Center on the States labeled Wisconsin as one of 10 states in fiscal trouble. The rankings were based on six measures, including budget gaps. "California’s problems are in a league of their own," the report said. But Wisconsin "narrowly" made the list partly because of "the size of the hole" the recession made in the state budget. The report said Wisconsin’s 2009-2010 budget gap was the equivalent of 23.2 percent of its state budget. Not good, perhaps, but much better than California, which was at 49.3 percent. 2010-2011 In October 2010, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that Wisconsin’s shortfall in the current budget -- 2010-2011 -- was $3.4 billion, or 23.9 percent of its budget. That indicated Wisconsin was in slightly worse shape than California, whose deficit was $17.9 billion, or 21.6 percent of its state budget. 2011-2012 Looking ahead, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put Wisconsin’s budget gap at 8.7 percent of its total budget for 2011-2012. Much better than California’s 25.7 percent. The National Conference of State Legislatures, in a report released Dec. 7, 2010, also found Wisconsin better off. The report says Wisconsin’s gap is 9.2 percent of its general fund budget while California’s is more than twice as high, at 18.7 percent. 2012-2013 The National Conference of State Legislatures also projects gaps out to 2012-2013. The budget gap for both states is expected to grow -- but again, Wisconsin fares better. The report projects Wisconsin’s gap at 9.6 percent and California’s at 20.2 percent. Back to the present: There has been considerable debate about the size of Wisconsin’s current budget shortfall. We rated as False the claim by Doyle’s administration that it is $1.5 billion. The general agreement is around $3 billion. The situation has prompted unpaid furlough days, and promises from Walker to seek union concessions. But unlike California, Wisconsin has not been in the national news for extreme measures, such as issuing IOUs or paying its bills late. So is Darling’s comparison of the Badger State to the Golden State on the mark? In the TV interview, she said Wisconsin is "proportionally in as much trouble" as California and pointed to figures from a year-old article as support. Those figures showed that Wisconsin’s budget deficit per person was higher than California’s; updated numbers for 2008-2009 also put Wisconsin’s per-person deficit higher than California’s. But under a more common measure that many consider a stronger approach -- budget shortfall as a percentage of a state’s budget -- various groups found Wisconsin in better shape than California in 2008-2009 and in 2009-2010; in slightly worse shape in 2010-2011; but much better off than California for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Darling’s statement was on target to a point, but left out important details. We rate it Half True.	None	Alberta Darling	None	None	None	2010-12-09T09:00:00	2010-12-05	['Wisconsin', 'California']
-pomt-05902	Says she "wiped out" the state Agriculture Department’s inspections of eggs at retail sites like grocery stores.	/texas/statements/2012/feb/03/susan-combs/comptroller-susan-combs-says-she-wiped-out-agricul/	Reflecting on her time heading the Texas Department of Agriculture, Susan Combs told a blogger that she shrunk the size of government in 2003 by getting rid of a program to ferret out broken eggs at stores. Combs, who has been the state comptroller since 2007, made the statement in an interview with David Bellow, a blogger for the website Texas GOP Vote, who had asked her about remarks she made during a December 2011 meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee. "You also mentioned ... that people were getting paid to go into stores and open the egg cartons and look at the eggs and make sure none were broken," Bellow said. "How crazy is that?" Combs responded by saying that she didn’t think it made sense for the government to be spending money on such a program. "It was not a health issue," she said. "If you can’t tell when you open the carton that it’s broken, then you really are going to have some hard time buying the eggs." Combs then said she tried to end the practice during the 2001 legislative session but wasn’t successful until 2003, when Republicans secured a Texas House majority. "I went back to the House Appropriations (Committee) and the Senate Finance (Committee), and I showed them again, and I got it wiped out," said Combs, who served two four-year terms as agriculture commissioner, winning election to the statewide office in 1998 and 2002. A reader alerted us to the video — which was posted on the Texas GOP Vote website Dec. 6, 2011 — and questioned Combs’ claim that she ended the egg inspections. Is that what she did? Not eggs-actly. From Agriculture Department officials and documents, we learned that the agency continues to inspect eggs at retail sites like grocery and convenience stories as part of its Egg Quality Program. According to the department’s website, the program’s mission is "to ensure that the eggs sold to Texas consumers meet (the agency’s) quality standards," and to achieve that goal, the agency "inspects eggs at packing plants, distribution centers, and retail outlets." Agency spokesman Bryan Black told us in emails and interviews that retail egg inspections began in 1957 and continue today. While packing plants and distribution centers are inspected every year, retail sites, which are significantly more numerous, are randomly inspected. Black told us that in addition to looking for broken or cracked eggs, inspectors check labels and examine eggs "for interior and exterior qualities, as well as size." Inspectors are checking to see whether eggs meet the standards for "quality, grade and size" that have been adopted by the USDA and the federal Food and Drug Administration, as required by state law. "Qualities such as shell shape, yolk movement, air cell size, shell appearance and shell integrity determine whether the egg is graded as AA, A or B," Black said. "These are factors that consumers themselves cannot verify without the use of specialized instruments to conduct the assessments and extensive training." Black said inspectors also check storage temperatures at retail sites and notify the Texas Department of State Health Services if eggs are being stored at above 45 degrees. Inspectors also notify local health agencies if they "observe unsanitary conditions during an egg inspection," Black said. "The reason there are egg inspection programs in Texas and in other state is for consumer protection," Black said. "It is the same reason why we inspect gas pumps and scales. When Texans are purchasing products, it is imperative they get exactly what they are paying for. No one should get ripped off if they are buying fuel, fruit or eggs. We provide oversight to keep businesses honest and make sure the marketplace is fair." Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Department of State Health Services, told us that its inspectors also check eggs at retail sites — including distributors, grocery stores and restaurants — as part of its overall inspections of the facilities. The health inspectors are looking to see that food safety standards are being met. "We’re looking mainly at storage temperatures and whether (the eggs) are graded," Williams said. Black told us that the state Agriculture Department has 64 full-time inspectors that conduct egg checks. However, he noted, inspectors have additional responsibilities. According to an undated job posting on the department’s website, an inspector’s duties include becoming "proficient in accurately conducting a variety of inspections administered by TDA, which may include" inspecting and grading eggs in retail stores and processing plants, as well as inspecting "nursery stock and agricultural commodities leaving or entering the state," "growers and/or retailers for organic certification," and "cotton fields for proper stalk destruction to enforce the cotton pest laws." So, what did Combs succeed in wiping out in 2003? That was a challenging year for Texas lawmakers, who resolved a $9.9 billion projected revenue shortfall with funding cuts, fee increases, federal aid and other strategies. In her interview with Texas GOP Vote, Combs said she took her idea to cut retail egg inspections to the budget-writing House Appropriations and Senate Finance committees. Combs’ spokeswoman, Brooke Botello, pointed us to a March 27, 2003, meeting of the Senate’s finance panel at which Combs testified on her department’s funding requests for the 2004-05 budget, which lawmakers were writing. According to video of the meeting, Sen. Kip Averitt, R-McGregor, presented Combs’ recommendations that egg inspections be reduced by about one-third and that the Agriculture Department stop doing inspections at 10 packing plants where the USDA was also inspecting. Averitt said at the hearing that stopping the duplication would save the state about $145,000 a year. Although Combs’ recommendations detailed at the meeting did not include ending the Agriculture Department’s egg inspections, one of the senators — we couldn’t identify the speaker in the video — floated that idea while questioning Combs. She replied that the Legislature could certainly pass legislation to do that but said she had not calculated how much money ending egg inspections would save the state. The senator then asked whether she thought it would be "logical" for the Legislature to consider shrinking the Agriculture Department’s egg inspection duties down to simply checking the 22 packing facilities not being inspected by the USDA — and halting retail inspections. Combs’ response: "Yes, with one observation. When you’re at the point of sale, one of the things that comes up is ‘Are the eggs broken?’ and we talked about the fact that a broken egg is readily ascertainable by the consumer flipping the box. It does not require some kind of arcane testing. … I would say, yes, we could go to the packer-only (inspection)." Ultimately, however, that’s not what happened. Instead, lawmakers that year reduced the number of overall state Agriculture Department egg inspections. When appropriating funding for the department for 2004-05, lawmakers set the target amount of annual "egg packer, dealer, wholesaler, and retailer inspections" at 2,000, compared with the 3,500 in the previous budget. That was a decrease of 42 percent. According to Black, the department has conducted about 2,100 inspections every year since then. Looking specifically at retail inspections, the annual number dropped along with the overall inspection figure, going from 2,746 in fiscal 2003 to 1,455 in fiscal 2004, a 47 percent decline. Retail checks continued while Combs was commissioner, with 1,955 in fiscal 2005 and 2,055 in fiscal 2006, according to data from the Agriculture Department. Other changes made in 2003: Black told us that the number of full-time positions devoted to inspecting eggs was reduced by 1.5 and that the department adopted a policy implementing Combs’ recommendation that it stop inspecting egg packing plants already inspected by the USDA. Upshot: While the number of annual egg inspections dropped after lawmakers acted, Agriculture Department inspectors continued checking eggs in stores — and still do. Combs’ statement rates False.	None	Susan Combs	None	None	None	2012-02-03T11:20:43	2011-12-06	['None']
-pomt-14953	"Even after Syrian troops began to shoot protesters in the streets with live ammunition in 2011, Clinton labeled Bashar al-Assad a ‘reformer.' "	/florida/statements/2015/oct/23/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-hillary-clinton-called-syrias-bas/	The day Hillary Clinton testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., took aim at her foreign policy record. In an op-ed for the conservative website Breitbart, Rubio criticized Clinton’s statements about Syria: "Clinton touts her early support for arming Syria’s moderate opposition and more recently, a no-fly zone, to contrast her record with President Obama’s," wrote Rubio, a presidential candidate. "But even after Syrian troops began to shoot protesters in the streets with live ammunition in 2011, Clinton labeled Bashar al-Assad a ‘reformer.’ The death toll in the Syrian civil war now stands at more than 200,000. ..." Is Rubio right that Clinton labeled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad a reformer? What Clinton said in 2011 PunditFact looked at a similar claim in 2014 when Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said Clinton had "defended Syria’s President Assad as a possible reformer at the start of that country’s civil war." We rated that claim Half True. Clinton’s 2011 comments stemmed from when Syria broke into violent clashes between Assad’s government forces and protesters. A civil war erupted after 15 schoolchildren were arrested in February 2011 for spray-painting anti-government graffiti on their school in Daraa. The military responded to protesters with force. Clinton faced questions about Syria on CBS’ Face the Nation on March 27, 2011. Host Bob Schieffer pressed her on why the U.S. reaction would be different from its response to Libya with airstrikes. Syria, Schieffer noted, is no friend of the United States and is an enemy of Israel and an ally of Iran, and Assad’s father had "killed 25,000 people, at a lick" in 1982. Clinton said: "Well, if there were a coalition of the international community, if there were the passage of a Security Council resolution, if there were a call by the Arab League, if there was a condemnation that was universal, but that is not going to happen because I don't think that it's yet clear what will occur, what will unfold. "There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer. "What's been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning, but there's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities than police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see." So Clinton’s line about Assad as "a reformer" was stated as the opinion of "members of Congress of both parties" rather than as her personal opinion. To be sure, even this formulation was questionable. While Clinton mentioned "both parties," the Washington Post’s Fact Checker was unable to find such comments coming from Republicans. Democratic politicians who had expressed such hope included Nancy Pelosi who visited Syria in 2007 when she was House speaker. She said, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." And then-U.S. Sen. John Kerry at one point had a hopeful view of Assad, though he later changed his tune. A spokesman for Rubio, Alex Conant, pointed to the Fact Checker’s piece to argue that "the claim that she made that others of both parties put forth the view that he was a reformer is false, which undermines the notion that she was not stating her own opinion." Two days after her Face the Nation appearance, a Wall Street Journal reporter asked Clinton if it was still her position that Assad was a reformer. "I referenced opinions of others," Clinton said. "That was not speaking either for myself or for the administration." Clinton added, "We’re troubled by what we hear, but we’re also going to continue to urge that the promise of reform, which has been made over and over again and which you reported on just a few months ago – ‘I’m a reformer, I’m going to reform, and I’ve talked to members of Congress and others about that,’ that we hear from the highest levels of leadership in Syria – will actually be turned into reality." As the military crackdown on Syrians worsened, Clinton called on Assad to go. Clinton was interviewed in November 2011 for ABC News by Jake Tapper, who noted she "at one point seemed to have optimism that Assad was a reformer." Clinton said, "Well, we had hoped so because there was a lot at stake, we wanted to see an agreement, for example, between Syria and Israel. That was something that people have been working on for 30 years. We heard what Assad said about what he wanted to do for reform. But when it came to it, in the Arab Spring and as people actually demanded some freedom and their rights, he responded, as we have seen, very violently." She added, "But he’s not going to be able to sustain what is unfortunately growing armed opposition apparently fueled and maybe led by defectors from his army. It’s probably too late for him to change course, but there needs to be a change at the top of that government, and there needs to be an effort to engage in genuine dialogue and start on the path of reform." Our ruling Rubio said "even after Syrian troops began to shoot protesters in the streets with live ammunition in 2011, Clinton labeled Bashar al-Assad a ‘reformer.’ " Rubio has a point that in a March 2011 interview, Clinton did use the word "reformer" to describe al-Assad. However, Rubio glosses over the fact that she didn’t say that was her personal opinion of him, but rather the view of some members of Congress. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2015-10-23T14:00:34	2015-10-22	['Bill_Clinton', 'Syria', 'Bashar_al-Assad']
-pomt-09297	"No member of the American public has ever been killed by commercial nuclear power — a record unmatched by other fuels."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/22/lamar-alexander/facts-risks-nuclear-power-plants/	Not only is nuclear power reliable and efficient, it's also extremely safe, Sen. Lamar Alexander wrote in an op-ed column in the newspaper The Hill. "No member of the American public has ever been killed by commercial nuclear power — a record unmatched by other fuels," wrote Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, along with Theodore Rockwell, a fellow of the American Nuclear Society and a vice president of Radiation, Science and Health Inc. Considering the history of incidents like Three Mile Island and the deadly Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, we decided to take a closer look at the history of commercial nuclear power plants, and see if, in fact, no one has ever been killed by commercial nuclear power in the United States. In order to help narrow our search, we decided not to count a death from a workplace hazard, for example slipping and falling. We're specifically looking at the workers in plants who are killed from the process of creating nuclear power. Alexander's staff told us the senator got his facts from the American Nuclear Society Web site, which states in a "Myths and Facts" section that "No member of the public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50-year history of commercial nuclear power in the U.S." We confirmed that with David Decker, congressional analyst for the government's Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency in charge of nuclear plants. "I believe that the senator's statement was that there have been no deaths due to nuclear-related accidents at commercial nuclear power plants. From our perspective, this would be true," Decker said. There have, however, been deaths at nuclear plants. Some people have died in workplace accidents in non-nuclear areas of the plants. And three fatalities occurred at a research reactor rather than a commercial plant (Alexander specified commercial plants). Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear, a group that works to eliminate nuclear use in the United States, cited an accident that killed three men in 1961. They were members of the military working at an experimental nuclear plant in Idaho Falls, Idaho. They died in an accident related to the improper removal of control rods and a chain reaction of the uranium, according to a 1961 Milwaukee Journal article. The explosion released so much radiation that rescuers could only enter the area to recover the bodies for one minute at a time. The bodies were so radioactive that they were buried in lead caskets. (One is at Arlington National Cemetery.) In a 1986 incident, four workers were killed at the Surry power plant in Virginia from the rupture of a pipe that sprayed workers with scalding water and steam. But the accident happened in a non-nuclear portion of the plant. Despite these deaths, nuclear power does stack up as one of the safest forms of energy. It's difficult to get a good comparison with other power-source fatalities because the numbers don't necessarily separate between common workplace hazards and those specifically related to the power source. But for comparison, 13 people have been killed in hydroelectric power generation since 2003, and fossil-fuel electric power generation has killed 23 since then, said Andrew Marsh, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So while people in the United States have been killed in non-commercial plants and in non-nuclear areas of a commercial plant, Alexander is right that no has been killed "by commercial nuclear power." And those statistics and the most complete numbers we can find for other energy sources confirm his claim that it is a record unmatched by other fuels. So we find his claim True. Update: This report mistakenly said that the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not keep numbers on injuries in nuclear power generation plants. We have removed the inaccurate sentence. Our ruling and analysis has not changed.	None	Lamar Alexander	None	None	None	2010-04-22T14:45:13	2010-03-09	['United_States']
-pomt-08338	The health care bill "cuts the deficit by over $1 trillion dollars."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/28/barack-obama/barack-obama-health-care-bill-cuts-deficit/	In an interview with President Barack Obama on Oct. 27, 2010, Daily Show host Jon Stewart summed up the president's first two years in office, saying that despite a campaign that promised audacious change, "legislatively, it has felt timid at times." Stewart cited the Democratic health care law as an example. Obama scoffed at "this notion that health care was timid." "You've got 30 million people who are going to get health insurance as a consequence of this," Obama said. "You've got a patient's bill of rights that makes sure insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick if you've been paying premiums, that makes sure there aren't lifetime limits, that makes sure kids who don't have health insurance can stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. And cuts the deficit by over a trillion dollars. This is, what I think most people would say, is as significant a piece of legislation as we have seen in this country's history." On the campaign trail, many Republican candidates have lumped the health care bill in with the economic stimulus as examples of Obama administration initiatives driving the country deeper into debt. So Obama's claim that the health care bill would actually cut the deficit by over $1 trillion dollars is significant. It's a claim Obama has made many times, and we first weighed in on it when Obama said in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 27, 2010, that health care reform "would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades." So then it was "as much as" $1 trillion and this time it was "over $1 trillion dollars." But the substance is the same: Obama is in pretty speculative territory here. Obama is correct that the Congressional Budget Office, with its teams of economists and legislative analysts, has found that the health care bill passed in March not only pays for itself but brings down the deficit. That's because the plan includes new tax provisions and cost-savings measures to pay for its spending. The CBO found the health care reform bill would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years. So how does Obama get to over $1 trillion? He's looking way down the road, at a 20-year estimate, which gets highly speculative. The CBO usually only calculates the impact of legislation's cost over 10 years. But the agency will create calculations for a longer period if Congress requests it. The CBO doesn't like to calculate longer than 10 years because many variables are difficult to predict. Here's what the CBO had to say about calculating health reform's effect on the deficit between 2020 and 2030: "A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great. Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur — in people’s health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care (such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in physicians’ practice patterns) — that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to predict, both under current law and under any proposal." In fact, the CBO wouldn't even present its findings as a straightforward dollar number, but instead as a percentage of the gross domestic product, or GDP, which is a number that measures a nation's economic output. The CBO said that over the second 10 years, the Senate proposal should reduce the deficit "in a broad range around one half percent of GDP." Obama's $1 trillion figure is an extrapolation of what one-half of 1 percent of GDP might be. According to the CBO's latest numbers, GDP will be $22.5 trillion in 2020. You can do a rough estimate and find that you could get to roughly $1 trillion over 20 years. Back in January, we ran all this by Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Institution. He said that the numbers aren't phony, but that Obama tries to put a hard number on something that is inherently unpredictable. "You really can't model GDP 15 years from now," he said. Riedl also said he thought Congress would not be able to stick to some of the spending reductions contained in the Democratic proposals, especially in regards to Medicare. We also spoke to Jim Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who called Obama's $1 trillion figure " a little speculative." "But if you say in your speech it will reduce the deficit one-quarter to one-half percent of GDP, no one listening to the State of the Union would have a clue as to what you meant, and it would make it sound like a tiny amount when it's not," Horney said. Bottom line, Obama is presenting a highly speculative number as a hard fact. The CBO believes the health care bill will continue to improve the deficit in second 10 years. In an Oct. 22, 2010 presentation on the economic effects of the health care bill, CBO director Douglas W. Elmendorf said the legislation sets up a number of experiments in delivery and payment systems, but "it is unclear how successful the experiments will be." For that reason, and others, the CBO noted that the uncertainties involved are too great to create detailed projections. And so now, as then, we rate Obama's statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-10-28T12:04:12	2010-10-27	['None']
-goop-02722	Christina El Moussa Does Want To “Marry” New Boyfriend, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-el-moussa-not-marry-new-boyfriend-doug-spedding/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Christina El Moussa Does NOT Want To “Marry” New Boyfriend, Despite Report	9:58 am, June 22, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03334	"The president … by executive order" could grant voting rights to illegal immigrants who are newly legalized under pending legislation.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-barack-obama-can-use-executi/	She may not be running for another term in Congress, but Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is still making provocative statements. In an interview with World Net Daily, a conservative Web publication, Bachmann urged House Republicans to oppose key features of a Senate-passed bill that allows a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants (a process that critics call amnesty). Among other things, she warned that as soon as illegal immigrants become voters, they will vote for Democrats. Bachmann said that Republicans could lose the House in 2014 if they weren’t careful. "Because, I think the president, even by executive order, could again wave his magic wand before 2014 and he’d say, ‘Now, all of the new legal Americans are going to have voting rights,’ " Bachmann said. Bachmann’s office didn’t return a request for elaboration, but we found several legal experts to analyze her claim that Obama, or any president, could use an executive order to grant voting rights to anyone newly legalized under an immigration overhaul that emerges from Congress. The short answer is that Bachmann is wrong. The Constitution explicitly addresses who can vote for the U.S. House of Representatives (Article I, Section 2), for the U.S. Senate (the 12th Amendment) and for the presidency (Article II, Section 1). In each case, the Constitution says, the states -- not the president or Congress -- determines who can vote for these offices. To vote for Congress, for instance, a voter must be eligible to vote for representatives to the larger house of the state’s legislature. Because of this, "the president can’t change the federal qualification directly, and he also could not, by executive order, change the qualifications for the state legislature," said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Generally speaking, only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote. Legal permanent residents (those with a green card) cannot. Once someone becomes a legal permanent resident, they generally have to wait five years before they are even eligible to seek U.S. citizenship. If they decide to apply for citizenship, they must pass a criminal background check and a civics test before becoming a citizen. In fact, a law passed in 1996 and amended in 2000, says clearly that it’s "unlawful for any alien to vote" in a federal election. "Any non-citizen who attempts to vote unlawfully is subject to criminal penalty under state and federal law," said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California-Davis School of Law. The Senate immigration bill would not grant voting rights to newly legalized immigrants immediately, and they would not be guaranteed the right to vote eventually. Rather, the bill sets up a pathway to citizenship -- a pathway that includes additional hurdles beyond the ones facing legal permanent residents seeking naturalization, such as paying a fine. Once the law is enacted, Obama wouldn’t be able to do a quick about-face and use an executive order to strip out all the obstacles to citizenship and simply make illegal immigrants full citizens, Roosevelt and Johnson agreed. "It would violate the intent of, as well as the text of, the law passed by Congress," Johnson said. Indeed, Obama has not demonstrated an inclination to push the envelope on changing voting rules for illegal immigrants. Under an Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children can seek a delay from deportation, as well as permission to work legally. But the right to vote is not allowed under the policy. So, Bachmann is flat wrong about Obama’s ability to turn illegal immigrants into voters. However, as we have sometimes noted, even her incorrect statements raise some interesting questions. As it turns out, Obama can’t issue an executive order that allows non-citizens to vote, but states may be able to extend voting rights to non-citizens, as long as doing so is not barred by the state’s constitution. As recently as this year, the Supreme Court ruled in Arizona vs. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona that the Constitution "empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them" -- which only strengthens a state’s claim to the power to decide who can vote. "I think a state would have a strong argument" that it could do this, Roosevelt said. Of course, just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it’s likely. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former member of the Federal Election Commission, said states that try to allow non-citizens to vote would likely face a court fight. "They would have to pass a state law, and then go to court and argue that the state law is not pre-empted by the federal statute and that the federal law is an unconstitutional invasion of the state’s right to set qualifications," he said. In general, states might have an easier time arguing that non-citizens should be permitted to vote in state elections. A state that sought to permit non-citizen voting in federal elections would face greater legal obstacles, experts say. However, an even higher hurdle would be overcoming the idea, now deeply ingrained in the public mind, that there’s a bright line between citizens and non-citizens -- citizens vote, and non-citizens do not. Today, very few non-citizens vote for any office, and the few who do only vote for local offices. For instance, non-citizens can vote in a handful of localities in Maryland, such as Takoma Park, and only for purely local positions. No state today allows non-citizens to vote in state-level elections, and the occasional efforts in state legislatures to expand voting to non-citizens have gone nowhere. This was not always the case. Alien voting was permitted in many states early in the nation’s history, and while the idea waxed and waned over the years, the impulse to let aliens vote spread widely during westward expansion, when new territories were eager to attract residents, political scientist Jamin Raskin has written. Such laws were reversed one by one during the first quarter of the 20th Century, due to World War I-era nationalism and fears about rising immigrant populations. The last state to allow alien voting, Arkansas, ended it in 1926. No state has resurrected it since. Our ruling Bachmann said "the president … by executive order" could grant voting rights to illegal immigrants newly legalized under pending legislation. That’s not true -- the states, not the president, have the power to determine who can vote. It’s right there in the Constitution. We rate Bachmann’s claim Pants on Fire.	None	Michele Bachmann	None	None	None	2013-07-23T06:00:00	2013-07-14	['None']
-pomt-12222	"The last majority-Anglo high school class in Texas graduated in 2014."	/texas/statements/2017/jul/19/evan-smith/evan-smith-incorrectly-says-last-anglo-majority-te/	Stressing the changing population of Texas, the Texas Tribune’s CEO pinpointed 2014 as a milestone year perhaps troubling to historically dominant residents. As quoted in The New Yorker magazine, Evan Smith noted first that the Republican-led Legislature this year allocated a fresh $800 million toward border security. "White people are scared of change," Smith went on, "believing that what they have is being taken away from them by people they consider unworthy. "But all they’re doing is poking a bear with a stick," Smith told Lawrence Wright for an extensive July 2017 story on Texas government and politics. "In 2004, the Anglo population in Texas became a minority. The last majority-Anglo high-school class in Texas graduated in 2014. There will never be another. The reality is, it’s all over for the Anglos." Whether anything is over, for anyone, strikes us as a factually uncheckable opinion. It’s otherwise old news that Anglo, or white, residents haven’t made up the majority of Texans for a while. But did the last majority-white high school class graduate as recently as 2014? A reader asked us to check Smith’s 2014 claim, noting it could be read to mean there are no longer any high schools where white students make up a majority of graduates. Asked about that notion, Rice University’s Steve Murdock, former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, told us by email: "There are of course schools where this is not true such as some suburban schools and some rural schools in the Panhandle and other areas where the residents are still disproportionately non-Hispanic white." For our part, we checked regional figures for high school completion in 2015, the latest year of state-posted data. That year, white students comprised more than half of high-school seniors and graduates in East Texas (Education Service Center regions rooted in Huntsville, Mt. Pleasant and Kilgore) and the Wichita Falls and Abilene areas of West Texas. Across Texas, in contrast, some 109,200 white students made up 32 percent of the state’s 339,026 12th-graders and 102,000 white graduates accounted for 34 percent of the state’s total 302,262 graduates, the figures indicate. Separately, Smith told us by email that he wasn’t trying to tell Wright there are no longer any white-majority senior classes in the state. Asked why he specified 2014 as a statewide turning point, Smith said he believes he relied on information from Murdock or possibly the Texas Education Agency. State data Next, we asked the education agency about Smith’s claim. Spokeswoman Lauren Callahan pointed us toward agency-posted high-school completion data indicating that the last time white students comprised even a plurality of the state’s public high-school graduates was 2010. That year, according to the data, there were 109,887 white high-school graduates and 106,514 Hispanic graduates -- though the state’s 135,212 Hispanic high school seniors (not all of them graduating) outnumbered the 119,938 white seniors. Back in time In our subsequent review of agency figures, we didn’t spot a recent year when white students comprised a majority of seniors or graduates. As far back as 2003, 125,262 white high-school seniors amounted to 47.5 percent of all the state’s 263,571 seniors, according to the agency. In 2015, the latest year of posted counts, 109,200 white seniors comprised 32.2 percent of 339,626 seniors. With help from Lloyd Potter, the San Antonio-based Texas state demographer, we looked further back. Potter pointed out TEA reports on enrollment including a 2003 report stating that in 2000-01, 111,781 white students accounted for 50.7 percent of the state’s 220,324 high school seniors and in 2001-02, 113,108 white students broke out to a smidge more than half of the state’s 226,177 12th-graders. In 2002-03, 117,100 white seniors comprised 49 percent of the state’s 238,699 seniors, the agency later reported. Notably, Smith was more specific by declaring 2014 the last time white students comprised the majority of high-school graduates. According to the TEA’s counts, in contrast, white students most recently comprised the majority of Texas public high school graduates in 2003. That year, the agency says, 112,460 Anglo students made up 50.7 percent of the state’s 222,021 graduates. The next year, agency figures indicate, 112,495 white students made up 49.1 percent of the state’s 229,133 graduates. We circled back to Smith with these date findings. He said of his quoted claim: "If it’s wrong, it’s wrong." Our ruling Smith said the last majority-Anglo high school class in Texas graduated in 2014. To the contrary, there remain some Texas high schools with a majority of white students in 12th grade or among graduates, we found, while for all of Texas, state-collected counts show the latest year that white students comprised the majority of public high-school graduates was 2003. White students last accounted for the majority of public high-school seniors in 2001-02. We rate this claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Evan Smith	None	None	None	2017-07-19T12:50:00	2017-07-10	['Texas']
-pomt-08267	In 2011, Milwaukee Public Schools "will provide 77 cents in employee benefits for every dollar it spends on wages."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/10/bob-donovan/alderman-says-milwaukee-public-schools-spends-77-c/	When new census numbers ranked Milwaukee among the poorest big cities in America, Alderman Bob Donovan laid part of the blame on Milwaukee Public Schools -- and proposed an extreme step for the district. In a statement issued Sept. 29, 2010, the fiery alderman said MPS should declare bankruptcy. It’s not clear if the district could. The state Department of Public Instruction says the MPS board would have to determine if it is possible and the city attorney has not researched the question. We’ll leave it to students of finance to sort out if bankruptcy is the right approach to take. But we were struck by one of the claims Donovan made in stating his case. Arguing that MPS’s pension and health benefits are "unsustainable and overly generous," Donovan pointed to the district’s 2010-2011 budget and said: "MPS will provide 77 cents in employee benefits for every dollar it spends on wages." Wait a minute. Don’t most employers -- even public sector ones -- pay far less in benefits for every $1 in wages? Let’s start with Donovan’s specific claim, then take a look at his larger point -- that MPS benefits are excessive, taking limited money away from the classroom. In making his claim, Donovan said the 77 cent figure came from the city’s Legislative Reference Bureau, which is the research staff for the Common Council. In turn, the reference bureau said it came from a March 2010 column written by education writer Alan Borsuk in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Borsuk said the figure came from an estimate MPS made that month, in developing the school district’s 2010-2011 budget. By the time Donovan made his statement in late September, however, the district had revised its estimate to a somewhat smaller number: 74 cents. That is where the figure remained after the School Board approved the budget in October 2010. So, Donovan is generally on target. But some additional clarification is in order. Donovan’s statement suggests the pay-to-benefits ratio applies to the cost of current employees only. When MPS calculates its benefits in this fashion, it also includes the cost of providing benefits -- including pensions and health care -- to retirees. The district could not separate those costs for us, but that approach makes the figure higher. How does the 74-cent figure compare? Here’s what some other local governments estimate they will spend in 2011 on benefits -- for employees and retirees -- for every $1 spent on wages: City of Milwaukee: 48 cents (for general employees). Racine Unified School District: 57 cents Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District: 59 cents. Meanwhile, Milwaukee County -- struggling with the cost of enhanced pension benefits that led to officials being removed from office -- projects it will pay $1 in benefits for each dollar it pays in wages in 2011. All right, the bell is about to ring, so we’ll wrap up our lesson. In calling on Milwaukee Public Schools to file for bankruptcy, Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan said that for every $1 MPS will spend in 2011 on wages, it will spend another 77 cents on benefits. The figure was off a bit, since he used an early estimate -- the actual number is 74 cents. And it’s a little confusing for taxpayers, since it rolls in costs related to retirees, not just current employees. But his larger point -- that MPS pays a lot more in benefits than other local governments pay -- is on the money. We rate Donovan’s claim Mostly True.	None	Bob Donovan	None	None	None	2010-11-10T09:00:00	2010-09-29	['None']
-snes-06437	Woman gives birth to octopus (or lizard, frog, fish, or snake).	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/woman-births-octopus/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Woman Births Octopus	7 March 2000	None	['None']
-abbc-00367	On August 29, 2013, then opposition leader Tony Abbott and education spokesman Christopher Pyne launched the Coalition's education policy.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/1500-public-schools-to-become-independent-by-2017-promise-check/5478114	None	['abbott-tony', 'education', 'schools', 'public-schools', 'government-and-politics', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['abbott-tony', 'education', 'schools', 'public-schools', 'government-and-politics', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	Promise check: Establish a $70 million independent public schools fund	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Tony_Abbott', 'Coalition_(Australia)']
-pomt-08099	Beaverton "enjoys the most diverse population (by percentage of population) among Oregon cities."	/oregon/statements/2010/dec/14/city-beaverton/beaverton-tries-take-mantle-oregons-most-diverse-c/	We like very specific claims here at PolitiFact Oregon. It makes our work easier -- less room for waffling by the person making the statement, you know? Well, a recent press release by the city of Beaverton that innocuously promoted an upcoming guest speaker, made one such very specific claim. At the tail end of the release, in a small blurb about the city’s bona fides, was this sentence: "Beaverton also enjoys the most diverse population (by percentage of population) among Oregon cities." Now, no offense to Beaverton, but that just didn’t seem remotely possible. That alone made it a good candidate for a fact check. Add to that the very specific measurement of "by percentage of population," and we just couldn’t help ourselves. We decided to check in on three cities and go from there should Beaverton come out on top in terms of diversity. So, we started by pulling demographic information, as reported by the 2009 American Community Survey, for Beaverton, Portland and Hillsboro. (To get the most recent data, go here and do "Principal City" search for the Portland-Beaverton-Vancouver metro area.) Here’s what we found: In the "race" category -- which includes designations like "Black or African American," "Asian," and "American Indian and Alaska Native" -- Portland is by far the least diverse with 82 percent of respondents reporting their "race" as white and about 23 percent reporting as some other designation. Beaverton comes in at a 76 percent and 28.5 percent respectively. Hillsboro is the most diverse of the three, with 73 percent and 32.1 percent respectively. (Yes, we realize these numbers don’t add up to 100 percent. That’s the result of double reporting by some respondents. Luckily, all cities have about the same instance of overreporting -- about 5 percent.) There’s one other category to look at before we wrap this up. The census asks respondents whether they identify as "hispanic or latino" separately from the race category. If you look at that category alone, Hillsboro comes out on top again with 23 percent identifying as either hispanic or latino. Beaverton comes in second with 18 percent and Portland comes in a distant third with 9 percent. We called up the city of Beaverton to tell them what we’d found. Jordan Imlah, a spokesman for the mayor’s office, looked into it and sent us this response: "You are indeed correct with your current census figures. We got our stats from older census figures and an Oregonian article published in 2007 by Dave Anderson." Imlah said the city will now start billing itself as "one of the most diverse populations in Oregon." The ruling is pretty easy here. The city of Beaverton said it had "the most diverse population (by percentage of population) among Oregon cities." The American Community Survey shows that’s just not the case. And the city now admits its numbers are old. We rate this claim False. Note: A colleague of ours asked why it was that we had focused on Hillsboro and Portland as possible cities with higher minority presence and offered Woodburn as one city that would probably surpass all three in that regard. The reason we chose those two cities was simply that 2009 numbers -- the most recent -- are available only for larger communities. Since we published this PolitiFact, however, the Census Bureau released a 2005-2009 data set. It's not quite as current as the one we used, but it does offer new numbers for smaller cities, like Woodburn. So, we decided to take a look at the demographic breakdown for Woodburn. Our colleague was on to something. About 40 percent of respondents there identified as a race other than "white" and 56 percent identified as Hispanic or Latino. Woodburn far outpaces Hillsboro, Beaverton and Portland insofar as diversity by percentage of population is concerned. Comment on this item.	None	Beaverton	None	None	None	2010-12-14T06:00:00	2010-11-23	['Oregon', 'Beaverton,_Oregon']
-goop-00647	Jennifer Garner Begging Ben Affleck For Second Chance?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-second-chance-back-together/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner Begging Ben Affleck For Second Chance?	11:25 am, July 13, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02556	"Georgia has the fifth-highest number of uninsured people of any state in the union."	/georgia/statements/2014/feb/03/raphael-warnock/ranks-uninsured-high-georgia/	A chorus of Democratic lawmakers and supporters has been increasingly vocal in pushing Gov. Nathan Deal to expand Medicaid in Georgia. One of those voices is the Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, the former pulpit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock, the keynote speaker at this year’s MLK Commemorative Service at Ebenezer, used the occasion -- with political heavyweights of both sides of the aisle in the room -- to demand an expansion. He cited a statistic we’ve seen others mention to make his case. "Georgia has the fifth-highest number of uninsured people of any state in the union," he said. Is this correct? PolitiFact Georgia was curious for a few reasons. U.S. census figures show Georgia has the eighth-highest population in the nation, so the Peach State’s ranking would be higher than some states that have more residents, if Warnock is correct. We’ve also heard similar claims in the past from others who support the expansion, so PolitiFact Georgia thought now is a good time to find out if they’re right. As part of the federal health care law, also known as Obamacare, the federal government pays for the full cost of newly eligible Medicaid recipients under expansion for the first three years. Its share then drops to no lower than 90 percent of the cost. In Georgia, it’s estimated that as many as 650,000 additional residents would be eligible for Medicaid. Deal, whose last vote as a congressman was against the health care law, has been adamantly opposed to the Medicaid expansion. The governor has said he’s wary of expanding coverage for fear that Uncle Sam will be unable to fulfill its funding pledge for the additional Medicaid recipients. Deal has estimated the expansion would cost the state $4 billion over a decade, but supporters of the health care law say the cost would likely be closer to half of that. Medicaid expansion supporters contend Georgia could get about $30 billion over 10 years from the federal government. Deal, who spoke at the MLK service, had left by the time Warnock addressed the audience. The pastor — who called Deal "courageous" for his position on other issues, such as prison re-entry — told us, "I’d like to see the same courage on Medicaid expansion." An Atlanta Journal-Constitution statewide poll done in September found nearly 60 percent of Georgians don’t like the health care law, but approximately the same percentage of respondents believe Medicaid should be expanded. Warnock said he had done some research on where Georgia ranked nationally in terms of uninsured residents and believed he was "in the ballpark" on his claim. He forwarded a two-page fact-sheet by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, which supports an expansion, that says Georgia ranks fifth in the number of uninsured residents. He shared a 2012 Kaiser Family Foundation report that ranked Georgia tied for fifth in the percentage of uninsured residents, at 19 percent, along with Alaska and California. In order, the top four states were Nevada, Florida, New Mexico and Louisiana. A 2013 Gallup poll found Georgia ranked sixth nationally in that category, with approximately 22.5 percent of its residents uninsured. The top five were Texas, Louisiana, Nevada, California and Florida. The results were based on telephone interviews conducted as part of a yearlong survey of a random sample of adults across the nation. Some interviews were done in Spanish. The Corporation for Enterprise Development, an organization that works to alleviate poverty, released a study that found nearly 22 percent of Georgians under the age of 65 were uninsured in 2011. That was the fourth-highest total in the nation, behind only Florida, Nevada and New Mexico. The corporation used data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its findings. The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey has a breakdown of uninsured residents by state. In 2012, Georgia ranked sixth, with about 19 percent of its residents uninsured, slightly above the national average of 16 percent. The top five states were Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Florida and Louisiana. Georgia State University associate professor Bill Custer said there are several factors concerning why Georgia ranks consistently among the states with the highest percentage of uninsured residents. Georgia, he said, has a larger percentage of residents who cannot afford health insurance because their wages are low or they are unemployed. We recently fact-checked a claim by state Sen. Jason Carter, D-Atlanta, that the average Georgia family makes $6,000 less than the average family did 10 years ago when inflation is factored in. Carter’s claim was rated True. Another factor, Custer said, is many Georgians live in rural parts of the state and work in industries such as agriculture and retail where their employers cannot afford to provide health care. Custer wrote a report in February 2013 that concluded the expansion would support 70,343 jobs statewide over a 10-year span. About half of those jobs would be in the health care industry, Custer said. "For us not to accept the Medicaid expansion is a barrier to economic growth," Warnock said in a telephone interview. "You’ll produce jobs. If you provide that health care (to those additional Medicaid recipients), someone has to provide that health care." To sum up, Warnock said Georgia has the fifth-highest number of uninsured residents. Our research showed he’s indeed in the ballpark. We rate his claim True.	None	Raphael Warnock	None	None	None	2014-02-03T00:00:00	2014-01-20	['None']
-pomt-10589	Romney used to favor gun control, and said he didn't want to go back to Reagan-Bush.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/28/john-mccain/romney-used-to-support-gun-control/	Mitt Romney says he is a supporter of gun rights and a fan of Ronald Reagan. But he didn't always tout those positions, a fact that John McCain uses to mock Romney in a new Internet ad. Romney took positions favorable to gun control in previous races in Massachusetts, a state with strict gun control laws. In 1994, Romney ran for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Ted Kennedy. During that campaign, Romney supported two gun control measures: the Brady Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases, and a ban on certain types of assault weapons. In 2002, Romney ran for governor, successfully beating Shannon P. O'Brien. During that campaign Romney said, "We have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them." The McCain ad accurately quotes Romney on this point. Also during the 1994 race, Kennedy attacked Romney as a conservative similar to Ronald Reagan. (He didn't mean it as a compliment.) That's when Romney responded, "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." Romney made his most detailed defenses to these apparent flip-flops in an interview with Bob Schieffer on CBS News' Face the Nation on Oct. 21, 2007. On the gun issue, Romney said, "I support Second Amendment rights, but I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. ... But my positions are the same as my positions have been with regards to guns for a long, long time, and that is that I respect the right of people to bear arms, and whether that's for hunting or personal protection. I sought the support of the NRA when I ran for governor, and I got it." Unfortunately for Romney, he later had to revise his statement that he had the support of the NRA in the governor's race. The NRA did not endorse in that race. (See our previous check on that statement here .) On his Reagan comment: "Well, when I was running in '94 I wasn't trying to return to Reagan-Bush because that was characterized as a very different posture than what I was running for. ... And Senator Kennedy in the debate was saying, `Oh, you're just turning yourself into Reagan-Bush.' I said, 'No, I'm my own person.' " Romney has been attacked on these issues before; we checked an earlier claim here . McCain's ad accurately conveys Romney's positions now and during the previous times Romney has run for office. The ad clearly labels which statements were made during which campaign. For this reason, we find the ad's statements True. For more on McCain's ad attacking Romney, see our story here .	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-01-28T00:00:00	2008-01-28	['None']
-tron-01944	Open Microphone Catches POTUS in Unpatriotic Moment	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hot-mike-obama-4th-07102013/	None	humorous	None	None	None	Open Microphone Catches POTUS in Unpatriotic Moment	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-01101	As governor, I will: Commit to doubling the graduation rate at CCRI [now at about 10 percent] in my first term.	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/gina-meter/promise/1184/double-graduation-rate-ccri/	None	gina-meter	Gina Raimondo	None	None	Double the graduation rate at CCRI	2014-12-19T07:55:53	None	['None']
-snes-06369	The morning after a one-night fling, a man walks into his bathroom and finds the words “WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AIDS” scrawled on the mirror in lipstick.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aids-mary/	None	Horrors	None	David Mikkelson	None	AIDS Mary	7 September 2000	None	['None']
-vogo-00188	Statement: “My first bill in Congress saved San Diego taxpayers, you guys, over $3 billion,” Bob Filner, a mayoral candidate, said at a debate Aug. 14.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/did-congressman-sewage-save-billions-fact-check/	Analysis: On the mayoral campaign trail, San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio tries to remind voters time and again that he’s the one with the record of saving taxpayers money.	None	None	None	None	Did 'Congressman Sewage' Save Billions? Fact Check	October 3, 2012	None	['Bob_Filner', 'San_Diego', 'United_States_Congress']
-huca-00036	 Defence Minister Jason Kenney, May 27, in a speech to defence contractors in Ottawa.	https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/04/baloney-meter-has-spendi_n_7509712.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-baloney-meter	None	None	F-35 stealth fighter jet replacement project.	Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press	None	Canada's Defence Spending Has Grown 38 Per Cent? There's 'A Little Baloney' To That Claim	06/04/2015 07:30 EDT	in a speech to defence contractors in Ottawa.	['Jason_Kenney', 'Ottawa']
-snes-03880	40 million Russians conducted drills for an imminent nuclear strike.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russians-drill-nuclear-strike/	None	Language	None	Bethania Palma	None	40 Million Russians in Drills for Possible Nuclear Strike	4 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-13339	"Richard Nixon released tax returns when he was under audit."	/virginia/statements/2016/oct/05/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-correctly-notes-richard-nixon-released-t/	Mike Pence told Tim Kaine at the vice presidential debate that Donald Trump will release his tax returns -- once an audit of the GOP presidential candidate has concluded. But the Democratic vice presidential candidate responded that explanation didn’t meet the "Nixon standard." "Richard Nixon released tax returns when he was under audit," Kaine said. Kaine often invokes Nixon in calling for Donald Trump to release his tax returns. Back in August, we checked a statement Kaine made where he said that Nixon made his tax returns public "when he was running for president." We found that statement was Mostly False, because while Nixon made his tax forms public as president, he never did so while running for the country’s highest office. Kaine worded his statement differently this time around, so let’s take another look. You can find Nixon’s tax returns for 1969 through 1972 at the website for the Presidential Tax History Project, which is run by Tax Analysts, a Falls Church-based nonprofit that specializes in tax issues. That group has compiled tax returns online for past presidents and major-party presidential nominees. Nixon’s returns were released in December 1973, a year after he was re-elected. At the time, the 37th president was embroiled in the Watergate scandal, and questions were being raised about whether something also was amiss with his tax filings. Reports had surfaced that Nixon had been paying a small amount of federal tax for several years, Joseph J. Thorndike, a historian at Tax Analysts told us in August. To quell lingering concerns, Nixon released tax returns to the public as well as to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Nixon was under an IRS audit at the time, Thorndike told us. In an April 2016 blog post, Thorndike wrote that the IRS audit found Nixon owed almost $500,000 in unpaid taxes and interest. "Nixon released his returns even though he was under audit. Ultimately, the audit didn’t go well for him-- it was unpleasant, embarrassing, and ultimately very expensive," Thorndike wrote. "But it was also necessary, given the persistent questions about Nixon’s returns." Thorndike says Nixon’s disclosure started a tradition where presidents and candidates seeking the highest office release their returns to the public. His successor, President Gerald Ford, didn’t make his returns public, although he did release a summary of his returns. Every president since Jimmy Carter has made their tax forms public. Our ruling Kaine said, "Richard Nixon released tax returns when he was under audit." That is accurate. We rate his claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/07d727d8-606f-4b56-b78f-9f6d04911142	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2016-10-05T00:05:51	2016-10-04	['None']
-goop-01459	Angelina Jolie Wants To Date Justin Theroux To “Get Even” With Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-justin-theroux-date-brad-pitt-jennifer-aniston/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Angelina Jolie Wants To Date Justin Theroux To “Get Even” With Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston?	2:42 pm, March 2, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Aniston']
-tron-00363	Anthrax-deaths associated with a particular kind of envelope	https://www.truthorfiction.com/anthraxenvelope/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Anthrax-deaths associated with a particular kind of envelope	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-chct-00275	FACT CHECK: Would ‘No’ Lower Or Middle Class Families Do Better Under The GOP Tax Plan?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/11/07/fact-check-would-no-lower-or-middle-class-families-do-better-under-the-gop-tax-plan/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	4:53 PM 11/07/2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06596	Says that Romney touted the Massachusetts health plan for the nation in his hardcover book but then deleted it for the paperback edition.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/23/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-mitt-romney-deleted-health-care-li/	Seems Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have each sold a few more books lately — to each other's campaigns. Romney used Perry's comments about Social Security in Fed Up!, the Texas governor's screed against federal expansionism, to portray Perry as a foe of the popular retirement program. Then, at the Sept. 22, 2011, Fox News/Google debate in Orlando, Perry struck back by suggesting that Romney had altered the paperback edition of his book No Apology to downplay his support of the Massachusetts health care plan. PERRY: "Speaking of books and talking about being able to have things in your books, back and forth, your economic adviser talked about Romneycare and how that was an absolute bust. And it was exactly what Obamacare was all about. "As a matter of fact, between books, your hard copy book, you said it was exactly what the American people needed, to have that Romneycare given to them as you had in Massachusetts. Then in your paperback, you took that line out. So, speaking of not getting it straight in your book sir, that would be a ..." ROMNEY: "Gov. Perry, we were talking about Social Security, but if you want to talk about health care, I'm happy to do that." FOX HOST BRET BAIER: "We are going to have a round on that." ROMNEY: "I actually wrote my book, and in my book I said no such thing. What I said, actually -- when I put my health care plan together -- and I met with Dan Balz, for instance, of the Washington Post. He said, 'Is this is a plan that if you were president you would put on the whole nation, have a whole nation adopt it?' " "I said, 'Absolutely not.' I said, 'This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan.' "And it's fine for you to retreat from your own words in your own book, but please don't try and make me retreat from the words that I wrote in my book. I stand by what I wrote. I believe in what I did. And I believe that the people of this country can read my book and see exactly what it is." We wondered: Had Romney really touted Massachusetts-style health care for all — then deleted it? We got copies of the paperback and hardcover editions. Romney's changes to the book have been explored before, by Boston political journalist David S. Bernstein. He noted in February that Romney had added harsher language on the national health care law as passed: "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and, "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states." Romney more clearly explained ways that he disagreed with implementation of the Massachusetts law. He also changed this line, which came after a paragraph touting the success of the Massachusetts health plan: HARDCOVER: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." To: PAPERBACK: "And it was done without government taking over health care." Why make the change? Well, Romney was in quite a spot. His hardcover was written when the national health care policy supported by President Barack Obama included a public insurance option. So his Massachusetts plan, by comparison, kept "private insurance and personal choice intact," he wrote. Then the Democratic plan passed, without the public option. And it looked uncomfortably close to Romney's plan. As PolitiFact's Angie Drobnic Holan has written, both leave in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. They seek to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by offering tax breaks to help moderate income people buy insurance. People are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." And companies that don't offer insurance have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases. Suddenly, the line in the hardcover edition to "accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country" as Republican Romney had done for Massachusetts was pretty close to what the Democratic president had done nationally. So Perry was right that there was some strategic editing. But a closer look at Romney's original hardcover shows Perry was distorting what Romney wrote when he told the former Massachusetts governor, "Between books, your hard copy book, you said it was exactly what the American people needed, to have that Romneycare given to them as you had in Massachusetts. Then in your paperback, you took that line out." Here's the quote with full context from Page 177 of the hardcover: "My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model of they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state 'laboratories of democracy' could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition. "What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It's portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." So Romney's not really saying "it was exactly what the American people needed, to have that Romneycare given to them." He's in fact presenting a defense of state-level choice — not a pitch for a mandatory national approach. It's like a shout-out to other state leaders: Hey, you can have what Massachusetts has! And it's consistent with what Romney fired back at Perry in the Sept. 22 debate: "This is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan." Our ruling Perry's right that Romney's comments about health care were edited between editions. Among other things, a line that advocated the Massachusetts model as a strong option for other states was replaced by a shorter, more generic sentence. But Perry exaggerates by making it sound as though Romney had advocated his state's plan as national health care policy -- a potentially damaging position in a Republican primary. That's not what Romney wrote. We rule Perry's claim Mostly False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2011-09-23T17:13:04	2011-09-22	['Massachusetts']
-pomt-04281	"Obama's Environmental Protection Agency sent emails for Hispanic Heritage Month with a photo of Che Guevara."	/florida/statements/2012/nov/02/mitt-romney/romney-campaign-says-obamas-epa-sent-emails-che-gu/	A Spanish-language TV ad from Mitt Romney starts off with a question for South Florida voters: "Who supports Barack Obama?" The ad provides three notorious answers: Chávez, Castro and Ernesto "Che" Guevara. The Miami Herald translated the ad, "Chávez Por Obama," which aired on three Spanish-language TV stations on Oct. 30, 2012. The ad mixes footage from interviews with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the niece of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro with news headlines about a provocative email. Narrator: "Who supports Barack Obama?" Chávez video: "If I were American, I’d vote for Obama." Narrator: "Raúl Castro’s daughter, Mariela Castro, would vote for Obama." Castro video: "I would vote for President Obama." Narrator: "And to top it off, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency sent emails for Hispanic Heritage Month with a photo of Che Guevara." Chávez: "If Obama were from Barlovento (a Venezuelan town), he’d vote for Chávez." Romney: "I’m Mitt Romney, and I approve this message." The Chavez clips are from a September 2012 interview in which he also called Obama "a good guy." Mariela Castro, a supporter of gay rights, said she would vote for Obama in May 2012 following Obama announcing his support of gay marriage. Here, we wanted to check the claim that the EPA sent emails for Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs Sept. 15 to Oct. 15, with a picture of Guevara, a guerrilla leader and Marxist revolutionary. He played a major role under Castro during the revolution and carried out the execution of more than 150 prisoners without a fair trial. We also wanted to examine the connection to Obama. It’s not the first time someone tried pin Obama, born in 1961, to the revolutionary, who was assassinated in 1967. During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, bloggers responded to video of a Guevara flag in a volunteer field office with iterations of "Obama loves Che Guevara." PolitiFact rated that Pants on Fire. Romney’s team declined to explain their strategy of invoking Guevara. But for many Cubans, it doesn’t get much worse than Guevara. "When you talk about dislike among the Cubans across the board, Che Guevara might be a notch below Fidel," said Andy Gomez, senior fellow at the University of Miami’s Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies. "He was the henchman. Che Guevara was the one that carried the heavy hand." The EPA email in question caused a stir about a month before the Romney ad appeared. An EPA management analyst sent an email containing a picture of a horse and buggy passing a wall with Guevara’s portrait next to his famous slogan, "Hasta La Victoria, Siempre!" (Until Victory, Always). It also contained several passages about Hispanic culture, religion, general manners and family values under the headline "Hispanic news you can use!". "Hispanic people are vibrant, socializing and fun loving people. Among various facts associated to this culture is that they have a deep sense of involvement in their family traditions and culture," the email said. BuzzFeed obtained a copy of the email sent from a management analyst to EPA staff and posted it on its website Sept. 13, 2012. The text presented another problem for the agency. It matched word-for-word, without attribution, text from the website Buzzle, BuzzFeed reported. Still, the plagiarism played second fiddle to Guevara’s picture in news stories that picked up on the email, including the Miami Herald and Fox News Latino, which were the headlines cited in the Romney ad. The agency quickly apologized for the email. A spokesperson explained it was sent "without official clearance." "The email was drafted and sent by an individual employee, and without official clearance. Shortly after sending the email in question the individual apologized to her colleagues for the inadvertent error," the spokesperson told Buzzfeed in a statement. An EPA spokesman could not tell us the number of employees who received the email, but confirmed that it was an internal message and not released as a statement to the general public. Specifically, it was sent to the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The employee was not fired for sending the email, the spokesman said. The apology did not quell outrage. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, and chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, issued a scathing statement that said, "The image of Che is an insult to countless people who lost family members because of his evil and twisted acts." "Surely, the EPA could have chosen the image of a Hispanic person who really possessed the attributes that showcase our proud Hispanic heritage," said Ros-Lehtinen, who was born in Cuba but fled the country with her parents in 1960. "This sad and unnecessary episode encompasses all that is wrong with this Administration: Their priorities are backwards and their allegiances border on the fringe of society with a leftist fanatical slant that is worrisome and not descriptive of our great nation." Is it fair game for the Romney campaign to pin the email on "Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency"? Yes and no, experts told us. Even though it came from that agency during Obama’s tenure, the ad makes it sound like an official policy message, when really it was the unapproved work of one employee farther down the food chain. "The fact is that individuals are free to make choices about what they do while on the job, and that includes individuals that work in the government," said Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a University of Nebraska at Omaha political science professor who specializes in Cuba policy. Our ruling Romney’s ad said, "Obama's Environmental Protection Agency sent emails for Hispanic Heritage Month with a photo of Che Guevara." The claim is partially accurate. Yes, an email from the EPA under Obama’s tenure marked the start of Hispanic Heritage Month with a picture of Che Guevara. But the message did not go through official clearance, and it was quickly retracted. That makes the assertion that "Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency" is responsible a little dubious. We rate it Half True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-11-02T16:24:41	2012-10-30	['Che_Guevara', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-04742	Barack Obama has "never even worked in business."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/rob-portman/gop-convention-rob-portman-says-barack-obama-never/	When Barack Obama was seeking the presidency in 2008, Republicans frequently derided his career experience, saying it was limited to a scant four years in the U.S. Senate, some time in the Illinois Senate, and having been a "community organizer" in Chicago. The GOP has often returned to that theme, asserting that Obama doesn’t have the business savvy and private-sector experience to lead the country out of the economic doldrums. And it has reached a fever pitch with a Republican National Convention dominated by criticism of Obama’s comment that business people "didn’t build" their businesses. (We’ve checked that contentious comment here.) During his speech to delegates in Tampa, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio -- widely considered a finalist for the vice presidential slot eventually given to Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan -- brought up Obama’s career history again. He contrasted Obama’s work experiences with those of GOP nominee Mitt Romney, whose work has primarily been as a business executive. "Then you have Barack Obama, who never started a business--never even worked in business," Portman said. Obama’s work experience, or lack thereof, is well-plowed ground. So we thought we'd explore whether the president has ever worked in a business. (We interpreted Portman’s statement to mean that Obama had never worked in a private, profit-making enterprise.) As PolitiFact first noted two years ago, the president does, in fact, have some experience in business. In 1983 and 1984, he had a stint as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter. From 1993 to 2004, he was an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases. (The job also overlapped with his time in the Illinois Legislature.) If you count the best-selling books that have brought Obama millions of dollars in royalties, he also knows something about entrepreneurship. Our rating Clearly, Obama has had less experience in the private sector than Romney; before he became president, he spent most of his working life either in the non-profit sector or in politics. However, Portman went too far when he said that Obama has "never even worked in business." We rate the statement False.	None	Rob Portman	None	None	None	2012-08-29T21:28:47	2012-08-29	['None']
-tron-00218	Charlie Daniels’ letter to Hollywood Stars Who Are Against War with Iraq	https://www.truthorfiction.com/daniels-iraq/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Charlie Daniels’ letter to Hollywood Stars Who Are Against War with Iraq	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01681	A photograph shows a protester holding a "No mother should have to fear for her son's life every time he robs a store" sign in front of a fire station in Ferguson, Missouri.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/signs-of-a-protest/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	‘No Mother Should Have to Fear for Her Son’s Life Every Time He Robs a Store’	2 December 2014	None	['Missouri']
-pomt-13987	"Crime is rising."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/09/donald-trump/donald-trump-said-crime-rising-its-not-and-hasnt-b/	After big primaries in California and New Jersey on June 7, Donald Trump -- the presumptive Republican presidential nominee -- painted a picture of a nation in crisis. "Hard to imagine what's happened to our country," Trump said. "America is being taken apart piece by piece … just rapidly auctioned off to the highest bidder. We're broke. We're broke. (Our debt is) $19 trillion, going quickly to $21 trillion. Our infrastructure is a disaster. Our schools are failing. Crime is rising. People are scared. The last thing we need is Hillary Clinton in the White House or an extension of the Obama disaster." Critics will take issue with some of those assertions, such as the idea that the United States is "broke" -- something we’ve rated False previously. But the line from Trump’s remarks that leapt out at us was this one: "Crime is rising." Our previous research has shown that’s not so. So we took a closer look. (Trump’s campaign did not respond to an inquiry.) We looked at two broad categories of crime -- violent crime and property crime -- that are frequently cited by experts as catch-all categories. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, while property crimes include burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft. We turned to FBI data. Such data is submitted voluntarily by local law enforcement agencies, and thus is not perfectly comprehensive. But it is one of two data sets that is generally considered the best available for answering this question. First, we looked at the trend for violent crime and found that it has been falling on an almost uninterrupted basis since the early 1990s. The data below shows violent crime per 100,000 population from 1993 to 2014, the last full year for which data is available. Next, we looked at property crime data. It showed the same pattern: We also looked at the other widely used data set -- the National Crime Victimization Survey, collected by the Justice Department. Here, the trend looks quite similar: Finally, we asked two criminologists to make sure we weren’t missing something. As it happens, James Alan Fox, the interim director of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University, was watching Trump’s speech and noticed the comment as well. "He is incorrect," Fox said. "There are some spikes in homicide and shootings in certain cities, yet other cities continue to experience low rates. As a nation, we are far better off than anytime for the past several decades. Crime rates are low, and there is no consistent and reliable indication that things are getting worse." "Mr. Trump is wrong if he is talking about overall crime and even violent crime," agreed University of Maryland criminologist Raymond Paternoster. Any possible upward swing in the past year or so wouldn’t show up in the data currently available, he said. Our ruling Speaking generally about the state of the country, Trump said, "Crime is rising." If you look at overall violent and property crimes -- the only categories that would seem inclusive enough to qualify as "crime," as Trump put it -- he is flat wrong. In fact, crime rates have been falling almost without fail for roughly a quarter-century. We rate his claim Pants on Fire. UPDATE, July 5, 2016: After we published our article, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, published a blog post critiquing our analysis. The post cited preliminary figures for 2015 that show crime rising. Our fact-check acknowledged the point made in the post, although this data is preliminary and subject to revision. Two criminologists we checked with before publication warned us that such data may not be indicative of a real trend. In addition, while the preliminary data shows spikes in crime rates in some cities, Trump’s statement was broad, without qualifiers, and it came amid comments that painted an overarching image of a nation in decline. Trump didn’t say that crime was rising "recently" or "in recent months" or "over the past year" or "in some places." Ultimately, we find that Trump’s sweeping rhetoric about a nation in decline and beset by crime ignores the overall trend of violent and property crime rates over the past 25 years, which is that they have fallen, consistently and significantly. We stand by our rating of Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/8e5c3910-a384-4b3e-8872-742cd9e7c9d5	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-06-09T11:31:02	2016-06-07	['None']
-pomt-01355	"This year," the Austin City Council "granted a small homestead" property tax "exemption of $5,000... applied equally to everyone. And we also granted an exemption for the elderly and the disabled members of the community."	/texas/statements/2014/oct/21/sheryl-cole/austin-mayoral-hopeful-sheryl-cole-says-year-we-gr/	Mayoral candidate Sheryl Cole said at the mid-October "Ballot Boxing" candidate forum that city leaders have acted to soften the bite of property taxes for homeowners. Cole, an Austin City Council member and the mayor pro tem, responded to a reporter's question about what each hopeful would do to change how much residents affected by rising property values pay in property taxes. After saying the Austin school district levies Travis County’s highest property tax rate and also noting her interest in fighting "disportionate" appraisals of commercial and residential properties, Cole said: "This year, we also granted a small homestead exemption of $5,000, which was a flat amount and it wasn’t on a percentage basis, so it applied equally to everyone. And," Cole said, "we also granted an exemption for the elderly and the disabled members of the community. I think it’s important that we continue to address this," she closed. There’d already been talk of property tax exemptions, which reduce the taxable value of a home, in advance of the November elections giving voters a chance to choose a new Austin mayor and fill 10 council seat being fielded for the first time from single-member districts. In August 2014, mayoral candidate Steve Adler called for an across-the-board 20 percent homestead exemption, cutting a typical homeowner’s city tax bill by $189. About three weeks later, an Austin American-Statesman news story described Cole and another mayoral aspirant, Council Member Mike Martinez, as supporters of a proposal by Council Member Kathie Tovo to create a $5,000 homestead exemption, reducing the city tax bill of a median-valued home by $24. So, is Cole right about the council granting the described exemptions? A council resolution According to the Statesman news story posted online Aug. 26, 2014, Tovo’s proposed $5,000 exemption would apply to about 130,000 owner-occupied homes. Later the same week, the council approved a resolution, which we read on the city’s website, directing the city manager to return to the council no later than Dec. 1, 2014, with a percentage-based proposal resulting in a $5,000 a year exemption for each residential homeowner. The resolution noted, too, that under state law, if a city grants such an exemption, it must be for at least $5,000. The resolution also said the exemption would cost the city $3.1 million a year in forgone revenue. A city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado, told us by email city staff are preparing the ordinance to bring before the council for approval. Asked if the exemption could possibly apply to property taxes due for 2014, Alvarado indicated not, noting that state law requires such an exemption to be adopted by a governing body before July of the first affected tax year. Alvarado said: "The $5,000 exemption, if adopted, would first affect property tax bills associated with FY 2015-16 (i.e. property tax bills due in January of 2016)." Expanded exemption The council acted earlier in 2014 to increase an exemption benefiting elderly and disabled homeowners. On March 20, 2014, according to an American-Statesman news story, the council by 5-2 voted to raise the property tax exemption for homeowners older than 65 or disabled, from $51,000 to $70,000 -- saving the typical elderly homeowner about $100 a year starting with the 2014 tax year. The city’s tax exemption for senior or disabled homeowners was established, at $3,000, in 1974, the story said, and had been last increased, to $51,000, in 1986. About 34,000 properties in Austin receive the tax break, the story said, causing the city to miss out on about $8 million in annual revenue. Cole's campaign To our queries, Cole’s campaign manager, Kevin Opp, emailed that Cole should have said the elderly/disabled exemption had been expanded rather than granted. But Opp maintained the August resolution calling for city officials to draft an ordinance for the $5,000 exemption was tantamount to adopting the exemption. Cole "took action on the Council this year, and it will go into effect at the earliest possible date for the next property tax bill," Opp wrote. Our ruling Cole, speaking of the Austin City Council, said this year, "we granted a small homestead exemption of $5,000... applied equally to everyone. And we also granted an exemption for the elderly and the disabled members of the community." Both parts of this claim are stretches. That is, a $5,000 homestead exemption might be adopted by the council later this year or in 2015, but it hasn’t been granted or applied to anyone already. And while the council in 2014 increased the homestead exemption for the elderly and disabled, that benefit originated in the 1970s. We rate this statement Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Sheryl Cole	None	None	None	2014-10-21T10:00:00	2014-10-15	['None']
-pose-01226	"We are 44th in per-student spending in North Carolina. That is unacceptable. We have to do much more. ... Yes, absolutely we can do it without raising taxes."	https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/promises/coop-o-meter/promise/1317/raise-education-spending-without-raising-taxes/	None	coop-o-meter	Roy Cooper	None	None	Raise education spending without raising taxes	2017-01-05T18:15:48	None	['None']
-goop-00332	Kylie Jenner, Travis Scott Spending $30 Million On Wedding?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-travis-scott-wedding-cost/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kylie Jenner, Travis Scott Spending $30 Million On Wedding?	10:07 am, September 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05844	"Many of the top officials at the Port Authority earn more money than the governors of the states that have jurisdiction over them."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/15/john-wisniewski/many-high-ranking-port-authority-officials-earn-la/	New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are earning close to $180,000 annually in their roles as chief executive, but most of the highest-ranking officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are doing even better. As the Port Authority’s finances come under greater scrutiny, New Jersey Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) pointed out in a recent radio interview how many of the top agency officials are earning larger salaries than the two governors charged with overseeing their operations. "Clearly, the Port Authority is needed, because to coordinate bi-state transportation, you can’t be continually going back and forth between two cities and two states and multiple jurisdictions," Wisniewski told host John Gambling on WOR-AM. "But the Port Authority’s grown beyond its original mission. It’s now a real estate empire in addition to everything else." Wisniewski, also chairman of the state Democratic Party, went on: "It’s become so large. Many of the top officials at the Port Authority earn more money than the governors of the states that have jurisdiction over them." Could many top agency officials really be taking home more money than Christie and Cuomo? That’s right, PolitiFact New Jersey found. Based on the latest data released by the Port Authority, 11 of the 12 highest-ranking agency officials earn larger annual salaries than Christie and Cuomo. Let’s start with the governors’ paychecks. Christie is earning an annual salary of $175,000, according to Bill Quinn, spokesman for the state Department of the Treasury. In New York, Cuomo receives slightly more, earning $179,000 per year, said Morris Peters, spokesman for the New York State Division of the Budget. But Cuomo reimbursed the state for five percent of his 2011 salary, Peters said. Now, let’s turn to the Port Authority officials. In December, the transportation agency posted information on its website about annual salaries and other earnings for all of its more than 6,000 employees. To evaluate Wisniewski’s claim, we looked at annual salaries for the top 12 positions listed on the agency’s organization chart. Here’s how the salaries for those positions break down, as of Nov. 30: Title Person Annual Salary Executive Director Patrick Foye $289,667 Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni $289,667 General Counsel Darrell Buchbinder $276,926 Chief Administrative Officer Louis LaCapra $251,758 Chief Operating Officer Ernesto Butcher $251,758 Chief of Capital Planning David Tweedy $251,758 Chief Financial Officer Michael Fabiano $240,032 Chief of Real Estate & Development Michael Francois $236,340 Chief Engineer Peter Zipf $219,050 Inspector General Robert Van Etten $208,468 Secretary Karen Eastman $198,328 Chief of Public & Government Affairs Jamie Loftus $165,022 So, of the 12 "top officials" at the Port Authority, 11 of them were getting larger paychecks than Christie and Cuomo. Those figures back up Wisniewski’s statement, but it’s worth noting that even Port Authority workers at lower points in the pecking order earned more in salary and additional pay last year than the two governors' annual salaries. For example, 65 police officers earned more than $200,000 in salary and additional pay, according to a Star-Ledger analysis. Our ruling In a radio interview, Wisniewski claimed, "Many of the top officials at the Port Authority earn more money than the governors of the states that have jurisdiction over them." The assemblyman’s comments are on the money, according to data released by the Port Authority in December. Christie and Cuomo earn $175,000 and $179,000, respectively, earning less than 11 of the 12 highest-ranked Port Authority officials. We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	John Wisniewski	None	None	None	2012-02-15T07:30:00	2012-02-07	['None']
-pomt-15151	"I'm the only (Republican) candidate that has actually reduced the size of government."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/30/bobby-jindal/bobby-jindal-im-only-candidate-has-actually-reduce/	Fresh from marking the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he thinks the political storm caused by Donald Trump will die down after the weather cools off. Jindal, who’s No. 14 in the latest polls, said on ABC’s This Week that while Trump "has done a great job tapping into the anger, the frustration that voters feel," there’s only one candidate with true conservative bona fides: himself. "I think after we get past this summer of silliness and insults, the voters are going to begin to look at who is prepared to do the job," he said on Aug. 30. "Right now the American people are saying we've got to shrink the size of the government, grow the American economy. I'm the only candidate — there are not two — I'm the only candidate that has actually reduced the size of government, and I think that experience matters." We were curious about Jindal’s claim that he’s the only candidate out of 17, including 8 former or current governors, who’s walked the fiscal conservative walk. The answer is, it depends on the analysis. Jindal’s evidence On his website, Jindal makes a more specific version of the claim: Jindal is "the only candidate to actually cut spending." To back up the claim, he cites a report by libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. (A spokesperson for Jindal confirmed that this is what he was referring to on ABC.) According to Cato, Jindal is indeed the only governor out of the eight running to have cut spending. During his seven-year tenure as Louisiana's chief, Jindal reduced spending by an average of 1.76 percent every year. Every other governor increased spending. Here’s a graph that details this: Jindal’s chart doesn’t factor in the size of the states, which Cato says is important. When adjusted for population, Jindal’s numbers actually come out looking better: 2.41 percent per capita in cuts every year. "Bobby Jindal shows the most fiscal restraint," the report concludes. (Much of the reduction, reported the Times-Picayune in 2011, is "explained by waning hurricane recovery appropriations and the end of federal stimulus aid.") However, the Cato report is just one way, and something of a simplistic way, to look at the state budget picture. It fails to consider the different per capita income levels across different states (higher incomes bring more government services and thus spending), different approaches to handling federal money (Ohio Gov. John Kasich, for example, took the Medicaid expansion while Jindal did not), and different time periods, lists Alan Auerbach, a professor of public finance at the University of California at Berkeley. Unlike Jindal and other sitting governors, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee and George Pataki weren’t leading their states through economic downturns. Auerbach explains: "During recessions, balanced-budget requirements have typically forced states to cut spending, in addition to legislating tax increases." Kasich himself takes issue with Cato’s analysis, arguing that Cato focused on a specific pool of money known as the general revenue fund. Kasich prefers instead to look at the all-funds budget, a much larger pot of federal and state money. (Cato’s response: "Our data is correct, and so is his. Kasich seems to pick the dataset that shed the best light on him.") Chris Edwards, Cato’s director of tax policy, argued that the general fund data is more recent and perhaps more relevant than the all-funds. "Governors have more direct control over the general fund budget," he said. "A lot of the non-general fund budget comes from the federal government, which governors don’t have much control over." Another way to run the numbers Others have looked at this question and come up with different results. If we look at all-funds and adjust for the time differences, four governors actually out-cut Jindal, according to a fact-check by Fox News, which compared each governor’s budgets to their contemporaries (in other words, how Bush stacked up against other governors in the 2000s, and how Jindal is doing compared to sitting governors). The two top spenders by Cato’s count, Bush and Kasich, actually ranked best in Fox News’ analysis. Bush and Kasich slashed spending by 3.66 percent and 1.76 percent respectively. Jindal, meanwhile, came in at No. 5 on the Fox News analysis, with an average reduction of 0.25 percent per year. Here’s Fox’s breakdown: This is still an imperfect way of comparing the budget records of the various governors, but to an extent, it’s fairer, Auerbach said. "Controlling for what other states did at the same time certainly is better than not controlling for time period," he said. "One might do better still by controlling for relative economic conditions in the different states but … the controls are reasonable." Our ruling Jindal said, "I’m the only candidate that has actually reduced the size of government." He was talking about the cuts in spending. To his credit, a Cato report backs his claim. However, there’s more than one way of looking at spending cuts. One other approach that an expert said is valid suggests that Jindal was out-cut by four other governors. Jindal’s claim is partially accurate. We rate it Half True.	None	Bobby Jindal	None	None	None	2015-08-30T16:34:07	2015-08-30	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-02391	Billy Bush, Wife Split Over Donald Trump “Access Hollywood” Tape?	https://www.gossipcop.com/billy-bush-wife-split-reason-donald-trump-access-hollywood-tape/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Billy Bush, Wife Split Over Donald Trump “Access Hollywood” Tape?	10:54 am, October 3, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-06269	A baby left on a bed is smothered under coats dropped by Christmas visitors.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coat-check/	None	Holidays	None	Snopes Staff	None	Baby Smothered Under Pile of Coats?	3 January 2007	None	['None']
-tron-02872	Jada, a newborn who is very ill and you can help by forwarding an email	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jada/	None	pleas	None	None	None	Jada, a newborn who is very ill and you can help by forwarding an email	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00924	Kylie Jenner “Bored” With Being A Mom, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-bored-mom-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kylie Jenner NOT “Bored” With Being A Mom, Despite Report	9:53 am, May 29, 2018	None	['None']
-abbc-00221	Australia's political establishment was quick to denounce the explosive first speech of Katter's Australian Party senator Fraser Anning and his call for a return to immigration policies that would discriminate against non-Europeans and Muslims.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-06/fact-check-did-harold-holt-abolish-the-white-australia-policy/10194408	Mr Wilson's claim is simplistic. The White Australia policy was dismantled, piece by piece, over decades spanning governments both Liberal and Labor. Experts told Fact Check the 1966-67 Holt government's reforms were critical steps in the process, constituting a significant break from past practice. Mr Holt's changes levelled the playing field between Europeans and non-Europeans applying for citizenship, setting a 5-year wait time for both groups, and eased the criteria for non-European migrants seeking permanent residence. But the process of relaxing Australia's discriminatory immigration policies quietly began before Mr Holt became prime minister — and policies of racial discrimination persisted beyond his term. So it is a stretch to say the Holt government "abolished" the White Australia policy. Responsibility for officially ending it fell to Gough Whitlam's Labor government, which in 1973 declared the policy dead. The Whitlam government then took steps to strip race as a factor from visa assessments and to equalise the criteria by which all people — whether British, European or otherwise — could become Australian citizens.	['immigration', 'discrimination', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['immigration', 'discrimination', 'liberals', 'australia']	Fact check: Did former prime minister Harold Holt abolish the White Australia policy?	Thu 13 Sep 2018, 2:49am	None	['Australia', 'Australian_Party']
-snes-06354	Mister Ed, the talking equine of television fame, was a horse.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mister-ed-zebra/	None	Lost Legends	None	David Mikkelson	None	Mister Ed was a Zebra	8 July 2000	None	['None']
-snes-02754	The Rothschild Family owns 80% of the world's wealth, with a net worth of $500 trillion.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rothschild-family-wealth/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Dan Evon	None	Rothschild Family Wealth	30 October 2016	None	['Rothschild_family']
-snes-06038	The lyrics to the 1966 Batman TV series theme song were produced by brass instruments, not human voices.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/batman-tv-theme/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	How Was the ‘Batman’ TV Theme Created?	11 September 2010	None	['None']
-snes-04338	Sarah Silverman said "I hope the Jews did kill Jesus, I'd do it again in a second!"	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sarah-silverman-killing-jesus/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Sarah Silverman: Killing Jesus	1 August 2016	None	['Jesus', 'Jews', 'Sarah_Silverman']
-snes-01671	The Navy discharged a black sailor named Janaye Ervin for refusing to stand for the National Anthem.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/janaye-ervin/	None	Military	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was a Navy Reservist Discharged for Protesting the National Anthem?	25 September 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-12136	Emails show Democrats, Hillary Clinton and George Soros instigated and orchestrated racial protests in Charlottesville by trying to "control" and keep people "desperate."	/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/14/alex-jones/infowars-alex-jones-falsely-says-george-soros-hill/	Alex Jones, a conspiracy-minded conservative commentator, said the Charlottesville, Va., protests and counter-protests on Aug. 11-12, were staged acts of civil unrest funded by liberal interests to hurt conservatives and President Donald Trump. In a pair of videos posted on his website Infowars.com, Jones accused the Southern Poverty Law Center of going to "central casting" to hire actors to "dress up as white supremacists." There is no evidence that is true, and Jones provided no evidence to support his claim in his video. Jones then claimed the foundation for the Charlottesville protests is seen in emails between the Democratic Party and George Soros, a billionaire who often supports liberal causes. "It was clear once Trump got inaugurated, they were going to go for civil unrest," Jones said. "If you go back to the Wikileaks, from over a year ago, the Democratic Party is sending emails to George Soros and back and forth at the highest levels of the Democratic Party saying, ‘We’re losing the public. Minorities are getting into the free market. We (Democrats) want to keep people in their mother’s basement as baristas.’ "Remember even Hillary said that. ‘What are we going to do to keep control of them? Keep them in the dark, keep them desperate.’ "These are quotes. Hundreds and hundreds of emails," Jones said." We’ve covered them … linking to them." While Jones offered no evidence the Charlottesville protests were staged, he did say there are quotes from Soros, Clinton or Democratic Party officials in emails talking about controlling minorities and stoking fear in the public to "keep them desperate" and "keep control of them." So we decided to see if there is any evidence of that. We couldn’t find any. (We reached out to Jones through the media contact form on his Infowars.com website and did not hear back.) For this fact-check, we consulted three email batches Jones could be talking about -- the emails Hillary Clinton made public during her time as secretary of state (search the government database), the leaked emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta (search the Podesta emails), or the leaked emails of the Democratic National Committee (search the DNC email database). The George Soros connection Jones claimed the "Democratic Party is sending emails to George Soros and back and forth at the highest levels of the Democratic Party saying, ‘We’re losing the public. Minorities are getting into the free market. We (Democrats) want to keep people in their mother’s basement as baristas.’" There are 15 emails in the DNC email database that mention the word "Soros," and five of those come from Politico email newsletters. Of the remaining 10, five reference news coverage and one is text of a speech from Trump referencing Soros ("Forget Soros, leave him alone, he’s got enough problems.") The other four are from May 22, 2016, and discuss a mobile application someone was building to support the Democratic nominee. The developer of the application was looking for funding for the project, including from Soros. We also searched under Soros’ Open Society Foundation or OSF. We found four additional emails, the most interesting of which appears to be a communications officer for OSF trying to schedule a tour of the White House. We did find an email, which Infowars has written about, that Soros sent to Clinton while she was secretary of state (see the email). The 2011 email is about unrest in Albania, which included a series of anti-government protests amid corruption charges. In the email, Soros asks Clinton to bring "the full weight of the international community" to try and ease tensions in the country. Soros writes that he is particularly concerned of the actions of Albania’s prime minister and that Soros has heard of videotape showing national guard members firing on demonstrators. Infowars also has written about a 2014 email from Podesta’s account in which Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Clinton would only attend a fundraiser for a Soros-supported group, America Votes, "to make Soros happy." The most recent emails leaked from Podesta’s account are from March 2016, and seem to be related to a meeting between Soros and Podesta. "In general I think George is more interested in talking about policy than the campaign per se, though I can’t imagine you won’t spend some time on politics," Soros aide Michael Vachon wrote (read the email). "In a separate email I will send you George’s latest thinking on the migration crisis, which he is spending a lot of time on. His other big preoccupation these days is Ukraine. Both the migration crisis and Ukraine are part of his view of Europe as falling apart, and the US as ultimately not doing enough to prevent the political disintegration of its most important ally." Here’s the bottom line: Whatever the emails say about Soros’ access to top Democrats, including Clinton, they don’t say anything akin to what Jones claimed. The Hillary Clinton connection It’s a bit easier to triangulate what Jones was talking about when he said, "Remember even Hillary said that. ‘What are we going to do to keep control of them. Keep them in the dark, keep them desperate.’ " He’s likely referring to leaked audio of a February 2016 Clinton fundraiser in which Clinton was talking about the supporters of Bernie Sanders. Infowars wrote about this, too. Here is what Clinton said (bold emphasis is ours): Clinton: "Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, "You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance." So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing. So I think we should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals. But to take what we can achieve now and try to present them as bigger goals." You can listen to the comments here, courtesy of the Intercept, but you can see how Jones distorts Clinton’s comments. Jones said Democrats wanted to keep "people in their mother’s basement as baristas," to "control them," "keep them desperate." But Clinton was talking about people new to politics who grew up at a time when opportunities were difficult to find. She never once discussed controlling or keeping people desperate. Clinton did face criticism for describing Sanders supporters as people living in their parents’ basement, but that’s not what Jones was saying. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Our ruling Jones said, "if you go back to the Wikileaks, from over a year ago, the Democratic Party is sending emails to George Soros and back and forth at the highest levels of the Democratic Party saying, ‘We’re losing the public. Minorities are getting into free market. We (Democrats) want to keep people in their mother’s basement as baristas.’ "Remember even Hillary said that. ‘What are we going to do to keep control of them? Keep them in the dark, keep them desperate.’ Jones' comments were part of a broader accusation that the events in Charlottesville were staged by liberals and coordinated by top Democrats. We can find no evidence that Jones’ broad attack, or his specific claim about comments made by Soros, Clinton or Democrats in emails, checks out. Clinton did describe supporters of Bernie Sanders as working as baristas or living in their parents’ basements. But that’s well short of what Jones alleged. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Alex Jones	None	None	None	2017-08-14T13:09:39	2017-08-13	['George_Soros', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-06409	Teachers have gotten into trouble over using 'The L.A. Math Test,' a piece of online humor, in the classroom.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/math-test/	None	Humor	None	David Mikkelson	None	The L.A. Math Test	23 June 2002	None	['Los_Angeles']
-snes-05659	Bravecto brand Flea and tick remedy is dangerous to dogs.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bravecto-flea-and-tick-warning/	None	Critter Country	None	Snopes Staff	None	BRAVECTO Flea and Tick Warning	12 June 2015	None	['None']
-tron-02951	Demand Protest Paying Protestors to Disrupt Trump Inauguration	https://www.truthorfiction.com/demand-protest-paying-protestors-disrupt-trump-inauguration/	None	politics	None	None	['donald trump', 'liberal agenda', 'media']	Demand Protest Paying Protestors to Disrupt Trump Inauguration	Jan 18, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-06347	Technical glitch on CNN web site revealed obituaries for several famous but not-yet-dead people.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/not-dead-yet/	None	Humor	None	David Mikkelson	None	Premature CNN Obituaries	22 April 2013	None	['None']
-tron-00844	Award for Sexual Predators: Obama Awarded Medal of Freedom to Clinton, Weinstein, Weiner, Cosby	https://www.truthorfiction.com/award-for-sexual-predators-clinton-weinstein-weiner-cosby/	None	clinton	None	None	['barack obama', 'bill clinton']	Award for Sexual Predators: Obama Awarded Medal of Freedom to Clinton, Weinstein, Weiner, Cosby	Oct 19, 2017	None	['Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-05799	Says "80 percent of the health care dollars are spent by 20 percent of the population."	/oregon/statements/2012/feb/23/alan-bates/does-20-percent-population-really-use-80-health-ca/	Health care debates are always fertile ground for fact-checkable claims. A recent debate on the Oregon Senate floor over the state’s reform plans was no different. During the debate, Sen. Alan Bates was trying to argue the point that the state’s health care system needs to focus on the folks who are highest cost and better integrate their care. A small portion of folks use the most resources, he said, so better organization, more working together, should make a dent in overall costs. "We spend twice as much money per person in the U.S. than any industrialized country in the world and yet we have the worst outcomes," he said. "Our health care system is literally awash in dollars." Same old, same old. But then he said something that really caught our attention: "Eighty percent of the health care dollars are spent by 20 percent of the population." We remembered this 80-20 rule from economics class. Quite a few things are said to split that way. Business owners, for instance, sometimes say that just 20 percent of their clientele account for 80 percent of their sales. But we hadn’t heard the rule applied to health care -- and, honestly, we weren’t even sure the "rule" held up to scrutiny. So we gave Bates’ office a call. An aide there said that the 80-20 split was general knowledge, and that the senator heard it recently from the director of the Oregon Health Authority. That led us to OHA spokeswoman Karynn Fish, who pointed us to two sources. The first was an Oregonian article by Bill Graves that was about this topic exactly: high-cost patients. In his story, Graves notes that at CareOregon, a Portland managed care organization for Oregon Health Plan, about 25 percent of the adult patients accounted for 83 percent of the spending in 2011. That number seemed to reflect the same general principle Bates had mentioned during the floor session. Debra Read, a senior evaluation associate with CareOregon, said the figure was fairly standard across the board when it comes to health care -- though she couldn’t say whether it also applied to children. "That’s well supported, not just in our data." The reason for the high cost of a few, she said, comes down to hospital visits, where most people wind up when they’re managing a chronic condition or they’re in the last stages of a terminal illness. "When you look at health care costs overall, the hospital is the thing that costs the most, vastly costs the most. … So it’s basically driven by hospital costs. The sicker you are, the more likely you are to go to the hospital." The second source that Fish gave us was a chart from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That chart showed exactly what Bates said: Twenty percent of the population accounts for 80 percent of total expenditures. Maybe even more shockingly, the chart also shows that just 5 percent of the population accounts for 50 percent of all expenditures. The agency cited several studies for the chart, with publication dates running from 2002 through 2006. To get a more current take on the situation, we phoned Stephanie Bernell, a professor with Oregon State University’s Health Management and Policy Program who specializes in the economics of health care. She said the 80-20 split was "a very reasonable thing for somebody to say." She cited a fuller report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that further explored the way in which a minority of Americans account for the largest bulk of spending. Bernell said she was even more interested in whittling down that 20 percent, noting again that just 5 percent account for 49 percent of health care expenses. "I think the stories are more interesting when you get into who’s in that 20 percent, " she said. People consume the most health care at the beginning and the end of life, she said. Births are expensive and so is the latter part of life when "chronic conditions start to creep up." That brings us to our ruling. Bates said that 20 percent of the population accounts for 80 percent of the health care dollars spent. His claim is backed up by two studies from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That data is a little old, but newer numbers from CareOregon show the same split and a professor who studies the issue also confirmed the senator’s claim. We give this statement a True. Return to OregonLive to comment on this PolitiFact Oregon ruling.	None	Alan Bates	None	None	None	2012-02-23T16:02:35	2012-02-14	['None']
-pomt-14658	The United States has a "record number of abortions year after year after year."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/carly-fiorina/carly-fiorina-incorrect-us-has-record-number-abort/	Carly Fiorina may be a former CEO, but her campaign hasn’t been all about business and economics. Fiorina has made abortion one of her top issues, most notably referencing a controversial anti-abortion video during a Republican debate. (We rated her claim on the video Mostly False.) On Jan. 20, 2016, at an Iowa Right to Life event in Des Moines, she cited a statistic sure to trouble her audience, among others. "I think we're being told to settle for a nation where record numbers of men are out of work, record numbers of women are living in poverty," Fiorina said. "We have record number of abortions year after year after year." Here, we’ll look at her claim that the United States has a "record number of abortions year after year after year." There are two data sets for tracking abortions over the long term. One is compiled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the other is compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. The data from the CDC is current through 2012, while the Guttmacher data -- which includes information for a few states not captured in the CDC data -- is current through 2011. Both groups’ data show the same general pattern -- a small but steady decline in abortion since the early 1980s. In plain figures, there were 1.6 million recorded abortions in 1990 compared to a little over 1 million in 2011. This chart, using CDC data, shows the declines between 2003 and 2012 in the raw numbers of abortions (the solid line), the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44), and the abortion ratio (the number of abortions per 1,000 live births). The Guttmacher data shows a similar trend. Here’s the decline in the abortion rate and the abortion ratio going back to 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationally in the case Roe vs. Wade. It’s worth noting that this second pair of charts doesn’t come from an abortion-rights advocacy group. It was disseminated by the National Right to Life Coalition. "After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions performed annually in the U.S. (has) dropped to around 1.06 million a year," the National Right to Life Coalition wrote in its fact sheet, adding, "By 2011, the (abortion) rate had dropped to 16.9, nearly half the peak rate, meaning abortion was a significantly less common feature in women’s lives in 2011 than it was in 1980." And Rebecca Wind, a spokeswoman for the Guttmacher Institute, told PolitiFact that "we have no reason to believe that the long-term decline has reversed itself in recent years." We should note that even though the abortion rate has decreased, the annual number of abortions is still significant -- 1,058,500 in 2011, according to Guttmacher, the higher of the two estimates. Still, Fiorina’s claim -- that the United States has a "record number of abortions year after year after year" -- is flat wrong. Our ruling Fiorina said the United States has a "record number of abortions year after year after year." In reality, the raw number, the rate and the ratio of abortions compared to live births has been falling since the early 1980s, and the decline shows no signs of stopping. We rate Fiorina’s statement False.	None	Carly Fiorina	None	None	None	2016-01-20T17:55:27	2016-01-20	['United_States']
-pomt-04531	"In every state, women are paid less than men."	/georgia/statements/2012/oct/01/national-womens-law-center/there-gender-wage-gap-every-state/	Women: You’ve come a long way, but still have a ways to go, according to the National Women’s Law Center. The NWLC revisited the gender wage gap debate last month, citing recently released federal statistics showing the difference between the earnings of men and women in the United States. Using the data, the organization devised a state-by-state ranking of women’s median earnings compared with men’s. "In every state, women are paid less than men," the NWLC said in a Sept. 21 news release about its analysis. The liberal-leaning advocacy organization for women’s issues also cited the national gender wage gap showing that women are paid 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The organization’s leaders are using the analysis to push Congress to enact the Paycheck Fairness Act to address the disparity. That legislation -- sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and supported by the Obama administration -- is intended to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963: proposed guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with a goal of eliminating inequities. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in January 2009 but failed twice in the Senate, in November 2010 and in June 2012. The gender wage gap issue has been studied for years and has been targeted through legislation including the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Still, the NWLC statement about all 50 states seemed broad. Was there the possibility that in at least one state the wage gap either didn’t exist or favored women? And what factors were considered to determine the gap? The two most common sources for this type of gender wage data are the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. NWLC used data from the Census Bureau’s 2011 American Community Survey, released last month, to calculate wage gaps in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Using the Community Survey’s statistics, the NWLC calculated the wage gap for each state as the ratio of female and male median earnings for full-time, year-round workers. (The Community Survey classified full-time, year-round workers as those being 16 years old and over and who usually worked 35 hours or more per week.) The wage gaps are presented as the number of cents women are paid for every dollar paid to their male counterparts. Using this methodology, the organization’s statement is accurate. For example, Georgia ranked 13th out of the 50 states and Washington, D.C., in order of the highest wage gaps by jurisdiction. In Georgia, the wage gap was 80.7 percent, meaning that for every dollar a man earned, women earned just under 81 cents. Georgia males earned $43,902 and women earned $35,438 annually, a difference of $8,464. In that ranking, Washington, D.C., fared the best, with women making about 90 cents for every dollar men make. In Wyoming, where the wage gap was the largest, women earned 66.6 cents for each dollar earned by men. The NWLC analysis also includes the often-used statistic that the national gender wage gap is 77 percent, or more clearly: For every dollar a man earns, a woman earns 77 cents. The national wage gap calculated by the organization is based on census data that tracks full-time, year-round worker wages regardless of occupation. PolitiFact has examined wage disparity claims with varying outcomes. Supporters of wage gap legislation typically cite the 77-cent figure without clarifying that the gap does not take into account other factors that could influence the figure, including occupation, employment longevity and education. The census data shows the widest gap, but other data, including hourly wages tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, yields smaller differences. Using BLS data, women are paid 86 percent of the median hourly wages of men. So, does the NWLC’s claim hold up? Based on Census Bureau data, it does appear that women are paid less than men in every state and Washington, D.C. In considering other data and influences, the wage disparity amount, specifically the national wage gap, is smaller, but still exists. We rate it True.	None	National Women's Law Center	None	None	None	2012-10-01T06:00:00	2012-09-21	['None']
-pomt-15223	"I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001."	/new-hampshire/statements/2015/aug/07/chris-christie/christie-says-he-was-appointed-be-us-attorney-day-/	New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie wanted everyone at the first Republican presidential debate of the 2016 cycle to know that he has experience prosecuting terrorists. When debate moderator Megyn Kelly asked him about Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's position on the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records, he immediately invoked the worst terrorist attack on American soil in the country's history. "I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state," he said. He said that meant he had unique experience as "the only person on this stage who's actually filed applications under the PATRIOT Act" as well as having "prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after Sept. 11." His comment started a back-and-forth with Paul, who spent more than 10 hours on the Senate floor in May protesting the PATRIOT Act. Christie characterized Paul’s experience as: "sitting in a subcommittee, just blowing hot air about this...." Christie’s line about becoming the U.S attorney for New Jersey the day before 9/11 is similar to statements he’s made while campaigning in New Hampshire. We wondered: Is it true? A few of our PolitiFact readers were quick to point out a report published in the New York Times on Dec. 8, 2001, which said that on the day before – nearly four months after the terrorist attacks – President George Bush announced he would nominate Christie as the next U.S. attorney for New Jersey. The article notes, however, that the nomination had been "expected for months." Others pointed to a White House press release dated Dec. 7, 2001, saying the president "intends to nominate" Christie as the next U.S. attorney for New Jersey. That doesn’t appear to jibe with Christie’s claim that he was "appointed" on Sept. 10. We contacted Christie’s campaign in New Hampshire for clarification. A spokeswoman for Christie, Samantha Smith, wrote in an email Friday that Christie received a phone call on Sept. 10, 2001, from Attorney General John Ashcroft that set in motion a months-long hiring process. "The point he was making was on Sept. 10 he accepted the job," Smith said in a phone interview. Smith pointed to an article in New Jersey's Star-Ledger newspaper from Sept. 11, 2001, which read: "President Bush nominated former Morris County freeholder Christopher Christie as the state's next U.S. attorney yesterday." It continues: "...the White House notified Christie that he is the President's choice and that extensive background checks on his qualifications would begin immediately." The story, written by Kate Coscarelli and Robert Cohen, estimated that those checks would take "up to six weeks, after which the formal nomination would be put forth to the Senate." Christie was officially confirmed by the U.S. senate on Dec. 20, 2001, and sworn into office on Jan. 17, 2002. Christie unequivocally stated twice that he was appointed on Sept. 10. Given free rein to choose his closing remarks, he circled back to the same story. "I was appointed United States attorney on September 10, 2001. And I spent the next seven years of my career fighting terrorism and putting terrorists in jail," he said. As Christie stood on stage, he gave the impression that he took the job as U.S. attorney the day before the terrorist attacks and then he "prosecuted and investigated and jailed terrorists in this country after Sept. 11." However, the word "appoint" has more than one meaning. Merriam-Webster says the word can mean "to fix or set officially," or "to name officially." Other definitions use verbs like "assign" and "choose." If that’s your interpretation, then Christie is closer to correct. In any case, the impression Christie left with the debate’s viewers was that he was in charge of prosecuting and investigating terrorists immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. That’s misleading. Christie’s spokeswoman insisted that his point stood: The world was a different place after 9/11, and in that new world, Christie navigated the laws and brought terrorists to justice. Our ruling Christie said, "I was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state." Christie said he received a phone call on Sept. 10, 2001, that began the process of his appointment as the U.S. attorney for New Jersey. However, he wasn’t nominated until months later, and he was sworn into the position until the following year. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate the statement Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4773c653-58b6-4f55-8158-c8b3e83ab0db	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2015-08-07T19:40:13	2015-08-06	['United_States', 'George_W._Bush']
-snes-03682	Taxypayers paid $4 million for President Obama to play golf with Tiger Woods.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-golf-outing-with-tiger-woods/	None	Ballot Box	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Obama Golf Outing with Tiger Woods Cost Nearly $4 Million?	28 October 2016	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Tiger_Woods']
-snes-04339	DNC speaker Khizr Khan, father of fallen Army Capt. Humayun Khan, is a Muslim Brotherhood operative.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/khizr-khan-is-a-muslim-brotherhood-agent/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Khizr Khan Is a Muslim Brotherhood Agent	1 August 2016	None	['Muslim_Brotherhood']
-snes-05224	The user of solar panels drains the sun of energy.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/solar-panels-drain-sun/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Solar Panels Don’t Drain the Sun of Energy	12 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-03646	Says that in 2007, "Oregon ranked 25th -- or 7th from the bottom -- in percentage of children with untreated decay compared to 32 other states with similar data."	/oregon/statements/2013/may/02/oregon-health-authority/did-oregon-rank-no-25-32-states-untreated-decay-20/	Last week, PolitiFact Oregon heard an earful from fluoride opponents upset with our ruling on their claim that Multnomah County has the 15th lowest cavity rate in the country, as the county hovered at roughly the same percentage as the state of New York. We ruled the statement False because county data is not comparable to state data. Plus, we found that New York didn’t really rank 15th lowest because the cavity numbers posted on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were from varying years and, consequently, can’t be ranked. Accurate dental health statistics are critical because Portland residents will vote May 21, 2013, on whether to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water. For that fact check, we spoke with Shanie Mason, oral health program manager for the state agency that published the "Smile Survey" in 2002 and in 2007. Her office released a draft of the 2012 version last week at the request of The Oregonian. At the time, she cautioned against such comparisons and said, "We have only compared ourselves against neighboring states with a similar methodology." So imagine our surprise when we read this statement in the 2012 draft report: "In 2007, Oregon scored worse in every major measure of oral health for children compared to 2002. At that time, Oregon ranked 25th – or 7th from the bottom – in percentage of children with untreated decay compared to 32 other states with similar data." It’s accurate to say that Oregon measured worse in 2007 when compared to itself in 2002. However, the "ranked" numbers looked very much like the numbers erroneously relied on by anti-fluoride campaign Clean Water Portland -- which Mason cautioned against comparing -- when it made its claim about New York and Multnomah County. The CDC posts the percentage of third-graders with "untreated decay." But a spokeswoman for the CDC says the statistics are not meant to be "ranked" because they cover different time periods, with some as dated as 1999. The states have different response rates and vary in the percentage of children who qualify for free and reduced-price meals, she said. "There are many caveats in looking at these data across states," wrote Linda S. Orgain in yet another email to PolitiFact Oregon. "These issues make ranking the states on these children's indicators less meaningful and probably not accurate. We would not recommend doing that." We returned to the Oregon Health Authority for a response. Bruce Gutelius, who is presenting the 2012 survey, said in a reply email they wanted to provide context for Oregon’s numbers. He said they had other options -- for example, sticking with 2002 and 2007 Oregon figures, or measuring Oregon against a national figure from 1999-2004 -- but decided that a ranking "was the most meaningful to provide the needed context." We do not see how declaring Oregon No. 25 based on a list of percentages from other states and other years provides meaningful or accurate context. The percentage of third-graders in Oregon who showed evidence of untreated decay in 2006-07 was 35.4. Vermont was at 16.2 percent in 2002-03 and Arkansas was at 42.1 percent in 2001-02. The Smile Survey released last week contains numbers for children ages 6 to 9 -- so we’re talking largely kids in first, second and third grades. This is slightly different from the numbers reflected on the CDC website. In 2011-12, the percentage of children in this group who showed evidence of untreated tooth decay was 20 percent. In 2007 it was 36 percent. That’s a sizable decrease. This week, the Oregon Health Authority also shared statistics for 43 states, including numbers not yet posted to the CDC website. More than 21 percent of third-graders in Oregon and in Alabama have untreated decay for 2011-13. Oregon is in the middle of the pack if you look just at the percentages for the 43 states -- but again, we don’t know how some of the older numbers have shifted since then. We want the state to make recommendations on public health, even if controversial. The Oregon Health Authority has no official position on the city water measure, although public health officials there clearly favor fluoridating water. But we don’t think this was the most responsible way to put perspective on Oregon’s untreated decay percentages. The agency could have run in its 2007 report all the percentages for the 32 states, clearly citing the years and without designating a ranking. In its 2012 report, writers should have deleted the phrase: "Oregon ranked 25th – or 7th from the bottom." The statement is False.	None	Oregon Health Authority	None	None	None	2013-05-02T03:00:00	2013-04-24	['Oregon']
-abbc-00396	The claim: Bill Shorten says the level of subsides provided to car makers in Australia is lower than in other countries.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/bill-shorten-car-subsidy-numbers-irrelevant-outdated/5251536	The claim: Bill Shorten says the level of subsides provided to car makers in Australia is lower than in other countries.	['manufacturing', 'alp', 'bill-shorten', 'federal-government', 'australia', 'germany', 'united-states']	None	None	['manufacturing', 'alp', 'bill-shorten', 'federal-government', 'australia', 'germany', 'united-states']	Bill Shorten's car subsidy numbers irrelevant, outdated	Mon 3 Mar 2014, 12:05am	None	['Australia', 'Bill_Shorten']
-pomt-05413	U.S. Rep. Allen West wants to bring back earmarks.	/florida/statements/2012/may/02/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/dccc-says-allen-west-earmarks/	You’ve probably heard of the earmark to build the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. But what about tariff breaks for those who make snow globes? Or yard ornaments depicting school mascots? Or men’s shoes? Not just any shoes, but to be precise: "certain men's footwear covering the ankle, the height of which from the bottom of the outer sole to the top of the upper exceeds 19 cm, with waterproof molded soles, valued at more than $30 per pair.’’ Those are all items that lawmakers in Washington sought to designate as worthy of a tariff break for companies in 2009-2010. U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Plantation, was one of 65 freshmen Republicans who signed an April 20 letter calling for support of the "miscellaneous tariff bill’’ which would reward these breaks. (Other Florida members who signed included Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, and Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Panama City.) After POLITICO wrote about the tariffs and their similarity to earmarks, which are currently banned, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blasted out an email: "According to Politico, Representative Allen West (FL-22) has been caught ‘begging’ Republican leaders to bring back earmarks. West signed a letter in support of earmarks ‘even though it runs counter to the earmark ban Republicans campaigned on in 2010 and instituted when they took power.' " Does West calling for the tariff breaks mean he wants to bring back earmarks? What’s a miscellaneous tariff bill? To begin at the beginning: American companies import materials to make everything from umbrellas to medicines to pianos. The importers of these raw materials have to pay federal tariffs. And every year, hundreds of American companies, often with the help of lobbyists, ask members of Congress to suspend those tariffs. Supporters say waivers allow them to keep prices lower and employ more Americans. Members introduce the requests as individual bills, which go through committees and then are vetted by the International Trade Commission and other agencies. The bills must meet certain criteria, including a limit on the loss of tariff revenue to under $500,000 per year. (The Washington Post found that lawmakers circumvent that dollar limit by filing multiple bills. In 2005, a Massachusetts representative filed six different bills changing the wording slightly to cover leather basketballs, rubber basketballs, etc.) The International Trade Commission posts the requests with explanations of the products. For example, here's an explanation about those snow globes, requested by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., on behalf of a company in Missoula: "A snow globe is filled with plastic flakes (or metallic glitter) in an aqueous liquid. ... Shaking or inverting the snow globe stirs up the plastic flakes that settle slowly in the liquid when the globe is set upright, thus creating the effect of snow fall upon the figurine, object, or scenery inside." Members had until April 30, 2012, to submit requests. The bills probably won’t reach the chambers for votes until fall. West didn’t submit any requests, said his chief of staff Jonathan Blyth on the deadline day. At least one South Florida lawmaker did, though. Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, filed one for certain coffee brewers with "milk frothing capacity" and another for electromechanical ice shavers. Is it an earmark? The DCCC -- and some Republicans -- say tariff breaks are equivalent to bringing back earmarks. Back in 2010, the House Republican Conference adopted a rule stating members couldn’t request earmarks or limited tariff benefits. A limited tariff benefit is defined as benefiting less than 10 companies. Today, lawmakers introducing miscellaneous tariff bills say they could apply to any company. But it’s not clear that’s always the case, since some of the bills seem quite specific. West’s office pointed us to this myths vs. facts page distributed by the House Ways and Means Committee. In the fact sheet, the Republicans argued that earmarks increase spending, but tariff bills reduce tariffs and are equivalent to a tax cut. They also said the tariff waivers could apply to any company and that the process is a "model of transparency." There is some feuding in the ranks about whether they are earmarks and about how they're handled. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has teamed up with Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., to propose changing the process so businesses go directly to the trade commission to seek the tariff break. Lawmakers would still have to vote on it, but they wouldn’t have the chance to pick and choose which ones to forward to the commission. DeMint argues that would get rid of the "pay-to-play racket." "Some want to restart this part of the political favor factory and hope Americans don't notice Republicans breaking their own earmark ban, and others want to redefine earmarks to create a loophole for tariff suspensions," DeMint wrote in an op-ed for CNN.com. Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that monitors earmarking and other budget issues, has raised concerns about the tariff bills because of the "potential pay-to-play and special interest giveaways that it perpetuates," said vice president Steve Ellis in a recent email. "So call them earmarks, call them limited tariff benefits, call them whatever you like, we are still concerned with this legislation," he said. Ellis said he will analyze this year's list to determine if some raise the same concerns as earmarks -- such as benefiting few people who are giving campaign donations to their members in Congress. So would Ellis call them earmarks? "I’m going to wait and see," he said. "I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are." Our ruling The DCCC said that West’s signature on a letter with dozens of House Republicans calling for a miscellaneous tariff bill means that he wants to bring earmarks back. Tariff breaks do raise some of the same concerns as earmarks. Business owners who can help fund candidates’ campaigns seek the financial benefit from their own representatives. And some of the bills are written in such a way as to only benefit a select few. But the process and the particulars involved in earmarks vs. tariff breaks are very different. Earmarks direct spending; tariff bills are more like tax breaks. More importantly, the process for tariff breaks is transparent and relatively easy to track, unlike the earmarks of previous years. We rate the DCCC's statement Mostly False.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2012-05-02T13:34:45	2012-04-24	['United_States', 'Allen_West_(politician)']
-pomt-06469	"The people in Massachusetts like (the state health care plan) by about a 3-1 margin."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-massachusetts-residents-favor-sta/	Comments about Mitt Romney's support of the Massachusetts health care plan prompted a testy exchange during the CNN Republican debate in Las Vegas. It began with former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum making an aside that Romney's plan "was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare." Romney said he had consistently said it was"crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation." That prompted a feisty back-and-forth with head-shaking and interruptions. When the dust settled, Romney said, "It was something crafted for a state. And I've said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It's unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I'm president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people." ANDERSON COOPER: "All right. Senator Santorum?" SANTORUM: "Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs. "What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you've got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance without controlling costs. You've blown a hole in the budget up there. And you authored in Obamacare, which is going to blow a hole in the budget of this country." COOPER: "Governor Romney, I'm going to give you 30 seconds." ROMNEY: "I'm -- I'm sorry, Rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan, but I'll tell you, the people in Massachusetts like it by about a 3-1 margin." Romney made a similar claim during last week's debate, so we checked it out. We found one survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe. Interviews with a sample of 537 respondents age 18 and older were conducted from May 24 to May 26, 2011. The survey asked this question, among others: "Given what you know about it, in general, do you support or oppose the Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance Law?" The pollsters found that 63 percent supported the law, 21 percent opposed the law, 6 percent didn’t know, and 9 percent hadn’t heard of the law. The ratio of 63 percent support and 21 percent opposition is exactly 3 to 1, supporting Romney’s claim. (Support is actually up compared to a previous Harvard-Globe poll in 2009, when the breakdown was 53 percent to 25 percent, or slightly over 2 to 1.) And such levels of support don’t appear to be unusual. An annual survey sponsored by the Urban Institute and the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation has somewhat different methodology but found similar levels of support. Between 2006 and 2009, support for the law was, respectively, 69 percent, 71 percent, 72 percent and 67 percent. (We don’t know the exact ratio of support to opposition because the survey did not release the percentages for those who opposed the law or who had no opinion.) "There is no discussion here of repealing the law," said Jeffrey Berry, a political scientist at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. "Romney has it right in the sense that residents in Massachusetts don't want to repeal the law." Our ruling Romney has strong support for this claim. A recent survey by a credible pollster found the ratio of support to opposition for the Massachusetts law at 3 to 1, and other polls suggest levels of support even higher. So we rate Romney’s statement True. Editor's note: This item was originally published on Oct. 12 for the original claim. We have added the new wording from the Oct. 18 debate.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2011-10-18T22:35:37	2011-10-18	['Massachusetts']
-pomt-02387	Says Cathy Jordan was "arrested" and dragged out of her home by "a SWAT team of hooligans" for using medical marijuana.	/florida/statements/2014/mar/13/john-morgan/john-morgan-says-swat-team-hooligans-arrested-medi/	Outspoken Orlando attorney John Morgan doesn’t mince words when it comes to his support of Florida’s proposed medical marijuana amendment. He does tend to paint his cause in broad strokes, however. During a University of Tampa debate on medicinal use of the drug on Feb. 24, Morgan argued that it’s misguided to enforce marijuana laws, using the example of Cathy Jordan, a 64-year-old Parrish resident who smokes to combat amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. "The issue for this year is very simple," Morgan said. "Should about 350,000 to 400,000 people, including Cathy Jordan, who’s here tonight, who was arrested last year, drug out of her home, because she suffers from ALS, and marijuana is the only thing that will help her, the only question this year for us is the legalization of medical marijuana." Later, he added this: "There was an arrest of Cathy Jordan a year ago. An ALS patient who’s sitting right here ... this afternoon, and guess what? The agricultural commissioner sent a SWAT team of hooligans out to her house to drag her and her husband out because it's the only relief that she could get." Jordan is now the president of the Florida Cannabis Action Network, while Morgan has spent $4 million of his own money on a petition drive for a constitutional amendment for marijuana. Some of the details Morgan mentioned about Jordan’s encounter with law enforcement, though, didn’t sound right, so we decided to check it out. Acting on a tip The Tampa Bay Times wrote about Jordan’s plight last year, confirming that her marijuana usage did in fact attract the attention of Manatee County sheriff’s deputies on Feb. 25, 2013. A Realtor noticed an extension cord running from a shed on Jordan’s property to an empty home’s garage next door, then saw a mature marijuana plant growing in Jordan’s garden. The Realtor called the authorities. According to an incident report, two deputies responded to the call, originally for burglary and theft of service for the extension cord, and confirmed the plant was there. The responding deputies’ reports noted that two men harassed them and recorded their arrival and subsequent investigation. One of the men (neither are named in those reports, although Robert Jordan and his son were home) reportedly bumped one of the deputies several times and attempted to prevent the pair of officers from entering their property, saying the marijuana was theirs and they wanted the deputies to leave. One deputy called his sergeant, who responded and then requested the department’s Special Investigations Division, an undercover vice and narcotics unit that responds to drug calls. Three detectives responded to the call and spoke to Robert Jordan, who let the police enter his house and explained his wife used marijuana to deal with her ALS symptoms, according to the division’s report. Police confirmed no marijuana being grown inside the house, then went outside to find three large plants in a plastic container and two smaller plants in another. Robert Jordan then opened the shed that used the extension cord to reveal 18 smaller seedlings, "a lighting system, an air conditioner, a thermometer and a white erase board to track planting dates." The authorities explained to Robert Jordan that growing marijuana was illegal under federal law and they could either take all the marijuana "observed in plain view" or they would go get a warrant and forcibly remove the plants. The report states neither he nor his wife were ever threatened with arrest, but reluctantly agreed to let the department confiscate 23 plants. No one was arrested or dragged out of their house by a SWAT team. The Jordans sued the Sheriff’s Office for the return of their plants last year. Sheriff’s Office public information officer Dave Bristow did verify that none of the officers responding drew their guns and only entered the Jordans’ property with permission. No warrants were necessary. The Manatee County Sheriff’s Office wouldn’t comment on the incident other than to confirm details in the report, citing pending civil litigation. Robert Jordan confirmed the incident happened the way the sheriff’s reports says it did, although he said the deputies who first arrived did rush up his driveway with their hands on their sidearms. He described them as "very, very aggressive," although he said he was aggressive, too, arguing about whether probable cause allowed them on his property. He noted he told his wife to go across the street with friends after the deputies arrived, and no one touched her. He had a different opinion about the Special Investigations Division detectives. "The actual narcotics officers, they were gentlemen," Jordan said. "They were embarrassed, because I told them they were taking my wife’s medicine." Two of the trio wore ski masks, Jordan said, which the Sheriff’s Office said is procedure to conceal their identities for undercover work. The unmasked detective told Jordan he had two choices: They could wait outside a couple of hours while they got a warrant. Jordan said the detective told him they would then come back and "tear your house apart. And we don���t put nothing back." Or the Jordans could walk them through the house and allow the unit to confiscate his plants, then wait for word on official charges. The officer then told Jordan they had a right to take anything in the shed, but opted to only remove the light bulb from the grow lamp and smash it. The same week, State Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, introduced a medical marijuana bill called the Cathy Jordan Medical Cannabis Act. The bill died, but he filed another bill under the same name in February, ostensibly to set a framework should the amendment pass in November. Robert Jordan was in the process of buying the property next door, and the utilities were in his name, so the burglary and theft of service charges were never brought, and the Realtor’s company declined to press any trespassing charges. The Manatee County state attorney’s later reviewed the case and declined to press growing and possession charges because "the state lacks a good-faith belief it can overcome a medical necessity defense in this matter," according to the office’s report. Robert Jordan could have faced a felony count of possession and manufacturing of a Schedule I drug. We asked the United for Care campaign for a response. Manager Ben Pollara said Morgan’s comments were off the cuff. "I think it’s just a case of something that happened a year ago … and he was talking from memory," Pollara said. A story about officers in ski masks with guns probably made it sound like a SWAT team, he said. Robert Jordan said he figured Morgan may have gotten his account from any of the numerous outlets that layered on the hyperbole about machine guns and police brutality -- he named this story by the Huffington Post as being particularly loose with the facts. "No one asked me, or I would have told them the truth," Jordan said. He also said he had only met John Morgan and didn’t know him, but liked the man for his devotion to getting medical marijuana legislation passed, and how Morgan treated his wife. Having a legal supply of cannabis available would certainly make his life easier, he added. Meanwhile, the Jordans continue to cultivate their own plants, thanks to having the charges dropped. The ruling Morgan said "a SWAT team of hooligans" dragged Cathy Jordan out of her home and arrested her after authorities discovered her family’s tiny growing operation in their Parrish backyard. Officers obtained consent to search the property and removed mature plants and seedlings, and Robert Jordan faced charges of growing and possessing marijuana, which were later dropped. No one was arrested. No one was dragged anywhere. It seems Morgan may have read a report of the incident awash in hyperbole and recalled that. There was an incident at the Jordans’ home, but the police reaction was not nearly as drastic as Morgan described. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	John Morgan	None	None	None	2014-03-13T17:33:56	2014-02-24	['None']
-pomt-11580	Democrats "booed families of children murdered by MS13."	/punditfact/statements/2018/feb/01/csc-mediagroupusa/fake-story-says-democrats-booed-families-ms13-vict/	A bogus story on Facebook claims that Democrats booed during the recent State of the Union address when President Donald Trump addressed introduced the families of teenagers who were killed by MS-13 gang members on Long Island. Democrats "booed families of children murdered by MS13," said a Jan. 30 headline by CSC Mediagroup.USA. "This just goes to show that Democrats would rather support illegals who cause harm to Americans rather than support actual American citizens. What does this say about them? They’re DemocRATS." Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. We found that video of Trump’s speech showed a bipartisan chamber stood up and applauded the victims’ parents. Trump invited the parents of Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens, two teenage girls from Long Island, to listen to his speech. The girls were murdered in September 2016 while walking together in their hometown. Members of the MS-13 gang have been charged with their murders, including some who were illegal immigrants. We listened to and watched videos of Trump’s speech to examine the chamber’s reaction. Just before he introduced the girls’ parents, Trump made a statement about illegal immigrants that drew an audible hiss from some members. (Listen around minute 43:30) "For decades, open borders have allowed drugs and gangs to pour into our most vulnerable communities. They have allowed millions of low-wage workers to compete for jobs and wages against the poorest Americans. Most tragically, they have caused the loss of many innocent lives." But then when Trump spoke to the girls’ parents, the chamber sounded silent. Speaking to the girls’ parents, Trump said: "Tonight, everyone in this chamber is praying for you. Everyone in America is grieving for you. Please stand," he said, as the parents then stood. "Thank you very much. I want you to know that 320 million hearts are right now breaking for you. We love you. Thank you." The videos show that members stood up and applauded the girls’ parents. Some Democrats did boo and hiss a separate part of Trump’s speech about immigration when he called for an end to "chain migration." "Under the current broken system, a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives," Trump said. Many Democrats brought to the speech as their guests Dreamers, people brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The future fate of Dreamers is up in the air following Trump’s decision announced last year to end an Obama-era program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. CSC Mediagroup.USA’s disclaimer proclaims that it isn’t fake news and that it publishes news from a conservative perspective that the mainstream media ignores. However, in this case it’s headline is wrong. We found no evidence that Democrats "booed families of children murdered by MS13" -- instead they booed other comments Trump made about chain migration. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	CSC Mediagroup.USA	None	None	None	2018-02-01T12:21:01	2018-01-30	['None']
-tron-01190	Digital Photocopiers Have Internal Hard Drives That Store Scanned Documents, Which Could Place Your Personal Information at Risk	https://www.truthorfiction.com/photocopiers/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Digital Photocopiers Have Internal Hard Drives That Store Scanned Documents, Which Could Place Your Personal Information at Risk	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08179	"Ohio ranks 46th in the country in putting dollars in the classroom."	/ohio/statements/2010/nov/30/john-kasich/gov-elect-john-kasich-says-ohios-classroom-educati/	Incoming governor John Kasich says he has identified a major flaw in Ohio’s public school system: too much money is spent on administrator salaries and far too little on student instruction in the classroom. "Ohio ranks 46th in the country in putting dollars in the classroom," Kasich said the day after the election, disdain in his voice as he drew on a familiar campaign stomping point. He was citing a ranking noted in a 2010 report from the Greater Ohio Policy Center and Brookings Institution. By that measure, 45 states proportionly spend more in the classroom than Ohio, including neighboring Pennsylvania (17th), Kentucky (31st), and West Virginia (32nd). Kasich is using the figure to mount a basis for setting his own education funding agenda while promising to scrap one established under current Gov. Ted Strickland. By stating how dismal the state is faring by this measure, Kasich hopes to win support for his own educational initiatives. But is the ranking accurate? Could nearly every state in the country be applying more cents on the dollar in the classroom than Ohio? State teacher’s unions and other education leaders say the policy center report is misleading and inaccurate. PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look. The policy center is a non-partisan policy research group focused on improving Ohio’s economy by strengthening its urban cores. It teamed this year with the nationally known Brookings Institution for its report "Restoring Prosperity: Transforming Ohio’s Communities for the Next Economy." The policy center report recommended Ohio determine how to spend more money in the classroom. The center’s Executive Director Lavea Brachman said, "our starting premise is that if we spend less on administrative costs then we can spend more in the classroom." Philip Trostel, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine, constructed the state-by-state education research for the policy center. He used data collected from the National Center for Education Statistics, an off-shoot of the U.S. Department of Education. "It’s reliable data that is comparable from state to state," Trostel said. "The individual school districts report the data so it lessens the likelihood that one state is reporting differently from another state." In-classroom spending includes items such as teacher salaries, textbooks and technological equipment. New York ranked highest, spending nearly 69 cents of every dollar in classrooms. Indiana ranked 50th at just over 54 cents on the dollar. Ohio, ranked 46th, spends 57.2 cents of every dollar in classrooms, the report found. The reason Ohio ranks so low in this category, according to the report, is because its public school districts appear to spend a greater percentage of their funds on administrative costs, as compared to most other states. In fact, Ohio’s spending on district administration for superintendents and other district-level executives is 49-percent higher than the national average, Trostel concludes in the report. But the rankings are based on 2007-2008 school year data, the most recent state-by-state figures available from the national reporting clearinghouse. Two full school years have passed, and education leaders under the Strickland administration argue that changes the Democratic leader made to school funding made during that time would yield a much better funding record for Ohio. "What is Kasich’s education plan?" Patricia Frost-Brooks, president of the Ohio Education Association wrote in a letter printed by newspapers around the state. "Kasich’s Website, stump speech and debate performance all repeat the same tired mantra: Ohio ranks 46th on money for the classroom. … The stats ignore the new school-funding formula as well as deep administrative cuts at the Ohio Department of Education." The Ohio Department of Education said that it is difficult to duplicate Trostel’s state-by-state research to ensure its accuracy. "We are unable to analyze the information that is being referenced because it is part of an unpublished study and we’re unsure of the data being used to arrive at the conclusion," said Scott Blake, a spokesman for the state Education Department. In 2009, the state legislature approved Strickland’s evidence-based model school funding plan which the governor said would, among other things, eventually direct more dollars towards programs that help schoolchildren learn best. It also promises to ensure the state will spend more on public education to lessen the burden on local taxpayers. But none of that particularly guarantees that Ohio will spend more money in the classroom, just that money being spent could be re-allocated for different instructional purposes. Kasich has made it clear that he plans to eliminate Strickland’s funding model altogether and introduce his own. With no recent national data available for comparison, the national ranking that the policy center bestowed on Ohio appears unchallenged. Even the Ohio Education Department admitted that the policy center report’s figures for Ohio appear to be close to accurate, though it can’t say for sure or measure the figures against other states. It would, however, be useful for Kasich to acknowledge that the figures used for the ranking that he has repeatedly cited are more than two years old. That’s a key piece of information needed for context. That’s why we rate Kasich’s statement Mostly True.	None	John Kasich	None	None	None	2010-11-30T06:00:00	2010-11-03	['Ohio']
-pose-00442	"Will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. They will also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/462/make-buildings-more-energy-efficient/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Make buildings more energy efficient	2010-01-07T13:26:59	None	['None']
-pomt-03683	Says al Qaeda has camps with the drug cartels in Mexico.	/texas/statements/2013/apr/23/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-al-qaeda-has-camps-drug-cartels/	A Texas congressman stressing border security told an interviewer that a terrorist group is set up south of the Rio Grande. Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, said on C-SPAN’s "Washington Journal" April 17, 2013: "We know al Qaeda has camps over with the drug cartels on the other side of the Mexican border. We know that people are now being trained to come in and act like Hispanic when they’re radical Islamists. We know these things are happening and... it’s just insane not to protect ourselves." We wondered about al Qaeda having camps with the Mexican drug cartels. Gohmert's basis To our inquiry, Gohmert spokeswoman Kimberly Willingham noted a 2006 interim report and November 2012 follow-up report, "A Line in the Sand: Countering Crime, Violence and Terror at the Southwest Border," prepared by the Republican staff of a subcommittee to the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee that was chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin. Both reports say terrorists can cross the U.S.-Mexico border, though neither mentions al Qaeda camps in Mexico. More recently, McCaul suggested that a foiled assassination plot involving an Iranian American resident of Round Rock, north of Austin, suggests a growing link between Mideast terrorist groups and organized crime in Mexico. Manssor Arbabsiar pleaded guilty in October 2012 to participating in a scheme to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States after attempting to hire a hit man Arbabsiar believed to be a member of the Zetas Mexican drug cartel; the assassin was actually a paid Drug Enforcement Administration informant. McCaul, who now chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a December 2012 Austin American-Statesman interview that Iran and Mideast militant groups such as Hezbollah have long had money laundering and fundraising hubs across Latin America and the Texas-tied plot reflected "the first time we have seen that financial relationship become potentially operational." McCaul also told the newspaper: "It is not a real stretch of the imagination that these groups could work together operationally if they already have a financial relationship. Mexican cartels don't want to get into the terrorism business, and I think to a large extent that may be true, but I think the lesson of 9/11 was to connect the dots." McCaul also said he would focus the committee on drawing attention to the threat of such emerging partnerships and keeping narco-terrorist operatives from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The 2006 report overseen by McCaul, referencing a February 2003 report by the Library of Congress, says: "Statements made by high-ranking Mexican officials prior to and following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks indicate that one or more Islamic terrorist organizations has sought to establish a presence in Mexico. In May 2001, former Mexican National security adviser and ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, reported, that ‘Spanish and Islamic terrorist groups are using Mexico as a refuge.’" The Library of Congress report says there was speculation in Mexico after the 2001 attacks that "al Qaeda cells could be present in Mexico and could potentially attempt to cross the U.S. southwest border to conduct additional attacks." During an October 2001 United Nations conference, according to the report, the director of Mexico’s Center for Intelligence and National Security, Eduardo Medina Mora, said the possibility of an al Qaeda attack against the United States launched from Mexico "could not be ruled out," though Medina Mora also said the center had no reason to believe that there was an al Qaeda presence in Mexico, the report says. Testimony by federal officials The 2006 report says the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert Mueller, confirmed in testimony that there are individuals from countries with known al Qaeda connections "who are changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic-sounding names and obtaining false Hispanic identities, learning to speak Spanish and pretending to be Hispanic immigrants." We perused Mueller’s March 8, 2005 testimony to a House subcommittee, downloaded via Nexis, seeing no mention of al Qaeda camps in Mexico or links to Mexican drug cartels. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, asked Mueller if he was aware of individuals from countries with al Qaeda connections entering the United States using false identities, in particular changing Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames. "We’ve had indications of that," Mueller replied, adding that he would have to check on instances of somebody from, say, a Middle Eastern country adopting an Hispanic name and attempting to enter the country. "I'm not certain how many instances there might have been," Mueller testified. "I can tell you that we are concerned, that Homeland Security is concerned about special interest aliens coming into the United States. We work closely with the Border Patrol and" U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "to interview those when they're apprehended. We have ongoing investigations together into smuggling organizations that may be assisting in getting special interest aliens cross the border." By phone, FBI spokeswoman Kathy Wright told us she was unaware of any FBI statements specific to al Qaeda having camps in Mexico with the drug cartels. Also, she said, "it’s not our practice to release information like that." Weeks before Mueller testified, according to a Feb. 17, 2005, New York Times news story, Adm. James M. Loy, the deputy secretary of Homeland Security, said in written testimony that al Qaeda operatives had considered using the Mexican border as an entry point. But, the Times said, Loy said that there was "currently no conclusive evidence" that this had succeeded. Other news reports Our search of recent news accounts turned up nothing specific to al Qaeda camps in Mexico, though an Oct. 13, 2011, Agence France Press news story, datelined Mexico City, said that in February 2011, Janet Napolitano, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, had said U.S. authorities were concerned about a potential alliance between groups like al Qaeda and the Zetas, which the story described as the cartel "started by elite military brass who went bad to sell drugs." Napolitano mentioned the worry, according to the transcript of a Feb. 9, 2011, hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, after Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, said that he believed terrorists could exploit the international drug trade to the detriment of the United States. "Indeed," Napolitano replied. "And one of the things that -- all I will say in open setting is that we have for some time been thinking ahead about what would happen if, say, al Qaeda were to unite with the Zetas, one of the drug cartels. And I'll just leave it at that." The Agence France Press story also said that President Barack Obama said in July 2011 that the Zetas "were a threat to international security, comparing them to organized crime groups in Italy and Japan. But experts argued," the story said, that "it is one thing for the Zetas to indulge in cross-border business, and it is quite another for them to decide to take part in a terror strike that would directly challenge and confront the U.S. government." Experts say such camps unheard of Next, several security experts on security issues each told us he was unaware of al Qaeda camps in Mexico. "Never heard this one before," replied Daniel Byman, a Georgetown University professor and the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. "This was a post 9/11 fear, but I never saw evidence for it. " By telephone, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said that he would not discount border security, but Gohmert’s claim struck him as "incredibly sloppy. It doesn’t help the debate. We don’t know that these claims are true." Gartenstein-Ross offered, too, that it would be foolish for the drug cartels to let al Qaeda establish camps in their bailiwicks. The cartels, he said, "are out to make money. Right now, they have not drawn the (direct) wrath of the United States. If they had al Qaeda camps," he said, they’d draw U.S. military might. "There has been no credible report of al Qaeda having camps with the drug cartels," he said. Similarly, Brian Michael Jenkins, a RAND terrorism expert, said through an email that he has not seen any evidence to support the claim. A RAND colleague, political scientist Peter Chalk, separately said via email he had not heard of such camps in Mexico. Our ruling Gohmert told C-SPAN that al Qaeda has camps with the drug cartels in Mexico. Since 9/11, there has been occasional speculation about al Qaeda operatives crossing into the country from Mexico. Notably, too, Napolitano said in 2011 that the U.S. government has thought about what would happen if the Zetas united with al Qaeda. However, there appears to be no evidence of al Qaeda now having camps in Mexico, with the drug cartels or otherwise. We rate this claim as False.	None	Louie Gohmert	None	None	None	2013-04-23T15:44:04	2013-04-17	['Mexico']
-wast-00063	"We have no knowledge of any of this."	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/26/once-again-fake-news-decried-by-trump-turns-out-to-be-true/	None	None	Hope Hicks	Glenn Kessler	None	Once again, \xe2\x80\x98fake news' decried by Trump turns out to be true	July 26	None	['None']
-pomt-08990	"Ken Hodges badly botched this investigation and, as a result, justice wasn't done in this case."	/georgia/statements/2010/jul/15/rob-teilhet/candidate-says-opponent-botched-prosecution-fatal-/	It is certainly the most emotional political ad of this election season. And, perhaps, its most controversial. A mother claims a prosecutor botched a case in which her unarmed son, Kenneth Walker, was shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy on a cold roadway in Columbus. The prosecutor was Ken Hodges, now a Democratic candidate for Georgia attorney general. The ad was put together by Rob Teilhet, a Democrat running against Hodges in a bruising campaign for the party's nomination. "The officer got off because the prosecutor, Ken Hodges, forgot to swear him in; tried to hide the video and refused to reopen the case," the victim's mother, Emily Walker of Columbus, said during the 30-second spot. The ad ends with a final comment from the dead man's mother: "Mr. Hodges should not be our next attorney general." Tough words. But are the claims correct? Teilhet, a Marietta-based attorney who predominantly deals in workers' compensation cases, thought so. "Ken Hodges badly botched this investigation and, as a result, justice wasn't done in this case," Teilhet said in a telephone interview with PolitiFact Georgia. Teilhet did not speak in the ad. PolitiFact Georgia received a few e-mails and requests to take a look into whether the Teilhet ad is right. Let's begin by going back to the night of the shooting, Dec. 10, 2003. Walker and three friends left an apartment complex in Columbus and were riding in a sport utility vehicle on I-185 when it was pulled over by two sets of law enforcement officers. The officials received a tip the men in the vehicle were carrying illegal guns. All four men were pulled from the vehicle. Muscogee County Sheriff's Deputy David Glisson shot Walker twice. No guns or drugs were found in the vehicle. Walker, 39, later died from the gunshot wounds. Glisson said the shooting was an accident. The shooting drew headlines for many reasons. The victim was unarmed. Glisson is white. Walker was black. Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker appointed Hodges, then the Dougherty County district attorney, as special prosecutor of the case. Hodges presented his findings before a grand jury of nearly two dozen citizens. The grand jury, which followed standard practice by meeting behind closed doors, voted not to indict anyone in the case. The NAACP demanded further investigation. The U.S. Department of Justice decided in July 2007 there was insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges against Glisson, who had been fired after the shooting. Three years later, the case is back in the news as Hodges and Teilhet duel in a raucous battle to become the state's top prosecutor. The sparring includes who has the endorsement of Andrew Young, the civil rights icon, former U.N. ambassador and Atlanta mayor. (Young has endorsed both candidates.) Teilhet, a former state representative from Cobb County, said he wanted the campaign ad done to examine Hodges' record as a prosecutor. So let's start with the first claim, "the officer got off because the prosecutor, Ken Hodges, forgot to swear him in." Hodges did not swear in Glisson, who gave a statement to the grand jury. Hodges has said he's "sorry" he didn't swear in Glisson, but added that it wasn't necessary to validate the shooter's statement. Teilhet argues not swearing in Glisson hurt the public's confidence in the prosecution. The Georgia Legislature passed a bill earlier this year that requires prosecutors to swear in all witnesses. The second point, Hodges tried to "hide" the video of the shooting. Hodges argued in an Oct. 15, 2004, legal brief with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia and the District Attorneys Association of Georgia against releasing video of the shooting to the news media before any criminal proceedings took place, court records show. The grand jury saw the video several times before the November 2004 decision not to indict Glisson. Third, Hodges "refused to reopen the case." Gregory W. Edwards, who is now Dougherty County's district attorney, said Hodges told Walker's mother he would reopen the case if there was sufficient new evidence after the grand jury refused to indict Glisson. One community group, the Grassroots Unity Movement for Change, sent Hodges a 10-page letter in October 2007 asking him to convene a second grand jury. Hodges took some heat at the time for not recommending to the grand jury that they indict Glisson. The critics include Teilhet. Hodges told the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer he felt it "was important [for the grand jury] to make the decision in this case." Most prosecutors say they'll recommend an indictment if they feel the evidence is overwhelming. Some made no recommendation if the case was a "jump ball." Teilhet said the combination of questions about the video, Glisson not being sworn in, and no recommendation to indict should have prompted Hodges to take another look at the case. "These folks were never given a legal proceeding they could have confidence in," Teilhet said. Teilhet said Emily Walker was eager to talk about her concerns in the campaign video. "No one puts words in her mouth," he said. Others contend Teilhet has taken advantage of Emily Walker and accuse the candidate of pandering to black voters. "The ad is outrageous," said Richard Hagler, Glisson's attorney. Hodges did not swear in Glisson before the grand jury, but it was not required at the time. The prosecutor did oppose efforts to release the video to reporters, but there's no evidence Hodges hid it from the grand jury. Hagler said Hodges told him that he would reopen the case if any new evidence came forward. There's no overriding proof that Hodges refused to reopen the case. There is some truth to two of the three claims in the ad. But was this case "badly botched"? So far, there's been no significant evidence to prove that allegation. Additionally, the federal Justice Department decided not to move forward with a criminal civil rights case against Glisson. The feds found there was insufficient evidence to prove Glisson willfully shot Walker. Teilhet said the feds were considering different criteria. Still, we rate Teilhet's claim as False.	None	Rob Teilhet	None	None	None	2010-07-15T06:00:00	2010-07-13	['None']
-pomt-00933	Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas said: ‘Hey, all you wrinkly, white-aged has-beens: It’s time for you to die and let the next generation have your spot on the planet.’	/texas/statements/2015/feb/24/facebook-posts/light-match-facebook-meme-quotes-sheila-jackson-le/	Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee can be a firecracker of a public speaker. But we were skeptical of a Facebook meme, shared online Feb. 7, 2015 and brought to our attention by a reader. The meme showed Jackson Lee, a Houstonian initially elected to the House in 1994, saying: "Hey, all you wrinkly, white-aged has-beens: It’s time for you to die and let the next generation have your spot on the planet." A web search led us to similar though less racially charged language posted by Stand Up for the Truth, a Wisconsin-based weekday religious public affairs program, in a November 2012 web post critical of the United Nations. The post opened: "Hey all you wrinkly, middle-aged has-beens: Are you ready to move over and let the next generation have your spot on the planet? After all, you’ve lived a good life. And your aging body is going to cost taxpayers a lot more than the salt you think you are worth. In other words, your return-on-investment isn’t looking so good to the United Nations." By email, the program’s co-host, Amy Spreeman, said she recalled "coming up with the term, ‘wrinkly has-been’ for that article. I'm a descriptive writer who also happens to be seeing a few wrinkles in my own mirror," Spreeman wrote. Our Google and Nexis news database searches for signs of Jackson Lee saying such words came up empty. We also asked the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks the activities of hate groups, if it had noticed such words from the Texan. Spokesman Mark Potok said not, otherwise pointing out a center white paper on the United Nations issue raised by Stand Up for Truth. We also queried Michael McQuerry, a spokesman for Jackson Lee, who said by email: "She has NEVER said this... This is someone who has taken her picture and placed these words on this. No truth to this at all." Asked if Jackson Lee had ever called for an individual or individuals to die, McQuerry replied: "NO." Our ruling The Facebook meme says Jackson Lee called on "all you wrinkly white-aged has-beens" to die. Not so, nor has she said anything close. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2015-02-24T17:03:25	2015-02-07	['Texas']
-tron-01065	Media Ignores White Girl Burned Alive By 17 Gang Members	https://www.truthorfiction.com/media-ignores-white-girl-burned-alive-by-17-gang-member/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Media Ignores White Girl Burned Alive By 17 Gang Members	Dec 22, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04346	Says U.S. Senate rival Tammy Baldwin supports a "tax increase that President Obama says" would cost middle-class families $3,000 per year.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/24/tommy-thompson/tommy-thompson-says-senate-foe-tammy-baldwin-backs/	A signature slogan of Tammy Baldwin’s campaign is that she is a fighter for the middle class. Yet her U.S. Senate opponent, Tommy Thompson, claims Baldwin wants to stick it to average folks. And he uses President Barack Obama to back his attack. In a Thompson TV ad releasedOct. 8, 2012, the narrator says: "Baldwin supports a massive middle-class tax increase that President Obama says would be devastating." Then the ad shows a clip of Obama saying: "If that had come to pass, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes next year." Thompson’s case Thompson’s claim starts off on the wrong foot in that he uses the present tense -- "Baldwin supports" a middle-class tax increase. But his campaign told us he was referring to a vote Baldwin cast in December 2010, and it’s clear from the ad that the reference is to a measure Obama commented on. The vote was on a compromise Obama reached with Congress over taxes. The compromise involved a number of things, including a cut in the employee portion of payroll taxes and an extension of unemployment benefits. But the big fight was over what to do about tax cuts -- on income, capital gains, dividends and business -- that were about to expire. Republicans wanted to permanently extend the cuts, adopted under President George W. Bush, for all Americans. Obama and Baldwin were among Democrats who wanted to extend the cuts for most Americans, but let them expire for wealthier people -- individuals making more than $200,000 and joint tax filers making more than $250,000 in adjusted gross income. That’s a key point -- Baldwin’s aim was to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, not raise taxes on the middle class. With the compromise, the tax cuts were extended for all Americans, for two years. The measure passed the House, 277-148, with Baldwin voting no. She said giving "a special tax break to those with incomes over $250,000" would have added to the national debt and was fiscally irresponsible. As for the Thompson ad’s use of the Obama clip, the president was saying that had all the Bush-era tax cuts been allowed to expire, the average middle-class family would have had to pay an extra $3,000 in taxes in 2011. Obama may have been rounding up a figure generated by the Deloitte Tax consulting firm. It estimated that letting the tax cuts expire would have meant that atypical family of four with a household income of $50,000 a year would have to pay $2,900 more in taxes in 2011. So, if Baldwin’s side had succeeded in defeating the compromise, middle-class taxes would have risen about $3,000 -- if no other action had been taken. On the other hand, Baldwin made it clear she supported extending the tax cuts for middle-class families. A week before the vote on the compromise, she voted for an alternative that would have extended the Bush tax cuts permanently for families earning less than $250,000. So, in the way Thompson frames the issue, it could be said Baldwin opposes -- or supports -- extending tax cuts for the middle class, depending on which vote you consider. Baldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus noted that Baldwin voted again in 2012 for a one-year extension of most of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class but not for wealthier people. That measure failed. Our rating Thompson said Baldwin supports a "tax increase that President Obama says" would cost families $3,000 per year. Thompson falters in making the claim in the present tense when he’s referring to a vote Baldwin took in 2010. Baldwin did vote no on a law that prevented middle class taxes from increasing by $3,000. But she supported extending tax cuts for the middle class and she voted for a another measure, which failed, that also would have prevented the $3,000 middle-class tax hike. We rate Thompson’s statement Mostly False.	None	Tommy Thompson	None	None	None	2012-10-24T09:00:00	2012-10-08	['Barack_Obama', 'Tammy_Baldwin', 'United_States']
-farg-00060	Claimed the U.S. has “thousands of judges — border judges — thousands and thousands.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/more-bogus-border-claims/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['Illegal immigration']	More Bogus Border Claims	June 21, 2018	2018-06-21 22:34:24 UTC	['United_States']
-pose-00420	"Will cut U.S. oil consumption of foreign oil by 2.5 million barrels of oil per day, take 50 million cars worth of pollution off the road, and save American consumers more than $50 billion at the gas pump." [No time frame given for that statement]	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/440/reduce-dependence-on-foreign-oil/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Reduce dependence on foreign oil	2010-01-07T13:26:58	None	['United_States']
-snes-00833	A viral item gives a genuine glimpse of the aurora borealis (or aurora australis) from far above the planet.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/northern-lights-seen-space/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are These the Northern Lights Seen From Space?	28 March 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00876	Was an All-Female Construction Company Responsible for the FIU-Sweetwater Bridge Collapse?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-all-female-responsible-bridge-collapse/	None	Business	None	Dan Evon	None	Was an All-Female Construction Company Responsible for the FIU-Sweetwater Bridge Collapse?	19 March 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00077	Celine Dion Furious Over Britney Spears Surpassing Her As Highest-Paid Las Vegas Performer?	https://www.gossipcop.com/celine-dion-britney-spears-las-vegas-highest-paid/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Celine Dion Furious Over Britney Spears Surpassing Her As Highest-Paid Las Vegas Performer?	5:00 am, October 27, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01851	Dangerous gas in car air conditioners is causing lung cancer and Alzheimer’s disease	https://www.truthorfiction.com/carac/	None	household	None	None	None	Dangerous gas in car air conditioners is causing lung cancer and Alzheimer’s disease	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-02029	Kim Kardashian Assistant Fired For Asking For Raise, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-reason-fired-assistant-stephanie-shepherd-raise/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian Assistant NOT Fired For Asking For Raise, Despite Claim	9:58 am, December 15, 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00116	False District 4 Claims Still False	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/false-district-4-claims-still-false/	None	None	None	None	None	False District 4 Claims Still False	April 23, 2013	None	['None']
-hoer-00465	Report Claims US Mother Gave Birth to 17 Babies at Once	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-report-claims-us-mother-gave-birth-to-17-babies-at-once/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News Report Claims US Mother Gave Birth to 17 Babies at Once	February 5, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10234	"Gov. Palin ... is somebody who actually doesn't believe that climate change is man-made."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/03/john-kerry/palin-isnt-convinced-its-a-people-problem/	Now that Sen. John McCain has chosen a running mate, Democrats have a target. Within days of her ascension to the GOP ticket, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin came under attack by Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry for her environmental views. In an Aug. 31 interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulous, Kerry said this: "With the choice of Gov. Palin, it's now the third term of Bush-Cheney, because what he's done is he's chosen somebody who actually doesn't believe that climate change is man-made." Kerry's claim is supported by an answer Palin gave in an interview with Newsmax, a conservative news Web site. She was asked for her "take on global warming and how it is affecting our country," in an Aug. 29 interview published on Newsmax.com. She said, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." But McCain is. As we explained in this item, McCain was an early proponent of capping emissions to combat the impact of global warming, a position he has touted in a campaign commercial. Some other past statements by Palin suggest she has been undecided about whether humans are heating up the planet. An Anchorage Daily News candidate survey during Alaska's 2006 gubernatorial campaign that asked "what role does state government have, if any, in addressing global warming and climate change," prompted Palin to answer, "We need to analyze the potential economic costs, needs and opportunities associated with climate change. Let's be cautious in how we react – to make sure we don't overreact." On Nov. 4, 2006, just before her election, the Anchorage Daily News quoted a Palin spokesman, Curtis Smith, as saying Palin was undecided about the cause of global warming. "She's not totally convinced one way or the other," Smith said. In a New York Times op-ed published in January, Palin also signaled that she doesn't think scientists have made the case for human culpability. Palin said proponents of listing polar bears as an endangered species – which she opposes – were trying to "force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues. Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policymakers need to make the best decisions." In her home state, which has seen significant changes in its glacial landscapes, Palin is addressing the climate change issue. In September 2007, she created a "climate change subcabinet" to prepare a state strategy to respond to global warming. In a report to Alaskans in July, Palin wrote that the subcabinet "will also be making recommendations to me on how Alaskans can save energy and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. " Palin's nod to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the context of global warming would suggest she's not entirely closed off to the idea that the two are related. Still, Palin's Aug. 29 statement was pretty clear: she doesn't attribute global warming to man-made causes, despite a broad, global scientific consensus that human activity is responsible for climate change. We find Kerry's statement to be Mostly True.	None	John Kerry	None	None	None	2008-09-03T00:00:00	2008-08-31	['None']
-pomt-03230	"Polls show that 96 percent of New Jerseyans – and 95 percent of gun households in the state – support expanding background checks to keep guns away from those who shouldn’t have them."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/aug/18/mark-kelly/capt-mark-kelly/	Near unanimous support in polls isn’t exactly a frequent occurrence. And it may be even more rare when the topic in question is one of the most controversial in this country: gun control. But that was exactly the case earlier this year when a handful of major polling organizations quizzed people on gun control in the wake of the December 2012 Newtown, Conn. shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 27 people dead, including 20 children. "Polls show that 96 percent of New Jerseyans – and 95 percent of gun households in the state – support expanding background checks to keep guns away from those who shouldn’t have them," Navy Capt. Mark Kelly said in an Aug. 12 opinion column on NJ.com, the online home of The Star-Ledger. Kelly, a New Jersey native, is married to former Arizona Rep. Gabrille Giffords, a Democrat, who was shot in the head Jan. 8, 2011 during a public appearance at a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 13 were wounded at the event, including Giffords. Kelly’s column expressed support for Gov. Chris Christie to sign some gun-control bills passed recently by the state Legislature, and urged Christie to sign another bill that would, in part, expand background checks on gun purchases and safety training for gun owners. As for the high approval ratings in Kelly’s claim, data supports it. Kelly was referring to a Jan. 24 poll done by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Conn., according to Katie Hill, press secretary for Kelly, Giffords and their group Americans for Responsible Solutions. The poll of 1,647 registered voters in New Jersey asked, "Would you favor or oppose requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?" The response, according to poll data: 96 percent favored it. The figure was 95 percent for ‘gun households,’ meaning those households in New Jersey where a gun is present. Pia Carusone, executive director of Americans For Responsible Solutions, noted that federal law requires background checks for guns purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers, "otherwise known as a gun store." That’s not the case, however, if guns are purchased from a private seller at a gun show – and the point that Carusone said Kelly was making with his claim. "When we say expanding background checks, we mean to say to cover guns purchased at gun shows," Carusone said. The Truth-O-Meter reviewed this issue – commonly known as the "gun show loophole" -- in a May 2012 fact-check. At that time we confirmed that The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, or Brady Act, requires all federally licensed firearms dealers to run a background check on potential customers to ensure they are not prohibited from owning a gun. Private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement, although some states have stricter requirements than others. In addition to the Quinnipiac poll, we checked with other organizations in New Jersey to determine how their post-Newtown gun control polls fared. Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Poll, said the organization hasn’t done a poll about expanding background checks, but did survey residents earlier this year about whether gun control would influence their vote for governor in November. David Redlawsk, director of the Rutgers-Eagleton Polling Institute and a political science professor at Rutgers University, said an early February poll asked 794 New Jerseyans a variety of questions about guns. Two of six questions asked randomly were background-check related and had approval levels at 90 percent or higher. Approval levels topped 80 percent for the same questions posed to ‘gun households,’ he said. Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind poll in January asked questions about greater restrictions on guns and ammunition, and better management of the mentally ill, according to Krista Jenkins, director of PublicMind and a political science professor at FDU. Our ruling Kelly said in an opinion column, ""Polls show that 96 percent of New Jerseyans – and 95 percent of gun households in the state – support expanding background checks to keep guns away from those who shouldn’t have them." Kelly was referring to a Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll from January, with findings that match numbers he cited. The poll’s question specifically referenced guns bought at gun shows, and Kelly’s spokeswoman confirmed that his statement in his column referred to such purchases. We rate Kelly’s claim True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Mark Kelly	None	None	None	2013-08-18T07:30:00	2013-08-12	['New_Jersey']
-pomt-06952	Ninety percent of the job growth in Virginia has been in the private sector.	/virginia/statements/2011/jul/18/bob-mcdonnell/mcdonnell-says-90-percent-virginias-job-growth-has/	In a recent television interview, Gov. Bob McDonnell was asked whether Virginia’s strong employment numbers should be at least partially credited to the state’s proximity to Washington. "How much of a wind is at your back just from being next to the center of government?" asked Joe Kerne, the host of CNBC’s Squawk Box. McDonnell downplayed the effect of the federal government on Virginia’s job picture. "The fact that we’ve got proximity to Washington, D.C., is certainly somewhat helpful, but I will say that most of the job growth (in Virginia), in fact 90 percent of it, has been in the private sector," McDonnell said. We wondered if the governor’s statistic is correct. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for McDonnell, backed up his boss by giving us a spreadsheet culled from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It detailed how many jobs have been created in government and the private sector since February 2010, the first full month of McDonnell’s administration. We checked the underlying data on the BLS website to see if the numbers supported the governor’s statement. In February 2010, there were 3,595,600 total jobs in Virginia. By May 2011, the latest month for which data was available, that rose to 3,663,000. That’s a net increase of 67,400 jobs. The BLS numbers break out how many of those positions were attributed to federal, state and local government jobs, as well as how many were in the private sector. In February 2010, there were 2,896,000 private-sector jobs, rising in May 2011 to 2,959,400. That’s an increase of 63,400 private sector positions, which is 94 percent of the Virginia’s net job growth during McDonnell’s term. Of course, many private sector jobs in Virginia are indirectly funded by the federal government. Gary Steinberg, a BLS spokesman, said his agency doesn’t tally how many private jobs are attributable government contracts. But government contracts certainly provide a boost to Virginia’s economy. Companies in Fairfax County alone received $22.6 billion in federal contracts in fiscal year 2009, according to U.S. Census Bureu statistics cited by Alan A. Fogg, a spokesman for the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority. Fogg noted in an e-mail that 26 companies listed in Washington Technology magazine’s 2011 list of the 100 largest government contractors are based in Fairfax or have their U.S. headquarters there. A report by Stephen S. Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University, found that in fiscal 2008, Department of Defense spending funded an estimated 268,200 full-time equivalent employees of federal contractors in Virginia. Let’s review: Asked about how much the federal government is boosting Virginia’s jobs picture, McDonnell countered that it’s the private sector that’s been driving the commonwealth’s job growth. The governor said the private sector has accounted for about 90 percent of the state’s job growth and figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics back up his claim. Although many private sector jobs in Virginia are created through federal government contracts, there are no definitive statistics detailing the number. We rate the governor’s claim True.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2011-07-18T08:01:56	2011-07-13	['None']
-pomt-00423	"The Dutch (Afrikaners) were" in South Africa "first."	/punditfact/statements/2018/aug/27/ann-coulter/coulters-strange-claim-dutch-settlers-preceded-bla/	When President Donald Trump referred to land seizures and "large scale killings" of white farmers in South Africa, he set the stage for a classic Twitter storm. Kenya-born photographer Joseph Muhatia tweeted, "The land in South Africa belongs to black people they are the native owner and not white people." To which conservative pundit Ann Coulter replied, "Actually, the Dutch (Afrikaners) were there first." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Pause a second. Coulter claimed Dutch settlers who started showing up around 1650 were in South Africa before black people. We tweeted her to learn what she had in mind and didn’t hear back. A brief history The history of Southern Africa long before the Europeans (and yes, there is a long before) is a fascinating tale of competing kingdoms, shifting alliances, and territorial disputes. We spent some time with two volumes published by UNESCO in 1992. Wars among the people labeled black today played out before and after the Europeans arrived. As it turns out, the Dutch dropped down in a fairly peaceful area. The Dutch East India Company established a toehold in Cape Town on the southwestern tip of modern South Africa. There, they encountered a group called the Khoikhoi who used the land to graze their cattle. From the start, the Dutch treated the land as theirs. On May 10, 1656, the outpost’s commander Jan van Riebeeck described his dealings with a Khoikhoi leader. "His claim to the ownership of the Cape lands could not be entertained by the Company, which had taken possession of them for its own purposes," van Riebeeck wrote in his diary (Hat tip to our colleagues at Africa Check). Cape Town’s original purpose was simply to resupply merchant ships headed to the East Indies, but over the decades, settlers turned to farming, which put them in conflict with the original inhabitants. By the end of the 1700s, a series of wars broke out with the Xhosa, a larger and more formidable foe than the Khoikhoi. Ultimately, under the British, the Xhosa were defeated in 1853. Apartheid racial categories Clearly, the story of South Africa turns on the Dutch and the British taking land from the people who were there first. There is perhaps one possible thought Coulter had. When South Africa operated under a strict regime of racial categories – the apartheid period between 1948 and 1994 – it used both "colored" and "black" to classify different groups of people. The Khoikhoi, relatively few in number, were classified as colored. In that regard, Coulter might have seen Muhatia’s reference to blacks as broad. But that would play along with the discredited credo of apartheid in racist South Africa. As the authors of a 2000 study of historic migration in Africa noted, "the biological reality of the race concept is bankrupt; the genetic and/or physical variations of hundreds of millions of people cannot be subsumed under a single term." That said, focusing on the Khoikhoi would be excessively narrow because it ignores the conflict with the Xhosa. Under apartheid, people in the Xhosa ethnic group were classified as natives, or black, and restricted to communities called bantustans. The anti-apartheid leader and later president of South Africa Nelson Mandela was a member of a Xhosa clan. (Ethnic classification continues today. Groups called "coloured" under the old regime are now counted as "black" for economic empowerment and labor relations purposes.) Beyond the western areas of South Africa where the Dutch influence was greatest, other groups predated the colonizers by over 1,000 years. One analysis from an international group of archeologists found that farming by Bantu-speaking groups reached South Africa about 2,000 years ago. So Coulter’s focus on the Dutch ignored what was going on in the rest of the region. Our ruling Coulter said that Dutch settlers were in South Africa before black people. This is plainly wrong. Bantu-speaking groups farmed in the eastern regions of modern South Africa perhaps as much as a millennium before the Dutch arrived. In the west where the Dutch settled, other indigenous group lived on the land that the Dutch then claimed. This claim defies logic and history. We rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ann Coulter	None	None	None	2018-08-27T14:22:45	2018-08-23	['South_Africa', 'Afrikaner']
-vogo-00439	Statement: The Chargers can end their lease at Qualcomm Stadium “if they pay off the bonds used to expand Qualcomm Stadium in 1997,” ESPN reported Jan. 29.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-the-bill-if-the-chargers-bolt/	Analysis: The Chargers can break the stadium lease between Feb. 1 and April 30 each year, but must then pay the city a fee that gradually falls over time. This year’s fee: $26 million.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: The Bill if the Chargers Bolt	February 2, 2011	None	['San_Diego_Chargers', 'Qualcomm_Stadium', 'ESPN']
-snes-04980	Donald Trump ex-wives admitted that the Republican Presidential candidate forced them to have abortions.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-ex-wives-abortions/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Donald Trump’s Ex-Wives Speak Out on ‘Forced Abortions’	31 March 2016	None	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Donald_Trump']
-tron-01620	Religious significance of George Washington and the Washington memorial	https://www.truthorfiction.com/washmonument/	None	government	None	None	None	Religious significance of George Washington and the Washington memorial	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Washington,_D.C.', 'George_Washington']
-snes-01592	Did Donald Trump Joke Around, Fail to Salute the Flag During a Military Ceremony?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-retreat/	None	Military	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Donald Trump Joke Around, Fail to Salute the Flag During a Military Ceremony?	13 October 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05652	A student came up with a clever proof and pithy saying in response to an exam question about the physical properties of Hell.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hell-endothermic-exothermic/	None	College	None	Snopes Staff	None	Is Hell Endothermic or Exothermic?	1 December 2000	None	['None']
-snes-00061	Ilhan Omar took part in a ceremonial swearing-in for the Minnesota House of Representatives with her hand on a Quran.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-sworn-quran/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Was Ilhan Omar Sworn in with Her Hand on the Quran?	20 September 2018	None	['None']
-farg-00066	The U.S. is “the largest energy producer in the world. Who would have thought?”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/factchecking-trumps-energy-boasts/	None	the-factcheck-wire	FactCheck.org	Eugene Kiely	['energy']	FactChecking Trump’s Energy Boasts	June 8, 2018	2018-06-08 19:26:56 UTC	['United_States']
-goop-00174	Kate Beckinsale’s ‘Boy Toy’ Matt Rife Moving In With Her?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kate-beckinsale-matt-rife-moving-in/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kate Beckinsale’s ‘Boy Toy’ Matt Rife Moving In With Her?	10:35 am, October 5, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05017	Donald Trump "spilled the beans" on Heidi Cruz, saying that she used to work as a call girl.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heidi-cruz-call-girl/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Donald Trump Bombshell: Ted Cruz’s Wife Former Call Girl	24 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10085	"The McCain campaign is roughly in the position where Vice President Gore was running against President Bush one week before the election of 2000."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/dec/03/john-mccain/mccain-is-further-back-than-gore-was/	(Published Oct. 24, 2008) Sen. John McCain's chief strategist sought to downplay his candidate's deficit in the polls, comparing the current election to a contest so close it ended up in the Supreme Court. "The McCain campaign is roughly in the position where Vice President Gore was running against President Bush one week before the election of 2000,” Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist, was quoted as saying on the front page of the Oct. 23, 2008 New York Times . “We have ground to make up, but we believe we can make it up.” The same day's Washington Post front page featured a similar argument by unnamed McCain advisers: "Advisers believe the contest's margin is in the five-to-seven-point range, about the same deficit, they say, that then-Vice President Al Gore faced at this time eight years ago against then-Gov. George W. Bush," the paper reported. Because Schmidt was so specific in the New York Times with his "one week before the election" comparison, we'll start there. Election Day 2000 was Nov. 7. A week prior would be Tuesday, Oct. 31. Let's see how Gore was doing in the polls around that time. We averaged the results of the five polls we could find released right around Nov. 1 – three different tracking polls for ABC News , CBS News and CNN /USA Today /Gallup, as well as surveys from MSNBC/Reuters/Zogby and Pew Research Center – and found Bush at 46.8 percent to Gore's 43. Those polls included third-party candidate Ralph Nader. Data from political scientists Christopher Wlezien from Temple University and Robert Erikson from Columbia University on the averages of all major polls show Gore trailing by 3 points in a two-man contest with Bush seven days before the election. So Gore trailed by about 3 to 4 points a week before the 2000 election. How does that compare to how McCain is doing now? As of early afternoon on Oct. 24, 2008, three Web sites that each average a wide array of national polls, Pollster.com, Realclearpolitics.com and Fivethirtyeight.com, had McCain down 8.2, 7.4 and 7.2 points respectively – about twice the deficit Gore faced. "Obviously they (the McCain campaign) are simply looking at the map through red-colored glasses," said Larry Sabato, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia. There are, to be sure, isolated polls that bode well for McCain. For example, a recent Associated Press poll had Obama at 44 percent and McCain at 43 percent, essentially a tie, given the 3.5 percentage point margin of error. But that poll is so out of line with most others that experts largely discount it. "Bad polls happen and you shouldn't get too excited about one unusual poll," said Charles Franklin, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and co-developer of Pollster.com. Averages are far more trustworthy, Franklin said. This chart he compiled of polling trends from 2000, 2004 and 2008, shows vividly the dramatic gap between how McCain was doing as of Oct. 4, 2008, and how Gore was doing in 2000. (Franklin provided us an updated version of the chart by e-mail; the gap has since narrowed only slightly.) Franklin also checked his data for the span of the past two weeks, a wider time frame than the snapshot we looked at above to cover the comment to the Washington Post about how the campaigns compared "at this time." He found: "This year, Obama leads during these two weeks by an average of 7.1 points. In 2000 the Bush lead was an average of 3.1 points." Again, McCain's deficit is more than double Gore's. We don't mean to suggest that McCain can't come back and win the election. The question we sought to answer was this: Is McCain running in about the same position that Gore was at this point in the 2000 election, as the McCain campaign says? Simply put, no. We find McCain's claim to be False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-12-03T00:00:00	2008-10-23	['George_W._Bush', 'Al_Gore', 'John_McCain']
-goop-01922	Beyonce Did Get Breast Implants, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/beyonce-breast-implants-twins/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Beyonce Did NOT Get Breast Implants, Despite Speculative Claim	3:17 pm, January 2, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00454	Baby pigs adopted by grieving mother tiger	https://www.truthorfiction.com/tiger-pigs/	None	animals	None	None	None	Baby pigs adopted by grieving mother tiger	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00559	Says Jeb Bush "happens to be where a majority" of Republican voters are on giving legal status to illegal immigrants.	/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/14/george-will/jeb-bush-and-majority-republicans-actually-agree-i/	As Jeb Bush readies his push to win the Republican nomination, one of the charges he has to fend off is that he lacks conservative zeal. The issue popped up June 14, 2015, on Fox News Sunday, when a viewer suggested in a note to the show that Bush seems like more of a Democrat than a Republican. Conservative columnist George Will sprang to Bush’s defense. On cutting taxes and government as governor of Florida, and on social issues, Will said Bush was every bit a conservative as President Ronald Reagan, and maybe more. Will downplayed Bush’s electoral challenge even on the hot button issue of immigration. "He happens to be where a majority of Republicans are," Will said. "His (position) is a pathway to legal status." For the record, Bush’s position on immigration has been complicated. But Bush’s most recent comments suggest a pathway to legal status, so we think Will’s point is fair. The question is: Do most Republicans favor a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants like Bush now does? We looked at what the polls say. The latest report from the Pew Research Center bolsters Will’s claim. Pew’s survey found that 56 percent of Republicans favor a path to legal status, not to be confused with citizenship. Legal status would allow undocumented adults to work and pay taxes, but they would not be able to vote. However, George Hawley, a political scientist at the University of Alabama, cautions that the Pew survey also shows a complicated set of attitudes. "A majority of Republicans also felt that giving people who came to the United States illegally a way to gain legal status is like rewarding them for doing something wrong," Hawley said. "Further, 42 percent of Republicans felt legal immigration should be decreased, compared to 21 percent who think it should be increased. Also, far more Republicans view immigrants as a burden, 63 percent, than view them as an asset for the country, 27 percent." At the end of the day, Hawley said he wouldn’t call Will’s statement inaccurate, but it might be misleading. "I would describe Republicans as ambivalent on questions relating to immigration policy," Hawley said. Timing matters Republican support for a path toward legal status has held a slim majority, but there’s been an ebb and flow in the margin depending on the news of the day. When President Barack Obama announced last December that he would hold off deportation for a larger number of undocumented immigrants, feelings among Republicans hardened. A December 2014 poll by Pew saw an 11 percentage point drop in support between the beginning and the end of the year. A majority of Republicans still supported legalized status, 53 percent, but it had been as high as 64 percent. The drop put support within the 5 percent margin of error. Still, older surveys even show that Republicans could get behind the more contentious goal of citizenship. A 2013 Fox News poll found that 56 percent of GOP voters endorsed a path to citizenship with various conditions such as paying back taxes and learning English. Stephen Nuno is a political scientist at Northern Arizona University. "Republicans generally see mass deportation to be unrealistic, so the strength of their support is usually conditional on the terms of legality, whether it be penalties, stronger border security, and so on," Nuno said. Nuno also said that when Republicans feel better about the economy, they tend to take a more pragmatic view on undocumented immigrants, and support for legalized status goes up. Primary voters There is however the question of views among Republican primary voters who generally take a tougher position. One indication of where they stand comes from the 2014 election. According to exit polls reported by National Journal, 57 percent of Republican voters felt that undocumented immigrants should be deported, while just 38 percent favored legal status. More recently, an NBC/Marist poll of likely Republican voters in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina probed whether voters could support a candidate who endorsed a path to citizenship. In Iowa, Republicans were evenly split, while in New Hampshire and South Carolina, a slim majority said such a candidate would be unacceptable. It’s important to note that the question was about citizenship, not legal status. Our ruling Will said that a majority of Republicans support Bush’s stance to craft a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. Polls show that more than half of Republicans do hold that view. Republican positions have shifted over time and Republican primary voters might take a harder line than the typical Republican voter. With those caveats in mind, we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	George Will	None	None	None	2015-06-14T18:22:54	2015-06-14	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Jeb_Bush']
-hoer-01136	Win a Vacation to The Maldives	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/win-a-vacation-to-the-maldives-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Win a Vacation to The Maldives Facebook Scam	May 25, 2016	None	['None']
-para-00169	Australians pay "$35 million a day in interest" to cover the national government’s debt.	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/23/joe-hockey/joe-hockey-says-interest-payments-government-debt-/index.html	None	['Budget', 'Debt']	Joe Hockey	Chris Pash, Alix Piatek	None	Joe Hockey says interest payments for government debt $35 million a day	Thursday, May 23, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.	None	['None']
-snes-00302	A video shows actors creating the appearance of injuries through makeup to deceive the public about reports of atrocities.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/makeup-artists-atrocities/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Video Show Injuries Created with Makeup to Fool the Public About Atrocities?	24 July 2018	None	['None']
-vogo-00379	Statement: “(Carl DeMaio) also proposes eliminating the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), which costs the city approximately $150 million annually by allowing city employees to return to a salaried job while concurrently drawing their retirement payouts,” Carl DeMaio, San Diego councilman and mayoral candidate, on his campaign website.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/fact-check-demaio-wrong-on-pension-numbers/	Analysis: There’s no more notorious pension benefit than DROP. The benefit allows employees to retire but keep working and earn a salary. They also earn a pension, which accrues in an account and later is paid out with interest.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: DeMaio Wrong on Pension Numbers	June 8, 2011	None	['San_Diego', 'Carl_DeMaio']
-goop-00240	Channing Tatum, Amber Heard Moving In Together?	https://www.gossipcop.com/channing-tatum-amber-heard-moving-in-together-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Channing Tatum, Amber Heard Moving In Together?	2:49 pm, September 20, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00516	Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton Babies “Due On The Same Day,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-babies-due-same-day-pregnant-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton Babies NOT “Due On The Same Day,” Despite Report	11:35 am, August 6, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01214	Botswana condemned President Donald Trump's alleged remarks calling African nations "shithole countries."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/botswana-condemns-trump-remarks/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Botswana Condemn Trump’s Alleged ‘Shithole’ Slur Toward African Countries?	12 January 2018	None	['Africa', 'Botswana']
-pomt-11053	"Pat Morrisey joined a federal lawsuit to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/26/joe-manchin/did-patrick-morrisey-join-lawsuit-allow-insurers-d/	Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia -- a vulnerable Democratic Senator in a state that Donald Trump won by more than 40 points in 2016 -- is accusing his Republican opponent of seeking to take away health insurance protections for people who have pre-existing conditions. In a tweet, Manchin said that Patrick Morrisey, the state’s elected attorney general and the GOP’s nominee for the Senate seat, "joined a federal lawsuit to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Historically, getting rid of pre-existing condition protections is an unpopular view. A March 2018 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that 84 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents and 59 percent of Republicans favor keeping insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for health insurance, which is the existing policy under Obama’s 2010 health care law. Indeed, Manchin tweeted about the issue several other times recently and launched an online petition effort. So is Manchin correct that Morrisey "joined a federal lawsuit to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions"? Pretty much, yes. About the lawsuit Manchin is referring to a lawsuit filed in a U.S. district court in Texas on Feb. 26, 2018. The lawsuit was signed by 18 attorneys general and two governors, all of them Republicans. The suit challenges the Affordable Care Act, arguing that "the ACA is unlawful" and seeking to enjoin, or block, its operation. One of the attorney generals who signed onto the lawsuit is Morrisey: He is listed as a signatory on a court document in the case dated as recently as June 20, 2018, or two days before Manchin's tweet. We could not find any subsequent statement by Morrisey that he had withdrawn his support for the legal action. Here’s the gist of the lawsuit’s argument. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the law’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance by saying it was enforced by a tax penalty. But in 2017, Congress repealed the mechanism to enforce the individual mandate through the tax code. The lawsuit contends that -- with the tax penalty now gone -- the individual mandate is no longer constitutional and, as a result, the law should be either largely or entirely thrown out. If granted, would the lawsuit end the pre-existing condition protections under the ACA? Yes, say health policy specialists. "There would be much more damage beyond the issue of people with health problems being denied coverage, but that would in fact be one outcome," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the Urban Institute. Blumberg said that if you got rid of insurance regulations like those in the ACA and then tried to require insurers to cover all comers -- a policy known as "guaranteed issue" -- then "insurers would respond by setting their premiums so high" that they’d be out of reach for most customers, and/or "offer extremely high deductibles and other types of out-of-pocket requirements." The impact of a court ruling would take time to filter through the health insurance system, but the scale is potentially large. A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that "52 million non-elderly adults had pre-existing conditions that would have made them uninsurable prior to passage of the ACA." "Manchin is addressing what is probably the major implication of the lawsuit," rather than just "a detail," said Christine Eibner, health policy analyst with the RAND Corp. Usually, the federal government would defend an existing law in court, but the Trump administration has decided to take the attorney generals’ side in the case. Morrrisey's camp fired back at what it said was the implication of Manchin's tweet -- that Morrisey opposes protections for pre-existing conditions. He doesn't, and he wants them restored in whatever comes next. While Morrisey believes that law should be repealed, "help should be provided to those who need it most, including those with pre-existing conditions," said Nathan Brand, a spokesman for the Morrisey campaign. It’s worth noting that the lawsuit is still a long way from success. "My guess is that the Supreme Court may take a pass on this, and for sure it won’t be going anywhere before the 2018 elections," said Gail Wilensky, who headed Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. That said, Manchin’s tweet didn’t say that pre-existing condition protections are going to be eliminated immediately. Rather, he tweeted that Morrisey had joined a lawsuit that sought that end. Our ruling Manchin said, "Pat Morrisey joined a federal lawsuit to allow insurance companies to deny coverage for people with pre-existing conditions." Morrisey told PolitiFact that he supports some form of protection for those with pre-existing conditions. Nevertheless, Morrisey did join a lawsuit filed by numerous state Republican officials that asks a court to rule all or part of the 2010 health care law unconstitutional and to prevent the enactment of rules, regulations or other actions under the law. Various health-policy specialists agreed that such a decision from the court would effectively eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The statement ia accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joe Manchin	None	None	None	2018-06-26T14:25:51	2018-06-22	['None']
-pomt-13703	Florida retirees and families "lost tens of thousands of dollars" in deposits on failed Trump condo projects, but he "pocketed their money and walked away."	/florida/statements/2016/jul/28/tim-kaine/did-trump-bail-building-condos-florida/	Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine questioned Donald Trump’s business ethics, saying the Republican presidential candidate swindled customers in a past real estate deal in the Sunshine State. "Retirees and families in Florida — they believed Donald Trump when he said he'd build them some condos. Thousands of them," Kaine said on the third night of the Democratic National Convention. "They paid their deposits, but the condos, they were never built. He just pocketed their money and walked away. They lost tens of thousands of dollars, all because they believed Donald Trump." A Kaine spokesman told us the senator was referring to not one, but two failed condo projects: One in Tampa and one in Fort Lauderdale. Trump’s campaign did not respond. We wanted to know if people lost tens of thousands of dollars in deposits while Trump took the money without consequence. Since there are two projects, we’ll take them one at a time. Trump Tower Tampa In 2004, at the height of the Tampa real estate boom, local developers incorporated under the name SimDag/Robel contacted Trump to ask him to partner on a condo tower they wanted to build. The group eventually reached a licensing agreement with Trump: He would lend his name to Trump Tower Tampa for $2 million plus a percentage of condo sales. The document stipulated that neither the developers nor Trump would "under any circumstances disclose or permit to be disclosed the existence of this agreement.'' No one would know Trump’s involvement was in name only. Trump announced the deal on Jan. 10, 2005, saying he would "partner" with SimDag/Robel to build a 52-story, 190-unit condo tower in downtown Tampa. (Less than two weeks later, Trump married Slovenian model Melania Knauss in a Palm Beach wedding attended by now-rival Hillary Clinton.) The next month, Trump and his new bride attended a sales launch in Tampa. Trump told reporters at a gala reception with 600 guests that he had a "substantial stake" in the project and that units were selling well. Now, it’s here we’ll note that Kaine said in his speech there were "thousands of them," which his spokesman said was referring to thousands of dollars. By the time Trump came to Tampa, customers had placed sizable deposits on all 190 units, which cost between $700,000 and $6 million. The amount of those deposits varied depending on the unit. With 190 units, Kaine’s description of the customers as "retirees and families" is a plausible definition. Tampa Bay Times reporter Susan Taylor Martin noted customers included doctors, NFL coaches, a video game developer and more. Under the sales agreement, half of the deposit cash went into an escrow account, while the other half went to construction costs. But the project ran over budget quickly. The site required a redesign of the foundation, and construction issues soon ballooned the cost of the project from initially being $227 million to $300 million. In 2006, the developers held a groundbreaking, but had yet to secure financing. Trump’s licensing agreement was modified that year, giving him $4 million but conceding a cut of the sales. SimDag/Robel stopped paying, and Trump sued in May 2007, claiming he was owed $1.03 million in licensing fees. That lawsuit was the first indication for buyers that Trump was only slapping his name on the project. SimDag/Robel countersued Trump for breaking the confidentiality of the licensing agreement by complaining publicly about the project. Trump and the developers settled in 2008. SimDag/Robel called off the entire project and declared bankruptcy. Buyers, meanwhile, were out of luck. While the escrow half of their deposits was returned, the other half had been eaten up by construction costs. Some customers were out as much as $250,000 or more. Several dozen buyers sued Trump in 2009, arguing that they had been misled with "fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations" that the billionaire was more involved with the project bearing his name. Within three years, the buyers in the lawsuit reached settlements. Some were repaid as little as $11,115, according to the Times. Other buyers not a part of the suit received nothing. Jay McLaughlin, a physical therapist from Connecticut, told the Times he lost almost $90,000. An attorney named Mary Ann Stiles told the newspaper she was out $200,000. Other investors who gave SimDag/Robel money said they lost six- and seven-figure sums. Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale A similar scenario played out on Florida’s Atlantic coast, when Trump struck a secretive deal with a group of developers to lend his name to a building. The Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale was slated to be a 24-story, 298-unit condo hotel, in which owners rent out their units like hotel rooms. When the project was unveiled in 2004, units cost between $500,000 and $3 million, with 20 percent deposits required. Buyers were wooed with brochures touting Trump’s involvement, including one in which Trump said the resort was "the finest and most luxurious experience I have created." Units sold well through 2006, and these deposits were split the same way as Trump Tower Tampa. Also like Tampa, construction costs soon spiraled out of control. The building was slated to be finished by December 2007 but was nowhere near done. Then one of the developing partners, Bayrock Group, sold its interest to an Icelandic investment firm for $50 million. The following year, Trump began to voice major concerns to development partner Roy Stillman of SB Hotel Associates that work wasn’t being completed, despite some $140 million being spent on construction. The real estate market began its tailspin and the partners had difficulty securing more financing. In 2009, Trump decided to strip his name off the project after Stillman attempted to close with buyers to get more money, even though the building wasn’t yet completed. With $185 million in debt and no billionaire name recognition, Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale was dead. What Trump actually made on this deal is much more obscure, because the entire project ended in more than a dozen lawsuits among Trump, the developers and the buyers. (Lawsuits against Trump also have resulted in other developments in which Trump licensed his name in places like Canada, Hawaii and Mexico.) One depositor, Naraine Seecharan, told the Miami Herald he was recovering from the removal of a brain tumor when he learned about the fate of his $289,000 down payment. J. Michael Goodson of New Jersey said he put down $345,000 and sued Trump. Pembroke Pines attorney Joseph Altschul represented more than 70 clients who said they had paid about $8 million in deposits. In all, more than 100 buyers filed lawsuits. CFLB Partnership bought the unfinished project in 2013 for $115 million, finishing the building and renaming it the Conrad Fort Lauderdale Resort & Residences. Trump and the developers continued to argue. Trump also sued the developers, saying he lost millions in licensing and hotel management fees over the deal. He maintained in the various lawsuits he held no liability, while the partners struggled to reach settlements with buyers. (Trump’s attorneys also got in trouble for hiding a $5 million insurance policy to help cover lawsuits for making misleading statements.) "Well, the word ‘developing,’ it doesn't mean that we're the developers," Trump said in a 2013 deposition. "We worked on the documents, we worked on the room sizes and the things, but we didn't give out the contracts, we didn't get the financing, we weren't the developer, but we did work with the developer." Trump and his affiliated companies have not been found at fault in the Fort Lauderdale lawsuits, thanks to contract language that stated Trump’s involvement was in name only. His legal team maintained the suits against him were more about Trump’s money and anger over the housing crash. The billionaire maintained that buyers were better off losing deposit money than taking more of a bath in a bad real estate investment, as the condos were worth roughly half what people would have paid in full. In one 2014 trip to the witness stand, he said someone would have to be "very stupid" to have still attempted to buy a condo in the building after the real estate crash. "Only a fool would have closed under those circumstances," Trump said. In April 2016, a Florida appeals court ruled on the last two active cases seeking deposits. The three-judge-panel upheld prior findings that Trump did not misrepresent his role in the development. Our ruling Kaine said Florida retirees and families "lost tens of thousands of dollars" in deposits on failed Trump condo projects, but he "pocketed their money and walked away." It’s clear that many buyers, whatever their occupation or familial status, indeed lost at least that much in the failed Trump projects in Tampa and Fort Lauderdale. Some were further compensated partially with settlements after suing the billionaire. Whether Trump cheated them is another matter. While his licensing agreements with the developers were secret, he was entitled to a certain amount of money for putting his name on the building. He was sued by several dozen angry buyers and either settled or was found not at fault, which is not the same as walking away without addressing the problems. Kaine’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b0c3e425-5851-49f6-9bec-ecace6975c3c	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2016-07-28T20:15:17	2016-07-27	['None']
-pomt-10404	"Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev; Kennedy met with Khruschev; and Nixon met with Mao — and these were folks who have done horrendous damage not only to their own countries but to other countries."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/04/barack-obama/yes-but-you-cant-lump-gorbachev-with-mao/	Sen. John McCain has been putting the heat to Sen. Barack Obama for the senator's willingness to meet with the leaders of enemy nations "without any preconditions." Obama has countered that principled, strong involvement is a better option than President Bush's failed approach of not reaching out, which he says has made countries like Iran stronger. Obama has also pointed to the history of American diplomacy, saying on May 20, 2008: "Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev; Kennedy met with Khruschev; and Nixon met with Mao — and these were folks who have done horrendous damage not only to their own countries but to other countries." First, those meetings did take place. And they happened without any public demand by the American presidents that action be taken by the other side before the sitdowns could occur, according to scholars of U.S. diplomacy with the Soviet Union and China. In fact, in the case of Nixon's 1972 meeting with Mao, there's evidence that the Chinese were the ones with demands, making it clear America would have to lay off the question of Taiwanese sovereignty if it wanted to meet, said Robert Sutter, a visiting professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Nikolas Gvosdev, editor of the National Interest and a senior fellow at the Nixon Center, said there were no public demands that the Soviet Union make concessions or change policy as a condition for Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khruschev or for the Reagan/Gorbachev talks, the first held in 1985. If you define the idea of "preconditions" more loosely as diplomatic agreements that set the agenda and parameters of such high-level talks between heads of state, then that certainly did happen, Gvosdev said. Obama hinted at this latter approach during the May 20 appearance, saying, "Keep in mind, I have never said that I would somehow have meetings with these folks right away, that there wouldn't by any preparation for them." Obama should have been more careful, however, about how he characterized those leaders whom American presidents met with. There's a strong consensus among scholars that Mao ranks among the great tyrants of the 20th century, who did indeed cause "horrendous damage" to his country and others. Khruschev is both loathsome and admirable, scholars say. He did have blood on his hands as Stalin's deputy in the Ukraine and the move to crush the Hungarian uprising in 1956. But he also freed prisoners from the Gulags and had a record as a reformist. As for Gorbachev, his reforms sparked domestic disorder and a hard-liner could argue that as a younger man he helped perpetuate an evil system, but even Reagan gave him credit for bringing about the end of the Cold War, as does history. Gorbachev is "not in a class with Khruschev who is not in a class with Mao when it comes to damaging his own country and the world," said William Taubman, a professor of political science at Amherst College who won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of Khruschev in 2004. Stephen F. Cohen, a professor for Russian and Slavic studies at New York University, said Obama should have stuck to the thrust of his argument, that American presidents had a record of meeting with antagonistic heads of state, rather than getting into details. "I think he violated a rule of political campaigning," Cohen said. "Be as imprecise as possible when making generalizations." So while Obama is right that American presidents have met with some contentious leaders, he's wrong to say that they all had horrendous records. Gorbachev stands out as the strongest exception. We give Obama a Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-06-04T00:00:00	2008-05-20	['Mikhail_Gorbachev', 'Richard_Nixon', 'Nikita_Khrushchev', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'John_F._Kennedy']
-snes-01820	Congress "quietly" passed legislation allowing authorities to raid private property with no warrant.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-congress-pass-bill-warrantless-searches/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did Congress ‘Quietly’ Pass a Bill Allowing Warrantless Searches of Homes?	28 August 2017	None	['United_States_Congress']
-tron-00344	9/11 Survivor stories: Sujo and Mini	https://www.truthorfiction.com/survivor3/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	9/11 Survivor stories: Sujo and Mini	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00350	Kim Kardashian Did “Threaten Divorce” If Kanye West Didn’t Apologize For Slavery Comments, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-apology-slave-comments-threatened-divorce-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian Did NOT “Threaten Divorce” If Kanye West Didn’t Apologize For Slavery Comments, Despite Report	11:29 am, September 1, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10559	"Everything I have said (on the campaign trail) has been factually accurate."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/12/bill-clinton/clinton-distorted-obamas-position/	While campaigning for his wife in Maine, a reporter asked former President Bill Clinton about some of the criticism he has received on the trail. Rob Caldwell of the local NBC affliate WCSH-TV in Portland asked Clinton, "You have been praised for your campaigning for her; you have been criticized for it. Do you have any regrets about the way you have conducted yourself on the campaign trail in the past months? Any regrets about anything you've said or done?" Clinton began by saying, "Well, everything I have said has been factually accurate. But I think the mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate. I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her because I was president." He went on to complain that critics have mischaracterized his comments in South Carolina as personal attacks on Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton is wrong when he says everything he said has been factually accurate. We found inaccuracies in his comments about Obama's position on Iraq. Clinton said that Obama claimed the same position on the Iraq war as George W. Bush. But that's a selective quote on comments Obama made about the need to bring a satisfactory conclusion to the Iraq invasion once it had commenced. We rated Clinton's statement Half True; read it here ). We also found Clinton was flat-out wrong when he slammed Obama for remarks about Ronald Reagan. Clinton criticized Obama for saying "the Republicans had all the good ideas." What Obama actually said was "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." Read our extended analysis on Clinton's charge here . We rate it False. And it's not just us: The Washington Post's Factchecker blog awarded the former president two Pinocchios for the same statements we looked at about Obama. So we find Clinton's superlative — "everything I have said has been factually accurate" — to be False.	None	Bill Clinton	None	None	None	2008-02-12T00:00:00	2008-02-07	['None']
-pomt-06529	The Arab Spring … "drove up gas prices."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-arab-spring-sent-gas-prices-high/	During an Oct. 6, 2011, press conference, President Barack Obama defended his handling of the economy. "With respect to the state of the economy," Obama said, "there is no doubt that growth has slowed. I think people were much more optimistic at the beginning of this year. But the combination of a Japanese tsunami, the Arab Spring, which drove up gas prices, and most prominently (economic turmoil in) Europe, I think, has gotten businesses and consumers very nervous. And we did not help here in Washington with the debt ceiling debacle that took place, a bit of game-playing that was completely unnecessary, completely unprecedented in terms of how we dealt with our responsibilities here in Washington." We’ll take a look at one portion of his comment -- that the Arab Spring, the grass-roots democratic movement that swept the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, "drove up gas prices." We found that he's correct that the Arab Spring did have an impact on oil prices but that it was just one of many factors. We began by looking at weekly price data for both crude oil and gasoline collected by the Energy Information Administration, the federal government’s repository of energy statistics. During the first week of January 2011, a barrel of crude oil on the world market cost $91.04. By mid February, when Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power, the price had risen to $96.25, an increase of just under 6 percent. And how about gasoline prices? During the first week of January 2011, a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. cost $3.12. By mid February, the price had risen to $3.19 -- an increase of only about 2 percent. But the increase did come, just a little later than it did for crude oil. By the first week of April, the price had risen to $3.74, making the total increase for the year almost 20 percent. "The president is right in part," said John B. Townsend II, the manager of public and government affairs at AAA-Mid Atlantic. "Though it started in the dead of winter, the spreading upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East drove up pump prices." However, many of the experts we spoke to also cautioned against oversimplification. One caveat they raised is that the world oil market is complex and it’s hard to single out one factor as the reason for a price increase. "While reduced supply in general does put upward pressure on prices, there are so many influences on price at the pump that pointing to one factor -- the Arab Spring -- is a gross oversimplification," said Eric Wohlschlegel, a spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute. Asked what the biggest factors in rising prices were, John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil companies' trade group, joked that "there are three of them: China, China and China." Along with a number of other developing nations, China is growing so fast that its demand for oil is pushing up prices even though the U.S. and other western nations are seeing economic stagnation. In fact, the timing of the price rises suggest that the Arab Spring may have had a modest effect within a much longer period of generally rising prices, rather than a sudden, jarring spike during the apex of the protests. For a full year before the Arab Spring arrived, the price of oil had already been rising steadily. From January 2010 to January 2011, the price of a barrel of crude rose from $75.55 to $91.04, or a full 20 percent increase. Gasoline prices, too, were already on a long-term upward trajectory. In January 2010, a gallon cost $2.72. A year later it was at $3.12 -- an increase of 15 percent. While Felmy agreed that the Arab Spring played a role, he added that the oil markets "saw a pretty consistent rise from September of 2010 through early February." It’s also worth noting that the price increase, in retrospect, likely stemmed more from speculative worries than actual ones. In a news release issued around the time of the protests, AAA cited fear of a possible "chain reaction of unrest in North Africa and the Middle East could disrupt oil production in the region and cause oil-rich regimes to teeter, totter or topple." Ultimately, such fears didn’t come to pass. Most of the countries hit by major popular protests are minor players in the world oil market. In 2010, Egypt ranked 29th in the world in oil production, Syria ranked 34th, Yemen ranked 38th and Tunisia ranked 53rd, according to the CIA World Factbook. The one exception is Libya, which ranked 18th in the world. And experts say that Libya is pretty much the only tangible -- as opposed to speculative -- reason the markets moved as they did. "The Arab Spring did result in higher gasoline prices, for one specific reason: It took almost all of Libya’s 1.6 million barrels per day of supply off the market," said John Kingston, the director of news for Platts, a publisher that specializes in coverage of energy markets. "That is a significant amount of oil, and it is oil of the highest quality -- low sulfur, and with a very good yield of transportation fuels like diesel and gasoline." Kingston suggested that Obama might have been more accurate had he said that prices rose due to the Libyan uprising specifically. "It’s hard to argue that what went on in Tunisia or Syria" made much of a difference, he said. "But Libya resulted in an actual loss of crude output." Our ruling Obama is right that the Arab Spring was a factor in the increase in gasoline prices. But it's important to note that prices were rising before the democratic movements began. And experts say that while there was some impact on prices, the overall increase is the result of many factors. We rate Obama's claim Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-10-07T16:20:39	2011-10-06	['None']
-snes-02480	Billionaire Vijay Mallya found cheap parking in New York by using his expensive car as collateral for a loan.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parking-vijay-mallya-joke/	None	Humor	None	Dan Evon	None	Billionaire Uses His Car as Collateral to Get Cheap Parking from a Bank?	4 March 2016	None	['New_York_City']
-pose-00596	“Why would it be that teachers are guaranteed their jobs for life? If you were guaranteed — you didn’t have to do anything, just showed up, and you didn’t have any obligation other than showing up every day — you think you would get better or worse? Right. This stuff is not hard. So we have a big opportunity.”	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/620/eliminate-tenure-for-new-teachers/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Eliminate tenure for new teachers	2010-12-21T09:36:20	None	['None']
-pomt-09749	The Baucus health care bill would require taxes on medical devices such as X-ray machines, female condoms, HIV tests and surgical needles.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/09/blog-posting/conservative-blogger-says-proposed-tax-could-hit-w/	Republicans often complain that the Democratic health care bills would impose a heavy tax burden on Americans. So when the Senate Finance Committee began considering a tax on medical devices — including some modest devices such as enema kits and breast pumps — it was no surprise that conservatives would use the tax to rally opposition. Initially, the Finance panel was planning to subject all medical devices to the tax. (Technically this would be a tax on companies that make devices, based on their market share, rather than an excise tax on individual units.) But an outcry that it would lead to "tampon taxes" and "Q-tip taxes" led the committee's chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., to shift course. He decided to apply the tax rules based on the three medical device categories determined by the Food and Drug Administration. These categories align roughly with how complex and risky the devices are. When the bill was unveiled on Sept. 16, 2009, Baucus said it would exempt items labeled Class I by the FDA, things such as enema kits and elastic bandages. Those items, which account for 47 percent of all devices, are often inexpensive and are defined as "present(ing) minimal potential for harm to the user" by the FDA. But critics continued to argue that including all Class II devices — which rank between Class I and III in complexity and risk — would still mean imposing a tax on a host of inexpensive items that could ultimately be passed on to consumers. So Sept. 22, 2009, Baucus exempted from the tax all Class II items costing less than $100. (Class III items — the 10 percent that "sustain or support life, are implanted, or present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury" — have always been subject to Baucus' proposed tax.) This eased the attacks somewhat, but not entirely. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., offered an amendment to eliminate the tax altogether, but on Oct. 1, 2009, it failed by a 10-13 vote. Then, on Oct. 7, 2009, blogger Meredith Jessup on the conservative Web site TownHall.com cited work by a Washington Times columnist to show a wide range of items that she said would still be taxed despite Baucus' revision. " Washington Times columnist Amanda Carpenter has looked into the matter and found that new moms who want to use a powered breast pump to bottle milk for their babies will have to pay this excise tax," Jessup wrote. "These pumping devices, Carpenter points out, typically retail for more than $100. In addition, other items used by both men and women — including 'pacemakers, ventilators, X-ray machines, powered wheelchairs and surgical needles — will be taxed too.' ... So what else is on this list of items to be taxed? Lots of things, including dentures, fetal cell-screening kits, female condoms (I'm surprised there aren't angry 'feminists' taking to the streets over this one), tests for syphilis and HIV, hip, knee, ankle and breast prosthetics, dialysis catheters, mammograms and sickle-cell anemia tests." We found many other conservative bloggers have made similar claims. We turned to the FDA's Web site to determine which items would be subject to the tax. We found that the following items would still be subject to the current version of the proposed tax, either because they're rated Class III or because they're considered Class II and cost more than $100: powered breast pumps; tests for HIV; pacemakers; ventilators; X-ray machines; powered wheelchairs; hip, knee, ankle and breast prosthetics; and dentures. Many dialysis catheters are rated Class III, and the female condom is Class III. (Male condoms are Class II — go figure.) Assuming Jessup meant "mammography machines" rather than "mammograms," then you can add that to the list as well. It's a bit more complicated to determine the taxability of the remaining four that Jessup mentioned. Tests for sickle-cell anemia and syphilis are both categorized as Class II, and a Web search turned up prices well below $100 per test, suggesting that both would be exempt. Meanwhile, most surgical needles are rated Class I or Class II, and the one fetal-cell screening kit rated by the FDA is considered Class II; for both the needles and the fetal-cell kit, we were unable to find price quotes on the Internet. Based on this information alone, these products would seem likely to avoid the tax. However, congressional aides said that the final details about what's covered and not covered remain to be written. One possibility is that all Class II items that are generally sold directly to hospitals or doctors' offices, rather than to consumers directly, could be subject to the tax, even if they cost less than $100. Most likely, the Treasury Department would be responsible for providing final guidance — perhaps even a list of specific items — on which items fall into which category. So it's possible the four items above could eventually be hit by the tax. So Jessup is correct about most of the items she cites: They would be subject to the tax. A few others she cites would not fall under the committee's latest definition for the tax, but the practical details of the bill right now are not yet settled, so it's possible that they will be taxed eventually. We should also add that the tax may not necessarily be included in the final health care bill that will be crafted from the various versions in different committees. But for now, the provision remains part of the Senate Finance bill. On balance, we rate Jessup's assertion Mostly True.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2009-10-09T14:20:10	2009-10-07	['Max_Baucus']
-snes-02963	The government is eliminating a subsidy that helps diabetics acquire blood glucose test strips.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-eliminating-test-strip-subsidy-for-diabetics/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Government Eliminating Test Strip Subsidy for Diabetics?	23 August 2016	None	['None']
-vogo-00645	Fact Check TV: Duncan D. Hunter on 'Hermaphrodites'	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-duncan-d-hunter-on-hermaphrodites/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: Duncan D. Hunter on 'Hermaphrodites'	February 8, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-13217	"Donald Trump's education plan to dramatically slash funding for public education would fire 49,000 Texas teachers."	/texas/statements/2016/oct/20/progress-texas/progress-texas-makes-unfounded-claim-about-donald-/	Sometimes Donald Trump says that if elected president, he’ll eliminate the federal Department of Education. However, that goal wasn’t part of the education plan he laid out last month. So we were curious when Progress Texas, a liberal-leaning education and advocacy group, attributed dire consequences to Trump’s education plan. The group opened a Sept. 20, 2016, blog post: "He doesn't always talk about policy, but when he does -- it's also terrible. Donald Trump's education plan to dramatically slash funding for public education would fire 49,000 Texas teachers." Trump’s plan So, what does Trump want to do? For our part, we confirmed instances of the Republican presidential nominee saying he could shutter or shrink the 4,400-employee, $68 billion education department. The agency, founded in 1980, says it focuses on distributing federal aid, collecting student performance data and ensuring equal access to schools. In Texas of late, federal aid of late covers more than 10 percent of school spending. On Fox News Sunday in October 2015, Trump was asked if he would cut agencies. Trump replied that he favors "local education" and that "I may cut Department of Education." In April 2016 on Fox News’ Hannity, the candidate called the department "massive, and it can be largely eliminated." But Trump also said, "you maybe want to have a little bit of tentacles out there." Then again, Trump’s formal education initiatives, unveiled in September 2016, don’t mention shrinking or eliminating the department, stressing instead his vow to enable children to attend the public, charter or private school of their choice starting by reprioritizing $20 billion in federal funds. Trump didn’t say where the funds would come from; an Education Week news story on his plan said "it's possible he was referring to Title I money for disadvantaged students, funded at about $15.5 billion right now." Also not in the posted plan: Any statement about cutting teachers in any state including Texas, which has more than 320,000 teachers. Texas group cites speculative study When we asked Progress Texas how the group reached its count of 49,000 potentially doomed teachers, Phillip Martin replied by email that the group relied on a report from the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning Washington-based think tank. Worth noting: The report, which came out Sept. 1, 2016--before Trump laid out his education platform--draws from Trump the month before telling a reporter for Circa, a video-centric news service, that "we're going to be cutting the Department of Education big league." Circa's story didn’t quote Trump talking about teachers. But the center’s report states: "To calculate the number of teachers who could potentially lose their job as a result of Trump’s proposal, the author added the most recent average teacher salary by state figures from the National Center for Education Statistics to the representative statistic of costs associated with education and health-services occupations from the Department of Labor. Subsequently, the author divided the total dollar amount each state receives for elementary and secondary education from the Department of Education by the above sum," it says. We clicked through to an education department presentation of state-by-state aid, finding that for fiscal 2016, Texas school districts would receive $3,228,065,364 across 19 program elementary and secondary education categories topped by $1.3 billion in grants to local educational agencies. By phone, the center’s Will Ragland told us the center sought to show what the potential impact would be if all Department of Education funds disappeared; the center reached its figure of 49,045 teachers for Texas by assuming the cut funds would play out entirely in lost teaching jobs--a calculation that we confirmed. "His plan wasn’t very specific," Ragland said. Nationally, federal funds cover about 8 percent of school district budgets and such aid flows to specific programs, such as to benefit low-income students, students with disabilities, computer science programs or early childhood education, according to the Department of Education website. Experts say it's speculation Experts we asked about the center’s teachers-vamoosed conclusion saw flaws. By phone, Lori Taylor, a Texas A&M University associate professor, told us that 70 percent of more than $3 billion in federal education funds spent in Texas in 2014-15 went to payroll. But, Taylor noted, that spending could include all positions, ranging from administrative assistants to speech therapists to teachers. In contract, to get to the center’s 49,000 teacher count, Taylor said, you have to inaccurately assume that 100 percent of federal revenues are spent on teacher payrolls--plus that every penny of it would be eliminated under Trump’s plan. Taylor added that even if Trump moved to shutter the department, it’s unlikely the government would eliminate funding for popular programs that serve low-income children or students with disabilities. "It’s not politically possible," she said by phone. "I believe the estimates are overblown," she said. For out-of-state perspective, we reached Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado. Welner told us by email he doesn’t "fault the authors of that report for trying to come up with estimates like this, but it’s very important to stress that, in doing so, these authors are not just adding flesh to a skeletal proposal – they necessarily have to add most of the bones." "To my knowledge," Welner said, "Trump hasn’t provided any specifics at all concerning what he would actually ‘shred’ in the realm of Department of Education programs... So the report authors had to speculate, which means it’s speculative to conclude that the plan ‘would fire 49,000 Texas teachers.’" Our ruling Progress Texas said Donald Trump’s plan would "fire" 49,000 Texas teachers. This claim rests on Trump diverting a great deal of federal aid--something Trump hasn't said he'll do, far as we can tell. Trump has said he wants to shrink the Department of Education toward more local control. However, he’s offered no specifics on what that would entail. Notably too, the education plan Trump rolled out before this claim surfaced doesn’t mention the agency or intentions of cutting teachers. We find this claim incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3d8f4035-fd42-46f8-b295-b04659918723	None	Progress Texas	None	None	None	2016-10-20T12:39:22	2016-09-20	['Texas']
-pomt-03077	With Obamacare, "we're fixing to get hit with the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/27/saxby-chambliss/saxby-chambliss-says-obamacare-biggest-entitlement/	Part of the argument made by critics of President Barack Obama’s health care law is that the law imposes big financial commitments in perpetuity, particularly for subsidizing health insurance for Americans who otherwise couldn’t afford it. On CNN’s Crossfire, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., argued that the nation simply can’t afford this sort of ongoing entitlement. "We're fixing to get hit with the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen -- $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years," Chambliss said. (For those who aren’t familiar with this particular southernism, "fixing to" means "about to.") Is Obamacare really "the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen"? Comparing spending on entitlements between 2014 and 2023 The term "entitlement" is generally used to describe a program that provides benefits to anyone who meets certain criteria, rather than spending money doled out by Congress on an annual basis. In official budget-speak, it refers to programs deemed "mandatory." When we asked Chambliss’ office where they got the $2.6 trillion figure, a spokeswoman pointed to a calculation by the Senate Budget Committee’s Republican staff. The committee concluded that the cost of Obamacare "will amount to at least $2.6 trillion" over the 10-year period from 2014 to 2023. This calculation has sparked some dissent. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytical arm of Congress, has calculated the gross cost of Obamacare’s coverage provisions at approximately $1.8 trillion over the same 10-year period. These costs include spending on increased payments for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, subsidies for insurance purchased on the newly created marketplaces, and tax credits for small businesses. (The CBO figure would be $1.2 trillion if you exclude Medicaid and CHIP on the theory that they’re expansions of existing entitlements, rather than new entitlements.) In any case, to check the accuracy of Chambliss’ claim, it doesn’t matter whether you use the $1.8 trillion figure or the $2.6 trillion figure, because we found at least three entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- that CBO estimates will have higher costs over the same 10-year period that Chambliss was referring to. • Social Security. According to CBO, the 10-year cost of Social Security -- both old-age benefits and disability payments -- is about $11 trillion. • Medicare: The cost for Medicare, the health program that serves all Americans 65 and older, is estimated to be $8 trillion over the same 10-year period, accoring to CBO. • Medicaid: The federal share of Medicaid, the joint state-federal program to provide health care for low-income Americans, is projected to be $4.3 trillion over the same 10-year period, CBO says. Each of these three programs exceeds even the higher, $2.6 trillion estimate of Obamacare’s costs over the exact same 10-year period. But this isn’t the way Chambliss was looking at it. Chambliss’ rationale Instead, Chambliss’ office said he was referring to the initial estimated costs of those programs when they were launched. The figures cited above for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid "reference today’s outrageous costs of those programs due to many years of expansion," Chambliss’ office said in a statement. "When the American people were first given these three programs, costs were much lower." To back up this assertion, Chambliss’ office provided us with the initial cost estimates for all three programs. The estimate for Medicaid is not precisely comparable, so we’ll focus instead on Social Security and Medicare. For Social Security, we didn’t have figures for all 10 years, but we averaged the 1940, 1945 and 1950 figures and multiplied the results by 10. When we adjusted the cost for inflation, the initial 10-year estimated cost worked out to be about $34 billion in today’s dollars. That’s well below the initial 10-year cost of Obamacare. For Medicare, we did have estimates for Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) between 1966 and 1975, though the estimates for Part B (medical insurance) were not in a comparable form. For Part A, we added up the first 10 years’ estimates, adjusted for inflation, and came up with a total of about $215 billion in today’s dollars. That, too, is well before the first 10 years’ costs of Obamacare. Analysis We don’t think that, for the average viewer, Chambliss’ explanation would be the most obvious understanding of what he said. We think the simplest reading of his claim is that Obamacare is "the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen," without limiting the comparison to initial cost estimates that are decades old. And even if it were, it’s not clear that the comparison Chambliss is making is valid. A somewhat better way to do it is to measure the cost as a percentage of gross domestic product, economists told us. So we took the one-year average for each program’s initial 10-year period, then divided this by the midpoint year’s GDP. (We did not adjust for inflation.) We found that during its first 10 years, Social Security, on average, accounted for 0.1 percent of the 1945-level GDP. The equivalent figure for Medicare, using the 1970 GDP, was 0.3 percent. And for Obamacare, using the Senate Budget Committee Republicans’ number and the CBO’s GDP projection for 2019, it worked out to 1.1 percent of GDP. The percentage is lower if you use the CBO estimate (0.8 percent of GDP) or if you use the CBO figure minus Medicaid (0.5 percent of GDP). In other words, using the GDP-adjusted calculation and conceding Chambliss’ terms, the senator from Georgia has a point. That said, there are still problems with Chambliss’ methodology. While Medicare and Obamacare are both health insurance programs, the cost of medical care has skyrocketed since the mid 1960s. So counting the 10-year costs for any medical program starting in 2014 will inevitably produce a much higher cost than the first 10 years of a medical program that started in 1966. This biases the comparison. Also, Chambliss’ comparison doesn’t factor in population growth. The universe of possible Social Security beneficiaries in 1940 -- those 65 or older -- was just 12 million. By comparison, by 2022, CBO expects 22 million people to obtain insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and an additional 17 million people to obtain insurance through the law’s expansion of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Combined, that’s a universe of beneficiaries three times larger than those who might have qualified for Social Security in 1940. So Chambliss’ comparison is not apples to apples. Our ruling Chambliss said that with Obamacare, "we're fixing to get hit with the biggest entitlement program the American taxpayers have ever seen." Measured by the most obvious standard -- whether there’s ever been a bigger entitlement program -- Obamacare is hardly the biggest. Over the next 10 years, Obamacare ranks no higher than fourth, trailing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If you use a less obvious standard -- restricting it to the initial projected costs for the first 10 years of any entitlement program -- Obamacare does rank as the biggest as a percentage of GDP, though that’s shaped by differences in population growth and medical inflation that make comparisons questionable. We rate his statement Mostly False.	None	Saxby Chambliss	None	None	None	2013-09-27T17:33:41	2013-09-25	['United_States']
-pomt-06811	"Obamacare was patterned after (Mitt Romney's) plan in Massachusetts."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/12/tim-pawlenty/pawlenty-says-obamacare-patterned-after-romneycare/	He calls it "Obamneycare." That's the word that candidate Tim Pawlenty uses to express the similarity between the 2010 national health care law signed by President Barack Obama and the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney. Pawlenty, a former two-term governor of Minnesota, hesitated to push that attack during a debate in June. But with the race for the Republican nomination tightening up, he made the point forcefully at the Aug. 11, 2011, debate in Ames, Iowa. "Obamacare was patterned after Mitt's plan in Massachusetts. And for Mitt or anyone else to say that there aren't substantial similarities or they're not essentially the same plan, it just isn't credible. So that's why I called it Obamneycare, and I think that's a fair label, and I'm happy to call it that again tonight," Pawlenty said. So are the national health plan and the Massachusetts plan that similar? In a word, Yes. We've explored their similarities before in previous fact-checks, when liberals have made similar statements defending the Obama plan against critics who labeled it extreme. We'll review the two plans' similarities again here. • Individual mandate to buy health insurance. Everyone in Massachusetts must purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty; the same goes for the federal plan, though the penalty structures vary between the two. • Employer responsibilities for offering health insurance. Companies with more than 10 employees in Massachusetts need to offer health insurance or else pay a penalty. The federal law sets the bar for companies at 50 employees, though technically the bill isn't quite a mandate. Instead, employers pay fines only if their workers qualify for tax credits to buy insurance. • Health insurance exchanges. Both the Massachusetts and national plans involve the use of voluntary "exchanges" that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase private-sector health insurance. These exchanges are designed to offer a range of plans with different benefits and premium levels. • Affordability subsidies. Under both plans, lower-income individuals and families can receive government subsidies to help them pay their health insurance premiums. In the Massachusetts plan, subsidies are allotted on a sliding scale up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Under the national plan, the sliding-scale subsidies go up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. • Expansion of Medicaid. The Massachusetts plan expands Medicaid to all children up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The federal plan also expands Medicaid, but in a different fashion, offering it to all individuals (not just children) up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. • Insurance market regulation. Both plans restructure the insurance market, in similar but slightly different ways. They handle the individual and small-group markets differently. In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan, while the federal law allows such dependent coverage up to age 26. Still, there are some differences between the federal law and the Massachusetts law. Two of the biggest differences: • Cost containment. Critics of the Massachusetts plan have taken it to task for its lack of cost-containment provisions. The federal law makes changes to Medicare that are intended to lower program costs, such as restructuring how payments are made to Medicare Advantage plans -- the HMO option under Medicare. Since Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address this issue. • Financing. Both the Massachusetts plan and federal law are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the federal law, in addition to cost savings from Medicare, imposes taxes on drugmakers, device manufacturers, health insurers and indoor tanning services. It also taxes high-cost ("Cadillac") health care plans. The Massachusetts plan does not do any of these things. We should note that the plans are so similar, we made a quiz, selecting passages from each plan to see if our readers could tell the difference. (Take the quiz yourself!) Pawlenty said that "Obamacare was patterned after Mitt's plan in Massachusetts." In rating that statement, we noticed that Pawlenty phrased his statement carefully. He didn't say it was the same plan, but instead said that the national law was "patterned" after the Massachusetts law, and they had "substantial similarities." He's correct that the plans, thought not completely identical, are very similar in structure. They both require everyone to have health insurance or pay a penalty; they both leave the current insurance system in place; they both expand coverage for the uninsured through subsidies or Medicaid. Because his statement accurately categorized the plans as similar -- but not exactly the same -- we rate Pawlenty's statement True.	None	Tim Pawlenty	None	None	None	2011-08-12T11:12:11	2011-08-11	['Massachusetts', 'Mitt_Romney']
-goop-00905	Jada Pinkett Smith, Gabrielle Union Feuding Again After Reconciling?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jada-pinkett-smith-gabrielle-union-feud-reconcile/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jada Pinkett Smith, Gabrielle Union Feuding Again After Reconciling?	1:01 pm, May 31, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00614	Kourtney Kardashian Pregnant With Younes Bendjima’s Baby Amid Instagram Drama?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-younes-bendjima-pregnant-baby-instagram/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kourtney Kardashian Pregnant With Younes Bendjima’s Baby Amid Instagram Drama?	11:48 am, July 19, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00024	Sen. Chuck Schumer Had Affair With High School Cheerleader	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chuck-schumer-had-affair-with-high-school-cheerleader/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Chuck Schumer Had Affair With High School Cheerleader	Dec 11, 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00176	Are Taxes Behind High Gas Prices? Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/are-taxes-behind-high-gas-prices-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	Are Taxes Behind High Gas Prices? Fact Check TV	October 22, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-13780	Says "Hillary (Clinton) wants to increase the number (of Syrian refugees) by 500 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/20/newt-gingrich/gingrich-says-clinton-wants-increase-number-syrian/	On the third night of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scoffed at Hillary Clinton’s willingness to accept a substantial amount of refugees from war-torn Syria into the United States. "We know that Hillary Clinton and President Obama lie to the American people when they say they can safely screen the Syrian refugees. They cannot," Gingrich said. "And yet Hillary wants to increase the number by 500 percent. Clinton has been called out on this before — by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. The basis for the claim stems from a Sept. 20, 2015, interview with Clinton on CBS' Face the Nation. Host John Dickerson asked Clinton if President Barack Obama’s plan to increase the number of Syrians allowed in the country to 10,000 was enough. (The United States had accepted about 2,000 by 2015.) Clinton said she would like to see even more refugees allowed into the country — suggesting as much as a 550 percent increase. "Look, we’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II, and I think the United States has to do more," Clinton said, "and I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in." In a speech in December 2015, Clinton said, "It would be a cruel irony indeed if ISIS can force families from their homes and then also prevent them from finding new ones." She also said there had to be vigilant screening and vetting of refugees from Syria and that such process historically takes up to two years. The estimated wait checks out. Gingrich says the government cannot adequately screen Syrian refugees. The refugees admissions process actually involves the FBI as well as the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense and other agencies. FBI director James Comey has said there are challenges and could be gaps in any admissions process of refugees from a conflict zone. However, Gingrich failed to acknowledge the lengthy process before any refugee is admitted into the United States that includes in-person interviews, health screenings and referrals by nongovernmental agencies. (Read more about Syrian refugees in our PolitiFact Sheet.) Our ruling Gingrich said Clinton "wants to increase the number (of Syrian refugees) by 500 percent." Clinton has said she’d like the country to move from 10,000 Syrian refugees under Obama’s plan to 65,000, an increase that could be as high as 550 percent. Gingrich said the United States cannot screen the additional refugees, but that ignores the average screening process of one to two years and involving in-person interviews and NGO referrals. With that caveat, we rate Gingrich’s statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ea5b1b52-e987-468b-9364-7878b1087b5b	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2016-07-20T23:42:19	2016-07-20	['Bill_Clinton', 'Syria']
-afck-00360	“Further Education and Training college enrolments doubled from 345,566 in 2010 to 657,690 in 2012.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/has-the-anc-moved-south-africa-forward-we-examine-key-election-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Has the ANC moved South Africa forward? We examine key claims	2014-04-30 10:32	None	['None']
-snes-01883	A study determined that the active tuberculosis incidence rate for refugees in San Diego was more than 100 times higher than it was in the rest of the United States.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/refugee-tb-rates-in-san-diego/	None	Uncategorized	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Are Refugee Tuberculosis Rates in San Diego ‘More Than 100 Times Greater’ Than the National Average?	17 August 2017	None	['United_States', 'San_Diego']
-pose-01287	"We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.”	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1379/cancel-paris-climate-agreement/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Cancel the Paris climate agreement	2017-01-17T09:08:39	None	['United_States', 'United_Nations']
-pomt-13119	Says Russ Feingold "formed his own political group to pay himself and his staff millions."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/03/republican-party-wisconsin/did-russ-feingold-form-his-own-political-group-pay/	Russ Feingold and his staff were out of work after losing the U.S. Senate election to Ron Johnson in 2010, but many top aides found a soft landing in a pair of political groups Feingold founded. Progressives United Political Action Committee and Progressives United Inc. (a nonprofit organization) debuted shortly after the election and began raising money with promises to stand up to corporate influence in politics. But a GOP radio ad that first aired Oct. 14, 2016 alleges these groups were more about the payroll than the mission. Amid criticism of Feingold fundraising practices, the staged conversation turns to Progressives United. "Get this, he even formed his own political group to pay himself and his staff millions," a woman says. It’s a two-pronged claim that merits investigation. Did Feingold and his staffers really bring in millions of dollars from Progressives United? And do the actions of Progressives United support the claim that they were formed "to" pay the staff? Tallying the salaries The ad refers to a single political group, but Feingold formed two national groups — the PAC and the nonprofit. They "shared staff and resources" but had separate fundraising and activities, according to a description on an archived version of the Progressives United website. Feingold campaign spokesman Michael Tyler told us the PAC’s mission was to support candidates directly and indirectly while the nonprofit focused on issue advocacy, particularly "to stand up against exploding corporate influence caused by Citizens United." Since the groups shared a name, a founder and much of their leadership structure — several top aides from Feingold’s campaign worked at both — we think it’s fair to examine them together. The Progressives United PAC had a payroll of $1.1 million from 2011 until it stopped raising money in 2015, Federal Election Commission records show. The Progressives United nonprofit totaled $1.15 million in salaries from 2011 until it shut down in 2014, according to 990 forms filed with the IRS. So the tally reaches $2.25 million, enough to justify the ad’s claim of "millions." The ad doesn’t specify whether the "staff" in question refers to all Progressives United staff or only those who also worked for Feingold in the Senate or through his campaign. But it’s worth noting the groups overlapped heavily. Longtime Feingold Chief of Staff Mary Irvine was paid $317,823 from 2011-’13 between the two groups before leaving for a job at the state department. She was listed as vice president of the nonprofit. Cole Leystra, currently Feingold’s deputy campaign manager, totaled $291,209 between the groups. He was comptroller of Feingold’s campaign from 2004-’11, then executive director of the nonprofit from 2011-’15, according to his LinkedIn profile. Feingold himself was paid $77,000 by Progressives United. He received $17,500 as a "strategic and organizational management consultant" for the PAC and $59,500 from the nonprofit, where he was listed as president from 2011-’13. Examining the mission The ad claims Progressives United was formed "to" pay Feingold and his staff millions, implying a primary purpose was merely to keep staff employed. Only Feingold knows his motivation for starting the groups, and we can’t fact check intentions. But we can look at outcomes. Financial records for both groups show the majority of money raised went to salaries and administrative costs – several times higher than projected, in the case of the nonprofit. The groups spent a combined $10 million between 2011 and 2015. IRS documents submitted by the Progressives United nonprofit said half of its activities would focus on grassroots organizing, lobbying and education, and about 10% would be administration and fundraising. In reality, the more than half of the group’s expenditures each year fell into the fundraising and management/general categories, peaking at 63% in 2011. The PAC spent even more of its money in those categories. Fundraising, salaries and administrative costs accounted for 88 percent of spending in the 2012 election cycle, 97 percent in the 2014 cycle and 94 percent in the 2016 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Direct donations to candidates were between 2 percent and 7 percent of total expenditures in each two-year cycle. Republicans hold up those numbers as evidence of a shady operation. "This PAC obviously served as a campaign in waiting," said Pat Garrett, spokesman for the Wisconsin GOP. "Look who was on the PAC, look who was on the senate campaign." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel identified nine former Feingold staffers that went on to work for one of the two groups. Likewise, eight Progressives United staffers now work for Feingold’s current campaign, the paper reported in April. There are other connections as well. The Feingold campaign bought the mailing list created by Progressives United PAC and used it to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Progressives United and Feingold’s campaign used the same direct mail, telemarketing and online firms. Paul Jossey, a Republican campaign finance attorney who has previously criticized Tea Party PACs for questionable practices, said the Progressives United PAC was "warehousing his top political staff in plush jobs and building up his email list for his future candidate run." He called the group a "shadow campaign." Tyler, the campaign spokesman, said Progressives United was not a stereotypical PAC that focused on donating large amounts to candidates. He noted similar groups such as Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee also reported minimal donations directly to candidates. Tyler said Progressives United focused on organizing and encouraging donors to give directly to candidates. He said those appeals led to $1.6 million in donations for various candidates. FEC records list $350,000 in direct donations to candidates, and Tyler said the rest were donations through Act Blue, a nonprofit that lets third-party groups like Progressives United set up a page to encourage members to donate directly to specific candidates. When asked for examples of action Progressives United took in support of its mission, Tyler provided a list focused largely on communications. It included a news story where Feingold was quoted on behalf of the group, a number of emails the group sent out and four examples of the group urging members to take action, including signing a petition, contacting the SEC and calling state attorneys general. Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said Progressives United filled a legitimate purpose as one of many groups focused on grassroots organization rather than direct donations. Green’s group also focuses on grassroots efforts. "The real point was to do the hard work of organizing," Green said of Progressives United. "It’s just honestly a degree of old-school political thinking and naiveté about how hard-working organizations are structured to look at a modern day PAC and only judge its work by the checks it cuts." Barry Burden, professor of political science at UW-Madison, said the extensive spending on staff and infrastructure don’t mean Progressives United was a sham, just that it wasn’t overly successful. "My sense is this group probably just didn’t raise as much as Feingold would have liked to spend on candidates, so nearly all of its income went toward either salaries or infrastructure or advertising," Burden said. Our rating A Wisconsin GOP radio ad said Progressives United paid Feingold and his staffers millions of dollars and was formed by Feingold essentially to do just that. IRS and election filings show the payroll did indeed top $2 million between Progressives United PAC and nonprofit, so the numbers are right. But there’s no smoking gun to show the group was formed for the purpose of paying and warehousing staff until the next campaign. Yes, records show the vast majority of money raised by Progressives United went to salaries and overhead — far more than the group itself projected. And yes, there is significant overlap between Feingold’s campaign staff and the leaders of Progressives United. But the ad didn’t allege Progressives United was inefficient or populated with Feingold confidants – it said it was formed "to" pay those staffers millions. And there’s no proof of that. We rate the claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ffb2c4f9-8434-4368-8bbd-73da0180db43	None	Republican Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2016-11-03T12:39:46	2016-10-14	['None']
-peck-00043	Is Kampala Responsible For 60% Of Uganda’s GDP?	https://pesacheck.org/is-kampala-responsible-for-60-of-ugandas-gdp-4dde682263fb	None	None	None	Emma Laura N Kisa	None	Is Kampala Responsible For 60% Of Uganda’s GDP?	Feb 15	None	['None']
-snes-03407	A viral video shows a man punching a kangaroo in the face to save his dog.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-punches-kangaroo-save-dog/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Man Punches Kangaroo to Save Dog	6 December 2016	None	['None']
-goop-00757	George Clooney Still Retired, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/george-clooney-retired-acting-not-true/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	George Clooney Still NOT Retired, Despite Claim From A Year Ago	11:48 am, June 25, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03188	The R.I. Turnpike and Bridge Authority "was supposed to exist only until the bonds used to build the Newport Bridge were paid off through tolls. Once the bonds were paid, the Newport Bridge was to be transferred to the State of Rhode Island and become toll-free."	/rhode-island/statements/2013/sep/01/steven-frias/commentator-steven-frias-says-once-tolls-paid-cons/	One of the most contentious issues of 2013, at least among residents of the eastern half of Rhode Island, is the question of whether there should be a toll on the new Sakonnet River Bridge. In an Aug. 14, 2013, commentary in The Providence Journal, Steven Frias, a lawyer and the state's Republican National Committeeman, argued that Rhode Island should use the revenue from its gasoline tax and motor vehicle fees exclusively to maintain its bridges and roads. We were intrigued by this statement: "When the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority was first created in 1954, it was supposed to exist only until the bonds used to build the Newport Bridge were paid off through tolls. Once the bonds were paid, the Newport Bridge was to be transferred to the State of Rhode Island and become toll-free." The state has always charged a toll on that span, now officially known as the Pell Bridge. We were curious about the accuracy of Frias' characterization. When we contacted Frias, he sent us 34 pages from Chapter 3390, the 1954 act creating the authority. It authorized the construction of the Newport Bridge, the acquisition of the Jamestown Bridge, and the construction of a turnpike for the bridge that could run from Connecticut, through Washington County to the Massachusetts border. It also gave the authority the right to finance, "maintain, repair and operate" any of those projects, along with the ability to issue new bonds and collect tolls of any amount at any and all points along the project. The law is silent about ending tolls on the Newport Bridge, which opened June 28, 1969, although Section 17 dictates that "No tolls shall be charged for traffic over the Jamestown Bridge after December 31, 1970." On that date, the Jamestown Bridge, which has since been replaced, was to become property of the state, without any money being owed on it. Frias, asked about his statement, focused on that section, which also says that once the authority has paid off all its bonds or set aside enough money to cover those bonds, "all other projects financed under the provisions of this act shall be transferred to the state in good condition and repair, and thereupon the authority shall be dissolved . . . " So the law did call for eventually turning everything, including the Newport Bridge, over to the state. But, once again, there is no mention of ending any other tolls. In fact, the law doesn't specifically dictate that the Newport Bridge have a toll. The authority has continued to exist to maintain the bridge, now 44 years old. RITBA chairman David Darlington said the authority currently has about $50 million in bonds that remain to be paid off, and that indebtedness is expected to continue because the state doesn't have the funds to take over and maintain the bridge. (The current bonds mature in 2017.) Frias said his statement is correct because the original legislation makes it clear that the intent was to eventually transfer ownership of the Newport Bridge to the state. The bridge would then have to be toll free, he argued, because the state, at the time, had not given itself the authority to levy tolls on roadways. "This is inherent in the law," he said. "An intent to transfer ownership of a bridge to an entity that has no legal authority to impose tolls, at the time the legislation was first enacted, is an intent to make that bridge a toll-free (bridge)." That strikes us as a stretch, especially when the law specifically talks about transferring the Jamestown Bridge to the state and making it toll free. If the act of transference automatically meant that no tolls could be charged, as Frias asserts, there would be no need to mention ending the Jamestown bridge toll. We also checked with Thomas Evans, the state librarian, who pointed out that the act creating the Mount Hope Bridge Authority, also passed in 1954, also contains language that calls for the project to be turn over to the state AND be toll free after Dec. 31, 1969. (East Bay residents will note that the bridge subsequently carried a toll until 1998.) Frias was not dissuaded. He said it was necessary to specify a date for the Jamestown and Mount Hope bridges to become toll-free because, unlike the Newport Bridge, they were in existence in 1954. "It makes no sense that the Newport Bridge would have a toll on it once it was transferred over to the state," he said. "The state had not given itself legal authority to impose a toll in 1954 (nor has it since then) therefore a bridge owned by the State is synonymous with a bridge that cannot have a toll." Legal interpretations aside, it seems that the public perception at that time was that the Newport Bridge toll would go away eventually. Frias produced a copy of an article in the March 11, 1963, edition of The Evening Bulletin, headlined "Newporters Pressing for Span." Part of it reports on arguments of "the bridge advocates," saying, "And when the new bridge finally was paid for, they add, the state would come into ownership of a valuable property, a toll-free bridge across the East Passage." Darlington said that when he was appointed to the RITBA board in 2002, "My dad said, 'Those tolls were supposed to come off that bridge when it was paid for. It has to be well paid for by now. Go down and get those tolls taken off that bridge.'" "Then, when you find out what it costs to maintain the bridges, the state doesn't have anything like the money that's required," Darlington said. "It's so enormous, and you have to focus on them year after year because if you let a bridge go three, four, or five years, you have to start planning a new bridge. So it's really not practical." Our ruling Steven Frias said that "When the Rhode Island Turnpike and Bridge Authority was first created in 1954, it was supposed to exist only until the bonds used to build the Newport Bridge were paid off through tolls. Once the bonds were paid, the Newport Bridge was to be transferred to the State of Rhode Island and become toll-free." The first sentence accurately characterizes the 1954 legislation. The big question is whether the bridge was supposed to eventually be toll-free. Despite what the public believed and Frias is inferring, there was no mandate in the 1954 legislation to end tolls on the Newport Bridge once the state took ownership. Perhaps other historians have additional evidence that will cause us to rethink our ruling. But for now, while most of Frias' statement is true, the key element regarding tolls on the Newport Bridge is open to serious question. For that reason, we rule it Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Steven Frias	None	None	None	2013-09-01T00:01:00	2013-08-14	['Claiborne_Pell_Newport_Bridge', 'Rhode_Island']
-pomt-11555	"Californians are overwhelmingly against this concept of the illegal sanctuary state."	/california/statements/2018/feb/07/travis-allen/travis-allen-repeats-false-claim-californians-over/	It’s become a well-worn talking point for GOP gubernatorial candidate Travis Allen: ‘Californians overwhelmingly oppose’ sanctuary state policies. The problem? The claim is simply not backed up by the facts. We handed out a False rating when Allen made the assertion on Fox News on Jan. 2, 2018. We found four recent polls that contradicted Allen’s statement. They showed Californians generally favor cities having the ability to declare themselves sanctuaries. Two specifically found greater support than opposition for California’s sanctuary state law, which limits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration holds, under some circumstances. Then Allen made similar claims during a Feb. 1, 2018 interview on Capital Public Radio. "Californians are overwhelmingly against this concept of the illegal sanctuary state, which simply put is sheltering people in this state who are here illegally and committing crimes while they are here with taxpayer dollars. I got to tell you, you walk down the street and ask any Californian, nobody agrees with that idea." One of the top issues in California, he added later in the interview, "is this illegal sanctuary state, which I would tell you the overwhelming majority of Californians disagree with." We examined his recent statements to see if they line up with our past False rating. "I don't care which poll you look at" Allen has pointed to a 2015 UC Berkeley survey to back up his assertion, correctly noting one response in that poll found 74 percent of respondents opposed sanctuary policies. But he continues to dismiss findings in more recent surveys that contradict his claim, including a 2017 poll by the same UC Berkeley group. On Jan. 11, 2018 during a talk at the Public Policy Institute of California, he said, "I don't care which poll you look at, whether it’s a 2015 poll or a 2017 poll, Californians do not believe in sheltering people who are here in the state illegally that are committing crimes while they’re here with taxpayer dollars." Allen's campaign spokeswoman has described the 2015 UC Berkeley poll as "the most accurate and appropriate to use." She has claimed the 2017 poll "was biased" and "adds politics and inaccurate descriptions of sanctuary policies into the poll." Some might take issue with how Allen characterized the law, particularly the idea that the state is sheltering people who are "committing crimes." Even so, 53 percent in the most recent survey on the topic, published in November 2017 by USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times, favored California’s sanctuary state legislation when asked "Do you favor or oppose the new law that says California law enforcement personnel will not hand over immigrants in the country illegally to U.S. immigration agents, unless the person has committed a serious crime?" Twenty-nine percent were opposed. That doesn’t fit with Allen’s claim "nobody agrees with" the policy or that Californians are "overwhelmingly against" it. Ignoring key context We also found Allen’s statements ignores some key context. Here’s more about what the law does and doesn’t do, as outlined by the Los Angeles Times in October 2017 when Gov. Brown signed the sanctuary state law: "The new law will largely prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using either personnel or funds to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents unless those individuals have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crimes outlined in a 2013 state law." "Federal immigration authorities will still be able to work with state corrections officials — a key concession Brown had demanded — and will be able to enter county jails to question immigrants." Our ruling During a recent radio interview, Travis Allen twice repeated the unfounded claim Californians are "overwhelmingly against" the new sanctuary state law. He’s made this assertion numerous times in recent months despite four polls that show a majority, or in some cases a near-majority, of Californians support the sanctuary policies. A past claim on the topic earned Allen a False rating. On these latest statements, we again rated Allen’s claim False. UPDATE: After publication, the Public Policy Institute of California released a new survey, on Feb. 8, 2018, showing 65 percent of California adults, including 58 percent of likely voters, favored local governments making their own policies and taking action separate from the federal government to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in the state. It found 83 percent of Democrats, 53 percent of Independents and 21 percent of Republicans were in favor. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Travis Allen	None	None	None	2018-02-07T14:00:06	2018-02-01	['None']
-clck-00035	world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data	https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/daily-mail-inflates-disagreement-scientists-data-handling-make-unsupported-accusation-data-manipulation/	None	None	None	None	None	Daily Mail inflates data handling disagreement between scientists; makes unsupported “manipulation” accusation	[' Daily Mail, 4 Feb. 2017 \xa0 ']	None	['None']
-pomt-09912	"The ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/02/chain-email/no-aclu-lawsuit-over-cross-shaped-headstones/	We received the following chain e-mail from a reader, who asked us to check it out. "Subject: In Jesus' Name — No! No! "Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely? They're making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the wretched ACLU and our new administration." There's a lot packed into that e-mail, but here, we're checking whether the American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed. We couldn't find any news stories or court cases to support such a claim. We asked the ACLU if they had filed such a suit. No way, said spokesman Will Matthews. "The ACLU has never once advocated for or initiated any litigation in favor of, removing cross-shaped headstones from federal cemeteries," he said in an e-mail. For good measure, he added the ACLU has also not filed suit to stop voluntary prayer in the military, either. Not content with the ACLU's denial, we went to the National Cemetery Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. They are responsible for maintaining the national cemeteries and issuing headstones and markers for deceased military veterans. "To begin with, we don't have cross-shaped headstones at VA national cemeteries," said spokesman Michael Nacincik. The headstones and markers the government issues are rectangular. He also said there was no lawsuit concerning headstones. Family members of the deceased can select an emblem of religious belief to be inscribed on the headstone or marker. Currently, there are 39 different emblems from which to choose. The symbols include different types of crosses, the star of David, the Muslim crescent and star, the Buddhist Wheel of Righteousness, and many others, including symbols for atheists and secular humanists. "Many people choose to have a Christian cross inscribed, but people can choose other symbols, or no symbol at all," Nacincik said. "We're not going to be removing emblems of belief that people have chosen," he added. Those emblems are the closest we could find to the origin of this claim: In 2006, the ACLU helped the families of three deceased veterans sue the National Cemetery Administration to add the Wiccan symbol, a pentagram, to the list of approved emblems. The administration did end up adding the symbol. Believe it or not, we still didn't feel we had exhausted every avenue here, because hadn't we seen photos before of military cemeteries with rows of crosses ? It turns out these cemeteries are mostly in Europe, the final resting place for some of the American troops killed during World War I and World War II. The cemeteries are maintained by the American Battle Monuments Commission, an agency of the executive branch established in 1923. "I'm not aware of any efforts to remove cross-shaped headstones at our site," said Thomas Sole, director of engineering for the commission. Generally speaking, the cemeteries are located at the sites of battles where many troops died. Families had the choice of having the remains repatriated to the United States or being buried overseas. The graves in these cemeteries are marked with crosses or, if the deceased were Jewish, with stars of David, Sole said. The graves of deceased who were neither Christian nor Jewish also are marked by crosses. In the immediate aftermath of a battle, troops would bury their fallen and mark the graves with wooden crosses. "Our marble crosses are a reflection of those temporary wooden crosses," Sole said. Technically, the cemeteries are owned by the foreign country in which they are located, but the land is "given to the U.S. for use in perpetuity as commemorative cemeteries," Sole said. The cemeteries are closed to new interments, even to veterans, except for the remains of any servicemen and women lost during the World Wars that may be found on the battlefields. But just to repeat, Sole said he didn't know about any lawsuits to remove the crosses. So to sum up, the ACLU said it was not suing over that. ("The ACLU believes very deeply in the cherished value of religious freedom, and the right of all Americans to practice the religion of their choosing — or to practice no religion at all — freely and without fear or compulsion," Matthews said.) The U.S. Department of Veterans doesn't know about any lawsuit. And the American Battle Monuments Commission said there is no lawsuit. So we rate this statement Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2009-07-02T16:09:27	2009-06-25	['None']
-pomt-04308	Says she voted against the Medicare Part D prescription drug program "because it was unfunded."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/30/tammy-baldwin/senate-candidate-tammy-baldwin-says-she-voted-agai/	In the political war for a Wisconsin U.S. Senate seat, a key battleground for Republican Tommy Thompson and Democrat Tammy Baldwin is Medicare Part D. Thompson, who was President George W. Bush’s point man in getting Congress to approve Part D, touts the prescription drug program as an important benefit for senior citizens. And he chides Baldwin for voting against it. In an Oct. 24, 2012, meeting with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editors and reporters, Baldwin explained why she voted no. "I want you to know I support strongly Medicare Part D," the Madison congresswoman said, "but I would have paid for it. And that's why I voted no, it was because it was unfunded." Baldwin has been portrayed in the campaign as anything but a fiscal hawk. So, did she really cite the lack of a tax increase or other funding mechanism when she opposed the program? The program and the vote Medicare Part D is an optional insurance program for prescription drugs for people on Medicare. Private insurance companies offer a variety of plans, and recipients choose the plan that's best for them. When the program was created in 2003, the government subsidy to help recipients buy their drugs was estimated to cost $394 billion over 10 years. We’ve rated True a claim by Baldwin that the Part D law, "adopted under Thompson’s watch," bars the government from negotiating for "better prices" on prescription drugs. Thompson’s was Bush’s health and human services secretary at the time. We’ve also rated as Mostly False a Thompson claim that he "had nothing to do" with the clause in Part D that prevents the government from negotiating drug prices for Part D. Baldwin campaign spokesman John Kraus did not respond to our requests for evidence that Baldwin voted against Part D because it was unfunded. But we found a half dozen statements made by Baldwin at the time, which make clear what her quarrel with the measure was when it passed. June 22, 2002: In a statement on the House floor, a year before the initial House vote, Baldwin called the GOP’s Part D bill a "sham," saying senior citizens "need a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that has no gaps or gimmicks in coverage. They need real prescription drug coverage under Medicare." June 28, 2003: After the initial House vote, Baldwin said in a news article in The Capital Times of Madison that she voted against the bill because it would force senior citizens into health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations that, unlike Medicare, limit their choice of doctors. July 21, 2003: Baldwin said in a news releases he voted against the bill because it "creates a gaping hole that fails to cover millions of seniors." She also said there were concerns about the bill leading to the privatization of Medicare. Nov. 21, 2003: In remarks on the House floor prior to the final House vote, Baldwin repeated several of her criticisms, noting the federal government is barred from negotiating drug prices under Part D. Nov. 22, 2003: In an opinion piece for The Capital Times, Baldwin said the GOP bill "offers a meager prescription drug benefit, does nothing to control the skyrocketing price of prescription drugs and begins to dismantle the entire Medicare program." The same day, Baldwin voted against the bill that was signed into law; it passed, 220-215, largely along party lines. Dec. 8, 2003: In a news release on the day Bush signed Medicare Part D, Baldwin made the same criticism she did in the opinion article. In general, Democratic critics complained that expanding the role for private insurers would undermine traditional Medicare. There were also conservative critics, who said the bill didn’t do enough to contain Medicare costs. So, Baldwin at the time cited a host of reasons for voting no -- that the measure left some seniors without coverage, that it undermines traditional Medicare, that it does not control prescription drug costs, that the federal government is barred from negotiating drug prices. But in the statements we found, there was nothing about the bill being "unfunded," which Baldwin now says is the reason for her opposition. Our rating In the heat of the Senate campaign, Baldwin said she voted against the Medicare Part D prescription drug program "because it was unfunded." At the time, Baldwin cited a number of reasons for opposing the program. But we didn’t find any statements about the program being unfunded. Absent any evidence to the contrary, we rate Baldwin’s claim False.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2012-10-30T13:37:42	2012-10-24	['None']
-pomt-05754	The U.S. has a "record number of oil rigs operating right now – more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined."	/florida/statements/2012/mar/01/barack-obama/obama-says-us-has-record-number-oil-rigs-operating/	President Barack Obama came to the University of Miami to talk about energy, and with Republicans attacking him over a recent spike in gas prices, Obama attacked back. "Only in politics do people root for bad news, do they greet bad news so enthusiastically. You pay more; they’re licking their chops," Obama told the college crowd on Feb. 23, 2012. "You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill, and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling," he said. Obama said we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices, but then he touted current production underway. "Now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in America. That’s why under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That’s why we have a record number of oil rigs operating right now – more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined." PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement about production being at an eight-year high as Mostly True. Here, we wanted to explore if the U.S. has a record number of oil rigs in operation and more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined. For this report, we're focusing only on the accuracy of Obama's numbers, not whether his administration gets the credit. We should also note that Obama made similar, though not identical remarks a week later in Nashua, N.H. Here, we're looking at his remarks in Miami. Recent rig counts in the U.S. and abroad To define our terms: A rig rotates the drill pipe from the surface to drill a new well to explore for, develop and produce oil or natural gas, according to Baker Hughes, an oilfield services company. Baker Hughes has done rig counts for decades and does a weekly count of oil and natural gas rigs in the U.S. and Canada. (In fact, when we posed our question to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, they pointed us to Baker Hughes.) According to Baker Hughes, there were 1,994 rigs in the U.S. and 705 in Canada as of Feb. 17, 2012. The company also conducts a monthly census for active drills outside of the U.S. and Canada. In January 2012, that number was 1,171. Using those numbers, Obama is right, but there’s a big catch here: Due to the difficulty of data collection, Baker Hughes does not count rigs drilling in Russia or onshore China. Since Russia and China are such large countries, we contacted experts in the oil industry to ask if including Russia and China could potentially outweigh U.S. rigs. "I personally suspect the international count is higher, but it is difficult to say definitively based on the available information," said Richard Mason, who works for the publication Hart Energy Digital, in an email. "However, the last numbers I saw out of Russia, which are 18 months old, had more than 1,000 rigs active, which would push the international total above the U.S., even without China.’’ Kurt Abraham, executive editor of World Oil, another energy publication, said he also believes the international rig count would be higher if Russia and China were included. He cited a report from a Chinese state-owned company that manufactures rigs and rig equipment that shows more than 1,000 land rigs. So Obama’s statement is supported by collected data, but that data undercounts the true number of international rigs. Historical data on rigs Now, what about the other half of Obama’s claim that we have a "record number of oil rigs"? Obama here is counting only oil rigs, not oil and gas rigs, an important distinction. News reports in February 2012 stated that the U.S. had hit a record number of oil rigs at 1,272, the most since Baker Hughes separated oil rig and gas rig data in 1987. The U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that 2011 was a record year since data was collected solely on oil rigs starting in the late 1980s. The problem here is that much of the data before 1987 combines oil and gas rigs, and some of the counts are much higher than the current total of oil rigs alone. The EIA’s historical rig data shows a high of 4,521 rigs in 1981. Baker Hughes showed a record rig count of 4,530 recorded on Dec. 28, 1981. The experts we consulted said it’s possible that 1981 was the record year for oil rig counts. We reviewed various estimates that suggested that could be the case. "In my mind, 1981 probably was the peak," said Raoul LeBlanc of PFC Energy, a consulting firm to industry and investors. But LeBlanc and other experts said rig counts going back that far can be deceptive. "Those rigs were different rigs than they are today. The ones today are more powerful and can do more and drill more wells and drill them faster," LeBlanc said. Another catch is that the industry arbitrarily assigns rig data to oil or gas; in reality, there can be overlap, with natural gas production coming from oil wells, said Mason of Hart Energy Digital. Finally, strictly comparing the number of rigs doesn’t tell the full picture of how much oil is being produced, said University of Texas Chair of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Tadeusz W Patzek. "If one looks at an average oil and gas well productivity in Texas and elsewhere in the U.S., it has been declining for several years, and this is a clear warning sign that even with more rigs that are more efficient, we will get less incremental oil (and gas) per rig and per day," he wrote in an email. "One prolific offshore well, like the Macondo well, is equivalent to dozens of low productivity wells in the Bakken shale. So one rig in an offshore environment brings as much oil as several rigs onshore.’’ Still, whatever the causes, domestic drilling is definitely on the upswing. "The substance of the president's comments, that we are currently involved in one of the most aggressive efforts to pursue energy production domestically, is a generally accurate description of what's happening in our domestic market," Mason said. Our ruling Obama made two claims here, and neither one is simple to dissect. Obama’s claim that the U.S. has "more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined" is borne out by the best available data. But that data doesn’t tell the full picture because it excludes China and Russia, where getting accurate rig counts is difficult. Obama also said that we have a "record number of oil rigs operating right now." That’s true if Obama starts the clock in 1987, but it’s possible that 1981 may have been the record. Again, we can’t say for sure, because record-keeping is incomplete. He’s right that that the United States is in the midst of a strong effort to increase domestic energy production, but we found evidence that undercuts the literal accuracy of his claims. So we rate this statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-03-01T14:40:45	2012-02-23	['United_States']
-pose-00184	"The United States has maintained a moratorium on testing since 1992. It signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, but it has not been ratified yet. Since the U.S. Senate last considered the treaty in 1999, significant progress has been made in our verification capability to detect nuclear explosions, even at extremely low yields, and to ensure confidence in the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/198/secure-ratification-of-the-comprehensive-test-ban-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)	2010-01-07T13:26:51	None	['United_States', 'Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty']
-para-00192	"Productivity has risen by 10 per cent since the Government came to office."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/05/kevin-rudd/did-labor-deliver-10-cent-productivity-growth/index.html	None	['Economy', 'Productivity']	Kevin Rudd	Jack Fisher, Peter Fray	None	Did Labor deliver 10 per cent productivity growth?	Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 6:24 p.m.	None	['None']
-goop-01335	Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson “Planning $2 Million Wedding,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-tristan-thompson-planning-wedding-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson NOT “Planning $2 Million Wedding,” Despite Reports	1:13 pm, March 22, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10588	"Gasoline would rise in price by approximately 50 cents a gallon" if the McCain-Lieberman bill became law.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/28/mitt-romney/it-might-whack-you--in-20-or-30-years/	Mitt Romney set up camp at a Texaco station in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Monday to take a poke at the McCain-Lieberman bill that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "On a very different topic, we're at a gas station," Romney told reporters. "And the reason for that is that I want to underscore the fact that Senator McCain's McCain-Lieberman (bill) would be a very expensive bill for the people of Florida. By our calculation, a family of four would have to spend about an extra $1,000 a year if McCain-Lieberman became law. And again that's because gasoline would rise in price by approximately 50 cents a gallon and natural gas would rise about 20 percent. The burden on Florida homeowners would obviously be excessive." The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 requires that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 2004 levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020, and 60 percent below 1990 by 2050. It is a so-called cap-and-trade plan because it includes a market-driven plan in which companies that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions can sell emission allowances to other companies struggling to meet required standards. The plan also would provide some support for low-carbon alternative fuels, including nuclear power. We're not taking sides on whether the McCain-Lieberman plan makes economic sense, or even whether it would help to solve global warming. But there's enough research in to judge Romney's numbers. Lots of assumptions go into various projections about the impact of the McCain-Lieberman plan (or any other, for that matter), so you could probably find a study to say about anything. But take a look at the information Romney cites as background material in a press release about his attack on McCain's plan. First off, the Romney camp switches back and forth between analyses of the 2003 and 2007 versions of the McCain-Lieberman plan. For example, it cites an American Council for Capital Formation study that concluded the McCain plan could increase gas prices 30 to 50 cents by 2020. But that was an analysis of the 2003 plan. More on point are two government analyses of the 2007 McCain-Lieberman bill, one by the EPA and the other by the Energy Information Administration, which produces the official energy statistics from the U.S. government. The EPA concluded in July 2007 that if the bill passed, it would increase gasoline prices about 26 cents per gallon by 2030; 68 cents per gallon by 2050. The Energy Information Administration analysis, released in August 2007, concluded the price of gas would increase 34 cents per gallon by 2030. Romney's claim that gas prices would rise 50 cents per gallon is grossly misleading considering these two reports conclude the increase would be 26 cents or 34 cents in 22 years. Romney's projection of the plan costing Florida families $1,000 a year rests on a 50-cent increase. Sure, the projections may come into Romney's wheelhouse in 30 or 40 years, but c'mon. Both plans do, however, suggest that the price of electricity would rise (22 percent according to the EPA projections; 21 percent according to the EIA). But again, that's a projection for 2030. Janet Peace, a senior economist with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, doesn't take issue with either the EPA or EIA projections — based on the assumptions they made — but she argues that the farther out you go in years, the more difficult it is for the government to anticipate energy technology that may significantly alter the picture. The whole idea is to decrease Americans' reliance on fossil fuels through alternative energy sources. Romney's claims didn't give a time frame, but we bet voters would be surprised to hear that he's talking about 20, 30, maybe even 40 years from now. We rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2008-01-28T00:00:00	2008-01-28	['None']
-snes-01005	"The Simpsons" predicted that there would be a mass shooting at a screening of the movie "Black Panther."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-the-simpsons-predict-mass-shooting-at-black-panther-movie-screening/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did ‘The Simpsons’ Predict a Mass Shooting at a ‘Black Panther’ Movie Screening?	16 February 2018	None	['None']
-snes-06099	NASA spent millions of dollars developing an 'astronaut pen' that would work in outer space, while the Soviets fixed the problem much more cheaply and quickly by using pencils.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-write-stuff/	None	Business	None	David Mikkelson	None	NASA’s ‘Astronaut Pen’	19 April 2014	None	['None']
-snes-00233	The cooking instructions on a bacon package advised consumers to "contact your elected officials and complain" if they "don't know how to cook bacon."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bacon-package-cooking-instructions/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does This Photograph Show the Cooking Instructions on a Bacon Package?	10 August 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03870	A video shows a Megaladon Shark at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/50-foot-megalodon-video/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	50-Foot Megalodon Captured on Video	5 October 2016	None	['None']
-goop-00219	Debra Messing, David Schwimmer Dating?	https://www.gossipcop.com/debra-messing-david-schwimmer-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Debra Messing, David Schwimmer Dating?	11:22 am, September 25, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00861	Spider in Oreo Cookie Photograph	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/oreo-cookie-spider.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Spider in Oreo Cookie Photograph	November 7, 2013	None	['None']
-chct-00042	FACT CHECK: Elizabeth Warren Claims That Kavanaugh Refused To Submit To An FBI Investigation Over Sexual Assault Allegations	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/01/fact-check-kavanaugh-refuse-fbi-investigation/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	1:38 PM 10/01/2018	None	['None']
-snes-05858	Law enforcement's search for a prolific counterfeiter of one-dollar bills lasted ten years.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mister-880/	None	Business	None	Snopes Staff	None	Mister 880	10 April 2010	None	['None']
-tron-00650	Charlie Sheen Has HIV	https://www.truthorfiction.com/charlie-sheen-has-hiv/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Charlie Sheen Has HIV	Nov 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05824	President Obama said that "Muslims built the very fabric of our nation."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fabric-nation/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	Obama: ‘Muslims Built the Fabric of Our Nation’	6 March 2015	None	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-01548	Women still do not get paid as much as men, even "for the same work, period."	/georgia/statements/2014/sep/15/connie-stokes/stokes-broadly-right-gender-pay-claim/	With the national implications of Georgia’s U.S. Senate battle and the close battle for governor, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor recently tried to draw some attention to that overshadowed race by highlighting so-called women’s issues. Connie Stokes, one of a handful of female candidates (all Democrats, save for the Libertarian choice for U.S. Senate) for statewide office, mentioned issues such as business, domestic violence and women’s health in a recent fundraising email. Then she referenced an issue that has tripped up candidates all year: the pay gap between men and women. "After serving in the state Senate for 10 years, it saddens me that women still do not get paid as much as men," Stokes wrote. "There appears to be some discrepancy about the difference in the amount of money women are paid compared to men," she continued. "You know It does not matter what the difference is, women are paid less than men for the same work, period. " Democrats from President Obama on down have emphasized the "gender wage gap" all year, in an apparent bid to woo the female voters that tend to favor the party to polls. Stokes would need that turnout and then some to win her uphill battle against Republican Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle for the job that mostly presides over a tantrum-prone state Senate. PolitiFact Georgia, and our PolitiFact national arm, have fact-checked various incarnations of the gender-wage claim before. For example, we gave Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Michelle Nunn a Mostly True rating in April for her statement, "On average, women make 77 cents for every dollar men make." Her qualifier "on average" and broad statement kept the claim on target. By contrast, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter – the grandfather of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jason Carter – earned a Mostly False rating for his statement that, "in the United States for the same exact work for a full-time employee, women get 23 percent less pay than men." In those cases, they were referring to a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau study that examined total wages of male and female workers. Men’s total wages were about 23 percent higher than women’s, the study found. But the gap was due in part to men working more hours, the study concluded. It did not look at pay rates for the same work or the same number of hours. Stokes avoided the specifics of numbers in her statement. And other data backs up her claim of an overall wage gap between men and women. Her claim, however, gets more problematic as she gets more specific. Looking at weekly wages, a 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report found women earned 81 percent of men’s wages for all occupations (Table 18). The gap is smaller than the Census figures, which rely on annual wages and can therefore include pensions, bonuses and other factors that widen the difference. Those different conclusions show the inherent problem with bold statements on a wage gap, especially when referencing specific numbers. Numbers also don’t tell the whole story about the second part of Stokes’ claim, that women are paid less "for the same work." Again, the data overwhelmingly back up the broad claim – but not in every field. The 2011 BLS report shows women actually earn 12 cents more than men in the food preparation/serving industries, 10 cents more as "billing and posting clerks and machine operators" and 5 cents more than men working as store clerks. Yet beyond those three jobs, and looking at broad industry categories, women still earn less than men overall (Table 19). Stokes said that was the point to her statement. "We know the numbers don’t agree because of the variables, but we all know that women are paid less than men," Stokes said. "That’s the bottom line." If the point is women earn less than men, it would be. But the comparisons are not as simple as they seem at first blush. Experts agree on a gender-based wage gap. Yet differences in life choices such as occupational choices and hours worked can make simple comparisons tricky. The gap can narrow, for instance, when accounting for education level and specific jobs. Stokes was on target to cite a gender pay gap. But vastly oversimplifies the "same work" claim -- it does matter what job is being performed. Stokes claim is accurate on one level. But a lot of context is needed to really understand what is going on. We rate her claim Half True.	None	Connie Stokes	None	None	None	2014-09-15T00:00:00	2014-08-27	['None']
-pomt-10630	The church Barack Obama belongs to only admits black people.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/11/chain-email/any-race-may-join-chicago-church/	An anonymous e-mail criticizes the church Barack Obama belongs to: "Notice too what color you will need to be if you want to join Obama's church... B-L-A-C-K!!!" (For more on this e-mail and its claims, read our story here .) Barack Obama belongs to Trinity United Church of Christ, which serves predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Chicago and has a mostly African-American membership. But you do not have to be black to join Trinity. The church, which has been overwhelmed with media inquiries, said in a statement that it welcomes people of all races and has white members. "There's no question (the e-mail) is a distortion," said Martin Marty, a retired Chicago-based historian of religion and public life, who is white and has attended services at Trinity several times. Dwight Hopkins, a professor of divinity at the University of Chicago who attends Trinity and is black, said he also regularly sees a few white people at Trinity. Many churches are ethnically homogenous, but that doesn't mean they require members to be a certain race. We find the e-mail's statement that Trinity United Church of Christ only accepts African-Americans for membership to be False. UPDATE: Barack Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ on May 31, 2008, after church pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. made controversial remarks about U.S. foreign policy and other matters. Obama said he intends to join another church after the election.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-01-11T00:00:00	2008-01-06	['None']
-pomt-09726	The Obama administration notified Poland and the Czech Republic about cancellation of major missile-defense facilities "at the last minute in midnight phone calls."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/23/dick-cheney/cheney-accuses-obama-telling-allies-canceled-proje/	Former Vice President Dick Cheney made news on Oct. 21, 2009, when he accused the White House of "dithering while America's armed forces are in danger" in Afghanistan. That was just one of many fireballs he lobbed at the Obama administration’s policies on Iran, Iraq and the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Cheney also rapped the White House for sloppy diplomacy in its decision to cancel a planned missile-defense radar in the Czech Republic and planned missile interceptors in Poland. The administration decided that the facilities were designed with a less-severe threat – long range missiles – in mind, and that missile-defense efforts should instead be focused on countering short- and medium-range missiles. Work on the missile-defense facilities – which had prompted strenuous opposition from Russia and mixed feelings by residents of the two Eastern European countries – was conceived during the tenure of Cheney and President George W. Bush. So Cheney’s opposition to Obama’s canceling the project was not surprising. However, in his speech, Cheney went beyond the substance of the decision and accused the White House of bumbling diplomatic protocol in making its announcement. "It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls," Cheney told an awards dinner sponsored by the Center for Security Policy, a conservative group. "It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion." In this item, we will try to determine the timing of when the Obama administration told the Czech Republic and Poland of the decision. According to many news accounts, Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer was indeed told shortly after midnight, Warsaw time, on Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009. (That is, indeed, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion.) "Just after midnight I was informed," Fischer said, according to the Independent , a British newspaper. The Russian newspaper Vremya Novostey pinpointed the call to 12:21 in the morning. A call received at 12:21 a.m. in Warsaw would have been placed six hours earlier – 6:21 p.m. in Washington. News of the decision began to leak out the following morning, Washington time. CNN, for example, reported the decision in its 9 a.m. block of CNN Newsroom . Obama announced it at 10:21 a.m. in a brief address in the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room. So, the time between Obama’s call to Fischer and the formal White House announcement was about 16 hours, most of which was nighttime in one country or the other. Pinning down the time that Obama contacted Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is a little trickier. According to Agence France Presse , the Czech leader said that Poland "had been informed in the same way" as he himself had been. But the Russian paper, Vremya Novostey , citing "Polish news media reports," said that a "technical" glitch prevented Obama from speaking to Tusk late Wednesday night, so the conversation "took place only [on Thursday] afternoon." (We presume that is Warsaw time.) If Obama did finally make personal contact with Tusk that late, it still would have been before the formal White House announcement, though barely. The White House declined to provide additional details about the timing. By way of context, it’s worth noting that the announcement was not exactly a surprise. After Obama's announcement, Fischer himself said that "we knew the United States was reviewing its plan to build the radar ... within a reassessment of specific threats, and that one option might be to give up the plan to build the radar," according to Agence France Presse . "The threats now rest in short- and medium-range missiles, not long-range ones. The American side decided this was the most serious threat and this is their reaction." It's not clear why the White House chose to make the announcement when it did. Obama still had six days left if he wanted to get the news out before world leaders arrived in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Asked by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, at a Senate Armed Services hearing whether the announcement could have been handled any better, undersecretary of defense Michele Flournoy blamed leak-fueled speculation. ''We too would have preferred a longer period for consultation and rollout, but leaks and speculation in the press sort of forced us to go sooner to set the record straight,'' she said. As for Cheney's statement, he's definitely right about Fischer, the Czech leader, being contacted about midnight. And although there is a discrepency about the time of the final notification for Poland, the reports indicate that Obama first tried about midnight. So we find Cheney's claim to be True.	None	Dick Cheney	None	None	None	2009-10-23T19:02:30	2009-10-21	['Czech_Republic', 'Poland', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-00599	The Texas Senate "approved a bill to put a special label on the insurance cards of anyone who bought a plan through Obamacare" that includes the letter "S" for subsidy.	/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/03/al-sharpton/sharpton-texas-lawmakers-want-insurance-cards-carr/	MSNBC host Al Sharpton accused Texas Republicans of trying to slap a "scarlet letter" on people who use private health insurance under Obamacare. "The Texas Senate just approved a bill to put a special label on the insurance cards of anyone who bought a plan through Obamacare," Sharpton said on PoliticsNation on May 29. "But if those labels weren't absurd enough, anyone who receives financial assistance for insurance would have a letter 'S' on the cards, too. 'S' for subsidy." Sharpton said critics of the move worry that it might lead hospitals and doctors to turn away patients who use tax credits to make their insurance more affordable. We wondered: Did the Texas Senate approve a new ID card that includes an "S" for subsidized Obamacare plans? The missing 'S' The bill in question, HB 1514, started in the Texas House. The original language indeed included reference to the letter "S." Here’s that text: An identification card or other similar document issued by a qualified health plan issuer to an enrollee of a qualified health plan in this state must ,... display on the card or document in a location of the issuer’s choice: (1) The acronym "QHP"; or (2) If the enrollee receives advance payment of the premium tax credit, the acronym "QHP-S". The bill’s language is in government-speak, but basically any enrollee in a qualified health plan (more on that in a bit) who gets a premium tax credit through the federal health care exchange would receive a card that includes the letter "S." That would be a clear cue to a doctor or hospital that a person’s health insurance is being subsidized by the federal government. But before the bill passed the House (by a vote of 129 to 8 margin) on May 11, that language was amended. The revised bill dropped the letter S. Here’s the text the Senate passed on May 26, 2015: An identification card or other similar document issued by a qualified health plan issuer to an enrollee of a qualified health plan purchased through an exchange must... display on the card or document in a location of the issuer’s choice the acronym "QHP." So Sharpton was more than two weeks out of date. The Texas bill requires that insurance through the online exchange be labeled as such, but the precise identification of those who use the federal tax credits is not part of the bill. An MSNBC spokeswoman said Sharpton would address this issue on his June 3 show. What the QHP label tells providers So all plans purchased through the federal exchange -- whether they include a subsidy or not -- would have ID cards marked QHP. Why is that? Hospitals and doctors say the issue is that people who buy their insurance through the federal government’s exchange have 90 days to stay current with their premiums. That’s two months longer than the industry standard. If a patient goes to the hospital during the first month that they have failed to pay, even if they never pay another dime of their premium, the insurance company will cover the cost. But for care given in the second and third months, federal law allows the insurance companies to make the providers pick up the tab retroactively. That’s what the providers want to avoid. The Texas Medical Association, the Texas Hospital Association, the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, and other trade groups supported the bill. Neurologist Sara Austin, a medical association member, testified that seeing the QHP designation would create a teachable moment with such patients. It would be an "opportunity to stress the importance of continuing to pay their portion of the premium that is not subsidized by the federal government," she said. Austin said the change would reduce the number of times that providers have to go after patients to collect on a bill. But it’s unclear how much the current bill will accomplish. Sabrina Corlette, director of Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms, thinks it won’t do much. "That label wouldn't tell a provider whether the patient is actually in the grace period," Corlette said. "It also doesn't tell the provider whether the patient is subsidy eligible. So I wouldn't think it provides much in the way of useful information." However, Corlette said there is a possibility that the QHP label might prompt providers to call insurance companies before they provide care, rather than afterward. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 85 percent of plans purchased through the federal exchange in Texas receive a tax subsidy. There’s also room for a tug-of-war between the providers and insurers. Federal regulations require the insurance companies to put hospitals and doctors on notice when there is a possibility that claims might be denied because the patient is in the second or third month of the grace period. In other words, under existing law, the providers have another option to seeking collection from the patient who fails to pay his premiums. They can go after the insurance companies. Our ruling Sharpton said that the Texas bill would add a label to insurance cards for coverage purchased through the federal exchanges and that people receiving a subsidy would see the letter "S" on their insurance card. That provision was dropped more than two weeks before Sharpton said it. The bill that passed the Legislature and has been sent to the governor would add the letters QHP to any insurance card tied to a health care plan on the federal exchange. But it wouldn’t differentiate between those purchased with or without a federal tax credit. Special label? Yes. Scarlet "S"? No. Sharpton’s claim rates Mostly False.	None	Al Sharpton	None	None	None	2015-06-03T17:35:20	2015-05-29	['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Texas_Senate']
-tron-03246	NY Times Predicted Bail Out in 1999	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nyt-fannie-mae-clinton-1999/	None	politics	None	None	None	NY Times Predicted Bail Out in 1999	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01690	"If 20 million illegals vote, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/14/joe-miller/granting-illegal-immigrants-amnesty-will-destroy-s/	Joe Miller thinks there’s an obvious link between illegal immigrants and the Second Amendment. In a recent mailer to Alaskans, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate touts a record that is "100 percent pro-gun" and "100 percent against amnesty." And, he says he’s the only candidate with endorsements from various pro-gun groups. Alaska’s Republican primary is next Tuesday, and Miller is trailing far behind his opponents Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan (the leader) in the latest polls. Whoever wins will face off against incumbent Democrat Mark Begich. He says Begich wants to give amnesty and the right to vote to illegal immigrants currently living in the United States, and this is bad for the country’s gun rights. (Both Begich and Alaska’s other senator, Lisa Murkowski, voted for the Senate’s immigration reform bill.) "If 20 million illegals vote, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye," the mailer says. We thought drawing a connection between illegal immigration and the right to bear arms was dubious, so we decided to dig into it. Understanding the amendment First, some background on the Second Amendment and how it’s interpreted: The amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So the Second Amendment ensures that Americans are born with a certain amount of gun freedom. How courts have interpreted the text, though, is important. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia vs. Heller that an individual who is not part of a militia has the right to own a weapon. Additionally, the court said the amendment permits individuals to use the guns for legal purposes, like self defense in their homes. Two years later, the court ruled that these rights also apply to the states. But the Heller decision does not necessarily mean a person can own a gun of any type for any purpose. The court has approved gun regulations, such as the decision this year that upheld a ban on "straw purchases" (one person buying a gun for someone else). In sum, the court believes the Second Amendment means individuals have the right to own guns, with limited regulations. If 20 million people who all leaned one way or another on gun control were suddenly injected into the population, the surge could change the country’s political make-up and tip the balance in favor of Americans that support stricter gun laws, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Under this scenario, he said, the country would elect politicians that support stricter gun laws, and those politicians would nominate Supreme Court judges who reflect their own views. These judges could reinterpret the Second Amendment as restricting gun ownership, and the right to bear arms as we currently understand it would disappear over time. This is also how the Miller campaign explained to us how immigration and gun rights are connected. However, the mailer does not say that the current understanding of the Second Amendment would disappear, it says the amendment would disappear altogether. Could that happen? ‘If pigs could fly’ Every scholar we spoke with agreed that it’s ridiculous to think that the Second Amendment could be removed from the Constitution under any circumstances -- let alone because of immigrants. "If pigs could fly, would it change air travel?" said Adam Winkler, also a UCLA law professor. "I guess it might, but it’s hard to imagine the premise." First of all, citizens (and undocumented immigrants) cannot vote on a change to the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is a laborious process that requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states to approve the change. With the current population, this would be nearly impossible, considering that only 25 percent of the country believes that there should be a law banning gun ownership except for police and other authorized individuals, according to a Gallup poll from October 2013. And just around 50 percent of the country thinks there shouldn’t be control over gun ownership, according to a February Pew study. The addition of 20 million new voters -- a population of about 6 percent -- of any ideological persuasion is unlikely to make a dent, said Clark Neily, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. Additionally, there are about 12 million -- not 20 million -- illegal immigrants currently living in the United States, according to the latest estimates by Pew. (Alaska alone had fewer than 50 illegal immigrant households in 2010.) Of these illegal immigrants, about 60 percent of them are concentrated in just six states -- far fewer than the 38 states that would be needed to approve a change to the Constitution. It’s fair, though, for Miller to imply that illegal immigrants might be more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans, Neily said. They are a predominantly Hispanic group, and Hispanics tend to align with Democrats. (In fact, a 2013 Pew study found that illegal immigrants strongly lean toward the Democratic Party.) America’s Hispanic community tends to be in favor of more gun restrictions. A recent Pew poll on political polarization found that 70 percent support controlling gun ownership, but that still leaves about 30 percent that prefer less control over gun ownership. If the primarily Hispanic illegal immigrants reflect this group, far fewer than 20 million would support scrapping the Second Amendment. At Republican primary debates recently, Miller explained why he thinks illegal immigrants would be more likely to support gun restrictions. "There’s a clear correlation, and the clear correlation is this: If you end up granting amnesty to those who don’t value gun rights, who have not been raised in an environment where the Second Amendment is cherished -- is considered to be a God-given right -- the reality is over a generation or two, the likelihood is very strong that the Second Amendment will not be here," he said, according to Alaska Dispatch News. Even though it’s plausible immigrants could bring their cultural beliefs to the United States, it’s also likely that American culture -- which is overwhelmingly in favor of the Second Amendment -- would rub off on them, said Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Our ruling Miller said, "If 20 million illegals vote, you can kiss the Second Amendment goodbye." We found that it would be nearly impossible to remove the Second Amendment from the Constitution, given the country’s ideological make-up, and adding a voting bloc of 20 million would be unlikely to change that -- regardless of their political persuasions. However, it’s possible that adding 20 million new voters who lean Democrat could result in stricter gun control laws. Miller’s mailer muddies the waters, because increasing gun ownership regulations is not the same thing as scrapping the Second Amendment entirely. The ad is wrong when it suggests 20 million voters can repeal part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. We rate it False.	None	Joe Miller	None	None	None	2014-08-14T11:19:02	2014-08-09	['None']
-pomt-05927	Siemens has been unable to fill approximately 200 skilled trade positions in metro Atlanta.	/georgia/statements/2012/jan/30/nathan-deal/deal-tech-company-needs-200-skilled-trade-workers/	Think twice about going to a four-year college, young Georgians. Gov. Nathan Deal wants you to Go Build. People are struggling to find work in today’s jobs-poor economy, Deal said Jan. 10 as he outlined his 2012 agenda during the governor’s yearly State of the State address. Yet jobs are abundant in skilled trades, which don’t require four-year degrees. Deal’s solution: Go Build Georgia, a major jobs and education initiative that makes students aware of skilled trades and helps train them. "Right here in metro Atlanta, Siemens has been unable to fill approximately 200 skilled trade positions in the fields of manufacturing automation, health care technology, transportation systems and technical service," Deal said. They’re having trouble filling 200 open positions? Right here in metro Atlanta? The state’s unemployment rate is stuck near 10 percent. Please, tell us more, we asked the governor’s office. "Skilled trade" positions are jobs that don’t require a bachelor’s degree but do require specialized knowledge and training. They include commercial construction workers, pipe fitters, draftsmen and electricians. A governor’s office spokeswoman referred us to Siemens for more details about the positions. The company posts job openings on its website. Some 130 positions were listed for Siemens’ locations in Alpharetta, Atlanta, Norcross and five other locations in the metro area. This number was short of Deal’s estimate by about 70 positions. Siemens spokeswoman Camille Johnston said that is because not all open jobs are posted. Some are only advertised within the company. Other listings are taken off the website if they have enough candidates. A few have one listing but multiple openings. A difference of 70 positions seemed high to us, but her explanations did not seem unreasonable. We opted to take them at face value. Then we pored over the online listings. For the most part, they did not advertise positions in the skilled trades. More than 60 percent explicitly required at least a four-year degree, and many of these listings sought candidates with majors in science or technology. One posting was for an attorney. Even positions that appeared open to candidates without bachelor’s degrees favored employees with four-year degrees or were typically held by people with four-year degrees, according to the listings. One preferred candidates with a Master of Business Administration or other post-graduate degree. In fact, we found only 12 posted listings that did not require or favor candidates without bachelor’s degrees. That’s about 10 percent of the online jobs listings. Most of them were squarely in the "skilled trade" category. For instance, two were for heating, ventilation and air conditioning workers. One was for a draftsman, and three sought field service workers. Two of them were not. One Atlanta position was for a training assistant who would handle tasks such as billing and scheduling. Another was for an administrative assistant in Roswell. We emailed and called Siemens to ask why most of the listed positions were not for skilled trade workers, but we received no response. Deal spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield said that regardless of the actual numbers, the state needs skilled workers, and the governor’s office is glad Siemens offered to work with Georgia to solve this problem. Siemens may be struggling to fill some 200 jobs in metro Atlanta, but the overwhelming majority are not skilled trade positions as Deal claimed. They’re geared to candidates with bachelor’s or post-graduate degrees. We rule Deal’s statement False.	None	Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2012-01-30T06:00:00	2012-01-10	['Atlanta']
-pomt-04705	Says Milken Institute rated San Antonio as nation’s top-performing local economy.	/texas/statements/2012/sep/04/julian-castro/julian-castro-says-milken-institute-named-san-anto/	Second-term San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro did not shy from celebrating his hometown during his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. Addressing the delegates assembled in Charlotte, N.C., Castro said that San Antonio residents recognize the value of investing in pre-Kindergarten and student college loans. "We're investing in young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorow," Castro said. "And it's paying off. Last year the Milken Institute ranked San Antonio as the nation's top-performing local economy." Castro made the same claim in his keynote at the Texas Democratic Party convention. In that June 8, 2012, speech -- which we’ve previously dipped into twice -- Julián Castro said his city’s investments in infrastructure and education paid off "late last year when San Antonio was ranked as the top-performing local economy by the Milken Institute." Indeed, we confirmed, San Antonio topped Milken’s 2011 list of the nation’s best-performing large metropolitan areas, rocketing up from 14th place the year before. Its rise is part of a recent trend in which Texas cities have dominated the list as the nation recovers from the 2007-09 recession. The economic think tank’s annual list, which Milken spokesman Conrad Kiechel told us by phone has been issued in its current form for "more than a decade," was described in a Dec. 30, 2011, Texas Tribune news story as "a ranking that measures American metropolitan areas based on their ability to create and sustain jobs." Milken’s 2011 report on the best-performing cities says the index gives priority to job and pay gains, then some weight to several technology measures in relation to national averages: the local growth in high-tech gross domestic product, the concentration of tech industries and how many of 25 specific tech industries are concentrated there. Some measures are weighed across five-year spans, to flatten out extreme swings, and the most recent year, "to capture recent momentum." In recent years, the Tribune said, "companies have flocked to San Antonio, making it an economic center rivaling Houston and Dallas." In contrast to those cities, though, "San Antonio has attracted high-wage jobs, capitalizing on its booming medical research industry." The Tribune story said InCube and Medtronic were the latest bioscience companies to move to San Antonio, which was already home to global headquarters for Valero Energy, Clear Channel Communications, USAA insurers and the H-E-B grocery chain. The San Antonio Express-News credited the city’s rise to reasons "including military base realignment, drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale and the growth of health care" in a Dec. 16, 2011, news story. Texas cities held four of the top five spots on Milken’s 2011 big-cities list, with Austin/Round Rock at fourth. Back in 2008, Austin was Texas’ only top-five city, but the state claimed most of those slots in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The other chart-toppers for 2011 were No. 2, El Paso; No. 3, Fort Collins/Loveland, Colo.; and No. 5, Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood. Texas’ rise in the ranks, the Express-News wrote, came partly because of downturns in other parts of the country. The story quoted research economist James Gaines of Texas A&M University’s Real Estate Center: "Our growth rate and advancement isn't all that wonderful. We've managed to stay flat or have very small positives. But because everybody has so many negatives, we look so much better." A Philadelphia Inquirer columnist interviewed Milken’s chief research officer, Ross DeVol, and wrote Dec. 16, 2011 that "Technology and energy explain why nine Texas cities placed in the top 25 of the 2011 Milken ranking." Our ruling San Antonio hasn’t just been holding steady in the economic downturn; it’s been gaining ground, even compared to other Texas cities. Castro’s statement rates True.	None	Julián Castro	None	None	None	2012-09-04T21:18:20	2012-09-04	['San_Antonio']
-pomt-06904	"When the Republicans were in charge, they actually expanded government health care with the prescription drug program."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/25/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-when-republicans-were-power-they-exp/	Years before "Obamacare," congressional Republicans saw political gold in expanding government's role in health care by adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul says the "Part D" drug benefit is a reminder that the GOP sometimes can't resist the temptation of big government. "I'm not all that optimistic (about repealing the Democratic health care law) because when we did have the chance, when the Republicans were in charge, they actually expanded government health care with the prescription drug program," Paul said in a July 16, 2011, interview with the Nashua Telegraph in Derry, New Hampshire. "We've got a long way to go on that." Because memories can be short, we thought it would be worthwhile to explore whether Paul was right that the GOP was responsible for such a big increase in government. A bit of background: The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was an effort by President George W. Bush in his first term to address a major gap in the senior citizen health care program -- a lack of drug coverage. Bush's political advisers saw the drug plan as a way for Bush to broaden his appeal with seniors. Early on, the drug benefit had bipartisan support, although many Democrats later abandoned the effort, saying it provided too big a handout to the pharmaceutical industry without requiring enough competition. A check of the rolls confirmed that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress at the time of the vote in 2003 and that the bill passed with strong GOP support. According to voting records, the GOP held a 229 to 205 majority in the House at the time of the Nov. 22 vote, and of the 229 Republicans, 204 voted in favor. Across the hall in the Senate, Republicans held a 51 to 48 majority on Nov. 25 when 42 of the 51 GOP Senators supported the bill. Nine Republican Senators voted against. In the Senate, only 11 of 47 Democrats approved the bill, with 36 against and two abstaining. And, in the House, only 16 Democrats voted in favor, with 185 against. Of the current presidential field, Paul voted against the bill, while then-U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, voted in favor. (We recently checked his claim that the program was coming in below projections.) The bill had roots in previous Democratic proposals, said Jack Hoadley, a policy analyst at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. But "the version of the drug benefit that passed was certainly the Republican approach -- competing private plans, no government regulation," Hoadley said. "There wasn't a lot of compromising." So Paul is right about the Republicans being the driving force. And how much did it expand government? Hugely. The new drug benefit was used by 34.5 million beneficiaries in 2010, and that number is projected to reach 40.5 million in 2015. (Most were already enrolled in Medicare.) Through 2010, Medicare Part D had cost $203 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The program is expected to cost another $391 billion through 2015, according to CBO projections. "It was certainly not the first time that Congress tried to improve the system of private plans within Medicare. But it’s fair to say with the addition of the drug benefit, it was the biggest expansion of the program since the beginning," said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group. "(It) was filling a major gap that existed since the beginning of the program," he said. "That was a real, fundamental change." Our ruling: So Paul is right on both counts. It was a Republican bill that passed with strong Republican support. And it dramatically increased government. We rate his statement True.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2011-07-25T17:48:34	2011-07-16	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pose-00443	"The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards, which has cost American consumers millions of dollars in unrealized energy savings. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will overhaul this process for appliances and provide more resources to his Department of Energy so it implements regular updates for efficiency standards. They will also work with Congress to ensure that it continues to play a key role in improving our national efficiency codes."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/463/require-more-energy-efficient-appliances/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Require more energy-efficient appliances	2010-01-07T13:26:59	None	['United_States', 'United_States_Congress', 'Joe_Biden', 'Barack_Obama', 'United_States_Department_of_Energy']
-pomt-12679	"The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."	/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/	Speaking at an event in Chicago earlier this month, U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., was talking tax policy and the economy when he pointed to lackluster economic growth that occurred under former President Barack Obama. "The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth," Roskam said during a March 6 speech at the City Club of Chicago. It’s an oft-cited figure Republicans tend to throw around to highlight the weak economic recovery throughout Obama’s presidency, but does the data back it up? A familiar claim Roskam’s claim lacks some specifics, particularly the type of growth and time frame he was referring to in his speech. David Pasch, the Wheaton Republican’s communications director, provided a link to data compiled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing both the annual and quarterly percentage change in real gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the total value of goods and services provided in the country. While annual figures on GDP growth date back to the Herbert Hoover administration and the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the federal government did not start tracking quarterly growth until 1947. Considering the time frame for which this annual data is available, it’s safe to assume Roskam was referring to economic growth since the Hoover administration. In fact, Roskam’s claim is quite similar to a statement Donald Trump made during a campaign speech in October, which was fact-checked by our colleague Joshua Gillin at PolitiFact Florida. As was the case with Trump’s claim, Roskam is right when he says that year-over-year GDP growth never topped 3 percent while Obama was in office. But as Princeton University economist Alan Blinder told PolitiFact at the time, looking at annual data can be misleading because it doesn’t provide context or account for historical factors that affect economic growth, such as recessions and global crises. For example, Hoover came into office on the cusp of the Great Depression, and Obama took over during the tail end of the Great Recession and amid instability in the Middle East. That’s one of the main reasons why economists suggest looking at the percentage change in GDP by quarters, rather than growth in a single calendar year. When PolitiFact Florida fact-checked Trump saying Obama was the first president "in modern history not to have a single year of 3 percent growth," data for the third and fourth quarters of 2016 was not yet available. But now it is. GDP growth in 2016 and the Obama years According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percentage change in GDP growth during the third and fourth quarters of the last year of Obama’s final term was 3.5 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, resulting in an average growth rate of 1.6 percent for 2016. That was down 1 percentage point from 2015 when GDP grew by 2.6 percent, which marked the best year for average growth under Obama. Typically, economic growth in the first quarter of a new presidency is attributed to the previous administration, meaning former President George W. Bush gets credit for the 5.4 percent contraction in the economy during the first three months of 2009. As for the remainder of Obama’s time in office, quarterly GDP growth averaged 2.0 percent, or 1.5 percent when averaging out annual figures. But if the data is used to compare one quarter to the same quarter from a year ago, there were two periods during Obama’s tenure in which growth exceeded 3 percent. Between the third quarters of 2009 and 2010, GDP growth was about 3.1 percent; and between the first quarters of 2014 and 2015, the economy grew by 3.3 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With the way Roskam refers to growth, however, Obama indeed was the first president who did not achieve more than 3 percent growth in GDP. Average growth under Bush Sr., was 2.1 percent; 3.9 percent for Bill Clinton; 2.3 percent for George H.W. Bush; and 3.5 percent for Ronald Reagan. The highest annual growth on record occurred in 1942 during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, when GDP grew by a staggering 18.9 percent as the United States entered World War II and ramped up production following the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor. Our ruling Roskam said the Obama "administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth." While Roskam’s claim is accurate when based on annual GDP growth figures between 2009 and 2016, there are other ways to look at the data, such as from one quarter to the same in the previous year. Doing so reveals economic growth has surpassed 3 percent during two periods of Obama’s presidency. We rate Roskam’s claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Peter Roskam	None	None	None	2017-03-16T15:04:57	2017-03-06	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-07643	"Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high" in 2010.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-gulf-oil-production-hit-record-l/	In his press conference on March 11, 2011, President Barack Obama talked up U.S. oil production against a backdrop of higher prices at the pump. "We need to continue to boost domestic production of oil and gas, "he said. "Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Let me repeat that. Our oil production reached its highest level in seven years. Oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high. For the first time in more than a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed. So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn’t match up with reality," In this item, we’ll check the second bit of evidence to support his contention that his administration hasn’t "shut down" oil production -- that "oil production from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico reached an all-time high." As we did in our other fact-checks of the president’s press conference comments, we turned to the Energy Information Administration, the federal government’s official office for energy statistics. Since Obama said "oil production," we will only look at oil, rather than natural gas or other petroleum products, and since he said, "federal waters," we will ignore production from state waters. The agency’s data goes back to 1981. Here are the annual figures for Gulf production in barrels per day. 1981: 719,000 1982: 786,000 1983: 876,000 1984: 956,000 1985: 941,000 1986: 960,000 1987: 892,000 1988: 818,000 1989: 764,000 1990: 739,000 1991: 799,000 1992: 822,000 1993: 825,000 1994: 860,000 1995: 943,000 1996: 1,021,000 1997: 1,129,000 1998: 1,228,000 1999: 1,354,000 2000: 1,430,000 2001: 1,536,000 2002: 1,556,000 2003: 1,559,000 2004: 1,453,000 2005: 1,282,000 2006: 1,299,000 2007: 1,277,000 2008: 1,152,000 2009: 1,559,000 2010: 1,640,000 (estimate) So the president is right -- 2010 was the highest ever. But some critics say that isn’t the whole story. After the Deepwater Horizon oil spill began in April 2010, the federal government allowed existing wells in the Gulf to continue production but imposed a moratorium on new drilling. While that moratorium has now been lifted, it slowed production, as output began to decrease at old wells and new ones were not on line yet to pick up the slack. Critics say the administration has slow-walked new applications -- a perception Obama challenged at the press conference by arguing that his administration is simply demanding "common-sense standards like proving that companies can actually contain an underwater spill." We won’t assess whether the permit approval rate is slower than it ought to be, but the oil-production numbers do tell a story. In May 2010, production in the Gulf peaked and then continued to decline for the rest of the year. And the Energy Information Agency expects this decline to continue for at least two years more -- by about 240,000 barrels per day in 2011 and by an additional 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. "Since there is a lag time from the time an exploration permit is approved to the time of actual production, and since only a handful of permits for new wells have been granted since April of 2010, it is likely that Gulf of Mexico production will continue to be hit hard in 2012 and beyond," wrote Kyle Isakower, the vice president of regulatory and economic policy at the American Petroleum Institute, in a recent blog post. In an interview with PolitiFact, Isakower added that "while the administration is correct" in its statistics, EIA found that "Gulf production peaked in May of 2010, due in large part to permits awarded three or more years earlier, and has been decreasing ever since. This matters because markets don’t look backward, they look forward." We think that’s a fair point. Obama is indeed correct about the record-high levels of Gulf oil production in 2010. However, he ignores a downward trend that began in 2010 and that is projected to fall further over at least the next two years. We think it’s problematic to use the record-setting statistic to buttress the notion that Gulf oil production is on a healthy trendline. On balance, we rate Obama’s statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-03-15T11:53:55	2011-03-11	['None']
-faan-00061	 “Sexual violence and exploitation of children unfortunately is on the rise.”	http://factscan.ca/peter-mackay-sexual-violence-on-the-rise/	Incidence of reported sexual violence and exploitation of children is on the rise. Not all forms of this crime are rising – some are in fact falling – but on the whole, the trend line is up. Statistics Canada notes the number of police-reported sexual violations against children marked “one of the few categories of violent violations to increase from the previous year.” Police-reported is a key term here, since a spike in reporting doesn’t always mean a spike in actual crime. 	None	Peter MacKay	None	None	None	2015-09-02	June 20, 2015	['None']
-pomt-09847	Republicans Chuck Grassley, John Boehner and John Mica flip-flopped on providing end-of-life counseling for the elderly.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/17/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-republicans-chuck-grassley-john/	We've had to set the Truth-O-Meter on fire in the past several weeks because of the ridiculously false claims about end-of-life counseling in the health care reform bill. So it looked like a real gotcha when bloggers dug up what appeared to be hypocrisy – that a number of Republicans who have recently harrumphed about end-of-life consultations in the health care bill had voted for something similar in the 2003 Medicare drug bill. This was MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s take on this discovery: "As we have reported recently, many Republican officials have enthusiastically embraced the conspiracy theory that health care reform is a secret plot to kill old people," Maddow told viewers. "Health reform really isn‘t really a secret plot to kill old people. The part of the House bill that is cited by the conspiracists to supposedly prove their point actually says that Medicare will cover consultations about living wills, advanced directives — if patients want to talk to their own doctors about what they want to happen at the end of their own life. That's it. "But that hasn‘t stopped people like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on health care in the Senate, who said, quote, 'We should not have a government program that determines if you‘re going to pull the plug on grandma.' Then there was House Minority Leader John Boehner who said, quote, 'This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.' And putting the exclamation point on ridiculous — Florida Rep. John Mica, who said, quote, 'There are death counselors. There is authorization for reimbursement for those counselors for Medicare. You have a whole new cottage industry.' "Well, as Amy Sullivan reports on Time magazine's 'Swampland' blog today, Sen. Grassley and Congressman Boehner and John Mica have another thing in common in addition to being 'deathers.' They all also voted for the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. That bill in part provided funding for end-of-life counseling. And I quote, 'Counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.' Or as these things are now known in Republican circles, death panels. "In all, 204 Republicans in the House and 42 Republicans in the Senate voted for the death panels. And there was not a peep about then-President Bush having a secret plan to kill old people. "Bottom line? Either Republicans like Chuck Grassley and John Boehner and John Mica have totally changed their minds about whether living wills are really a secret plot to kill old people or they voted for something just a few years ago that they actually thought was a secret plot to kill old people. Take your choice." Maddow (unlike her cited source, Sullivan) glossed over an important difference in the language of the two bills. The 2003 bill applied to terminally ill patients, including those in hospices, whereas the 2009 bill applies to Medicare recipients — that is, everyone over 65. The current bill would reach many more Americans than the 2003 language did — all healthy seniors nationwide, rather than just those who are terminally ill. The current bill would allow consultations every five years — something that, almost by definition, cannot happen in a hospice setting, where stays are often two months or less. It would shift the time frame for discussing these issues to years before someone falls seriously ill. We turned to independent experts to see whether they thought the bills were significantly different, as Boehner’s staff suggested to us. And the consensus of the experts was that the bills are indeed different. Robert Applebaum, a gerontologist at Miami University in Ohio, said that "calling advanced planning a 'death panel' is ridiculous, but comparing this legislation to (the drug bill version) is not factual either." Applebaum said that the drug bill "really focused on hospice care, while the proposed legislation is really about planning for future health care. … One of the problems with hospice is that the vast majority of patients wait until they are very close to death to even consult hospice. … So the (drug bill) legislation was relatively inconsequential" in terms of the numbers and types of people it affected. We presented Applebaum’s reasoning to three other academic experts in gerontology — J. James Cotter of Virginia Commonwealth University, Julie Masters of the University of Nebraska at Omaha and John Krout of Ithaca College — and all agreed that Applebaum’s reasoning was sound. We also asked Amy Tucci, the president and CEO of the Hospice Foundation of America, and she said she agreed that the two bills are "apples and oranges." "The 2003 legislation did not encourage or compensate doctors generally for having the conversation with people before a health crisis was looming," Tucci said. "The 2003 legislation really only pertained to hospice doctors, who could be compensated for providing an evaluation of a patient and/or having a discussion with a prospective hospice patient about care plans, which would mean the services they're entitled to under hospice, other options for care, and so on. These evaluations would be to ensure that the patient was hospice eligible, which would be an evaluation that certified that the patient had six months or less to live." By contrast, Tucci said, the current legislation "intends for the conversation to be held with … doctors who a patient would see, theoretically, long before the onset of some kind of terminal illness." When PolitiFact asked Maddow what she thought of our experts’ perspective, she said she still believes the lawmakers’ positions on the two bills are hypocritical. She cited a quote that Grassley reportedly made to a crowd of 300 in Winterset, Iowa, on Aug. 12, 2009, that "in the House bill, there is counseling for end of life. You have every right to fear. You shouldn’t have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. Should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma." Grassley, Maddow said, "supported the 2003 bill covering 'end-of-life' counseling and 'advanced care planning' specifically for patients who were terminally ill. To be clear: he voted for it for terminally ill people, and he's railing against it for all seniors, despite saying, 'You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before." It's not only disingenuous for Sen. Grassley to deride measures he earlier supported as 'pull[ing] the plug on grandma,' it is rank hypocrisy for him to state that he has a particular objection to this counseling when it occurs at the actual end-of-life." We see her point, but it's clear to us from our interviews with experts that there's a distinct difference between the 2003 law and the 2009 bill. Yes, there's the appearance of inconsistency given the similar purpose for both bills, but the 2009 bill is more far-reaching than the 2003 law, which was focused narrowly on hospice patients. So we find Maddow's claim that they flip-flopped to be Half True.	None	Rachel Maddow	None	None	None	2009-08-17T18:38:02	2009-08-14	['Chuck_Grassley', 'John_Boehner', 'John_Mica']
-snes-02495	A student with a concealed handgun stopped a mass stabbing at the University of Texas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/handgun-student-stabbing/	None	Crime	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Student with a Concealed Handgun Stop a Mass Stabbing at a Texas College?	4 May 2017	None	['University_of_Texas_at_Austin']
-snes-04093	Looking for a gap between an object and its reflection is a way to distinguish two-way mirrors from ordinary mirrors.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/spot-two-way-mirror/	None	Crime	None	David Mikkelson	None	How to Spot a Two-Way Mirror	25 June 1999	None	['None']
-pomt-10930	Says detained immigrant parents separated from their children at the border are being charged "as much as $8 a minute to call their children."	/florida/statements/2018/jul/26/bill-nelson/bill-nelson-claims-detained-immigrant-parents-char/	Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson said the Trump administration reached a new low by charging detained immigrant parents high fees to call the children they were separated from at the border. "The Trump administration has been charging detained parents, get this, as much as $8 a minute to call their children," Nelson, of Florida, said July 23 on the Senate floor. "And the children were separated from the parents because the administration separated them; $8 a minute if you want to talk to your child. That is a new low." Nelson faces a tough re-election challenge from Republican Gov. Rick Scott. More than 2,300 children were separated from the adults they were traveling with as a result of President Donald Trump’s "zero-tolerance" immigration policy, which directed the prosecution of all immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally. As adults were referred for prosecution, children traveling with them were placed into the custody. The Trump administration has reunified more than 1,000 children with their parents. But not all can be easily reunified, in part because some parents have already been deported. Overall, exact government figures on separations and reunifications have been inconsistent and limited. We wondered about Nelson’s claim that parents in detention were being charged as much as $8 a minute to call their children. Nelson’s office pointed to media reports saying parents had to pay for phone calls. But U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement rebuked those claims. Some advocates for immigrants said they couldn’t confirm the $8 a minute claim, or had heard lower rates. Nelson’s evidence About 150 lawmakers, including Nelson, sent a letter July 20 to ICE’s acting director, Ronald D. Vitiello, expressing concerns over "apparent misinterpretation" of ICE’s telephone access policies. "Reports and first-hand accounts have indicated that many of these detained parents have been forced to endure weeks without any information as to the location of their children," the letter said. "Once their children are finally located, moreover, reports indicate that their parents are forced to pay as much as $8 per minute to speak with them by telephone, and that their access to this service can be limited to as little as one call per week." The letter cites a June 21 NPR interview of Jenny Hixon, outreach director for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services. Hixon told NPR that some parents at a detention center in Pearsall, Texas, "had not been able to speak to their children yet because in order to be able to speak to their children, they needed to pay $25 to get a commissary account. And then the phone calls are about $8 a minute." PolitiFact emailed Hixon for more information but received an automated message saying she was no longer employed by the legal services group. We asked the group’s communications director to confirm the figure, but did not receive the confirmation by deadline. Nelson’s office also referred us to a July 3 article from the Texas Tribune reporting that immigrants in detention faced "usurious phone rates and bureaucratic hassles to contact their family members." The story said advocates were worried that "the cost and complexity of using detention facility phones could hamper family reunification efforts that have already been plagued by chaos and confusion." But the Texas Tribune story didn’t cite an $8 a minute rate. It said the cost "can top 20 cents per minute and has been criticized as exorbitant." The story mentioned comments made in a June 22 court filing by a mother detained in Texas who was separated from her children. "The calls are very expensive so I am only able to call when I have money, but when I do not have money, I am not able to communicate with my children. In one month I only received one free call from the center," the woman said. The story added: "Lawyers and advocates working with immigrants detained since the ‘zero tolerance’ policy went into effect say costs and procedures vary from facility to facility, but they have heard that charges range from 10 to 25 cents per minute for domestic calls." It did not say if those calls were made to children. Trump administration denies charging parents to call their children ICE spokeswoman Jennifer D. Elzea told PolitiFact calls are facilitated "at no charge" to detained parents whether their children are in HHS custody or with sponsors. But Buzzfeed, in a July 23 story about the lawmakers’ letter, reported that "when asked about reports detailing high, per-minute fees for phone calls to children," a different spokeswoman "agreed it was ‘possible’ that occurred when parents were trying to call children who were no longer in federal custody." Children in HHS custody don’t have 24-hour access to phones, but calls are being arranged at least twice a week, sometimes more frequently, Elzea told PolitiFact. In some cases, detained parents are able to talk to their children through video-conferencing, she said. ICE detention standards say detainees shall be able to make free calls to an ICE-provided list of free legal service providers, to consular officials and to certain government offices. "Indigent detainees, who are representing themselves pro se, shall be permitted free calls on an as-needed basis to family or other individuals assisting with the detainee’s immigration proceedings," standards say. HHS said that children in its shelters don’t pay for calls to their families or sponsors. The agency said it pays for those calls. Two legal services groups representing immigrant families were unable to confirm to PolitiFact if parents were charged as much as $8 a minute to call their children. Some parents detained at Port Isabel detention center in Texas told lawyers that they were charged about $3 a minute to call their children, said Megan McKenna, spokeswoman for Kids in Need of Defense. The group represents unaccompanied immigrant and refugee children in deportation proceedings. "It’s possible that there was a free call number, but the detainees our team spoke to did not know about it, if there was," McKenna said. Efren Olivares, a program director at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said he couldn’t confirm the $8 a minute figure. But when detainees at the Port Isabel detention center call Texas Civil Rights Project lawyers, they get a recording saying the call is 20 cents a minute, Olivares said. Our ruling Nelson said detained immigrant parents separated from their children at the border are being charged "as much as $8 a minute to call their children." ICE told us that parents should not be charged to talk to their children. But lawyers working with parents have heard that they were charged. One legal services group told PolitiFact that there may be a free number to call, but its clients did not know about it and had been charged. Having said that, we were only able to find one instance of anyone claiming that parents had to pay as much as $8 per minute. Most of the accounts we found mentioned amounts ranging from $3 a minute to 20 cents a minute. There is some anecdotal evidence to back Nelson's claim, but not enough to establish that $8 a minute as standard practice. Nelson’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bill Nelson	None	None	None	2018-07-26T15:16:32	2018-07-23	['None']
-pomt-03696	A "wide majority of NRA households ... supported this legislation" on gun background checks.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/19/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-wide-majority-nra-households-sup/	After the Senate failed to advance an amendment that would expand federal requirements for background checks on gun purchasers, President Barack Obama took to the White House’s Rose Garden to denounce the vote, calling it "a pretty shameful day for Washington." Flanked by relatives of some of the slain children from Newtown, Conn., and assassination survivor Gabby Giffords, Obama emphasized how broadly Americans support expanded background checks for gun purchases. At several points in his remarks, Obama invoked his gun-policy adversary, the National Rifle Association. "To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one," Obama said. We found two independent polls have attempted to take the pulse of the NRA’s membership on universal background checks, the linchpin of both the failed compromise amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa, and the underlying bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Here’s how the data stacks up. • One poll was done by CBS News and the New York Times. The survey, conducted Jan. 11-15, 2013, found that 85 percent of those living in a household with an NRA member favored background checks for all potential gun buyers. • The other survey, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, was taken Feb. 13-18, 2013. It found that "people in NRA households overwhelmingly favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks: 74 percent favor this proposal while just 26 percent are opposed." These results verify that rank-and-file NRA members and those who live with them favor universal background checks by margins of between 74 percent and 85 percent. Still, there’s a problem with Obama’s phrasing. He said that a "wide majority of NRA households ... supported this legislation." While the percentages supporting universal background checks in the latter two polls qualify as a "wide majority" in our book, each of these polls were taken before either of the two relevant pieces of legislation were filed in the Senate. Reid’s underlying bill was submitted on March 21, while the Manchin-Toomey amendment was submitted on April 11. So while the polls do demonstrate strong support for background checks -- a key element of both Senate measures -- it’s a bit of a stretch to say that NRA members polled supported "this legislation." The legislation in question hadn’t even been introduced yet. Our ruling Obama said a "wide majority of NRA households ... supported this legislation." Two fully independent polls showed that NRA members or households support expanded background checks, but the polls couldn’t have asked about the "legislation" Obama referred to because those measures had not been introduced yet. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2013-04-19T15:40:01	2013-04-17	['None']
-pomt-01520	Says "President Obama hijacked the farm bill (and) turned it into a food stamp bill."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/19/tom-cotton/tom-cotton-incorrectly-says-obama-turned-farm-bill/	Back in January, Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., took some heat for voting against the final version of the farm bill -- particularly being the only lawmaker from Arkansas, a state that depends on farming, to do so. Now, the Republican Senate candidate is out with an ad to defend his vote, arguing that it was the fiscally responsible course. The 30-second spot features Cotton and his father on their family farm. Cotton says his dad taught him financial lessons that he carried into his current role. "(My dad) taught me early: farmers can’t spend more than they take in, and I listened," Cotton said in the ad. "When President Obama hijacked the farm bill, turned it into a food stamp bill, with billions more in spending, I voted no." Cotton, who is running against incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor, goes on to say that the farm bill was a case of politicians taking a bad idea (food stamps) and attaching it to a good one (the farm bill). Is this true? Is Obama really to blame? We took a closer look. A brief history Food assistance legislation has been tied to agriculture for decades. Congress passed the first farm bill in 1933, during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl, to aid farmers struggling with low commodity prices and dry soil in the Midwest. To fight poverty in the general population, the bill also established a nutritional assistance program. The program took surplus crops, meat and dairy products and distributed them to people in need. The program became known as "food stamps" in 1939, overseen by the Agriculture Department, according to SNAP to Health, an organization that aims to improve health among food purchasing assistance recipients. This program ended in 1943 but was reinstated nationally in 1964 as the Food Stamp Act, part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program to address poverty. In this iteration, food stamp policy was not addressed in farm bills, but the Agriculture Secretary administered the program. The farm bill and food stamps merged once again in 1973. Representatives from urban areas and those from rural areas figured this pairing would aid the bill in securing broad support in Congress, according to an article by New York University law professor John Ferejohn. Since then, a program -- currently called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- has been part of every farm bill that has become law, according to a December 2013 Congressional Research Service report. Today, a farm bill is passed about every five years, reauthorizing food and agriculture policy, including measures such as crop and commodity subsidies, conservation programs, agriculture research and food stamps. In 2013, the House -- led by Republicans, Cotton included -- became the first chamber to pass a farm bill that didn’t include food stamps. But that bill wasn’t able to pass the Senate, and the final farm bill that became law in February 2014 did include food stamps. So how does this history illuminate the accuracy of Cotton’s claim? Obama did support passing a farm bill that included food stamps in 2013, with the White House releasing an extensive report in November 2013, titled, "The Economic Importance of Passing a Comprehensive Food, Farm and Jobs Bill." But the idea of merging the two topics together in one bill hardly came from Obama. It had been that way, uninterrupted, since 1973 -- when Obama wasn’t even a teenager yet. And while the number of food stamp recipients grew dramatically in the wake of the last recession, which bottomed out around the time Obama took office, food stamps have accounted for a majority of farm bill spending for more than a decade. The bill passed in 2014 has a nearly $1 trillion price tag over 10 years, and 80 percent of that goes toward nutrition assistance. In the 2008 version of the bill, 67 percent of spending was devoted to nutrition assistance. In the 2002 bill, about 55 percent of spending went to nutritional assistance. Our ruling Cotton said that Obama "hijacked the farm bill (and) turned it into a food stamp bill." That’s not correct -- food stamps have been part of every farm bill enacted since 1973. One could say that Cotton and his allies in the House, by seeking a farm bill stripped of food stamp provisions, were actually the ones taking a more radical step, one that Congress ultimately voted against. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.	None	Tom Cotton	None	None	None	2014-09-19T14:54:58	2014-09-18	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-07679	"I have asked the Division of Emergency Management to report directly to me."	/florida/statements/2011/mar/08/rick-scott/gov-rick-scott-wants-more-control-over-state-hurri/	Florida’s CEO-turned-governor Rick Scott wants more control over the state’s response to emergencies, like hurricanes. During his first State of the State address on March 8, 2011, Scott said he has asked the Division of Emergency Management to "report directly to me." "If a hurricane comes our way -- I hope it doesn’t -- I will be personally and continuously engaged in solving problems," he said. "Direct, clear lines of authority will expedite our efforts." This wasn’t the first time Scott announced his intention to move the division within the Executive Office of the Governor. That news arrived simultaneously with his appointment of Wal-Mart emergency management director Bryan Koon to the agency’s helm on Dec. 28, 2010, a week before Scott’s inauguration. "If approved," Scott said in a press release, "this move will create a direct reporting structure and enhance communication and cooperation across all federal, state and local entities involved in Florida’s disaster preparedness efforts and response. This transfer will help cut bureaucratic red tape during emergencies and ensure the director has full access and accountability to Florida’s CEO." Scott cited the proposal, which needs legislative approval, as an example of his mission to streamline the way state government operates. So we wanted to see just how many government hoops Scott's plan would eliminate. The Division of Emergency Management was created in 1969 by the Florida Legislature to act as a liaison between federal and local bodies amid environmental and man-made disasters. The division currently is housed within the Department of Community Affairs -- an agency the governor already controls. That, by itself, gives the governor broad leeway in handling personnel and policy decisions. And the division itself, it turns out, already reports to the governor. Gov. Lawton Chiles came up with the idea after Hurricane Andrew came ashore in 1992 but the direct link between the governor's office and the division became permanent under Gov. Jeb Bush after the 2004 hurricanes when Bush sought legislation to put it into law. Craig Fugate, now director of FEMA, was head of the division at the time. Sen. Mike Fasano, R-Port Richey, sponsored the bill in the Senate. Rep. Tom Anderson, R-Dunedin, was the House sponsor. The law was effective July 1, 2006, and created the Division of Emergency Management as an independent agency with its own budget and a director appointed by the governor. Fugate said, in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times' Lucy Morgan on March 9, that the change was made so it was easier to coordinate the state’s emergency response in the face of a disaster. The division explained it this way as part of its 2009 annual report (the most recent report we could find online): "Though the Division is administered through the Department of Community Affairs, Section 20.18 (2) (a) of the Florida Statutes states that the Division’s executive leadership reports directly to the Governor on all matters concerning the agency’s purview." We checked the statutes. They establish the division as a unit of DCA, note that the division is a separate budget entity not within DCA’s control, and require the governor to appoint the division director. Scott’s budget proposal would formally transfer the Division of Emergency Management (and a budget of $238,593,605 plus 128 positions) from DCA to the Governor’s Office. That’s about the extent of the formal changes we could find. Scott took time during his first State of the State speech to say that he wants to have the Division of Emergency Management "report directly to me." By statute, it already does. All that seems to be changing is where the division is housed for budgeting purposes. He's really just redrawing lines on an org chart, and it's not as groundbreaking a change as it sounds. We rate this claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-03-08T22:11:33	2011-03-08	['None']
-pomt-05930	"Chesterfield has eliminated more positions from its general government operations than the Commonwealth has from the entire state government since (fiscal) 2009."	/virginia/statements/2012/jan/29/james-stegmaier/stegmaier-says-chesterfield-county-has-cut-more-go/	Chesterfield County Administrator James J.L. Stegmaier wants folks to know he oversees a lean government. "Chesterfield has eliminated more positions from its general government operations than the Commonwealth has from the entire state government since (fiscal) 2009," Stegmaier said in an outline of a Dec. 14, 2011 speech he made to the Chesterfield Chamber of Commerce. We were struck by this statement. The state government has 33 full-time equivalent workers for every one in Chesterfield’s central government. Is it true that the county, in raw numbers, eliminated more jobs than the much larger state? We ran a check. Chesterfield’s general government operations include workers in all services except education. Stegmaier said that if education was included, the numbers would only grow in Chesterfield’s favor since the county has trimmed employment in that department as well. Stegmaier, to support his claim that Chesterfield’s central government has shed more jobs than the state, pointed us to two sets of statistics. He cited county budgets that detail Chesterfield’s authorized full-time employment levels in general government. In fiscal 2009, there were 3,697 authorized jobs. In fiscal 2012, which ends June 30, there were 3,516 such positions. That’s a decrease of 181 approved jobs. For state figures, Stegmaier relied on data from Virginia’s Department of Planning and Budget that detail authorized employment levels for all agencies. The state lists the number of employees as "full time equivalents" -- a figure that lumps together full-time and part-time employees. That’s why the overall number ends in a decimal. In fiscal 2009, the state had a maximum employment level 114,724.44 jobs. This fiscal year, the maximum is set at 114,566.73. So the state’s drop of about 157 authorized employees falls 24 short of Chesterfield’s reduction. But we had some issues with Stegmaier’s proof. He had not made an apples-to-apples comparison because Chesterfield only tallied full-time employees while the state counted full-timers and part-timers. Also, the state and county numbers Stegmaier compared are maximum employment levels in budgets. Not all of those jobs were filled. We think the acid test for Stegmaier’s statement is measuring the change in the number of people who actually worked for Chesterfield County and the state. We turned to the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management’s website, which lists the number of state employees for any given month over the past 21 years. On June 30, 2009 -- the end of fiscal 2009 -- , the state had 119,850.81 full-time equivalent employees. By Oct. 31, 2011, the latest date for which statistics were available, the number rose to 120,465.97. The state had gained 615.16 full-time equivalent workers. Then we turned to Chesterfield. Matt Harris, the county’s senior budget analyst, told us Chesterfield had 3,816 full-time equivalent employees on July 1, 2009. The number dropped to 3,664 on Nov. 1, 2011. The county lost 152 full-time equivalent workers. Our ruling: No matter which set of numbers you use, Chesterfield has eliminated more jobs from its general government operations than Virginia has from its entire state government since fiscal 2009. We rate Stegmaier’s claim True.	None	James Stegmaier	None	None	None	2012-01-29T06:00:00	2011-12-14	['Commonwealth_of_Nations']
-pomt-06987	"A recent study revealed that, across the nation, taxes would have to be increased by an average of $1,300 a year just to support the currently unsustainable public employee pension systems. In Florida, that dollar figure translates to $813 a year."	/florida/statements/2011/jul/12/rick-scott/gov-rick-scott-says-taxes-would-climb-support-publ/	Gov. Rick Scott's Independence Day e-mail message to state employees offered thanks to servicemen and women for defending our freedom, a reminder to use care with fireworks over the drought-parched weekend — then support for pension reform. "I also want to share with you information I came across in a New York Times article last week. A recent study revealed that, across the nation, taxes would have to be increased by an average of $1,300 a year just to support the currently unsustainable public employee pension systems. In Florida, that dollar figure translates to $813 a year. "That means if we did nothing, every household in Florida would have to contribute more than $800 of their hard-earned money every year, for the next thirty years, just to meet our pension obligations for state and local government retirees. "As I’ve said all along, raising taxes is not an option. The pension reform we accomplished this year prevents tax hikes, and also protects the retirement of government workers." A state employee asked us: Did a recent study in the New York Times actually say taxes would have to be increased by an average of $1,300 a year nationally — $813 a year for Floridians — to support public employee pensions? We should mention the pension reform Scott recently signed was a law requiring state workers to put 3 percent of their salaries toward retirement and eliminating cost-of-living increases on benefits earned after July 1. We checked out the New York Times article, which focused primarily on pension challenges in Costa Mesa, Calif. A related graphic told the national story. Headlined "Tax Increases for Government Pensions," it said that "even if pensions are funded today, costs are expected to rise as promises come due. Though many pension funds dispute their findings, two economists, Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua D. Rauh, have calculated: How much each state needs to increase taxes per household per year to eventually fund its pensions 100 percent ... or the returns that state pension funds need to earn every year for the next 30 years to be fully funded." A list of states followed. In Florida that annual tax increase was estimated at $813 — just what Scott wrote. Meanwhile, the abstract of the complete study — also linked to from the story — said it would take a tax increase of $1,398 per U.S. household per year to fully fund state and local pension systems over the next 30 years. So Scott's message actually used a slightly more conservative number. He could have rounded up to $1,400. So Scott accurately quoted both the state and national estimates for tax increases it would take to fully fund pensions, according to Novy-Marx and Rauh. But he also said taxes "would have to be increased." Even a quick look at the New York Times graphic shows that's not the case. The economists had in fact offered an either/or scenario. Either Florida would need to increase taxes each year by $813, or it would need to average a 12.1 percent return on its pension fund investments. We asked Joshua Rauh to clarify this for us. Hang with us for just a few moments of economist-speak. He said the baseline scenario for the tax increase calculation was an asset return of inflation plus today's long-run real Treasury bond yields — under today's conditions, an annual return of just under 5 percent. "If returns are more than that, required tax increases for Florida will be less than $813," he said. "If returns are less than that, required tax increases will be more than $813. To eliminate the need for tax increases entirely, returns would need to be 12.1 percent a year." A footnote to the New York Times graphic pointed out that historical returns nationally averaged about 8.8 percent a year. In other words, if over 30 years Florida pulled in the average historical return on its investments, it would still need to raise taxes. But it wouldn't need to raise taxes by a full $813 a year. Meanwhile, "Tax Increases for Government Pensions" wasn't the only graphic that accompanied the New York Times article. The story also included a handy map headlined "A $176 Billion Gap for Public Pensions." Sounds like it would support Scott's description of "currently unsustainable public employee pension systems," doesn't it? Under the headline, the graphic reads, "In general, many experts say pension funds should hold 80 percent of the funds needed for future obligations. Many states, however, have failed to put enough aside." The map showed which states fall short of the 80 percent goal, and by how much — and which states exceed the 80 percent goal, and by how much. Given Scott's message to state employees, which category would you assume Florida is in? Well, it turns out that by this measure, Florida's fund is among the nation's most healthy. Its pension funds hold $5.9 billion over the traditional 80 percent benchmark, the graphic shows. And that's the story supported by a Pew Center study last year and the most recent annual state report on Florida's pension funds. While other states' funds entered the recession underfunded, Florida's was fully funded. And while it took a hit during the recent economic tsunami, in 2010 it gained more than 14 percent, ahead of the state's target. That added $9.8 billion to the bottom line. Ash Williams, executive director and chief investment officer for the State Board of Administration of Florida, which oversees the state's pension investments, declared in November, "We are healthy." He called Florida's plan "a very positive exception to the rule" that "remains one of the best-funded, and therefore strongest, public plans in the country. Still, there have been plenty of voices saying Florida would need to raise taxes, increase returns or trim benefits to keep that plan strong. And Scott has made it clear he doesn't share Williams' sunny take. For example, he thinks the state's expected return of 7.75 percent requires too risky an asset mix for contributions that should be cautiously invested. So there's legitimate disagreement about the long-term health of even comparatively healthy public pension systems like Florida's. But we can still weigh in on the accuracy of Scott's characterization of the New York Times report to state employees. Scott told them that "a recent study revealed that, across the nation, taxes would have to be increased by an average of $1,300 a year just to support the currently unsustainable public employee pension systems. In Florida, that dollar figure translates to $813 a year." But he left out that investment returns could also offset this need. He also failed to distinguish between states that have long struggled to meet their pension goals, and Florida's comparatively strong performance. We think those are important details, and rate Scott's statement Half True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-07-12T15:59:57	2011-07-01	['None']
-snes-02710	85 (or 244) inmates have escaped from a Fijian prison.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/244-inmates-fijian-prison/	None	Junk News	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did 244 Inmates Escape From a Fijian Prison?	30 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10989	Says Patrick Morrisey’s "family’s firm was paid $500,000 to lobby AGAINST Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/13/west-virginia-democratic-party/did-patrick-morriseys-family-firm-lobby-against-go/	In West Virginia’s closely watched Senate race, the state Democratic Party is shining a spotlight on Republican Attorney General Patrick Morrisey’s wife, Denise, who is a Washington lobbyist. In a tweet on July 10, a few days after President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the high court, the state party referenced the role of Denise Morrisey’s firm in the previous Supreme Court nomination battle, involving the nomination of Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch. Patrick Morrisey, who is challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, had publicly expressed support for Gorsuch’s confirmation. The state Democratic Party party tweeted, "U.S. Senate candidate @MorriseyWV CAN’T have his CAKE & EAT it too! FACT: His family’s firm was paid $500,000 to lobby AGAINST Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com This isn’t the first time Denise Morrisey’s employer has caused friction for Patrick Morrisey. We have previously written about lobbying that her firm, Capitol Counsel, did for major pharmaceutical companies, some of which produce or distribute opioids — a category of drug that has caused severe problems in West Virginia and elsewhere. As for Capitol Counsel’s work against Gorsuch’s nomination, we found some truth in the West Virginia Democratic Party’s allegation, but also some significant overreaches. Is Capitol Counsel the Morrisey "family’s firm"? Not really. The party backs up its claim that "the Morrisey family owns the Washington, D.C. lobbying firm Capitol Counsel" by citing a Gazette-Mail article from May 2017. That article said that Denise Morrisey holds "the second-largest ownership stake" in the firm. The firm partly confirmed and partly contradicted that account in a July 2017 letter outlining the scope and limits of the firm’s connections to the Morriseys. In the letter, the firm’s founder, John Rafaelli, said Denise Morrisey has an ownership stake, but a smaller one than the newspaper had reported. "She is a minority shareholder with 15 percent of the stock," Rafaelli wrote. Regardless of the exact amount of ownership, the Democratic Party’s assertion is overly expansive. Just because Denise Morrisey is a part-owner of Capitol Counsel doesn’t make it the Morriseys’ family firm. She doesn’t own a majority stake, and her husband is not involved in its operations. Did the firm lobby against Gorsuch? Yes. According to federal lobbying disclosure forms, Capitol Counsel lobbied on behalf of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., including for a time on "legislative issues related to the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States." We should note that Denise Morrisey did not personally lobby against Gorsuch. Her name was absent from the firm’s disclosure forms for Planned Parenthood. This is consistent with Rafaelli’s statement in the letter that a lobbyist from the firm who recuses from a particular client will not be listed on that client’s disclosure form. Was the firm paid $500,000 to lobby against Gorsuch? No, it was paid substantially less. The party cited a May 2017 article in the Washington Examiner that said in part that "the lobbying shop has cashed Planned Parenthood checks worth $460,000." But the party twists this figure by saying that all paid for the anti-Gorsuch lobbying. Disclosure forms show that, in all, Planned Parenthood has paid Capitol Counsel $710,000 to date. Their relationship began in the first quarter of 2015, and the most recent filing covered the first quarter of 2018. But the only two quarters that overlapped with Gorsuch’s nomination were the first two quarters of 2017, and during that period, Planned Parenthood paid the firm $120,000, which is much lower than what the tweet said. (Gorsuch lobbying was listed as an issue on the third quarter 2017 form as well, but that is likely an oversight since he was already sitting on the court by then.) It’s also an exaggeration to say that the firm spent all of its lobbying efforts during those two quarters on Gorsuch’s nomination. The firm listed a number of other issues on its disclosure form, specifically "health care issues related to HR 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017; legislative issues related to Title X family planning funding, including HJRes 43, a Resolution of Disapproval of a rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to Title X project recipients." For the record, the firm insists that, despite her ownership stake, Denise Morrisey did not benefit personally from Planned Parenthood payments to the firm. In the letter, Rafaelli wrote that "Mrs. Morrisey’s compensation is based 100 percent on the revenue generated by clients that she is listed as working on behalf of on the (disclosure forms)." Morrisey's current clients include the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the California Dental Association, the Healthcare Leadership Council, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, Physician Hospitals of America, the Physicians Advocacy Institute, and Varian Medical Systems. Our ruling The West Virginia Democratic Party tweeted that Morrisey’s "family’s firm was paid $500,000 to lobby AGAINST Trump’s last Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch." The firm Denise Morrisey worked for did lobby for Planned Parenthood against Gorsuch’s confirmation. However, the tweet exaggerates key aspects of the relationship. Capitol Counsel is affiliated with Denise Morrisey but not the family as a whole, and the firm was not paid nearly as much as the $500,000 the tweet alleged. We rate the statement Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	West Virginia Democratic Party	None	None	None	2018-07-13T12:00:51	2018-07-10	['None']
-snes-05079	Bernie Sanders has not released the transcripts for speeches he gave to major financial institutions, despite calling on Hillary Clinton to do so.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sanders-bank-speeches/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bernie Sanders Gives Bank of America Speeches?	11 March 2016	None	['Bernie_Sanders', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-12067	"In 1986, President Ronald Reagan" cut the business tax rate to 34 percent and "it worked -- our economy boomed, the middle class thrived and median family income increased."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/sep/06/donald-trump/milwaukee-op-ed-donald-trump-overstates-economic-i/	To reach what a White House spokesman called "the heartland of America," President Donald Trump wrote an opinion article for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that called on Congress to pass his tax reform bill. In the Sept. 3, 2017 op-ed, Trump invoked a Republican famous for tax cutting to argue that his own proposed cuts would spur economic growth. Trump wrote: In 1986, President Ronald Reagan led the effort to make America the most competitive nation in the world by cutting our business tax rate to 34 percent, well below the average rate of other developed nations at the time. It worked. Our economy boomed, the middle class thrived and median family income increased. As we’ll see, some economists say Reagan’s reduction in the corporate tax rate helped boost the economy. But seven experts we spoke to were unanimous in saying that a single tax cut can’t be credited for making dramatic gains in an economy that is affected by a whole host of taxes, as well as many factors not related to taxes, such as demographics and trade policies. "Mathematically, he’s on firm ground" in terms of economic growth and increases in median income in the years after the corporate rate cut, Manhattan Institute senior fellow Brian Riedl said of Trump’s claim. But attributing those gains to one cut is something else. "It’s always very hard to specify which policies led the economy to perform the way it did," Riedl said. Said University of Wisconsin-Madison professor emeritus of applied economics Andrew Reschovsky, who worked in the Office of Tax Analysis at the U.S. Treasury: "The problem is, economies are complex things. It is really impossible to attribute any change" in the economy to a single tax cut. Trump’s evidence To back Trump’s claim about the effects of the 1986 corporate tax rate cut, the White House cited several statistics indicating the economy improved during the next several years. Among them: A 4.2 percent increase in gross domestic product in 1988, according to the World Bank; and an increase of nearly $2,000 -- from $51,388 to $53,367 -- in the real median household income, from 1986 to 1989. But there are two important points to consider here, the economists told us. 1. The corporate tax rate cut -- from 46 percent to 34 percent -- was only one of a host of cuts made in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. As Americans for Tax Reform recalled in celebrating the Reagan bill, the legislation also reduced the top marginal individual income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent and slashed the total number of income brackets from 14 to two, among many other tax changes. As the Washington Post reported, "tax shelters for the wealthy, which proliferated before the bill became law, were struck a mortal blow," the "once-all-powerful oil-and-gas lobby also had a few of its tax benefits clipped" and "millions of low-income Americans were taken off the income tax rolls entirely." A corporate rate tax cut can help grow the economy and raise wages, said American Enterprise Institute economics policy resident scholar Aparna Mathur, whose specialties include tax policy and corporate taxation. But "it’s really hard to pin down" cause and effect, or to determine how much improvement they yield, she said. Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser in the Reagan White House, was more critical of Trump’s claim. "The economy did not boom. It grew at about the same rate as before the tax reform and by 1990 was tanking," he told us. University of California, Berkeley economist Alan Auerbach, the author of an American Economic Association journal article on the economic effects of the 1986 tax reform law, gave a more positive view. "The economy did OK after 1986 until the 1990-91 recession, but there was no significant change in the economy's overall trajectory immediately after the 1986 act," he said. "The economy did boom in the mid- to late-1990s, and the middle class did relatively well during that period, but it's hard to attribute that to the 1986 act." And much more difficult to attribute, as Trump did, any economic gains to only the corporate tax rate cut among the broader package of 1986 tax reforms. 2. Many factors aside from taxes help determine the performance of the economy. Mathur said factors such as immigration and trade also affect the economy. While the economy improved after the various 1986 Reagan tax changes, "you had a lot of winds behind the sails," said Tax Policy Center former co-director Eugene Steuerle, who was deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury for Tax Analysis under Reagan. He cited baby boomers reaching their peak earning years and more women entering the workforce. Said Cato Institute senior fellow Daniel Mitchell, whose specialties include fiscal policy and tax reform: "One could certainly make an argument the (corporate tax rate cut) was good for growth, it was good for the middle class -- but lots of other things are, too." To claim major economic gains were fueled only by the corporate cut, he said, "is puffery." Our rating In a Journal Sentinel op-ed, Trump said: "In 1986, President Ronald Reagan" cut the business tax rate to 34 percent and "it worked -- our economy boomed, the middle class thrived and median family income increased." Some economists say the corporate rate reduction, from 46 percent, did help lead to economic growth and higher income. But it wasn’t necessarily any more important than a cut -- from 50 percent to 28 percent -- in the top individual income tax rate that was part of the same 1986 package that included other tax changes, as well. More importantly, many other factors beyond tax cuts -- demographics, immigration, trade policy and more -- bear on the economy. Trump’s statement contains only an element of truth -- our definition of Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-09-06T13:06:31	2017-09-03	['None']
-hoer-00116	Liverpool and Manchester Shopping Centre Bomb Threat	https://www.hoax-slayer.com//liverpool-bomb-threat-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Liverpool and Manchester Shopping Centre Bomb Threat Hoax	16th December 2010	None	['None']
-tron-02910	Professor Ray Schneider: List of 59 Trump Accomplishments	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ray-schneider-trump-accomplishments/	None	politics	None	None	['donald trump', 'franklin Roosevelt', 'harry truman', 'presidencies']	Professor Ray Schneider: List of 59 Trump Accomplishments	Aug 15, 2017	None	['None']
-bove-00112	Inside The Twisted Mind Of The Man Behind ‘Hindutva Varta’ Facebook Page	https://www.boomlive.in/inside-the-twisted-mind-of-the-man-behind-hindutva-varta-facebook-page/	None	None	None	None	None	Inside The Twisted Mind Of The Man Behind ‘Hindutva Varta’ Facebook Page	Feb 06 2018 7:22 pm, Last Updated: May 01 2018 11:36 am	None	['None']
-pomt-14592	Says a Sanders campaign ad "never said ... a newspaper endorsed us that did not."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/04/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-mistaken-about-whether-his-campaign/	MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pressed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders about a few controversies surrounding his staff during the Feb. 4, 2016, New Hampshire presidential debate. One that had emerged in the previous 24 hours concerned an ad Sanders’ campaign had run in advance of the New Hampshire primary. Maddow asked Sanders about the Nashua Telegraph complaining recently "that you falsely implied in an advertisement that they had endorsed you when they did not." Sanders responded, "We did not suggest that we had the endorsement of a newspaper. Newspapers who make endorsements also say positive things about other candidates, and to the best of my knowledge, that is what we did. So we never said, never said that somebody, a newspaper endorsed us that did not. What we did say is blah blah blah blah was said by the newspaper." Maddow then said, "Just to follow up on that, the title of the ad in question was ‘Endorsement.’ " Sanders responded, "But that was only for -- that was not to be on television. That's an important point. That was just something -- as the secretary knows, you put titles on ads and you send them out, but there was no word in that ad, none, that said that those newspapers had endorsed us." As it happens, Maddow had referred specifically to one of two newspapers cited in the ad, and her choice might have allowed Sanders an out -- the ad in question did not explicitly say the Telegraph had endorsed him. But in his answer, Sanders broadened his response to include "those newspapers," which is a problem because the initial version of the ad did explicitly include text that said the Valley News had endorsed him when it had not. This version was later tweaked for subsequent use. The ad was first posted online Wednesday, Feb. 3 and touts endorsements from unions, an environmental group and The Nation magazine. "From postal workers to nurses, he’s been endorsed for real change," a narrator says in the ad. The narrator goes on to quote editorials from two New Hampshire newspapers, The Telegraph, of Nashua, and the Valley News, which covers both Vermont and New Hampshire from West Lebanon, N.H. Up to that point in the 30-second ad, every logo for an organization or publication has been accompanied by the words "endorsed by." Those words disappear when the Telegraph’s logo appears, along with the quote: "He’s not beholden to Wall Street Money." The words "endorsed by" then reappear next to the logo of the Valley News, which appears along with the quote: "Sanders has been genuinely outraged about the treatment of ordinary Americans for as long as we can remember." Neither the Valley News nor the Telegraph endorsed Sanders. Telegraph executive editor Roger Carroll posted on Twitter the afternoon of Feb. 3: "For the record, despite @BernieSanders deceptive ad to the contrary,@NashuaTelegraph has not endorsed any Dem prez candidate #nhpolitics" More problematic for Sanders’ claim in the debate is how the original ad handled the Valley News. Valley News editor Martin Frank said Feb. 4 that his newspaper had likewise not endorsed a Democrat in the primary, PolitiFact New Hampshire reported. As news of the spot’s issues spread, the Sanders campaign ended up revising the ad. It removed the word "endorsed" by the Valley News logo, although it left the quotes from both New Hampshire newspapers untouched. That’s the version of the ad that was on the campaign’s official YouTube channel immediately before the debate, and the ad is still titled "Endorsed." After the debate, Sanders spokesman Warren Gunnels told PolitiFact that the incorrect version of the ad never aired on television. "A YouTube version of this ad mistakenly used this word, but it was never aired on television. As soon as we discovered this mistake it was taken down," Gunnels said. However, during the debate Sanders didn't draw a distinction between the campaign buying air time on TV and posting a publicly viewable ad on the Internet. The Valley News editorial quoted in the ad – from Dec. 31, 2014 -- encouraged Sanders to enter the presidential race. "A presidential candidate who vigorously espoused populism from a progressive point of view could help restore much-needed balance to American political life, which has tilted sharply to the right in recent decades," the paper wrote. However, it was published far too early in the campaign cycle to be considered an endorsement. Our ruling In the debate, Sanders said one of his campaign ads "never said ... a newspaper endorsed us that did not." Sanders is glossing over the initial version of his campaign ad. It originally included text that said Sanders had been "endorsed" by the Valley News, a word that was later removed after it became clear that the newspaper had made no such endorsement. We rate Sanders’ claim in the debate False.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-02-04T23:39:41	2016-02-04	['None']
-afck-00292	“About 60% of unemployed youth aged below 35 years have never worked.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/national-youth-policy-unemployment-and-education/	None	None	None	None	None	National Youth Policy: unemployment and education claims fact-checked	2015-06-10 01:12	None	['None']
-pomt-07755	Tim Kaine wants to thwart "right-to-work reform measures in Midwest battleground states."	/virginia/statements/2011/feb/25/christopher-peace/del-chris-peace-says-tim-kaine-lock-step-obama-opp/	The Wisconsin labor fight between public sector unions and Gov. Scott Walker is sending tremors to Virginia’s capitol. After The Washington Post reported that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine made a Valentine’s Day trip to Madison to meet with Wisconsin union leaders, Del. Chris Peace, R-Hanover, attacked the former Virginia governor. "Rumored VA Senate candidate Kaine [is] in lock-step with Obama to thwart pro-business, job creating right-to-work reform measures in Midwest battleground states," Peace wrote Feb. 18 on his Facebook page. While there is no question Kaine made a trip to Wisconsin and met privately with union leaders, we wondered if he really is an opponent of "right to work" laws like Peace claims. First, let’s define what it means to live in a right-to-work state such as Virginia. The National Labor Relations Act, passed by Congress in the 1930s, says unions and companies can strike deals that require every employee covered under a collective bargaining agreement to either join the union or pay dues and fees. But the law contained an exception, saying states could ban this practice. Virginia and 21 other states have done so. This means a person cannot be fired from a job for declining to join a union or not paying union fees. In states without these laws, bargaining contracts can require certain workers to join the union or pay dues. Virginia law says "no employer shall require any person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, to pay any dues, fees or other charges of any kind to any labor union or labor organization." We asked Peace to back up his statement. In an e-mail, he said The Post’s article about Kaine’s visit "suggests that the [White House] political operation got involved at the state level Monday after Kaine spoke to union leaders. The causal connection seems present and begs the question that since the President and the DNC chair agree on this issue that resources would be deployed." Peace also said he thinks the proposed Wisconsin law would make the Midwestern state more like Virginia, at least in terms of labor regulations. Kaine’s most prominent run-in with right-to-work supporters came in the weeks after he became governor in January 2006. The Democrat nominated Daniel LeBlanc, a former state director at the AFL-CIO, to be his secretary of the commonwealth, a post that oversees patronage appointments on the state’s boards and commissions. But Republicans in the House of Delegates, citing LeBlanc’s long opposition to right-to-work laws, scuttled the nomination in a party-line vote. Kaine was furious. "Never before has the Legislature - regardless of which party is in the majority, and regardless of which party controls the Governor's office - ever denied a Governor his prerogative to make Cabinet-level appointments," he said in a March 2006 press release. "The Secretary of the Commonwealth has no - I repeat, no - role in the enforcement of Virginia's right-to-work law, a law I strongly support." The statement supporting "right to work" earned Kaine the ire of liberal bloggers at sites such as Working Life and Daily Kos. When Kaine was considered a possible vice presidential candidate in 2008, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation noted his support for right-to-work laws and said "Kaine’s nomination might not sit well with big city unions, who are strong Democratic Party supporters." But there’s a major problem with Peace’s claim: The bill being proposed by Wisconsin’s Gov. Walker does not contain "right to work" provisions. It is solely aimed at removing collective bargaining rights from public-sector unions on all non-salary issues. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Wisconsin and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel confirmed that there are currently no Republicans making a prominent push in the state for rules similar to those in Virginia. We called the National Right to Work Foundation, a group that opposes mandatory unionization. Patrick Semmens, a spokesman for the organization, said Kaine’s nomination of LeBlanc and the campaign support he received from unions made him suspect in the group’s eyes. Semmens also shared the foundation’s December 2005 newsletter with us, which included an article on Kaine’s election headlined, "Union bosses’ man wins Virginia governorship." But the story said, "Kaine pledged to oppose any changes in Virginia's right-to-work law." Semmens argued that was a strategic move, not one borne out of conviction. "The political climate and large support in the state for right-to-work probably account for Kaine's occasional pro-right to work statements," Semmens told us in an e-mail. "Recognizing the reality that Virginia's right to work is too popular to repeal is not the same as real support. After he got in office, I don’t think he gave us that much trouble, but I expect that was because [Virginia]’s political climate didn’t allow him to do so." We asked DNC spokesman Alec Gerlach if Kaine’s position on right-to-work laws has changed. Gerlach declined to comment. Let’s review. Peace claimed Kaine is seeking to scuttle "right-to-work reform measures" in Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. Kaine did meet with union leaders in Madison. But he supported Virginia’s right-to-work laws during his gubernatorial campaign and his four years in office. Even the group that seeks to expand these laws concedes Kaine did few things that troubled them. Peace provided no evidence that Kaine’s visit to Madison marks opposition to right-to-work laws. He has no information on what Kaine said during his visit. The Wisconsin bill under debate is not even aimed at establishing "right to work" provisions. Instead it is focused on collective bargaining rules.	None	Christopher Peace	None	None	None	2011-02-25T17:18:36	2011-02-18	['Midwestern_United_States']
-tron-03302	Flaws in new U.S. quarters could be worth big bucks	https://www.truthorfiction.com/quarters/	None	promises	None	None	None	Flaws in new U.S. quarters could be worth big bucks	Mar 16, 2015	None	['United_States']
-pomt-06621	Says "We do about 300 investigations a year into housing discrimination and in recent years have put about $150,000 of damages into the pockets of individuals who have been treated unfairly."	/oregon/statements/2011/sep/20/brad-avakian/oregon-labor-commissioner-investigates-300-housing/	The Bureau of Labor and Industries enforces Oregonians’ civil rights in housing and employment. Last week, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian took to public radio to talk about his role in enforcing federal fair housing laws. "We do about 300 investigations a year into housing discrimination and in recent years have put about $150,000 of damages into the pockets of individuals who have been treated unfairly," he said. That seemed easy enough to check. We searched online the words Avakian, housing and complaints, and found an April 2010 press release in which his office claimed investigating more than 200 complaints since May 2008. Two hundred in two years versus 300 a year? We asked the commissioner’s office to reconcile. Bob Estabrook, the commissioner’s spokesman, owned up to the discrepancy right away. He said the commissioner misspoke. An August 2011 check found roughly 350 housing investigations since May 2008, when BOLI was reauthorized to investigate federal housing claims. That comes out to more than 100 complaints a year, not the 300 a year claimed. As for the money, Estabrook said he couldn’t release dates or other details, because some of the information may be confidential or not easily available. But he said 67 complaints were settled privately, between the parties, or settled at agency prompting. Of the 67 cases, 31 included monetary exchanges totaling almost $160,000. The amounts ranged from $500 to $20,000. It’s not all technically "damages," but it is money that probably would not have gone to complainants without intervention by the agency, he said. PolitiFact Oregon can’t verify the dollar amounts, but we can rule on -- and tell you more about -- the number of cases. A BOLI database shared with The Oregonian shows 339 housing cases through early August 2011. Of those: - There were 77 complaints in calendar year 2008. - There were 88 complaints in 2009. - There were 108 complaints in 2010. - There were 66 complaints through early August 2011. - There are 75 cases currently under investigation. - There were 141 cases closed with no substantial evidence of discrimination. Avakian’s claim of 300 a year is clearly inaccurate. We give his office points for admitting he misspoke -- that’s a good thing in a politician -- and under some circumstances that might cause us to ignore the flub. But Avakian is in a special election race for Congress, making his record as a state official that much more important for voters to understand. To correct that record, we rate the statement False.	None	Brad Avakian	None	None	None	2011-09-20T06:00:00	2011-09-12	['None']
-pomt-01467	After the 2012 redistricting, Wisconsin has competitive congressional districts.	/wisconsin/statements/2014/oct/01/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-says-congressional-districts-wisconsin-a/	When Republicans took over state government in 2010, they scored a golden opportunity to redraw the lines for state and congressional districts in their favor. For the first time since the 1950s, the same party had control of both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature and the governor’s mansion at a time when the required population-based rebalancing of districts took place. At the congressional level, the drawing of the new borders was led by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) and resulted in significant changes to the district represented by U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Ashland), and smaller but important tweaks to the districts represented by U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-La Crosse) and Ryan himself. In a Sept. 2, 2014 appearance before the Rotary Club of Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Press Club, Ryan said the state lawmakers had not engaged in the gerrymandering seen in other states, where districts are redrawn in dramatic fashion to favor the party in power. He also credited Wisconsin incumbents with being good at winning reelection. "I come from one of the battleground districts in the country," Ryan said, during a question and answer session after his speech. "Wisconsin’s like that. We have competitive districts." When we asked for evidence to support his claim that even after the redistricting the seats are competitive, Ryan spokesman Kevin Siefert cited the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan organization that follows federal elections. The Cook Report creates a partisan voter index, or PVI, for each congressional district in the country, a gauge that allows you to compare voting for president in a single district with the national results. "Congressman Duffy’s district is an R+2 and Congressman Kind’s is a D+5, both falling in the ‘swing seats’ range as determined by the Cook Political Report," Siefert said. "Congressman Ryan stated that both seats were very competitive, and the Cook Report’s substantiates that with its Partisan Voter Index." The index means that Duffy’s district voted two percentage points more Republican in the last presidential election than the nation as a whole. Meanwhile, Kind’s district voted five points more Democratic. At the speech, Ryan described the Milwaukee-area seats held by Democrat Gwen Moore and Republican F. James Sensenbrenner as "very much" favoring the incumbent’s party. He spent spent little -- or no -- time on three seats, those held by Democrat Mark Pocan, and Republicans Reid Ribble and Tom Petri. He focused primarily on his own district, and those represented by Kind and Duffy. But the Cook Report’s expert on the House of Representatives said redistricting made the Duffy and Kind districts -- and Ryan’s -- less competitive. "If Paul Ryan claims that these seats are competitive, he’s living in the past," said David Wasserman, who analyzes house districts and races for the Cook Report. "That’s preposterous. There are virtually no competitive seats in Wisconsin." Let’s take a closer look. Changes to the districts At the event, Ryan pointed out that in recent decades the seats that he and Duffy now hold have swung from party to party. The 7th District, in northwest Wisconsin, "went from Dave Obey to Sean Duffy," Ryan said, adding his own district, in southeastern Wisconsin, "went from Les Aspin to Peter Barca to Mark Neumann and Paul Ryan." But Ryan compares apples and oranges. Thanks to redistricting the districts have different voters in them now than when those seats were held by Obey and Aspin. Obey stepped down in 2010, before the latest changes, and was replaced by Duffy. Aspin left in 1993 to join the Clinton administration. And Barca, the most recent Democrat in the seat, last held it in 1995 before losing to Neumann, a Republican. Swapping voting blocks In the 2012 redistricting, significant changes were made to Duffy’s district that gave it more of a Republican base. "The Republicans’ biggest goal was to shore up Sean Duffy in the 7th and they did so by removing Stevens Point and Wood County from the 7th and replacing them with the Twin Cities exurbs of St. Croix County," Wasserman said. That made the district three points more Republican. At the same time, Kind’s district became even more more Democratic, moving from a D+4 in 2010 to a D+5, according to the Cook scale. Ryan aide Seifert notes that this puts the districts in the Cook Report’s "swing" category -- which the report defines as those between Republican +5 and Democratic +5. That is a technical, by-the-numbers definition. The Cook Report separately rates each election based on additional factors, such as incumbency, challengers and the likelihood to change hands in the next election. "Sean Duffy hasn’t had a competitive race in 2012 or 2014 because of the makeup of the district," Wasserman said. Similarly, Ryan’s district became more Republican after the latest redistricting, by swapping some Democratic-leaning areas for Republican-leaning parts of Waukesha County. "Now he’s ultra safe" from losing the seat, Wasserman said of Ryan. "You have a R (plus) 3 district and that’s still safe for Paul Ryan." Here is a look at the state’s eight congressional districts, according to the Cook Political Report’s Partisan Voter Index. The redistricting change came between the 2010 and 2012 elections. 2010 2012 2014 District 1 (Ryan) R+2 R+3 R+3 District 2 (Pocan) D+15 D+16 D+17 District 3 (Kind) D+4 D+6 D+5 District 4 (Moore) D+22 D+21 D+23 District 5 (Sensenbrenner) R+12 R+12 R+13 District 6 (Petri) R+4 R+5 R+5 District 7 (Duffy) D+3 Even R+2 District 8 (Ribble) R+2 R+2 R+2 A 2012 Journal Sentinel analysis of the new districts contained this conclusion: "The new map also reduces partisan competition overall. While some of the changes were small, every U.S. House seat in Wisconsin that wasn’t safe already became safer for the party that now occupies it." Good candidates Ryan said that both Duffy and Kind have won reelection because they’re good politicians. "These guys are good at getting reelected … and these are very competitive districts," he said. Records show that incumbency brings massive fund-raising advantages. As of July 23, 2014, Ryan received $5.9 million in contributions and had $3.9 million in cash on hand, the Federal Election Commission reports. That compares with $502,635 raised and $107,901 in available cash for Democratic challenger Rob Zerban. Similar fund-raising advantages are held by Kind ($1.3 million in cash) compared with challenger Tony Kurtz ($35,666) and Duffy ($1 million) vs challenger Kelly Westlund ($119,000). "But let’s just say one of those guys hangs it up," Ryan said. "That would be a very competitive race." Wasserman said he tended to agree with the what-if scenario for an open seat. "If this was an open seat it would be more competitive, sure," he said, referring to Duffy’s district in particular. But when the Cook Report rated the eight districts by likely outcomes in the upcoming November 2014 election, seven of the eight were listed as "solid" Republican or Democrat. The remaining district -- the seat being being vacated by Petri, who is retiring -- is listed as "likely Republican." Our rating Ryan says that Wisconsin’s congressional districts are competitive. He raised several points to buttress his argument, and each has elements of truth to it. But, overall, the impact of redistricting on the seats cited by Ryan -- including his own -- is clear. Seats now held by Republicans Duffy, Kind and Ryan were redrawn in favor of the incumbent in the 2012 redistricting. We rate Ryan’s claim Mostly False.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2014-10-01T05:00:00	2014-09-02	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-10502	Barack Obama has written and co-sponsored more bills in three years than Hillary Clinton has in seven.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/28/chain-email/distorted-and-unfair-comparison/	Fighting perceptions that their candidate has a thin legislative record, supporters of Sen. Barack Obama say he has written and co-sponsored more bills in three years in the Senate than Democratic opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton has in her seven years. A chain e-mail widely reproduced on Web blogs says Obama authored 890 bills and co-sponsored nearly 1,100 more, and contrasts that output with the record of Clinton, noting she got 20 mostly inconsequential bills passed during her first seven years in the chamber. The numbers use data retrieved on the Library of Congress' legislative search engine, Thomas (named for Thomas Jefferson and found here ). "An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record, according to some who would prefer this comparison not be made public," the e-mail reads, concluding, "He's not just a talker. He's a doer." But while you can obtain those search results with the right query, the e-mail is misleading for several reasons. First, it compares apples to oranges by contrasting every bill and amendment to a bill that Obama sponsored or co-sponsored, regardless of whether each advanced or languished, to those measures Clinton sponsored or co-sponsored that were signed into law. That guarantees a low count for Clinton, because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for most of her seven years in the Senate. The e-mail does not reveal how many of Obama's legislative attempts never got considered. Plus, including amendments in Obama's total but not in Clinton's total unfairly distorts the difference even more. Technically, amendments aren't really "bills," as the e-mail calls them. But more to the point, amendments, in which lawmakers seek to change some narrow part of legislation, can be the best way for members of a minority party to play a role in the legislative process. And then there's this: Experts say it's misleading to use the number of bills a lawmaker sponsors to gauge his or her ability to get things done, anyway. Most of the thousands of measures that senators and representatives introduce each year never get acted on, fond as politicians may be of talking about them. The number of bills they co-sponsor is even more insignificant, because in many of those cases the lawmakers are piggybacking on the efforts of a like-minded colleague who did most of the legwork. "Introducing bills is a relatively cost-free activity because it doesn't involve much time or political capital," said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "If you think about political capital and how it's used, you need some way of measuring whether this or that senator made a difference and influenced an outcome." A side-by-side tally of Clinton's and Obama's legislative output on Thomas shows Clinton has sponsored 635 bills and co-sponsored 2,441 more since she was elected in 2000, 54 of which became law. Obama has sponsored 272 and co-sponsored another 834 since he was elected in 2004, 16 of which became law. So in an apples-to-apples comparison of bills written and co-sponsored, it's Clinton: 3,076; Obama: 1,106. Not quite the conclusion the e-mail sought to reach. We don't need to rule on whether counting pieces of legislation is a legitimate way of measuring the effectiveness of lawmakers, though experts make clear that it's not. For us, it's enough to look at the facts in the e-mail, the actual numbers being used to make the comparison, and when we look we find manipulation and mistakes. We find a clear False.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-03-28T00:00:00	2008-02-20	['Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-04118	Says Texas is "dead last in support for mental health."	/texas/statements/2013/jan/10/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-says-texas-dead-last-mental-health-spe/	A Democratic state senator unleashed Twitter posts on the first day of the 2013 legislative session saying what she thinks lawmakers should accomplish. The Jan. 8, 2013, posts by Wendy Davis of Fort Worth included a familiar claim about the state’s low standing in mental health spending. "It's time for the Texas Legislature to take responsibility and move up from dead last in support for mental health," Davis said. Last in the land? We explored similar territory in January 2010, rating as Mostly True candidate Marc Katz’s claim that Texas then ranked last in spending for mental health care. For that fact check, we relied on the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation’s roundup of per-person mental health care spending for the 50 states in fiscal 2006. According to its analysis, Texas ranked 49th among the states that year in per capita spending, not quite last. At expenditures of $34.57 per resident, Texas bested New Mexico, which spent $25.58. The national average was $103.53. In total dollars spent, Texas ranked 10th in 2006, spending about $805 million. Davis spokesman Rick Svatora said the senator drew on a Dec. 18, 2012, news report by WFAA-TV, Channel 8 in Dallas, which quoted the liberal Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities as saying that Texas ranks last in the country in per-person mental health spending. Anne Dunkelberg, the center’s associate director, told us by email that the center had passed information to WFAA about spending in fiscal 2009 as written up in an August 2012 report by the Texas-based Hogg Foundation for Mental Health. We found the Kaiser foundation’s latest state-by-state breakdown with help from Gyl Switzer, public policy director of Mental Health America of Texas, which advocates for programs that prevent and treat mental illness. A footnote to the research says the figures come from the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute, Inc., which says it’s the only national association to represent state mental health commissioners/directors and their agencies. Texas was last among the states in such per-capita spending in 2009, 2008 and 2007, according to the charts for those years, though the 2007 chart shows no available data for Hawaii. The latest comparison: In fiscal 2010, which in Texas ran through August 2010, Texas spent nearly $980 million total on mental health services, placing ninth nationally, according to a foundation chart. Its per-person spending of $38.99 placed the state 49th--not last--among the states. Idaho, with per-capita spending of $36.64, was 50th, with Maine No. 1 at per-capita spending of $346.92. The national average was $120.56. Dunkelberg noted that the 2010 breakdown, posted by the foundation on Nov. 20, 2012, suggests Idaho saw its per-capita spending drop by nearly $8, from $44 in 2009. In 2010, Texas spending was up 61 cents per person from its $38.38 in 2009, according to the state-by-state charts. Texas surpassed a state, Dunkelberg wrote, "not because of a significant improvement in our per-capita investment in mental health, but because poor Idaho cut per-capita spending." Finally, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, which folds in the state agency over mental health, replied to our inquiry about the Kaiser breakdown by pointing out the analyzed figures do not take into account all funding for mental health services and saying it "doesn’t really give a clear picture of all of the money that goes into mental health spending in Texas." Christine Mann said by email the unnoted funding includes aid funneled through government-supported insurance programs plus services via agencies such as the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Youth Commission, the Department of Family & Protective Services and the Department of Aging and Disability Services. Mann said by phone that her agency does not have a figure for total Texas spending on mental health services nor has it compared spending on mental health services among the states. A footnote to the 2010 Kaiser chart says its Texas figure includes money spent on mental health services for prisoners. Dunkelberg, asked to comment on Mann’s critique, said the Kaiser breakdowns do not reflect all mental health funding--for any state. Regardless, Dunkelberg wrote, "the state ranking is a good measure of direct public and community (mental health) spending by a state for the population that is NOT in prison, or" served by the agency that bird-dogs child abuse "or on Medicaid." In each state, too, she said, it’s "likely that Medicaid is a very large payer for (mental health) services, and also likely that no one is tracking that expenditure." Our ruling Davis said Texas is "dead last" in mental health spending. The Kaiser-posted figures do not take into account all mental health spending--for any state. But unless more comprehensive research surfaces, the figures appear to be the best way to compare relative spending. And in 2010, the latest year analyzed, Texas spent more in raw dollars on mental health services than 41 states. But in per-resident spending--a better metric for comparing states--Texas ranked second-to-last to Idaho after ranking last to all other states for several years. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Wendy Davis	None	None	None	2013-01-10T06:00:00	2013-01-08	['None']
-pomt-11450	"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm."	/new-york/statements/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/	U.S. Rep. John Faso says he opposes some gun-control measures because they target the wrong people. Laws that limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners don’t make sense because most gun crime is committed by those who illegally possess a gun, said Faso, a Republican. "The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm," Faso said in an interview on C-SPAN. Faso - who represents parts of the Hudson Valley and Capital Region - supports strengthening background checks for gun buyers, banning bump stocks and raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21. He does not support other measures, like a ban on assault-style firearms. Is Faso right that the majority of gun crime is committed by those who illegally possess a gun? National data The last time the government tracked this kind of data was in 2004 when the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed inmates in federal and state prisons. Part of the survey asked inmates who had a gun during their crime where they originally got it. Dr. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, was part of a team that used the data to estimate how many illegally possessed guns. In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said. Only about 13 percent purchased the gun from a store or pawn shop. In the other 37 states, including New York state, 60 percent of inmates illegally procured the gun they used, Webster said. "If you look at the most stringent standards for legal gun ownership, it’s more like 65 percent," Webster said. The data is hard to track because gun ownership laws vary from state to state. New York state has universal background checks, for example. All gun sales have to go through a federally licensed dealer. A state like Mississippi, meanwhile, does not require background checks outside of gun shops. New York state also prohibits people convicted of several violent misdemeanors from buying or owning a gun. Many other states do not, Webster said. "What people don’t really appreciate is that the standards for gun ownership are so that you can be a legal gun owner but not so much law abiding," Webster said. About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Forty percent of state prison inmates admitted they obtained the gun illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer, or by stealing it. Federal agencies have not released research similar to Webster’s on illegal gun crime. His study was the only analysis of federal data we could find and experts were not aware of another. Congress since the 1990s has had an effective ban on federal taxpayer money being spent on research into gun violence as a public health issue and gun control advocacy by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But other government agencies are free to collect data on guns and gun crime. Local data Regional studies have found that a higher share of criminals did not legally possess a gun when they committed their crimes. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh teamed up with the Pittsburgh Police Department in 2016 to look at almost 900 firearms recovered from crime scenes in 2008. They found the criminals connected to these firearms did not legally possess them in 80 percent of the cases. A study from the University of Chicago looked at 99 inmates at the Cook County Jail in Chicago in 2015. It found only about 3 percent of inmates who used a gun bought it at a gun store. Researchers did not track the share of inmates who purchased a gun legally through other means. Previous ruling MSNBC Host Joe Scarborough claimed in 2015 that a very small share of crimes were committed by those who legally possess guns. PolitiFact rated that claim Half True. For that check, we spoke with Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University. He co-authored the study from the University of Chicago. "I think it’s safe to say that a low percentage of criminal assaults and robberies are committed with guns that were acquired by legal purchase from a gun store," Cook said in 2015. As we noted in 2015, not all guns purchased outside a gun store are illegally obtained. We checked back with Cook for this story. He said the data on violent crimes supports Faso’s claim. "Most people who commit assault, robbery, or murder with a gun anywhere in the U.S. are disqualified under federal law from being in possession of a gun due to age, criminal record, addiction status, immigration status or other reason," Cook said. But there are caveats to the data, experts warned. • Some gun crimes are never solved, so it’s impossible to know whether the gun was obtained illegally. • The national data is more than a decade old. The prison population of 2004 may be different from today’s inmates. • The data also varies between states. An illegal gun sale in one state may be legal in another. Someone can legally sell a gun to their friend without a background check in Mississippi, but not New York. That means Faso’s claim may be true in some states but false in others. Our ruling Faso said "The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm." People can differ on what constitutes a "vast majority." What's more, illegal gun crime is not well researched in the U.S. The latest data is more than a decade old. One analysis of the data showed Faso’s claim is not true in some states while true in others. But experts say most gun crime is likely committed by those who illegally possess guns. His statement is accurate but needed additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	John Faso	None	None	None	2018-03-12T13:57:23	2018-02-27	['None']
-pomt-02119	"During the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/	As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt. On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident. "This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy." Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died." We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check. We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch. While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel. Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13. Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66. We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality. So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low. What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier. Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years. Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks. "Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program. One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community." Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question." "As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all." Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues. "We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added. Our ruling Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	John Garamendi	None	None	None	2014-05-12T17:23:19	2014-05-05	['None']
-snes-02761	Did Tom Price Say It Is 'Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly'?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tom-price-cancer-patients/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Tom Price Say It Is ‘Better for Our Budget If Cancer Patients Die More Quickly’?	17 March 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00389	Facebook to Start Charging This Summer - Facebook Icon Will Turn Blue	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/facebook-icon-blue-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Hoax: Facebook to Start Charging This Summer - Facebook Icon Will Turn Blue	20th January 2012	None	['None']
-snes-01035	In 35 states, it's legal for police officers to have sex with unconsenting detainees.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can-police-legally-rape-people-35-states/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Can Police Legally Rape People in 35 States?	12 February 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03320	Singer and former "The Voice" star CeeLo Green was injured in a mobile phone explosion captured on video.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/phone-exploding-in-ceelo-greens-face/	None	Entertainment	None	David Emery	None	Video Shows Phone Exploding in CeeLo Green’s Face?	17 December 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02547	Was a Search Warrant Just Executed at the Obama Residence?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-search-warrant/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was a Search Warrant Just Executed at the Obama Residence?	25 April 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06536	"We have a $2 trillion to $3 trillion infrastructure deficit. We’ve got work that needs to get done. We’ve got people that want to go to work."	/ohio/statements/2011/oct/06/tim-ryan/tim-ryan-says-nation-needs-spend-2-3-million-get-i/	President Barack Obama’s $447 billion American Jobs Act is front and center on the political stage -- and those on both sides are using big numbers to bolster their arguments. So it was little surprise that the topic stirred emotion last month when Ed Schultz, a liberal who hosts a nightly cable talk show on MSNBC, brought "The Ed Show" to Columbus. Schultz, who has made it clear he favors Obama’s plan, had a friendly panel that included Ohio’s senior U.S. senator, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan, a Democrat from Niles. Asked during the live broadcast if the GOP could be expected to offer any help in the House, Ryan expressed pessimism, then pivoted to a talking point dear to Democrats. "We have a $2 trillion to $3 trillion infrastructure deficit," Ryan said. "We’ve got work that needs to get done. We’ve got people that want to go to work. And they’re Ohioans." The American Jobs Act does call for more infrastructure investment, which would mean more jobs for construction workers and suppliers. Given the high-charged political debate and occasional theater surrounding the plan, PolitiFact Ohio wanted to check Ryan’s numbers. But first things first. What, exactly, is an infrastructure deficit? Generally speaking, it’s a phrase used often by politicians and policy wonks to amplify how much money needs to be spent to bring the nation’s roads, bridges and waterways up to date. Think of it as the difference between how modern and sturdy the infrastructure should be and how modern and sturdy it actually is. "Need" and "should be," of course, can be matters of opinion. With that background in mind, we contacted Ryan’s office, where a spokesman pointed us to a 2009 study from the American Society of Civil Engineers. The Reston, Va., trade group graded U.S. infrastructure as poor and estimated it would cost $2.2. trillion over five years to modernize. Ryan was hardly the first politician to notice or embrace the report. Our research found people on both sides of the aisle cite the ASCE study as evidence of the nation’s crumbling foundation. And we found no other estimate so detailed or so widely accepted and repeated as ASCE’s. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican, tackled the issue at a July hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee: "We certainly need a new approach," she said. "The American Society of Civil Engineers' most recent estimate says that the U.S. needs to invest $2.2 trillion in order to keep pace with the national infrastructure needs." A few weeks later, Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts used the $2.2 trillion figure, though he did not note the original source, in an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press." The conservative Hoover Institution has cited the ASCE estimate while noting, without attribution, other estimates that "range from $1.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion." In September, the White House Press Office sent out a statement from Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat who cited the ASCE figure in his enthusiastic endorsement of the American Jobs Act. And on a web site promoting Obama’s plan, the Democratic National Committee cites the group’s study. But Washington can be an echo chamber, where erroneous numbers take on a life of their own while being repeated as fact. So PolitiFact Ohio checked in with ASCE to get a better handle on the group’s mission and method -- and to find out if pols were using the findings correctly. ASCE, according to its web site, represents more than 140,000 civil engineers and, though it is nonpartisan, lobbies for policy that might create more design and construction jobs. To complete the 2009 report card, researchers reviewed about 20 independent studies to calculate a deficit estimate. Sources ranged from the Congressional Budget Office and other federal agencies to other trade organizations. Brian Pallasch, ASCE’s managing director for government relations, told PolitiFact Ohio that his group tried to use as much government data as possible. Pallasch believes the group’s $2.2 trillion figure was conservative. But slapping the word "deficit" after it might not be the most accurate depiction of what the number means. ASCE was careful to describe the $2.2 trillion as a "need" over five years to plug the infrastructure gap. The study also estimated that about $1 trillion would be spent over that time to fulfill the need. That forecast included nearly $72 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus package, from 2009. Ryan and other politicians tend not to subtract the $1 trillion when talking of the infrastructure deficit. Then again, Pallasch said, the numbers don’t account for flooding and other calamities that have weakened or destroyed infrastructure since the 2009 study was released. And ASCE has not yet tracked how much of that $1 trillion has been spent in the last two years. The $2.2 trillion need "probably isn’t going down," Pallasch said. Ryan spoke of an infrastructure "deficit." Like others before him, he did not cover all the nuance and did not account for likely changes since the year the ASCE study was released. Those who watched him on "The Ed Show" might have had a more complete picture of the problem had they known that nearly half of that $2.2 trillion need was expected to be met over five years. Those pieces of information provide clarification. But given the fluidity of those numbers, and given the fact that he correctly pegged ASCE’s key number between $2 trillion and $3 trillion, Ryan wasn’t cherry-picking. This precision gap is much narrower than the infrastructure gap. As a result, we rate Ryan’s statement Mostly True.	None	Tim Ryan	None	None	None	2011-10-06T06:00:00	2011-09-15	['None']
-thet-00020	Claim on Scotland’s positive trade balance compared to UK nations	https://theferret.scot/scotland-uk-country-export-import/	None	Fact check Politics 	None	None	None	Claim on Scotland’s positive trade balance compared to UK nations is Mostly False	March 20, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03648	The government "knowingly" injected a birth defect-inducing vaccine into epidurals between 2010 and 2014 to hurt Black women	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epidural-vaccine-targets-blacks/	None	Junk News	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Government Targeted Black Women with ‘Epidural Vaccine’	1 November 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12270	Says that Bill Clinton "basically" told then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in 2016 that "we killed Vince Foster."	/texas/statements/2017/jul/05/pete-olson/pete-olson-said-bill-clinton-basically-told-lorett/	A Texas congressman said President Bill Clinton intimidated the government’s lead lawyer into not seeking an indictment of Hillary Clinton by telling her, "We killed Vince Foster." Did Clinton, desperate to help his wife, declare as much about killing Foster, the White House deputy counsel at the start of Clinton’s two terms? That's what Rep. Pete Olson said in a June 9, 2017, interview on the Houston-based Sam Malone Show. Conspiracy theories have abounded since Foster’s body was found in 1993--all of a part with unsubstantiated tales alleging the Clintons share a sordid history of sidelining people. Over the years, debunkists at Snopes.com and for The Washington Post’s Fact Checker each found no basis to claims about fishiness in Foster's death. Olson, R-Sugar Land, initially said in his radio interview that it was "awfully strange" for Bill Clinton to bump into then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an Arizona airport tarmac at a time in 2016 when Hillary Clinton’s handling of email was under Justice Department review. "I guarantee you," Olson said, "they had the conversation where he basically said, ‘Mrs. Lynch, call your attack dog off. We’ve killed people. We killed Vince Foster. We destroyed Webb Hubbell. We will destroy you.’ And then what happens to things?," Olson said. "All of a sudden--well, she did it, yeah, it was all terrible, don’t know who got the information, very classified. But no indictment." Olson was correct about about a few points. Bill Clinton on June 27, 2016, met privately with Lynch in a plane on the tarmac of Phoenix’s airport. Also, Hillary Clinton was not indicted for how she handled confidential emails. By authoritative accounts, too, Foster, an Arkansas lawyer close to the Clintons, suffered from depression affected by what he felt to be his own personal failings in handling White House events including the Travelgate and Whitewater matters before he was found dead with a gun in his hand in a Washington-area park. But we identified no evidence for Olson’s claim that Bill Clinton told Lynch the Clintons killed Foster. Lynch insisted at the time that the airplane conversation centered on topics such as Clinton’s grandchildren. Our search of the Nexis news database turned up no Bill Clinton accounts of what was discussed. A delayed backpedal Olson himself backed off after his account was brought to light by Right Wing Watch, a project of a liberal group, People for the American Way, 11 days after the radio interview. In a written statement made available the same day, Olson said in part that "in my discussion about Loretta Lynch and Vince Foster, I took the accusations a step too far. I regret my choice of words." On June 23, 2017, we asked Olson after he spoke at a Capitol Hill conference on civility in public life if he’d intended his radio comment about Bill Clinton to be factual. Olson replied: "That was a little out of bounds. It was over the top. I regret it and I apologized for it." Investigations A series of investigations of Foster’s death include the July 1994 finding of a special counsel, Robert B. Fiske Jr., that Foster’s death in the area’s Fort Marcy Park in July 1993 was a suicide influenced by Foster’s depression associated with episodes involving his legal work for the Clinton White House. Fiske concluded that "Foster's death was a personal collapse, not a White House scandal," The Washington Post said in a news story at the time. "The Fiske investigation involved four lawyers, five physicians, seven FBI agents, approximately 125 witnesses; also DNA tests, microscopes and lasers," the newspaper reported. In October 1997, an investigation by the office of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr reaffirmed that Foster committed suicide, the Post then reported. "The report concludes that Foster was severely depressed about his work at the White House, took a revolver from a closet in his home, placed it in an oven mitt, and on the afternoon of July 20, 1993, drove to a Virginia park and shot himself," the story said. "And it contains new forensic details that refute the conspiracy theories that have long surrounded his death – that Foster was a victim of foul play, or that his body was moved to Fort Marcy Park after his death at another location, perhaps the White House," the story said. The report itself states in its closing summary: "The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death." The summary also quoted Dr. Alan L. Berman, an expert suicidologist, saying: "No plausible evidence has been presented to support any other conclusion." Previously, the story said, Fiske and two bipartisan congressional panels similarly concluded that Foster took his own life. By email, we connected with Berman, who said of Olson’s claim: "There is not a scintilla of fact in this statement – it is a blatant falsehood, unsupported and unsupportable. There were four investigations into Foster’s death, all arriving at the same conclusion." Our ruling Olson said Bill Clinton said "we killed" Foster. There’s no evidence of Clinton saying as much nor a factual basis for anyone to say the Clintons killed Foster. This claim, which Olson backed off after it became widely known, adds up to a baseless accusation. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Pete Olson	None	None	None	2017-07-05T17:19:41	2017-06-09	['Vince_Foster', 'Bill_Clinton']
-clck-00030	there's this myth that's developed around carbon dioxide that it's a pollutant […] Carbon dioxide is a perfectly natural gas, it’s just like water vapor, it’s something that plants love.	https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/cnn-interview-william-happer-misleads-impact-rising-carbon-dioxide-plant-life/	None	None	None	None	None	In CNN interview, William Happer misleads about the impact of rising carbon dioxide on plant life	[' CNN, 22 April 2017 \xa0 ']	None	['None']
-goop-01657	Angelina Jolie Not Eating Due To Stress From Brad Pitt Divorce?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-divorce-health-eating-stress/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie Not Eating Due To Stress From Brad Pitt Divorce?	5:53 pm, February 2, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-01321	"The 'Penny Plan' would reduce non-defense, non-safety net spending by one percent of the previous year’s total each year. Over 10 years, the plan will reduce spending (outlays) by almost $1 trillion without touching defense or entitlement spending."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1413/adopt-penny-plan/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Adopt the penny plan	2017-01-17T09:07:35	None	['None']
-pomt-02493	"Two-thirds of the people who start out in minimum wage are above the minimum wage within a year."	/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/16/steve-forbes/steve-forbes-says-two-thirds-people-who-earn-minim/	President Barack Obama made good on his State of the Union promise to raise the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 starting in 2015. But he doesn’t have the executive power to do the same for all workers, so the debate among the White House, Congress, economists and business leaders continues. CNN State of the Union host Candy Crowley asked Steve Forbes, chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes Media, if raising the minimum wage would be good or bad for the bottom line, economically speaking. "Remember, in terms of minimum wage, they are often with businesses with small margins, and two-thirds of the people who start out in minimum wage are above the minimum wage within a year, when they get skills," said Forbes, a former Republican presidential candidate. We’ll leave it to the economists to debate whether or not raising the minimum wage would help or hurt these workers. PunditFact wanted to know if two-thirds of minimum wage workers do start earning more within a year. Forbes didn’t return our request for comment. We found two papers that directly address his claim. In 2004, economists William Even and David Macpherson published their findings for the Employment Policies Institute, a fiscally conservative nonprofit think tank. Using federal labor statistics from the Current Population Survey, they did find that about two-thirds of workers see wage growth within a year. However, since that’s pre-recession data, we’ll place more emphasis on a 2013 report. Two Texas A&M University economics professors, Jonathan Meer and Jeremy West, updated Even and Macpherson’s findings using the same data source from 1979 to 2012. Meer and West reported the following trends of minimum wage workers: 16.55 percent leave the labor force 5.85 percent become unemployed Of those that remained in the workforce, Meer and West found that 65.85 percent receive higher wages the next year. So it’s not that two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn more money the following year. It’s two-thirds of those who continue to work, or 51 percent of all minimum wage workers. Minimum wage earners may choose to leave the labor force because they figure they can do about as well without a paycheck, but with government benefits, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economics professor. There’s a lot of flow in and out of the labor market that complicates Forbes’ claim, she said. Sinclair also pointed out that there’s selection at play in this statistic. Individuals who keep their minimum-wage jobs for one year are proving that they’re dedicated employees who can hold down jobs. That might speak more to why they’re getting a raise than anything else, Sinclair said. Our ruling Forbes said two-thirds of people working for the minimum wage earn more money within a year. The real figure is 51 percent, because some people leave the labor force or lose their job. Forbes’ claim is partially accurate. We rate it Half True.	None	Steve Forbes	None	None	None	2014-02-16T13:41:12	2014-02-16	['None']
-para-00074	Says abolishing the carbon tax, the mining tax and getting productivity up could "produce 1 million new jobs in five years, 2 million new jobs in a decade".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/09/tony-abbott/two-million-jobs-s-going-be-hard-yakka/index.html	None	['Employment']	Tony Abbott	Peter Martin, Peter Fray	None	Two million jobs? That's going to be hard yakka	Friday, August 9, 2013 at 9:41 p.m.	None	['None']
-goop-00726	Kanye West, Kim Kardashian Leading “Separate Lives”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kanye-west-kim-kardashian-separate-lives/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kanye West, Kim Kardashian Leading “Separate Lives”?	8:43 pm, June 28, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02462	Nicole Kidman Doesn’t Trust Keith Urban To Be Alone?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-trust-keith-urban-alone-visit/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Nicole Kidman Doesn’t Trust Keith Urban To Be Alone?	4:08 pm, September 14, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05901	Honey and cinnamon possess significant medicinal virtues.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/honey-and-cinnamon-cure/	None	Medical	None	David Mikkelson	None	Facts on Honey and Cinnamon	16 March 2011	None	['None']
-tron-01766	Petition asking President Bush to reinstate prayer in schools	https://www.truthorfiction.com/prayerinschool-ht/	None	government	None	None	None	Petition asking President Bush to reinstate prayer in schools	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00853	Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger was "an active participant in the Ku Klux Klan."	/new-hampshire/statements/2015/mar/18/william-obrien/nh-rep-bill-obrien-says-margaret-sanger-was-active/	Debates about Planned Parenthood often find their way back to Margaret Sanger, the outspoken birth control advocate who founded a forerunner to the group. Opponents of Planned Parenthood, and of abortion more generally, have seized on Sanger’s sometimes controversial beliefs as a way to discredit the organization that she helped found. Such was the case on Feb. 8, 2015, when former New Hampshire speaker of the House William O’Brien posted a lengthy online comment about a previous fact check. O’Brien writes, in his first paragraph: "In language that would only occur to one of the liberal elite, here is what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an active participant in the Klu Klux Klan and the eugenics movement, had to say about the immigrants, blacks and poor people for whom that organization’s services were targeted," going on to quote Sanger as saying they were "human beings who never should have been born." That’s a lot to unpack. There is little question that Sanger supported the eugenics movement (more on that later), but one statement really stuck out. Sanger was "an active participant in the Ku Klux Klan." PolitiFact NH decided to check it out. It turns out, Sanger did speak to a group connected to the KKK and wrote about it openly. In Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, published in 1938, Sanger details her work advocating birth control across the United States and emphasizes her willingness to talk to virtually anyone. "Always to me any aroused group was a good group," Sanger writes, "and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing." Sanger’s account suggests she didn't hold the group in the highest esteem. After arriving at the meeting, a complicated process that involved driving to a secret location, it was time for her to speak. "Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand," Sanger writes. It’s important to note that the Women of the Ku Klux Klan was not the KKK itself. It was a parallel, official organization, with branches in all 48 states. It supported the goals of the men’s group, and was based in Little Rock, Ark. And that’s a far cry from being an "active participant" in the Ku Klux Klan, as O’Brien claims. As for Sanger, she indeed supported the eugenics movement. While the notion that the human race could be perfected by better breeding led to a horrific outcome in the Holocaust, it had been widely accepted in progressive, reformist political circles. Supporters included Winston Churchill, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, George Bernard Shaw and economist John Maynard Keynes. And while he disagreed with and worked to debunk eugenicists who insisted on black people’s inferiority, African-American activist W. E. B. Du Bois subscribed to a number of the movement’s principles. In other words, supporting eugenics did not automatically equal racism. Jean H. Baker, who wrote the biography Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion and is the Bennett-Harwood professor of history at Goucher College in Maryland, says attempts to paint Sanger as a bigot are simply false. "As for Sanger as a supporter of KKK, it is just untrue," Baker wrote in an email. "She was far ahead of her times in terms of opposing racial segregation. She worked closely with black leaders to open birth control clinics in Harlem and elsewhere. She believed all women should have the information about birth control that rich women had, hence her lecture to the KKK women." Ruth Engs, a professor emeritus of applied health science at Indiana University who has studied the eugenics movement, also said O’Brien’s claim was incorrect. "Margaret Sanger, as far as I know, was never a member of the Klan. She would speak to any group who was interested in how to control their reproduction. This includes immigrant groups, black groups, church groups, in addition to professionals, physicians," she wrote in an email. Author Edwin Black, whose 2003 book War Against the Weak paints a scathing portrait of the American eugenics movement, criticizes Sanger harshly in its pages for her eugenic beliefs. Ultimately, though, he writes, "Sanger was no racist. Nor was she anti-Semitic." Contacted for comment, O’Brien referred to two articles online, one a piece from the American Spectator and the other an entry on a blog that has no other content. The Spectator article mostly refers to the passages from the autobiography, although it leaves out the paragraph in which Sanger compares her audience to children. It also treats the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan and the actual Klan as one and the same. The blog includes similar content, along with information about the effect of abortions on the African American community. We should note, however, that no Planned Parenthood chapter offered abortions until 1970, four years after Sanger’s death. O’Brien and the sources he cited all highlight a comment made by Sanger in a Dec. 10, 1939, letter. In it, she writes, "We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs." A 2011 PolitFact Georgia article examined this statement and found it was actually innocuous. "Sanger’s correspondence shows this sentence advocates for black doctors and ministers to play leadership roles in the Negro Project to avoid misunderstandings. Lynchings and Jim Crow laws gave blacks good reason to be wary of attempts to limit the number of children they bore. In Harlem, she hired a black doctor and social worker to quell those fears," the article states. We should also note that in 1966, while she was still alive, Planned Parenthood bestowed the Margaret Sanger award on Martin Luther King Jr. He accepted, and while he was unable to attend the event, his wife Coretta showed up in his place to read his speech. In it, King wrote: "There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist – a nonviolent resister." Given the fact that Sanger’s autobiography had been published nearly 30 years before King’s speech, her earlier address was no secret. It should be clear the civil rights leader did not think of Sanger as a racist. In addition to the links O’Brien shared, he also threw a little vitriol our way. "These facts won’t stop your defamatory attacks in your article or in the future," he said through his Facebook account in response to an inquiry for this article . "Your article is certainly already written and will be yet another attack piece intended to satiate the prejudices of the narrower band of the electorate who care what the Concord Monitor has to say." Our ruling Former New Hampshire Speaker of the House William O’Brien wrote that Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and "an active participant in the Klu Klux Klan." Birth-control advocate Sanger did give a speech to a women’s branch of the KKK and she was a believer in eugenics. However, her writings and other contemporary evidence make clear that she was not ideologically in tune with the Klan -- much less an "active participant." O’Brien’s claim goes far beyond the evidence. We rate the statement False.	None	William O'Brien	None	None	None	2015-03-18T15:59:04	2015-02-08	['Margaret_Sanger', 'Ku_Klux_Klan']
-goop-00688	Jennifer Lopez Engaged To Alex Rodriguez, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-lopez-alex-rodriguez-engaged-engagement-ring-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Lopez NOT Engaged To Alex Rodriguez, Despite Ring Speculation	4:13 pm, July 5, 2018	None	['Alex_Rodriguez']
-pomt-01902	"Since the governor took office, Oregon’s unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest point in three years."	/oregon/statements/2014/jul/02/john-kitzhaber/under-gov-kitzhaber-has-oregons-unemployment-rate-/	Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is seeking an unprecedented fourth term in office. The problem-filled rollout of Cover Oregon, the state’s health insurance exchange, is bound to be a contentious issue in his race against challenger Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point. But so is the state’s economy, which took a beating in the wake of 2008’s Great Recession. The claim: On his campaign website, Kitzhaber lists "Getting Oregonians Back to Work" among his top priorities. At the same time, the site says, some positive economic news has been generated since he took office in January 2011. Chief among those, it says, are the creation of 25,000 jobs and an improvement in the state’s credit rating. Then, there’s this: "Since the governor took office, Oregon’s unemployment rate has dropped to its lowest level in three years." PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know if that’s true. The analysis: This fact-check seemed about as straightforward as they get -- find the relevant statistics, see if they comport with the claim and proceed to the rating. However, there’s an aspect to this claim that goes beyond the bottom line. Kitzhaber doesn’t take complete credit for the turnaround, but it’s clear -- especially combined with his job-creation numbers and better credit rating -- that he’s submitting an economic resume to bolster his 2014 campaign. Kitzhaber defeated Republican Chris Dudley in November 2010 to win his third term. His first two terms ran from 1995 to 2003. He was sworn in most recently in January 2011, so that’s when the clock starts ticking. We emailed Tim Duy, a University of Oregon economics professor, who sent an online interactive graph showing unemployment rates for Oregon and the nation as a whole from 1990 through May 2014. Here are the numbers, as shown on a graph prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis: In January 2011, the month Kitzhaber was sworn in, Oregon’s unemployment rate was 10 percent -- down considerably from the Great Recession peak of 11.6 percent in May and June 2009. By comparison, the U.S. unemployment rate when he took office was 9.1 percent, down from the post-recession high of 10 percent in October 2009. So when Kitzhaber took office, Oregon’s unemployment rate was already trending down, as was the rate for the nation as a whole. Still, has it dropped since then to its lowest level in three years, as the governor claimed? The answer is essentially yes, according to Oregon Employment Department figures for May 2014, the most recent month available. The statewide rate, adjusted for seasonal fluctuations, is 6.9 percent, down from the 10 percent when Kitzhaber took office. The rate was slightly lower in February and April at 6.8 percent, but it’s ticked back and forth between 6.8 and 6.9 percent since. It needs to be pointed out, however, that 6.9 percent is a statewide average. Rates in some rural counties remain stubbornly high, although down significantly from their recession peaks. We contacted Nick Beleiciks, a state employment economist, for his view. "Unemployment rates are generally higher in Oregon’s non-metro counties, which has been the case for at least 10 years," he wrote in an email. "They have the same overall pattern of falling unemployment rates that the Portland metro area counties and other metro area counties show." Combined, all non-metro counties in the state have an average unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, he added. That’s down from just under 11 percent three years ago. We contacted Kitzhaber’s office to see how much credit the governor is taking for the statewide dip. As it turns out, at least some. In rural Oregon, for instance, various initiatives the governor has launched are "making a difference in reducing unemployment and encouraging economic development," according to a statement emailed by spokeswoman Rachel Wray. The statement also singled out the six Regional Solutions teams deployed across the state, the Governor’s Strategic Reserve Fund to help support job training and hiring, and the Oregon Business Plan -- Kitzhaber’s "blueprint" for strengthening the economy across the state. Last, we got back in touch with Duy, the University of Oregon economics professor. "Politicians in general like to take credit for the economy," he said in a voice message. "But in many cases, including this one, there are larger cyclical factors at play, and we’re caught up in those larger cyclical factors. To me, this is best evidenced right now by unemployment rates dropping for the U.S. as a whole." The ruling: Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is seeking a fourth term as governor. Among the accomplishments listed on his website is that unemployment in Oregon is at its lowest in three years. Kitzhaber’s office, in a statement, also took some credit for the drop. Statistics largely bear out the claim that the unemployment rate is the lowest in three years -- down from 10 percent when Kitzhaber was sworn in to 6.9 percent currently. Although it was one-tenth of a point lower in February and April than in May, the most recent month available, we aren’t dinging the governor for that. Monthly unemployment numbers are often adjusted later and the figure remains between 6.8 and 6.9 percent. It’s important to note, however, to keep two things in mind. The first is that unemployment rates across the country, including Oregon, had been trending down for at least two years before Kitzhaber was sworn in. Second, that unemployment rates in a handful of rural counties remain considerably above the statewide average (although they, too, are down from when the governor took office). An economist also stressed that the drop in Oregon’s unemployment rate over the course of Kitzhaber’s most recent term is inextricably linked to a similar national reduction in unemployment. The governor’s statement is accurate, as far as it goes, but lacks key context to shine a true light on the state’s unemployment situation. We rate it Half True. Comments? Questions? Click over to our entry on OregonLive.com and let us know what you think.	None	John Kitzhaber	None	None	None	2014-07-02T15:58:06	2014-05-15	['Oregon']
-snes-05876	A phony carpark attendant collected parking fees outside the Bristol Zoo for over twenty years.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fake-parking-attendant/	None	Crime	None	David Mikkelson	None	Phony Carpark Attendant Collects Parking Fees	13 June 2009	None	['None']
-pomt-12258	Says because of Donald Trump, "the IRS decided to stop enforcing the individual mandate that was the underpinning of the ACA. That has resulted in insurance companies all across the country jacking their rates up, explicitly because they don't believe that healthy people will buy insurance."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/10/chris-murphy/donald-trump-responsible-rising-health-insurance-p/	Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., blamed President Donald Trump for insurance rate hikes through the administration’s attempts to weaken the Affordable Care Act. "It all started when he issued an executive order … that commanded all federal agencies to start undermining the ACA, and his agencies listened," Murphy said in the June 26 video. "The IRS decided to stop enforcing the individual mandate that was the underpinning of the ACA. That has resulted in insurance companies all across the country jacking their rates up, explicitly because they don't believe that healthy people will buy insurance." Insurance rates have indeed been on the rise, but we wondered whether it could all be traced back to the IRS and a weakened enforcement of the individual mandate. We found that Trump has continued the weak enforcement of the individual mandate in place during the Obama administration, freezing a change that was set to begin with the 2016 tax year. But his party’s rhetoric on repealing the Affordable Care Act, as well as other issues, have been linked to premium rate increases. The role of the IRS The IRS is the agency tasked with enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires most individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty for going without. The mandate was designed to encourage healthy people to enter the risk pool and thus lower insurance costs. When people file their individual income tax returns, they must indicate their health insurance coverage or list a waiver or exemption. Otherwise, they must pay the penalty for lacking coverage. For the 2016 tax year, those who weren’t covered had to pay 2.5 percent of taxable income or $695, whichever was higher. Those tax returns that failed to do any of these three actions were considered "silent returns," and elicited a letter from the IRS alerting the taxpayer of the issue. "Most of the time the taxpayer didn’t get back, and there was nothing else the IRS could do," said Chris Condeluci, a former Republican tax counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the Affordable Care Act was written. President Barack Obama instructed the IRS to stop processing silent returns beginning with 2016 tax filings to punish taxpayers expecting a refund who failed to comply with the law. Trump’s executive order scrapped that change. "Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systematically rejected by the IRS at the time of filing, allowing the returns to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund," the IRS said in a Feb. 15 press release. "When the IRS has questions about a tax return, taxpayers may receive follow-up questions and correspondence at a future date, after the filing process is completed. This is similar to how we handled this in previous years, and this reflects the normal IRS post-filing compliance procedures that we follow." Murphy’s team pointed us to that announcement when we asked for evidence for Murphy’s statement. Trump’s order did cause the IRS to change direction internally, but outwardly, the agency is enforcing the same policy. "They’re adhering to the same enforcement policy as the Obama administration did. At the end of the day it’s merely business as usual when it comes to the IRS," Condeluci added. The IRS may have maintained the status quo, but the announcement still made an impact. "It was noted by the actuaries who calculate rates. But it’s another element in a complex mosaic in factors that lead to rate increases," said Dan Mendelson, the president of Avalere, a health care consulting firm. Then there’s Congress. Regardless of the Trump administration’s impact on the IRS, Congress is working to effectively scrap the individual mandate. The House Committee on Appropriations has drafted a bill that would terminate the tax penalty on those who go without insurance, which the House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government approved on June 29. Premiums on the rise Insurance rates for the most popular type of exchange plan are an average of 18 percent higher than last year, according to Avalere. A combination of medical inflation and political volatility account for the hike, although it’s hard to apportion the causes of the rate increases. The individual mandate isn’t the only factor, though. "Although the mandate is a reason for higher premiums for next year, it's probably not the main reason," said Sherry Glied, the dean of New York University’s Graduate School of Public Service. "The main reason is uncertainty about whether Congress will fund the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions." That's a different animal. Congress is weighing whether to continue funding the $8 billion pool of cost-sharing reduction subsidies under the ACA. In 2010, the House filed a lawsuit arguing the subsidies were illegal, and the Trump administration has not clarified whether it will defend them in court. The bipartisan budget bill passed late June did not include those funds. "This is one of the larger premium hikes because there's a lot of uncertainty about what’s going to happen to the insurance marketplace," said Claire Brindis, the director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. "Whenever insurance companies feel like there's going to be dramatic changes, they get skittish about profit margins." Our ruling Murphy said that insurance companies are jacking up their rates because of the IRS’ weakened enforcement of the individual mandate under Trump. That’s an exaggeration. The Trump administration has continued the same policies as Obama. A mandate to buy insurance is in place, but there’s not much punishment for those who refused to comply. Murphy suggested that the individual mandate itself was key in keeping insurance rates low. In theory, the requirement invites greater diversity to the health insurance risk pool, but the IRS never had sufficient tools at its disposal to enforce it effectively. Blaming rate increases on the IRS is too simplistic, particularly as there is no evidence of a direct link. A number of other factors are at play, including uncertainty around future health care subsidies. Because there has been little outward change in the IRS enforcement policies, we rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Chris Murphy	None	None	None	2017-07-10T14:35:20	2017-06-26	['None']
-pose-00511	"To ensure that the state and Wisconsin businesses have an open and ongoing dialog on the state of the economy, I will empower my Lieutenant Governor to head regular small business roundtables in all corners of the state."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/531/have-lieutenant-governor-lead-statewide-small-bus/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Have lieutenant governor lead statewide "small business roundtables"	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-14490	When Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, "that was the end" of Romney’s chances to win.	/wisconsin/statements/2016/feb/26/donald-trump/picking-paul-ryan-ended-mitt-romneys-chances-winni/	Reflecting on the 2012 presidential campaign, Donald Trump blamed Mitt Romney’s loss on his choice of a running mate: Paul Ryan. "That was the end of that campaign, by the way, when they chose Ryan," Trump said Feb. 17, 2016 on the campaign trail in South Carolina. "And I like him. He's a nice person, but that was the end of the campaign." In some quarters, Romney’s choice of the Republican congressman from Janesville, who is now speaker of the House, was seen as boosting the GOP nominee’s chances. Democrat Barack Obama, of course, defeated the former Massachusetts governor to win a second term. But did Romney’s fortunes plummet as soon as he chose Ryan? Not according to the polls. Importance of the veep pick Let’s note at the top that a vice-presidential pick is only one of an innumerable number of factors that bear on the outcome of a presidential campaign. And it’s not typically regarded as a pivotal one. "For the most part, voters look almost exclusively at the presidential candidate and there’s little evidence that very many of them base their choice on the vice-presidential selection," said longtime political reporter Peter Brown, who is now assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, which does national polling in presidential races. Indeed, the vice-presidential selection might make a big splash in the news briefly, but it occurs long before voters cast their ballots. In the meantime, the campaign is quickly overtaken by other events. Gallup has found, though, that there typically is a temporary bump in the polls for presidential contenders shortly after they announce their running mate. That’s essentially what happened with Romney. Polls after the pick Romney announced his selection on Aug. 11, 2012. In Ryan, wrote Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Washington bureau chief Craig Gilbert, Romney was tapping "perhaps his party's most influential politician on economic and budget policy, a huge favorite of pro-business and free-market conservatives, a personable policy wonk and energetic campaigner, and the architect of two deeply controversial federal budget plans that sharply scale back social spending and health care entitlements." The controversial budget plans were what Trump cited when he made his statement about Ryan. Answering a question at a retirement community about Social Security, Trump said Romney was hurt by what he described as Ryan's calls to cut Social Security and other entitlement programs for the elderly. As the Washington Post noted in reporting Trump’s comments, shortly after Romney picked Ryan there was an ad attacking Ryan's stance on Medicare that showed an elderly woman in a wheelchair being thrown off a cliff by a man in a dark suit. The message on the screen: "Mitt Romney made his choice. ... Now you have to make yours." Trump’s campaign did not respond to our requests for information to back his claim. But Romney did not tank in the polls after choosing Ryan. Pollster Charles Franklin of Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee told us that in the trend estimates he did of all national polls during 2012, Romney’s support was declining immediately before Ryan was picked, and rose immediately after. And in the polling completed just before the Ryan pick compared to polls begun just after, there was a slightly higher average for Romney after the pick, though it was not statistically significant. But there was no evidence, Franklin said, that support for Romney declined in the immediate aftermath of the Ryan pick. Said Kathleen Weldon, communications director at Cornell University’s Roper Center: Ryan "neither hurt the ticket nor brought on a substantial bounce." News stories on polling just before and just after the Ryan pick painted a similar picture. The pick gave Romney a "micro-bump" in battleground states such as Florida in Wisconsin, even though the ticket’s proposal for changing Medicare was wildly unpopular in those states, according to a Quinnipiac poll. A Huffington Post article, meanwhile, found in a handful of national polls that the veep bump was "somewhere between small and non-existent." In closing, two other notes, even though they reflect results long after Ryan was chosen: 1. The Romney-Ryan ticket did well among senior citizens As the Post article on Trump’s claim pointed out, despite Trump’s emphasis on how Ryan hurt the ticket among senior citizens, exit polls showed more voters over the age of 65 voted for Romney and Ryan than for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, with the Republican candidates winning that age group by 12 percentage points. That was higher than in 2008 when Republican nominee John McCain won that age group by 8 percentage points or in 2004 when George W. Bush won it by 5 percentage points. 2. The ticket did as well or better at the ballot box than in polls prior to Ryan’s choice In polls tracked by Real Clear Politics, Romney’s support ranged between 39 percent to 47 percent in six national polls taken in August 2012 in the days before Ryan was selected. Obama’s ranged from 44 to 52 percent. Ultimately, in the election, Romney ended up with 47 percent of the vote, with Obama getting 51 percent. Our rating Trump said that when Romney chose Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate, "that was the end of the campaign." Polls taken in the days after Ryan’s selection generally showed that Romney’s standing vs Obama was as good or better than in the days before the pick. We couldn’t find any evidence that the Ryan pick sunk the ticket. We rate Trump’s statement False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-02-26T10:00:00	2016-02-17	['Mitt_Romney', 'Paul_Ryan']
-pomt-01154	The United States has "more of our people in prison than Russia, China, and North Korea combined."	/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/16/matthew-cooke/us-prison-population-big-russia-china-and-north-ko/	The United States gets a bad rap for the huge number of residents in lockup across the nation. And in many cases, its reputation for incarcerating more people than any other country is deserved. But one recent attempt by Hollywood activists who wanted to put the country’s prison population in perspective went too far. Following on protests stemming from the shooting of Michael Brown, director-writer Matthew Cooke and producer-actor Adrian Grenier co-wrote a Huffington Post column that called on Americans to support three groups focused on criminal justice reform. Many of the claims in the column were supported by links from outside sources, but one that wasn’t caught the eye of a reader, who asked us if it is true. "Behind the front lines we've systematically corralled masses of Americans into the largest prison system on the planet. We have more of our people in prison than Russia, China, and North Korea combined," the column said. "And most are non-violent, so what is this colossal net we've cast over so many people? What's it really doing? And who are the 2.3 million Americans we've dragged into cages?" We can only evaluate statements on the Truth-O-Meter from one person at a time, so we’ll focus on Cooke since we spoke to him for our story. About that interview: After we presented some of our initial findings to Cooke via email, he quickly wrote back that he used the wrong countries in his statistic. He meant to include Iran, he said, which has about 220,000 prisoners, and not Russia. He said he would seek a correction for that line, but the overarching point that there are more people locked up in the United States than other countries holds up. Here’s what we found. Nailing down how many Americans are behind bars is complex. We saw recent estimates from 2.24 million people, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to more than 2.4 million, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a Massachusetts think tank that advocates for reducing the American prison population. It’s hard to calculate a tally of inmates because the scope of incarceration facilities is so wide. There are state prisons, local jails, federal prisons, military prisons, juvenile correctional centers, immigration detention facilities and others for American Indian territories and overseas territories. State prisons house the biggest chunk of inmates by far at an estimated 1.36 million people, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, which detailed population snapshots for nine population facilities in a pie chart earlier in 2014. Combined with the massive turnover of old inmates leaving and new ones coming in, it makes pinning down an exact number very difficult. For the sake of fleshing out Cooke’s initial comparison with China, Russia and North Korea, we delved into a global report from the International Centre for Prison Studies, which is widely reported and recently partnered with the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London. The group’s China estimate is 1.64 million sentenced prisoners, though it does not factor in citizens who are in pre-trial detention or "administrative detention," which could be around a half-million people. For Russia, the prison population was estimated at 681,600 in January 2013, down from earlier years after leaders granted political amnesty to prisoners, and tuberculosis swept detention facilities. The center does not have a reliable estimate for North Korea, notorious for its secretive government and political prison camps, though it loosely references an estimate of 150,000 prisoners. A United Nations report showed satellite images of prisons holding around 120,000 people. Regardless, using the conservative estimates for just China and Russia produces a sum (2.321 million) that is either more or less than the estimated U.S. prison population depending on the source. Adding in rough estimates for part of North Korea’s population obviously pushes up the total. Peter Wagner, executive director of the Prison Policy Initiative, said we should set the raw numbers aside because they are not as useful as comparing each country’s incarceration rate, which factors in population size. The U.S. prison population rate is highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies. Russia’s is 475 prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, and China’s is 121 per 100,000 population, which is below the world’s median rate, Wagner pointed out. More than half of countries and territories have rates below 150 per 100,000 population, the report said. Wagner’s group also compares incarceration rates for U.S. states with other countries. At the top are Southern states like Louisiana (1,341 inmates per 100,000 population) and Mississippi (1,155). At the bottom are Northeastern states like Maine and Vermont (rates of 277 and 257, respectively), which still put more people behind bars than any of the United States’ close allies, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Canada. Our ruling Cooke (and Grenier) tried to make a striking point about the size of the U.S. prison population when they wrote, "We have more of our people in prison than Russia, China, and North Korea combined." When we contacted Cooke, he acknowledged that the comparison is questionable, as respected (and conservative) estimates for China and Russia alone exceed the low-end count of American prisoners. Cooke said he would change the line in the column to be more accurate, and it now says, "We have more of our people in prison than anyone else -- more than Iran, more than North Korea, more than Russia or even China." (Kudos to him for acknowledging the error.) Still, experts say the preferred measure of comparison, a country’s incarceration rate, shows the United States far ahead of other countries, which supports the underlying point. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Matthew Cooke	None	None	None	2014-12-16T11:20:56	2014-12-10	['United_States', 'Russia', 'China', 'North_Korea']
-snes-01328	Did Roy Moore Receive 953 Votes to Doug Jones' 5,327 in a Town of 1,867 Registered Voters?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roy-moore-doug-jones-and-more-votes-than-voters/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Roy Moore Receive 953 Votes to Doug Jones’ 5,327 in a Town of 1,867 Registered Voters?	15 December 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09386	Marco Rubio's "income skyrocketed while his power increased."	/florida/statements/2010/mar/26/charlie-crist/charlie-crists-first-tv-ad-focuses-marco-rubios-mo/	In his first TV ad in the U.S. Senate primary, Gov. Charlie Crist wastes no time trying to shatter former House Speaker Marco Rubio's image as an ideologically pure, conservative crusader. Using a line graph with red ink, Crist claims that Rubio's income soared when he became a member of the state House in 2001. "His income skyrocketed while his power increased," the narrator says in the 30-second spot titled "We Thought He Was Different." The line graph starts in 2002 and ends in 2005, and indicates that Rubio's income more than tripled, starting at about $100,000 and rising to more than $300,000. We know state legislators are paid modestly, so we were curious if Crist's made-for-TV graphic is charting reality. To find out, we turned to the Florida Commission on Ethics, which requires elected officials to file a financial disclosure form each year. The forms list a person's net worth, assets and liabilities, and income. Connie Evans, an executive secretary with the commission, provided PolitiFact Florida with Rubio's financial disclosure forms from 1998, when he was a member of the West Miami City Commission, until he left the Florida House as speaker in 2008. The financial disclosure forms include legible income information for every year except 2000. (We could not discern Rubio's handwriting for that year). A lawyer by trade, Rubio reported his income for each year: 1998: $73,380 1999: $99,000 2001: $89,878 2002: $124,721 2003: $122,718 2004: $298,825 2005: $329,916 2006: $346,896 2007: $346,000 2008: $414,000 For some context: Rubio was part of the House Republican leadership beginning in 2001 as a whip, rose to be majority leader, and was speaker from 2006 to 2008. Rubio's income in the first few years included his salary of between $72,000 and $120,000 plus his West Miami City Commission pay ($1,380) and later his legislative salary (around $30,000 a year). But in 2004, Rubio's income increased dramatically, records show. That year he collected almost $270,000 by working for three separate law firms in South Florida -- Broad & Cassel, Becker & Poliakoff and the Haggard Law Firm. Starting in 2005, Rubio earned $300,000 a year working for Broad & Cassel, a well-connected statewide firm that had done millions of dollars of legal work for the Florida House. Between 2002 and 2005, Broad & Cassel had billed state taxpayers $4.5 million for legal work authorized by former Speaker Johnnie Byrd. Byrd and a managing partner of the firm, Steve Burton, were friends. But the expenses appeared so great that the then-incoming speaker, Alan Bense, ordered an audit of Broad & Cassel's work. The results of the audit were never publicized. In 2008, Rubio added $69,000 from Florida International University where he was hired as a visiting professor. In the television ad, Crist focuses on the years 2002 to 2005, which is a bit misleading because it brackets Rubio's big salary spike in 2004. If you included more years, the income increase is still dramatic, just not as much. Let's compare Crist's graphic (it's the one near the top of this item under the ruling) with two graphics we created ourselves. First, we charted the same thing Crist did, years 2002-2005. Here's what it actually looks like: Then we decided to chart all of the years on file with the state. That chart looks like this: Not huge differences, mind you, but differences. In his TV ad "We Thought He Was Different," Crist said Rubio's income skyrocketed and showed a red-line graphic that illustrates the dramatic increase. While his ad chose years that had a particularly steep increase, a broader range of years show much the same thing. In his eight years in the House, Rubio's income more than quadrupled. We rate Crist's claim True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2010-03-26T16:54:11	2010-03-24	['None']
-pomt-05596	Says President Obama and his allies in Congress gave "power" to control Medicare patients’ health care decisions to "a commission of 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington."	/tennessee/statements/2012/mar/30/marsha-blackburn/marsha-blackburn-says-patients-power-control-healt/	As the U.S. Supreme Court, after three days of oral arguments, moves toward determining the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we note that U.S.Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has again weighed in on one of its provisions. Like many other Republicans, she is attacking the Independent Payment Advisory Board created in the legislation and voted to repeal the provision last month. The board is intended to rein in Medicare costs beginning in 2015 with Congress required to either accede to its recommendations or act to overrule them. Specifically, Blackburn said: "Instead of giving patients control of their health care decisions, the President and his allies in Congress chose to delegate this power to a commission of 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington." We asked Blackburn spokesman Mike Reynard for evidence backing the claim and he referred to Section 3403 of the law where the board is established and to an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. Ryan said the board would be "empowered by the new health-care law to cut Medicare in ways that will lead to denied care for seniors." Our PolitFact Ohio colleagues took a look at a similar assertion about the IPAB by the former "Tutti Frutti" crooner Pat Boone on March 11 and rated it a "Pants on Fire" distortion of the truth. Closer to what Blackburn said about the IPAB are the statements PolitiFact national looked at from of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and PolitiFact Georgia looked at from U.S. Rep. Phil G Gingrey, R-Ga., the latter an obstetrician-gynecologist. Both suggested the IPAB’s "bureaucrats" would make medical decisions for patients. In both instances, those assertions were rated False. PolitiFact Georgia asked four different health experts about Gingrey’s claim that "a bunch of bureaucrats" would "decide whether you get care." All four said Gingrey was wrong. Cato Institute, a libertarian thinktank usually at odds with Democratic positions, said that the assertion that the IPAB would be controlling patients health-care decisions is "not even close to correct." Cato scholar Michael Tanner is himself an opponent of IPAB but nonetheless said: "It [IPAB] has nothing to do with individual care at all. It’s not making decisions on individuals." The letter of the law shows the board has nothing to do with individual patients or their health care decisions, but would suggest cost-savings proposals within a mandate that specifies it cannot ration care. The board might recommend, based on medical best practices, that every discharged hospital patient get guidance on wound care or that they drink plenty of cold water. They might find that surgery to install certain medical devices – like hip replacements – should not be done on Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 105. The goal is cost-savings, not micro-managing patient care. Blackburn couches her statement about the IPAB in the context of physicians cutting back on the number of Medicare patients they treat and suggests that, with the IPAB, "this problem will only get worse, leaving our seniors without the necessary access to physicians they deserve." This overstates the case. Some physicians are not taking on new Medicare patients for a variety of reasons, including low reimbursement rates. And it’s true the board could recommend lower rates for some procedures and discourage more doctors from taking on new patients. But the board is mandated to do so on a medically sound basis. The board exists to rein in costs, a job Congress has repeatedly declined to undertake, as this Washington Post editorial, among others, has pointed out. Gingrey also made an assertion that the board will be stocked with "unelected bureaucrats," and said it would be capable of making life-and-death decisions. That was found to be just not false but outrageous by PolitiFact Georgia. "This claim is incorrect," it said "The IPAB does not have anything close to the power that Gingrey suggests. It cannot raise costs to Medicare recipients, much less kill them off by denying life-saving care." Blackburn’s claim that the IPAB will consist of "15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington," like Bachmann’s grievance that the IPAB consists of political appointees, "leaves out a lot of detail of the law’s requirements," as PolitiFact National put it in its check of Bachmann’s claims about the IPAB. The law states that the members "shall include individuals with national recognition for their expertise in health finance and economics, actuarial science, health facility management, health plans and integrated delivery systems, reimbursement of health facilities, allopathic and osteopathic physicians, and other providers of health services, and other related fields, who provide a mix of different professionals, broad geographic representation and a balance between urban and rural representatives." It also says the board "shall also include representatives of consumers and the elderly." And, it says individuals who are directly involved in providing or managing health care "shall not" constitute a majority of the board’s members. The president appoints 15 members, who undergo confirmation by the Senate, and there are three ex-oficio members. Once appointed to the board, the members become full-time government employees and are not allowed to hold other full-time employment. Our ruling Blackburn to her credit did not mention rationing -- connecting that practice to the IPAB is what pushed Boone’s claim to judged ridiculously false. But she did say that President Obama -- through the law -- would be giving the "power" to control Medicare patients’ health-care decisions to "a commission of 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington." Since we find that the IPAB would not control decisions made at the individual patient level, we rate it False.	None	Marsha Blackburn	None	None	None	2012-03-30T05:59:38	2012-02-29	['United_States_Congress', 'Barack_Obama', 'Washington,_D.C.', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-06170	"If Congress does not pass the renewal of the payroll tax cut before the end of the year, nearly 160 million working families will see their taxes go up by roughly $1,000."	/texas/statements/2011/dec/15/charlie-gonzalez/san-antonio-democrat-says-failure-extend-payroll-t/	Like many in Congress, U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez of Texas says letting a payroll tax cut expire would be a bad move for families. The San Antonio Democrat said in a Dec. 13, 2011, press release: "If Congress does not pass the renewal of the payroll tax cut before the end of the year, nearly 160 million working families will see their taxes go up by roughly $1,000." That many families will face that much of a tax hit? The payroll tax at issue is the 6.2 percent of eligible earnings that American workers pay to help fund Social Security. It’s called a payroll tax because the money is taken directly out of people’s paychecks. There are limits to the total amount that individuals are required to pay. In 2009 and 2010, the levy applied to the first $106,800 of salary, meaning no one would pay more than $6,621. Employers paid a matching share. In December 2010, the employee tax was cut to 4.2 percent through 2011 as part of an agreement President Barack Obama worked out with Congress to extend income-tax reductions passed during President George W. Bush’s administration. Obama later proposed slicing the payroll levy to 3.1 percent for workers next year. Congress has been debating how to extend and possibly expand the payroll tax cut. Asked how Gonzalez settled on his figures, his office urged us to contact the Office of Management and Budget, which is part of the executive branch, and also pointed us to a November 2011 web post by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, stating that the average annual benefit per household if Obama's proposed cut to 3.1 percent was adopted would be $1,426. A footnote attributes that information to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, an independent research organization. In an interview, Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, walked us through its estimates of the impact of renewing the current payroll tax cut through 2012. Regarding the congressman’s reference to the tax cut benefiting "nearly 160 million working families," the center estimates that the country will have 165 million households in 2012. However, it says, about 122 million households — not nearly 160 million — are projected to benefit from extending the cut. About 40 million households would not benefit, Williams told us, because the residents are not projected to have paying jobs. The congressman, he said, "has got the wrong number of benefiting households." Next, we took up the claim that working families will see their taxes go up by roughly $1,000 if the cut is not extended. By the end of this year, according to another center calculation, nearly 121 million households will have taken home an average of $934 more thanks to the cut. And the center estimates that the average benefit, for all benefiting households, would be $920 in 2012. Logically, the dollar value of each household’s projected 2012 tax savings is greatly driven by how much each household earns. If the payroll tax cut is extended, the center projects, the poorest 20 percent of households will average a $165 benefit. Higher-income households would accumulate more take-home dollars; households earning $62,043 to $104,401 are projected to average $1,280 in benefits and those earning $104,402 or more would average $2,253 in 2012 benefits. Next, we asked the OMB about the $1,000 tax-cut figure. By email, spokeswoman Meg Reilly pointed out that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation’s median household income in 2010 was $49,445, nearly $50,000 -- the 2-percent cut amounts to $1,000 of that total. Summing up, the center’s Williams told us that extending the cut would benefit about 122 million households next year, saving them an average of a little over $900 apiece. "The range will be large, though, going from virtually no savings for people who work very little to" more than $2,200 for workers with the highest earnings, he said. Our ruling Gonzalez’s claim overstates the households that would benefit from extending the tax cut -- by about 40 million. Also, his warned-of $1,000 tax increase is based on an average; actual results for each working family would vary widely. We rate his statement Half True. UPDATE, Feb. 16, 2012: This article has been updated to clarify that the projection cited by the Center for American Progress applied to President Obama's unsuccessful proposal to reduce the payroll tax by 3.1 percent.	None	Charlie Gonzalez	None	None	None	2011-12-15T17:32:57	2011-12-13	['United_States_Congress']
-goop-01852	Dolly Parton Did Say California Disasters Are Punishment For “Embracing Satan,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/dolly-parton-california-disasters-punishment-satan-fake-news/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Dolly Parton Did NOT Say California Disasters Are Punishment For “Embracing Satan,” Despite Fake News	4:54 pm, January 11, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01797	Katie Holmes’ Daughter Suri Cruise Auditioning For Acting Roles, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-daughter-suri-cruise-acting-roles-auditioning/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Katie Holmes’ Daughter Suri Cruise NOT Auditioning For Acting Roles, Despite Report	11:35 am, January 18, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00798	Nicki Minaj Album Pushed To “After Summer” Due To Beyonce “Solo Album”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicki-minaj-beyonce-solo-album-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Nicki Minaj Album Pushed To “After Summer” Due To Beyonce “Solo Album”?	4:11 pm, June 18, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01523	Bruce Willis Had Heart Attack On Movie Set?	https://www.gossipcop.com/bruce-willis-heart-attack-movie-set/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Bruce Willis Had Heart Attack On Movie Set?	2:28 pm, February 21, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05430	Photograph depicts 12-year-old shooting victim Tamir Rice brandishing what appears to be two guns.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deleted-tamir-rice-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Deleted Tamir Rice Photo	30 December 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01249	The world suicide rate plummeted following Logan Paul's "suicide forest" video.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/world-suicide-rate-drops-37-following-logan-pauls-youtube-video/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did the Suicide Rate Drop Following YouTube Star Logan Paul’s ‘Suicide Forest’ Video?	8 January 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-00127	A photo shows a Mexican police officer "brutalized by members of this caravan as they attempt to FORCE their way into Mexico."	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/26/blog-posting/photo-bloodied-police-2012-not-caravan/	Rumors about the caravan of Central American migrants making their way across Mexico are rampant. Even the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas seems to be chiming in. Among the most shared is a photo that claims to show the results of refugees assaulting Mexican police officers. But the photo is actually from 2012. "Mexican police are being brutalized by members of this caravan as they attempt to FORCE their way into Mexico - And WE are supposed to believe these are just poor, helpless refugees seeking asylum???" read several posts that have appeared on Facebook since Sunday alongside a photo of a bloodied officer, among others. "I am 100% behind POTUS deploying military to protect our border and keep them out. If any need asylum, they need to apply for it and do it the right way - LEGALLY and with CIVILITY" This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) And as fact-checkers have debunked it, some of the posts are disappearing from the social media platform. One widely-shared post now shows an error message, meaning the link expired or the user restricted its audience. The photo of the bloodied officer is authentic but it’s from 2012. Student protesters were involved in the violence, not migrants making their way to the U.S. border. Earlier this week, Buzzfeed reporter Jane Lytvyenko tweeted tips to help people check allegations like this for themselves. First, search for the image in Google by dropping a JPEG into the search bar. If the caption is in another language, copy and paste it into Google translate. The translated caption she found for the bloodied policeman? "Federal police aid one of his comrades wounded today, Monday, October 15, 2012, in the normal school of the municipality of Tiripetio, state of Michoacan (Mexico). More than a hundred students who were held in the student hall were arrested. Twelve vehicles were burned, including two police units." The photo being shared purports to be a recent one, but it’s not. We rate this statement Pants on Fire!	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-10-26T11:29:00	2018-10-22	['Mexico']
-goop-00605	Are Kourtney Kardashian, Younes Bendjima Married?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-younes-bendjima-married-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Are Kourtney Kardashian, Younes Bendjima Married?	8:23 pm, July 20, 2018	None	['Kourtney_Kardashian']
-tron-01493	President Trump Executive Order Bans Saturday Night Live	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-trump-executive-order-bans-saturday-night-live/	None	government	None	None	['donald trump', 'entertainment', 'satire']	President Trump Executive Order Bans Saturday Night Live	Apr 18, 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00565	Scientists in Texas are Going to Use Sex Offenders for Medical Research	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/texas-scientists-use-sex-offenders-medical-research-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Scientists in Texas are NOT Going to Use Sex Offenders for Medical Research	November 13, 2013	None	['Texas']
-vees-00274	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Without citing hard evidence, Duterte keeps revising the number of Filipino drug addicts	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-without-citing-hard-evidence-duterte-k	None	None	None	None	war on drugs,drug war	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Without citing hard evidence, Duterte keeps revising the number of Filipino drug addicts	March 23, 2018	None	['None']
-wast-00096	Just last Friday, we had a plant, a groundbreaking in Ashland, Kentucky, the heart of poverty in America in Appalachia. $1.5 billion aluminum rolling mill because of the president's tax and tariff policy.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/07/did-trumps-aluminium-tariffs-spark-a-1-5-billion-plant-in-kentucky/	None	None	Peter Navarro	Glenn Kessler	None	Did Trump's aluminum tariffs spark a $1.5 billion plant in Kentucky?	June 7	None	['Kentucky', 'United_States', 'Appalachia', 'Ashland,_Kentucky']
-pomt-00222	Says Patrick Morrisey undertook "efforts to put educators in jail."	/west-virginia/statements/2018/oct/11/joe-manchin/did-patrick-morrisey-make-efforts-put-educators-ja/	The West Virginia teachers’ strike in February was months ago, but rhetoric about the strike has continued to crop up on the campaign trail. On Sept. 14, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. -- who is in a tough reelection contest against West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey -- tweeted, "It’s really a shame that Pat doesn’t have the guts to answer questions about his lawsuit to take away coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, his career as a Washington lobbyist for the opioid industry, or his efforts to put educators in jail." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We’ve already looked at the question of pre-existing conditions and his lobbying history, so we decided to look at the question about the teachers’ strike. PolitiFact previously concluded that Morrisey was on solid legal ground when he said the teacher strike was unlawful. But did he make efforts to put teachers behind bars, as Manchin charged? Let’s take a closer look. (Manchin’s office did not respond to inquiries.) The strike Teachers in West Virginia went on a nine-day strike on Feb. 23, 2018, after Republican Gov. Jim Justice signed a bill giving teachers and other state employees a 1 percent to 2 percent pay raise, an amount they deemed insufficient. The striking teachers teachers sought higher salaries and relief from rising health care costs. The strike involved 34,000 workers and touched all 55 counties; it was considered one of the nation's biggest strikes in recent years, according to Tthe New York Times. It ended when Justice signed a bill giving teachers a 5 percent raise. Morrisey’s stance From the start, Morrisey asserted that the strike was unlawful. On Feb. 21, 2018, he tweeted, "The impending work stoppage is unlawful and should come to an end." As we’ve previously reported, there was precedent for this. During a 1990 teacher strike, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that the stoppage was unlawful because "public employees provide essential public services which, if interrupted by strikes, would threaten the public welfare." A preliminary injunction was issued by Jefferson County Court in 1990, ending the strike. MetroNews reported that Morrissey was ready to take legal action against striking teachers if he was asked to do so under the law. "Let us make no mistake," Morrisey told MetroNews on Feb. 21. "The impending work stoppage is unlawful. State law and court rulings give specific parties avenues to remedy such illegal conduct, including the option to seek an injunction to end an unlawful strike." "Unlawful" doesn’t mean "criminal" However, Morrisey’s words were more precise -- and accurate -- than Manchin’s. Morrisey said the strikes would be unlawful -- but that doesn’t mean they would lead to "jail" for striking teachers. "The teachers may have been subject to an injunction to go back to work, but they could not have been prosecuted for going out on strike," said West Virginia University law professor Bob Bastress. In a news release at the time, Morrisey talked about the possibility of seeking an injunction -- but not jail. "State law and court rulings give specific parties avenues to remedy such illegal conduct, including the option to seek an injunction to end an unlawful strike," he wrote. When we reached out to Morrisey’s campaign, a spokesman said that Morrisey never suggested locking up teachers. "You can go through his statements from the time, and you won't find anything that suggests what Manchin is claiming," the campaign said in a statement. When asked about what Morrisey meant when hold MetroNews he was willing to take "legal action" against teachers, the Morrisey campaign cited an opinion letter by the then-Attorney General, Democrat Roger Tompkins, in 1990. Tompkins wrote that teachers who went on strike in 1990 could be "disqualified from teaching in a public school for one year, and the state department of education and county board of education may withhold all papers and credentials of such teacher." These are serious consequences -- but well short of jail. "Morrisey has civil legal authority, which does not include criminal authority," the campaign said. "That authority is left to the governor and the criminal justice system." Our ruling Manchin tweeted that Morrisey made "efforts to put educators in jail." Morrisey, in his capacity as attorney general, said the strike was unlawful -- but that meant that striking teachers could have been punished by disciplinary actions, not criminal charges that could land them in jail. While the disciplinary actions could have had severe consequences in some cases, Manchin’s suggestion that "jail" could have resulted is a significant exaggeration. We rate the statement False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joe Manchin	None	None	None	2018-10-11T15:24:57	2018-09-14	['None']
-pomt-02172	"The average minimum wage worker is 35 years old."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-average-minimum-wage-worker-35-y/	It’s become clear that raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 is one of President Barack Obama’s highest-priority proposals at the moment. The rhetoric coming out of his White House certainly supports that notion. On April 26, Obama included this passage in his weekly address: "Right now, there’s a bill that would boost America’s minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. That would lift wages for nearly 28 million Americans across the country. 28 million. And we’re not just talking about young people on their first job. The average minimum wage worker is 35 years old. They work hard, often in physically demanding jobs." It’s pretty transparent that Obama is seeking to counter the notion that a wage hike would simply help teenagers taking a summer job or college students making some extra money slinging hash at the local diner. But is Obama's specific claim that, "The average minimum wage worker is 35 years old" accurate? The White House told us it used a study by the Economic Policy Institute. This is a liberal group that’s in tune with many of Obama’s policies, but for the moment, let’s put that aside. The study looked at anyone earning less than $10.10 an hour, under the logic that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 wouldn’t just raise wages for those earning $7.25 an hour, but rather for everybody earning less than $10.10. In addition, David Cooper, the author of the report, told PolitiFact that his calculations actually included everyone currently earning up to $11.10 -- a dollar more than Obama’s proposed minimum wage level. This decision was made on the assumption that anyone earning slightly above $10.10 at the time of the minimum-wage hike would also get a small boost, in order to keep them nestled correctly in a company’s wage hierarchy. EPI found that the average age of workers earning under $11.10 is 35 years old. If you don’t read Obama’s sentence closely, it would seem that he’s right. But actually, he muffed the talking point. Whereas EPI’s study looked at workers who earned as much as four dollars an hour more than the federal minimum wage, Obama’s words referred to people who are actually being paid the minimum wage today. We ran this by Cooper, the report’s author. He told PolitiFact that if you look at workers "at or near their effective state minimum wage," which he defined as within 3 percent of the minimum-wage level, the average age is 31. That's in the ballpark but lower than the 35-year-old figure Obama cited. In reality, the statistics on this specific point are murky. A different study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 71 percent of minimum-wage workers are younger than 30 -- a starkly different picture of low-wage workers. But the BLS study has an important limitation -- it looked only at workers making exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and below, so it doesn’t include workers from any of the 21 states and the District of Columbia that have enacted higher state minimum wages. A few weeks earlier, the White House used the same EPI statistic correctly. In a tweet, White House spokesman Jay Carney touted an infographic that asked, among other things, "Who will raising the minimum wage actually help? … More than half work full-time. The average worker is 35 years old." Carney’s claim focused on workers who will benefit from a wage hike, which is in line with what the study looked at. We rated that statement Half True, in part because the infographic ignored the different conclusion of the BLS study and relied only on one report from a friendly group. This time, by contrast, Obama didn’t cite the correct number. Our ruling The White House had a point earlier this month when it tweeted that those who would benefit from a $10.10 wage hike average 35 years of age. But Obama’s subsequent comment was less accurate. In his weekly address, the actual statistic using the data from the same report is 31, and partial data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics suggests that the average age could be even lower than that. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2014-04-29T17:26:28	2014-04-26	['None']
-pomt-08243	Says Governor-elect Scott Walker’s choice as transition team leader "killed the release of a damaging report on Walker’s record in the days leading up to the election."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/14/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/state-democratic-party-says-scott-walkers-campaign/	It’s a rare day when the internal workings of the Greater Milwaukee Committee, a powerful and decidedly private civic organization, become the stuff of campaign attack fodder. And post-campaign attack fodder. But that’s exactly what happened in connection with a long-awaited report from the group, which has been looking into ways to rescue financially troubled Milwaukee County. In September, the group decided to wait until after the Nov. 2 election to release the report. The catch: Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker was running as a Republican for governor. And his campaign chairman, Michael Grebe, is chairman of the GMC board. Ultimately, word got out about the report -- which is actually just a set of not-yet-released recommendations, including that the county is in such dire shape state lawmakers should OK legislation allowing it to declare bankruptcy. That was courtesy of the Oct. 9, 2010 No Quarter column, written by Dan Bice, in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The report drew fireworks in the campaign. And now in the transition: When Walker named Grebe as a co-chair of his transition team on Nov. 5, 2010, the state Democratic Party fired off a biting two paragraph news release with the headline: "Walker rewards his ‘Cleaner.’" The release claimed "Grebe killed the release of a damaging report on Walker’s record in the days leading up to the election." It went on to quote party chairman Mike Tate saying Walker had driven the county to the point of bankruptcy and Grebe "did a good job keeping a report that detailed these facts from the public." That’s a lot of punch to pack into two paragraphs. But is it true? Much as in a courtroom, we believe the burden of proof lies with the person making the statement -- in this case the state Democratic Party. Their news release included a link to Bice’s column. PolitiFact Wisconsin asked if there was anything else, but the party did not respond. So we’ll start with the column, but we won’t stop there. In the piece, Grebe said it was Julia Taylor, who is president of the GMC and reports to the board, who recommended delaying the release of the report. Grebe agreed, then presented the idea to the full board -- a 32-member group composed of business, labor and civic leaders with ties to both parties -- and the board agreed. That meeting was Sept. 8, six days before Walker won the GOP nomination. Grebe repeated this account to PolitiFact Wisconsin, saying it was a group decision. Taylor supported this account. So did Sheldon Lubar, who headed the group’s task force on county government. Taylor and Grebe told us they didn’t want the report to get ground up in election partisanship and therefore become irrelevant. They said they also wanted to review what other states have done in similar circumstances. Lubar said the recommendations were not final and needed more vetting by groups in the community. So, it is clear Grebe played a role in the report’s delay. But did he singlehandedly kill it for partisan gain as the Democrats allege? Grebe was deeply involved in the election, beyond just the fancy title of Walker campaign chairman. As president and chief executive officer of the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation, Grebe personally gave a total of $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association in the past year -- a group behind a major anti-Barrett TV campaign. After the No Quarter column came out, Grebe didn’t hesitate to mix the two jobs -- he responded to criticism of Walker by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democratic nominee, and defended Walker’s record on fiscal issues. Grebe told us he did not think it was necessary to recuse himself from discussion on that item: "I'm still the chairman of the organization. I did the right thing to bring it to the board." But getting at whether Grebe personally pushed for the decision -- and whether his motive would have been protecting Walker -- is difficult given the private nature of the group. We talked to various members of the group, including some considered more sympathetic to Democrats. None provided any evidence that Grebe pushed the delay -- and none said there was dissent over the decision to delay. One preferred a mid-campaign release but was not asked for an opinion. Some would not talk on the record, with one citing fear of retribution within the group. Lubar told us more work was needed on the recommendations, but by other accounts the proposals -- initially expected by summer -- were pretty far along by the Sept. 8 meeting. One board member, union leader Candice Owley, said she sent her comments on the recommendations to the board for that meeting. And H. Carl Mueller, a public relations executive and member of the group’s board and its county task force, was starting in mid-September to line up a newspaper story on the bankruptcy recommendation. His firm does work for the board. Mueller told us he was just laying the groundwork for a post-election story on the recommendations (which still have not been formally finalized or released). Mueller said he got no marching orders from Grebe. Lubar, who gave $10,000 to Walker’s campaign and $5,000 to Barrett’s campaign, said the document leaked to Bice was a list of options, not a final set of recommendations, and that Grebe was "not a player" in determining them and had not suggested a timetable for release. "Grebe had zero to do with it," Lubar said. That’s a very different statement than the Democrats’ claim. So, where does that leave us? With no direct evidence, the state Democrats allege Walker rewarded Grebe for burying a damaging report. As Greater Milwaukee Committee chairman, Grebe had the means, motive and opportunity to delay the report -- but in trying to connect the dots, Democrats ignore the most important one: evidence he actually did it. The column they cite raises that as a possibility, but does not state it as fact. Indeed, the column -- and our reporting -- includes people who say the opposite, that it was a group decision, albeit one Grebe acknowledges supporting. If the party or others produce a smoking gun, we would revisit our determination. But we’re left with the facts in evidence and find the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Democratic Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2010-11-14T09:00:00	2010-11-05	['None']
-pose-00673	"Clustering our economic development strategy will allow us to create a critical mass for growth. In addition, we can target major infrastructure improvements, such as super high-speed Internet connectivity, that will attract businesses just as traditional transportation systems attract business."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/703/make-major-infrastructure-improvements-including/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Make major infrastructure improvements, including super high-speed Internet access	2012-11-28T17:53:42	None	['None']
-farg-00222	"Right now as you know, the rule, the current rule is that it requires 60 votes for a Supreme Court nomination."	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/partisan-spin-gorsuch-vote/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Bernie Sanders	Eugene Kiely	['supreme court']	Partisan Spin on Gorsuch Vote	March 31, 2017	[' MSNBC interview – Wednesday, March 29, 2017 ']	['None']
-pomt-02265	"The Koch brothers are one of the biggest polluters in the country."	/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/bob-beckel/bob-beckel-koch-brothers-are-one-biggest-polluters/	When a billionaire speaks, people listen, especially when that billionaire is Charles Koch. Koch, along with his brother David, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get the low-tax, low-regulation government he wants. He’s backed the tea party-funded campaign ads to topple Democrats and deployed scores of lobbyists. Koch’s spirited defense in the Wall Street Journal of himself and Koch Industries was everything the talking heads on Fox News’ The Five could have asked for. The resident Democrat, Bob Beckel, set out to skewer the Koch brothers. The rest of the panel, like Greg Gutfeld and Kimberly Guilfoyle, praised them for their philanthropy and business success. Beckel was unimpressed. Beckel: "The Koch brothers are one of the biggest polluters in the country." Gutfeld: "They pollute us with money." (While this could be taken differently, this was praise.) Beckel: "They pollute this country." Guilfoyle: "You don’t have any evidence to substantiate that." Beckel: "Yes, I do." We tried to reach Beckel to hear about his evidence, but we got no response. What we found in its place was a report from the left-leaning Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Last year, the institute released two lists of the 100 firms with the most significant emissions in the nation. One list is for air and the other is for water. On the first, Koch Industries ranked 14th. On the second, it ranked 30th. Some of the companies ranking high on both lists include ExxonMobil, BASF, Bayer Group and Dow Chemical. Behind these rankings is data reported by companies to the Environmental Protection Agency and compiled in something called the Toxics Release Inventory. The Toxics Release Inventory provides the numbers of pounds of waste chemicals released into the environment by each facility. Every facility operates under a permit from the EPA. The EPA then takes this release information and runs it through a computer model that factors in the toxicity of the chemicals, how they get moved around and how close they are to population centers. What emerges is a score. (The technical name is the Risk Screening Environmental Indicator.) This score is a measure of risk. It doesn’t mean that a facility actually poses a threat to health, but a score that is 10 times higher than another means the "the potential for risk is 10 times higher," according to the EPA. This method has been around since 1991 and been reviewed and refined several times since then. It’s important to remember that this information is just for each particular plant. What the researchers at Amherst do is tie each plant to its corporate owner and come up with a total score for a company. "The match of facilities to the companies that own them is a substantial effort for us," said Michael Ash, chair of the economics department at UMass-Amherst and head of the project. To repeat, it’s by this measure that Koch Industries ranks 14th in the country in terms of companies sending emissions into the air and 30th in sending emissions into the water. The top air polluter, according to the analysis, is Precision Castparts. The top water polluter is Ohio Valley Electric. We wanted to know if there is anything analytically wrong with adding up the scores the way Ash's group does. We found that the business magazine Forbes has reported these results without challenging them. An environmental economist, Nicolaas Bouwes, who helped develop the Risk Screening Environmental Indicator at the EPA, told PunditFact that there is "no problem aggregating the numbers." "The point of the model was to identify problem actors," Bouwes said. "If you are at #14, there are issues to look into." Koch Industries did not dispute the findings. "Koch’s TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) number is what it is because we have a large number of U.S. manufacturing sites and we're a U.S.-based company," said spokesman Rob Tappan. Tappan is correct that Koch Industries has a large number of plants. It operates over 100 facilities that produce everything from plywood, to asphalt, to jet fuel. One of its companies makes Brawny paper towels. That water you bought at the store might come in a bottle made of plastic from a Koch Industries plant. The company runs nearly twice as many sites as the corporation with the next-largest number of plants, Honeywell, which has about 60. You would expect that releases would go up with each additional facility. On the other hand, when we dipped into the EPA’s data (using the database on the Right To Know Network), we found that on average, each Koch plant generated about five times as much as each Honeywell plant. Roughly speaking, the comparison was about 500,000 pounds of chemical releases compared to about 100,000. So the number of plants alone doesn’t explain the Koch brothers’ high numbers. Tappan underscored that the Political Economy Research Institute (the University of Massachusetts-Amherst group) has "radical" roots. Ash, he noted is a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics. That organization's website proclaims that it "presents a continuing critique of the capitalist system and all forms of exploitation and oppression while helping to construct a progressive social policy and create socialist alternatives." While that perspective is not mainstream, that by itself does not invalidate the institute’s findings. Tappan also notes that "our manufacturing emissions meet all EPA standards, and we work hard to exceed them." However, Koch Industries paid a $30 million civil fine in January 2000 for its role in more than 300 spills from oil pipelines and facilities in six states. At the time, the fine was the largest civil fine levied under any environmental law, according to the EPA. And last month, leaks at a Texas chemical plant cost the company a $350,000 fine with the promise to invest $45 million in equipment upgrades. Our ruling Beckel said that the Koch brothers are one of the country’s biggest polluters. In this fact-check, we're talking about the Kochs' company, Koch Industries. Koch Industries operates over 100 plants across the country. According to one ranking, it is not responsible for the most significant releases but it does land within the top 30 on one list and the top 15 on another. Most people would count that as "one of the biggest." Most of those releases are legal under EPA permits. The EPA does not consider this level of pollution to pose a health risk in and of itself. However, it is still pollution. We rate the claim True.	None	Bob Beckel	None	None	None	2014-04-09T13:54:42	2014-04-03	['None']
-tron-00335	The 9/11 survival story of Michael Hingson and his dog	https://www.truthorfiction.com/michaelhingson/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	The 9/11 survival story of Michael Hingson and his dog	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-06364	The Coriolis force determines which direction water spirals down drains and toilets in different hemispheres.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/	None	Science	None	Snopes Staff	None	Coriolis Force Effect on Drains	28 April 2003	None	['None']
-snes-05220	Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said "mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scalia-death-penalty-quote/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Antonin Scalia Death Penalty Quote	13 February 2016	None	['None']
-snes-04488	A photograph shows Albert Einstein riding a bike while an atomic explosion takes place in the background.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/einstein-bicycle/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Emery	None	Einstein Bicycles as A-Bomb Explodes	9 July 2016	None	['None']
-snes-00355	Is This an Image of a ‘Cow Crusher’ Device Designed to Crush Cows?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/image-of-cow-crusher-device/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This an Image of a ‘Cow Crusher’ Device Designed to Crush Cows?	12 July 2018	None	['None']
-snes-02584	The White House Easter Bunny was sponsored by Paas for the first time in 2017.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paas-bunny-white-house-easter/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Was the White House Easter Bunny Sponsored by Paas for the First Time in 2017?	18 April 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09357	"More people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol. A recent roadside survey showed that 16 percent of the people tested, tested positive for illicit or licit drugs. That's significantly higher than alcohol."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/05/gil-kerlikowske/drug-czar-says-more-people-drive-under-influence-d/	Much has been made of the United States' success in reducing the amount of drinking and driving over the past few decades. But is there a growing problem with drivers on drugs? During a March 31, 2010, interview on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Gil Kerlikowske -- the head of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy, and more commonly known as the drug czar -- seemed to suggest as much. "More people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol," Kerlikowske said. "A recent roadside survey showed that 16 percent of the people tested, tested positive for illicit or licit drugs. That's significantly higher than alcohol." This surprised us, so we decided to take a closer look. We located the study that Kerlikowske was referring to -- the National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. It was conducted in 2007 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- part of the federal Department of Transportation -- through a contract with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. It was the fourth major roadside survey (earlier ones were undertaken in 1973, 1986 and 1996) and was the first to look at drugs as well as alcohol. The 2007 study randomly stopped drivers at 300 U.S. locations on weekend nights (10 p.m. through midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays) and also made some daytime stops for comparisons. Participation in the survey and its testing was voluntary. The stops targeted private vehicles, including motorcycles, but they excluded commercial vehicles such as semitrailer trucks. In all, 11,000 drivers participated, with 86 percent tested by breathalyzer, 71 percent by oral fluid samples and 39 percent by blood samples. (The blood test was for nighttime drivers only.) Because the nighttime sample provides the most complete data on drug use, we'll stick to the nighttime sample for alcohol use as well. During the nighttime tests, 2.2 percent of drivers registered a blood-alcohol content of at least .08 percent -- the level at which a driver is presumed impaired under Florida law. By contrast, a whopping 16.3 percent of drivers tested positive for drugs, defined in the study as "illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter products, including stimulants, sedatives, antidepressants, marijuana, and narcotic analgesics." The most commonly detected drugs were marijuana (8.6 percent), cocaine (3.9 percent) and methamphetamine (1.3 percent). If that were the end of the story, Kerlikowske's comment would be resoundingly accurate -- 16.3 percent is indeed "significantly higher" than 2.2 percent. But there are two caveats that deserve a mention. • Legal vs. illegal levels of alcohol. The 2.2 percent of drivers registering .08 or above is, by historical standards, impressively low -- that number has steadily declined since the first survey, from 7.5 percent in 1973 to 5.4 percent in 1986 to 4.3 percent in 1996 before dropping to 2.2 percent in 2007. Still, that number underestimates the total percentage of drivers who registered some alcohol in their bloodstream. In all, the survey found that 12.4 percent of drivers had some alcohol in their bloodstream -- 7.9 percent with levels between .005 and .049 and an additional 2.3 percent with levels between .05 and .079. Low, but detectible, blood-alcohol levels do not impair a driver as much as illegal levels do, but they can have an effect. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, such symptoms as "mild euphoria, talkativeness, decreased inhibitions, decreased attention, impaired judgment and increased reaction time" can begin at .03 percent, and numerous countries have set legal thresholds lower than .08. Indeed, the California Department of Motor Vehicles says that blood-alcohol content below .08 percent "does not mean that it is safe or legal to drive." The state calls levels from .01 to .04 a "possible DUI" (driving under the influence) and .05 to .07 a "likely DUI." For drivers under 21, both categories are illegal outright. • We don't know much about how drugs affect the act of driving. Compared to the effects of alcohol, the impact of drugs on driving is not yet well understood. Some of this has to do with the long head start in research on alcohol and driving, and some has to do with the greater chemical complexity of drugs compared to alcohol. The authors of the study were open about the limitations of today's knowledge. "In addition to the prevalence of drug use by drivers," they wrote, "several other questions need to be answered in order to assess the drug-impaired driving problem, including: Which drugs impair driving ability? What drug dose levels are associated with impaired driving? Which drugs are associated with higher crash rates?" They added a strongly worded caveat. "The reader is cautioned that drug presence does not necessarily imply impairment," they wrote. "For many drug types, drug presence can be detected long after any impairment that might affect driving has passed. For example, traces of marijuana can be detected in blood samples several weeks after chronic users stop ingestion. Also, whereas the impairment effects for various concentration levels of alcohol are well understood, little evidence is available to link concentrations of other drug types to driver performance." To offer a more concrete example, it's unclear how much impact a joint of marijuana inhaled two weeks ago may have on a driver today. It could well be that the two-week-old joint is less of an impairment than a legal level of alcohol in the blood -- even though the study would count the marijuana user as part of that 16 percent "under the influence of drugs" yet exclude someone with .07 percent alcohol from the 2.2 percent of alcohol-impaired drivers. Thomas McLellan, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, told PolitiFact that the sensitivity of the oral swabs makes it "highly unlikely" that marijuana use "even half a day earlier would have shown up" in the survey. Still, in addition to the survey authors' written caution, several independent experts we contacted agreed that the lack of data on drug-use-and-driving interactions suggests that the survey's results be taken with a degree of caution. Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, added that there's strong evidence that, regardless of the comparative data on substances in drivers' systems, "drunk driving is still the bigger problem. . . . Alcohol-related crashes were 32 percent of the total in 2008. There’s no comparable data for drug-related crashes, since there are no standards for drug impairment while driving, but the estimates are in the 10 percent to 15 percent range." If you look no further than the outcome of the survey he cites, Kerlikowske's comment are accurate. But the caveats listed above reduce our confidence that, as he puts it, "more people are driving under the influence of drugs than are driving under the influence of alcohol." There's reason to believe that not all of the 16 percent of drivers testing positive for drugs would have been "under the influence of drugs." The survey only reveals who has some level of drugs in their system, and does not provide an accurate measure of who was impaired by drugs when they were surveyed. By the same token, it's quite possible that many more than 2.2 percent of the study participants were indeed "driving under the influence of alcohol" even if they weren't over the .08 legal threshold. Did these two percentages approach each other in the middle, thus undermining Kerlikowske's statement? Maybe -- or maybe he is right after all. Ultimately, the research isn't yet detailed enough to be sure. With this degree of uncertainty, we rate his statement Half True.	None	Gil Kerlikowske	None	None	None	2010-04-05T10:05:33	2010-03-31	['None']
-hoer-00129	Old Woman and The Smashed Car Window Abduction Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/old-woman-smashed-window-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Old Woman and The Smashed Car Window Abduction Warning Hoax	11th June 2010	None	['None']
-tron-00677	Hidden code in Microsoft Windows says Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ	https://www.truthorfiction.com/billgates-hm/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Hidden code in Microsoft Windows says Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Bill_Gates']
-pomt-05289	Says Jon Runyan voted to "end programs to aid homeless veterans."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/may/24/shelley-adler/shelley-adler-claims-jon-runyan-voted-end-programs/	A Democrat hoping to oust U.S. Rep. Jon Runyan recently criticized the Republican congressman’s record on supporting homeless veterans. Shelley Adler is vying for Runyan’s seat representing New Jersey’s third congressional district, which includes Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. During an interview on NJTV’s "On the Record" that aired May 4 host Michael Aron asked Adler how her opponent let veterans down if he’s lauded for his representation of that military base. Adler said two issues were at play: active-duty military personnel and veterans. "With respect to veterans who are no longer active duty, they are out of service, we owe much more of a duty to the veterans of our country than we have been showing at all. And I think the disrespect by voting to end programs to aid homeless veterans particularly when that population is increasing," Adler said, before Aron jumped in to ask her whether she was referring to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)’s budget proposal. She wasn’t. Adler’s campaign spokesman Michael Muller pointed to a budget appropriations bill passed by the Republican-controlled House on Feb. 19, 2011 to back Adler’s claim. Runyan as well as 234 of his fellow Republicans voted for that bill, which did not fund 10,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans. But the bill continued funding for roughly 30,000 vouchers issued in previous years. The vouchers, which help homeless veterans by subsidizing a portion of their rent, are part of a program run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Each year from 2008 to 2010, Congress approved $75 million in funding for approximately 10,000 new vouchers for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, or HUD-VASH. Funding for existing vouchers is renewed every year. The GOP bill in 2011 had no impact on the existing vouchers, according to Donna White, a HUD spokeswoman. "Any future funding would be on the line," White said, but "existing funding would be protected." And ultimately, Congress funded new vouchers that year. A compromise bill provided $50 million, instead of $75 million, in funding for vouchers for the fiscal year. Runyan voted for that bill, which the president signed into law. Muller, Adler’s campaign spokesman, said, "this is still a case that Runyan voted to defund the program with no guarantee that a compromise would bail out his bad vote based on these facts." A Runyan spokesman pointed out that the congressman also voted for an additional $75 million for vouchers in fiscal 2012, which PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed. It’s also worth noting that during the 2011 debate Republicans argued the program had unused vouchers that should be issued before the government funded new ones. Some Democrats disagreed. FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, looked at two claims in the wake of the vote: a Democratic claim that the GOP bill would leave 10,000 homeless veterans out on the streets and a Republican claim that 11,000 vouchers were "waiting" to be used. The fact-checking group found in April 2011 that neither claim was accurate. At that time, the program had about 2,400 unclaimed vouchers, enough, FactCheck.org found, to make it through the rest of the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30, 2011. Our ruling In a television interview, Adler said her opponent voted to "end programs to aid homeless veterans." Runyan voted for a bill that did not include funding for 10,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans. The bill would have had no impact on existing vouchers. The bill wouldn’t have expanded the program, but it wouldn’t have ended it. And Runyan ultimately voted for another bill, which became law, that included funding for new vouchers. We rate Adler's statement False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Shelley Adler	None	None	None	2012-05-24T07:30:00	2012-05-04	['None']
-goop-00234	Meghan Markle Four Months Pregnant With Twin Girls, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-pregnant-twin-girls-four-months/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Meghan Markle NOT Four Months Pregnant With Twin Girls, Despite Report	3:00 am, September 22, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05307	A Saudi billionaire purchased Buford, Wyoming and is planning on constructing a western Mecca.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/saudi-billionaire-buford-wyoming/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	FALSE: Saudi Billionaire Begins Construction of ‘Western Mecca’ in Wyoming	27 January 2016	None	['Saudi_Arabia', 'Wyoming', 'Mecca']
-tron-00252	“Muslim Mob” Destroys British War Cemetery in Libya	https://www.truthorfiction.com/muslim-mob-destroys-british-war-cemetery-in-libya/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	“Muslim Mob” Destroys British War Cemetery in Libya – Truth!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03106	Irrational Mall	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-images-inauguration/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Do These Twitter Images Depict Trump Inauguration Crowds?	20 January 2017	None	['None']
-para-00126	"Across the country, around half of undergraduate teaching is now performed by casuals."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/03/lee-rhiannon/half-undergraduate-teaching-performed-casuals-rhia/index.html	None	['Education', 'Employment', 'Industrial relations', 'Workers rights']	Lee Rhiannon	Michael Koziol, Peter Fray	None	Half of undergraduate teaching performed by casuals: Rhiannon	Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 3:17 p.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-07655	Says taxes paid by the poorest residents of Texas are above the national average.	/texas/statements/2011/mar/14/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-says-poorest-40-percent-texans-pay-mo/	New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation and in his latest blast, posted online Feb. 27, he pokes at the state’s reputedly low taxes. Texas taxes "are low, at least if you’re in the upper part of the income distribution," Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that "taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average." It’s undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes--sales and property--impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptroller’s latest study of tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income in general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report says households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend on average no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes. The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009: "Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue – a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income then it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax." Yet do the state’s poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average? By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released Nov. 18, 2009 by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which says it advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The study says the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of income on the taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of income, respectively, on state and local taxes, the study says. Conversely, the study says, the 60 percent of Texas families that earned $31,000 or more put less of their income into state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less. Texas is among 10 states with "particularly regressive" tax systems, the study says. One result is that low-income families "pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy" and "middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families." We reached Matt Gardner, the institute’s director. He said the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. He said it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner aired with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the state’s past studies of tax incidence, said: "It sounds like what they did is very logical." Gardner said Krugman’s comparison accurately tracks the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pays and the national average looks small; the Texans paid only .2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, that’s $60 more. Though measurable, "it’s not a huge difference," Gardner said. Footnote: Krugman’s statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institute’s previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than counterparts nationally. But the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid less of their incomes to state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner said. We rate Krugman’s statement True.	None	Paul Krugman	None	None	None	2011-03-14T06:00:00	2011-02-28	['Texas']
-goop-01395	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck Reuniting, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-reuniting-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck NOT Reuniting, Despite False Tabloid Cover	10:58 am, March 14, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Garner']
-thet-00071	Has the SNP overseen an increase in the education attainment gap?	https://theferret.scot/snp-increase-education-attainment-gap/	None	Education Fact check 	None	None	None	Has the SNP overseen an increase in the education attainment gap?	May 28, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00731	Judd Apatow, Leslie Mann Marriage In Trouble Because She’s A “Flirt”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/judd-apatow-leslie-mann-marriage-trouble-flirt/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Judd Apatow, Leslie Mann Marriage In Trouble Because She’s A “Flirt”?	12:38 pm, June 28, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02283	"We’ve dedicated more money from (Washington County’s) transportation budget to bike and ped projects under my watch than at any time in the history of Washington County."	/oregon/statements/2014/apr/04/andy-duyck/has-washington-county-spent-more-bikeped-projects-/	Washington County voters have historically supported road-funding measures, giving road planners a revenue stream that officials in Multnomah and Clackamas counties can only dream of. But in recent years, concerns have grown about how much money to spend on building and maintaining bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Claim Andy Duyck, elected chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners in 2010 and now running for re-election, touted his alternative-transportation credentials at a recent Washington County Public Affairs Forum. "We’ve dedicated more money from (the county’s) transportation budget to bike and ped projects under my watch than at any time in the history of Washington County," he said. Unlike Portland, which routinely is ranked among bike-friendly cities, Washington County isn’t known as a bastion for bikes. So PolitiFact Oregon hit the road to check Duyck’s claim. The Analysis We contacted county spokesman Stephen Roberts, who pointed us to documents that seem to support the assertion. The last budget adopted before Duyck became board chairman in 2011, for instance, contained $6 million less for bicycle and pedestrian improvements than is budgeted in the current fiscal-year cycle. Of that, $3 million comes from Gain Share, a state program that compensates local governments for providing tax breaks to qualifying companies. "This represents new dedicated bike/ped funding that did not exist before," Roberts wrote in an email. An additional $2.7 million for bike/ped projects this year is coming from a special district formed years ago to resurface hundreds of miles of streets in the county’s urban, unincorporated area. If incorporated, it would would be one of the largest cities in the state. In September 2011, the Board of Commissioners approved Duyck’s suggestion to modify the program to allow funding of "safety improvements," including sidewalks. Twelve of 13 projects funded this year have been pedestrian improvements, according to county budget documents. "This also represents new funding available for bike/ped improvements," Roberts wrote. The final chunk of "new" money comes from the county’s Minor Betterments program, an allocation of the county’s road fund. The $500,000 available this year for bike/ped projects compares with $320,000 budgeted the year before Duyck became chairman, according to documents. Together, those numbers show significantly more money is spent now for bike/ped improvements than before Duyck became chairman. But can he fairly say that money is "more than at any time in the history of Washington County"? It’s difficult to say that with authority, Roberts said, because a decade or more ago, total road project costs were the only figures recorded. Bike/ped work done as part of those projects was not broken out, he said. "But the county has only gotten bigger," Roberts said. "And in all typical projects we take on now, we estimate that 25 percent is bike/ped. Based on the numbers, it seems like an accurate statement." For additional historical reference, we reviewed county spending on these projects going back to the boom years of 2004-05. That year’s combined total of the top two sources for bike/ped money was the second-highest ever. Even so, the total still fell about $5 million short of this year’s record-breaking amount. Finally, we called Commissioner Dick Schouten, an outspoken advocate of bike-friendly policies who shows up to most meetings on his bike. Of Duyck’s claim, he said, "I guess that’s true in the sense we have some new programs and access to additional dollars we didn’t have before." He quibbled only with Duyck’s use of the phrase "under my watch." "I’m not sure what that means, ‘under my watch,’" Schouten said. "He’s one vote among five." In addition, unlike in Multnomah County, the Washington County chair does not prepare the annual budget. The Ruling Washington County board Chairman Andy Duyck, now running for re-election, claims that more money has been spent for bicycle and pedestrian improvements during his first term as chairman than at any time in Washington County history. Budget documents show that spending for such projects is now more than $6 million more than it was before Duyck became chairman. Comparable figures from more than a decade ago aren’t available because statistics specific to bike/ped projects weren’t listed separately then. However, spending on bike/ped projects during the building-boom years of 2004-05 was $5 million less than current allotments. A fellow commissioner noted that Duyck didn’t approve the spending allocations alone since it takes at least three votes for a budget proposal to win. We also note that while Duyck voted for the increases, his "watch" doesn’t come with the power to write the proposals. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Andy Duyck	None	None	None	2014-04-04T16:12:38	2014-04-04	['None']
-goop-02928	Kim Kardashian On “Verge Of Breakdown,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-breakdown-robbery-kuwtk/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian NOT On “Verge Of Breakdown,” Despite Report	3:53 pm, March 18, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09576	The "pay-as-you-go law ... was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/barack-obama/obama-credits-pay-you-go-rule-producing-1990s-surp/	In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama reiterated his praise for "pay as you go," a budget approach that is supposed to force lawmakers to offset new spending with an equal amount of revenue or budget cuts. The president told a joint session of Congress on Jan. 27, 2010, that the "pay-as-you-go law ... was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s." We originally analyzed a similar comment he made on May 7, 2009. Back then, he said, "One important step is restoring the 'pay as you go' rule — and I've called on Congress to do exactly that. This rule says, very simply, that Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. This is the principle that guides responsible families managing a budget. This is the principle that helped transform large deficits into surpluses in the 1990s." We wondered then, and now, whether he was correct about the role of 'pay as you go' -- or PAYGO -- in balancing the federal budget in the 1990s. We found that Obama is correct that Congress operated under a PAYGO law that was in effect from 1990 until it expired in 2002. When the Democrats took control of Congress after the 2006 elections, they established a PAYGO rule, but it has been waived for some of the most expensive bills, such as the economic stimulus bill. Fiscal hawks are urging Congress to replace that rule with a new law that would have more impact and be more binding. Obama is also right, of course, that the federal budget was balanced by 1998 and ran four years of surpluses before plunging back into deficits. The question is how much to credit PAYGO for those surpluses. To find the answer, we interviewed budget analysts and examined reports on the deficit and the impact of PAYGO. During our round of interviews, we found a general consensus that PAYGO was a factor that reduced the deficit, but most said it was not as important as the two biggest forces that led to a balanced budget: the increase in tax receipts from the booming economy and defense cuts made possible by the end of the Cold War. Still, there was a range of opinion on how much the rule helped. Alice Rivlin, budget chief under President Bill Clinton, characterized PAYGO as a significant factor. She said in a recent interview on PBS's Frontline that PAYGO and other budget rules "made it easier for the Clinton administration to work on the budget deficit." She said the PAYGO rule provided discipline so policymakers could resist tempting but expensive programs. The rule "meant that the president could say no, and the Congress could say no to a lot of good-sounding ideas, including Medicare prescription drugs" that would have made it difficult to balance the budget. That's backed up by a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that said, "Between 1991 and 1997, most new revenue and mandatory spending laws that were enacted were consistent with the PAYGO requirement to be deficit neutral; end-of-session balances on the PAYGO scorecard consistently showed zero or net reductions in the deficit." Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates fiscal responsibility and was founded in the midst of the PAYGO movement in 1992, said PAYGO provided some important discipline for members of Congress even if it was not as big a factor as the booming economy and the defense cuts. "There always needs to be a check on irresponsibility in Congress and PAYGO provides that," he said. But Brian Riedl, a budget analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said PAYGO's importance has been exaggerated. "There is this grand myth that we passed PAYGO and then we got this balanced budget. But we got the balanced budget because the Cold War ended and a bubble temporarily pushed revenues through the roof." He said that PAYGO didn't provide as much discipline as some claim because Congress repeatedly used gimmicks or took steps to ignore it. So back to Obama's claim. He said the "pay-as-you-go law ... was a big reason why we had record surpluses in the 1990s." He is correct that it is a basic principle behind the effort to balance the budget, but his statement somewhat overstates the policy's importance in achieving that goal. Yes, PAYGO rules provided some discipline that might have restrained Congress from adding more spending or new tax cuts, but the economy and the defense cuts were the biggest factors that led to the balanced budget. So we find his statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-01-27T22:25:14	2010-01-27	['None']
-snes-02178	Steve Jobs Deathbed Speech	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/steve-jobs-deathbed-speech/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	Dan Evon	None	Steve Jobs Deathbed Speech	8 November 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01569	"Wisconsin does not have a deficit. Thanks to Republican reforms, the 2014 budget will begin with a $443 million surplus."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/11/alberta-darling/despite-news-18-billion-shortfall-alberta-darling-/	On Sept. 8, 2014, a Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau report made headlines that said the state budget faces a "shortfall" estimated at nearly $1.8 billion. The same day, state Sen. Alberta Darling, a suburban Milwaukee Republican, put out what seemed like a contradictory statement. "Wisconsin does not have a deficit," Darling said in a news release, which was issued with GOP Rep. John Nygren of Marinette. "Thanks to Republican reforms, the 2014 budget will begin with a $443 million surplus." Darling and Nygren are co-chairs of the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, which plays a key role in formulating the budget that was signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker. So, Wisconsin taxpayers (and voters in the upcoming election for governor) would like to know: Does state government have a deficit, a surplus, or what? Budget basics Wisconsin’s budget, of course, is a two-year document. So, there isn’t a "2014 budget," as Darling said. But we are more than two months into the fiscal year that runs from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. This is the second half of the 2013-’15 budget. These points in time are important because, by law, the two-year state budget must be balanced. It can't run an actual deficit. What drew the headlines was the fiscal bureau’s projection that the state’s "out-year commitment" -- often referred to as a shortfall or a "structural" deficit -- is $1.8 billion for the next budget period, 2015-’17. That's an estimate of how much the next biennial budget -- if there are no changes in revenue or spending -- would be out of balance. In other words, the shortfall isn't actual red ink. Now to Darling's claim. A surplus? Darling's office pointed us to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo issued five days before the $1.8 billion memo. The bureau is a nonpartisan agency that both political parties regard as the gold standard on budget matters. That earlier memo says 2014-’15, the second year of the current two-year budget, started on July 1, 2014 with a balance of $443 million. So, it’s true that at this moment in time -- the midpoint of the two-year budget -- the books are in the black. But the same memo also projects the budget picture for the second year of the cycle. That is, it shows what money is expected to come in, and how much is expected to go out. It shows the entire $443 million surplus being swallowed up and the state facing a "revenue shortfall" of nearly $116 million -- since revised to $396 million -- by the end of the fiscal year -- June 30, 2015. That's because tax collections have been lower than expected. As we mentioned, the state cannot run an actual deficit. Accordingly, the fiscal bureau said the state might need a budget repair bill by June 30, 2015 unless revenue comes in higher than currently expected and/or spending is reduced. It’s also possible, depending on how large the revenue shortfall turns out to be, that the Walker administration could reduce spending -- by not filling open positions, for example -- enough to eliminate the need for a budget-repair bill. So, as of now, the state budget has a $443 million surplus, but that is expected to become a $396 million shortfall by next June. Now to the $1.8 billion "out-year commitment" or shortfall estimate for 2015-’17, which is what prompted Darling to make her claim. The $1.8 billion There are two key things to know about the new number from the fiscal bureau: 1. The projected $1.8 billion shortfall -- -- about 5.8% of the spending expected in the 2015-'17 state budget -- is an educated guess about future tax collections and demands for services. Shortfalls occur in large part because of changes in how much money comes in through income and sales tax collections, which are dependent on the economy, among other factors. 2. Again, the projection is not for the current budget cycle, but rather for the 2015-’17 biennium. A budget for 2015-’17 is what the winner of the Nov. 4, 2014 gubernatorial election between Walker and Democrat Mary Burke will have to devise. Rather, the shortfall is an imbalance between ongoing revenues and spending. It assumes no changes in revenue and no changes in spending -- in other words, continuing the operations of state government as they are now. The state has been here before. When Walker took office in January 2011, he faced a $2.5 billion "out-year commitment" or shortfall, plus an increase of roughly $1.1 billion in funding requests from state agencies. That amounted to a $3.6 billion "deficit," which Walker addressed through funding cuts and the Act 10 collective bargaining law. Here’s the current situation in a nutshell: Budget period Dates Budget condition 2013-’15 cycle -- Year 1 July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014 Ended with $443 million surplus 2013-’15 cycle -- Year 2 July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015 Projected to end with $116 million (later revised to $396 million) shortfall 2015-’17 cycle July 1, 2015-June 30, 2017 Projected to start with $1.8 billion shortfall Our rating Darling said: "Wisconsin does not have a deficit. Thanks to Republican reforms, the 2014 budget will begin with a $443 million surplus." The second year of the current 2013-’15 budget -- what Darling refers to as the 2014 budget -- did begin with a $443 million surplus. But the year is expected to end with a $396 million shortfall, and the next biennium -- 2015-’17 -- is projected to start with a $1.8 billion shortfall. Darling’s statement is partially accurate, but leaves out a lot of context. Our rating is Half True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page.	None	Alberta Darling	None	None	None	2014-09-11T05:00:00	2014-09-08	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Wisconsin']
-pomt-12203	Say Gretchen Carlson said, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented."	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/24/blog-posting/no-gretchen-carlson-didnt-say-2nd-amendment-writte/	Clickbait websites love to make up fake quotes for celebrities and controversial politicians, hoping to mislead readers into clicking into their content and seeing their ads. For instance, we recently fact-checked a post accusing former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., of saying something she didn’t say; we rated it Pants on Fire. Now, as part of Facebook’s efforts to fight fake news, we learned that users had flagged as questionable a post from someone Bachmann used to babysit for -- former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. (Yes, the babysitting part is actually true.) The claim about Carlson appeared first on a site called therightists.com. It was headlined, "Gretchen Carlson: ‘The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented.’ " Within days, the item was picked up and reprinted essentially verbatim on other websites. One version got 31,400 shares through July 24. The accompanying article uses as its launching-off point something that Carlson did actually do -- making an on-air break with conservative orthodoxy by saying, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub mass shooting in 2016, that the assault-weapons ban should be reinstated. "Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?" she asked on air. "Can’t we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?" These comments drew opposition from gun-rights supporters. It’s at this point that the article veers off into fabrication. The article reads, "Interestingly, when confronted by Second Amendment supporters on Twitter, Carlson doubled down on her pro-ban stance, claiming that ‘the fact that you’re even using the Second Amendment as an argument against banning assault weapons shows me you’re ignorant. Don’t you know the 2nd Amendment was written before guns were even invented?’ " This would be a ridiculous claim if she’d actually said it. As schoolchildren are taught, muskets were used in the American Revolution. (Here’s an example from the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution.) And the revolution occurred more than a decade before the 1789 drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment. ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.") Indeed, the history of firearms goes back even further than that -- to the 1300s, more than four centuries before the Second Amendment was written. The first hint that this may be bogus appears elsewhere on therightists.com website. On the site’s "About Us" page, a grammatically challenged warning explains that therightists.com "is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!" Of course, this warning isn’t noted on the actual page the Carlson story appears on. We also couldn’t find any credible news source reporting Carlson’s words as cited in therightists.com article. Finally, we checked with Carlson’s office. In a statement, her office confirmed that the article was "total B.S." Bottom line: Carlson did not say, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented." The accusation that she did rates as Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-24T15:17:20	2017-06-15	['None']
-hoer-00109	Warning Message - Facebook About to Become Owner of Your Private Photos	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/facebook-owns-your-pictures-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Pointless Warning Message - Facebook About to Become Owner of Your Private Photos	29th April 2011	None	['None']
-snes-03809	Photographers recently discovered a gigantic human footprint in rural southwestern China.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/giant-human-footprints-found-in-china/	None	Fauxtography	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Giant Human Footprints Found in China?	13 October 2016	None	['China']
-snes-01723	Muslims comprise 1% of the population, 0.5% of mass shooters, and 10% of doctors in the U.S.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-medical-demographics/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Muslim-American Medical Demographics	15 March 2016	None	['United_States']
-pomt-10415	McCain "hired some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington to run his campaign."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/23/barack-obama/they-were-hired/	In an attempt to wrest the moral high ground on special interest influence, Sen. Barack Obama has gone on the offensive, accusing Republican Sen. John McCain of talking tough on campaign finance reform, but then stocking his campaign with lobbyists. At a rally in Tampa on May 21, 2008, Obama said that despite 10 years ago proposing a bill that would have banned lobbyists from being paid by a campaign, McCain "hired some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington to run his campaign." The McCain campaign's ties to current or former lobbyists has been well documented in recent weeks. Disclosures about some of those ties — including clients they have served — led to a handful of departures from the campaign. The highest profile casualty was former Rep. Thomas Loeffler, campaign co-chairman and national finance committee co-chairman. Loeffler is a lobbyist and founder of the Loeffler Group, a multimillion-dollar lobbying operation that, according to Houston Chronicle reports last year, has included clients such as AT&T, the National Association of Broadcasters, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Port of Houston, Southwest Airlines and Toyota Motor Co. The firm also has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on trade issues. In response, the McCain campaign on May 15, 2008, instituted a "conflict policy" — the campaign will not keep any federal lobbyists on its payroll. Period. "We are in compliance with that policy," McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers told PolitiFact. But the campaign is still thick with former lobbyists, some who left or took unpaid leave of absences from their lobbying firms just before joining the campaign. One of them is Charlie Black, a senior adviser on the McCain campaign. Described by the Washington Post as a "longtime uber lobbyist," Black retired as chairman of BKSH & Associates in March. He told the New York Times he is not paid by the campaign. Then there's campaign manager Rick Davis, who hasn't been a registered lobbyist for five years and took a leave of absence from his lobbying firm Davis Manafort two years ago. Black defended the use of former lobbyists. "I think you can change professions and unless you did something unethical or criminal, your past profession should not be injected into the candidate's campaign," Black told the New York Times. "It's absurd." Said Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign: "John McCain has an unmatched record of fighting the influence of special interests in Washington. The McCain campaign has implemented the strictest policy against lobbyists in presidential campaign history, and we challenge Sen. Obama to meet our standard." Okay, so McCain has clearly set a policy that forbids current federal lobbyists from drawing a campaign paycheck and campaign officials say they are in full compliance with that. Now. But the policy comes more than a year into the campaign. Current lobbyists hired by the campaign may have now been purged, but the fact is they were hired. We rule Obama's statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-05-23T00:00:00	2008-05-21	['Washington,_D.C.', 'John_McCain']
-tron-00713	George Carlin’s The Paradox of Our Time	https://www.truthorfiction.com/carlin/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	George Carlin’s The Paradox of Our Time	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-chct-00029	FACT CHECK: Did The Military Get Its Biggest Pay Raise In Almost 10 Years?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/13/fact-check-military-pay-raise-10-years/	None	None	None	Shane Devine | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	12:16 AM 10/13/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10337	"Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump? O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/21/john-mccain/sure-and-blame-obama-for-bad-tomatoes-too/	A new television ad by Sen. John McCain's campaign seeks to exploit anger over gas prices by directing it toward his opponent. "Gas prices: four dollars, five dollars, no end in sight," says the narrator in the advertisement , which the McCain campaign released July 21, 2008. "Because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America." Oil drilling goes on all the time in America. What Sen. Barack Obama and others oppose is certain new drilling off the coasts. But let's leave that aside. Some in Washington, the ad continues, say "no to independence from foreign oil." Almost no one opposes the notion of independence from foreign oil. The dispute is over how to get there. But let's leave that aside as well. The ad culminates with this question: "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" Then we hear a chant familiar to anyone who has watched a fevered Obama rally: "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" So the central claim of the ad, and the one we decided to check, is that Obama is to blame for rising gas prices. In its news release announcing the ad, the McCain campaign cited everything from Obama's criticism of McCain's electric car contest to Obama's reservations about nuclear power. But in our view those things don't sufficiently back up McCain's sweeping contention that the junior senator from Illinois is to blame for rising gas prices. The main implication of the ad is that the ban on some offshore drilling — a ban that McCain has long opposed, more explicitly lately than in the past — has contributed to rising prices, and since Obama supports it, it is fair to blame him for it. The last part is highly dubious. Obama has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, and the congressional moratorium prohibiting oil and gas leasing on most of the outer continental shelf dates to 1982. Granted, Congress has renewed it every year since. But there was also a presidential order banning oil exploration off the coasts from 1990, when the first President Bush issued it, until July 14, 2008, when his son lifted it. So even if the ban on offshore drilling contributed to "rising prices at the pump," it would have done so regardless of how Obama felt about it, at least until the very recent past. Now, has the ban in fact contributed to rising prices at the pump? Probably so, though it's impossible to say how much. Currently, drilling is allowed in about 15 percent of federally controlled waters, and those areas are the source of more than one-quarter of the oil produced in the United States, according to Ron Planting, an economist at the American Petroleum Institute. Domestic production accounts for about a quarter of the oil the country consumes, Planting said. It is not likely that all the other offshore areas currently off limits would be as productive as the Gulf of Mexico, where most of today's offshore drilling takes place, Planting said. "The only thing we can say is directional," Planting said. "We'd have more supply (if the moratorium hadn't been in place)] and historically more supply has downward pressure on prices." But that's really a peripheral issue. Regardless of how the moratorium has affected prices over the years, Obama has not been a key force behind it until very recently. True, he vows to be just that in the future. But how lifting the moratorium would affect future prices is a separate question, (and a tricky one, as we explain here ). What the ad pins on Obama — and others who are "saying no to (new offshore) drilling in America" — are the price increases the country is currently enduring. That saddles the Illinois senator with a lot more influence than he has had. If one were to line up all the leaders in Washington who share some responsibility for the offshore drilling moratorium — the first President Bush, the Republican leadership of Congress, the Democratic leadership of Congress, the Florida delegation — there would be quite a few people ahead of Obama. We find McCain's claim to be False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-21T00:00:00	2008-07-21	['None']
-pomt-01628	Says Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad chartered a plane to remove 124 young illegal immigrants from his state and take them back to Honduras.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/27/chain-email/did-iowa-gov-terry-branstad-charter-jet-send-124-i/	The surge in unaccompanied minors coming from Central America to the U.S. border with Mexico may have moved off the front pages in recent weeks, but it’s still a hot topic on the Internet. A reader recently sent us a chain email that lauds Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, for purportedly standing up to President Barack Obama’s decision to send more than 100 unaccompanied minors to Iowa. According to the email, Branstad quickly chartered a jet for the immigrant children and flew them all back to Honduras. Spoiler alert: This adventure story is pure fiction. Here’s the text of the email our reader received, complete with a misspelling of the governor’s name: "Subject: Obama Flies Illegal Teens to Iowa -- Iowa Governor Flies Them Home "Did you know this? "Obama just said ‘Up yours Iowa’ and Iowa shoved it back. Governor of Iowa -- Hurray for you, Governor, who announced: Iowa will not take any illegals kids (most teenagers) in IOWA. "Yesterday Obama overruled him and sent him 124 young kids 13-19, landed the plane in Des Moines. Airport manager called the office of Governor Terry Bransted, who drove to the airport and chartered from Chicago a plane from United. Within 8 hours all the kids were loaded on, got food and drink. The plane left Iowa 8 o'clock Des Moines. Next stop was Honduras. Plane got unloaded, 4 social workers from Iowa made sure they got to the terminal, told the Honduras officials, here are your kids, they have no papers, you let them come illegal to America. Iowa refuses to take them. Iowa has their own laws. No minors who are not with adults. Iowa has not heard one thing from Washington. American states are fed up. "The Governor is a Republican. Kind of makes me wonder if he would like to become a candidate for President in the next election. "Yea for the HAWKEYE State! It is what all states should do in my opinion. "Let’s hear it for Iowa!!!" We asked the governor’s office about the email. "It’s a rumor we have heard about for several weeks now, but it did not happen," said Jimmy Centers, Branstad’s communications director. Moreover, a governor like Branstad wouldn’t have the power to quickly deport dozens of children back to Honduras -- that’s a process governed by federal, not state, law. "Airport travel, as interstate commerce, is governed by federal law and Congress," said Kevin Johnson, dean of the University of California-Davis law school and a specialist in immigration law. "State infringement on interstate commerce has repeatedly been struck down by the Supreme Court. State laws taxing entrants into the state have been struck down for about the last century. The Iowa scenario could never happen lawfully." Under an anti-human-trafficking law signed by President George W. Bush in 2008, unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries (such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, the Central American countries fueling the current surge) are guaranteed access to the federal legal system to argue their case for remaining in the United States, rather than being deported outright, as unaccompanied minors from Mexico may be. In the wake of the surge of immigrant children, some lawmakers have called for revising or repealing the provision, but no such action has been taken yet. The Des Moines Register reported that at least 139 unaccompanied immigrant children had entered the state between Jan. 1, 2014, and July 18, 2014. They arrived in a trickle, not in a large group like the one described in the email. They came to the state because relatives who lived in Iowa were able to take them in. The children were told to live with their relatives until an immigration judge can hear their case. A judicial decision on whether they are granted asylum or face deportation can take years, given current dockets and staffing. In mid July -- before the email began circulating -- Branstad offered a mixed reaction to the possibility that some unaccompanied immigrant minors would end up in Iowa. "The first thing we need to do is secure the border. I do have empathy for these kids," Branstad said, according to CBS News. "But I also don’t want to send the signal that (you) send your kids to America illegally. That’s not the right message." Our ruling The chain email said that Branstad chartered a plane to remove 124 young illegal immigrants from his state and take them back to Honduras. Branstad’s office denies this, and there is no credible evidence to undercut the governor’s account. In addition, Branstad would have no authority to make such a move on his own. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2014-08-27T10:27:56	2014-08-26	['Honduras']
-afck-00349	“Student enrolments at universities increased by 12% while Further Education and Training college enrolments have increased by 90%.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/2014-sona-claims-revisited-zuma-on-education/	None	None	None	None	None	2014 SONA claims revisited: Zuma on education	2015-02-10 08:55	None	['None']
-goop-02882	Carrie Underwood “Trapped In Bad Marriage” With Mike Fisher, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/carrie-underwood-marriage-mike-fisher-split-divorce/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Carrie Underwood NOT “Trapped In Bad Marriage” With Mike Fisher, Despite Report	8:36 pm, April 6, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09451	"When Social Security started, age expectancy for the average man was 58. It was 62 -- 62 for women."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/08/glenn-beck/Glenn-Beck-Social-Security-life-expectancy/	To show that Social Security today is not what President Franklin Roosevelt intended when he signed it into law in 1935, talk show host Glenn Beck claimed that its creators may have designed it so many people would not live long enough to receive the benefits. "When Social Security started, age expectancy for the average man was 58. It was 62 for women," said Beck. "Wait a minute, when did benefits come in? At 65." His point was that Social Security was not meant to benefit as many people as it does today. Indeed, Beck went on to say that if Roosevelt had passed the law now, the starting age would be around 80 years old, due to longer life expectancy. We wondered if Beck was right about life expectancy in the 1930s. Indeed, he was correct. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a federal agency that tracks birth and death data, says that a man born in 1935, on average, lived until he was 60; a woman typically lived until she was 64. So Beck's claims of 58 and 62 were just off slightly. And Beck was correct that an average person would die before Social Security took effect. What about Beck's implication that the age was chosen purposefully so that the majority of Americans would never recieve their Social Security benefits? Was FDR making this calculation? Probably not, said Edward Berkowitz, a professor on Public Policy at the George Washington University and author of several books on Social Security. "I think that the age was chosen somewhat at random, certainly not to hedge actuarial bets." Berkowitz thought that an alternative explanation for the age choice was that the Germans had a similar program that the Americans used as a model. Berkowitz also pointed out that the median age might not reflect real life expectancy because the number was skewed by a large share of infant deaths. "After you survive infancy, life expectancy goes up." Of course, we can't be sure what FDR was thinking, but for our purposes, Beck's statement is off by just a couple of years and his overall point is right that life expectancy was below the retirement age of 65. That's close enough to earn a True.	None	Glenn Beck	None	None	None	2010-03-08T10:03:42	2010-02-16	['None']
-vees-00440	Just how many countries in the EU still have death penalty?	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-are-there-eu-countries-death-penalty	Zero.	None	None	None	fact-check,Fact check,death penalty,European Union	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Are there EU countries with death penalty?	April 01, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02724	Kristen Stewart, Stella Maxwell Fighting Over Cats And Dogs?!	https://www.gossipcop.com/kristen-stewart-stella-maxwell-cats-dogs-pets/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kristen Stewart, Stella Maxwell Fighting Over Cats And Dogs?!	4:19 pm, June 21, 2017	None	['None']
-abbc-00110	The claim: Kevin Rudd says when Tony Abbott was health minister he cut $1 billion from the public hospitals budget of Australia.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/rudd-wrong-on-abbotts-$1b-hospital-funding-cut/4906242	The claim: Kevin Rudd says when Tony Abbott was health minister he cut $1 billion from the public hospitals budget of Australia.	['health', 'healthcare-facilities', 'federal-government', 'alp', 'federal-elections', 'rudd-kevin', 'australia']	None	None	['health', 'healthcare-facilities', 'federal-government', 'alp', 'federal-elections', 'rudd-kevin', 'australia']	Kevin Rudd wrong on Tony Abbott's '$1b hospital funding cut'	Mon 3 Feb 2014, 7:53am	None	['Kevin_Rudd', 'Tony_Abbott', 'Australia']
-pomt-08992	"Most" of the Bush tax cuts went to people "in the top 3 percent of this country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/14/jim-mcdermott/jim-mcdermott-says-3-percent-got-majority-benefit-/	During an interview with MSNBC host Ed Schultz, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., took aim at a series of tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush -- tax cuts that backers say energized the economy but which critics assailed as a giveaway to the rich. Schultz and McDermott were discussing Republican opposition to extending unemployment benefits without reallocating money already included in the economic stimulus package passed in 2009. McDermott, like other Democrats, decried that rationale for blocking unemployment insurance, saying that Republicans have consistently supported tax cuts that benefit richer Americans. "Those tax cuts, most of it, went to people above -- at the very top, in the top 3 percent of this country, and they simply are unwilling to be even-handed," McDermott said. "Treat the workers like you treat the rich in this country, but they don't. They give to the rich and take it away from the poor, and then cluck their fingers and say, we shouldn't give you an unemployment check because you might sit at home and wait for this little check and not go out and look for a job. You can't find a job today in most parts of this country. You've got six people looking for every job that's out there, and to put the blame on the workers is absolutely wrong." We thought it was worth checking his claim that a majority of the benefits from the Bush tax cuts flowed to the richest 3 percent of Americans. To do this, we looked at figures compiled by the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. In one chart, the center compares how big a share different economic groups got from the series of tax cuts enacted under Bush between 2001 and 2008. The center didn't look specifically at the top 3 percent, but it did look at the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent. The top 1 percent took 29.5 percent of the benefits, and the top 5 percent took 44.2 percent. So if the top 5 percent took less than 50 percent of the benefits, the top 3 percent certainly didn't reach that 50 percent threshold. A rough estimate that splits the difference would be that the top 3 percent got 37 percent to 39 percent of the benefits. "They did get a lot of the cuts, but not quite that much," said Bob Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center. While McDermott's 3 percent figure is wrong, it's on the right track. While the tax cuts did benefit lower-income taxpayers as well, they benefited wealthier Americans disproportionately, based both on their share of the population and their share of income. In 2009, the top 1 percent earned 16 percent of cash income and the top 5 percent earned 29.5 percent of cash income. Indeed, if McDermott had simply refrained from citing the 3 percent figure, he would have been correct in saying that most of the Bush tax cuts went to "people ... at the very top" -- as long as you define the very top as the top 20 percent of earners. The top 20 percent took roughly two-thirds of the benefits from the tax cuts, according to the center's calculations. Still, McDermott did try to bolster a reasonable argument with an incorrect figure. So we rate his statement Half True.	None	Jim McDermott	None	None	None	2010-07-14T18:35:30	2010-07-13	['None']
-pose-00115	"His administration will also issue a joint report on 'best practices' across agencies and disseminate that information to the states."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/120/issue-a-best-practices-report-for-states-on-redu/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Issue a "best practices" report for states on reducing domestic violence	2010-01-07T13:26:48	None	['None']
-pomt-07317	"There are not, nor have there ever been, any boycotts encouraged by our organizations."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/may/15/afl-cio/State-AFL-CIO-head-unions-have-not-been-involved/	In April 2011, the Wisconsin Grocers Association issued an alert to its members warning that protests against Republican Gov. Scott Walker were about to escalate. Store owners were told activists were planning a May 1 campaign to slap stickers on several products to express anti-Walker sentiments. An April 27 Journal Sentinel story about the association’s warning was picked up by other media outlets, including some that took it another step -- saying unions were behind the sticker threat. A day later, Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO responded with a statement that said in part: "We have no knowledge beyond un-evidenced assertions made to the media by the Wisconsin Grocers Association of any such campaign, but let's be crystal clear -- there are not, nor have there ever been, any boycotts encouraged by our organizations." The second part of that statement caught our attention. Following the collective bargaining law, haven’t unions been turning up the heat on businesses -- including M&I Bank and Kwik Trip -- where executives or political action committees supported Walker or GOP groups? Let’s stop and look at the dictionary definition of boycott: "To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion," says The Free Dictionary. Others such as Merriam-Webster.com and ethicalconsumer.org have similar definitions. We asked Neuenfeldt about his statement, in light of the anti-Walker activities that have been in the news. His answer: Those aren’t official AFL-CIO boycotts. In fact, there have been very few such boycotts. The reason, Neuenfeldt said, is simple: Such actions by the umbrella labor group are illegal under federal law. "We don’t boycott," he said. "We can’t." That seems pretty cut and dried. But is it really? Indeed, the state AFL-CIO is an umbrella group. But it includes about 1,000 affiliated local unions, which represent 250,000 members in the state. And Neuenfeldt’s statement was "there are not, nor have there ever been, any boycotts encouraged by our organizations." That sure seems to include member unions, who under law are allowed to participate in boycotts. What’s more, the statement didn’t apply only to organizing boycotts, but "encouraging" them. So, let’s turn to the record. For instance, there is a "Boycott Scott Walker Contributors" page on Facebook, which has more than 23,000 people and businesses -- including some unions representing firefighters, police officers and teachers -- listed as "liking" the page. Neuenfeldt said those are individual actions and not coordinated by the umbrella labor group. Meanwhile, members of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have been urging businesses to put signs in their windows supporting workers’ rights. A letter sent to the businesses said in part: "Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business." State AFSCME leaders later dismissed that effort as the actions of a "rogue" union local. What about the actions of the state AFL-CIO itself? At a May 5 news conference outside an M&I Bank branch on Milwaukee’s west side, the group said it withdrew $105,000 from the bank and closed its account as part of what it called the "Move Your Money" campaign. The group withdrew its money to protest M&I executives’ contributions to Walker and to underscore the threat to Wisconsin jobs that could come from the upcoming sale of M&I to the Bank of Montreal. M&I is listed among dozens of businesses on the "Boycott Scott Walker Contributors" page on Facebook. Sounds like the state AFL-CIO wants you to take your business elsewhere. Isn’t that a boycott? University of Wisconsin-Madison history professor William Paul Jones, an expert on organized labor, disagrees. He said "technically, a boycott is an organized action," while the withdrawal of money from M&I by the state AFL-CIO is an individual action. Under federal law, he said, the existence of coercion is a key threshold for a protest or action to be considered a boycott. So the state AFL-CIO, for instance, can say: We’re doing this, and we hope you follow suit. They run afoul of federal law if they set up picket lines and try to prevent customers from entering and so forth. Perhaps the most famous boycott was that staged against grape growers from 1965-70, a nationwide effort that led to the creation of the United Farm Workers. That boycott was not deemed illegal and resulted in the signing of a contract with the farm workers. Federal law expressly bans "secondary" boycotts -- such as actions against a parts supplier tied to a strike against an automaker. Indeed in the end, there was no mass stickering, which was what prompted the original warning from the grocers association and the Neuenfeldt response. Grocers association CEO Brandon Scholz said he received word from one store up north where a customer was asked to leave because he was believed to have stickers with him. Scholz said media attention might have dissuaded protesters. But as we have noted, Neuenfeldt’s statement was much broader than about the stickering threat. And making it more sweeping made it more problematic. Neuenfeldt said "there are not, nor have there ever been, any boycotts encouraged by our organizations." He notes the statewide group is barred under federal law from engaging in boycotts. But his statement also applied to the organizations within the state AFL-CIO and not only to organizing boycotts, but also encouraging them. And unions clearly have been taking actions to support the anti-Walker boycott movement. Indeed, the state AFL-CIO called a news conference to highlight to the public it was taking a step that some of its member groups were withdrawing money from M&I Bank. What’s more, the average person does not view the issue from the legal perspective, but the practical result. They see union members protesting Walker and listing a gas station chain, bratwurst maker and many other businesses on a boycott Facebook page. We rate Neuenfeldt’s statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	AFL-CIO	None	None	None	2011-05-15T09:00:00	2011-04-28	['None']
-tron-02495	Cell Phone Numbers Are Going Public in a National Directory	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cell-phone-numbers-are-going-public-in-a-national-directory/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Cell Phone Numbers Are Going Public in a National Directory	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08510	Says "the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nation's as a whole."	/texas/statements/2010/oct/07/back-basics/back-basics-pac-says-texas-jobless-rate-has-grown-/	In its latest print advertisement, placed Oct. 5 in 41 newspapers statewide, the Back to Basics PAC angles to turn Gov. Rick Perry's favorite selling point against him: the Texas economy. Perry often touts job gains on his watch; in a recent TV spot, titled "Texas: Open for Business," he says Texas has gained more jobs than all other states combined from January 2001 to June 2010, a statement we recently rated True. Yet the latest Back to Basics ad finds fault, pointing out that Perry fails to acknowledge that lawmakers balanced the latest state budget partly by accepting billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. The ad then lists some economic changes that have occurred since the governor wrote President Barack Obama in February 2009 assuring him that the state would accept the federal dollars. Punch line: "Perry won't tell you that the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nation’s as a whole." Really? On its website, Back to Basics points to statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the Texas unemployment rate between February 2009 and August 2010 rose from 6.8 percent to 8.3 percent, up 1.5 percentage points. During the same period, the U.S. unemployment rate grew from 8.2 percent to 9.6 percent, up 1.4 percentage points. The number of jobless people in Texas grew by 204,400 during that time — an increase of 26 percent. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole experienced a 17 percent increase. We checked with Cheryl Abbot, a bureau economist in Dallas, who told us that the figures used by Back to Basics were correct. She also told us that there were no statistical or logical problems with comparing the increase in the state's unemployment rate with that of the United States. "I would probably phrase (the statement) more correctly as 'the unemployment rate has increased at a faster rate in Texas,' but saying that it's grown more, there's probably nothing wrong with putting it that way," Abbot said. We asked Abbot how best to interpret the 0.1 percentage point gap between the changes in the national and state unemployment rates. She said "there is very little difference" between 1.5 and 1.4 in this context, noting that one interpretation of the numbers could be that during those 18 months, Texas' job performance was about the same as the nation's. That's part of Back to Basics' point, said Cliff Walker, the group's director. Those numbers show Perry "isn't as good as he says he is," he said. Next, we looked into whether changing the time period for comparing unemployment rates also changes the result. We tried five different starting points -- January 2009, December 2008, November 2008, January 2007 and December 2000 -- and in all those cases, the Texas unemployment rate increased by the same number of percentage points as the national rate, or less. (December 2000 was when Perry entered the governor's office, and January 2007 was the beginning of his current term.) When we asked Walker why Back to Basics started its time period of comparison with the month of Perry's letter to Obama, he told us that the group is "trying to draw attention to the fact that Perry took federal stimulus dollars — a fact that many Texans, more than a year and a half later, still do not know." Our take: Back to Basics' statement accurately recaps a specific time period — the 18 months following Perry's acceptance of federal stimulus aid for Texas in February 2009 — that shows unemployment rising faster in Texas than the nation as a whole. As our analysis shows, though, lengthening the time period often yields a different result, with unemployment in Texas rising more slowly than the nation. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Back to Basics	None	None	None	2010-10-07T06:00:00	2010-10-05	['Texas']
-pomt-07415	Says "many states" are floundering under crushing deficit spending.	/florida/statements/2011/apr/27/mike-haridopolos/mike-haridopolos-says-many-states-not-florida-are-/	After some bumps and squabbling, Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos and House Speaker Dean Cannon emerged from secret budget negotiations on April 26, 2011, to announce that they had reached the framework of a budget agreement. The framework is just that -- the amounts of general revenue funding allocated to each budget area. The Senate and House must still agree on how, exactly, to spend that money. Still, it was cause for celebration for both Haridopolos and Cannon, who issued a joint press release. "Resolving a budget shortfall of nearly $4 billion is a tall order, but I'm pleased the House and Senate worked through this difficult process," Cannon said. "Our allocations ensure that we preserve our bond ratings by maintaining adequate reserves. Most importantly, we do not take money out of the struggling Florida economy by increasing taxes or fees." Added Haridopolos: "While many states and the federal government are floundering under crushing deficit spending, we kept our promise that we would not raise taxes or fees during these difficult economic times. For months, I've heard over and over again that we would never be able to get this done. Working as a team, the House and Senate reached these budget allocations on behalf of all Floridians." What struck us in the two statements is Haridopolos' claim that governments at the state and federal level are "floundering under crushing deficit spending." We know that the federal government is spending more money than it takes in, meaning it's borrowing money to keep the government running. But we wondered whether other states were in the same fiscal predicament. Make no mistake, states are in a financial pinch. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly every state is proposing spending less, after adjusting for inflation, than it did in 2008 when the recession began. The center, which is considered Democratic-leaning, said at least 25 states have proposed health care cuts. At least 21 states are proposing significant cuts to K-12 public education, another 20 states are proposing cuts to higher education, and at least 15 states have proposed government work layoffs and/or benefit cuts for state workers. For the record, only 48 states are proposing budgets this year. Kentucky and Wyoming operate on two-year budget cycles. But are states running deficits? Not really, said two experts we asked -- Jon Shure of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Ron Snell with the National Conference of State Legislatures. Forty-nine of 50 states are required to pass balanced budgets every year, Shure said. States "might borrow for capital improvements and the like, but not for their operating budgets," Shure said. "Vermont is the exception. It has no balanced budget requirement but has still chosen not to borrow for operating expenses." Snell added that Illinois and California can roll forward unpaid bills for one year, but then are required to pay off those debts in the next year. But they are not allowed to carry deficits for multiple years. "States have a requirement to balance their operating budgets," said Snell, whose group says, like Shure’s, that only Vermont is not required to pass balanced budgets. Shure said that because of the financial crisis, every state has had to make cuts, most have used reserves, and more than 30 states also have created additional revenues by increasing either some fees or taxes. Florida has taken a cuts-only approach, Shure said. (Though he noted that the state did raise a host of fees in 2009, and also has raised tuition rates for Florida universities.) Of the $70 billion state budget passed last year, $2.2 billion is directed to pay debt service for capital projects, according to John Kuczwanski, communications manager at the State Board of Administration. Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said Haridopolos was trying to note that many states chose to raise taxes, while Florida did not. "The wording was meant to infer that states are facing tough economic decision(s) and have deficits when compared to last year's (current year) budget," Bishop said. "Many states like California and Illinois have chosen to raise taxes." Here's what Haridopolos said, in praising the framework of Florida's 2011-12 budget: "While many states and the federal government are floundering under crushing deficit spending, we kept our promise that we would not raise taxes or fees during these difficult economic times." Haridopolos might have been trying to say that many states raised taxes to balance their budget, but we're sticking to his actual words. Vermont is the only state -- either by statute or constitution -- that can run deficit budgets like the federal government. But it's chosen to balance its budget. All other states are required to pass balanced budgets. We rate Haridopolos' claim False. (Updated April 27, 2011: This story has been corrected to describe the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as "Democratic-leaning." It also was updated to include information from the National Conference of State Legislatures.)	None	Mike Haridopolos	None	None	None	2011-04-27T11:27:46	2011-04-26	['None']
-pomt-04615	Says President Obama promised "he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent" if the stimulus passed.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/18/mitt-romney/romney-repeats-claim-obama-promised-unemployment-w/	Grainy video of Mitt Romney talking to big-dollar donors in Florida has the political world in a tizzy. Romney’s remarks in the secretly recorded video that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims entitled to government help prompted a swift response from the Barack Obama campaign and a late-night explanation from Romney himself. We’ll be checking several claims from Romney’s remarks at the May 17, 2012, fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. Here we’ll examine one we’ve heard before. It was tucked into Romney’s description of how he can win over voters who supported Obama four years ago but are disappointed now. "Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's ‘over his head.’ … The best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below 8 percent since," Romney said. Did Obama promise to keep unemployment below 8 percent? Not exactly. Projection or promise? The source for Romney’s statement -- and others like it -- is a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, then chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser. Their report projected that the economic stimulus plan would create 3 to 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also included a chart predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009. The important word here is projection. The economic analysis wasn’t a promise, it was an educated assessment of how events might unfold. And it came with heavy disclaimers. "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." There's also a footnote that goes along with the chart stating: "Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action." Of course, we now know the unemployment rate did exceed 8 percent. It peaked at just over 10 percent in early 2010 and has decreased very slowly. In August 2012, it was 8.1 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our ruling Romney told donors he could win over wavering voters by reminding them that Obama said "he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent." Obama didn’t say that. Rather, his Council of Economic Advisers predicted that the stimulus would hold it to that level. Their report included heavy disclaimers that the projections had "significant margins of error" and a high degree of uncertainty due to a recession that is "unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." The sub-8 percent prediction did not hold true, but it’s still incorrect to characterize it as a promise or guarantee. We rate Romney’s statement Mostly False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-09-18T12:16:59	2012-05-17	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-03344	Says an investigative report concluded Ken Cuccinelli "should have been prosecuted" for disclosure violations, but Virginia's law was too weak.	/virginia/statements/2013/jul/20/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-investigation-concluded-cuccinelli-/	A special prosecutor’s report concluding that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli did not violate state disclosure laws by neglecting to report political gifts was hotly contested on July 20 during the first debate between Virginia’s gubernatorial candidates. Democrat nominee Terry McAuliffe said that Cuccinelli, the GOP nominee, was not vindicated by the findings. "If you read the report, which I have done, it says the attorney general should have been prosecuted, but Virginia laws are insufficient," McAuliffe said. "That’s absolutely wrong," Cuccinelli injected. A minute later, Cuccinelli got his turn to respond fully. "So much of it is inaccurate, where do I begin? he said of McAuliffe’s claim. "I’ll let the fact checkers take care of it." So, let’s begin. At the center of the disclosure controversy is Jonnie Williams, chief executive of troubled dietary supplement company Star Scientific. Williams gave at least $140,000 in gifts and loans to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s family, many of which were not reported on state disclosure forms filed by McDonnell. Cuccinelli announced this spring that he had omitted $12,000 in gifts on disclosure forms he filed between 2009 and 2012, saying it was an oversight. Of the gifts, about $5,000 came from Williams, who gave the attorney general a trip to New York aboard his private jet, a catered Thanksgiving dinner and vacations at Williams’ Smith Mountain Lake home. Amid criticism from Democrats, Cuccinelli in April appointed Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Herring to investigate whether Cuccinelli had violated state disclosure laws. Herring, in a nine-page report released on July 18, wrote "our investigation finds no evidence" that Cuccinelli violated any laws or intentionally failed to disclose the gifts. Contrary to McAuliffe’s statement, the report does not say Cuccinelli "should have been prosecuted but Virginia laws are insufficient." The report does not mention the word "prosecute" and it offers no opinion on the strength or weakness of the state's disclosure laws. McAuliffe, after the debate, was asked to pinpoint language in the report verifying his claim. He offered nothing specific. "Well, that’s my analysis of the report," he said. Our ruling McAuliffe said the ethics report said Cuccinelli "should have been prosecuted, but Virginia laws are insufficient." There is nothing in the report that remotely supports McAuliffe’s claim. To the contrary, the report concludes Cuccinelli did not violate any laws. McAuliffe’s hyperbolic statement is not only wrong, it defies any reasonable reading of the report. We rate his comment Pants on Fire.	None	Terry McAuliffe	None	None	None	2013-07-20T20:44:20	2013-07-20	['Ken_Cuccinelli', 'Virginia']
-hoer-00996	Bora Bora Holiday Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/bora-bora-holiday-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Bora Bora Holiday Giveaway Facebook Scam	July 17, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03378	Most Americans want "traditional marriage," as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act.	/ohio/statements/2013/jul/10/bill-johnson/rep-bill-johnson-says-most-americans-want-traditio/	Public reaction was fairly predictable when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, as unconstitutional. Many Republicans said marriage should between one man and one woman, and they supported the federal government’s refusal to recognize gay marriage or grant federal benefits to same-sex spouses. Most Democrats said the opposite, and they hailed the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down DOMA as a gay-rights breakthrough. And then there was Bill Johnson, a congressman from Ohio, who sent an email statement that made us snap to attention. "Americans of faith are under attack," Johnson, a Republican from Marietta, said in his June 27 statement. "First, the President refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, despite his legal, constitutional responsibility to do so. Then, liberals on the Supreme Court refused to defend traditional marriage itself, even though that's what most Americans want. I will defend traditional marriage, because it's not a government's job to define it -- it was already defined by God." PolitiFact Ohio has no desire to debate theology and no need to address whether Obama had an obligation to defend DOMA in court. The point is widely debated, but many of his predecessors from both parties also refused to defend laws they thought were unconstitutional. But another part of Johnson’s claim caught our interest -- that the traditional definition of marriage is "what most Americans want." We asked Johnson’s communications director, Mollie Riester, how Johnson knows that. She pointed to two things: A recent poll commissioned by the Huffington Post, and the fact that "in most cases, when Americans are given a direct choice, they have chosen to defend traditional marriage. The basis for that is the total number of times a proposition has been on a ballot." Let’s examine those in reverse order. It is accurate that voters in a majority of states have acted to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. Even counting a handful whose legislatures have carved out exceptions for domestic partnerships or civil unions, 30 states including Ohio have passed constitutional bans on gay marriage, and five more have done so through statutory laws, according to a review by the Washington Post. But the other part of Riester’s answer -- current public opinion -- makes it problematic to use voter-passed bans as a measure to gauge gay-marriage opposition. That is, we looked at the date each state passed its ban, using a state-by-state search tool maintained by Freedom to Marry, a group favoring gay-marriage rights, and found that the majority passed their bans between 2004 and 2006, with a few earlier and a few later. A CNN timeline confirms this as well. In fact, when Texas became the 19th state to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the year was 2005. Ohio voters passed their ban in 2004, as did voters in 10 other states, That doesn’t seem very long ago. But a wide array of public opinion polls show that views have shifted dramatically since then. Support for gay marriage has climbed steadily. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in March found that 58 percent of Americans believe it should be legal for gay couples to marry, and only 36 percent believe it should be illegal. More recently, a Pew Research Center poll after the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA -- and a related one that allowed California to overturn its gay-marriage ban -- found that 45 percent of people said they approved of the decisions, while 40 percent disapproved. On the related question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed legally, Pew said in May that 52 percent said yes and 42 percent said no. That would suggest exactly the opposite of what Johnson claimed when he said the "Supreme Court refused to defend traditional marriage itself, even though that's what most Americans want." But Riester, Johnson’s spokeswoman, cited a Huffington Post poll, so we took a look. That poll said that 43 percent of Americans said the government should recognize same-sex marriage and 45 percent said the government should not. The "should not" had the lead, in other words. But rather than indicating a majority opinion, this actually was a statistical toss-up, because the poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3.4 percentage points. What about all those states -- a majority of the nation -- that supported gay-marriage bans? Consider how much has changed since then. There is consistency in the polling, but we’ll give you two specific examples. From Pew, tracking the issue since 1996: In 2004, the year Ohio voters decided that gay marriage should not be legally recognized, 64 percent of Americans agreed with that sentiment. By February 2012, the figure had dropped to 43 percent, and a larger share -- 48 percent -- favored same-sex marriage rights. Or to quote a USA Today story from July 1: "By an unprecedented 55 percent - 40 percent, Americans say marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights of traditional marriage. That's the highest level of support since Gallup began asking the question in 1996. Then, fewer than half that number, 27%, backed the idea." Whether state voters will change their constitutions to support this shift is to be seen. Still, attitudes are a-changin’, to borrow a Bob Dylan line from another era of social shifts. Johnson would have been correct in 2004 and 2006, when voters throughout the country passed state constitutional bans on gay marriage. But in 2013, his statement has only an element of truth. It is dated. His claim rates Mostly False.	None	Bill Johnson	None	None	None	2013-07-10T09:59:36	2013-06-27	['None']
-snes-01638	Did the Army Football Team Kneel in Protest During the National Anthem?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/army-football-team-kneel-protest-national-anthem/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did the Army Football Team Kneel in Protest During the National Anthem?	2 October 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06668	Says "Every time the Legislature 'suspended' the kicker, most recently the corporate kicker in 2007, Salem spent every penny and failed to stabilize the state's revenues."	/oregon/statements/2011/sep/10/matt-wand/rep-matt-wand-says-using-kicker-money-has-failed-s/	Correction appended: An earlier version of this item used the word "economy" instead of the word "revenue." The error does not change the ruling. The state’s surplus refund law, better known as the "kicker," requires a refund to taxpayers if actual revenues exceed projections by at least 2 percent. The idea is to force the state to stick to a budget, but some people argue the law makes it harder to save money for bad economic times. Last month, former state Rep. Brent Barton, a Democrat, argued we should repeal the "kicker" and build savings in order to improve the state’s bond rating. In response, current state Rep. Matt Wand, a Republican, argued that Oregon should leave the kicker alone and, instead, require state government to save 1 percent of its general fund dollars if it craves a piggy bank. "Repealing the kicker may impress some Wall Street bankers, but it'll do little to stabilize state finances and absolutely nothing to improve our economy and put people back to work," Wand wrote, adding: "Every time the Legislature ‘suspended’ the kicker, most recently the corporate kicker in 2007, Salem spent every penny and failed to stabilize the state's revenues." Every time? PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know how many times the kicker had been tapped, and under what circumstances. As for stabilizing revenues, we wanted to know whether kicker money was meant to do that and in how much time, especially when Oregon relies so heavily on income taxes that go up and down with the economy. The kicker has been suspended three times since the law was approved in 1979. Legislators voted to suspend the law authorizing the personal kicker for tax year 1991 and the corporate kicker for 1993. Both times, they needed to plug financial holes due to lost revenue from 1990’s Ballot Measure 5, which curbed property taxes. Measure 5 required state replacement of lost local school revenue at $362 million in 1991-93. That grew to $1.6 billion in 1993-95 budget. Then Salem left the kicker alone, for the most part, until 2007, when the economy was pretty plush. Legislators, with backing from business, voted to start a "rainy day fund" to shelter the state should the economy sour going forward. They started with a one-time suspension of the corporate kicker, totalling $319 million. But they didn’t get a chance to let that kicker money grow. In 2008, the recession hit. Lawmakers withdrew $225 million to balance the 2007-09 budget (which had grown to $338 million, including interest and leftovers from the previous budget period). Then they took $116 million to balance the 2009-11 budget, leaving a paltry $10 million in the pot. (Paul Warner, Oregon’s legislative revenue officer, said he expects the fund will grow to $46 million for the 2011-13 budget.) So Wand’s not technically right about spending it all down, but we get what he’s saying. In 2007, legislators took the corporate kicker and they used most of it in the following years even while increasing taxes and fees for other state needs. Not very fiscally conscious of Salem. Yet the "failed to stabilize the state’s revenues" continued to bug us. Wand dings lawmakers for taking some kicker money -- not all of it, mind you -- in times of emergency, as was the case with Measure 5. Furthermore, he criticizes the Legislature for taking corporate kicker money to start a rainy day fund, only to have the fund brutalized by a recession that continues to hurt. He was leaving out context. After all, the bigger reason for Oregon’s revenue instability has to do with our heavy reliance on income taxes. The kicker law just exacerbates the swings, say some economists. In a 2009 guest column in The Oregonian, University of Oregon adjunct professor and economist Tim Duy wrote that: "(W)e have a ridiculous fiscal system that accentuates the peaks and troughs of the business cycle. When the economy is growing, we return hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers, but then find it necessary to raise taxes or reduce spending when recession hits --exactly the opposite of good policy, but the only option available under Oregon's unique ‘kicker’ law. We need to move forward with the development of a more aggressive rainy day fund. Optimally, but perhaps politically impossible, we would also reform tax policy to reduce dependence on the income tax." We asked Wand what he meant by his statement. Did he blame the state’s instability on the kicker? Did he think we should never use the kicker? Did he really think the kicker was supposed to stabilize the budget? It turns out he was responding specifically to claims that Democrats have made, that if we suspend Oregon’s kicker, "magically the state budget will be stable and everything will be fine. And nothing could be further from the truth." He said, "I’m calling foul on the other side for pretending that they’re serious about savings, and my proof of that is look at what’s happened in the past when we have suspended the kicker. The unicorns and rainbows have not appeared." (For the record, Wand is not opposed to taking kicker money for savings -- so long as state government also puts aside money every year.) Wand is right that taking away the kicker isn’t the only way for state government to save money. Nothing has prevented the state from socking away dollars on its own. But the assertion that suspending the kicker should have stabilized revenues -- but didn’t -- is flawed. "These examples of when the kicker was spent are not good examples," said Duy, the economist. Ultimately, "you'd want to be saving money when the economy is doing well and using that savings when the economy is doing poorly. It’s very hard to accomplish the savings when you're in a recession." It’s true that the state has suspended the kicker three times, although it’s not true that the state has spent "every penny" in those instances. Using the kicker did not stabilize the state’s budget, but that’s largely due to an unreliable revenue base as well as extenuating circumstances: loss of revenue from a ballot measure and a recession. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Matt Wand	None	None	None	2011-09-10T06:00:00	2011-08-28	['None']
-wast-00050	They [national Democrats] were campaigning most when we had more of an American middle class. This upper middle class is probably more moderate but that upper middle class does not exist anymore in America.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/	None	None	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez	Glenn Kessler	None	Fact-checking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's media blitz	August 10	None	['United_States', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-10941	ABC News recently banned reporters from wearing American flag lapel pins on air.	/punditfact/statements/2018/jul/25/blog-posting/no-abc-news-did-not-recently-ban-american-flag-pin/	A misleading claim that circulated online after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has been retrofitted for the Trump era. The claim is that ABC News recently banned reporters from wearing American flag lapel pins on air in response to the current political climate. "Yesterday the brass at ABC News issued orders forbidding reporters to wear lapel pin American flags or other patriotic insignia," reads an article on a website called Politifeed. "Their reasoning was that ABC should remain neutral about ‘causes.’ " This story was flagged as part Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) We found no credible evidence to back up the headline. Old claim, updated for Trump era Here’s a sliver of accuracy contained in the article: ABC News has had a longstanding policy that forbids reporters from wearing any lapel pins, according to top executives. However, virtually everything else about the claim is wrong. The policy applies to "any lapel pins of any sort," not just American flags, former ABC News president David Westin told CNN. The policy was also in place prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to Westin’s description of the policy (hat tip to our friends at Snopes for flagging the 2012 interview): "We’d long had a policy at ABC News that we wouldn’t let people wear any lapel pins of any sort," Westin said. "The theory being that when you’re reporting the news, you should be reporting the news, not taking a position. I said quickly (after the 9/11 attacks), ‘We’re going to stick with our policy and stand by that.’ I believe to this day that was the right decision." According to a Snopes fact-check from October 2001, ABC News was singled out because a nationally syndicated article suggested the network’s policy made it an outlier among news networks at a time of heightened patriotism. Thus spawned the false claim about ABC News enacting a new policy banning lapel pins in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people. Now the claim has been updated to make it appear the ABC News’ "ban" (in truth, a longstanding policy) is a response to Donald Trump’s presidency. The political conditions may have changed since the claim was first born, but it is still untrue. As an aside, we’d note that the older claim that President Barack Obama sought to ban American flag pins is an extreme distortion of reality. We rate this False.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-07-25T14:43:47	2018-07-24	['United_States', 'ABC_News']
-pomt-10329	Says Obama has flip-flopped on public campaign financing.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/24/let-freedom-ring/obama-said-hed-pursue-it-but-opted-out/	"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Barack Obama, fall 2007 "We've made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election." Barack Obama, June 19, 2008 Sen. Barack Obama's decision to opt out of the public financing system marked a milestone in modern presidential politics: the first time a major nominee has declined public financing since the system was created after Watergate. Obama's announcement on June 19, 2008, prompted swift criticism from Sen. John McCain's campaign that Obama had flip-flopped. "The true test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people," said McCain communications director Jill Hazelbaker. "Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics." The group Let Freedom Ring made a similar charge in July 2008 with a TV ad. We explore the group's other claims in the ad in this story. Here, we'll examine the allegation about public financing. When we talk about public financing, we're talking about candidates agreeing to skip private fundraising and instead run their campaigns using a pot of public money that comes from taxpayers who direct $3 to the fund on their tax returns. The upside is that candidates don't have to spend time seeking contributions, but the downside is that their spending is limited to an amount set by the Federal Election Commission. This year's general election limit is $84.1-million per candidate, but the spending period is limited to the two months between the nominating conventions in late August and early September, and the Nov. 4 election. To explore whether Obama made a full flip-flop, let's go back a year to 2007 shortly before he announced his candidacy. On Feb. 1, 2007, Obama requested an opinion of the FEC on whether he could privately raise money for the general election but reserve the right to use public financing if he returned what he had raised. A month later, the FEC issued an advisory opinion that said it was okay as long as his campaign kept the contributions separate. The day of the FEC decision, McCain's campaign said he would commit to public financing. "Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same," Terry Nelson, McCain's campaign manager, told the New York Times. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded by saying: "If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." In the fall of 2007, Obama elaborated on his position when he answered a questionnaire sent by the Midwest Democracy Network, which asked the candidates if they would participate in public financing." "Yes," Obama said in his response. "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. ... The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Sen. John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." The message seemed clear: Obama and McCain wanted a publicly funded general election. But then both campaigns saw tactical advantages to getting out of the public financing system. McCain filed a letter with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 6, 2008, saying he wanted to withdraw from public funding for the primaries. McCain's private fundraising had improved after his early primary victories, and his strategists were concerned that they would be hamstrung by spending limits if they stayed in the public system. But that effort stalled because of vacancies on the FEC. Chairman David M. Mason sent a letter to McCain on Feb. 19, 2008, saying he needs four members seated to make a ruling. Obama repeated his commitment in a Feb. 26, 2008, debate in Cleveland, Ohio, when moderators pushed him to explain why voters shouldn't consider his position on public financing to have changed. "What I've said is, at the point where I'm the nominee, at the point where it's appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody." In the meantime, Obama's campaign had benefited from an unprecedented tidal wave of private contributions, especially from donors who gave less than $200. The small contributions not only fueled the campaign in the early primaries, but the donors could be tapped again (and again) before they hit the $2,300 limit for individuals. As they considered their plans for the general election, a factor for both campaigns was the money spent by independent groups known as 527s, named after the section of the tax code that governs them. Groups on both sides were expected to spend tens of millions of dollars, but if those contributions were lopsided, a candidate who had accepted public financing could be at a disadvantage because of the spending limits. So as the money flowed in, Obama campaign strategists made a calculation: They decided they could raise so much from private contributions that they were better off avoiding the private system. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in a video to supporters. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." He said McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are largely bankrolled by "Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that (McCain is) not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." Asked whether they pursued an agreement with McCain, the Obama campaign pointed us to a news account that said Bob Bauer, an attorney for Obama, met with McCain lawyers to discuss how both campaigns could operate in the public financing system. But that account was sketchy and didn't sound to us like the "aggressive pursuit" that Obama had promised. The fact is that Obama said he would pursue public financing, but decided it wasn't in the campaign's tactical interest. So we find the ad's claim to be True.	None	Let Freedom Ring	None	None	None	2008-07-24T00:00:00	2008-07-24	['None']
-pomt-06278	"When you sanction the Iranian central bank, that will shut down (Iran's) economy."	/texas/statements/2011/nov/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-united-states-sanction-iran/	Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested in a debate with fellow Republican presidential hopefuls that sanctioning Iran's central bank would be a "powerful way" to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon. At the Nov. 22, 2011, CNN debate in Washington, D.C., Perry said, "When you sanction the Iranian central bank, that will shut down that economy." We wondered if his claim holds. Since we were already checking a similar claim he made at the Nov. 12, 2011, Commander-in-Chief Republican presidential debate, we had a head start. As described by congressional advocates and others, sanctions against the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran -- which describes itself as responsible for maintaining the value of the nation’s national currency, keeping equilibrium in its balance of payments, facilitating trade-related transactions and helping the country grow -- would bar financial institutions involved with the bank from doing business with U.S. institutions. A Perry campaign spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, said by e-mail after the Nov. 12 debate that a U.S. Treasury ban on transactions with Iran’s central bank "would have devastating consequences for the Iranian economy because any third party that did business with Iran's central bank would be cut off from the American financial system. "Among other things, this would make it extremely difficult for Iran to continue to sell crude oil, by and large the government's top source of revenue," Frazier said. "More broadly, it would present Iran's trade partners with a stark decision: Continue to do business with Iran, or continue to do business with America." Advocates say U.S.-imposed restrictions could hammer Iran’s economy such that its government stops developing the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, activities reported this month by a United Nations agency. The U.S. government has imposed sanctions on Iran off and on since the Tehran hostage crisis when President Jimmy Carter imposed an embargo on oil imports from Iran and froze $12 billion in Iranian bank deposits, as noted in a July 2009 paper by John Tirman of MIT’s Center for International Studies. Tirman wrote that all exports, except food and medicine, were also banned, though those restrictions were lifted in 1982. In 1995, Reuters has reported, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. The same year, Congress required the U.S. government to impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20 million a year in Iran's energy sector. A dozen years later, Reuters reported, Washington imposed sanctions on three Iranian banks and branded Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. The Treasury later added numerous other Iranian banks to its blacklist and identified about 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control, an action that put them off-limits to U.S. businesses under the trade embargo, Reuters said. Last year, Congress approved tough unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran, Reuters said. The 2010 law imposed penalties on firms that supply Iran with refined petroleum products worth more than $5 million over 12 months and effectively deprived foreign banks of access to the U.S. financial system if they also were doing business with Iranian banks or the Revolutionary Guards, Reuters said. In May 2011, the United States blacklisted a 21st Iranian state bank, the Bank of Industry and Mine, for handling transactions on behalf of two previously sanctioned institutions, Bank Mellat and Europaeisch-Iranische Handelsbank, Reuters said. A month later, the government announced sanctions applicable to the Guard Corps, the Basij Resistance Force and Iran's Law Enforcement Forces. Those sanctions froze any of the targets' assets under U.S. jurisdiction and barred U.S. persons and institutions from dealing with them, Reuters said. Separately, the United Nations has agreed to global sanctions against Iran, including a ban on the export from Iran of arms and related materiel and the supply to Iran of conventional weapons and materiel, according to a UN summary page. Such steps have squeezed Iran, according to David Cohen, the U.S. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who told the Senate Banking Committee in October 2011: "Iran is now facing unprecedented levels of financial and commercial isolation. The number and quality of foreign banks willing to transact with designated Iranian financial institutions has dropped precipitously over the last year. Iran’s shrinking access to financial services and trade finance has made it extremely difficult for Iran to pay for imports and receive payment for exports. Iran’s Central Bank has been unable to halt the steady erosion in the value of its currency. "And," Cohen testified, "Iran has been increasingly unable to attract foreign investment, especially in its oil fields, leading to a projected loss of $14 billion a year in oil revenues through 2016. We are making progress, but there is still much to be done to prevent Iran from evading sanctions already in place and to apply sufficient additional pressure on Iran. In this regard, we continue to focus on the" central bank, he said. After noting that U.S. financial institutions are "already generally prohibited from doing business with any bank in Iran," including the central bank, Cohen said all options to increase financial pressure remain — including more sanctions on the central bank. This month, a U.S. House committee approved and a senator proposed similar amendments requiring Obama to take steps that could lead to sanctions against the bank. U.S. Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., described his amendment as sanctioning the bank "if it is found to be engaged in facilitating (weapons of mass destruction) development, terrorism, or any type of support" for the Revolutionary Guards Corps. Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., proposes similar administration review before action, potentially resulting in "any foreign financial institution involved with the Central Bank of Iran also being blocked from the U.S. economy." Per Perry’s claim, experts are skeptical the United States could unilaterally succeed in sanctioning the central bank. Gary Hufbauer, a former U.S. Treasury official and senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said it’s unlikely that countries dependent on Iranian oil, including China and India, would bow to the sanctions. "They might well continue to do business with the" bank, Hufbauer told us. "To be blunt, they don't agree with U.S. sanctions against Iran. What could the U.S. do to interrupt these financial flows?" U.N. involvement might be needed to make the sanctions work, Hufbauer said, meaning cooperation from Russia and China, which do not yet agree with such a course of action. Besides, he said, sanctions affecting Iran’s ability to sell oil for dollars would be difficult to enforce. "If somehow the sanctions were imposed," Hufbauer said, disruptions to Iran would be severe. "It would be a devil to transact sales of oil if you didn’t have banking facilities." While Iran’s elites and its military would take care of their own economic needs, he speculated, the rest of the country would grind down, while the price of oil on the international market could burst past $150 a barrel. Michael Malloy, a University of the Pacific expert in banking law and economic sanctions, said the bank could be sanctioned but the U.S. move would not shut down Iran’s economy. "First, international economies are too complex and too varied for there to be a direct cause and effect of the kind (Perry’s) talking about. It would never be like flipping a switch," Malloy said. "Most troubling, the U.S. probably does not have sufficient connection to the Iranian economy to have that happen. It just would not happen that way." Besides, Malloy said, U.S. influence would extend only to entities using facilities over which the United States held sway: "If a Jamaican wanted to buy Iranian pistachios financed by an Iranian bank, and they were going to be delivered in a Dutch cruiser, we basically have no control over that transaction," he said. Speculating on the effect of sanctions on the flow of dollars spent to buy Iranian oil, Malloy said that presumably, those dollars would at some point flow through the U.S. banking system and if the U.S. government figured out which dollars were related to Iran’s oil sales, then that flow might be blocked. Even then, he said, that would only have an effect on a particular oil refiner somewhere in the chain of distribution. "Once it happens, I guess it causes a stir," Malloy said, "but finding that transaction in the first place, (and) properly identifying it as related to the Iranian sale, is very hard to do." Summing up, Malloy said sanctioning the bank would increase economic pressure on Iran, but it’s a "silly" stretch to say it would shut down the economy Similarly, economist Hadi Salehi Esfahani of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign said it’s not realistic to suggest the United States could by itself sanction the bank. Even if somehow such sanctions were achieved, he said, and the economy were stalled, the price of oil might reach $200 a barrel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently announced the government was designating Iran’s financial sector, including the central bank, as a "money-laundering" concern. As recapped in a Nov. 21, 2011, Christian Science Monitor news article, this designation stopped short of sanctioning the bank but was expected to hinder the bank’s operations. "Similar steps taken in the past against North Korean and Lebanese banks caused other countries and international businesses to sever ties," the Monitor reported. Writing on the Atlantic’s website Nov. 22, 2011, Yochi J. Dreazen, a national security correspondent for the National Journal, said sanctioning the bank "could spark chaos in the world oil market and push prices higher, threatening the fragile economic recoveries underway in the U.S. and many European countries. ... Other U.S. officials and Middle East experts also fear that Tehran would view the measures as an act of war and retaliate by directly or indirectly striking Israel or other U.S. allies throughout the Middle East." Our ruling It’s clear that the United States could unilaterally sanction the bank -- or try. Yet the move would have uncertain effects; other countries might not join in. It’s not proven that Iran’s economy would shut down. We rate Perry’s statement Half True. CORRECTION, 2:03 p.m., Nov. 28, 2011: A paragraph originally in this article misstated what's now permitted to be imported from Iran to the United States, an error that was brought to our attention by a reader. The incorrect information has been removed. This change did not affect our rating.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2011-11-22T21:24:05	2011-11-22	['Iran']
-pomt-00766	This year’s state budget and my spending proposal for Fiscal Year 2016 represent an infusion of more than $1 billion in additional money for K-12 education.	/georgia/statements/2015/apr/14/nathan-deal/deals-statement-education-funding-missing-critical/	Gov. Nathan Deal has promised financially strapped local school districts that better days are ahead. He started down that road last year. When running for re-election, he won legislative approval of a 2015 state budget that reduced the education austerity cut to $747 million, the lowest since 2009. In his latest State of the State address, Deal said public education remains a budget priority. "This year’s budget, coupled with my proposal for next year’s budget, represents an infusion of over one billion additional dollars for K-12 education," he told a joint session of the state House and Senate on Jan. 14. Those were sweet-sounding words to educators. But do they ring true? PolitiFact Georgia decided to check now that state lawmakers have met for their annual 40-day session and approved a 2015 revised state budget, as well as a budget of about $21.8 billion for 2016. We began our fact-check by contacting Jen Talaber, a Deal spokeswoman. Talaber said the governor put more than $1.2 billion in additional money into K-12 education in the two budget cycles. Specifically, the state Department of Education received $535,118,581 in the Fiscal 2015 budget, $139,242,817 in the 2015 amended budget and $557,647,889 in the 2016 budget, for a total of $1,232,009,287, she said. A majority of the money is going to two big-ticket items: reducing the austerity cuts and covering annual student enrollment growth, state records show. An austerity cut is the gap between what a district needs to provide a quality education to all its students, as determined by the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula, and the amount of money the General Assembly and governor approve. The first austerity cut was implemented in 2003, pre-Great Recession. In the years that have followed, the state’s 180 local districts have collectively been shortchanged about $8 billion, based on the formula. As a result, many districts have raised class sizes, abandoned the traditional 180-day school calendar, dropped electives and furloughed staff in recent years. Deal last year reduced the annual austerity cut -- which had hovered around $1 billion -- to $747 million by sending the districts collectively an additional $314 million. For the upcoming fiscal year, he proposed and lawmakers approved giving them an additional $280 million to reduce the austerity cut to about $460 million. Those back-to-back austerity reductions absorbed about $594 million -- or nearly half of the $1.2 billion. Student enrollment growth took another big share. For example, the 2015 amended state budget included $128.5 million to send to school districts for new students who enrolled last August. "That doesn’t enable us to provide new services," said Claire Suggs an education policy analyst with the left-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, said of the enrollment payments. "We’re just keeping up." In the recent General Assembly session, lawmakers agreed that 22,000 part-time school employees and their dependents should be able to remain on the State Health Benefit Plan, the state's health insurance program for teachers, retirees and state workers. Deal had proposed booting part-time school bus drivers and cafeteria workers off the coverage. But both chambers said local school districts need to come up with $103 million more in the upcoming year to pay for coverage for the so-called non-certified school employees. Our Ruling: The governor said in his State of the State address that the 2015 and 2016 state budgets represent an infusion of $1 billion in additional money for K-12 education. To districts that, in 2014, collectively were living with $1 billion in austerity cuts and next year will see those reduced to about $460 billion, that probably does seem rejuvenating. Deal’s statement is accurate, but also misleading. A billion-plus additional dollars will be in the budget, but most of the money is going to cover routine growth in student enrollment and to reduce austerity cuts. We rate the governor’s statement Half True.	None	Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2015-04-14T00:00:00	2015-01-14	['None']
-pomt-06212	"99% of NJ voters do NOT support hunting."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/08/bear-education-and-resource-group/black-bear-advocacy-group-claims-99-percent-new-je/	One of the animal rights groups that took the state to court in a failed bid to stop this year’s bear hunt claims it has a powerful force on its side: New Jersey voters. A six-day season that ends Saturday opens the woods of northwestern New Jersey to black bear hunters. On its website, the Bear Education and Resource Group accuses the state Division of Fish and Wildlife of "promoting recreational trophy hunting against public opinion." When PolitiFact New Jersey viewed the website on Dec. 6, it read "99% of NJ voters do NOT support hunting. And over 70% of comments submitted to F&W’s public hearing on their Black Bear Management Policy were AGAINST bear hunting. But they were ignored in favor of the 1% of residents who enjoy killing for fun." Can that many New Jerseyans -- 99 percent of residents in the Garden State -- agree on anything? If bear hunting is an example, probably not. Before last year’s bear hunt, Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind Poll conducted a survey of New Jersey voters that asked two questions. The first asked whether residents agreed or disagreed with allowing bear hunting in New Jersey "if wildlife scientists conclude that bears are exceeding their recommended habitat limits and are destroying private property?" Fifty-three percent of respondents agreed, 36 percent disagreed and 11 percent said they were unsure. The other question asked voters if they approved or disapproved of "allowing a bear hunting season in New Jersey." For that question, 49 percent of respondents said they approved, 33 percent disapproved and 18 percent said they were unsure. The results from either question had a margin of error of five percentage points. "In general, people think [hunting]’s more benign than not. But you certainly find currents of sympathy running in different directions," said Peter Woolley, the director of Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind Poll, noting differences in opinion between men and women, as well as urban and nonurban areas. The Humane Society of the United States, which opposes bear hunts, commissioned a poll before last year’s bear hunt that was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, Inc. One of the poll questions asked New Jersey voters: "The state of New Jersey has protected black bears since 1970 with only two trophy hunts permitted in the past forty years. The state is now considering allowing hunters to kill up to 400 black bears. Do you support or oppose the hunting of black bears in New Jersey?" That poll found 45 percent of respondents opposed the hunting of black bears, 35 percent supported it and 20 percent were unsure. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. Although the polls results differ, both show that opposition to bear hunting in New Jersey does not begin to approach the black bear advocacy group’s claim of 99 percent. Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said, "99 percent is absurd." Dale Jones, vice president of merchandise for the Bear Education and Resource Group, said "the statement is wrong," noting that it meant to say "99 percent of New Jersey voters don’t hunt." State data generally supports that claim, but the group’s website says 99 percent of New Jersey voters do not support hunting -- not that they don’t hunt. That’s a significant difference. Our ruling A black bear advocacy group claimed on its website that 99 percent of New Jersey voters oppose hunting. That number is way off. The organization acknowledges it’s wrong, but late in the afternoon on Dec. 7, more than a day after PolitiFact New Jersey initially contacted the group, the statement was still on the website -- even after Jones said a webmaster would be notified to change it.* The statement drops to the ridiculous level for that reason, earning a Pants on Fire! To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. *Editor's Note: When PolitiFact New Jersey viewed the website on Dec. 8, the group had changed the statement. Our ruling still stands.	None	Bear Education and Resource Group	None	None	None	2011-12-08T07:30:00	2011-12-06	['None']
-snes-02082	Members of an Ohio 'Oath Keepers' group tried to charge a woman and her son to walk through a shopping mall during an event.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oath-keepers-ohio-mall/	None	Uncategorized	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did ‘Oath Keepers’ Charge an Ohio Woman to Walk Across a Mall?	11 July 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01494	Katie Holmes Did Demand Jamie Foxx “Give Up Junk Food,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-jamie-foxx-health-diet-junk-food/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Katie Holmes Did NOT Demand Jamie Foxx “Give Up Junk Food,” Despite Report	10:47 am, February 26, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12508	"Trump wants to deport American Indians to India."	/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/26/blog-posting/trump-wants-send-native-americans-india-fake-news-/	A fake news story contended that President Donald Trump conflated Native Americans with people actually from India, and wanted to deport them to the South Asian subcontinent. "Trump wants to deport American Indians to India," read the headline on an April 25, 2017, post on ILoveNativeAmericans.us. The post was flagged by Facebook users as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media site’s efforts to winnow fake news from users’ feeds. ILoveNativeAmericans.us ostensibly is a site filled with stories about or of interest to Native Americans. But there’s evidence it’s a fake news outlet however, not the least of which is that the site insisted to a commenter questioning the story that "this is real, it was on TV." We received no response when we tried to contact the administrator via the Gmail address the site provided. The site is registered to someone in Kosovo. The story falsely quoted Trump in a bogus Fox News interview as saying, "I’ve seen it in all kinds of TV documentaries. Horrible attacks on good Americans using hatchets or bows and arrows. You can’t trust these Indians." Also included are two images of tweets, allegedly from Feb. 13. The tweets are actually fakes. As all devoted PolitiFacters know, it’s quite easy to fake a tweet from any account, and Trump is a popular target. There’s no record of Trump actually tweeting such things about Native Americans. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Moreover, the story itself came from a parody site called The-Postillon.com, which first posted the article on Feb. 13. The-Postillon.com calls itself "honest news" on its banner, but its FAQ section notes that "everything you can read here is satire and therefore all made-up." Unlike many parody sites, the FAQ also lists several staffers, and gives readers explicit permission to repost edited articles with attribution. The site is registered in Roubaix, France. The story has made it onto other suspect aggregators similar to I LoveNativeAmericans.us. One version appeared on WeLoveNative.com on Feb. 28, while it showed up (and was then removed) on NativeAmericans.news on March 4. Both websites also are registered to addresses in Kosovo. There has been some concern that Trump’s immigration efforts may affect Indians in the United States — some 300,000 illegal immigrants are Indians, according to the Times of India. Possible changes in the H-1B temporary visa program also are likely to affect Indians here. But Trump didn’t make these statements, and there’s no executive order deporting Native Americans to another country. We rate the statement Pants On Fire! See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-04-26T15:21:01	2017-04-25	['India', 'Native_Americans_in_the_United_States']
-pomt-13352	"Not one penny of (California’s Prop 67) bag ban tax goes to the environment."	/california/statements/2016/oct/03/no-67/whats-bag-fee-environment-opponents-not-one-penny/	A ‘Yes’ vote on California’s Proposition 67 would ban thin plastic carryout bags at grocery and convenience stores statewide. The ban is supported by environmental groups that argue the bags choke wildlife and cause problems for recycling centers when they wrap around machinery. Along with imposing the ban, Prop 67 would also mandate that stores charge customers a minimum 10 cent fee on the other carry-out options they supply, such as paper or heavy duty plastic bags. The No on 67 campaign has seized on this 10 cent charge, calling it a tax and claiming it does nothing to fund environmental protections. "Don’t be fooled: Not one penny of the bag ban tax goes to the environment," the No on 67 campaign claimed in its official ballot argument against the proposition. No on 67 is led by a plastics industry trade association. The same group introduced a competing ballot measure, Proposition 65, which would redirect the bag fee money to an environmental fund administered by the state Wildlife Conservation Board. We wondered if the No on 67 claim is accurate. Does any money from the charge go to environmental causes? California's Prop 67 would ban thin plastic grocery carryout bags statewide and impose a 10 cent fee on other store options such as paper or heavy duty plastic. Photo by Jae C. Hong / Associated Press Our research Prop 67 is a referendum on a law Gov. Jerry Brown signed two years ago banning plastic carryout bags statewide. The plastics industry challenged it, placing the law on hold. The measure is also known as the "California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum." It would apply to grocery and convenience stores, large pharmacies and liquor stores. Notably, the No on 67 campaign uses the word "tax" rather than charge or fee in its claim. The term doesn’t fit, as the revenue goes to stores, not a government agency. A spokeswoman for the No on 67 campaign said its claim is backed up by the text of the ballot measure, which says the 10 cent charge (it doesn’t use the term ‘tax’) would be "retained by the store and … used only for specified purposes." The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office examined Prop 67 and found "stores would retain the revenue from the sale of the bags." It went on to say: "They could use the proceeds to cover the costs of providing carryout bags, complying with the measure, and educational efforts to encourage the use of reusable bags." Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the Yes on 67 campaign, acknowledged there’s no requirement for stores to fund beach cleanups, land preservation or similar environmental efforts. That doesn’t mean there’s no environmental upside to the 10 cent charge, he said. "The environmental benefit of charging for the actual average cost of bags (versus) giving those bags for free, is that consumers use substantially fewer bags," Maviglio said in an email. "Fewer bags, even fewer recycled paper bags, means a smaller environmental footprint." He pointed to a 2012 report by the city of San Jose to back up that statement. San Jose is among the more than 100 cities or counties in California that already ban plastic grocery bags. The city’s plastic bag ordinance includes a 10 cent charge on paper bags retained by stores. Comparing periods before and after the ban, the report found an 89 percent reduction in bag litter in San Jose’s storm drain system; and about a 60 percent reduction in the city’s creeks, rivers, streets and neighborhoods. In Santa Cruz County, Laura Kasa of Save our Shores told the Santa Cruz Sentinel in 2013 her group has witnessed a reduction of bags collected during cleanups "because of the four bans which took effect (in the county) in 2012." Our ruling The No on 67 campaign claims "Not one penny of the bag ban tax goes to the environment." A large portion of this is correct: Nothing requires the bag fee revenue be spent directly on environmental causes, as found by the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. But the claim ignores the indirect benefit the fee could have on the environment. Supporters make a fair point that the fee will persuade customers to use reusable bags, thus cutting down on river- and creek-choking plastic bags. Finally, the No on 67 statement describes the fee as a "tax," a wrong and misleading description. We rate the claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. UPDATE: After this fact check was published, a spokeswoman for the city of San Jose told us that the city's estimate of 89 percent litter reduction was later determined to be miscalculated. The corrected estimate is 62 percent. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/bdcb9c8a-1a47-4ed7-8204-61e175e619ec	None	No on 67	None	None	None	2016-10-03T06:00:00	2016-08-15	['California']
-snes-04853	An Italian doctor uncovered a surprisingly simple cure for multiple sclerosis in April 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/italian-doctor-multiple-sclerosis/	None	Medical	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Italian Doctor Finds Surprisingly Simple Cure for Multiple Sclerosis?	27 April 2016	None	['Italy']
-tron-00805	7th Heaven Actor Stephen Collins Committed Suicide	https://www.truthorfiction.com/stephen-collins-suicide/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	7th Heaven Actor Stephen Collins Committed Suicide	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08493	Says James Langevin voted to spend "$3 billion for a jet engine no one wants."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/oct/10/mark-zaccaria/zaccaria-says-langevin-voted-spend-3-billion-jet-e/	In a news release arguing that Democratic U.S. Rep. James Langevin is wasting taxpayer money, his Republican challenger, Mark Zaccaria, cites the case of a "blatantly bogus project" involving a jet engine proposed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "While countless Rhode Islanders are struggling to put food on their tables and find employment, Representative Jim Langevin has voted for billions in wasteful spending. One particularly appalling boondoggle is $3 billion for a jet engine no one wants. Even Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates and President Obama oppose this expenditure," Zaccaria said in the news release, which carried the headline "Zaccaria Criticizes Langevin on Billions in Pork-Barrel Spending." The engine that Langevin voted for is called the F136. General Electric and Rolls-Royce want to jointly build it for the Pentagon's new multi-purpose jet fighter, which is still being flight-tested by Lockheed. The stealth aircraft is designed to be used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines because it can hover, land on aircraft carriers and take off from conventional airfields. The problem is, the F-35 already has an engine, called the F135. It's manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, which assembles the engines in Middletown, Conn. Ten engines have already been produced. General Electric and Rolls-Royce want the government to buy their engine -- which is still in the developmental stage -- as a backup. Gates, who has been trying to trim defense spending, has said the F136 is not necessary and a waste of money. Supporters of the F136 argue that having a second manufacturer forces defense contractors to compete. In addition, Langevin "felt strongly that having 95 percent of our fleet rely on one engine was too costly and too risky," said the congressman's spokeswoman, Joy Fox, referring to Langevin's support for a second engine. Zaccaria, a former military aviator, said it's ridiculous to have two different engines for the same jet fighter, with two different specifications, two sets of parts and two repair manuals. We're not going to assess the wisdom of having an alternative manufacturer for the F-35's engine. That's too subjective. We decided to focus instead on Zaccaria's assertion that Langevin voted to spend $3 billion for the engine when "no one" wants it. The issue came to a key vote in the House in May as part of a $568-billion defense bill. It called for appropriating $485 million for the controversial engine to continue development. So Zaccaria's $3-billion figure is six times too high. (The Pentagon has estimated it would cost $2.9 billion to finish developing the engine, a figure GE and Rolls-Royce dispute. The highest figure we could find regarding how much Congress has already earmarked for the program is $1.2 billion.) Langevin, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, backed the F136 in the May vote, opposing an amendment that would have cut the engine from the defense bill. But Langevin wasn't alone; 230 other congressmen joined him, including 116 Republicans and 114 Democrats. One other point. Pork barrel spending, by definition, refers to projects designed to bring money or jobs into a politician's home turf. As far as we could tell, nothing about manufacturing the F136 engine would directly benefit Rhode Island, a point on which Zaccaria and Langevin agree. We asked Zaccaria why he used that term. "This is pork barrel in that it has no real redeeming value to the budget of the United States of America," he said. "It's probably pork barrel for somebody." It's true that many oppose the F136 engine, including Gates and President Obama. And it's true that Langevin voted to support it. But Zaccaria went further, inflating the price tag associated with the vote and asserting that "no one" wants it, when a majority of House members were in favor of keeping it. His statement is Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Mark S. Zaccaria	None	None	None	2010-10-10T00:01:00	2010-10-01	['None']
-pomt-09524	The Bush administration prosecuted 190 suspected terrorists in federal courts.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/12/barack-obama/obama-claims-bush-administration-got-190-terrorism/	As the debate rages over whether Guantanamo detainees ought to be tried in federal court, a lot of numbers are flying around that may appear confusing or conflicting. Often, the numbers are attached to one of two positions: You've got the Obama administration arguing that many of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, ought to be tried in federal courts on American soil; while Republicans generally argue that the detainees ought to be treated as enemy combatants and tried in military courts in Guantanamo. The debate has put one statistic front and center: Just how many terrorists have been tried and successfully convicted in federal courts in recent years? It's a more difficult number to track than you might think. Consider these citations: • "We know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing so for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on embassies in Africa." -- Attorney General Eric Holder before a Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18, 2009. • "Since the Sept. 11 attacks, and as of Aug. 31, 2006, 288 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after Sept. 11, 2001." -- a September 2006 Justice Department "Terror Fact Sheet." • "Since 9/11, more than two dozen terrorists and supporters have been convicted in the United States of terrorism-related crimes." -- "Fact Sheet" issued by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2008. And then this from President Barack Obama in a Feb. 7, 2010, pre-Super Bowl interview with Katie Couric, who asked if he had ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City. "I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved," Obama said. "I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11. "They prosecuted the 190 folks in these Article III (federal) courts," Obama said. "Got convictions. And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now." So 300, "two dozen," 190. How many Islamic-extremist terrorists have been convicted in federal courts? "Everyone is cherry-picking their numbers," said Karen Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, which has compiled a comprehensive study of terrorism-related cases. It depends, for example, if you are talking about domestic and international terrorists; whether terrorism-related cases should include only charges of terrorism or also terrorism-related crimes that might include financing a terrorist organization or immigration fraud; or whether you're talking only about Islamic jihadist terrorists. In other words, there are a lot of ways to slice the numbers. For the purposes of this fact-check, we are specifically looking at Obama's statement. And while there are several organizations that track terrorism cases, administration officials said Obama got his 190 figure from a report by Human Rights First, a nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington, D.C. The report, issued in July 2009, analyzes "criminal cases arising from terrorism that is associated — organizationally, financially, or ideologically — with self-described 'jihadist' or Islamic-extremist groups like al-Qaida" and concludes that 195 people who fit that description have been convicted in federal courts since 9/11. The report concludes that "federal courts, while not perfect, are a fit and flexible resource that should be used along with other government resources — including military force, intelligence gathering, diplomatic efforts and cultural and economic initiatives — as an important part of a multipronged counter-terrorism strategy." That figure of 195 jihadist terrorism convictions has been vociferously challenged as overinflated — particularly when compared to Guantanamo detainees — by Dana M. Perino, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush, and Bill Burck, a former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to President Bush. It has also been picked apart in a series of stories from Andrew McCarthy of National Review. The Human Rights First report explains that it includes "prosecutions that seek criminal sanctions for acts of terrorism, attempts or conspiracies to commit terrorism, or providing aid and support to those engaged in terrorism. We have also sought to identify and include prosecutions intended to disrupt and deter terrorism through other means, for example, through charges under 'alternative' statutes such as false statements, financial fraud and immigration fraud." Those kinds of parameters, McCarthy notes, take in a lot of cases that aren't international terrorists, but often are would-be terrorists who have, for example, been convicted of relatively minor offenses such as immigration fraud or giving false information to federal authorities, or who have helped to finance a terrorist organization. Those may be important prosecutions in combating terrorism, but they aren't on the order of Guantanamo detainees. Human Rights First isn't the only group tracking terrorism cases. New York University's Center on Law and Security has been tracking such cases for years and throws a wide net. In its "Terrorist Trial Report Card: September 11, 2001-September 11, 2009," it finds that the Department of Justice has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges. Of the 593 that have been resolved, 523 were convicted on some charge either at trial or by plea. Terrorism-related can be a broad definition, though, and can include immigration violations, giving false statements and other relatively minor charges. And so the report breaks out cases in which defendants are charged under core terrorism or national security statutes. Those are bona fide, serious charges. Now you're talking about 174 people convicted under those statutes; plus another 24 charged with those statutes, but convicted on lesser crimes. That also gets to the president's figure. But it's misleading for Obama to cite that 190 number as if the cases are equivalent to those faced by Guantanamo detainees, said Greenberg, editor of the report. There are probably less than a dozen cases against people in the Islamic jihadist framework who have been convicted in federal court of serious terrorism-related crimes comparable to many of the Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said. Nonetheless, there are some, she said, including Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber"; Bryant Neal Vinas, an American convicted of supporting al-Qaida plots in Afghanistan and the United States; Mohammed Jabarah, a Canadian who was active in al-Qaida and convicted of terrorism-related offenses; Shahawar Matin Siraj, a Pakistani-American who plotted to bomb Herald Square in New York; and Mohammed Junaid Babar, a Pakistani-American convicted of terrorist-related offenses in New York, and who testified in 2006 against a group of men accused of plotting bomb attacks in London. These cases, although far fewer than those cited by Obama, provide powerful evidence that federal courts can appropriately handle many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, Greenberg said. "The trend lines demonstrate convincingly that federal courts are capable of trying alleged terrorists and securing high rates of conviction," Greenberg wrote in the report. "Federal prosecution has demonstrably become a powerful tool in many hundreds of cases, not only for incapacitating terrorists but also for intelligence gathering. Much of the government’s knowledge of terrorist groups has come from testimony and evidence produced in grand jury investigations, including information provided by cooperators, and in the resulting trials." In summary, Obama cited a legitimate figure for terrorism-related convictions in federal court. And we note that Bush administration officials cited even bigger numbers in some of their reports at the time. But when Obama cites this number in the same breath as Guantanamo detainees, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. We agree with Greenberg that only a fraction of those 190 cases cited by Obama could rightly be equated to the Guantanamo detainees. And while even that much smaller number might provide a powerful argument for Obama, that's not the number he used. And so we rate his statement Barely True. Update, Feb. 18, 2010: This story was updated, removing an inaccurately paraphrased quote attributed to Karen Greenberg. The Center on Law and Security report is comprised of mostly Islamic terrorism cases, but includes other groups as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a group of Marxist guerrillas. The Human Rights First report focuses specifically on radical Islamic or Jihadist terrorist organizations. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-02-12T19:36:50	2010-02-07	['George_W._Bush']
-pomt-03960	"Lots of studies seem to indicate that minors find it very easy to get marijuana, easier than to get alcohol."	/rhode-island/statements/2013/feb/16/edith-ajello/rhode-island-state-rep-edith-ajello-says-studies-i/	State Rep. Edith H. Ajello, D-Providence, recently said legalizing and regulating marijuana in Rhode Island would make it tougher for young people to get the drug, in part by cutting off the underground market that sells to minors and flourishes while marijuana is outlawed. In a Feb. 6, 2013, Providence Journal story about her bill to legalize marijuana, Ajello said that after years of making marijuana illegal, "Lots of studies seem to indicate that minors find it very easy to get marijuana, easier than to get alcohol." Ajello’s proposal calls for allowing people 21 or older to carry an ounce or less of marijuana and would require regulations for selling, growing and taxation of the drug. We wondered if it’s really true, as Ajello says, that it’s easier for young people to get marijuana than alcohol. After we contacted Ajello, we heard from Mason Tvert, an advocate for regulating the use of marijuana rather than prohibiting it. He referred us to various studies. But we had already found the annual National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse, which reports that in each of the past three years, young people reported that it was in fact easier to get alcohol than to get marijuana -- the opposite of what Ajello said. The most recent edition of that survey, which is conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, and released in August 2012, said "teens have readier access to alcohol than prescription drugs or marijuana within an hour and within a day." Tvert mentioned the same study, noting that from 2002 through 2009 it found that teens thought it was easier to buy marijuana than beer. But, in 2010, the survey changed the wording of the question, asking teenagers whether it was easier to get marijuana than alcohol -- the wording Ajello used. From 2010 through 2012, the survey states, 26 to 27 percent of teenagers said they could get beer within an hour while 13 to 15 percent of teens said they could get marijuana within an hour. During the same three-year period, the range for teens who said they could get beer within a day was 46 to 50 percent, while for marijuana within a day it was 29 to 31 percent. (More teens also said they could illegally get prescription drugs within an hour or a day than marijuana). Why did the wording change? "Research suggested that teens frequently get substances including tobacco, alcohol and drugs from friends and families," rather than buying them, said Emily Feinstein, program director, Policy to Practice, at the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Indeed, another study, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, states that 7.7 percent of people ages 12 to 20 in 2011 said that they purchased the alcohol themselves the last time they drank. A little more than 30 percent of that age group said they paid for the the last alcohol they drank. (The study didn’t ask teens about the ease of purchasing marijuana.) And the Monitoring the Future study, which is conducted at the University of Michigan and has surveyed about 50,000 8th, 10th and 12th graders in the United States yearly since the 1970s, has found that alcohol access is consistently reported by students in all three grades to be the number-one substance that is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to get. Monitoring the Future’s 2012 survey found: * Nearly 58 percent of 8th graders said it was fairly easy or very easy to get alcohol compared with 37 percent saying the same of marijuana * More than 78 percent of 10th graders said alcohol was fairly easy or very easy to get while just shy of 69 percent said the same of marijuana. * Almost 91 percent of 12th graders said alcohol was fairly easy or very easy to get compared with nearly 82 percent saying the same for marijuana. Monitoring the Future found that students in the three grade levels said every year that alcohol was more easily available than marijuana. According to the Monitoring the Future survey figures, availability of alcohol has decreased since the 1990s -- but so has marijuana availability. Other studies suggested by Tvert did not address directly teens’ ease of access to marijuana or alcohol. Those studies did say that in the past few years there has been an increase in marijuana use among teenagers, after a period in which use had declined. Our ruling Rep. Edith H. Ajello said, "Lots of studies seem to indicate that minors find it very easy to get marijuana, easier than to get alcohol." The verb choice and timing of Ajello’s comment proved crucial here. If she’d referred to how easily young people could purchase one or the other, and she’d said it in 2009, there would be more support. But all the most recent, credible, national studies we found showed that teenagers report it’s easier to get alcohol than marijuana. We rate the claim as False. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Edith Ajello	None	None	None	2013-02-16T00:01:00	2013-02-06	['None']
-pomt-09308	New financial regulation "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/20/mitch-mcconnell/bank-bailouts-not-bill-liquidation/	Sen. Mitch McConnell said that new financial regulations under consideration in the Senate could lead to only one thing: bailouts. "In fact, if you look at it carefully, it will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks," McConnell said at a press conference on April 14, adding that it "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks" and that it sets up "in perpetuity the potential for additional taxpayer bailouts of large institutions." Those comments must have sounded like fighting words to President Barack Obama. He directly rebutted McConnell, the leader of the Senate Republicans, in his weekly address. McConnell has "made the cynical and deceptive assertion that reform would somehow enable future bailouts – when he knows that it would do just the opposite," Obama said. The debate is critical because voters hate bailouts. In fact, Republican pollster Frank Luntz advised opponents of regulation that "the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout." We wanted to check McConnell's claim that the new financial regulation "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks" and that it would be at taxpayer expense. The financial regulations under consideration in the Senate do a number of things: The government receives additional authority to regulate over-the-counter derivatives and hedge funds. A new consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve will regulate financial products. And the bill creates a process for federal authorities to dissolve financial institutions that are teetering on collapse. It's that last item that seems to be attracting McConnell's ire. He said the bill was "taking that experience in the fall of 2008 and institutionalizing it, setting up in perpetuity the potential for additional taxpayer bailouts of large institutions." The official name of that part of the bill is "Orderly Resolution Authority." It sets up a panel of three bankruptcy judges who convene and agree within 24 hours about whether a large financial company is insolvent. If a "systematically significant" firm is teetering on collapse, the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Federal Reserve would have to agree to liquidate the firm, using a special fund created with payments from the largest financial firms. The FDIC "shall impose assessments on a graduated basis, with financial companies having greater assets being assessed at a higher rate," according to the legislation. We should clarify that there will be no change for small, mid-sized and even fairly large banks. When they're in trouble, there's already a well-established mechanism, under FDIC authority, that is not considered a bailout. Instead, the "bailouts" at issue are those for the small number of very large, highly interconnected institutions -- those sometimes called "too big to fail" because their collapse would severely impact the rest of the economy. The legislative language says that the money must be used to dissolve -- meaning completely shut down -- failing firms. Here's what Sec. 206 of the bill says: "In taking action under this title, the (FDIC) shall determine that such action is necessary for purposes of the financial stability of the United States, and not for the purpose of preserving the covered financial company; ensure that the shareholders of a covered financial company do not receive payment until after all other claims and the Fund are fully paid; ensure that unsecured creditors bear losses in accordance with the priority of claim provisions in section 210; ensure that management responsible for the failed condition of the covered financial company is removed (if such management has not already been removed at the time at which the FDIC is appointed receiver); and not take an equity interest in or become a shareholder of any covered financial company or any covered subsidiary." We spoke with several experts specifically about the fund in a previous report, where we fact-checked Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's statement that the fund is "available for virtually any purpose that the treasury secretary sees fit." The consensus of the experts was that the legislation put forward numerous rules on how the fund is to be used, with the express purpose of liquidating -- that is, shutting down -- failing firms. We rated Shelby's statement False. McConnell said that the bill "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks." One of the sticking points here, of course, is the word bailout. We should acknowledge that free-market purists might see any intervention of the government into the financial sector as a "bailout." However, we think the more common understanding of the word means that the federal government gives or lends a company money to help it stay in business. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines a bailout as "a rescue from financial distress." We don't see how the liquidation of a company could constitute a "rescue." In fact, the bill pays for the so-called "orderly liquidation" by assessing a fine on the firms themselves, not general revenues, a situation somewhat similar to the way the FDIC has handled failing banks for many years now, using fees it collects from other banks to pay for orderly shutdowns. On the question of bailouts, we spoke to a variety of financial-services experts, and most (though not all) agreed that the bill would be a step in the right direction, in all likelihood reducing the risk of having the government having to undertake another bailout. That's the case in part because the bill aims to heighten regulation in advance so that problems don't emerge in the first place. Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican, helped draft the orderly liquidation measures in the bill, and he has been arguing against McConnell's assertions that the bill allows bailouts. He was asked about the bill on MSNBC's Morning Joe on April 20. "Does it ensure future bailouts as Mitch McConnell suggests?" asked host Joe Scarborough. "There are some loopholes in the bill, no question," Corker replied. "But generally speaking, the central elements of the bill absolutely do the opposite." Corker gave an extended speech on the floor of the Senate the day before, discussing many details of the bill, including the $50 billion fund. "This fund that has been set up is anything but a bailout," Corker said. "It has been set up in essence to provide upfront funding by the industry so that when these companies are seized, there is money available to make payroll and to wind it down while the pieces are being sold off." (By the way, Corker has asked both Democrats and Republicans to cool down some of their rhetoric on financial reform.) The experts we spoke with, however, said they believed a $50 billion fund might not be enough to wind down a large failing firm with a global reach. For a truly large and interconnected institution, several sources said, $50 billion probably won't be enough to do an "orderly liquidation." Arthur E. Wilmarth Jr., a law professor at George Washington University, said that given past history, that figure is "laughable" and that "$300 billion would be the minimum reasonable starting point." We should add here that the bill is something of a moving target. There is speculation that the fund might be dropped from the bill, since it wasn't in the White House's original proposal. The Senate version will have to work out differences with the bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives if it's to become law. In ruling on McConnell's statement, that financial reform "actually guarantees future bailouts of Wall Street banks," we base our ruling primarily on the legislation. It clearly states that the intention is to liquidate failing companies, not bail them out. To do that, it creates a fund with contributions from financial firms, not from taxpayer funds. We do not see any element of the bill that expressly permits ongoing, "endless" outlays from the federal treasury. Is it possible that liquidation may cost the government money, potentially more money than is allowed for in the bill? Yes. But even so, McConnell is using seriously overheated rhetoric. Nothing in the bill "guarantees" future bailouts of Wall Street banks. We rate his statement False.	None	Mitch McConnell	None	None	None	2010-04-20T17:22:56	2010-04-14	['None']
-bove-00191	Did PM Modi Say It Was A Matter Of Regret Being Born In India?	https://www.boomlive.in/did-pm-modi-say-it-was-a-matter-of-regret-being-born-in-india/	None	None	None	None	None	Did PM Modi Say It Was A Matter Of Regret Being Born In India?	Sep 12 2017 6:45 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-06283	Says the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction proposal urged raising $2 trillion in new revenue.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/21/john-kerry/john-kerry-says-simpson-bowles-proposal-raised-2-t/	On the Nov. 20, 2011, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was grilled about the congressional "supercommittee" of which he’s a member. At the time the show aired, a deadline was looming for the supercommittee, which was created by the August 2011 deal to increase the debt ceiling. Host David Gregory asked Kerry about some of the negotiations over handling the growth of Social Security and Medicare -- programs dear to the hearts of many Democratic lawmakers, just as low taxes are dear to many Republicans. Kerry said that "a whole bunch of things were on the table for the right amount. If people wanted to do a $4 trillion deal, there were discussions about dealing with the major sacred cows of our side. I'm just telling you, every one of them was on the table, and they know it. And it will be documented, ultimately, in papers that I know will come out of this. But I don't want to get stuck there right now. The answer is, every one of them are on the table." The problem, Kerry said, is that Republicans "would not do the revenue." To draw a contrast, Kerry cited details from a few other deficit-reduction proposals, including one known as Simpson-Bowles, after the panel’s co-chairs, former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. The Simpson-Bowles commission was a bipartisan panel convened by the White House that produced a final recommendation in December 2010. "Look, put it in a perspective," Kerry told Gregory. "Simpson-Bowles worked for thousands of hours. Bipartisan, Republican, Democrat, people outside of the Senate and elected politics. They came out and said, in order to do a deal you need $4 trillion, and you need $2 trillion of it as revenue." By making this point, Kerry was attacking Republicans for their unwillingness to join with a bipartisan group in accepting significant tax increases. But is Kerry right that the Simpson-Bowles plan would have raised $2 trillion as revenue? We turned to the group’s final report to find out. The panel’s summary table shows that the plan’s total deficit reduction between 2012 and 2020 would be $3,885 trillion. That’s slightly lower than the $4 trillion Kerry cited, but the Simpson-Bowles report itself rounded that up "nearly $4 trillion" in its summary, so we think Kerry is on safe ground for that figure. But Kerry is off-base on the revenue side. Of the $3.885 trillion in total deficit reduction, the panel proposed cuts in discretionary and mandatory spending totaling $2.217 trillion and estimated interest savings of $673 billion. The remainder of the deficit reduction total involves new revenues -- a combination of closing tax loopholes and increasing in certain types of taxes and other revenue streams. The new tax revenues work out to $995 billion over that period -- slightly less than half of the level Kerry said and, in absolute terms, a difference of more than $1 trillion, which isn’t pocket change. We asked Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, if we were missing anything with our analysis. He cited two caveats. The first is that the commission proposed changes to the Social Security system, including payroll taxation of 90 percent of wages by 2050. That’s more than the 86 percent of wages subject to the payroll tax in 2009 and the estimated 83 percent that would be subject to the tax by 2020. The report recommends that the Social Security changes be made for their own sake, and not for the explicit purpose of deficit reduction, so the panel didn’t include these changes in its deficit-reduction math. But we can extrapolate how much additional revenue would come from Social Security by reverse-engineering from data elsewhere in the report. The maximum of all net changes from Social Security reforms is $229 billion through 2020. This figure actually includes more than just the payroll tax provision we cited above. But even if all of the $229 billion represented revenue increases, it would still not bump up the total revenue increases under Simpson-Bowles close to the $2 trillion that Kerry cited. The second caveat, Ellis said, is that other analyses based on the Simpson-Bowles proposal suggest that tax revenues could indeed reach $2 trillion by 2020. One was published by the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee, and another was published by the conservative Heritage Foundation. They get to this alternative number by using a different baseline. A "baseline" is the current budgetary level to which future deficit savings are compared. We asked Kerry’s office to clarify what he meant, but we did not hear back. Ellis, for what it’s worth, said he thinks it’s unlikely that Kerry was basing his comment on either of the two alternative analyses by the House Budget Committee Republicans and by the Heritage Foundation, both of which are Kerry’s ideological opposites. Our ruling While it’s possible to get to $2 trillion using the alternative baselines, we think the best way to analyze Kerry’s comment is to use the commission’s own math. After all, in Kerry’s words, Simpson-Bowles "came out and said, in order to do a deal you need $4 trillion, and you need $2 trillion of it as revenue." But the Simpson-Bowles report didn’t come close to suggesting $2 trillion in new revenue. The actual figure is slightly less than half of that. We rate his statement Mostly False. EDITOR’S NOTE: After our story was posted, Kerry’s office got back to us. Press secretary Whitney Smith confirmed that the senator understood that the choice of baseline determines how much revenue the proposal generates, as our story indicated. However, we stand by our position that the best number to use in this context is the one the Simpson-Bowles commission used itself, so we’re sticking with our ruling of Mostly False. SECOND EDITOR’S NOTE: A few days after our story appeared, we received a letter from Ed Lorenzen, executive director of the Moment of Truth Project, a project co-chaired by Simpson and Bowles to carry on the work of their commission. Lorenzen argued that even though the committee did not use the $2 trillion figure in its report, it was fair for Kerry to have used it in the context of comparing Simpson-Bowles to subsequent deficit-reduction proposals. His comments are detailed, so we’ve provided them separately here. However, we’ve decided to stick to prior our ruling of Mostly False, based on another point Lorenzen made — that if Kerry were to use the $2 trillion figure, then applying the same counting methodology to the total deficit reduction figure would result in a reduction of $5 trillion. That would have made incorrect the other half of Kerry’s statement, in which he said Simpson Bowles would have produced $4 trillion in deficit reduction.	None	John Kerry	None	None	None	2011-11-21T17:26:36	2011-11-20	['None']
-pomt-10632	The church Barack Obama belongs to has a "nonnegotiable commitment to Africa."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/11/chain-email/church-claims-commitment-as-ethnic-heritage/	An anonymous chain e-mail warns its readers that the church Barack Obama belongs to has a "nonnegotiable commitment to Africa." That is an accurate statement from the church's Web site. But the e-mail implies that that commitment is anti-American, which we find is not the case. (Read our story about the whole e-mail here .) Obama belongs to Trinity United Church of Christ, which is considered among the larger black megachurches in the United States. The presidential race has kept him away from the church recently, but he typically attends when he's in Chicago, according to his campaign. Trinity preaches a Bible-based message of black self-reliance. Its motto is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." Trinity's commitment to Africa appears to be more a statement of philosophical orientation than of political support for any particular African country. The church offers classes about the continent and sponsors trips there. Its Web site, www.tucc.org, says it seeks to represent the concerns of Africa in the United States and compares its allegiance with other mainstream immigrant groups: "Just as those of Jewish heritage advocate on behalf of the state of Israel, and those of Irish heritage advocate on behalf of Ireland, and those of Polish descent for Poland, so must we of African descent care about the land of our heritage — the continent of Africa." Obama's father is from the nation of Kenya on the continent of Africa. Trinity defended its teachings in a statement responding to the recent attacks: "There is no anti-American sentiment in the theology or the practice of Trinity United Church of Christ. To be sure, there is prophetic preaching against oppression, racism and other evils that would deny the American ideal," it said. The e-mail is correct that the Web site espouses a "nonnegotiable commitment to Africa," and a nonnegotiable commitment is pretty strong language. But the e-mail implies there's something politically sinister about this and that it somehow supersedes a commitment to America. We find no evidence for that contention. For these reasons, we rate the claim Mostly True. UPDATE: Barack Obama resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ on May 31, 2008, after church pastor Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. made controversial remarks about U.S. foreign policy and other matters. Obama said he intends to join another church after the election.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-01-11T00:00:00	2008-01-06	['Africa', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-00687	A reporter who was found dead mailed her lawyer a recording “to be played if anything happens to her."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dead-reporter-recording-clinton/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did a Dead Reporter Mail Her Lawyer an ‘Open If Something Happens to Me’ Recording of Bill Clinton?	1 May 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01338	Keaton Jones, known for a viral video about bullying, was beaten and robbed of luxury items purchased with money raised via GoFundMe.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keaton-jones-beaten-robbed-gofundme-bullying/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was Bullying Victim Keaton Jones Beaten and Robbed of GoFundMe Money?	13 December 2017	None	['None']
-clck-00013	Most of the recent warming could be natural	https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/incorrect-claim-global-warming-mostly-natural-based-on-study-that-cant-support-conclusion-jennifer-marohasy-john-abbot/	None	None	None	None	None	Incorrect claim that global warming is mostly natural was based on a study that can’t support that conclusion	[' The Spectator, 21 Aug. 2017 \xa0 ']	None	['None']
-snes-01590	Energy drinks caused an expectant father to lose a large portion of his skull.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/energy-drink-results-in-hole-in-expectant-fathers-skull/	None	Food	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Energy Drink Results in Hole in Expectant Father’s Skull?	13 October 2017	None	['None']
-afck-00221	“The percentage of households that are connected to electricity supply increased from 69.7% in 2001 to 86% in 2014. This amounted to over 5.8 million households in 2014.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/is-the-anc-advancing-peoples-power-we-fact-check-key-election-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Is the ANC ‘advancing people’s power’? We fact-check key election claims	2016-05-19 06:39	None	['None']
-tron-01837	CA-125 Cancer test is the best way to screen for Ovarian cancer	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ca-125/	None	health-medical	None	None	None	CA-125 Cancer test is the best way to screen for Ovarian cancer	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-02944	Jennifer Lopez Engaged To Alex Rodriguez, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-lopez-engaged-alex-rodriguez-diamond-ring-wedding-photo/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Jennifer Lopez NOT Engaged To Alex Rodriguez, Despite Claim	10:49 pm, March 10, 2017	None	['Alex_Rodriguez']
-pomt-12056	"ISIS Lays Down Arms After Katy Perry’s Impassioned Plea To ‘Like, Just Co-Exist’"	/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/babylon-bee/no-isis-didnt-lay-down-its-arms-after-katy-perry-e/	Just about everyone wants to see world peace. But the idea that the bad guys are just going to lay down their weapons has long been a powerful source of ridicule. In a post dated May 24, 2017, but which seemed to gain steam on social media in early September, the website Babylon Bee said that the terrorist group variously known as ISIS or the Islamic State had given up its fight just because American singer Katy Perry had called for co-existence in an interview. In an article headlined, "ISIS Lays Down Arms After Katy Perry’s Impassioned Plea To ‘Like, Just Co-Exist,’" the website wrote, "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, released a statement Wednesday confirming that ISIS would be immediately surrendering its fight to establish a powerful caliphate after viewing an interview in which pop singer Katy Perry said, ‘The greatest thing we can do is just unite and love on each other and like, no barriers, no borders, like, we all need to just co-exist.’ " The article raised red flags at Facebook, and we’re fact-checking it here as part of Facebook’s efforts to fight fake news. It’s not so obvious on the page showing the ISIS-Katy Perry article, but the Babylon Bee is a satire site. At the bottom of its home page, there’s a line that reads: "The Babylon Bee is Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire." A glance through other headlines on the site does confirm that the site runs fairly obvious satirical articles that often have religious themes. For instance, the site ran one article about Texas-based megachurch pastor Joel Osteen headlined, "Lakewood Church Issues Eclipse Glasses For Gazing At Joel Osteen’s Teeth." Another article was headlined, "Heaven Department Of Tourism Advises 2018 Round-Trip Tickets Selling Out Fast" So the Babylon Bee is more openly satirical than some other examples we’ve been forwarded by Facebook, but we’ll still confirm for the record that ISIS did not, after all, stop fighting for an Islamic caliphate just because Katy Perry suggested it. The genesis of the joke, as Snopes.com has noted, comes from comments Perry made on the Elvis Duran Morning Show on May 23, 2017, one day after a suicide bombing inspired by ISIS killed 22 people at the Manchester Arena in England during a concert by pop star Ariana Grande. In the interview, Perry said: "I think the greatest thing that we can do now is just unite as people, as fan bases, all of it, you know? Whatever we say behind people’s backs – because the Internet can be a little bit ruthless as far as fan bases go – but I think that the greatest thing we can do is just unite and love on each other. And no barriers, no borders – we all need to just co-exist." (Footnote: Perry later performed with Grande at a benefit concert for the Manchester victims.) Some conservative commentators on social media mocked Perry’s remarks as geopolitically naive, though they often did so without noting that Perry had been seeking to promote unity and respect between the fans of different singers, not trying to ideologically reconcile extreme Islamism with advanced democracy. For instance, a Fox & Friends tweet touted commentator Michelle Malkin’s remark that Perry's call for "no barriers, no borders" typifies the "liberal mindset of celebs who don't operate in reality." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Perry responded to Malkin through a pair of tweets. "@michellemalkin The media has edited my words out of context, I was talking about online fan culture and how we must unite now. ... Maybe didn't say it perfectly but, I don't always get it right. Would love to speak with you in the future." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com Either way, the story in the Babylon Bee reflects pretty obvious satire, not reality. For anyone who failed to catch the snark the first time around or saw the headline out of context, we rate it Pants on Fire. See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com	None	Babylon Bee	None	None	None	2017-09-08T06:00:00	2017-05-24	['None']
-pomt-07016	Housing prices dropped for the 30 months prior to Barack Obama taking office, "and they have stabilized, they've been about flat since the president came in."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/06/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-shaun-donovan-says-house-prices-stab/	The July 3, 2011, edition of CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley featured an interview with Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan. Crowley quickly turned to the troubles in the housing market. She said, "By the numbers, when you came into office with the president, when he nominated you, 844,000 homes roughly were in foreclosure. 1.3 million right now are in foreclosure, and it's down a bit. Only 36 percent of people at this point, according to polls, approve of the way this administration has handled the housing crisis. Is there something more you can do?" Donovan responded, "Well first of all, Candy, we have to recognize, this is the most serious crisis we've had in housing since the Depression. Housing prices have been dropping for 30 straight months when the president walked into the Oval Office, and they have stabilized, they've been about flat since the president came in." He added, "So we've made a real difference. … But, rightly, the American people recognize we are not where we need to be. We still have a ways to go." We were most interested in Donovan’s recap of housing price trends, so we checked to see whether housing prices did indeed drop "for 30 straight months when the president walked into the Oval Office, and they have stabilized, they've been about flat since the president came in." We’ll start by saying that there’s no shortage of housing-price measurements. We found at least five that are conducted either monthly or quarterly, and because of varying methodologies, they all give slightly different snapshots of the housing-price market. Here’s a rundown: • S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index. This seasonally adjusted index looks at 20 major metropolitan areas, so it provides a limited -- though important -- assessment of the housing-price market. Between July 2006 and January 2009, there were some modest (and temporary) upticks, but on the whole, the index fell by a significant amount -- a whopping 28 percent in the 30-month period, or nearly 1 percentage point per month on average. During the Obama presidency, the index has continued to drop, though at a slower rate. Between January 2009 and April 2011, the index has fallen by about 4 percent, with drops in exactly half the months and increases in exactly half the months. The most recent trendline, however, is negative: Prices have fallen for 11 straight months since June 2010. • National Association of Realtors. This index, published by the trade association representing Realtors, tracks median prices for existing home sales on a national basis. The numbers are not seasonally adjusted, so month-to-month comparisons are subject to caution. As with the Case-Shiller index, there were some modest upticks for the 30 months prior to the Obama presidency, but the general trendline was downward. The index dropped by 29 percent over the 30 months before Obama took office. Since Obama has been in the Oval Office, prices have risen slightly -- 2.5 percent over the subsequent 28 months. But as with Case-Shiller, the numbers most recently have been heading south: The index has fallen for six consecutive months. • Federal Housing Finance Agency. This federal agency calculates its own price indexes, including a quarterly index that’s seasonally adjusted. It’s based on transactions backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, federally chartered companies that purchase mortgages on the secondary market. That means this index measures a subgroup of all transactions, but a significant one. This index fell 11 percent between the third quarter of 2006 and the fourth quarter of 2008. Since the fourth quarter of 2008, the index has fallen an additional 8 percent, including declines in every single quarter of the Obama presidency. • Freddie Mac House Price Index. Freddie Mac produces its own index as well. The Freddie Mac index blipped upward occasionally between July 2006 and January 2009, but overall, this index fell by a combined 20 percent before Obama entered the White House. Then, between Obama’s January 2009 inauguration and March 2011, the index fell an additional 9 percent. The index has fallen for each of the most recent 11 months. • CoreLogic Home Price Index. This index showed a 27 percent decline in the 30 months before Obama entered the Oval Office and a 6 percent decline since he took office. The index fell for nine straight months before recovering slightly in April and May of 2011. Using these measures, then, Donovan overstated the case when he said that housing prices dropped "for 30 straight months when the president walked into the Oval Office." That’s not literally true by any of these indexes, though his underlying point -- that it was a rough 30 months for the housing market -- is confirmed by each of the indexes. In addition, Donovan’s implication that the president deserves a significant amount of credit also holds some water, with the National Association of Realtors estimating that a homebuyers’ tax credit backed by Obama encouraged an additional 1 million home sales. Less convincing is Donovan’s description of what has happened since Obama has entered office. If one uses a generous definition of "stabilized" -- performing better than previously -- then Donovan has a point. Since the start of 2009, housing prices have indeed avoided their historic declines of 2006, 2007 and 2008, However, a more stringent definition of "stabilized" -- and a greater focus on Donovan’s wording "flat" -- would suggest a different conclusion. If you look at the five indexes, the overall change in housing prices since Obama took office are a 2.5 percent increase, a decline of 4 percent, a decline of 6 percent, a decline of 8 percent and a decline of 9 percent. And in four of those indexes, prices have been declining for between six to 11 months with no sign of a reversal. When we contacted HUD with our findings, officials offered some explanations for the differences. One difference is that HUD used three specific measures, rather than the five we looked at -- and two of those were variations on the ones we had looked at. When using the Case-Shiller index, HUD used the non-seasonally adjusted version, even though that would not be considered the most appropriate way to make month-to-month comparisons. We checked their numbers, and, using this number, HUD is right that home prices declined for more than 30 consecutive months prior to Obama taking office. Using the seasonally adjusted numbers, as we did, it’s not the case. When using the CoreLogic data, HUD relied on a separate measure of house prices that excludes distressed sales -- that is, it excluded urgent sales of houses due to negative conditions, such as a foreclosure. How to count distressed sales is an important question when evaluating housing prices in the current market. As distressed homes work their way through the market, they will continue to be a drag on prices, which in turn will make it harder for the market to -- in Donovan’s word -- "stabilize." The National Association of Realtors expects distressed-home sales to exert negative pressure on the housing market for months to come. We won’t judge whether HUD is justified in excluding distressed sales, but we do think it’s important to note that it does and, in doing so, reduces the impact of one factor holding back a rise in home prices. The second difference between our research and HUD’s is that HUD started the clock in April 2009 -- not January 2009 -- under the argument that Obama could not have had an impact on the housing market until a few months into his presidency. This may sound like a small difference, but moving the starting date even three months actually changes the result significantly. Using the three statistics HUD tracked, a switch from starting in January to starting April means that the decline in prices under CoreLogic decreases from 3.5 percent to 0.8 percent; the decline under Case-Shiller decreases from 5.1 percent to 0.3 percent; and the decline under FHFA decreases from 8.3 percent to 7.1 percent. It’s certainly easier to call the CoreLogic and Case-Shiller numbers that start in April "stabilized" or "flat" than the ones starting in January. Then again, Donovan was pretty clear in his comment that he was starting the clock "when the president walked into the Oval Office," which would mean January. So where does this leave us? Donovan is right that things aren’t as bad as they were during the worst of the housing downturn, but we think he’s overstating the case when he says that housing prices are "stabilized" and "flat." The statistics HUD offered support that conclusion, but those numbers require starting the clock in April 2009 (which conflicts with Donovan’s statement); using a factor that helps the administration’s case (namely, excluding distressed sales); and using a non-seasonally-adjusted figure when a seasonally adjusted figure is available. The reality is that there are a wide range of statistics one could use to analyze housing prices, each with advantages and shortcomings. Most of the statistics we looked at show that housing prices have continued to decline -- though at a slower rate -- since Obama took office, and the decline is especially clear over the last six months to a year. That is at odds with Donovan’s conclusion that they had stabilized and were "flat." On balance, we rate Donovan’s statement Half True.	None	Shaun Donovan	None	None	None	2011-07-06T17:49:16	2011-07-03	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-00868	Video Shows Hologram Whale Jumping in Gymnasium	https://www.truthorfiction.com/video-shows-hologram-whale-jumping-in-gymnasium/	None	computers	None	None	None	Video Shows Hologram Whale Jumping in Gymnasium	Jan 14, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02703	Video clip shows an airplane making a safe landing after losing a wing.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/plane-loses-wing/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does This Video Show a Plane Landing Safely After Losing a Wing?	6 November 2008	None	['None']
-snes-01009	Accused school shooter Nikolas Cruz has ties to the Islamic State or other Islamic extremist groups.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/florida-nikolas-cruz-isis/	None	Crime	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Was the Suspected Florida High School Shooter Affiliated with the Islamic State?	15 February 2018	None	['Islam', 'Islamic_state']
-pomt-04932	"What I look at every month is how many more New Jerseyans are back to work. You have another 9,900 last month that are back to work and over almost 90,000 that are back to work now since I became governor."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/jul/30/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-almost-90000-new-jerseyans-are/	Optimism about New Jersey’s economy abounds with Gov. Chris Christie. The Republican governor said regardless of a growing unemployment rate in New Jersey, which he argued is climbing because more people are actively seeking work, the numbers show more New Jersey residents are finding jobs. "What I look at every month is how many more New Jerseyans are back to work. You have another 9,900 last month that are back to work and over almost 90,000 that are back to work now since I became governor," Christie said during a July 23 news conference. "That's a positive for the state." Christie repeated part of the claim during a radio interview the next day. "So I absolutely believe the New Jersey comeback has begun. It hasn't arrived completely. It's begun. And ask the 90,000 people who are employed today in New Jersey who were not employed when I became governor whether the comeback [has] begun for them," Christie said on New Jersey 101.5 FM’s "Ask the Governor" program. During the press conference and radio interview the governor cited job numbers prior to the statements we’re fact-checking here. But he then characterizes those jobs gains as residents going back to work and that’s not accurate. Jobs do not equal people. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics counts jobs by a different method than it counts employed residents. So it’s possible for a state to gain jobs, but still have fewer employed residents That’s what happened in June. The state gained 9,900 jobs overall last month, including public- and private-sector employment. But 17,000 fewer New Jersey residents were employed in June than May. More people have found work since Christie took office, but not as many as the governor claimed. Christie said 90,000 people found work during his time in Trenton. That figure actually represents the number of private-sector jobs -- 89,700 -- New Jersey has added since February 2010, Christie’s first full month in office. Over the same time frame, nearly 39,000 New Jersey residents found employment, less than half the figure Christie cited. So what gives? A job created in a state does not mean an unemployed resident returned to work. The federal labor department counts jobs through a survey of employers called the payroll survey. "We don't know how many people that represents," said Gary Steinberg, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, because a person may hold more than one job. To count the number of employed residents, the federal labor department relies on a survey of households. In that survey, individuals are classified as employed, unemployed or not in the labor force by their place of residence, even if their job is in another state. And by that measure, Christie’s figures for the number of New Jersey residents who have returned to work are off. Brian Murray, a spokesman for the state labor department, said: "On every other occasion for the past week during which the Governor has addressed this topic in public, he has correctly stated that we gained 9,900 jobs in June and nearly 90,000 jobs since his first full month in office. To pounce on this is ridiculous and petty." Our ruling Christie said that 9,900 New Jerseyans returned to work in June and almost 90,000 residents are "back to work now since I became governor." Christie wrongly represents job gains as individuals returning to work. The federal labor department counts jobs and employed people in separate surveys. It’s possible for jobs to go up while the number of employed people goes down. Some 17,000 fewer New Jersey residents were employed in May than June, despite 9,900 new jobs created last month. Since February 2010, the first full month Christie was in office, nearly 39,000 -- not 90,000 -- people found employment in New Jersey. We rate this claim False. To comment on this ruling, to go NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2012-07-30T07:30:00	2012-07-23	['New_Jersey']
-afck-00268	“Social grants are the main source of income for 40% of black households.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/claims-of-south-africas-spectacular-transformation-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Claims of South Africa’s ‘spectacular transformation’ fact-checked	2015-10-23 06:12	None	['None']
-pomt-12386	Says Pat Robertson said, "We must impose a rule on the gay population that would require them to wear specially-colored clothes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/31/uspoln/pat-robertson-gays-special-colored-clothes/	The website USPOLN, already flagged as a fake news site on our handy guide, recycled an evocative bit of fakery about television evangelist Pat Robertson that dates from 2015. Allegedly drawing on an installment of Robertson’s show The 700 Club, the post begins with Robertson warning that legal rights of gays and lesbians will draw down God’s wrath upon America. It then goes off the rails. The article says a caller asks if this disaster can be averted. To which Robertson replies, "The only way to stop the spread of these diseases that are plaguing the country is to make some sort of obvious distinction between gay people and normal, straight people. I personally believe that we must impose a rule on the gay population that would require them to wear specially-colored clothes, for example. I’m thinking we need to go through the Senate with this and we need to make it official." Facebook readers flagged this as likely fake news, and in fact, the article provides a link to its source, an item from the fake news site Newslo that was debunked by Snopes in early November 2015. Robertson never said those words, but if the goal is to drive traffic, passing them off as real seems to work. The 2015 version drew snarky comments from a website in the United Kingdom, and the latest verbatim copy pulled in angry responses from those who also took it as real. One commenter said, "I think God will go after him and his fortune for being close-minded and prejudiced. The Bible teaches us to love each other no matter who they are." President Donald Trump’s White House win seems to have increased the popularity of false news items that fuel the ire of liberals. So far the evidence is anecdotal, but the standard rule to stem the spread of faux news applies: If the headline alone inspires outrage, pause before sharing. Then look for the tell-tale signs of fake news, such as a lack of sources, no date of publication and the presence of click-bait ads all around the page. USPOLN describes itself as a hybrid news/satire site. The article gives no indication that its content is hokum. Our ruling The USPOLN website posted an article alleging that Robertson called for a law to require gays and lesbians to wear specially colored clothes. Robertson never said those words. The claim was recycled from a two-year-old claim that had been previously debunked. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Uspoln Website	None	None	None	2017-05-31T13:00:00	2017-05-22	['None']
-pomt-06105	"Santorum also voted for a teapot museum in North Carolina."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/03/rick-perry/says-rick-santorum-voted-teapot-museum/	Heading into the Iowa Caucus, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was working to stir a tempest in Rick Santorum’s teapot. Perry’s campaign released a Web ad, taking Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator, to task for supporting a string of earmarks during his time in Washington. The ad, launched Jan. 2, 2012, on Perry’s Website, accuses Santorum, who had surged in Iowa polls, of voting to spend taxpayer money on a teapot museum in North Carolina, among other earmarked projects. "Why are these pigs so happy? … Because Rick Santorum is a porker’s best friend," reads the ad, titled "Rick Santorum - Unelectable," which depicts a herd of pigs. "Santorum voted to spend millions on the Bridge to Nowhere," the ad reads. "Santorum also voted for a teapot museum in North Carolina." PolitiFact looked into Perry’s claim about the "Bridge to Nowhere" earlier this week, ruling it Mostly True. But is Perry right that Santorum voted in favor of the teapot museum, as well? In the advertisement, the Perry campaign cites Senate Roll Call vote 264 of 2005, in which the U.S. Senate passed the related appropriations bill by a 93-1 vote. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., included $450,000 in funding for the New River Community Partners Museum Development Project, which was responsible for the Sparta Teapot Museum of Craft & Design in North Carolina. Museum Managers started working in 2003 to raise funds for a new building to house a private collection of more than 6,000 teapots. In October 2005, Santorum voted in favor of the Senate appropriations bill, along with each of his Republican colleagues present at the time. And he reaffirmed his support the next month when he allowed the legislation, which had been combined with the House version, to pass by unanimous consent. The only other current presidential candidate serving in Congress at the time, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, did not vote either on the House bill or the combined proposal. But does Santorum’s vote indicate support for the museum itself? Analysts say maybe not. Representatives from the Santorum campaign didn’t return requests Tuesday for comment about the teapot museum. But, last week, he defended his support for earmarks to a crowd at an Iowa town hall meeting. "Go and look at the Constitution. Who has the responsibility to spend money? Clearly, in the Constitution it is the Congress," Santorum said, according to the Des Moines Register. "Now what has happened is that the system was abused, and it got a bad name, and as a result of that, I have said, ‘Look. the Congress has lost the public trust, and (earmarks) have to be suspended.’" Relating specifically to the 2005 appropriations bill, Santorum’s positive vote does not necessarily indicate support for the teapot museum, according to some analysts. In total, the bill included billions of dollars in funding for more than 1,100 earmarks, according to the House report. Among the thousands of earmarks, the final version of the bill directed funding to nearly 70 projects in Santorum’s native Pennsylvania, including $750,000 for a Sept.11 memorial garden in Lower Makefield Township; $250,000 for the YWCA in Chester; and $200,000 for the Pittsburgh zoo, according to the bill report. "(The teapot museum) became a very symbolic needle, but it's a needle in the haystack nonetheless," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan group that tracks federal earmarks. "Did he vote for it? Yeah. He voted for funding the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and everything else," Ellis said. "That said, don't vote for things if you don't want to be called out for supporting them." As a side note: the federal money for the Sparta Teapot Museum was returned in 2009 after the museum board disbanded and the facility closed due to lack of funding, according to the museum website. Our ruling: The 2005 appropriations bill did fund the teapot museum, along with more than 1,100 other earmarked projects. But, Santorum didn’t vote for the museum in particular. He voted for the total appropriations bill, which provided billions in funding for federal transportation and housing projects, among others. Perry is right about the vote, but he leaves out important detail, which fits our definition of Half True.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2012-01-03T18:59:18	2012-01-02	['Rick_Santorum', 'North_Carolina']
-vees-00379	Some ten minutes later, Acosta requested to be allowed to speak, and said:	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-interview-clip-confirms-acosta-said-th	Responding to Acosta, Hontiveros quoted a Sept. 3 interview the PAO Chief had with DZMM.	None	None	None	war on drugs,HONTIVEROS,acosta	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Interview clip confirms Acosta said there's a ‘pattern’ in spate of killings	September 07, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01049	The parents of First Lady Melania Trump emigrated to the U.S. through family reunification visas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-parents-chain-migration-meme/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Melania Trump’s Parents Arrive in the U.S. Through ‘Chain Migration’?	8 February 2018	None	['United_States']
-pomt-11364	The census "for years and years and years, decades, has asked, ‘Are you a citizen of the United States of America?’"	/wisconsin/statements/2018/apr/03/ronna-mcdaniel/rnc-chair-ronna-mcdaniel-says-us-census-bureau-ask/	The debate over including a citizenship question on the 2020 census has been heating up since the March 26, 2018, U.S. Commerce Department announcement of its census plans. Officials said the question -- which asks respondents whether they are citizens -- will be included for all respondents at the request of the Justice Department. The department said the purpose of the question is to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, immigrant-rights advocates and Democrats argue that the question instills fear in immigrant communities and will lead to an undercount of the population. The population count, taken every 10 years, is required by the U.S. Constitution and used to determine the number of seats each state has in the House as well as how federal money is distributed to local communities. Since undocumented immigrants are more heavily concentrated in some states and areas, an undercount would mean less money and could change how legislative districts are drawn. California, which has a large immigrant population, has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Commerce Department and census bureau seeking to block the question. During a March 28, 2018, interview with host John Muir on the "Restoring Reason" program on Green Bay’s WTAQ radio, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel slammed the opposition to the census question. "When you talk about the Democrats, too, look at what they are fighting for. They are now mad that our census, which for years and years and years, decades, has asked, ‘Are you a citizen of the United States of America?’ – they are mad that the census asks that simple question." Is McDaniel correct? Has the citizenship question that is now at the center of a debate already been asked for "years and years and years"? The evidence The history section of the U.S. Census Bureau’s web page notes that the first U.S. census was taken in 1790. At that time the questions asked for the name of the head of the family and the number of persons in each household, including slaves. As part of its announcement, the Commerce Department said that citizenship questions have been included on prior censuses: Between 1820 and 1950, almost every decennial census asked a question on citizenship in some form. Today, surveys of sample populations, such as the Current Population Survey and the ACS (American Community Survey), continue to ask a question on citizenship. According to our colleagues at PolitiFact National, the last time all households were asked about U.S. citizenship was in the 1950 Census. That census questioned where individuals were born, and "if foreign-born — is he naturalized?" In 1960, the census only asked about place of birth. From 1970 to 2000, the Census Bureau used two questionnaires: a long-form and short-form. Most households received the short-form questionnaire, which covered basic questions, while about 1 in 6 households received a long-form questionnaire that included a question on citizenship. The 2010 Census, the most recent one, only used a short-form questionnaire with 10 questions. None of those related to citizenship. However, in the mid-2000s the Census Bureau began gathering demographic and socioeconomic information through the American Community Survey, or ACS. The survey collects information from about 3.5 million households a year and asks about citizenship status. The ACS asks such questions as "In what U.S. state, territory, commonwealth or foreign country was this person born?" Another question is "Is this person a CITIZEN of the United States?" The idea with both the now-defunct long-form and the ongoing ACS survey is to use a large sample of responses to draw conclusions about the population as whole, much as a poll does not need to contact every voter to be considered valid. Our rating McDaniel said the census "for years and years and years, decades, has asked, ‘Are you a citizen of the United States of America?’" The last time all households were asked about U.S. citizenship was in the 1950 census. But in the decades since, some version of the question has been asked in nearly every census -- either through the now-defunct "long form" or the ongoing annual surveys. The 2020 census calls for asking all households the citizenship question. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate McDaniel’s claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ronna McDaniel	None	None	None	2018-04-03T05:00:00	2018-03-28	['United_States']
-pomt-08077	Once people become citizens under the DREAM Act "and turn 21, they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents for legalization."	/texas/statements/2010/dec/20/lamar-smith/us-rep-lamar-smith-says-under-dream-act-new-citize/	In a recent op-ed, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, called an immigration bill that would allow undocumented residents brought to the United States as minors to qualify for citizenship "a nightmare for the American people." Among other arguments against the bill, Smith says in his piece published in The Hill Nov. 30 that "once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents for legalization." The U.S. House subsequently voted 216-198 in favor of the the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, known as the DREAM Act. But the measure didn't make it through the Senate, where proponents fell five votes short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and usher the legislation to the floor. We're not getting into whether providing a path for undocumented minors to become citizens is the same thing as amnesty. Yet we waded into the family issue earlier this month when we rated Barely True a statement by Smith's Texas colleague, Rep. Ted-Poe, R-Humble, who said that "after you complete two years of post high school education or two years of military service you are eligible for citizenship. Once a citizen, this paves the way to bring the rest of their extended family to the United States." Poe skipped several stipulations that an undocumented citizen must satisfy before becoming a citizen, and he went too far when he said undocumented-residents-turned-citizens can sponsor their extended family to come here. According to the U.S. State Department, citizens cannot sponsor grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins or in-laws to come legally to the United States. Smith's statement reflects accurately on provisions in federal law permitting a citizen to sponsor immediate family members — a spouse, unmarried children or adopted children under 21 — to enter the country with an "immediate relative immigrant visa." Citizens 21 and older can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residence as well, according to the State Department. We identified a wrinkle, though, not acknowledged in Smith's statement. Michelle Mittelstadt, spokeswoman for the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute, which is generally pro-immigration, said in an e-mail: "It is incredibly unlikely that DREAM Act beneficiaries would have citizenship by the age of 21. Even if someone completed every requirement (including higher education) on the date of enactment of the legislation, they would still need to spend 10 years in non-immigrant status and then another three years as a legal permanent resident before they would be eligible for citizenship. With high school graduation at 18, you could assume that many people would be 31 before they would gain citizenship under DREAM." There have been various versions of the DREAM Act, but according to recent legislation, an undocumented resident must be younger than 30, have been brought to the United States at age 15 or younger and have lived here for at least five years prior to the measure becoming law to become eligible for the act's benefits. Such a resident must spend 10 years in the United States as a "conditional non-immigrant," during which he or she must complete two years of higher education or serve in the military and be of "good moral character," among other requirements, before qualifying for a permanent resident card, also known as a green card. After three more years, he or she is eligible to become a naturalized citizen. So, while Smith is correct that a U.S. citizen must be 21 to sponsor his or her parents for legal residence, it's unlikely that anyone who becomes a U.S. citizen under the DREAM Act would be younger than 21. We rate Smith's statement as Mostly True.	None	Lamar Smith	None	None	None	2010-12-20T06:00:00	2010-11-30	['None']
-snes-00016	Christine Blasey Ford's attorney, Debra Katz, serves as vice chair for a "Soros-funded organization" that opposes the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ford-lawyer-soros-kavanaugh/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Is Christine Blasey Ford’s Lawyer the Vice Chair of a ‘Soros-Funded Org Opposing Kavanaugh’?	4 October 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04355	"Latin America’s economy is almost as big as the economy of China."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/23/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-latin-americas-economy-almost-big/	During the third presidential debate in Boca Raton, Fla., Mitt Romney touted Latin America as a region that’s ripe for expanding trade with the United States. "Trade grows about 12 percent year," Romney said. "It doubles about five or so years. We can do better than that, particularly in Latin America. The opportunities for us in Latin America, we have just not taken advantage (of them) of fully. As a matter of fact, Latin America’s economy is almost as big as the economy of China. We’re all focused on China. Latin America is a huge opportunity for us — time zone, language opportunities." We won’t judge whether Latin America is a "huge opportunity" for the U.S., but we were curious whether it’s true that "Latin America’s economy is almost as big as the economy of China." We turned to data on gross domestic product collected by the International Monetary Fund. For Latin America, we combined the GDP for 20 nations: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. For China, we added up the GDP for China and, using World Bank data, its two "special administrative regions," Hong Kong and Macau. In 2011, the 20 Latin American nations had a combined nominal GDP of $5.6 trillion, while China, Hong Kong and Macau had a combined GDP of $7.6 trillion. So, China’s GDP was about one-third larger than Latin America’s, meaning the two are hardly neck and neck. Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas and an aide in the White House Office of the Special Envoy for the Americas under President Bill Clinton, said you can’t close the gap between Latin America and China without broadening the definition to "the Americas" by adding Canada, something we don’t think was suggested by Romney’s claim. But even then, the combination of Latin America and Canada still wouldn't get you to the GDP level of China. In addition, the growth in China's economy has been outpacing Latin America's, putting Latin America even further behind as time goes on. Between 2010 and 2011, Latin America’s GDP expanded by 14 percent -- an impressive growth rate -- but China’s grew by an even more impressive 23 percent. "China growth has been extraordinary; Latin America’s has not," said Barry Bosworth, an international economics scholar at the Brookings Institution. This growth pattern further weakens Romney’s argument that Latin America’s economy is "almost as big." Our ruling Romney said that "Latin America’s economy is almost as big as the economy of China." It's a stretch to characterize an economy that's about one-third bigger as "almost as big," especially since China’s lead over Latin America is actually increasing. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-10-23T16:21:23	2012-10-22	['China', 'Latin_America']
-tron-01586	President Obama Talks About Mandatory Voting in the US	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-talks-about-mandatory-voting-in-the-us/	None	government	None	None	None	President Obama Talks About Mandatory Voting in the US – Truth!	Mar 20, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01742	Kim Kardashian Considering Asking Surrogate To Carry Fourth Baby, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-baby-fourth-surrogate-fake-news/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kim Kardashian NOT Considering Asking Surrogate To Carry Fourth Baby, Despite Report	2:29 pm, January 24, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01692	Jennifer Aniston Did Have “Showdown” With ‘Friends’ Co-Stars Over Brad Pitt, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-showdown-friends-costars-brad-pitt-reunion/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Did NOT Have “Showdown” With ‘Friends’ Co-Stars Over Brad Pitt, Despite Report	1:11 pm, January 30, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-00132	Says Tammy Baldwin’s "Medicare for All" plan means senior citizens would "no longer have" Medicare.	/wisconsin/statements/2018/oct/26/leah-vukmir/leah-vukmirs-attack-tammy-baldwin-ignores-medicare/	Would the Bernie Sanders Medicare for All plan, co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., really mean no more Medicare for senior citizens? It’s an attack on Baldwin made by Leah Vukmir, her Republican challenger — who even goes so far as to say the bill would "literally throw grandma off the cliff." That’s a reference to PolitiFact National’s Lie of the Year for 2011 — a false claim that Republicans had -- via a plan from Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan -- to end Medicare. (A web video produced by a liberal group showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.) Vukmir is essentially repeating a claim President Donald Trump made in an opinion article he wrote for USA Today. Let’s dig into what she said. All our Tammy Baldwin and Leah Vukmir fact checks in the U.S. Senate race. Vukmir’s claim In the third and final debate before the Nov. 6, 2018 election, Vukmir turned a discussion about pre-existing medical conditions to Medicare for All. In the Oct. 19, 2018 debate in Milwaukee, she said: Senator Baldwin wants to talk about going backwards. Going backwards is telling seniors that you no longer have your Medicare and your Medicare Advantage. I can’t believe that Senator Baldwin wants to literally throw grandma off the cliff. That’s exactly what she’s doing. This would create chaos of epic proportions. She doesn’t understand her own bill. All our Tony Evers and Scott Walker fact checks in the governor’s race. So, what Vukmir is claiming is that the Medicare for All plan supported by Baldwin means senior citizens would "no longer have" Medicare. What is Medicare for All? Medicare is the federal government’s health insurance program that is primarily for people age 65 and over older, but also for some younger people with disabilities. As PolitiFact National reported in a recent explainer about Medicare, the financially stressed $600 billion-a-year program serves 58 million people -- almost one out of six Americans. Sanders, the independent U.S. Senator from Vermont who ran for president as a Democrat in 2016, introduced his Medicare for All bill in September 2017. It’s been referred to a Senate committee, but nothing more has been done with it. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc. As New York Times news articles reported at the time that the bill would expand Medicare so that every American would eventually get insurance from Medicare instead of from private companies or other public programs. In other words, a "single payer" -- the government -- would pay everyone’s medical bills. To be clear, Medicare for All would replace Medicare and Medicare Advantage. (Medicare Advantage, which is run by private companies and is optional, offers the services Medicare does as well as other servicess, such as dental or vision coverage.) But, after a four-year transition period, it would replace the current Medicare program with a new and more comprehensive one. Indeed, under the plan, those currently with Medicare would get more generous coverage -- something that has been noted by PolitiFact National and the Washington Post Fact Checker. According to the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation, a top source on health care, Medicare for All would cover not only all medically necessary services, but also dental and vision services. There would be no premiums or cost-sharing requirements, other than limited cost sharing (up to $200 per year) on prescription drugs. Patients would be allowed to go to any provider, not be limited by a network. So, that’s enhanced coverage for seniors -- not taking coverage away. Vukmir’s evidence To back Vukmir’s claim, her campaign cited an opinion column in the New York Post published three days before the debate. The column is by Betsy McCaughey, a senior fellow at the conservative London Center for Policy Research and a former lieutenant governor of New York state. (She earned a Pants on Fire for making a statement that was part of PolitiFact’s 2009 Lie of the Year on "death panels.") McCaughey writes that Sanders’ Medicare for All "abolishes Medicare," a point Vukmir has trumpeted. She argues that the program would not be financially viable, saying: On paper, the new program guarantees hospital care, doctors’ visits, even dental, vision and long-term care, all paid for by Uncle Sam. Here’s the hitch: Hospitals will be forced to operate under conditions of extreme scarcity, with too little revenue and more patients than ever. Right now, Medicare shortchanges hospitals, paying them less than the full cost of caring for seniors. But hospitals accept the low payments, because they can shift the unmet costs to younger patients who have private insurance that pays more. But in the new scheme, hospitals will be paid at Medicare rates for all their patients, not just seniors (Sec. 611). With everyone on Medicare for All, no cost-shifting will be possible. What would ultimately happen if Medicare for All ever became law, of course, is unknown, though there are plenty of questions. For example, health care policy expert Robert Moffit at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told us that with Medicare, "the addition of new benefits, procedures and the availability of new medical technologies has traditionally lagged behind private (insurance) plans." But as proposed -- as even the expert cited by Vukmir acknowledges -- Medicare for All would offer senior citizens more coverage. Our rating Vukmir says Baldwin’s "Medicare for All" means senior citizens would "no longer have" Medicare. Medicare, along with other government and private health insurance programs, would be replaced if Medicare for All ever became law. But it’s not as though senior citizens would lose Medicare and be left with nothing. In fact, as proposed, Medicare for All would provide them more benefits than they get with current Medicare. Vukmir’s statement has an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression — our definition of Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Leah Vukmir	None	None	None	2018-10-26T03:25:15	2018-10-19	['Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-14203	"In 2009 … Hillary Clinton was at the State Department working with U.S. corporations to pressure Haiti not to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents an hour from 24 cents."	/global-news/statements/2016/apr/21/lee-camp/did-hillary-clintons-state-department-help-suppres/	Hillary Clinton colluded with big business to maintain slave wages for workers in one of the world’s poorest countries, according to the host of an RT American comedy news show. Comedian and activist Lee Camp of RT’s Redacted Tonight mocked Clinton’s efforts to "keep 37 cents per hour out of the hands of destitute Haitians." "In 2009, while Bill Clinton was setting up one of the family’s shell companies in New York, in that same year Hillary Clinton was at the State Department working with U.S. corporations to pressure Haiti not to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents an hour from 24 cents," Camp said April 17. "Seriously." Seriously? Sort of. Memos from 2008 and 2009 obtained by Wikileaks strongly suggest, but don’t prove without a doubt, that the State Department helped block the proposed minimum wage increase. The memos show that U.S. Embassy officials in Haiti clearly opposed the wage hike and met multiple times with factory owners who directly lobbied against it to the Haitian president. The Clinton campaign refuted the claim, and the State Department didn't comment. HOPE, not change In 2011, Wikileaks made nearly 2,000 cables available to the progressive magazine, The Nation, and Haiti Liberté, a weekly newspaper in Port-au-Prince. The two media outlets assessed the cables and found, among many other revelations, that the "U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase" for workers in apparel factories. The Wikileaks cables show U.S. Embassy officials began monitoring the minimum wage issue as early as 2008, when the Haitian Parliament began discussing doubling or tripling the daily minimum wage of 70 Haitian gourdes to keep up with inflation. That’s roughly equal to $1.75 a day, or about 22 cents per hour. (Some context here: Three quarters of Haitians live on less than $2 a day, according to the United Nations’ World Food Program, while garments constitute about 90 percent of Haiti’s exports, according to the Guardian. Haiti increased the daily minimum wage to the equivalent of $5.11 in 2014.) But back in 2008 and 2009, embassy officials repeatedly told Washington that a hike would hurt the economy and undermine U.S. trade preference legislation known as HOPE. The program, shorthand for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act of 2006, gives garments manufactured on the island duty free access to U.S. markets. Levi Strauss, Haneswear, Nautica, and Dockers are just some of the American companies that benefit from HOPE. Congress passed HOPE II in 2008, extending the program for another 10 years. In January 2008, Ambassador Janet Sanderson wrote that representatives of the business community — including the man tasked with implementing HOPE — had met with embassy officials and criticized Haitian President René Préval’s efforts to raise the minimum wage as the wrong medicine for the ailing economy. An unsigned embassy cable sent to Washington in December 2008 echoed the private sector’s assessment and reported that increasing the minimum wage would "have significant impact" on business. The State Department continued to promote HOPE as an economic boon for the island. In memos prepping U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Clinton for their visits to Haiti, chargé d'affaires Thomas Tighe told the diplomats to "urge" the Haitian government take advantage of HOPE and HOPE II. After advising a congressional delegation to Haiti almost exactly the same thing, Sanderson told Washington that Haitian Prime Minister Michele Pierre-Louis was onboard with HOPE, "although pending legislation to nearly triple the minimum wage would likely set back those efforts in the short term." Deputy Chief of Mission David Lindwall put it most bluntly, when he said the minimum wage law "did not take economic reality into account but that appealed to the unemployed and underpaid masses." Préval as proxy Nonetheless, the Haitian Parliament voted to triple the daily minimum wage to 200 gourdes ($5 a day, or about 62 cents per hour) in May 2009. As the bill awaited President Préval’s signature, students protested over the delay while factory owners criticized the legislation. The U.S. Embassy, meanwhile, continued to lament the hike and raised concerns about the stability of the region that they hoped Préval would help address, according to the cables. Préval, as they say, leaned in. Sanderson, in a June 10 memo, cited a study by the Haitian Association of Industry (ADIH) stating that the new minimum wage "would result in the loss of 10,000 workers in the sector" and noted that ADIH has met with Préval three times. "A more visible and active engagement by Préval may be critical to resolving the issue of the minimum wage and its protest ‘spin-off' — or risk the political environment spiraling out of control," she wrote. A few days later, Préval seemed to be on board with the embassy and industry position on the minimum wage issue. On June 17, Tighe told Washington that industry and USAID studies found that a 200 gourdes minimum wage "would make the sector economically unviable and consequently force factories to shut down." He also noted that ADIH members and HOPE factory owners told U.S. officials that in lieu of greenlighting the legislation as is, Préval would instead propose a lower, phased-in minimum wage for the textiles sector (100 gourdes in 2009, 125 gourdes in 2010, and 150 gourdes in 2011). Protesters continued to call for Préval to sign the original bill, with some demonstrations escalating into violence, as parliament considered the president’s amendments. In a June 24 cable to a congressional delegation, Tighe said the demonstrations added uncertainty to the political and security situation in Haiti and "job creation under HOPE II may be threatened by a bill Parliament passed May 5 to nearly triple the minimum wage." When the delegation met with Préval the next day, the president parroted this line and encouraged the congressmen "to write to Haitian members of Parliament to express concern about the devastating impact a sector-wide increase in wages would have on job security and job creation," according to a memo from Tighe. By July, Préval was a formal and vocal opponent of the 200 gourds wage, warning of the consequences for jobs and emphasizing the importance of the assembly sector for exports, according to cables. "This is the only issue in recent memory where the president has made a strong effort, by negotiating with stakeholders and using the media, to effect a legislative outcome," Tighe said. In the fall of 2009, Préval and Parliament agreed to enact the $5 daily wage for all sectors except textiles, which got a $3 wage. But was the State Department right in opposing the increase? "I have no idea what would happen if Haiti did have a $5-a-day minimum wage," Adam Davidson of NPR’s Planet Money said in 2011. "But I do think it's reasonable to assume that some factories would close and far fewer new ones would be built. Far fewer Haitians would be allowed to take that first tentative step on to the ladder of industrial development." Our ruling Camp said, "In 2009 ... Hillary Clinton was at the State Dept working with U.S. corporations to pressure Haiti not to raise the minimum wage to 61 cents an hour from 24 cents." Leaked cables show that the U.S. Embassy in Haiti opposed the minimum wage hike that the Haitian parliament passed in 2009, and discussed the issue with business groups. However, the cables do not contain conclusive evidence that the State Department actively pressured Haiti to block the increase nor do they prove that Clinton personally played a role. We rate Camp’s claim Half True. Update, April 21, 2016: After we published this fact-check, the State Department told us it had no public, official position in the Haitian minimum wage debate. "The U.S. Department of State did not officially oppose or support the three-step proposed minimum wage increases in Haiti – in 2009, 2010, and 2012 – as this was an internal matter," a spokesperson said. The State Department’s public stance does not alter the content of the memos, however. They show that U.S. Embassy officials in Haiti clearly opposed the wage increase. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/38510339-e97d-475a-a62f-77b0e757b589	None	Lee Camp	None	None	None	2016-04-21T11:00:00	2016-04-17	['United_States', 'United_States_Department_of_State', 'Haiti', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-vogo-00484	Fact Check: Solving San Diego Urban Legends	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-solving-san-diego-urban-legends/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Solving San Diego Urban Legends	November 18, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-07865	If you tried to pay out $1 trillion by handing it out at $1 per second, it would take more than 31,000 years.	/georgia/statements/2011/feb/09/johnny-isakson/sen-isakson-says-counting-1-trillion-takes-thousan/	The AJC Truth-O-Meter gets no love from politicians, be they Democrat or Republican. But it’s more than pleased to settle for a little attention now and then. Two months after his failed bid to reclaim the governor’s seat, former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, in an essay presented at a Jan. 28 panel at the State Bar Association, weighed in on his dim view of the state of investigative reporting. "We now have Truth-O-Meters, whatever that means," Barnes said. And just a few days before Barnes spoke, Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson brought up our gutsy gizmo as he explained the magnitude of the national debt during a Jan. 24 talk at the Atlanta Press Club. Isakson said he was at a campaign stop when a farmer asked, "How much is a trillion?" The senator didn’t have an answer, so he wrestled with the numbers and concluded that if you tried to pay out $1 trillion at a rate of $1 per second, it would take you more than 31,000 years. "Given the Truth-O-Meters out there, I put an asterisk by that," he said. "I didn't account for leap years." We couldn’t resist. Would counting out $1 trillion at $1 per second really take more than 31,000 years? And what about those leap years? Before we proceed, it’s useful to note that the national debt eclipsed $1 trillion years ago. As of Feb. 2, it totaled $14.1 trillion. About $4.6 trillion is what’s called "intragovernmental" debt, or money the government loaned to itself. It does this by transferring money from the Social Security trust funds and other government divisions. About $9.5 trillion is what’s called "public" debt, or money that the government borrows from domestic and foreign investors by issuing things such as bonds or treasury bills. This debt is what worries economists because it has to be paid back in cash. Too large a debt could be a drag on the economy. Interest rates and tax rates might rise as government services and entitlement payouts shrink. Isakson wants to rein in federal spending, and on Jan. 27 he introduced the Biennial Budget Appropriations Act with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. It would change the budget cycle so one year of the two-year congressional session would be devoted to figuring out whether federal programs deserve funding. Isakson is also a co-sponsor of the Commitment to American Prosperity Act, which would create a federal spending limit that would gradually decrease over 10 years, based on the U.S. gross domestic product. He is also co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget. Now, back to our fact check. We called Georgia Tech, which is renowned for its prowess in math and science. It put us in the capable hands of math professor Douglas Ulmer, who is chairman of the School of Mathematics. This is how Ulmer did the math: Since leap years take place every four years, Ulmer counted a year as 365.25 days. He then converted years to seconds using the following equation: (365.25 days) x (24 hours/day) x (60 minutes/hour) x (60 seconds/minute) = 31,557,600 seconds Ulmer divided those seconds into a trillion, which showed that 1 trillion seconds equals more than 31,688 years. He then converted the remainder into days, hours and seconds to conclude that 1 trillion seconds is 31,688 years, 32 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes and 40 seconds. "Over 31,000" is therefore close enough for all practical purposes, Ulmer said. We wholeheartedly agree. Isakson gets an A in arithmetic. We rule his statement True. And we hope he continues to tout the Truth-O-Meter in all his speeches.	None	Johnny Isakson	None	None	None	2011-02-09T06:00:00	2011-01-24	['None']
-pomt-00973	On climate change, "the temperature readings have been fabricated, and it's all blowing up in their (scientists') faces."	/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/	The U.S. Senate may have voted 98-1 that "climate change is real and not a hoax," but the accusation that government scientists have cooked the books and invented a warming trend is as robust as ever. Fox News host Dana Perino joined several of her colleagues this week in casting doubt on the data scientists use to track temperature changes over time. Perino’s comments came on Feb. 9, 2015, as she and her co-hosts on The Five somewhat sarcastically discussed how the fight against Islamic State or ISIS drew attention away from other issues, such as climate change. "They're (the White House) actually kind of lucky that we don't cover climate change as much as we should," Perino said. "Because yesterday, it was reported that the temperature readings have been fabricated and it's all blowing up in their faces." Co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle interjected that it was "fraud science" and Perino said, "Yes, I agree." We have checked this sort of claim before and found it wrong, but some time has passed, and Perino referenced new reporting. So we wanted to fact-check her claim that temperature readings "have been fabricated." We reached out to Perino to find the source of her statement and did not hear back. However, a couple of days before she spoke, the British paper The Telegraph carried an opinion piece entitled, "The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever." The article drew on the work of a well-known climate change skeptic, Paul Homewood, who on Feb. 4, 2015, blogged about alterations in the temperature records in Paraguay and some arctic locations. The Telegraph article concluded that these changes were part of the "greatest and most costly scare the world has known." But when we reached Homewood, he offered a more nuanced summary of his findings. "I make no claims about the effect of (temperature) adjustments globally," Homewood said. "I feel that by identifying specific examples, we have moved the debate forward by challenging how adjustments work in practice, and whether we can always rely on them." Homewood’s concerns center on something most of us don’t think about too often: the massive data files used by climate scientists worldwide to track changes globally and in different regions of the earth. Raw data vs. adjusted data Every month, readings from thousands of land-based weather stations around the world are shared through the Global Historical Climatology Network. To measure ocean temperatures, there is a flow of data from buoys and ships. Climate trends play out over long periods of time, and the challenge has been to deal with changes in the way temperature is measured that have nothing to do with the weather itself. For instance, local officials might move a station from a valley to a nearby hilltop. They might change the time of day when they record their measurements from sunrise to sunset. They might change the kind of thermometer they use. In the ocean, the practice once was to haul up a bucket of water. Later, the standard practice was to measure the temperature from the engine’s intake valve. Researchers at the National Climatic Data Center, which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have to then come up with a way to work with the temperature readings so they can make apples-to-apples comparisons. What they do is take the raw temperature readings and apply a boatload of statistical techniques to pick out the most reliable data. Where necessary, they adjust the readings to account for the human factors that would skew the data regardless of what happened with actual temperatures. The controversy voiced by Homewood and others is that they don’t accept those adjustments. NOAA says the adjustments -- as was the case in Paraguay -- are necessary to make valid comparisons. "Such changes in observing systems cause false shifts in temperature readings. Paraguay is one example of where these false shifts artificially lower the true station temperature trend," the agency said. Homewood is right that the Paraguay adjustments raised the temperature reported for that station. But what Homewood leaves out, NOAA says, is that nearly half the time the adjustments made by researchers lower the temperature below what was actually recorded. No change in the big picture Perino said that researchers’ theories of climate change were "blowing up in their faces." That is not the view of the researchers we reached. Judith Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Curry believes the issues with the adjusted data are "greater than have been portrayed." On the other hand, she told PunditFact that the concerns in the Telegraph op-ed were "overblown" and that the basic conclusion remains the same. "The adjustments aren't of such a magnitude that they throw into question the overall increase in global temperature for the past 100-plus years," Curry said. An independent group of researchers called Berkeley Earth have the sole goal of working with the raw data and analyzing it for themselves. Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with the group. Hausfather told PunditFact that the warning flag raised by The Telegraph article and bloggers amounts to cherry-picking the data. That’s because while some adjustments might make it seem like scientists are artificially raising temperatures, some adjustments at other stations actually would lead you to the opposite conclusion. "(They) look through all those thousands of stations, find a few that show big adjustments, and tell everyone that they are evidence of fraud," Hausfather said. "You will rarely see them pick out stations like Reno, Paris, London, Tokyo, or many others where the adjustments dramatically lower the warming trend." Hausfather and his colleagues traced how the adjustment methods changed the temperature data differently around the world since 1850. In the graph below, zero is the baseline. Above zero, temperatures have been adjusted upward, below it temperatures have been adjusted downward. In the United States, with about 5 percent of Earth’s land area, the official data file raised temperatures compared to the original readings. But the same methods lowered the data records in Africa, and for all land-based readings taken together, the adjustments basically made no change at all (the black line). With ocean temperature trends, the efforts to compensate for the human factor lower the numbers dramatically. "The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we've observed since 1880 by about 20 percent," Hausfather said. "Folks skeptical of temperature adjustments are welcome not to use them if they'd like, but you end up with more global warming, not less." Mark Serreze is professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Serreze said over the years, many people have vetted the statistical methods that lead to the adjusted data files. "The features of the global temperature records have been verified by comparisons between analyses from different centers and sensitivities to different ways of treating the data," Serreze said. "The peer reviewed literature is extensive. This is why there is consensus that the data are correct." For the record, the author of the The Telegraph opinion piece made the same point about eight months ago. Back then, it inspired a similar flurry of claims that government scientists intentionally engaged in fraud. Our ruling Perino said that disclosures of fabricated temperature readings have upended theories of climate change. The source we believe she relied on, The Telegraph opinion piece, in turn relied on the work of a climate change skeptic and blogger. He told us that he was not challenging the overall trends of global warming, but instead wanted to draw attention to anomalies in the data. The researchers we contacted, who have no ties to the government agencies that produce the data Perino questioned, said that while the raw temperature readings are adjusted, the result is a record that more closely matches what has actually taken place. The greater mistake would be to take the raw data as somehow perfect and unblemished. The allegations raised by skeptics like the author of The Telegraph item have had no effect on the consensus that the Earth has seen an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years. This claim has been debunked before. To continue to repeat it moves it into the realm of the ridiculous. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.	None	Dana Perino	None	None	None	2015-02-13T10:11:37	2015-02-09	['None']
-snes-01862	Promoter Found Dead After Exposing Mayweather-McGregor ‘Fake Fight?’	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promoter-dead-gibson-mayweather-mcgregor-fake-fight/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Promoter Found Dead After Exposing Mayweather-McGregor ‘Fake Fight?’	22 August 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00143	MSN Shutdown	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/msn-shutdown.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	MSN Shutdown Hoax	December 2009	None	['None']
-vogo-00621	Statement: An SDNN story about Nativity Prep Academy by freelance writer Rebecca Chappell noted that in southeastern San Diego “the high school drop-out rate is 50 percent.”	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-disputing-the-dropout-rate/	Analysis: Chappell based that dropout figure on what she was told by David Rivera, the founder of Nativity Prep Academy.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Disputing the Dropout Rate	March 16, 2010	None	['San_Diego']
-pose-00671	"I will take the lead in driving growth in Rhode Island. I will make the governor’s office the center for planning and marketing exciting new development opportunities in Rhode Island’s key growth centers, especially the 20 acres in Providence’s Jewelry District opened up by the relocation of I-195, the new Station District at T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Quonset Point Industrial Park in North Kingstown and 30 acres abutting Naval Station Newport next to the Newport Bridge."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/701/make-the-governors-office-the-center-of-planning/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Make the governor's office the center of planning for development projects	2011-04-20T22:49:48	None	['Rhode_Island', 'North_Kingstown,_Rhode_Island', 'Naval_Station_Newport', 'Claiborne_Pell_Newport_Bridge', 'Warwick']
-pomt-07044	Georgia’s illegal immigration crackdown laws should be called the "Brown Codes" because of their similarity to the "Black Codes" governing blacks after the Civil War.	/georgia/statements/2011/jul/01/robert-brown/lawmaker-compares-immigration-law-black-codes/	Opponents of Georgia’s new immigration crackdown law are drawing ugly comparisons between it and infamous chapters of civil rights history. Some are comparing the effects of House Bill 87 to segregation, saying it will turn Hispanics into second-class citizens. Former state Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown, a Democrat who recently resigned to run for mayor of Macon, hearkened back to Reconstruction in a June 2 news release. "Georgia leaders should not attempt to satisfy Agribusiness interests by finding ways to selectively enforce what I am now calling the Brown Codes (HB 87), because of its similarity to the Black Codes passed in the 1800s," Brown said. Southern states passed the "Black Codes" after the Civil War to force freed slaves back to the plantations. Is Georgia’s HB 87 similar to them? PolitiFact has ruled on race-tinged analogies before. Democratic U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida said that Republican support for requirements that voters show ID cards at the polls means they "want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws." False, we ruled. Although the law could disenfranchise a fraction of minority voters, it would not return the U.S. to Jim Crow. Closer to home, HB 87’s more controversial provisions give law enforcement officers more leeway to check the immigration status of people they think violated the law. They also prohibit citizens from harboring, transporting or encouraging illegal immigrants to come into the state under certain circumstances. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request for a preliminary injunction that keeps key parts of HB 87 from going into effect. We asked Brown to explain his "Brown Codes" remark. He said workers toil in punishing heat for "subminimum wages" in conditions amounting to "indentured servitude." (These claims are outside the scope of our inquiry.) HB 87 intensifies this inequality, Brown said. It allows Hispanics to be singled out for their ethnicity and scares workers from complaining about poor working conditions for fear of deportation. "Obviously, it’s not exactly the same [as the Black Codes]. It’s just as harsh, relative to the times. This is the 21st century," Brown said. We consulted a half-dozen historians to check Brown’s claim. The Black Codes are different from Jim Crow legislation, which segregated blacks and whites. Enacted in former slave states right after the Civil War, the Black Codes tried to force ex-slaves back to their masters. Unemployed blacks could be arrested as vagrants and hired out to people willing to pay their criminal fines. Blacks who quit their jobs could be arrested and returned to their old bosses, much like runaway slaves. Orphans or children whose parents could not support them could be apprenticed to a master. All the experts we interviewed found big holes in Brown’s analogy. The biggest was this one: The Black Codes aimed to keep freed slaves on their plantations. Georgia’s immigration law pressures illegal immigrants to leave the state. Many of the state’s farmers say illegal immigrants are fleeing in droves. This result appears to match HB 87’s apparent intent, which is "to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia," Thrash ruled. There are other glaring differences between the Black Codes and Georgia’s law. Immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally to work are here by choice. Obviously, former slaves had no choice. Swarthmore College professor Richard M. Valelly, an expert on Reconstruction, noted that illegal immigrants aren’t in danger of being re-enslaved. They’re at risk of deportation. "That's draconian ... but there's a big difference between de facto re-enslavement ... and being sucked into a system that regulates movement across borders," Valelly said. Although scholars agree that the Black Codes and Georgia’s new immigration law are very different, each one we interviewed saw one similarity. The Black Codes stigmatized blacks. Georgia’s law stigmatizes illegal immigrants, Columbia University professor Eric Foner said. He is the author of "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877," a well-regarded history of the era. "These laws will probably tend to further solidify an underclass who exist outside of the protection of the law," said Michael W. Fitzgerald, a history professor at St. Olaf College in Minnesota who has written about the Reconstruction. University of Georgia professor James C. Cobb, an expert on Southern history, was equally critical. He said HB 87, like the Black Codes, allows for discrimination. "Under the new immigration bill, people who are, in fact, citizens or eligible for certain legal protections are now subject to having their rights violated simply on the basis of their racial appearance," Cobb said. Still, we think Brown’s comparison between Georgia’s new immigration crackdown and the Black Codes is fatally flawed. The Black Codes forced freed slaves back to the fields of their masters. HB 87 chases illegal immigrants out of the state. Illegal immigrant workers come here by choice. Slaves were forced here. And the deportation illegal immigrants face is a far cry from the cruelty of re-enslavement. Both laws do single out groups for stigmatization, but that won’t improve Brown’s rating by much. The difference between the Black Codes and Georgia’s new immigration law is so vast it gives an inaccurate impression. We therefore rule Brown’s statement False.	None	Robert Brown	None	None	None	2011-07-01T06:00:00	2011-06-02	['None']
-vees-00472	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: How long did Duterte serve as Davao City mayor?	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-how-long-did-duterte-serve-davao-city	None	None	None	None	Duterte,Fact check	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: How long did Duterte serve as Davao City mayor?	December 10, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07721	"For every $10,000 invested in business incubators, up to nearly 70 local jobs are generated."	/ohio/statements/2011/mar/03/sherrod-brown/sen-sherrod-brown-touts-business-incubators-job-cr/	Business incubators, known as business "accelerators" in Europe, serve as homes and training grounds for new companies, providing them an affordable start-up environment and a variety of administrative, consulting and networking services. When President Obama came to Cleveland on Feb. 22 to talk about ways to help small businesses, Sen. Sherrod Brown used the opportunity to tout legislation he has written called the Business Incubation Promotion Act, which would help create more business incubators in hard-hit regions of the country. In an opinion piece he penned for The Plain Dealer, Brown said: "For every $10,000 invested in business incubators, up to nearly 70 local jobs are generated." An impressive success rate, we thought, and a potentially worthwhile investment -- if true. So we decided to put Brown’s claims through the Truth-O-Meter. Brown spokeswoman Meghan Dubyak directed us to an independent 2008 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration. In its report, titled "Construction Grants Program Impact Assessment Report," Grant Thornton LLP, an audit, tax and advisory organization based in Chicago, updated and improved on a 1997 EDA study performed by a team of Rutgers and Princeton university economists. The study concluded that "EDA's strategic focus on innovation and entrepreneurship makes sense, in that investments in business incubators generate significantly greater impacts in the communities in which they are made than do other project types." The majority of the literature we found on the subject supported the Grant Thornton study’s conclusions, and the field of business incubator press clippings are ripe with success stories. In 2000, for instance, The Los Angeles Business Journal reported that companies launched in incubators remained in business after five years 87 percent of the time, compared to only 20 percent of all new business start-ups reaching the five-year mark. The advantages of incubators includes shared operating costs, consulting and administrative assistance, improved access to capital, legitimacy in the community, and the support of fellow entrepreneurs, according to the Reference for Business, the Encyclopedia of Small Business. Conveniently, the National Business Incubation Association is headquartered in Athens, Ohio. Over the past year, Brown has trumpeted EDA grants of more than $12 million for Ohio start-up businesses and incubators, including JumpStart Inc. of Cleveland, Kent State University and the Community Improvement Corp. in Tuscarawas County, the city of Twinsburg, and the Barberton Community Development Corp. Such local support for business incubators is vital, based on the Grant Thornton study’s findings that about 84 percent of incubator graduates establish their businesses within 20 miles of the incubator facility. The study’s findings support Brown’s claims of "nearly 70 local jobs" generated per $10,000 EDA investment in business incubators. The exact range is 46.3 to 69.4 jobs per $10,000, which far out-distances jobs generated by other federal projects such as commercial structures (9.6 to 13.4 jobs generated), roads and other transportation (4.4 to 7.8), industrial park structures (5 to 7.3) and community infrastructure (1.5 to 3.4). The study concludes that money spent on business incubators appears to have the largest correlation with future economic growth. "In this context, it can be seen that EDA’s strategic emphasis over the last several years of entrepreneurship makes sense in terms of its jobs figures." On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Brown’s claim as True.	None	Sherrod Brown	None	None	None	2011-03-03T12:30:00	2011-02-22	['None']
-pomt-06956	The $290 million structural surplus in the 2011-’13 Wisconsin budget is not real because it is based on the assumption that Congress will reinstate the estate tax.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/17/donna-seidel/wisconsin-rep-donna-seidel-says-290-million-struct/	Wisconsin Republicans have made much of the fact that their 2011-’13 budget eliminates the state’s long-standing structural deficit. Indeed, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau says the budget would result in a surplus of $292 million. It’s the first time the fiscal bureau has determined that a budget would result in such a surplus since the agency began the calculations for the 1997-’99 budget. Republican Gov. Scott Walker and GOP lawmakers argued that previous administrations used one-time fixes, such as tapping special funds and the state’s settlement in lawsuits against tobacco companies, to balance the budget. Now, Democrats say the Republicans are making a big assumption -- that their counterparts in Washington will allow a tax increase -- to make the budget picture look better than it really is. And therefore, that the claim of the structural surplus is bogus. At issue is how the fiscal bureau handled one piece of its projection: The future reinstatement of the federal estate tax, which -- based on a formula -- brings some additional money to state coffers. Under current law, the estate tax is to kick in again in 2013. If that happens, the fiscal bureau estimates it would mean $219 million more for the state over the course of the two-year budget. Assistant Minority Leader Donna Seidel, D-Wausau, argues the "$219 million is contingent on Congress reinstating the estate tax, which clearly is a top platform point for the Republicans and is not going to happen." "So clearly that’s another piece of misinformation," Seidel told the Journal Sentinel editorial board July 5, 2011, arguing the structural surplus is closer to $75 million. We’ve tackled several recent statements on the structural deficit. The first thing to remember is this: The two-year budget itself -- by law -- must be balanced when passed. The structural deficit measures the future imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law. So you can have a balanced budget, but one built upon assumptions that are projected to result in a deficit later on. That’s part of what happened in the past, leading to structural deficits reaching as high as $2.8 billion for the 2003-’05 budget. We rated a statement by Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, that the budget eliminated the structural deficit for the "first time in decades" as Mostly True. A statement on national TV by Walker that the worst structural deficit was two years ago was False. The Fiscal Bureau bases its estimate on factors including expected costs (the spending side), projections of how much the state will collect in sales and income taxes (the revenue side) and other sources of money. In this case, that includes what federal law says about the estate tax. It’s true that Republicans will push to keep the tax cuts in place -- they already won one extension of the Bush-era tax cuts under President Barack Obama in December of 2010. But Seidel argues it was wrong to include the return of them in the Fiscal Bureau’s calculation. Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, who was with Seidel during the Journal Sentinel visit, agreed with the argument that the surplus isn’t real. "There is no surplus," he said. Indeed, as Seidel criticizes the inclusion as an assumption improperly made by the bureau, she is making her own assumption: That the extension of the tax cuts will continue. How does the process work? As a rule, the fiscal bureau does its calculations based on current law, according to Rob Reinhardt, a program supervisor with the agency. The report on the structural surplus did note the assumption as a footnote. Indeed, a similar estate tax assumption was used when the fiscal bureau calculated the structural deficit for the 2009-’11 budget prepared by Democrat Gov. Jim Doyle. The bureau’s analysis put that budget’s structural deficit at $2.511 billion. Applying Seidel’s logic to that budget, estate tax revenue should have been subtracted -- and the deficit would have been even larger. Indeed, even if the federal estate tax return was removed from the state’s 2011-’13 budget, there still would be a surplus, just a smaller one. Seidel noted this herself. So where does this leave us? As the GOP touts passage of a budget that doesn’t include a structural deficit, Seidel claims the number is bogus because it is puffed up by $219 million -- based on current law that calls for the estate tax to go back into effect in 2010. But the Legislative Fiscal Bureau calculated the budget the way it always has. They even footnoted the issue for clarity. The bureau’s calculations are a picture in time -- where the budget stands today. With her own assumption, Seidel wants to jump to the future to undermine the nonpartisan calculation. We rate Seidel’s claim False.	None	Donna Seidel	None	None	None	2011-07-17T09:00:00	2011-07-05	['United_States_Congress', 'Wisconsin']
-vogo-00566	Fact Check TV: A Big Running Clock and a Grand Flub	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-tv-a-big-running-clock-and-a-grand-flub/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: A Big Running Clock and a Grand Flub	June 21, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-04479	On sequestration	/virginia/statements/2012/oct/08/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-he-never-backed-sequestration/	During a recent debate for the 7th District House seat, Democrat challenger Wayne Powell accused Republican Rep. Eric Cantor of flip-flopping on $1 trillion in automatic federal spending cuts that are slated to begin on Jan. 2. Powell noted Cantor voted for a bill in August 2011 that set up the possibility of the cuts, which would be split evenly between defense and social program over nine years. The reductions -- called sequestration -- would kick in if Congress and the White House failed to agree on a debt-reduction deal. Powell noted Cantor has been distancing himself from the sequester now that it is nearing and denouncing the automatic military cuts as harmful to the nation’s security. "For you to stand here and say you did not vote for the sequester when you voted for the sequester. This is not magical thinking. This is reality," Powell told Cantor during the debate. "You supported it, and now you don’t." The House majority leader replied, "Mr. Powell keeps saying that I support the sequester. As he knows good and well, that’s not true." Has Cantor changed his position on the sequester? We decided to submit the question to our Flip-O-Meter. We’ll start with a trip back to the summer of 2011. Debate over raising the U.S. debt ceiling dominated headlines with the approach of an August 2 deadline when the U.S. would start defaulting on payments if it could not borrow more money. Republicans, led in part by Cantor, insisted on tying an increase in the borrowing cap to passage of a debt reduction plan. Negotiations between Congress and the White House stalemated, with Republicans demanding that all of the debt reductions come from spending cuts and Democrats insisting that a portion come from tax increases. Cantor supported a last-second compromise passed the House by a 269-161 vote on August 1 and, a day later, cleared the Senate on a 74-26 vote. It took a two-step approach to lowering debt. The first part called for an initial $900 billion in deficit reductions over 10 years through a mix of national security and domestic spending cuts. The second part created a bipartisan congressional super committee assigned to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over nine years through spending cuts, tax revenues or both. If the panel deadlocked, $1 trillion in automatic cuts would be triggered at the start of 2013. Cantor, in a statement released after House vote, gave a qualified endorsement of the debt-limit deal with no specific mention of the sequester. "Tonight, the House prevented default and boosted economic certainty by ensuring America pays its bills while we start getting our fiscal house in order," he said. "This measure is not perfect or the way we would have done it if we were in charge, but it will finally begin to change the way Washington spends tax dollars.... This is the first significant move -- of many to come -- to turn Washington around." But the partisan debate over whether increased taxes should be part of the debt-reduction plan did not end, and super committee deadlocked. Cantor, during a Nov. 14 news conference, was repeatedly asked if he was bound to allowing the automatic cuts to occur. "I’m not going to comment," he said. "I don’t think the sequester will be applicable because I believe they will reach an agreement by the deadline." On Nov. 21, the super committee announced it failed meet its deadline for reaching an agreement, triggering the sequester. This year, on May 10, Cantor and other House Republicans passed a debt reduction plan that held the line on taxes. It offered deep reductions to domestic programs that would replace across-the-board in sequester for a year. The measure died in the Democrat-controlled Senate. During a June 6 news conference, Cantor said "we’re not going to allow tax rates to go up on anyone." He said he and other Republicans were willing to broaden the tax base by eliminating some income tax deductions, although he did not specify which ones. On July 18, Cantor denounced the sequestration. "These cuts will harm important domestic priorities such as education, medical research and law enforcement," he said in a written statement. "And perhaps most notably, these cuts threaten our national security and jobs...including (those of) over 100,000 Virginians who make their living in our military, or by ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the very best equipment and support available." On Sept. 11, Cantor told the Fredericksburg Chamber of Commerce that he supported the 2011 debt deal to "stave off any other kind of calamity." Of the sequester, he said, "It was never intended to be something that went into effect," according to an article in The Free Lance-Star. On Sept. 20, Cantor told Fox News: "This president has failed to put a solution on the table that would avoid these defense cuts. The House has taken action to say we don’t want these defense cuts, we want to act in a fiscally responsible way and make sure we are beginning to slim down federal spending, but don’t do so in a way that disproportionately impacts our defense-related jobs." Our rating Congress was faced with a stark choice in August 2011: Either agree to a deal that could trigger the sequester or place the nation in default. Cantor chose the deal. As we have written before, it is possible to have voted for the compromise out of a desire to keep Washington solvent and hope that the automatic cuts never occur. We couldn’t find any record Cantor saying he supported having the sequester. But the majority leader helped set the clock ticking on the cuts by voting for a measure that included their possibility. And he’s maintained a hard line against the compromise Democrats say is necessary to avoid the sequester: mixing in some tax increases with spending cuts to reduce deficits. Cantor is now distancing himself from a situation he helped create. We rate that a Full Flop.	None	Eric Cantor	None	None	None	2012-10-08T06:00:00	2012-10-01	['None']
-pomt-08148	"Barack Obama's health care bill is nothing new. Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before."	/texas/statements/2010/dec/05/howard-dean/dean-howard-says-health-care-bill-prseident-barack/	During a wide-ranging interview at Austin's KLRU last month, Texas Tribune editor Evan Smith talked health care with Howard Dean, a physician and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "Barack Obama's health care bill is nothing new," Dean said during the Nov. 12 interview. "Mitt Romney signed one just like it four years before." That's a view Dean, the former governor of Vermont, shares with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, though their opinions of said plans diverge. Speaking at the Heritage Foundation Nov. 8, Perry said: "The health care plan out of Massachusetts, I would suggest to you, is too much like the health care plan passed out of Washington." We wondered whether Dean correctly compared the 2010 federal overhaul to Massachusetts' 2006 health care law. Karen Finney, a Dean spokeswoman, shared two news articles to support his statement. According to an April 1 story posted on Talking Points Memo, during an appearance at Emory University in March, "Romney acknowledged that there are 'a number of similarities'" between the Massachusetts health care plan and the legislation Obama signed into law March 23. "If you lose a job or change a job, you won't lose your insurance," the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted Romney saying. "Everybody is able to keep insurance throughout their life. It's not taken away from them... you can't be canceled if you have a pre-existing condition or if you become ill once you're insured. So in that respect, it's very similar." According to a March 31 Christian Science-Monitor news story, Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who advised Obama and Romney on health-insurance programs, told the Boston Globe that Romney "is in many ways the intellectual father of national reform." The plan Romney signed included an expansion of the state's Medicaid program to children in households whose incomes are less than or equal to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The plan also subsidized coverage for eligible residents and created an exchange system, a state-overseen marketplace enabling individuals and small businesses to purchase health coverage. Also, the plan requires most adults to have coverage at the risk of facing penalties for not complying. The 2010 federal law has similar features. It likewise expands Medicaid (to all individuals whose incomes are less than or equal to 133 percent of the federal poverty level), and makes government subsidies available to low-income individuals and families to help them pay health insurance premiums. The federal law also creates voluntary exchanges that individuals and small businesses can use to purchase health insurance. And it requires most folks to purchase coverage, though the plans' penalty structures differ. In February, PolitiFact National rated Mostly True economist Paul Krugman's charge that the health care bill that passed the Senate "is identical to the Massachusetts health care plan — the same thing." Except for some modifications made by the House (such as implementation dates and how the plan is funded), the legislation that Obama signed into law was basically the bill that passed the Senate. Other similarities between the federal law and the Massachusetts plan: -In Massachusetts, companies with more than 10 employees must offer health insurance or pay a penalty. The federal approach imposes the requirement on companies with 50 employees or more. -Both plans restructure the insurance market. In Massachusetts, the reform law merged the individual and small-group markets (that is, the market serving individuals not covered by their employer's plan and the market serving smaller employers). The federal law placed new regulations on those two markets but kept them separate. -In Massachusetts, dependents up to age 25 can be covered on their parents' plan. The federal law allows dependent coverage up to age 26. And young adults in Massachusetts from age 19 to 26 can purchase a special lower-cost, lower-benefit plan through the exchange; the federal law creates a similar type of plan in the exchange for those up to age 30 who cannot find affordable coverage. -Both plans put limits on the ratio between the highest and lowest premiums, but in different ways. For the most part in Massachusetts, the highest premiums can only cost twice as much as the lowest premiums. The federal plan allows premiums in the individual and small-group market and on the exchanges to vary based on age, geographic area, family composition and tobacco use. And the differences? Financing and cost containment. The Massachusetts plan has been criticized for its lack of cost-containment provisions, while the federal law makes changes to Medicare, health insurance that the government offers to senior citizens, that are intended to lower program costs. (Being that Medicare is a federal program, the Massachusetts plan does not address it.) Both plans are financed in part by revenue generated from the individual and employer mandates. But the Massachusetts plan's financing is heavily dependent on leveraging federal matching funds, while the federal plan taps cost savings from levying new taxes on, for example, high-cost health care plans. Upshot: the federal law is similar to the Massachusetts law, but not an exact copy. We rate Dean's statement as Mostly True.	None	Howard Dean	None	None	None	2010-12-05T06:00:00	2010-11-12	['Barack_Obama', 'Mitt_Romney']
-pose-00763	"Nathan Deal has committed to eliminate unfair treatment of married couples under the state income tax system. Strong families benefit our communities, and state policies should always seek to promote marriage rather than see it as a chance to take a few more dollars for the treasury."	https://www.politifact.com/georgia/promises/deal-o-meter/promise/793/eliminate-georgias-marriage-tax-penalty/	None	deal-o-meter	Nathan Deal	None	None	Eliminate Georgia's marriage tax penalty	2011-01-06T16:27:46	None	['Nathan_Deal']
-snes-03020	Donald Trump signed an executive order naming climate change as a threat "both to the economy and national security."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-order-climate-change/	None	Uncategorized	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did President Donald Trump Sign an Executive Order on Climate Change?	1 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03684	The Boston Marathon bombing "is the fifth case" in which U.S. government officials examined individuals potentially involved in terrorism "and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/23/peter-king/rep-peter-king-says-alleged-boston-bombers-are-fif/	Several days after the capture of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, one of two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing, U.S. Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., cited a pattern in which the U.S. government looks into suspicious individuals who later are charged with terrorist acts. According to media reports, the FBI has acknowledged interviewing Tamerlan Tsarnaev -- Dzokhar’s older brother, who died while fleeing the police -- at the request of Russian officials in 2011. "After looking at his phone records, websites he visited and associates, the FBI found he had no ties to terror," ABC News reported. (We should note for the record that Dzokhar Tsarnaev has yet to face trial in the bombing case, so a court has not yet ruled on his guilt or innocence.) In an April 22, 2013, interview on MSNBC, King -- a senior Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee -- said that pattern sounded familiar. The Boston Marathon bombing "is the fifth case I'm aware of where a person was brought to the attention of the FBI. ... The FBI examined them and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders." We checked with King’s office, and a spokesman confirmed the four previous examples he was referring to: Anwar al-Awlaki, David Headley, Abdulhakim Muhammed and Nidal Hasan. Here’s a summary of their cases. • Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born citizen of Yemeni descent, was hunted by the U.S. and killed in a drone strike in September 2011. He was reportedly a key adviser, and even an instigator, in several terrorist incidents involving U.S. targets, including the 2009 killing of 13 and wounding of more than 30 by a shooter at Fort Hood, Texas; the 2009 plot to explode a plane in Detroit using an "underwear" bomb; and the foiled attempt to plant a bomb in New York City’s Times Square in 2010. By the time of his death, Al-Awlaki "had been under the scrutiny of American officials for more than a decade," the New York Times reported. "He first came under FBI investigation in 1999 because of associations with militants and was questioned after the 2001 terrorist attacks about his contacts with three of the hijackers at his mosques in San Diego and Virginia." • David Headley. Headley, a Pakistani-American born as Daood Gilani, is serving a 35-year sentence for helping organize scouting missions for a 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, that left 160 dead. In the late 1990s, Headley had served as a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency and was sent on one mission to Lahore, Pakistan, in which he infiltrated heroin trafficking networks. But later, his actions raised questions among friends and acquaintances. "A former girlfriend of Headley’s told a bartender named Terry O’Donnell that he wanted to go to Pakistan to fight alongside Islamic militants," ProPublica reported, adding that O’Donnell subsequently contacted an FBI-led task force that was investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On Oct. 4, 2001, "two Defense Department agents working for the task force questioned him in front of his DEA handlers at the drug agency’s office." • Abdulhakim Muhammed. Muhammed, a convert to Islam who was born Carlos Bledsoe, pled guilty to killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula outside a U.S. Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark., in 2009. He is now serving life in prison. Muhammed had been under investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task Force. "The investigation was in its preliminary stages, authorities said, and was based on the suspect's travel to Yemen and his arrest there for using a Somali passport," ABC News reported. ABC also reported that his "travel within the United States had also come under scrutiny by the Terrorist Task Force, including travel to Columbus, Ohio – an area of domestic concern for authorities who have observed a number of Somali Americans traveling from there to Somali to wage jihad." • Nidal Hasan. Hasan, a psychiatrist and major in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, is the only suspect in the Fort Hood shootings and is awaiting a military trial that could bring the death penalty. Prior to the shootings, the government intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki. They were "passed along to two Joint Terrorism Task Force cells led by the FBI, but a senior defense official said no one at the Defense Department knew about the messages until after the shootings," the Associated Press reported. The FBI and military officials offered divergent reasons for the failure to pass along the messages. "FBI officials have said a military investigator on the task force saw the emails and looked up Hasan's record, but finding nothing particularly worrisome, the investigator neither sought nor got permission to pass the emails on to other military officials," the AP reported. A senior defense official countered that "the rules of the task force prevented that military representative from passing the records on without approval from other members of the task force." One additional case shares some aspects of the pattern King laid out -- that of Umar Farook Abdulmutallab, the "underwear bomber." But since his plot was foiled and he did not go on to "carry out terrorist murders," his case doesn’t make King’s list. (In Abdulmutallab’s case, the National Security Agency had intercepted a discussion in Yemen that referenced the plot, but analysts did not link these intercepts with a separate piece of information, that Adbulmutallab’s father "visited the United States Embassy in Nigeria to express concerns about his son’s radicalization," according to the New York Times.) We asked Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a terrorism expert who is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, for his thoughts on King’s list. He agreed that Hasan’s case qualified as a good example of government officials determining (misguidedly, as it turned out) that an individual was "no threat." He added that he thought Al-Awlaki and Muhammed fit the pattern to a significant degree, but not entirely. In their cases, while the U.S. government did not immediately step in to arrest either man, it’s not clear that the U.S. government went so far as to determine that they were "no threat," Gartenstein-Ross said. The weakest example, Gartenstein-Ross said, is Headley, whose case is murky for several reasons, including his role as a U.S. government informant. Seven years elapsed between his interview in 2001 and the Mumbai attack in 2008 -- a long enough time to raise questions about whether he was sufficiently radicalized to have given government officials reason to believe he was on a path to terrorism. Our ruling King said the Boston Marathon bombing "is the fifth case" in which U.S. government officials examined individuals potentially involved in terrorism "and felt they were no threat and they went on to carry out terrorist murders." It’s clear that there are at least four prior instances -- Anwar al-Awlaki, David Headley, Abdulhakim Muhammed and Nidal Hasan -- that fit the pattern of someone being on the government’s radar screen and later allegedly committing terrorist acts. But in at least one of these cases, and to a lesser extent two others, it’s not clear that the government determined that the individuals "were no threat" based on the initial round of scrutiny. On balance, we rate King’s statement Mostly True.	None	Peter King	None	None	None	2013-04-23T10:49:03	2013-04-22	['United_States', 'Boston_Marathon']
-afck-00042	“Our real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by 4.9 percent in 2017.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/uhuru-kenyattas-2018-state-of-the-nation-address-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Uhuru Kenyatta’s 2018 State of The Nation Address fact-checked	2018-05-02 06:20	None	['None']
-pomt-13520	Democrats "are cutting our school funding. Four times in the last 10 years before we came into office."	/illinois/statements/2016/sep/01/bruce-rauner/bruce-rauner-resurrects-school-funding-cut-charge-/	In August 2014, as the race between former Gov. Pat Quinn and Bruce Rauner hit full throttle, no issue was more hotly contested than Rauner’s charge that Quinn had reduced spending on K-12 education as state finances spiraled ever-downward under his leadership. Specifically, the Rauner campaign cited Illinois State Board of Education data that showed school funding going from $7.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2009 to $6.8 billion in FY 2015. Rauner said that amounted to a $600 million reduction. Quinn, however, said his administration actually increased state-level funding during that time by $442 million. Whether school funding increased or decreased from FY 2009 to FY 2015 depended on whether you counted $1.8 billion in federal economic stimulus money in your calculation. Rauner did, Quinn didn’t. The issue never was settled, and seemed to disappear after Rauner defeated Quinn in the 2014 election. Then came Governor’s Day at the Illinois State Fair on Aug. 17. Rauner is not up for election this year, but his legislative agenda is. His campaign fund in recent weeks has given $10 million to the Illinois Republican Party to support GOP candidates who are running against what Rauner describes as a "corrupt machine" run by Democrats. Throughout the summer, Rauner has revived some of the themes that were a big part of his own, successful campaign two years ago. As he rallied the Republican faithful at the fairgrounds for the final charge to Election Day, Rauner reached back into his 2014 campaign quiver for another shot at Democrats’ stewardship of school funding in Illinois. "They are strangling our state. They are driving jobs away. They are raising your taxes to the highest property taxes in America. They are building massive government bureaucracy everywhere, crushing our economy," Rauner told an enthusiastic crowd. "They are cutting our school funding. Four times in the last 10 years before we came into office." So here we are again, almost exactly two years from when this debate first erupted, only this time the argument is expanded to include all Illinois Democrats and narrowed to "four times" that they cut school funding. We decided to dig back in and find out if it’s true. Stimulus stigma Rauner’s office provided us with figures from the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget from FY 2000 to FY 2015 (the last year in which Illinois had a state budget) to illustrate the trend, and said the years referred to in the speech were FY 2010-FY 2013. During those years, elementary and secondary education funding went from $7.32 billion to $6.55 billion. Clearly there’s a decline in school funding over that period. But was it the result of "cutting," as Rauner claims, or because federal stimulus money ended? The Civic Federation, the respected government fiscal watchdog organization, took on the question through its Institute for Illinois’ Fiscal Sustainability in a report in October 2014: "General Funds spending on education in FY2010 is shown in budget documents as $7.3 billion. But that number includes $790.8 million in federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Some analysts might deduct that amount to maximize comparability, which would reduce the General Funds figure for FY2010 to $6.5 billion. Based on that calculation, General Funds spending on education increases by $358 million to $6.8 billion in FY2015. Similarly, budget documents in FY2009 show education spending at $7.4 billion, but that amount includes $1.0 billion of stimulus funding. Deducting that amount results in General Funds spending of $6.3 billion in FY2009 and an increase of $522 million to $6.8 billion in FY2015." The Civic Federation’s analysis is impartial and it offers no opinion on which version -- including stimulus funding or excluding it -- is preferred. Thus it scrupulously avoids making a "cut or no cut" judgment. But it affirms the credibility of assessing state-level school funding in the post-recession years without the emergency federal money, which was designed to offset the Great Recession’s economic downturn for school budgets. By that measure, the FY2010-FY2013 span we’re examining would see school funding go from $6.541 billion in 2010 to $6.55 billion in 2013. Not robust growth, but not the precipitous $772 million decline shown when the federal money from 2010 is included. There’s also a piece of evidence that both supports Quinn’s claim in 2014 that he increased school funding and bolsters Rauner’s argument about overall mismanagement of the state budget by Quinn as governor and, today, by the Democrats who control the General Assembly. Midway through FY 2011, Quinn and the Democratic majority passed a controversial, four-year income tax increase that raised the personal income tax from 3 to 5 percent and the corporate tax rate from 4.8 to 7 percent. The increase was intended to pay down the state’s $6.5 billion in unpaid bills and prevent cuts to core services, including education. "The governor led that fight to raise revenue in 2011 and allowed us to avoid radical cuts to education," Quinn campaign spokeswoman Brooke Anderson told the Associated Press in October 2014 as debate raged over whether Quinn had cut or increased education funding. Debate over that tax increase was a major component of the 2014 gubernatorial campaign. To Rauner, it was yet another dagger to the heart of Illinois’ struggling economy, and a symptom of a Democratic party bereft of ideas to get Illinois back on track. To Quinn, it was a necessary if unpopular move to, among other things, preserve school funding. Two former state budget directors we contacted -- Steve Schnorf, who was Gov. George Ryan’s budget director from 1997-2002, and Joan Walters, who worked under Gov. Jim Edgar from 1991 to 1997 -- declined an invitation to weigh in on the main question here. But both said an important clue in making a ruling would come from examining how the stimulus money was used. If used to replace state funding missing due to the bad economy, as it was intended, then its loss should not be interpreted as a cut. If the state used it to fund programs or projects that would prove unsustainable when the money went away, Rauner’s assessment would be accurate. But improper use of the funding never was at issue. Rauner’s statements during the campaign two years ago and again this year dealt strictly with the numbers. Our ruling Rauner said of Democrats, "They are cutting our school funding. Four times in the last 10 years before we came into office." Rauner’s office said the years referred to in the speech were FY 2010-2013. While school funding did decline in fiscal years 2010-2013, it’s inaccurate to say it happened because of "cutting." In fact, as noted by the Civic Federation and in state budgets from the years in question, state-level funding -- which is controlled by the General Assembly and the governor -- increased slightly during those four years. Expand the years to FY 2009-2015 and the increase in state funding came to $522 million. Quinn’s record tax increase of 2011 is perhaps the greatest piece of evidence in support of Quinn’s aversion to cutting and in support of his claim that he boosted school funding. Illinois for two years has been a philosophical battleground in which Republicans, led by Rauner, have argued that Illinois’ abysmal unemployment rate is the product of 12 years of Democratic control of state government. Much of their argument has involved Democratic policies that they believe have made Illinois an unfriendly state for business. But in claiming that Democrats cut school spending in the final years of their hold on the governor’s office, Rauner resurrects an allegation that should have stayed buried after he won the election. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4fc284a6-23fd-49e2-9b9a-639afcdc6723	None	Bruce Rauner	None	None	None	2016-09-01T16:14:31	2016-08-17	['None']
-tron-02241	Red Bull Increases Heart Attacks & Strokes	https://www.truthorfiction.com/red-bull-warning/	None	medical	None	None	None	Red Bull Increases Heart Attacks & Strokes	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04274	Gubernatorial candidate Maggie Hassan supported 33 tax and fee increases as Senate Majority Leader.	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/nov/03/republican-governors-association/democrat-maggie-hassan-votes-tax-increases-targete/	With the election now days away, Republican gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne has been busy trying to paint challenger Maggie Hassan as a serial tax-and-spender. This month, he found some help from the Republican Governors Association, which joined the fight for New Hampshire’s corner office by airing a series of ads that highlight Hassan’s spending history during her time in the Senate. "After pushing 33 tax and fee increases as Majority Leader, (Maggie Hassan) was voted out of office," a narrator charges in the ad, "Hiding," released this month on New Hampshire airwaves. "She likes high taxes for us," the ad concludes. "New Hampshire doesn’t." Throughout the campaign, Lamontagne has cited a higher number. In daily emails to the press, he accuses Hassan of supporting "nearly 100 taxes and fees to help pay for her massive 24 percent increase in state spending.". Last month, we looked into the 24 percent claim, ruling it Half True. So, we decided this time to look into the taxes and fees. Lamontagne campaign officials declined to release their list of nearly 100 increases, which covered Hassan’s three two-year terms in office. Instead we looked at the governors association figure, which targeted her two years as Senate Majority Leader. We approached the association, which pointed us to the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in Concord, N.H. In July 2009, the Bartlett Center, a conservative-leaning think tank, released an analysis of the state’s 2010-11 biennium budget. Hassan served as Senate Majority Leader at the time, during which the effects of the recession set in around New Hampshire. And, under her guidance, the Senate approved the $11.5 billion spending bill in June 2009, sending it on to the governor’s desk. According to the Bartlett Center analysis, the budget, which went into effect July 1, 2009, included 35 new or increased taxes and fees, projecting to raise state revenues by about $306.4 million over the two-year budget. Bartlett Center researchers didn’t develop the numbers themselves, but instead based them on research from the Office of the Legislative Budget Assistant, Arlinghaus said this week. The nonpartisan budget assistant, charged with aiding the Legislature in its budget process, tracked the numbers in its review of the 2010-11 spending plan, and though the state numbers differ slightly from Bartlett Center, they remain in the ballpark. In its assessment, the budget assistant reported that the 2010-11 spending plan, supported by Hassan both in its initial form and in the final version, included 33 total tax and fee hikes, the same number cited by the governor’s association ad. But it also contained some big cuts, which the ad neglects to mention. At the time the 2010-2011 budget was being written, Hassan and other legislators were warned state revenues were going to come in at 2005-2006 levels, leaving a gaping financial hole that needed to be covered through a blend of cuts and tax increases. The cuts contained in the budget included millions in reductions to state aid to communities, a freeze on out-of-state travel, a freeze on equipment purchases, and the elimination of 1,000 jobs-- 200 of which were occupied, among others. On top of the loss in revenue, there was also an increase in expenses facing the state as more people sought government assistance. Budget writers also looked to tax and fee increases, some of which were sizeable. For example, the increase to the state rooms and meals tax was projected to raise $62.4 million for the state over the two years, and the increase to the tobacco tax projected to add $59.2 million. Meanwhile, other increases were much less impactful. An increase to the driving records fees projected to add about $240,000, and an increase to the license fees for pilots, engineers and captains, among others, projected about $8,500. Even Arlinghaus acknowledged in the Bartlett Center report, "Using just the number of increases is an imperfect measure." Supporters of the 2010-11 budget applauded it for keeping state spending in line in the face of the struggling economy. But, as the recession continued to hit and state revenues came in lower than projected, legislators re-opened the spending plan to find further savings. Over the coming months, legislators voted twice to amend the budget, reducing government spending by a total of $233 million. The budget adjustments included several increased taxes. They amended the tobacco tax to include smokeless tobacco products, and they increased the marriage license fee, as well as the charge for selling animals and birds, which were projected to raise about $3 million between the three, according to Jeffry Pattison, the state budget assistant. But, they also voted to close a state prison and cut other state programs on the way to the $233 million savings, Hassan campaign manager Matt Burgess wrote in an email to PolitiFact NH. PolitiFact noted previously that although total state spending increased about 20 percent during Hassan’s time in office, the funds spent from taxes and fees, which legislators have the most control over, actually went down slightly. Our ruling As the lead Democrat in the Senate, Hassan voted twice in 2009 in favor of the 2010-11 budget -- a spending plan shown by the nonpartisan budget assistant to include 33 tax and fee hikes, as claimed in the governors association ad. The statement is numerically accurate, but it ignores all of the major cuts Hassan and other Democrats made to the budget, like eliminating state jobs and reducing state aid to communities. The state was facing a huge hole in its budget due to the sputtering economy, which simultaneously lowered revenues and increased the need for expenditures. On top of that, the ad fails to acknowledge that Democrats reopened the budget and further reduced government spending by $233 million. And to say Hassan "likes high taxes" is a gross oversimplification that ignores the financial realities facing the state at the time. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Republican Governors Association	None	None	None	2012-11-03T10:38:19	2012-10-24	['None']
-pomt-13411	Says Mike Gallagher’s plan "would cut Social Security benefits for two-thirds of seniors."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/23/tom-nelson/us-house-race-republican-accused-backing-cuts-two-/	According to one conservative columnist, the race for an open seat in a competitive congressional district in central Wisconsin could be telling. If Republican Mike Gallagher defeats Democrat Tom Nelson, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Christian Schneider says, "it would be a signal that traditional Republicans might be able to insulate themselves from Donald Trump's record-level unpopularity. But if things head south for Republicans, even their record-high majority in the House of Representatives could be in jeopardy." Gallagher, a former U.S. Marine, and Nelson, the Outagamie County executive, are running in the Nov. 8, 2016 election to succeed Republican Reid Ribble, who decided not to run for a fourth term. On Sept. 1, 2016, Nelson hit Gallagher with a TV ad with a popular line of attack: Social Security. After images of senior citizens appear on the screen, the narrator declares: "Mike Gallagher’s plan would cut Social Security benefits for two-thirds of seniors." So, has Gallager proposed a plan that would make those cuts? Not exactly. The Biggs plan When the claim is made in the ad, a notation on the screen refers to a Nov. 4, 2015 article in the conservative National Review. In a news release announcing the ad, the Nelson campaign said the reference was to an article on Social Security by Andrew Biggs, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Biggs proposed changes in benefits, saying: Beginning immediately, Social Security would pay every long-term U.S. resident a minimum benefit pegged at the poverty threshold of $950 a month, regardless of the retiree’s work history or earnings. This minimum benefit would take the place of both the redistributive aspects of Social Security and the Supplemental Security Income program, but do so with greater protections against poverty and no prohibition on work and saving. In fact, the Social Security payroll tax would be eliminated at age 62 to encourage longer work lives. But over several decades, the maximum Social Security benefit would be scaled down so that eventually every retiree will receive the same flat dollar benefit from the government. For the bottom third of retirees, benefits would increase, but for middle and upper income Americans, benefits would decline relative to currently promised levels. This makes sense. At any given time, higher-income Americans are less dependent upon government than lower-income households. As incomes rise over time, Americans should gradually become less dependent on the government for income in retirement and more able to build their own savings. So, under Biggs’ proposal, Social Security benefits would decline for the two-thirds of recipients who have higher incomes, though it’s important to note the changes would take place over several decades. Is the Biggs plan Gallagher’s plan? To back the second part of Nelson’s claim, campaign aides cited an answer Gallagher gave to a question about Social Security on the campaign trail on July 9, 2016. Gallagher said he would favor changes such as means testing for people earning above $250,000 and gradually raising the retirement age. Then he added that on Social Security he is "most influenced" by Biggs, saying: And he talks about a two-part payment structure where you simplify the program. One would be like a thrift savings plan where your employer matches your contributions and it's what people who work for the federal government get to have access to, but the rest of us don't. And the other would be a flat universal payment to everyone at the poverty line to bring the program back to its original limits. But the bad part about all of this is that it's going to be up to people like you and I, 34-year-olds and below, to do that and to bear the brunt of it. But my argument is that nobody expects it to be there, so I'd rather have a program that's there and more efficient and effective, even if my benefits are slightly reduced by the time I can actually collect Social Security. That’s support for Biggs’ approach to Social Security, but it’s short of Gallagher proposing a plan to change Social Security that explicitly cuts benefits for two-thirds of the beneficiaries. Our rating Nelson said: "Mike Gallagher’s plan would cut Social Security benefits for two-thirds of seniors." Gallagher has not made a proposal on Social Security that would cut the benefits of two-thirds of the recipients. However, he has praised a proposal that would make those cuts, saying he is most influenced on Social Security by the proposal’s author. We rate the statement Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/e8f94e5c-0271-4c30-b3d8-e07e84900801	None	Tom Nelson	None	None	None	2016-09-23T05:00:00	2016-09-01	['None']
-pomt-10432	"Clinton's former pastor convicted of child molestation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/14/blog-posting/oops-wrong-clinton/	A month ago, the editors of the Utica (N.Y.) Observer-Dispatch saw a sudden spike in Web readership for stories about the Rev. William Procanick, pastor of a local church who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child. A story about Procanick was the upstate New York newspaper's No. 1 story in April, with 10 times the readership of the second-highest story. The paper's editors wouldn't expect such a story to generate so much interest, but Procanick's church was in a little-known town with a well-known name: Clinton. In headlines and stories, Procanick was identified simply as "Clinton pastor." For some supporters of Barack Obama, including one who posted an item on an official Obama campaign blog, that was an easy recipe for outrage. After seeing their candidate battered over his connection with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the phrase "Clinton pastor" was all they needed to conclude that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor was a convicted sex offender. Never mind that Bill and Hillary don't attend Procanick's church, which is 225 miles from their home in Chappaqua, N.Y. And never mind that the Observer-Dispatch's stories never suggested any connection between the Clinton pastor and the political Clintons. In the lightning-fast world of the blogosphere, emotions often outrun the facts. "Okay, so now that Bill and Hillary Clinton's pastor has been convicted of child molestation, will we see the same furor directed at Hillary that Obama has had to endure these last few weeks? I don't think so!!!!" said a chain e-mail that was sent to PolitiFact and pasted on blogs. Similar postings have appeared a blog called "Black Love is Alive," in a comment on the National Journal blog "Hotline on Call," and even on a motorcycle blog called "The Sportbike Network," under the headline "Billary's preacher is now a convicted pedophile." On My.BarackObama.com, the Obama campaign's official blog, Shemora Singletary of Columbus, Ohio, posted an item April 25, 2008, that was headlined "Clinton's former pastor convicted of child molestation." Singletary, a volunteer blogger on the site with the nickname "Knowledge Seeker," groused that the media hasn't paid enough attention to the episode involving the Clinton pastor. "Will this story get the press that Rev. Wright is getting?? And will the Clinton's have to answer for the character of this man??" she wrote. She posted an article from the Utica paper and this postscript: "Now that Obama's lynching has gone off as planned, think the MSM (mainstream media) will run this story about Clinton's former pastor? Or would that upset the planned election of either Israeli-firster Hillary vs. Israeli-firster McCain?" Singletary's posting drew two comments that said she was wrong. She acknowledged one of those comments but did nothing to correct or retract the inaccurate posting. Singletary could not be reached for comment. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that the posting was not authorized by the campaign and that it was removed Wednesday morning after PolitiFact inquired about it. But it had been on the Obama site for nearly three weeks. "This is one of more than 800,000 user-generated pages. It's like a comment on your blog," Vietor said. "And it's been taken down." The posting was on a campaign blog created by volunteers who support Obama, but it's not always clear where an official Web site ends and the blog begins. The Obama blog has the same logo, candidate photo and quotation ("I'm asking you to believe . . .") as the regular campaign site. The only thing to distinguish it from the rest of the site is a headline that says "Community Blogs." It has no disclaimer to indicate the messages may not be authorized by the campaign. To the contrary, at the bottom of the page it says "PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA." (Since the campaign removed the page, we have preserved the original posting here. ) Academic experts who study politics on the Internet say having the message about the Clinton pastor on the Obama site gives it extra credibility. "You assume that those things are representing statements the campaign believes are true," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and co-author of a new book on presidential rhetoric called Presidents Creating the Presidency. Julie Germany, Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, said sophisticated Web users might understand the distinctions between a campaign site and its blog, but many readers don't. "To somebody who doesn't know the blogosophere very well, (having it on an Obama site) could actually validate what the post is saying," she said. The experts said campaigns need to police their sites more carefully. Jamieson said the campaigns should be "vigilantly policing their own blogs – or making them freestanding blogs unassociated with the campaign – so the campaign isn't perceived to be attaching its credibility to the information." Vietor, the Obama spokesman, said the Obama blog is so large that the campaign must rely on the "community" – the people who post on the blog – to do the policing. "Users help police the page," Vietor said. "Obviously we can't monitor all 800,000 pages in real time. So users help us flag and take down inappropriate content." Apart from the policing issues, the tale about the Clinton pastor shows that some bloggers don't spend a lot of time on research. Indeed, it doesn't take much Internet searching to find that there's no connection with the political Clinton, a fact that the Obama campaign was quick to acknowledge. Mike Kilian, managing editor of the Observer-Dispatch, said he was amazed that so many people could have such a big misunderstanding with so few facts. He said, "Any fourth grader could read those stories and know there is nothing to do with Bill or Hillary." As for the claim by the bloggers and the chain e-mails, we find it isn't just false. It's Pants-on-Fire wrong.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2008-05-14T00:00:00	2008-04-25	['Bill_Clinton']
-afck-00252	Girls are “beating the boys hands down” in matric.	https://africacheck.org/reports/did-zuma-get-his-sona2016-facts-straight/	None	None	None	None	None	Did Zuma get his #SoNA2016 facts straight?	2016-02-11 07:51	None	['None']
-pomt-00130	"If a statue of a person in the park on a horse has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air, the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes."	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/oct/26/blog-posting/no-equestrian-statues-dont-have-secret-code-hooves/	Google "war statues" and the first suggestion the search engine makes to finish the query is "horse legs." That might have something to do with a longtime claim that’s again making the rounds on social media. "Did you know?" says a Sept. 10 Facebook post showing photographs of three statues. "If a statue of a person in the park on a horse has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air, the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has a (sic) all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes." This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The post has been shared more than 89,000 times as of Oct. 25. The original poster attributed the information to A-Z Facts, but a web search for that source only turned up websites for children with facts about animals and the state of Arizona. The first of the three images used in the Facebook post appears to be of the Bronze Horseman, a monument in St. Petersburg, Russia, to Peter the Great. The horse has its front legs in the air but Peter the Great died of gangrene, not in battle. The second image appears to be of the Virginia Washington Monument, showing George Washington on a horse with one leg aloft. But Washington didn’t die from battle wounds—he fell ill after working in cold, wet weather. The final image appears to be a statue of King George IV on a horse with all four feet on the ground in Trafalgar Square in London. It’s true that George didn’t die in battle, or afterward from wounds. He consumed "prodigious amounts of drugs" and cherry brandy before his death, according to the BBC. As Snopes has noted, most of Gettysburg’s equestrian statues abide by this alleged horse hoof pattern with James Longstreet being an exception. Still, there are plenty of other statues that buck it. Among them: Simon Bolivar, Andrew Jackson and Stonewall Jackson. We rate this statement as False.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-10-26T11:02:57	2018-09-10	['None']
-pomt-05251	Candidate Bill Byrne used campaign funds for work on his "personal car."	/georgia/statements/2012/jun/01/tim-lee/car-repair-bill-catches-eye-cobb-chairmans-race/	Cobb County politics is much like the onetime hit television sitcom "Cheers." Everyone knows your name in the Boston bar, and there are few things that occur that go unnoticed. For example, the county government’s commission chairman, Tim Lee, seemed to have the scoop on Bill Byrne, the man who once had that job and wants it back. In a recent Marietta Daily Journal "Around Town" political column, Lee appeared to question Byrne’s campaign ethics. "I have not paid to have my personal car worked on with campaign funds like some other candidates," Lee said. Lee didn’t refer to Byrne by name, but the inference seemed obvious. PolitiFact Georgia wanted to see if Lee was engaging in some campaign fact twisting or did he deserve a toast for telling the truth? Cobb is Georgia’s fourth highest-populated county. The Cobb chairman is an influential perch for deciding policy on public safety, transportation and water resources. Cobb is also a treasure-trove of Republican votes. Lee’s predecessor, Sam Olens, a Republican, is now Georgia’s attorney general. As the headline to the article suggested, the race for county chairman -- arguably one of the most powerful local government posts in Georgia -- is heating up. Earlier in the column, Byrne suggested that Lee would not achieve his fundraising goals. Lee countered that he was on track to raise his previously stated target of at least $200,000 and said he spent money on legitimate campaign expenses -- unlike an unnamed opponent. We tried to contact Lee a couple of times in recent weeks, leaving messages on a telephone number the chairman listed on his candidate campaign disclosure forms filed with the state. We received no reply. PolitiFact Georgia also called the county government’s communications director and explained the article we were reporting. No reply. PolitiFact Georgia caught up with Lee at a candidate forum Wednesday organized by the East Cobb Civic Association at the East Cobb Library. The chairman told PolitiFact Georgia that he read Byrne’s most recent candidate disclosure report, which mentioned money spent on a vehicle, and decided to talk about it to The Marietta Daily Journal. Lee said he considered it an old matter in a brief interview before Wednesday’s forum and declined further comment. So what did the report show? On Jan. 31, 2012, Byrne reported he spent $209.78 on "servicing campaign truck." Byrne told PolitiFact Georgia he used the money to pay for a tuneup and repair a brake line. Byrne said he uses a 2008 red GMC pickup truck that he owns for campaign purposes. Byrne is an old-school campaigner, who said he drives around the county to spread his message. Byrne sent PolitiFact Georgia a photo of the vehicle, which had a campaign sign attached to the passenger’s door and a large campaign sign in the truck bed. The vehicle was parked in front of Byrne’s campaign office in Marietta. The truck was parked in the lot outside the East Cobb Library on Wednesday. "It’s a campaign vehicle," Byrne said in one telephone interview. We asked Byrne what he thought about Lee’s initial comment. "He has the right to say anything he wants, and I have the right to respond," Byrne told us. Georgia’s campaign finance act has no specific language about funding vehicle repairs with campaign funds. The law advises candidates to spend on necessary campaign purposes. William Perry, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, an ethics watchdog group, said the law is vague on such spending. Perry told us the repairs could be legitimate if Byrne needs the vehicle for campaign purposes, and if the candidate is not attempting to get reimbursed for the mileage he is driving for the campaign. Otherwise, Perry said it could be "double-dipping" by Byrne. It is true that the vehicle belongs to Byrne. It is also true that Byrne used campaign funds to pay for repairs on the truck. Byrne does seem to be using the vehicle for campaign purposes, which the candidate said in his disclosure report. Lee did not mention that when he was quoted in the column. That context is critical for readers to fully understand the chairman’s statement. We give this one a rating of Half True.	None	Tim Lee	None	None	None	2012-06-01T06:00:00	2012-04-10	['None']
-goop-01829	Mandy Moore, Milo Ventimiglia Feuding On ‘This Is Us’ Set, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/mandy-moore-milo-ventimiglia-feud-this-is-us-set/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Mandy Moore, Milo Ventimiglia NOT Feuding On ‘This Is Us’ Set, Despite Report	11:02 am, January 15, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00968	Every Time her Picture is Shared she Receives $1	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/every-time-her-picture-is-shared-she-receives-1-facebook-scam-post/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Every Time her Picture is Shared she Receives $1 Facebook Scam Post	May 28, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03695	Says "If you compare the Portland Metro area to the CDC’s statewide cavity rates ... the Portland Metro area would actually rank as having the 15th lowest cavity rate in the U.S."	/oregon/statements/2013/apr/20/clean-water-portland/do-numbers-put-multnomah-co-par-15th-lowest-cavity/	Portland residents will vote in May on whether to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water. This is a long-running, divisive and emotional issue for people on both sides. Supporters say fluoridated water is the best way to strengthen teeth, especially for vulnerable children who lack access to regular dental care. Opponents say we should leave the city’s pristine drinking water alone. Opponents claim supporters are using misleading figures to make a case for fluoridating water in Portland. For example, the percentage of children who had or have a cavity is much higher in the rest of Oregon than it is in the Portland-metro area -- 70 percent compared with 54 percent among children, according to a 2007 state survey. "In fact, if you compare the Portland Metro area to the CDC’s statewide cavity rates fluoridation supporters rely upon, the Portland Metro area would actually rank as having the 15th lowest cavity rate in the U.S," reads a yellow flier distributed by Clean Water Portland, the key campaign opposed to Measure 26-151. Obviously, a metro region is not a state, and it feels sloppy to mix the two in ranking anything. Still, we were surprised enough by the claim to want to dig deeper. Does the Portland area already boast enviable oral health statistics? Are the numbers cited even comparable? The Clean Water Portland campaign cites Oregon’s 2007 Smile Survey in part to back up its claim. The percentage of first-, second- and third-graders in Multnomah County, which includes Portland, who had or have a cavity was 56.3. The percentage in Clackamas and Washington counties was 52.5. Combined, the percentage was 54, as shown on page 12 of the report. Statewide, the percentage was 64 and outside the tri-county area, 70 percent. Now, how does the Clean Water Campaign determine that Multnomah County is comparable to the No. 15 spot nationally? Here, we turn to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as does the campaign. The CDC posts all sorts of statistics related to dental health, including what the organization calls "experience with caries," also known as having had a cavity. The percentages for children are broken down by elementary grades, and by participating state. Opponents say that the Portland-metro percentage of 54 is close to the percentage in New York state, which is 54.1. Opponents say since New York has the 15th lowest "experience with caries," the tri-county area must do pretty well on the cavity front, too. Here’s the problem with that kind of thinking. In 2007, Multnomah County was at 56.3 percent, counting three grades of students. The New York number comes from 2001-2003, and it’s limited to third-graders. Even more important than all of that is this: Seven states do not report the information and of the remaining ones that do, the years cited are all over the map, some as dated as 1998-99. In other words, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not rank New York as having the 15th lowest cavity rate in the United States. There’s no baseline year. Subsequently, it’s even more unlikely that anyone could describe the Portland-metro area as having the 15th lowest cavity rate in the United States. "You cannot directly compare state data to city data," unless it’s contained within a state, wrote CDC spokeswoman Linda S. Orgain in an email to PolitiFact Oregon. "We also do not generally compare states to other states in (the oral health surveillance system) because we have different time periods for each state." Shanie Mason, oral health unit manager for the Oregon Health Authority, echoed the sentiment. "We have never compared to other cities. We have only compared ourselves against neighboring states with a similar methodology," she said. We understand, however, that voters may want to get at the larger point behind the claim: How does Portland and Multnomah County fare when assessing cavities in children? Again, in 2007, about 56.3 percent of Multnomah County children in grades 1, 2 and 3 had a cavity, compared with 64 percent statewide. Preliminary figures for 2011-13 show numbers have dropped. The percentage of students in all three grades who had a cavity is 52. In Multnomah County for all three grades, it is 50.8. (For third-graders only, the new percentage statewide is 57.5 percent, down from 66.3 in 2006. We offer the various numbers to give readers a sense of how they differ based on the grade or grades included.) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is not aware of city-specific data for comparison purposes, said Orgain. She also said the most recent national statistic for cavities in children is from 1999-2004, and it was 53.2 percent for children ages 6 to 8 years old. That provides a national statistic by which readers could measure the county’s more recent percentage, but keep in mind it is old. Mason, who hopes to release the 2012 survey before the May 21 election, said one of the reasons the tri-county area does better than the rest of the state is that "Multnomah County has a pretty strong oral health infrastructure, and has for a much longer period of time than any other areas of the state." Physical therapist Kellie Barnes, a parent and volunteer with the Clean Water Campaign, defends the statement, saying that they were utterly transparent in telling voters the comparison was of the county to another state. Barnes also said fluoride supporters have repeatedly used the CDC state figures to rank Oregon, even with the varying years and ages tested. The larger point, Barnes said, is that fluoride advocates should not use statewide cavity statistics to indicate a dental crisis in Multnomah County or in Portland. But her arguments don’t make the statement any more correct. It’s certainly accurate to say that Multnomah County generally has better cavity numbers than the rest of the state. However, fluoride opponents went further, and said the Portland-metro area "would actually rank as having the 15th lowest cavity rate in the U.S." The numbers relied on by fluoride opponents do not show that New York has the 15th lowest cavity rate in the country. There is no national ranking of state cavity statistics because not all states have reported numbers, states may differ on sampling, and states report numbers for different years. Oregon’s numbers for Multnomah County include three grades, compared with one grade for the aged New York statistic cited. Public health experts we interviewed say it is not appropriate to compare a county percentage to the percentage of another state. We rule the statement False.	None	Clean Water Portland	None	None	None	2013-04-20T06:00:00	2013-04-08	['United_States', 'Portland,_Oregon']
-pomt-04622	Says Sherrod Brown’s campaign attacked Josh Mandel’s military service	/ohio/statements/2012/sep/17/josh-mandel/josh-mandel-claims-sherrod-browns-campaign-attacke/	It’s insult time. Let’s start with this one -- that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown’s actions were "un-American." That leads to another -- that Brown, the Democratic senator from Ohio, has stooped so outrageously, desperately low that he attacked the military service of his opponent, Marine Corps and Iraq War veteran Josh Mandel. My gosh, you might say, is this a nasty campaign or what? Well, yes. Still, to understand these related insults, you must follow some twists, turns and contortions, the likes of which did not end with the Olympics in London. In an election year, gymnastics continue until the polls close. The claim we are examining today is that Brown’s campaign attacked the service of Mandel, a Republican who is currently Ohio’s treasurer -- and a Marine Corps reservist who served two tours in Iraq. Mandel’s campaign sent out a fund-raising email saying as much on Aug. 31 and referred to Brown using "scummy smear tactics" to attack Mandel’s military service. "It is outrageous for Sherrod Brown’s campaign to say that enlisted military service with infantry battalions in Iraq doesn’t prepare you for leadership… that risking your life in defense of your country somehow disqualifies you from serving your country back home," the email said. The subject line on the email was "Mandel Marine service under attack." Let’s take the episode chronologically: On Aug. 24, 2012, Mandel and Brown were interviewed together at The Columbus Dispatch. The candidates were asked about the federal government’s auto industry bailout, which Brown supported. Mandel called one aspect of the bailout "un-American." He was speaking of the manner in which General Motors, with government money and input, agreed to guarantee the full pensions of unionized workers at Delphi Corp., a former GM subsidiary. Delphi’s salaried workers got no such guarantee. Many salaried Delphi workers will see dramatic cuts in their pensions, and they say back-room negotiations involving President Barack Obama’s administration and GM resulted in unequal treatment. Meantime, as The Dispatch reported: "In their first head-to-head meeting of this election season, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel described Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown as "un-American." The newspaper quoted Mandel: "I don’t toss around the word un-American very often — it’s a dangerous word to use. But stripping ... Delphi employees of their pensions with that vote — that is un-American." The Plain Dealer, in an Aug. 26 interview, asked Mandel to elaborate on whether he thought Brown was anti-American, or whether he was strictly referring to the Delphi matter. "I think Sherrod Brown’s a proud American," Mandel said. "Just because I served in the Marines and did a couple tours of Iraq doesn’t mean I love my country any more than he loves his country. We just have a different vision for where we want to take it, and different ideas for what we think grows an economy and creates jobs. And the thousands of Delphi employees who were depending on having pensions and were all of a sudden stripped of them are now baby boomers and senior citizens who are struggling to make ends meet." Brown’s campaign held a news conference Aug 30 in Columbus to denounce the "un-American" claim. As reported by an NBC affiliate, "local veterans, including two retired Army Generals, denounced Mandel’s choice of words. Ret. Major General Dennis Laich said, ‘Having spent 35 years in the military, I have a sense of what un-American looks like in terms of words and deeds and I can tell you that the vote that Senator Brown took, in no way, represents an un-American act.’" During that news conference, a reporter asked the retired generals if they thought Mandel’s use of his military service would work in earning votes from the military or veterans bloc. Here is Laich’s answer, which we got from news accounts, partial transcripts from the Brown and Mandel campaigns, and online video of the news conference: "It’s not a matter of it working or not. The fact of the matter is that Josh Mandel has served in the military. We applaud that. As a matter of fact, Gen. (Sam) Kindred and I would both hope that thousands of other young Ohioans would choose to serve in the military. But the fact of the matter is, that the meaning that we’re trying to do today is not in Iraq or Afghanistan at the tactical level. It is at the national strategic level, its national security level, where Sen. Sherrod Brown is the veteran." Laich continued, saying, "The experience that Josh Mandel had in the military is at the tactical level. Decisions that are made by those hundred Americans who serve in the United States Senate (are) at the strategic level and the national security level. We applaud it, we recognize it, and we wish that others would continue to serve or choose to serve. But the fact of the matter is that these are two different sets of criterion that are at play here and the experienced veteran in the wars on Capitol Hill is Sherrod Brown -- who has, by the way, I hate to disagree with my colleague here, but he characterized Senator Brown’s record for veterans and their families as outstanding, I characterize it as perfect." There you have it. Did you hear an attack on Mandel’s Marine Corps service? The Mandel campaign says it did. Travis Considine, Mandel’s communications director, told PolitiFact Ohio that Brown’s campaign "is essentially attacking Josh’s military service by suggesting that because his time in the Marine Corps was spent at the ‘tactical level’ he is not as prepared to fight for Ohio’s veterans as Sherrod Brown, who they call ‘the experienced veteran in the wars on Capitol Hill.’ Their logic illustrates exactly what is wrong with Washington, the belief that career politician experience supersedes actual experience." That brings us back to the Mandel camp’s Aug. 31 fundraising email. The email did not quote Mandel directly. Rather, it included a statement from a Mandel supporter and fellow Marine. The email said: "Did you see what fellow Marine Mark DePhillips wrote below about Sherrod Brown's campaign attacking Josh's Marine Corps service? Take a look, and I bet you will be as disgusted as I was." The email asked supporters to help Mandel "fight back and defend not only his own military service, but the honorable service of the thousands of brave men and women who risked everything to protect this great country." It provided a link to a television commercial that Mandel wanted to air. The commercial begins with this line: "Sherrod Brown’s cowardly attacks on Josh Mandel’s character are shameful. Just ask the Marines who put their lives on the line with him." It’s not unusual to insult a political opponent. But attacking his military service is something else. Laich, however, said he did no such thing. "For someone to draw from those comments that I insulted his military service is a stretch," he told us in a telephone interview. "You’d have to do some magical thinking there." He said that in the military, service members are tasked with different levels of duty: tactical, operational or strategic. Each is invaluable, he said, repeating his praise for Mandel’s military service. But each is different, he said. Was Laich on firm ground here? We turned to military materials to see. It turns out that Laich’s descriptions are consistent with Marine Corps and Pentagon manuals, including the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Related Terms. The strategic level refers to establishing national or multi-national objectives and developing resources to accomplish them. Think of this as the 20,000-foot view -- or in Washington, the duties of policy makers. The operational level refers to the level at which military operations are planned and sustained. The tactical level is where battles and engagements are planned and executed. Says a Marine Corps manual called, simply, Tactics: "Winning in combat depends upon tactical leaders who can think creatively and act decisively." And says a Marine Corps intelligence manual, which we mention because Mandel’s specialty in the Corps was intelligence: "Tactical intelligence concerns itself primarily with the location, capabilities, and possible intentions of enemy units on the battlefield and with the tactical aspects of terrain and weather ... Marine Corps intelligence focuses on tactical intelligence, which is the level of intelligence Marines need, generate, and use most often." None of this sounded outrageous. Yet there is an element of truth in Mandel’s complaint. Though couched in laudatory phrases, Laich's remarks could be interpreted as dismissive. While Laich, speaking on behalf of Brown’s campaign, applauded Mandel for serving, he also distinguished Mandel’s experience at the tactical level from experience in the Senate. In order to praise Brown’s Senate service, he spoke of a Marine’s military service as not only requiring a different skill set, but also as subordinate to the skills in the United States Senate: "The experience that Josh Mandel had in the military is at the tactical level. Decisions that are made by those hundred Americans who serve in the United States Senate (are) at the strategic level and the national security level." That said, there was no attempt to describe Mandel as someone who disobeyed orders or who was derelict in his duty or anything other than an exemplary Marine. And we don’t see, from reading the general’s remarks, that he ever conveyed the message that "risking your life in defense of your country somehow disqualifies you from serving your country back home," as the email from Mandel’s camp implied. Knowing those critical facts would give a different impression of the claim that Brown’s campaign attacked Mandel’s military service. On the Truth-O-Meter, the Mandel claim rates Mostly False.	None	Josh Mandel	None	None	None	2012-09-17T06:00:00	2012-09-04	['None']
-goop-01181	Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban Getting $413 Million Divorce?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-keith-urban-divorce-false/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban Getting $413 Million Divorce?	8:46 pm, April 15, 2018	None	['Nicole_Kidman']
-pomt-09587	"We lowered the business tax from 4 percent down to 1 percent."	/texas/statements/2010/jan/22/rick-perry/perry-says-he-cut-business-tax/	A "he said, she said" exchange between U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry during the Jan. 14 gubernatorial debate may have left Texans scratching their heads. When the senator accused Perry of raising taxes on businesses, one of the things she pointed to was legislation that the governor signed in 2006 restructuring the state’s franchise tax on businesses. Perry responded several times by saying that "we lowered the business tax from 4 percent down to 1 percent." The mixed messages put forth by the two candidates -- higher taxes, lower taxes? -- made us wonder who was right. In a companion item, we examined Hutchison’s claim about the business tax. Now, we’ll look at Perry’s. The centerpiece of a 2006 tax overhaul was a reduction in the property tax rate that local school districts use to generate money for operations. The Legislature revamped the franchise tax and increased the cigarette tax to help districts offset the loss of revenue from the rate cut. Strictly speaking, Perry's statement about the franchise tax rate is correct: As part of the changes, it was cut from about 4 percent to 1 percent. But another major revision -- widening the tax base -- was so significant that tax experts told us that simply comparing the before-and after rates doesn't give the true picture. Before 2006, the franchise tax was essentially a 4.5 percent tax on a company’s profit. The new version, often called the margins tax, reduced the rate to 1 percent while broadening its application. Now, the tax is applied to the annual revenue of qualifying companies minus one of three options: the cost of goods sold, employee compensation or 30 percent of total revenue. "The earlier tax was mainly on profits," said Billy Hamilton, who served as deputy comptroller under state Comptrollers John Sharp and Carole Keeton Strayhorn. "The new tax is on the broader margin base. It is a different tax, and comparing the two rates is an apples and oranges comparison." As anticipated, Texas businesses paid more in franchise taxes after the overhaul than they did before: In 2006 and 2007, franchise tax revenue was $5.75 billion. In 2008 and 2009, the first two years of the revised tax, total revenue rose to $8.7 billion. However, one expected consequence of the legislation didn't pan out. Before the restructuring, a frequent criticism of the franchise tax was that it had become virtually voluntary, paid by only about 1 in 16 Texas businesses. The revision was designed to apply the tax to more businesses. However, because of exemptions that the Legislature gave small businesses, the number of companies that pay the franchise tax is lower than before the law was signed, said Dale Craymer, president of the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. "The tax has become more concentrated on larger businesses," he said. It's also important to note that the 2006 tax changes didn't affect all businesses the same way. Because of the property tax reductions, some saw their taxes drop. Others did not. Summing up, Perry was correct when he said the business tax rate was cut. But he failed to point out that the change in the tax base essentially transformed the franchise tax into a new levy, one that generated more money from businesses. In our book, an otherwise accurate statement that leaves out important details or takes things out of context is Half True.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2010-01-22T16:17:58	2010-01-14	['None']
-pomt-11453	"Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month."	/new-york/statements/2018/mar/09/chris-collins/are-americans-already-benefiting-new-tax-law/	U.S. Rep. Chris Collins said many Americans are already benefiting from the tax law Republicans in Congress passed in December. Collins used the claim to attack House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a tweet. "Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month," Collins tweeted. "Despite what @NancyPelosi may say, this isn’t "crumbs" for hardworking families in #WNY." Pelosi had previously called the tax benefits for middle- and low-income earners "crumbs" compared to what wealthy earners would receive. Republicans who support the tax plan disagree. They believe the tax bill provides significant relief for those workers. Collins, a Republican from suburban Buffalo, says those benefits have already started. Is he right? ‘4 million American workers’ President Donald Trump claimed 3 million workers in the U.S. had already received a pay increase or bonus thanks to the tax bill at the end of January. PolitiFact rated that claim Mostly True. PolitiFact checked Trump’s claim using data from Americans for Tax Reform, a group that advocates for lower taxes. The group supported the Republican tax bill. The group has a running list of companies that have announced bonuses or other benefits based on press releases and media reports since the tax law passed. At the end of January, at least 286 companies had announced benefits for more than 3 million workers. That number has since grown to more than 4 million workers from 408 companies, according to the group. Those workers have gotten a bonus, pay increase, 401(k) hike, or utility rate cut because of the new tax law, according to reports. That’s not a small number of workers, but it accounts for less than 3 percent of the total employed population in the U.S. Experts also told PolitiFact that some of the bonuses may have already been planned before the tax law to retain workers in a tight labor market. Larger paychecks The second part of Collins’ claim is based on a prediction from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The agency said in January that 90 percent of working Americans would have less federal tax withheld from their paychecks by the middle of February. Employers had until Feb. 15 to implement the lower federal tax rates. "We’re estimating that 90 percent of workers are going to see an increase in take-home pay because of the Tax Cuts [and Jobs] Act," U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said. We reached out to the agency to see if its prediction panned out for February. We did not hear back. The actual share of workers with more take-home pay may be lower than 90 percent, according to Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It is true that roughly 90 percent of Americans will get a tax cut this year as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," Gleckman said. But many Americans will not see higher take-home pay because of other factors, like higher health insurance premiums. Higher premiums could exceed any increase in take-home pay. Premiums for individual and employer-sponsored health plans are expected to rise again this year. An argument could be made that without the new tax rates, employees would have less money to pay for the higher premiums. More benefits from the law will be available during next year’s tax filing period. That’s when other provisions begin, like a higher standard deduction for filers. Our ruling Collins said "Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month." The first part of Collins’ claim is correct based on a compilation of companies from a tax cut advocacy group. PolitiFact used the same list when fact-checking Trump on a similar claim. The second part of Collins’ claim is less clear. The Treasury Department predicted 90 percent of workers would have lower federal taxes in February. We don’t know how many had higher take-home pay, Gleckman said. The statement is accurate but needed additional information. We rate it Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com What do you think? PolitiFact Republican guest columnist and former U.S. Rep. David Jolly said PolitiFact’s fact-checking of this statement "reveals the challenges confronted by disciplined fact-checkers to confine themselves only to a politician’s specific comment, and the challenges equally faced by readers of PolitiFact whose opinions may often be arrived at through a broader analysis of additional facts not addressed in a single fact-checking column. Whether Rep. Collins’ assertion represents the full policy implications of the new law or whether it intentionally avoids the additional complexities of its impact, the fact is his statement was accurate." Read his critique here. Read more about our guest columnists here.	None	Chris Collins	None	None	None	2018-03-09T11:26:00	2018-02-27	['United_States']
-chct-00111	FACT CHECK: 3 Claims From Trump's Minnesota Rally	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/21/fact-check-trump-minnesota-rally/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	9:37 AM 06/21/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02738	Greg Abbott defended more than $5 billion in public school funding cuts in fighting hundreds of school districts in court.	/texas/statements/2013/dec/18/wendy-davis/abbott-defended-school-funding-system-and-legislat/	When Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott visited a Dallas-area school district, the leading Democratic aspirant cried foul. "As Greg Abbott visits a Plano ISD school today it’s unlikely that he will apologize to students for defending school budget cuts and fighting against their school district in court," state Sen. Wendy Davis said in a Dec. 3, 2013, post on her campaign website. "Greg Abbott’s actions speak louder than his words. While I fought against over $5 billion in unconstitutional budget cuts to our public schools," Davis said, Abbott "wasted taxpayer funds to defend those cuts in court." Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, helped force a special legislative session in 2011 by filibustering, and temporarily delaying, a decision by the revenue-strapped Republican-majority Legislature to reduce education funding by more than $5 billion through 2012-13. And did Abbott, the state’s attorney general, defend the cuts in court? That’s been acknowledged. Abbott was quoted during his Dec. 3, 2013, Plano visit as telling the Dallas Morning News the reason he’s defending the cuts is because the Legislature passed them and it’s his job to defend them. "The attorney general in Texas takes an oath of office to defend the laws passed by the legislature," Abbott said, according to the News. "I’m fulfilling that duty." That news story came to our attention in an email from Davis’ campaign spokeswoman Rebecca Acuña, who responded to our request for the basis of Davis’ statement with a document listing web links to additional news stories as well as legal filings by Abbott’s office in defending the school funding system in the latest round of litigation likely headed to the Texas Supreme Court. In February 2013, a Travis County state district judge, John Dietz, ruled the system unconstitutional, though he later reacted to legislative actions restoring $3.4 billion in spending cuts and easing mandated high-school tests by scheduling fresh hearings for early 2014, the Austin American-Statesman reported in a news story posted online June 19, 2013. A vital issue in the original trial, the Statesman said in a news story posted online Oct. 20, 2012, was the charge by two-thirds of the state’s school districts accounting for three-quarters of Texas students that the state was failing to ensure that districts had adequate resources to bring students up to what lawmakers handed down in tougher academic expectations. Texas districts have litigated how the state funds the schools for decades. Each time, expert lawyers told us, the state attorney general has defended the existing law just as Abbott has in the latest legal battle, which is expected to resume in early 2014. That’s in keeping with the duties of the attorney general as specified in the Texas Constitution, which says the attorney general "shall represent the state in all suits and pleas in the Supreme Court of the state in which the state may be a party." Lawyers representing groups of districts in the latest lawsuits each said it would be unusual for an attorney general not to defend a state law and related legislative decisions. Buck Wood of Austin, who has long represented property-poor districts in school finance suits, said deputies to Abbott "vigorously defended" the law during the latest trial before Dietz. Austin lawyer Rick Gray, representing some 400 districts in the latest litigation, said he could not recall any attorney general backing down from defending the school finance system through the decades of court battles. David Thompson of Houston, who represents districts (including the Austin one) serving more than 1.8 million children, stressed that Abbott’s office has defended the constitutionality of the funding system and the legislated cuts, not necessarily speaking to whether the spending reductions were good policy. "The attorney general’s office is actively and I would say vigorously defending the state’s actions," Thompson said. "That would include specifically the cuts to funding as well as just the overall design and structure of the (funding) system." The lawyers each added that while it’s an attorney general’s duty to defend the state and actions taken on behalf of the state, he or she also has discretion to settle cases. Our search of news stories and Abbott-issued press releases yielded no sign of Abbott personally appearing in the courtroom during the latest school funding trial. At our request, Catherine Clark, an administrator for the Texas Association of School Boards, reviewed her notes from the trial. By telephone, Clark said she found no instances of state attorneys defending the 2011 cuts in education aid except to elicit testimony that the reductions were less dramatic than other state budget cuts that year. "I don’t see them standing up there and saying, gosh, we needed to" make those cuts, Clark said. "But they did admit there were cuts." We asked a spokeswoman for the attorney general, Lauren Bean, if Davis is correct that Abbott has defended the 2011 cuts in the school funding lawsuits. By email, Bean said yes, Abbott’s "office defended the law in court." In a follow-up email, she listed court rulings specifying the attorney general has an exclusive role in representing state agencies. Our ruling Davis said Abbott defended more than $5 billion in cuts in public school funding in fighting hundreds of school districts in court. That’s factually correct as far as it goes, but this claim is missing important details and context in that the state attorney general has a legal duty to represent the state in challenges reaching the Texas Supreme Court, which the latest school finance lawsuits are expected to do. It would be unusual for an attorney general not to defend a law and legislative actions in such a suit. We rate this partly accurate claim as Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Wendy Davis	None	None	None	2013-12-18T10:00:00	2013-12-03	['None']
-tron-01700	U.S. Government Developing Insect Spy Drones	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mosquito-drone/	None	government	None	None	None	U.S. Government Developing Insect Spy Drones	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00775	John Wayne conversion to Christianity through the daughter of Dr. Robert Schuller	https://www.truthorfiction.com/johnwayne-schuller/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	John Wayne conversion to Christianity through the daughter of Dr. Robert Schuller	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Christianity']
-hoer-00921	Warnings Claim ALL bit.ly Links Are Suspect and Should not be Clicked	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/inaccurate-warnings-claim-all-bit-ly-links-are-suspect-and-should-not-be-clicked/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Inaccurate Warnings Claim ALL bit.ly Links Are Suspect and Should not be Clicked	May 24, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00858	Gigi, Bella Hadid Upset Kendall Jenner “Hooking Up” With Brother Anwar?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gigi-bella-hadid-anwar-kendall-jenner-hooking-up-reaction/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gigi, Bella Hadid Upset Kendall Jenner “Hooking Up” With Brother Anwar?	8:48 pm, June 7, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04410	A woman was nearly kidnapped by human traffickers using a ring placed on her windshield as bait.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warning-kay-jewelers-free-ring-gift/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Warning: Kay Jewelers Free Ring Gift	20 July 2016	None	['None']
-tron-03406	The Judge Who Called April Fool’s Day the “Atheist’s Holiday”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/atheistholiday/	None	religious	None	None	None	The Judge Who Called April Fool’s Day the “Atheist’s Holiday”	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05995	Microsoft's Webings and Wingdings fonts include hidden anti-Semitic and 9/11-referential messages.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wingdings/	None	September 11th	None	David Mikkelson	None	Wingdings Font’s Secret Messages	23 September 2001	None	['None']
-pomt-00658	"Florida sends $135 billion and D.C. returns $150 billion."	/florida/statements/2015/may/14/debbie-mayfield/florida-takes-billions-more-washington-it-gives-re/	Florida House members left the 2015 legislative session early over health care funding, but they’ve kept on railing against Medicaid expansion while waiting to reconvene to discuss a state budget. Rep. Debbie Mayfield, R-Vero Beach, argued against taking federal money to expand Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for the very poor, saying it wasn’t Florida’s money to take. "FL is NOT a donor state. Get the facts on federal spending and Medicaid expansion in FL," she tweeted. The tweet included an infographic that read, "Florida sends $135 billion and D.C. returns $150 billion. It's not your hard-earned tax dollars! It's borrowed against your children’s future!" Other House Republicans shared the same infographic, including Speaker Steve Crisafulli, R-Merritt Island. We wondered where they were getting their numbers. Tax totals House communications director Michael Williams said the amount Florida sends comes from Internal Revenue Service gross tax collections in the state ($154 billion in 2014) minus average tax refunds, ending up at $135 billion. The amount Washington sent back came from USASpending.gov, a website that tracks federal contracts, loans, grants and public assistance. The site says the federal government spent $150 billion in Florida in fiscal year 2014. Subtract $135 billion from $150 billion, and that accounts for Florida getting $15 billion more than it puts in. But tax policy experts told us there are different ways to calculate the numbers, so it’s not as cut and dried as the House makes it out to be. Steve Ellis, vice president of watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the House’s methodology is generally sound, but he would suggest using actual tax refunds instead of average refunds. He said that would push Florida’s payout total even lower than $135 billion. On the spending side, National Priorities Project research director Lindsay Koshgarian points out that data from USASpending.gov does not give the most reliable picture available. Koshgarian said that among the site’s issues is that it does not include all grants or federal employees and operations in state spending totals. She suggested using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Census Bureau would yield a more accurate total. So federal tax totals paid out of Florida may be lower than what the House is saying, while federal spending could be even higher. But our experts said that comparison still doesn’t paint a good picture of the state’s nuances. For example, Social Security and Medicare costs are disproportionately high in Florida because of the retiree population, which already paid into the system, but likely in another state. Florida has the third-largest uninsured pool in the country, with a public assistance budget to match. Also, there’s a lot of that $150 billion in Washington cash that isn’t as controversial in the House as Medicaid spending, like money for infrastructure or federal contracts for businesses like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. "I doubt these folks are saying the state should not be taking federal highway money, just because they are taking in more than they spend," said Paul Van De Water, a senior fellow with the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Differences between states make it difficult to make direct comparisons, Koshgarian said. She cited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta to illustrate her point. "We all need one CDC, but we don't need one in every state, so the dollars have to go somewhere," she said. Koshgarian said that in 2013, the last year with complete Census data, Florida received the fourth-highest total of federal grants to state government with $23.5 billion (the bulk of which was Medicaid), but was 48th among states for federal grant dollars per resident -- only Nevada and Virginia ranked lower. Those numbers mostly reflect Florida’s status as one of the more populous states. Ellis added that there’s one other thing to keep in mind to put Mayfield’s point in context: The U.S. government is always in the red these days. "In my opinion, no state is a donor state when you consider that the budget deficit is nearly half a trillion dollars, so no one is paying their way," he said. Our ruling Mayfield said, "Florida sends $135 billion and D.C. returns $150 billion." Tax policy experts told us the House’s numbers were one way to look at it, but different data sources could yield different totals. They also said such a comparison really doesn’t illustrate the nuances of what federal money is used for in Florida or why. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Debbie Mayfield	None	None	None	2015-05-14T12:01:08	2015-05-04	['Washington,_D.C.']
-pomt-03801	"If you go back to 1999, Wayne LaPierre testified on behalf of the NRA that background checks were appropriate and should be done."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/26/michael-bloomberg/michael-bloomberg-nra-used-support-more-background/	In back-to-back appearances on Meet the Press, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre went another round in their duel over proposed gun legislation. Bloomberg is pushing for universal background checks on all firearm purchases. LaPierre opposes expanded background checks. Both are working hard to discredit the other. During Bloomberg’s segment, he told host David Gregory that once upon a time, LaPierre was in favor of the background checks he’s now fighting. "In fact, if you go back to 1999, Wayne LaPierre testified on behalf of the NRA that background checks were appropriate and should be done," Bloomberg said. We’re fact-checking statements by both Bloomberg and LaPierre from Meet the Press. Here, we’ll examine the New York mayor’s characterization of what LaPierre said back in 1999. ‘We think it’s reasonable’ On May 27, 1999, LaPierre testified before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime. The Columbine High School shooting, in which 12 high school students and one teacher were murdered, had happened a month earlier. To rebut what he saw as a demonization of the NRA and its members, LaPierre listed a number of actions and laws he said were good policy. First on that list: "We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," he said. "That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances." He also spoke in favor of preventing juvenile felons from ever owning guns, setting up instant background checks at gun shows and keeping schools gun-free. Other evidence New York magazine, in a January 2013 story, dug up the advertising campaign LaPierre mentioned in his testimony. Titled "Be reasonable," the NRA ads that ran in national newspapers said, "We think it's reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops. But what's unreasonable is how the proposed Lautenberg legislation ignores the 250,000 prohibited people, like felons, who've walked away from gun stores — instead of being prosecuted for a federal felony for trying to buy a gun." We contacted the NRA for this story but did not receive a response about Bloomberg’s claim. In January, NRA board member Sandy Froman told CNN, "The NRA has changed its position, and the reason it's changed its position is because the system doesn't work." LaPierre himself acknowledged this change in a January 2013 Senate hearing in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting. "I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors. … The fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it's working," he said. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., then said, "I understand, back in 1999, you said no loopholes anywhere for anyone. But now you do not support background checks for all buyers of firearms?" LaPierre responded: "I think the National Instant Check System, the way it's working now, is a failure. Because this administration is not prosecuting the people that they catch. Twenty-three states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated mentally incompetent into the system. Now, assume that if you don't prosecute, and they try to buy a gun, even if you catch them, and you let them walk away, to assume they're not going to get a gun -- they're criminals, they're homicidal maniacs, and they're mentally ill. I mean, we all know that homicidal maniacs, criminals and the insane ... don't abide by the law." The NRA’s website on March 12, 2013, posted its firm stance against expanding background checks: "The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system." Our ruling Bloomberg said that in 1999, "Wayne LaPierre testified on behalf of the NRA that background checks were appropriate and should be done." In congressional testimony following the Columbine High School shooting, LaPierre called it "reasonable" to conduct a background check "for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone." Subsequent statements by NRA officials acknowledge that the group’s position has since changed to opposition to more background checks. We rate Bloomberg’s statement True.	None	Michael Bloomberg	None	None	None	2013-03-26T13:49:45	2013-03-24	['None']
-pomt-04973	A proposed tax to fund transportation projects would spend $90,000 to take a single vehicle off the road during the morning and afternoon commute.	/georgia/statements/2012/jul/24/steve-brown/Transportation-tax-foes-number-crunching-flawed/	Opponents of a sales tax to fund transportation projects across metro Atlanta have no shortage of ways to say the plan is a waste of your money. They say you can’t trust the government to manage the billions of dollars that the 10-year, penny-per-dollar sales tax would raise. They say the tax plan, otherwise known as T-SPLOST, is bloated with projects that won’t ease the region’s notoriously bad traffic. This statement by Fayette County Commissioner Steve Brown was especially alarming: "If you take the cost of all of the T-SPLOST transit projects combined, the transportation referendum would spend $90,000 to take a single vehicle off the road during the a.m.-p.m. commute," Brown said during a July 12 forum hosted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Ninety thousand dollars? Heck, who needs the tax? Pay us PolitiFact Georgia scribes $90,000 each, and we’ll walk up the Connector to work. Brown and Bob Ross, a tax foe who was not on the panel, explained their estimate. First, they tallied the combined cost of all of the transit projects that the tax would fund: $3.16 billion. Next, they calculated how many cars these transit expansions would take off the road. The Atlanta Regional Commission, the region’s planning authority, projects that the additional transit capacity will increase boardings by 74,800 per day. Brown and Ross divided this number by two. Commuters need to board a bus or train at least twice a day: Once to get there, and once to get back. That’s 37,400 cars off the road -- a conservative estimate, Brown and Ross said. If a rider has to transfer trains or buses, the daily commute may take four or more boardings. The per-car cost is therefore $3.16 billion divided by 37,400 cars. That’s about $84,500, less than the $90,000 that Brown used in his claim. Still, pretty close. Brown and Ross also sent us calculations they say demonstrate that $90,000 is far too low. The true cost of taking one car off the road is $105,000, they said. (They used a similar method but added in certain maintenance costs.) Brown’s approach has flaws. Brown arguably cherry-picked favorable data to prove his point. Of the $3.16 billion the tax would spend on transit projects, only $2.4 billion would fund the expansions that would increase boardings by nearly 75,000 per day. Much of the rest is to maintain current service, such as commuter bus run by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, ARC spokeswoman Julie Ralston said. The ARC projects that service will go out of business without the tax, forcing riders to take to the roads. The money also funds system maintenance. Experts told us it's possible that If commuters think the trains are unsafe or break down too often, they might retreat to their cars. Brown thinks such an argument is absurd. Others pointed out that Brown’s calculation has worse problems. Tallying the costs and benefits of a transportation project is a complex process. There are many different approaches, but experts often take into account impacts on the economy, the environment, traffic flow, safety and even noise. We found Brown’s more simple approach may vastly overstate and understate the problem at the same time. One reason is that the transit infrastructure will last for generations. Brown’s calculation uses a single day of boardings. A more fair one would count the boardings over the next few decades. The Federal Transit Administration’s rule of thumb is that rail facilities last at least 50 years, according to data on its website, while trains last about 25 years. Factor in those future boardings, and the cost for transit to keep a car off the road could be lower than $5 or greater than $13 per day. That may be too high for voters to stomach, but it’s a far less alarming figure than $90,000. Even then, such a calculation ignores crucial factors that planners consider when they perform a cost-benefit analysis of transit, such as more commerce and less air pollution, said Robert Cervero, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of California, Berkeley. "Any numbers based on anything less than a full benefit and cost accounting is, in my view, mostly ideologically driven and propaganda," Cervero said. Another weakness of Brown’s claim is that over the long term, the transit expansion might not reduce congestion at all. Decades of research also shows that neither transit nor more highway lanes end gridlock, either, PolitiFact Georgia found in a previous story. Over time, drivers fill up the new lanes. Once again, they’re stuck in traffic. In sum: Brown based his calculation on a transit cost estimate that’s open to accusations of cherry-picking. Furthermore, even Brown and Ross think their own number falls short. The claim is so simplistic that it may overstate and understate the cost at the same time. Brown’s claim is wrong on various levels. It earns a False.	None	Steve Brown	None	None	None	2012-07-24T06:00:00	2012-07-12	['None']
-tron-01873	One Ring Call From a Foreign Country Warning	https://www.truthorfiction.com/one-ring-scam/	None	household	None	None	None	One Ring Call From a Foreign Country Warning	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03567	Trump Tweets Videos of Muslim Migrant Attacking Dutch Boy, Muslim Lynch Mob	https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-tweets-muslim-migrant-attacking-dutch-boy-crutches/	None	trump	None	None	['donald trump', 'immigrants', 'immigration', 'international', 'islam']	Trump Tweets Videos of Muslim Migrant Attacking Dutch Boy, Muslim Lynch Mob	Nov 29, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00819	"If you took every penny of the 1 percent, including their dog, you wouldn't even begin to balance the budget."	/new-hampshire/statements/2015/mar/27/lindsey-graham/lindsey-graham-says-taking-every-penny-wealthiest-/	For years, politicians have insisted on the importance of balancing the federal budget. Recurring budget deficits -- with hardly any intervening surpluses -- have created a national debt of $18.2 trillion, and federal spending continues to outpace tax receipts. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., recently came to New Hampshire to test the waters for a presidential bid, talking about the deficit at a Politics and Pies appearance in Concord. During a question-and-answer session, he said the country needed to simplify the tax code and reform entitlements. To put in perspective just how much money he was talking about, he said, "If you took every penny of the (richest) 1 percent, including their dog, you wouldn't even begin to balance the budget." Really? Politifact New Hampshire decided to check it out. We first checked with Graham’s Senate office. His spokesman, Kevin Bishop, sent along a piece from the Wall Street Journal opinion section that talks about the difficulty of balancing the budget solely by taxing the income of the country’s richest people. That may be true, but it’s also not the way Graham phrased it. Graham didn’t single out the income taxes of the richest 1 percent; he said "every penny of the 1 percent" (while throwing in their pets for good measure). There’s enough wiggle room in Graham’s statement to allow for three plausible ways to define "every penny" -- total wealth, total income and total taxes for the richest 1 percent. We’ll look at each. Wealth Figuring out how much wealth -- stocks, bonds, income, real estate, and the like -- is held by the nation’s richest 1 percent holds is somewhat tricky because some of those elements are hard to measure. But there have been several estimates. On the low end, the Boston Consulting Group puts the amount of privately held wealth in the United States at $39 trillion for 2012. The group’s figure is based on a proprietary formula and excludes real estate, businesses owned by investors and luxury goods. On the upper end, the U.S. Federal Reserve cited the net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofits at $69.5 trillion for 2012. That number includes the value of real estate and of nonprofit organizations, some of which are closely held by individuals. A middle ground can be found in data compiled for the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. Their definition of national wealth excludes nonprofits, and comes in at $55.2 trillion for 2012. These estimates all look at the entire nation’s holdings. What about the share owned by the richest 1 percent? In a paper, Saez and Zucman found that the top 1 percent own 41.8 percent of the country’s wealth. Estimates from other researchers showed a somewhat lower percentage -- 35.6 percent and 35.4 percent, depending on the year. Using their own data set, that means the richest 1 percent have holdings worth about $23 trillion. If you apply their 41.8 percentage to the other two estimates, the amount ranges from $16 trillion to $29 trillion. Each figure is easily enough to balance the U.S. budget, which ran a $483 billion deficit last year and which is projected to be $486 billion in the red this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Even adding up deficits for the next decade gives us $7.7 trillion -- a total easily covered by that $26.2 trillion that could (at least in this example) be confiscated from our nation’s richest residents. Another way to look at it: All federal spending in 2012 totaled $3.5 trillion. So the richest 1 percent’s wealth could also pay off the year’s entire budget -- six-and-a-half times over. In fact, even the lowest of the three wealth estimates would come close to wiping out the country’s current level of accumulated debt, which stands in excess of $18 trillion. Income Even if you use the income of the 1 percent, it’s still a number far greater than you would need to balance the budget. The data collected by Saez and Zucman show a national income of $14 trillion for 2012. The Federal Reserve reports the same number for the same year. On the low end, the IRS reported $9 trillion in adjusted gross income for 2012. The richest 1 percent’s share of the income for 2012, according to the Paris School of Economics’ interactive database, is 22.8 percent (including capital gains). That means taking the entirety of the group’s income that year would net us somewhere between $2 trillion and $3.2 trillion. In other words, if you use total income of the 1 percent, you don’t even have to raid Fido’s food bowl to do what Graham suggests. Taxes And what of the actual tax burden of the 1 percent? According to estimates from the independent Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, the richest 1 percent paid 27 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012. They had an average income of $1.8 million apiece that year and paid an average of $489,437 in taxes. That works out, roughly, to some $563 billion in taxes collected from the richest in 2012. A tidy sum, to be sure, but it has already been applied to offset our government’s costs. One would have to double the taxes collected from the group to cover current deficits. This is the one scenario in which Graham has a point. Our ruling Graham said, "If you took every penny of the (richest) 1 percent, including their dog, you wouldn't even begin to balance the budget." Graham has a point if you take it the way his staff suggests he meant to say it. But the talking point (which, to be clear, no one is suggesting as a real policy) came out more broadly. If you use either total wealth or total income -- interpretations we think are at least as plausible given his "every penny" remarks -- Graham is off base. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Lindsey Graham	None	None	None	2015-03-27T17:56:10	2015-03-08	['None']
-pomt-01135	"My wife is going to be the first Hispanic first lady in the history of Texas."	/texas/statements/2014/dec/22/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-my-wife-going-be-first-hispanic-first-/	In a limelight interview, the governor-elect of Texas responded to a question about beefing up security near the Texas-Mexico border by bringing up his wife. When Abbott appeared on the Dec. 7, 2014, broadcast of NBC’s "Meet the Press" to discuss immigration and border security, host Chuck Todd played a January 2005 video clip of President George W. Bush, the former Texas governor, saying "family values do not stop at the Rio Grande… People are coming to our country to do jobs that Americans won’t do to be able to feed their families. And I think there’s a humane way to recognize that, at the same time protect our borders," Bush said, "and at the same way to make sure we don’t disadvantage those who have stood in line for years to become a legal citizen." Todd asked: "Do you agree with that statement?" Abbott replied: "In a way I understand this even more powerfully because my wife is going to be the first Hispanic first lady in the history of Texas. And Texas has had a long tradition of uniting the Hispanic culture with Texas values." Abbott, the state attorney general, talked up his wife making history for months on the campaign trail in 2014, perhaps to good effect. In July 2014, PolitiFact Texas found the state’s population was 38.4 percent Hispanic, the second biggest demographic after whites, who make up 40 percent. Notably too, the flags that have flown over Texas include the banners of Spain and Mexico. And has there previously not been a Hispanic first lady of Texas? Not since statehood, it appears. But we started our look into Abbott's claim by looking into the next first lady’s roots. The next First Lady Abbott aides didn’t respond to our inquiries into how Abbott decided his wife was breaking ground. We looked for clues on Ancestry.com, the online genealogy database, which led us to information credited to the 1940 United States Federal Census indicating Cecilia Phalen Abbott, the governor-elect’s wife, is the granddaughter of Mexican immigrants--Leonara and Augustine Segura--who settled in San Antonio before 1935. We shortly confirmed the validity of those census records on a federal website that included a chart showing Maria de la Luz Segura, Cecilia Abbott’s mother, was born in 1935 in San Antonio, where she lived with her parents, grandparents and siblings. We also uncovered census data for Cecilia Abbott’s father, William Joseph Phalen--born in Michigan in 1933 to parents from Ohio and New York and then raised in Houston. According to Ancestry.com, Phalen is an Irish family name, most common in the state of New York. Next, we turned to how best to define an Hispanic first lady. What’s Hispanic? By phone, Erika Arredondo-Haskins of the Hispanic Heritage Center of Texas in San Antonio, told us the word "Hispanic" describes anyone who can trace ancestry to Spanish culture, including through the Spanish colonies in the Americas that once stretched from California to the southern tip of South America. Also, Haskins suggested, Texas history predates statehood and its earlier status as as a free-standing republic to when the region was ruled by Mexico and, before that, Spain and there were numerous Hispanic first ladies. She singled out Maria Perez Cassiano, wife of the governor of the Spanish province Coahuila and Texas from 1814 to 1823. Cassiano was born in San Antonio in 1790, descended from Spanish immigrants who arrived in San Antonio in 1731, and was known for performing the governor’s duties in his absence, Haskins said. Haskins’ comments reminded us of a complicating detail: Texas fell under various successive governments since Europeans arrived in the 1500s--it’s been a province of New Spain, a Mexican province, a republic, a U.S. state and a Confederate state. According to Texas A&M University’s "Sons of DeWitt Colony Texas," a Texas history research group, there were 29 governors of Texas from 1691 to 1821. Among first ladies in that period, Augustina Cantú was the wife of Alonso de Leon, the first governor of Texas who established the state’s modern eastern border at the Sabine River, according to the Handbook of Texas, a project of the Texas State Historical Association. Also, the handbook says, Ignacia Xaviera was the wife of Marques de San Miguel de Aguayo, Texas governor from 1719-1722, who drove the French from East Texas. First Ladies since Texas won independence from Mexico More Hispanic women were first ladies in the period following the Texas Revolution, when immigrants from the United States broke away from Mexico. Laurie Jasinski, research editor at The Handbook of Texas, said by phone she reviewed a list of first ladies since the Republic of Texas’s independence from Mexico in 1836 and did not find mention of anyone with Hispanic roots. She also recommended we visit the Legislative Reference Library at the Texas Capitol for a full answer. At the library, we reviewed the book First Ladies of Texas, which includes biographies of Texas first ladies, born between 1836 and 1936, of the Republic of Texas, the state of Texas, and the Confederate state of Texas. (Texas became a state in 1845.) None of the 37 first ladies listed in the book had roots in former Spanish colonies. Most came from southeastern states of the United States (interestingly, less than half were born in Texas). Four recent first ladies dwelt in the governor’s mansion after the book’s publication in 1976--Rita Crocker Clements, Linda Gale White, Laura Welch Bush and Anita Thigpen Perry. Online biographical sketches for each first lady, published by Texas A&M University, Texas Woman’s University, The White House and the website of Gov. Rick Perry, respectively, revealed no Hispanic roots among them. Drawing from our research, we’ve listed Texas first ladies here. Our ruling Greg Abbott said his wife would be "the first Hispanic first lady in the history of Texas." Cecilia Abbott, with Hispanic roots through her mother and grandmother, will be the first Hispanic first lady since statehood, which we take Abbott to be saying. Other Hispanic women were first ladies only before Texas was a state. We rate this claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2014-12-22T06:00:00	2014-12-07	['Texas']
-pomt-02779	"We pay among the highest tolls in the nation for the privilege of crossing that bridge."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/dec/08/loretta-weinberg/loretta-weinberg-says-george-washington-bridge-tol/	Commuters who use the George Washington Bridge have followed with interest the recent political dustup about the closing of several access lanes in Fort Lee for a few days in September. Sen. Loretta Weinberg, among others, has questioned whether the closures were political retribution against Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor for failing to endorse Republican Gov. Chris Christie for re-election last month. In a Nov. 14 radio interview on the John Gambling program on WOR 710 AM, she let fly a statement on how much the bridge costs to use. "We pay among the highest tolls in the nation for the privilege of crossing that bridge," Weinberg (D-Bergen), the Senate’s majority leader, told Gambling as they discussed the closure controversy, which has since led to the Assembly subpoenaing Port Authority executives to testify about the matter. Weinberg is correct, dollars-wise. Before we get to bridge toll costs, let’s note that bridges in the New York and New Jersey region are run by either the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, or the Metropolitan Transit Authority. It’s worth noting that for every bridge we mention, we’re using the peak toll cost for a standard two-axle vehicle. The most expensive bridge in the region is the MTA-run Verrazano-Narrows, which connects Brooklyn and Staten Island. A $15 toll is collected only on the side going from Brooklyn to Staten Island. The most expensive bridges after the Verrazano-Narrows are the George Washington, Goethals and Bayonne bridges, and the Outerbridge Crossing. The $13 toll for each bridge is collected on one side. The George Washington Bridge connects upper Manhattan with Fort Lee. Now let’s look at toll costs for some other major bridges in the nation. The 17-mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, which connects the Virginia Beach and Norfolk areas with Virginia’s Eastern Shore, is $13 and also collected in one direction. That toll will rise to $15 on Jan. 1. California’s Golden Gate Bridge, which connects San Francisco to the state’s northern counties, is $6. And the Mackinac Bridge, connecting Michigan’s upper and lower peninsulas, is $4. So Weinberg is correct that the George Washington Bridge has among the highest tolls in the nation. But some experts told us there’s more to the toll cost for that bridge and others in this region than perhaps in other parts of the country. Dr. Robert Paaswell, distinguished professor of Civil Engineering for the City College of New York, agreed that the George Washington Bridge toll is likely among the higher-cost tolls, but said it’s critical to note why. Paaswell explained that the bridge is important to the regional economy because of the truck and freight traffic that brings goods and services to the area from other parts of the country. The toll cost also helps maintain the structure, he said. And Martin Robins, director emeritus of the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University, said toll costs in the New York/New Jersey region pay for far more than the bridges operated by both the Port Authority and MTA. He said Weinberg’s claim is "probably true." "The Port Authority not only supports (those toll bridges) but the PATH system and the Port Authority bus system," Robins said. "It wraps them up all in one package and supports that system. The MTA is similar. They support the New York City subway and bus system." Rod Diridon, executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, Calif., also noted tolls in this region of the country are higher "primarily because of the vitality of industry and the consequential cost of living." "In the heartland, our industries, our businesses have not been so robust as on the coasts," Diridon added. "As a consequence, the cost of everyting is less in the central part of the nation. The cost of tolls is less and the cost of construction is less as well." Our ruling Weinberg said recently about the George Washington Bridge, "We pay among the highest tolls in the nation for the privilege of crossing that bridge." The highest bridge toll in the region belongs to the MTA-operated Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, at $15, but the George Washington span and three others are close behind, at $13. Major toll bridges elsewhere in the country aren’t even close, save for the 17-mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, whose $13 toll will jump to $15 on Jan. 1. Experts we spoke with cite varying factors for why the George Washington Bridge’s toll costs what it does, but the bottom line is that Weinberg’s assessment about where the cost ranks nationwide is accurate. We rate her claim True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Loretta Weinberg	None	None	None	2013-12-08T07:30:00	2013-11-14	['None']
-pomt-00843	"The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year" in grant money.	/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/23/peter-barca/does-average-uw-madison-faculty-member-bring-close/	A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. "For UW-Madison it’s a major issue," Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015 Wisconsin Eye interview. "It’s penny wise and pound foolish there." Barca added: "The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and they’re leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford." Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. "Let’s remember that the cut that’s happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didn’t hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end." We’ll test Vos’ claim soon. For now, let’s examine Barca’s statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to a page on the UW-Madison website that answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-’17 budget -- at least from the UW System’s perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: "Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin." So there’s Barca’s "close to a quarter million" figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in the university’s "Data Digest". The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So there’s a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the university’s ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, that’s the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the "Data Digest," told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. There’s another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There are other factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, "The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year." He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but there’s one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barca’s statement Mostly True.	None	Peter Barca	None	None	None	2015-03-23T05:00:00	2015-03-12	['University_of_Wisconsin–Madison']
-snes-02739	The FDA has updated its warnings for — and recommended limitations on — prescribing a class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones, citing potentially irreversible side-effects including tendon damage and rupture.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fluoroquinolone-antibiotics-tendon-damage/	None	Medical	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Could Cipro and Other Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics Cause Irreversible Tendon Damage?	22 March 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05024	The Colorado Rockies will be selling pot brownies at Coors Field concession stands .	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rockies-selling-pot-brownies-at-coors-field/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Colorado Rockies Baseball Team to Sell Marijuana Brownies at Their Concession Stands?	23 March 2016	None	['Coors_Field', 'Colorado_Rockies']
-pomt-13349	Even our attorney general who is a strong Democrat, she has said that we need causation in our workers’ comp system. That’s the No. 1 thing pushing our manufacturing jobs out of Illinois.	/illinois/statements/2016/oct/03/bruce-rauner/bruce-rauner-pits-father-against-daughter-illinois/	For more than a year, Illinois has been gripped by political gridlock that’s left it operating with no state budget and on pace to finish 2016 in the worst financial condition in state history. Fueling the standoff is a dispute between Gov. Bruce Rauner -- a Republican serving his first term in any elected office -- and House Speaker Michael Madigan -- a Democrat and the state’s most powerful and longest-serving politician -- over how to revive the state’s economy. One of the biggest points of contention is Rauner’s complaint that the state’s workers’ compensation insurance rates are among the highest in the nation and are chasing manufacturing jobs out of Illinois. Indeed, the latest numbers from the Illinois Department of Employment Security show the state lost 11,800 manufacturing jobs from August 2015 to August 2016. In addition to being Rauner’s political nemesis, Madigan also is the father of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan. That’s why one statement Rauner made during a press conference on Sept. 19 struck us as noteworthy: "Even our attorney general who is a strong Democrat, she has said that we need causation in our workers’ comp system. That’s the No. 1 thing pushing our manufacturing jobs out of Illinois," Rauner said. Is Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is a Democrat and also the daughter of Rauner’s arch political rival, on the Republican governor’s side on this issue? We decided to check. ‘Causation’ clash Rauner believes the current system for compensating workers who are injured on the job is too lenient, and gives businesses no way to defend themselves against claims of workplace injuries that may be only minimally work-related or not at all. Under Illinois law, if the workplace is involved in any way with an injury, even indirectly, the employer -- usually through its insurance -- bears responsibility for the workers’ compensation claim. Rauner wants Illinois to adopt a law in which the workplace must be at least 50 percent responsible for the injury for the employee to qualify for a workers’ compensation claim. In legal terms, he wants to increase the standard of "causation." Speaker Madigan has said, repeatedly, that Rauner’s system would "send injured workers to welfare and the emergency room." The evidence The basis for Rauner’s claim is a 2012 opinion from the Attorney General’s Office with the catchy title, "Background on Workers’ Compensation Claims Filed by State Employees and Reforms Proposed by the Office of the Attorney General." The administration did not respond to three requests for verification that Rauner based his statement on this document. This opinion has been cited for years by advocates of a stricter standard. Issued in March 2012, the 23-page document provides an exhaustive look at problems in the workers’ compensation system from the perspective of the attorney general -- who acts as the defense attorney for the state when state employees file on-the-job injury claims. "In defending against workers’ compensation claims, the State is in a position similar to private employers," the opinion says in its introduction. The document is chock full of incidents in which employees are awarded workers’ compensation benefits after suffering injuries in ridiculous circumstances. (One example: A Circuit City employee "was injured when he threw himself up against a vending machine in an attempt to dislodge a bag of Fritos.") The opinion came out at a time when a bill in the General Assembly proposed a reform similar to what Rauner calls for in his turnaround plan. "To protect taxpayer dollars, the legislature must address and change the causation standard that is currently applied by the (Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission) and the courts," the opinion states. "Senate Bill 2521 addresses the causation standard and provides an opportunity to discuss the appropriate language to make this needed change." That’s not an out-and-out endorsement of every detail within the bill in question (which died quietly in committee without ever being voted upon), but it certainly encourages lawmakers to take up the issue. Then and now But that was in early 2012, when Illinois was in another political epoch. Rauner was an unknown to most Illinoisans, and Democrats were in their 10th year of controlling both the governor’s office and both chambers of the General Assembly. Rauner’s 2014 election hit the political landscape like a tsunami, and partisan tension never has been higher than it is now. Does Lisa Madigan still believe "we need causation in our workers’ comp system," as Rauner claims? "We do support changing the standard and strengthening it, but we have not laid out a new standard," said Ann Spillane, Lisa Madigan’s chief of staff. "From our perspective, there ought to be reasonable ways to change the standard that would not damage the purpose of workers’ compensation to ensure that employees who are injured on the job can fully recover." So far, though, there’s been no discussion between Rauner and the General Assembly about "reasonable ways." Our ruling Rauner said, "Even our attorney general who is a strong Democrat, she has said that we need causation in our workers’ comp system." In 2012, Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office went on record in considerable detail about the problems caused by Illinois’ lenient burden of proof for workers claiming workplace injury. The attorney general didn’t explicitly endorse the causation standard contained in a bill before the General Assembly at that time, but said the bill "provides an opportunity to discuss the appropriate language to make this needed change." Today, even as this issue has become a focal point in Rauner’s deadlock with Speaker Madigan, Attorney General Madigan’s office maintains that the state should find "reasonable ways" to protect the rights of injured workers and employers. We rate Rauner’s statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4d40d9ba-0159-4404-a764-69d792bbe061	None	Bruce Rauner	None	None	None	2016-10-03T15:43:28	2016-09-19	['Illinois', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-03249	Carrie Fisher contributed script revisions during the filming of "The Empire Strikes Back"	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carrie-fisher-rewrites-empire-strikes-back/	None	Entertainment	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Carrie Fisher Do Her Own Rewrites for ‘The Empire Strikes Back’?	28 December 2016	None	['Carrie_Fisher']
-pomt-10505	"I am a candidate. I have not withdrawn."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/26/mike-gravel/hes-in-the-race/	Former U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel, 77, returned from oblivion to a momentary spot on the national stage when he announced March 26, 2008, that he had joined the Libertarian Party. But the central question of his candidacy — is it one? — remained. Earlier that month he put a video on YouTube complaining that the site's YouChoose page no longer featured him. "Apparently I've been relegated to a footnote at YouTube," Gravel says in the video. "I'm one of three candidates in the presidential race, Obama, Hillary and myself. I am a candidate. I have not withdrawn." PolitiFact set out to confirm Gravel's status. We started by checking to see if Gravel was on the ballot in any of the upcoming Democratic nominating contests. Some state officials had no idea who we were asking about. "Could you spell that?" asked Bowen Greenwood, communications director for the secretary of state of Montana (primary, June 3). Greenwood went to check and came back with: "The elections folks tell me they've never heard of him. I confess, I've never heard of him either." West Virginia (May 13) had not heard from him. Neither had South Dakota (June 3). Puerto Rico (June 1) was finalizing its candidate list, but didn't expect Gravel to be on it. And in Guam (May 3), Tony Charfauros, chairman of the Democratic Party, said: "Are you talking about Mike Gravel who used to be a candidate for president?" Gravel told us he's on the ballot in North Carolina (May 6) and Oregon (May 20). Turns out he is confirmed for the North Carolina primary, but not Oregon. Scott Moore, chief of communications for the Oregon secretary of state, told us they would have been happy to put Gravel on the ballot, but his campaign never filed the paperwork. He's also not on the ballot in Pennsylvania (April 22), Indiana (May 6) or Kentucky (May 20). Adding it all up, Gravel is on the ballot in just one of the 10 remaining contests. We also determined that Gravel has zero delegates, virtually no fundraising and a campaign staff that amounts to "the better part of about a half dozen people," according to deputy campaign manager Jon Kraus. So, is Gravel still a candidate? He is. Just not for the Democrats. Gravel said he "has pretty much had it" with the Democrats and thinks they have cut their ties to him. Yet he's intent on being on the November ballot one way or another. In fact, he hopes to seal the deal in Denver. But not at the Democratic convention. At the Libertarian convention — May 22-26, 2008. "Right now he's actively pursuing the Libertarian nomination," Kraus said. Despite the fact that no one will believe us, we find Gravel is actively pursuing a presidential nomination in 2008, albeit with the Libertarians since he has exhausted his chances as a Democrat. So his statement, while possibly delusional, is totally True.	None	Mike Gravel	None	None	None	2008-03-26T00:00:00	2008-03-13	['None']
-snes-02945	Adolf Hitler said that the only way that the Nazi party could have been stopped was if it were destroyed in its infancy.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/	None	Quotes	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Adolf Hitler Say the Nazism Could Have Been Stopped by ‘Smashing the Nucleus’ of the Movement?	13 February 2017	None	['Adolf_Hitler', 'Nazism']
-abbc-00082	The claim: Denis Napthine says 450 million people around the world watch the Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/how-many-people-watch-the-australian-formula-one-grand-prix/5326138	The claim: Denis Napthine says 450 million people around the world watch the Formula One Grand Prix in Melbourne.	['liberals', 'states-and-territories', 'formula-1', 'television-broadcasting', 'government-and-politics', 'australia', 'melbourne-3000', 'vic']	None	None	['liberals', 'states-and-territories', 'formula-1', 'television-broadcasting', 'government-and-politics', 'australia', 'melbourne-3000', 'vic']	How many people in the world watch the Australian Formula One Grand Prix?	Tue 18 Mar 2014, 6:37am	None	['Melbourne']
-obry-00039	While campaigning against Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, Katie McGinty, a Democrat , accused her Republican opponent of acting on a conflict of interest while serving on Senate banking committee. Toomey won reelection by less than a two-percent margin. McGinty claimed that Toomey used his position on the committee to oppose consumer protection measures while owning over half a million dollars in stock in a bank that was engaged in controversial foreclosure methods. When asked by reporters with the Philadelphia Inquirer, McGinty could not point to any direct evidence supporting her claim. “He opposed consumer protections to prevent predatory practices. Now we know why,” McGinty said in a phone call with the Philadelphia Inquirer. McGinty is implying that Toomey, who repeatedly voted against legislation to increase consumer protection from predatory bank practices, did so because of his personal stake in a bank engaging in practices considered controversial. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/11/18/democratic-challenger-accuses-incumbent-toomey-of-conflict-of-interest/	None	None	None	Evan Winter and Peter Culver	None	Democratic challenger accuses incumbent Toomey of conflict of interest	November 18, 2016	None	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'The_Philadelphia_Inquirer', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Pat_Toomey', 'Pennsylvania']
-pomt-02386	Says Ronald Reagan "got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil."	/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/13/michael-reagan/ronald-reagans-son-says-his-father-got-saudis-pump/	The Cold War is back. Or at least, some version of it has returned, with Russian troops on the move across the Crimean Peninsula with the oddsmakers predicting it will once again be Russian territory. For critics of President Barack Obama, this is a prime opportunity to demonstrate how poorly he stacks up compared with the man who did all he could to topple the Soviet Union, President Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, offered this advice for Obama on the Townhall.com website: "I suggest that President Obama might want to study how Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union. "He did it without firing a shot, as we know, but he had a super weapon -- oil. "Oil was the only thing the Soviets had in the 1980s that anyone in the rest of the world wanted to buy, besides ICBMs and H-bombs, and they weren't for sale. "Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin's wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil. "Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire." It seems like a reasonable narrative, but as we’ll see in this fact-check, the record isn’t quite as robust as Reagan fils might like. We made several efforts to reach Reagan for official records that would back up his claim, and we did not hear back. The basic oil market numbers We can see what happened with oil markets during Reagan's time in office by looking at volume -- how much was pumped out of the ground -- and price. The U.S. Energy Information Administration provides the production numbers, and what we see partly backs up Reagan’s point and partly does not. Total Oil Supply (Thousand Barrels Per Day) For the first five years of Reagan’s administration, Saudi production fell steeply. Then in 1986 it popped up, followed by a dip the next year, and ending with another rise. The Energy Information Administration also provides pricing data and it too both supports and undercuts Reagan’s statement. Prices fall in 1986, then recover in 1987 followed by a decline in 1988. Prices remained below what they had been in 1985. Spot price: Cushing OK WTI By several estimates, the drop in prices cost the USSR $20 billion a year. If the plan was to hurt the Soviet Union, it succeeded. What is unclear is whether the Saudis ramped up production at Reagan’s request. We look at what the record shows on that front. The evidence in support of Reagan intervention Paul Kengor is a Reagan biographer who believes the Gipper has not received the credit he is due for waging economic warfare against the USSR. Kengor told PunditFact that Michael Reagan is correct when he says his father was behind the Saudi’s decision. "They did this strictly to help us hurt the Soviets and as payback for us helping them in the past," Kengor said. "It was a big risk for them." Kengor pointed us to the book Victory: The Reagan administration’s secret strategy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union, by Peter Schweizer. In that book, Schweizer describes a 1981 meeting between CIA director William Casey and his Saudi counterpart. At that meeting, Casey shared CIA reports on Soviet oil production. "By raising the issues of oil prices and the U.S.-Saudi Arabia security relationship in the same conversation," Casey was in effect saying the two were related," Schweizer wrote. Schweizer cites an unnamed U.S. official for this information. A former National Security Council official referred to Casey’s contacts with Saudi Arabia during a recent panel discussion but in less detail than in Schweizer’s book. But move forward to 1985, when the Saudis actually made their production hike, and Schweizer wrote, "What factor lay most heavily on the mind of the Saudis when they made this decision is anybody’s guess." We asked Kengor for the best documentation they could find to support the claim of Reagan’s direct intervention. We have yet to receive that. However, there is an ample public record on the factors within OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, that shaped the Saudi Arabian production strategy. Plus, the Reagan administration made efforts to push prices back up. We turn now to the information that tends to undermine Reagan’s assertion. The evidence against James Williams is an Arkansas-based consulting economist in the oil and gas industry who worked with producers in West Texas in the 1980s. Williams told us that in the first half of the decade, OPEC had an agreement to keep prices high through a system of production quotas. Members promised to limit the number of barrels they would pump. With less supply, prices would be higher. "The Saudi Arabians were dropping production faster than the rest of OPEC," Williams said. "They bore a disproportionate share of the effort to prop up prices." The problem was, not every member followed the rules. There are many references in the public record of Saudi resentment. Economist Darwin Hall at the California State University at Long Beach described it in a 1992 article in Energy Policy. "At the OPEC meetings in Geneva during the period from 1982 to 1985, Sheikh Yamani, the oil minister of Saudi Arabia at the time, repeatedly threatened to expand output unless Iraq and Iran stopped cheating on their agreed quotas," Hall wrote. (Iran and Iraq were at war and needed foreign currency to finance their militaries.) While OPEC wielded considerable clout on world energy markets, internally, it had no way to enforce the terms among its signatories. Philip Verlager, an energy consultant, said Saudi Arabia had more oil capacity than anyone and so had more power. "From 1981 to the end of 1985, Saudi Arabia took on the swing producer role in OPEC," Verleger told PunditFact. "Then in 1986, they threw in the towel and prices collapsed." In six months, the spot price for oil was cut in half. Verleger said Michael Reagan "is wrong." He and many other writers say the Saudis boosted production to send a message to other OPEC members. Another bit of information from Saudi Arabia also undercuts the Reagan claim. Dick Combs, a foreign service officer and author of Inside the Soviet Alternate Universe, noted that Saudi King Fahd was not a strong supporter of the shift in 1986. He fired his oil minister and cut back "domestic oil production to enhance Saudi revenues." If the Reagan doctrine was to keep prices as low as possible, U.S. actions weren’t always consistent with that goal. As prices fell, the U.S. oil industry collapsed. "In April 1986, Reagan sent (Vice President George H.W.) Bush to Saudi Arabia to get the Saudis to cut production to bring prices up," Verlager said. According to newspapers at the time, Bush told King Fahd that the United States saw the hit on the domestic oil market as "a threat to national security." Our ruling Michael Reagan said his father got Saudi Arabia to flood the market with oil in order to drive down prices and undermine the Soviet economy. The numbers on production and pricing show that Saudi production rose, then fell, and then rose again. In the middle of 1987, prices were close to what they had been at the beginning of 1986, although they fell again and never went as high as they had been in 1985. The pattern of production and prices do not fit neatly with Reagan’s statement. We have no public documents to confirm that Reagan asked the Saudis to use oil as an economic weapon against the USSR. On the other hand, we have an extensive public record that Saudi Arabia was fighting with its OPEC partners and had warned them for years that it would raise production to make them pay a price for cheating on their quotas. We also see that Saudi Arabia charted its own course in setting oil prices and the consensus view among oil experts is OPEC, not Reagan, shaped their production decisions. Finally, we have Bush calling on the Saudis to help send prices back up. This is exactly counter to the Reagan strategy in the statement. There might be an element of truth in the claim, but the public record strongly points the other way. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Michael Reagan	None	None	None	2014-03-13T18:39:04	2014-03-06	['Saudi_Arabia', 'Ronald_Reagan']
-pomt-12871	"My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/30/donald-trump/why-comparing-trumps-and-obamas-immigration-restri/	After a weekend of nationwide demonstrations in protest of immigration restrictions on entry from seven nations, President Donald Trump blamed the media for misreporting his controversial executive order and said it was an extension of former President Barack Obama’s policies. "My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror," Trump wrote in a Jan. 29 statement. "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting." To refresh, Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 barring citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan and Libya from entering the United States for 90 days. It also puts Syrian refugee admissions on hold indefinitely. (We go over some of the key issues in this explainer.) In 2011, Obama’s state department stopped processing Iraqi refugee requests for six months, though it didn’t disclose the policy like Trump did, ABC reported in 2013. So, are the policies similar as Trump claimed? In the most superficial of ways, yes. They both limit immigration into the United States on a temporary basis. But there are two significant differences that Trump omits. In 2011, there was a specific threat First, Obama’s suspension was in direct response to a failed plot by Iraqi nationals living in Bowling Green, Ky., to send money, explosives and weapons to al-Qaida. The two men were arrested by the FBI in May 2011 for actions committed in Iraq and trying to assist overseas terrorist groups. Both had entered the United States as refugees after lying about their past terrorism ties on paperwork. One man worked as a bombmaker in Iraq, and the FBI even matched his fingerprints to an unexploded IED discovered in 2005 in Iraq, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process. Trump’s ban, meanwhile, is more preemptive. As PolitiFact reported, no refugee or immigrant from any of the seven countries targeted by the ban has been implicated in any fatal terrorist attack in the United States, though perpetrators of at least three non-deadly cases were connected to Iran or Somalia. Obama’s order was narrower in scope Second, the scope of the two policies is slightly different. Obama’s 2011 order put a pause on refugee processing, whereas Trump’s halt in entries applies to all non-U.S. visitors. It should also be noted that Iraqi refugees were still admitted to the United States every month in 2011, though there was a significant drop after May of that year. Here’s a chart with data from the state department: See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com According to the New York Times, the Obama administration also required new background checks for visa applicants from Iraq after the Bowling Green incident. Lawmakers at a 2012 congressional hearing also indicated that the Department of Homeland Security expanded screening to the Iraqi refugees already settled in the United States. But again, these are different from a blanket ban on visitors. Obama, speaking through a spokesperson, disagreed with the comparison in a statement. There are other precedents for temporary halts in immigration. A 2016 Congressional Research Service report notes that refugee admissions were also briefly suspended after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack to review the security procedures, leading to an overhaul of the system. A special subset of refugee admissions for reuniting families was suspended in 2008 in certain locations in Africa after higher rates of fraud. So like Obama’s 2011 suspension, both the post-9/11 and African cases were in reaction to immediate issues and limited to refugees. Trump’s order is broader, and his administration has provided no evidence it is in response to any particular event. The seven countries on Trump’s list While not necessarily part of this fact-check, Trump’s suggestion that he selected the seven countries as a continuation of Obama’s policy is imprecise. According to the executive order, Trump’s action applies to "countries designated pursuant to Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated Appropriations Act." That refers to a 2015 act, signed into law by Obama, revising the United States’ visa waiver program. The visa waiver program allows citizens from 38 countries to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days. Under the legislation, citizens of those 38 countries who had traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan after March 2011 were no longer eligible for the visa waiver. Libya, Yemen, and Somalia were later added to the list. In other words, Obama’s actions dealt with people who had visited Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, not citizens of those countries, and it did not prohibit them from entering the United States. Our ruling Trump said, "My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months." The Obama administration in 2011 delayed processing Iraqi refugees for six months following evidence of a failed plot by two Iraqi refugees. Trump’s executive order temporarily bars travel to the United States for all citizens from seven countries, and it is not in direct response to actions from citizens of those countries. Furthermore, Iraqi refugees were nonetheless admitted to the United States during the 2011 suspension while Trump has put an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees. We rate Trump’s claim Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-01-30T17:24:22	2017-01-29	['Iraq', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-14311	"Florida is investing record amounts of funding for HIV/AIDS prevention."	/florida/statements/2016/mar/31/rick-scott/gov-rick-scott-makes-misleading-claim-about-record/	Asked to explain a discrepancy in the state's number of new HIV cases, Florida Gov. Rick Scott only crowed about how much is being spent on prevention programs. Florida had the dubious distinction of leading the nation in new HIV cases a few months ago, even as the country’s overall trend was declining. Then the Department of Health’s division of disease control revised the numbers, which is a routine practice to get rid of duplicate entries and so forth. But the Tampa Bay Times found that the adjusted total showed only a slight increase in the number of new cases reported since Scott took office in 2011, putting Florida behind California and Texas. The revisions erased one in four cases in 2014, an unprecedented drop that led experts to question the extent of the changes. When the Times asked Scott’s office why the figures were revised so drastically, spokesman John Tupps said only that Scott is "proud that Florida is investing record amounts of funding for HIV/AIDS prevention." For this fact-check, we are putting Scott to the Truth-O-Meter, and not his spokesman, because this has become a talking point of his administration. Scott made a similar claim in a news release after he signed the 2016-17 budget, saying that "last year, Florida invested a record $34 million in HIV/AIDS prevention." Leaving alone the health department’s self-editing for a moment, could it be that the state has spent a record amount combatting HIV/AIDS? Well, the state health department did get more funding for prevention programs in 2015 than ever before. But almost all of that money came from the federal government, not Florida. Federal aid for AIDS prevention Scott is pretty uneven in his distaste for using federal taxpayer money. He has refused $2.4 billion to build a high-speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando and opposed Medicaid expansion under Obamacare because he thought it was too expensive for the state. Meanwhile, he has pleaded for federal disaster declarations and sued Washington for not renewing the Low Income Pool, a temporary pot of federal money used mostly to pay for indigent hospital patients. That brings us to his boast of record prevention program spending. His office directed us to the health department, which cited the same amount. The word choice is interesting, because "investing" makes it sound like the state of Florida is spending tens of millions of its own dollars to address a public health crisis. That $34 million, however, is all from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not state coffers. The money is part of an awards process that gives cash to state health departments and some cities that apply for help with curbing HIV/AIDS cases. The CDC awards are for programs like HIV testing, services for HIV-positive patients and their partners, condom distribution and more. It’s not unusual for Florida to be getting money from the federal government for this purpose. The CDC provides most of this funding because the agency is in charge of monitoring and fighting infectious diseases, according to Emily McCloskey, senior manager for policy and legislative affairs at the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. The CDC is the primary source of money to deal with HIV and AIDS, but also other STDs and conditions like hepatitis, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis and obesity. Technically, the pot of money at issue is split between prevention programs and testing. Other awards for different programs not included in the total can be obtained in different ways, including directly through county health departments and community based organizations. But as you can see, the amount Scott is touting has indeed gone up: Year Amount awarded by CDC 2011 $19.4 million 2012 $28.3 million 2013 $30.6 million 2014 $33 million 2015 $34 million 2016 $34.8 million Sources: CDC, Florida Department of Health, National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors Florida does add some of its own money to assist with these services. Health department spokeswoman Mara Gambineri told us that an additional $1.4 million in state funding for 2015 was meant "for a prevention program that includes a public awareness campaign, to operate the HIV hotline and for four targeted outreach coordinators." When Scott signed the 2016-17 budget just passed by the Legislature, he noted the state contribution for HIV/AIDS services was upped to $1.65 million — out of a total state budget of $82 billion. Of course, a higher total from the CDC isn’t necessarily because the state showed more commitment to HIV/AIDS prevention. As one of the most populous states, it received more CDC funding than any other state except New York and California in 2015. Florida also has a pronounced problem with HIV infections, as the controversy with the state health department’s revisions shows. McCloskey said the CDC overhauled how it awarded grants for the 2012 fiscal year. That accounted not only for the big jump between 2011 and 2012, but affected subsequent years as well. (This particular grant process is due to be revised for 2017.) "CDC reviewed their funding allocations and formulas and redid the formulas to allocate more funding to states with the largest impact," she said. "That is why Florida has received more funding." The cash Scott is talking about is awarded based on need, taking into account infection rates and patient population, among other factors. The state does have to apply, but the CDC calculates how much Florida gets. In short, the state has been getting (and spending) more money from the federal government because Florida has needed the help. Our ruling Scott said, "Florida is investing record amounts of funding for HIV/AIDS prevention." There is more money than ever being provided for HIV/AIDS prevention programs, but it’s not because the state has been focused on appropriating millions. The funding to which he is referring is almost entirely coming from the CDC. The state kicks in a little cash, but it’s less than 5 percent of what the federal government supplies. Scott also neglects to mention that the primary reason the amount has increased is because HIV infection rates have gone up in Florida. There’s a grain of truth in the soundbite, but Scott ignores context and obscures facts that would lead to a very different impression about an important public health issue. We rate his statement Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2016-03-31T14:57:43	2016-03-26	['HIV/AIDS']
-pomt-00161	Democrats pledged to "force all North Carolinians into a single-payer health insurance scheme" that would cost $72 billion.	/north-carolina/statements/2018/oct/23/north-carolina-republican-party/nc-gop-falsely-ties-dozens-democrats-single-payer-/	No matter where you live in North Carolina, you’re likely to receive a political mailer about health care. Democratic candidates in North Carolina say the GOP-controlled state legislature hasn’t done enough to improve health care. They say Republicans should at the very least expand Medicaid, which experts have said could help cover up to 500,000 people in the state. Republicans’ main defense is that expanding Medicaid is too expensive and that Democrats want to go several steps further than that. An ad campaign by the state Republican Party says Democrats have a "radical" health care agenda that will "destroy our economy, kill our jobs, take more of your hard-earned dollars in taxes, and infringe on your personal freedoms." The NC GOP attack on Democrats, which includes digital ads and mailers in districts across the state, is summarized on RadicalDemAgenda.com. The party has purchased internet domain names of Democratic candidates — such as JulieVonHaefen.com — to reach voters. Republican candidates are using the same messaging in ads they pay for. The GOP claim is two-pronged. First, that "55 liberal members and candidates of the North Carolina Democratic House Caucus signed a pledge to enact an extreme, far-left healthcare agenda." Second, that "part of their health care agenda is to force all North Carolinians into a single-payer health insurance scheme. The non-partisan North Carolina General Assembly Fiscal Research staff calculated it would cost North Carolina $72 billion and force all residents to give up their current health care plan." Did Democrats "pledge" to "force" North Carolinians into a single-payer health system that would cost $72 billion? Let’s break it down. Single-payer health care The term "single-payer" refers to a health insurance system in which the federal government, rather than private insurers, pays all medical expenses. The NC GOP’s claim about a single-payer plan refers to a bill, HB 916, introduced last year that would have studied the cost of creating a single-payer health system. Bill sponsors included House Democrats Cecil Brockman, Verla Insko, Larry Bell, Jean Farmer-Butterfield, Susan Fisher, Charles Graham, Pricey Harrison, Yvonne Holley, Garland Pierce and Bobbie Richardson. It was ignored until this June, when Republican leaders moved it into a committee. Rep. David Lewis, a Republican from Harnett County, then asked the nonpartisan fiscal research staff to calculate the cost of a single-payer health care system in North Carolina. That’s when Insko moved to kill it, saying any analysis of the bill should’ve been completed by the end of last year. It’s also when Richardson took her name off the bill because she didn’t want to be a part of the GOP’s "political game," according to her campaign manager, Taylor Grady-Daly. The cost of a single-payer plan would likely exceed $72 billion per year, according to legislative staff. About $30.1 billion could be paid for with federal dollars, but North Carolina would be responsible for $41.89 billion — nearly double the current general fund budget, The N&O reported. The two-page bill merely directs the legislature to study a single-payer system that its sponsors would like to implement, but the bill doesn’t implement that system on its own. PolitiFact asked the fiscal research staff whether such a system would "force" North Carolinians into a single-payer plan. "The Plan described in the bill does not seem to kick anyone off their current insurance, but it also says ‘all residents shall be covered so I would expect most people would voluntarily drop their existing coverage rather than pay for double coverage," said David Vanderweide, a fiscal researcher for the N.C. legislature. While the bill was introduced by nine Democrats, a single-payer health care plan isn’t in the N.C. Democratic Party platform, spokesman Robert Howard noted. Neither is the pledge Republicans reference, Howard added. A pledge: ‘Universal, affordable health care’ The GOP ad refers to a platform pushed by Future Now, a left-leaning advocacy group. The group has seven main goals, which are listed at FutureNow.org and AmericasGoals.org. One of the goals is "affordable, quality healthcare." As part of this goal, the group wants to see "universal, affordable health coverage with a cap on out-of-pocket expenses." The group thinks reaching this goal could ultimately end hunger and boost life expectancy rates to 84 years. The GOP ad mentions 55 people who signed the pledge to work toward the Future Now goals. The true number is even higher, according to Future Now spokeswoman Alyssa Cass. More than 65 House members are listed on the Future Now website. As for the pledge, there’s an important distinction to be made between single-payer health care and universal health care, said Daniel Squadron, Future Now executive director. One refers to who’s paying for the coverage, while the other refers to how many people are covered. It’s not fair to equate Future Now’s goals with a bill exploring single-payer health care, Squadron said. Future Now supports expanding Medicaid in North Carolina but hasn’t endorsed any specific legislation, Squadron said, adding that the GOP is distorting the truth about his group to scare North Carolinians out of voting for Democrats. "I would’ve thought that the idea of people across the country having access to health care wouldn’t be controversial," he said. "Apparently for the GOP attacking it, that’s not a valuable goal worth working towards, so that’s surprising and disturbing." Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the NC GOP, pushed back at the notion that Future Now doesn’t or wouldn’t support a single-payer health care system. Future Now’s founder, Jeffrey Sachs, wrote an op-ed for CNN advocating for a "Medicare for All" system along the lines of what Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed — a single payer plan. "The economics of Medicare for All championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders are actually quite straightforward," Sachs wrote. "Under what advocates call ‘M4A,’ health care coverage would expand while total spending on health care — by companies, individuals and the government — would decline because of lower costs. More would be paid through the government and less through private insurers." Woodhouse noted that Squadron, for his part, praised a single-payer health care proposal when he was a state senator in New York and chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Group. Those statements by Sachs and Squadron, Woodhouse said in an email, show that Democrats "have signed a pledge to enact universal health care coverage, which by the founders’ own stated opinion would be a single-payer system. All North Carolinians would be forced through massive tax increases to pay into Insko’s radical single-payer proposal." While Woodhouse argues the terms "single-payer," "Medicare for all" and "universal health care" all mean the same thing, each term can have a different meaning. The Vox.com news site noted that public support varies for each term. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found a majority of respondents have favorable views of "Medicare for all" and "universal health care." The term "single-payer," which appears most often in the GOP ads, got far less support. Our ruling The N.C. GOP says part of the Democrats’ agenda is to "force all North Carolinians into a single-payer health insurance scheme" that would cost $72 billion. As for implementing a single-payer healthcare system, the GOP is right about the potential cost. But they’re misleading voters about what the bill would do, who supported it and what the Future Now pledge represents. The bill directed a study — not implementation of a single-payer health system. It was sponsored by 10 Democrats and hasn’t been pushed by the party as a whole. The Future Now pledge, meanwhile, doesn’t specifically endorse a single-payer health care system. We rate this claim False. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters’ Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	North Carolina Republican Party	None	None	None	2018-10-23T14:46:11	2018-10-23	['North_Carolina', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-14645	Says Cresent Hardy agreed with Mitt Romney "about the 47 percent" and said that "people with disabilities are, and I quote him, ‘a drain on society.’ "	/nevada/statements/2016/jan/25/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-partially-accurate-campaiging-agai/	For a first-term congressman, U.S. Rep. Cresent Hardy seems to constantly be in hot water. Part of the reason is that as a Republican representative of a district that leans Democratic, Hardy holds a seat considered likely to flip in 2016, with a competitive four-person Democratic primary currently underway. The other reason? Hardy, a former state Assemblyman, has gained a reputation for stumbling when speaking off the cuff. Several of Hardy’s comments resurfaced during former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s stump speech during a Democratic event in Las Vegas on Jan. 6. Here’s what Clinton said in full: "You even have a Republican Congressman, Mr. Hardy, who says that Mitt Romney was right about the 47 percent and that people with disabilities are, and I quote him, 'a drain on society.' " Because challengers to Hardy and now Clinton have repeatedly slammed him for this, we thought it was worth revisiting his comments. Let’s break this claim into two parts -- the "47 percent" claim and the disabilities claim. Clinton’s claims connecting Hardy with 2012 Republican front runner Mitt Romney’s infamous "47 percent" comments are largely accurate. Hardy made the comments during a September 2014 campaign meet-and-greet with voters at a private golf club in rural Mesquite. Video from the event shows Hardy responding to a question about the comparable sizes of the federal and private sectors by referring back to Romney’s "47 percent" remarks. "Can I say that without getting in trouble like Gov. Romney?" Hardy said. "The 47 percent is true. It’s bigger now." Hardy at the time refused to back down from the statement, saying "Nevada has a long history of politicians willing to speak their mind, and if these comments lead Nevada voters to throw out everyone who has ever made a gaffe, I will proudly mark my calendar for Harry Reid’s retirement." So it’s accurate to say that Hardy and Romney match up on the "47 percent" comment. But Clinton’s claim becomes much more convoluted over Hardy’s comments on people with disabilities. A Democratic campaign tracker recorded audio of Hardy making the comments in question on May 30, 2015, during a Libertarian Party event at the Tropicana Las Vegas hotel casino. The video quality is rather poor, and coupled with Hardy’s tendency to trip over words, it’s difficult to clearly understand. Here’s our transcription: "I had three children: One was summa cum laude and two were magnum cum laude, and the other didn’t need an education, he works for Raytheon and is smarter than all the rest because he works hard. He builds things that are genius, and some people have that ability and I’m grateful [inaudible] I don’t know where that came from. But they all work hard. They’re raising their own families. They’re doing their own thing. They will not be a drain on society, the best they can. Hopefully they never have some disability that causes them to have to utilize that." Clearly, nobody is going to mistake Hardy for Shakespeare. And it does seem that Hardy is insinuating having a disability might cause them to be a "drain on society,’ but his wording is unclear enough to pin down what he exactly means. But Clinton’s line makes it appear that Hardy is directly saying that people with disabilities are a drain on society, which certainly isn’t the case as he never directly states that. Hardy’s campaign consultant told PolitiFact in an email that the Congressman is a strident supporter of people with disabilities, and scolded Clinton for taking the remarks out of context. "The fact that anyone, let alone a candidate for the highest office in the land, would suggest that someone else was actually against the disabled -- just to get some cheap applause from a partisan crowd -- is sickening and sad," campaign consultant Ryan Erwin said in an email. Clinton’s campaign in Nevada declined to comment further than referring to Hardy’s full remarks. Hardy, both before and after the event, has a history of supporting programs for people with disabilities. His office funded a pool day for children with autism in August, after the comments were published, and his campaign released several letters to PolitiFact supportive of Hardy. Hardy has also been a longtime supporter of the Las Vegas-based Opportunity Village, a nonprofit groups dedicated to helping people with developmental disabilities find job training and work. The group’s former CEO, Ed Guthrie, said Hardy has attended events and helped facilitate contracts between the nonprofit and businesses in his district. "He’s always been supportive," Guthrie said. "We have no issue with the congressman. If he was misunderstood or if something was taken out of context or if he misspoke, the overwhelming body of evidence as a congressman and Assembly member shows he really does support people with intellectual disabilities and organizations like Opportunity Village." Clinton is spot on in linking Hardy and Romney on the 47 percent comments, yet she’s off in criticizing him over supposed comments on people with disabilities. Because there are so many issues with the second part of Clinton’s claim, we rate this claim Half True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-01-25T13:57:23	2016-01-06	['None']
-vees-00112	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: No media coverage on July 31 poll fraud hearing	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-no-media-coverage-july-31-poll-fraud-h	None	None	None	None	fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: No media coverage on July 31 poll fraud hearing FAKE NEWS	August 02, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02520	Environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio Used Seaplane To Party Hop Around Maldives?	https://www.gossipcop.com/leonardo-dicaprio-sea-plane-party-maldives-environment/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio Used Seaplane To Party Hop Around Maldives?	6:10 pm, August 30, 2017	None	['None']
-faan-00042	 “The atmosphere doesn’t care where emissions get emitted.”	http://factscan.ca/justin-trudeau-the-atmosphere-doesnt-care/	It’s true. The atmosphere is pretty indifferent about the location of emissions. Almost identical amounts of carbon measured in different, remote parts of the world confirm this. 	None	Justin Trudeau	None	None	None	2015-12-08	mber 30, 2015	['None']
-tron-02205	Cooking with Aluminum Foil Causes Alzheimer’s Disease	https://www.truthorfiction.com/aluminum-foil-causes-alzheimers/	None	medical	None	None	['medical', 'science', 'warnings']	Cooking with Aluminum Foil Causes Alzheimer’s Disease	Feb 22, 2017	None	['None']
-pose-00674	"I will instruct the director of the EDC to develop a small and medium size business service plan within 30 days."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/704/direct-economic-development-corporation-to-develop/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Direct Economic Development Corporation to develop plans for small and medium size businesses	2011-02-08T20:36:44	None	['None']
-snes-04647	Donald Trump retweeted a purported photograph of black supporters of his campaign, even though the depicted people aren't Trump fans.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-retweets-photo-of-black-supporters/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Trump Retweets Fake Photograph of Black Supporters	6 June 2016	None	['Donald_Trump']
-snes-00048	Did John Elway Fire Denver Broncos Players for Kneeling During the National Anthem?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-elway-fires-kneeling-players/	None	Junk News	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did John Elway Fire Denver Broncos Players for Kneeling During the National Anthem?	24 September 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07874	"I lowered taxes over the last two years."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-he-lowered-taxes-over-past-two-y/	In an interview on Super Bowl Sunday, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly asked President Barack Obama to react to a Wall Street Journal editorial that accused Obama of being "a determined man of the left whose goal is to redistribute much larger levels of income across society." "Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth?" O'Reilly asked. Obama first noted the robust conservatism of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, then denied the charge "absolutely." "I didn't raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years," Obama said. We wanted to fact-check that statement, and we'll begin by saying Obama boils down an awful lot of complexity about federal tax policy into a short sound bite. Looking at the whole statement, he's both right and wrong. For clarity's sake, we're going to take Obama's statement in two parts. Here, we'll look at his statement, "I lowered taxes over the last two years." In a separate report, we checked the statement, "I didn't raise taxes once" and rated it False. Obama has raised taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning, and the health care law includes a tax penalty on the uninsured. The health care law also includes new taxes on the wealthy, increasing the rates they pay on Medicare hospital taxes starting in 2013. For this one, we'll begin by noting that Obama has not raised income tax rates. Obama and Senate Republicans compromised on tax legislation at the end of 2010, leaving in place the same income tax rates for all tax brackets. (The extensions were necessary because the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush would otherwise have increased last month.) It's also true that Obama has successfully supported tax reductions for workers who make less than $200,000 a year or couples who make less than $250,000. Obama kicked off his tax cuts for workers with the economic stimulus, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He asked for tax cuts of $500 per worker per year; Congress agreed to $400. The tax cuts -- called Making Work Pay -- were implemented in early 2009 and people saw small increases in their paychecks. The Obama administration liked giving people the money in their paychecks every week or two -- as opposed to mailing one big check -- because administration economists thought people would be more likely to spend the money and stimulate the economy. But the increases were small enough that a lot of people didn't notice them. A New York Times/CBS News Poll in September showed that fewer than one in 10 people knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for American workers. Those tax cuts expired at the end of 2010. But as part of last fall's tax compromise with Republicans, Obama won a different type of tax cut for workers: a 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes that go to Social Security. Keep in mind that normally workers pay 6.2 percent in payroll taxes on up to $106,800 of their earnings. (Employers pay another 6.2 percent, while the self-employed are generally on the hook for the full 12.4 percent.) The new tax cut means workers will pay only 4.2 percent of their earnings. So that lowered taxes for workers. Generally speaking, people who make more than $20,000 will get an even bigger tax cut than they did under Making Work Pay. (Workers who makes less than $20,000 will likely be worse off, but they'll still be paying lower taxes than in 2008.) The tax compromise was a complicated piece of legislation, and not everybody ended up better off. Nevertheless, about 80 percent of tax payers end up with a tax cut under the deal, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. And the broad-based tax cuts on income are significantly larger than the new excise taxes, said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center. So yes, a majority of Americans have seen reduced taxes under President Obama. But he's also taken steps to increase a few taxes like cigarettes and tanning over the past two years. Overall, we find his statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-02-07T16:38:47	2011-02-06	['None']
-tron-02638	Large Oil Deposits Found In Montana	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bakken/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Large Oil Deposits Found In Montana	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01818	On immigration reform	/virginia/statements/2014/jul/21/ed-gillespie/ed-gillespies-immigration-reform-position-remains-/	Republican Ed Gillespie was gung-ho about comprehensive immigration reform in June 2013 -- just days before the U.S. Senate passed the so-called "Gang of Eight" bill that would bolster border security and provide a pathway to citizenship for 12 million people who entered the country illegally. "I don’t think that the Gang of Eight bill is a perfect bill, no one does," Gillespie said during an interview with Larry Kudlow on CNBC. "But it is the right approach, and it can be perfected. This amendment on the border surge will help to do that. But at the end of the day, it’s good policy and it is good politics." Now, let’s fast-forward to this year as Gillespie revs up his campaign to unseat Democrat Mark Warner in the U.S. Senate. The Republican-led House has refused to take up the immigration bill and Gillespie says that’s fine with him. "It’s unlikely that it’s going to occur during an election year and, frankly, I don’t think it should at this point," he said in April. Paul Logan, a spokesman for Gillespie, went a step further in a June 13 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. He said Gillespie opposes the bill and opposes citizenship for illegal immigrants. Warner’s campaign sent us the statements with a suggestion that his opponent’s position on comprehensive immigration reform has changed. That thought has been echoed by Bloomberg.com, which has written that Gillespie is taking "a different stand" on immigration this year. Logan says Gillespie’s stance has remained constant. So we decided to roll out the Flip-O-Meter and take a look. Gillespie in 2006 Immigration reform has long been impeded by a central debate: Many conservatives say the U.S. should focus on border control and enforcement of deportation laws; many liberals say policies should include a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who otherwise have exemplary records obeying U.S. laws. Gillespie for years has endorsed a compromise. Records shown that since at least 2006, he’s called for strong border control combined with a path toward legal U.S. residency -- not citizenship -- for immigrants who have obeyed laws since entering the country and are self-sufficient. Gillespie, in a 2006 op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, wrote that those who came to the U.S. illegally "should not be rewarded with citizenship," but added that "a rational immigration policy that allows workers to enter and exit this country for temporary employment will make us more secure." He wrote that an expanded visa program would ease the workload of law enforcement officials, expand tax rolls and provide needed workers in agriculture and technology. Gillespie, who had recently stepped down as chairman of the Republican National Committee, said a GOP compromise on immigration would be politically wise. "The Republican Party cannot become an anti-immigration party," he wrote. "Our majority rests too heavily on white voters, given that current demographic voting percentages will not allow us to hold our majority in the future." Gillespie in 2013 Now, let’s analyze what Gillespie told CNBC’s Kudlow in 2013 about the Gang of Eight bill, which Warner supported. The legislation -- sponsored by four Democratic and four Republican senators -- would give $3 billion to the Department of Homeland Security to improve border protection through drones, more fencing and additional customs agents. DHS would be required to achieve complete surveillance of the southwest border with Mexico and apprehend 90 percent of the people trying to cross illegally through major entry areas. Once those goals and a few others were met, most illegal immigrants would be eligible to start a 13-year path to citizenship. They could immediately seek "Registered Provisional Immigrant Status" that would allow them to legally stay in the country. After 10 years, they could seek a Green Card and, three years later, be eligible to apply for citizenship. The path would be shorter for people brought here illegally as children, known as "Dreamers." Gillespie was complimentary of an amendment in the bill that prioritized border control. He spoke again of the need for comprehensive immigration reform on policy and on political grounds. But Gillespie never endorsed the citizenship provisions in the bill. Kudlow did not bring up the subject, and Gillespie did not offer an opinion about it. While Gillespie said the bill was "the right approach," he also offered hope "it can be perfected" without specifying how. So Gillespie did not contradict the position he laid out in greater detail years earlier. Gillespie 2014 Finally, let’s consider what Gillespie is saying this year. "I do not support amnesty, and oppose granting citizenship to them, which would be unfair to those who have come here legally and played by the rules," he wrote on his website. "And I don’t believe we should give one of the greatest privileges in the world—American citizenship—to those who are here by virtue of having broken our laws. "At the same time, I do not believe that our nation will implement the mass deportation of 10-12 million people, so we need to come to terms with those who are here illegally now. It would be in the interest of both American citizens and those here illegally to be able to come forward and, after a series of processes (i.e., criminal background checks, payment of back taxes, assimilation, demonstration of self sufficiency), be issued new visas to be here legally." Although Gillespie’s position remains steady, his enthusiasm for passing the Gang of Eight bill appears to have diminished. Last year, he said the legislation was "good policy" that should be "perfected" and approved. This year, Gillespie says though a spokesman that he would not have voted for the bill and thinks Congress should delay consideration of immigration reform until after the mid-term elections. Our ruling Gillespie has remained steady in his longtime principles for immigration reform. They’re stated on his campaign website: increased border security and a creation of a system that would allow most illegal immigrants to obtain legal residency -- but not citizenship. There’s been a shift in Gillespie’s rhetoric on the sweeping Gang of Eight bill that’s become the lightning rod for immigration debate. Last year, he described the bill as "good policy" that should be amended and passed. This year, he says he would have voted against the legislation and that consideration of comprehensive reform should be delayed until after the elections. But the changed language doesn’t equate to a changed position. It’s not surprising that Gillespie says he would have voted against the Gang of Eight bill. The legislation, when it came up for vote on the Senate floor, hadn’t been amended. It contained a pathway to citizenship that Gillespie has consistently opposed. We rate this No Flip.	None	Ed Gillespie	None	None	None	2014-07-21T08:59:29	2014-06-13	['None']
-pomt-09629	"Most of the people that work in finance make $70,000, $80,000 a year."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/07/michael-bloomberg/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-claims-most-people-finance-ear/	In a time of public anger over salaries and bonuses on Wall Street, it is a rare public figure who stands up for the financial sector. But New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- who, not coincidentally, is the founder of a financial news service -- did just that on Meet the Press on Jan. 3, 2010. Discussing what's happened on Wall Street since the sector's near-collapse in 2008, Bloomberg said, "You know, we have -- everybody is bashing Wall Street. (But Wall Street) is one of the big revenue generators for New York and New York City. That's how we pay our teachers, that's how we pay our cops, that's how we pay our firefighters. And I've always thought, if the elected officials in Michigan bashed the automobile industry, or in California, (information technology), or in Texas, oil, they'd be run out of town on a rail. And yet, every day I pick up the paper and everybody, it's kind of hard to find anybody that's not saying -- well, look, there are some excesses. But overall, most of the people that work in finance make $70,000, $80,000 a year. They're hardworking, and we want those industries to be here and not overseas." The part that caught our eye was that "people that work in finance make $70,000, $80,000 a year." Many of us have the impression from the media that people who work on Wall Street earn much more than that. So we talked to experts and looked at the data. The mayor's office referred us to the New York City Economic Development Corp., whose head is appointed by the mayor. A spokesman said that office came up with that figure by using the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey data. We consulted with the Census Bureau on retracing their steps and found that Bloomberg's comment on Meet the Press was indeed accurate. The American Community Survey data -- which can be broken down by city, employer sector and employee earnings -- showed that for the "finance and insurance" sector in New York City, the median earnings in 2008 were $78,451. That figure includes both salary and bonuses -- an important factor in Wall Street compensation, where bonuses often dwarf base salary. A key factor to note is that this is a median number -- that is, the number exactly halfway between the highest earnings and the lowest -- and not an average. In many contexts, calculating the median can be more reliable than calculating the average (or mean), because the median is less likely to be swayed by a small number of very high or very low examples. In this case, using the median rather than the average for the sector minimizes the importance of the very highest paid executives on Wall Street, whose salaries are big enough to skew the entire results. Indeed, if you calculate the average earnings for the sector, rather than the median, the numbers look quite different. Using a separate data set from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which tracks earnings for industries and localities on a quarterly basis, reveals that the average annual earnings for workers in New York City's "financial activities" sector was more than $331,000. (This amount, as large as it sounds, was actually extrapolated from data reflecting the first quarter of 2009, which was Wall Street's low point; it reflects a decline of 35 percent from a year earlier.) In other contexts, the New York City Economic Development Corp. isn't averse to citing the average rather than the median. On its Web site, the office offers a pair of charts that detail average annual wages by sector and borough, based on federal statistics. One chart shows the average wages for 2007 in the the finance-and-insurance sector at $286,158 citywide and $315,481 in Manhattan. Another chart reports an average for the "financial services" sector citywide at $288,213 for 2007. A spokesman for the corporation said it was valid for the office to cite median figures in one context and average figures in another, asserting that the mayor was correct when he said that "most of the people that work in finance make $70,000, $80,000 a year." "When the question is, 'What do most people who work in finance make,' the most appropriate data is the median, which literally represents the 50th percentile in the distribution," said the spokesman, David Lombino. "An average would make no sense here. If you ate zero eggs, and I ate two eggs, the average is one egg -- but that is not what 'most' people ate." The other key question is whether the data sets the mayor used are justified or misleading. The census data (as well as BLS data) count anyone who works for a financial firm, regardless of what their job is. A receptionist, an IT staffer, a janitor -- as long as they're employed in-house by a financial services firm, they get mixed in with the high-rollers that author Tom Wolfe called the Masters of the Universe. The receptionists and janitors tend to decrease both the median and average earnings figures for the industry. We had trouble finding specific compensation data for professionals on Wall Street. The Options Group, which publishes an influential compensation survey on the financial services sector, declined to provide data to us. But included in the publicly available pages posted on the firm's Web site is data showing that average salaries for a first-year associate -- a very junior position -- at "global investment banks" in 2009 was $80,000 to $90,000 -- which exceeds Bloomberg's figure right off the bat. Yet those same associates, according to the survey, also get bonuses on top of their base pay that average $65,000 to $75,000. Information on more senior positions was blacked out, but it's safe to assume the numbers go up from there. A lot of professionals on Wall Street "make three-quarters of their pay in annual bonuses," said Michael S. Melbinger, an employee-benefits and executive compensation lawyer with the firm Winston & Strawn. Where professionals are concerned, "I would say [Bloomberg's] figure is the bottom, not the average, even for a boutique firm." But Lombino sees no problem in Bloomberg including the entire spectrum of financial services employees in his statistic. Indeed, that was part of the point that the mayor was trying to make -- that Wall Street supports the livelihoods of ordinary people as well as the super-rich. "It is likely that (janitors and receptionists) enjoy other benefits associated with working for a large financial institution, just like traditional traders and bankers," he said. "It would seem remiss to include them in any other category, and they have to fall in somewhere. If the mayor had said 'bankers,' or 'traders' -- those are occupations within the finance industry and [they would have produced] a different and higher figure. But he specifically said 'people who work in finance,' and that is the whole industry." Bloomberg's artful wording -- "Most of the people that work in finance make $70,000, $80,000 a year" -- was broad enough to include lower-paid employees. And because of that, it is backed up by a credible federal statistic. But we believe a reasonable person hearing his comment would think he was saying that professionals such as bond traders and brokers earn $70,000 to $80,000 per year. So while he may be technically accurate, we find his statement misleading. It's also worth noting that other statistics more fully reflect that Wall Street professionals, even the most junior ones, earn much higher incomes than the amounts that Bloomberg cited. That's enough in our book to lower his statement to a Half True.	None	Michael Bloomberg	None	None	None	2010-01-07T18:53:45	2010-01-03	['None']
-pomt-02239	In Rhode Island, "Nearly 9 percent of covered employees go out on short term disability every year, with an average outage from work of almost 12 weeks each."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/apr/15/kenneth-block/ken-block-says-9-percent-ri-workers-go-short-term-/	Ken Block, Republican candidate for governor, is taking aim at Rhode Island’s temporary disability insurance program, saying it’s poorly run and too expensive. As an example, Block cites what he says is a high percentage of workers who go on disability. "Nearly 9 percent of covered employees go out on short term disability every year, with an average outage from work of almost 12 weeks each," he says on his campaign website. "These are very high utilization rates, and would either indicate that Rhode Island has a very sick workforce or that the program has some systemic problems [that] need to be addressed." Whether the system is well-run or not is a matter of opinion. But we decided to see if his statement about how many workers go out on disability is accurate. We looked at some of this back in July, when we checked a claim by state Rep. Patricia Morgan that used Block’s numbers to compare Rhode Island and New Jersey’s TDI usage rates. Block’s campaign said his source for the 9-percent figure is the 2011 annual report of the state Department of Labor and Training, which administers the temporary disability program. According to the department’s website, Rhode Island’s TDI system was the first in the nation. It collects taxes, 1.2 percent on the first $61,400 a worker earns, and uses that money to pay benefits to others who miss at least seven consecutive days of work because of a medical condition, certified by a doctor. TDI benefits aren’t taxable. The DLT’s annual report lists the number of eligible claims filed with the program each year, the net amount paid and the number of employees in the state who were supporting the program by paying TDI taxes. Block took the total number of 2011 eligible claims, 35,836, and divided it by the number of workers paying TDI taxes, 393,000, which produces a result of 9.1 percent. When we checked with the DLT, spokeswoman Nikki Armstrong said the number of claims represents how many requests for payment the program received. But that doesn’t tell you how many people filed for TDI benefits, because individual employees sometimes make more than one claim in a year. The figure that does is the new claims number, which tells how many people made a first claim on the system in that year. In 2011, that number was 30,953, which was 7.9 percent of the 393,000 people paying into the system, not the "nearly 9 percent" Block cited. According to the agency’s 2011 report, the average length of a claim was 11.2 weeks, Block’s "almost 12 weeks" claim. But there are more recent numbers than those Block cited. For 2013, slight increases in the number of people paying into the system and slight decreases in the number of new claims dropped that year’s new claims percentage to 7.4 percent, according to the Department of Labor and Training. The average duration of a claim in 2013 went up to 12.2 weeks. Block said his claim was a good-faith calculation based on the best-publicly available data that the Department of Labor and Training had released. The agency’s online report made no distinction between number of claims and number of claimants, he said. "When we use data to do policy research, we use the data that is made available directly by the appropriate state agency," he said. The first-claim number wasn’t in the posted report, he said. Our ruling Ken Block said nearly 9 percent of eligible employees go out on temporary disability each year, for an average of 12 weeks. He fell short on the first part of the claim, which he based on 2011 numbers. As we reported in our item last July, 7.9 percent of covered employees went out on disability in 2011. In 2013, it was 7.4 percent. He was closer on the second part of his claim. In both 2011 and 2013, the average duration of a claim was close to 12 weeks. Because the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, we rate it Half True.	None	Kenneth Block	None	None	None	2014-04-15T00:01:00	2014-04-14	['Rhode_Island']
-snes-02784	Will Netflix be Discontinued Because of Rampant Account Sharing?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/netflix-to-be-discontinued/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Will Netflix be Discontinued Because of Rampant Account Sharing?	14 March 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04239	79-year-old Wendy Robinson of Los Angeles came to the rescue of two LAPD officers with her AK-47 assault rifle when they were attacked by gang members.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/grandmother-with-ak-47-saves-cops/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Grandmother with AK-47 Saves Cops Being Attacked by Street Gang	15 August 2016	None	['Los_Angeles', 'Los_Angeles_Police_Department', 'AK-47']
-pomt-13983	Says Ron Johnson voted to turn Medicare "into a voucher program."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/jun/10/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/sen-ron-johnson-voted-paul-ryan-plans-make-medicar/	In 2011, after the U.S. House of Representatives approved a federal budget pushed by Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan, Democrats repeatedly claimed that Republicans had "voted to end Medicare." That became PolitiFact National’s Lie of the Year. Ryan, now the House speaker, has continued to advance Medicare reform proposals. And now the Wisconsin Democratic Party is making an attack -- though with a claim that doesn’t go nearly as far as the lie of the year. In a radio ad released May 4, 2016, the party said GOP U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson "went after Medicare, voting to turn it into a voucher program." It’s an attack that is likely to be repeated as Democrat Russ Feingold seeks to take back the Senate seat from Johnson in the November 2016 election. So, did Johnson vote to make Medicare "a voucher program"? There’s some argument over semantics between voucher and premium supports, a term preferred by Republicans. But the answer is: Pretty much. Paul Ryan budgets To back its claim, the state Democratic party cited Johnson’s votes for Ryan’s budget proposals, which included the Medicare reforms. Those budgets, which did not become law, prompted Democrats to charge that Ryan wanted to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Our colleagues have consistently rated those claims Mostly True. As PolitiFact National has explained: The initial Ryan plan using the term premium supports was released in early 2011. Medicare would have changed from a program that pays doctors and hospitals fees for particular services to one in which beneficiaries would be paid an amount by the government that they could use toward private insurance premiums. It would have affected people who at the time were under 55. Ryan then updated versions of the plan, including one as part of his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. That newer version would have allowed beneficiaries under 55 a choice -- they could use their payment to buy private insurance or for a plan that acts like traditional Medicare. So, the main point is that Medicare would change from paying fees to doctors and hospitals, and instead beneficiaries would get a fixed subsidy toward their coverage. That’s a big change. Johnson’s campaign argues that the change wouldn’t be a voucher and emphasizes that what Republicans call premium support payments would be made to insurance companies, not to Medicare beneficiaries themselves. Our colleagues concluded that, although there are technical differences between voucher and premium supports that may matter to health policy professionals, the two definitions have become almost indistinguishable and voucher program is a fair description for what Ryan proposed. Our rating The state Democratic Party says Johnson voted to turn Medicare "into a voucher program." To some health policy experts, there are technical differences between voucher and premium supports -- the latter term being preferred by Johnson and other Republicans when it comes to Medicare changes. But under Ryan’s proposals, Medicare would no longer pay fees to health care providers -- instead, Medicare beneficiaries would get a fixed subsidy to use toward their health care. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/030c2a04-2bbc-4caf-acb5-b7ece8815dac	None	Democratic Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2016-06-10T10:30:00	2016-05-04	['None']
-pose-01159	State law currently requires state candidates to routinely file finance reports once every six months. This change would have reports filed quarterly.	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/abbott-o-meter/promise/1249/require-quarterly-candidate-campaign-finance-repor/	None	abbott-o-meter	Greg Abbott	None	None	Require quarterly candidate campaign finance reports	2015-01-20T14:00:00	None	['None']
-pomt-10272	"Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act ... the rate of domestic violence went down dramatically."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/24/barack-obama/cause-and-effect-possible-but-not-clear/	As he introduced his new running mate, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama lauded Delaware Sen. Joe Biden's legislative achievements, highlighting one that matters to a key voting group: women. "Joe Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act, so every woman would have a place to turn for support," Obama said in Springfield, Ill. "The rate of domestic violence went down dramatically, and countless women got a second chance at life." As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden shepherded a major crime bill through Congress in 1993 and 1994. One key piece was the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that Biden had been pushing for years. VAWA, as it's known in Washington, included provisions that authorized $1.6-billion in grants for programs to fight domestic violence, established a toll-free national hotline on family violence and created federal penalties for interstate stalking or domestic abuse. Congress has since renewed it twice. Since VAWA became law, domestic violence rates have dropped dramatically, according to the U.S. Justice Department. In 1993, 5.8 out of every 1,000 people age 12 or older reported being victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence. By 2005, that rate had dropped to 2.3 per 1,000, a decline that fits Obama's description: "went down dramatically." Okay, so both of Obama's statements are true. Biden wrote an anti-domestic violence law, and domestic violence rates dropped dramatically. But did one cause the other? Although Obama doesn't say it directly, that's the clear implication in his statement, and that's where things get a bit murkier. As we discussed back in 2007, when Biden was gunning for the top spot on the Democratic ticket, figuring out the reasons for changes in crime statistics can be tricky. Multiple factors, including economic prosperity and demographic changes, contributed to an overall decline in violent crime throughout the 1990s and into this decade. "There's still generally no consensus about why any crime in general has dropped," Shannan Catalano, author of the Justice Department study, told the Associated Press in 2006. "It's safe to say it's more than one factor that went into it." In fact, the same federal crime statistics that show domestic violence rates dropping, also show the trends were similar in overall violent crime and in murder rates. A case can be made that domestic violence rates might have dropped without passage of the VAWA. There are, however, some solid reasons to think Biden's law made a difference. A study by the University of Arkansas, for instance, concluded in 2000 that the law's increased funding for civil legal assistance for victims contributed to the decline. Though that study also said economic and demographic factors mattered. Obama never said the law caused all of the decrease, but he implied it, so we will rate this statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-08-24T00:00:00	2008-08-23	['Joe_Biden']
-pomt-14606	As part of legislative fights over abortion rights, "Mike Coffman co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape."	/colorado/statements/2016/feb/02/emilys-list/emilys-list-attacks-coffman-forcible-rape-and-abor/	Emily's List is stoking the abortion debate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District race with a fundraising email saying Republican incumbent Mike Coffman "co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape." Emily's List -- a political organization that supports the election of Democratic women who support abortion rights -- has endorsed Coffman's opponent, state Sen. Morgan Carroll, an Aurora Democrat. Its mailer focused on reproductive rights, abortion and Roe v. Wade. In the email, titled "2016 goal: A Congress that fights for women and families," Emily's List said, "We wish Congress was less like this" -- citing Mike Coffman's co-sponsorship of the 2011 bill -- "and more like this … Morgan Carroll sponsored a bill to make emergency contraception available to sexual assault survivors." We wanted to check the accuracy of Emily's List's characterization of Coffman's role in the legislation. Coffman did co-sponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act, which attempted to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt "forcible rape" -- and not rape in broader terms. Critics said the "forcible rape" language could rule out other forms of sexual assault that are considered rape, including statutory rape, attacks where women are drugged or threatened, and date rapes. Facing a backlash from women's groups, Republicans amended the bill in committee to remove the word "forcible" and make the exemption for "rape." Coffman wasn't on this committee and didn't vote on the removal. "The bill was amended in committee, and Congressman Coffman supported the amended bill on the floor," a Coffman campaign spokesman later said. Congressional records show that Coffman voted for the amended bill in a floor vote, which passed the House but not the Senate. In recent years, Coffman has tempered his position on abortion in one of the country's most competitive "swing" districts, which is nearly evenly divided among Democrats, Republicans and independents. In 2012, he said, "I am against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother." But a year later, Coffman said that while he supported a House bill to limit late-term abortions, "I strongly support the exceptions for rape, incest, and protecting the life of the mother that have been included in this legislation." Coffman's Democratic opponent, Morgan Carroll, had blunt criticism of his co-sponsoring the 2011 bill's original "forcible rape" language. "Rape is about the lack of consent -- not the degree of force -- and this definition takes us backwards," Carroll told Denver7. "I unequivocally support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body, including her health care," she said. Coffman's spokeswoman complained that political opponents have repeatedly raised the 2011 bill and "will twist the facts any way they can in an attempt to mischaracterize and demonize Rep. Coffman." Our ruling Emily’s List said that Coffman "co-sponsored a bill to redefine rape." The record shows Coffman did co-sponsor the bill to redefine a ban on federal funding for abortions to exempt "forcible rape." Yet he later voted on the floor for an amended version that had removed the "forcible" modifier from the bill. Given the totality of his actions on the legislation, we're rating this claim Mostly True. Correction: This story has been corrected to note that Coffman did not serve on the committee that removed the word "forcible" from the bill.	None	EMILY's List	None	None	None	2016-02-02T20:00:21	2015-12-31	['None']
-pose-00981	As governor, Bob McDonnell will work...to increase the maximum speed limit to 70 mph on rural stretches of highway statewide.	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/1016/raise-speed-limit-to-70-mph/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Raise speed limit to 70 mph	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Bob_McDonnell']
-pomt-00827	Dallas "African-American and Hispanic students pass AP exams at a higher rate than any other place in America."	/texas/statements/2015/mar/26/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-dallas-minority-students-fare-bet/	Gov. Greg Abbott, who’s vowed to make the Texas education system No. 1 in the country, told lawmakers that some Dallas students already lead the pack. In his February 2015 State of the State address, Abbott hammered his goal again, saying: "As we look to some of these challenges, the way I see is that our journey begins with striving to create the best education system in America. "We’ve seen that we can do it," Abbott said. "In Dallas, for example, African-American and Hispanic students pass AP exams at a higher rate than any other place in America." AP, as in advanced placement, tests are offered through the nonprofit College Board. Exam scores of thre or higher, on a five-point scale, qualify students for college credit. We sought to learn the basis of Abbott’s Dallas declaration. Abbott's office did not engage. But responding by email, a spokesman for the Dallas school district, André Riley, referred us to research by the Dallas-based National Math and Science Initiative based on data provided by the district. Riley noted an October 2014 initiative press release stating that according to AP test results in 2013-14, "a minority student in Dallas is more than twice as likely to earn a qualifying score on an AP math or science exam than in any other large urban school district in the country." That’s not any other place, which is what Abbott said, though it’s close to any comparably populous place. It’s also not a ranking that takes into account all the AP subject-matter exams, unlike what Abbott said. According to the release, the Dallas district was the first in the nation to partner with the initiative "in its effort to raise academic rigor and increase the number of students who graduate from high school college-ready." Since 2008, the release said, the initiative’s College Readiness Program has been implemented in more than 620 schools across 26 states. The release said the initiative’s funding, which covers stipends for teacher training plus AP-related equipment and supplies, was provided by the Texas Instruments Foundation and the O’Donnell Foundation. Separately, a January 2015 news story by KERA, a Dallas public radio station, said the initiative, which has worked with Dallas students since 1996, "offers Saturday study sessions, pays the hefty exam fees for students, gathers teachers together for professional development and even gives teachers better books or lesson plans if they need them." And, the story said, the initiative offers cash for success, giving $100 to each student who passes a math, science or English exam, and $100 to the teacher for each passing student. Generally, the story said, the intent was to prime students for jobs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Seeking elaboration, we contacted the initiative; spokeswoman Tara Marathe said by email the initiative reached its conclusion about Dallas minority students by comparing 2013-14 results for African American and Hispanic students in Dallas to results on the math, science and English AP exams for such students in similarly large districts with comparable shares of low-income and African American and Hispanic students. Marathe said the upshot was that an African American or Hispanic student in Dallas appeared twice as likely to earn a qualifying score on an AP math or science exam as a minority student in similar large urban districts. Specifically, Marathe said, districts chosen for the comparisons had to have at least half the Dallas district’s total African-American and Hispanic high school juniors and seniors (about 7,500 or more); be at least 75 percent Hispanic and African-American as a whole; and have 75 percent of students qualifying for free- and reduced-price lunches. "There were 15,194 junior and senior African-American and Hispanic students in Dallas in 2013-14, who earned 948 passing AP math and science scores," Marathe wrote. "This rate of 62 minority passing exams per 1,000 minority juniors and seniors is more than twice what we see in similar urban districts." Marathe said the initiative’s agreements with the College Board "prevent us" from sharing detailed data for other districts. But she said the comparison swept in public schools in Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., Phoenix, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago, Miami, Baltimore, San Diego, Louisville and San Antonio. Next, we asked the College Board if it had confirmed the Dallas-above-all ranking. By email, spokesman Zach Goldberg said the initiative is a partner with the board "and we have no reason to doubt what they have provided." Wondering if Abbott’s mention of the Dallas students outscoring peers from "any place in America" might hold up just for math and science results, we applied the initiative’s methodology to a couple other Texas districts, drawing enrollment data from a Texas Education Agency website. By our calculations, the Dallas district’s result of 62 minority passing exams per 1,000 minority juniors and seniors ran behind the 83 passing exams per 1,000 minority juniors and seniors in the Round Rock school district. The Dallas result ran ahead of the 34 passing exams per 1,000 minority juniors and seniors in the Austin district. Our ruling Abbott said Dallas "African-American and Hispanic students pass AP exams at a higher rate than any other place in America." That’s an overly broad recap of research indicating that such students in Dallas passed math and science AP exams at a better clip than peers in more than 15 districts nationally with like demographics. This conclusion, that is, didn’t sweep in every AP test nor did it extend to the Dallas students outpacing students everywhere else. On balance, we rate Abbott’s statement Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2015-03-26T11:53:17	2015-02-17	['United_States', 'Dallas']
-pomt-11780	"President Trump just saved Christmas for 13 million retirees."	/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/27/reaganwasright/fake-news-says-trump-sending-stimulus-money-retire/	Christmas has arrived early for retirees thanks to President Donald Trump, at least according to an article making the rounds on Facebook. "President Trump just saved Christmas for 13 million retirees," read a Nov. 24, 2017, headline on the website Reaganwasright.com. The story claimed that millions of retirees will get letters from the IRS "informing them that President Trump has declared them the recipients of a Christmas stimulus to offset the horrible performance of this year’s Black Friday." If this story seems too good to be true, it is. The story comes from a website associated with a self-described liberal troll who says he tries to fool conservatives with fake stories most people would find absurd. We found the story about a senior stimulus after Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. The fake story says that to qualify for the stimulus, recipients must be over 65, retired, receive Social Security and have an income under $40,000 per year. "The letter will also come with an offer to pledge support for President Trump, a requirement the Attorney General says is perfectly legal and patriotic, though not fully enforceable," stated the article. The article then directed readers to call the White House switchboard if they don’t receive the letter. (The number printed in the article and it is indeed the switchboard.) Reaganwasright.com describes itself as a satirical website that uses "humor, irony, exaggeration, OR ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues." The about us page links to the Facebook page of America’s Last Line of Defense, which is run by Christopher Blair, a Maine man behind who we’ve written about previously. Blair told us his websites are carefully curated social experiment designed to "feed the Hoverounders their daily need for hate and their undying urge to blame everything in the known universe on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." They’re also a vehicle to make money. The point, of course, is to get someone on Facebook to click on the post thinking it is real. "I discovered that Facebook following plus blog plus ads equals income," Blair told us previously. In this case, the Reaganwasright Facebook post includes an innocuous headline, "President Trump just saved Christmas for 13 million retirees," and a caption that asks people to share the post 1,000 times to show appreciation for Trump. As of this writing, it had been shared 768 times. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Reaganwasright	None	None	None	2017-11-27T16:51:29	2017-11-24	['None']
-snes-01222	Drinking untreated spring water, marketed as "raw water," provides health benefits because they are "probiotic."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/raw-water-provide-probiotic-health-benefits/	None	Medical	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Does ‘Raw Water’ Provide Probiotic Health Benefits?	11 January 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05747	All travelers -- even babies -- arriving in the U.S. by air must have a passport.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/02/john-axford/milwaukee-brewers-pitcher-john-axford-says-even-ba/	For the third year in a row, the Milwaukee Brewers’ lights-out closer John Axford faced a challenge when it came to getting to spring training on time. In 2010, it was an auto accident; in 2011 a case of food poisoning. This season it was red tape involving his 8-month-old son, J.B., also known to Axford’s Twitter followers as "Little Ax." The boy was born in Milwaukee, and is a U.S. citizen. The elder Axford, however, is a Canadian. And his trip to Arizona was delayed because he didn’t have a passport for the baby when he was planning to fly from Canada into the United States. His Twitter followers (@JohnAxford) got a play-by-play of his travel travails. Among the offerings: "Thank you Homeland Security for not letting my AMERICAN son into AMERICA! #3YearValentinesCurse #WontBeSeeingYouTodayWarmWeatherInPhoenix" He was more expansive in an interview with the Journal Sentinel, which is what prompted us to turn our version of the radar gun -- the Truth-O-Meter -- on Axford. "Homeland Security requires passports for every age, no matter what," Axford said in the interview. "You can arrive by land or sea if you're under the age of 15 with a birth certificate, but if you go by air Homeland Security requires passports for everybody, no matter what the age." Is he right? Passports only by air, though birth certificates suffice by car or boat? Now, it’s true Axford is a sports figure. But his statement touches squarely on U.S. policy. So we checked with the State Department, Homeland Security, border control and several federal government websites. Turns out the rules are different for border-crossing babies, depending on the mode of travel. If you’re traveling by air, you need a passport. Period. And, yes, you have to get a photograph of the kid. A kid passport costs $105. However, if you’re coming by land -- such as the border crossing in Detroit -- the rules are less strict, and less expensive. "U.S. children ages 15 and under arriving by land or sea from a contiguous territory may present an original or copy of his or her birth certificate (issued by the Vital Records Department in the state where he or she was born), a Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or a Naturalization Certificate. If the child is a newborn and the actual birth certificate has not arrived from the Vital Records Department, we will accept a Hospital issued birth certificate." Each year, the federal government issues about 450,000 passports to infants, a spokeswoman for the State Department said in an email. The department even provides helpful hints for how to take a passport picture of your little one. Kiddie passports are valid for five years. In the end, Axford got to spring training the hard way, again. His father drove the family across the border to Detroit and they caught a flight from there to Arizona. Our conclusion Axford’s trip back to the mound took a detour. He said it was because of travel delays and said federal law required his baby to have a passport to fly back into the country. He learned a valuable lesson about border crossing: The feds are always right. We rate Axford’s statement True.	None	John Axford	None	None	None	2012-03-02T09:00:00	2012-02-14	['United_States']
-faan-00092	 “For the first time in history, this country actually has GHG emissions that have been falling.”	http://factscan.ca/stephen-harper-for-the-first-time-in-history-this-country-actually-has-ghg-emissions-that-have-been-falling/	Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen annually since 2010. While emissions did fall from 2007 to 2009, it was not the first decrease in Canadian history.	None	Stephen Harper	None	None	None	2015-05-11	mber 17, 2014	['None']
-afck-00120	“…foreign debt has increased two-fold from KSh880 billion in 2013 to KSh1,890 billion this year, a growth of 115%”	https://africacheck.org/reports/checked-5-claims-kenya-nasa-opposition-manifesto/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact-checked: 5 claims in Kenya Nasa opposition manifesto	2017-07-07 06:32	None	['None']
-snes-02081	In July 2017, Don Moen died of "stomach pain".	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/don-moen-death-hoax/	None	Junk News	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Is Pastor and Gospel Singer Don Moen Dead After a Short Illness?	12 July 2017	None	['None']
-chct-00242	FACT CHECK: Did Obamacare Have A Record Number of Sign-Ups For 2018 Open Enrollment?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/12/27/fact-check-did-obamacare-have-a-record-number-of-sign-ups-for-2018-open-enrollment/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	8:49 PM 12/27/2017	None	['None']
-goop-00869	Jason Statham, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley “Miserable” Together?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jason-statham-rosie-huntington-whiteley-miserable-split/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jason Statham, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley “Miserable” Together?	2:31 pm, June 6, 2018	None	['Jason_Statham', 'Rosie_Huntington-Whiteley']
-goop-02367	Maks Chmerkovskiy Hopes Vanessa Lachey Voted Off “Dancing With The Stars”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/maks-chmerkovskiy-vanessa-lachey-voted-off-dancing-with-the-stars/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Maks Chmerkovskiy Hopes Vanessa Lachey Voted Off “Dancing With The Stars”?	3:15 pm, October 9, 2017	None	['None']
-farg-00320	"Christina Blasey Ford with none other than the Nazi collaborator himself, George Soros."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/viral-photo-doesnt-show-soros-with-ford/	None	askfactcheck	Viral image	Saranac Hale Spencer	['Memes']	Viral Photo Doesn’t Show Soros with Ford	September 28, 2018	[' Wednesday, September 26, 2018 ']	['George_Soros']
-pomt-11471	"ALERT: Massive Easter Egg Recall Leaves MILLIONS Of Children In Danger- THROW THEM AWAY- They WILL Kill Your Kids."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/06/blog-posting/website-recycles-2017-information-claim-target-rec/	It is true that Target issued a recall for certain Easter egg toys, as claimed by a blog, however, the recall was for toys sold last year. "ALERT: Massive Easter Egg Recall Leaves MILLIONS Of Children In Danger- THROW THEM AWAY- They WILL Kill Your Kids," said the headline for a story posted Feb. 8 on news24fresh.info. The story claims Target "has issued a massive recall for water-absorbing egg toys ahead of Easter Sunday after discovering the object can expand inside a child’s body, causing life-threatening conditions if ingested." Even though the story correctly identifies the toys and associated complications if ingested, it fails to mention that the toys were sold February 2017 through March 2017, with an April 13, 2017, recall date. The toys were recalled ahead of Easter Sunday 2017. Not Easter 2018. Facebook users flagged news24fresh.info’s story as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. News24fresh.info’s website does not list any information identifying its mission statement, who runs it or who’s behind it. However, the website does accurately note that the recall involves Hatch & Grow Easter Eggs, Easter Grow Toys (with model number 234-25-1200 on the back of the packaging) and Hatch Your Own Dino (with model number 234-09-0016 on a label inserted in the packaging). The website also has the right description of the potential health problems and complications that can happen if a child ingests the toy; that surgery may be required to retrieve it from the body; and that it may not show up on an X-ray. The approximate amount of toys sold — 560,000 — its estimated $1 price tag and Target’s offering of a full refund due to the recall is also accurate, matching announcements posted by Target and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Target also told PolitiFact that the recalls in the news24fresh.info post were all from last year. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission told PolitiFact that generally there’s no end date to recalls, unless there’s an update about a company no longer being in business. Consumers can still follow up on Target’s 2017 recall for the described Easter egg toys, the commission said. Target did issue a recall for Easter egg toys. But it did so last year. While recalls generally don’t expire, it seems clear to us that by reposting this story, news24fresh.info is trying to trick people into thinking the recall is new. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-03-06T11:39:31	2018-02-08	['None']
-pomt-00893	On the status of illegal immigrants	/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/06/scott-walker/scott-walker-disavows-support-path-citizenship/	On Feb. 4, 2015 we awarded Gov. Scott Walker a Half Flip for inconsistencies in how he framed his views on what to do about millions of illegal immigrants currently in the United States. Our focus was on Walker’s comments in light of a 2013 Wausau Daily Herald interview in which he clearly agreed "it makes sense" that people could not only stay here but get citizenship with the right mix of penalties and waiting periods and other requirements. Walker had muddied the waters in a Feb. 1, 2015 interview on ABC’s "This Week" program by declaring he was not for "amnesty" for those residents. Critics opposed to a "pathway" to legal citizenship disagreed, calling his position just that. In assigning Walker a Half Flip, which is defined by a partial change in position or inconsistent statements on an issue, we noted "the truth is that we don’t really know whether he has a completely new position, because he wasn’t asked to clarify his views in detail." (Worth noting: Two days after we issued the Half Flip, Walker in a Fox interview accused the Wausau newspaper of misquoting him despite video proving otherwise.) Walker’s position became a whole lot clearer in a March 1, 2015 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Faced with the public perception that he was equivocating on the issue as he weighs a 2016 presidential run, Walker tried to better define his position. That prompted us to return to the Flip-O-Meter. Our standard disclaimer applies: The Flip-O-Meter is not designed to say whether any change in position is good policy or good politics. Rather, it strictly looks at whether a public official has been consistent in his or her stated views on a topic. Pressed by Wallace in the interview, Walker at first continued to say he didn’t believe in amnesty, while not disavowing his endorsement of a path to citizenship in the 2013 Wausau interview. Wallace: The question was, can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship? And you said, sure, that makes sense. Walker: I believe there's a way that you can do that... But Walker switched course when Wallace persisted: Wallace: But you said you supported it. Walker: And my view has changed. I'm flat out saying it. I'm -- candidates can say that. Sometimes they don't. I'm saying my -- Wallace: So, you've changed from 2013? Walker: Absolutely. I look at the problems we've experienced for the last few years. I've talked to governors on the border and others out there. I've talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works. A legal immigration system that works. And part of doing this is put the onus on employers, getting them E-Verify and tools to do that. But I don't think you do it through amnesty. So, Walker now says he’s changed his mind since agreeing that some pathway to citizenship makes sense. There may still be a bit of wiggle room in his position. But in our view Walker’s declarations now make this a Full Flop, which we define as a complete change in position. Indeed, he agreed he had "absolutely" changed his position. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2015-03-06T09:45:00	2015-03-01	['None']
-pose-00478	"Will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps in implementing new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency, and provide a federal match for those states with leading-edge public benefits funds that support energy efficiency retrofits of existing buildings."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/498/provide-grants-to-encourage-energy-efficient-build/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Provide grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes	2010-01-07T13:27:00	None	['None']
-pomt-15157	"In the year 2013, the Obama administration released 104,000 criminal illegal aliens. They released 196 murderers – people with homicide convictions, who are here illegally."	/texas/statements/2015/aug/28/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-obama-administration-released-104000-crim/	Stumping for president in Iowa, Sen. Ted Cruz charged President Barack Obama with releasing thousands of violent criminals living in the U.S. without legal authorization, the Dallas Morning News noted in a news blog post. The Texas Republican, who was visiting the Iowa State Fair, told reporters: "The Obama administration is releasing violent criminal illegal aliens. In the year 2013, the Obama administration released 104,000 criminal illegal aliens. They released 196 murderers – people with homicide convictions, who are here illegally. That’s what I find objectionable." A moment later, Cruz said that as president, he would secure the U.S. borders and "stop releasing violent criminal illegal aliens." Cruz didn’t assert the administration doesn’t deport criminals. That claim, by Republican candidate Jeb Bush, was recently rated False by PolitiFact Florida, which concluded that while some individuals with criminal convictions weren’t deported, tens of thousands of people have been sent out of the country. In fiscal 2014, through September 2014, 86,923 convicted criminals were deported for a crime beyond breaking an immigration law. Cruz came to his count, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us by email, by drawing on a 2014 report by a think tank and testimony seemingly endorsing his tally by Sarah Saldaña, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is responsible for enforcing U.S. immigration laws. ICE director’s testimony At a July 21, 2015, hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Cruz asked Saldaña how many murderers the administration had released "yesterday." The director said she didn’t know. But generally, Saldaña said, "we don’t release people willy-nilly. We release people pursuant to these statutes and regulations," a reference to two thick paperback volumes she’d waved. "There are only a limited number of crimes that we are required to detain people," she said, including ones related to drug distribution. In 2013, Cruz replied, ICE agents chose not to begin deportation proceedings against 68,000 people with criminal convictions and separately had released from detention 36,000 people with criminal convictions, including 193 homicide convictions, he said. To get the full picture, he said, "you’ve got to add both" tallies. "Yes, sir," Saldaña said, "that’s absolutely right." She also went on to say the agency actions had taken place pursuant to federal law. At that moment, there seemed to be agreement the agency in 2013 had chosen not to detain or had released 104,000 people with criminal convictions who also were living in the country without legal permission. Frazier told us Cruz also drew on a May 2014 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that focuses on lessening immigration. That report said that from October 2012 through September 2013, ICE "freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens from detention who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings," according to an agency document obtained by the center. The report’s author, Jessica Vaughan, previously told us the document came from someone she declined to identify who fielded it in connection with congressional inquiries. Report: 68,000 "aliens" with criminal convictions not detained by ICE And what of the other 68,000 individuals Cruz described in Iowa as released? Such a figure came to light in a March 2014 center report, which also made it clear the count did not reflect individuals freed from detention. Rather, the report said ICE agents in fiscal 2013 chose not to act against that many "aliens with criminal convictions, or 35 percent of all criminal aliens they reported encountering. The criminal alien releases typically occur without formal notice to local law enforcement agencies and victims," the report said. The "vast majority of these releases occurred because of the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policies, not because the aliens were not deportable." "Under current policies," the report said, "an alien generally must have serious criminal convictions, prior deportations, or immigration violations before an officer can move to deport them." That may have been a reference to a 2011 memo issued by the then-director of ICE, John Morton, urging agency officials to use discretion in deciding which apprehended violators of immigration law should be removed with particular care taken with veterans, longtime legal permanent residents, minors, elderly individuals, pregnant or nursing women and individuals here since childhood. Negative factors also should be weighed, the memo said, including whether individuals pose a risk to national security, are serious felons or known gang members or have egregious records of immigration law violations. By email, Carl Rusnok, a Dallas-based ICE spokesman, sent us an ICE response to the center’s March 2014 report noting the government had removed 216,000 convicted criminals in 2013. "The removal of criminal individuals is and will remain ICE’s highest priority," the statement said. In addition, ICE said the center’s report showcased "flawed math." Vaughan, standing by the research, posted her objections to the agency’s criticisms on April 1, 2014. By email, Vaughan told us she had no quibble with Cruz’s decision to add the 36,007 individuals released by ICE in fiscal 2013 to the 68,000 "aliens with criminal convictions" whom ICE agents otherwise chose not to detain that year for violating immigration laws. Government: Releases driven by federal laws Figures aside, we wondered why ICE freed convicts lacking legal permission to live here. When we previously looked into a similar claim, the government said ICE was mostly just complying with judicial rulings and federal law. In 2014, we rated Half True this claim by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio: "Last year," Obama "administration officials released into our neighborhoods more than 36,000 criminal immigrants who had nearly 88,000 convictions. The crimes included hundreds of convictions for murder, rape and kidnapping and thousands of drug-related crimes." Smith recited accurate figures, but his claim didn’t acknowledge administration explanations. A May 16, 2014, Associated Press news story said that according to ICE, the individuals let go had completed their criminal jail sentences. Also, the story said, nearly all the released individuals still faced deportation along with required check-ins with authorities while immigration cases were pending. Moreover, the story quoted an ICE spokeswoman saying that in many cases, the agency was required by law to release the immigrants while their deportation cases were pending. "The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report," the spokeswoman said. For example, she said, mandatory releases accounted for over 72 percent of the immigrants convicted of homicide, the AP reported. At the time, Rusnok emailed us similar information. Also, he said, once "in ICE custody, many of the individuals described in the report were released under restrictions such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision or bond." Individuals convicted of less serious offenses, Rusnok said, "were released as a discretionary matter after career law enforcement officers made a judgment regarding the priority of holding the individual, given ICE’s resources, and prioritizing the detention and removal of individuals who pose a risk to public safety or national security." Cruz’s claim in mind, we reached Rusnok afresh. By email, he pointed out a March 2015 ICE press release stating that in fiscal 2014, the agency had released 30,558 individuals with criminal convictions--about a 15 percent decrease from the year before. In April 2015, Vaughan pointed out to us, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said that according to ICE information, the 2014 releases included individuals accounting for 86 homicide convictions, 186 kidnapping convictions, 373 sexual assault convictions, 449 commercialized sexual offenses, 1,194 battery convictions, 1,346 domestic violence convictions and 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. ICE’s 2015 press release also said that at the request of Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, the agency was instituting more administrative filters over the release of certain individuals with criminal convictions including "a panel of senior managers," which meets monthly, "to review discretionary release decisions for individuals convicted of crimes of violence." The release said: "Notably, in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 the majority of releases of serious criminal offenders were made pursuant to federal court decisions or bond decisions by immigration judges. In a leading court case on immigration detention, Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that ICE generally could not detain an individual ordered removed in immigration detention beyond six months, unless the individual would be repatriated in the reasonably foreseeable future. This detention limit can be triggered when a country simply refuses to accept repatriation of its national, irrespective of the individual’s criminal history." Rusnok also provided a department statement stating that in fiscal 2013, ICE released 169 homicide convicts (not 196) and most releases occurred due to factors not controlled by the agency. For instance, the statement said, 24,851 releases occurred either in accord with court restrictions on the agency or under an ICE "order of supervision" issued "because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Another 10,532 individuals were released after an immigration judge granted a bond, the statement said. "The small number of remaining releases are attributed to prosecutorial discretion, parole and the agency’s inability to obtain a travel document," the statement said. Vaughan, asked to comment on the latest ICE analysis of the 36,007 releases, suggested the agency still had sway in instances it characterized as not under its discretion. For instance, she emailed, the agency may, but often does not, contest grants of bond. Law professors: Detainee releases affected by legal rights Next, we asked several expert professors about the government’s contention it didn’t entirely control which individuals it released from detention. Anyone detained by ICE, the experts said, has constitutional rights that play into judges deciding if a release is appropriate. Kari Hong, a Boston College Law School assistant professor, reminded us immigration cases are civil and not criminal matters. And under U.S. law, she and Ingrid Eagly, a UCLA assistant professor, each advised by phone, a person held longer than six months on an immigration matter has a right to ask for a hearing that could lead to release. Before such a release, the professors said, a judge decides the person wouldn’t be a danger to the community or a flight risk. Also, Hong said, a person let go on bond still might have to check in with ICE every month. Broadly, Hong opined by email, ICE detains far too many individuals. "For the first 100 years of our history, we did not detain immigrants. From 1917 to 1988--a period of 70 years---we detained a total of 55,000 non-citizens with criminal convictions," Hong said. "Since 2009, that number grew to 400,000 each year. There is no reason to detain that many people," she said, especially because the "vast majority are not violent. Many are elderly, families and children." Denise Gilman, who directs an immigration law clinic at the University of Texas, said by email that it’s also possible that released individuals win their immigration cases in court, meaning they won't be deported and must be released. Our ruling Cruz said: "In the year 2013, the Obama administration released 104,000 criminal illegal aliens. They released 196 murderers – people with homicide convictions, who are here illegally." We see how Cruz reached his figures. But ICE says 169 individuals with murder convictions were released and 72 percent of those releases were mandatory—out of its control. Also, 68,000 of the people Cruz described as released were never actually detained by the agency. In addition, this statement is missing vital context. Just as we said in reviewing Smith’s declaration, it’s simplistic to suggest the administration has full decision-making authority. Court decisions and federal laws play important roles. We rate the statement Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2015-08-28T13:34:23	2015-08-21	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-03391	Christian Woman in Sudan Was Sentenced to Hang	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mariam-yehya-ibrahim/	None	religious	None	None	None	Christian Woman in Sudan Was Sentenced to Hang	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04498	Neo-Nazi Jeffrey Harris was identified as the man who shot and killed several police officers at a protest in Dallas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dallas-shooter-jeffrey-harris-harris/	None	Crime	None	Dan Evon	None	Dallas Shooter Not Identified as Neo-Nazi Jeffrey Harris	8 July 2016	None	['Dallas']
-pomt-12825	Says President Donald Trump "signs a visa-free travel policy" for Ghana and Malawi.	/global-news/statements/2017/feb/09/blog-posting/fake-news-dangles-visa-free-travel-ghanamalawi/	As President Donald Trump’s travel ban upended many people’s plans to come to America, fake news perpetrators saw opportunities to cash in on the news. A few days after Trump signed his executive order, a website called USA Television put up two stories. One said "Trump signs a visa-free travel policy for Ghana" and the other "Trump signs a visa-free travel policy for Malawi." The website claimed that "the United States President, Donald Trump, has signed an executive order to allow all Ghana nationals travel to the United States without visas." Substitute Malawi for Ghana and the two articles were identical. They even included "news" that Trump was on the verge of revoking Australia's visa waiver status. This is, however, nonsense. The U.S. State Department oversees the visa waiver program, and lists the eligible nations. Neither Ghana nor Malawi is on that list. In order to qualify, the visa refusal rate for a given country (meaning how often the U.S. refuses a visa request) has to be under 3 percent. The latest refusal rates for Ghana and Malawi are about 62 and 14 percent respectively. USA Television not only gets zero points for accuracy, it ranks low for creativity. The theme of Trump lifting visa requirements created a cottage industry of sorts. The earliest version we found was on a website called MetroWorlds. On Jan. 25, 2017, the site reported that Trump had signed a bill that granted waivers for Ghana, Kenya and Ethiopia. The website Lead Story flagged that as fake news. It is. As we went down the rabbit hole debunking this claim, it rapidly became hard to see who was copying whom, as USA Television churned out more versions and other sites did their own, all with the same message for citizens of Zimbabwe, Tanzania, South Africa and Nigeria. The U.S. embassies in Ghana, Kenya and Zimbabwe warned people to ignore the bogus reports. "That story ab/ change in visa policy for Ghanaians? Still fake," the embassy in Ghana tweeted. Our ruling The USA Television website reported that people from Ghana and Malawi could travel to the United States without a visa. Both countries are missing from the State Department’s visa waiver list. There were many versions of this story, naming different countries. None of them were true and in the case of Ghana, the American embassy warned people not to believe these reports. So don’t believe them. We rate these claims Pants on Fire. Update Feb. 15, 2017: Sorry residents of Mauritius, Gambia, Sri Lanka and Botswana. Your pathway to visiting the United States has not gotten any easier, despite what you might have read. The fake news mill that is "USA Television" and "CNN Channel" has been churning out versions of its debunked headline "Donald Trump signs visa-free policy for (insert country here.)" We first flagged similar invented claims for Ghana and Malawi on Feb. 9, 2017, as part of our partnership with Facebook to quash fake news. The articles are virtually word-for-word copies of each other. They all say that "the United States President, Donald Trump has signed an executive order to allow all [country] nationals travel to the United States without visas." They all say this is about fostering trade between the two nations. The U.S. State Department is the final authority on which countries enjoy visa-free status. The purveyors of bunk might say that Mauritius, Gambia, Sri Lanka and Botswana are on the State Department’s list, but they aren’t. If you see anyone sharing these posts, feel free to let them know they might as well book a trip to Fantasy Island. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b17efc7a-1a5e-41a5-9697-9e770c766b69	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-02-09T10:00:00	2017-01-30	['Malawi', 'Ghana']
-pomt-01796	"With Rick Scott, there are more funds for preschool education."	/florida/statements/2014/jul/24/republican-party-florida/rick-scott-increased-preschool-funding-republican/	On the campaign trail, Gov. Rick Scott has appeared in a charming video alongside his toddler grandson and a darling photo with Florida preschoolers. So we know he likes cute little kids. But does he invest in them? A new ad by the Republican Party of Florida portrays him as generously funding preschool education. The Spanish-language ad "Dedicación" shows teachers warmly talking about their profession -- and Scott. "I like being a special education teacher because many people don’t see the potential of those students," says one teacher. "It's a profession of great dedication," says another. The teachers continue: "With Rick Scott, there are more funds for preschool education and that’s very important to me. Florida students are better off due to Scott. They can repeat all the falsehoods they want, the facts don’t lie." Under Scott, are there more funds for preschool education? We decided to do some homework. VPK funding under Scott The Republican Party’s backup for the ad cited a press release distributed by Scott’s office in March about his proposal for a $100 per child increase for voluntary pre-kindergarten, called VPK. VPK is a program for 4-year-olds launched in 2005 after voters approved it in a referendum and is free for all participants regardless of income. The purpose of VPK is to prepare children for kindergarten -- they learn how to identify shapes and colors, write their own name, recognize letters and recognize patterns, among other skills. The program is offered at public schools and private day care centers. Children can enroll in a VPK school-year program that typically translates to three hours a day -- though many parents pay for additional "wrap-around" hours. (A smaller group of children use a version in the summer.) Though Scott requested a $100 per student increase this year, the Legislature settled on a $54 increase. The Republicans arrived at their claim that "there are more funds for preschool education" based on the amount the state appropriated each year. For 2010-11 -- the last budget set under Crist -- the Legislature appropriated about $404 million -- including $73 million in federal stimulus dollars. (Crist was a champion of the federal stimulus, while Scott campaigned against it.) The amount of state money appropriated would later peak under Scott at $413 million. But the total amount appropriated tells us nothing about the key dollar figure for parents: what is spent per child. The Legislature and the governor set the per-pupil amount each session and appropriate a total based on an estimate of enrollment. But Florida will spend the amount necessary to pay the per-pupil amount for all children who enroll. "The per-pupil is probably the fairest way to compare years -- the (total) dollar amount depends on how many kids" enroll, Bill Ammons, Office of Early Learning budget director told PolitiFact Florida. Ammons’ office sent us the amount of state money spent on VPK under Crist and Scott. The per-pupil amount fell during Scott’s first budget -- 2011-12 -- but that was after the federal stimulus ran out. Then per-pupil funding remained stagnant for three years followed by a small increase. Year Appropriated Expended Per-pupil school year 2010-11 $404 million* $399 million $2,562 2011-12 $385 million $392 million $2,383 2012-13 $413 million $390 million $2,383 2013-14 $405 million $378 million** $2,383 2014-15 $396 million Not known yet $2,437 * This included $332 million in state money and $73 million in federal stimulus dollars ** Entire amount won’t be known until after September. The drop in per-pupil funding followed by stagnant funding didn’t impact every school the same way. Some schools that served wealthier students who paid for day care were able to absorb the state funding drop more easily than schools that serve primarily poor children and rely on state money. "The VPK decrease is miniscule but so many are at the brink, every dollar counts," said David McGerald, CEO of the Early Learning Coalition of Hillsborough County, which oversees VPK. "Providers who serve ‘private pay’ parents are much more likely to thrive and provide a quality program." Florida ranks 35th in state spending for preschool, according to The National Institute for Early Education Research’s report about the 2012-13 school year. (We previously fact-checked a claim by Scott about access to VPK based on the prior year’s report.) Our ruling A Republican Party ad said that Scott has overseen "more funds for preschool education." The Republicans point to the fact that the Legislature approved slightly higher overall appropriations in some years. But per-pupil spending fell during Scott's first year, after federal stimulus funds ran out. Then, for the next few years, the per-pupil amount remained flat. Per-pupil spending still isn't as high as it was in the budget that was approved the year before Scott took office. The statement contains an element of truth but leaves out key details, so we rate this statement Mostly False.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2014-07-24T11:21:29	2014-07-22	['None']
-pomt-09543	"The money supply has doubled in the last year."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/05/ron-paul/ron-paul-claims-money-supply-has-doubled/	Joining the chorus of critics of Washington's handling of the economy, Rep. Ron Paul used a Jan. 26, 2010, column on his Web site to criticize the Federal Reserve: "We have been on a disastrous course for a long time. The money supply has doubled in the last year, our debt is unsustainable, the value of the dollar is going to continue its drop, and those Americans who understand where we are headed feel helpless and held hostage by foolish policymakers in Washington," wrote Paul, a Texas Republican who ran for president in 2008. We were intrigued by his claim that the "money supply has doubled in the last year," a statement Paul has made before in editorials and speeches on the House floor. The money supply is the total amount of money that is available in the economy at any given point. Some economists focus on it because of theories that a larger supply can lead to long-term inflation. There are several ways to measure it (and they sound like the names of British spy agencies): M1, M2 and M0. M1 consists primarily of general currency (i.e., cash in your wallet) and checking accounts. In December 2009, M1 was $1.7 trillion. M2 is more inclusive: it includes all of the money counted under M1, plus savings accounts. In December 2009, M2 was $8.5 trillion. We started by looking at changes in M1 and M2. From January to December 2009, M1 increased 7.6 percent, while M2 grew by about 2.8 percent -- far short of the doubling Paul claimed. We contacted Paul's office to ask about the source of his claim. A spokeswoman directed us to a chart of bank reserves and the monetary base (which is known as M0) over the past two years. And this is where things get a little tricky. M0, just like M1 and M2, can be used as a measure of the money supply. It consists of the currency in circulation, the money stored in bank vaults, and commercial bank deposits with the Federal Reserve. One economist told us it is "the raw material for the money supply." From January to December 2009, M0 grew by 19 percent. But in a slightly longer period that includes the fall 2008 response to the economic crisis, it grew by 139 percent. What accounts for the large discrepancies? Robert Barro, a Harvard University economist, told us that M1 and M2 experienced a much slower growth due to the "very large increase in holdings of excess reserves by financial institutions." In other words, although there is technically more money in the economy, the banks haven't been lending that money, and have instead been storing it as reserves. Because M0 counts reserves while M1 does not, it follows that M0 has been booming, while M1 is only slowly tagging along. According to Barro, Paul's argument "is correct in spirit but not quite right on the details." Indeed, although there is some debate about this in economic circles (we're reminded of the old joke that economics is the only field where two people can get a Nobel Prize for saying exactly the opposite thing), two economists that we spoke with -- Allan Meltzer from Carnegie Mellon University and Iwan Azis from Cornell University -- told us that economists generally measure money supply with M1 or M2, not M0. And if you want to check the money supply on the Web site for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, it is measured by M1 and M2. George Selgin, a professor of economics at the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia, also agreed that M1 and M2 are more useful measurements of the money supply than M0. He added that although a doubling of the monetary base "is, in fact, very significant," it does not mean that the money supply has doubled. To review. Paul said that the money supply has doubled over the past year. But that's not the case if we rely on M1 and M2, the measurements economists generally use when they talk about the supply. Paul's claim is based on the M0 -- the monetary base and bank reserves -- which did increase significantly due to explosive growth in the reserves. But most economists do not rely on it as much as they do on the other two. So we find the statement to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2010-02-05T15:26:23	2010-01-27	['None']
-pomt-09115	"Phoenix, Arizona, I'm told, is now the No. 2 kidnapping capital in the world, right behind Mexico City."	/texas/statements/2010/jun/18/david-dewhurst/dewhurst-says-phoenix-has-more-kidnappings-any-oth/	Curbing illegal immigration was a leading war cry of the Republican Party of Texas convention in Dallas last weekend, and party leaders repeatedly rallied delegates by commiserating with Arizona, which has come under fire for its law that makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime. Critics say the new law invites racial profiling. Defenders say it's needed because the federal government isn't securing the U.S.-Mexico border. Joining that chorus, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told conventioneers Friday that "Phoenix, Arizona, I'm told, is now the No. 2 kidnapping capital in the world, right behind Mexico City. That's unacceptable in America. We understand. We in Texas understand the frustrations people feel in Arizona." Play a round of golf, good chance you'll be kidnapped? That's a scary prospect, and ripe material for the Truth-O-Meter. One thing's for sure: Many media outlets could have "told" Dewhurst that Phoenix ranks second in kidnapping incidents worldwide. Mike Walz, a spokesman for Dewhurst's campaign, sent us eight news stories noting Phoenix's nickname, plus two opinion columns and a blog post. Far as we could tell, ABC News broke the story, reporting on a Feb. 11, 2009, that: "Phoenix, Arizona, has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone." Several news organizations then reported the information, including the Associated Press, The Arizona Republic and United Press International; some media outlets attributed the news to ABC, others just said Phoenix was "known as" the No. 2 kidnapping capital. The Los Angeles Times more specifically reported that Phoenix "police received 366 kidnapping-for-ransom reports" in 2008 and that they estimate "twice that number go unreported," according to a Feb. 12, 2009, article. A quick online search shows that Dewhurst has at least a dozen news accounts backing up his claim, but there's a hitch: None of the stories says how the kidnapping ranking was reached. Also, while all the stories specify the number of kidnappings that have occurred in Phoenix since 2008, none says how many kidnappings were reported in other cities. We asked ABC to elaborate on its report, a request that didn't immediately yield supporting evidence. Meantime, we kept digging. Neither the FBI nor the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice that serves as the United States' representative to Interpol, could confirm that Phoenix has the second-highest frequency of kidnapping cases worldwide. LaTonya Miller, an Interpol spokeswoman, said the agency doesn't track local kidnapping rates. An FBI spokeswoman, Denise Ballew, suggested we call city police departments to compile a kidnapping count since unlike local authorities, the bureau tracks kidnappings that result in someone being taken from one jurisdiction to another, such as across state lines. Short of the time we'd need to call authorities in every medium- to big-size city in the world, we contacted Daniel Johnson, an overseas kidnapping operations consultant at ASI Global, a Houston-based company that coaches clients through kidnappings. You read that right: Say an insured family travels to Bulgaria and the father is kidnapped for ransom; ASI Global will deploy to Bulgaria to help the family negotiate with the abductor. Johnson said: "From our internal experience in the last year, Mexico by far has been the biggest location for kidnappings" followed by Honduras, Venezuela, Nigeria and the Philippines. The company has handled domestic cases but Thompson said they don't compare in volume to overseas incidents. Thompson said the company annually dispatches a consultant to handle about 50 to 100 cases a year. Mexico City, Caracas, Venezuela, and Tegucigalpa, Honduras are the three cities where they work on the most kidnapping cases, he said. Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence for Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence company, separately chimed in: "According to our analysts, there is no way that Phoenix is the No. 2 city in the world for kidnapping and there are significantly more kidnappings in many other cities throughout Latin America," he said. "San Salvador, Guatemala City, Bogota as well as several cities in Mexico certainly have higher kidnapping rates than Phoenix." That said, Stewart said Stratfor doesn't track such kidnapping statistics, noting that it's "extremely difficult to measure given the fact that so many cases go unreported and that the record keeping in many of the most effected countries is inaccurate." The company bases its information on "intelligence that we gather through our network of human and open sources, as well as the experience of our analysts," he said. Johnson also said that generally, the problem with kidnapping statistics is there's "no reliable empirical data" and kidnappings are "inherently under-reported, anyway." Kidnappers nab someone and tell you not to tell the police, he said, adding that especially outside the United States, people typically don't report the incidents to law enforcement. Among countries that track kidnappings, Johnson said, the definition of "kidnap" varies. An "express kidnapping," for instance, can be classified as a prolonged robbery, he said. Someone takes to you against your will from ATM to ATM until your checking account is depleted. Robbery or kidnapping? Sgt. Tommy Thompson, a public information officer at the Phoenix Police Department, also said kidnappings are under-reported. "Herein lies the problem with the numbers," Thompson said. "Does Bogota, Colombia, keep records? Does Mogadishu, (Somalia), keep records? Does Houston, Texas, keep records? Does Austin keep records?" He said Phoenix has been dealing with the issue for several years now, and the number of reported kidnappings have actually decreased since this story broke in 2009. There were 358 reported kidnappings in 2008 (10 fewer than reported by the LA Times, due to later reclassification of the crimes), 318 in 2009 and there were 105 from January through May 2010, he said, putting the city on track to sustain less than 300 this year. Mindful that "spillover violence" from Mexico has become a politically-charged term in the U.S., Thompson said almost everyone who is kidnapped in Phoenix is involved in criminal activities such as illegal border crossings and the drug trade. "Unless you're involved in the dope trade, there's a very very slim chance" that you'll be kidnapped, he said. "Everyone wants to tie it to their political agenda," Thompson said. "Again, the two overwhelming questions are, do they keep records elsewhere in the world and are there more people — other agencies — across the nation who are even willing to talk about such a problem?" "It was the media that said 'second in the world only to Mexico City,' and it was basically because we were open enough to say that we have an issue with kidnappings and not try to hide it," Thompson said. Summing up: "Kidnapping capital" turns out to be a headline-grabbing label; no wonder it caught Dewhurst's attention. Still, it's incumbent on him — and news organizations bandying the No. 2 description — to check it out. So far, we've seen no evidence that it's accurate, or even close. Phoenix has experienced hundreds of kidnappings over the past few years. However, we couldn't find reliable around-the-planet evidence to confirm that only Mexico City experiences more of them. In fact, experts advise that such rankings can't be made based on available information. If they could, they speculate, other cities would prove to have more kidnappings than Arizona's capital. Punch line: Nothing confirms Phoenix as No. 2 in kidnappings worldwide. We'll revisit this turf if compelling evidence surfaces, but for now Dewhurst's statement is False.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2010-06-18T06:56:43	2010-06-11	['Arizona', 'Phoenix,_Arizona', 'Mexico_City']
-snes-02036	In June 2017, the FDA announced it would be banning the use of triclosan in various products, including Colgate Total.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colgate-total-triclosan/	None	Medical	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Announce a Ban on a Colgate Total Toothpaste Ingredient?	19 July 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-07467	Human error, such as skipping a community in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, "is common in (the vote-tabulation) process.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/apr/17/kathy-nickolaus/waukesha-county-clerk-kathy-nickolaus-says-errors-/	It’s a safe bet no election clerk in Wisconsin history ever invited more questions about a vote count than Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus did on April 7, 2011. With a possible statewide recount hanging in the balance, why did Nickolaus wait more than a day to report an error that had helped give the appearance of a narrow JoAnne Kloppenburg victory in the state Supreme Court race? How could she have left an entire city, Brookfield, out of the countywide vote tabulation she released to the media? The mistake had the effect of masking a statewide lead of about 7,500 votes by Justice David Prosser in the ultra-close contest, if the now-revised totals are correct. (A statewide canvass completed April 15 gave Prosser a 7,316-vote margin of victory.) State election officials are still investigating what happened, so questions remain about what led to the screw-up. One statement Nickolaus, a Republican elected to the post in November 2002, made at her news conference got our attention. "It is important to stress that this is not a case of extra votes or extra ballots being found," she said. "This is human error -- which I apologize for -- which is common in this process, which is why the state requires us to conduct a canvass." Are errors in the election process "common?" And what about errors of this type? Nickolaus did not return a call, and has not spoken much to the media since the news conference, but we checked news archives and national, state and local experts for perspective. There’s unanimous agreement that human error is not unusual in the bustle of election day (and night), causing discrepancies between unofficial totals and the official canvassed totals produced in the days after an election. Officials also stress that such discrepancies almost invariably have nothing to do with stolen votes, uncounted or lost ballots, or extra votes. In other words, the actual voting numbers were not affected -- just the early, preliminary, unofficial tally of them. For example, in the city of New Berlin, as Nickolaus reported, a clerical error recorded a vote total for Prosser as 37 but the voting machine tape showed it was 237. And in Winnebago County, the unofficial returns in the Supreme Court race were more than 1,100 votes short because of a modem malfunction in communicating municipal votes to the county from a few voting machines. In all, more than 45 counties of 72 reported an official number -- after their canvass -- that differed from the totals they reported to the public on election night. In some cases they were off by a single vote. In some cases, the difference is not an error at all. Sometimes overseas ballots are counted late. People who forget to bring proof of residence when registering to vote can cast provisional ballots that are not counted until after the election. Write-in votes can cause delays in tabulation. Whatever the cause, the official vote canvass is where mistakes get corrected. That’s why state law sets up that process. In the case of Brookfield, the 14,000 votes were accurately tabulated at the municipal level and transmitted correctly to the media and to Nickolaus. The numbers reported by Brookfield have been confirmed by state election officials. The problem was that Nickolaus left them out of her unofficial aggregated county-wide total. That is far from common. And that puts it on a different level right off the bat. When you add in the close margin in a widely watched race -- and Nickolaus’ decision to keep it quiet -- her error falls into a category almost by itself. In fact, the Waukesha situation is so uncommon that observers have a hard time even agreeing how to describe the error. Among the descriptions: unreported votes, lost votes, unrecorded votes, discovered votes. "Waukeshananigans," some Democrats called it. Has anything remotely like this popped up in Wisconsin over the years? Here’s a look at some high-profile problems: In 1993, controversy arose over punch-card ballots that had to be thrown out because of computer or voter glitches. That became an issue in the Peter Barca-Mark Neumann congressional race, which had over 1,100 invalidated punch-card ballots in a contest Barca won by 675 votes. In November 2004 in Milwaukee, 238 absentee ballots were not returned to the polls in time to be counted. The city got special state permission to add them to the statewide canvass, but it did not affect the outcome of any races. In addition, the Journal Sentinel reported a major discrepancy between the ballot count and the number of people listed as having voted. Investigators later narrowed that gap to 4,600, based on discovery of clerical errors. In 2004 in Taylor County, a software bug in an optical scan tabulator omitted 1,500 votes for federal offices on ballots where the voter took the straight-party option. A reporter noticed the discrepancy in March 2005. It did not change any results. In 2006 in Milwaukee, the city’s unofficial count was more than 33,000 votes too high due to a computer programming error. But it’s different than the Waukesha situation: The total vote in Milwaukee was misstated, but it did not affect the totals in individual races, which were tabulated separately. So, it’s clear that big mistakes also occasionally happen. Kevin Kennedy, Wisconsin’s top elections official, took issue with Nickolaus using the word "common" while describing the alleged error she made. "There are mistakes and we build in checks to catch them," Kennedy said. "But this is unusual in its magnitude and the fact that it wasn’t brought to light (immediately). That is very unusual." Three other election officials or researchers agreed with aspects of Kennedy’s comments. Kristine Schmidt, the Brookfield city clerk, said the situation was rare because Nickolaus waited so long to tell the state about the error. Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting, a nonprofit group that advocates for cleaner elections, said a more transparent process in Waukesha County might have prevented the error from escalating into a big deal. Diane Hermann-Brown, the Sun Prairie city clerk and president of the Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association, said human error was inevitable, but it was uncommon to have an entire community’s results left out. Wisconsin’s unusual reliance on municipal-level election administration rather than county-by-county increases the possibility for errors, various experts noted. For a national perspective, we turned to Lawrence Norden, who catalogues election errors for the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School, a left-leaning advocacy and research group. Norden said discrepancies between official and unofficial tallies are "unfortunately very common." He’s seen other instances of an entire community’s tally being left off -- but rarely in an area where the vote so heavily went to one candidate. Let’s tally up the facts here. Nickolaus talked about "common" human error in the election process. We think it’s fair to assume she was including her own error as one of the "common" mistakes. History, and experts, confirm that human error is indeed not unusual in the tabulation of preliminary election results. It’s equally clear that her error, while not unprecedented, is on the extreme end of the scale and is a rarity. Our definition for Barely True is: The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That’s our ruling. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Kathy Nickolaus	None	None	None	2011-04-17T09:00:00	2011-04-07	['None']
-pomt-04306	Says Mitt Romney’s plan makes "catastrophic cuts to education."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/barack-obama/obama-ad-says-romney-will-make-catastrophic-cuts-e/	With Election Day approaching, a new ad from Barack Obama implores voters to remember, in the solitude of the voting booth, what Mitt Romney plans for the country. "In here, it’s just you," a narrators says against an image of a man voting. "No ads, no debates, just you. "So think about this: Mitt Romney’s plan rolls back regulations on the banks that crashed our economy. Medicare: voucherized. Catastrophic cuts to education. Millionaires will get one of the largest tax cuts ever, while middle class families pay more. "That’s what Mitt Romney wants to bring here," the narrator says against a photo of the White House. "Remember that when you go here." (Another voting booth shot.) PolitiFact has examined numerous claims throughout the campaign about the potential effects of Romney tax plan and the budget constructed by his running mate, Paul Ryan, who’s also the chair of the budget committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. Here we’ll look specifically at the charge that Romney would make "catastrophic cuts" to education. The Ryan budget Ryan, a congressman from Wisconsin, first presented his budget in 2011. Versions of it have passed the House each of the last two years, but it has never passed the Democratic-controlled Senate. The 2013 proposal cuts $5.3 trillion from the federal ledger over the next decade by enacting major changes in entitlement programs and making steep reductions in discretionary domestic spending to bring down the public debt. Ryan’s plan doesn’t say which programs would be cut or by how much, nor does it dictate that programs be cut across the board. But because the budget reduces federal spending so drastically -- from its current level of 12.5 percent of GDP down to 5.75 percent by 2030 -- experts say deep program cuts will be necessary. Any direct cuts to schools, though, would be implemented at the state and local level. Those are the government entities that collect taxes that fund individual school districts. Where does Romney stand on the Ryan budget? In March 2012, Romney said in Chicago, "I’m very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. The following week, while campaigning in Wisconsin, he added, "I think it’d be marvelous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan’s budget and adopt it and pass it along to the President." More recently, since Ryan joined the ticket, Romney has said the two agree broadly. "I’m sure there are places that my budget is different than his, but we’re on the same page," he said in August. The campaign has also emphasized the Romney will put together his own plan. But on his website, Romney makes this promise about "stopping the bleeding" of federal spending: "Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels." On education The Obama ad cites the Denver Post as its source for the "catastrophic cuts" to education claim. But that Oct. 19 story is actually an editorial endorsing Obama’s re-election. And the cuts are not specific to education. "Romney's approach is one of tax cuts for all, drastic Medicare reform, increased defense spending, and what would be catastrophic cuts to other discretionary programs," the editorial said. The campaign also pointed us to an analysis of Ryan’s budget by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The OMB generally presents reliable numbers, but it’s important to bear in mind that it’s part of the Obama administration. The report from March 2012 is headlined "The Ryan-Republican Budget: The Consequences of Imbalance." The report criticizes the proposed spending cuts, and the overall lack of specificity. "What would it all mean? The Budget doesn’t say. In fact, the Budget resolution includes a magic asterisk — or, in more technical parlance, an ‘allowance’— for $897 billion in unspecified cuts. But what could the resolution mean? Since the House has refused to specify what would be cut, we consider the impacts if the cuts are distributed equally across the Budget. The result would be that." So the analysis assumes across-the-board cuts, which -- again -- is not specified in Ryan’s budget. Under that assumption, OMB predicted that the Department of Education would be cut by more than $115 billion over a decade. The fallout of that? According to the OMB: "9.6 million students would see their Pell Grants fall by more than $1,000 in 2014, and, over the next decade, over one million students would lose support altogether. This would derail bipartisan education reforms and deeply undermine K-12 education and college opportunity." Romney’s position We contacted the Romney campaign, which directed us to comments the former Massachusetts governor made in the first presidential debate on Oct. 3. "I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college. I'm planning on continuing to grow, so I'm not planning on making changes there," Romney said. On the specific issue of Pell grants for college students, Romney said at a Univision Forum in Miami on Sept. 19, "We’re going to continue a Pell Grant program. … I think the Republican budget called for a Pell Grants being capped out at their current high level. My inclination would be to have them go with the rate of inflation." But that stands in contrast with what Romney told donors at a private fundraiser in April. Then, he said he would at least restructure the federal education agency and make it smaller. "The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I'm not going to get rid of it entirely," Romney said. Our ruling Obama’s ad said Romney would make "catastrophic cuts to education." The statement assumes Romney would adopt the Ryan budget, a blueprint he has generally embraced. The Ryan budget does not specify any cuts to education funding, but we think it’s fair to expect significant reductions to any domestic program, given that lower spending is the goal of the Ryan proposal. And Romney is on the record as saying he would shrink the Department of Education. The ad’s claim uses exaggeration to fill in the blanks of what Romney might do, but the Ryan budget and Romney's own words point toward cuts. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-10-30T16:48:10	2012-10-27	['None']
-hoer-01014	Beware the My Profile Stalkers Facebook Scam	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/beware-profile-stalkers-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Beware the My Profile Stalkers Facebook Scam	April 30, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02557	NFL "players are living, on average, longer than the average male."	/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/02/roger-goodell/nfls-goodell-says-players-live-longer-average-male/	Fox started its wall-to-wall coverage of Super Bowl XLVIII on Fox News Sunday, with host Chris Wallace interviewing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell live from MetLife Stadium. Goodell talked about the weather, and how it appears conditions will be fine for the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks. He addressed a proposal to eliminate extra points, saying they’re almost automatic (as we previously reported, they are). And he discussed the health of NFL players amid concern that the sport is too violent. Goodell offered a defense that we hadn’t heard before. "Our players are living, on average, longer than the average male," Goodell said. After serious talk about concussions in the NFL and some prominent suicides in the sport, we wondered about Goodell’s claim. It’s accurate, it turns out, but requires some additional explanation. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a government research agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the mortality rates of former NFL football players in a report released in 2012. The study included nearly all NFL players who played in the league for five or more years from 1959 to 1988 -- a pool of 3,439 men. Researchers said based on current mortality rates, they expected 625 players to be deceased. But by the end of 2007, only 334 were. "We found the players in our study had a much lower rate of death overall compared to men in the general population," researchers wrote to the NFL players in a March 2012 letter. "This means that, on average, NFL players are actually living longer than men in the general population." The former NFL players also had lower rates of heart disease and cancer compared to average males, the report found. There are a few important caveats to point out. NFL players aren't like your average male in a number of ways. They are professional athletes, many of whom might be wealthy, and they are likely to have access to quality health care. The report also raised red flags. Researchers found that men who were considered obese, those with a Body Mass Index of 30 or more when they played, had twice the risk of death from heart disease than other players. African-American players also had a higher heart disease risk than Caucasian players, the report found. Another important note: Because the study excludes modern-day players, it fails to account for the changing physique of today’s football player. Of the 3,439 men in the NIOSH study, only 1 percent had a Body Mass Index of 35 or more when they played, and 33 percent had a Body Mass Index between 30 and 35. Today’s NFL players are much bigger. To create an example, we looked at the current 53-man roster of the Denver Broncos and calculated each player’s Body Mass Index using a calculator from the National Institutes of Health. Of 53 Broncos players, 13 have a Body Index above 35 (24.5 percent) and another 14 have a Body Mass Index between 30 and 35 (26.4 percent). That’s an important distinction that may affect the results of future studies. Our ruling Goodell said that NFL "players are living, on average, longer than the average male." His claim is backed up by a government study that examined former NFL players who played from 1959 to 1988. But the study, which was released in 2012, did conclude that bigger players had an increased risk of dying from heart disease and did not evaluate more modern-day players. Modern-day players are bigger. We rate Goodell’s statement Mostly True.	None	Roger Goodell	None	None	None	2014-02-02T12:25:08	2014-02-02	['None']
-vogo-00104	Promised Balboa Park Cash: Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/parks/promised-balboa-park-cash-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	Promised Balboa Park Cash: Fact Check TV	June 12, 2013	None	['None']
-tron-00608	Charlie Daniels Writes Open Letter to Senator Chuck Schumer	https://www.truthorfiction.com/charlie-daniels-letter-chuck-schumer/	None	celebrities	None	None	['2016 election', 'celebrities', 'congress', 'donald trump', 'hillary clinton', 'russia']	Charlie Daniels Writes Open Letter to Senator Chuck Schumer	 May 30, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-14998	Virginia’s current unemployment rate is "the lowest in Virginia history."	/virginia/statements/2015/oct/12/richard-saslaw/salaw-says-virginia-unemployment-rate-all-time-low/	Richard Saslaw, the state Senate minority leader, says although Virginia faces headwinds from federal budget cuts, the state’s economy is sailing forward. "Our unemployment (rate) is the lowest in the Southeast U.S. and the lowest in Virginia history — the lowest in Virginia history," Saslaw, D-Fairfax, said during Monday’s debate against his Republican counterpart, Senate Majority Leader Tommy Norment of James City. Since Saslaw doubled down on his proclamation that the state’s jobless level has reached the lowest point ever, we checked to see if he was correct. We turned to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which keeps the closely watched tallies of each state’s unemployment rate. For August, the rate was 4.5 percent, according to the latest figures available when Saslaw made his claim. These monthly figures date to 1976, but you don’t have to go back too far to find a time when the rate was lower than 4.5 percent. It was lower than that level each month during the 149 months from May 1996 through September 2008. During that period, there were times it even was below the 3 percent threshold and actually reached a low point of 2.1 percent in October and November of 2000. In September 2008, as the recession took hold, Virginia’s jobless rate started to grow at a brisk clip and eventually hit 7.4 percent by January 2010. The rate has trended down since then. The 4.5 percent figure for August is the lowest the rate has been since it started to spike in 2008, Gov. Terry McAuliffe said in a Sept. 18 news release. Sam Sterling, Saslaw’s campaign manager, said the senator was trying to reiterate the governor’s point that unemployment is the lowest since 2008, but he didn’t say that during the debate. "He had meant to say that (Virginia) has its lowest unemployment rate since 2008," Sterling wrote in an email. We also should note that Virginia has seen other periods of sub-4.5 percent unemployment, including 39 months from May 1987 through July 1990 and from December 1994 through April 1995. Our ruling Saslaw said during the debate that Virginia’s unemployment rate is the lowest in the state’s history. Figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show he’s wrong, and the senator’s campaign says he garbled his talking point. We rate the claim False.	None	Richard Saslaw	None	None	None	2015-10-12T00:14:13	2015-10-05	['Virginia']
-pomt-03144	Pending a federal waiver, the 2013 Legislature "eliminated the overtesting of students in grades 3-8 by decreasing the number of tests from 17 to 8."	/texas/statements/2013/sep/12/jason-isaac/legislators-claim-overstates-possible-reduction-te/	Great news for students, state Rep. Jason Isaac said in a commentary describing education-related actions by the 2013 Texas Legislature. Mandated high school end-of-course exams were cut from 15 to five, Isaac wrote. We knew that. But the Dripping Springs Republican celebrated more reductions, writing: "We also eliminated the overtesting of students in grades 3-8 by decreasing the number of tests from 17 to 8." Isaac added that House Bill 866 eliminated "some of the STAAR (State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness) testing requirements for students who meet certain performance thresholds." Isaac then mentioned the approved measure also would give charter schools more testing discretion. "However," he wrote, "because of federal mandates, the state must seek and be granted a waiver from the federal government in order for these changes to take place." A former Democratic state Senate candidate, Kathi Thomas, asked us to review the proclaimed 17-to-8 reduction. She said she saw Isaac's article in the Aug. 29, 2013, Dripping Springs News-Dispatch. Texas Education Agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us by email that House Bill 866, which was signed into law on June 14, 2013, "would reduce some testing" if the described waiver won federal approval. Another spokeswoman, DeEtta Culbertson, told us by email that the intended cut in tests--from 17 to 11, not 8--would apply only to students who performed well on such exams. Ratcliffe said a waiver was needed because the change in Texas law conflicted with federal requirements set in place by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, "which requires us to test students in reading and math every year for grades 3-8, we have had to ask the U.S. Department of Education for a waiver. That waiver is still pending." Her response came a few days before the TEA announced Sept. 9, 2013, that the federal department had turned thumbs down on granting the waiver. Previously, in a July 19, 2013, press release, the state education agencyhad announced that Michael Williams, the Texas education commissioner, had sought clarification from the U.S. Department of Education per its authority to waive reading and math tests of students in grades 3-8 as required under the federal law. The agency had said then that under HB 866, a federal "waiver must be secured to reduce or eliminate assessment requirements for certain students at the elementary and middle school grade levels." "Should the federal government determine that relevant provisions of federal law may be waived and ultimately grant a waiver request," the press release said, "potential changes would include assessments for math in grades 3, 5 and 8; and reading in grades 3, 5 and 8. Current federal law requires testing for math and reading for all students in grades 3 through 8." Students who performed well on the tests would be freed "to focus their time and energy on learning new material and not focusing every year on a test where there is a high likelihood that they would demonstrate success," Williams said in a letter to Arne Duncan, the U.S. education secretary. If the federal government were to grant the waiver, according to a May 1, 2013, analysis of the state law by the non-partisan House Research Organization, students in grades 3-8 who met certain performance thresholds would not be required to take some STAAR exams. The analysis said supporters of the measure predicted high-performing students could go from having 17 STAAR exams to facing as few as eight. Not quite, according to TEA’s Culbertson, who told us that if the waiver were granted, students in grades 3-8 would still be required to take 11 tests and students who did not score highly enough would face additional exams. Culbertson listed the 11 STAARs required of all students under the 2013 law as reading and math tests in grades 3, 5 and 8; writing in grades 4 and 7; science in grades 5 and 8; and social studies in grade 8. Culbertson said that students who either fail to score well enough on a test or who attend school in districts choosing to give the exams to every student could be subject to reading and math STAARs in grades 4, 6 and 7. Isaac’s chief of staff, Ellen Troxclair, pointed out by email that while Isaac’s column explicitly said lawmakers had cut required tests in grades 3-8 from 17 to 8, it also mentioned students needing to meet performance thresholds and that the need for a waiver. "The fact remains that had the waiver been granted, the bill would have significantly reduced the number of tests for many students," she wrote. We noticed, finally, that Isaac’s commentary was published in the newspaper with the relevant test-cut sentences taking up two paragraphs, effectively distancing his declaration that mandated tests were cut from 17 to 8 from some of his caveats. Troxclair sent us the text of what she described as his original commentary as submitted and showing all the test-cut information in one paragraph. In contrast, Dale Roberson, publisher of the News-Dispatch, told us by phone that the Isaac commentary arrived at the paper as one giant block of copy. He said he broke the text into readable paragraphs before publication. Our ruling Isaac declared that lawmakers reduced state tests in grades 3-8 from 17 to 8, pending a federal waiver. Under the change in law, though, only well-performing Texas students would have faced fewer tests and even they would still have faced at least 11 exams, not 8. The approved measure left students not fulfilling performance expectations subject to 17 tests. In his commentary, Isaac waved at the need for the waiver and that students scoring well would be affected, but he mentioned these elements only after asserting that the tests were cut--period. Presenting the conditions up front would have made the claim more accurate. We rate this statement, which overstates the reduced number of tests and risks the misimpression that every student would see relief, as Half True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Jason Isaac	None	None	None	2013-09-12T09:43:45	2013-08-29	['None']
-pomt-10595	"The 1990s were a time of prosperity. We created more than 22-million new jobs, moved 8-million people out of poverty, and turned our economy around."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/25/bill-clinton/the-1990s-good-times/	With heightened fears of a recession, Bill Clinton wants you to remember the good old days, the days of Spice Girls and Starbucks and economic prosperity ... the 1990s. The days when, you know, he was president. In a radio ad that is running in South Carolina, Bill Clinton suggests things could be like that again, if you elect his wife. "The 1990s were a time of prosperity," Clinton says in the ad. "We created more than 22-million new jobs, moved 8-million people out of poverty, and turned our economy around. "It's time for another comeback, time to make America great again. I know Hillary's the one who can do it." There are two main statistics in this advertisement (which Hillary Clinton has also thrown out from time to time), and we find that Bill Clinton is on target on both. The first is about new jobs. According to Bureau of Labor statistics, the number of employees on nonagricultural payrolls went from 109.7-million in January 1993 (when Clinton took office) to 132.5-million in January 2001 (when Clinton checked out). Net gain: 22.8-million new jobs. The other claim is fewer people living in poverty. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people living in poverty went from 38-million in 1992 to 31-million in 2000; not quite 8-million as Bill Clinton said, but pretty close. "The hard numbers are correct, but how much of that can you attribute to Clinton's policies?" said James Sherk, a labor policy analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation. Keep in mind, Sherk said, the country was beginning to come out of a recession before Clinton took office. And much of the dramatic change came after 1995 when Republicans had secured control of Congress. Sherk noted that Clinton initially opposed the Welfare Reform Act, which Sherk believes may have been the biggest catalyst in reducing poverty numbers. Sherk says Clinton was also a little lucky. "He had the good fortune to be in office at the height of the tech bubble," he said. "It makes his time in office look good in ways he can't take credit for." Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institute, says there's no getting around the numbers. Sure, Burtless said, the dot.com craze may have helped the economic numbers, and some may argue that the U.S. economy was due for an up-cycle during the 1990s, "but the fact is, there was significant economic growth during that period. It's tough to get around that." "To the degree that a president can effect economic progress," Burtless said, "most would say Bill Clinton did well above average." Let the partisan folks argue about whether Bill Clinton deserves credit for the numbers, or whether Hillary Clinton can recreate them. The numbers are right. We rate Bill Clinton's statement True.	None	Bill Clinton	None	None	None	2008-01-25T00:00:00	2008-01-25	['None']
-vees-00215	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Story about anti-Duterte blog uses unrelated photo and outdated tweet	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-story-about-anti-duterte-blog-misleads	None	None	None	None	good news network philippines,pinoy ako blog	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Story about anti-Duterte blog MISLEADS by using unrelated photo and outdated tweet	May 08, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02884	Tom Cruise Shunning Spotlight, Living As Hermit With No Personal Life?	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-cruise-shunning-spotlight-hermit-personal-life/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Tom Cruise Shunning Spotlight, Living As Hermit With No Personal Life?	4:14 pm, April 5, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04005	Wikileaks documents reveal Hillary Clinton was gravely injured in a plane crash during a secret mission to Iran in 2012.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-secret-plane-crash/	None	Ballot Box	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was Hillary Clinton Seriously Injured in a Secret Plane Crash?	19 September 2016	None	['Iran', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-01104	Tickets issued for President Trump's first State of the Union address contain a misspelling of the word "union."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/misspelled-tickets-trump-state-uniom/	None	Politicians	None	David Emery	None	Misspelled Tickets Issued for ‘State of the Uniom’ Address?	29 January 2018	None	['None']
-vees-00207	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Website with outdated story on 'evidence' of Duterte ouster plot	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-website-misleads-outdated-story-eviden	None	None	None	None	fake news,misleading	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Website MISLEADS with outdated story on 'evidence' of Duterte ouster plot	May 11, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00884	Ban Internet taxes	https://www.truthorfiction.com/taxes/	None	computers	None	None	None	Ban Internet taxes	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00751	"School funding should be shifted out of bureaucracy and into the classroom."	https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/781/reduce-school-administrative-costs-and-shift-to-cl/	None	kasich-o-meter	John Kasich	None	None	Reduce school administrative costs and shift funding to classrooms	2011-01-07T15:00:16	None	['None']
-huca-00034	 "We all know what has happened there — the massive fall in global energy prices. But, you know, 80 per cent of the economy is actually growing." 	https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/28/baloney-meter-harper-says-oil-down-but-80-per-cent-of-economy-is-growing_n_8053806.html?utm_hp_ref=ca-baloney-meter	None	None	Prime Minister Stephen Harper.	Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press	None	Harper's Claim About Growing Economy Contains 'A Lot Of Baloney'	08/28/2015 08:19 EDT	None	['None']
-tron-02448	Minions from “Despicable Me” Were Inspired by Tortured Jewish Children	https://www.truthorfiction.com/minions-from-despicable-me-were-inspired-by-tortured-jewish-children/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Minions from “Despicable Me” Were Inspired by Tortured Jewish Children	Aug 6, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00779	Plastic Containers - Chasing Arrows Symbol Reveals Plastic's Chemical Makeup	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/plastic-coding-system.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Plastic Containers - Chasing Arrows Symbol Reveals Plastic's Chemical Makeup	February 2009	None	['None']
-tron-03558	Whoopi Goldberg Wore Shirt Showing President Trump Shooting Himself	https://www.truthorfiction.com/whoopi-goldberg-shirt-president-trump/	None	trump	None	None	['celebrities', 'donald trump', 'media']	Whoopi Goldberg Wore Shirt Showing President Trump Shooting Himself	May 30, 2018	None	['None']
-farg-00395	“FOX NEWS JUST CONFIRMED OBAMA RIGGED ELECTION WITH 4 MILLION ILLEGAL VOTES"	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/false-headline-revives-voter-fraud-claim/	None	fake-news	Various websites	Angelo Fichera	['voter fraud']	False Headline Revives Voter Fraud Claim	July 25, 2018	[' Saturday, July 21, 2018 ']	['None']
-tron-02045	Iraqi statue honoring American soldiers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/kalat/	None	inspirational	None	None	None	Iraqi statue honoring American soldiers	Mar 18, 2015	None	['United_States', 'Iraq']
-tron-00635	Merle Haggard Leaves Estate to LGBT Group	https://www.truthorfiction.com/merle-haggard-leaves-estate-lgbt-group/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Merle Haggard Leaves Estate to LGBT Group	Apr 12, 2016	None	['None']
-tron-03404	Chaplian’s Report From Bombing in Mosul, Iraq	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chaplainlewis/	None	religious	None	None	None	Chaplian’s Report From Bombing in Mosul, Iraq	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03226	Barack Obama Quotes The Bible?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-john316/	None	politics	None	None	None	Barack Obama Quotes The Bible?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00752	WhatsApp ‘Martinelli’ Phone Virus Warning	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/whatsapp-martinelli-phone-virus-warning/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	WhatsApp ‘Martinelli’ Phone Virus Warning	17 April 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05917	Johnny Carson caused a toilet paper shortage in 1973 after making a joke on The Tonight Show.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/toilet-rumor/	None	Entertainment	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Johnny Carson Cause a Toilet Paper Shortage in 1973?	16 December 2014	None	['Johnny_Carson']
-snes-03404	United Airlines will begin charging for overhead bin space.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-airlines-begin-charging-use-overhead-storage/	None	Business	None	Kim LaCapria	None	United Airlines to Begin Charging for Use of Overhead Storage?	7 December 2016	None	['United_Airlines']
-snes-05712	A new tranquilizer dart gun on the market is designed to put children to sleep.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-fda-approves-tranquilizer-dart-guns-that-puts-kids-to-sleep/	None	Media Matters	None	Dan Evon	None	FDA Approves Tranquilizer Dart Guns That Puts Kids to Sleep	9 May 2015	None	['None']
-tron-02436	Charmin Releasing Pumpkin Spice Toilet Paper	https://www.truthorfiction.com/charmin-releasing-pumpkin-spice-toilet-paper/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	['humor', 'satire', 'seasonal']	Charmin Releasing Pumpkin Spice Toilet Paper	Sep 15, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12579	"More than 20 million people are at risk of dying from starvation within 6 months in 4 nations."	/global-news/statements/2017/apr/11/joseph-crowley/famine-threatens-four-nations/	Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., joined members of Congress on Twitter April 7 to raise awareness for food issues using the hashtag #FightFamine. "More than 20 million people are at risk of dying from starvation within 6 months in 4 nations," he wrote. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Is that true? The tweet is based on a projection from the United Nations. The U.N.’s head of emergency relief Stephen O’Brien provided the 20 million persons estimate to the U.N. Security Council on March 10. Behind that figure lie crises in Yemen, South Sudan, northeastern Nigeria and Somalia. "Without collective and coordinated global efforts, people will simply starve to death," O’Brien told council members. To be clear, the number of people today who literally would have nothing to eat if it weren’t for international aid is less than 20 million. But O’Brien warned that it would reach that number if nothing is done. O’Brien said this disaster would unfold in 2017. The chief economist of the U.N. World Food Program warned in February that the world could see widespread starvation develop in these four places within six months. "This is the first time that we are literally talking about famine in four different parts of the world at the same time," Arif Husain told Reuters in an interview. An immediate surge of $200 million in aid was needed O’Brien said, but he cautioned that most of the problems are political. "With access and funding, humanitarians will do more, but we are not the long-term solution to this growing crisis," he said. Only in Somalia has nature played a key role. The causes in Yemen, South Sudan and northeastern Nigeria are primarily man-made. Yemen Years of civil war have killed an estimated 10,000 civilians and shredded the fabric of life for millions of Yemenis. A coalition of followers of the Houthi movement and forces loyal to the previous president toppled the elected government of President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Iran has backed the insurgents. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have deployed airstrikes and soldiers to restore Hadi to power. The World Food Program said nearly a quarter of the population -- 6.8 million -- rely entirely on outside assistance. A sharp delcine in oil and gas exports caused the economy to collapse, essentially shutting down all imports of wheat and rice. South Sudan After almost 40 years of civil war, South Sudan separated from Sudan in 2011, but peace was short lived. By 2013, competing factions battled for control of the new country. Since then, the violence displaced about 2.7 million people. Combatants target civilians and aid workers, making South Sudan one of the most dangerous places to deliver humanitarian assistance. The U.S. Famine Early Warning Network reported that the "conflict has disrupted planting, harvesting, and other livelihood activities." With production down, food prices have shot up beyond the reach of millions. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Northeastern Nigeria Kidnappings and attacks by Boko Haram insurgents in the north produced a running battle with Nigerian armed forces. About 2 million people abandoned their fields and fled their homes. The crisis is most acute in the states of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe where about 7 million people need humanitarian assistance. Despite gains by the Nigerian military, farmers have been unable to plant for three years in a row. Some fear outright attack, but landmines present an ongoing threat long after rebels have been driven back. Without a new harvest, not only will farmers’ families lack food, but what food is available will be more expensive. Somalia Extreme weather has dramatically added to the human misery in an already fragile state. After floods ruined crops and displaced people in 2015, drought has now led to some of the driest conditions in decades in some regions. According to the United Nations, over half of the population -- about 6.2 million -- is in need of help. That includes about 363,000 acutely malnourished children. Aid officials say the nation is on the brink of famine. Our ruling Crowley said that 20 million people are at risk of dying from starvation within six months in four nations. That’s in line with the assessments of two U.N. officials who say the threat is of historic proportions. We rate this claim True. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joseph Crowley	None	None	None	2017-04-11T10:44:18	2017-04-07	['None']
-snes-06223	Facebook "pirates" perpetrate scams by setting up look-alike Facebook accounts that copy other users' profiles.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facebook-pirates/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	Are Facebook Pirates ‘Cloning’ Accounts?	27 December 2012	None	['Facebook']
-tron-00835	Congress Makes Playing Christmas Music Before Thanksgiving a Federal Crime	https://www.truthorfiction.com/christmas-music-illegal-thanksgiving/	None	christmas	None	None	['Christmas', 'holidays', 'satire']	Playing Christmas Music Before Thanksgiving Is a Federal Crime	Nov 8, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02513	President Trump offered asylum to Russian Jehovah's Witnesses.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jehovahs-witness-russia-trump-asylum/	None	Religion	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Trump Warn Russia Over Jehovah’s Witnesses Ban and Urge Members to Seek Asylum in the U.S.?	2 May 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08720	"80 to 85 percent of my campaign funds go to donations to various organizations throughout the City of Providence."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/sep/03/john-lombardi/lombardi-says-he-donates-80-85-percent-his-campaig/	Political observers will remember the Aug. 24 Providence mayoral debate for candidate Chris Young's marriage proposal, which made national news. But amid the YouTube clips and pundit chatter that dominated the aftermath, an otherwise substantive debate was overshadowed. There’s a lot we could have checked from that debate (was the proposal legit, or was it a political ploy?). We'll start, however, by focusing on the one candidate who specifically challenged voters to check his record. Drawing on questions from viewers during the web-broadcast segment, WPRI-TV's Tim White, the moderator, asked the candidates whether they’d be willing to give leftover campaign funds to nonprofit organizations. Longtime Providence Councilman John Lombardi’s answer? "I would challenge anyone to look at my finance reports at the Board of Elections. I would venture to say that 80 to 85 percent of my campaign funds go to donations to various organizations throughout the city of Providence, so the answer would be yes, but that would just be a natural occurrence for me." We love a good challenge, so we barely hesitated before picking up the phone to ask Lombardi whether he actually did all that math to get to 80 to 85 percent. "Of course I didn’t run the numbers," he told us, half laughing, half annoyed. OK, but you did challenge us to check your filings, right? Lombardi said the comment was said in jest and was meant to be nothing more than "a tongue-in-cheek remark." We here at PolitiFact like a good joke as much as the next person; however, when you encourage "anyone to look at my finance reports," it doesn't sound much like one. We decided to take him up on the challenge that he now says wasn't a challenge and checked his campaign filings anyway. Since Lombardi didn’t specify a time frame for the 80-percent donation rate, we elected to start by looking at his 2010 second-quarter campaign finance report. Lombardi said he gave to "various organizations," rather than "nonprofits," so we gave him a little latitude on whom we counted. For example, we included his donations to the 15th Ward Democratic Association as well as checks written to fundraisers and schools. The only exception was when such a donation specified "advertising," as was the case with money he gave to the Rhode Island Catholic Diocese and several other organizations. (It is worth noting that giving away money -- including campaign contributions -- is a standard practice for candidates to reward supporters and attract votes.) The most cash Lombardi had on hand during the second quarter was $121,393; he gave about $5,400 of that to local organizations. That's about 4.4 percent of the total, nowhere near the 80 percent to 85 percent he suggested. When we asked Lombardi about his second-quarter filings, he said the 80-percent figure was never meant to apply to that period because he is spending so much of his campaign funds on his run for mayor. "But if you go back last year or so before, you’ll find that," he told us. "…Other than this year, that’s a matter of course for me." We understand that rationale. It makes sense that he’s not giving away much of his money during a heated primary, which is why we took him up on this suggestion as well and checked all his filings from 2009. That was before he was ramping up his mayoral campaign, but after his last City Council race was over. So it seemed like a reasonable time for him to have given more to charity. He didn't. In the first quarter he gave about 4.2 percent of his funds to local organizations. That number jumped to 7.4 percent in the second quarter, before dropping to 3.5 percent in the third quarter and 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a yearly average of 4.35 percent. It doesn't even break double digits. In a follow-up conversation, Lombardi's campaign treasurer said the candidate meant to phrase the claim as 80 percent to 85 percent of his total spending, not his total cash. In the interest of fairness, we ran those numbers too. In 2009, just under 20 percent of his spending, on average, went to local organizations. Again, the numbers never came close to 80 percent. Lombardi himself offered another defense, insisting that many of his paid ads ran in church bulletins and should therefore be counted as charitable donations. But regardless of where they appeared, those announcements were still paid advertisements promoting Lombardi. When he filed his campaign reports he listed them as just that. It's clear that Lombardi gives donations to local organizations. But his statement at the debate that he donates 80 percent to 85 percent is simply wrong. Lombardi may have been joking, as he maintains, or perhaps he just made an unfortunate exaggeration that in a less politically charged time may have gone unnoticed. Speaking on camera during the debate, he didn't say he was speaking in jest, nor did he crack a smile or do anything else to suggest he wasn’t serious. What he did was lead voters to believe he deserved credit for a level of charity that was, at best, greatly exaggerated. Pants on Fire.	None	John Lombardi	None	None	None	2010-09-03T00:01:00	2010-08-24	['None']
-pomt-14997	"There have been seven investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress" that concluded "nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/12/hillary-clinton/clinton-there-have-been-7-benghazi-probes-so-far/	House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested last week that Congress’ current investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, is a political move against former Hillary Clinton, and she was quick to jump on the Republican’s gaffe. In an interview Monday morning, Clinton was visibly frustrated with the ongoing Benghazi investigation. "There have been seven investigations led mostly by Republicans in the Congress," Clinton said. "And they were nonpartisan, and they reached conclusions that, first of all, I and nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make. This committee was set up, as they have admitted, for the purpose of making a partisan political issue out of the deaths of four Americans." Is Clinton correct that there have been seven and now eight investigations into Benghazi? We started counting and found she was largely accurate. Here’s what we found. Background Clinton was secretary of state when Islamic extremists attacked a U.S. diplomatic mission and a CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012. U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the barrage. In the weeks following the attack, the White House was heavily questioned for its response to the terrorist attack. Many debated, among conflicting reports from intelligence officials, what role al-Qaeda played in the attack and how much the White House knew about the group’s involvement. Critics also questioned whether Clinton and the State Department could have better addressed security at the U.S. facilities before they were attacked. The debate got more partisan as time went on, as Republicans began speaking of conspiracy theories and cover-ups. The seven probes mentioned by Clinton include only those conducted by Congress, but there was at least one more. After the attack, Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board to investigate the incident -- something she was legally required to do. The Board’s report found no fault in the State Department for the terrorist attacks but acknowledged "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies" that left Benghazi vulnerable. Four State Department officials were temporarily suspended and ultimately reassigned within the department. It should be noted that each congressional committee that investigated the Benghazi attack looked into different aspects of the event. After the attack, Republican Speaker John Boehner directed the House Committees on Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intelligence to investigate the issues within their jurisdictions. The House investigations were led by Republicans. Two bipartisan Senate Committees also investigated the attack. Clinton said the committees found that she and her department had not committed wrongdoing but suggested changes. Actually, almost every committee report found her department did not adequately address security concerns in Libya or could have done more to prevent the attack. Clinton’s words give the best possible spin to the various committee findings, but she’s also essentially accurate. Here’s a list of all the congressional investigations and what they found. Investigation 1: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform The House Oversight Committee was one of the first committees to question Clinton following the Benghazi attack. On Sept. 16, 2013, the Republican-led committee released an interim report on the Accountability Review Board appointed by Clinton. The report raised questions about the independence and integrity of the Accountability Review Board (since Clinton appointed the board to investigate her own department) and criticized the conclusions in the board’s final report. Investigation 2: The Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs This bipartisan committee released a report in December 2012 detailing the "high risk" of a terrorist attack at the U.S. facilities in Libya. While the report criticized the State Department for not addressing the security concerns leading up to the attack, it also found "administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack." The report attributed the State Department’s security failures to intelligence problems and a failure "to imagine the type of attack that occurred." Investigation 3: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence The Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report in January 2014 calling the Benghazi attacks "preventable." Among other findings, the committee concluded the State Department had received ample warning about deteriorating security in Libya and failed to adequately increase security in the weeks leading up to the attack. The report also faulted intelligence officials for not relaying information on the CIA annex to the U.S. military. Investigation 4: The House Committee on Foreign Affairs Clinton testified before this House committee on Jan. 23, 2013 (she also testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier that day). The House Committee on Foreign Affairs later released a report criticizing Clinton and other high-ranking officials who they said were "provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya." The report also criticized the State Department’s Accountability Review Board, which "was seriously deficient in several respects," especially in its failure to comment on the actions of the department’s highest ranking officials, including Clinton. Investigation 5: The House Committee on the Judiciary The focus of the Committee on the Judiciary’s probe was the FBI investigation that followed the terrorist attack. The committee released its findings in April 2013 as part of an interim progress report in conjunction with the five other Republican-led committees investigating Benghazi. The report detailed how the FBI did not investigate the scene until three weeks after the attack and spent less than one day collecting evidence in Benghazi. The committee also faulted Clinton for reducing security at the Benghazi consulate, despite her testimony that she "had no knowledge" of security requests from the compound. Investigation 6: The House Committee on Armed Services The Armed Services Committee began its investigation "immediately after the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya… to evaluate the response of the Department of Defense" to the attack, according to a February 2014 committee report. The Republican-led committee bashed the Obama administration’s failure to address security threats in Benghazi, asserting that the military was unprepared for possible violence in Libya. Investigation 7: The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence The House Intelligence Committee concluded its two-year Benghazi investigation in November 2014 when it released a report exonerating the Obama administration of wrongdoing in its response to the attack. The report found evidence of contradicting intelligence among government officials and concluded officials did not intentionally mislead the public with information in the days following the attack. Ongoing Investigation 8: The House Select Committee on Benghazi The Republican-led House created the House Select Committee on Benghazi in May 2014 after a conservative watchdog group discovered new State Department emails about the attacks. The committee includes seven Republicans and five Democrats. The group released an interim progress report in May 2015, but the committee’s Democrats have been outspoken on the committee’s lack of progress. Clinton, who has faced more scrutiny over Benghazi after it was discovered she used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, is set to testify before the Benghazi panel on Oct. 22. Our ruling Clinton said, "There have been seven investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress" that concluded "nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make." Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-10-12T11:13:42	2015-10-05	['United_States_Congress', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Benghazi']
-goop-02389	The Weeknd “Creating Rift” Between Selena Gomez And Her Family, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/the-weeknd-selena-gomez-family/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	The Weeknd NOT “Creating Rift” Between Selena Gomez And Her Family, Despite Report	5:27 pm, October 3, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02925	Lindsay Lohan Launching Headscarf Line For Middle Eastern Women, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/lindsay-lohan-headscarf-line-muslim-middle-east-women-hijab/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Lindsay Lohan NOT Launching Headscarf Line For Middle Eastern Women, Despite Report	3:24 pm, March 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00542	A photograph depicts a "special prison bus for babies" used by ICE at an immigrant detention facility.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prison-bus-for-babies/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Is This a Picture of ICE’s ‘Special Prison Bus for Babies’?	28 May 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01399	Chlorpyrifos, an insecticide with alleged origins in Nazi Germany, was set to be banned by the EPA over health and environmental safety concerns; but President Trump reversed this decision after Dow Chemicals, a manufacturer of the chemical, donated one million dollars to his inauguration fund.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-reverses-insecticide-ban-dow-chemicals/	None	Politics	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Did President Trump Reverse an Insecticide Ban After Receiving $1 Million from Dow Chemicals?	27 November 2017	None	['Dow_Chemical_Company', 'United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency']
-pomt-01684	Says Rick Scott took $200,000 in campaign contributions from a company that "profited off pollution."	/florida/statements/2014/aug/15/nextgen-climate/nextgen-ad-rick-scott-takes-money-polluters/	California billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate group unleashed an ad that accuses Gov. Rick Scott of being cozy with a polluter. "A dangerous new type of oil drilling near the Everglades threatened drinking water for 7 million Floridians," states part of the ad. "But one Floridian is benefitting. Rick Scott drank from a fountain of campaign cash from the company that profited off pollution." The text on the screen states: "Rick Scott $200,000 from oil interests." Scott’s side refuted the ad and the Republican Party of Florida counter-punched with its own TV ad: "Crist’s team says Gov. Scott took contributions from this polluter. It’s total fiction. Scott didn’t take a nickel. Scott held the polluter accountable. Shut down their wells...." Did Scott, who is facing re-election, take campaign cash from a "company that profited off pollution" and receive $200,000 from oil interests? We decided to drill down to sort out the facts. Controversial drilling project led state to sue When we dug into the ad, we found a very complicated backstory. The ad’s makers told us the contributions refer to Collier Resources Co., but the story really begins with a separate company: Dan A. Hughes Co. In June 2012, Collier leased about 120,000 acres of mineral rights to Hughes. A few months later Hughes received a state permit to construct its first exploratory well. The public outcry began when Hughes sought additional permits the next year. Residents received a letter in April 2013 from a Hughes subcontractor asking for information needed to draw up an evacuation plan in case of an explosion. Despite residents’ protests, in September 2013, DEP granted Hughes a permit to inject acid deep underground to fracture the limestone. The process is similar to hydraulic fracking, which has been the subject of heated debate across the country, although the industry term for it is "acid stimulation." Hughes also wanted to try something never before allowed in Florida. After injecting the acid, Hughes workers injected a mix of sand and chemical gel under pressure to prop open the new fractures and let the oil flow out. That's known as using a "proppant," and it was not covered by the DEP permit, the Tampa Bay Times reported. In December 2013, Hughes told DEP that it intended to start that operation in a few days. The DEP sought a short delay to review the plan, but then Hughes did it anyway. That led DEP to fine Hughes $25,000 in April and order Hughes to hire an expert to monitor groundwater for contamination. After months of wrangling, the state said Hughes failed to meet the terms of the consent order, yanked the company’s permits and filed a lawsuit. Collier and Hughes agreed to terminate the lease, and Hughes announced that it was pulling out of Florida. DEP conducted groundwater sampling and found no contamination, but environmentalists say more extensive testing is needed. "Hughes is not a ‘polluter’ nor has it turned a profit on the well, which the company unilaterally shut-in due to the controversy," Hughes spokesman David Blackmon said. There was, however, an entity that "profited" -- though we can’t say they "profited from pollution": the Collier Resources Co. that leased the land to Hughes. Blackmon told PolitiFact Florida that Hughes will not be reimbursed for the terminated lease. Campaign contributions The ad doesn’t identify the campaign donors or company when it states that "Rick Scott drank from a fountain of campaign cash from the company that profited off pollution." For those following the controversy, it would be easy to wrongly assume the ad referred to donations from Hughes. But Hughes "has not contributed to the Crist or Scott campaigns and does not intend to," Blackmon said. Instead, NextGen is referring to four members of the Collier family -- Barron, Miles, Parker and Thomas -- who each gave $50,000 to Scott’s Let’s Get to Work Committee in January 2013. PolitiFact Florida verified those donations on the state elections website. We asked a Collier representative why the individuals donated to Scott, but the answer didn’t shed much light. "Certain individual owners have personally supported the Governor in the past, but those decisions are made individually and without any input from Collier Resources Company," said Priscylla M. Oliva, executive assistant to Barron Collier Companies, in an email to PolitiFact Florida. The Collier family has donated to multiple state and federal candidates and causes -- mostly Republicans and conservative groups. In terms of state donations, the donation to Scott stands out. We found one state donation that was larger than the ones to Scott’s committee: Parker Collier gave $525,000 to the Republican Party of Florida in 2010. In 2010, Parker and Miles Collier were ranked seventh in the country among top individuals funding outside spending groups, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Our ruling NextGen’s ad states that "Rick Scott drank from a fountain of campaign cash from the company that profited off pollution" and received $200,000 from oil interests. Scott’s campaign received $50,000 from four different members of the Collier family. The Collier Resources Co. leased mineral rights on its land to Hughes for drilling, so it’s fair to refer to those donations as being from "oil interests." However, there are two key elements of the claim that are misleading. The ad doesn’t name the company or campaign donor, so it’s possible for viewers who are knowledgeable about the controversy to mistakenly assume that the donations were by Hughes. The other problematic part is that there isn’t proof that pollution occurred. The state’s preliminary tests indicated there was no contamination. Though environmentalists say additional testing is needed, we rate claims based on information available at the time. We rate this claim Half True.	None	NextGen Climate	None	None	None	2014-08-15T11:12:10	2014-08-08	['None']
-snes-03579	Gay Canadian filmmaker Chris Ball was severely beaten and bloodied by emboldened Donald Trump supporters shortly after the 2016 election.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-supporters-beat-gay-man-in-california/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Trump Supporters Beat Gay Man in California?	10 November 2016	None	['Canada', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-05699	Coca-Cola recalled an advertising poster due to a risqué image hidden within it.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coca-cola-poster-recall/	None	Cokelore	None	David Mikkelson	None	Risqué Coca-Cola Poster	28 July 2004	None	['None']
-goop-02179	Selena Gomez Pals Want Justin Bieber “Back To Being An Ex”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-friends-justin-bieber-ex/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez Pals Want Justin Bieber “Back To Being An Ex”?	5:54 pm, November 18, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-07620	"What we have now is the most generous, in my opinion, 'good time' bill in the entire United States."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/mar/21/richard-ferruccio/correctional-officer-says-rhode-island-has-nations/	The practice of granting early release to criminals in prison has come under intense scrutiny in Rhode Island, following the news that Michael Woodmansee is scheduled to be set free this summer, after serving 28 years of a 40-year sentence for murdering his South Kingstown neighbor, 5-year-old Jason Foreman. Many Rhode Islanders were outraged that Woodmansee’s sentence had been shaved by 12 years and he would soon be released to the community, at age 53. Among those speaking out against Woodmansee’s release is Richard Ferruccio, a correctional officer who was president of the correctional officers’ union for nine years and was a lobbyist on their behalf at the State House. On the "Helen Glover" show on radio station WHJJ (920-AM), Ferruccio complained that Woodmansee would have served his entire 40-year sentence if "good time" provisions had not allowed him to cut his sentence short. There would be less crime, he said, if criminals were kept in prison longer. He went on to say that Rhode Island’s "good time" provisions were already liberal during much of Woodmansee’s time in prison. Then, in 2008, the General Assembly, with support from prison administrators, made the provisions even more favorable to inmates. "What we had in Rhode Island prior to then [2008] was one of the most generous "good time" bills in the country," Ferruccio said. "What we have now is the most generous, in my opinion, ‘good time’ bill in the entire United States." We wondered if Rhode Island really has the nation’s most liberal "good time" policies. In general, "good time" refers to days prisoners can cut from their sentences for good behavior. At least 38 states offer prisoners the opportunity to earn "good time." Many states, including Rhode Island, also grant additional time off for prison work and successful completion of educational programs. Supporters of such programs say they are incentives to inmates to stay out of trouble while behind bars and can be part of the rehabilitative process. Educational and vocational programs, they say, prepare prisoners for life on the outside. Opponents say they allow dangerous criminals to go free far too early. The "good time" policy in place during most of Woodmansee’s 28 years in prison granted inmates up to 10 days off per month for good behavior, plus two more days for working in prison. In 2008, the General Assembly approved up to five more days per month for those taking classes or participating in programs. That brought the maximum time an inmate can earn to 17 days per month. The Assembly made the change in part to save money. And it worked. In the first year of the new law, the average population of the Adult Correctional Institutions dropped by 87 prisoners, to 3,773, according to a Department of Corrections report. To support his argument that Rhode Island’s current "good time" law is the nation’s most generous, Ferruccio supplied a March 18, 2008 survey of state policies, compiled by the Connecticut Department of Corrections. (Rhode Island’s law was changed in May 2008.) The Connecticut survey shows that at the time of the survey, Rhode Island fell roughly in the middle of states. Some states, such as Georgia, Hawaii and Idaho, had no "good time" provisions. But 13 other states had more generous policies. Arkansas and New Mexico, for example, granted up to 30 days off a month. California would waive half a sentence for non-violent offenders. Iowa reduced sentences by 1.2 days for each day served. North Carolina granted one day off for each discipline-free day served. A more recent survey, completed in January by the National Conference of State Legislatures but not yet published, found the awarding of "good time" appears to be a growing trend. The survey showed that 14 states appear to be more generous than Rhode Island. Alabama, for instance, grants up to 75 days off per month for good behavior -- the result is those prisoners who qualify serve about a third of their sentences. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and New Mexico grant up to 30 days per month. Rhode Island does have the most generous policy in New England, according to the 2011 survey. Massachusetts allows inmates to earn up to 7.5 days per month for educational and work efforts, Maine offers up to 4 days per month. New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut have no "good time." When we apprised Ferruccio of our findings, he said he was more certain about New England. Ferruccio argues that Rhode Island corrections officials misrepresent the total amount of time prisoners can cut from their sentences because they earn additional time off for completing education and rehabilitation programs. But that’s the case in many states. For instance, prisoners who complete their high school equivalency get an extra 90 days in Arkansas and Kentucky, six months in Indiana. Alison Lawrence, author of the January survey, says most states allow prisoners to accumulate earned time on top of good time. And there is an overall increase in granting more earned time because states believe it leads to less crime. (Because of the Woodmansee case, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin says he intends to file legislation to reduce "good time," especially for those who commit heinous crimes.) In conclusion, if Ferruccio had limited himself to a New England comparison, he would have had a point. But he didn’t. He said Rhode Island has the most liberal "good time" law in the nation. That wasn’t true in 2008. And it’s not true now. We rule his statement False.	None	Richard Ferruccio	None	None	None	2011-03-21T00:00:01	2011-03-08	['United_States']
-bove-00107	No, These Aren’t Photos Of Abu Dhabi’s First Hindu Temple. The Temple Is Yet To Be Built	https://www.boomlive.in/no-these-arent-photos-of-abu-dhabis-first-hindu-temple-the-temple-is-yet-to-be-built/	None	None	None	None	None	No, These Aren’t Photos Of Abu Dhabi’s First Hindu Temple. The Temple Is Yet To Be Built	Feb 10 2018 4:27 pm, Last Updated: Feb 13 2018 3:06 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-13571	"Almost half a million people are still eligible (for DACA), particularly in the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/22/hillary-clinton/clinton-says-almost-half-million-people-still-elig/	Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has presented herself as an advocate for immigrants, saying she’ll push for immigration reform within her first 100 days in the Oval Office and promising to continue the deferred deportation plans of President Barack Obama. On Aug. 15 — four years to the day since immigration officials began accepting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals applications — she published a post on Medium directed to those who have applied for the deportation relief program and to those who haven’t. "In America, the place of your birth should never be a barrier that stops you from reaching your God-given potential  —  that’s what makes our country great, and that’s the promise I’m going to fight to fulfill," Clinton wrote. She said a sizable amount of immigrants could still apply for the program. "Experts estimate almost half a million people are still eligible, particularly in the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community," Clinton wrote. We wondered if Clinton was right about the estimated number of eligible applicants, and whether the Asian and Pacific Islander communities represented an outsized proportion. Clinton’s campaign directed us to an August report published by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute analyzing DACA application rates. The study found that application rates were "generally very low" for immigrants born in Asia. DACA background The Homeland Security Department, which oversees immigration enforcement, announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in June 2012. It was designed to defer deportation for undocumented immigrants 30 years old or younger and who arrived in the United States before they were 16 years old. Applicants have to meet several criteria to be considered, including having continuously lived in the United States since June 15, 2007, and be in school, have graduated or obtained a GED certificate, or be an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or U.S. armed forces. Applicants also cannot have felony convictions, a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors, nor can they be be a threat to national security or public safety. Advocates argue that those who were brought to the country by their parents as children should be given opportunities to stay in the country since they likely weren’t the ones making decisions to migrate or to stay in the country illegally. DACA does not grant lawful status, but people who receive DACA are not considered to be "unlawfully present" during their time of deferred action. DACA defers deportation for two-year periods, it can be renewed and beneficiaries can also apply for work permits. This summer, the Supreme Court deadlocked in a 4-4 decision on an extended version of DACA and on a deferred action program for parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, which allowed an appellate court’s injunction to stand. That decision does not affect the original DACA. DACA eligible population Back to Clinton’s point: We wondered how many unauthorized immigrants are eligible and how many have applied. When it comes to the undocumented population, what’s usually available are just estimates. The Migration Policy Institute report is based on a formula using federal immigration data and Census Bureau survey data. The report offers two sets of eligible applicants: 1.3 million and 1.7 million. The institute found that about 1.3 million unauthorized immigrants were immediately eligible for DACA in 2016  — they met all criteria, including high school completion or school enrollment. About 400,000 more met DACA criteria except high school completion or school enrollment requirement in 2014. The additional 400,000 may have become eligible for DACA by enrolling in an adult education program — bringing the total eligible population in 2016 to about 1.7 million, the institute said. As of March 31, 2016, immigration officials had accepted about 820,000 (meaning they can begin going through the deferred-action process). Of the nearly 820,000 accepted, officials approved 728,285. So of the 1.3 million immediately eligible population, about 480,000 can still apply. By assuming up to 1.7 million are eligible, then there could be up to 880,000 who can still apply for DACA. Clinton is right that immigrants from the Asian and Pacific Islander population comprise a large chunk of people who can still apply. South Korea ranked fourth among the top five countries of birth for the immediately eligible DACA population in 2016 (after Mexico, Guatemala and El Salvador), according to the institute. Honduras was fifth. But only 7,000 of the estimated 49,000 eligible South Koreans have applied. And less than 30 percent of about 33,000 eligible immigrants from India and the Philippines have applied. Multiple immigration scholars and experts we reached out to cited MPI’s research as a credible base for DACA estimates. There are more than 130,000 undocumented immigrants of Asian descent eligible for DACA, according to estimates cited by the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The group also noted back in 2014 that DACA enrollment from Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders was "disproportionately low." Mexican-born immigrants represented 63 percent of the immediately eligible DACA population and 78 percent of them have applied, according to MPI. New America Media, a national collaboration of 3,000 ethnic news organizations, reported earlier this month that applications from Asians and Pacific Islanders may be at lower rates because those communities may not know they can apply. Some of the reasons they have not applied may include fear of immigration agencies, cultural stigma in speaking about immigration status, shortage of community resources about DACA in languages spoken by Asians and Pacific Islanders, and few portrayals of deportation relief as an issue for their communities, said Sheridan Lagunas, a spokesperson for United We Dream, a youth-led immigrant rights national group. Our ruling In a Medium post, Clinton said, "experts estimate almost half a million people are still eligible (for DACA), particularly in the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community." Researchers have estimated the number of eligible DACA recipients might be around 1.3 million to 1.7 million people, with immigration officials having accepted about 820,000 applications. Based on varying estimates, that leaves about 500,000 to nearly 900,000 people who can still apply. Immigration advocates and scholars have said Asian American and Pacific Islander application rates are lower compared to other populations, likely due to lack of information. We rate Clinton’s statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3a0188dc-1fd5-4886-9ab0-3646af62b99d	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-08-22T18:41:47	2016-08-15	['None']
-pomt-01733	The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "passed a rule giving the agency unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes."	/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/05/katie-pavlich/townhall-editor-claims-us-agency-empowered-itself-/	Don’t feel too bad if you’ve never heard of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It’s the new kid in Washington, as far as government agencies go, created by the passage of the 2010 massive financial regulation overhaul known as Dodd-Frank. The bureau, which opened in 2011, has rulemaking powers, supervises certain financial institutions and checks out complaints from consumers about lending practices that may violate the law. An editor of the conservative news website Townhall claimed it has more nefarious aims. A reader asked us to look into the thrust of a June 19 story by news editor Katie Pavlich, also a Fox News contributor and conservative author, who said the agency granted itself authority to shut down businesses for basically any reason. "Last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through the power of Dodd-Frank, passed a rule giving the agency unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes through a cease-and-desist order," Pavlich wrote. That seemed like a lot of unilateral power, so we wanted to look into her claim. Federal rulemaking fun We tried to reach Pavlich through email and Twitter, but she did not respond. Her article links to a post on CFPB Monitor, a blog maintained by the Ballard Spahr law firm, about the agency adopting a final rule on temporary cease-and-desist orders. Just one problem: The cease-and-desist order isn’t what Pavlich thinks it is. One of Ballard Spahr’s attorneys told us the rule Pavlich referenced is not meant to gut businesses’ rights and is typical of other federal and state financial regulators. "It’s not like a blank check to put somebody out of business," said Christopher Willis, a Ballard Spahr partner and consumer finance attorney who represents financial institutions that would be subject to the rule. "It’s supposed to be tied to stopping someone from violating the law." Here’s how Willis explained it to us: When the agency thinks a business has broken the law, the agency can file a lawsuit, pursue administrative proceedings or do a cease-and-desist order. But a cease-and-desist order is to cease-and-desist violating the law -- not to stop existing. Moreover, the agency didn’t give itself the power to issue cease-and-desist orders, Congress did. Section 1053(c) of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act allows the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to conduct cease-and-desist proceedings. So, in September 2013, the agency developed an interim rule that spells out how to do what Congress wanted. Essentially, the rule says the agency’s director may issue a temporary cease-and-desist order when he or she finds a company’s alleged unlawful action will render it unable to pay debts or "otherwise prejudice the interests of consumers." An earlier CFPB Monitor post equated this kind of order with a temporary restraining order in a judicial proceeding. The order is enforceable once served. The agency published its final rule June 18, effective July 18. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau received just one public comment about the regulation, which appears to have been intended for the Food and Drug Administration. Power with precedent So we know the agency didn’t just assign itself this power. But there are more issues to address with Pavlich’s claim that the rule gives the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes." Is the cease-and-desist authority unprecedented? Not really. Other banking agencies have had this power for a long time, Willis said. Agency spokesman Samuel Gilford sent us an alphabet soup of federal financial regulators with similar power, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, OCC and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as many state banking regulators (see examples in Texas, Connecticut, North Carolina). Can the agency shut down businesses for any reason? The agency is tasked with overseeing a large amount of businesses -- mainly payday lenders, non-bank mortgage lenders, banks and credit unions with assets over $10 billion, and private student loan lenders. Still, we’re not talking about mom and pop’s pizza shop. The agency can only go after the businesses it’s tasked with overseeing. Gilford said the agency has not yet issued a cease-and-desist order. But when it does, it can’t just do it for any reason. "Any temporary cease-and-desist order issued by the CFPB must describe the basis for the order, the alleged violations of the law, and the harm that is likely to result without the issuance of an order," Gilford said. That said, the agency is powerful and operates with more autonomy than other agencies, Willis said. Its budget is not controlled by Congress, and its director is insulated from the political process after the president appoints him or her. "So there’s a lot of criticism against the agency for lack of democratic accountability," Willis said. "But it has nothing to do with cease-and-desist programs." Our ruling Pavlich recently wrote for Townhall, "the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, through the power of Dodd-Frank, passed a rule giving the agency unprecedented power to shut down businesses, no matter what the reason, at any time it wishes through a cease-and-desist order." She is mistaken, an attorney who represents the financial services industry told us. Pavlich ignores several key facts about the agency’s temporary cease-and-desist authority. Namely, it’s not unprecedented, it’s not issued without reason, and it’s meant to stop violations of law, not the business altogether. We rate her claim Pants on Fire.	None	Katie Pavlich	None	None	None	2014-08-05T11:45:04	2014-06-18	['None']
-pomt-03584	"The State of Wisconsin thinks you should have to" wash your hands "at least 28 times to make one peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/may/16/jeff-wagner/talk-show-host-jeff-wagner-says-state-requires-28-/	Conservative talk show host Jeff Wagner teased a few topics at the top of his show on May 8, 2013, then he posed a question and made a claim. "How many times do you wash your hands while making the same peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich? Maybe once, right? Maybe?" he asked on WTMJ-AM (620) in Milwaukee. "Well, the State of Wisconsin thinks you should have to do it at least 28 times to make one peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich." We happened to be driving to a lunch appointment (for Ethiopian food, not PB&Js) when we heard Wagner’s claim, so it caught our attention. Wagner’s evidence The former federal prosecutor replied promptly to our request for evidence to back his statement. He even went to the trouble of posting on his blog both the request and his response (which included the requisite dig at PolitiFact). The evidence consisted of two things: -- A four-paragraph Associated Press news article, headlined "Outagamie County sues over food code inspections," that was posted on JSOnline.com the day before Wagner made his claim. -- A copy of a federal court lawsuit Outagamie County filed against the state over state inspections of the county-owned nursing home. Wagner also noted in his email that he discussed the lawsuit later in his show. (By the way, both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which produces PolitiFact Wisconsin, and WTMJ are owned by Journal Communications.) That means listeners who only heard Wagner’s tease might have thought the state was poking its nose into their kitchen. But he made it clear half an hour later that his claim had to do with the nursing home lawsuit. The lawsuit Outagamie County sued the state Department of Health Services in March 2013, objecting to code violations cited in 2011 and 2012 at Brewster Village, a county-owned nursing home. State inspectors enforce both state and federal regulations governing nursing homes. And some of the violations cited at Brewster Village involve federal codes for food preparation. After the state issued its violation notices in 2011, according to the lawsuit, workers at the nursing home conducted "time studies." They wanted to see -- based on how they said the state interpreted federal food regulations -- how long it would take "to provide for the number of hand washes, glove changes and other steps." The county concluded that in order to comply, nursing home staff would need to wash their hands 28 times to safely make peanut butter-and-jelly sandwiches -- rather than the nine times they normally do. Of course, in the context of a lawsuit, it’s in the county’s interest to claim the state-required number is as high as possible. Whether it’s nine times or 28 times, the impression for most will be the same: Really? Wash, wash, wash It’s important to remember we’re not talking about a person at home making a PB&J for their lunch, but multiple workers making sandwiches for medically fragile people in a 204-bed nursing home. Still, it seems like a whole lot of washing going on. State inspectors cited a number of instances at Brewster Village they said violated the federal food code. For example: workers adjusting knobs on a device that was soiled with a brown substance; pouring hot water into a pitcher without first washing hands; touching a drawer handle soiled with grease to remove a clean utensil from the drawer; and donning a pair of gloves and opening a drawer to get a clean utensil and, without hand washing, cutting open two bags of gravy mix. What does the state say about all this? State inspectors didn’t declare in their reports that nursing home staff needed to wash hands a particular number of times during food preparation. And the Department of Health Services wouldn’t comment to us on Outagamie County’s claim that, according to the state’s interpretation of federal rules, 28 hand washes are necessary during sandwich making. It seems likely, though, based on the violation notices the state issued, that the state believes the hand washing should have occurred more than nine times. Our rating Wagner said "the State of Wisconsin thinks you should have to" wash your hands "at least 28 times to make one peanut butter and jelly sandwich." Wagner later made it clear he was referring to food preparation in a county-owned nursing home. But although the state indicated it wanted nursing home staff to wash their hands more than nine times, it didn’t specify a number. Wagner’s statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True.	None	Jeff Wagner	None	None	None	2013-05-16T07:00:00	2013-05-08	['Wisconsin']
-snes-04670	Image depicts a Swedish girl brutally abducted and raped by three refugees.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/swedish-girl-refugee-assault-meme/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Swedish Girl Refugee Assault	2 June 2016	None	['Sweden']
-goop-02225	Gwen Stefani “Baby On The Way” Claim Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-baby-bump-photos-pregnant/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani “Baby On The Way” Claim NOT True	3:12 pm, November 9, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11281	Says that as of March 2018 compared with 2017, "there’s been a more than 200 percent increase in the number of people who are apprehended coming across the border. And, I’ll tell you this, there’s been a more than 200 percent increase in apprehension of heroin coming across the border."	/texas/statements/2018/apr/24/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-claim-about-border-apprehensions-heroi/	Texas Gov. Greg Abbott says that apprehension of border-crossing immigrants and drugs have increased dramatically from last year, justifying his decision to step up National Guard troops assigned to the Texas-Mexico border in keeping with President Donald Trump’s desires. Abbott said in an April 9, 2018, interview with Trey Ware on San Antonio’s KTSA radio station: "People must understand the math behind what is going on and that is this: And that is from this March, being last month, compared to last year, there’s been a more than 200 percent increase in the number of people who are apprehended coming across the border. And I’ll tell you this, there’s been more than a 200 percent increase in apprehension(s) of heroin coming across the border. This is real dangerous stuff that we must get control of before we further lose control of our border." We were curious about those stats, so we asked the governor’s campaign for backup. We didn’t hear back. Next, we turned to government-posted border and heroin apprehension figures, focusing first on apprehensions of people. Counting border apprehensions Apprehension counts--often cited as an indication of illegal border crossings--are regularly posted by Customs and Border Protection, the part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security primarily responsible for regulating the movement of people and goods across U.S. borders. Generally, the number of people detained in the Border Patrol’s Southwest region, which runs from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, Calif., has mostly decreased since 2005, according to a CBP document we checked that provides such details for every year since 2000: SOURCE: Web page, "Total Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY2000-FY2017," Customs and Border Protection, undated (accessed April 10, 2018) But Abbott’s claim to KTSA was limited to comparing the number of individuals apprehended near the border in March 2018 with the tally of individuals detained the same month the year before. We confirmed a more than 200 percent difference in apprehensions for the chosen months. That’s partly because the 2017 count was historically low. In March 2018, a CBP chart indicates, Border Patrol agents apprehended 37,393 individuals near the border. That was up 207 percent from the agency’s March 2017 apprehension of 12,195 individuals along the border. But the chart shows, too, that that the March 2017 count was down 64 percent from March 2016--and the lowest for any March from 2000 on: SOURCES: Web pages, Customs and Border Protection, "Total Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY2000-FY2017," undated; "Southwest Border Migration FY2018," last published April 4, 2018; "CBP Enforcement Statistics FY2018, undated (accessed April 10 and 19, 2018) We sought an independent fix on recent changes in apprehensions by comparing the CBP figures covering the first half of fiscal 2018, through March of this year, with the same stretch of fiscal 2017. According to those figures, there were 173,599 apprehensions along the southern border in the first half of fiscal 2018--down some 13 percent, we calculated, from the 199,171 border region apprehensions in the first half of fiscal 2017. We also asked Carlos A. Diaz, chief of CPB’s Southwest Branch, to address the count of March 2018 apprehensions singled out by Abbott compared with border apprehensions the same month of the year before. By email, Diaz replied: "The increase and decrease in entries during any given period is determined by ‘push/pull’ factors," which, he said, can seem bigger if you compare shorter time periods. "These factors," Diaz wrote, "vary by country of origin (push) and by perceived policy changes in the U.S. (pull). In 2017, there was the perception by individuals wishing to enter illegally into the U.S. that there would be immediate policy changes to how the U.S. handled illegal immigration. This perception was due in large part to the newly elected President Trump’s proclamation on enforcing immigration laws." Diaz, asked if CBP believes there’s been a fresh surge in people illegally trying to enter the U.S. from Mexico, reminded us of the big percentage differences between apprehensions in March 2017 and March 2018. In his April 2018 reply, he further said: "The current entry numbers are following statistical norms when compared to years 2014, 2015 and 2016." Heroin seizures Next, we sought information speaking to Abbott’s heroin statistic. Mexico remains the primary smuggling route for increased heroin reaching the U.S. and, the Drug Enforcement Administration says, opium poppy cultivation in Mexico has increased in recent years, according to the agency’s 2017 National Drug Threat Assessment. That report says federal seizure data also indicate a shift of heroin transportation through the U.S.-Mexico border and away from commercial air routes, "the method most commonly used by traffickers of South American and Asian heroin." In 2008, the report states, 47 percent of CBP heroin seizures were made from air conveyances and 49 percent were made on land. In 2016, the report says, 14 percent were made in the air and 82 percent on land. "This increase is primarily due to the more prominent role Mexican traffickers have taken in the United States heroin market, and also partially due to increased law enforcement presence on the Southwest Border," the report says. Our look for figures specific to Abbott’s claim led us to a couple of CBP charts--one showing the Border Patrol lately on pace to capture fewer pounds of heroin than before and the other indicating a national spurt in heroin seizures by the agency. In the first six months of fiscal 2018, through March 2018, the Border Patrol reported seizing 263 pounds of heroin near the southern border--which, we gauged, breaks out to 28 percent of the 953 pounds of heroin seized along the border by Border Patrol agents through the entire previous fiscal year, from October 2016 through September 2017. The second chart states that CBP’s Office of Field Operations reported seizures of 2,479 pounds of heroin in the first half of fiscal 2018--which breaks out to nearly 70 percent of the 3,626 pounds of heroin seized by that office through all of fiscal 2017, possibly an indication that far more heroin will ultimately be seized through the full year. A note: We saw no indication on the chart of where the office’s seizures took place--on the border or elsewhere. SOURCE: Web page, "CBP Enforcement Statistics FY2018," Customs and Border Patrol, undated (charts fetched April 19, 2018) To our inquiry, Melvin Patterson, a DEA official, emailed a breakdown showing annual heroin seizures in the border region by law agencies, though the information wasn’t up to date. According to the breakdown, the 2,443 kilograms in heroin seizures along the border in the fiscal year running through September 2016 ran short of the 2,855 kilograms seized there the previous fiscal year; it also ran behind the 2,559 kilograms seized in fiscal 2014. Patterson said the government had yet to post relevant data for October 2017 and beyond. It could be that Abbott reached his seizures’ percentage based on information from the Texas Department of Public Safety. We queried DPS, but the agency didn’t respond. Our ruling Abbott said that as of March 2018 compared with 2017, "there’s been a more than 200 percent increase in the number of people who are apprehended coming across the border. And, I’ll tell you this, there’s been a more than 200 percent increase in apprehension(s) of heroin coming across the border." This claim has an element of truth in the 200-plus percent escalation in apprehensions when you compare the chosen months, though it’s worth noting that the percentage starts from border apprehensions in March 2017 setting an 18-year-low. Meantime, we found, border apprehensions in the first half of fiscal 2018 trailed apprehensions in the comparable stretch of 2017. We didn't find evidence that border heroin seizures have lately increased more than 200 percent. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2018-04-24T16:33:29	2018-04-09	['None']
-hoer-00342	Pay to become Gold Member or All Your Documents will be Made Public	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/member-gold-facebook-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Facebook Hoax - Pay to become Gold Member or All Your Documents will be Made Public	February 19, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-11490	Says Sen. Bill Nelson "hasn’t done anything on gun safety or school safety, and nothing on gun control."	/florida/statements/2018/feb/28/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-bill-nelson-has-done-nothing-gun-c/	Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson criticized Gov. Rick Scott for not appearing at the CNN town hall following the Parkland shooting. "There is no representative of the state of Florida," Nelson said during the Feb. 21 town hall in which Marjory Stoneman Douglas students spoke. "Our governor did not come here." Days later at a press conference where Scott announced a proposal for $450 million in school security funding, a reporter asked Scott to respond to Nelson’s criticism. Scott, a Republican, is widely expected to challenge Nelson, a Democrat, in the 2018 elections. "Bill Nelson is a career politician," said Scott. "He talks a lot. He does nothing. Think about it: He has been in office for almost 50 years. He hasn’t done anything on gun safety or school safety, and nothing on gun control." That’s a sweepingly broad attack by Scott to claim that Nelson hasn’t done "anything" on gun or school safety and mischaracterizes Nelson’s record. We found multiple examples of legislation Nelson supported that related to gun control. Before Nelson was in the Senate Nelson has supported a ban on assault rifles for decades. In 1990 when running for governor, he promised, "As governor, I will propose a ban on the sale of assault rifles in Florida, as well as a seven-day waiting period on the sale of firearms." At campaign stops in 1990, Nelson waved a weapon over his head and said that a campaign aide was able to buy a semi-automatic rifle in less than 10 minutes at a Miami gun store. While in Congress in 1990, Nelson cosponsored the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to make it unlawful for any licensed dealer to sell a handgun to an unlicensed individual unless certain criteria were met. The legislation ultimately passed in 1993 after Nelson left the House. Nelson’s legislative record in the U.S. Senate Nelson spokesman Ryan Brown sent PolitiFact a list of more than one dozen bills that Nelson had supported related to gun safety, gun control or school safety. Many were bills he either cosponsored or sponsored or voted in favor of, but many did not become law. Here’s a look at some of the key bills by topic: Assault weapons ban: Nelson has repeatedly supported an assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004. This year, Nelson became one of about two dozen cosponsors of a bill to ban semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The bill has not reached any votes. Bump stocks: Nelson was one of many cosponsors of a 2017 bill to ban bump stocks, an accessory that allows someone to convert a semi-automatic firearm to a nearly fully automatic one. Improving background checks: Nelson sponsored a bill that would require the Justice Department to include in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System information about an individual who is or has been under a federal terrorism investigation. The bill, which Nelson introduced in 2017 after the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, has not reached any votes. He supported other efforts to strengthen background checks in the past. Denying firearms to terrorists: The "no fly no buy" bill would deny the transfer of a firearm if the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be engaged in terrorism. Nelson was one of a few dozen cosponsors. The 2015 bill has not received a vote. Ban certain types of firearms: Nelson sponsored a bill in 2017 to ban firearms that are not detectable by metal detectors if certain components are removed. The bill has not received a vote. He also voted to ban guns with high-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which failed to pass the Senate in 2013. He also voted for an amendment to require trigger locks and safety devices for handguns in 2004 and to strengthen penalties for the use of so-called cop-killer bullets in 2005 -- both were amendments that passed the Senate. Conceal-carry reciprocity: Nelson voted against legislation that would allow concealed-carry permits issued in one state to be valid in all others that issue such permits in 2009 and 2013. Mental health: Nelson voted for the 21st Century Cures Act, which became law in 2016. The bill stated that the attorney general may provide active-shooter response training to local law enforcement and called for the development of crisis intervention teams to include specialized training for school officials in responding to mental health crises. Nelson was one of about two dozen bipartisan cosponsors of the Excellence in Mental Health Act S. 264, which proposed grants to states to build or modernize community-based mental health services. After the Parkland shooting, Nelson, along with Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and U.S. Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Boca Raton, wrote a letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos urging her department to quickly approve applications from the Broward school district for a Project School Emergency Response to Violence grant. The money could be used for mental health services, overtime for law enforcement and school staff, and costs to operate the school at an alternative site. Nelson took some pro-gun votes Nelson has taken some pro-gun votes during his Senate tenure. In 2005, Nelson voted in favor of prohibiting civil lawsuits from being brought against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm. He voted to permit Amtrak passengers to transport guns in checked baggage and to allow individuals to possess firearms in the national parks in 2009. Nelson spokesman Brown said that Nelson is not anti-gun. "He’s a hunter, he’s owned guns his entire life," Brown said. "He’s never said he wants to ban all guns. He wants to expand background checks and ban semiautomatic assault rifles, like the AR-15." Response from experts and Scott’s office We sent a list of several of the laws that Nelson supported to Harry Wilson, Roanoke College professor and author of the book Guns, Gun Control, and Elections. We asked Wilson to weigh in about Nelson’s record on guns. "What kind of alternate universe is this?" he said. "The Republican argues that the Democrat is too soft on gun control. Beam me up, Scotty." "If one votes for the assault weapons ban and enhanced background checks and against reciprocity, one has clearly voted in favor of stricter gun laws (ask any gun rights group!)," he said. But Scott does have a point if he wants to argue that some of these bills didn’t pass, so nothing was "done." As for Nelson’s pro-gun votes, Wilson said that the Amtrak and national parks votes that were signed by President Barack Obama were not major issues, while the 2005 vote for immunity for gun manufacturers was an important vote that clearly favored gun rights. "I would call this a mixed record, but the charge is misleading, at best," he said. Everytown for Gun Safety spokesman Andrew Zucker praised Nelson for fighting "for criminal background checks on every gun sale, opposed arming teachers, and (he) has been an ally in the fight for gun safety for years." As of 2012 when Nelson was up for re-election, the NRA had given him an F grade. We sent Scott spokesman McKinley Lewis links to several bills that Nelson supported and asked if he had evidence to support the claim that Nelson "hasn’t done anything on gun safety or school safety, done nothing on gun control." "Bill Nelson could not point to any meaningful legislation brought forth and sponsored by him to make it across the finish line," Lewis said. "He’s had nearly 50 years in office, and what has happened? Has he rolled out any bills or legislative packages in the wake of the Parkland shooting?" Our ruling Scott said Nelson "hasn’t done anything on gun safety or school safety, and nothing on gun control." At least since 1990, Nelson has supported an assault weapons ban. He has also supported several gun control measures including bills to tighten background checks, keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, ban bump stocks as well as firearms that can pass through metal detectors. While many of the bills Nelson supported didn’t become law, it’s an exaggeration to state that he has done "nothing." We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2018-02-28T17:14:21	2018-02-23	['None']
-pose-01192	Lawmakers should appropriate $200 million, a $40 million increase, to the Texas Competitive Knowledge Fund, which was created to bolster research at several universities.	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/abbott-o-meter/promise/1282/spend-40-million-more-2016-17-research-key-univers/	None	abbott-o-meter	Greg Abbott	None	None	Spend $40 million more in 2016-17 for research at key universities	2015-01-20T14:00:00	None	['None']
-pomt-04235	"Wisconsin is the only state that allows parents or guardians to purchase alcohol for their children – regardless of whether that child is seven or 20 years old – at bars and restaurants."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/21/health-first-wisconsin/health-first-wisconsin-says-wisconsin-stands-alone/	Wisconsin’s ranking as the nation’s top binge-drinking state was confirmed in a 2012 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But is the state the most permissive in America on allowing minors to imbibe in a public establishment? That’s the gist of a claim by Health First Wisconsin, a group that lobbies to prevent alcohol abuse and curb tobacco use. On Nov. 12, 2012 the organization, (formerly known as Smoke Free Wisconsin) decried what it called Wisconsin’s "extreme alcohol culture" after a question on Reddit, the social news website, led to online debate over "extreme legal loopholes." One of the "loopholes" cited prominently was a Wisconsin liquor law that creates an exception to the 21 drinking age. "Wisconsin needs to send a strong message that 21 means 21," Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of Health First Wisconsin, said in a news release. "Wisconsin is the only state that allows parents or guardians to purchase alcohol for their children – regardless of whether that child is seven or 20 years old – at bars and restaurants." Health First wants to eliminate the exception, saying the law fuels an unsafe drinking culture and that research shows impaired brain development associated with early-age drinking. Does Wisconsin really stand alone by allowing children of any age to drink in taverns and eateries under such supervision? The evidence Asked for backup, the group pointed us to state and national research on state-by-state alcohol-control laws, which we reviewed along with other materials in order to compare states, starting with Wisconsin. Wisconsin law does say that persons under 21 can be sold alcohol and drink it if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age, the state Department of Revenue website says. State law allows that at bars as well as restaurants with liquor licenses. And as Health First says, the Wisconsin law sets no age restriction. But it’s important to note that establishments can decline, on their own, to serve parent-accompanied minors. The Wisconsin Tavern League doesn’t tell its members how to handle it, but many are not comfortable serving the underaged, executive director Pete Madland said. Others do so. Madland said it’s an option for people who want to teach their children how to drink responsibly, a practice he noted is common in European countries with lower legal drinking ages. How does Wisconsin compare? We did not check on all 50 states because the available national research doesn’t get to the level of state-by-state detail required to fully check this. But we didn’t need to check all 50 to assess the group’s Wisconsin-stands-alone claim. We found that many states allow parent-supervised underage drinking at home by their children. And a few allow underaged drinking by 18-20 year olds at bars if they are accompanied by parents or guardians. What’s at issue here is narrower: how many states allow underage imbibing at bars (and restaurants) at any age. Based on our reporting, Wisconsin is not alone, though it appears to be a very short list. Laws in Texas, Ohio and Montana closely mirror the law in Wisconsin. Texas: In many places in the Lone Star State, persons of any age can consume or possess alcohol in bars and restaurants when in the "visible presence" of their adult parent, legal guardian or spouse, according to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Unlike in Wisconsin, those accompanied drinkers can’t actually buy booze themselves. But their adult parent, guardian or spouse can buy it for them. "It does happen," commission spokeswoman Carolyn Beck said of parent-supervised drinking in public places. They hear occasional complaints, especially in divorce situations in which someone objects to a former spouse getting alcohol for their child. Texas has some "dry" counties and cities that prohibit some or all alcohol sales, but there’s still a way for underage drinkers to tip one legally, Beck said. At private clubs in dry areas, adult members can get served and in turn can provide booze to their children, under the same law that applies at bars. Ohio: Sales to underage drinkers are allowed if they are supervised by a parent, a spouse who is not an underage person, or a legal guardian. Tavern owners can allow underage drinking on premises if one of those persons gives the liquor or beer to the underage person and is present when they drink it, according to the Ohio Division of Liquor Control and state statutes. Bartenders can refuse to serve these drinkers if they want to. As in Wisconsin, no minimum age is specified. Montana: An exception to Montana’s underage drinking law allows a person under 21 to receive a "non-intoxicating quantity" (less than 0.5 percent of alcohol by volume) from that person’s parent or guardian. It doesn’t rule out that happening in licensed drinking establishments. But it’s a legal gray area because another law contradicts that and the exception is not clearly written. No minimum age is specified. The state’s Liquor Control Division suggests that minors not be served; the office is trying to change the law to rule out such sales on licensed premises. So that’s the quick tour. We asked Julia Sherman, coordinator for the Wisconsin Alcohol Policy Project at the University of Wisconsin Law School, to describe Wisconsin’s relative position among the states on this. She said Wisconsin’s statute is "out of the mainstream" in allowing drinking under such circumstances. "Ours is clearly extremely broad," Sherman said. But it doesn’t stand alone. Our rating A health advocacy group pushing to tighten up drinking laws said Wisconsin is "the only state that allows parents or guardians to purchase alcohol for their children – regardless of whether that child is seven or 20 years old – at bars and restaurants." We found less than a handful of states that allow that, but a few others do. So Wisconsin’s law is not unique. We rate the group’s statement False.	None	Health First Wisconsin	None	None	None	2012-11-21T09:00:00	2012-11-12	['None']
-pomt-07367	Says one of Austin City Council Member Randi Shade’s biggest contributors is the lobbyist for the Formula 1 racetrack planned outside Austin.	/texas/statements/2011/may/06/kathie-tovo/kathie-tovo-says-one-randi-shades-biggest-donors-l/	Kathie Tovo, among challengers to Place 3 Austin City Council Member Randi Shade, says in at least two recent mailers sent to voters that despite a city budget crisis, the council might give $4 million a year for 10 years to subsidize a racetrack. That’s referring to possible council action designating a portion of estimated city sales and use tax revenues to cover costs related to future Formula One races on the track planned southeast of Austin. Here, we’re not delving into whether such spending would be a subsidy. We’re wondering about what Tovo adds in her mailers: "And one of (Shade’s) biggest contributors is the racetrack lobbyist." Tovo’s campaign manager, Mark Yznaga, told us in a telephone interview the lobbyist is Richard Suttle, a partner in the influential Austin law firm, Armbrust & Brown. Yznaga conceded that Suttle has personally given Shade’s campaign only $25, the maximum any lobbyist working City Hall can give per election. But, he said, lawyers and spouses connected to the Armbrust & Brown firm accounted for 51 firm-connected contributions, 45 for $350, six for $25, for a total $15,900 from late December through April 4, the end of the latest reporting period. Nudged about Suttle’s tiny donation, Yznaga replied: "You’re being silly. It’s quite well known in the city that (Suttle) is the lobbyist who does a lot of Armbrust & Brown work." Yznaga noted that 16 members of the firm, which lists 21 lawyers on its website, contributed the maximum allowed, $350. And he pointed out that David Armbrust, among the firm’s founders, is listed on Shade’s finance filings as a bundler, which the city defines as anyone who has solicited and obtained contributions for the candidate adding up to more than $5,000 during a finance reporting period. Armbrust, like Suttle a city-registered lobbyist, gave $25. Suttle is a familiar figure at City Hall, where he frequently represents real estate developers. He has reported 55 clients to the city, including Circuit of the Americas, which is building the racetrack. Next, we reached Suttle, who called the characterization of him as one of Shade’s biggest contributors "a stretch. It’s old-school campaign lies." The city ordinance limiting individuals who lobby the city to $25 donations means he couldn’t be a top donor. "I have to chuckle," he said, adding that he told his wife, who also donated $25 to Shade’s campaign: "I guess 50 bucks gets us on the big contributors list now." In a telephone interview, Shade’s campaign manager, Katherine Haenschen, pointed out that the money donated by the Suttles accounted for a minuscule share of more than $168,000 Shade raised from November through April 4. She said by email: "By my calculations, our average donation is $208. Suttle's $25 is about 1/8 of that. Furthermore, the last time I checked, there are only 10 individuals who have donated LESS than Richard Suttle!" That may be true. But donors connected to Armbrust & Brown accounted for 9 percent of Shade’s contributions through April 4. Shade’s finance reports show 9 bundlers other than Armbrust accounting for 15 percent of her campaign contributions through April 4. The next-most-successful single bundler raised about $6,300, less than half Armbrust’s haul for Shade. Armbrust’s bundling is surely appreciated by the incumbent and signals the firm’s lawyers, including Suttle, want her to win a second term. But Tovo overshoots when she spears the racetrack lobbyist. Other members of his law firm are responsible for sending far more money Shade’s way. We rate the claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Kathie Tovo	None	None	None	2011-05-06T06:00:00	2011-05-02	['Austin,_Texas']
-pomt-05985	"Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican."	/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/	Anyone driving the Interstate 240 beltway around Memphis will now see the new billboard at Getwell Road that proclaims "Martin Luther King Jr. Was A Republican. So Is Charlotte Bergmann. Charlotte Bergmann for Congress." Bergmann is a Republican candidate in the Democrat-rich 9th Congressional District now represented by Steve Cohen. She got a quarter of the vote in 2010 in the general election and, by all accounts, is doing more campaigning this year than two years ago. We’re going to take her at her word that she is a Republican. But Martin Luther King Jr., who marched with Memphis sanitation workers, who was planning a Poor People’s March on Washington at the time of his death, who advocated a guaranteed annual income to end poverty -- a Republican? We decided to put that assertion to the test. We knew, because he said so, that King never endorsed politicians and "took this position in order to maintain a bipartisan posture, which I have followed all along in order to be able to look objectively at both parties at all times." We also know from his autobiography that he wrote to a supporter in 1956 that "in the past, I always voted the Democratic ticket." We know that his father, the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr., a longtime Republican when most Southern Democrats were segregationists, endorsed John F. Kennedy publicly in the 1960 presidential race over Republican Richard M. Nixon. Asked for her sources for the claim, Bergmann directed us to her website, which displays a 20-page newsletter of the National Black Republican Association that charts Republican Party efforts to advance Civil Rights from 1854 through the Eisenhower Administration and the 1957 Civil Rights Act and documents the segregated positions of prominent Democrats in the Jim Crow South. It concludes by saying, if King were alive today, he’d be a Republican. She also pointed to a statement made by King’s niece, Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican." Bergmann also said King "subscribed to Republican values" and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party -- the Party of Lincoln -- that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century. However, in a 2008 Associated Press story, King’s son and namesake Martin Luther King III said:"It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states." Dr. Kenneth W. Goings, professor and past chairman of the Department of African American and African Studies at Ohio State University, said in an email message that King may have had to register as a Republican to vote in Alabama in the 1950s. Goings said: "Daddy King was a Republican as were most African Americans in the South until the early 1940s. But the combination of Dem. Party outreach and Republican Southern strategy meant that by the 1950s the South was well on the way to the split that is evident now. I’ve not seen any evidence that MLK Jr. was a Republican but if he registered to vote it would have been as a Republican in Alabama simply because the Dems. would not allow black voters. Throughout the (Civil Rights) movement he worked with the northern Dem. Party...I wonder if somehow people have just confused Sr. and Jr. (maybe even on purpose)." Another academic authority on King was not as generous in his assessment of the motivation for suggesting King was a Republican. Michael K. Honey, a professor at the University of Washington-Tacoma and author of "Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign" (2007), said in an email: "Do they now make things up out of whole cloth or do they fabricate based on assumptions with no actual knowledge. In either case, not very good qualifications for office." Honey, who edited a collection of King’s speeches released last year as "All Labor Has Dignity," said the idea that King was a Republican is "laughable...His interest was in getting both parties to do the right thing on issues. The Democrats certainly disappointed him on the (Vietnam) war, and the Republicans had an orthodox conservatism opposed to most of the changes he wanted to see." PolitiFact Texas looked into a similar claim in 2011 and interviewed David J. Garrow, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning King biography "Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference" (1986). He said in told them: "It is simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican." Our Ruling: Weighing the niece’s claim against King’s son’s, Honey’s and Garrow’s, and Goings’ speculation that he might have had to register as a Republican even though he always voted the Democratic ticket, it seems to us that the preponderance of the evidence shows that a claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican is simply False.	None	Charlotte Bergmann	None	None	None	2012-01-23T00:00:00	2012-01-10	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-00115	Nike said that they're a "$76 billion dollar company that can afford to let go of all ‘Make America Great Again’ customers."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nike-afford-let-go/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did Nike Say They Can Afford to “Let Go of All ‘Make America Great Again’ Customers”?	8 September 2018	None	['None']
-snes-06070	A transcript reproduces a high school principal's speech to students and faculty at the beginning of a new school year.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/principal-class-speech/	None	Soapbox	None	David Mikkelson	None	Is This a High School Principal’s Speech to the Incoming Class?	5 September 2010	None	['None']
-snes-06270	Free Southwest Tickets	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/free-southwest-tickets-scam/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	David Mikkelson	None	Free Southwest Tickets Scam	14 November 2011	None	['None']
-tron-02138	Mark Zuckerberg Retires from Facebook in 2018	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mark-zuckerberg-retires-facebook-2018-fiction/	None	internet	None	None	['facebook', 'fake news', 'mark zuckerberg']	Mark Zuckerberg Retires from Facebook in 2018	Jan 24, 2018	None	['Mark_Zuckerberg']
-goop-01092	Kendall Jenner Pregnant, Hiding “Baby Bump”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kendall-jenner-pregnant-hiding-baby-bump-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kendall Jenner Pregnant, Hiding “Baby Bump”?	4:39 pm, April 30, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08016	Says the person who Florida U.S. Rep. Allen West first hired as chief of staff told people attending a Tea Party rally that, 'We will use bullets if ballots don't work.'	/florida/statements/2011/jan/10/debbie-wasserman-schultz/arizona-shooting-prompts-questions-about-civility-/	The tragic shooting of Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Jan. 8, 2011, at a Tucson constituent event is prompting some elected officials, members of the media and everyday citizens to re-evaluate whether American politics has become too filled with vitriol, anger and hate-filled speech. While the motives of the gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, remain unclear, many have used the shooting to push for restoring civility to the political process. Yet others already have engaged in a game of subtle finger pointing. Some liberals have blamed overheated Tea Party rhetoric for contributing to today's political climate. Conservatives, meanwhile, have noted that some Democrats are no better, and that Loughner was disturbed beyond the bounds of either political party. Others also have singled out the media for covering the extremes of the political debate. Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik lectured the media at a Jan. 8 news conference, saying that trying "to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has impact on people, especially who are unbalanced personalities to begin with." On NBC's Meet the Press on Jan. 9, 2011, five members of the U.S. House talked about the shooting, the political climate and the security of members of Congress. The panel included Republican Trent Franks of Arizona, Democrat Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona, Democrat Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Republican Raul Labrador of Idaho and Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. The discussion was at times emotional, and Meet the Press moderator David Gregory began to choke up when he talked about one of the shooting victims, a nine-year-old girl who was elected to her student council. Gregory then talked about the demonization of the political opposition -- "whether it's a congressman saying, 'You lie,' from the House floor, whether it's a Democrat who literally shoots the cap and trade bill in a campaign advertisement. Or your former colleague, Alan Grayson from Florida, compared Republicans to the Taliban." "I think we're a country that tries to solve our problems by ballots and not bullets, so a good debate is fine," answered Franks. "But when you try to go into an area of threatening debate and things of that nature, then it's very dangerous." Wasserman Schultz picked up on Franks' "ballots and not bullets" reference when it was her turn to speak. "Just based on what Trent just said and what, what everyone has said, I agree, it's our responsibility to make sure that we set the right example and set the tone of civility," she said. "But the shock-jocks and the political movement leaders that are out there on both sides of the aisle need to ... have some pause as well. "I mean, the phrase that you just used, 'we use ballots, not bullets,' the actual reverse of that phrase was used in my district by someone who was almost the chief of staff to an incoming member of Congress where she said at a rally, at a Tea Party rally, 'We will use bullets if ballots don't work.' " It's a provocative claim made by Wasserman Schultz, and we wondered if it was true. Turns out, we've covered some of this ground. Wasserman Schultz is referring to Joyce Kaufman, an outspoken South Florida conservative radio talk show host on WFTL-850 AM, who garnered national attention after newly elected U.S. Rep. Allen West hired her as his chief of staff a week after the Nov. 2, 2010, election. She resigned from that position days later amid controversy, and after someone sent a threat to her that stated: "I'm planning something big around the government building here in Broward County, maybe a post office, maybe even a school. ..." The threat led to a lockdown of Broward schools Nov. 10 and an FBI investigation. At a political rally on July 3, 2010, Kaufman addressed a Broward County crowd about the need to change the culture in Washington by electing new members to the House and Senate. Her entire speech has been posted on YouTube and is about 10 minutes long. You can watch her speech here. A few of our notes after watching the entire speech: Kaufman suggested that, without a changing of the guard in Washington, people could be banned from street corners and that "there would be kill switches on the Internet." She told the crowd to put the brakes on this "insanity" that's been happening, and to get rid of "these people in Washington who have no integrity." Kaufman said the 2010 election was the most important one in "our lifetime," and that she says "what I mean, and I mean what I say." She then talked about the Founding Fathers and how brilliant they were. "They gave us ballots," she said a little more than 5 minutes into her speech. "That is the first line of defense ... We send home all of these incumbents who have done nothing to represent the people. They don't come to their districts. They don't talk to us. "And then the Founding Fathers were ever so brilliant -- and I don't care how this gets painted by the mainstream media, I don't care if this shows up on YouTube -- because I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendment rights is they gave me a Second Amendment," Kaufman said, referring to the constitutional amendment that speaks of gun rights. "And if ballots don't work, bullets will," Kaufman said, as people in the crowd reacted by clapping. One person is heard saying "Absolutely," and another says "Amen." "I never in my life thought that the day would come where I would tell individual citizens that you are responsible for being the militia that the Founding Fathers designed," she said. "They were very specific. You need to be prepared to fight tyranny, whether it comes from outside, or whether it comes from inside." Months after the comments, Kaufman tried to suggest they were meant as a metaphor, and told PolitiFact Florida that: "My goal certainly wasn't to incite violence. .... I was encouraging people to go out and use their vote." PolitiFact Florida ruled True a claim from Kaufman that President Barack Obama said in a political context during the 2008 campaign that "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." The line was a quote from the 1987 movie The Untouchables. (For the record, Kaufman gave her speech at the corner of Oakland Park Boulevard and North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale, which is near a shopping center in West's District 22, not Wasserman Schultz's District 20. Wasserman Schultz's district is less than 10 blocks away). Calling for less heated political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of an Arizona congresswoman, Wasserman Schultz noted on NBC's Meet the Press that the person hired to be chief of staff for an elected Florida congressman told people at a rally that if ballots can't enact political change, "bullets will." Wasserman Schultz is quoting Kaufman accurately. (Kaufman said, "If ballots don't work, bullets will.") Maybe we could all do better by leaving the war and gun language out of political discussions. As NBC News' Chuck Todd put it, "To political professionals, the use of these images has no impact; the problem is when these images are digested by those who are already a bit unstable. No one is calling for censorship, only responsibility." We rate this statement True.	None	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	None	None	None	2011-01-10T15:42:23	2011-01-09	['Allen_West_(politician)', 'United_States', 'Tea_Party_protests']
-goop-01241	Kelly Ripa, Michael Strahan Will Have “Awkward Run-In” At Daytime Emmy	https://www.gossipcop.com/kelly-ripa-michael-strahan-run-in-daytime-emmy-awards/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kelly Ripa, Michael Strahan Will NOT Have “Awkward Run-In” At Daytime Emmys	1:37 pm, April 5, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01493	Greg Abbott "has campaigned with a sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls."	/texas/statements/2014/sep/25/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-overstates-whats-confirmed-about-abbot/	CLARIFICATION, 4 p.m. Sept. 26, 2014: We revised the conclusion of this fact check to clarify our reasoning. The rating did not change. Democrat Wendy Davis revived a link between Republican Greg Abbott and guitar rock and roller Ted Nugent in the Sept. 19, 2014, debate between the gubernatorial nominees. The Fort Worth state senator initially mentioned her 2013 filibuster against legislation tightening restrictions on abortion in the state. "My opponent, on the other hand, has paid women less than he has paid men," Davis said, likely referring to a March 18, 2014, news story in the San Antonio Express-News exploring that topic. And, Davis said, "he has campaigned with a sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls." By email, Davis spokesman Zac Petkanas said Davis was referring to Abbott stumping in Denton in early 2014 with rock guitarist Ted Nugent, the so-called Motor City Madman whose 1970s hits included "Cat Scratch Fever." Petkanas emailed: "An adult man who has sex with underage girls is by definition a sexual predator." We identified a legal definition using "predator." By email, Chris Van Deusen, a spokesman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, guided us to a Texas definition connected to civil commitments of individuals repeatedly convicted of sexual offenses who haven’t proved amenable to traditional mental illness treatment. A person is a "sexually violent predator," this law says, if the person is a "repeat sexually violent offender" and "suffers from a behavioral abnormality that makes the person likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence." Nugent has no criminal convictions, according to a background check we conducted on LexisNexis. Nugent (who has his own Truth-O-Meter report card) appeared with Abbott on Feb. 18, 2014. At that time, Davis said Abbott had appeared with "an admitted sexual predator." Karin Johanson, then her campaign manager, went on to say Nugent "has boasted of having sexual relations with underage women." That day, Abbott praised Nugent’s zealous defense of gun rights and claimed ignorance of the performer’s inflammatory remarks on immigration and women. Nugent had suggested immigrants who are not in the country legally should be treated like "indentured servants" until they earn citizenship; he’d also referred to feminists as "fat pigs" and used lewd language about women in song lyrics and interviews. Nugent later apologized for referring to the Democratic president, Barack Obama, as a "subhuman mongrel." Appearing on WBAP Radio in Dallas, Nugent said, "I apologize for using the street fight terminology of subhuman mongrel." He said he should have called Obama "violator of his Constitution, the liar that he is," a reference to the 2012 health law known as Obamacare. Abbott then said Nugent’s comment was "not the kind of language I would use or endorse in any way." Nugent has been married to his current wife, Shemane, since 1989, she says on her blog. Has he also boasted of relations with underage girls? Petkanas pointed us to a Nugent profile on the VH1 cable channel as the basis of what Davis said. The episode of "Behind the Music," which debuted in April 1998, presents Nugent, in his words and comments from others, as a tee-totaling, drug-free, gun-loving performer who had had many sexual partners. We spotted a remastered version on VH1’s website, dated Jan. 30, 2012. "I didn’t get into rock and roll to pick up women," Nugent says in the program. "But I adapted." The episode’s narrator says Nugent was divorced by the mother of two of his children in the mid-1970s in part because he was "fighting a losing battle with his own addiction, his weakness for young women." "I was addicted to girls," Nugent says. "Addicted. It was hopeless. It was beautiful." Post-divorce, Nugent, 30, paired up with a 17-year-old from Hawaii. "She was like a dream," Nugent says. "I was underage," the woman, says, looking back. "And even back in the wild ‘70s, it just wasn’t a terribly appropriate situation in most people’s eyes." The narrator says the girl’s mother even signed papers making Nugent her daughter’s legal guardian. "Ted admits to a number of liaisons with underage girls," the narrator says. Petkanas also forwarded a web link to a Huffington Post article stating Courtney Love, the singer, recalled performing a sex act with the elder Nugent when she was a 12-year-old groupie. Love said so in a radio interview in March 2004, according to a March 23, 2004, New York Post news story. The Post said Nugent didn’t return its call for comment on Love’s statement. Nugent’s office didn’t engage with our email and telephone inquiries for this article. Our ruling Davis said Abbott "has campaigned with a sexual predator who has bragged about having sex with underage girls." Davis didn’t mention Nugent’s name, but she’s right the former rock star, who stumped for Abbott this year, has talked about sexual escapades with much younger women. Then again, we found no confirmation of Nugent explicitly saying his victims were underage. Also, Davis’ statement could have given debate viewers the misimpression Nugent is a convicted sex offender, which isn’t so. We rate the claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Wendy Davis	None	None	None	2014-09-25T16:31:48	2014-09-19	['None']
-goop-00692	Gwen Stefani, Blake Shelton Had Secret Wedding?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-blake-shelton-secret-wedding-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani, Blake Shelton Had Secret Wedding?	11:29 am, July 5, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00584	Did a Woman Get Pregnant From Eating Squid?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/woman-pregnant-eating-squid/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Woman Become Pregnant from Eating Squid?	17 May 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01758	Did Physicist Michio Kaku Say HAARP Caused Irma and Harvey?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-prof-michio-kaku-say-haarp-caused-irma-and-harvey/	None	Hurricane Katrina	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Physicist Michio Kaku Say HAARP Caused Irma and Harvey?	11 September 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08976	Bill McCollum "diverted a state plane to his home 53 times. A state auditor called it: likely a misuse of state resources."	/florida/statements/2010/jul/16/lets-get-work/rick-scott-group-goes-after-air-mccollum-new-tv-ad/	Back a year ago when we read the stories about Attorney General Bill McCollum's use of state airplanes, we kind of figured it would pop up sometime during the campaign for governor. Enter rich-guy Rick Scott and his 527 group "Let's Get to Work." Scott, who not only is challenging McCollum for the Republican nomination but leading in polls, began airing two TV ads recently through Let's Get To Work slamming McCollum's use of state airplanes. The first ad, called "Politicians are like diapers -- They should be changed regularly," says McCollum spent $280,000 in taxpayer money on air travel on state planes, including trips for personal travel. The second ad, which was released July 14, 2010, goes deeper into McCollum's use of the state airplane. Called "Frequent Flyer," it makes three basic claims: 1. That McCollum spent $280,000 using the state airplane, including for personal travel; 2. That "he diverted a state plane to his home 53 times;" 3. And that a state auditor called those diversions likely a misuse of state resources. The ad ends with the famous ding that sometimes precedes an announcement on an airplane, and the line, "You are now free to remove career politicians." In this fact-check, we'll discuss all three of the plane claims. But we'll specifically be checking a combination of claims No. 2 and No. 3 -- that McCollum diverted his plane to the airports closest to his home (Sanford and Orlando) 53 times, and that an auditor labeled those diversions likely a misuse of state resources. Using state planes The use of state planes by McCollum and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink became an issue in June 2009 after an investigation by the St. Petersburg Times and Miami Herald found dozens of flights by the two Cabinet members that appeared to be, at least partially, for something other than official state business. State law requires Cabinet members to maintain a legal residence in Tallahassee, and McCollum and Sink have second homes in the capital. But the law prohibits them from using a state plane to commute to get to their state jobs. The Times/Herald reported that on several occasions, McCollum dispatched an empty plane from Tallahassee to his home near Sanford to take him to events around the state. Often the plane would return him to Central Florida and fly back to Tallahassee with no passengers. Between January 2007, when he took office, and June 22, 2009, McCollum spent $280,189 on state air travel. Total air travel by Sink, agriculture commissioner Charles Bronson and Gov. Charlie Crist was even higher, the newspapers found. The Times/Herald articles match the first claim in the Scott-group ad -- that McCollum spent $280,000 using the state airplane. Now, onto the more serious allegations that McCollum diverted the plane to the airport nearest his Central Florida home, a practice an auditor called a misuse of state resources. Diversions/audit findings The record is clear: state airplanes flew 53 times to Sanford or Orlando for McCollum between January 2007 and July 2009, according to the state agency that oversees use of the plane, the Department of Management Services. A few examples: • Sept. 10, 2007, McCollum had a plane pick him up in Sanford. The plane then traveled to Naples before returning to Tallahassee. The cost of the Sanford diversion: $390; • May 29, 2008, McCollum traveled from Tallahassee to Vero Beach. On the return trip, McCollum was dropped off in Orlando and the plane returned empty to Tallahassee. The cost of the Orlando diversion: $1,072; • July 21, 2008, Two of McCollum's staffers traveled from Tallahassee to Sanford to pick him up. They then went to Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, before all three returned to Tallahassee. The cost of the Sanford diversion: $922. A Department of Management Services auditor, Sandra Lipner, wrote in a draft report on March 4, 2009, that those flights and the flights taken by the other officials appeared to be against state rules. ''The use of the state aircraft to transport the Governor, Attorney General, CFO and Commissioner of Agriculture between the seat of government and a residence located outside of Tallahassee would appear to be a misuse of state resources,'' Lipner wrote in the draft report. So, to the ad's claim, 53 flights by McCollum to home ... check. An auditor calling it a likely misuse of state resources ... check. If only the story ended there. What Scott left out The allegations prompted ethics complaints against McCollum and Sink. At issue was whether they misused state resources for personal gain. The Florida Commission on Ethics hired Craig B. Willis, a former assistant attorney general, as a special advocate to investigate the claims. On Dec. 4, 2009, Willis presented his findings. On McCollum's travels, Willis found that "in all instances where McCollum flew on state aircraft from Tallahassee to Sanford or Orlando, his calendar reflects a clear public purpose associated with the flight." However, Willis noted, that there were nine instances where flights were routed in a manner that did not have an apparent public purpose. For those flights, public business was conducted at another location prior to or after the stop in Sanford or Orlando. "There was no occasion found by ethics investigators where McCollum traveled only to his home on state aircraft and the plane flew back to Tallahassee empty or vice versa," the commission said in a subsequent press release. Put another way, McCollum didn't use the plane solely for getting home. It was always part of some other work-related trip. The commission unanimously dismissed the ethics complaint against McCollum -- it dismissed the complaints against Sink too. The postscript here is critical for two reasons. First, Willis determined that McCollum's diversions had a public purpose. And second, he argued -- and the ethics commission agreed -- that they did not violate state laws. That's omitted in the Let's Get to Work ad. So is the fact that the auditor's allegation that McCollum and the others appeared to misuse state resources was not included in the final report. It was only in a draft. Our ruling It's interesting to note that since the first Times/Herald story ran in summer 2009, McCollum has drastically reduced his use of the state plane. Between July and October 2008, before the stories ran, McCollum used the state plane 25 times. In the same four months in 2009, he used the plane only twice. So far in 2010, according to the Department of Management Services, McCollum has used the plane on only four days, all for travel related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. One of the trips was with Crist. The ad by the Scott-backed group Let's Get to Work claims that McCollum diverted his plane to the airports closest to his home (Sanford and Orlando) 53 times and that an auditor labeled those diversions likely a misuse of state resources. The ad is technically accurate on both marks, but leaves out critical information about the outcome of the investigation. The 53 trips to Central Florida were found to have a public purpose by the Florida Commission on Ethics, and an ethics complaint against McCollum was dismissed. The auditor who labeled those trips a likely misuse of state resources did not include those findings in her final report. Because of those omissions, we rate the Let's Get to Work ad Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Let's Get To Work	None	None	None	2010-07-16T17:16:38	2010-07-14	['None']
-snes-05829	An unusually high percentage of the child actors who starred in the Our Gang film series have met tragic, premature ends.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/our-gang-death-curse/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Our Gang’ Curse	20 April 2005	None	['None']
-pomt-05855	"You're supposed to throw away your shoes" if mercury from a broken CFL light bulb gets on them.	/virginia/statements/2012/feb/13/bob-marshall/del-bob-marshall-says-throw-your-shoes-out-if-cfl-/	Del. Bob Marshall says breaking a compact florescent light bulb is hazardous to the environment and to your shoes. Marshall, R-Prince William, sounded warnings about the mercury inside each of those curly-cue CFL bulbs. If one bulbs shatters, it creates a "hazardous materials situation in your home," he said in Feb. 2 testimony before a House Commerce and Labor subcommittee at Virginia’s General Assembly. "If (the mercury) contaminates your shoes, you’re supposed to throw away your shoes," he said. We’d hate to needlessly throw away a pair of shoes because a light bulb broke on them. So we decided to see if Marshall was correct. An average CFL contains 4 milligrams of mercury -- about enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pen, according to the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a trade group representing light bulb makers. To put that in perspective, the association notes on its website that older glass thermometers contain about 500 milligrams of mercury, 125 times more than what’s in an average CFL. Debate over CFL use has been burning since 2007, when Congress passed a law requiring greater energy efficiency from light bulbs. The law phases out many traditional incandescent bulbs that don’t meet the standards, although manufacturers are making more efficient forms of the old-style bulbs. They’re also making more CFLs -- touted by state and federal officials as a much more efficient light source. The new standards have ignited conservative protest that the long arm of government has reached too far when Congress tells citizens they can no longer use an old-fashioned light bulb in their homes. Marshall, who is challenging George Allen this year for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat, urged the General Assembly to shield Virginians from the regulations. He introduced a bill that would allow Virginia companies to continue producing and selling the old-fashioned incandescents. At hearings, Marshall sought to convince legislators that increased use of CFL bulbs could expose Virginians to new risks of mercury exposure. But the bill died in subcommittee Feb. 2. We asked Marshall for information supporting his statement that shoes need to be tossed if they touch the debris from a broken CFL bulb. He sent us links to environmental agency websites from four states. But some of the sites Marshall cited don’t specifically say they’re providing instruction on how to handle a broken CFL bulb. They are advising how to deal with a larger mercury release, such as the dispersal of the "quicksilver" liquid mercury when a glass thermometer breaks. For example, the fact sheet from the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection that Marshall cited urges homeowners get rid of contaminated shoes and clothing after cleaning up "visible mercury beads." But as Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management notes, breaking a thermometer or thermostat with liquid mercury inside is different than breaking a fluorescent bulb. In the case of a broken bulb, "you will not be able to see the mercury," according to Indiana’s DEM. Robert Francis, manager of the environmental response branch at the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, said his agency’s recommendation for getting rid of shoes tainted by mercury is a reference to what should be done in case of a larger spill than a light bulb break. He said his agency doesn’t have a recommendation on whether shoes should be thrown out if they’re contaminated by a bulb breakage. The Arizona Department on Environmental Quality says on its website that any clothing coming in direct contact with broken glass or powder should be thrown away. But when it comes to shoes, it recommends wiping them off with a damp cloth or paper towels. But Mark Shaffer, a spokesman with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said his state would recommend throwing out shoes even if the smaller amount of mercury from the bulb gets on them. What about other states? In a quick search, we found agencies in West Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Mississippi all recommend homeowners should wipe off shoes with damp towels after they come in direct contact with mercury from a broken CFL bulb. The shoes don’t need to go, but the towels and wipes do. NEMA, the light bulb makers trade group, also advises wiping off -- not throwing out -- shoes that have bulb fragments or mercury powder on them. Virginia’s guidelines on CFL cleanup don’t speak to shoe contamination. Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, referred our queries about how to handle contaminated shoes to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA website, in a section detailing how to clean up a broken CFL, offers no guidance on shoes. It does, however, recommend steps for dealing with a broken CFL at home. It suggests clearing everyone out of the room where the bulb shattered and opening a window or door to let it air out for 5-10 minutes. Heat or air conditioning should be shut off and then cardboard, tape or damp towels should be used to pick up the glass and powder from the bulb. But if you don’t clean up perfectly, the agency says that’s OK. "Don’t be alarmed: These steps are only precautions that reflect best practices for cleaning up a broken CFL," the EPA’s website states. "Keep in mind that CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount in a mercury thermometer." For some additional perspective, we also spoke with Edward Groth, a former senior scientist with the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports. He said throwing away shoes tainted by a CFL bulb break would be a "fairly extreme" response. "If you get some on your shoes, the best solution, in my mind, would be to take them outside on the porch and let them air out for several days," Groth said. Our ruling: Marshall said that when shoes are contaminated with mercury from a broken CFL bulb, "you’re supposed to throw them out." To back his statement, he referred us to the websites of environmental agencies in four states. They advise throwing out clothing -- and sometimes shoes -- contaminated by a significant mercury release, such as the amount that would come from an old thermometer. But CFL bulbs have a tiny fraction of a thermometer’s mercury. None of the agencies specifically advise throwing shoes hit by a broken CFL. Two of the states’ websites say to clean off the shoes. Our quick search found five additional state websites that recommended wiping off the shoes off and not a single state that advised to throw them out. The Environmental Protection Agency offers no shoe advice. Marshall hasn’t proved his claim. We rate his statement False.	None	Bob Marshall	None	None	None	2012-02-13T06:00:00	2012-02-02	['None']
-pomt-01027	"Insured Floridians pay about $2,000 for every hospital stay to cover the cost of the uninsured."	/florida/statements/2015/jan/28/florida-chamber-commerce/insured-people-pay-about-2000-uninsured-hospital-s/	The Florida Chamber of Commerce is weighing in on the state’s rising cost of health care, decrying the Affordable Care Act’s plans to expand Medicaid, but acknowledging uninsured residents cost big bucks. A chamber task force on Jan. 13, 2015, released a seven-point plan entitled "Smarter Healthcare Coverage in Florida," ahead of a potential fight among state lawmakers about how to cover the uninsured; Florida’s annual legislative session starts March 3. The group made it pretty clear they don’t endorse President Barack Obama’s health care law, calling it "a bureaucratic malaise that is taxing Americans and making our country less competitive" by shifting costs to businesses and taxpayers, and forcing up insurance premiums. They do acknowledge that Florida having the second-highest number of uninsured residents is a problem that needs fixing. "Floridians pay an additional $1.4 billion in hidden health care taxes to cover health care received by the uninsured," the report read. "Insured Floridians pay about $2,000 for every hospital stay to cover the cost of the uninsured." Making insured residents pay an extra $2,000 per hospital stay piqued our interest, because that’s a hefty add-on to already high medical bills. We wondered whether it was a true expense, or if the chamber was just padding its own invoice. Footing the bill The chamber’s report said 3 million Floridians don’t have health insurance. The group told us it used Kaiser Family Foundation data that showed there were about 3.6 million. An estimate using Census data said about 3.8 million of Florida’s 19 million residents were uninsured in 2013. That same report ranked Florida second in the nation in uninsured residents. We’ve explored this topic before, and found Florida was third in its percentage of uninsured, behind Texas and Nevada. Calculating how much those uninsured Floridians cost other patients is not the easiest leap to make. We asked several state, medical and insurance agencies whether the number was accurate or not, and no one had a statistic measured in such a way. The chamber told us they collected data from "an urban hospital" and tracked that unspecified facility’s cost-to-charge ratio. That’s a measure of how much care actually costs a hospital to provide versus how much they would charge a patient, and can vary from hospital to hospital. The chamber then divided the uninsured procedures’ costs by the total number of admissions through managed-care insurance plans. After adjusting for accounting discrepancies and other factors, the chamber determined the cost was about $2,300 per patient. To account for cost differences between the kinds of patients other hospitals would admit and the type of care they receive, they estimated a lower end of the range at $1,700, or about 75 percent of the first estimate. The chamber acknowledged setting this low end was a "somewhat arbitrary determination." The description of "about $2,000" was meant to be an average of this range, chamber spokeswoman Edie Ousley told PolitiFact Florida. "There will be, of course, individual hospitals (that) cost shift and some cost-shifting less per insured patient," Ousley said. "The intent of the calculation was to take real data from a representative hospital and try to provide an order of magnitude of the cost shift of the uninsured." The chamber said in its plan there were $1.4 billion in unpaid hospital expenses in 2012, a number that jibes with a Florida Hospital Association report that said in 2012, state hospitals spent $1.4 billion in "charity care" (the same as it was in 2011). To put that in perspective, the Agency for Health Care Administration reported more than $119 billion in charges for all hospital admissions in 2012. The average stay was about five days and cost more than $44,500. Charity care is defined as "free or discounted health services provided to people who meet hospitals’ criteria for financial assistance." It doesn’t include bad debt, uncollected charges or differences in treatment costs versus what a government program pays. FHA President Bruce Rueben has said he hoped "there will be inroads" to lowering that number in future reports, when people newly insured under the Affordable Care Act are taken into account. The federal insurance exchange didn’t open until Oct. 1, 2013, with policies starting in 2014, so data on how that affects charity care aren’t available. In any event, patients with insurance do end up paying for people who are not covered. Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association, said she had heard the Chamber’s number used before, but wasn’t aware of how it had been calculated. Nonetheless, it’s an estimate that is rooted in a real problem, she said. "I think the underlying premise, those who do pay, pay for those who can't/don't is true," she told PolitiFact Florida via email, "although the ‘cost shifting’ had become more burdensome before the Affordable Care Act and the availability of affordable coverage." If Florida fully implemented the health care law, it would reduce the ranks of the uninsured. The pro-expansion Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy estimates about 1 million people would be covered under the Medicaid expansion by 2020, while the Kaiser Family Foundation said about 1.3 million people now qualify under the Affordable Care Act for subsidies to help them pay for private insurance. The Kaiser study said some 764,000 Floridians would fall into a coverage gap created when they earn too much to get Medicaid coverage, but not enough to get those subsidies. The rest either must buy their own insurance, are children covered by another program or are ineligible because of their immigration status. Our ruling The Florida Chamber of Commerce said, "Insured Floridians pay about $2,000 for every hospital stay to cover the cost of the uninsured." That number is based on an estimate the chamber developed in-house, calculating an average based on an unspecified "urban hospital" using the most recent data. There’s no way to tell just how accurate that estimate is, since it makes plenty of assumptions on actual costs. It also doesn’t take into account how much the Affordable Care Act will change the data, since the requirement for the uninsured to have policies didn’t kick in until 2014. Experts we talked to said there are problems with the chamber’s number, but it’s a somewhat reasonable illustration to a real problem in Florida: People who are insured end up paying for those who aren’t. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.	None	Florida Chamber of Commerce	None	None	None	2015-01-28T17:04:27	2015-01-13	['None']
-pomt-06475	"94 percent of winning candidates in 2010 had more money than their opponents."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/17/occupy-wall-street/occupy-wall-street-protesters-sign-says-94-percent/	A reader recently sent us a link to a photograph taken at the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York City’s Zuccotti Park on Oct. 5, 2011. It showed a protester holding a sign that said, "94% of winning candidates in 2010 had more money than their opponents. Is this Democracy?" This statistic has been cited in a number of other forums recently. For instance, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan -- who is backing a petition for a constitutional amendment to "Get Money Out" of politics -- used it on Martin Bashir’s MSNBC show on Sept. 27, 2011.] Ratigan said "there is a single statistic that I think is the only statistic that you need to understand about money and politics in America. … If you look at campaign for federal office, Congress, president, whatever, … if I know who raised more money, without even knowing anything else, 94 percent of the time I will pick the winner." We took up the reader’s suggestion to fact-check the statistic. We’ll first note that the creator of the sign is not specific about what offices are being referred to. We found two data sets that directly address the issue, both compiled by nonpartisan groups that track money in politics. One is the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending patterns in races for U.S. House and Senate seats. The other is the National Institute on Money in State Politics, which tracks spending in state legislative contests. In congressional races in 2010, the candidate who spent the most won 85 percent of the House races and 83 percent of the Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a large percentage, but it’s lower than what the sign indicated. Indeed, the percentage for 2010 was lower than it had been in recent election cycles. The center found that in 2008, the biggest spenders won 93 percent of House races and 86 percent of Senate races. In 2006, the top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. And in 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to candidates who spent the most, as did 88 percent of Senate seats. So the protester’s sign would have been essentially correct had it not specifically cited 2010 -- though even then, it would only be true for the House and not for the Senate, which has consistently seen lower percentages of the bigger spenders win. Meanwhile, the success rate of big spenders has been lower at the state level. The most recent figures, from the 2008 election cycle, show that 80 percent of state legislative candidates with the monetary advantage won their contests. In 2006, it was 83 percent; in 2004, it was 84 percent; and in 2002, it was 82 percent. (The group’s figures for 2010 are due to be released in the next month or so.) So the percentages for state legislative races have also been consistently lower than what the sign indicated. Our ruling The protester has a point: Even in the relatively atypical year of 2010, a large majority of contests for congressional and state legislative races were won by candidates who spent the most money, and the 94 percent mark was reached in federal races in 2006 and nearly again in 2008. Still, the sign’s figures were off. In 2010 -- which is not only the most recent election year but also the year specifically cited in the sign -- the percentage of big-money winners in U.S. House races was actually 85 percent, or nine points lower. And the percentages of U.S. Senate seats and state legislative seats won by the deeper-pocketed candidate have been consistently lower in recent election cycles. On balance, we rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Occupy Wall Street	None	None	None	2011-10-17T17:58:25	2011-10-05	['None']
-goop-01543	Justin Theroux Did Stay In Guest House Before Jennifer Aniston Split, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-jennifer-aniston-guest-house-split-not-true/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Justin Theroux Did NOT Stay In Guest House Before Jennifer Aniston Split, Despite Report	4:48 pm, February 19, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10763	"I supported tort reform with regard to securities...product liability...interstate commerce."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/25/fred-thompson/a-mixed-record/	At an Oct. 21 Republican debate in Orlando, Fla., Fred Thompson responded to an attack by Rudy Giuliani, who had criticized votes by Thompson against tort reform. Thompson said, "I supported tort reform with regard to securities legislation. I supported tort reform with regard to product liability legislation, things that have to do with interstate commerce. I think it appropriately passed. I supported and worked for those things. Local issues belong at the state level. Most states have passed tort reform. That's our system. It's not all federalized." Thompson's statement fairly summarizes his record on the issue. A former trial lawyer, he has opposed some tort reform bills because he said they violated his principle of states' rights. But he has supported others because he said they involve interstate commerce. In 1995, he voted with his party for a bill limiting product liability lawsuits against manufacturers. However, he was instrumental in narrowing it from the broad tort reform that the Republican leadership had wanted. He was one of only nine Republican senators to vote against an earlier version of the bill, which included protections for doctors against medical malpractice suits and sanctions meant to limit frivolous lawsuits. The legislation went on to be passed without the protections for doctors and limits on frivolous suits. Also in 1995, Thompson voted with fellow Republicans on a bill that made it harder for shareholders to file class-action lawsuits against companies. When that law caused more and more class-action securities fraud lawsuits to be filed in state courts, Thompson voted for a 1998 law that required such cases to be handled by federal courts. He is correct that most states have passed some sort of tort reform, according to Darren McKinney, spokesman for the American Tort Reform Association, a group that advocates state and federal tort reform. Overall, we find Thompson's response to Giuliani's attack to be Mostly True.	None	Fred Thompson	None	None	None	2007-10-25T00:00:00	2007-10-21	['None']
-pomt-05012	The media won’t publish a real photo of Trayvon Martin with tattoos on his face.	/florida/statements/2012/jul/17/chain-email/real-photo-trayvon-martin-chain-email-says-so/	There’s more to Trayvon Martin’s appearance than the media would have you know, a chain email claims. Martin is the 17-year-old Miami Gardens resident who was shot in February by volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. The answer is attached within the email, "Is This Little Trayvon Martin." Here, Trayvon is bigger and stronger than the boy we’ve seen in the hoodie. This Trayvon has facial hair. He’s inked up from his hands to his neck. His right cheek bears a can’t-miss tattoo -- a red star inset with "LA," in the style of the Los Angeles Dodgers logo. The email accuses reporters of deceiving the public by suppressing this photo and publishing photos of a younger Trayvon after his death. Then it complains the media won't report the 17-year-old’s disciplinary problems. Actually, the Miami Herald reported his suspensions and getting caught with marijuana and women’s jewelry. The email ends with a rant about the divisive, liberal agenda of the media. "They don't show the up-to-date pictures of Trayvon Martin, in the media," the email says. "Now you know why. Kinda scary, ain't it?" A couple readers asked us to investigate the photo in their inboxes. As we suspected, it’s not Trayvon Martin. We will note that after Trayvon's death a much younger picture of him provided by the family got a lot of press. But this email goes way off the mark. This man is Jayceon Terrell Taylor, also known as Game, a 32-year-old rapper from Compton, Calif., near Los Angeles. Formerly known as The Game, he earned Grammy nominations in 2006 for his collaboration with rapper 50 Cent on "Hate It or Love It." Game weighed in on the Trayvon Martin controversy in a March 2012 interview with MTV.com: "I'm far from racist. I'm very educated and intellectual and I understand how life works and how people of all colors exist under the sun, but it just seems like more than not black people are, I don't know, there's always some negative occurrence that goes on in our existence. This is just another reminder that stupidity still exists." As for the right cheek tattoo, it used to be a butterfly. Game concealed it with the Dodgers logo and red star after a lot of criticism. "I’m the face of L.A., so I put L.A. on my face," he once said. A publicist for the rapper said this picture was probably snapped during a photoshoot with XXL Magazine, though he wasn’t sure when. It’s no matter. We have enough information here to make our ruling. We rate the chain email Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2012-07-17T12:18:19	2012-07-16	['None']
-abbc-00145	The claim: Victorian Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry says the death penalty does not deter crime, "it's just a terrible thing to do".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030	The claim: Victorian Supreme Court judge Lex Lasry says the death penalty does not deter crime, "it's just a terrible thing to do".	['government-and-politics', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'australia', 'indonesia']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'australia', 'indonesia']	Fact check: No proof the death penalty prevents crime	Mon 4 May 2015, 1:50am	None	['Lex_Lasry']
-wast-00007	Ammar Campa-Najjar is working to infiltrate Congress. He's used three different names to hide his family's ties to terrorism. His grandfather masterminded the Munich Olympic massacre. His father said they deserved to die. ... \xe2\x80\x98He is being supported by CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.' \xe2\x80\x98This is a well-orchestrated plan.' Ammar Campa-Najjar: A risk we can't ignore.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/01/indicted-congressman-falsely-ties-opponent-terrorism/	None	None	Attack ad from Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr.	Salvador Rizzo	None	Indicted congressman falsely ties opponent to terrorism	October 1	None	['Muslim_Brotherhood', 'Council_on_American–Islamic_Relations', 'United_States_Congress']
-pomt-08692	"Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/08/jan-brewer/gov-jan-brewer-talks-beheadings-th-arizona-desert/	Defending her state's controversial immigration law she signed on April 23, 2010, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said border violence has gotten so bad there have been beheadings out in the Arizona desert. That's right, beheadings. It's a shocking image, but critics say it's also completely made up and an example of fear-mongering of the worst kind used by Brewer to manipulate an already emotional national debate on immigration. "We cannot afford all this illegal immigration and everything that comes with it, everything from the crime and to the drugs and the kidnappings and the extortion and the beheadings and the fact that people can't feel safe in their community. It's wrong! It's wrong!" Brewer said in a June 16, 2010, interview with Fox News. The Republican governor stood by her beheading claim when questioned about it during an interview on Phoenix NBC-affiliate KPNX 12 News on June 25, 2010. "Oh, our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert, either buried or just lying out there, that have been beheaded," she said. That came as surprising news to Dr. Eric Peters, deputy chief medical examiner for Pima County, which has the largest border with Mexico of any county in Arizona. "We probably have handled the most deaths from border crossings," Peters told PolitiFact. "We have had approximately 1,700 deaths in the last 10 years. We haven't had a single death due to a beheading or having a beheading associated with it." The vast majority of deaths -- more than 95 percent, he said -- were due to exposure to the elements, either extreme heat in the summer or extreme cold in the winter. The remainder of deaths, less than 5 percent, were "generally related to the process of human smuggling," Peters said. For example, he said, passengers who are killed when a smuggler tries to put too many people in a van and the van rolls or is involved in an accident. "It's exceedingly rare for the deaths to have anything to do with any type of violence at all, and certainly no beheadings," Peters said. "It's not terribly uncommon that we'd find just a skull," Peters said. He then added a grisly (if clinical) explanation: "As a body decomposes, local animals will use the deceased as a food source and sometimes the head can become dis-articulated from the spine." But none from violent beheadings. It would be clear from the bones, Peters said, if there were a "traumatic removal from the remainder of the body." Other medical examiners and law enforcement officials along the border echoed Peters' sentiments. "We have received no headless bodies from the desert at all," said Pinal County spokesman Joe Pyritz. Reporters from the Arizona Guardian and television station ABC15 talked to several other medical examiners in counties along or near the Mexican border, and all said the same thing: no beheadings there. We also spoke to Vincent Picard, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Phoenix, who told us there have been no cases involving beheadings in any of their investigations. In a Sept. 1 debate, Brewer's Democratic opponent Terry Goddard called Brewer's beheading comments "fear-mongering" that painted an untrue picture of Arizona and hurt the state's economy. "Jan, I call upon you today to say there are no beheadings,'' Goddard demanded. She skirted the issue during the debate, but two days later, on Sept. 3, 2010, Brewer walked back her comment in an interview with the Associated Press. "That was an error, if I said that," Brewer said. "I misspoke, but you know, let me be clear, I am concerned about the border region because it continues to be reported in Mexico that there's a lot of violence going on and we don't want that going into Arizona." Escalating cartel-related violence -- including beheadings -- have been widely reported in northern Mexico. And some of those cartels are involved in cross-border smuggling. But Brewer twice described the beheadings as happening on the U.S. side of the border. And for weeks, she refused to back away from the comment. When Brewer finally acknowledged she had erred, she couched her admission with the qualifier "if I said said that." She did. This claim, like several others by opponents of illegal immigration, is ridiculously false -- emphasizing a non-existent danger. So we rate her comment Pants On Fire.	None	Jan Brewer	None	None	None	2010-09-08T17:33:05	2010-06-25	['None']
-snes-00404	U.S. border officials are now searching the cellphones of Canadian citizens entering the United States.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canadian-border-cellphone-search/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Will Canadians’ Cell Phones Now Be Searched at the U.S. Border?	27 June 2018	None	['United_States', 'Canada']
-pomt-10346	"I investigated Abramoff and people ended up in jail."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/15/john-mccain/raised-awareness-but-doesnt-get-sole-credit/	Trying to tap voter frustration with Washington's political establishment, Sen. John McCain used a July 8, 2008, appearance on Fox News to remind viewers about his role investigating the political corruption scandal involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. His comments imply that his work directly resulted in guilty pleas. "The American people are angry when we see spending completely out of control . . . when we see corruption, that former members of Congress are now in federal prison," McCain said on the Fox and Friends program. "I investigated Abramoff and people ended up in jail, of course we get angry. Americans are angry now." McCain is referring to a two-year investigation he led as chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee that detailed how Abramoff and his associate, Michael Scanlon, defrauded Indian tribal clients of tens of millions of dollars. The probe involved extensive interviews and subpoenas, five committee hearings and a review of some 750,000 pages of records. A resulting 373-page report, approved by the panel in June 2006, outlined the circumstances under which six tribes paid Scanlon approximately $66-million for grass-roots lobbying activities during a three-year period, one-third of which Scanlon delivered to Abramoff. Republicans and Democrats alike have praised McCain for aggressively pressing the issue. And the hearings led to expanded inquiries into Abramoff's efforts to pressure former Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton and other senior Interior Department officials on behalf of Indian tribes with gambling interests. But McCain wasn't the only one investigating. Federal prosecutors also were conducting extensive investigations into how Abramoff and Scanlon laundered millions of dollars through charities and front organizations in an effort take their cut of the proceeds and avoid paying taxes. Those probes and spinoff inquiries directly resulted in more than a dozen guilty pleas. Scanlon in November 2005 pleaded guilty to a single conspiracy charge stemming from his efforts to defraud tribes as part of the corruption scheme. He agreed to cooperate with investigators. Though there are several former members of Congress currently serving prison time on corruption charges, as McCain indicated, only ex-Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, was convicted as part of the Abramoff investigation. In January 2007, Ney was sentenced to 2 years in prison after acknowledging taking bribes from Abramoff. In February 2008, he was released from prison and moved to a halfway house. However, Ney's activities were not a particular focus of McCain's investigation. McCain can legitimately take credit for snaring a senior Interior Department official in his probe. Ex-Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, the former No. 2 official in the department, pleaded guilty in March 2007 to lying to the Indian Affairs Committee about his relationship with Abramoff during testimony on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with panel investigators on Oct. 20, 2005. In June 2007, Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and a $30,000 fine. Another Bush administration figure who went to prison in connection with the scandal was David Safavian, the former chief of staff of the U.S. General Services Administration. Safavian was sentenced in October 2006 to 18 months in prison for lying to McCain's committee, the GSA's inspector general and a GSA ethics officer about his efforts to help Abramoff obtain control of two properties controlled by the GSA and covering up a golf trip he took with Abramoff to England and Scotland in 2002. However, a federal appeals court in June 2008 threw out some of the charges and ordered a new trial. As for Abramoff himself, the ex-lobbyist in March 2006 was sentenced to nearly six years in prison in a separate case — for defrauding banks of $23-million while purchasing a fleet of gambling boats in Florida in 2000. While he serves his sentence, Abramoff is cooperating with authorities in the ongoing corruption investigation of administration officials, lawmakers and their aides. At least 14 individuals caught up in the corruption probe or the Florida case have pleaded guilty to various charges. Most were sentenced to probation in return for their cooperation in the investigation. It certainly can be argued that McCain was the most aggressive member of Congress who investigated the Abramoff affair, and that his efforts expanded inquiries into wrongdoing that ultimately resulted in the convictions of Bush administration officials, congressional staffers and businesspeople. And though McCain didn't directly send any of the wrongdoers to jail, Griles, the former Interior Department deputy, wound up serving time specifically because he lied to investigators from McCain's committee. For this reason, we rule McCain's statement Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-15T00:00:00	2008-07-08	['None']
-pomt-06508	"I created a flat tax in the state of Utah. It took that state to the number-one position in terms of job creation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/12/jon-huntsman/jon-huntsman-touts-record-taxes-job-creation-new-h/	During the Oct. 11, 2011, Republican presidential debate in Hanover, N.H., Jon Huntsman touted his achievements on both tax policy and job creation. "I created a flat tax in the state of Utah. It took that state to the number-one position in terms of job creation. We rated both of these claims previously. We’ll recap those analyses here. The flat tax When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how he began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005. "We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states," Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005. Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years. When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent. This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bonds or deducting withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts. The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. "Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utah’s new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people.) Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit on state taxes a portion of their federal tax deductions and exemptions. The credit phases out and goes away for those making very high incomes in the state. This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis. "There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study. Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax. The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some "minor blemishes"' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch.) So the system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasn’t a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors -- but it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax, a single rate for all income groups. Job creation When we asked the Huntsman campaign in September for data to back up the claim, they directed us to a blog post at National Review Online, the website of the well-known conservative magazine. The item, posted June 20, 2011, compared employment statistics for several governors. "During Huntsman’s tenure, January 2005 to August 2009, Utah had the best overall job-growth rate of any state in the nation," the item said. "In that same time frame, Perry’s job-growth rate was 4.9 percent. (Minnesota Gov. Tim) Pawlenty’s job-growth rate was negative: The number of jobs in Minnesota decreased by 1.8 percent." At PolitiFact, we always double-check data in media reports against official statistics, so we did so here. We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government’s official source of employment statistics. We looked at the Current Employment Statistics database for each of the 50 states and subtracted the number of jobs in January 2005 from the number in August 2009. As it happens, this period was split between an expansion (2005 through 2007) and a deep recession (2008 and 2009), so a majority of states actually lost jobs over that period. Utah was not one of the job-losing states -- but it also wasn’t No. 1 in the nation, according to this set of statistics. The states with the fastest employment growth over the period when Huntsman was governor were Wyoming, with a 9.5 increase; North Dakota, with 7.5 percent; Texas, with 6.5 percent; and Utah, with 4.8 percent. So Huntsman’s claim gets a False, right? Not so fast. When we showed our math to the Huntsman camp, they stood by their numbers. They sent us to a page for the state of Utah on the BLSwebsite that backed up the claim Huntsman made during the debate -- the number of jobs in Utah rose by 5.9 percent over the period. Using the equivalent pages for the other three states, we found that Utah exceeded them all -- Texas grew by 4.9 percent, as Huntsman indicated, while Wyoming grew by 4 percent and North Dakota grew by 3 percent. Using these figures, Huntsman was correct. So what gives? When we checked with the BLS, a spokesman explained that the way we calculated the numbers and the way the Huntsman camp calculated the numbers are different because the numbers come from different data sets. The data we used come from the Current Employment Statistics, a monthly study of the payroll data at 400,000 businesses, whereas the Huntsman campaign was using data from the Current Population Survey, which is based on a survey of about 60,000 households. Is one of these data set preferred in this context? The BLS’s answer is yes -- and the preferred method is not the one used by the Huntsman campaign. "BLS uses changes in the payroll survey to describe job gain or loss," said spokesman Gary Steinberg. We’ll note one additional factor. For claims like these, where elected officials suggest that they deserve credit for an achievement (or that their opponent deserves blame for a failure), PolitiFact attempts to determine whether the politician in question does in fact deserve credit or blame. In the case of job creation, Huntsman, as governor, played some role, but there were so many other factors at play -- from the state of the national economy to the particular climate for specific industrial sectors in the state to broader demographic trends -- that we think it’s a stretch for Huntsman to claim a significant share of the credit. That’s particularly because he credited just one portion of his efforts in office, the tax overhaul, with the job-creation numbers. Our ruling Huntsman didn’t create a pure flat tax in Utah, but he did create a flatter one. As for jobs, the Utah economy did well, but was not the No. 1 job-creating state in the nation by the yardstick most economists, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, would use. And we don’t think it’s valid for Huntsman to claim as much credit as he does for himself and his tax changes for the jobs numbers. On balance, we rate the statement Half True.	None	Jon Huntsman	None	None	None	2011-10-12T00:05:00	2011-10-11	['Utah']
-snes-00461	In mid-2018, Domino's Pizza began giving cities and towns grants for street repairs.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dominos-pizza-paving/	None	Business	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Is Domino’s Pizza Paving Roads?	14 June 2018	None	['None']
-chct-00308	FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence 'The Sound Of Gunshots'?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/03/fact-check-do-gun-suppressors-really-silence-the-sound-of-gunshots/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	1:14 PM 10/03/2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13424	Says Russ Feingold was the "only senator to vote against Homeland Security."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/sep/21/let-america-work/pac-wrongly-claims-russ-feingold-was-only-vote-aga/	A TV ad from Let America Work, a single-candidate super PAC that supports Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson for re-election, paints Democratic challenger Russ Feingold as someone who weakened the military during his 18 years in the Senate. Feingold, the narrator states, "voted against authorizing our military 11 separate times" -- a claim Johnson made that we rated Half True. Feingold did vote 11 times against an annual bill that authorizes defense spending levels and covers policy issues. But those were not votes to defund the military, given that it takes appropriations bills to provide funding. And lawmakers sometimes oppose the annual measure because of policy provisions included in it. The ad, released Sept. 1, 2016, continues with words on the screen that say Feingold was the "only senator to vote against military intelligence" and the "only senator to vote against Homeland Security." The two claims are essentially fleshed out by the narrator saying: "Feingold voted against the Patriot Act and against creating the Department of Homeland Security." Feingold is well known for casting the lone vote against the USA Patriot Act, the 2001 anti-terrorism law introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, in his rematch with Johnson, Feingold has done a fundraising appeal explaining his vote. But did Feingold cast the only vote against creating the Department of Homeland Security? No. As reported by the New York Times at the time, the Senate voted in 2002 to "reorganize broad elements of a scattered federal government around a focused response to terrorism," with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security being "Washington's biggest transformation in 50 years." "Not since Congress and the Truman administration upended the nation’s military apparatus to fight the cold war in 1947 has the government been reshaped so dramatically around a single purpose," the Times said. The department "will slowly begin to absorb 22 of Washington's signature functions, including immigration, border protection, emergency management, intelligence analysis and the protection of the president himself." The roll call vote on the Homeland Security Act shows the measure passed 90-9. Feingold was one of the nine, along with fellow Democrats Daniel Akaka of Alaska, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. (James Jeffords, a Vermont independent, also voted no, while Frank Murkowski of Alaska was not present. Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl voted yes.) Feingold’s campaign responded to the ad the same day, issuing a statement saying Feingold voted no because the bill contained "unrelated riders." The statement included this excerpt from his book, "While America Sleeps": Using the same tactics as the drafters of the Patriot Act, the backers knew they could grab a victory on some unrelated agenda because the overall bill was what was known in Washington as a must-pass. Such bills, which Congress has almost no choice but to pass, often attract riders like the one that restricted employees’ rights. The Bush administration and the Republicans in the Senate, hungry to regain the majority, pounced with some gusto on the political opportunities this new climate of fear provided. Let America Work didn’t respond to our requests for information. Our rating Let America Work says Feingold was the "only senator to vote against Homeland Security." Feingold was one of nine senators who voted against the 2002 law that created the Department of Homeland Security. We rate the statement False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2c31c975-5786-4d07-9306-44d8e26f327f	None	Let America Work	None	None	None	2016-09-21T05:00:00	2016-09-01	['Russ_Feingold']
-snes-03970	A woman discovered that her infant's powdered Similac formula was infested with maggots.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maggots-found-in-similac-formula-powder/	None	Food	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Maggots Found in Similac Formula Powder?	22 September 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12118	"70 million Americans have a criminal record — that’s one in three adults."	/new-york/statements/2017/aug/18/andrew-cuomo/yes-one-three-us-adults-have-criminal-record/	Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants businesses in New York state to hire more applicants with a criminal record. They become loyal employees and bring tax benefits, he said. And, they make up a huge pool of prospective employees. "70 million Americans have a criminal record — that’s one in three adults," Cuomo wrote in an article on career website LinkedIn. People with a criminal record number too many for employers to pass over because of unsubstantiated fears of workplace violence, theft or incompetence, he said. But is the number as high as he said? Does one in every three adults have a criminal record? The FBI’s definition of criminal record The FBI considers anyone who has been arrested on a felony charge to have a criminal record, even if the arrest did not lead to a conviction. The FBI only counts those with a misdemeanor if a state agency asks the bureau to keep it on file. So by the FBI’s standard, 73.5 million people in the United States had a criminal record as of June 30. The Census Bureau lists the adult population in the United States at 249.4 million. That means the FBI considers about 29.5 percent of adults to have a criminal record. Cuomo’s statement Cuomo did not make any distinction between convictions and arrests in his article. He just used the term 'criminal record' without defining it. The meaning of criminal record can be ambiguous. A search on the internet will tell you a criminal record is a history of someone’s convictions, a step beyond the FBI’s definition. "When I teach my classes and I talk to my students about this, I tell them the term criminal record is almost useless," said Robert Brame, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. "It could mean so many different things," Brame said. "Are you talking about conviction record, arrest record, juvenile record?" In most cases, arrests shouldn't show up on pre-employment checks, said Michelle Rodriguez, a senior staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project. "But there's still mistakes that happen in background check reports so there is a possibility that something could show up," Rodriguez said. There is no federal data on the number of people with a criminal conviction living in the U.S. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics does have an estimate for how many people were under correctional supervision in 2015. The bureau reported 6.7 million adults either incarcerated or on parole or probation. That’s close to three out of every 100 adults. Our ruling Cuomo said "70 million Americans have a criminal record — that’s one in three adults." By the FBI definition, that is correct. But the term ‘criminal record’ is ambiguous, and the FBI definition is different from the common-sense definition. His claim may have been interpreted by some to mean one-third of adults have a criminal conviction. That’s not true. His statement leaves out how he defines criminal record, an important detail. We rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Andrew Cuomo	None	None	None	2017-08-18T00:00:00	2017-07-18	['United_States']
-vogo-00228	Statement: “Their acceptance rate was as low as Harvard and Yale this year,” former President Bill Clinton said about UC San Diego during a June 5 interview with CNBC.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/bill-clintons-mistake-about-uc-san-diego-fact-check/	Analysis: Clinton gathered global leaders and thinkers at a conference in Chicago earlier this month to address some of the world’s biggest challenges: poverty, environment, education and health care.	None	None	None	None	Bill Clinton's Mistake About UC San Diego: Fact Check	June 19, 2012	None	['Bill_Clinton', 'Harvard_University', 'Yale_University', 'University_of_California,_San_Diego', 'CNBC']
-pomt-09010	Blue Cross headquarters has "a $30,000 granite table."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/jul/11/steve-archambault/archambault-says-blue-cross-headquarters-has-30000/	Another Democratic candidate has decided to go after Blue Cross of Rhode Island for its perceived extravagance. This time it was Stephen Archambault, one of the three Democrats who have filed for Attorney General. At the June 28 Democratic state convention in the 17th-floor ballroom of the Providence Biltmore hotel, Archambault complained that Blue Cross, which enjoys non-profit status, spent excessively when it equipped its new Providence headquarters. The company has been a popular target of politicians, in part because of its double-digit rate increase requests; it was awarded an average 9.8 percent increase July 7. "We don't have to look too far to see a $125 million building across the way with a $30,000 granite table and a state-of-the-art gym that Governor Schwarzenegger could have trained for the Olympiad in," Archambault said. Spending $30,000 on a table seems pretty extravagant. If it's true. The Archambault claim came the same day Democrat Bill Lynch, who is running for Congress, drew a Pants On Fire ruling from us because he claimed -- with no proof -- that Blue Cross spent $25 million on decor for its new building. We asked the Archambault campaign to put its cards on a, presumably, much cheaper table and say where the candidate got his information. Spokesman Rob Horowitz said the campaign couldn't back up the claim because the information came from a source, whose name he would not disclose. "We received the information from what we believe to be a reliable source. But we don't have first-hand knowledge and at this juncture cannot confirm it," said Horowitz. "As a result, we will not be using it any more and it shouldn't have been included in the speech the other night. The broader point about the cost of the building we believe to be completely on target." When we asked Blue Cross about the table, Kimberly Reingold, director of media relations and external affairs, said she was unable to find a granite table, not even in the board room, where the table is made of wood. So we went back to the Archambault campaign and asked Horowitz to contact the secret source and identify the room containing the swanky table. Then we called Blue Cross and asked for a tour of the new 13-story building that overlooks Waterplace Park. We were told by Reingold that customer service areas were off-limits because of federal patient confidentiality laws. We offered to wear earplugs so we couldn't overhear comments from the customer service representatives. We also offered to sign a confidentiality agreement vowing to keep any medical information secret. Reingold said neither offer was acceptable, although we could see other areas of the building. Our plan was to get the location of the table from the Archambault source and, if we weren't taken there on the tour, ask to see the room where it was purported to be. Horowitz, Archambault's spokesman, reported a few days later that the campaign's source was not returning phone calls. So we took the tour anyway. We were allowed to view a customer service area from afar and didn't see any furnishings that appeared lavish. We saw the gym, with new exercise equipment, along with a room for exercise classes (employees pay $16 a month to use the facility), but nothing out of the ordinary for a building with 1,100 employees. "There are no granite tables," insisted Thomas Bovis, assistant vice president of corporate real estate and administrative services, who coordinated the development of the building. At the end of the tour, we asked to see the board room to confirm Reingold's report. Reingold said it was off limits because we would have to pass areas where we might be able to see documents with customer information. She then agreed to take our camera to the board room and snap photos from two different angles. Based on those pictures, the table looks like it's made of wood. We give the Archambault campaign credit for retracting its claim as soon as we challenged it. If this tale of the extravagant table takes a turn, we'll recalibrate the Truth-O-Meter. But for now, it's registering a rock-solid Pants on Fire.	None	Stephen Archambault	None	None	None	2010-07-11T06:00:00	2010-06-28	['None']
-pomt-13324	"Toomey and Trump will ban abortion and punish women who have them."	/pennsylvania/statements/2016/oct/06/naral-pro-choice/attack-ads-unsubstantiated-claim-pat-toomey-trump-/	One pro-choice political action committee said in a recent ad that if Pennsylvanians re-elect Sen. Pat Toomey to the Senate, he’ll work together with GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to ban abortion and punish women who have them. The attack ad, put out last week by NARAL Pro-Choice America, is part of a surge of outside spending in the Pennsylvania Senate race. Democrats have for months tied Toomey, a Republican who hasn’t explicitly endorsed the presidential nominee, to Trump -- but this ad takes it a step farther. It first flashes a clip of an interview between Trump and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews from March when Trump caused an uproar by saying women should be punished for having an abortion. "Pat Toomey might use different words, but his agenda is the same," the narrator of the ad says. "Toomey and Trump will ban abortion and punish women who have them." No, they probably won’t. First and foremost, the president and the Senate can’t ban abortion and punish women who have them. First, the U.S. Supreme Court would need to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 43-year-old decision that says states can’t put in place unreasonable barriers for women seeking abortions. Whether Congress can even vote to restrict abortion is in dispute, and was a major issue last year when lawmakers considered a bill that would prohibit abortion after 20 weeks in most cases. Toomey and Trump do mostly agree on abortion: Both consider themselves to be pro-life, and both have said they would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade if the Supreme Court did so. Toomey’s said that abortion should be up to states to decide and, if Pennsylvania banned abortion, he would support it. In a 2009 interview also with Matthews, when asked if doctors who perform abortions should face prison time, Toomey said: "At some point doctors performing abortions I think would be subject to that sort of penalty." Trump took it farther in March during that now-infamous interview on MSNBC. During a segment on abortion, Trump said: "There has to be some form of punishment." Matthews responded: "For the woman?" Trump replied: "Yeah." But the GOP nominee walked back those comments hours later in what PolitiFact has previously dubbed "as clear a reversal as it comes." "If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman," Trump said in a statement at the time. "The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions." But we weren’t able to find a single example of Toomey saying he believes women should be punished for having an abortion. A campaign spokesman said "he obviously does not." When we reached out to NARAL for any evidence that Toomey supports punishing women who have abortions, a spokesperson directed us to NARAL’s own website. At the top of a page dedicated to Toomey, it reads: "Together, Pat Toomey and Donald Trump will ban abortion and punish women who have them." The sources listed include Trump’s interview with Matthews, as well as three citations related to Toomey’s stances on abortion. The first is a quote from Toomey during a 2010 Senate campaign debate, in which he says "I think Roe v. Wade was mistakenly determined and I support its repeal." During that same debate, Toomey said: "I’m pro-life. And I would accept a ban on abortions, with the exceptions of rape and incest and the life of the mother." The second citation from NARAL notes that Toomey co-sponsored the bill last year that banned abortion after 20 weeks and would stipulate doctors who perform them could face prison time. That bill, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, never made it out of committee. The third citation notes that last year, Toomey voted in favor of a bill that would have made it harder for victims of human trafficking to seek federal assistance in paying for an abortion. Democrats and Republicans eventually came to a compromise on that bill that meant federal funds wouldn’t be used for abortions, but Democrats didn’t see the amendments as an affront to women’s health. None of the citations showed Toomey saying or implying he believes women who have abortions should be legally punished. Our Ruling In an attack ad, NARAL Pro-Choice America said, "Toomey and Trump will ban abortion and punish women who have them." Even if Toomey and Trump could themselves ban abortion and punish women who have them, Toomey has never said he’d support punishing women who have abortions. Trump said he’d support such a measure, but walked back that stance hours after saying it. We rate the claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/525a11ea-916b-474f-b872-a15c52b04277	None	NARAL Pro-Choice America	None	None	None	2016-10-06T08:42:57	2016-09-28	['None']
-pomt-07518	"From '05 to '09, we've had 1,100 soldiers commit suicide, one every 36 hours."	/ohio/statements/2011/apr/08/tim-ryan/rep-tim-ryan-cites-rising-numbers-service-personne/	Persistent U.S. deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have coincided with a widely documented increase in military suicides. At a March 16 House Armed Services Committee hearing on the war in Afghanistan, Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat, raised the issue with General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, as well as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy. "From '05 to '09, we've had 1,100 soldiers commit suicide, one every 36 hours. A report in Navy Times said that 7.3 percent of Army, Navy and Marines have thought about attempting suicide," Ryan said at the hearing. Ryan, whose district includes an Air Force Reserve base, brought up an important issue. PolitiFact Ohio reviewed the second part of his quote in a separate item, rating it Pants On Fire. This item will focus on his claim about the number of suicides and their frequency. Ryan’s staff referred us to a 2010 Pentagon report titled "The Challenge and the Promise: Strengthening the Force, Preventing Suicide and Saving Lives," which shows the military’s suicide rate rose from 10.3 per 100,000 service personnel in 2001 to 18.4 per 100,000 in 2009. The report counts 189 suicides by active duty and reserve component service members in 2005. In 2006, the number rose to 213. It was 224 in 2007, 267 in 2008, and 309 in 2009. That’s a grand total of total of 1,202 suicides over five years, which exceeds the number Ryan cited. Dividing the 43,824 hours in that period by 1,202 suicides reveals that there was one military suicide every 36.46 hours, a number nearly identical to Ryan’s statistic. The groups with the highest suicide rates were service members who were male, Caucasian, divorced, under age 25 and those with a GED. The largest U.S. military branch the Army, had the highest number of suicides during those years. It released its own report on the topic last year. So where does this claim rank on the Truth-O-Meter? Ryan’s number for actual suicides over a five year period was understated, but not off by enough to distort his underlying point - that suicides among military personnel are a problem that is on the rise. His statistic of one military suicide every 36 hours was also on the mark. On this point we rate his statement as True.	None	Tim Ryan	None	None	None	2011-04-08T06:00:00	2011-03-16	['None']
-snes-03734	Hillary Clinton threw a tantrum, and a water glass, after NBC's "Commander-in-Chief" Forum in September 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-threw-a-tantrum-with-matt-lauer/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Hillary Clinton Threw a Tantrum with Matt Lauer?	22 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10617	"I'm proud of the fact that I've raised more money from small donors than anybody else, and that we're getting $25, $50, $100 donations, and we've done very well doing it that way."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/16/barack-obama/obama-rakes-it-in-from-small-donors/	Barack Obama said in a debate that he has raised the most money from small donors. For this question, we turned to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group that tracks money in politics. The center found that, based on available data, Obama has raised the most money from small donors, said spokesman Massie Ritsch. Small donors are defined as people who donate less than $200; the Federal Election Commission requires candidates to itemize contributions from people who give more than that. Smaller donations get reported as a lump sum, and Obama has reported the most money raised under this category. (The donation limit for any individual donor is $2,300 per candidate.) An important caveat: The center has only analyzed data compiled through Sept. 30, 2007, the last deadline for campaign finance data. Another report is due about two weeks from this writing, on Jan. 31, 2008. It's possible, though not likely, that fundraising during the last quarter of the year could change this analysis. Here are the totals for individual donors calculated by the center so far, excluding PAC contributions and transfers from other accounts: * Obama: $79.2-million total, $19.8-million small; * Clinton: $79.6-million total, $10.4-million small; * Edwards $30.1-million total, $8.4-million small. Based on the center's analysis, we find Barack Obama's claim that he gets the most money from small donors to be True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-01-16T00:00:00	2008-01-15	['None']
-snes-00825	A photograph shows a short-tailed weasel.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/short-tailed-weasel/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This a ‘Short-Tailed Weasel’?	30 March 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08174	"Historically," Senate ratification of arms control treaties "has been bipartisan."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/30/michael-mullen/adm-mike-mullen-says-past-arms-treaty-ratification/	As the House and Senate move into a brief lame-duck session before the new Congress begins work in January, one issue on the table is whether the Senate will ratify a new START treaty to control nuclear arms, as the Obama Administration wants. The treaty would enact modest nuclear-weapons reductions and extend verification provisions that lapsed last year. Most Democrats and many foreign-policy professionals favor ratification of the new treaty, which would require 67 votes in the Senate. But the effort has run into problems with Senate Republicans. The Senate Republicans' leading spokesman on the issue, Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, said earlier this month that the lame duck session did not offer enough time to iron out problems he sees with a related issue -- U.S. plans for modernizing nuclear forces and infrastructure. The administration took up the gauntlet, redoubling its efforts to ratify the treaty this year. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Vice President Joe Biden wrote that "national security interests are at stake" in the ratification battle. But Republicans countered that the need for speed was overblown. In a separate item, we checked a statement by Kyl on NBC's Meet the Press in which he cited reports by the Washington Post and the Associated Press to justify his position that failure to ratify the new START treaty immediately would not threaten national security. Now we'll take a look at an earlier comment by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In an interview on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour on Nov. 21, 2010, the host asked the nation's top military officer whether the Senate is "playing politics with American national security." Mullen responded, "Well, you'd have to ask the Senate about that." Amanpour pressed him, asking, "What do you think?" Mullen replied, "Well, certainly, what I think is that there is a sense of urgency with respect to ratifying this treaty that needs to be ... recognized. Historically this has been bipartisan. This is a national security issue of great significance. And the sooner we get it done, the better." We wondered whether Mullen is correct that most prior arms-control treaties have been passed with bipartisan support. We began by determining which treaties we should include in our assessment. We turned first to the list of "treaties and agreements" handled by the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance. We only looked at formal treaties, which require a two-thirds vote by the Senate in order to be ratified. (A quick reminder: Treaties are negotiated and signed by representatives of the president, then ratified by the Senate. Once a few additional logistical steps are taken, treaty adherence is made official.) We also stuck to treaties that were primarily designed as arms control efforts, particularly when they dealt with weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological and chemical. By our count, the Senate has ratified 14 such treaties in 13 votes. Here's the list in chronological order, along with the year of U.S. ratification and the tally for and against in the Senate: • Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1963 -- 80-19. • Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1969 -- 83-15. (Seven Democrats and eight Republicans voted against.) • Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty, 1971 -- 70-0. • Seabed Arms Control Treaty, 1972 -- 83-0. • Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 1972 -- 88-2. (U.S. later withdrew.) • Biological Weapons Convention, 1974 -- 90-0. • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, 1988 -- 93-5. • Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty and Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 1990 -- 98-0 (to ratify both treaties). • Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, 1991 -- 90-4. • Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, also known as START I, 1992 -- 93-6. (Expired 2009.) • Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II, also known as START II, 1996 -- 87-4. • Chemical Weapons Convention, 1997 -- 74-26 (with 29 Republicans joining 45 Democrats in voting yes and 26 Republicans voting no.). • Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, 2003 -- 95-0. This list demonstrates that at least 13 treaties presented to the Senate for ratification passed by overwhelming majorities -- and with strong bipartisan support. The strongest opposition came in the vote on the Chemical Weapons Convention. But the opponents, led by the late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., could not muster enough support either on amendments to the treaty or the treaty ratification vote itself to derail it. An additional historical footnote that bolsters the notion of bipartisanship: Thirteen of the 14 treaties above were ratified when one party held the presidency and the other party held the Senate. There is, however, one example of a weapons treaty actually being voted down on the Senate floor. In 1999, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty fell, 51-48, with all but four Republicans voting no. (Sens. John Chafee, R-R.I., James Jeffords, R-Vt., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., voted for the treaty, along with all Democrats except for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who voted present.) In remarks after the Senate vote, President Bill Clinton presaged what some Democrats have argued this month. "In recent days, members of the Congressional majority have displayed a reckless partisanship," Clinton said. "It threatens America's economic well-being and now our national security. Yesterday, hard-line Republicans irresponsibly forced a vote against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This was partisan politics of the worst kind because it was so blatant and because of the risks it poses to the safety of the American people and the world." So the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is a clear exception to Mullen's claim. Whether there are additional examples is murkier. We found two nuclear-related treaties from the Clinton era that were signed but never ratified by the U.S. -- the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. But in talking to experts, we found no evidence that either treaty was targeted for opposition based on partisan lines. In fact, according to a 1996 Chicago Tribune report, just days after the Clinton Administration signed the African treaty protocols, it clarified that the treaty would not prevent the U.S. from using nuclear weapons against Libya. So reservations about the African treaty don't appear to be based on partisanship. In addition, the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT II, was signed by President Jimmy Carter but never ratified. While the negotiations over the treaty were somewhat contentious, the immediate reason for not pursuing ratification was the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, a rationale that had bipartisan support. Another treaty that faced significant partisan opposition was the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which failed to advance to a vote in the Senate due to opposition by conservatives who expressed concern about its impact on U.S. sovereignty. But the subject of this treaty seems too far afield from what Mullen was talking about for us to count it. So where does this leave us? We found one clear example of partisan opposition to a nuclear-weapons treaty -- the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty -- but 13 which were passed with broad, bipartisan support. So we rate Mullen's contention that Senate treaty ratifications have "historically ... been bipartisan" as True.	None	Mike Mullen	None	None	None	2010-11-30T16:52:25	2010-11-21	['None']
-bove-00035	This Sourav Ganguly Fake Instagram Account Had Over 51K Followers	https://www.boomlive.in/this-sourav-ganguly-fake-instagram-account-had-over-51k-followers/	None	None	None	None	None	This Sourav Ganguly Fake Instagram Account Had Over 51K Followers	Aug 08 2018 4:55 pm, Last Updated: Aug 09 2018 12:07 am	None	['None']
-tron-00641	Cam Newton Arrested for Betting on Super Bowl	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cam-newton-arrested-for-betting-on-super-bowl/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Cam Newton Arrested for Betting on Super Bowl	Feb 9, 2016	None	['Cam_Newton']
-pomt-13848	The war on drugs led to "a 500 percent increase in incarceration in our country, disproportionately affecting poor and disproportionately affecting minorities."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/10/cory-booker/how-war-drugs-affected-incarceration-rates/	To address racial tensions in the United States, the federal government should invest in law enforcement, said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., on NBC’s Meet the Press July 10. But it has to be the right kind of investment. "There is a challenge with America where we have invested, unfortunately, in a war on drugs, which has been profoundly painful to our nation, with a 500 percent increase in incarceration in our country, disproportionately affecting poor and disproportionately affecting minorities," Booker said. President Richard Nixon launched the war on drugs in the early 1970s, and about 10 years later President Ronald Reagan strengthened the effort. We decided to look into Booker’s claim that these stricter drug policies led to a 500 percent increase in incarceration. We found that the number of people incarcerated for drug-related offenses has increased dramatically in the past 40 years, as has the overall incarcerated population. But it’s hard to prove a causal relationship. Rising incarcerated populations A spokesman said Booker’s statistic comes from the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice reform advocacy organization. It says the current incarcerated population is 2.2 million — including federal prisons, state prisons and local jails — which is a 500 percent growth over the past 40 years. Experts told us that the Sentencing Project’s statistics are credible. The state and federal prison population grew from 218,466 in 1974 to 1,508,636 in 2014, which is a nearly 600 percent increase. For comparison, the overall United States population has increased just 51 percent since 1974. The state and federal prison population remained fairly stable through the early 1970s, until the war on drugs began. Since then, it has increased sharply every year, particularly when Reagan expanded the policy effort in the 1980s, until about 2010. So it seems Booker has his numbers right, but how much of this increase is a direct result of the tougher drug laws? The effort resulted in the Drug Enforcement Administration's establishment, as well as policies such as mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and new asset forfeiture rules. It’s hard to say exactly how much of the increase can be attributed to these policies because it’s difficult to isolate the impact to any one cause, experts told us. That being said, "a lot of people attribute the increase in incarceration to the war on drugs," said Nancy La Vigne, director of the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. "While it's much more complicated than that, I suppose most would agree that it was the single biggest driver." In 1980, about 41,000 people were incarcerated for drug crimes, according to the Sentencing Project. In 2014, that number was about 488,400 — a 1,000 percent increase. More people are admitted to prisons for drug crimes each year than either violent or property crimes, found Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at Gallup. So drug prosecution is a big part of the mass incarceration story, he said. Rothwell told PolitiFact he thinks some of the increase would have happened regardless, but Booker is right to focus on the drug war. Others see it differently. John F. Pfaff, a professor at Fordham Law School, has argued that the impact of the war on drugs is greatly exaggerated, finding that drug crime only accounts for about 20 percent of prison growth since 1980. "In reality, a majority of prison growth has come from locking up violent offenders, and a large majority of those admitted to prison never serve time for a drug charge, at least not as their primary charge," he wrote last year. But violent crime and seemingly unrelated factors that contributed to the rapid increase in prison population growth can actually be connected to the war on drugs, said Steven Duke, a professor at the Yale Law School. For example, if policies cause the cost of drugs to go up, users might be more prone to steal in order to afford drugs. And black markets can lead to more violent crime, like if a drug deal goes sour and results in a murder. Effect on minorities and poor people It is a well-established fact that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population. About 58 percent of all sentenced inmates in 2013 were black or hispanic, yet the two groups make up just about 30 percent of the total population. Research also suggests that when black and white people engage in the same illegal activity and have the same criminal history, black people are more likely to be arrested, more likely to face tougher charges and more likely to receive longer sentences than whites. In a 2014 article, Rothwell found that the war on drugs has significantly impacted black people. He found that white people are more likely than black people to sell drugs and about as likely to consume them. Even so, black people are 3.6 times more likely than white people to be arrested for selling drugs and 2.5 times more for drug possession. The question of how poor people are represented in the prison population, particularly among those incarcerated for drug-related offenses, is a little more elusive. The best data about prisoners’ income before their arrest comes from a 2004 government survey. The Prison Policy Initiative analyzed the survey and "found that incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to incarceration, which is 41 percent less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages." This would indicate that the incarcerated population is disproportionately poor, but it does not shed light directly on the question of the war on drugs' impact on poorer populations. Our ruling Booker said the 40-year war on drugs led to "a 500 percent increase in incarceration in our country, disproportionately affecting poor and disproportionately affecting minorities." Booker has his numbers right, looking at incarcerated population growth over the past 40 years. It’s hard to conclusively attribute the rapid rise to the war on drugs, but many experts believe that it is a major factor, if not the primary factor. Minorities are disproportionately represented in the prison population, and some slightly dated research indicates poor people are, as well. Evidence seems to show that black people are more likely to be arrested for drug crime than white people, despite being equally likely to use and less likely to sell drugs. Even though it’s hard to prove a direct causal effect, the evidence seems to back up Booker’s claim. Because of that additional context, we rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Cory Booker	None	None	None	2016-07-10T18:27:53	2016-07-10	['None']
-pomt-05765	Says that Rick Santorum "voted for the unions over FedEx."	/tennessee/statements/2012/feb/29/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-says-rick-santorum-sided-union-inter/	Newt Gingrich, in Nashville on Monday, cast his opponent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, as a "Big Labor Republican," the kind of apparent oxymoron that tends to catch our attention. He did it in the context of an historic 1996 showdown in the U.S. Senate, when FedEx was seeking to guarantee that its truck drivers would remain under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act. Any change in that jurisdiction threatened the possibility that drivers could organize local collective bargaining units at FedEx operations. Specifically, Gingrich said: "He voted for the unions over FedEx. I suspect most folks in the state don’t know that. But in fact he was a big labor Republican in Pennsylvania and I suspect when you get to Memphis and you say to people, ‘Gee, this is a guy who wanted to guarantee that FedEx give in to the unions,’ Santorum won’t be as popular the following morning." Popular or not, there is a legislative history of what happened. We asked Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond for additional supportive evidence of Santorum’s pro-labor, anti-FedEx position after he forwarded an Associated Press story about Gingrich’s remarks. In response to that request, Hammond emailed: "Look up the vote!" We took that to mean Gingrich was basing this line of attack on an October 1996 skirmish over a provision FedEx wanted. There were three votes of significance, and they paint a mixed picture of Santorum's position on FedEx. The issue at the time was the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization act. It had passed both the House and Senate, but then emerged from a House-Senate conference committee with a new labor provision, one favorable to FedEx, that had not been in either the House or Senate versions of the bill. It had been inserted by conference committee member Sen. Ernest Hollings, Republican of South Carolina. When it came to the Senate floor, several senators, but especially Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, asked that the FedEx provision, Sec. 1223 of the bill, be ruled outside the scope of the conference committee’s authority under Senate Rule 28. The chair then ruled the provision was, in fact, extraneous. Next the Senate took up the issue of cloture – whether to cut off debate on the reauthorization act (not just the provision) and proceed to the substantive vote. Santorum joined Kennedy and fellow Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Alan Specter in voting not to invoke cloture -- in other words, to continue debate (some bills and acts never even get an up or down vote if enough senators refuse to end debate on it). That arguably was against FedEx’s interest, though very indirectly, and the tally was 66-31 -- Santorum’s side lost by six votes (cloture requires a three-fifths majority). Next the Senate took up whether to sustain the ruling of the chair that Sec. 1223 -- the FedEx provision -- was beyond the scope of the conference committee’s authority. On this, Santorum voted in favor of the ruling of the chair – arguably, against FedEx’s interest – but the chair’s ruling was easily overturned, 39-56. Again, Santorum voted with Kennedy and Specter, and lost. Finally, when the bill itself came up for a vote, with the FedEx provision intact, Santorum voted for it. The vote was 92-2. Only Specter and Paul Simon of Illinois voted against it. We are not making a ruling here on whether Santorum was a "Big Labor Republican" senator but thought we’d get the thoughts of the "Big Labor" voice with the most to win or lose in this 1996 struggle – The International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Did the Teamsters consider Santorum a "Big Labor Republican?" "Absolutely not," said director of communications Bret Caldwell. "Any vote that he had that might have been in favor of labor would likely have been cast for other reasons. We worked very hard, successfully, to defeat him six years ago, and we would never consider Santorum as a friend of labor." Asked specifically about Santorum’s votes in favor of the ruling of the Senate chair and on cloture, which seemed to side with the pro-labor faction, Caldwell said: "The question is whether he was with labor or with (FedEx rival) UPS as a corporation. His reasonings for that vote we’re not certain at this point, 16 years on, but there’s other reasons for him to vote the way he did. We certainly don’t think it gave him any further credibility with the Teamsters union." Caldwell acknowledges that on the initial procedural votes, Santorum’s were "the right votes." But "do we think he made those votes because of his relationship with labor? Absolutely not." Our ruling Santorum took three votes on the 1996 FAA reauthorization act, all three of some interest to FedEx, and Gingrich is correct that on the one vote with a direct connection to the provision FedEx wanted, Santorum voted against its wishes. However, Santorum voted for the entire FAA reauthorization act, and the union with the most to gain in the procedural brouhaha with FedEx does not believe Santorum’s vote had anything to do with supporting the labor cause. We rule this claim Half True.	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2012-02-29T09:01:37	2012-02-27	['Rick_Santorum']
-pomt-13731	Says Donald Trump "cashed in" on Sept. 11, "collecting $150,000 in federal funds intended to help small businesses recover — even though days after the attack Trump said his properties were not affected."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/27/joseph-crowley/did-donald-trump-cash-federal-funds-days-after-911/	U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., made a serious charge on the second night of the Democratic National Convention about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump making money off of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Crowley, who lost a cousin that day, (accurately) painted Hillary Clinton as someone who was there for the city and its first-responders. Trump, however, "saw a payday for his empire," Crowley said. "Where was Donald Trump in the days and months and the years after 9/11? He didn’t stand at the pile, he didn’t lobby Congress for help, he didn’t fight for the first responders," he said. "Nope, he cashed in, collecting $150,000 in federal funds intended to help small businesses recover — even though days after the attack Trump said his properties were not affected." Did Trump, a New Yorker, take taxpayer-funded money earmarked for small businesses and for losses he said he didn’t even suffer? A spokeswoman for Crowley referred us to a 2006 New York Daily News investigation. The Daily News found that Trump did receive $150,000 for the Trump Building, which is less than a mile away from the World Trade Center. But Crowley’s charge is misleading as it suggests Trump took advantage of the program, when his property at 40 Wall Street did meet the criteria for the money. Under the 9/11 business recovery grant program run by the Empire State Development, New York’s economic development agency, firms were eligible if they employed 500 employees or less, had been physically or economically damaged by the attacks, and located on or south of 14th Street in Lower Manhattan. According to the Daily News, Trump’s "grant application describes the corporation through which Trump owns that building as having 28 employees and $26.8 million in annual revenues." (The newspaper notes that the federal definition of a small business is $6 million.) Trump’s was among over 14,000 companies that received grants totalling $530 million. That includes other firms like the Rockefeller Group, Ford Motors, Dell Inc., Morgan Stanley and the Bank of China. Was the Trump Building impacted by the 9/11? According to Trump, no, though he was likely referring to physical damages. "I have a lot of property down there," he told a German TV reporter after the attack. "But it wasn’t, fortunately, affected by what happened to the World Trade Center." Here’s how Trump responded when the New York Times asked him about the grant in May 2016: "The company received this small amount of money after qualifying, given the limited number of employees working at the property. For many months, I allowed people to stay in the building, use the building and store things in the building. I was happy to do it and to this day I am still being thanked for the many people I helped. The value of what I did was far greater than the money talked about." Our ruling Crowley said Trump "cashed in, collecting $150,000 in federal funds intended to help small businesses recover — even though days after the attack Trump said his properties were not affected." Trump did receive a grant for his building at 40 Wall Street, which was less than a mile away from the Trade Center, but the property was eligible under the grant criteria. He also did say in 2001 that his properties were not affected by the attack, although he likely meant physically. The grant also provided compensation for economic losses. We rate Crowley’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cd779146-3dbe-4084-b84f-438f74cf1b82	None	Joseph Crowley	None	None	None	2016-07-27T00:14:16	2016-07-26	['Donald_Trump']
-pomt-13056	Texas spends "more per day to house an inmate than we do on a student."	/texas/statements/2016/nov/18/jennie-lou-leeder/democrat-jennie-lou-leeder-says-texas-spends-more-/	Former teacher Virginia "Jennie Lou" Leeder said during her Texas Senate campaign that she’d like to see the state do more for students. As it is, the District 24 Democratic nominee declared: "We spend more per day to house an inmate than we do on a student." Really? Previous analyses First, we recognize that prisons are 24/7 operations that provide housing, meals, rehabilitation programs and other services for a housed population. Meantime, students in public schools attend classes for roughly eight hours a day, five days a week, for about 180 days each year. Regardless, it’s not uncommon for people to compare prison and school spending as an example of what they consider unbalanced budget priorities. In 2013, for instance, PolitiFact Oregon found True a claim that Oregon was spending about $10,000 a year per student compared with $30,000 per inmate, a move the governor said showed the state prioritized prisons over schools. In 2015, PolitiFact Virginia rated Half True a statement by Sen. Bernie Sanders that it costs more to go to prison than to the University of Virginia. Sanders based his claim on what it costs to house a federal prisoner, but at the state level the cost comes out to be less than a year’s fees to attend the university, particularly if considering out-of-state tuition. Fox News found in 2011 that most states, "despite spending more money overall on education, are spending three to four times more per capita incarcerating prisoners than they are educating students." In July 2016, the U.S. Department of Education released a report that compared the rise in spending on prisons with the rate of spending on public education. The report found that nationwide, public pre-K through grade 12 expenditures went up 107 percent while state and local corrections expenditures increased by 324 percent over a 33-year period. Leeder cites CNN We asked Leeder before she lost to Republican Dawn Buckingham of Lakeway about the basis of her statement as quoted in an October 2016 Austin American-Statesman news article. On Leeder's behalf, Steven Rivas replied by emailing us web links from a briefing book that Rivas said the candidate took on the road to meet with teacher groups. While Leeder’s comment to the American-Statesman didn’t specify if she meant Texas or the nation in saying "we," the provided web links focused on Texas. Among Leeder's offerings: A May 2013 CNN Money infographic, "Education vs prison costs," indicating that nationally in 2012, every state spent more to hold inmates than it did on educating students with New York having the biggest dollar difference, spending about $40,000 more per inmate per year, and Kentucky appearing to have the smallest difference, annually spending $6,000 more per inmate. In Texas, according to the graphic, the year’s cost per student hovered below $10,000 while the cost per inmate landed near $20,000. We learned from a CNN footnote that the per-student spending figures came from the Census Bureau and the costs per inmate traced from the Vera Institute, a New York-based nonprofit research group that says it’s focused on ending mass incarceration. Scarlet Neath, an institute spokeswoman, responded to our email inquiry with links to a 2012 report, "The Price of Prisons." In the report, researchers calculated the cost of incarceration to taxpayers, accounting for expenses such as employee benefits, pension contributions and capital costs through a survey of 40 states. According to its Texas assessment, the state spent $3.3 billion on prisons in fiscal 2010, which ran through August 2010, or $21,390 per inmate--or, in keeping with Leeder’s "per day" statement, $58.60 a day. Then again, that was six-plus years ago. Updated Texas spending To get an up-to-date grasp on Leeder’s comparison, we started by eliciting figures from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the agency tasked with running state prisons and jails. In 2012, the agency had an operating budget of $3,087,899,321, and there were 152,303 offenders incarcerated, agency spokesman Jason Clark told us by email. Based on these numbers, the fiscal 2012 per inmate cost boiled out to $20,275, or $55.55 per day. Clark told us the Legislative Budget Board, which advises lawmakers on fiscal matters, reaches its own estimates of such per-day costs. Clark pointed us to the board’s 2013 Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report, which says that the state spent $50.04 per day per prisoner in fiscal 2012. The report says that figure reflects the costs of programs offered at specific prison units, such as sex offender or substance abuse treatment. Next, we searched the Census Bureau website to find its breakdown of per student state, federal and local education spending. In the latest analysis, a 2016 report called "Public Education Finances," Texas was shown to spend $8,593 per student in fiscal 2014. To reach a per-day cost, we divided that figure by 180, the minimum number of days in a Texas school year--getting an estimated daily cost of $47.73 per student. A web search led us to a similar 2016 report, from the National Education Association, a teacher labor union, that cited bureau figures for state, federal and local spending to estimate the annual per student cost in 2015 for Texas at $8,935, which breaks out to $49.64 per day, we found. Next, we pursued spending figures from the Texas Education Agency. According to the agency’s online database, the 2011-2012 school year’s budget for all school districts totaled $49,623,331,143. Districts spent $9,969 per student that year, according to the agency’s calculation, that divided the state’s total revenue for school districts by the total number of students, except for those taught for less than two hours per day that year. That total comes out to a per day cost of $55.38, we calculated. Upshot: Breaking down annual spending to expenditures per day tightens the usual prison-education comparison. That is, the $55.38 that Texas spent on average to schoolchildren in 2011-12 is very close to our estimate that the state ponied up $55.55 a day in 2012 for state prisons. For perspective on the comparison, we reached Lori Taylor, a Texas A&M University school finance expert, who told us there’s research that suggests higher educational attainment can reduce the likelihood of crime, yet in her view that’s not an argument for unconstrained education spending. "To argue that spending on schools should increase requires, in my mind, a description of what you expect schools to accomplish with the extra cash," she said. Our ruling Leeder said Texas spends "more per day to house an inmate than we do on a student." This contention holds up if you divide total costs for prisons versus schools by the 365 days in a year. It’s also narrowly so--by 17 cents a day in 2012, we found--if you limit the school part of Leeder’s comparison to the 180 days in a Texas school year. We rate this claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/870006ee-24a2-4c30-be2d-ca62b01eea69	None	Virginia "Jennie Lou" Leeder	None	None	None	2016-11-18T18:07:54	2016-10-17	['Texas']
-pomt-02595	Says Alex Sink supported "more taxes on water and TV."	/florida/statements/2014/jan/27/national-republican-congressional-committee/alex-sink-supported-more-taxes-water-and-tv-nrcc-s/	Democrats and Republicans have drawn the battle lines for Pinellas County’s open U.S. House seat, with candidates’ backgrounds serving as ammunition. While Democrats go after David Jolly’s history as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C., the GOP is attacking Alex Sink’s record on issues in Florida. One oft-repeated charge is that Sink is a "tax and spender Florida can’t afford." In a TV commercial released on Jan. 22, 2014, the National Republican Congressional Committee charges that Sink supports Obamacare, then adds charges about her stance on taxes. "Sink has supported higher taxes, too," the ad says. "Higher property taxes. Higher sales taxes. More taxes on water and TV too." Sink, a former banking executive, only held one elected office -- Florida’s chief financial officer from 2007 to 2010 -- so we weren’t sure whether it was accurate that she supported higher taxes "on water and TV." And since both are important to her prospective constituents, we decided to tune in focus on that claim in this item. An old problem The NRCC’s claim stems from Sink’s tenure on the Governor's Commission on Education, back in 1997. The bipartisan group of educators, business leaders and lawmakers was co-chaired by Democratic Lt. Gov. Buddy MacKay, a Democrat, and Jack Critchfield, a Republican and chairman of Florida Progress Corp. Sink, then president of the Florida Banking Group for NationsBank, was joined on the board by executives of such companies as Walt Disney Attractions, Eckerd Corp. and CSX Transportation. The group, appointed by Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles in 1996, had no legislative power, but it did make recommendations about how to pay for school construction at a time when overcrowding was plaguing some districts. Faced with full schools and outdated facilities, one topic that drew the board’s attention was searching for ways to build more classroom space. One of the commission’s potential solutions was unveiled in February 1997: Expand a 2.5 percent utilities tax on the gross receipts of electricity, natural and manufactured gas and telecommunication services to include water, sewer, cable and solid waste utilities. The group proposed instituting the new tax on those utilities in 0.5 percent increments over five years, which would eventually cost the average household $24 per year, and would raise millions for school construction. Sink was in favor of instituting the entire tax all at once, rather than over the course of five years. Lawmakers opposed this, especially House Republicans, who in 1997 held a majority in that wing of the Legislature for the first time in 122 years. "We ought to say we have a crisis, and this is what we really think should happen," Sink said. "If the politics go the other way, so be it." The idea of instituting the tax all at once failed in a vote by the commissioners, 18-12. The group spent the rest of the year looking for other solutions, including a video lottery and a variety of local taxes. Ultimately, all was for naught, as the divided Legislature debated new taxes without coming to an agreement during the regular session. Chiles called a special session in the fall to deal with the school construction issue, with lawmakers eventually agreeing to use Florida lottery profits for $2.5 billion in bonds, plus $200 million from surplus revenues. That lottery money amounted to $180 million per year over 30 years. The deal was considered a victory by both Democrats and Republicans, since it built new schools without relying on new taxes. Our ruling The NRCC said Alex Sink supported "more taxes on water and TV" in the past. She did indeed support such taxes, though that happened during her tenure on an advisory panel 17 years ago. Sink didn’t have any control over the state’s tax structure, either then or in her future job as the state’s chief financial officer. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2014-01-27T16:36:37	2014-01-22	['None']
-pomt-09545	"For the hour after the (Jan. 14) debate, 'Debra Medina' was the No. 1 search on Google and for the remainder of that night No. 3."	/texas/statements/2010/feb/05/debra-medina/debra-medina-says-her-name-was-no-1-search-night-f/	Debra Medina, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, was little known going into a televised Jan. 14 debate with her well-known GOP opponents, Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. But the Wharton businesswoman, making her first run for public office, generated waves of curiosity that night. Medina subsequently told a reporter for Dallas radio station KERA: "For the hour after after the debate, 'Debra Medina' was the No. 1 search on Google and for the remainder of the night No. 3." For real? We looked into her claim. Medina's campaign didn't respond to our requests to visit about her statement. A spokesman for Google said the company doesn't reveal top searches for particular days or on an hour-by-hour basis, so he couldn't speak to whether Medina was the No. 1 or No. 3 search term the night of the first debate. He guided us to Google's online Insights for Search feature, though, which calculates interest in topics over longer time periods. For most of January into early February, according to the Insights' tool, the top searched items on Google in the United States included Facebook, YouTube and Yahoo. The top-50 most-searched items were rounded out by Amazon, ESPN and AOL. Our check for searches under Medina's name for the time period showed that Web interest in her spiked twice in January, both times in connection with televised GOP gubernatorial debates, including the first debate Jan. 14. Kate Morris, an Austin search-engine marketer, told us it's possible that when she made her claim, Medina was referring to the Jan. 14 spike in interest instead of the total number of searches of her name. That explanation made sense after we checked with Google Trends, an online tool that can track how interest in a search topic changes within a given time frame. Overall, we learned, "Debra Medina" was the 13th "fastest-rising" search in the United States on Google Jan. 14, spiking into what Google Trends calls the "Volcanic" range, its highest indicator of intensified interest. Searches for her name started to climb at 6 p.m., an hour before the one-hour debate started, cresting as the debate ended. Separately, Morris pointed us to a non-Google site based in India that she said indicates Medina was the No. 3 fastest-rising search item nationally as of about 10 p.m. on the debate night. Google's Insights for Search feature suggests that during January, online interest in Medina in Texas rose more than for the state's other major gubernatorial candidates. Medina's name was searched for 20 times for every 14 searches for Perry and 11 searches for Hutchison. By comparison, the names of Democratic hopefuls Bill White and Farouk Shami were searched for eight and seven times, respectively, for every 20 searches for Medina. Google spokesman Galen Panger, looking over Medina's surge statistics, said Medina may well have been the nation's "hottest search" on debate night, meaning she enjoyed a sudden increase in searches. But that's a big difference from being No. 1 in total searches -- especially when compared to oft-used terms like Facebook. Perhaps Medina misspoke to the radio reporter or exaggerated her search ranking on Google. Despite our requests, her campaign never produced evidence to shore up her claim. Medina enjoyed a spurt of debate-night interest that may have extended through the month. Yet we couldn't find proof her name was the No. 1 or No. 3 search term that evening--and Morris, the Austin expert, said that's surely not so. We rate Medina's statement as False.	None	Debra Medina	None	None	None	2010-02-05T14:36:06	2010-01-29	['None']
-pomt-14475	"Texas is home to millions of Latinas, but the state has never elected a Latina to Congress."	/texas/statements/2016/feb/29/stephanie-schriock/emilys-list-leader-correct-texas-home-millions-lat/	EMILY’s List, the national Democratic group that backs "pro-choice" women running for office, endorsed former Hidalgo County Democratic Party Chairwoman Dolly Elizondo in the crowded March 2016 primary field for Texas’ 15th Congressional District. Elizondo is one of six Democratic candidates vying to replace retiring Rep. Rubén Hinojosa of Mercedes in the South Texas district. EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock praised Elizondo’s record, according to a Feb. 1, 2016, Texas Tribune news story, and also suggested a greater significance to Elizondo’s candidacy. "Texas is home to millions of Latinas," Schriock said, "but the state has never elected a Latina to Congress." Is all of that so? Latina population To get a sense of Latina Texans, we reached out to the Office of the Texas State Demographer, which by email provided us with a few different data sets. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s one-year survey, Texas’ Hispanic or Latino population in 2014 numbered 10.4 million--with the female Hispanic population that year totaling nearly 5.2 million residents. Put another way, Latinos comprised about 39 percent of the state’s nearly 27 million residents in 2014, per the bureau, with Latinas accounting for 19 percent of residents. The Texas State Data Center’s own most recent population estimate, for 2013, put the female Hispanic population at 5.1 million, and the entire Hispanic population at 10.3 million. It’s worth noting that that number included nearly 1.7 million minors. Upshot: Texas has lately been home to more than 5 million Latinas. Texas representatives To check Texas’ history of congressional representation, we asked EMILY’s List for its backup for Schriock’s statement. A spokeswoman, Rachel Thomas, said by email that Texas through history has elected three women of color to the House and none to the Senate--and each of the elected women were African-American. A web search led us to a searchable history of women in Congress, also cited by Thomas, posted at history.house.gov. That history showed that through 2015, Texas, a state since 1845, had elected seven women to the House, including current Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Fort Worth and Democratic Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas and Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston. Historically, too, four of Texas’ congresswomen were white, three were black. According to a similar history of Hispanic Americans in Congress on the House website: --Seventeen Hispanic Texans, all men, have won election to Congress including current Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Houston as well as Republican Rep. Bill Flores of Bryan and Democratic Reps. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, Henry Cuellar of Laredo, Filemon Vela of Brownsville, and Hinojosa, whose seat Elizondo seeks. --The first Latino elected to the House from Texas was Henry B. González of San Antonio, who served from 1961 into early 1999. With 37 years in the House, he also was the longest-serving Hispanic member of Congress. --The first woman to represent Texas was Lera Millard Thomas of Nacogdoches, a Democrat who won 74 percent of the vote in a special election to serve out nine months remaining in her husband Albert Richard Thomas’ term upon his death in 1966. The first woman of color to represent Texas was Houston’s Barbara Jordan, who was elected to the House in 1973 with 81 percent of the vote and served until 1979. --Nationally, 107 Latinos and 313 women have served in Congress, counting 11 Latinas. --The 11 Latinas to have served in Congress -- all in the House: Washington Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler, Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, New Mexico Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham, New York Democrat Nydia M. Velázquez, and California Democrats Grace Flores Napolitano, Gloria Negrette McLeod, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Loretta Sanchez, Linda T. Sánchez, Hilda L. Solis and Norma Judith Torres. All except McLeod and Solis are currently serving in the House. Our ruling EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock said: "Texas is home to millions of Latinas, but the state has never elected a Latina to Congress." Of late, more than 5 million Latinas live in Texas, whose voters have historically sent 17 Hispanic men to Congress including one to the Senate--but no Latinas. We rate this claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Stephanie Schriock	None	None	None	2016-02-29T16:37:17	2016-02-01	['Texas', 'Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans', 'United_States_Congress']
-wast-00183	Blacks are four times more likely to go to jail than whites, and "convicted at eight times the rate of whites.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/09/gary-johnsons-bungled-claims-about-racial-disparities-in-crime/	None	None	Gary Johnson	Michelle Ye Hee Lee	None	Gary Johnson's bungled claims about racial disparities in crime	September 9, 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00888	"The first year ... Bob will immediately pull together a task force of respected leaders representing every segment of the business community as well as neighborhood and community leaders to look at our regulatory and bureaucratic processes to help us streamline and expedite plans, permits and regulations."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/buck-o-meter/promise/920/create-task-force-to-streamline-business-permits-a/	None	buck-o-meter	Bob Buckhorn	None	None	Create task force to streamline business permits and regulation	2011-05-18T14:33:25	None	['None']
-pomt-10401	"Fidel Castro endorses Obama."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/05/republican-party-florida/castro-not-stumping-for-obama/	The subject line of an e-mail from the Republican Party of Florida was designed to grab attention: "Fidel Castro endorses Obama." Inside is a doctored (read: fake) image of Castro holding a poster of Obama. Above Castro are the words, "I love this guy!" A link in the e-mail sends you to an article that states that Castro gave Obama "a qualified endorsement," calling him "the most advanced candidate" in a commentary published in a Communist newspaper on May 26, 2008. The absurdity of this claim is demonstrated by the very headline of Castro's article: "The empire's hypocritical politics." In the article, Castro actually spends most of his words criticizing a speech Obama made to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami just a few days before, on May 23. In that speech, Obama pledged that if elected, he would immediately allow unlimited family travel to Cuba and family members to send money to relatives in Cuba. Obama reiterated his position that he would meet with the leaders of enemy nations without preconditions. But the thing that really raised Castro's ire was Obama's vow to maintain the embargo as "leverage" to encourage Cuba to "take significant steps towards democracy." Here was Castro's assessment: "I feel no resentment towards him (Obama), for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly." Yes, Castro says Obama is "doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency." Castro also praises Obama's "great intelligence, his debating skills and work ethic." But it amounts to lesser-of-two-evils praise, at best. For example, Castro later calls the embargo that Obama pledged to maintain "an act of genocide." Said Castro: "Presidential candidate Obama's speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable handouts and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it." Not exactly a warm and fuzzy endorsement. Katie Gordon, press secretary for the Republican Party of Florida, said the whole thing was a joke. The "cartoon" image, she said, was not meant to be taken literally. "It was our way of finding a creative way to illustrate a larger point," Gordon said. "The idea is that Sen. Barack Obama has expressed numerous times his willingness to sit down with the leaders of Communist regimes." While Castro did not literally endorse Obama, she said, the point is that Castro stated that "of the people running for president, he (Obama) is the one he'd prefer to work with." But Castro never says that in his commentary. Gordon said she doesn't think the image or the headline caused any confusion. The e-mail isn't trying to say that Castro "actually" endorsed Obama, she said. Rather, she said, it was used as an attention-getter. First of all, it was not a "cartoon" image. It was a doctored photograph. And a pretty good one. A trained eye, or someone who closely follows Cuban politics, would probably recognize the image as implausible. But it's too realistic-looking to be passed off as a cartoon spoof. And we realize the word "endorse" can have a formal meaning, as well as a generic one. A New York Times blog originally ran a story about Castro's commentary under a headline that read "Castro's stinging endorsement." The story now carries the headline "Castro Weighs In on Obama." An update notes: "The headline was altered to avoid the misinterpretation that Mr. Castro's remarks represented a formal endorsement." But we don't think Castro's commentary even amounts to a generic "endorsement." The RPOF makes our call on this one easy. Even its press secretary acknowledged the claim that Castro endorsed Obama is not accurate. She said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously. We're all for keeping a sense of humor in this long election season. But there are better ways to get people's attention than to distort facts. And this comes off less like a joke and more like an intentional smear. We rate it Pants on Fire.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2008-06-05T00:00:00	2008-05-28	['Fidel_Castro', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05037	The health care law could cost up to $2 trillion, "double what we were promised."	/florida/statements/2012/jul/11/american-commitment/tv-ad-says-health-laws-cost-2-trillion-double-what/	A new ad attacks Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., on the health care law and claims to have "the facts." Then it trots out a series of distortions. "Florida patients and seniors deserve to know what are the facts about President Barack Obama’s health care law," the ad says. "Fact: Bill Nelson was the deciding vote. The bill could cost up to $2 trillion, double what we were promised. Nelson’s health care vote imposes the largest tax increase in history on the middle class, cuts $500 billion from Medicare to pay for new government programs, and millions could lose their current coverage. Tell Bill Nelson: Protect Florida patients, repeal the health care law." The ad is from an outside spending group called American Commitment, which says on its website that it supports "free markets, economic growth, constitutionally limited government, property rights, and individual freedom." It’s a 501(c)4, so it doesn’t have to disclose its donors. (For more details about American Commitment’s connections and spending, check out this report from the Washington Post.) We fact-checked several of the ad’s claims: that Nelson was the deciding vote on health care (Mostly False) and that the law "imposes the largest tax increase in history on the middle class" (Pants on Fire.) Previously, we've also looked at claims about cutting $500 billion from Medicare (Mostly False) and millions losing coverage (False). Here, we’ll examine the claim that the law "could cost up to $2 trillion, double what we were promised." We asked American Commitment for evidence for its charges, but we didn’t hear back. Tiny print that flashes by on the screen -- we read it only by pausing the YouTube video -- says the claim is from "Congressional Budget Office Estimate." Even though American Commitment didn’t respond to our queries, we easily found similar statements about the health care law costing up to $2 trillion. Though the claim is repeated often, it’s not accurate. First, some background on the Congressional Budget Office. It’s a nonpartisan, widely respected agency with an expert staff that generates projections and reports about how proposed laws affect the federal budget. It works with another agency, the Joint Committee on Taxation, that is charged with looking at the effects of various taxes on the federal budget. The Congressional Budget Office is not always right in its projections. In recent years, for example, it overestimated how much it would cost to cover prescription drugs for seniors in Medicare. The program actually came in under projections. But for claims about federal spending, we consider the Congressional Budget Office, often called the CBO, to be the standard by which we fact-check claims. The CBO updates its reports and projections from time to time, and one of its updates on the health care law was released March 14, 2012. In that report, the CBO increased its projections of the costs under the new law. Most of the costs will come in the form of tax credits to help people of modest income buy health insurance, or in outright spending to enroll the poor in Medicaid, a government-run insurance program. Critics of the law seized on the line from the report that the law’s "provisions related to insurance coverage are now projected to have a net cost of $1,252 billion over the 2012-2022 period; that amount represents a gross cost to the federal government of $1,762 billion." (Read the CBO’s update for yourself.) The ad upgrades that $1,762 billion, or $1.762 trillion to $2 trillion. In this case, we won’t quibble about $240 billion, because the $1.76 trillion number itself is extreme cherry-picking. It doesn’t account for the law’s tax increases, spending cuts or other cost-saving measures. In fact, the CBO has said that overall the health care bill actually reduces government spending by about $124 billion over 10 years. Still, this $1.76 trillion number gained traction quickly and started spreading around the Internet and into comments from the law’s opponents. The Congressional Budget Office soon released a statement to set the record straight. Here’s part of what it said: CBO released two reports this week related to the analysis of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) conducted by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). One report presented updated estimates for the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, and the other responded to questions we’ve received regarding the effects of the ACA on employment-based health insurance. Some of the commentary on those reports has suggested that CBO and JCT have changed their estimates of the effects of the ACA to a significant degree. That’s not our perspective. ... For the provisions of the Affordable Care Act related to health insurance coverage, CBO and JCT’s latest estimates are quite similar to the estimates we released when the legislation was being considered in March 2010. After the U.S. Supreme Court found the health care law constitutional, the CBO announced it would revise its findings on the health care law. Those findings are scheduled for release during the week of July 23, 2012. Finally, our fellow fact-checkers at FactCheck.org created their own set of estimates, specifically comparing the CBO’s original set of gross-cost estimates from 2010 with the estimates released in 2012. FactCheck.org found the estimates increased by 8.6 percent -- a far cry from doubling. Our ruling The TV ad says that the health care law "could cost up to $2 trillion, double what we were promised." Actually, only part of the health care law -- the gross costs -- could cost up to $1.76 trillion. That’s only a slight increase from what was originally promised -- not close to double. The number also doesn’t account for the portions of the law that pay for that spending, both new taxes and cost reductions. The ad’s source -- the Congressional Budget Office -- specifically rebutted the charge that the costs had doubled, and they issued that rebuttal months ago. The CBO said that its latest estimates "are quite similar to the estimates we released when the legislation was being considered in March 2010." We rate this statement False. Update: This report has been corrected to clarify the projections of gross costs as distinct from the insurance coverage provisions. The rating remains the same.	None	American Commitment	None	None	None	2012-07-11T18:19:14	2012-07-10	['None']
-pomt-11374	"Robert Redford Says: Michelle And Barack Obama Should Get Five Years In Prison."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/30/blog-posting/no-robert-redford-didnt-say-michelle-and-barack-ob/	A story circulating on Facebook claims in a headline that actor Robert Redford thinks Michelle and Barack Obama should be sent to prison. But if you click, all you find is jibberish. This story is a hoax. "Robert Redford Says: Michelle And Barack Obama Should Get Five Years In Prison," reads the headline on newsdonaldtrumps.com. There is no story, however, to accompany the headline, just stray text about dental implants and tooth extractions. The page also includes an image copied from an interview Redford gave to Vanity Fair in January 2016. The image does not include any mention of the Obamas, and neither does the full Vanity Fair article. In reality, Obama awarded Redford the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November 2016. This particular hoax -- that an actor says Obama and/or his wife should be sent to prison -- appears to be a favorite of people who peddle misinformation. Similar hoaxes say Clint Eastwood, Nicole Kidman and Jeff Bridges all made the same claim. None of them should be trusted. Our ruling A blog claimed in a headline actor Robert Redford said Michelle and Barack Obama should get five years in prison. But that’s rubbish. We rate this claim Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-03-30T10:25:03	2018-03-28	['None']
-snes-04151	A South Carolina high school principal banned U.S. flags from football games.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/high-school-bans-flags-from-football-games/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	S.C. High School Bans American Flag from Football Games	29 August 2016	None	['United_States', 'South_Carolina']
-pomt-04618	The significant drop in Florida’s unemployment rate is a good economic sign.	/florida/statements/2012/sep/17/rick-scott/rick-scott-brags-about-floridas-declining-unemploy/	The competitive businessman in Gov. Rick Scott wants Florida to be No. 1 for jobs. By most measures it’s not, and in at least one area it’s dead last. But what about its declining unemployment rate? Scott often points to this measure as evidence the state is headed in the right direction. In August, when monthly jobs numbers showed the state lost 3,300 jobs and the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.8 percent, Scott’s office found something nice to trumpet: Over the past 20 months (when Scott took office), the unemployment rate fell faster in Florida than in any other state. Scott repeated the claim a month later at a Sept. 13, 2012, board meeting of Enterprise Florida, the official economic development organization of the state of Florida. "We have every reason to brag about what’s going on in our state," he said. "If you look at the fastest drop in unemployment, it’s down 2.3 (percentage points) in the last 20 months." We’ve heard conflicting reports about Florida’s job creation record, so Scott’s argument that the state’s falling unemployment rate is brag-worthy piqued our interest. His math is right. Since December 2010, the month before he took office, it has fallen 2.3 points to 8.8 percent in July, which is still above the national August unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. Is such a feat really good for Florida, though? Economists don’t share Scott’s sunny perspective. Cheering the decline overlooks the real reason for it: a labor force contracted by the departure of thousands of workers, many of whom simply gave up looking for work. "What we’re seeing is that our participation in the labor force is declining," said Amy Baker, the Florida Legislature’s top economist, at a Sept. 12, 2012, meeting. "And because it’s declining, that’s really leading to much of the improvement -- in the month of July, about 91 percent of the improvement -- in the unemployment rate." A September 2012 report by Baker’s team at the Office of Economic and Demographic Research, highlighted the same trend: dropping unemployment rate caused not by job creation, but almost exclusively by a shrinking workforce. People tend to leave the labor force when they become discouraged with the process of trying to find work. Florida ranks last in the nation when it comes to long-term unemployment, so economists say the shrinking labor force is a natural result. More than half of the 816,000 jobless people in Florida have been looking for work for six months or more, a new national record, according to a recent Florida International University study. "The conditions of the labor market have been dire for so long that many people have dropped out of the labor force," reads the FIU report, which highlights several areas where Florida’s recovery is lagging the national pace. "Labor force participation rates keep plummeting even though we are three years into the recovery." Absent the labor pool’s contraction, the unemployment rate would be 9.8 percent, Baker’s report found. A report from Scott's Department of Economic Opportunity found that if the state's 94,100 discouraged workers were added to the unemployment rolls, the jobless rate would be 9.7 percent. That’s because Florida’s job growth rate has been mediocre when compared to other states. The state has added 69,900 jobs in the last 12 months, a growth rate of less than 1 percent. This growth is slower than the national pace; Florida ranks 28th in the nation. For comparison, high-growth states like California and Texas have created 365,000 jobs and 222,500 jobs, respectively, over the same period. California and Texas are two of 13 states currently growing jobs twice as fast as Florida. It's not always a good sign when a state sees a rapid decline in the unemployment rate, said Sean Snaith, an economist with the University of Central Florida. "You need strong economic growth to bring down rapidly the unemployment rate in the way we want to see it decline, and we haven’t seen that strong economic growth," he said. "This is the contradiction in the unemployment rate: Just because it’s going down, doesn’t mean it’s good news." We reached out to Scott’s press office and a spokesperson referred us to the Department of Economic Opportunity. A DEO spokesperson said the workforce is shrinking due to a high population of retirees and a large number of seasonal workers. When pressed for more specific figures to back up those claims, the spokesperson declined to answer and ultimately referred us to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Our ruling Scott reassured Florida’s economic development leaders, "We have every reason to brag about what’s going on in our state." We found his example of the plummeting unemployment rate over 20 months is not something to tout. Experts say the reasons behind the drop are mostly grim: Thousands of discouraged workers have given up on finding work in Florida. The shrinking workforce can be attributed to a number of factors, but the fact that Florida is last in the nation when it comes to long-term unemployment can’t be ignored. A major factor in the drop in unemployment is the exodus of people who have simply given up looking for work. Job creation, meanwhile, has been below-average. So is the unemployment rate decline a positive economic sign for Florida? We say Mostly False. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the election. See video fact-checks here.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2012-09-17T11:00:36	2012-09-13	['None']
-pomt-05602	"Right now we have sufficient reserves to take care of Tennessee's lottery scholarship students for a few years more."	/tennessee/statements/2012/mar/29/dolores-gresham/leader-education-committee-claims-lottery-deficits/	It’s been one of the most controversial issues in this year’s session of the Tennessee legislature: a bill by Republican legislators to raise eligibility requirements for the full $4,000-a-year basic Hope Scholarship funded by the state’s lottery. Since the program began in 2004, Tennessee high school graduates have qualified by achieving either a minimum 3.0 high school grade-point average or a minimum 21 ACT composite score. The bill as originally proposed would require students to achieve both standards to qualify for the full $4,000 annual grant at four-year schools, starting in the fall of 2015. Those who achieve one of the two standards, but not both, would still receive $2,000 a year, which they could use at four-year universities or two-year community colleges. State Sen. Dolores Gresham, R-Somerville, the chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has massaged the bill several times. The bill is still working its way through the legislature, but the most recent version contains a "trigger" provision that puts the new standards into place with freshmen entering college in the fall of 2015 if lottery proceeds for the Hope Scholarship program don’t increase by at least $10 million this year and continue increasing each year through fiscal year 2014. If lottery proceeds don’t increase accordingly, the new standards for the scholarships go into effect. The most oft-stated reason for the bill by Gresham and House sponsor Harry Brooks, R-Knoxville, is to close a deficit between the annual costs of the scholarship program and the proceeds earmarked for it from the Tennessee Lottery. The annual operating deficits do exist, but on Feb. 29, when pressed by reporters citing improving lottery revenues, Gresham took it one step further and warned that the lottery reserve fund could not withstand deficits for very long: "Right now we have sufficient reserves to take care of Tennessee's lottery scholarship students for a few years more." So is Gresham’s claim true? Are yearly deficits so severe the lottery reserve fund could soon run out of money? First, let’s consider the reserve fund. Built up in the early years of the Tennessee Lottery as the scholarship program was being phased in, the state’s education lottery reserve fund balance totaled $393.7 million as of Dec. 31, 2011, the last accounting available from the state Department of Finance and Administration. That figure includes about $31 million that is the current fair market value of investments in the fund whose income won’t be realized until the investments are sold, so state budget planners back that out of the total and report, for accounting purposes, an adjusted reserve fund balance at about $362.7 million. Concern first arose over deficits in the annual operations of the scholarship program in 2009, when the financial collapse and recession coincided with a 2008 expansion of the scholarship program and the use of $24 million in lottery proceeds on the state’s pre-kindergarten program. That pushed total spending in scholarship, pre-K and some administrative costs in Fiscal Year 2008-09 to $294.8 million, when the lottery’s proceeds for those purposes totaled $285.5 million. To close the books on that year, the state dipped into the Lottery for Education reserve fund for the first time, by about $9.3 million. The annual deficit dropped to $5.7 million the following year, and was $8 million in the fiscal year that ended last June 30, according to Tennessee Higher Education Commission figures*. What about projected operating deficits? Last fall, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission made projections for the Senate’s Lottery Stabilization Task Force that showed the largest annual operating deficits would be for this year, about $29 million, and next year, about $25 million. That sharp rise is mostly related to the 2011 act allowing the scholarships to be used for summer college classes, starting this summer. The THEC projections then showed deficits dropping after 2013, mainly because that’s when a new cap is fully phased in that cuts off scholarship grants after a student has achieved 120 semester hours. Still, even by last fall’s THEC projections, the state’s lottery reserve fund could adequately sustain the program well into the 2020s. But recent rosy lottery figures indicate that actual operating deficits will be smaller than those THEC projections. Lottery President and CEO Rebecca Hargrove presented new figures on Feb. 29 showing record sales and education proceeds, and she predicted that lottery proceeds for the scholarship program will be up at least $10 million this year. Using those new lottery forecasts combined with the December THEC projections -- lottery sales have set new records every month of fiscal year 2012 which began in July 1 -- PolitiFact Tennessee estimates that in the 2020-21 academic year, there may actually be a $2.2 million operating surplus in the scholarship program. And at that point, we calculate the reserve fund would stand at about $262 million. Sen. Gresham made her remarks about there being only "a few years more" of reserve cushion immediately after Hargrove’s presentation -- saying she preferred to press ahead with the higher eligibility standards. THEC estimates that those higher standards will trim between $17 million and $20 million a year from the scholarship program’s costs, because it cuts the number of students who qualify for the full $4,000 annual award. But in addition to those savings, her bill recommends a $10 million increase in the funding flowing from lottery proceeds (in this case, the reserve fund) to the need-based Tennessee Student Assistance grants annually for the next 10 years. That cuts the annual savings about in half. Our ruling In pushing for more stringent standards for students to qualify for the state’s lottery scholarships, Gresham said recently recurring deficits in the program could only be sustained for "a few years more." For Tennessee’s huge lottery reserve fund to be depleted would mean exponentially unprecedented deficits that are not seen by even the most pessimistic of projections. Gresham’s claim is unsupported by the numbers and we rule it False. ---------------------------------------- * None of the figures in this article include $10 million to $12 million a year in Tennessee Lottery unclaimed prize proceeds that are placed into a separate account exclusively for after-school programs in the elementary grades.	None	Dolores Gresham	None	None	None	2012-03-29T05:46:35	2012-02-29	['Tennessee']
-vogo-00326	Statement: “One of the 10 conditions included opening Miramar Landfill up to competitive bidding, but here they sit today saying that they’re not willing to support that. My, how things have changed when they’re not trying to get into your wallet. I ask my colleagues to be true to their word. You campaigned for Proposition D and you said you’d open up the landfill to managed competition,” City Councilman and mayoral candidate Carl DeMaio said during a council meeting Sept. 26.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/fact-check-demaio-mistaken-in-landfill-debate/	Analysis: On Monday, the City Council fought its latest battle over managed competition — a bidding process that pits private contractors against public city employees to see who can most efficiently provide city functions.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: DeMaio Mistaken in Landfill Debate	September 29, 2011	None	['Carl_DeMaio']
-snes-02539	A 'Muslim refugee' shot fifteen people inside an Ohio nightclub.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/muslim-refugee-ohio-nightclub/	None	Junk News	None	Arturo Garcia	None	‘Muslim Refugee’ Shoots 15 People In Ohio Nightclub?	26 April 2017	None	['Ohio']
-pomt-10206	On whether global warming is man-made.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/12/sarah-palin/earlier-she-didnt-attribute-it-to-being-man-made/	In her first major news interview since being named the vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Sarah Palin answered questions from journalist Charles Gibson about her thoughts on climate change. Gibson prefaced his question by saying that Palin, before being selected for the ticket, had said global warming was not caused by human activities. That would conflict with the views of her running mate John McCain. "Do you still believe that global warming is not man-made?" Gibson asked. "I believe that man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue of global warming, climate change," Palin said. "Regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it, and we have to make sure that we're doing all we can to cut down on pollution. ... After a followup question, she said: "I'm attributing some of man's activities to potentially causing some of the changes in the climate right now." Gibson said he detected a change in her position, but Palin said she hadn't. "Show me where I've ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that. I have said that my belief is there is a cyclical nature of our planet — warming trends, cooling trends." We looked for Palin's previous statements on global warming. Earlier this year, she gave an interview to the Web site Newsmax, which ran the following brief exchange with Palin. Question: "What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?" Palin: "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She also gave an interview to a Fairbanks newspaper in December 2007, discussing her first year as governor. The story states: "A few months into her term, Palin directed a group of state commissioners to develop a strategy for addressing climate change. State lawmakers had already formed a climate commission, but the administration up until then had nothing. "'I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity,' Palin said Monday, 'but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and pretend there aren't changes.'" Those are two clear statements that Palin didn't believe that human activity contributed to global warming. She agreed that global warming was real but implied that it had non-human causes. In her interview with Gibson, she said that "man's activities certainly can be contributing." We rule this one a Full Flop.	None	Sarah Palin	None	None	None	2008-09-12T00:00:00	2008-09-11	['None']
-snes-00892	A federal judge threw out the election results in a Pennsylvania special congressional election due to voter fraud.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/federal-judge-nullify-pa-election-results-wide-scale-voter-fraud/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did a Federal Judge Nullify PA Election Results for ‘Wide-Scale Voter Fraud’?	14 March 2018	None	['Pennsylvania']
-pomt-00012	"In the House, Republicans dramatically outperformed historical precedents."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/nov/08/donald-trump/were-gops-house-losses-dramatically-smaller-histor/	In recent midterm elections when presidents faced a backlash from voters, the president accepted their brushback. In 2006, George W. Bush acknowledged a "thumping" by Democrats. In 2010, Barack Obama said he’d been delivered a "shellacking" by Republicans. By contrast, when President Donald Trump addressed the results of the 2018 midterms -- when his party lost at least 31 seats and control of the House -- he focused primarily on Republicans’ ability to flip at least three seats in the Senate. "It was a big day yesterday," he said. "Incredible day. And last night the Republican Party defied history to expand our Senate majority while significantly beating expectations in the House." (Officially, Republicans currently have the same number of seats in the Senate -- 51 -- with three races still undecided in Mississippi, Florida and Arizona. You can read more about that in a separate fact-check.) Later in the day-after press conference, Trump said, "In the House, Republicans dramatically outperformed historical precedents and overcame a historic number of retirements. The most House Republican retirements in 88 years -- 43 House Republicans retired." The Republicans did have to cope with many retirements, which in 2018 reached a high for Republicans going back at least as far as 1930. But Trump is wrong that the Republicans outperformed historical precedents. The losses were fairly average or worse than average. Here is the data for midterm losses for the president’s party going back to the Civil War. The 2018 figure is in green. We have set it for 31 net-seats-gained that were confirmed by Nov. 8. This number could grow a bit as about a dozen races are yet to be called, and a Democrat is leading in five of those uncalled races. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com If we ignore the small number of years in which the president’s party gained seats in the House, the average loss going back to 1862 is 38 seats and the median loss is 30 seats. That may make the loss of at least 31 seats in 2018 seem pretty average -- though even there it would be wrong to say, as Trump did, that 2018 represented a dramatic overperformance. It would even be worse if Democrats end up winning the five uncalled contests where they are currently ahead. More problematic is that the swings in recent years have been much smaller. Going back to 1970, the average midterm loss for the president’s party has been 23 seats, and the median loss has been 14 seats. By this standard, a loss of 31 seats (or more) looks pretty substantial. Indeed, if you look just at losses suffered under Republican presidents, the total for 2018 exceeds all but two midterms going back to the Great Depression. The 2018 total even edged out the losses under George W. Bush in 2006, which was the last time the Democrats re-took the House in a midterm election. "This one was clearly pretty bad," said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist. And while the Republican outlook in the House was indeed harmed by retirements, as Trump said, the GOP conversely benefited from district lines that were drawn largely by Republicans following the 2010 Census. "Republican gerrymanders likely minimized the damage, preventing even more GOP losses," said Costas Panagopoulos, a political scientist at Northeastern University. The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Trump said, "In the House, Republicans dramatically outperformed historical precedents." That’s not what the numbers currently show, and the GOP’s position in the House is likely to end up worse as the outstanding races are called. If you look all the way back to the Civil War era, the expected GOP losses are in line with the long-term historical average -- not a dramatic overperformance. And if you look at the patterns typical over the last 50 years, the projected losses for 2018 are one-third higher than the average losses and more than double the median losses during that period. We rate the statement False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-11-08T15:55:03	2018-11-07	['None']
-abbc-00203	The claim: The FoodWise campaign says Australians throw out $8 billion worth of edible food every year.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-08/food-waste-value-australia/4993930	The claim: The FoodWise campaign says Australians throw out $8 billion worth of edible food every year.	['food-and-beverage', 'food-and-cooking', 'food-processing', 'recycling-and-waste-management', 'charities-and-community-organisations', 'charities', 'australia']	None	None	['food-and-beverage', 'food-and-cooking', 'food-processing', 'recycling-and-waste-management', 'charities-and-community-organisations', 'charities', 'australia']	Do Australians waste $8 billion worth of edible food each year?	Tue 15 Oct 2013, 4:29am	None	['None']
-snes-04070	Brock Turner's father lamented that that the victim in his son's sexual assault case received no punishment.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brock-turners-father-no-punishment/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Brock Turner’s Father: ‘The Girl Got No Punishment for Being a Slut’	9 September 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03502	House Speaker Paul Ryan is conducting a phone survey regarding experiences with the Affordable Care Act.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-ryan-conducting-obamacare-phone-survey/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Paul Ryan Conducting Obamacare Phone Survey	21 November 2016	None	['None']
-snes-00523	Is Congressional Candidate Nathan Larson an Admitted Pedophile?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nathan-larson-candidate/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Congressional Candidate Nathan Larson an Admitted Pedophile?	1 June 2018	None	['None']
-abbc-00392	The claim: Joe Hockey says one in every three Australian children born today will probably live to 100.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-22/will-one-in-three-australian-babies-live-to-100/5420808	The claim: Joe Hockey says one in every three Australian children born today will probably live to 100.	['government-and-politics', 'lifestyle', 'aged-care', 'hockey-joe', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'lifestyle', 'aged-care', 'hockey-joe', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	Will one in three Australian babies live to 100 as Treasurer Joe Hockey says?	Thu 22 May 2014, 3:07am	None	['Australia', 'Joe_Hockey']
-snes-01734	Did the Waters in Southeast Texas Test Positive for Several Diseases After Harvey?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/water-diseases-texas-harvey/	None	Science	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Floodwaters in Southeast Texas Test Positive for Several Diseases After Harvey?	13 September 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-01573	Says Mary Burke’s Madison school district "will be the only school district left in the state" to "ignore the (Act 10) law" in the 2015-16 school year.	/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/10/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-madison-school-district-only-one/	Mary Burke’s position as a member of the Madison Metropolitan School District board has played a minimal role in the governor’s race so far. Gov. Scott Walker tried to change that Sept. 3, 2014, calling on Burke and the board to find savings by using his signature Act 10, which dramatically curtailed collective bargaining for most public employees, including those of the district. In a campaign news release, Walker said Madison "will be the only school district left in the state out of 424 to ignore the law and not take advantage of Governor Walker’s reforms into the 2015-16 school year." Walker was playing off the fact the Madison board in 2014 signed a far-reaching contract with its teachers union despite the fact that Act 10 only allows for limited negotiations on base wages. Burke, who opposed Act 10 and who supported negotiating with school district employees, countered that the Madison district is being fiscally responsible, the Wisconsin State Journal reported. Is Madison the sole district in the state with such a contract for 2015-’16? And does that mean the district is ignoring Act 10? To back the claim, the Walker campaign pointed us to a Madison Teachers Inc. flier on contract negotiations that said only seven of the state’s public school districts "have contracts for the current school year, and MTI is the only union to have contracts for 2014-15, and now, upon ratification, for 2015-16." In our research, we were told by multiple officials there is no central repository for school contracts, so definitive proof of Madison’s singular status is lacking. But the Madison teachers union flier is very likely correct, based on our interviews with experts on both sides of this issue. And it makes sense. Act 10 took effect in 2011, and existing labor contracts remained in effect, but most of those have long since expired. Madison’s teachers, however, challenged Act 10 in court and in 2012 won an initial round before a Dane County judge, which opened a window in which technically they were not covered by the provisions of the new law, noted James Scott, chairman of Walker’s Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. The state Supreme Court later upheld the law, in July 2014. During that interim period, the union negotiated a contract with the Madison district that went beyond just base wage changes. The Wisconsin Education Association Council, an umbrella group representing most local teachers unions in Wisconsin, has heard of no other local affiliates with collective-bargaining agreements for 2015-’16, said spokeswoman Christina Brey. AFT-Wisconsin represents some other local unions at school districts. Likewise, it has no locals under collective bargaining agreements for 2015-’16, said Kim Kohlhaas, president of the group. And an official with the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators told us he believes Madison is "the only district that will continue under what would be described as a pre-Act 10 contractual agreement." "In Madison’s case, they continue to adhere to a contract that was bargained with the union prior to Act 10 and that does include all items that were the subjects of that earlier bargain," said Jon Bales, executive director of the administrators group. "Thus, all conditions such as working conditions, transfers, evaluations, etc. – anything that they had negotiated in the past as a part of the contract." So Walker appears to be on firm ground in singling out Madison. Debating the law’s effect But what of his characterization that Madison is ignoring the law? That is, that the district is not taking advantage of the measure’s ability to save costs through unilateral changes in benefits and working conditions. If Walker means the district is disobeying the law, that’s a matter of dispute that has yet to be settled in court. If he means the district is not applying it, there’s some evidence both ways. Madison district officials and Madison Teachers Inc. executive director John Matthews disagree with Walker’s characterization. The union leader notes that employees accepted a 0.25% base-wage increase, well within Act 10, which limits increases to the inflation rate. It was a raise, he said, the district never could have sold to employees before Act 10. And Matthews said the district got authority through Act 10 to change the employees’ health insurance carrier, though the district says ultimately that was done as part of bargaining. Walker, meanwhile, has criticized the district for not using Act 10 to get teachers to contribute to their health insurance premiums, something his law allowed districts to do without bargaining. Madison teachers currently make no contribution to premiums. Additionally, one of Act 10’s provisions was that districts adopt an employee "handbook" spelling out policies that had once been bargained. Madison has not yet done so, although like some other districts it will do so using the union contract as a basis for it. Another provision of Act 10, new deductions from worker paychecks toward pensions, went into effect automatically statewide. The Madison district counters that it has found cost savings by working collaboratively with employees. It believes it was on solid legal ground in negotiating contracts, said Rachel Strauch-Nelson, spokeswoman for the Madison district. One final note: The 2015-’16 year is a ways off, and it’s possible another district could sign a pre-Act 10-style contract before then. Such a move could or would subject a district to legal challenge. Our rating Walker said Mary Burke’s Madison school district "will be the only school district left in the state" to "ignore the (Act 10) law" in the 2015-16 school year. Due to some legal circumstances, Madison stands alone right now with a 2015-’16 contract that has pre-Act 10 elements. The law has affected some elements of district policies nonetheless. We rate Walker’s claim Mostly True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-09-10T05:00:00	2014-09-03	['None']
-goop-02658	Lamar Odom Writing Autobiography, “Kardashian Tell-All	https://www.gossipcop.com/lamar-odom-autobiography-kardashian-tell-all-book/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Lamar Odom Writing Autobiography, NOT “Kardashian Tell-All”	11:32 am, July 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01111	Has Pluto Been Officially Reclassified as a Planet?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pluto-officially-reclassified-planet/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Has Pluto Been Officially Reclassified as a Planet?	29 January 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00047	A woman filed a lawsuit against Samsung after her cellphone became stuck in her vagina.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/samsung-cellphone-stuck/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Woman Sue Samsung After Her Cellphone Got Stuck in Her Vagina?	24 September 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01177	"Fluoride in the water, that was originally done by the Nazis!"	/punditfact/statements/2014/dec/08/jesse-ventura/jesse-ventura-says-nazis-pioneered-use-fluoridated/	Were Nazis the first to put fluoride in the water? In a recent interview with Salon.com, Jesse Ventura -- whose varied career has included stints as a professional wrestler, governor of Minnesota, and talk show host -- brought up a topic that’s often been raised by conspiracy theorists. At one point during the interview, Salon asked whether he worries about "the U.S. becoming a fascist state." Here’s what Ventura said: "I worry about it tremendously. We’re forever incorporating Nazi things into our lives. Fluoride in the water, that was originally done by the Nazis! I don’t particularly like anything the Nazis did too much, and they were the first ones to put fluoride in the water. They tell us, ‘Oh, it’s for your teeth’ and all that — well, isn’t that your parents’ job, to teach you how to brush your teeth and use mouthwash? Why do you need the government putting some type of chemical in your water? I don’t know if you know this [but] fluoride is the main component of Prozac! What you’ve got is people drinking Prozac-water. Well, what does Prozac do to you? It calms you and dumbs you down so you’re less emotional. There’s a reason for all that stuff; what do we need fluoride in our water for? There’s no reason whatsoever to put chemicals in our water." Ventura’s answer offers us a lot to analyze, but one of his claims -- that "fluoride in the water ... was originally done by the Nazis" -- stood out out to us because PolitiFact Florida debunked this precise claim in 2011. Nazis, who killed millions of Jews in the 1930s and 1940s, were known for chemical tests and inhumane medical experiments. Far be it from us to defend them, even in a minor way. But after tracking down the roots of claims about fluoride on the Web, reaching out to Holocaust historians, contacting well-known critics of water fluoridation, and reading book excerpts, magazine articles, and news stories, we concluded that there's no teeth to this claim. With a national celebrity now making the claim, we decided to put it in the spotlight again. Ventura, through a publicist, said he doesn't remember the exact source of the claim but added that he found out about it when he did a show on water conspiracies for his show on the TruTV network. He provided a link to an article on prisonplanet.com, a site run by Alex Jones, a broadcaster who describes himself as a "prominent figure of the 9/11 Truth Movement." "If those facts are false, then the information we received when doing research for the water conspiracy episode was wrong," Ventura told PolitiFact in an email. "Regardless of if the Nazis did it or not, I don't think we should have it in our water. You don't need the government putting chemicals in the water. It's your responsibility to brush your teeth and use mouthwash. I haven't had a house yet with fluoridated water." (He’s only used well water.) If you’re interested in reading a critique of Ventura’s claim that "fluoride is the main component of Prozac," here’s one by the American Academy of Pediatrics. For this fact-check, though, we’ll stick to the claim about the Nazis. *** We’ll begin by noting that this fact-check won't explore the pros and cons of fluoride in your drinking water. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls the practice one of the greatest public health achievements of the century; at the same time, groups of citizens, scientists among them, have been wary of the practice since the 1950s. When we originally fact-checked this claim, we contacted historian Patricia Heberer-Rice of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, whose expertise is the German medical community, including Holocaust-era experimentation. Most Nazi medical experiments, she told us, had two themes: new drugs and treatments for common battlefield ailments, from war wounds to typhus, and the more infamous effort to underpin Nazi racial ideas, such as Josef Mengele's twin studies. None of the experimentation that she knows of involved fluoride, either for mind control or for healthy teeth. Meanwhile, in the concentration camp system, as in the ghettos, it would have been surprising if fluoride delivery was a focus — in the final few days before liberation, water lines scarcely delivered water. So, would water have been treated just for the Jews? "I can't see it," she said. But she had heard a similar Cold War-era theory. It wasn't about the Nazis fluoridating water. It was the Communists. We re-connected with Heberer-Rice for this fact-check, and she told us that no additional evidence supporting Ventura’s claim had emerged in the three years since our last fact-check. "The first mass fluoridation of drinking water was carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service on a trial basis in certain regions of this country in 1945, with its rapid extension in 1950," she said. "The first interest of German scientists in this approach was in 1949" -- that is, years after the Nazis had been deposed. *** Still, do an Internet search for "fluoride" and "Nazis," and you'll find articles such as "Nazi Connections to Fluoride in America's Drinking Water." The text appears on various sites, and includes the citations "Stephen 1995," and "Bryson 2004." "Stephen 1995" is presumably Ian E. Stephens, author of a 1987 self-published booklet, an extract of which was published in Nexus Magazine in 1995 under the title "Fluoridation: Mind Control for the Masses?" We tracked down a copy of the article from the magazine's website, an alternative Australian publication covering, among other things, "suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him," says a document quoted in the excerpt. "Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile." "Bryson 2004" is Christopher Bryson, an investigative reporter and television producer who reported on Guatemalan human rights abuses for the BBC World Service, National Public Radio and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the 1980s, and later wrote a book called The Fluoride Deception. It delves into murky connections between military-industrial fluoride polluters and the early push for public water fluoridation. But even Bryson -- a backer of certain conspiracies involving fluoridation -- isn’t convinced by the Nazi connection. His book mentions Nazis or Nazism fewer than 10 times, and none of the references discuss water fluoridation. "I never came across any documentation or credible information showing that fluoride was used in Nazi death camps," he told us in 2011. *** In 2009, two scientists published a book called The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America's Longest Running Political Melodrama. The book presents a lively social history of the fluoridation debate in the United States, starting with the fluoridation of the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1945. The hydrologists dedicate more than 30 pages to conspiracy theories and their origins. We contacted one of the co-authors in 2011. "The World War II death camp statement is an absurd lie," said Jay Lehr, who has authored or co-authored more than 30 books, most of them self-described "boring science books for scientists." Meanwhile, Paul Connett -- a chemist who directs the anti-fluoridation group Fluoride Action Network and recently co-authored a book called The Case Against Fluoride -- told us in 2011 that the Nazi angle is something that he’s been steering people in his movement away from. "We have done our level best to discourage opponents of fluoridation from using this emotive argument," Connett said. "The historical evidence for this assertion is extremely weak. It is sad that the U.S. media has done such a bad job of educating the public on this issue that it is so easy for crazy ideas to fill the vacuum." Our ruling Ventura said, "Fluoride in the water, that was originally done by the Nazis!" Two book authors who researched the topic, one a journalist, the other a hydrologist, found no credible evidence of such a connection. A leading anti-fluoridation activist repudiates the story. The most commonly cited Web source for the story was a 16-year-old extract in a fringe Australian publication. And a Holocaust historian we contacted knew of no such project. This claim remains Pants on Fire! Editor's note: This report initially referred to Ventura as a Navy SEAL, something he includes on his ora.tv biography. Readers later pointed out that there’s been a long-running debate on whether Ventura is justified in calling himself a SEAL. For more on his military background, see this story.	None	Jesse Ventura	None	None	None	2014-12-08T13:41:58	2014-12-02	['None']
-farg-00409	“Trump: ‘Alien Attack Imminent’; Orders Pentagon To Create Military Space Force.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/conspiracy-theory-follows-call-for-space-force/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['conspiracy theories']	Conspiracy Theory Follows Call For ‘Space Force’	June 21, 2018	2018-06-21 17:06:16 UTC	['None']
-tron-02174	Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Cash Giveaways	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-cash-giveaways-scam/	None	internet	None	None	None	Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Cash Giveaways	Dec 7, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-01012	Will "work to increase the prevalence of charter schools in Tennessee by supporting removal of restrictions such as the cap on the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the state as well as restrictions on who can re-enroll in charter schools."	https://www.politifact.com/tennessee/promises/haslam-o-meter/promise/1090/work-eliminate-cap-charter-schools/	None	haslam-o-meter	Bill Haslam	None	None	Work to eliminate cap on charter schools	2012-04-20T13:36:32	None	['Tennessee']
-pomt-12451	A University of Texas "student pulled out a concealed handgun" on a knife-wielding suspect "and made him back down."	/texas/statements/2017/may/10/blog-posting/pants-fire-claim-university-texas-student-gun-help/	Web posts assert that the May 1, 2017, stabbing attacks at the University of Texas ended after a heroic student pulled out a handgun. A reader inquiry after the incident that left one student dead and three wounded led us to fact-check a May 2, 2017, web post on ihavethetruth.com headlined "Texas Campus Concealed Carry Student Stops Slaughter at UT Austin." That post says: "Eyewitnesses reported that a student pulled out a concealed handgun on the suspect and made him back down, stopping what was heading towards a slaughter! Although Fox has reported the incident, the local media is working real hard on not covering that little fact. Imagine that!" Ihavethetruth.com doesn’t describe itself as a news source--or much otherwise. Its "About" web page says only: "I Have The Truth is where you show up every day for your marching orders." No evidence, newspaper says A day after the site said a student intervened with a gun, the Austin American-Statesman published a news story finding no confirmation that a gun-toting student got involved. The prospect of someone pulling a gun had seemed especially possible because the Texas law allowing individuals with state-issued permits to carry a handgun on public college campuses took effect in August 2016. The American-Statesman story, partly headlined "VIRAL ITEM DEBUNKED," said chatter about a student possibly brandishing a gun to help police end the incident appeared to have originated in an anonymous Twitter feed, whose user posted a screenshot of a conversation thread in which someone – whose name was blurred out – claims to have "grabbed my gun and ... chased the kid briefly." According to the story by reporter Marty Toohey, UT police termed the rumor of help from an armed student false and said they’d found no corroborating evidence, be it video or first-hand accounts. "It’s a rumor and there’s nothing to verify it," campus spokeswoman Cindy Posey said. Meanwhile, the student-with-a-gun account also was trumpeted on the InfoWars web site under the headline "Report: Student with gun stops mass stabbing at University of Texas." Its post pointed to a May 1, 2017, tweet by @TexasRebel56, who appears to have shared a screenshot of a private message of someone – the names of the people on thread are obscured – claiming: "I ran inside and grabbed my gun out (sic) and came back and chased the kid briefly but I wasn’t comfortable shooting because people were around." Also on May 1, a UT student who arrived at the scene after the attack told the American-Statesman that another student told him he had "flashed" a gun at the suspect. But police said they couldn’t confirm that story, adding that it was unlikely based upon the incident's brief timeframe. The same day, UT Student Government Vice President Binna Kim was among those who repeated the rumor, though after sending it via GroupMe she promptly tweeted an apology that stated the rumor had not been confirmed. Police chief a day later At a May 2, 2017, press conference, a reporter asked UT Police Chief David Carter: "There was a rumor on social media that someone with a concealed handgun prevented further attacks. Is there any validity to that?" Carter replied: "So one of the things that bedevils police departments on occasion is the information that comes across social media. "Yes, we’ve heard that," the chief said. "We have no verification of that. I will tell you, if you look at the sequence of events and the timeline, it doesn’t appear likely." Carter said that a minute and a half elapsed between the stabbings and before the student accused of the knife attacks, Kendrex White, was apprehended as he moved toward a campus dormitory knife-in-hand. A day earlier, Carter specified that that about 1:49 p.m. May 1, his department got a call about an individual who "actually attacked or assaulted somebody" near a gym. In less than two minutes, an officer was on the scene. The officer observed the individual walking away from an individual who was down on the ground," Carter said. "He was armed with a large, Bowie-style hunting knife." The officer confronted the man, Carter said, drawing his weapon and ordering the man to the ground. Then the suspect was taken into custody. On May 4, 2017, the debunkists at Snopes.com found "unproven" the idea that a student with a concealed handgun stopped the knife attacks. Then an Associated Press news story, published May 7, 2017, said that during the UT incident, "no gun-toting student or professor pulled a pistol to stop the man in his tracks. No shots were fired and no gun was even drawn until police swarmed in to subdue the suspect." No changes, UT says We asked UT if there were developments since the knife attacks suggesting a student with a gun helped quell the attacker. By email, Shilpa Bakre replied: "This is an incorrect rumor." Bakre said a UTPD officer "took the suspect down and arrested him – no civilians with guns were involved. Police have interviewed over 40 witnesses thus far, as well as reviewed video footage to support this." Our ruling A web blog said a UT student used a concealed gun to help police stop knife attacks on the campus. In a week-plus after the attacks, there were no credible news reports or law-enforcement confirmations of this claim which looks to us like it was bandied by pro-gun advocates presuming or perhaps wishing it was so. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-05-10T17:45:05	2017-05-02	['None']
-peck-00029	Why Is Tanzania’s Adolescent Fertility Rate So High?	https://pesacheck.org/why-is-tanzanias-adolescent-fertility-rate-so-high-accce0a80e5a	None	None	None	Belinda Japhet	None	Why Is Tanzania’s Adolescent Fertility Rate So High?	Oct 13, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02905	Magic Johnson's Celebrity Crew Arrive at the NBA Playoffs	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/magic-johnson-celebrity-crew/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Magic Johnson’s Celebrity Crew Arrive at the NBA Playoffs?	19 February 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00977	Christina Aguilera Joining ‘American Idol’?	https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-aguilera-american-idol-judge/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Christina Aguilera Joining ‘American Idol’?	10:35 am, May 18, 2018	None	['Christina_Aguilera']
-pomt-13657	California’s marijuana legalization initiative, Prop. 64 "allows marijuana smoking ads in prime time, on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers."	/california/statements/2016/aug/05/dianne-feinstein/feinsteins-claim-about-prime-time-marijuana-tv-ads/	Editor’s Note: A week after we published our fact check, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordered campaigns for and against Prop 64 to soften their claims about what the initiative would do. The No on Prop 64 campaign was ordered to change claims similar to Feinstein’s statement at the center of this fact check. Claims such as "marijuana smoking ads will be legal on all broadcast primetime shows" were dialed back to "could be allowed." On the Yes on 64 side, however, the judge ruled there should be "No change" to that campaign’s statement that "Nothing in 64 makes it legal to show marijuana ads on TV. Federal law prohibits it!" We continue to view Feinstein’s claim that Prop 64 "allows" recreational marijuana ads on TV as misleading. Had the senator said Prop 64 could open the door, someday, to recreational marijuana ads on TV, that might have been accurate. We continue to rate her statement Mostly False. Californians will decide in November whether to legalize recreational marijuana through Proposition 64, a much-debated measure on the state’s ballot. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, who opposes Prop 64, says a green light for the initiative could strip away advertising rules and dramatically change what’s seen on TV. Prop 64 "allows marijuana smoking ads in prime time, on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers," Feinstein said on July 12, 2016, in a No On Prop. 64 campaign press release. We know Prop 64 would allow Californians to legally smoke pot in their homes, yards and possibly in designated shops where it’s sold and regulated. But would it also lead to marijuana ads on "prime time" TV? Or is Feinstein blowing smoke? We decided to fact-check the senator’s statement. Half-baked claim? Prop 64 is backed by Democratic California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party. Recreational marijuana is already legal in Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Washington D.C. Several states in addition to California are set to decide on legalizing pot in November. Feinstein’s office did not expand on her statement. Instead, it referred us to the No On Prop. 64 campaign. The campaign pointed us to Prop 64’s chapter on advertising and marketing restrictions, specifically Section 26151. It states: "Any advertising or marketing placed in broadcast, cable, radio, print and digital communications shall only be displayed where at least 71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by reliable, up-to-date audience composition data." Wayne Johnson, spokesman for No On Prop. 64, said the 71.6 percent threshold is so low that only a few shows, such as Saturday morning cartoons, would be prohibited from airing marijuana ads. "It’s a ridiculous standard," Johnson said. "It only applies to the tiniest handful of shows." In this photo taken on Thursday, May 26, 2016, Sarah Seiter, curator of the exhibit "Altered State: Marijuana in California" handles a cannabis leaf with gloved hands at the Oakland Museum in Oakland, Calif. Ben Margot / AP Claim ignores federal law TV and legal experts say Feinstein’s statement ignores federal law, which classifies marijuana as an illegal drug and prohibits advertising it on television. "If Prop 64 passes, nothing will change in terms of what radio and television stations can legally broadcast," said Joe Berry, president of the California Broadcasters Association. "The federal government licenses the radio and TV stations in California. The federal government’s position is that marijuana is an illegal substance. So, it’s illegal to advertise that substance." Berry added: "The stations themselves are federally licensed. So, there is a risk to the license for the station at license renewal." Experts said cable and satellite television services would likely be subject to similar restrictions. They point to Section 843 of the Controlled Substances Act, which specifically prohibits using "communications facilities" to transmit advertisements for the sale of Schedule I drugs, which includes marijuana, heroin and ecstasy, among others. The law was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Nixon in 1970. It defines "communications facilities" as any and all public and private instrumentalities used or useful in the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds of all kinds and includes mail, telephone, wire, radio, and all other means of communication." Marijuana leaf (AP photo) Legality a cloudy issue Others say the legality of advertising marijuana on television -- particularly in states that have legalized the drug -- remains cloudy, at best. "There is no (Federal Communications Commission) rule that prohibits such advertisements in states with legalized cannabis," Kathleen Kirby, a media lawyer based in Washington D.C., told PolitiFact California in an email. A spokeswoman at the FCC could not point us to one, and declined to elaborate on the subject. Kirby said several of her clients in states where pot is legal have been approached to run marijuana advertisements. "I don’t say no, but I counsel," regarding the lack of clarity, Kirby told the American Bar Association in an online article. Kirby noted in the December 2015 article that all of her clients had decided to hold off on the ads. She added in her email to PolitiFact California that federal law "would need to change to make accepting such ads risk free. The feds have more or less signaled that they will look the other way, but you never know with changes in administration or even changes in federal prosecutors." No TV ads in other states In recent years, federal drug enforcement authorities have taken a ‘hands-off’ approach on the sale and cultivation of marijuana in states that have legalized and regulated the drug. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll look the other way on federal advertising rules, said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University and editor of the Marijuana Law, Policy and Reform blog. A local TV station in Colorado had planned to run the nation’s first marijuana TV advertisement in 2015, but backed away over concerns about federal rules. Stations have yet to air any marijuana ads on television, Berman said. Those ads would be treated "from a federal regulatory perspective as equivalent to if you were broadcasting (ads for) heroin," the law professor added. The Yes on Proposition 64 campaign filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court in early August demanding what they described as "false and/or misleading statements" -- including the claim about marijuana ads on TV at the center of this fact check -- be removed from the official ballot arguments submitted by the measure’s opponents. Efforts to change federal law are underway. But it’s unclear if, when and how much the law will change. Berman said California’s provisions, if approved through Prop 64, could pave the way for advertising on TV, but only if the federal rules change first. "It ain’t happening anytime soon," he said. "Certainly, it’s not something that’s going to automatically happen based on how California votes this fall." Our ruling California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently said the state’s pot legalization initiative "allows marijuana smoking ads in prime time, on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers." Proposition 64 includes a provision that marijuana advertisements "shall only be displayed where at least 71.6 percent of the audience is reasonably expected to be 21 years of age or older." If Feinstein had said Prop 64 helps pave the way for marijuana ads on TV, that might have been accurate. But experts say Feinstein’s claim, as she stated it, is misleading. The federal Controlled Substances Act bans TV stations from advertising illegal substances, including marijuana. There’s an element of truth to Feinstein’s statement: The FCC doesn’t have a rule expressly prohibiting marijuana television ads in states that legalize the drug. And federal authorities could choose to ignore the Controlled Substances Act. Still, the experts we spoke with say California’s Prop 64 will not lift the legal cloud of uncertainty by itself. Feinstein’s statement goes too far. We rate her claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/1410625c-ab69-4d14-a425-bba2b4ac9a26	None	Dianne Feinstein	None	None	None	2016-08-05T11:39:50	2016-07-12	['California']
-pomt-01477	On opposing legislation that would take away existing health care plans.	/virginia/statements/2014/sep/29/mark-warner/warner-has-mixed-record-protecting-pre-obamacare-i/	Republicans are accusing U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of breaking a promise to Virginians on Obamacare. They point to a videotape Warner posted on Aug. 10, 2009 laying out his qualified support for health care reform. Congress was considering Obamacare at the time and there was loud debate over whether the bill would strip people of health insurance policies they liked and wanted to keep. Warner, a Democrat, vowed he wouldn’t vote for legislation that required such a sacrifice. "Let me make clear, I’m not going to support a health care reform plan that’s going to take away health care that you’ve got right now or a health care plan that you like," he said. Warner went on to vote for Obamacare in December 2009. And last fall, millions of Americans who buy their own insurance were notified their policies were being cancelled because they didn’t meet minimum coverage standards in the law. The videotaped pledge is getting plenty of play this year as Warner seeks reelection. Republican challenger Ed Gillespie posted the video in January with the caption "Senator Mark Warner broke his words to Virginians." During a July 26 debate, Gillespie told Warner his 2009 comments "prove you were wrong" about Obamacare. The Republican Party of Virginia last month posted a link to Warner’s videotaped statement and tweeted, "Five years ago, @Mark Warner made the promise he broke." And on Sept. 9, Gillespie began airing a TV ad featuring the tape of Warner’s pledge and the false claim in capital letters, that our colleagues at PolitiFact National cited it as the "Lie of the Year" in 2013. We’ve rated Gillespie’s claim False; the Lie of the Year focused remarks on repeated remarks about the ACA by President Barack Obama. Warner’s name never came up in PolitiFact National’s announcements of the award. But there’s no doubt Warner’s pledge is an issue this fall. So we decided to pull out the Flip-O-Meter and examine whether Warner had changed his stance in protecting insurance people’s insurance plans. Let’s start with some history. What happened The Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23, 2010, requiring that all Americans have health insurance and that policies bought after that date meet minimum coverage standards. Policies in effect prior to the bill signing were exempt from the new requirements. Many Democrats said the exemption was important because it addressed a key argument against the healthcare bill: That Obamacare would strip people of health insurance plans they liked. Conservatives predicted many employers would be unwilling to comply with the minimum coverage standards and find it cheaper to stop providing insurance, pay a federal fine, and let their workers buy policies on exchanges that would be set up under the law. But the bill approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress gave President Barack Obama wiggle room on the exemption. Lawmakers left it to the White House to develop the specific rules on how it would work. Obama repeatedly had promised that people who liked their insurance plans could keep them. He undercut his pledge in June 2010, however, by imposing tough regulations that prevented insurers from adjusting their grandfathered plans to market conditions or offering them to new clients. That all but assured the insurers would pull the plug on substandard plans. The major impact, however, has not been on work-based insurance, as originally predicted. Many employers were already providing coverage that exceeded the standards. The Congressional Budget Office, in a May 2013 study, estimated that the ACA will cause 11 million to lose their employer-based insurance by 2019. That comes to 7 percent of the 157 million people in the U.S. now covered through work. Instead, the brunt has fallen on people who buy their own policies. Insurers began sending notices last fall saying their policies would be eliminated in 2014 because they did not comply with ACA standards. No one knows how many people got notices because the health insurance market is largely private and fragmented. The Washington Post and NBC News reported last fall that their sources estimated between 7 million and 12 million people might be affected. About 16 million people in the U.S. are privately assured, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Obama, last fall, apologized for the "assurances" he gave people about keeping their coverage plans. And he’s given state legislatures the option of allowing insurers to keep substandard plans in effect until Oct 1, 2016. What Warner says now Warner essentially says he couldn’t keep his 2009 pledge because he was blindsided by Obama. "Once the law was implemented, it quickly became clear that this provision had been implemented in such a way that many individuals were having their plans cancelled, despite the administration's promise," David Turner, a spokesman for Warner’s campaign, wrote to us in email. Turner referred to fact checks published by the Associated Press and PolitiFact National in early August 2009, around the time Warner made his pledge. Both gave credence to Obama’s "like it, keep it" assurances, but noted conditions could undercut the president’s promise. PolitiFact National, back then, rated the president’s claim Half True. Turner also cited language in the ACA that encouraged Warner to vote for the bill. The law says, "Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act." The ACA says, "With respect to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act," the minimum standards "shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment." Finally, Turner said Warner took action last fall when insurers started sending out cancellation notices. He sent us copies of letters the senator wrote to the White House and the state insurance commissioner urging them to extend the cancelled plans. Warner also has been urging the General Assembly to pass legislation that would allow insurers to continue offering subpar health plans in Virginia until Oct. 1, 2016. We spoke to a couple of health care experts and found that their views of Warner’s explanation coincided with their opinions on Obamacare. Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who specializes in health care law and supports the ACA, said Warner was true to his word. "The promise was literally kept," he said. "At the time the law went into effect, people could keep their policies." Jost said it’s "irrational" to hold Warner responsible for cancellations that occurred four years or so after he voted for Obamacare, noting that insurers routinely change plans based on market conditions. "I don’t think anyone was promising that if you bought a policy in the past, you could keep it forever," he said. Gail Wilensky, an ACA critic, kept Warner on the hook. She’s an economist at Project HOPE, an international health foundation, and was a senior health adviser to President George H.W. Bush. Wilensky said a major goal of Obamacare was to provide a "minimum benefit standard" and many expected the president to draft regulations that would discourage insurers from continuing plans deemed inadequate by the law. "It should have come as no surprise to anyone who understood the insurance market, and Mark Warner is a very smart guy," she said. We should finally note a Senate vote on Sep. 29, 2010 -- about three months after Obama imposed the regulations with projections that they would force between 39 percent and 69 percent of all businesses relinquish their grandfathered plans by 2013. Republicans, citing that analysis, introduced a resolution that would abolish the minimum standard rules and help people maintain existing policies. The measure was defeated on a party-line 59-40 vote, with Warner voting against it. Turner said Warner viewed the resolution as "political posturing" that could undermine consumer protections written into the ACA. During the Senate debate, Democrats said repealing the regulations would essentially strip Obamacare of popular provisions allowing adult children to stay on their parents policies until they turn 26 and banning insurers from placing limits on lifetime benefits paid out. Our ruling In 2009 Warner pledged he would not support health care reform "that’s going to take away health care that you’ve got right now or a health care plan that you like." The bill Warner voted for that December had language exempting existing plans from complying with minimum coverage standards. So under a narrow interpretation, it can be argued Warner held steady. But Warner’s pledge weakens under a broader lens. The bill had a loophole: It allowed the president, who promised to protect policies people liked, to fill in the details. Obama, in 2010, imposed tough regulations that made it in infeasible for insurers to continue offering many grandfathered plans. Warner says he was disappointed by the president’s action. Later that year, Warner and all Senate Democrats voted against a GOP resolution to repeal the regulations, even though the White House had begun projecting that many grandfathered insurance plans would be cancelled. Democrats said that repealing the rules would jeopardize other popular provisions written into the ACA. Warner, on the other hand, has advocated pushing back deadlines on the enactment of the insurance regulations. There’s been some back and forth on Warner’s position. On the whole, we rate it a Half Flip.	None	Mark Warner	None	None	None	2014-09-29T12:00:00	2014-09-29	['None']
-snes-02059	A video accurately compares weather reports from Sweden and Iraq.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/weather-report-sweden-iraq/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This What Weather Reports in Sweden Look Like?	17 July 2017	None	['Sweden', 'Iraq']
-pomt-04774	"Independent voters have a ten-point margin in favor of Mitt Romney right now."	/georgia/statements/2012/aug/26/bob-mcdonnell/eve-gop-convention-mcdonnell-says-romney-leading-o/	Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s surprise endorsement of President Barack Obama came with a warning for the Republican Party. Crist, who was elected governor as a Republican and then ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate as an independent, penned an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times that told arriving Republican National Convention delegates that an element of the GOP had veered too far to the right on women’s issues, immigration, seniors and students. ABC’s This Week host George Stephanopoulos used Crist's endorsement to press Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican party’s platform committee, to respond to the charge. McDonnell replied that Crist was "wrong on the platform. He also missed the point. What matters is getting the nation back on track, the federal government out of debt, and jobs for the American people. "So on the things that really matter to voters, George, I think the records are stark, and I think that's why independent voters have a 10-point margin in favor of Mitt Romney right now," McDonnell said. Romney is ahead by 10 points among independents? We looked at the most recent national polls to find out if that was correct. We found that while national polls showed Romney leading Obama among independent voters, the Republican’s advantage varied from a few points to 11 points. A Fox News poll supported McDonnell’s claim, with Romney leading Obama among independents 42 percent to 32 percent. This poll tracked likely voters, and was conducted Aug. 19-21. The margin of error was 3 percentage points. An AP-GfK poll last week showed Romney ahead among independent voters 41 to 30. The poll was conducted Aug. 16-20, with a margin of error of about 4 percentage points. A CNN/ORC International poll showed Romney ahead with the backing of 48 percent of likely independent voters, to Obama’s 45 percent. It was conducted Aug. 22 and Aug. 23 by telephone. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The three-week average of Gallup’s poll of registered voters showed Romney leading Obama among independents 44 percent to 41 percent. Polling took place July 30 to Aug. 19. It’s worth nothing that Obama was ahead among independents in the days before Romney chose U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin as his vice presidential pick. CNN and Fox polls showed that about three weeks ago, Obama was ahead by 11 percent. We also took a look at recent polls in three key battleground states. A Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll released Thursday showed that Romney was ahead 48 percent to 44 percent among independents in Florida. This was within the poll’s margin of error. That same poll in Ohio showed Romney was ahead of independents 48 percent to 43 percent in Ohio. In Virginia, data from the firm Public Policy Polling showed Romney with a 46 to 43 lead among independents. Our ruling McDonnell said Romney was ahead of Obama with independents by 10 points. He is right that polls show Romney leading among independents, although the polls range from a few to 11 points. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2012-08-26T17:39:01	2012-08-26	['Mitt_Romney']
-afck-00217	“The City of Cape Town has repealed over 300 [apartheid-era policies, structure plans, bylaws and other procedures].”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-the-da-create-change-that-moves-sa-forward-we-weigh-up-key-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does the DA create ‘change that moves SA forward’? We weigh up key claims	2016-06-02 06:07	None	['None']
-snes-00557	Was a Black Woman Who Won a Georgia Primary Arrested for Election Fraud?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-primary-election-fraud/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was a Black Woman Who Won a Georgia Primary Arrested for Election Fraud?	23 May 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10700	The Red Sox waited "87 long years" to win the World Series.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/29/mitt-romney/flubbing-a-key-number-in-red-sox-lore/	The number is as much a part of Red Sox lore as the Green Monster, Fenway franks and the curse of the Bambino. Eighty-six. That's how many years passed between the team's 1918 World Series victory and its next one in 2004. It's a number that has been used in so many descriptions of suffering fans ("86 years of despair and disappointment" . . . "86-year drought" . . . "86 long and depressing years") that it's iconic. Do a Google search on the phrase "86 years," as we did, and five of the first 10 listings relate to the Red Sox. But when Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts and a self-described "true-suffering fan" of the Sox, spoke about his team at the CNN/YouTube debate on Nov. 28, 2007, he used a different number: Eighty-seven. In fact, he used the wrong number twice in a row. "Eighty-seven long years," Romney said. "We waited 87 long years. And true suffering Red Sox fans that my family and I are, we could not have been more happy than to see the Red Sox win the World Series, except by being able to beat the Yankees when they were ahead three games to none." It wasn't exactly the magnitude of Bill Buckner's blunder in Game 6 of the '86 World Series (there's that number again!), when the ball rolled through his legs, letting the winning run score. But to Sox fans, it was a significant mistake. And so, even though he was only off by a year, we award Romney a False. A Sox fan should know better.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2007-11-29T00:00:00	2007-11-28	['Boston_Red_Sox', 'World_Series']
-afck-00134	“In the 2016 budget, we spent N1.2 trillion on infrastructure projects.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/nigerias-democracy-day-speech-fact-checking-government-savings-rice-imports-infrastructure-spend/	None	None	None	None	None	Nigeria’s Democracy Day speech: Fact-checking sovereign savings, rice imports & infrastructure spend	2017-06-14 11:15	None	['None']
-pomt-07319	"Most military experts say there is anywhere between 25 and 30 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/may/15/david-cicilline/cicilline-says-there-are-only-25-30-al-qaeda-fight/	Congressman David Cicilline, a freshman Democrat, was on WPRO-AM (630) radio May 6 making the case that the United States should stop funneling money to Afghanistan for construction projects and use the money for badly needed projects back home. "We are investing in that infrastructure and rebuilding a country. We ought to be directing those resources back here to the United States. We have some urgent needs of infrastructure and investments in law enforcement that we need be making in our own country," he said during an interview with Morning News hosts Tara Granahan and Andrew Gobeil, just days after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Putting aside his views on President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan, we were struck by another statement the congressman made to support his position. "I think that most military experts say there is anywhere between 25 and 30 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. So we have succeeded in our mission. That was to dismantle al Qaeda and you know we have to, of course, still have a presence in that part of the world. The growing danger, I think, is really in Pakistan." We wondered: Are there really so few al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan? We didn’t hear back right away from the congressman so we began to conduct some reconnaissance of our own. There aren’t any census workers checking caves in Afghanistan and asking if whether anyone belongs to al Qaeda. And the Defense Department doesn’t make a habit of announcing its intelligence estimates. But there have been numbers cited in the media and elsewhere. In December 2009, as Mr. Obama was deciding whether to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, ABCNEWS.com reported that senior U.S. intelligence officials estimated about 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan. On June 27, 2010, CIA Director Leon Panetta gave an estimate on ABC’s "This Week" that has been cited frequently. "I think the estimate on the number of al Qaeda is actually relatively small," Panetta said at the time. "At most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity. There’s no question that the main location of al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan." The Wall Street Journal gave a different estimate in an April 6, 2011, story. "Precise numbers of al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan at any given time are hard to come by," the story said. "For the most part, al Qaeda has been viewed by Western officials as a declining force in the Afghan fight. Just six months ago, U.S. intelligence estimates indicated only one or two dozen al Qaeda fighters were present in Afghanistan at any one time." But, the story continued, "Most of the few hundred fighters it had in the region were holed up in Pakistan hiding from Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes." With the pullback of U.S. troops from northeastern Afghanistan, senior military officials were quoted as saying, al Qaeda fighters are reportedly returning. On April 9, 2011, Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces, told the Associated Press that he did not believe al Qaeda was making a comeback. "There is no question that al Qaeda has had a presence in Afghanistan and continues to have a presence — generally assessed at less than 100 or so," he said . Finally, we contacted Bing West, of Newport, a former assistant secretary of defense and author of several military books, including his just-released "The Wrong War." In it, West argues that counterinsurgency efforts are not working in Afghanistan and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn and replaced by a corps of advisers to assist Afghanistan battalions. "He’s basically right," West said about Cicilline’s comments. "No one knows the number and, of course, since they can walk back and forth across the border, the number is elastic to begin with. If we are trying to make the general point that there are relatively few al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan, that’s a correct statement." So the estimates varied, but none was as low as the numbers Cicilline cited on WPRO. When we did hear back from the congressman’s office, spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said that Cicilline had erred and referred us to the estimates we had already found. "Congressman Cicilline accidentally misspoke during his interview with WPRO and meant to say that military members and the Director of the CIA indicate there are more like 50-100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan," Kershaw wrote in an e-mail. "However, the point Congressman Cicilline was making is simple and rings true -- compared to the approximately 100,000 American troops stationed in Afghanistan, there is a relatively small number of hardcore al Qaeda members left in that country, and that is supported by General Petraeus and CIA Director Leon Panetta." We’ll grant that precise numbers are hard to come by. But Cicilline claimed the number he cited -- lower than most others -- was what "most military experts" were saying. In fact, that’s not what most military experts were saying. And even he acknowledges he "misspoke." We rate his claim Barely True. (To comment or offer your own ruling, visit us on Facebook.) Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	David Cicilline	None	None	None	2011-05-15T00:01:01	2011-05-06	['Afghanistan']
-pose-00717	"We need a strategic climate and energy road map that lays out the practical steps to meet and implement that goal, and benchmarks against which to systematically and frequently measure our progress. During the course of my campaign, I will lay the groundwork for a strategic plan that integrates the state emission reduction goal, the Renewable Energy Standard, aggressive conservation and energy efficiency strategies, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Renewable Fuel Standard into a comprehensive state Energy and Climate Strategic Plan."	https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/747/develop-plan-for-energy-and-climate-change/	None	kitz-o-meter	John Kitzhaber	None	None	Develop plan for energy and climate change	2011-01-04T21:58:42	None	['None']
-goop-01720	Jennifer Aniston Getting Breast Lift?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-breast-lift-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Getting Breast Lift?	11:47 am, January 26, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01395	The United States was not one of 16 countries where David Perdue said in his Pillowtex deposition that he created jobs.	/georgia/statements/2014/oct/14/michelle-nunn/key-context-missing-attack-perdues-job-record/	A nine-year-old legal document has become a focal point in the highly competitive contest to become Georgia’s next U.S. senator. Democrat Michelle Nunn has made several attacks and claims against Republican David Perdue based on his blunt statements about outsourcing in a 2005 deposition. Most of the political hay comes from Perdue saying that he "spent most of my career" establishing work and supply lines in foreign countries. At the Oct. 7 debate, Nunn pounced on something else she found in the 186-page document. "He talked about 16 countries," Nunn said. "Not once did he talk about creating jobs in the United States." Since the outcome of the race is expected to help decide control of the Senate, and polls show a potential runoff, the claim called out for a spin on the Truth-O-Meter. First, some background. The deposition was taken as part of a bankruptcy lawsuit against Pillowtex, a North Carolina textile company that failed shortly after Perdue’s brief tenure as CEO. Perdue, who was CEO at Dollar General when he was deposed, said his turnaround plan when he joined Pillowtex in 2002 called for a mix of marketing and outsourcing. High-end products would be made in America, while lower-cost products would be manufactured overseas. That was the idea, at least, until Perdue and other Pillowtex executives found a large unfunded liability missed when the firm exited its first bankruptcy. Unable to execute his plan, Perdue left after less than a year and the firm eventually collapsed. The legal interrogation lays out that failure and includes Perdue’s description of various executive jobs where he specialized in outsourcing with firms such as Reebok and Sara Lee. Asked specifically about his "experience" with outsourcing, Perdue goes on at length about that background. "I dealt with companies from Japan westward all the way to Kenya and Lesotho in Africa, Dubai, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Vietnam, all points west of Japan," Perdue said in part of his answer. In addition to those 12 countries, Perdue mentions three more and Hong Kong, now part of China. He does not reference the United States. That’s technically 16 then-nations. So is the case closed? Not without an understanding of how a deposition works. For the interrogation, Perdue would have been under oath, sworn to answer honestly the questions posed to him. A deposition is similar to taking the witness stand, but there is no judge present to referee the questions and answers, said Jill Polster, an Atlanta defense attorney. That means the attorney of the person being deposed counsels them to be sure to answer only the question posed. "I tell all of my witnesses, you answer the question that is asked and no more," Polster said. "Witnesses can sometimes talk about whatever they want to talk about, but that would be weird in a deposition. It’s a narrow inquiry." In Perdue’s case, that narrow focus was, unsurprisingly, on his business successes finding low-cost manufacturing plants and labor. The line of questioning that led to Perdue to talk about his experience in other countries included: "Can you describe your experience with outsourcing?" "When you joined Reebok, was Reebok outsourcing all of its product to Asia?" and, "At any of your jobs prior to Pillowtex, were you involved at all in building the infrastructure of outsourcing? In other words, there were no questions about the United States. And the structure of a deposition would not allow for much free form discussion about jobs there, even if Perdue wanted to bring that up. Derrick Dickey, Perdue’s spokesman, said a careful reading of the deposition could show Perdue was trying to show efforts to save American jobs – not just outsource them – with his turnaround plan for Pillowtex. Moreover, at the time Perdue was starting work on creating thousands of jobs at Dollar General, through a massive expansion of the discount chain. But the list of countries doesn’t get into that, Dickey said, because no question was posed for him to answer. "He was obliged to answer what the attorney was asking about," Dickey said. "It’s disgusting to twist it to say otherwise." Nunn is accurate to say Perdue lists job creation in 16 countries in his 2005 deposition. The United States isn’t one of them. But legal experts say it is unfair to focus too much on a missing answer in a deposition, since the real culprit would be a missing question. Nunn’s claim contains an element of truth but takes it out of context to be misleading. We rate it Mostly False.	None	Michelle Nunn	None	None	None	2014-10-14T00:00:00	2014-10-07	['United_States']
-afck-00088	“More children die per day due to diarrhoeal diseases than from AIDS, malaria and measles combined.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/handwashing-101-dettols-disease-busting-claims-microscope/	None	None	None	None	None	Handwashing 101: Dettol’s disease-busting claims under the microscope	2017-12-11 06:20	None	['HIV/AIDS']
-tron-02535	Ann Barnhardt’s Response to a Death Threat	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ann-barnhardt/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Ann Barnhardt’s Response to a Death Threat	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-06295	Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said he 'will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-not-rejoice-in-the-death-of-one/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	David Mikkelson	None	Martin Luther King: ‘Do Not Rejoice in the Death of One’	4 May 2011	None	['None']
-afck-00027	“The “average salary” per year at Eskom increased from R220,000 in 2003 to R780,000 in 2017.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/eskom-and-the-viral-infographic-do-the-numbers-add-up/	None	None	None	None	None	Eskom and the viral infographic: do the numbers add up?	2018-07-09 07:54	None	['None']
-huca-00011	 "We have a supply management system that continues to be very much in place to protect both our agricultural sector and our consumers. This is something that continues. We have made modifications to the way it works, but we also know that it is something that will ensure the viability and the strength of supply management for years to come."	https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/10/04/trudeau-baloney-meter-usmca-supply-management_a_23551014/?utm_hp_ref=ca-baloney-meter	None	None	Prime Minister Justin Trudeau	Lee Berthiaume	None	Trudeau Dishing 'Some Baloney' With Claim USMCA Strengthens Supply Management	10/04/2018 11:18 EDT	but we also know that it is something that will ensure the viability and the strength of supply management for years to come."	['None']
-thal-00005	People can buy alcohol in Dublin with pound sterling and vice versa with euros in Belfast.	http://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-irish-currency-4262250-Oct2018/	As many people have pointed out, one can’t use either currency interchangeably in both jurisdictions.	None	None	None	None	Factcheck: Can you buy a drink in Dublin with pounds?	Oct 2nd 2018, 6:30 AM	None	['Dublin', 'Belfast']
-pomt-00525	"More than half of women under 30 who give birth do so outside of marriage..."	/virginia/statements/2015/jun/22/don-beyer/beyer-says-more-half-moms-under-30-are-unwed/	Rep. Don Beyer says the U.S. needs to help young moms raising children on their own. "A growing percentage of women are single mothers; more than half of women under 30 who give birth do so outside of marriage and consequently serve a significant economic role for that child," Beyer, D-8th, says on his congressional website. We wondered if it’s true that most women under 30 having babies are unwed. Tia Shuyler, Beyer’s spokeswoman, pointed us to a series of reports and news articles on births to single mothers. But none of the sources provided a definitive source for the claim, so we went to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which keeps detailed records on births in the U.S. and mothers’ marital status. The proportion of babies born to unmarried mothers has generally risen during the last 75 years, according to CDC figures. In 1940, 3.8 percent of all births were to unmarried women. By 2009, 41 percent of all births were to unmarried moms. But Beyer’s statement required deeper research because it focused on women under 30. CDC records show that in 2005, 49 percent of babies born to women under 30 were born out of wedlock. They crossed 50 percent for the age group in 2006 and reached 54 percent in 2009. Amid the halting recovery from the Great Recession, the number has remained essentially flat. So the bottom line is that the proportion out-of-wedlock births -- both for all mothers and those under 30 -- has recently been stagnant, but historically has increased. Isabell Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, offered a couple of reasons for the the long-term increases. One is that women have more opportunities to provide for themselves and their children outside of marriage and don’t feel the need to have a husband to support them, she said. "Marriage is on the decline is the simple explanation," Sawhill said. "Each generation is marrying less than the previous one. If you take the women under the age of 30, you are talking about the youngest generation, so the proportion having children outside of marriage is larger because they are the most recent generation." Social norms could also be playing a part, Sawhill said. "It used to be if you had a baby outside of marriage, you were stigmatized," she said. "That is no longer true. It’s so common now, it is quite accepted." The U.S. Census Bureau, in a 2013 report , also examined the proportion of unmarried moms under 30. It found about half of such mothers who gave birth in 2010 and 2011 were unwed. The younger the mother, the higher chance of her being single. Of mothers age 15 to 19 with a recent birth, 86.1 percent of them had their babies out of wedlock. Among women age 20 to 24 with a recent birth, 61.5 percent of them weren’t married, and 31.9 percent of mothers age 25-29 had their babies outside marriage. Many reports, including from The New York Times and The Urban Institute, have noted that for unmarried women under 30, their birth rate has been declining in recent years. Many analysts attribute the fall-off at least partly to the economy as some mothers put off having babies or decide not to have them at all. For mothers of all ages, the birth rate has been going down, but preliminary CDC figures for 2014 showed an uptick. Our ruling Beyer said "more than half of women under 30 do so outside of marriage." Government figures back up his assertion. We rate his statement True.	None	Don Beyer	None	None	None	2015-06-22T12:13:26	2015-06-15	['None']
-pomt-00052	"Liberal Democrats" who back Dan McCready "cut $716 BILLION from Medicare to fund their healthcare scheme: Obamacare."	/north-carolina/statements/2018/nov/03/mark-harris/republican-says-democrats-cut-billions-medicare-le/	Health care is a hot-button issue this election season. Candidates have thrown around quite a few numbers while accusing their opponents of either supporting or opposing some key health-care legislation. In a closely fought campaign for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District, Republican Mark Harris is following suit after his Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, accused Harris of wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare. We recently checked McCready’s claim and found it to be Half True. Harris has not supported any plans that would immediately cut these two programs, but has expressed that he wants an "overhaul" of Social Security. A Facebook ad, paid for by Harris, addresses this claim directly. "My opponent attacks me, alleging I want to cut Social Security and Medicare, when it was the liberal Democrats who back his campaign that cut $716 BILLION from Medicare to fund their healthcare scheme: Obamacare," the ad said. The ad has been running since Oct. 22, 2018. We are specifically checking if $716 billion was "cut" from Medicare in order to pay for Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health law passed in 2010. It. This is a claim PolitiFact has checked numerous times. Politicians have been using the $716 billion number since at least 2012. Old claim and old number In 2012, PolitiFact checked a similar claim from presidential candidate Mitt Romney and rated it Half True. Paul Ryan, Romney’s vice presidential pick in 2012 and now the speaker of the House, made a similar claim that year that got him a Mostly False rating. Finally, a 2015 claim by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was rated Half True. And there are many more. Politicians often were using the right number but the wrong context. Asked where Harris’s $716 billion figure comes from, Jason Williams, his campaign manager, shared a link of a Washington Post blog post from 2012. The article says Mitt Romney, former Republican presidential candidate, is right in saying Obamacare cuts the Medicare budget by $716 billion. And while there was a cut in spending, there was never a loss of services or a decrease in quality of services. But that article is more than six years old, and so are the government numbers it relies upon. So let’s take a fresh look. Cutting benefits? Harris’s claim makes it sound like the ACA cut benefits for the elderly. Matthew Fiedler from the Brookings Institution, a center-left think tank, says there isn’t any evidence of that. "The implication when this claim was made is that these harmed Medicare beneficiaries. That implication is not accurate. These were changes that reduced what physicians and hospitals received from Medicare," Fiedler said. The ACA aimed in part to bring down the future growth of costs in Medicare, offsetting some of the cost of the law. An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, from 2011, says the health-care legislation would "permanently reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services." "You might suggest maybe that reductions in payments may have reduced the quality in care. I don’t think there is a whole lot of evidence of that," Fiedler said. "Various other changes were aimed at giving hospitals and physicians incentives to provide better care." Fiedler said that prior to the ACA, people were paying more for medical services than they needed to in order to cover the costs. After the ACA, premiums and co-payments went down, saving Medicare beneficiaries money. The $716 billion figure was an estimate of how much would be saved. But that was a projection, and while Obamacare has been in effect for years, PolitiFact wasn’t able to find a recent estimate of what happened in reality. Any repeal or replacement bill that has passed through Congress actually included these same provisions, even Republican plans, according to Tricia Neuman, the senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care policy organization. "Subsequent proposals to repeal the ACA retained those Medicare savings. It’s sort of having it both ways for criticising ACA savings, but keeping them in subsequent proposals," Neuman said of Republicans. Neuman also said that the ACA improved drug coverage and preventative services for Medicare beneficiaries. Our rating Harris’s number would’ve been closer to the truth if this was 2012 and not 2018. However, his use of the number also gives a false impression. The number actually represented a projection of how much federal money Obamacare would save over the years, mainly at the expense of insurers, medical providers and hospitals. We rate this claim Mostly False. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters’ Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mark Harris	None	None	None	2018-11-03T17:00:32	2018-11-22	['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Medicare_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-snes-06147	"You've Received a (Hallmark) Postcard from a Family Member!" e-mails harbor a dangerous virus.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hallmark-postcard-family-member-virus/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Hallmark Postcard from a Family Member’ Virus	1 July 2007	None	['None']
-snes-04055	Drilling into the shell of an iPhone 7 will reveal the device's missing headphone jack.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iphone-7-headphone-jack/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Finding the ‘Hidden’ iPhone 7 Headphone Jack	12 September 2016	None	['None']
-tron-02522	Tape Sculptures	https://www.truthorfiction.com/tapeart/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Tape Sculptures	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-thet-00055	One of "my proudest achievements of the SNP government have been getting rid of charges for... tuition fees"	https://theferret.scot/sturgeon-snp-scrapped-tuition-fees/	None	Fact check 	First Minister Nicola Sturgeon	None	None	Sturgeon’s claim that SNP scrapped tuition fees is Mostly True	August 6, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01406	A family dog saved sleeping young children from sexual abuse by biting off an intruder's genitals.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bulldog-saves-sleeping-children/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did a Bulldog Bite Off a Pedophile’s Penis as He Tried to Rape Sleeping Children?	26 November 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11592	"In the past, we have foolishly released hundreds and hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield — including the ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi, who we captured, who we had, who we released."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/31/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-misleading-claim-about/	President Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to crack down on terrorists and blamed those before him for not doing enough in his first State of the Union speech. "In the past, we have foolishly released hundreds and hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield — including the ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi, who we captured, who we had, who we released," Trump said Jan. 30. Those claims are misleading. ‘We have foolishly released hundreds and hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield’ Trump is referring to the number of prisoners released from the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, who were confirmed of re-engaging in some type of terrorist activity. About every six months, the Director of National Intelligence releases figures about detainees transferred from Guantanamo and how many are known to have re-engaged in some sort of terrorist activity. The most recent report was published in October 2017 and includes data from 2002, when the prison opened, through July 2017. During that time, the U.S. government transferred more than 700 detainees from Guantanamo, and 122 of them were "confirmed of re-engaging" in some sort of terrorist activity. Eight of those transfers happened during the Obama administration. The remaining 114 — or over 92 percent — happened under George W. Bush. So Trump’s "hundreds and hundreds" is really 122 combatants spread out over 15 years. What about al-Baghdadi? Trump claimed that the United States was responsible for releasing Baghdadi back into the battlefield, but that claim is also missing key context. From early February 2004 until early December 2004, Baghdadi was held at a U.S. detention system known as Camp Bucca, according to the Defense Department. However, Baghdadi was not set free; he was handed over to the Iraqis in 2004, who released him some time later. In a previous fact-check, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro falsely tied President Barack Obama to Baghdadi’s release. Baghdadi was not in U.S. custody when Obama was in office. The framework for transfers was set up while Bush was president. The legal contract between the United States and Iraq guaranteed that the United States would give up custody of virtually every detainee. It would have required an extraordinary effort to have held on to Baghdadi, and there is no evidence that he was on anyone’s radar. Our ruling Trump said, "We have foolishly released hundreds and hundreds of dangerous terrorists, only to meet them again on the battlefield — including the ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi." Trump is overstating the number of prisoners released from Guantanamo, who were confirmed of re-engaging in some type of terrorist activity. That number is 122, not "hundreds and hundreds." He is also not entirely right that al-Baghdadi was "released" by the United States. The ISIS leader was was handed over to the Iraqi justice system, which released him some time later. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-01-31T00:25:09	2018-01-30	['None']
-tron-01387	Coke will give you free cans of soda for forwarding an email	https://www.truthorfiction.com/coke/	None	food	None	None	None	Coke will give you free cans of soda for forwarding an email	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00216	Americans can collect "Federal Rent Checks" by using Public Law 92-313 to their benefit.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/federal-rent-checks/	None	Business	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Does Public Law 92-313 Allow Americans to Claim ‘Federal Rent Checks’?	3 August 2018	None	['United_States']
-pomt-13222	Says Donald Trump "said as recently as a few weeks ago in Phoenix that every undocumented person would be subject to deportation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-still-promising-depor/	Immigration was one of the main topics during the final debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican contender Donald Trump. Asked about their positions, Trump reaffirmed his plans to build a wall along the southern border, get "bad hombres" out of the country and not give "amnesty." Clinton said she doesn’t want to rip families apart or "see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our country." As evidence, Clinton said that Trump "said as recently as a few weeks ago in Phoenix that every undocumented person would be subject to deportation." We wondered if in fact Trump said all undocumented people would be subject to deportation. Clinton’s campaign pointed to Trump’s immigration speech on Aug. 31 in Phoenix. In that 10-point speech, Trump started by talking about criminals, saying there would be "zero tolerance for criminal aliens." He said his administration would begin moving them out "Day One," working especially with police and law enforcement who "know who these people are." His fifth point centered on the enforcement of all immigration laws. The Clinton campaigned highlighted this part of the speech to back up Clinton’s debate comments. "In a Trump administration all immigration laws will be enforced ... As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities. But unlike this administration, no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement. And ICE and Border Patrol officers will be allowed to do their jobs the way their jobs are supposed to be done. Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country. Otherwise we don't have a country." Trump said his deportation priorities included criminals, security threats and visa overstays. According to some estimates, about 40 percent of the undocumented population came to the United States on visas and overstayed their departure date. While Trump emphasized removal of undocumented criminal immigrants and of those who arrived illegally, Clinton’s claim that every undocumented immigrant would be subject to deportation has merits. In other parts of the Phoenix speech, Trump said undocumented immigrants would eventually have to return to their home countries and apply for re-entry. "Those here illegally today, who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and one route only: To return home and apply for re-entry like everybody else, under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined," Trump said. But Trump also gave another mixed message within the same speech. He said that after accomplishing enforcement and deportation goals, after building a wall, ending illegal immigration and establishing a new lawful immigration system, "then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those individuals who remain." That suggests that while every undocumented person could potentially be deported ("subject to deportation"), they won’t all be deported. Our ruling Clinton claimed that Trump said "as recently as a few weeks ago in Phoenix that every undocumented person would be subject to deportation." Trump said Aug. 31 that anyone in the country illegally who wants lawful status has to go back home and apply for re-entry, and that those who came illegally are subject to deportation. But Trump also said "then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those individuals who remain." That suggests he doesn’t intend to deport literally every undocumented person. Clinton’s statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ac1ea82e-ae5f-46ba-ad05-e4114efd4e0d	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-10-20T00:57:54	2016-10-19	['Phoenix,_Arizona']
-snes-03704	Former Clinton Foundation CEO Eric Braverman sought asylum in Russia after Wikileaks documents unmasked him as a mole.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eric-braverman-seeks-asylum-in-russia/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Kremlin in Turmoil After Clinton Foundation CEO Requests ‘Urgent and Immediate’ Asylum	25 October 2016	None	['Russia', 'Clinton_Foundation']
-pomt-08753	Gov. Rick Perry "has overseen the highest Texas unemployment in 22 years."	/texas/statements/2010/aug/28/back-basics/back-basics-pac-says-gov-rick-perry-has-overseen-t/	In a full-page ad that ran Tuesday in newspapers across Texas, including the Austin American-Statesman, a political action group asks voters to "tell Rick Perry to stop cowering and face Texans like a man." It's the latest salvo in the crossfire over which gubernatorial candidate is afraid to debate: Democrat Bill White or GOP incumbent Rick Perry, who says he's waiting for White to release more of his income tax returns. The ad, paid for by Back to Basics, a pro-White PAC, claims Perry is scared to "defend his miserable record." Among its charges: Perry, who's been governor for 10 years, "has overseen the highest Texas unemployment in 22 years." That's practically a whole generation. Is it true? After contacting Back to Basics, we learned that its researchers had looked at annual unemployment data for Texas from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics and compared those rates with the average thus far for 2010, which is 8.3 percent. The last time the annual rate was higher was 1987 — 23 years ago -- when it was 8.5 percent. Following the advice of Cheryl Abbot, an economist for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in Dallas, we examined monthly statewide unemployment rates that have been seasonally adjusted, which accounts for temporary employment surges (such as during the Christmas holidays). The state's all-time low is 4.2 percent, which it hit most recently in January 2001, shortly after Perry took office. The all-time high: 9.3 percent, in November 1986. During Perry's tenure, the highest monthly unemployment rate has been 8.3 percent, in April and May of 2010. The last time the unemployment rate was greater? July 1987, when it was 8.4 percent (Republican Bill Clements was re-elected as Texas' governor later that year.) So, considering unemployment on a monthly basis, the jobless rate in April 2010 was the highest it's been since July 1987, 22 years and nine months earlier. But that hasn't stopped Perry from praising Texas' economic performance during his tenure. "We’re dealing with joblessness like everyone else is, but our unemployment rate is more than a full point below the national average thanks to the strength of our economy," the governor said in a speech prepared for delivery Aug. 12 in West Texas. Texas' seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in July was 8.2 percent, compared with the national rate of 9.5 percent. Responding to Back to Basics' statement that the governor "has overseen the highest Texas unemployment in 22 years," Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry's campaign, told us that "we are one of the few states that continues creating jobs and attracting renowned companies to relocate and expand within our borders." Asked to point to specific ways that Perry has contributed to the state's economic health, Frazier said the governor has "led the charge to establish the Texas Enterprise Fund" to encourage companies to expand in Texas. She also said Perry "has worked with state leadership to uphold principles of low taxes, fiscal restraint and reasonable regulations, which are the reasons Texas is ahead of the pack economically compared to other states." Still, we wondered how much credit — or blame — governors deserve for the employment situation in their states, and asked several experts that question. "The short answer: Their power is very limited," said Susan Hansen, a political science professor at the University of Pittsburgh. In a 1999 article in the journal Political Research Quarterly, Hansen argues that the Federal Reserve — with its power to affect interest rates — the president and Congress "have far more influence over the nation's economy (and) unemployment ... than do the states in our federal system. State elected officials seem to be well aware of their vulnerability to economic downturns, and their policy efforts (symbolic though they may be) must be considered in this light." Such "symbolic" efforts, wrote Hansen, run the gamut from economic-development programs to overseas trips to promote a state's business climate — all things Perry has done. Hansen also said state programs that use incentives to lure companies — like the Texas Enterprise Fund — are "marginal at best" in boosting employment. Paul Brace, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, said that virtually every state offers such programs and that their actual benefits are exaggerated. The Texas Enterprise Fund has spent $397 million since 2003 on projects that have generated "more than 53,600 new jobs," according to an Aug. 18 news release from the governor's office, which oversees that fund. To put that number in context, Texas had a net gain of about a million nonfarm jobs between 2003 and 2010, according to the Texas Workforce Commission. Jobs credited to the enterprise fund are about 5 percent of that total. More important, the experts agreed, were the state's strength in sectors where employment remains high, particularly natural resources and agriculture. Brace cited the state's housing markets, which avoided the worst pain of the subprime mortgage crisis, and the absence of a personal income tax in Texas. When asked what role the governor may have played in the Texas rise in unemployment, Abbot of the Bureau of Labor Statistics said that higher jobless rates are a national trend and "you could only say that (Perry) had a part in it in the sense that all other 49 governors had a part" in growing joblessness nationwide. Cliff Walker, director of the Back to Basics PAC, said that "as CEO of the state, (Perry) certainly touts his success in creating a strong economic climate. If he takes credit for that, why shouldn't he also take the responsibility for "the state's job losses?" Perhaps because the first is politically advantageous while the second is not. Either way, the experts we talked to agreed that governors have little to do with statewide job losses or gains that take place on their watch. As Brace put it: "Overall unemployment wasn't (Perry's) fault, but our relatively good performance also has little to do with what he did." In other words, synchronous events don't necessarily add up to responsibility. We made the same point in our January ruling (Pants on Fire!) on a Republican Party claim that as mayor of Houston, White "presided over" construction of a Planned Parenthood "abortion clinic." We found White no more responsible for the privately funded clinic than he was for the weather or baseball playoffs during his tenure. In this case, Back to Basics' numbers stand up: The state's unemployment rate under Perry has hit a 22-year high. But the suggestion that the governor is to blame does not. We rate Back to Basics' statement as Half True.	None	Back to Basics	None	None	None	2010-08-28T06:00:00	2010-08-24	['Texas', 'Rick_Perry']
-tron-02841	95 Year Old Former U.S. Naval Sailor Tells Obama to Shape up or Ship Out	https://www.truthorfiction.com/harold-estes-obama-letter/	None	obama	None	None	None	95 Year Old Former U.S. Naval Sailor Tells Obama to Shape up or Ship Out	Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States']
-goop-00222	Jennifer Aniston ‘Can’t Escape’ Justin Theroux Following Death Of Friend’s Assistant During Honeymoon?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-honeymoon-death-lawsuit/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Aniston ‘Can’t Escape’ Justin Theroux Following Death Of Friend’s Assistant During Honeymoon?	5:03 pm, September 24, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-07173	"Obamacare cuts $500 billion in future Medicare funding in order to fund the new constitutionally questionable government mandate, even going so far as to scuttle Medicare's most popular (and successful) part, Medicare Advantage."	/florida/statements/2011/jun/10/mike-haridopolos/mike-haridopolos-takes-health-care-bill-newspaper-/	The federal health care law returned to the news June 8, 2011, when a trio of federal judges heard oral arguments over whether Congress can force people to either buy health insurance or pay penalties. Which means for us ... more claims about the health care law. This one comes from Florida Senate President Mike Haridopolos, a Republican running for Bill Nelson's seat in the U.S. Senate in 2012. Haridopolos published an op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel on June 9 titled "More need protection under Medicare reform." Here are the first 200 words or so: Liberal politicians and media pundits in Washington have repeatedly sold us a false paradigm that we can either reform government spending, or we can protect the promise we've made to Americans in need, including seniors. What if I told you we could do both? Everyone should start from the position that no one will be helped if America falls into bankruptcy. That's why I worked with Florida legislators during the 2011 session to pass a resolution rejecting Obamacare, countering the dangerous cuts this new government entitlement made to current programs, including Medicare, in order to fund new ones. It's not a political ploy. It's a question of government making promises and breaking them at a time when millions of Americans are counting on them most. Here's what I mean: Obamacare funds welfare for able adults on the backs of seniors that have already paid their dues. Obamacare cuts $500 billion in future Medicare funding in order to fund the new constitutionally questionable government mandate, even going so far as to scuttle Medicare's most popular (and successful) part, Medicare Advantage. Strip aside the derisive references to Obamacare and you have an interesting two-part claim. One, that the federal health care law "cuts $500 billion in future Medicare funding." And two, that it "scuttle(s) Medicare's most popular (and successful) part, Medicare Advantage." PolitiFact has addressed the $500 billion in Medicare "cuts" several times, but since the topic keeps reappearing, we think it's time for a refresher course. By way of introduction, Medicare serves as the health insurance program for 39 million seniors and another eight million people under 65 receiving Social Security. Medicare makes up 12 percent of the federal budget. Medicare reforms were part of the 2010 health care legislation. Some reforms increase Medicare spending to improve benefits and coverage, said Tricia Neuman, who is vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation -- a trusted independent source. For instance, the health care law adds $5 billion to help cover prevention services and $43 billion to help fill in a gap for enrollees purchasing prescription drugs through the Medicare Part D program (sometimes called the doughnut hole). Other provisions reduce the growth in Medicare spending to help the program operate more efficiently and help pay for coverage expansions to the uninsured in the underlying health reform legislation, Neuman said. And yet other provisions are designed to improve the delivery and quality of care. (Neuman explains the changes in an easily digestible tutorial on the Kaiser Family Foundation's website. It's the best non-ideological explanation we've seen.) The key for us is noting that the law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget. Rather, the bill attempts to slow the program's future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in future spending increases over the next 10 years. Medicare spending will still increase. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. So while the health care law reduces the amount of future spending increases in Medicare, the law doesn't cut Medicare. Haridopolos' wording is better than similar claims we've seen. Again, he wrote that the health care law "cuts $500 billion in future Medicare funding." It would have been better, though, had he added the word "increased" somewhere, and referred to Medicare spending rather than funding. The spending reductions to Medicare are intended to offset, to some extent, the overall cost of the new health care law, which applies to everyone. So where does the $500 billion in savings come from? Nearly $220 billion comes from reducing annual increases in payments that health care providers would otherwise receive from Medicare. Other savings include $36 billion from increases in premiums for higher-income beneficiaries and $12 billion from administrative changes. A new national board will be tasked to identify $15.5 billion in savings, but the board -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- is prohibited from proposing anything that would ration care or reduce or modify benefits. None of those are cuts in the traditional sense. Then there's another $136 billion in projected savings that would come from changes to the Medicare Advantage program. About 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. A perfect segue to Haridopolos' second claim: The health care bill will "scuttle" Medicare Advantage. There are two basic ways most people get Medicare coverage. They enroll in traditional Medicare and a prescription drug plan through the government and maybe buy a supplemental policy to cover most out-of-pocket costs. Or they enroll in Medicare Advantage programs (they include drug plans), which are run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage programs typically have more generous benefits such as dental and vision coverage. Some plans even pay the patient’s monthly Medicare premium, which can amount to about $100. The Medicare Advantage program was intended to bring more efficiency from the private sector to the Medicare program, but it hasn't worked as planned. A June 2009 analysis from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said that the Advantage programs cost taxpayers an average of 14 percent more than the traditional Medicare plan. President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that the Medicare Advantage plan wastes public money that could be put to better use. The health care law phases out extra payments for Medicare Advantage programs, starting modestly in 2012, to bring their costs in line with traditional Medicare. The change is expected to result in fewer extra benefits offered by providers and higher out-of-pocket costs for enrollees, though the exact changes will fluctuate across the country. Actuaries with The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services said in October 2010 that the estimated out-of-pocket expenses to Medicare Advantage participants will increase by $873 in 2019, when the law is fully implemented. Remember, though, Medicare Advantage participants often get benefits traditional Medicare enrollees do not. The same actuaries also said the number of Medicare Advantage enrollees may be cut in half by 2017 under terms of the law. Those who drop out of Medicare Advantage are still eligible to opt back into traditional Medicare. But since that study, the impact of the Medicare Advantage cuts has been softened. The health care law included bonuses to high-performing plans -- plans that receive four or five stars on a five-star scale. The idea was to keep the most cost-effective plans in business. But in April 2011, the government decided to expand the pool of Medicare Advantage plans eligible for the bonuses, saying that average-quality plans with just three or three-and-a-half stars would also get bonuses. The change infuses an additional $6.7 billion into Medicare Advantage. According to the Associated Press, four out of five Medicare Advantage enrollees are in plans that are now eligible for a bonus. Without the changes, only one in four would have been in plans getting the extra payments. The bonuses are only temporary, however, and cuts will resume in 2015. To recap: In a Sentinel op-ed, Haridopolos made two claims about the federal health care law. He said it "cuts $500 billion in future Medicare funding" and would "scuttle Medicare's most popular (and successful) part, Medicare Advantage." There are elements of truth in each claim. The $500 billion in "cuts" are actually cuts to future increased spending, so we give Haridopolos some credit for not simply calling it cuts to Medicare as so many others have done. And Medicare Advantage isn't going away as part of the new health care law. Instead, the law tries to put Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare programs on even-footing with respect to costs to the taxpayer. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Mike Haridopolos	None	None	None	2011-06-10T14:21:30	2011-06-09	['Medicare_(United_States)', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-tron-01848	Ziploc Bags Full of Pennies and Water Keep Flies Away	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ziploc-bags-full-of-pennies-and-water-keep-flies-away/	None	household	None	None	None	Ziploc Bags Full of Pennies and Water Keep Flies Away	Jun 11, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01488	Iceland has passed a law requiring mental health warnings to be placed on all Bibles.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iceland-mandates-mental-health-warnings-on-all-bibles/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Iceland Mandates Mental Health Warnings on All Bibles?	2 November 2017	None	['Iceland', 'Bible']
-pomt-14873	"We already pay the highest electricity prices in the country here in New England."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/12/richard-paglia/electricity-rates-here-are-high-not-highest/	Over the next four to five years, New England’s power grid is expected to lose thousands of megawatts of electricity as power plants, such as Brayton Point in Somerset, head into retirement. The planned shutdowns, including the closure of Plymouth’s Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, will heighten demand for electricity from other sources, including plants fueled by natural gas. And some say New Englanders could see higher electricity prices without an ample supply of natural gas. This is where Richard Paglia and his company, Houston-based Spectra Energy, come in. An upgrade to gas pipelines and gas storage capacity would expand supply and lower electricity prices, says Paglia. Some critics of Spectra’s various infrastructure projects, including two men who locked themselves to the front gates of the company’s Burrillville compressor station over the summer, oppose greater use of fossil fuels. "Without that project going forward, we will really be constrained," Paglia said during an appearance on WPRI’s Executive Suite. "We already pay the highest electricity prices in the country here in New England." The costliest electricity in the country? We thought this was worth a check. Our research found that the average cost of electricity in New England is higher than other regions of the continental United States. But an emphasis on the words "region" and "continental" is important. In August 2015, the average price of electricity for New England’s six states was about 18.1 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a price monitoring report issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Oct. 27. The average price for electricity in the state of California, 18.2 cents, slightly exceeded New England’s average. But California’s averages were lower during the winter of 2015. Also, in August, California’s region, which encompasses Oregon and Washington, had less expensive electricity than New England. Washington state’s average of 9.4 cents – the lowest in the country – helped hold the average price in its Pacific coast region to 15.7 cents. In comparison, the average for Rhode Island this past August was 18.7 cents. In the region that encompasses New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, the average was 16.5 cents. In general, electricity was significantly less expensive elsewhere in the continental United States, away from the northeast and California coast. But in a region that the EIA refers to as "Pacific Noncontiguous," which encompasses just Alaska and Hawaii, the average price of electricity was almost 27 cents. Hawaii’s average electricity price was about 30 cents while Alaska’s was 21 cents. A spokesman for Spectra, Creighton A. Welch, acknowledged that the New England region’s electricity prices are only highest in the continental United States. "The main message here," said Welch, "is that it’s a shame New England’s electric costs are so high relative to nearby regions – especially when practically next door sits a vast supply of affordable, domestic natural gas – that they are limiting economic competitiveness and growth in the region. It’s critical that we solve this energy challenge." Our ruling New England had the priciest electricity in the continental United States according to a government report that compares New England to other regions of the country. The same report shows that California’s electricity was more expensive than electricity in four of six New England states. Meanwhile, Hawaii and Alaska are U.S. states and electricity within both of those states was more expensive than the New England region’s average. The average for the region that both states are grouped in was more expensive, too. The statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details. For this reason, we rate it Half True	None	Richard Paglia	None	None	None	2015-11-12T00:00:00	2015-11-01	['New_England']
-snes-06274	Forwarding an e-mail message will help Amy Bruce, a 7-year-old girl dying of lung cancer and a brain tumor.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amy-bruce-slow-dance/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	David Mikkelson	None	Amy Bruce – Slow Dance	26 March 2005	None	['None']
-pose-00374	Will "support doubling federal funding for basic research over ten years, changing the posture of our federal government...to one that embraces science and technology. This will foster home-grown innovation, help ensure the competitiveness of US technology-based businesses, and ensure that 21st century jobs can and will grow in America."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/393/double-federal-funding-for-basic-science-research-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Double federal funding for basic science research over 10 years	2010-01-07T13:26:57	None	['United_States']
-snes-03134	No Wash Trump	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-no-wash-trick/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Donald Trump Advocate a ‘No-Wash’ Bathroom Trick in ‘The Art of the Deal’?	16 January 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01159	Photographs show a 7-month-old white fox that was skinned alive to make a fur coat for musician Lady Gaga.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-this-7-month-old-white-fox-skinned-alive-for-lady-gagas-fur-coat/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Was This 7-Month-Old White Fox Skinned Alive for Lady Gaga’s Fur Coat?	22 January 2018	None	['Lady_Gaga']
-farg-00261	"Candidates for 40 years, both parties, this is not a partisan statement, have released their tax returns. Richard Nixon released his tax returns."	https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/kaine-muffs-trump-nixon-comparison/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Tim Kaine	Robert Farley	['Presidential Election 2016', 'tax returns']	Kaine Muffs Trump-Nixon Comparison	September 2, 2016	[' Speech in Pennsylvania – Tuesday, August 30, 2016 ']	['Richard_Nixon']
-pomt-13195	In 1928 "school boards sent home letters with children saying that if Al Smith is elected president, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/24/hillary-clinton/clinton-school-boards-anti-catholic-scare-tactics-/	A warning to political junkies: This has very little to do with the burning issues of the presidential campaign. Sometimes, we just like to fact-check claims about history. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton dropped an intriguing nugget in our laps when she spoke at the Alfred E. Smith memorial dinner in New York on Oct. 20, 2016. After making joke after joke at Donald Trump’s expense, Clinton turned serious and reminded her audience of the anti-Catholic bigotry Al Smith faced when he ran for president in 1928. Most of the arguments against Smith stemmed from the belief that Smith would be a puppet for Rome and the pope. One conspiracy theory was that the pope and Smith would ban protestant versions of the Bible. "It is important to just reflect how groundbreaking it was for him, a Catholic, to be my party's nominee for president," she said. "Don't forget, school boards sent home letters with children saying that if Al Smith is elected president, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible." We wondered if that was so. The Clinton campaign pointed us to a New York Times article from 2011. In the article, historian Robert Slayton at Chapman University described the hysteria stirred up by Smith’s candidacy. "Feelings were so strong that they swirled into a hurricane of abuse, a crescendo of fear and hate blasting through eight weeks," Slayton wrote. "The school board of Daytona Beach, Fla., sent a note home with every student. It read simply: ‘We must prevent the election of Alfred E. Smith to the Presidency. If he is elected President, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible.’ " Clinton made the school boards plural; Slayton only mentioned one. We asked Slayton if he had an image of the note. He didn’t, although he said the anecdote might have come from a 1932 book The Shadow of the Pope by Michael Williams. We tracked down the book in the stacks at the Georgetown University library. Williams described something appreciably different from what Clinton and Slayton had said. Williams wrote about a Sunday school -- a class held on Sundays to teach about religion --, not a public school board. "On September 16, 1928, a Sunday school in Daytona Beach, Fla., (said the Daytona Times), was reported as acquiescing in a plan whereby the children were handed cards and told to pass them on the their mothers. "It is stated that the cards declared: ‘We must prevent the election of Alfred E. Smith to the Presidency. If he is chosen President, you will not be allowed to have or read a Bible.’ " Williams went on to write that this plan "is reported to have originated in St. Paul, Minn., and to have been used in other places." So it’s possible that other Sunday schools did this, but we don’t really know. We’ve tried without luck to find the Daytona Times report. If anyone reading this is able to find the article, or find an example from St. Paul, we welcome the help. Our ruling Clinton said that in 1928, school boards sent kids home with a note warning that if Al Smith were elected president, they would not be allowed to own or read a Bible. It appears that reference tracks back to a 1932 book, and a newspaper article before that, that spoke of a Sunday school in Daytona Beach passing out a note. There is a chance that other Sunday schools in other states did likewise, but we don’t have proof of that. There is a big difference between a Sunday school and a public school. The anti-Catholic sentiment Clinton talked about was real and there’s credible evidence that the note she described went home with some children. But her statement is only partially accurate. We rate this claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fd009790-f44c-49a8-909f-e659f86df74b	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-10-24T16:23:41	2016-10-20	['Bible', 'Al_Smith']
-tron-01126	Hillary Clinton once supported Black Panthers on trial for murder	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hillarypanthers/	None	crime-police	None	None	['criminal justice', 'hillary clinton', 'liberal agenda', 'the clintons']	Hillary Clinton once supported Black Panthers on trial for murder	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Black_Panther_Party']
-pomt-01480	Under Scott Walker, "right now, we’re 46th in the country in terms of new businesses started."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/29/mary-burke/wisconsin-under-scott-walker-near-bottom-new-busin/	In a Milwaukee Public Radio interview on Sept. 22, 2014, Democrat Mary Burke critiqued Gov. Scott Walker’s jobs strategy, saying the Republican governor "generally believes that you give tax breaks to those at the top and the special interests and somehow it trickles down and creates jobs." "Well, I’m a business person. That’s not how jobs get created," countered Burke, who formerly served as a Trek Bicycle Corp. executive and state Commerce secretary. "So, it’s a flawed model and I have a very different model and I lay out in my jobs plan the five core strategies on how we’re going to do this," Burke continued, before making a claim we want to check. "It means we need to have a more entrepreneurial climate in Wisconsin. That’s one of them (her five strategies). Right now, we’re 46th in the country in terms of new businesses started." Just the other day, we rated True a Walker claim that Wisconsin ranks 11th "in total business establishment growth," compared with 47th in the years that Burke was Commerce secretary. So we wondered whether Burke’s claim contradicts that. As we’ll see, terminology is key. Different measures Walker referred to "business establishments," a term that means a business location, such as a new store or factory or farm. A single company can have multiple "establishments," and new "establishments" can be opened by existing or new firms. So it’s a particular measure. Burke’s terminology is different than Walker’s, and refers to a different measuring stick. In October 2013, days after announcing her candidacy for governor, Burke said Wisconsin was 49th in the United States in "new businesses created." We rated her statement Mostly True. Burke cited the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, an annual study produced by the nonpartisan Kauffman Foundation, a Kansas City-based group that works to foster entrepreneurial activity. Business administration professor Stewart Thornhill, executive director of the Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies at the University of Michigan, told us it is a widely cited measure. The index uses U.S. Census data to capture the number of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity. In Kauffman’s 2013 index, Wisconsin tied with Michigan for 48th among the states in the number of entrepreneurs per 100,000 people, ahead of only Nebraska and Minnesota. So, what’s the landscape now? Burke’s evidence To back Burke’s new claim, her campaign cited the 2014 Kauffman index. Here are the states rated lowest in terms of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity: Rank/State Entrepreneurs per 100,000 people U.S. average 280 (tie) Wisconsin and Washington 170 (tie) Minnesota and Indiana 160 Rhode Island 140 Iowa 110 So, Wisconsin is actually one notch higher than Burke indicated. On one hand, tying for 45th is an improvement from 48th in the 2013 index. On the other hand, Wisconsin’s 2014 rate of 170 entrepreneurs per 100,000 people is actually lower than its 2013 rate of 180. (Montana ranked first in both 2013 and 2014. Its 2014 rate was 610 entrepreneurs per 100,000 people.) Walker’s response Walker campaign spokeswoman Alleigh Marré pointed out that in our earlier Burke factcheck, the Kauffman Foundation warned that its index isn’t meant to provide a precise ranking of states. But its report in effect does that by reporting precise ratings and singling out states in the top five highest and lowest groups. Marré also cited other business-creation statistics, including the Walker claim about total business establishment growth. But, again, that is a different measure than the one Burke cites. Our rating Burke said Wisconsin is "46th in the country in terms of new businesses started." Wisconsin actually ties for 45th in the well-known Kauffman index, in terms of new business owners in their first month of significant business activity. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page.	None	Mary Burke	None	None	None	2014-09-29T05:00:00	2014-09-22	['None']
-tron-01258	President Trump: Community College is 13th Grade, Not Real College	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-trump-community-college-is-13th-grade-not-real-college-fiction/	None	education	None	None	['donald trump', 'education', 'social media']	President Trump: Community College is 13th Grade, Not Real College	 Apr 6, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00040	"Obama is a cosponsor and strong advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bipartisan effort to make the unionization process more transparent and increase penalties on companies that violate employee rights. He will sign EFCA into law as president."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/43/sign-the-employee-free-choice-act-making-it-easie/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize	2010-01-07T13:26:46	None	['Employee_Free_Choice_Act', 'Barack_Obama']
-pose-01248	"I will work with the business community to develop a new state economic plan for North Carolina ... This will include working closely with each of our unique regions."	https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/promises/coop-o-meter/promise/1339/new-economic-development-plans/	None	coop-o-meter	Roy Cooper	None	None	New economic development plans	2017-01-06T10:35:47	None	['None']
-wast-00001	I would note that Planned Parenthood opposed three pro-choice justices just because they were nominated by Republican presidents, David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Kennedy. They said the same thing: Women will die.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/09/susan-collinss-wrong-claim-planned-parenthood-supreme-court-justices/	None	None	Susan Collins	Glenn Kessler	None	Susan Collins's wrong claim on Planned Parenthood and Supreme Court justices	October 9 at 3:00 AM	None	['David_Souter', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Planned_Parenthood']
-faan-00069	 “Over the past 30 years, median after-tax family incomes in Canada, those of the middle class, have only increased by 15 per cent.”	http://factscan.ca/justin-trudeau-median-after-tax-family-incomes/	It is true that in three decades, from 1980 to 2011, incomes rose by 15 per cent. But the aggregate 30-year period misses other parts of the income growth story, including a higher-growth period starting in the late 1990s. 	None	Justin Trudeau	None	None	None	2015-08-05	pril 23, 2015	['Canada']
-goop-00717	Robert Pattinson Did “Hint” At “Possible Reunion” With Kristen Stewart, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/robert-pattinson-kristen-stewart-possible-reunion-fake-news/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Robert Pattinson Did NOT “Hint” At “Possible Reunion” With Kristen Stewart, Despite Claim	8:55 pm, June 29, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04885	Says Romney would add "trillions" to the deficit while Obama would "cut the deficit by $4 trillion."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/barack-obama/mitt-romney-would-add-trillions-deficit-while-obam/	Editor’s note: After we published this item, we were alerted that our description of the position of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget contained incomplete information. We reviewed that description, interviewed the committee’s staff again, made changes, and re-published our report on Sept. 19, 2012. The text of our original report is archived here. The ruling remains Half True. President Barack Obama would like to cast Mitt Romney as a retread of the George W. Bush years. His campaign’s latest ad lists some prominent features of the Bush presidency and has Romney’s plans matching them item for item. Here’s what the ad says: "You watched and worried. Two wars. Tax cuts for millionaires. Debt piled up. Mitt Romney's plan? A new $250,000 tax cut for millionaires. Increase military spending. Adding trillions to the deficit. Or President Obama's plan. A balanced approach. 4 trillion in deficit reduction. Millionaires pay a little more." In this fact check, we’ll look at the statement about the deficit. Would Romney’s plan add trillions while Obama’s cut the deficit by $4 trillion? Both candidates have put forward proposals, and independent analysts have tallied the impacts over the next 10 years. While predictions that far out are never guaranteed, they do provide some useful comparisons. Romney’s plan Romney has outlined specific tax cuts on his campaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent. To offset those cuts, Romney has suggested that he would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes. There are many tax breaks for individuals and businesses. Which ones will be reduced or eliminated? Romney doesn’t say. For individuals, two of the biggest are the home mortgage deduction and the tax-free treatment of health insurance benefits. For companies, industries from oil and gas to agriculture enjoy tax deductions and exemptions. Romney’s goal is to spur growth by giving people fewer opportunities and incentives to game the system. He promises that broadening the tax base will not be a back door tax hike. "Washington’s problem is not too little revenue," Romney says. "But rather, too much spending." On the expenditure side, Romney says he will bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term. Defense is not on the chopping block -- he would "reverse" the cuts proposed by President Obama -- but everything else is. Romney endorses capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels. He would cap Medicaid, turn it into a block grant to the states and limit increases to 1 percent a year. We should note that Romney has been highly complimentary of the House Republican budget plan, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Romney says the plan moves in the direction he wants to go on spending. But the plans are not identical. For example, Romney favors more defense spending. And on taxes, Ryan would reduce the number of tax brackets to two, while Romney would keep the usual six. In Romney’s most detailed spending plan, he said he will "pursue further entitlement reform." He makes no specific proposals on Social Security or Medicare but says there are many options to keep both systems solvent. Romney says he will reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent and consolidate agencies. Romney’s lack of detail on both the tax and spending sides raises uncertainty among independent budget analysts. The Tax Policy Center, a collaboration of the Urban Institute and Brookings, said it was impossible to precisely gauge the impact on total tax revenues because Romney doesn’t say how he would expand the tax base. With no change in the tax base, the center estimated that by 2015, tax collections would be about $900 billion less than you would expect under current law. "That would be fine with me," said Chris Edwards, head of the libertarian Cato Institute’s project on downsizing the government. "But Romney should match it with equal proposed spending cuts, which I don’t think he’s done. He might give a percentage of GDP target for spending, but I think candidates should be specific." The Obama campaign cited an article by Josh Barro, now lead writer for the Bloomberg Ticker, as one of the sources of their claim that Romney’s plan would add trillions to the deficit. Barro estimates the 10-year cost of all of Romney’s tax cuts would be $5 trillion. But Barro himself says Romney is too vague for anyone to draw the definitive conclusion made in the Obama ad. "There’s a strong case to be made that it would add to the deficit," Barro told us. "But I would take it more as an opinion than a factual statement." Still, Barro is skeptical that Romney’s plan would hold up. "It is politically unlikely that you would be able to come up with enough spending cuts and base broadening to achieve $5 trillion in revenue reductions," he said. Finally, there is the assessment from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan organization focused on debt reduction. They estimate that Romney’s plan will increase the deficit by a total of $2.6 trillion by 2021. Jeff Vanke, senior policy analyst at the committee, says the Romney campaign consistently declines to describe how they will broaden the tax base and compensate for lower tax rates. "We’ve asked them several times if they can specify any offsetting reduction," Vanke said. "They have said each time that we’ll have to wait." Vanke’s tally of the missing numbers from theRomney plan looks like this: Revenue lost from reducing individual tax rates by 20 percent and eliminating the AMT -- $2.3 trillion Revenue lost from reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent-- $1.1 trillion Spending cuts needed to offset defense spending hikes -- $2.3 trillion Looking at a 10-year period through 2022, Vanke says Romney has not explained $5.7 trillion in tax changes and spending cuts. Obama’s plan The president’s plan for deficit reduction relies on a blend of tax reductions for some, tax hikes for others and spending cuts. On the tax side, he would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for single people making over $200,000 and couples making over $250,000. Those higher-income earners would also see a drop in the tax benefit of their itemized deductions.The estate tax would go back up to 2009 levels. Big banks would pay as much as $61 billion more. He would eliminate tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Obama would extend the payroll tax cuts for employers with deeper reductions for firms with 20 workers or less. The corporate tax rate would fall from 35 percent to 28 percent. Like Romney, he would broaden the tax base by eliminating tax breaks. In contrast to Romney, Obama has an extensive list of tax breaks he would eliminate. They can be arcane. For example: Repeal last-in, first-out (LIFO) method of accounting for inventories Determine the foreign tax credit on a pooling basis Repeal lower-of-cost-or-market inventory accounting method Eliminate special treatment of carried interest On the spending side, Obama proposes $580 billion in cuts to a number of programs that range from agricultural subsidies to rental assistance to airport construction. In 2011, Obama proposed some $320 billion in health program cuts. Washington would pay less to drug makers and nursing homes. In the long run, many states would shoulder a larger share of Medicaid costs. The Obama plan includes many hikes in user fees and related payments. Federal workers would pay more into their retirement fund. Higher income Medicare beneficiaries would pay more for Part B premiums and drug coverage. Air travelers would see a rise in the security fee added to a ticket. Gold and silver mining companies would pay higher royalties. Changing baselines The Obama campaign claims that over 10 years, it would trim deficits by $4 trillion. Many assumptions lie behind that statement but the most important question is, compared to what? No budget projection makes sense unless it’s measured against some baseline. A baseline is an analyst’s best guess as to what the deficit would be if things were left to themselves. Changes in tax law, government spending and economic growth are just some of the major factors that drive baseline estimates. The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, looked at the president’s 2013 budget and concluded that it would increase the cumulative deficit by $3.5 trillion over its baseline between now and 2022. That greatly undercuts Obama’s argument that he is saving money. But the CBO baseline assumed that all of the Bush tax cuts and other tax breaks would expire. It assumed that Congress would stick to all the spending caps in the deficit reduction law it passed to avoid a government default. Many, if not most, analysts doubt that the CBO baseline is realistic. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has its own baseline. Unlike the CBO, it assumes that Congress will find a way around the deepest budget cuts and that it will extend the tax cuts to some degree. Where the CBO predicts that the total debt held by the public will stand at about 76 percent of GDP by 2022, the committee thinks the number will be more like 86 percent. It’s important to keep this in mind: A baseline that predicts a higher deficit, either in terms of dollars or as a percentage of the GDP, makes it easier for a deficit reduction plan to look good. The worse the problem is expected to be, the bigger the gains from a solution. By the way, the CBO does craft an alternative baseline. Under that one, the total debt would be about 93 percent of GDP in 2022. Using the baseline developed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the president’s budget plan looks much better. Jason Peuquet, the committee’s research director, says it delivers about $2.4 trillion in new savings. Another group, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, estimates the number at $2.2 trillion. In order to get to $4 trillion, you need to add the savings that stem from spending cuts in 2011, both from the budget deal and earlier in the year. Obama includes those in his tally but they did not originate with his budget proposal. Peuquet warns that all numbers like these "can be gamed.". His group thinks the more important goal is to get deficits headed down relative to the size of the economy. On those terms, he says the president’s plan is a good start but does not go far enough. Our ruling The Obama campaign ad said Romney would increase the deficit by trillions while Obama would cut the deficit by $4 trillion. Obama's deficit reduction plan is much more specific than Romney's, but for a sitting president, that's expected. Still, independent analysts say that Romney's plan is so vague that it's difficult to know how his plan will impact the federal budget. What are missing are the politically sensitive details on which programs he would cut and which tax breaks he would reduce. What we do know indicates his plan could drive up deficits, potentially a great deal. The Obama plan offers enough details to estimate its impact with more accuracy. Independent analysts estimate savings of about $2.4 trillion over ten years due solely to his proposal. Obama’s plan on its own does not produce the full $4 trillion. Plus, estimates over 10 years are always uncertain and some analysts caution that achieving the $4 trillion goal by itself does less to solve the deficit problem than the president suggests. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-08-07T13:09:11	2012-07-31	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-04662	"We know there are more Democrats in Georgia than Republicans. We know that for a fact."	/georgia/statements/2012/sep/10/mike-berlon/which-party-has-more-supporters/	By most accounts, Georgia is as red politically as its famed clay. Not so, says the chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. "We know there are more Democrats in Georgia than Republicans. We know that for a fact," Mike Berlon said in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Political Insider blog as he and other party delegates gathered in Charlotte for the Democrats’ national convention. "The problem is, we don’t win because of turnout." It’s been nearly 20 years since a Democratic candidate for president won the state. Georgia’s governor, both of its U.S. senators and every statewide elected official are Republicans. In the Georgia Legislature, Republicans hold 115 of 180 House seats and 36 of 56 seats in the Senate. Considering such dominance, what’s the basis for claiming there are more Democrats in Georgia? Democratic leaders are hoping the state’s increasingly diverse electorate will help President Barack Obama pull off a victory in Georgia this year. Most polls, though, put Georgia on the Republican or leaning-Republican side of the scale. Berlon offered an explanation about why Democrats don’t win more statewide elections in the blog when he talked about turnout. Party spokesman Eric Gray forwarded us a spreadsheet that shows a slight majority of Georgians who voted in 2004 and 2008 elections considered themselves strong or leaned toward the Democrats. Gray said the data came from the Georgia secretary of state’s office, based on voter history. In Georgia, there is no partisan voter registration, so primaries are open to everyone regardless of party affiliation. And the secretary of state’s office doesn’t keep statistics on voters’ party preference. One way we attempted to glean which party has more voters was to examine the July 31, 2012, primary elections. Voters could choose whether to vote for candidates and various questions on the Democratic or Republican ballot. Most, by far, chose the GOP ballot. An average of 943,015 votes were cast on each Republican ballot question. An average of about 584,120 votes were cast on the four Democratic ballot questions. We also looked at the Feb. 5, 2008, presidential primaries, since both parties were choosing candidates to serve in the White House and both races were hotly contested. On that day, more Georgians voted in the Democratic Party primary than on the Republican ballot. We also looked at the Feb. 5, 2008, presidential primaries, since both parties were choosing candidates to serve in the White House and both races were hotly contested. On that day, more Georgians voted in the Democratic Party primary than on the Republican ballot. Nearly 1.1 million votes were cast on the Democratic side while about 960,000 votes were cast on the Republican side. The numbers for both elections were pulled from the secretary of state’s website. We also looked at polling data. Exit polls going back to 2006 and 2002 showed more Georgia voters identified themselves as Republican than Democrat, and the trend continued last year. A slim majority of Georgians identified themselves as Republicans in a December 2011 poll conducted for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. In the Mason-Dixon poll of 625 registered Georgia voters, 38 percent said they were Republicans, 35 percent identified themselves as Democrats and 27 percent claimed they were independents or were affiliated with another political party. The poll had a 4 percentage point margin of error. A Pew Research Center poll released in March 2008 found a near statistical tie in Georgia between those who identify themselves as Republicans (32 percent) and those who describe themselves as Democrats (31 percent). Berlon’s statement seems to have a sliver of support in a 2008 CNN exit poll following the general election that showed 38 percent of Georgia’s voters identified themselves as Democrats, and 35 percent identified as Republicans. Results of a survey conducted in August of this year for the liberal-leaning group Better Georgia seems to follow the trend of the 2008 exit poll. An August 2012 survey by 20/20 Insight of 1,500 registered Georgia voters reported 8 percent more voters identified as Democrats (39 percent) than Republicans (31 percent). The survey had a 2.5 percentage point margin of error. Despite those anomalies, a look at state voting patterns does not support Berlon’s statement, said Charles Bullock, a veteran political science professor at the University of Georgia. "Every one of the 15 statewide offices is filled by a Republican," Bullock said. "If we look at how people have actually voted, there is no evidence, at least in terms of voting behavior, that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the state." Gray described 2010 as a "wave election" in which Georgia Republicans had the advantage because many voters were angry about the economy and more energized. "Things were bad in 2010. Republicans were much more energized," he said. The party spokesman said the tide will turn in the Democrats’ favor this year. He also said the majority of Georgians who are not registered to vote are from demographic groups that typically vote for Democrats, such as African-Americans and Latinos. There’s little concrete evidence that definitively shows which party has more voters since Georgia does not allow partisan voter registration and the secretary of state’s office doesn’t keep statistics on voters’ party preference. There is some information that supports Berlon’s argument, and some that counter his claim. While more people voted Democrat in the 2008 primary, Republicans dominated in the 2010 statewide races, and more Georgians voted on the GOP ballot in July. The polling data says it’s close, but election results and the most recent makeup of the Georgia Legislature suggest there are more Georgians who consider themselves Republican. We give Berlon a Mostly False.	None	Mike Berlon	None	None	None	2012-09-10T06:00:00	2012-09-03	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-pomt-06436	"My son had to resign his job because of federal regulations that Washington has put on us."	/texas/statements/2011/oct/22/anita-perry/anita-perry-says-federal-regulation-made-her-son-q/	Speaking in South Carolina, Anita Perry sympathized with a questioner who’d lost his job, saying her son, Griffin, recently gave up his job. According to a CNN account posted Oct. 14, 2011, the first lady of Texas said: "My son had to resign his job because of federal regulations that Washington has put on us." "He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can't go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations," she said, referring to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "He has a wife. ... He's trying to start a business. So I can empathize." Was America’s potential "first son" forced out by a federal reg? The CNN post says Griffin Perry worked for Deutsche Bank, which is a global investment bank that offers investment, financial and related products and services to private individuals, corporate entities and institutional clients. CNN’s story also says it was unclear what SEC regulations Anita Perry was referring to, but the "commission adopted a new rule last year aimed at limiting political activity on the part of investment advisers." That rule was described at the time as intended to stop employees of firms that advise government agencies on investing public funds from getting unfair edges on such contracts by making contributions to candidates with possible sway over who gets hired to give the advice. According to an SEC press release, the commission unanimously adopted the rule June 30, 2010, or about 18 months into Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency. At the time, SEC spokesman John Nester told us, the commission consisted of an Obama appointee and four appointees of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. The commission had proposed a similar regulation in 1999, according to a June 30, 2010 New York Times news article. "Since then," the article says, "the SEC has brought enforcement actions against investment advisers in pay-to-play schemes involving public pension funds in states including California, Illinois, Ohio and Florida." The adopted rule doesn’t bar investment advisers from helping a candidate or even making huge campaign donations. However, an investment adviser risks being barred from getting paid for advising a government client for two years if any of certain employees make more than a minimal contribution--at most $350 per candidate per election--to a candidate or officeholder who could influence which firms get hired to advise agencies on investments. Also, the rule bars certain employees of such firms from soliciting contributions from others for a candidate or political committee, a practice known as bundling, if they also are providing or seeking government business. Nester told us the rule applies to senior staff members at investment advisory firms and employees who solicit business. Next, we wondered how the rule made Griffin Perry quit. According to information on the "Broker Check" website, overseen by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Perry was a registered broker for Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in Dallas from May 2008 through Oct. 11, 2011. Information on an SEC website says he also was an investment adviser representative. We failed to pin down his duties, though. Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Sigalit Grego had no comment. Perry’s campaign did not respond to our request to interview Griffin Perry. Deutsche Bank provides services for several Texas state agencies overseeing investment funds. Managers of the Permanent School Fund, the state’s public education endowment, use the firm as a broker, according to the Texas Education Agency. The Employees Retirement System of Texas told us the firm provides securities lending services, which is a way for investors to generate more money from stock without selling it. And Howard Goldman, spokesman for the Teacher Retirement System of Texas, said Deutsche Bank is among 40 brokerage firms that assist that system by executing trades for stock and other investment vehicles. Inquiring into why Perry had to quit due to the rule, we heard from a Perry campaign spokesman, Ray Sullivan, that the son’s "contribution of time and effort, and likely participation in campaign fundraising (e.g., speaking at fundraising events), would have likely triggered the new rule and resulting sanctions." By email, Sullivan said the rule severely restricts employees such as investment advisers "from participating in the campaigns of incumbent state and local officials like Gov. Perry." "Griffin Perry was a financial adviser and is now understandably involved in his father's presidential campaign activities," Sullivan said. "Therefore he could not continue to be employed by the bank without jeopardizing a new SEC rules violation, which would have banned his employer from certain business in the state of Texas." Sullivan shared an article by Scott Gluck, a specialist in securities law, in the Oct. 6, 2011, Hedge Fund Law Report, saying the rule "applies to virtually all domestic fund managers seeking to manage money on behalf of public pension funds." The article says too that pitching in for a state official running for president can be problematic, specifying that contributions to "presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry ... might trigger the rule." An SEC discussion of the rule when it was approved says the donation limit applies to donations to state officials seeking federal office "not because of the office he or she is running for, but as a result of an office he or she currently holds. So long as a (state or local) official has influence over the hiring of investment advisers as a function of his or her current office, contributions by an adviser could have the same effect, regardless to which of the official’s campaigns the adviser contributes." As much as donations are restricted, we noticed that the rule still permits someone at an investment firm to personally volunteer for a candidate. The SEC’s summary says: "A covered associate’s donation of his or her time generally would not be viewed as a contribution" in possible violation of the rule "if such volunteering were to occur during non-work hours." The summary also says the rule "does not in any way impinge on a wide range of expressive conduct in connection with elections. For example, the rule imposes no restrictions on activities such as making independent expenditures to express support for candidates, volunteering, making speeches, and other conduct." Sullivan, reminded of this element, replied: "Griffin will be involved in every part of the campaign, including raising the funds and volunteers we need." Pressed again, Sullivan asked: "Does the rule – in your view – allow Griffin to attend a luncheon fundraiser for or with his Dad? What are ‘non-work hours?’" We’re left not knowing the answers to several questions about the rule and Griffin Perry: Did his duties involve soliciting clients? Was he intent on bundling donations or contributing more than the rule’s permitted amount to the Perry campaign? Also, does Rick Perry’s position enable him to influence the hiring of particular outside advisers by state agencies managing public funds? If not, the rule would not be a factor. We’re left not knowing the answers to several questions about the rule and Griffin Perry: Did his duties involve soliciting clients? Was he intent on bundling donations or contributing more than the rule’s permitted amount to the Perry campaign? Also, does Rick Perry’s position enable him to influence the hiring of particular outside advisers by state agencies managing public funds? If not, the rule would not be a factor. Among experts on the regulation, Washington lawyer Ian Lanoff, former fiduciary counsel to the Teachers Retirement System of Texas, reminded us Perry might have pitched in for the campaign and kept his job because the rule "permits an employee of a state pension fund investment adviser to perform political volunteer work as long as his firm doesn't subsidize the volunteer work he performs." Terry Nelson, a Wisconsin lawyer versed in securities issues, said: "A large organization like that, they’re probably going to cut ties to people who bring them issues that hamper the business they can conduct in a big state like Texas, no matter what your name is." Indeed, Sullivan later emailed us that a lawyer for Deutsche Bank closely reviewed the SEC rule and "determined that Griffin could not work on his Dad's presidential campaign and remain employed at the bank. The risk of SEC penalties against the bank were too real and significant. The bank and (Perry) determined that his resignation was the best course of action to provide him the ability to be involved in every aspect of the presidential campaign and not run afoul" of the rule. Our ruling Given the unknowns, it’s tempting to say we can’t judge Anita Perry’s claim. It’s possible Griffin Perry could have volunteered for the campaign and kept his job. But we think it’s more reasonable to conclude that the SEC rule hastened his departure. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Anita Perry	None	None	None	2011-10-22T06:00:00	2011-10-14	['None']
-tron-00263	Jan Morgan Essay on Banning Muslims from Her Gun Range	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jan-morgan-essay-on-banning-muslims-from-her-gun-range/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Jan Morgan Essay on Banning Muslims from Her Gun Range – Authorship Confirmed!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-01568	Jennifer Aniston Did “Turn To Ex” Gerard Butler Amid “Marriage Meltdown	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-gerard-butler-relationship-justin-theroux-marriage-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Did NOT “Turn To Ex” Gerard Butler Amid “Marriage Meltdown”	11:14 am, February 15, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00895	A photograph shows Stephen Hawking at a Vietnam War protest in 1968.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-hawking-vietnam-war-protest/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Stephen Hawking at a Vietnam War Protest?	14 March 2018	None	['Vietnam_War', 'Stephen_Hawking']
-goop-01782	Brad Pitt, Emilia Clarke “Hot New Couple,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-emilia-clarke-new-couple/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Brad Pitt, Emilia Clarke NOT “Hot New Couple,” Despite Claim	3:44 pm, January 19, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00527	Will "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/548/oppose-and-veto-all-tax-increases/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Oppose and veto all tax increases	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['None']
-snes-02950	Did President Trump Refuse to Give Federal Aid to California Because of the State's Sanctuary Cities?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-federal-aid-california/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did President Trump Refuse to Give Federal Aid to California Because of the State’s Sanctuary Cities?	13 February 2017	None	['None']
-chct-00086	FACT CHECK: Kamala Harris Claims That Over 11 Million Americans Spend More Than Half Their Income On Rent	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/07/31/fact-check-11-million-half-income-rent/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	10:08 AM 07/31/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08852	Repealing the sales tax on boats in Rhode Island has spawned 2,000 companies, 7,000 jobs and close to $2 billion a year in sales activity.	/rhode-island/statements/2010/aug/08/donald-carcieri/carcieri-says-tax-repeal-spawned-new-business/	The furor over U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s yacht being docked on the tax-free shores of Rhode Island -- not in Massachusetts where he lives -- has subsided now that the senator’s team has promised he will pay the $500,000 in owed taxes. But Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri did his part to make sure the underlying issue of Rhode Island’s tax exemption for boats is not forgotten. In one of the governor’s frequent appearances on Fox News’ "The Neil Cavuto Show," Carcieri touted the positive effect of the sales tax repeal on boat sales, the marine industry and the state’s economy as a whole. "We abolished the tax on boats back in 1993 and in the intervening period we have over 2,000 little companies that have been spawned, employing almost 7,000 people, generating close to $2 billion a year in sales activity," an enthusiastic Carcieri told Cavuto, a conservative pundit from Barrington, R.I., who seems tickled by the Ocean State connection. It’s no wonder Carcieri was excited. With the nation's fourth-highest unemployment rate, Rhode Island rarely gets to brag about any positive job news. And it's clear the sales tax repeal -- enacted under then-Governor Bruce Sundlun -- helped rescue a sector that was taking on water by the early 1990s, having struggled after a boom in previous decades. Following the law's passage, boat registrations in Rhode Island increased every year for two decades before declining slightly during the recent recession. But those are big numbers for a fairly narrow industry and they warrant a careful check. The Carcieri administration told us that prior to the interview, they put out a request to several state agencies for data demonstrating the impact of the tax repeal. The state Economic Development Corporation directed them to two studies by the Rhode Island Marine Trades Association: one from 2008 that focused on the skills gap in the industry and another from 2007 that looked at the effect of the repeal. We got a hold of those reports and it appears the governor is close to correct. The studies collectively find that the Rhode Island marine industry includes 6,600 jobs across 2,300 companies, which generates $1.6 billion a year in sales activity. The numbers don't exactly line up, but they're fairly close to those that Carcieri cited. The sales tax study does not make clear how it arrived at the final tallies and the Marine Trades Association refused to explain its methodology, saying it was confidential. The second study tries harder to explain its approach. It relied on a combination of 136 survey results, as well as U.S. Economic Census numbers and economic modeling, to determine the totals. The researchers started by using the ratio of payroll to sales obtained from the 2002 U.S. Economic Census to determine the number of jobs, companies and total sales in what they call "core marine trades industries." It then appears that they added those numbers to a secondary group of similarly calculated figures that included companies considered to be "indirect marine trades businesses." That math makes sense to us. But then the study offers this caveat: "In 2006, Rhode Island had approximately 1,700 businesses at least some of whose sales could be attributed to the state's 'direct' marine trades industries. Exactly how much was attributable to marine trades is impossible to determine from employment data reported by the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training." Put another way, there are a lot of companies in this state that may devote some, but not all, of their business to the boating industry. Paul Harden, manager of business and workforce development for the state Economic Development Corporation, offered a hypothetical example of a canvas textile company. It could manufacture boat covers, as well as awnings for shops. One product is clearly connected to the industry, the other is not. That unknown makes it difficult to track the number of jobs created and the business generated within the company specifically for marine work. Based on experience, Harden, who helped oversee the Marine Trades study, said researchers assigned estimated percentages that each subcategory of business devotes to marine sales. He acknowledged that it is an imperfect science. That's where Carcieri's claim gets a little shaky. He suggests the tallies are official, despite the study's stipulation that it is "impossible" to pinpoint an exact number. But the bigger issue is that Carcieri says that all of these jobs, businesses and sales activity were "spawned" by the 1993 tax repeal on boats, which the study never concludes. It seems clear that the repeal had a positive effect on the industry, but some of the businesses and jobs predated the repeal. "I don't think you can attribute all the job growth and all the sales activity to the repeal of the sales tax," said Harden, of the EDC. Given the study's limits, we tried to verify the numbers independently. We started with the state Division of Taxation. But because boats are not taxed, their sales are not reported to the division, said Tax Administrator David Sullivan. And the department doesn't collect data on marine-related sales. Next we spoke with the state Department of Labor and Training, which collects data on jobs and companies in different industries. Similar to the Marine Trades study, its data shows that in 2009, approximately 4,560 people were employed in "primary marine industries." A second class of "related industries" adds about another 1,400 jobs for a total of close to 6,000. But here again, a DLT spokeswoman said it's impossible to know just how many of those related jobs are definitively connected to the marine sector. Realistically, the number probably falls somewhere between 4,560 and 6,000, both of which are lower than the number Carcieri cites. And again, that's total jobs, not those "spawned" solely by the sales tax repeal. Carcieri got it right by doing his research before spouting statistics on national television, and the studies he cites offer some measurable data. However, it is impossible to know how precise those numbers are and the governor should have offered that caveat. More troublesome, he should never have said the tax repeal "spawned" what amounts to an entire industry. We find this Half True.	None	Donald Carcieri	None	None	None	2010-08-08T00:01:00	2010-07-27	['Rhode_Island']
-snes-00664	A set of images show a congenital anomaly that resulted in an a hand with eight fingers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/real-hand-eight-fingers/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This a Real Hand With Eight Fingers?	3 May 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11476	"The US has approximately 5% of the world's population and 42% of civilian gun ownership."	/north-carolina/statements/2018/mar/05/pricey-harrison/does-america-have-42-percent-worlds-guns/	In the aftermath of the mass shooting at a high school in Florida, politicians and pundits quickly offered facts and figures about guns in the United States. NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch said that in one year, mass public shootings caused more deaths and injuries in France than in the United States throughout the entire Obama administration. (That’s Mostly False.) Bernie Sanders said that "40 percent of the guns in this country are sold without any background checks." (That’s False.) In North Carolina, Democratic state Rep. Pricey Harrison of Greensboro recently tweeted statistics that emphasize America’s obsession with guns. "The US has approximately 5% of the world's population and 42% of civilian gun ownership," Harrison tweeted on Feb. 15. She has about 4,000 Twitter followers. She continued: "We must change the gun culture to gun violence prevention. NC Dems have filed comprehensive gun safety bills repeatedly since the Sandy Hook tragedy w/zero movement." She’s roughly correct about the United States accounting for 5 percent of the world’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Experts agree that Americans have more guns than citizens of any other country in the world. But, globally speaking, is Harrison right about the United States’ share of gun ownership? 10-year-old stats She cited a story on Vox.com – "America’s gun problem, explained in 5 facts" – as the source for her tweet. Vox, for its part, cites a 2007 study by the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. "... in 2007, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 88.8 guns per 100 people, meaning there was almost one privately owned gun per American and more than one per American adult. The world’s second-ranked country was Yemen, a quasi-failed state torn by civil war, where there were 54.8 guns per 100 people," the writer, German Lopez, explained. "Another way of looking at that: Americans make up less than 5 percent of the world’s population yet own roughly 42 percent of all the world’s privately held firearms," Lopez wrote. The Switzerland-based group actually offered a less specific estimate. On page 46 of the survey itself, the group estimated that the United States is home to "roughly 35-50 percent" of the world’s civilian-owned guns. Lopez, for his part, told PolitiFact that he split the difference in the range. "It's pretty typical in research to just take the average of a range," he said. "So the range here is 35-50. If you take the average of this, it lands at about 42. That's with a margin of error of about 7.5, obviously, but it's just a shorthand for what the research finds." The Small Arms Study from 2007 remains the most comprehensive research private gun ownership worldwide, said Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama and author of the widely-cited study "Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries," published in 2016. The Small Arms Study is an independent research project located at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva that’s supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, as well as donations from other governments. The project compiles data using a "worldwide network" of researchers. Lankford agreed with Lopez’s methodology. If you take the survey’s average total of civilian firearms in the U.S. (270 million) and compare that with the survey’s average total globally (645 million), you get 41.8 percent. Guns are hard to track A 2009 National Institute of Justice report found the number of civilian-owned guns in the United States to be about 310 million, but didn't provide comparable global data. Pew Research Center, one of the world’s leading nonpartisan research firms, recently published a study on guns in America that found 42 percent of Americans live in a household with a gun. But the center hasn’t collected data from other countries, "so we can’t compare our US gun data to the rest of the world," spokeswoman Haley Nolan said. Governments don’t track firearms across the board. And many surveys rely on people to self-report guns. "We only have a rough guess of what there is in the U.S. We have no idea how many guns are in South America," said Philip J. Cook, professor of public policy studies at Duke University and co-author of the book "Gun Violence: The Real Costs." South America has a lot of guns that were bought underground, he said. In the ballpark? David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard University and author of the book "Private Guns, Public Health," agreed that global estimates are squishy. "It’s very, very hard," Hemenway said. The best way to estimate the number of firearms in each country would be to have every country track guns that are bought and sold, he said. "Even then, you only get the legal guns." That said, he thinks Harrison’s claim is generally accurate compared to other estimates. "That sort of number is thrown around all the time," Hemenway said. "It’s pretty high validity. This seems to be in the ballpark of the figures I’ve seen." Our ruling Harrison said that the United States has approximately 5 percent of the world's population and 42 percent of civilian gun ownership. Those numbers are based on a study that’s now 10 years old. And experts say tracking guns is very difficult. But Harrison’s claim is on roughly par with the information available. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Pricey Harrison	None	None	None	2018-03-05T15:27:33	2018-02-15	['None']
-pomt-12337	Says Senate deliberations on the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010 included hundreds of hours of debate and more than 100 Republican amendments, compared with zero for the American Health Care Act this year.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/14/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-tweet-exaggerates-lack-input-senate/	Amid criticism that Senate Republicans are working in secret to craft legislation that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted a graphic that tried to make that argument in stark statistical terms. The graphic, which Sanders tweeted on June 13, 2017, is titled, "Health Care Reform: Then and Now." It limits its comparison to the Senate, and it looks at two periods -- 2009 to 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was under consideration, and 2017, for the legislation the Senate is currently working on. (The House has already passed its version of a bill, the American Health Care Act.) Sanders’ graphic said that when Democrats were crafting the Affordable Care Act, they allowed 160 hours of debate; 100 "committee hearings, roundtables, or walkthroughs"; and more than 171 amendments from the opposite party. Currently, though, the graphic accuses Republicans now working on the repeal-and-replace bill of allowing none of those things -- hammered home with a string of red zeroes. How does the graphic add up? See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Debating Obamacare in 2009 and 2010 The left column is the more accurate of the two. When the Affordable Care Act was being put together, both the Senate and House passed distinct versions of the bill, but Democrats then lost a pivotal Senate seat in a special election, dropping their numbers below the crucial 60-seat threshold. Congressional leaders decided to have the House accede to the already-passed Senate version and then work out the differences in a subsequent round of legislation known as reconciliation. When we contacted Sanders’ office, spokesman Josh Miller-Lewis provided us with extensive documentation for the numbers relating to the debate over the Affordable Care Act. They sent us to a Senate Finance Committee fact sheet that includes six pages of detail on how the Senate version of the bill moved through the chamber. They also sent us several other documents about the legislative process in 2009 and 2010, as well as a February 2010 Obama administration letter that touted the "160 hours" the Senate had spent on the floor considering health insurance reform legislation On the hours of debate, Steven S. Smith, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, said the numbers seem broadly accurate. For the initial Senate version of what became the Affordable Care Act, the Senate started debating the bill in earnest on Nov. 21, 2009, and passed the bill on Dec. 24. Between those dates, "the Senate debated the bill nearly every day it was in session," Smith said. Meanwhile, news reports generally support the idea that there were 100 hours of committee meetings and other types of official events. The New York Times reported that "in June and July 2009, with Democrats in charge, the Senate health committee spent nearly 60 hours over 13 days marking up the bill that became the Affordable Care Act. That September and October, the Senate Finance Committee worked on the legislation for eight days — its longest markup in two decades." We previously fact-checked a claim related to Republican amendments. Combining the Republican amendments approved in markups at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, the number of approved Republican amendments was close to the 171 cited in the infographic. That said, it’s worth remembering, as we reported, that most of these amendments were technical in nature, and only two of them were passed via the more rigorous roll-call vote process used for more substantive matters. The debate on repeal-and-replace in 2017 But if the left-hand column is pretty on target, the right-hand column -- covering the debate in 2017 -- cherry-picks a time frame that prevents an equitable comparison. That’s because the graphic compares a completed bill with one that hasn’t yet advanced very far in the process. It’s a case of comparing apples and oranges. One of the three "zeros" in the chart may be justified -- the one that refers to time spent in committee hearings. Senate Republicans intend to bring the bill now being written directly to the floor once it’s analyzed for cost and impact by the Congressional Budget Office. That would mean bypassing the typical committee process. Sanders’ office pointed to recent public comments by the chairmen of the relevant committees saying that they had no plans to take up the bill before floor consideration. However, the zeros for floor debate and amendments are more questionable. Senate Republicans want to address the bill through a "reconciliation" process, which would enable passage with 51 votes rather than 60 votes to first cut off debate. If they take this course, there would be 20 hours of floor debate under rules for reconciliation bills. Twenty hours is significantly less than the 160 hours spent on the Affordable Care Act, but it’s certainly not the zero suggested in the graphic. "There will be debate on the current proposal after it is introduced," said John Cannan, a law librarian at Drexel University who has written about the legislative history of the Affordable Care Act. As for amendments, there will be an opportunity to consider some on the floor according to reconciliation rules, said Gregory Koger, a University of Miami political scientist. (Without committee consideration, amendments in committee will be impossible, however.) Sanders’ office acknowledged that the graphic captures a moment in time. "Clearly, 2017 is ongoing, and the bill hasn’t passed the Senate yet, so the numbers in the right column might need to be updated at some point," Miller-Lewis said. Still, this amounts to a flawed comparison and a statistically exaggerated picture, punctuated by a string of bold zeros. Our ruling Sanders’ graphic said that Senate deliberations on the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010 included hundreds of hours of debate and more than 100 Republican amendments, compared with zero for the American Health Care Act this year. Sanders has a point that the Democratic process in 2009 and 2010 included more active involvement by Republicans than Republicans are allowing in the current debate over the repeal-and-replace legislation. However, it’s misleading for Sanders to make this point through an apples-to-oranges comparison that produces eye-catching zeros that will soon be rendered out of date. Under Senate rules, there will be debate and amendments. We rate the statement in the image Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2017-06-14T17:33:52	2017-06-13	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-02144	Caitlyn Jenner, O.J. Simpson “Set To Broadcast Their Reunion On TV,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-oj-simpson-reunion-tv-special/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Caitlyn Jenner, O.J. Simpson NOT “Set To Broadcast Their Reunion On TV,” Despite Reports	3:40 pm, November 25, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04223	"For the first time in history, the share of the national popular vote margin is smaller than the Latino vote margin."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/nov/26/robert-menendez/us-sen-robert-menendez-says-latino-voters-made-dif/	For U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, Latino voters made history this month as the decisive force behind President Barack Obama winning the popular vote over Republican candidate Mitt Romney. About a week after the election, the Democratic senator claimed the race marked the first time when the popular vote was decided by Latino voters. Going forward, Republicans must face the growing electoral power of the Latino community, according to Menendez. "For the first time in history, the share of the national popular vote margin is smaller than the Latino vote margin," Menendez said at a Nov. 14 event hosted by the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund. The senator is correct that Latino voters in 2012 made the difference in securing Obama’s popular vote victory. But Menendez’s claim about this scenario occurring "for the first time in history" needs clarification. Latino voters also delivered more than enough votes to make Vice President Al Gore the popular vote winner in 2000. But unlike Gore, Obama won both the popular vote and received enough electoral votes to win the election. That means this year’s election marks the first time when Latino voters played a decisive role in electing the president, according to the founders of Latino Decisions, a Seattle, Wash.-based polling research firm. The firm’s research has been widely cited by numerous media organizations, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. The senator’s claim is based on a recent study by Latino Decisions, in which it analyzed the results of a nationwide poll of Latinos conducted in the days leading up to the election. Based on that poll, Latino Decisions estimated that Latinos gave Obama a net gain of 5.4 percent of all popular votes. Since Obama won the overall popular vote by about 2.8 percent, Latino voters put Obama over the finish line, according to Gary Segura, a political science professor and co-founder of Latino Decisions. Applying the same methodology to exit polling data used by the Associated Press and major U.S. newspapers and television networks, PolitiFact New Jersey reached a similar conclusion. But a similar scenario occurred in 2000, when Gore won the popular vote by a smaller margin than the net gain he received from Latino voters, according to exit polling data compiled by The New York Times. Yet since Gore didn’t get enough electoral votes to win the presidency, 2012 marks the first year when Latino voters played a decisive role in a presidential election, according to Segura and Matt Barreto, also a political science professor and co-founder of Latino Decisions. Barreto told us in an e-mail that Menendez’s comments "are based entirely on our research, and the spirit of the comments were that Latinos ‘made a difference’ in the national election results for the first time ever -- that is accurate since Gore lost the EC (electoral college) vote." Kerri Talbot, Menendez’s chief counsel, echoed Barreto’s argument, saying the point of Menendez’s speech was that 2012 "was the first time Latinos made a difference in the national election." "I understand your point about the 2000 election popular vote but the Latino vote was not decisive in that election given that Gore lost in the electoral college," Talbot said in an e-mail. Our ruling About a week after Obama won re-election, Menendez claimed: "For the first time in history, the share of the national popular vote margin is smaller than the Latino vote margin." The senator’s correct that Latino voters put Obama over the top in winning the popular vote, according to both a Latino Decisions poll and exit polling data. But Menendez should have been clearer about the historic nature of the Latino vote in 2012. The 2000 election was the first time when Latino voters delivered more than enough votes for a popular vote victory, but this year’s election marks the first time when Latinos were decisive in electing the overall winner, according to the founders of Latino Decisions. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Robert Menendez	None	None	None	2012-11-26T07:30:00	2012-11-14	['None']
-pomt-03103	"Governor Deal has increased education spending every year he’s been in office."	/georgia/statements/2013/sep/23/brian-robinson/does-education-budget-claim-add/	There have been some interesting moves in the political chess match between Gov. Nathan Deal and Georgia Schools Superintendent John Barge. Barge made the first by surprising the political establishment with his interest, and eventual announcement, that he would challenge the fellow Republican for his job in 2014. Deal made the next move. The governor’s camp attempted to take away the main issue his new opponent will campaign on in advance of the Republican Party primary -- education. "Governor Deal has increased education spending every year he’s been in office," said his spokesman, Brian Robinson. Checkmate? PolitiFact Georgia decided to do some homework on this claim, considering the likelihood that the Deal campaign may present this point again. Georgia’s budget runs on a 12-month fiscal year cycle. The current fiscal year began July 1 and ends June 30, 2014. Deal took office in January 2011. Education typically accounts for the biggest spending item in the state budget. This fiscal year, the Georgia Legislature agreed to spend about $7.4 billion on k-12 education. The entire state budget was nearly $20 billion. Georgia gets additional money from the federal government and other sources. That figure has declined from about $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2011 to about $1.7 billion in each year since. Robinson said he was referring to the total amount of money budgeted for the state’s Education Department at the end of the fiscal year. In most years, those numbers are adjusted as state revenue increases or declines and departments make additional budget requests. FY 2011: $7,067,414,444 FY 2012: $7,075,837,688 FY 2013 $7,326,807,956 The budget adopted for Fiscal Year 2014 was $7,409,293,094. The numbers matched fiscal year funding data from the Education Department. In each fiscal year, as Robinson said, the final budget numbers for the state Education Department increased. But is that the whole story? Georgia’s public school enrollment has increased by about 28,000 students, to nearly 1.7 million pupils, in the three budget cycles since Deal took office. Some people we contacted noted the enrollment increase as we conducted our research. The education budget has risen by a slightly larger percentage than student enrollment, we found. Others say there’s some context that Robinson’s numbers miss. The Georgia School Boards Association says Deal is not devoting enough money toward education if you factor in inflation. The Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report earlier this month that concluded Georgia’s per-student spending will decline by about 1 percent this year once you factor in inflation. The center, a left-leaning organization, found Georgia has spent nearly 15 percent less on students since fiscal year 2008. Only seven states spent a lower percentage on students, according to the report. The left-leaning Georgia Budget Policy Institute, which has pushed state leaders to spend more on education, has looked at the education budget under Deal. It found the education budget has increased by 1.5 percent since Deal took office, as adjusted for inflation. The U.S. inflation rate has risen by 3 percent to 4 percent since 2011, according to data we reviewed. There’s been a 4 percent increase in the final state education budgets since Deal took office. The institute released a report earlier this year that concluded the education budget is $1 billion less than what schools should get under Georgia’s complicated Quality Basic Education formula. Claire Suggs, the institute’s senior education policy analyst, said the education budget has been underfunded for several years. Here’s a recent breakdown of the QBE funding gap, also known as "austerity cuts." The numbers came from the Georgia Department of Education. FY 2011: $1,089,521,696 FY 2012: $1,147,859,436 FY 2013: $1,143,762,797 FY 2014: $1,061,127,407 Since the 2003 fiscal year, state leaders have subtracted hundreds of millions of dollars from the funding formula every year. Initially, they said the austerity cuts were necessary because of a budget deficit, but the yearly cuts continued even after state revenue improved, The Atlanta Journal Constitution has reported. "It’s not been addressed," Suggs said of the issue. State Sen. Fran Millar, a Dunwoody Republican who served as chairman of the Senate's Education and Youth Committee, said he believed Robinson is correct, citing recent year-end budget numbers for the department. Millar also said austerity cuts for the Education Department have been less than other departments. "I think what they’re saying is true," Millar said of Robinson’s claim. To sum up, Deal’s spokesman said education spending has increased every year since his administration took office in January 2011. Robinson’s numbers are correct. But there’s some context missing here. There have been continued "austerity cuts." And some would say there’s little or no increase once you factor in inflation. We rate Robinson’s statement Mostly True.	None	Brian Robinson	None	None	None	2013-09-23T06:00:00	2013-09-05	['None']
-pose-00226	"Will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans...places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/242/promote-more-pre-school-education/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Promote more pre-school education	2010-01-07T13:26:52	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Joe_Biden']
-bove-00254	Fairness Miracle Or Fraud In A Bottle? : BOOM Investigates Part II	https://www.boomlive.in/fairness-miracle-or-fraud-in-a-bottle-boom-investigates-part-ii/	None	None	None	None	None	Fairness Miracle Or Fraud In A Bottle? : BOOM Investigates Part II	Jun 05 2017 8:30 am, Last Updated: Jun 16 2017 7:19 pm	None	['None']
-snes-02661	Donald Trump has vowed to reinstate the draft.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-bringing-back-draft/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Trump: ‘We’re Bringing Back the Draft’?	5 December 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02486	Jamie Foxx Did Reach Out To Tom Cruise About Katie Holmes, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jamie-foxx-tom-cruise-reach-out-katie-holmes/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Jamie Foxx Did NOT Reach Out To Tom Cruise About Katie Holmes, Despite Report	5:17 pm, September 7, 2017	None	['Tom_Cruise', 'Katie_Holmes']
-pomt-07366	"Nearly 2,000 high schools - roughly 12 percent of all secondary schools in the United States - produce about half of the nation’s dropouts."	/virginia/statements/2011/may/06/bobby-scott/rep-scott-says-12-percent-high-schools-produce-hal/	U.S. Rep Bobby Scott cited a staggering statistic when he announced he was introducing a measure to curb the high school dropout rate. "Nearly 2,000 high schools - roughly 12 percent of all secondary schools in the United States - produce about half of the nation’s dropouts," Scott, D-3rd, said in an April 7 news release. Is it true that such a small percentage of the nation’s high schools have such a large impact on the country’s dropout problem? Scott’s office directed us to a 2007 report by Robert Balfanz, co-director of the Everyone Graduates Center at Johns Hopkins University and a widely quoted expert on the dropout issue. Based on 2006 data, the report classified 1,999 high schools across the nation as "low performing." Balfanz said these schools, representing about 14 percent of the nation’s regular and vocational high schools enrolling 100 or more students, reliably produced 50 percent of America’s dropouts. He dubbed them dubbed "dropout factories." An even greater share of the nation’s minority dropouts came from these schools: 81 percent of Native Americans; 73 percent of African-Americans and 66 percent of Latinos. They were attended by 34 percent of the white dropouts. Scott accurately characterized the numbers in the report. But the study is several years old and we wanted to take an updated look. Balfanz re-examined the issue with other researchers in a 2010 report titled "Building a Grad Nation." Using U.S. Department of Education figures, the authors found the number of the country’s worst-performing schools had fallen from 2,007 in 2002 to 1,746 in 2008. The study was co-sponsored by the America’s Promise Alliance. Co-founded by retired Army General and Secretary of State Colin Powell, the non-profit group has proposed a "Civic Marshall Plan" to increase the number of students completing high school. A March 2011 update of the "Building a Grad Nation" study found that in 2009, the latest year statistics are available, the number of dropout factories fell yet again to 1,634. Those 1,634 low-performing schools represent about 10 to 12 percent of the nation’s high schools and still produce about half of the nation’s drop outs, said Colleen Wilber, a spokeswoman for the America’s Promise Alliance. Every state has at least one "dropout factory," which Balfanz defines as a school in which at least 40 percent of freshmen fail to make it to their senior year. For high schools that only have grades 10-12, his reports examine how sophomore year enrollment compares to the senior year. The reports do not identify any of the troubled schools by name. The largest number are in the South. Virginia had 29 of them in 2009, 25 in 2008, and 26 back in 2002. Scott’s bill -- also introduced in the Senate by Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa -- would strengthen regulations developed in 2008 that require states to use the same formula in reporting high school graduation rates. It would set a national graduation rate goal of 90 percent. The national high school graduation was 74.9 percent in 2008, the last year data was available. To sum up: Scott said that nearly 2,000 high schools, about 12 percent of those in the U.S., produce half the nation’s dropouts. He accurately cited a report based on 2006 data. An updated study found the number of low-performing schools dropped to 1,634 in 2009. That does not diminish Scott’s point that a small percentage of high schools have an enormous impact on the nation’s dropout problem. We rate Scott’s claim True.	None	Bobby Scott	None	None	None	2011-05-06T08:00:00	2011-04-07	['United_States']
-pomt-04018	Says the claim that 40 percent of guns are sold without background checks traces to information gathered before background checks were even required.	/texas/statements/2013/feb/04/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-claim-40-percent-guns-are-sold-witho/	U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, participating in a U.S. Senate committee hearing on gun-related proposals, warmed up to a Jan. 30, 2013, question by referring to "much attention" drawn by some advocates to gun purchases occurring without background checks. "Indeed, the statistic of 40 percent has been bandied about," the Texas Republican said. "Now that statistic is unfortunately based on a study that occurred before the background check went into effect, and so it is a highly dubious figure." Cruz was evidently referring to claims by gun-control advocates that 40 percent of gun purchases are made without the purchaser undergoing a criminal background check. This happens, they say, because the purchases are made from private individuals, who are not required to check purchasers backgrounds. Advocates of a law requiring universal background checks have widely cited the 40-percent figure. President Barack Obama mentioned it in the White House ceremony outlining his slate of new gun restrictions. A white paper by researchers at Johns Hopkins University asserts it without qualification. Indeed, it’s a powerful claim: that 40 percent of guns are bought and sold in America with no paper trail, no fingerprint of the hands they fall into. Coincidentally, our colleagues at PolitiFact’s national website posted a review of the 40-percent claim on the day that Cruz made his comment, rating as Half True this statement by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.: "Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check." We drew on research behind that fact check to get started on Cruz’s claim. The 1997 study The 40 percent figure originated in a 1997 National Institute of Justice study by researchers Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago, who examined data from a 1994 telephone survey about gun ownership taken months after the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 took effect, mandating background checks of individuals buying guns at gun shops. Under the law, federally licensed dealers must verify that a buyer has not been convicted of a serious crime or declared mentally incompetent or is blocked for any of about 10 reasons. Typically this is done online and takes less than a day. But only licensed dealers must conform. The law doesn’t apply to private sellers at gun shows, flea markets or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet. If a private seller suspects that a buyer would be disqualified under federal rules, then they can’t go through with the sale. But there is no background check. The 1994 survey, which sampled 2,568 homes, asked owners an array of questions, including how many guns were in the house, what they were used for, how they were stored and where they were obtained. Of the 2,568 households surveyed, only 251 people answered the question about the origin of their gun. In those answers, Cook and Ludwig found that 35.7 percent of respondents reported obtaining their gun from somewhere other than a licensed dealer. (That has been rounded up to 40 percent.) Some people answered "probably" and "probably not" if they weren’t entirely sure whether the seller was a licensed dealer. In some cases, where the respondent skipped the question about whether the gun came from a licensed dealer, the researchers made a judgment call. Ludwig said in an email that they mined answers to other questions (such as whether the gun was a gift) to guide them. "Our approach ... was to be conservative in estimating what fraction of sales are in the primary market," Ludwig wrote. "Primary market" refers to guns sold by dealers in retail stores or pawn shops. The "secondary market" includes gun shows and other transactions where a background check is not required. Another fact check Some critics find fault with the 40 percent figure because it includes guns that are inherited or won—in other words, transactions that could reasonably be assumed not to involve a background check, which could mean a different look at the answers generates a different percentage. When the Washington Post’s fact-checking project, the Fact Checker, asked Ludwig to revisit the data, the newspaper said, results suggested that purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent, not 40 percent. "And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points," the Post said. "Moreover, … the survey was taken in late 1994, eight months after the Brady law went into effect, and the questions were asked about gun purchases in the previous two years. So some of the answers concerned gun purchases that took place in a pre-Brady environment." Current-day applicability For his part, Cook, the other study author, told us he has no idea whether the 40 percent figure remains reliable. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers," Cook said. "How many, we’re not really clear on it. … We would say it’s a very old number." Other scholars had similar views. "I don’t see how anyone could know that number," said James Jacobs, Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University School of Law. By telephone, we asked Cook about Cruz’s statement—that the percentage is dubious because the research took place before background checks were mandated. The surveys took place after the law took effect, Cook said, but it’s correct that the vast majority of gun acquisitions identified by respondents took place before then, given that respondents were asked to focus on guns acquired within two years, meaning 1992 and 1993. Of note: Most of the respondents had acquired at least one gun well before the Brady law took effect. "Persons owning handguns in 1994 acquired about 28 percent of them in 1993-1994," Cook and Ludwig wrote, "compared with 20 percent of long guns." States conducted background checks Another wrinkle: Eighteen states were imposing background checks before the federal mandate took effect, according to a research paper by Ludwig and Cook published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2000. The states doing so included California, New York, Florida, Illinois and Michigan. Even so, Cook told us, he and Ludwig did not use information on individual states in doing their analysis. He emailed that "the survey provides an accurate representation of the nation as a whole but not of individual states." Also, he stressed, the survey had no questions about whether there had been a background check and respondents also weren’t asked the states where they had acquired their guns. He agreed there is "no way to reach any conclusions about background checks for any of the transactions that are reported in the survey." As we closed out this review, Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton pointed out by email that 32 states were evidently not requiring background checks before the Brady law took effect. The 40-percent statistic is dubious, Rushton said, "because it is not an accurate reflection of the number of gun transactions without background checks that are happening today." Our ruling Cruz said the claim that 40 percent of guns are sold without background checks traces to information gathered before background checks were required. However, the 1994 survey took place a few months after federal law mandated background checks--and about one third of states were requiring the checks even earlier. Given the infancy of the Brady law, it still may be that few respondents underwent the mandated checks. Significantly, respondents were not asked if they had undergone such checks or in which states they had acquired their guns. Summing up: Some background checks were ongoing at the time of the survey. Still, Cruz’s statement drives at the fact that the oft-quoted survey was conducted nearly two decades ago, before the federal law had time to have much effect.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2013-02-04T06:00:00	2013-01-30	['None']
-pomt-11953	In Wisconsin, "we have a bill that would allow hidden, deadly weapons -- every single person to carry one -- no training, no background check, even around schools."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/06/chris-taylor/wake-las-vegas-lawmaker-says-wisconsin-bill-would-/	At a news conference in response to the Las Vegas mass shooting, Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Taylor made a claim about a bill that’s advancing in the Wisconsin Legislature. The Madison Democrat said on Oct. 4, 2017, three days after the shooting: Unfortunately, the other thing that we see after these horrible massacres is a loosening of gun laws, allowing dangerous individuals to get firearms more easily. That seems to be the trend in this country. Right here, in our own state, we have a bill that would allow hidden, deadly weapons -- every single person to carry one -- no training, no background check, even around schools -- even around schools. Let’s see if that’s what the bill would do. The bill’s history and status Taylor was referring to Senate Bill 169, which was introduced by two GOP lawmakers in April 2017. In September 2017, 11 days before a gunman killed 58 people and wounded 489 in Las Vegas, the bill was approved by a Senate committee. The three Republicans voted yes and the two Democrats no. The full Senate could take up the bill later in 2017 or in 2018. Both the state Senate and the Assembly are controlled by Republicans. But GOP Gov. Scott Walker has cast some doubt on the legislation, saying in June 2017 it was "appropriate" for the state to require people to get permits to carry hidden weapons. The bill vs. current law To be clear, under current state law, certain people, such as felons, are prohibited from possessing a gun. Generally speaking, it is legal in Wisconsin to openly carry a firearm without any training or license to carry. But a state license is needed to carry a concealed firearm. Now let’s get to how concealed carry would change under the bill, according a memo by the nonpartisan Legislative Council and Larry Konopacki, the state attorney who wrote it: Licensing: Currently, it is generally illegal in Wisconsin to carry a concealed weapon unless you have a concealed carry weapon (CCW) license issued by the state. A background check and training are required to get a license. The bill would do away with the licensing requirement -- which means no training or background check would be required to carry a concealed weapon. So, the "no training, no background check" part of Taylor’s claim is correct. Schools: Currently, guns are generally prohibited on school grounds. The bill would do away with that blanket prohibition. Instead, individual schools could ban guns on their grounds. But people with a CCW license would still be able to bring their guns on the grounds, as long as the guns stayed in their vehicle or within five feet of their vehicle. (The provision was included so that parents who carry weapons aren’t breaking the law when they pick up and drop off their children at school, supporters say.) Those with licenses would also be free to bring guns onto any school grounds when there were no school activities. But Taylor’s claim was "around schools," so let’s be clear on that. Currently, only CCW license holders are generally allowed to possess firearms within 1,000 feet of school grounds. Under the bill, anyone who legally possesses a firearm could generally carry within 1,000 feet of school grounds. It's worth noting that while carrying within 1,000 feet of school would be made legal under state law, generally speaking, people would still be in violation of federal law if carrying a concealed weapon within 1,000 feet from a school if they don't have a concealed carry license. Prohibitions: Currently, it is generally illegal for certain persons -- such as people convicted of any felony, or of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence -- to possess a gun at all. The bill would not change that general prohibition. However, it would allow even those people who are generally prohibited to be able to legally carry, open or concealed, antique, replica and muzzleloading firearms. So, to Taylor’s claim, even felons could concealed carry those certain types of firearms and they could do so within 1,000 feet of a school. Our rating Taylor said in Wisconsin, "we have a bill that would allow hidden, deadly weapons -- every single person to carry one -- no training, no background check, even around schools." The "every single person" part of the claim needs clarification, in that not every person, particularly felons, can legally possess any type of weapon. But Taylor is correct that if the bill becomes law, people could generally carry concealed weapons without getting a license -- which would mean no background check or training would be required, either. And even felons could conceal carry certain weapons, such as antique or replica guns. As for around schools, anyone who can legally possess a firearm could generally carry it concealed within 1,000 feet of a school, under the bill. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. Note: This item was updated on Oct. 6, 2017 to make reference to the federal law on carrying a weapon near a school. This does not change the rating. div class='artembed'>See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Chris Taylor	None	None	None	2017-10-06T13:40:58	2017-10-04	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-02315	"No one" claims the report vindicating New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in the bridge scandal is "conclusive."	/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/30/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-no-one-says-bridge-report-vindicates-new-/	The first in a series of investigations into a bridge-closing scandal surrounding Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his office was released this week, providing plenty of fodder on the political future of the potential 2016 heavyweight on all five Sunday talk shows. Randy Mastro of the New York law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, unveiled a report March 26, 2014, that exonerated Christie of any wrongdoing and blamed a top aide of the governor and a senior official for the Port Authority for devising a scheme to close parts of the George Washington Bridge for a traffic study in September 2013. Reports have alleged the maneuver was political retribution against officials in Fort Lee, N.J., which was most impacted by the lane closures. Christie’s critics scoffed at Mastro’s report, noting that it was commissioned by the governor and paid for with New Jersey taxpayer dollars. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was asked on Meet the Press whether the findings closed the door on the scandal and vindicated Christie. Giuliani defended Mastro, a Democrat who worked for Giuliani's administration, as "someone who took on the teamsters union and cleaned up New York from the mafia under threat of death several times." Christie has "a guy doing this report who’s not about to do a whitewash," Giuliani went on to say. "I think this is a pretty strong report. It is not conclusive. No one claims it is, but it’s a good step in the right direction." That’s a pretty measured assessment of the report and the reaction to it, and a lot different than what we heard from Mastro and Christie in interviews this week. The Mastro report According to the report, investigators had access to personal and private email accounts and phone records of Christie and his current and former staff members. They reviewed more than 250,000 documents and conducted 70 interviews. The findings were detailed in a 360-page document looking at both the bridge scandal and allegations Christie withheld Hurricane Sandy aid from a New Jersey town for political reasons. You can read the full report here. The authors are upfront that there is one big hole in their investigation: They were not able to interview Christie aide Bridget Kelly or Port Authority official David Wildstein. But that didn’t keep them from strong conclusions. "Based on our investigation, we are now in a position to address most but not all of these allegations, as several key witnesses have refused to cooperate with our investigation or asserted their Fifth Amendment rights," the report said. The report concluded that those two individuals were at the center of the controversy, and the only major missing piece is understanding why they took such actions. "We are therefore confident that, based on our thorough review, we have a clear understanding of what happened here, even if the participants’ precise motives remain to be determined," the report said. Later, in the conclusion, the report stated rather definitively: "In sum, we have not found any evidence of anyone in the governor’s office knowing about the lane realignment beforehand or otherwise being involved, besides Bridget Kelly. Whatever motivated Wildstein and Kelly to act as they did, it was not at the behest of Gov. Christie, who knew nothing about it." Christie and Mastro comment Christie took questions from reporters for more than an hour last week after the report was released, his first since the early days of the controversy. In his remarks, Christie called the report "exhaustive" in its breadth and the access investigators were allowed. He noted he even turned over his personal cell phone. "It’s an exhaustive report that follows the mandate that I set out when I commissioned the review," Christie said. "I told (Mastro) to go find the truth no matter where it led and to turn over every rock to get to the bottom of what happened and to let me know what the truth was." Christie did acknowledge other pending reports, including from Democrats controlling the state legislature and from the Justice Department. But he expected similar results. "The report will stand the test of time, but it will be tested by the other investigations that are ongoing," he said. He also reiterated that the report was limited in finding a motive, "in small part by some of the access that they had and didn’t have to certain people, but in the end all of that is fronted in the report. It doesn’t claim to be anything other than what it is. But it is exhaustive, and it is thorough." For his part, Mastro had strong language in backing up the report’s findings and on ABC This Week, Mastro didn’t hold back. "I have to say this, for the skeptics out there, there are some who have a visceral reaction to this bridge controversy," he said. "Reminds me of the (A Few Good Men) movie line, ‘They can't handle the truth.’ We believe we got to the truth." But that came Sunday. Maybe Giuliani didn’t see the interview since he was shooting Meet the Press. What did Mastro have to say about the report earlier in the week? "There is not a shred of evidence that Gov. Christie knew anything about this lane realignment decision before it happened," he told Fox News on March 27, 2014. "Not a shred." Our ruling Giuliani said "no one" called the Mastro report "conclusive." Perhaps no one used those exact words (though the report itself had a pretty strongly worded "conclusion" section). But one of the targets of the investigation, Christie, said it would "stand the test of time" and the main investigator stated bluntly there was "not a shred of evidence" that Christie is to blame. That sounds pretty conclusive to us. The broader point here, of course, is that critics of the report say the investigation is anything but conclusive, as it was ordered by Christie. In that regard, Giuliani was no doubt trying to tamp down any fires. But in doing so he ignored the claims of both Christie and Mastro. Christie and Mastro admit some blind spots exist in the report, but those relate mostly to understanding why Kelly and Wildstein closed the bridge, and not Christie. We rate Giuliani’s statement Mostly False.	None	Rudy Giuliani	None	None	None	2014-03-30T18:11:17	2014-03-30	['New_Jersey', 'Chris_Christie']
-vogo-00521	Fact Check Update: Power Plant Not Closed	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-update-power-plant-not-closed/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check Update: Power Plant Not Closed	September 16, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-01203	Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth.	/wisconsin/statements/2014/nov/28/chuck-todd/under-scott-walker-wisconsin-lags-us-wage-job-grow/	Five days after Scott Walker won re-election by a five-point margin, inciting speculation about whether he’ll run for president in 2016, the Republican governor appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press." Several minutes into the Nov. 9, 2014 show, Walker was asked by host Chuck Todd about Wisconsin’s economic record and whether it is "something that translates nationally." Walker responded with statistics about how jobs have increased during his first term and unemployment has decreased. (He also went on to make a number of claims that we’ve previously fact-checked). Todd interjected by returning to the national perspective and making a claim of his own. "But I’ve got to show you," he told Walker, as a graphic with figures appeared on the screen, "compared to the national average, when it comes to wage growth, it's below the national average, Wisconsin is. When it comes to job growth, it's below the national average." How Wisconsin's economy compares nationally could bear on Walker’s viability as a presidential contender, a prospect he has readily encouraged. So let’s check both sets of figures. Federal statistics The graphic that flashed on the screen cited figures from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014. On job growth, the "Meet the Press" graphic said Wisconsin’s rate from increased 1 percent, less than the national average of 1.7 percent. The so-called QCEW numbers are considered the most accurate source for jobs numbers, but lag behind real time by six to nine months. The graphic quoted the figures accurately, according to a news release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Walker’s office didn’t dispute this part of Todd’s claim, but said most states had job growth during the period that was at or below the national average. The graphic also accurately cited the average changes in wage growth from March 2013 to March 2014 -- 2.9 percent in Wisconsin, which was behind the national average of 3.8 percent. It doesn’t affect the accuracy of Todd’s statement, but we decided to use the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ database to take a longer view on both job and wage growth to see how Wisconsin and the United States have compared during Walker’s nearly four years as governor. The quarterly time frames don’t match up precisely with Walker’s time in office because, as we noted, there is a lag of several months in reporting the figures. But when compared March 2011 to March 2014, and December 2010 to December 2013, the results were essentially the same: Wisconsin has lagged the national average on job growth, but was slightly higher on wage growth. Our rating Citing statistics for the most recent year, Todd said Wisconsin is below the national average in wage growth and job growth. The latest federal figures, comparing March 2013 to March 2014, show Wisconsin’s job growth rate at 1 percent, below the national average of 1.7 percent, and its wage growth rate at 2.9 percent, behind the national average of 3.8 percent. We rate Todd’s statement True.	None	Chuck Todd	None	None	None	2014-11-28T09:00:00	2014-11-09	['None']
-pose-00483	Interview with Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes": Question: "Will there be Republicans in the Cabinet?" Obama: "Yes." Question: "More than one?" Obama: "You're not getting any more out of me."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/503/appoint-at-least-one-republican-to-the-cabinet/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Appoint at least one Republican to the cabinet	2010-01-07T13:27:00	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-14498	Says Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele spent "$100,000 of taxpayer money on a new luxury SUV."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/feb/24/wisconsin-working-families-party/wisconsin-working-families-group-claims-taxpayers-/	A group working to block a new term for Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele is arguing Abele is more concerned about himself than public safety and families. A direct mail piece sent out in the days before the Feb. 16, 2016 primary election by the Wisconsin Working Families Party included this statement: "Abele broke his own promise to crack down on perks for government workers, spending $100,000 of taxpayer money on a new luxury SUV. He also awarded a no-bid contract to a celebrity firm to provide personal security to himself." The claim was illustrated with a picture of a shiny black SUV. So, did county taxpayers spend $100,000 on a sweet ride for the County Executive? First a bit of background. The group making the claim is led by a longtime political foe of Abele -- Marina Dimitrijevic, a Milwaukee County supervisor who is the state director for the Wisconsin Working Families Party. Dimitrijevic, a former chair of the County Board, took the job with the political group after the state Legislature moved to slash the pay for county supervisors and made the job part time. Abele pushed for the move to a part time board. Milwaukee County voters overwhelmingly approved the changes in a 2014 referendum, and they take effect this spring. Meanwhile, there has been a spat between the board and Abele over his security dating to 2013. First elected in 2011, Abele went two years without a security detail. Then, after receiving unspecified threats, Abele asked the county to spend $400,000 for a private firm or local law enforcement agencies to provide him with security. Supervisors allocated $100,000 and required that Abele use the Sheriff’s Department for security. But that never took place, and the money went unspent. The board allocated $100,000 for Abele security in the 2015 budget. In the summer of 2015, Abele decided to hire Gavin de Becker & Associates, a company that, among other things, provides security for celebrities, including actress Jennifer Lawrence. The county spent $95,000 of the $100,000 for the company’s services. Abele personally paid the remainder -- $300,000. In the fall of 2015, the County Board refused to allocate additional money for the firm, and Abele is now footing the entire bill. So what did county taxpayers get for the $95,000 that they paid Gavin de Becker? Dimitrijevic and Abele’s office provided the same set of documents regarding the security contract, but offered different interpretations. One thing was clear: The county didn’t purchase a $100,000 SUV. Wisconsin Working Families perspective The contract between the county and Gavin de Becker has numerous sections blacked out as confidential -- "heavy redaction" was the way Dimitrijevic put it. In a statement, the group said "it will be difficult for you to demonstrate that $100,000 in public funds was NOT used on the luxury SUV." Here’s their reasoning: "Based on the retail price of the GMC Yukon ($50,000) and the fact that Abele used it to travel to and from events during and after business hours for a minimum of a period of six months, it is not unreasonable to state that taxpayers had to foot a $100,000 bill for the cost of the SUV. One could reasonably assert that the cost of the SUV use, insurance, gas, mileage etc. would account for a minimum of $100,000 or about 25% of the total cost, before he could unilaterally renew this public contract". The group also included an email from Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren to Dimitrijevic, who had sought details of the contract with Gavin de Becker. He noted that portions of the contract were redacted, and added: "The $100,000 payment in public funds was a flat fee, all inclusive. There was no breakdown." We also note that the claim in the mailing included a footnote to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel column by Dan Bice published Oct. 11, 2015. The column discusses the security contract and notes that the SUV is part of the package of services provided by Gavin de Becker. "The GMC Yukon XL does not belong to Abele or the county," Bice wrote. Abele’s take The payments to Gavin de Becker covered more than just the vehicle, Abele spokeswoman Melissa Baldauff said in an email. "This contract is for security services, which includes the use of a vehicle. That vehicle is leased locally by the security firm," she said. We asked if the vehicle pictured in the campaign flier was the one used to transport Abele. It has a different grille than the vehicle identified as Abele’s in a picture that accompanied the Bice column. And the word "Yukon" appears on the floor in front of the SUV, an indication that it’s a handout photo from an automaker. "That is not the car that the security firm leases, not even the same kind of car," Baldauff said. Our rating Wisconsin Working Families said Abele spent "$100,000 of taxpayer money on a new luxury SUV." In a footnote, the group cited a Journal Sentinel column that stated the vehicle was part of a package of security services, presumably just like the uniforms, radios and other items used by the two guards assigned to the Abele detail. The county’s lawyer told the group the same thing -- the county paid a flat fee. In any case, the vehicle was not bought by county taxpayers. We rate the claim False.	None	Wisconsin Working Families Party	None	None	None	2016-02-24T05:00:00	2016-01-15	['None']
-snes-04007	All living former Presidents of the United States have urged Americans to not vote for Donald Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ex-presidents-warn-against-trump/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	All Living Ex-Presidents Warn Against Donald Trump	18 September 2016	None	['United_States', 'Donald_Trump']
-tron-03390	NASA computers found the “missing day” of the Bible story about Joshua	https://www.truthorfiction.com/joshuaday/	None	religious	None	None	None	NASA computers found the “missing day” of the Bible story about Joshua	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07191	The budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "is only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/08/elijah-cummings/rep-elijah-cummings-says-new-financial-protection-/	During a contentious hearing on May 24, 2011, members of a congressional oversight subcommittee sparred with Elizabeth Warren, who is President Barack Obama’s pick to head a new federal agency charged with protecting consumers from abusive practices in the financial services sector. The hearing attracted media attention for a testy exchange between the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., and Warren, who has become a champion of those who want to see stricter oversight of Wall Street. Her official appointment as director has been blocked by Republicans, who want to see changes in how the new agency operates, though she has been working to get the agency up and running as assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury Secretary. A reader pointed us to one statistic presented at the hearing that purported to show the imbalance between federal regulators and Wall Street. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the full oversight panel, said that the new agency’s "budget is only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees. … I have to ask you: How in the world will you be able to compete against this Goliath when you are so mismatched?" We wondered whether there was such an imbalance. We were able to track down sources for both types of fees. R.K. Hammer, a privately held bankcard consulting firm, tracks credit card penalty fees. The firm found that card penalty fees assessed by the industry during 2010 totaled $22.5 billion. We should note that the figure we’re using from R.K. Hammer -- what the firm calls "penalty fees" -- is an umbrella category that includes various types of fees. However, the firm says that late fees -- the category specifically cited by Cummings -- account for more than 90 percent of penalty fees. So we’ll reduce the amount slightly, to an estimated $20.3 billion in late fees. Meanwhile, the economic research firm Moebs Services tracks data on overdraft fees. The firm projected that for 2010, overdraft fees will total $35.4 billion. If you add these two figures, the total is $55.7 billion. To make sure we weren’t double-counting, we checked with both firms, and they confirmed that the two estimates do not overlap. What about the agency’s budget? We turned to the agency’s website for the answer. Budget documents posted there say that the agency’s estimated budget for fiscal year 2011 is $142.8 million, a number that Obama wants to increase to $329 million in fiscal year 2012. Using the 2011 figure, the agency’s budget is three-tenths of 1 percent of the industry fee totals. Using the larger figure for 2012 -- which is only a proposal -- it works out to six-tenths of 1 percent. Both figures are well under the 1 percent threshold Cummings cited. And the fees in Cummings’ comparison are just a small slice of the resources available to financial institutions. According to the Department of Commerce, profits in the finance and insurance sector for 2010 -- not revenues, just profits -- amounted to $366.8 billion. We’ll note here that we're not ruling on whether a budget that’s equal to 1 percent of penalty and overdraft fees is too little (or too much) to carry out the agency’s tasks. But on the specific comparison Cummings made, we found that he was accurate and even understated the disparity slightly. He’s correct that the new agency’s budget is "only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees." So we rate his statement True.	None	Elijah Cummings	None	None	None	2011-06-08T16:26:24	2011-05-24	['None']
-snes-01424	A new study reporting on the 2015 death of a Colorado infant claims the event was the world’s first documented pot overdose.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colorado-infant-become-first-pot-overdose-death/	None	Medical	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Did a Colorado Infant Become the ‘First Pot Overdose Death’?	17 November 2017	None	['Colorado']
-pose-00863	"Make unemployment benefits more affordable."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/895/lower-unemployment-benefit-costs-employers/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Lower unemployment costs for employers	2011-02-10T14:17:31	None	['None']
-tron-02744	Malik Obama Plans to Vote for Donald Trump	https://www.truthorfiction.com/malik-obama-plans-vote-donald-trump/	None	obama	None	None	None	Malik Obama Plans to Vote for Donald Trump	Jul 25, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-11079	Says Kevin Cramer wants to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for tax cuts.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/19/senate-majority-pac/fact-checking-democratic-attack-kevin-cramers-stat/	Kevin Cramer, a Republican congressman from North Dakota running for U.S. Senate, voted in favor of the Republican tax plan that President Donald Trump signed into law — and Democrats are using its cost as political ammunition. "Kevin Cramer’s vote increases the deficit by $1.9 trillion," the voiceover on a Cramer attack ad running in North Dakota says. "And now, Cramer says, they’ll have to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it." The CBO estimated the law increases the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. When the cost of paying interest on the debt is added, the increase comes to $1.9 trillion. Did Cramer claim he would cut Social Security and Medicare in order to fund the tax plan? His words were not so clear cut. The Senate Majority PAC pointed to two interviews with Cramer two days before Trump signed the tax cuts into law. A caller asked Cramer the following question on the Rob Report on Dec. 20, 2017: "It looks like the tax bill could result in a debt increase that could lead to cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Congressman Cramer, can you commit today to not cutting Social Security or Medicare in the future? Yes or no?" Cramer responded, "Well, the two are not related at all. That’s been one of the scarier tactics of—" "Well," the caller pressed, "if we have debt increase, they might rationalize that we have to cut Medicare and Social Security." Cramer said the tax law would spur the economy and that the deficit was already an issue, but he added that reform to the social safety net was also necessary. "We need to reform all of our programs, not just to make sure people keep them but to make sure they can be kept for the long haul because both Medicare and Social Security, as you talked about, are on a path to insolvency," Cramer said. "So we need to shore up both of them, not to cut them, we need to shore them up for the long haul." Steve Ellis, Taxpayers for Common Sense vice president, said Cramer has a point. "With or without the revenue loss from the tax law, the major entitlement programs were on an unsustainable trajectory," Ellis said. "Changes or ‘cuts’ to Medicare and Social Security are not simply because of a $1.9 trillion deficit increase, which would ‘only’ be roughly $200 billion a year, when we’re looking at a total deficit of $800 billion this year and $1 trillion annual deficits soon." This is a point Cramer has been making for years, before the tax law. "Social Security ought to be preserved and made available as promised to seniors and soon-to-be seniors who have paid in with an expectation of receiving benefits," Cramer told the political website On the Issues on Oct. 30, 2012. "We should implement a program to reform and save it for future generations. Included in the reforms should be means testing, raising retirement age and allowing workers to invest more of their own money." Cramer offered a slightly more clear plan for reform in order to make Medicare and Social Security more sustainable in another interview on Dec. 19, 2018, on Valley News Live’s "Point of View." "Are you on board with this for entitlement reform in 2018? And if so, how specifically?" host Chris Berg asked. "Well, we have to get after entitlement reform, Chris, because that’s the only way to get to the debt and deficit," Cramer said. "Over two-thirds of our budget is entitlements. If we don't deal with that, not only do we not deal with the debt if we don’t deal with it, but the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are going to go broke. We can’t let them just go broke—" "For clarity, sir, and again just for time’s sake, you’re saying, ‘Hey, yes, Chris, we do need to start doing reform, Social Security and Medicare," Berg asked. "The first thing is we can’t do any harm to anybody that’s currently on those programs or near getting on those programs," Cramer said. "But for younger people I think we need to design programs, you know expand those programs, maybe do a little more means testing, maybe increase the age by a month or two for a while. The people at the 25-year-old generation might have a little different program than the people that are 75 today." Cramer suggests vague changes to the way age and need for government assistance is determined, both of which Chris Hayden, spokesman for the Senate Majority PAC, told us qualify as "cuts" to Medicare and Social Security. Vanessa Williamson, a governance fellow at Brookings with a focus on taxation, agreed with Hayden’s characterization. "It seems clear to me that from these remarks that Mr. Cramer is calling for benefit cuts, both by means testing the programs (i.e. reducing or eliminating benefits for non-poor people) and by increasing the age at which you qualify," Williamson said. Other experts said the phrasing gave Cramer more leeway. Ellis said the word "cut" could be interpreted as an elimination, which Cramer did not suggest. But anything that reduces the cost of a program could be considered a cut, too, including improvements that bring about efficiency. Annette Nellen, professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said retirees might interpret "cut" to be something that affects their monthly checks and non-retirees interpret it to mean less benefits when they retire, or doing so at a later age. Cramer’s comments would not affect current retirees or people nearing retirement. Our ruling The Senate Majority PAC said, "And now, Cramer says, they’ll have to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for (tax cuts)." Cramer said reform was necessary in order to make Medicare and Social Security solvent. Recently, he broadly suggested raising the eligibility age by "a month or two" and increasing means testing. Experts said they could be interpreted as calls for cuts. But they don’t affect retirees or people nearing retirement, and were not accompanied by any concrete policy proposals. Also, the Democrats linked his position to the tax bill, but he has held that position for years. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Senate Majority PAC	None	None	None	2018-06-19T09:30:00	2018-06-08	['Social_Security_(United_States)', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-02743	"Whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense."	/florida/statements/2013/dec/17/pam-bondi/pam-bondi-says-medical-marijuana-illegal-under-fed/	Almost half the nation has reefer madness these days, with 20 states having passed laws allowing medical marijuana, or outright decriminalizing it. But the office of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi suggests making it crystal clear to voters that even if a proposed constitutional amendment legalizing cannabis for medicinal purposes makes it to the November ballot and passes, users will still be breaking the law -- United States law, that is. "The summary suggests that medical marijuana is permissible under federal law," Bondi’s office said in an initial brief filed Oct. 24, challenging the proposal in Florida Supreme Court. "In reality, whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense." With so many states allowing marijuana -- medical or otherwise -- to be consumed by the public, this claim seems to often be overlooked, so we figured it was time to clear the air. Use and abuse Whether the proposed amendment even makes it is dependent on advocates collecting 700,000 confirmed signatures by Feb. 1. Even if the petition is approved, the Florida Supreme Court has until April 1, 2014, to rule on the attorney general’s challenge. If voters pass the law, it would allow registered patients with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, hepatitis C, ALS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis or other conditions approved by a doctor to obtain marijuana for medicinal purposes. Bondi’s brief also says the law would "would make Florida one of the most lenient medical-marijuana states, allowing use for limitless ‘other conditions’ specified by any physician," a claim we rated Mostly True. All marijuana legislation is written to apply only to state laws. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, which is defined as having a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. Proponents of decriminalizing marijuana disagree with that definition. Dan Riffle, director of federal policies for the pro-legislation Marijuana Policy Project, said there are obvious, widely used medical applications (such as pain relief and appetite stimulation). He said no other drug, from Lipitor to Oxycodone, must specify its exact use like medical marijuana laws do. But even with that in mind, no matter how many states pass marijuana laws, even advocates like Riffle freely admit that the use, possession, manufacturing and distribution of the drug remains a federal no-no. The Controlled Substances Act imposes strict penalties on marijuana users, growers and sellers. A first misdemeanor offense for possession in any amount can result in a $1,000 fine and a year in prison, climbing for subsequent offenses to as much as $5,000 and three years. Selling cannabis is considered a felony. Punishments range from a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison to as much as $10 million and up to life for selling 1,000 kilograms or more. Penalties double if the sale is to a minor or within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or public housing. Cultivating cannabis plants carries similar penalties, contingent on the volume. Feds let states take the lead Even with federal law on the books prohibiting marijuana, there are reasons users and distributors aren’t constantly being busted by the Drug Enforcement Agency. There is a continuing debate over state rights versus federal control, and decriminalizing marijuana is a flashpoint. "Just because federal law bans something doesn’t mean states have to," George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said. Whether the U.S. government can enforce policy that contradicts state law is another matter. The 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales vs. Raich established the federal government has the right to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate homegrown marijuana, even when it’s for approved medicinal use. DEA officials destroyed Oakland, Calif., resident Angel Raich’s homegrown marijuana plants in 2002, despite the fact Raich’s possession was legal under California’s Proposition 215 medical marijuana law, which was passed in 1996. Raich sued the federal government and lost, but California’s law was not affected. The ruling showed that the federal government cannot force states to criminalize something (marijuana, in this case), but can enforce its own laws. Since then, several states have still shrugged at federal guidelines, passing their own medical marijuana laws. Colorado and Washington state last year decriminalized cannabis use outright. This has led to a recent softening of the federal government’s stance on the drug. On Aug. 29, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole issued a memorandum to federal attorneys that apparently relaxed Washington’s attitudes about marijuana. The memo included new guidelines focusing on cartels or other criminal organizations -- for example, distribution to minors, cultivating plants on public land, committing violence to distribute the drug or using state-regulated operations as a cover for illicit activities. Otherwise, the Justice Department is content to allow state and local agencies "to address marijuana activity through enforcement of their own narcotics laws." Indeed, raids of growing operations are infrequent, and prosecution of individuals in those states is nearly unheard of. That’s not to say these guidelines can’t or won’t change, Somin said. When Attorney General Eric Holder or President Barack Obama leave office or if they change their minds, the priorities of the Justice Department may shift again. Federal prosecutors could ignore the guidelines and root out medical marijuana users anyway. United for Care, the group pushing for the Florida initiative, said the lack of enforcement is an integral part of what makes medical marijuana laws possible, and is at the heart of the proposed amendment. "Our aim is not to set up a marijuana business," campaign manager Ben Pollara said. "We want safe access to medical marijuana." Bondi’s office, meanwhile, doesn’t see it that way. "Currently it is illegal," communications director Jennifer Meale said. "Whether there are other considerations doesn’t change the fact that it is illegal." Our ruling There are a lot of talking points about medical marijuana being passed around in Florida, but one immutable fact underlies the pro- and anti-marijuana lobbies: The federal government considers cannabis an illegal drug by law. Whether that’s the way it should be depends on your point of view. Proponents point to current federal administrative guidelines that deprioritize marijuana prosecution, saying that state preferences equal de facto law. The state attorney general says that even if the U.S. Attorney General’s Office says it’s not focusing on medical marijuana laws, that doesn’t change the Controlled Substances Act. Only Congress could do that. Even with the caveats implied by the U.S. government’s recent guidance, Bondi’s office declared "whether the Amendment passes or not, the medical use of marijuana is a federal criminal offense." Whether you’re a supporter of states’ rights or not, she’s correct. We rate this statement True.	None	Pam Bondi	None	None	None	2013-12-17T09:55:51	2013-10-24	['None']
-pomt-02883	Says Rick Scott "cut education by $1.3 billion" in his first year, then "in his second year he decreases funding by $300 million to our state universities."	/florida/statements/2013/nov/11/charlie-crist/charlie-crist-says-rick-scott-cut-k-12-13-billion-/	Former Gov. Charlie Crist has portrayed Gov. Rick Scott as taking a chainsaw to the state’s education budget. Crist, now a Democrat, spoke about education funding in an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on Nov. 5, 2013, the day after he announced that he would challenge the Republican governor. (Crist was a Republican governor in 2007 but left the party while running for his failed U.S. Senate bid in 2010.) "First thing he does when he comes in, Chuck, is cut education by $1.3 billion," Crist said. "That’s an incredible decrease. Then in his second year he decreases funding by $300 million to our state universities." Scott and his backers have touted teacher pay raises that Scott pushed this year, while the Democrats have attacked him for cuts. In this fact-check we will explain if Scott cut education by $1.3 billion in his first year in office in 2011 and then in the second year cut $300 million from state universities. K-12 budget As Scott approached his first legislative session in 2011, he unveiled a budget proposal at a tea party rally that included steep spending cuts, including to education. Ultimately, the Republican-led Legislature backed some of those cuts. Multiple news articles described the cuts to K-12 education at more than $1 billion -- and many articles used that $1.3 billion figure cited by Crist. A Senate budget subcommittee conference report during the 2011 session shows a cut of about $1.35 billion. But not all of that cut was as a result of reduced state funding -- the largest chunk of the decline was due to the fact that the two years of federal stimulus funds had expired. In 2009-10 and 2010-11, the state received federal stimulus dollars. (Crist was the governor when the state accepted the stimulus.) When the state got the stimulus, it reduced the state’s contribution by the same amount. When the stimulus funds expired, Scott and the Legislature chose not to fully reinstate the state dollars. The Florida Education Finance Program, the main source of dollars for K-12 education, is by law a combination of state and local funding. Each school district must contribute property tax dollars called the "required local effort" -- and the state dictates the amount. Between 2010-11 and 2011-12, the state cut its own contribution to education funding by about $200 million, but it also reduced the local contribution by $572 million. Add in the lost federal stimulus money of $870 million, and we get $1.6 billion in funding reductions. Finally, there were other things happening that reduced funding for schools, said Ruth Melton, legislative director for the Florida School Boards Association. During this same time period most school districts lost the authority to levy local discretionary millage (a loss of about $200 million) and had to serve an additional 25,000 students (an additional cost of about $155 million). On the plus side of the ledger, the state did get more federal aid apart from the stimulus, of about $555 million through a program known as Education Jobs Fund Program. "In short, I can make a very strong case that the cut between 2010-11 and 2011-12 was more than $2 billion, but I can also find my way to agreeing that the cut was about $1.4 billion," Melton said. "Whatever the case, it seems that the bottom line is that the state could have increased state and local funding levels to cover, at a minimum, the loss of the (stimulus) funds, but chose not to do so." The education cuts aren’t on Scott’s plate alone, but he was one of the main driver’s behind them. Scott proposed even steeper cuts to education, and in the end he signed off on the budget crafted by the Legislature. By December 2011, Scott did a major about-face and called for a $1 billion boost to education, though that did not fully cover the previous cut. "I will not sign a budget that does not significantly increase state funding for education," Scott said at a news conference in the Capitol, the Tampa Bay Times reported. "We've got to really focus on education." With an eye toward his 2014 re-election campaign, Scott has touted education funding increases. The Department of Education’s powerpoint shows funding hit a recent low of $16.6 billion in 2010-11. But then, over the next two years, it rose to $18.3 billion in 2013-14. But that’s still lower than the pre-recession level -- in 2007-08 the total was $18.7 billion. One of Scott’s victories in the most recent session was persuading the Legislature to agree to his plan for $480 million in teacher raises. Scott’s spokesman also cited a 2013 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that said Florida had the second-largest per pupil increase in education spending for the 2013-14 budget year, only behind Oregon. But despite that increase, the report also showed that Florida was among the majority of the states where funding per student remained lower than 2008. Higher education Crist specified cuts to the state’s universities, not state colleges and community colleges, so we will focus this part of our fact-check on state funding for universities. State appropriations for universities dropped by $303.7 million between 2011 and 2012, according to the Florida Board of Governors. Lawmakers assumed that universities would dip into reserves and increase tuition up to 15 percent to cover the shortfall. In 2013, lawmakers approved restoring the $300 million, and schools received additional money for particular projects. That means the total state appropriations (general revenue plus education enhancements) grew by about $519 million between 2012-13 and 2013-14. "For the first time in seven years, our universities did not see their budgets cut," wrote Frank Brogan, chancellor of the State University System, in an op-ed in the Tampa Bay Times. "This is a welcome change that we hope signals the state's long-term re-investment in higher education, particularly following years in which students have shouldered more and more of the costs." Why would the Legislature slash $300 million only to restore it -- and then some -- the next year? The Legislature looked at universities’ reserves and found they had more than $1 billion, well above the legal requirement of about $250 million, said Tim Jones, chief financial officer for the Board of Governors. So the Legislature essentially told universities that the state was going to cut $300 million to balance the budget, and universities could use reserves to cover the loss. The plan was that it would be a one-year cut and they’d get their money back the following year if the state budget outlook was brighter. "Universities know that every year kind of stands alone," Jones said. "If the (state’s) budget had been bad, they could have said, ‘Sorry, we can’t restore it this year." Our ruling Crist said that Gov. Rick Scott "cut education by $1.3 billion" in his first year and then "in his second year he decreases funding by $300 million to our state universities." There are various ways to add up the total cuts in K-12. Crist uses the $1.3 billion figure that includes the cut in state and state-required local dollars, but the largest chunk was due to the expiration of the stimulus funds. The state also cut $300 million from universities during Scott’s second legislative session. We should note that much of K-12 education funding was restored, though it’s still below pre-recession levels. And the Legislature restored the cut to universities the next year. The bottom line, though, is that Crist chose his words carefully, and those cuts did happen during the years he mentioned. We rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2013-11-11T10:33:10	2013-11-05	['None']
-hoer-00152	Killer Text Message	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/sms-death-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Killer Text Message Hoax	April 2009	None	['None']
-snes-02445	A Clinton Foundation cargo ship arriving from Africa was raided and found to contain "illegal contraband" in the form of foreign refugees, narcotics, weapons, and illegal fruits.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-foundation-cargo-ship/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Clinton Foundation Cargo Ship Raided at Port of Baltimore Reveals ‘Sick Secret’?	11 May 2017	None	['Africa', 'Clinton_Foundation']
-pomt-14003	"More businesses went out of business last year than were started for the first time in our history."	/nbc/statements/2016/jun/03/david-perdue/sen-perdue-uses-bad-history-business-birthdeath-tr/	Some Republicans might have misgivings about Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, but Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., isn’t one of them. Perdue told NBC News that Trump has what the country needs. "We have the lowest worker participation rate since 1978," Perdue told host Chuck Todd on Meet the Press Daily on June 2. "Poverty rate hasn’t changed. More businesses went out of business last year than were started for the first time in our history, Chuck. This is an economic fiscal policy that is failing, and I believe this guy (Trump) will absolutely set us in the right direction to change that." We wanted to look at that statement about more businesses closing than opening last year. Perdue’s communications director Megan Whittemore sent us charts of business births and deaths posted by Gallup and the Brookings Institution, but neither had numbers beyond 2011. Whittemore said "the trend is still downward of where it should be and that’s the point the senator is making." But Perdue said the number of deaths exceeded the number of births, not that growth was lackluster or some variation of that theme. And the data after 2011 paint a different picture from what Perdue presented. The U.S. Census Bureau collects data on new businesses forming and businesses closing as part of a project called Business Dynamics Statistics. The Census data undercut Perdue’s claim in several ways. 1. The numbers only go back to 1977. Perdue said, "More businesses went out of business last year than were started for the first time in our history." No one has exact figures on what happened before 1977. But it is likely that in the depths of the Great Depression during the 1930s, more firms folded than were created. 2. The figures for "last year" -- 2015 -- aren’t available. They’re not available for 2014, either. 3. The limited data does show a few years when more businesses were closing than opening, but not for the most recent years. In 1981, the country lost about 31,000 more businesses than were created. That trend reversed in 1982 and stayed that way until 2009. That year, and in 2010, more businesses closed than opened. That flipped again the following year. In 2011, the country saw a tiny gain of about 6,000 businesses. That was followed by net gains of about 40,000 in 2012 and nearly 70,000 in 2013 This chart based on the Census Bureau’s Business Dynamics Statistics shows the ebb and flow. Ian Hathaway, a Brookings Institution non-resident senior fellow who has studied patterns of business openings and closings, said Perdue’s statement is incorrect. "He is making a stale statement," Hathaway said. Our ruling Perdue said that last year the country saw more businesses closing than starting for the first time in the nation’s history. That’s wrong. Data doesn’t exist for last year. And the last year data is available, 2013, showed the opposite trend. Perdue’s historical claim also falls short. In 1981, there were more deaths than births. We rate this claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/6749fafb-c552-477a-90bd-14b78cc01c6b	None	David Perdue	None	None	None	2016-06-03T17:30:00	2016-06-02	['None']
-pomt-10784	"Another one he should veto is the SCHIP program, which he should say 'Take the C out of, because now it's for everybody, like every other entitlement program.'"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/15/john-mccain/mccain-trips-on-word-everybody/	Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., argues that President Bush was correct to veto legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program because it would allow "everybody" to enroll. If "everybody" qualified for SCHIP and McCain says, there would be no need for private health insurance, Americans would be taking home more money in their paychecks because they wouldn't have to pay premiums and the federal government would be flat-out bankrupt. But even in the complex formula for SCHIP eligibility it's easy to dream up an example of someone who wouldn't qualify. Say, a single, 25-year-old man, earning $75,000 a year. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "everybody" as "every person." The SCHIP bill that Bush vetoed would cover more people than before, but it certainly wouldn't cover everybody.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2007-10-15T00:00:00	2007-10-09	['None']
-farg-00469	“Sandy Hook alleged victims alive and well!!!”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/sandy-hook-hoax-revisited/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['conspiracy theories']	Sandy Hook Hoax Revisited	February 28, 2018	2018-02-28 19:59:05 UTC	['None']
-pomt-09034	"President Barack Obama has deported more people in his first year in office than George W. Bush in his last year in office."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/06/jorge-ramos/obama-deported-more-people-his-first-year-bush-did/	On the July 4, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week, Jorge Ramos -- a prominent news anchor for Univision, the Spanish-language television network -- said that "President Barack Obama has deported more people in his first year in office than George W. Bush in his last year in office." With immigration policy a hot political topic these days, we thought Ramos' statement was worth checking. When we contacted Ramos, he said the information had come from the White House. The White House, in turn, referred us to the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesman provided us with the deportation statistics updated through June 7, 2010, though not all the numbers have been officially released yet. In fiscal year 2008 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2007, through Sept. 30, 2008), there were 369,221 deportations. During fiiscal year 2009 (which ran from Oct. 1, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2009) there were 387,790 deportations. That's an increase of 18,569 from one year to the next, a jump of about 5 percent. So, using these numbers, Ramos is correct. It's worth mentioning a few caveats however. • The fiscal years do not square precisely with presidential years. Fiscal year 2008 was entirely under Bush, while fiscal year 2009 consisted of four months under Bush and eight under Obama. So using the raw fiscal-year figures doesn't quite prove the Bush-Obama comparison. • It's not clear that Obama policies deserve credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for any increase in deportations, as Ramos implies. Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokesman for the Migration Policy Institute, said that "deportation numbers have been on a steadily upward trajectory" since 2002, due to a number of policy changes initially undertaken during the Bush administration. Indeed, between 2002 and 2008, deportations rose by 117 percent. • DHS also provided totals for part of fiscal year 2010 -- the portion from Oct. 1, 2009, through June 7, 2010. That number was 227,163. If you prorate that amount to a full 12 months, you get a full-year total of 330,419 -- which is less than each of the two previous years. However, immigration experts said that deportations are not spaced equally throughout the year, meaning that prorating is not necessarily valid. In our view, these caveats add a bit of uncertainty to Ramos' otherwise clear comparison. So we rate his statement Mostly True.	None	Jorge Ramos	None	None	None	2010-07-06T16:11:38	2010-07-04	['George_W._Bush', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-03383	Donald Trump will be a "part-time President" and keep his job on "Celebrity Apprentice."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-remain-apprentice-inauguration/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Donald Trump to Remain on ‘The Apprentice’ after Inauguration	9 December 2016	None	['None']
-pose-01028	"President Obama set a goal to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016 and is working to double American exports over the next five years by promoting U.S. goods and removing trade barriers, expanding access to credit, and promoting strong growth."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1108/create-1-million-new-manufacturing-jobs-end-2016/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Create 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016	2013-01-20T06:00:00	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-para-00225	"Same-sex couples earn 29 per cent more money than male-female couples. Mum and Dad taxpayers are the most oppressed Australians in our economy."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/15/christian-democratic-party/feeling-oppressed-Freds-got-someone-to-blame/index.html	None	['Cost of living', 'Minorities', 'Religion']	Christian Democratic Party	Flynn Murphy, Peter Fray	None	Feeling economic heat? Fred's got someone for you to blame	Thursday, August 15, 2013 at 7:38 p.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-04255	When it comes to income taxes, Wisconsin is "one of the best places in the country to be poor" but "top 4 or 5 worst" for middle-income earners.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/14/robin-vos/vos-says-income-taxes-wisconsin-one-easiest-poor-a/	It’s one of Madison’s worst-kept secrets: Republicans at the Capitol want to cut state income taxes, and hope to take up the issue in the 2013 legislative session, which begins in January. The question is: Cut them for who? On that, it’s a good idea to listen to Rep. Robin Vos, the Republican from Rochester who was elected Nov. 13, 2012 as speaker of the state Assembly. Vos made clear in a recent WisPolitics interview that his top priority is a middle-class income tax cut. "If you’re poor in Wisconsin, it is one of the best places in the country to be poor. We’re in the bottom 10 states as far as paying taxes if you’re poor," Vos said in the interview. "If you’re successful, we are in the middle. I think we’re number 15 or 16 ..." "But if you’re a person in the middle class, somebody who makes $20,000 to $200,000, you’re in the top 4 or 5 worst places in the country to be a middle-class income taxpayer." Vos went on to tell WisPolitics that Republicans want an across-the-board income-tax cut, though the "primary benefits" would go to the middle class. When we asked him to clarify what he meant, he told us fiscal constraints might preclude -- for now -- reducing income tax rates on upper-income earners for whom legislative Democrats and Gov. Jim Doyle raised the top rate in 2010. So, is Vos right about how the income tax burden affects low and middle-income earners? When asked for backup, Vos pointed us to research presented to the bipartisan Steering Committee on Income Tax, a study group chaired by Vos that was set up through the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council. Lower-income workers: Vos said their income tax burden is in the bottom 10, and it’s clear from the complete interview he meant among the 41 states that levy a personal income tax. In a November 2009 study, the nonpartisan, liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) ranked the burden on the lowest one-fifth of Wisconsin’s earners as the 29th-lowest among those 41 states. That’s not quite bottom 10, but the group’s executive Matthew Gardner told us the difference between Wisconsin and the lowest rung of the bottom 10 was so "trivially small" as to be meaningless. Another 50-state study, by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association in 2011, ranked the low-income burden in Wisconsin as either 32nd- or 34th-lowest for married couples at $10,000 or $20,000. Both are bottom 10. In Wisconsin, as in several other states, the working poor often have a "negative" income tax bill -- they get tax credits that wipe out their tax liability and in some cases result in a payment to them from the state. Wisconsin would be lower in these rankings, but some states pay even larger credits. Middle-income earners: Vos said this group faces a top-five burden. Income taxes paid by Wisconsin married couples and single heads of household in the $75,000 to $100,000 income range are fifth-highest in the country, based on the Minnesota study. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue indirectly cited the Minnesota study in testimony before the Vos-chaired study group. A sub-group of all married couples -- senior couples making $100,000 -- have the fourth-highest. The Minnesota group’s research director, Aaron Twait, said he considers the $100,000 mark for two earners a classic middle-class household, based on average incomes in Wisconsin and Minnesota. In addition, the ITEP study shows only four states collecting a higher average tax rate than Wisconsin in the $57,000-$88,000 range. So Vos has evidence to back up this part of his claim. But when you look at other levels within Vos’s middle-class range of $20,000 to $200,000, the burden is not quite as heavy as Vos said. For example, at the $150,000 level in the Minnesota study, the rankings are No. 10 for singles, No. 8 for married couples filing jointly and No. 9 for single heads of household. Again, that’s among the 41 states with an income tax. At $50,000, we found a mix of rankings between No. 3 and No. 7. Finally, Vos mentioned one other income group, the "successful," by which he meant upper-income. It’s not part of the claim we’re testing, but Vos said that group’s income-tax burden was in the middle of the 41 states. That’s basically on target. We found tax-burden rankings from No. 11 to No. 17 for top earners in categories such as $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million annual income. These rankings were from the Minnesota study. The ITEP study also shows the rankings falling as income rises. Our rating Vos said that when it comes to income taxes, Wisconsin is "one of the best places in the country to be poor" but "top 4 or 5 worst" for middle-income earners. He’s mostly on target here, based on credible tax studies showing a very low burden on the working poor, compared to a very high burden on many middle-income earners. Not all the middle-income earners face a top-5 tax burden, though: It’s top-10 for some in the middle-class as he defined it. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Robin Vos	None	None	None	2012-11-14T09:00:00	2012-11-08	['Wisconsin']
-goop-01047	Tom Cruise, Jane Fonda Dating, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-cruise-jane-fonda-dating-romance-rumors-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Tom Cruise, Jane Fonda NOT Dating, Despite “Romance Rumors”	3:57 pm, May 7, 2018	None	['Tom_Cruise']
-snes-01101	Was an NFL Lawyer Who Claimed the Super Bowl Is ‘Rigged’ Found Dead?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-lawyer-dead/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was an NFL Lawyer Who Claimed the Super Bowl Is ‘Rigged’ Found Dead?	29 January 2018	None	['None']
-snes-02840	Ivana Trump claimed her famous ex-husband Donald is addicted to penile enhancement pills.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ivana-trump-enlargement-pills/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Ex-Wife Ivana Claims Donald Trump Is Addicted to Penis Enlargement Pills?	3 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03090	"Over the past 35 years, Florida families have paid into the (National Flood Insurance Program) over $16 billion, four times more than the amount they have received in claim reimbursements."	/florida/statements/2013/sep/25/rick-scott/rick-scott-says-floridians-pay-far-more-flood-insu/	Some Floridians are about to face a wallop of an increase on flood insurance -- and that’s something Republican Gov. Rick Scott, who is campaigning for re-election, hopes to stop. Scott wrote a letter to Florida’s U.S. senators, Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Bill Nelson, urging Congress to delay a planned rate hike on some flood insurance policies and to continue federal subsidies. For that to happen, the Senate needs to vote on a proposal that the House approved in June. Nelson has indicated he supports a delay, while Rubio’s position has been less clear. The Tampa Bay Times reported in September that Rubio "will continue to work with colleagues on solutions to make the flood program sustainable 'without excessively burdening Florida's families,' spokeswoman Brooke Sammon said." Florida has already gotten the short end of the stick on flood insurance, says Scott. "Over the past 35 years, Florida families have paid into the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) over $16 billion, four times more than the amount they have received in claim reimbursements," Scott wrote in a Sept. 17 letter. We wanted to research Scott’s claim about how much Floridians have paid into the program and how much we have received in claims. Flood insurance reform The National Flood Insurance Program, run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, started in 1968. More than 5 million property owners nationwide hold flood insurance, and about 20 percent are subsidized. After the 2005 storm season -- which included Hurricane Katrina -- the program became indebted to the U.S. Treasury. As of May 2013, it owed about $24 billion. (A recent General Accounting Office report gives a full dissection of the program’s shortcomings.) In an effort to avoid insolvency, lawmakers passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act in 2012. The law requires the program to raise rates about 25 percent a year for certain properties until they reflect true flood risk. The increases apply to businesses, second homes and homes that have had severe or repetitive losses -- that’s about 50,000 policy holders in Florida. For policy holders who own just one home, the increases won’t kick in until they sell their home, their policy lapses or they have severe or repetitive losses. The increases don’t apply to about 115,000 subsidized condos or multifamily homes or about 1.8 million policies that aren’t subsidized in Florida. According to a FEMA map, many of Florida’s affected homeowners are in coastal Miami-Dade, Pinellas and Lee counties. For those facing the flood insurance hike, it’s a double whammy on top of increases for Citizens hurricane insurance. Florida’s premiums vs. claims The state’s Office of Insurance Regulation directed us to an issue brief written by the University of Pennsylvania Wharton Center for Risk Management and Decision Processes. (Scott’s office directed us to a 2013 Tampa Bay Times article that cited the Wharton Center’s research.) The 2010 study showed that in some states policyholders paid far more in premiums than they collected in claims between 1978 and 2008 -- a 30-year stretch. (That's five years fewer than Scott claimed, but as we’ll see, the numbers likely hold true through 2013, for a total of 35 years.) In Florida, "policyholders paid $16.1 billion in premiums but collected only $4.5 billion in claims reimbursements: that is, premiums paid over time were about 3.6 times the insurance reimbursements," according to the study. Florida wasn’t alone in paying more into the program than receiving back in claims. Thirteen states had an even higher ratio, and Colorado was the highest. (Florida was tied for 14th with Montana.) "The situation is reversed in Texas, where flood insurance policyholders paid $4.5 billion in premiums but collected a larger $6.7 billion in claims," the study states. The study was based on data from the flood insurance program, so we went directly to the program and FEMA to check the data ourselves. We found fairly similar numbers to the Wharton study. The author of the Wharton study, Erwann Michel-Kerjan, told PolitiFact that his figure of $4.5 billion for claims in Florida through 2008 was higher than FEMA’s of $3.7 billion through mid 2013 because he accounted for inflation. Also, it’s worth noting that many of our big storms were in 2005-06, not in more recent years. So the trend in payments from 1978 to 2008 likely continues today. We asked Michel-Kerjan if we should expect Floridians to continue paying more in premiums than they receive in reimbursements. "Keep in mind though that if there is a severe hurricane hitting the state and massive storm surge, the situation could well reverse: Florida might become a net beneficiary of the program, rather than being a net contributor," he said. "This is what happened to Louisiana with Katrina in 2005." The Tampa Bay Times explained: "Like any other insurance, flood premiums don't reflect real-life events; they reflect risk. With its 1,200 miles of coastline, Florida is still considered more at risk than any other state. Just one major, slow moving hurricane that hits a populated part of Florida's coast could dramatically increase the state's flood claims. And private insurers have been unwilling to provide flood coverage." Our ruling Scott said "Over the past 35 years, Florida families have paid into the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) over $16 billion, four times more than the amount they have received in claim reimbursements." A study from the Wharton Center concluded that Florida’s "policyholders paid $16.1 billion in premiums but collected only $4.5 billion in claims reimbursements: that is, premiums paid over time were about 3.6 times the insurance reimbursements." That statistic from the study covered 1978-2008, but it’s likely the trend has continued through 2012. The only key point that Scott omits is that this imbalance is common: Lots of states pay more in premiums than they receive in claims. A major storm could change that dynamic, and the purpose of insurance is to protect against such an event. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2013-09-25T17:05:56	2013-09-17	['None']
-pomt-04116	"A far different picture from the prior eight years, which saw 115 increases in taxes and fees."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/jan/10/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-taxes-fees-raised-115-times-8-/	Chris Christie hasn’t completed his first term as governor yet but under his leadership, the state is in better shape than during previous administrations, he suggested Tuesday. During his State of the State address, Christie listed a number of accomplishments achieved since taking office in January 2010. Among them: a 2 percent property tax cap, pension and health benefits reforms, balanced budgets (required by state law), no new taxes and job growth. "A far different picture from the prior eight years, which saw 115 increases in taxes and fees," Christie said during his address in the Assembly chamber at the Statehouse in Trenton. That’s a lot of increases, but Christie is right. And this isn’t the first time PolitiFact New Jersey has checked this claim. Let’s revisit our original fact-check on a similar claim made by state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. in an Oct. 7, 2011 news release. At that time Kean said, "Over the past 10 years, Democrats have been in control of the Legislature and have done a disservice to New Jersey workers and their families by raising taxes over 115 times, making New Jersey increasingly unaffordable and chasing jobs to neighboring states." Republicans provided us with a list that included tax and fee hikes as well as tax policy changes that occurred between fiscal years 2003 and 2010. It’s worth noting that even though Kean specified increases over a 10-year time frame and Christie specified an eight-year time frame, both were using the same list of tax and fee increases. Kean’s claim was rated Half True. Now let’s look back at the increases in question. Democrats held legislative majorities in the eight years before Christie became governor. His predecessors during that time were Jim McGreevey, Richard Codey and Jon Corzine. Although most of the bills in question during their tenures were sponsored by Democrats, a few had Republican support. Among the many tax increases were raising the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent and applying the tax to things such as tanning and limousine services. Also, the state twice increased the gross income tax on New Jerseyans with six-figure incomes: in 2004 for those with income exceeding $500,000 and again in 2009 for those incomes above $400,000. Also among the increases were hikes in dozens of fees, such as a new $1.50 fee on the sale of new vehicle tires. So while those types of measures cost some residents more money, they are not tax increases. Overall, the list provided by Republicans showed that there were dozens of increases in taxes or fees or other tax policy changes that could result in individuals or businesses paying higher taxes. The key difference between Kean’s claim in 2011 and Christie’s, though, is that Kean specified only tax increases and tied those increases to driving jobs out of state. The governor said taxes and fees were raised 115 times in the eight years before he took office. "The Governor was correct," spokesman Michael Drewniak said in an e-mail Wednesday. Our ruling In sharing some of the state’s achievements during his State of the State address Tuesday, Christie talked about a variety of fiscal goals he has overseen since taking office in 2010: balanced budgets (a state requirement),, tax relief, pension and health reforms, and job growth. "A far different picture from the prior eight years, which saw 115 increases in taxes and fees," he said. We have checked that claim before, when Kean made a similar statement in a 2011 news release. Back then Kean mentioned only tax increases, but there were quite a few fee increases, too. While higher fees represent more cost for taxpayers, they are not tax hikes. Christie, however, got it right when he said taxes and fees. We rate the governor’s statement True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2013-01-10T07:30:00	2013-01-08	['None']
-goop-02132	Khloe Kardashian, Kylie Jenner Announcing Pregnancies On “KUWTK” Finale?	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-kylie-jenner-announcing-pregnancies-kuwtk-finale/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian, Kylie Jenner Announcing Pregnancies On “KUWTK” Finale?	9:53 am, November 28, 2017	None	['Keeping_Up_with_the_Kardashians']
-snes-02296	Hillary Clinton Found Dead?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-found-dead/	None	Junk News	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Hillary Clinton Found Dead?	1 June 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04599	"Tim Kaine doubled down in his support of devastating defense cuts, saying the ‘the deal was the right thing to do.’"	/virginia/statements/2012/sep/20/george-allen/george-allen-says-tim-kaine-has-doubled-down-his-s/	In recent weeks, Republican U.S. Senate candidate George Allen’s website has opened with a picture of a chained iron gate and the headline: "Devastating job losses for Virginia." "Tim Kaine doubled down in his support of devastating defense cuts, saying the ‘the deal was the right thing to do,’" the webpage proclaims. The claim originates from a July 21 debate in Hot Springs between Allen and Kaine, the Democratic senate nominee. Allen criticized last year’s congressional deal to raise the nation’s debt limit, a compromise that could trigger $500 billion in automatic defense cuts to begin in January. "George, the deal was the right thing to do," Kaine said. Allen, on his website and at numerous appearances, has used that comment to argue Kaine supports those looming defense cuts which, according to projections from George Mason University, could cost Virginia 136,000 jobs. So we took a look at Allen’s claim that Kaine not only backed the automatic defense cuts, but has "doubled down" in his support of them. The deal The debt ceiling is the legal limit the federal government can borrow and, since its establishment in 1917, Congress routinely raised it almost 80 times so the United States could continue to meet its obligations. Allen, during his term in the Senate from 2001 to 2007, voted four times to increase the cap. But the comity ended during the summer of 2011 when the U.S. hit its $14.2 trillion limit and neared an Aug. 2 deadline when it would start defaulting on debts if it couldn’t borrow more. Republicans insisted on tying a borrowing increase to passage of a debt reduction plan. Negotiations between Congress and the White House stalemated, with the GOP demanding that all of the debt reductions come from spending cuts and Democrats insisting that a portion come from tax increases. A last-second compromise passed the House by a 269-161 vote on August 1 and, a day later, cleared the Senate on a 74-26 vote. It took a two-step approach to lowering debt. The first part called for an initial $900 billion in deficit reductions over 10 years through a mix of national security and domestic spending cuts. The second part created a bipartisan congressional super committee assigned to come up with at least an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions over nine years through spending cuts, tax revenues or both. If the panel deadlocked, $1 trillion in automatic cuts over nine years -- split evenly between defense and domestic programs -- would be triggered at the start of 2013. While the initial $900 billion in cuts received little attention, the added $1 trillion in automatic cuts, called sequestration, was supposed to be such a dire consequence that it would spur the super committee to craft a bipartisan package of deficit reductions. Although measure passed with bipartisan support, neither Democrats nor Republican were enamored with it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, voted for the bill although he said it was "not perfect." Still, Cantor said, "This measure that cuts spending and puts in place long-term fiscal reforms marks the first big change we have accomplished." President Barack Obama signed the bill, calling it an "important first step to ensuring that as a nation we live within our means." Kaine’s position When the initial compromise was struck in Aug. 1, Kaine, called it a "flawed but necessary agreement." "While far from perfect, the current approach before Congress maintains economic stability by raising the debt ceiling and enacts important spending cuts that will help preserve our nation’s and Virginia’s credit rating," Kaine said. Kaine expressed optimistic about the panel. "I sincerely hope that negotiating without the specter of default or economic collapse will result in less partisan maneuvering and grandstanding and more pragmatic solutions," he said. But last November, the commission announced it failed to come up with a deficit reduction plan, starting the clock ticking towards the automatic cuts that will begin in January unless the White House and Congress intervene. Kaine said in a November 21 news release that he still hoped that deep defense cuts would be avoided. He suggested Congress turn to bipartisan deficit proposals made by a White House commission in late 2010 and by a group of six senators including, Mark Warner, D-Va. "There are good models on the table -- Simpson/Bowles proposal and the Gang of Six -- that can be the basis of a meaningful solution that will avoid harmful cuts to defense and health care, cuts that have a particularly negative impact on Virginia," Kaine wrote. Fast forward to the July 21 debate, and Kaine basically said the same thing. "I believe Congress can still find a deal to avoid the need for cuts that are going to jeopardize our nation’s defense," Kaine said. "Thank goodness Mark Warner and others in the Gang of Six are working to try to find a path forward that will avoid these cuts." Kaine, on Sept. 17, endorsed several steps to raise revenues that would replace most of the $1 trillion in sequestration cuts. He called for allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire for those with incomes of $500,000 or more, repealing the prohibition on Medicare negotiating with prescription drug companies and ending tax breaks to the "Big Five" oil companies. Those moves -- all likely to face strong opposition in Congress -- would generate about $750 billion over 10 years, according to federal projections. Allen’s position Allen voted four times to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2007. But while the issue was being debated in 2011, he urged Republicans to hold out. "We conservatives have to say, `If you want us to vote for this, there need to be real cuts...and if we don’t get it, we’re not going to vote for that debt ceiling increase." Allen, during the 2011 debt limit debate, signed a "cut, cap and balance" pledge that was embraced by many conservative and tea party Republicans. It called for $100 billion in immediate, unspecified budget cuts, a Balanced Budget Amendment, a super majority vote to raise taxes, and phasing in of a cap that in 2017 would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Federal spending this fiscal year is projected at $3.8 trillion, or 24.4 percent of the nation’s $15.6 trillion GDP. Allen has signed a pledge not to support any tax increases. In campaign appearances and policy papers, he has endorsed broad, unspecific policies for reducing spending: a federal government hiring freeze that would not include the military, less regulation and the rooting out of waste. He is calling for significant reform to entitlement programs, praising Republican proposals to turn Medicare into a program in which seniors would receive government subsidies to purchase private insurance and calling on Washington to cede control of Medicaid to states. He says aggressive development of U.S. fossil fuels will create jobs and "billions in revenues without raising taxes." We should note that Gov. Bob McDonnell -- a Republican and longtime military man -- supported the debt limit deal in 2011 and recently reaffirmed his position in an Aug. 15 speech to the General Assembly’s money committees. The governor said that the compromise was passed in the shadow of a looming default on U.S. debts. "For that reason, many reluctantly supported the final agreement that passed, not because of what it contained, but because of what it prevented," McDonnell said. The governor, in the same speech, said that the defense cuts would be "devastating" to Virginia. Our ruling Allen said that Kaine, in sticking by his endorsement of the the 2011 debt deal, is "doubling down" in his support of looming defense cuts. There’s no doubt Kaine backed the debt-limit agreement at the time and does not second-guess his support. He said, during a debate this summer, "the deal was the right thing to do." So Kaine cannot divorce himself from the consequences of the deal. The consequences -- $1 trillion in cuts to split evenly between defense and domestic programs was set up as a bitter pill so unpalatable to Republicans and Democrats that it would spur a compromise in slicing the deficit. The cuts were set up as a possibility, not a guarantee. Kaine has consistently said he supported the deal because it was important to raise the debt limit so Washington could continue pay its bills. There’s no record of Kaine calling for the deep defense cuts; to the contrary, he repeatedly said he hoped Congress would strike a compromise to avoid them. That’s the same position that Gov. McDonnell, a Republican, embraced last year and defended this summer. We doubt that Allen would level the same charge against McDonnell that he has against Kaine. That’s because it is possible to have supported the compromise out of a desire to keep Washington solvent and wish no harm to the nation’s defense. So we find Allen’s statement has some accuracy but is lacking in context. We rate it Half True.	None	George Allen	None	None	None	2012-09-20T10:08:53	2012-09-10	['None']
-vogo-00357	Statement: San Diego’s “recycled H20 would be more purified than Orange County,” City Councilman Kevin Faulconer tweeted July 7.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/science-environment/fact-check-cleaner-water-than-orange-county/	Analysis: Last year, the City Council approved $11.8 million to study purifying sewage and adding it to San Diego’s drinkable water supply. The city began isolated tests of the process this year and Faulconer tweeted during a tour of the treatment facility July 7.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Cleaner Water than Orange County?	August 2, 2011	None	['Orange_County,_California', 'San_Diego']
-pomt-06173	"(The Opportunity Scholarship Act) would be funded directly from public school budgets. So it would absolutely take money out of the public school system to transfer to private and religious schools."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/dec/15/julia-sass-rubin/anti-voucher-advocate-claims-proposed-scholarship-/	Thousands of students could receive a private education through corporate donations to a so-called "scholarship" program, but one critic claims the proposed school voucher program would be funded on the backs of public schools. Julia Sass Rubin, a spokeswoman for the anti-voucher group Save Our Schools NJ, explained the funding mechanism within the proposed legislation, known as the Opportunity Scholarship Act, during a recent interview on News 12 New Jersey’s Power & Politics show. "(The Opportunity Scholarship Act) would be funded directly from public school budgets," Rubin said during the show broadcast on Dec. 3 and 4. "So it would absolutely take money out of the public school system to transfer to private and religious schools." After reviewing the legislation, PolitiFact New Jersey determined that Rubin skipped a few elements of the proposed voucher program, but she still has a point that public schools would lose state aid as a result. There’s no direct link between the scholarships and public school budgets, as Rubin said. Students would receive scholarships through donations made by corporations, and use them to pay for tuition at other public schools or private schools. However, those corporations would get tax credits in return, and to make up for that lost tax revenue, the state would withhold aid from the students’ original school districts. In a phone interview, Rubin acknowledged the process involving the tax credits, but argued that public schools are ultimately paying for the program. "It’s like a money laundering scheme," Rubin told us. "It’s a direct reduction in school aid. So the schools are paying for it." Let’s explain how the proposed voucher program would work: The Opportunity Scholarship Act is part of Gov. Chris Christie’s education reform agenda, but the legislation has stalled in the Legislature since early this year. About two weeks ago, opponents and supporters of the bill held competing rallies, one in Jersey City and one in Trenton. The current version of the Act would set up a five-year pilot program to award scholarships to public and private school students residing in 13 school districts with failing schools, including Asbury Park and Newark. Public school students would be able to leave those districts and attend school elsewhere. Three organizations throughout the state would distribute the scholarships to parents or guardians of the selected students. Corporations making donations for the scholarships would get tax credits worth 100 percent of the value of their donations, costing the state millions’ worth of tax revenue. That’s where the school aid dollars come in. According to the state’s nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, which analyzed the Senate version of the bill, up to nearly $1.2 billion in state aid would be initially withheld from the 13 districts over the course of the program. Of that amount, about $354 million would be returned to the districts, according to OLS. But the remaining roughly $840 million would be retained by the state to offset the loss of corporate business taxes, according to OLS. So, the scholarships would not be directly funded by public school dollars, but in a roundabout way, education aid would be withheld to cover the tax credits granted to donors providing the scholarships. But Adam Bauer, a spokesman for Republican state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., one of the bill’s sponsors, argued that under the state’s school funding formula, schools would lose a proportionate share of state aid if their enrollment declined for any other reason. "That’s how the formula works," Bauer said in an email. "Why then is it such a travesty when this happens as a result of a student choosing to go elsewhere as part of a scholarship program?" Our ruling In a television interview, Rubin claimed the Opportunity Scholarship Act "would be funded directly from public school budgets" and "take money out of the public school system to transfer to private and religious schools." The program would not make a direct link between public school budgets and the scholarships. But to offset the cost of tax credits awarded to the scholarship donors, the participating school districts would lose state aid. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Julia Sass Rubin	None	None	None	2011-12-15T07:30:00	2011-12-03	['None']
-pomt-06213	Says the congressional ethics investigation against him was conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/07/newt-gingrich/newt-gingrich-blasts-1990s-ethics-investigation-hi/	During a Dec. 6, 2011, interview on Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for his view about a comment House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had made a few days earlier. On Dec. 5, the liberal website Talking Points Memo published an exchange with Pelosi, who, like Gingrich, has previously served as House speaker. In an article headlined, "Democrats Gleeful At Prospect Of Running Against Gingrich," Talking Points Memo quoted Pelosi saying of the fast-rising Republican presidential hopeful, "One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff." Pelosi added -- jokingly, according to the website -- that she would elaborate "when the time’s right." Later, Gingrich responded by calling the taunt from Pelosi -- who’s as much a bogeyman for Republicans as Gingrich is for Democrats -- "an early Christmas gift. It tells you how capriciously political (the House ethics) committee was that she was on it. It tells you how tainted the outcome was that she was on it." Gingrich elaborated during his Fox News interview. Van Susteren brought it up by asking him whether, "in sort of seriousness, this could be rather punishing in a race when someone comes up and says something like, I have secret information about the person." Gingrich responded that he doubted Pelosi had any secret information to release, since the case had been thoroughly aired in public and because it would likely be illegal to disclose anything that had been purposely kept secret at the time. But Gingrich took the opportunity to link Pelosi to the investigation and cite it as evidence of how the process had been biased in a partisan way. The back-and-forth with Pelosi "reminds people who probably didn't know that she was on the ethics committee, that it was a very partisan political committee and that the way I was dealt with related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics. And I think in that sense, it actually helps me in getting people to understand, this was a Nancy Pelosi-driven effort. They filed 85 charges and 84 were dismissed. The only one was a conflicting lawyer's letter. And then the Democrats just held out for partisan reasons." For this item, we’re focusing on the claim that the ethics investigation against Gingrich was conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." Gingrich has a long history with the congressional ethics process, both as an accuser (most famously against Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, who resigned amid ethics charges Gingrich promoted in 1989) and as the accused. The case primarily involved a course at Kennesaw State College that Gingrich taught while in Congress. The organizers of the course solicited financial support from "individuals, corporations and foundations," promising that the project qualified for tax-exempt status. But the ethics committee concluded that the course was "actually a coordinated effort" to "help in achieving a partisan, political goal" -- something that would run afoul of its tax exempt status. A further problem for Gingrich was that during the investigation, he submitted letters from his lawyers for which "the subcommittee was unable to find any factual basis." Gingrich "should have known" that the information in the letters "was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable." The allegations were largely ajudicated by January 1997, with Gingrich agreeing to pay a sum of $300,000 and admitting that he had "engaged in conduct that did not reflect creditably on the House of Representatives." He became the first speaker to be sanctioned in this fashion by the House. (Here’s a time line of the case.) As we’ve noted before, Gingrich’s intensely partisan style and his heavy use of the congressional ethics process ramped up the level of partisan warfare during his investigation. Few observers would disagree that Democrats were gleeful at the prospect of seeing the first Republican House speaker in four decades brought down by ethics charges analagous to those Gingrich himself had used to topple Wright. But in the interview with Van Susteren, Gingrich did more than just say that partisan warriors leveraged his investigation for their own ends. He said that the investigation against him was itself conducted by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." In essence, Gingrich is alleging that the investigation of his actions was biased by partisanship and, by extension, that the penalty he agreed to was tainted. To understand whether Gingrich’s assertion is correct requires a look at the venue for the investigation -- the House ethics committee, which was then known officially as the Standards of Official Conduct Committee. The ethics panel is the only House committee with an even number of Republicans and Democrats. By longstanding tradition, the committee does not proceed with a formal investigation unless it has majority support. This means that every ethics case that moves forward -- including Gingrich’s -- required the vote of at least least one member from the same party as the lawmaker facing allegations. In Gingrich’s case, an investigative subcommittee was convened and looked into the case for several months. Like the full committee, it included an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and it hired a special counsel, James M. Cole, to lead the investigation. (Cole was later appointed deputy attorney general by President Barack Obama, but at the time of his appointment in the Gingrich case, Cole had worked as a Justice Department attorney in administrations of both parties.) Gingrich had legal representation during the ethics process. On Dec. 21, 1996, the subcommittee forwarded its findings to the full committee for consideration, recommending "a reprimand and the payment of $300,000 toward the cost of the preliminary inquiry." On Jan. 17, 1997, the full committee held nearly six hours of televised hearings before voting 7 to 1 to accept the subcommittee’s recommendation. Voting to accept it were three Republicans -- Chairwoman Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, Steve Schiff of New Mexico and Porter Goss of Florida. "We are bringing to the floor a very tough penalty, an appropriate one," Johnson said in an interview on NBC’s Today show on Jan. 21, 1997, the day the ethics recommendation went to the House floor. "And we're bringing it to the floor as a bipartisan committee." The full House went on to pass the ethics report 395 to 28, with 196 Republicans voting for it and just 26 voting against it. "This is a tough penalty," Johnson said after the vote, according to the Washington Post. "I believe it is an appropriate penalty. It demonstrates that nobody is above the rules." Schiff added in a press conference the same day that "being bipartisan doesn't mean you always agree on everything. It means you reach a consensus." This hardly seems like a Democratic kangaroo court to us. And experts we checked with felt the same. "The process had plenty of partisan tension, because he was the speaker," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. But Cole, the special counsel, "was terrific and thoroughly objective," Ornstein said. To Ornstein, Gingrich "is sanitizing the process and outcome. To be sure, the charges were not so explosive that he merited a ‘death penalty’ (of resignation), but the charges were not wildly different or less significant than those he had brought against Jim Wright, who did resign." Kenneth A. Gross, the head of the political law practice at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, was one of several experts we spoke to who agreed. "I saw that committee at work behind closed doors during that era, and it was certainly divided and partisan, but it is the only committee of Congress that has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and for anything to move forward, it would require a bipartisan vote." We should add that Gingrich accepted what amounted to a negotiated plea bargain. He agreed to admit one count of wrongdoing and pay $300,000, which was the estimated cost of the investigation. If he didn’t believe in the fairness of the process, he could have refused to admit wrongdoing and taken his chances on the House floor, where he led a sizable majority. According to the Post coverage at the time," J. Randolph Evans, Gingrich’s attorney, said his client "has apologized to the subcommittee, to the House and to the American people." Evans did not respond to an inquiry for this story. Our ruling While it’s true that the Gingrich case became a vicious battlefield between the two parties, contemporary accounts and experts familiar with the proceedings agree that it was not ajudicated by "a very partisan political committee" in a way that "related more to the politics of the Democratic Party than to ethics." The ethics panel’s case only moved forward with the express consent of Republicans, including the committee’s chairwoman, and it was led by a special counsel who was not a Democratic partisan and who focused on substantive legal matters. Most notably, when it became time to vote, the House -- including nearly 90 percent of voting Republicans -- voted to support the committee’s recommendation. We rate Gingrich’s statement Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/446568e0-fc71-419d-9e66-ff56830901cb	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-12-07T19:10:39	2011-12-06	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-01282	Amber Heard Quitting Hollywood After Failed Relationships With Johnny Depp And Elon Musk?	https://www.gossipcop.com/amber-heard-johnny-depp-elon-musk-quitting-hollywood/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Amber Heard Quitting Hollywood After Failed Relationships With Johnny Depp And Elon Musk?	12:02 pm, March 30, 2018	None	['Amber_Heard']
-pomt-01111	"Since 9/11, right-wing extremists (incl anti-abortion, anti-gov) have killed more Americans than Islamic extremists."	/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/08/sally-kohn/kohn-911-right-wing-extremists-killed-more-america/	The cold-blooded killing of a dozen people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical weekly in Paris, has inflamed the debate over the ties between Islam and extremist violence. The gunmen’s motive is hardly in doubt. A video captured one of them shouting "Allahu Akbar!", or "God is great" in Arabic. Liberal pundit Sally Kohn waded into the firestorm on Twitter. At one point, seeing what she called "repeated condemnation of Islam as a whole," Kohn wrote, "Since 9/11, right-wing extremists (incl anti-abortion, anti-gov) have killed more Americans than Islamic extremists." We decided to check Kohn’s numbers. Kohn’s tweet linked to a CNN opinion piece that in turn was based on data gathered by the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank that promotes data-driven innovation to social and economic policy. By the New America count, in the time since 9/11, jihadists have killed 26 Americans on U.S. soil, while those with right-wing leanings have killed 39. The single-most deadly event by an Islamic extremist was the 13 people killed at Fort Hood. On the right-wing side of the ledger, the worst was the six people slain at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin. The first thing to note is that Kohn’s tweet failed to specify that the deaths took place in the United States. Kohn explained that she counted on people to use the link in the tweet to fill in that detail. We hunted around for a count of Americans -- aside from military and such -- who were killed by terrorists while overseas and came up dry. Judgment calls Conservatives have challenged the New America tally. An article on Breitbart charged that the analysis wrongly attributed some of the killings to right-wing zealots when the ideological connection was weak. For example, in 2009, Joshua Cartwright shot and killed two police officers in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. Cartwright had beaten his wife and then driven to a local shooting range. When two deputies found him there, he shot them, fled, and was later killed in a shootout with police. Cartwright’s ties to right-wing extremists? The sheriff said Cartwright was interested in militia groups and thought the government was conspiring against him. His wife said he held anti-government views and was disturbed by the election of Barack Obama. All told, the Breitbart article questioned enough deaths to tip the count. In order to reach that point, however, it needed to add in the 10 victims of John Allen Muhammad, the so-called Beltway Sniper who terrorized the Washington metro area with his random shootings in 2002. Muhammad attended a mosque in Seattle, but financial setbacks and the loss of custody of his children seemed to have triggered his killing spree. Leave those deaths out of the equation for slayings on American soil, and the edge, however slender, still goes to the right-wing extremists. By our count, the Breitbart article came up three deaths short. For the record, this analysis deals only with fatalities even though some of the Islamic-driven violence in this country, such as the Boston Marathon bombing and the Fort Hood shootings, left many with permanent, life-changing injuries. No easy way to count If this exercise shows nothing else, it is that the number of post-9/11 deaths in the United States from either cause is low, and drawing firm conclusions is dicey. A single event or a change in definitions can shift the balance. The matter of definitions makes a big difference because most of the killers acted on their own. Experts in terrorist and extremist violence told PunditFact that in these cases, it can be difficult to draw the line between ideological and purely personal motivations. Alex Schmid is a research fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in the Netherlands. "Mental illness plays a role in up to 40 percent of the lone wolf attacks," Schmid said. In contrast, he said most organized terrorists are "clinically normal." William Braniff at the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland also said this is the most challenging part of any assessment. Braniff said the best research approach is to include any violence that might be tied to extremist beliefs. But also, be sure to include enough details so others can separate the clear cases from the murky ones. "If I am a law enforcement official or a policymaker, I might want to know if or how violent ideologies attract those who are mentally unstable because ultimately, that suggests that more resources ought to be directed to mental health interventions," Braniff said. Our ruling Kohn said that since 9/11, right-wing extremists have killed more Americans than Islamic extremists. She drew that from a database created by the New America Foundation which found 26 victims of jihadists compared to 39 of right-wing zealots. That count is limited to deaths on American soil. Kohn didn’t include this context in her tweet, though she did include a link that clarified that point. The tally itself is subject to certain judgment calls and has been criticized on that basis. Also, there are times when the motives of the Islamic and right-wing extremists are difficult to separate from underlying mental illness. The evidence suggests that while the margin might be small, it still falls on the side of slightly more deaths due to right-wing extremists. But the experts we talked to led us to conclude that a definitive answer is challenging. Given these uncertainties, we rate the claim Half True.	None	Sally Kohn	None	None	None	2015-01-08T18:31:21	2015-01-07	['Islam', 'United_States']
-goop-02049	Jennifer Hudson “Booted” From “The Voice,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-hudson-not-booted-the-voice-fired/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Hudson NOT “Booted” From “The Voice,” Despite Report	4:03 pm, December 11, 2017	None	['None']
-afck-00192	More more than 22 million people have been provided with housing over the last two decades.	https://africacheck.org/reports/zumas-anc-birthday-speech-6-claims-fact-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Zuma’s ANC birthday speech: 6 claims fact-checked	2017-01-12 09:06	None	['None']
-snes-00430	Were These Children Separated From Their Parents Under Obama?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/are-these-children-separated-by-obama/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Were These Children Separated From Their Parents Under Obama?	21 June 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00569	Target Coupon on Facebook Offers 50% Off	https://www.truthorfiction.com/target-coupon-on-facebook-offers-50-off/	None	business	None	None	None	Target Coupon on Facebook Offers 50% Off	Nov 30, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05992	Four thousand Israelis employed by companies housed in the World Trade Center stayed home from work on 9/11, warned in advance of the impending attack on the WTC.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/absent-without-leave-2/	None	September 11th	None	David Mikkelson	None	Thousands of Israelis Were Absent from the WTC on 9/11?	21 September 2001	None	['World_Trade_Center']
-goop-00655	Jennifer Garner Did “Block” Ben Affleck, Lindsay Shookus Wedding, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-lindsay-shookus-wedding-divorce-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner Did NOT “Block” Ben Affleck, Lindsay Shookus Wedding, Despite Reports	8:53 pm, July 11, 2018	None	['Ben_Affleck']
-tron-02741	President Obama’s Plan to Diversify the Suburbs	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obamas-plan-diversify-suburbs/	None	obama	None	None	['barack obama', 'congress', 'liberal agenda', 'states']	President Obama’s Plan to Diversify the Suburbs	Aug 23, 2016	None	['None']
-vogo-00525	Statement: “I have been investigated up and down by almost every possible agency, to no avail, reported my income and paid my taxes,” former CCDC president Nancy Graham said in a comment posted on the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post’s website this week.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-nancy-grahams-outlandish-claims/	Analysis: Graham left San Diego in 2008 after we raised questions about her financial disclosures and ties to downtown developers.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Nancy Graham's Outlandish Claims	September 10, 2010	None	['Palm_Beach,_Florida']
-abbc-00291	The claim: Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek says that Labor doubled the foreign aid budget when it was in government, and that "this Government has cut $11.3 billion, it's now about 22 cents in every $100 we spend, it's going down to 17 cents".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-12/fact-check-comparing-foreign-aid-labor-coalition/6895234	The claim: Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek says that Labor doubled the foreign aid budget when it was in government, and that "this Government has cut $11.3 billion, it's now about 22 cents in every $100 we spend, it's going down to 17 cents".	['foreign-affairs', 'budget', 'government-and-politics', 'alp', 'australia']	None	None	['foreign-affairs', 'budget', 'government-and-politics', 'alp', 'australia']	Fact check: Comparing Labor and the Coalition's records on foreign aid	Fri 17 Jun 2016, 2:23am	None	['None']
-pomt-01868	Says Charlie Crist "raised taxes on the middle class" by $2.2 billion.	/florida/statements/2014/jul/10/republican-party-florida/florida-gop-says-charlie-crist-raised-taxes-22-bil/	The Republican Party of Florida was quick to respond to Charlie Crist’s first campaign commercial, released on July 7, 2014, with its own ad alleging Crist was not being honest with voters. The party’s ad replayed Crist’s ad with a virtual remote pausing the video and offering reaction. After Crist’s ad claims he cut taxes, the GOP responds: "Fact: Crist raised taxes by $2.2 billion." A voiceover says, "Nice try, Charlie; Crist raised taxes on the middle class by billions of dollars." We handled Crist’s claim about cutting property taxes here, but these stats don’t really match up. Could Crist have cut taxes and raised taxes like the GOP claimed? Time to tally the balance sheet. Budget crunch In the throes of the Great Recession and with home values in freefall, Florida faced a $6 billion budget gap in 2009. The Republican-led Legislature’s answer? Implementing $2.2 billion in new taxes and fees. The panoply of hikes included a $1-a-pack cigarette tax, increased court costs and fees on things like fishing at the beach or off bridges, plus the increase in auto tag fees the Legislature repealed in 2014. The jump in taxes and fees was a necessary evil, lawmakers said, to deal with the holes in the budget. Crist, who was a Republican as governor, signed the budget on May 29. The commercial says these were increases on the middle class, but that’s debatable, since more than just middle-class Floridians were affected by the moves. No definition of middle class is given in the ad, in any case. The commercial also implies that Crist somehow lied about cutting property taxes, when cutting property taxes was actually a separate budget issue in a previous year. Crist did sign legislation that cut taxes for low-income seniors and Florida homeowners. But the tax increases put Crist in critical crosshairs, since he had pledged no new taxes for Floridians while campaigning in 2006. You can’t totally blame Charlie for breaking his promise, however. Lawmakers tied the various increases to funding for schools and Medicaid, to make sure Crist wouldn’t take them out of the budget with a line-item veto. Our ruling The Republican Party of Florida said, "Crist raised taxes on the middle class by billions of dollars." Crist did sign a budget in 2009 that included $2.2 billion in new taxes and fees, breaking a campaign promise that Floridians would not have to pay new taxes. But the ideas came from the Republican-led Legislature, who made it very difficult for their Republican governor to veto the hikes. This is not specified in the GOP’s commercial in any way, nor is the term "middle class" defined, although the middle class was clearly affected. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2014-07-10T18:30:42	2014-07-08	['Charlie_Crist']
-pomt-08207	The U.S. House rule barring members from wearing hats while in session dates back to the 1800s and can be waived by the speaker.	/florida/statements/2010/nov/19/frederica-wilson/congresswoman-elect-wilson-says-hat-ban-started-18/	Frederica Wilson was known as the Florida state legislator who owned a massive collection of fancy hats. But when the Democrat was elected to the 17th District in Congress on Nov. 2, 2010, to represent portions of Miami-Dade and Broward counties, her fashion statement ran afoul of the rules. We learned of Wilson's hat woes from a Nov. 17 posting in Naked Politics, a blog by the Miami Herald: "Wilson is hoping to have a conversation with the likely new speaker, John Boehner. At issue: whether or not the longtime lawmaker can wear her signature hats on the House floor. The House bars members from wearing hats while the body is in session, but Wilson said she believes the speaker can waive the rule -- which dates to the 1800s. '"It's sexist," Wilson said. "It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors. Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me."' The blog post continued: "Wilson had to take her hat off for her official congressional picture, but plans to appeal that ruling as well. She did wear her hat on the House floor the other day -- but the House wasn't in session." She managed to show off at least one of her hats in Washington, D.C.: she arrived for freshman orientation wearing a black cowboy hat with sequins, according to the Washington Post. Roll Call also wrote about Wilson's hat dilemma on Nov. 4: "But while we expect Wilson to become the Hill's newest fashionista -- for better or worse, depending on who you ask -- she likely will have to ditch her trademark headpieces while she's on the House floor. Although there isn't a specific dress code, hats have been banned on the floor since September 1837. Even the late Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y.) couldn't sport her trademark broad-brimmed hats when she served during the 1970s." This is not a serious heady matter. But the Truth-O-Meter was curiously scratching its head. Was Wilson correct to say that the rule banning members from wearing hats on the House floor dates back to the 1800s? And who can waive the rule? First, a little more colorful background about Wilson and her hats that we gleaned from a May 11, 2009, Miami Herald/St. Petersburg Times article: "In a political universe dominated by men in dark suits, Sen. Wilson is the rainbow that cannot be ignored. She walks the halls of the Capitol flashing her custom-made, bedazzled cowboy hats and perfectly matched suits -- her own runway of eye-popping colors that are more suited to the Miami district she represents than to good ol' boy Tallahassee. Canary yellow. Five-carat turquoise. Cotton-candy pink. Cherry red. Rhinestone-studded black and gold. Here in the center of Florida's political universe, the loud wardrobe of the educator-turned-Democratic lawmaker sends a clear if unspoken message to fellow lawmakers: I am here. And attention will be paid." We reached Wilson briefly by telephone on the morning of Nov. 19 and asked her how many hats she owns. "I've never counted, but I've been wearing them almost 30 years," said the former Miami-Dade school board member and state legislator. "It's almost like a fetish. ... I have hundreds." Wilson said she brought six hats to D.C. and has been researching the rules about hat wearing and still hopes to speak to Boehner about the ban. Wilson said she would get back to us regarding her research on the hat ban and who she believes can waive it, but we did not hear back. Now let's return to our research on the hat ban. The rules of the 111th Congress -- the current one in session -- state under "Comportment": "When the Speaker is putting a question or addressing the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not walk out of or across the Hall. When a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner is speaking, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not pass between the person speaking and the Chair. During the session of the House, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not wear a hat or remain by the Clerk’s desk during the call of the roll or the counting of ballots. A person may not smoke or use a wireless telephone or personal computer on the floor of the House. The Sergeant-at-Arms is charged with the strict enforcement of this clause." We consulted Miami Herald reporter Lesley Clark, who wrote the blog item about Wilson and covers Congress. Clark obtained a copy of historic documents kept by the House and also forwarded to us a 2009 copy of the Constitution Jefferson's Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives. That document states: "No Member is to come into the House with his head covered, nor to remove from one place to another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or removing, until he be set down in his place. Scob. 6. In 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session was abolished by adoption of current clause 5 of rule XV11." A document from 1907 in the same link above, sheds more light: we turned to "Hinds' precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States" written by Asher Hinds who was the clerk to the speaker. That document states that the hat rule was "the fruit of considerable agitation. In early years, following the custom of Parliament, Members wore their hats during session." That practice however was challenged when Charles F. Mercer of Virginia proposed a rule "as early as March 13, 1822: 'Nor shall any Member remain in the hall covered during the session of the house.' " Mercer's proposal wasn't adopted, but other members of Congress also proposed similar bans during the next several years. A ban proposed in 1833 was rejected because "Members would have no places in which to put their hats if they should not wear them, and also that the custom of wearing hats was a sign of independence of the Commons of England, and therefore a good usage to preserve the American House." A historical highlights document from the House provides a short summary of the history of the hat ban. That document states that member John M. Patton of Virginia defended "the really harmless but apparently indecorous practice of wearing our hats ... Regarding then this usage as merely ‘the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual’ freedom of this body from all executive control or interference, let us preserve it. And whenever, if ever, our executive magistrates shall attempt to employ any improper influence on this body, let us be found with our hats on." But on Sept. 14, 1837, the House adopted the rule banning members from wearing hats during the session or by the Clerk's table during the call of the roll. So far, Wilson is correct: the House ban dates back to the 1800s. But she also said in the interview that she thought that the House speaker could waive the rule. She said she wanted to talk about it with Boehner, chosen by his peers to be speaker of the House when the 112th Congress convenes in January. We contacted Boehner spokesman Michael Steel to ask if he had the power to waive the rule, if any leader could waive it, or if it requires a full vote by the House when it adopts rules in January. Steel said he didn't know the answer. We turned to the House Practice, Assembly of Congress (Chapter 5), which includes a section on Adoption of Rules. That section states that the House can adopt its own procedural rules -- and "ordinarily the House adopts the rules of the prior Congress but with various amendments." So it appears that the House in January could adopt a new rule -- say, allowing all hats or dress hats. But this document doesn't address either way whether any leader can waive a rule. We asked Vincent Morris, spokesman for the House rules committee. He wrote to us in an e-mail: "Current Rules prohibit hat wearing so anyone showing up with a hat would likely be told to take it off. For the Rules to change, members would need to approve revisions when the next Congress starts in January." So for now, it appears that Wilson will need to persuade her peers to change the rule in January. The good news for Wilson is that if she ever wins a U.S. Senate post, she won't encounter this headache. Unlike the House, the Senate doesn't have a formal written rule banning members from wearing hats. "People don't wear hats in the Senate," said Senate historian Donald Ritchie. "The Senate sort of adheres to an unofficial dress code but it's not specifically in the rules." The News Service of Florida wrote Nov. 17, 2010, that "Wilson, not known for being shy, plans to tell Boehner she intends to wear hats -- not ask him for permission." "I’m not going to ask anyone," Wilson was quoted as saying. This would not be the first time that Wilson ran into roadblocks to her hats. When she wore Davy Crockett style hats in middle school, the dean called her father to complain, but she and her father didn't give in, the St. Petersburg Times wrote May 11, 2009. In 2002 after she was elected to the state Senate after serving in the House, a senator -- not identified in the article -- complained about her hats at a Senate retreat. (The News Service article identified that senator as Republican Anna Cowin.) "I thought, with all these problems we have, she's worried about me wearing a hat? Well, I just smiled through it," Wilson was quoted as saying in the 2009 St. Petersburg Times article. "Sen. (Jim) King took care of it." An aside: we wondered if the current hat ban rule would prohibit religious Jews from wearing yarmulke or Muslim women from wearing the hijab or headscarf. Steel, Boehner's spokesman, said in an e-mail: "The rule regarding hats has never been interpreted to apply to religious headcoverings." So does the headstrong Wilson have her facts right? She is correct to state that the ban on House members wearing hats started in the 1800s -- Sept. 14, 1837, to be precise. But can Boehner or any individual "waive" the rule? It appears that the House would have to vote on a new rule in January 2011. At this point, Wilson has not provided any proof that any individual could simply waive the rule. If she provides us such proof from her research, or if Boehner later responds with evidence that he does have that power, we could revisit this topic. But for now, we rate this claim Half True.	None	Frederica Wilson	None	None	None	2010-11-19T18:26:05	2010-11-17	['None']
-snes-01073	A video shows Palestinian lawmakers dancing in response to Nikki Haley's threat to cut aid to the country in the wake of a controversial decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/palestinians-dance-nikki-haley-un/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Palestinians Dance at the UN After Nikki Haley Threatened to Cut Aid?	2 February 2018	None	['United_States', 'Jerusalem', 'Nikki_Haley']
-tron-03609	Beware of New Gummy Bear Drugs this Halloween	https://www.truthorfiction.com/beware-of-new-gummy-bear-drugs-this-halloween/	None	warnings	None	None	None	Beware of New Gummy Bear Drugs this Halloween	Oct 14, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02499	"300,000 Floridians will lose their current health plans" because of Obamacare, a plan Alex Sink supports.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/14/national-republican-congressional-committee/300000-florida-lose-health-plans-more-story/	Critics of the health care law like to throw around talking points that give the idea that the law will increase the ranks of the uninsured. The evidence, though, tends to contradict that. That hasn’t stopped political ads from continuing to push the point. The latest case: The race to replace the late U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla. Democrats are hoping to pick up the seat with Alex Sink, a former banking executive who’s previously held statewide office as Florida’s chief financial officer. Her opponents are David Jolly, a Republican and one of Young’s longtime aides, and Libertarian Lucas Overby. The National Republican Congressional Committee recently began airing ads attacking Sink for her support of President Barack Obama’s signature health law. The ads begin with photos of Obama and House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. "Alex Sink’s loyalty is to them, not Florida. Why else would she continue to support Obamacare? 300,000 Floridians will lose their current health plans," the ad claims in part, concluding, "She’s fighting for them. Not us." The ad phrases its claim very carefully, but its statement still leaves out much of the story. And where does that 300,000 number come from anyway? The number comes from 300,000 policyholders that insurance company Florida Blue identified back in October. That was when insurers were required to notify policyholders if their insurance plans didn’t meet the rules for new plans requiring comprehensive coverage. The rules were intended to phase out "bare bones" plans that didn’t include things like prescription drugs or hospital stays. Florida Blue had 300,000 customers whose plans didn’t meet the new rules. So Florida Blue sent them letters informing them that their plans would end and offering guidance on how to get signed up for a new plan. "Florida Blue is proactively communicating to these members to help them understand how this transition affects them," the company said at the time. "Prior to their 2014 renewal date, each member will receive a letter that instructs them to contact Florida Blue to review their migration options. These new plans will offer members access to more comprehensive benefits in 2014." We should note that there’s a lot we don’t know about these 300,000 policyholders. For example, some of them may have gone to the federal marketplace to buy insurance. If their income was below 400 percent of the poverty level (below about $94,200 for a family of four, for example), they would have gotten a subsidy to buy insurance. Some of these people may end up paying more but getting more robust coverage. It’s unclear how many, if any, would simply stop buying coverage altogether. Back in October, Florida Blue told PolitiFact Florida that it intended to work with customers to get them into new plans. Spokesman Mark Wright said that when it comes to getting new plans, "nobody is throwing anybody off a cliff." We reached out to Florida Blue to see if it could tell us anything more about how the letters have played out. Spokesman Mark Wright said the company was giving their policyholders another year to keep their coverage after President Barack Obama asked insurers to allow customers who wanted to keep the old plans to keep them for an additional year. One final note: PolitiFact Florida rated a similar but not identical statement claim from Sen. Marco Rubio back in October. Rubio said, "300,000 people are going to lose their individual coverage because of Obamacare. Now those people next year, they don’t have health insurance." PolitiFact Florida found that claim Mostly False because Rubio failed to fully explain the situation behind the number and wrongly insisted that the people wouldn’t have insurance in 2014. The NRCC’s claim doesn’t go quite as far. Our ruling The National Republican Congressional Committee said in an ad that "300,000 Floridians will lose their current health plans." We know that the insurer Florida Blue had to end plans for 300,000 customers when their plans didn’t meet the law’s new requirements for health insurance. But Florida Blue also said it intended to help its customers select and sign up for new health care plans, not leave them without options, and the customers got an additional year, if they needed it, to make a transition. The ad makes it sound as if people would lose their plans without any replacement. Overall, we rate the ad’s claim Half True.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2014-02-14T12:03:38	2014-02-12	['Alex_Sink', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-pomt-10295	Obama "promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/12/john-mccain/for-the-most-part-only-if-youre-high-income/	New political ads from Sen. John McCain accuse Sen. Barack Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. "He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family," according to a television ad. The ad bases its claim on the fact that Obama wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the upper-income brackets. So the claim is true if you happen to be a small business, a senior or a family making more than $250,000 a year, or $200,000 for a single person. Otherwise, it's generally not the case. In fact, Obama advocates eliminating income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000. An important note about seniors: Some seniors will be affected indirectly by Obama's plan to raise corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are expected to depress profits from stocks and dividends, which seniors tend to rely on for retirement income. An analysis from the Tax Policy Center concluded that about a third of seniors would see higher taxes, either because they have high incomes or because of slight increases due to the indirect effect of the corporate tax rate. Overall, seniors would see their federal tax rate go up about 2.5 percent, and that includes steep increases to the top brackets. The "life savings" statement, according to the McCain campaign, applies to Obama's plan to raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. Increases to dividends and capital gains taxes will affect people in upper income brackets who have investments in the stock market or mutual funds. But those taxes do not apply to tax-deferred investments like 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and some tax-deferred college savings plans. (We've checked a similar statement previously and found it False .) Capital gains and dividends taxes would stay the same for people in income brackets of $250,000 or less, according to the Obama plan. Those higher incomes constitute a small percentage of U.S. taxpayers, mostly the top 1 percent. The ad says that Obama "promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family." That sounds like a broad-brush statement of Obama's taxation philosophy. But Obama does not promise those things; in fact, he promises more taxes for taxpayers with the highest incomes. McCain's statement is a distortion of Obama's proposals, and we find it Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-08-12T00:00:00	2008-08-08	['None']
-pomt-07372	"Polls show that Floridians don't want to repeal the Affordable Care Act."	/florida/statements/2011/may/05/joe-gibbons/democratic-state-rep-joe-gibbons-says-floridians-d/	A proposed constitutional amendment that takes aim at the new federal health care law passed the Florida House of Representatives 80-37 on May 4, 2011. The measure, SJR 2, prohibits laws that force people to buy health insurance and was a top priority of Senate President Mike Haridopolos, who is running for the U.S. Senate. The Florida Senate voted earlier in the legislative session to put the amendment on the November 2012 ballot -- assuming it survives any court challenges. While it's unlikely the amendment could trump the impact of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the proposed change is seen as a straw poll on the popularity of the health care law. Democratic Rep. Joe Gibbons, D-Hallandale Beach, argued against the amendment, saying that it goes against the wishes of the majority of Floridians. "Polls show that Floridians don't want to repeal the Affordable Care Act," Gibbons said shortly before the amendment passed. We wanted to know how Floridians feel about the health care law. While there are dozens of polls about the popularity of the federal health care law on the national level, state-level polling data is more difficult to come by. The most recent Florida polls come from Quinnipiac University, a nonpartisan polling group. It surveyed 1,499 registered voters from March 29-April 4 and asked two questions about the federal health care law. When asked, "Do you support Congress repealing the health care law that passed last year," 49 percent of respondents said yes and 41 percent said no. When the question was phrased slightly differently to call the law the "health care reform law," 54 percent said yes and 40 percent answered no. In another Quinnipiac survey of 1,160 voters conducted Jan. 25-31, 50 percent of Floridians said the health care law should be repealed; 43 percent said it should not. The recent polls show more favorable views of the law now than in earlier surveys we found, including a March 2010 poll conducted by Mason-Dixon. That poll found that 34 percent of Florida voters support the law while 54 percent opposed it. On the national level, the polls asking about repeal are slightly different. A Kaiser Family Foundation Health Tracking Poll from April 7-12, 2011, found that 52 percent of Americans want to expand the law or keep it as is, 35 percent want to repeal the law and replace it with a GOP alternative or repeal it altogether, and 14 percent are unsure. A poll for Fox News conducted April 3-5 found that 60 percent of Americans want to repeal at least parts of the health care law, compared to 34 percent who want to expand it or leave it as is. And a CBS/New York Times poll from January found that 48 percent of Americans want the bill to stand, 40 percent want it repealed, and 12 percent say they're unsure. So -- on the national level at least -- the poll results vary widely. And sometimes, that's what makes claims about polls complicated. But in this case, we're addressing Gibbons' claim specifically about Florida. He said: "Polls show: Floridians don't want to repeal the Affordable Care Act." On a completely literal hearing of his comments, we guess Gibbons is right -- some Floridians do not want a repeal. But really, the question is, where do most Floridians stand? We found two reputable recent polls from Quinnipiac University that both found -- though narrowly -- a plurality of Floridians support a repeal of the health care law. We rate this claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Joe Gibbons	None	None	None	2011-05-05T11:23:30	2011-05-04	['None']
-snes-00910	Between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/	None	Crime	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Does the United States Have a Lower Death Rate From Mass Shootings Than European Countries?	9 March 2018	None	['United_States', 'Europe']
-pomt-12248	Says "CNN host Fareed Zakaria calls for jihad rape of white women."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/12/blog-posting/recycled-parody-cnns-zakaria-calls-jihadi-rape-whi/	CNN’s Fareed Zakaria presents himself as an urbane observer of the global scene and not the sort of person to call for violence against women. But the website teoinfo.com sought to cast Zakaria in a much different -- and false -- light. The website ran an article June 30 with the headline: CNN Host Fareed Zakaria Calls For Jihad Rape Of White Women. Facebook readers flagged the story as being potentially fake, so we decided to investigate. For fake news watchers, the opening paragraph of the story was a stroll down memory lane. It said, "Fareed Zakaria, CNN host of ‘Foreign Affairs,’ a program focusing on international events, has in his private blog called for the merciless rape of white females by Islamic minority groups shortly after openly gloating over the rise in premature deaths of white males in his article in the Washington Post." Not only is that bizarre, it is a word-for-word copy and paste from an article over a year ago on the satirical website The People’s Cube. The self-described site for "political humor" once touted that it ranked No. 13 on a list of humor blogs. Among its recent headlines, it announced, "Russia adds St. Patrick’s Day to list of excuses to get drunk," as part of the country’s "Day Without Sobriety" campaign. The website adopts a faux-Soviet style, purportedly the brainchild of "a former Soviet agitprop artist." When the article first appeared Jan. 2, 2016, Zakaria complained that he was the victim of internet trolls. In response, the People’s Cube (it features a Rubik's cube with red on all sides) published an open letter on Jan. 18, 2016. "This parody wasn't meant to be taken as factual reporting, given the context of our website and especially considering the author's credentials at the top: Chedoh, Kommissar of Viral Infections, Hero of Change, Prophet of the Future Truth." (The author’s avatar is a cheeto with a Che Guevara face, which makes sense if you say Chedoh the "right" way.) According to the Teoinfo/People’s Cube article, Zakaria wrote, "The white race is rightfully failing because it is a foolish, arrogant, and self-absorbed ethnicity that has racism infused into its very genes," and went on to say "thankfully, the Prophet Muhammad has given us a foolproof way to speed up the decline of a vanquished nation by treating their women as our sex slaves." The rumor-busting website Snopes declared it false in January 2016. Despite the article’s satirical roots, warning labels or disclaimers were lost as it moved from site to site. Reclaim Australia Rally, a group that asks "all patriotic Australians to stand united against Islamisation and home grown terror threats," shared the Teoinfo post on its Facebook page on July 2. An article that presents over-the-top satire as fact merits a Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-12T10:50:36	2017-06-30	['Fareed_Zakaria', 'CNN']
-pose-00769	"As governor, he’ll work with (Attorney General) Sam Olens to fight for Georgians’ constitutional rights by fighting Obamacare’s individual mandate in court."	https://www.politifact.com/georgia/promises/deal-o-meter/promise/799/oppose-federal-health-care-laws-individual-mandat/	None	deal-o-meter	Nathan Deal	None	None	Oppose federal health care law's individual mandate and help get it repealed	2011-01-06T16:27:46	None	['None']
-pomt-06795	Says the state’s pension and health benefits reform includes "the destruction of public sector collective bargaining rights."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/aug/15/nj-can/democratic-group-claims-new-jerseys-pension-and-he/	The roar of the protests outside the Statehouse has faded, but a new group of Democratic activists is going after the Democratic legislators who sided with Republican Gov. Chris Christie in supporting New Jersey’s pension and health benefits reform. Referring to its targets as "Christie-crats," NJ-CAN kicked off a petition drive last week calling for the removal of Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex) from their leadership posts. Both legislators helped craft the pension and health benefits legislation, and voted for the bill. The petition, which was posted on the group's website on Aug. 9, states: "Sweeney and Oliver betrayed core principles of the Democratic Party by engineering the passage of Governor Christie’s State Pension and Health Benefits Bill, including the destruction of public sector collective bargaining rights." PolitiFact New Jersey decided to check whether the bill includes "the destruction of public sector collective bargaining rights," and found that NJ-CAN is exaggerating the impacts on unions’ rights. The legislation weakens collective bargaining rights, but doesn’t destroy them. "It is destructive to all collective bargaining without being the destruction of it all," said Hetty Rosenstein, state director of the Communication Workers of America, the largest union representing state workers. Now, let’s talk about how the pension and health benefits bill affects union workers. Signed into law by Christie on June 28, the legislation mandates higher payments from workers for pension and health care expenses, but the impact on union negotiations concerns the health care piece. Pension contributions have not been collectively bargained, but instead set by state statute. Health care expenses have been part of negotiations, but the higher health care contributions outlined in the legislation are non-negotiable for four years. For workers under an existing union contract, the higher contributions and four-year time frame begin when their contract expires. But the legislation doesn’t take away all bargaining rights, and the health care contributions are scheduled to become part of negotiations once the four-year period is complete. Newark-based labor union attorney Bennet Zurofsky, an NJ-CAN member who helped write the petition, acknowledged the statement may include "a small amount of hyperbole in it." But Zurofsky argued that without the health care piece, collective bargaining will not be meaningful. "You’re bargaining over the crumbs," Zurofsky said. Rutgers labor professor Jeff Keefe agreed the legislation gives unions much less to bargain with, but he said the word "destruction" is "overkill." Unions can still negotiate wages, uniform allowances and other issues, Keefe said. However, without health care as part of negotiations, an employer can demand wage cuts and a union has nothing to counter with, Keefe said. Philip Harvey, a labor law professor at Rutgers, said in an email that the legislation amounts to a "’‘destruction of bargaining rights’ vis a vis health care expenses," but not all bargaining rights. The elimination of bargaining for health care expenses will have indirect effects on other issues, Harvey said. Public-sector unions will enter negotiations in an ugly mood, making them go less smoothly, he said. Also, the unions will resist demands for other concessions more strongly in light of how the health care contributions are non-negotiable, he said. Oliver and a spokesman for Sweeney both pointed out that collective bargaining for health care payments will be restored after the four-year period. "The bill clearly does not destroy collective bargaining rights. In fact, I insisted upon the sunset provision that protects collective bargaining rights going forward, and the bill would not have advanced in the Assembly unless collective bargaining rights were protected," Oliver said in a statement. "Collective bargaining for health care resumes in 2015." The ruling NJ-CAN claimed the new pension and health benefits reform includes "the destruction of public sector collective bargaining rights." The legislation eliminates negotiations over health care contributions for a four-year period, a move that some experts said would make bargaining over other issues more difficult. But you can’t say bargaining rights have been destroyed when unions can still negotiate wages and other issues, and when the health care negotiations are scheduled to resume at the end of the four years. Since "destruction" is too strong of a word to explain the impacts on unions, we rate the statement Half True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	NJ-CAN	None	None	None	2011-08-15T05:15:00	2011-08-09	['None']
-goop-02732	Kate Middleton “Envious” Of How Prince Harry Spoils Meghan Markle, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kate-middletonenvious-prince-harry-spoils-meghan-markle-fake-news/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Kate Middleton NOT “Envious” Of How Prince Harry Spoils Meghan Markle, Despite Report	2:35 pm, June 18, 2017	None	['Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge']
-goop-00782	Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts Going On Dinner Dates?	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-julia-roberts-dinner-dates/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts Going On Dinner Dates?	3:40 pm, June 20, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12510	The Ninth Circuit has an overturned record "close to 80%."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/26/donald-trump/does-ninth-circuit-have-overturn-record-close-80/	President Donald Trump, upset by a district judge’s decision to temporarily block one of his immigration orders, went on Twitter to criticize the court. "First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the ‘ban’ case and now the ‘sanctuary’ case is brought in ... See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com ...the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system." See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com District judges within the 9th Circuit have halted two versions of executive orders signed by Trump seeking to temporarily halt the U.S. entry of refugees and nationals from several countries in the Middle East and Africa. On April 25, another judge within the 9th Circuit granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against a different Trump order, one aiming to cut federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. Given Trump’s record in the 9th Circuit, we wondered if his tweet was accurate – does the circuit have an overturn rate close to 80 percent? There are at least two ways to calculate that record, and by one metric the answer is yes. By another, it’s far less than 1 percent. The 9th Circuit Broadly speaking, the 9th Circuit includes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and district and bankruptcy courts in 15 federal judicial districts (among them Hawaii, and districts in Washington, California). It was a district judge in Hawaii who on March 15 blocked Trump’s revised travel ban. On Feb. 3, a district judge in Seattle granted a nationwide temporary restraining order on the first version of Trump's travel ban. Trump’s Justice Department filed a motion appealing that district court's decision – the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion but asked for more information. On Feb. 9, in a 3-0 decision the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Seattle judge's decision. An overturned record is a reflection of cases in which the Supreme Court ruled contrary to a lower court. The 80 percent Trump tweeted about was in reference to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ record, and does not exactly apply to the district courts. The Supreme Court typically only hears 100 to 150 of the estimated 7,000 cases it’s asked to review per year. At least four of the nine Supreme Court judges must agree to hear a case, which come from the 50 state courts and 13 federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. The cases that the Supreme Court chooses to take on are often disputed among the lower courts, complex, and problematic, so there’s a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will decide that the lower court’s decision was wrong. We previously looked at the 9th Circuit’s record when Fox News’ Sean Hannity falsely claimed it was the most overturned in the country. Here’s what we found then, using data from SCOTUSBlog’s Supreme Court statistics archive on circuit scorecards. The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent. The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit placed third. 6th Circuit - 87 percent; 11th Circuit - 85 percent; 9th Circuit - 79 percent; 3rd Circuit - 78 percent; 2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent; 8th Circuit - 67 percent; 5th Circuit - 66 percent; 7th Circuit - 48 percent; DC Circuit - 45 percent; 1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent; 10th Circuit - 42 percent. The 9th Circuit overturned rate is similar to the findings of a 2010 analysis by Roy E. Hofer, a former president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Chicago Bar Association. Hofer found that from 1999 to 2008, the Supreme Court reversed or vacated (ruled null or void) 80 percent of the cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit. But he pointed out that the percentage of reversed or vacated cases for each circuit would be significantly lower if calculated in a different way. "Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court," Hofer wrote in his article published by the American Bar Association. "Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically." In comparing courts’ "performance," it makes more sense to compare reversal rate in terms of the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, Hofer said. Over the 10-year period analyzed by Hofer, the 9th Circuit terminated 114,199 cases, in comparison, the 1st Circuit had 16,620, he found. It’s possible that the sheer size of the 9th Circuit, as well as some of its procedures, cause it to produce more "outlier decisions," which are cases the Supreme Court always reverses, than other circuits — leading to a higher reversal rate, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt previously told us. Our ruling Trump tweeted, the 9th Circuit has an overturned record "close to 80%." An overturned record can be calculated in at least two ways. By one measure, Trump’s tweet is correct if examining only cases reviewed by the Supreme Court. But by factoring in cases reversed over the total number of cases ruled by the circuit court, then the percentage is significantly smaller, far less than 1 percent. We rate Trump’s claim Half True. See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-04-26T11:24:35	2017-04-26	['None']
-vogo-00638	Statement: “When also accounting for fringe benefits, the legislative compensation totals $135,912. You will note the exorbitantly high amount, $38,190, for pension benefit contributions,” City Councilman Carl DeMaio wrote in open letter to Mark McMahon, president of the city’s Salary Setting Commission, Feb. 9.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/growing-pension-costs-for-politicians/	Analysis: DeMaio’s statement came in response to a proposal by the Salary Setting Commission to dramatically increase the annual salaries for City Council members, who each currently get around $75,000.	None	None	None	None	Growing Pension Costs for Politicians	February 19, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-11827	"Underreported fact: President @realDonaldTrump raised more in small dollar donations than Obama in 2012 and than Clinton and Bernie combined!"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/13/kayleigh-mcenany/trump-raised-more-dollars-small-donations/	Republican National Committee spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany wanted to highlight some good news: Trump’s "underreported" success with small dollar donations in the 2016 presidential election. She tweeted on Oct. 11, "Underreported fact: President @realDonaldTrump raised more in small dollar donations than Obama in 2012 and than Clinton and Bernie combined!" We hadn’t heard that, so we decided to look into it. Cassie Smedile, Republican National Committee national press secretary, said that McEnany got her information from a Washington Post article that cited a Campaign Finance Institute report. The institute used data from the Federal Elections Commission disclosure reports to analyze campaign contributions. It focused on donations from people who gave less than $200 over the course of the entire campaign to both the campaigns and the joint fundraising committees. The $200 limit comes from the FEC. A quirk in the campaign reporting process means the FEC only records each individual donor who donates more than $200, while tracking the sum of contributions of $200 or less to the campaigns. This is important to remember, because over the course of the campaign, donors could have given smaller amounts repeatedly that added up to more than $200. These donors technically gave small amounts, but they would not be captured in the institute’s report because the report focused on donors who gave less than $200 total. "I've reviewed the CFI report but I can't replicate their methodology, so I can't speak to the accuracy of the report," said Doug Weber, senior researcher at the Center for Responsive Politics. "I can’t match up the numbers for you, but the Campaign Finance Institute does good work," said Judith Ingram, press officer at the Federal Elections Commission. Here is the breakdown of how much each candidate received from small donors, according to the institute's report: Trump received about $239 million from donors who gave less than $200 in total. That amounts to 69 percent of the Trump campaign’s individual contributions; Hillary Clinton received about $137 million from $200-or-under donors. That made up 22 percent of the campaign’s individual contributions; Bernie Sanders received about $100 million, or 44 percent of his campaign’s individual contributions. Going back further, President Barack Obama received about $219 million from small-dollar donors in 2012, or 28 percent of his campaign’s individual contributions, In 2008, Obama received about $181 million, or 24 percent of his total individual contributions. So, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, Trump raised $20 million more from small-dollar donors than Obama in 2012 and $2 million more than Clinton and Sanders combined in 2016. A few more details: Obama ran unopposed in the 2012 Democratic primary election. Sanders was not the Democratic party nominee in 2016 and did not run in the general election. The report only looked at Sanders’ fundraising through June 30, 2016. Aspects of the campaign calendar contributed to Trump’s success with under-$200 donors. Sanders, Obama and Clinton raised money over a longer period of time so that some of the small donors may have donated more than once and exceeded the $200 threshold. Trump, by contrast, raised more money in a shorter time frame. "Because Trump raised most of his money over four months, fewer of his donors had this experience (of donating more than once). Even this caveat, however, does not negate the fact that his small donor numbers were record shattering," said Brendan Glavin, data and systems manager at the Campaign Finance Institute. The institute looked at not only how much each candidate received, but also how much the candidates’ joint fundraising committees helped raise as well. Glavin said that the RNC and the Trump campaign made a deal and split the fundraising from committees. "The main joint fundraising committee was the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, which raised in 2016 $263 million," said Glavin. Here’s a breakdown of how much each campaign raised from donors who gave $200 or less, without the help of the joint fundraising committees, according to FEC reports: Trump raised $86.6 million, or 64 percent of the campaign’s total individual contributions. Obama in 2012 raised $234.4 million, or 42 percent of the campaign’s total individual contributions. Sanders raised $134.6 million, or 58 percent of the campaign’s total individual contributions. Clinton raised $105.5 million, or 26 percent of the campaign’s total individual contributions. Rick Hasen, campaign finance legal scholar at University of California Irvine School of Law said, "This seems like a correct tweet. The only caveat is the point at the end of the report about some donors being so enthused they went over the $200 threshold." The Clinton campaign encouraged this enthusiasm in the fundraising emails they sent out to their supporters. This is an example of the language used in the emails: "FEC policy is that only supporters who have contributed more than $200 are included on the record. Your support has been above average, but you're a few donations away from that threshold. Donate before Wednesday's deadline to get your support on the official record." Our ruling McEnany said Trump "raised more in small dollar donations" than his Democratic competitors. Trump, in conjunction with his joint fundraising committees, did raise more money from people who donated less than $200. Because McEnany did not mention what constitutes a small donation and that the institute also was looking at contributions to joint fundraising committees, we rate this statement Mostly True.	None	Kayleigh McEnany	None	None	None	2017-11-13T09:00:00	2017-10-11	['Bill_Clinton', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-03718	A proposed bill in the Florida Legislature "would authorize the public hoarding of cats by feral cat activists."	/florida/statements/2013/apr/16/american-bird-conservancy/bird-group-cries-foul-about-feral-cat-bill/	Florida legislators are taking up the usual public policy topics this session: health care, taxes and campaign finance reform. Then there’s the bill about feral cats. Don’t call them feral cats, though. Bills in the Legislature are re-branding them with a more user-friendly name: "community cats." Not so fast, say the bird lovers. The American Bird Conservancy is crying fowl, er foul. The bills "would authorize the public hoarding of cats by feral cat activists, in the face of potential public health and property value impacts, as well as predicted high mortality for native animals," the groups said in a press release. The conservancy says passage of two bills (HB 1121/SB 1320) would make it easier for people to dump unwanted cats in areas where they roam aplenty. "This is shocking," said Grant Sizemore, the conservancy’s Cats Indoors program manager. "Hoarding of animals in homes is prohibited in most places, but we now have Florida encouraging it in public places such as city parks. There is no question that the health of local citizenry -- including children -- is being put at risk, property values in the hoarding areas will be impacted and local wildlife will continue to be devastated." PolitiFact Florida wanted to research whether this bill would allow cat hoarding. The cat bills The "Community Cats" legislation, sponsored by Rep. Holly Raschein, R-Key Largo, and Sen. Darren Soto, D-Orlando, attempts to rein in cat overpopulation. Several communities have established programs to spay and care for feral cats and release them, however there were concerns among some involved in such programs that the release of cats would constitute abandonment and violate state animal cruelty laws. The bill amends the state’s animal cruelty law to state that someone who spays or neuters a feral cat and then releases it is not abandoning the cat or breaking the law. The bill also states that counties and cities can still adopt their own ordinances to curtail the feral cat population. The bill defines a community cat as an "outdoor, free-roaming cat that lacks visible owner identification" and defines a "community cat owner" as someone who gives that cat food or water. Cat and wildlife activists have been battling each other about how to handle feral cats for years. A 2003 Tampa Bay Times article described a cat vs. rat battle at the Ocean Reef Club, an exclusive community of multimillion-dollar homes near a state park and wildlife refuge. Homeowners set up a program to take care of hundreds of stray cats, but meanwhile the populations of the Key Largo wood rat and cotton mouse, both endangered, dwindled. Wildlife experts pointed fingers at the cats. "It's a very serious problem for Key Largo wood rats," University of Florida wildlife scientist Frank Mazzotti said at the time. "Releasing a feral cat in a natural area is like releasing a serial murderer in a maternity ward." Central to the bill debate is whether programs that encourage the trap, neuter and release of feral cats reduce the feral cat population and the dangers to wildlife and humans. A study by scientists including from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that cats kill up to 3.7 billion birds a year, and found no connection between the programs (called TNR) and fewer bird deaths. "Claims that TNR colonies are effective in reducing cat populations, and, therefore, wildlife mortality, are not supported by peer-reviewed scientific studies," it said. A 2003 Florida International University study concluded that TNR cat programs at two parks encouraged illegal dumping of cats and led to a population increase at one park, while the other remained stable. The Florida Department of Health, which remains neutral on the cat bill, stated in a 2012 rabies prevention report that managing feral cats "is not tenable on public health grounds because of the persistent threat posed to communities from injury and disease." Bill supporters point to a study published in the journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association that concluded a TNR program at the University of Central Florida reduced the population. They also point to this research about the benefits of vaccinating cats. Would this lead to hoarding? So there is evidence that feral cats carry diseases and kill wildlife. But would this bill allow animal hoarding? A spokeswoman for the Humane Society, a group supporting the bill, said bill opponents are misusing the word "hoarding." "Animal hoarding is a serious mental illness," Humane society spokeswoman Katie Lisnik told PolitiFact. "It is a severe case of neglect and abuse of animals." That’s different from programs that care for cats, she said. Hoarding -- generally speaking, not exclusively to animals -- will be listed by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and statistical Manual for the first time this year, said Smith College psychology professor Randy Frost who studies hoarding. We asked Frost if Florida’s bill could lead to increased hoarding. "I don’t know that there is any way to tell," he said. "I think it would be hard to hoard in a field or public place. ... I don’t know of many cases of hoarding where hoarding occurred in public. I’d have to think about that." Brevard County recently placed a moratorium on registration for cat colonies -- county officials know of several hundred colonies. Bob Brown, captain of enforcement for Brevard County animal services, said he doesn’t think he would call these cat colonies hoarding. In a cat colony, "they have no control if the cat comes or goes. Usually cat hoarders want to keep things confined within their control." An outdoor colony is different than the homes where there are cat urine stains all over the walls or cat feces dripping out of cabinets. "We’ve seen some real doozies," he said. Robert Johns, a spokesman with the bird conservancy, said the law removes penalties for people who abandon animals to public places. "Instead of having a hoard of cats in a house, which is illegal in many places, we would simply have dozens or hundreds of them outdoors in many places, essentially taking over public land to be used by feral cats," he said. Our ruling The American Bird Conservancy said a bill "would authorize the public hoarding of cats by feral cat activists." The bill would authorize people to neuter and release feral cats. But it’s difficult to predict how these future cat colonies will be managed and controlled by local ordinances. Is it possible that someone could hoard feral cats outdoors? Sure. But animal hoarders typically want to be able to control their cats, so that’s why they hoard inside their own homes. The research we reviewed about feral cats focused on numbers, health problems and threats to wildlife they pose -- not whether it constitutes hoarding. That could be because hoarding isn’t the central debate about these feral cats, but it is a heated word that draws attention. We rate this claim Half True.	None	American Bird Conservancy	None	None	None	2013-04-16T10:40:14	2013-03-29	['None']
-pomt-12388	President Trump greenlighted Congress to ramp up Clinton investigation.	/punditfact/statements/2017/may/31/blog-posting/fake-story-about-president-trump-greenlighting-con/	A fake news story makes the explosive claim that, on the heels of his inauguration, President Donald Trump personally greenlighted the chairman of a powerful congressional watchdog committee to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. The story appears on the website Federalist Tribune alongside a video clip in which Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, recalled Trump speaking in general terms about Chaffetz’s oversight authority during a backstage meeting at the Jan. 26 Republican retreat in Philadelphia. But at no point does the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee claim that Trump even mentioned Clinton’s name -- much less that Trump urged him to ramp up an investigation into the 2016 Democratic nominee, as the story claims. The Federalist Tribune story, which has more than 5,000 page views at the time of this writing, is just one of several websites to use the Chaffetz video to advance the unsubstantiated claim that Trump encouraged Congress to aggressively pursue charges against Clinton. And it’s worth noting that as it stands now, we’ve rated Trump’s campaign promise to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton as Stalled. The fake article opens with the inflammatory allegation that Trump has "finally given Congress the authorization" to pursue charges against Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state. It then mischaracterizes Chaffetz’s recollection of his meeting with Trump by claiming Chaffetz’s statement "hint(s) that charges against Hillary could be happening soon" -- before promising that "Hillary Clinton may finally be indicted." In truth, the video shows Chaffetz merely recalling how Trump offered him words of encouragement about staying focused on his oversight mission, without mentioning any specific investigations. Chaffetz recalled Trump telling him, "‘I understand that I’m the president. But you have a job to do. You do the oversight. You don't slow down. You go after everything you want to go after. You look at anything you want to look at.’" Chaffetz said Trump’s words at the Philadelphia convention were an inspiring message about how Trump views his committee’s government watchdog role. "If you sat there and heard what he said to me about pursuing oversight of the government and the function that we fulfill, you’d be pretty inspired," Chaffetz said. "And for him to convey a message of 'Don't slow down, go do your job, there’s a lot to get after with the government,' I think was a good message." It’s wrongheaded to extrapolate from Chaffetz’s statement that Trump gave his imprimatur to a ramped-up investigation into Clinton. Chaffetz’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. For his part, Chaffetz said after the election that Clinton’s defeat would not signal an end to his committee’s investigation of her email practices and handling of classified information while in government. But there’s no evidence Trump has personally urged him to keep the pressure up. Our ruling A number of bloggers said President Trump greenlighted Congress to ramp up the Clinton investigation -- and used a video clip of Chaffetz to advance this claim. But these bloggers have mischaracterized the video. In it, Chaffetz describes a meeting in which Trump offered general words of encouragement and emphasized the importance of Congress’ oversight function, without reference to Clinton, or any specific investigation. At no point in the video does Chaffetz say Trump greenlighted, encouraged or even hinted at the need to ramp up an investigation into Clinton. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-05-31T09:38:03	2017-05-10	['Bill_Clinton', 'United_States_Congress']
-snes-04268	Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for the assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bob-beckel-julian-assange/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bob Beckel Called for WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange to Be Assassinated	11 August 2016	None	['Julian_Assange', 'WikiLeaks', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-tron-03348	Germany Bans Pork 	https://www.truthorfiction.com/germany-bans-pork/	None	religious	None	None	None	Germany Bans Pork –Truth! & Fiction!	Mar 8, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01889	Says Rick Scott "cut education to pay for even more tax breaks for big, powerful, well-connected corporations."	/florida/statements/2014/jul/07/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-cut-education-pay-tax-breaks-democratic/	A new Florida Democratic Party TV ad accuses Gov. Rick Scott of siding with big business rather than public education. "He didn’t side with students and parents when Rick Scott cut education funding by over a billion dollars," the narrator says in the ad, which began airing in the Tampa, West Palm Beach and Orlando markets in early July. "Working and middle-class families? Nope. Not on their side when Scott’s cuts forced tuition increases at 11 Florida universities. Why would he do it? Whose side was Rick Scott on? Scott cut education to pay for even more tax breaks for big, powerful, well-connected corporations. With his education cuts and tuition increases, Rick Scott’s not on your side." We’ve already fact-checked claims about education cuts and tuition in the gubernatorial battle between Scott and former Gov. Charlie Crist, the Democratic frontrunner. Here we will fact-check the claim that "Scott cut education to pay for even more tax breaks for big, powerful, well-connected corporations." Education cuts Scott entered office in 2011 facing a $3.6 billion shortfall which led him and the Legislature to cut K-12 by $1.3 billion. (Scott actually wanted a bigger cut.) After facing a backlash, Scott sought increases in later fiscal years. The amount of K-12 spending approved by the Legislature this year will be a record in terms of total dollars. However, per-pupil spending is less than the amount in 2007-08, when Crist was governor. In 2012, the state cut about $304 million for universities, under the assumption that they would increase tuition by as much as 15 percent. The following year, lawmakers restored that money. This year, the Legislature and Scott lowered that cap to 6 percent and eliminated it for all but University of Florida and Florida State University. Business tax breaks So that’s how Scott handled education spending. What about tax breaks for corporations? A spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party pointed to a Miami Herald article about business tax breaks approved in 2012. However, it’s worth noting that those tax breaks benefited a broad array of businesses -- not only ones that were big, powerful or well-connected, as the ad claims. "From shop owners, who know little about Tallahassee politics, to the powerful business lobby that thought up many of carefully crafted tax breaks, the Legislature this year proved a friendly place," the Herald wrote. This business tax relief totaled about $750 million in the first year, and more than $2.5 billion over the next three years, the Herald reported. That fit in line with Scott’s campaign promises to expand employment as Florida continued to bounce back from the recession. The cuts included a $50,000 exemption to the corporate income tax and tax breaks for manufacturing equipment and for private planes. The Herald cited a couple of examples of businessmen who would benefit, including Frank Stronach, a billionaire horse breeder whose Gulfstream Park racetrack casino had a team of nine lobbyists in Tallahassee. "He is likely to benefit from corporate tax cuts for his businesses and a $1.2 million tax break carved out specifically for a slaughterhouse he is building near Ocala," the Herald wrote. The Orlando Sentinel cited other beneficiaries, including big telecom companies that won tax breaks and a Palm Beach Gardens-based engine manufacturer that got a sales tax break that could save it $900,000 a year. Did Scott cut money for schools to bail out corporations? Finally, is there any connection between the cuts in education spending and the tax breaks Scott implemented? The K-12 education cut did occur in 2011, and so did the university cut in 2012 -- the same year the tax breaks passed. Joshua Karp, a spokesman for the Florida Democratic Party, told PolitiFact Florida that the two are inevitably linked. "If you increase funding in one part of general revenue, you inevitably have to cut from somewhere else," he said. "He could have chosen to put education first and found other places to cut." Independent analysts see greater room for nuance. The chronology of the cuts makes it difficult to draw any cause-and-effect conclusions. "I don’t think it is a one-for-one comparison, in that they didn’t stand around saying we will cut education to give these tax cuts," said Kim Rueben, state finance expert at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "But given balanced budget rules and a need to pay for all spending with revenues, the folks who passed the tax cuts must have had some idea that some spending would need to be cut." Kurt Wenner -- vice president of tax research at Florida TaxWatch, a group that takes a critical look at state spending with an eye toward long-term savings -- also saw a gray area. "At best, it is an oversimplification of a very complex budget process to say education funding was reduced to pay for tax cuts," Wenner said. "There are so many factors that affect funding levels. The 2012 Legislature also swept $542 million from trust funds into general revenue. It could be argued that this more than paid for any tax cuts. Conversely, the Legislature, wisely, chose to significantly increase reserves that year. That had a much bigger impact on available funding than the tax cuts did." Our ruling A TV ad by the Florida Democratic Party says Scott "cut education to pay for even more tax breaks for big, powerful, well-connected corporations." Scott and the Legislature did cut K-12 in 2011 and money for universities in 2012. And Scott and the Legislature implemented a series of business tax breaks in 2012. However, the ad exaggerates when it focuses attention on tax breaks for "big, powerful, well-connected corporations." Some such companies benefited, but so did many other types of businesses. And the question of whether the tax cuts and the education cuts had any causal relationship is murkier than the ad lets on. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, so we rate this claim Half True.	None	Florida Democratic Party	None	None	None	2014-07-07T15:46:41	2014-07-01	['None']
-pomt-06095	Says Milwaukee County buses are no less safe now than a year or two ago.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/jan/05/chris-abele/milwaukee-county-executive-chris-abele-says-county/	A spate of diametrically opposed claims about safety on Milwaukee County buses is the latest product of the increasingly bitter battle between Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. and County Executive Chris Abele. The sheriff, whose agency helps police buses, released videos of student fights to dramatize that, as he put it, "a ride on a Milwaukee county bus has become a frightening experience." The bad news aboard or around buses in December 2011 included a fight culminating in an attack against a mother who was with a 2-year-old child, an assault against a driver, a road-rage episode and stunning footage of beatings of students. Taking a somewhat longer view, Abele told reporters there is no disturbing new trend. "I think he’s misrepresenting the facts," Abele told CBS 58 TV reporter. "If the sheriff has given you the impression that transit is less safe than it was a year ago or the year before that, then he’s giving the wrong impression." We’ll focus on that two-year time period, but also peek at how Clarke can say incidents on buses have spiked five years in a row since 2006, while Abele cites a big drop comparing 2011 to 2006. This dispute escalated to the point that Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn stepped in to have his officers patrol buses, which prompted Clarke and Flynn to hammer at each other. Both Clarke and Abele referred to data on "incidents" when we asked. But Clarke couldn’t show us numbers to back up his assertion of a five-year rise. Abele did produce transit system figures, but his claim of a drop comparing 2011 to 2006 is misleading because he compared the present to a high point. In any event, the "incidents" figures are highly diluted. They include many hundreds of problems so minor -- sleeping on the bus, for example -- that neither law enforcement nor the transit system’s private security force was called in to deal with them. So let’s stick to more serious incidents -- and Abele’s statement about the last two years. We’ll look at violence, lawbreaking and other security problems that required intervention by law enforcement or G4S, the private security company formerly known as Wackenhut. Here’s our analysis of figures provided by the Milwaukee County Transit System (2011 figures are through Dec. 20). Law enforcement responses: This is arguably the most important measurement, and the trend line goes up -- though in roller-coaster fashion around 600 responses per year. Police were called in 12 percent more often in 2010 than in 2009, but those cases were on pace to fall about 5 percent in 2011 compared to 2010. So, buses were less safe this year than in 2009, but more safe this year than in 2010. But if you look at the last two years mentioned by Abele, and compare the responses from the previous two years, they are up slightly, about 4 percent. All responses: Counting all instances when police and/or private security was needed, incidents went up the last two years. This year, compared to 2009, they are up more than 13 percent. Those are the broad numbers for police and private security responses. But there are hundreds of non-criminal episodes such as fare disputes included, though, so let’s take a closer look at the violent incidents. Assaults and verbal altercations against passengers: Security was called -- and law enforcement sometimes dispatched -- in 150 such cases in 2011, up from 139 in 2010 and 106 in 2009. That’s two years in a row of increases, though it moderated in 2011, according to a report MCTS ran for us. Assaults against drivers: This counts drivers struck by a person, but mainly by objects or fluids (such as spittle). There were 29 such incidents in 2009, 24 in 2010 and 25 this year. It’s fallen off more compared to 35 in 2008. There were six drivers struck by individuals in 2011, though not all of these cases were serious enough to warrant medical attention. Non-violent lawbreaking: We only have two years of data here. It was virtually unchanged at nearly 900 incidents per year, this category includes threats, weapons incidents, off-bus fights and disorderly conduct, vandalism and profane/drunken behavior. The number represents how many time private security -- and police in some cases -- were called in. Those are the numbers. A transit spokeswoman sees no red flags in the fluctuations and mixed trends. "There’s not an increase in crime, there’s an increase in attention," said Jacqueline Janz of MCTS. The numbers are a bit of a mixed bag, but show lawbreaking and violence is a consistent, if relatively uncommon, phenomenon on county buses that -- MCTS officials are quick to point out -- provide 44 million passenger trips a year on 411 buses, most without incident. Broadly speaking, it’s happening less now than five years ago, but more than it was two years ago, based on total responses by police and security. The Abele statement we are checking referred to the last two years. Assaults on drivers are notably down over two to three years. But looking at the broadest measure of serious problems (altercations among passengers), the history shows a significant increase two years in a row. That’s the time frame Abele referred to, and we think Clarke’s critique focuses mainly on these kind of serious incidents. To be sure, there’s no dramatic swing up, as Clarke’s rhetoric implied. And the picture improves when the longer view is taken, though as we noted that’s selectively taking a high point as the starting point. But Abele’s claim about buses being no less safe than a year or two ago flies in the face of the passenger altercation stats. Plus, Abele makes use of overly broad "incident" numbers that are highly misleading as a measure of crime. There’s enough counter evidence -- the declining number of bus drivers struck -- to give Abele’s claim an element of truth. But it also gives a wrong impression. That is our definition of Mostly False.	None	Chris Abele	None	None	None	2012-01-05T09:00:00	2011-12-15	['None']
-goop-02116	Miley Cyrus Did Say “Today I Leave America And Never Come Back,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/miley-cyrus-leave-america-never-come-back-fake-news/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Miley Cyrus Did NOT Say “Today I Leave America And Never Come Back,” Despite Report	6:29 pm, November 29, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00752	Meghan Markle Pregnant With Baby Girl?	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-pregnant-baby-girl-prince-harry/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Meghan Markle Pregnant With Baby Girl?	3:00 am, June 26, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01555	President Obama Plans to Ban Thanksgiving for “Celebrate Immigrants Day”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-plans-to-ban-thanksgiving-for-celebrate-immigrants-day/	None	government	None	None	None	President Obama Plans to Ban Thanksgiving for “Celebrate Immigrants Day”	Oct 28, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00644	Will "reaffirm the authority of state and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of all federal immigration laws."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/674/work-with-state-and-local-officials-to-enforce-imm/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	John Boehner	None	None	Work with state and local officials to enforce immigration laws	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['None']
-snes-04233	President Obama has issued an executive order banning the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S. schools.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pledge-of-allegiance-ban/	None	Junk News	None	Snopes Staff	None	Obama Signs Executive Order Banning the Pledge of Allegiance in Schools Nationwide	16 August 2016	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-12998	America’s federal business tax rate is the highest "in the world."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/dec/15/donald-trump/pledging-cuts-donald-trump-says-wisconsin-rally-us/	During a speech in which he warmed up to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, gave a shout-out to Vince Lombardi and even name-dropped Kanye West, president-elect Donald Trump also reaffirmed his promise to cut taxes. Trump appeared Dec. 13, 2016 with vice president-elect Mike Pence and a host of Badger State Republicans, including Ryan, at the Wisconsin State Fair Park Exposition Center. This stop on his multi-state "thank-you tour" was mostly a campaign-style rally, but there was some policy, too. Midway into his remarks, Trump said: "We’re going to undertake one of the great tax reforms and simplifications in American history. This includes a massive tax cut for the middle-class and middle-class families from Wisconsin, too. "We’re also going to lower our business tax rate so that new companies will come to our shores and hire workers in cities like right here. Is that OK? That’s what we want. We’re going to bring our rates down from 35 percent, we’re going to try to get it down to 15 percent. So, right now -- and by the way the jobs will pour in -- so, right now, we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. And when we finish, we’ll be one of the lower taxed, one of the lower." Whether the president-elect keeps his promises on taxes will be something to be determined by PolitiFact National’s Trump-O-Meter, which will be launched in 2017. But we can answer now whether America’s business tax rate is the highest in the world. Top U.S. rate: 35% The corporate income tax rates in the United States range from 15 to 35 percent. And that 35 percent top rate -- at least as a "statutory" rate (more on that below) -- is relatively high. The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publishes the top corporate tax rates for the 35 countries that belong to its organization, which includes most advanced, industrialized nations. The U.S’ top rate of 35 percent ranks first, just ahead of France, 34.4 percent; Belgium, 33 percent; and Australia and Mexico, 30 percent. On the low end: Switzerland, 8.5 percent; Ireland, 12.5 percent; Latvia and Canada, 15 percent; and Germany, 15.8 percent. Sometimes references are made to a combined corporate tax rate, which includes federal and state corporate taxes; the U.S.’ combined rate is 38.9 percent. But Trump was referring to the 35 percent federal rate, the one he vows to reduce. There are, however, two clarifying points to make. Other nations, and what is paid To back Trump’s statement, his campaign cited a Forbes article that noted the United States has the highest corporate rate among industrialized nations. But Trump didn’t limit his statement to industrialized nations. The accounting firm PwC tracks the top federal corporate tax rates for 155 countries. That list shows five other countries that also have a top rate of 35 percent: Argentina, Chad, Congo, Malta and Zambia. And there are two countries with higher top corporate tax rates: United Arab Emirates, 55 percent; and Puerto Rico, 39 percent. It also needs to be understood that America’s 35 percent top rate is the statutory rate -- before deductions -- but U.S. companies aren’t actually taxed at that rate. Tax deductions -- on health insurance, pensions and investment returns, for example -- allow corporations to reduce the pool of taxable profits. Indeed, a March 2016 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in each year from 2006 to 2012, at least two-thirds of all active corporations had no federal income tax liability, although larger corporations were more likely to owe tax. And a May 2016 paper by Reed College economics professor Kimberly Clausing found U.S. multinational firms have used tax planning to generate effective tax rates "that are far lower than the statutory rate, and often in the single digits." Our rating Trump said America’s federal business tax rate is the highest "in the world." The top corporate tax in the United States is 35 percent, highest among the world’s industrialized nations. But five smaller nations have the same rate and two smaller ones, United Arab Emirates and Puerto Rico, have rates above 35 percent. Also, the 35 percent U.S. rate is only the starting point, given that corporations can use exemptions and deductions to effectively reduce that rate and pay lower taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/077f53a2-c756-458f-b4f3-4f872d820085	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-12-15T15:07:59	2016-12-13	['United_States']
-para-00207	Patients will save about $150 a year on medicines "thanks to the Rudd Labor Government's pharmaceutical pricing policy".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/22/tanya-plibersek/keep-taking-drugs-thanking-us-for-it/index.html	None	['Health']	Tanya Plibersek	Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	Keep taking the drugs — and thanking us for it	Thursday, August 22, 2013 at 6:19 p.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-03034	Says Sen. Mark Pryor voted for "special subsidies" for lawmakers and staff in Congress "so they’re protected from Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/09/tom-cotton/cotton-says-pryor-voted-give-congress-special-subs/	Republicans have high hopes that they will topple Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas in 2014. The campaign of U.S. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., poses a real threat in a state that has gone Republican by ever wider margins in the last four presidential elections. In 2012, President Barack Obama got just 37 percent of the vote. Cotton’s ads aim to tie Pryor to Obama, and the latest one titled "Good for the Gander" focuses on Obamacare. The tone is jaunty with geese popping up on the screen, but the message is sharp. Here’s the text: What’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But not in Washington. Mark Pryor cast the deciding vote to make you live under Obamacare. But Pryor votes himself and everyone in Congress special subsidies so they’re protected from Obamacare. Exceptions and special subsidies for Mark Pryor. Higher insurance premiums for you. Mark Pryor. Voting with Obama. Voting against Arkansans. Like you. The charge that this or that Democrat cast the deciding vote for the Affordable Care Act has shown up before. In June, a conservative group leveled it at Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla, (PolitiFact Florida rated that Mostly False), and in 2012, a Republican challenger made the same claim about Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio (PolitiFact Ohio rated that False). The reality is that if any Democratic senator deserves the distinction of clearing the way for the health reform law, it is Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. As was widely reported at the time, Nelson delivered the 60th vote needed to send the bill to the floor for a vote. We spoke with Cotton’s staff and they didn’t actually say that Pryor played a unique role. They hold Pryor accountable because, "All of the votes were critical." But Pryor’s support for the Affordable Care Act was known well before the final vote. However, in this fact check, we wanted to look at the weightier claim that Pryor voted to give everyone in Congress a special subsidy to protect them from Obamacare. Not so special The "special subsidy" has its roots in a wrinkle in the Affordable Care Act. The law has a provision, pushed by Republicans, that requires members of Congress and their staff to buy health coverage through the government marketplaces that opened for business on Oct. 1. This clause treats lawmakers and congressional workers unlike any other workers in the country. At least three-quarters of Americans get insurance through their jobs, with employers paying part of the insurance premium. For the most part, Obamacare doesn’t touch that relationship. The clear exception is lawmakers and congressional workers. They must drop their current coverage and find something equivalent from insurance companies participating in the Marketplaces. But within the marketplaces, there is no explicit provision for the federal government to continue to pay the share of the premiums that it had before. The full cost would fall on the congressional workers with a price tag of thousands of dollars for each person. Even the National Review, the conservative magazine that is none too fond of Obamacare, recently wrote that the provision treats lawmakers and staff "particularly badly...People who happen to be paid by the federal treasury don’t deserve to have the entire value of their existing coverage stripped away, as almost no Americans will experience." As a fix, the Office of Personnel Management, the agency in charge of federal worker benefits, ruled that it would take the same money that it would have spent on the government’s old health insurance and spend it on whatever lawmakers and their staffs purchased on the Obamacare marketplaces. In other words, it would do what every other employer does. Continuing that cost-sharing is the "special subsidy" the Cotton ad refers to. What Pryor voted for Republicans in the House and Senate proposed language that would block the federal government from splitting the cost of the premiums with congressional workers.The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate on Sept. 30 on a straight party-line vote. Pryor voted with all the other Democrats to table the House legislation. Cotton’s office told us that by blocking the Republican measure, Pryor was allowing Congress to do something that other employers can’t do until 2017. They cited a provision in Obamacare. "Sec. 1312 (f)(2)(B)(i) specifically prohibits large businesses from doing so until 2017 and does not provide an exception for anyone to do so before that date," Cotton’s staff said. "Following OPM's ruling, only members of Congress and their staff can receive an employer contribution from a large business on the small business exchange in 2014." That interpretation is questionable. The law says, "Beginning in 2017, each state may allow issuers of health insurance coverage in the large group market in the State to offer qualified health plans in such market through an exchange." Timothy Jost, professor of law at Washington and Lee School of Law and a national expert on the text of the health care law, said Cotton’s office misreads the law. "The provision doesn’t say large employers can't contribute," Jost said. "It says large group insurance through the exchange won’t be offered to them." Another specialist in health care law, Mark Hall at the Wake Forest University School of Law, is equally emphatic. "This provision does not prevent the Office of Personnel Management or the federal government contributing to government worker’s premiums on the exchange prior to 2017," Hall said. "And doing so does not give them a special exception beyond what the ACA allows." Jost said in one place, the Affordable Care Act tells Congress to offer members of Congress and staffers insurance through the marketplace, and in another, it blocks states from offering large group insurance plans through the marketplaces for several years. "The two are completely unrelated," Jost said. Our ruling Cotton said Pryor voted for "special subsidies" for lawmakers and staff in congress "so they’re protected from Obamacare." The subsidy referred to is the government continuing to share the cost of insurance premiums as is standard practice in every establishment that offers insurance to its workers. There is nothing special about that. The only thing special about Obamacare and Congress is that the law treated Congress and its workers differently than any other group of workers. Cotton relies on an interpretation of the law that independent experts say is wrong. The assertion falls wide of the facts, and we rate this claim False.	None	Tom Cotton	None	None	None	2013-10-09T14:58:20	2013-10-07	['United_States_Congress', 'Mark_Pryor', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-farg-00008	“NAFTA was a defective deal the day it was signed. You know why? Because they had a VAT tax of 17 percent and nobody from this country knew that."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/trump-wrong-on-mexicos-vat/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Robert Farley	['NAFTA']	Trump Wrong on Mexico’s VAT	September 28, 2018	[' United Nations – Wednesday, September 26, 2018 ']	['North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement']
-pomt-10006	"As a percentage of gross domestic product, we are reducing nondefense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s, lower than it was under Reagan, lower than it was under Clinton, lower than it was under Bush, or both Bushes."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/barack-obama/obamas-claim-about-government-spending-chooses-mos/	Under fire from Republicans for his proposed budget, President Obama has been using a couple of comebacks. He says his proposed budgets would cut the deficit in half in five years (a claim we rated Mostly True ) and that they would reduce "nondefense discretionary spending" (a key phrase that we'll explain shortly) to historically low levels. At a White House news conference on March 24, Obama said that under his plans, the NDD spending (we're not fond of acronyms, but we'll use NDD because nondefense discretionary spending is such a mouthful) will fall to its lowest level since the 1960s. Asked by a reporter about long-term estimates that show growth in spending under his budget, Obama said much of the growth is in mandatory programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that go up automatically. "We're very serious about working on a bipartisan basis to reduce those deficits, or reduce those costs — you're not going to see those savings reflected until much later." But he indicated that his administration was also being fiscally responsible. "Just to give one other example — as a percentage of gross domestic product, we are reducing nondefense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s — lower than it was under Reagan, lower than it was under Clinton, lower than it was under Bush — or both Bushes." We wondered if that was true. But first, we should explain a couple of basic concepts. Policymakers focus on the NDD spending because it's the part of the budget that the president and Congress can most easily control. The mandatory programs are just that — mandatory. They include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, programs that go up automatically based on how many people are eligible. Defense costs are often excluded because they are subject to outside forces such as whether the United States is at war. So that leaves NDD as everything else the government spends money on — education, agriculture, transportation, social programs, NASA, and a host of other things. Policymakers often measure government spending against the gross domestic product, the total output of the U.S. economy, to show the relative share of government spending in the overall economy. So now let's examine Obama's claim. First, we should note that although it was clear Obama was talking about the long-term impact of his budget, he didn't specify a time frame. A listener might not know if he was talking about the first five years or the last five, or some other period. That allowed him to do some cherry-picking, to rely on the one number that supports his point when others do not. Indeed, he achieves that historic spending level only once in his 10-year-projection — in 2019, the final year, according to numbers from his Office of Management and Budget. (We should note that, unless the constitutional term limit is changed before then, even if he wins a second term, Obama will be out of office in January 2017, two years before we can see if his budget projections came true.) Also, it's important to note that these are White House estimates. Administration officials say they are based on realistic policy decisions for future years, but the numbers have been criticized for being too optimistic. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said Obama is using unrealistic numbers to make his spending appear lower. "This is a complete gimmick," Riedl said, adding that "President Bush played the same game." Indeed, this is a standard ploy for presidents to promise to meet goals in later years when the circumstances are beyond their control. Presidents assume very low growth in government spending for the long-term to make their budgets look more lean. But when those years come, they usually propose much higher spending, Riedl said. At the news conference, Obama acknowledged that his analysis was relying on GDP projections that are more optimistic than the ones from the Congressional Budget Office, a well-respected nonpartisan group. But he said his numbers were in line with other prominent economists. So where does this leave us? Obama's claim is that "we are reducing nondefense discretionary spending to its lowest level since the '60s." Although his statement suggests broad success, he achieves the historic level only in the last year. Yes, it would be lower than the other presidents, but it would beat the lowest number only in 2019 — a year when Obama will be out of office. And he relies on economic assumptions that are slightly more optimistic than the ones from the well-respected CBO. So we find Obama's claim to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2009-03-25T17:28:32	2009-03-24	['Bill_Clinton', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'George_W._Bush', 'Bush_family']
-para-00161	Says some Australian children believe that "yoghurt comes from trees".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/04/sid-sidebottom/some-australian-children-believe-yoghurt-comes-tre/index.html	None	['Education']	Sid Sidebottom	Chris Pash, Peter Fray	None	Some Australian children believe that "yoghurt comes from trees"	Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 12:51 p.m.	None	['Australia']
-pomt-11876	The University of Missouri saw "the biggest drop in enrollment of any major university in the country" since the 2015 protests.	/missouri/statements/2017/oct/30/eric-greitens/greitens-mostly-false-about-mu-having-biggest-enro/	November marks the two-year anniversary of the height of protests that took place on the University of Missouri’s campus. Protests over multiple racial issues culminated with a boycott by football players, a six-day hunger strike and, on Nov. 9, the resignations of the university system president and the MU chancellor. The University of Missouri has since experienced a noticeable dip in enrollment. Gov. Eric Greitens even went as far as to say in a Facebook Live video on Aug. 23, 2017, "I believe that this is the biggest drop in enrollment of any major university in the country." Big decline, yes. But is it the worst drop in enrollment in the country? Is it just MU? In his video, Greitens goes on to state that freshman enrollment has dipped by 33 percent since protests in 2015 brought national media attention to the SEC school. The governor’s office didn’t respond to our request for clarifications. Because Greitens referred to major universities, we decided to take a look at four-year public universities containing 20,000 or more students. We chose these universities because the Department of Education lists MU in this group. According to the Department of Education data, MU was not the only university to experience a drop in enrollment. Departmental data show that MU's total enrollment declined from 35,424 in 2015 to 33,239 in 2016, or 6.17 percent. That puts the university in fourth place for enrollment decline. The top three: --Florida State University at Jacksonville, which is predominantly a two-year college, came in third with a 7.97 percent decrease in enrollment. --The University of Akron main campus fell 8.66 percent. --The largest decline was at Miami-Dade College, also predominantly a two-year college, which saw enrollment drop 11.43 percent. Greitens spoke before this year’s official enrollment figures were out, but the decline has continued. The Department of Education hasn’t finished gathering numbers for 2017 enrollment. On Sep. 20, MU announced an enrollment of 30,870, according to the MU News Bureau. That’s a drop of 12.9 percent from 2015. Freshmen enrollment is down even more. Since the protests on campus, MU experienced a 36.5 percent drop in freshman enrollment, more than the 33 percent decline Greitens mentions. According to the Department of Education, first-year student numbers for 2016-2017 are still not yet available for all universities, so there is no way to tell if MU experienced the largest drop in freshman enrollment. Our ruling Greitens said, "I believe that this is the biggest drop in enrollment of any major university in the country." MU has undoubtedly experienced a drop in overall enrollment since protests that took place two years ago. However, MU’s overall enrollment decline did not top other universities like Miami-Dade College or the four-year University of Akron. As far as freshman enrollment, numbers for 2016-17 have not yet been made available, so there is no way to tell if MU experienced the biggest drop in enrollment. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Eric Greitens	None	None	None	2017-10-30T23:24:29	2017-08-23	['None']
-goop-00479	Justin Theroux Trying To Date Jennifer Lopez, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-jennifer-lopez-date-not-true/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Justin Theroux NOT Trying To Date Jennifer Lopez, Despite Late And Wrong Report	5:43 pm, August 10, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12110	"Crime has been getting worse since Jerry Brown was elected governor."	/california/statements/2017/aug/22/john-moorlach/has-crime-been-getting-worse-jerry-brown-was-elect/	Republicans including California State Sen. John Moorlach have railed against Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown for signing a gas tax increase earlier this year. The Orange County lawmaker took his criticism a step further in a recent op-ed in which he predicted the gas tax hike, combined with California’s cap-and-trade extension, would boost gas prices so much that thieves would start siphoning fuel from cars. Moorlach went on to declare that crime has been on the rise under Brown. "Crime has been getting worse since Jerry Brown was elected governor," Moorlach wrote in the Aug. 4 piece in the Sacramento Bee. "The Bee reported, three-quarters of California’s largest cities saw violent crime rise in 2015, with Sacramento’s up 25 percent." We’ve fact-checked similar claims about increasing crime rates from other California lawmakers including State Sen. Jeff Stone of Riverside County and Assemblyman Travis Allen, an Orange County Republican running for governor. There’s been some truth in those claims, but those who made them also ignored key context or distorted the facts. We wondered how Moorlach’s statement, specifically the portion about crime getting worse since Brown was elected, stacked up. California crime trends Before diving into the senator’s claim, here’s some background on California crime trends. Like the rest of the United States, California has experienced a dramatic long-term reduction in crime over the past several decades. Between 1980 and 2015, the state’s overall crime rate declined by about 60 percent, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. SOURCE: California Legislative Analyst's Office. The property crime rate peaked in California at nearly 7,000 crimes per 100,000 population in the early 1980s. Three decades later, it had dropped by more than half. The violent crime rate saw a similar dramatic drop during this period. Moorlach’s claim In his op-ed, Moorlach focuses on crime "since Jerry Brown was elected governor." We took that to mean Brown’s current stretch as governor, which started with his election to a third term in 2010 and continued with re-election to a fourth term in 2014. Brown served his first two terms as governor from 1975 to 1983. For this current stretch, we looked at crime data from 2010 through 2016, the most current year available. We also considered the period 2010 through 2015 because Moorlach’s spokesman said the senator did not have had access to a California Department of Justice report on crime for 2016, given that it was released two weeks after his op-ed published. No matter the exact years selected, California’s crime story during over the past half decade is not as simple as Moorlach’s statement implies. The statewide crime rate, which measures both violent and property crimes, ticked up in 2012 and 2015. It decreased, however, in the other four years during Brown’s current stint. This overall crime rate includes violent and property crimes. Violent crimes are homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults. Examples of property crimes include burglary, theft and vandalism. Jonathan Peterson, a fiscal and policy analyst at the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, cautioned that year-over-year changes can make it look like crime is growing rapidly, "but it could be a blip." Peterson said the past six to seven years have been marked by fluctuations in California’s crime rate, not a steady increase or decrease. Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, who researches crime trends, said Moorlach's claim might contain an element of truth but overall is flawed. "One has to be very cautious about politicians making statements about crime because they will often try to make the numbers say something that isn’t quite representative," said Donohue. "The broad trend for the last 25 years has been down and very benign. Crime is at a much lower level in practically every place today than it was 25 years ago. But in the last couple years there has been an uptick (in California and nationwide), and that’s a reason for concern." Deeper look at crime data To fact-check Moorlach’s claim about crime getting worse, we examined statistics from the California Department of Justice’s recent report Crime in California 2016. It includes crime rate data from 1966 through 2016. The data show that from 2010 through 2015, the most recent year from which Moorlach likely drew his conclusions, California’s overall crime rate declined slightly from 3,069 crimes per 100,000 population to 3,047 crimes per 100,000. This casts doubt on Moorlach’s claim that crime has been getting worse. Even when examining the violent crime rate alone, the results are mixed. In three of the years since Brown was elected, the violent crime rate notched up, while it dipped in the the other three years. Had Moorlach narrowed his claim to 2011, Brown’s first year back as governor, through 2015, the crime story would be slightly different. California’s overall crime rate inched up between those years, from 3,007 crimes per 100,000 population to 3,047 per 100,000. Moorlach’s response Sen. Moorlach’s spokesman provided us with links to about a half-dozen news articles that detailed crime increases across California. None of the articles, however, showed a sustained increase from 2010 through 2016. In his op-ed, Moorlach cited a spike in violent crime in 2015. He’s right for that single year for that type of crime: state justice department figures show an 8.4 percent rise in violent crime in 2015 compared with the prior year. In recent months, politicians such as Assemblyman Allen have pointed to this period as evidence for growing crime concern in California. Many have cited a PPIC analysis comparing the first half of 2014 to the same period in 2015. It found widespread increases in crime rates in California cities with a population greater than 100,000. Of the 66 California cities that size, 49 saw an increase in violent crime and 48 experienced increases in property crime. Many saw double digit percent increases. A subsequent report comparing the first half of 2016 with the first half of 2015 showed overall crime decreasing, driven by a drop in property crimes. That report was published by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a policy research group that makes recommendations on alternatives to incarceration. Two weeks after Moorlach’s op-ed was published, the California Department of Justice released statewide crime statistics for 2016. That report showed a slight decrease in the total crime rate, driven by a nearly 3 percent decline in the property crime rate. Violent crime, meanwhile, increased about 4 percent in 2016. We won’t use these statistics as a determining factor in our rating for Moorlach’s claim since his spokesman said the senator didn’t have the report. The 2016 data, however, appear to support the idea that crime has not followed a consistent pattern in California over the past half dozen years. Our rating Republican State Sen. John Moorlach recently claimed "crime has been getting worse since Jerry Brown was elected governor." His spokesman pointed to news articles that cite an uptick in crime in 2015, when many large cities in California saw double-digit increases in violent crime. But neither those articles nor state crime reports show a sustained increase from the time of Brown was elected governor in 2010 through the current period. In fact, there was a slight decrease in the state’s overall crime rate from 2010 through 2015, the most recent year Moorlach was likely referring to. Crime researchers emphasized that California and the nation have experienced a dramatic decrease in crime in recent decades. They say California’s crime rate increases in 2012 and in 2015, however, are reason for concern but are not evidence that crime has gotten worse over the past half dozen years. We rate Moorlach’s claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. After the Fact: Moorlach responds to crime fact check After our fact-check published, Sen. Moorlach responded by saying crime has increased in California under Gov. Jerry Brown if one looks at a more narrow period, from 2011 through 2015. We used 2010 as a baseline for our research given that Moorlach’s original statement said "crime has been getting worse since Jerry Brown was elected governor." Voters elected Brown governor in November 2010 and he took office in January 2011. Using 2010 as a baseline both adhered to Moorlach’s original timeframe and gave us a chance to examine how the crime rate had changed under Brown compared with the year immediately preceding his governorship. Moorlach correctly points out on Twitter that: "Your own report admits crime increased from 2011-2015, a very large period of Gov. Brown's time in office." He also emphasized this point in a blog post on Medium.com. As we pointed out in the fact check, the crime rate has fluctuated during Brown’s tenure. It increased in 2012 and again in 2015, provoking concern from politicians and those who research crime trends. The other four years under Brown, however, the crime rate has decreased. In the end, when one measures the overall crime rate from 2010 through 2015 and through 2016, both fuller pictures of Brown’s time in office, there’s a slight decrease. Our rating remains the same. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	John Moorlach	None	None	None	2017-08-22T19:36:00	2017-08-04	['Jerry_Brown']
-obry-00035	As the state minimum wage rose toward the top of the policy agenda in the most recent election season, Wisconsin Assembly Democrats have indicated they will look to increase wages in the upcoming legislative session. During an Aug. 29 interview with WisconsinEye, recently re-elected Rep. Dave Considine, D-Baraboo, advocated for raising Wisconsin’s minimum wage to $15 an hour — more than double the current rate of $7.25 an hour — over the course of up to six years. Qualifying his statement, Considine said the change should include an age-based tier system in which the hourly rate is higher for adults than it is for minors. He also said that many employers already paid above the current minimum wage. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/12/14/how-much-do-workers-in-central-wisconsin-make-we-check-out-dave-considines-estimates/	None	None	None	Madeline Sweitzer	None	How much do workers in central Wisconsin make? We check out Dave Considine’s estimates	January 9, 2017	None	['Wisconsin', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-04475	Says Texas lawmakers last year expanded public education’s share of state spending.	/texas/statements/2012/oct/08/joe-straus/joe-straus-says-lawmakers-increased-share-state-sp/	Asked if public school advocates should prepare for lawmakers to wield knives afresh next year, the speaker of the Texas House challenged the premise. Joe Straus, featured at a Texas Tribune Festival breakfast, said: "We worked really hard to ensure that public education, higher education, is the largest piece of the budget pie. We did that in this last session too. The pie got smaller, but the piece for public education actually got larger." His comment was noted for us by Joshua Fechter, a University of Texas journalism student. We’ve previously checked Straus, a San Antonio Republican, summarizing legislative decision-making by the Republican-steered 2011 Legislature. In May 2011, he said a House-Senate deal on the state budget "funds nursing homes, our public schools and universities, and provides financial aid for college students while keeping substantial revenue in reserves and avoiding any new taxes." Unsaid: Public schools were poised to field $4 billion less in 2012-13 than they would have gotten under established funding formulas. Higher education, except for community colleges, was likewise due to sustain funding cuts and nursing homes were about to be left with lower rates than they had after the 2009 legislative session. Such reductions were put into play as lawmakers wrapped up a total 2012-13 budget, counting state plus federal funds, of $173.5 billion, down $14 billion from the 2010-11 total, according to the advisory Legislative Budget Board’s January 2012 "Fiscal Size-up" report. The latest budget reduces state general-revenue spending to $81.3 billion, a nearly 1 percent drop from 2010-11, the report says. So, Straus was correct the agreed-upon budget "funded" the cited items, but his statement failed to acknowledge the funding levels were mostly ratcheting down. We rated his statement as Half True. Other leaders subsequently distorted legislative actions affecting public schools. State Rep. Myra Crownover, for instance, said lawmakers increased state education spending by $1.6 billion. That was about right solely per the state’s Foundation School Program, which is supposed to ensure each school district has adequate resources. But her claim did not account for more than $5 billion in school funding reductions, leading us to rate her statement as Pants on Fire. Specifically, lawmakers did not fund the costs of projected enrollment increases and cut by $2 billion a year what schools were accustomed to drawing down via longstanding finance formulas. Members also postponed to the next two-year budget period a regular distribution of state education aid, lately estimated to total $1.9 billion. Finally, schools were hit by a $1.3 billion reduction in funding for targeted programs including teacher incentive pay, dropout prevention funding and grants for pre-Kindergarten Early Start. A similar claim by State Comptroller Susan Combs also caught fire on the Truth-O-Meter. Combs, who oversees state finances, incorrectly told a Brazos County group that lawmakers had not cut school aid. Conversely, we rated as True a March 2012 statement by state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, that the legislative decisions mean the state’s public schools are spending, on average, $500 less per student than before. Back to Straus’s recent statement: Could it be that despite the much-noted reductions, the 2011 Legislature devoted a bigger piece of state spending to public education than before? Straus spokesman Jason Embry, drawing from the "Fiscal Size-up," told us by email that state money flowing to schools through the Texas Education Agency in the two-year budget exceeds the comparable share of such funding in the 2010-11 budget. In the previous budget, Embry said, the agency accounted for $30.3 billion, or 37 percent, of $81.9 billion in all state spending. He said lawmakers budgeted $30.5 billion for the agency in 2012-13, accounting for 37.4 percent of all the general-revenue spending. Curious, we also checked on whether public education comprised a greater share of all spending in the budget, meaning state general revenue plus federal aid. It did. Some $47 billion in education agency funds comprised 27.3 percent of all spending, compared to 26.7 percent of the full 2010-11 budget. Finally, we asked the Texas Association of School Boards, which represents school districts, for a longer look at the share of state spending devoted to public education over recent years. Spokesman Dominic Giarratani, drawing information from budget-board reports, said by email that since 2002-03, the public education share of state spending topped out at 40 percent in 2008-09. He said the period’s low-water mark, set in 2004-05, was 36 percent -- or 1.4 percentage points below education’s share of state general-revenue spending as described by Straus. Our ruling As Straus says, public education made up a greater share of state spending in the 2012-13 budget than in the 2010-11 budget. Bur this statement lacks vital clarifying information -- that school funding still took a substantial hit. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Joe Straus	None	None	None	2012-10-08T12:00:00	2012-09-23	['None']
-tron-00944	Microsoft Patent That Requires Paying Attention to Computer Ads	https://www.truthorfiction.com/microsoft-patent/	None	computers	None	None	None	Microsoft Patent That Requires Paying Attention to Computer Ads	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-vees-00197	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Robredo camp wants Iloilo City, NOT province, out of vote recount	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-robredo-camp-wants-iloilo-city-not-pro	None	None	None	None	Leni Robredo,vp poll recount	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Robredo camp wants Iloilo City, NOT province, out of vote recount	May 28, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-00891	"Contrary to popular belief, we actually don’t have that many public employees…We are well below average in the number of public employees.’’	/rhode-island/statements/2015/mar/08/gina-raimondo/gov-gina-raimondo-says-ri-well-below-average-numbe/	Governor Raimondo sounded an alarm about state spending and looming budget deficits at a news conference last month. "Out of whack … Alarming … Scary," she said. Her presentation included facts and figures about public employees and their salaries. "Contrary to popular belief, we actually don’t have that many public employees…We are well below average in the number of public employees," she said. When we called Raimondo’s office, Marie Aberger, the governor’s spokeswoman, told us that Raimondo was referring to all federal, state and municipal employees, including educators, when she said "public employees." The governor’s office forwarded a chart to us that was compiled using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics information from November 2013. It showed that Rhode Island had the lowest percentage of government employees in New England. According to the chart, a total of 59,800, or 11.6 percent, of the state’s 514,100 jobs are in the public sector. New Hampshire was second lowest, with 12.5 percent, followed by Massachusetts (13.1 percent), Connecticut (13.3 percent), Maine (15 percent) and Vermont (16.3 percent). But those are just the New England numbers. Where does Rhode Island rank nationally in percentage of public employees? We got those figures when we reached out to the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training. Spokesman Michael J. Healey provided us with calculations from its labor market information division. Donna Murray, assistant director of the division, compared the number of government jobs -- including federal workers and educators -- to the number of non-farm jobs in every state and determined what percentage the public-sector jobs made up. Those calculations indicated that as of December 2014, the state had a total of 59,700 government jobs, which accounted for 12.5 percent of the state’s 478,900 total positions. Of the state’s public sector jobs, 10,500 are federal, Murray said. This ties Rhode Island with Nevada as the states with the second lowest percentage of public employees in the nation. Pennsylvania was the sole state with a lower percentage, at 12.3 percent. By contrast, Wyoming had the highest percentage of public employees at 24.2 percent. Nationally, government jobs make up an average of 15.9 percent of total non-farm jobs, according to the department’s calculations. We wondered how Rhode Island compares when federal jobs are excluded, and only state and local workers are counted, since those are the jobs that impact state and municipal budgets. We contacted Governing, a non-partisan magazine and website that tracks politics, policy and management for state and local government leaders. It published its own analysis, entitled "States With Most Government Employees: Per Capita Rates By Job Type". (The governor’s office also referred us to this analysis.) The Governing analysis was published last March, using 2012 numbers. Mike Maciag, the data editor at Governing, agreed to run more current numbers for us to determine how Rhode Island’s rate of state and local public employees compares with rates of other states and the national average. Maciag used 2013 data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll for his calculations. According to the analysis, Rhode Island had 458 state and local employees -- including teachers -- per 10,000 residents, he said. This placed the Ocean State as the state with the seventh-lowest number of public employees in the country. Wyoming had the most public employees per 10,000 -- 866. Nevada had the least -- 368 . The national average was 538. For the record, according to Healey, Rhode Island had a total of 16,100 state employees as of December 2014. That includes 10,805 in state government, 4,612 in higher education, and 683 in the judiciary. Our ruling Governor Raimondo said that Rhode Island was "well below average" in the number of public employees. Information provided to us by the governor’s office and the state Department of Labor and Training support that claim, as does an analysis done by Governing, the non-partisan magazine and website We rate her claim True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Gina Raimondo	None	None	None	2015-03-08T00:01:00	2015-02-19	['None']
-pomt-03639	"Just about everyone everywhere is spending more hours on the job, less time with their families, bringing home smaller and smaller paychecks, while they're paying more and more at the gas pump and the grocery stores."	/ohio/statements/2013/may/03/ed-fitzgerald/ed-fitzgerald-says-people-are-working-longer-hours/	Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald formally announced his candidacy for governor last month, kicking off his campaign with speeches in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The Democrat, taking aim at the man he hopes to unseat next year, portrayed Republican Gov. John Kasich as a politician whose policies hurt middle-class Ohioans. "Just about everyone everywhere is spending more hours on the job, less time with their families, bringing home smaller and smaller paychecks, while they're paying more and more at the gas pump and the grocery stores," FitzGerald told supporters. PolitiFact Ohio wondered about the basis for the statement and asked for sources. For the claim about "more hours on the job, less time with their families," FitzGerald's staff cited data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to its American Time Use Survey, the average employed American spent an average of 7.6 hours per day working on days that they worked in 2011, the most recent year available. That's an increase from 7.48 hours in 2010. They also cited an article from the news service The Fiscal Times that reported Americans are logging in more time at work, skipping vacation time and increasingly handling work-related email on vacation and weekend time. As for the "smaller paychecks," FitzGerald's camp said that "the real hourly wages of Ohio workers have failed to keep pace with inflation" since 2010, decreasing the salaries of workers in inflation-adjusted dollars. Their source was the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Its data show that the mean and median hourly wages of Ohioans rose from $19.66 and $15.45 in 2010 to $20.52 and $16.03 in 2012. When adjusted for inflation and measured in current dollars, however, using the CPI inflation calculator, mean and median hourly wages fell from $20.99 and $16.49 in 2010 to $20.52 and $16.25 in 2012. PolitiFact has always stipulated that the ability of an individual governor to influence the economy is limited. Determining how credit or blame should be apportioned is seldom clear. We did not assign credit to Kasich for his statement in March that Ohioans' wages have risen by more than $10 billion since 2010. But we rated the statement as True. We can't rate FitzGerald's linking of Kasich to his statement about people spending more hours on the job and bringing home smaller paychecks. But his statement is accurate, with the point of clarification that "smaller paychecks" are in inflation-adjusted current dollars. Because that additional information is needed, we rate the statement as Mostly True.	None	Ed FitzGerald	None	None	None	2013-05-03T06:00:00	2013-04-24	['None']
-hoer-00868	Has Sylvester Stallone Announced That He Has Surrendered His Life To Christ?	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/silvester-stallone-surrenders-jesus.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Has Sylvester Stallone Announced That He Has Surrendered His Life To Christ?	August 9, 2013	None	['Sylvester_Stallone']
-snes-01103	President Trump offered that those who donate to reelection campaign on the day before his 2018 State of the Union address can have their name displayed during a Trump campaign-run livestream of the address.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-display-names-campaign-donors-state-union/	None	Politics	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Will President Trump Display the Names of Campaign Donors During the State of the Union?	29 January 2018	None	['Donald_Trump']
-pomt-11877	"The six wealthiest people in the world (have) as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, 3.7 billion people."	/missouri/statements/2017/oct/30/bernie-sanders/sanders-token-claim-economic-disparity-accurate-ca/	U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., spoke Sept. 21 at Westminster College in Fulton, where he laid out his vision for foreign policy. Like many of his other speeches, he touched on economic disparity and said, "There is no moral or economic justification for the six wealthiest people in the world having as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, 3.7 billion people." We wanted to know if it is possible that the collective wealth of the six richest people could equal more than that of half the world’s entire population. Where is this coming from? Sanders’ source is a 2017 Oxfam report that is put together using numbers from Forbes and Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Databook, according to Joshua Miller-Lewis, Sanders’ press secretary. The Oxfam report states that the eight richest men in the world had as much wealth as 3.6 billion people in the world, or half that population. But since that report, the numbers have changed: The rich have gotten richer while overall global wealth has decreased, according to the underlying data used by Oxfam. Oxfam’s calculations come from wealth estimates by Credit Suisse, a Swiss multinational financial services holding company, said Laura Rusu, policy and campaigns media manager for Oxfam America. Based on the latest data from Credit Suisse, the wealth of the bottom 50 percent of the global population is $409 billion. The six wealthiest people in the world add up to about $416.2 billion, according to Forbes. "The 1 percent now controls more wealth than the 99 percent of the rest of us combined, and it’s only getting worse," said Rusu. The six richest people, according to Forbes billionaire list, are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Amancio Ortega, Mark Zuckerberg and Carlos Slim Helú . Some caveats While Sanders’ claim is accurate, there are some notes of caution. "I think this statement is correct but it is not very meaningful because the bottom 50 percent has essentially no wealth," said economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley. While many of the economists we spoke to agreed that the statement is technically correct, the issue lies with wealth measures. Most of the wealth of the rich is from fungible private wealth, which is an asset’s interchangeability with assets of the same type. "It is probably the case that one-half the world’s population has almost no fungible private wealth. So by that measure, Bernie Sanders may be right," said Richard Burkhauser, professor emeritus of policy analysis at Cornell University College of Human Ecology. Rusu further explained that the Oxfam reports have seen a drop in private wealth, compared to the world’s collective wealth, but this has to do with an improved data collection method and not necessarily a change in people’s wealth. "The dramatic drop isn’t due purely to a sharp increase in inequality, but rather the availability of better data," Rusu told PolitiFact Missouri. Our ruling While giving a speech in Fulton, Missouri, Bernie Sanders stated that the six richest people in the world had as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s 3.7 billion people. According to global wealth disparity research, it is factually accurate to say that six men are, collectively, richer than the bottom 50 percent of the world. However, an expert cautioned about reading too much into this specific statistic because of the way wealth is measured and improvements in data collection. Sanders’ statement is accurate but needs clarification. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2017-10-30T23:16:48	2017-09-21	['None']
-vees-00034	Statement: On July 4, 2017, in her newspaper column, Uson wrote she hopes President Rodrigo Duterte extends his term as president “by any means” possible.	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-trail-false-claims-made-and-fake-news	None	None	None	None	Mocha Uson,misinformation,false claims	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: A trail of false claims made and fake news shared by Mocha Uson	October 03, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08026	The state is able to sharply curtail contract bargaining rights for state employee unions.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jan/07/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-state-can-severely/	There’s little doubt about where Gov. Scott Walker is coming from when it comes to public employees and the size of state government. With a hole of about $3 billion in the state budget, Walker aims to wring as many concessions as possible from state workers. In a Jan. 3, 2011 New York Times article, Walker called public employees "haves" and taxpayers "have-nots." And he has vowed to restore balance for taxpayers. In December 2010, even before he took office, the door opened wider for Walker when the Democratic-controlled Legislature could not muster enough votes to approve contracts for 39,000 state workers negotiated by outgoing Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. Those contracts, which cover 2009-2011, and future deals are now in the hands of Walker, a Republican, and the GOP-controlled Legislature. In early December, at a Milwaukee Press Club luncheon, Walker indicated that when he took office he would take a broad view of his authority. Walker said he was open to considering "anything from the decertify all the way through modifications of the current laws in place." He added: "The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers and the people who care about services." If anything, now that Walker’s in office, the question of what authority he and like-minded lawmakers have to change bargaining rules is more important. Could Walker, as he claimed, take action to sharply curtail the bargaining rights of state employee unions? Let’s start with the question of "decertifying" unions. That phrase refers to a decision by union members to disband. Government cannot decertify a union; only the members can. Walker clearly incorrectly used that term -- he repeated it after it was included in a question by a reporter at the Press Club event. In the wake of Walker’s comment, some critics seized on that word to declare Walker was flat-out wrong about what he could do as governor. However, focusing on the word "decertify" ignores the entirety of the full statement, which is what we are evaluating in this item. "He can’t decertify a union per se," labor historian Ken Germanson said in a radio interview with WUWM. But Germanson and other labor experts agree that Walker and the Legislature have control over bargaining parameters because it is the state that sets the rules for the areas subject to negotiations. That is, Walker can change the rules if the Legislature goes along. And with Republicans holding both chambers, he may have support on those fronts. What would Walker have to do? It’s as simple -- and complicated -- as amending the state Employee Relations Act, said Peter Davis, general counsel at the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. While federal labor law covers unions at private employers; state employees are covered by that piece of state law. Though it has not changed much over the years, it could be changed. "The rights established by the State Employment Labor Relations Act have not been amended in any significant way for at least the last 30 years -- aside from expanding/adding the types/numbers of employees who have (the) rights," Davis said. Davis and other experts say Walker and the Legislature probably could not do away with labor unions entirely, but they could modify what’s subject to negotiations. For instance, they could eliminate subjects like health insurance and pensions from collective bargaining. That would allow the administration to impose changes in those areas. Walker has said requiring employees to pay 5 percent of wages toward their pensions and 12 percent of their health care costs could save the state $150 million between January and June. Other permitted topics for bargaining include wages, vacation time and work conditions. State employee unions do not have a right to binding arbitration to settle impasses. And the labor act forbids strikes -- something the state likely would not want to give up. Without arbitration or a credible strike threat, Davis said, when compared to other public employee unions "state employee unions have always had less power at the bargaining table." Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, told the Journal Sentinel that the state law "assures the uninterrupted delivery of high-quality public services and has kept labor peace for more than three decades." Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor would not include a rewrite of the state law as part of the emergency special session of the Legislature called to deal with the economy and jobs. He said there are a number of options available, including immediately beginning talks with state employee unions. "There are two parties in contract negotiations, the state and the unions," Werwie said. "My guess is that union leadership will stay the same, the state negotiator will change (under Walker), which I would argue is a 50 percent change in participants. That 50 percent change will provide the incoming administration with greater latitude in contract talks." All that remains to be seen. Where does that leave us right now? In his response to a question, Walker misused the phrase "decertify" -- he can’t make state employees unions vanish. But labor experts agree with the central part of Walker’s statement -- the Legislature could rewrite the laws governing what issues are subject to negotiation, which could tilt the bargaining table in the administration’s favor. We rate Walker’s statement Mostly True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2011-01-07T09:00:00	2010-12-07	['None']
-goop-00474	Selena Gomez, Paris Jackson Going To Rehab After Demi Lovato Overdose?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-paris-jackson-rehab-demi-lovato-overdose-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez, Paris Jackson Going To Rehab After Demi Lovato Overdose?	2:55 pm, August 11, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01853	Fox News is "banned in Canada" because it violates a law that "prevents ‘news’ channels from lying to their viewers."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/14/facebook-posts/fox-news-banned-canada/	Red foxes may roam all over Canada but you won’t catch the conservative news network there, according to an Internet meme circulating since 2011. One version of the meme states that Fox New Channel is "banned from operating in Canada" because "it’s illegal in Canada to lie on airwaves." A reader sent the message to us and asked us to check it out. A mountie of lies We weren’t able to verify the origins of the meme, though Bill O’Reilly himself said in 2004 that Fox wasn’t allowed in Canada -- not that he agreed with the lying part. The earliest iteration of the full claim we found comes from a Feb. 28, 2011, Huffington Post blog post by liberal radio host and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "The (false news) provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom," wrote Kennedy. "As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high-quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ in 1987." What Kennedy is likely referring to are provisions in Canadian broadcast policy, include the Radio Act and other policies, that prohibit "any false or misleading news." These provisions against spreading misinformation used to be part of Canada’s criminal code, according to Canadian media lawyer Paul Schabas. They were famously evoked to send Holocaust denier and neo-Nazi publisher Ernst Zündel to trial in the 1980s. After the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the code violated freedom of expression rights and thus was unconstitutional, the false news provisions were just regulations. How does this relate to Fox News? It doesn't. Fox News first bid for broadcast in Canada -- filed by private Canadian operators, along with HBO, ESPN, and other American channels -- was rejected by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the federal body that regulates the airwaves, in 2003. But the regulators were concerned with the effect of foreign competition on Canadian networks, not with Fox News’ truthfulness. Years earlier in 2000, regulators approved a proposal for Fox News Canada, which was to include content from both countries under media content law. But the channel never got off the ground. According to a commission report, Fox News told the Canadian network Global News Network that it "did not wish to have its signal interrupted by the insertion of Canadian programming as would be required under the licence for Fox News Canada." Fox News executive Janet Alshouse said there were no serious discussions with Global nor was there ever a partnership. After the project fizzled out in 2004, the regulators approved Fox for broadcast on Canadian airwaves via satellite in the same year. So right now, Canadians can watch Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Fox & Friends and everyone else through several private dish providers. "I live in Toronto, where Fox is pumped into cable from Buffalo. Canadians also get ABC, NBC, CNN. But you know, we also watch (Canadian channels) CBC, CTV, Global," said Schabas. More on the Canadian policy Any network that wants to broadcast in Canada must get approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. And Canadians who take issue with the truthfulness of their programming can file complaints to the commission. If a network amasses enough complaints and is found to have knowingly and deliberately broadcasted false news, its license can be limited or revoked. But that has never happened before, commission spokesperson Eric Rancourt said "Based on the history of these kind of complaints, it would have be very, very egregious for the commission (to revoke or deny a license). That’s all speculative, since it hasn’t happened before," Rancourt said. The commission has only taken serious action a couple of times in its history, and not against Fox News, but Al Jazeera, according to commission regulator Sheehan Carter. The commission approved the Arabic-language news channel in 2004, with the condition that distributors must edit out abusive content. The condition doesn’t apply to Al Jazeera English. The ruling The meme claims that Fox News is "banned from operating in Canada" because it violates a law that "prevents ‘news’ channels from lying to their viewers." That’s incorrect. Fox was denied broadcast in 2003, but not because Canadians found it to be untruthful. And Fox News got its approval to broadcast via satellite in 2004 and certainly has a dish presence up north today. This claim rates Pants on Fire.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2014-07-14T12:20:28	2014-07-14	['Canada', 'Fox_News_Channel']
-pomt-00208	Says U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters "took $213,000 from insurance interests" and that she supported a plan that "strips protections for people with pre-existing conditions and slaps an age tax on older Californians."	/california/statements/2018/oct/16/house-majority-pac/did-mimi-walters-get-over-200000-insurance-industr/	It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans were attacking Democrats for supporting the Affordable Care Act. Now, it’s Democrats who are taking the offensive and attacking Republicans for their efforts to repeal the ACA, also known as Obamacare. The latest target: Rep. Mimi Walters, a California Republican representing an Orange County district that backed Hillary Clinton in 2016. A new TV attack ad by the House Majority PAC, a group aligned with Democrats, claims that "Walters took big bucks from insurance interests," with an image on screen saying Walters took $213,000 from the insurance industry. The ad also claims that Walters supported a health care plan that "strips protections for people living with pre-existing conditions and slaps an age tax on older Californians," and that Walters voted with Trump 99 percent of the time. We fact-checked whether Walters voted 99 percent of the time with Trump in a separate fact-check. Here, we’ll take on the claims about Walters’ ties to insurance interests, and her votes to strip protections for people with pre-existing conditions and whether she supported an "age tax." What we found is that the ad is slightly misleading on the amount insurance donations Walters has received, and overstates what it describes as an "age tax." Walters did not respond to a request for comment. Walters, pre-existing conditions and an "age tax" The pre-existing conditions and age tax portion of the ad is in reference to Walters’ 2017 vote to repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, often shorthanded as Obamacare, and to replace it with the American Health Care Act. (The AHCA passed the House but ultimately failed in the Senate.) Obamacare prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, a provision that had been threatened by Republican efforts to repeal the law. Under Obamacare, if you don’t have health insurance through an employer or the government, you have guaranteed access to coverage in the individual market, regardless of your health status, and you can’t be billed higher rates for a pre-existing medical condition. Under the GOP’s American Health Care Act, it would have kept the requirement that people with pre-existing conditions must be offered health insurance – but it would have dropped Obamacare’s rules capping how much extra those people could be charged. In short, insurers would have been required to offer everyone a plan, but insurers would have more control over how much they could charge. Experts say that would have effectively priced many people living with pre-existing conditions out of the insurance market. When Republicans claimed that the AHCA would not threaten coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, we rated those claims Mostly False. The ad also claims that Walters’ vote for the AHCA imposes an "age tax" on older Californians. The bill would have allowed insurers to hike premiums for certain older enrollees from up to five times more than what they would charge younger adults. The current law, Obamacare, sets that cap at up to three times as much. The legislation also would have allowed states to set a different ratio. The "age tax" also doesn’t apply to seniors on Medicare, or to people over the age of 50 with medical covered sponsored by large employers. It is important to note, though, that it would impact people in the 50-64 age range who weren’t covered by an employer as they are not yet eligible for Medicare. The $200,000 from insurance interests The ad claims that Mimi Walters took $213,000 from insurance interests, citing the Center for Responsive Politics, an authoritative database that tracks campaign finance. In the report, the CRP found that Walters received $213,575 from the insurance industry from 2013 to 2018. In the 2017-18 election cycle, she has received $68,500. There's an important caveat to this number, however. While the ad is talking about health care, the Center for Responsive Politics says it groups donations from health, life, property and car insurance companies, agents and brokers in its totals. The ad may leave viewers with the wrong idea that all the donations were related to health care, or that somehow those donations influenced her vote. There is no evidence of that. Our ruling The House Majority PAC says that Mimi Walters received $213,000 from insurance interests in her campaign for Congress, and claims she supports a plan that strips health care for people with pre-existing conditions and imposes an age tax on senior Californians. It is accurate that Walters supported legislation that would have likely resulted in less coverage for those with previous medical conditions and hiked premiums for older enrollees. Though calling the vote an "age tax" is misleading. Walters did take in over $213,000 from the insurance industry. But that was over five years and includes donations from property and car insurers. We rate this claim Half True. Share the Facts 2018-10-16 17:28:41 UTC PolitiFact 4 1 7 PolitiFact Rating: Half True Says U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters "took $213,000 from insurance interests" and that she supported a plan that "strips protections for people with pre-existing conditions and slaps an age tax on older Californians." House Majority PAC Democratic PAC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSCwxhcj3Ms Tuesday, October 9, 2018 2018-10-09 Read More info	None	House Majority PAC	None	None	None	2018-10-16T10:47:16	2018-10-09	['United_States', 'Mimi_Walters', 'California']
-pomt-13993	"It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House."	/california/statements/2016/jun/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-repeats-half-true-claim-about-nati/	Does the nation’s economy do better when a Republican or Democrat is in the Oval Office? In her recent campaign stop in Sacramento, Hillary Clinton declared Democrats have the magic touch. "It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House," Clinton said on June 5, 2016, speaking at Sacramento City College during her final push in the California primary. It���s similar to a statement the likely Democratic presidential nominee made on March 21, 2016 in Phoenix, when she said: "The economy always does better when there’s a Democrat in the White House." PolitiFact Arizona checked out that claim and rated it Half True. Here’s what they reported: The Clinton family love these comparisons, by the way. In 2015, PolitiFact ruled Mostly True claims from Hillary Clinton a claim that, "Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats," and another that, "The stock market does better when you have a Democratic president in the White House." At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton had this statement rated True: "Since 1961 … our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million)." The score, however, isn’t as good for this particular Clinton claim. Hillary Clinton speaks at a rally, Monday, June 6, 2016, in Lynwood, Calif. Other factors involved Clinton’s Arizona spokesman, Tim Hogan, pointed us to a July 2014 study on the topic from Princeton University economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The study concludes that Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947, when the data was first tracked. However, the economists point out that there are other factors, such as better oil prices and international conditions, that could be driving these better numbers for Democratic presidents. In short, Democrats occupying the Oval Office tend to have a little better luck. Experts we spoke with largely held the same views. Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the statistics, from GDP to the unemployment rate, are striking, but noted that the president does not have "all that control." "That doesn’t prove what the cause is," Frankel said. Christian Weller, a public policy professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston, did his own math on the GDP data since 1947. He found that the economy, through the last quarter of 2015 and after inflation, grew 3.8 percent under Democrats and 2.4 percent under Republicans. For President Barack Obama, the growth rate in his first term was 1.8 percent. His current growth rate is 2 percent, but that’s still higher than his predecessor, George W. Bush. And his second term hasn’t ended yet. Based on estimates, Weller said Obama should hit the 2.4 percent Republican average. Still, Ronald Reagan’s 3.4 percent growth rate is well ahead of the economy right now under Obama. "Other than Obama, every Democrat had a faster growth rate, even (Jimmy) Carter had a slightly higher growth rate than Reagan," Weller said. "This is one of the safest talking points for a Democratic contender." However, the asterisks bother Arizona State University presidential historian Brooks Simpson. "Secretary Clinton is not exactly telling the whole truth,’" Simpson said. Simpson referenced Bill Clinton’s administration, noting that he benefited from some of the economic policies of his predecessor, Republican George H.W. Bush. A 2011 report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation notes that the economy was already in its "22nd month of expansion" when Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. We asked the Clinton campaign for a response. A spokesman pointed PolitiFact California to previous fact checks on the topic, including PolitiFact Arizona’s. The spokesman also pointed to a blog by the Washington Post that says Clinton was right on the numbers but questions whether Democrats were responsible for the better economic times or "just got lucky." Our ruling Hillary Clinton said in Sacramento, "It is a fact that the economy does better when we have a Democrat in the White House." It’s similar to her March statement in Phoenix that "The economy always does better when there’s a Democrat in the White House." Yes, Democratic presidents do have more Gross Domestic Product growth than Republicans, according to quarterly GDP data dating back to 1947. But Clinton's comments require several caveats. The current growth in the economy under Obama is lower than the Republican average. Factors such as oil prices also reflect the higher GDP growth under Democratic presidents. On top of that, comparing one period of time to another or one president to another can be problematic. We agree with PolitiFact Arizona’s findings and rate Clinton's claim in Sacramento Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ee86664c-a54d-466d-97d0-e5b488faf87e	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-06-08T00:00:00	2016-06-05	['White_House', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-faly-00032	Claim: The third claim is that 917 identified websites of state governments/UTs will be made accessible through ERNET India.	https://factly.in/fact-checking-government-claims-on-accessibility-for-persons-with-disabilities-pwds/	Fact: ERNET has been given 917 websites across 20 states and 3 UTs of the country to make them accessible and responsive. Hence, the claim is TRUE. However, it has to be noted that this is not yet achieved and will be done in future.	None	None	None	None	Fact Checking Government Claims on Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs)	None	None	['None']
-pomt-10616	Says McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/17/vietnam-veterans-against-john-mccain/no-evidence-mccain-was-a-traitor/	In an echo of the attacks from the 2000 South Carolina primary that dealt a critical blow to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, a new flyer says the Arizona senator is a traitor. It says that when he was a POW, McCain was a "Hanoi Hilton songbird" who collaborated with the enemy. But it provides scant evidence to back up this claim and it is strongly contradicted by many other accounts reviewed by PolitiFact: interviews with other POWs, an author who has written a McCain biography and the senator's own accounts. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com Robert Timberg, author of John McCain: An American Odyssey , who has interviewed many POWs who served with McCain, said there's no evidence that he ever collaborated with the North Vietnamese. "I've never known of any occasion in which Sen. McCain provided the North Vietnamese with anything of value," Timberg said. The flyer was sent to about 80 media organizations in South Carolina and is posted on the group's Web site. The flyer probably would have been ignored, but the McCain campaign issued a statement calling it "a vicious attack." The flyer has a caricature of a surly-looking McCain in a prison cell under the words, "Hanoi Hilton Songbird." The second page is headlined "FACT SHEET: Military Record of John Sidney McCain III" and it begins with some accurate biographical information. The flyer contains 1 pages of criticisms of McCain, but only a few support the accusation that he was helping the enemy: • That he told his captors "Okay, I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." • That the Hanoi news media reported he had given information about his flight, rescue ships and the order of U.S. attacks. • That he broke the military code because he answered questions from a Spanish psychiatrist who had apparently been cooperating with the North Vietnamese. There is some truth to these claims, but collectively they do not prove McCain was involved in "collaborations with the enemy," as the flyer alleges. In his memoir Faith of My Fathers, McCain says that he initially offered the information because he was badly injured and afraid of dying. But, he wrote, "I didn't intend to keep my word." When he was later interrogated, McCain gave his ship's name and squadron number and confirmed the target of his failed mission, he wrote. He also gave the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line and said they were members of his squadron. Asked to identify future targets, he mentioned North Vietnamese cities that U.S. planes had already bombed. George "Bud" Day and Orson Swindle, fellow POWs, told PolitiFact that POWs sometimes were forced to talk when they were tortured, but they tried to tell lies to mislead their captors. "We were all tortured and we wrote confessions under the pressure of torture," said Swindle, who was a cellmate with McCain and is active in his campaign. "John McCain never collaborated with the enemy. He, like every one of us, submitted to severe torture. John McCain did nothing dishonorable. He was heroic." At one point, McCain broke down and signed a confession. But Timberg, the biographer, said McCain deliberately used misspellings, grammatical errors and Communist jargon to show he was writing under duress: "I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate. I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life . . . " Day, a Medal of Honor winner who also is supporting McCain's campaign, said the flyer is "the most outrageous f------ lie I've ever heard." The man behind the flyer is Gerard "Jerry" W. Kiley, 61, of Garnerville, N.Y., who says he served in Vietnam for about a year. He describes his group as a one-man operation unaffiliated with any political party or campaign. He says he opposes McCain because of the senator's efforts to normalize relations with the Vietnamese communist government and because, in his view, McCain has helped the U.S. government keep information about POWs classified. "John McCain has made sure the information concerning the lives of Americans we clearly abandoned after the war remain in government files 40 years later," he says. He teamed with political activist Ted Sampley of North Carolina to distribute the fliers to South Carolina media outlets this month. Sampley did not respond to requests for comment. Sampley also is a longtime McCain opponent. In 2000, he gained attention when he called McCain a "Manchurian candidate" on his Web site and said that he was an agent of the Vietnamese. In 1993, Sampley was convicted of misdemeanor assault and sentenced to 180 days' probation for attacking a McCain aide, according to a 2004 article in the New York Times. McCain is not the first politician to draw the men's ire. In 2004, they formed Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. Kiley has twice interrupted events featuring Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, forcing an American flag in his hand on one occasion and throwing red wine at him on another, according to a Secret Service agent who later arrested Kiley. He admits he threw the wine, but he was later acquitted in federal court of threatening Khai. Kiley says he bases his most damning charges against McCain — that McCain gave information about the schedule of U.S. attacks in Vietnam in 1967, the year his plane was shot down and McCain was captured — on the word of Earl Hopper, a retired Army colonel. In an interview, Hopper's wife, Patty, said that Hopper wasn't able to address the charges over the phone because of poor hearing. She said that Hopper has long been involved in the POW movement and that Earl Hopper's son, Earl Jr., is missing in action in Vietnam. She cited as evidence for Hopper's charges a 1973 article by McCain that ran in U.S. News and World Report and what she said were "declassified U.S. military documents" she claimed to possess describing McCain's collaboration. Patty Hopper said she was away from her Arizona home and could not fax those documents. But the 1973 article does not back up the charges made in the flyer. It provides the same basic account as McCain's book, corroborated by Timberg's book, which was based on interviews with many POWs. Timberg, Day and Swindle noted that McCain, the son of a Navy admiral, was offered an early release from the prison but refused so that he could adhere to the military's code of conduct. Timberg said he was perplexed by the allegations. "Why do they hate him? There can be lots of issues you disagree with him about. But why try to destroy him?" Because of the seriousness of the charge, the utter absence of evidence and the clear intention to harm McCain just days before a critical Republican primary, we find this claim to be Pants on Fire wrong. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain	None	None	None	2008-01-17T00:00:00	2008-01-15	['None']
-para-00189	"All Coalition policies are fully costed and fully funded."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/06/liberal-party-australia/have-all-coalition-policies-been-fully-costed/index.html	None	['Budget', 'Campaign ads', 'Economy']	Liberal Party of Australia	Michael Koziol, Peter Martin, Peter Fray	None	Have all Coalition policies been fully costed?	Friday, September 6, 2013 at 10:09 a.m.	None	['None']
-pomt-15057	"We've had examples like in Yuma County, where we've been able to stop 97 percent of the illegal (immigration) flow, and those programs, they abolish."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/27/ben-carson/ben-carson-claimed-program-let-97-illegal-immigrat/	With a new poll showing him in a virtual tie with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Ben Carson went on the Sunday news shows to talk politics. On ABC’s This Week, host Martha Raddatz grilled Carson about some of his comments on immigration. Carson, a resident of West Palm Beach, Fla., said he gets his information on immigration from local sheriffs and that he doesn’t trust figures from the federal government. "You know, a lot of these people who are captured, it's ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) who comes along and says, you must release these people. And that's not helpful to the American people. They need to be working for the American people, not against them," Carson said. "We've had examples like in Yuma County where we've been able to stop 97 percent of the illegal flow, and those programs, they abolish," Carson added. "They don't want that. What is wrong with them?" We too wondered why the government would abolish programs as effective as Carson said. So we checked it out, and found a lot more to the story of what was going on in Yuma County, Ariz. 97 percent The first thing we noticed about Carson’s statement was that it didn’t include a time frame. As we reviewed statistics about border apprehensions, we did find a precipitous drop in immigration for Yuma County, but it took place over at least a decade. And the drop matched the movement of the U.S. economy as it went from economic good times to deep recession. The U.S. Border Patrol reported that total illegal alien apprehensions in the Yuma area went from 138,438 in 2005 to 5,902 in 2014, a decline of 96 percent. (The entire Southwest border saw a decline of 59 percent during the same time period.) A report from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, documented the decreases at Yuma and in other places since 1986; it noted that pinning down the precise causes of the decline in illegal immigration are difficult. "The only significant decrease in unauthorized migration appears to have occurred since 2007, and it is unclear how much of the drop-off is due to increased enforcement and how much is a result of the U.S. economic downturn and other systemic factors," the report noted. A 2014 report in the Yuma Sun noted the low number of apprehensions in the Yuma sector, but credited it primarily to increased funding for border security, specifically more money for border fencing with special technology and more agents. Abolished program Carson made reference to effective programs that had been "abolished." The closest thing we could find was a federal program aimed at prosecuting illegal immigrants that was scaled back, but not abolished. The program, called Operation Streamline, aimed to aggressively prosecute all those who attempted to illegally cross the border, including nonviolent, first-time offenders. Yuma County Sheriff Larry Leon Wilmot said he received notice from the U.S. attorney’s office that the program was being scaled back to focus on repeat offenders and those engaged in criminal activities. Wilmot notified members of the Arizona congressional delegation of the change, complaining it would undermine efforts at border control and would cause border patrol agents "to feel betrayed by the very government that they serve." "This practice undermines everything that we have worked hard to achieve over the years for the citizens of Yuma County," Wilmot wrote. Others saw the program differently, with the main criticism being it was creating backlogs in federal courts for questionable reasons. "The program, which mainly targets migrant workers with no criminal history, has caused skyrocketing caseloads in many federal district courts along the border," argued a 2010 policy brief from the Berkeley Law School’s Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity & Diversity. The Carson campaign told us that he wasn't singling out a single factor for what caused the drop in Yuma, and that the campaign stood by his statement. Our ruling Carson said that Yuma County has been able to reduce illegal immigration by 97 percent, but that the federal programs that allowed them to do that had been "abolished." Carson didn’t mention the time frame on the reduction in Yuma County -- those numbers dropped from 2005 to 2014, and experts have credited the reduction to several factors, including a U.S. economic recession. Other factors receiving a share of were fencing construction and the number of border agents As for the federal programs that have been abolished, we found one program involving prosecutions that fit the bill, but it had been scaled back rather than eliminated, and it was, at most, one factor among many that are believed to have led to the drop. So while Carson has a point that illegal immigration has fallen significantly in Yuma County, he glosses over the time frame and incorrectly credits a program that was scaled back but not abolished. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Ben Carson	None	None	None	2015-09-27T15:43:09	2015-09-27	['Yuma_County,_Arizona']
-pomt-01172	"Mike Martinez cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid facing possible jail time and stuck us with his $24,657.50 legal bill."	/texas/statements/2014/dec/10/progress-austin-pac/mike-martinez-pac-says-cut-deal-avoid-possible-jai/	This message may have landed in your mail: The Austin City Council member in the hunt for mayor may have averted imprisonment with taxpayers’ assistance. "Politician Mike Martinez cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid facing possible jail time and stuck us with his $24,657.50 legal bill," the Progress for Austin PAC’s mailer says. Does that statement about Martinez, who faces lawyer Steve Adler in a Dec. 16, 2014, runoff, hold up? To our inquiry, Marc Winkelman, an Austin businessman listed in the PAC’s campaign treasurer paperwork, said by email the claim was based on news stories in the Austin American-Statesman and Austin Bulldog and government documents. From the cited information and interviews, we confirmed the city paid that much in attorney costs for Martinez after a nearly two-year investigation of council practices. Also clear, Martinez wasn’t alone in reaching an accord effectively ending the inquiry. In 2011-12, the Travis County attorney, David Escamilla, oversaw the investigation touched off by a complaint that council members were routinely meeting privately, in groups of two or three, to discuss city business. Escamilla wanted to know if the council was trying to circumvent the Texas Open Meetings Act, which prohibits elected officials from secretly deliberating about upcoming votes. At issue was whether members were creating "walking quorums," in which they relayed information to each other to work out a vote’s outcome in advance of the body’s public meetings. According to an October 2012 Austin American-Statesman news story, agreements signed by Mayor Lee Leffingwell and six fellow council members who had been in office when the inquiry started spared the members from misdemeanor charges that could have led to jail terms of up to six months and $500 fines. Per the agreements, the signers agreed to take open-government courses and keep following such laws, the story said. At the time, Escamilla said his office had found "multiple violations" of state open-meeting laws. Council members "regularly deliberated outside of the public’s purview by use of almost every modern communication medium that exists. We found probable cause to believe that multiple violations" occurred, he said, though he also noted the practice had existed before the affected council members were in office. But criminal charges weren’t filed, he said, in part because the council had taken open-government steps, notably ending the private meetings, instead holding public work sessions — long, wide-ranging discussions — two days before each council meeting. In a press release, Escamilla said that if council members didn’t comply with the agreements, "we will file criminal charges based on the alleged violations that were the subject of the investigation" with convictions possibly leading to fines of $100 to $500 and/or "confinement" of 30 to 180 days. We contacted Martinez’s attorney through the investigation, Joe Turner, who said by phone the statement in the mailer misrepresented events in that "there never was a prosecution, there was never a criminal case filed," Turner said. In contrast, Escamilla told us of Martinez: "It is true that he entered into an agreement where my office deferred prosecution for two years on the condition that he agree and abide by the terms of the agreement, which had multiple terms designed to prevent him or the city from violating the public information, records retention and open meetings acts." The agreement signed by Martinez, which we downloaded from the Bulldog, said that since Martinez joined the council in June 2006 until the investigation, Martinez had routinely participated in private meetings with fellow council members in advance of public council meetings. "The aforementioned meetings or one-on-one's" between council members "were calendared on the mayor's and each member's public calendar. A number of these were posted on the Internet. There was no attempt to hide them nor keep them a secret," the agreement said. In the agreement, Martinez said he hadn’t violated the open-meetings law and wasn’t admitting guilt to any offense. The agreement "is a good-faith effort by both parties to resolve the county attorney's office investigation, and in consideration of the county attorney's legitimate effort to enforce the Open Meetings Act and Mike Martinez's efforts to ensure that even the potential for appearance of impropriety is avoided by implementing best practices related to and open government," it said. Escamilla elaborated to us that if a member had refused to sign the "plea bargain" agreement, he or she would have been charged with violating a provision in the state’s government code barring a member or group of members of a governmental body from knowingly conspiring to circumvent the open meetings law by meeting in numbers less than a quorum for the purpose of secret deliberations. "The" PAC’s "statement is accurate with respect to the fact that Mr. Martinez entered into an agreement deferring prosecution on the condition he abide by the agreement," Escamilla said. Taxpayers stuck with legal tab? Next, we looked into city taxpayers getting "stuck" with Martinez’s legal costs, as the mailer says. When the investigation closed, the city had generally spent about $383,000 out of contracts worth $444,000 in hiring three law firms to advise city officials and the council on the investigation and open-meetings matters, the Statesman then reported. One of several web links in the mailer’s fine print led us to an April 2013 Austin Bulldog news story stating $157,636 was paid by the city to attorneys who had represented council members in connection with the inquiry. And that story included a link to what appeared to be a Dec. 7, 2012, city document showing $24,657.50 paid to Turner, who reported 69.75 hours of work serving Martinez from March 25, 2011, through Oct. 24, 2012, at a fee of $350 an hour. Turner’s tabulation also showed $245 in charges for a paralegal to copy 440 notebook pages. In our conversation with him, Turner said the city was obligated to represent Martinez and other council members because the inquiry concerned their official actions. To our inquiry, city officials didn’t say if a particular ordinance requires as much. Martinez and Adler By phone, Martinez said any insinuation council members cut a deal to avoid jail time isn’t accurate in that no charges were filed. If charges had been leveled, he said, a judge or jury would have determined guilt or innocence as well as any penalties, he said, not the county attorney. Finally, we wondered whether Adler would have signed one of the agreements if he’d been on the council. His campaign manager, Jim Wick, replied by email: "We'd prefer not to comment on this issue as it is not one that our campaign has ever raised." Our ruling The PAC said Martinez "cut a deal with prosecutors to avoid facing possible jail time and stuck us with his $24,657.50 legal bill." Martinez, like fellow council members who’d routinely conferred before public meetings despite restrictions in law, signed an agreement arguably heading off the possibility of jail time, though the county still would have had to file charges before winning a conviction and a sentence. Council members including Martinez also went along with the city paying related legal bills. We rate the statement True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Progress for Austin PAC	None	None	None	2014-12-10T12:23:10	2014-12-03	['None']
-afck-00135	“By 2050, it is projected that Africa will have the same population as China and India combined”	https://africacheck.org/reports/sa-minister-got-wrong-africas-population-growth/	None	None	None	None	None	SA minister got it wrong on Africa’s population growth	2017-06-12 10:54	None	['China', 'Africa', 'India']
-thal-00021	Q&A: Can pregnant women receive cancer treatment?	http://www.thejournal.ie/cancer-treatment-while-pregnant-4001479-May2018/	None	None	None	None	None	Q&A: Can pregnant women receive cancer treatment?	May 13th 2018, 8:30 AM	None	['None']
-pomt-04536	Brendan Doherty wants "to repeal Obamacare, increasing drug prices for seniors."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/sep/30/david-cicilline/us-rep-david-cicilline-says-republican-opponent-br/	If you vow to repeal a law but then promise to preserve some of its key provisions, are you really promising to repeal the law? That's the question surrounding an advertisement in support of Democratic U.S. Rep. David Cicilline's attempt to hold his 1st District seat against a challenge by Republican Brendan Doherty. The 30-second television ad, produced by Cicilline’s campaign, shows video of Doherty praising GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and lists some ways in which the two agree on key issues. It is available on YouTube. One issue is the Affordable Health Care Act, the controversial legislation often referred to as Obamacare. "Doherty and Romney both want to repeal Obamacare, increasing drug prices for seniors," the ad says. Romney has already made it clear he wants to repeal the law. In looking at the assertion, we will focus on Doherty’s position. Doherty has said repeatedly that he wants to repeal Obamacare because it places too much of a burden on small businesses. One element of the law was crafted to save Medicare recipients a lot of money because it closes the so-called "doughnut hole," the gap in prescription drug coverage that has forced elderly people with health problems to shell out thousands of dollars per year. If Obamacare were simply repealed, the hole would reopen and its effect would be as Cicilline describes it. But if Doherty were elected and a new federal law were passed that closed the doughnut hole, Doherty could then vote to repeal Obamacare without increasing drug prices for seniors. Doherty has repeatedly said he wants to keep the doughnut hole closed. He also has said that he wouldn’t repeal Obamacare without preserving that popular feature, and others. In a July 2, 2012, appearance on "The Helen Glover Show," Doherty said "I would vote to repeal it. But I think we need to find better solutions even before we repeal it." A bit later, he specifically referred to continuing coverage for young adults and people with pre-existing conditions and protecting people in the doughnut hole as "good points" in the law. He said those are areas "to have real health care reform." Separately, the Doherty campaign sent us a July 12, 2012, news release in which the candidate criticized House Republicans for voting to repeal Obamacare "without offering any alternative proposal." And we put the question to him directly, asking Doherty if he would, if elected, cast any vote to repeal Obamacare if the government hadn't first passed a law closing the doughnut hole. He said, "No." But he said the safeguards could be part of a repeal bill. "I wouldn't vote for any repeal of Obamacare if we didn't have the doughnut hole closed," or protection for children up to 26 years old and coverage "for preexisting conditions in that," he said. Cicilline spokesman Eric Hyers, asked about the ad and Doherty's support for some elements of Obamacare, said in an e-mail: "Simply because [Doherty] says he wants to find a bipartisan solution or that he has started mentioning parts of the bill he likes, is irrelevant. As soon as the bill is repealed, the benefits are gone and closing the doughnut hole, (or allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance or whatever else), would have to be re-fought. Saying, 'He thinks there should be a solution before repeal,' is nice, but it doesn't change the real world implications of voting for repeal." Our ruling David Cicilline, in a campaign ad, says Brendan Doherty wants "to repeal Obamacare, increasing drug prices for seniors." Doherty does want to repeal Obamacare, and a repeal would do precisely that. But Doherty, at least as far back as July 2, has repeatedly said he would not vote for repeal until "better solutions" are found. Such subtlety is lost in the Cicilline ad. Because the statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter: @politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	David Cicilline	None	None	None	2012-09-30T00:02:00	2012-09-25	['None']
-snes-03291	A man was found decapitated and castrated behind a Walmart store.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-found-decapitated-castrated-behind-walmart-store/	None	Crime	None	Bethania Palma	None	Man Found Decapitated and Castrated Behind Walmart Store	21 December 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-01005	Outdoor Play House Facebook Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/outdoor-playhouse-facebook-giveaway-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Outdoor Play House Facebook Giveaway Scam	June 13, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-01279	Insulting voice mail at Pacific Palisades High School in California	https://www.truthorfiction.com/pacificpalisadeshigh/	None	education	None	None	None	Insulting voice mail at Pacific Palisades High School in California	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-02592	An Illegal Drug Called “Krokodil” That Eats Flesh	https://www.truthorfiction.com/krocodil-101413/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	An Illegal Drug Called “Krokodil” That Eats Flesh	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-01263	Trump: Handicapped, Minority Children too Disruptive	https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-handicapped-children-disruptive/	None	education	None	None	['betsy devos', 'conservative agenda', 'donald trump', 'education']	Trump: Handicapped, Minority Children too Disruptive	Feb 17, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11411	Says Donald "Trump decided to *not* work with Cambridge Analytica during the election."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/21/jack-posopiec/trump-campaign-used-cambridge-analytica-final-mont/	Cambridge Analytica, a data-mining consultancy, has quickly become the albatross around the necks of Republican political operatives. It is under investigation in the United States and Great Britain for, among other things, allegedly harvesting the personal profiles of 50 million Facebook users. The firm got a national reputation for its work during the 2016 elections with a client list that included the Donald J. Trump for President campaign. A popular promoter of the "Make America Great Again" brand on Twitter, Jack Posobiec came to Trump’s defense. "How many outlets are reporting the fact that (Brad) Parscale and Trump decided to *not* work with Cambridge Analytica during the election," Posobiec tweeted March 20. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Parscale is now the head of Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. In 2016, he led the Trump campaign’s digital strategy. Cambridge Analytica boasted that it had 5,000 data points on every American, information that allowed hyper-accurate online targeting of voters likely to line up behind Trump. Plenty of skeptics doubt that the company could actually deliver on that promise, but that’s neither here nor there for this fact-check. For us, the key question is whether Cambridge Analytica did no work for the Trump during the election. Posobiec told us he based his tweet on a CBS News article that said the Trump campaign relied on voter files from the Republican National Committee to target voters. The CBS article said: "The crucial decision was made in late September or early October when Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Brad Parscale, Mr. Trump's digital guru on the 2016 campaign, decided to utilize just the RNC data for the general election and used nothing from that point from Cambridge Analytica or any other data vendor." So according to the CBS article, the key data used to identify supporters and run the election ground game came from the RNC about a month before Election Day. CBS did not name its source for this point. Posobiec said he was referring to the voter data. But his tweet was more sweeping. It said the campaign did not work with Cambridge Analytica at all. The CBS News report does not go that far. It notes, "Cambridge Analytica data was used for some targeted digital advertising and a large TV buy, but the main source of ‘get out the vote’ and matching digital outreach data came from the RNC." Further, Federal Election Commission filings show that the Trump campaign paid Cambridge Analytica in September, October and December. Here’s the FEC data: The final payment in December 2016 for $312,500 is second only to the campaign’s $5 million payment on Sept. 1, 2016. Now, the filings only show when the firm was paid, not when it provided its services. However, well before the current controversy, former Cambridge Analytica staffer Matt Oczkowski and Parscale described for Wired magazine the work the firm did in the final months of the campaign. Oczkowski told Wired, "The RNC was the voter file of record for the campaign, but we were the intelligence on top of the voter file." "Matt Oczkowski and his team created a daily tracker of polling, so that I could see how Trump was doing in key swing states," Parscale said. "They provided that to me daily." Plus, Parscale said Cambridge Analytica helped with "persuasion online media buying," and "they created a visualization tool that showed in each state which areas were most persuadable and what those voters care about." It bears noting that while the Trump campaign didn’t rely on Cambridge Analytica’s voter data for core voter outreach, the firm stayed busy attacking Trump’s opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton. In the final months of the election, the firm was paid about $850,000 by the Make America Number 1 Super PAC. The group’s self-declared aim was "to make clear to the American voter the full extent of the untrustworthiness of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) by focusing on the corruption of the Clinton Machine and especially the corruption of the Clinton Foundation." Robert Mercer, a conservative billionaire, was the PAC’s primary financial backer. So, while Cambridge Analytica played a lesser role in its direct work for the Trump campaign, it actively aided Trump’s candidacy in other ways. Our ruling Posobiec tweeted that "Trump decided to *not* work with Cambridge Analytica during the election." There is an element of truth in that the campaign reportedly relied on the RNC’s voter files, and not Cambridge Analytica’s data, to identify likely supporters. However, even the news report behind Posobiec’s tweet said that the firm continued to provide some services to the campaign. FEC filings show the Trump campaign continued to pay Cambridge Analytica through the final months of the campaign, and key operatives from Cambridge Analytica and the Trump campaign described the firm’s ongoing work. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Jack Posobiec	None	None	None	2018-03-21T15:05:14	2018-03-20	['None']
-pomt-06600	Says the Panhandle has had its highest-ever bed tax collections in 2011.	/florida/statements/2011/sep/23/rick-scott/gov-scott-says-panhandle-set-bed-tax-record/	Not long after the April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, Florida's tourism industry faced a crisis: How would it lure tourists amid images of oil slicks and tar balls on beaches? Under pressure to stem the flow of economic damages, BP started writing checks to tourism agencies for marketing. Now a little more than a year after the explosion, have the marketing dollars led to cha-ching for the Panhandle? Speaking on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Sept. 14, 2011, Florida Gov. Rick Scott claimed that the Panhandle had a record year. Host Joe Scarborough, a former member of Congress from Pensacola, started off the conversation: "I'm going to start with Pensacola, Florida. BP that was a nightmare for the region. Even if oil didn't spill on the Pensacola beaches it scared people away for awhile. A lot of friends of mine that had family businesses for years were ravaged in the middle of a recession. But great news this year for Panhandle and for Florida." Scott responded: "We've got I think the highest bed tax ever in the history of the state in the Panhandle this year. BP came up with ..." Scarborough interjected: "Which means tourism, tourism is flooding in..." Scott: "This summer it was hard to get a room, restaurants were packed. I sat down with BP and they gave us $30 million to market the Panhandle. We used it well. Tourism has come back. ...'' Did the Panhandle break its record for the highest bed tax ever in the history of the state? For starters, Scott said "highest bed tax ever" and omitted a key word: "collections." Having the highest "rate" wouldn't be something that a governor brags about if he wanted to lure more tourists to the area. Bed taxes refers to the tax tacked onto visitors' hotel bills that help fund activities that promote tourism. In Florida, they can add between 0 and 6 percent to an overnight stay. BP gave $25 million tourism dollars in 2010 to then Gov. Charlie Crist who dispersed various amounts to counties. The Northwest Florida Tourism Council which represents tourism development organizations in the Panhandle -- Bay, Escambia, Franklin, Gulf, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Walton counties -- received $7 million in August 2010. In April 2011 the council got an additional $30 million, according to Craig Savage, BP spokesman. The BP money allowed tourist development councils to do additional outreach -- for example Visit Pensacola used marketing dollars in more expensive media markets such as Chicago and Washington, said spokeswoman Laura Lee. To back up the claim, Scott's office pointed us to a Sept. 2, 2011, press release from the Northwest Florida Tourism Council which boasted about summer bed tax collections. "Summer 2011 has been a season of remarkable recovery for the tourist destinations of Northwest Florida, which are recording all-time highs in bed tax revenue ..." the press release said. The claim was backed up by the University of West Florida's Office of Economic Development and Engagement, which compiles information on the bed tax for five of the counties -- Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton and Bay. University of West Florida researchers found that the counties took in $8.7 million in bed tax revenue in June 2011, more than any other month since December 2008. But Scott said "this year," not "June" or "this summer." So we decided to compare 2011 to past years. Those figures come from the state's Department of Revenue, which tracks bed tax collections across the state. Using the state's most recent data, which covers January-July 2011, we compared bed tax collections in the seven Panhandle counties to previous years. There, too, the Panhandle performed well. 2011 bed tax collections have totaled about $33.9 million through July, compared to about $27.5 million for the same period in 2010. We also checked the numbers against 2006 and 2007 -- before Florida dipped into an economic slump -- and found that the first half of 2011 remained higher. Some of the increase can be attributed to the fact that most of the counties increased their bed tax rates in recent years. Bay County, for example, raised its bed tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent in 2009, meaning that if all other factors were equal (room rates, and number of overnight stays), Bay County's bed tax collections would have increased 67 percent. To compensate for rate changes, the University of West Florida created a bed tax collection analysis built around hypothetically holding the bed tax rate constant at 2 percent. The study did not include Franklin and Gulf counties but found that bed tax collections, when normalized, remain highest in 2011, said Phyllis Pooley, associate director of the university's Office of Economic Development and Engagement. Are there any other ways to measure tourist economy in Panhandle? Smith Travel Research, a company that tracks supply and demand of hotel rooms for hotels and tourism agencies, collects data on hotel occupancy and the average daily rate for the Panhandle. STR sent us a copy of their data between 2005 and 2011 for the Panhandle but asked that we not publish their full report (which you normally have to pay for). STR's data showed that January through August 2011 was not a record year for the Panhandle. The year to date occupancy rate was 56.4 percent -- a figure that was higher in 2005, 2006 and 2007 ranging between 59.7 percent and 70.6 percent. The average daily rate year for 2011 was $100.16 -- less than it was in 2007 ($103.45) and 2008 ($103.87). The STR report contains data from hotels in several cities within the Panhandle including Lake City, Panama City, Pensacola, Destin, Tallahassee and Fort Walton Beach. Occupancy data isn't a perfect measure of tourism expenditures either -- for example during the oil spill some Panhandle hotels had high occupanices filled by clean-up workers or reporters rather than more income-generating tourists. After Hurricane Katrina, many New Orleans residents stayed in Panhandle hotels. "Occupancy isn’t a record, but we’ve increased inventory," said Lee, speaking for Visit Pensacola. "For example, we’ve gone from 6,500 hotel rooms in 2008 to 7,100 today." We asked Pooley, the University of West Florida researcher, about the different sources of data to measure the tourist economy. She said hotel occupancy rates must be adjusted to take into account new units since if the units increase occupancy rates can decline even with more visitors. Average room rates also don't reflect the number of visitors. "Bed taxes, adjusted for differing collection rates, are typically the choice of economists because they represent the best proxy for overall industry sales," Pooley said in an e-mail. "Ideally, you would want a study that would adjust for all of the factors -- occupancy, average rates, inflation, number of rental units available of all types, etc. to truly compare visitation from one year to the next." Will the record high bed tax collections in the Panhandle continue? That's unlikely once the positive buzz created with the BP marketing dollars fades. "We do know that we are going to plateau,'' said Dawn Moliterno, chair of the Northwest Florida Tourism Council. "We will not see these kind of numbers posted year after year." Our ruling Scott stated: "We've got I think the highest bed tax ever in the history of state in the Panhandle this year." The bed tax collections have set records but that isn't the only measure of how hotels or other businesses dependent on tourists are faring -- the occupancy and average daily rate for hotels have been higher in past years although those sets of data come with their own caveats, too. And those bed tax collections will likely decline after the positive spinoff effects of the BP marketing dollars fade in future years. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-09-23T10:23:02	2011-09-14	['None']
-hoer-01219	Retired CIA Agent Confesses to Killing Marilyn Monroe	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-retired-cia-agent-confesses-killing-marilyn-monroe/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake-News: Retired CIA Agent Confesses to Killing Marilyn Monroe	August 6, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05184	Says "Oregon is one of only three states that allow the use of gillnets on inland waters."	/oregon/statements/2012/jun/14/stop-gillnetting-now/oregon-one-three-states-allow-commercial-gillnetti/	CORRECTION appended: This following has been revised to clarify that rules for keeping native fish, and the number of native fish that can be killed, vary according to run. The details given are for spring chinook. PolitiFact Oregon enjoys tasty Columbia River spring chinook as much as the next Oregonian, but honestly, we don’t know much about catching them. We suspect many readers don’t either, and yet, this November, we probably will vote on a ballot measure to ban the use of commercial gillnets in the Columbia. An alternative method would be allowed. Gillnets vary in mesh size and length but generally work by capturing fish by the gills and smothering them. The people opposed to gillnets say it’s outdated, indiscriminate and harms native salmon and steelhead. And they say Oregon is in the minority when it comes to gillnets. "Currently, Oregon is one of only three states that allow the use of gillnets on inland waters" reads a May 30 press release by the Stop Gillnetting Now campaign. Is Oregon truly that rare? And if so, why? Or were we being snookered by campaign politicking? An administrator with Oregon’s Salmon For All, a group that represents commercial gillnetters, said the number of states that allow commercial gillnetting is much higher, which means Oregon is not so out-of-sync. Who’s right? We turned to Eric Stachon, spokesman with the stop gillnetting campaign. He acknowledged the number was incorrect but maintained that Oregon remains in the minority. "Oregon," the revised statement reads, "is one of only a few states left that allows the use of commercial gillnets on rivers and streams." We wanted to know where non-tribal commercial gillnetting is allowed. Neither side had a definitive figure. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife didn’t have one either. So PolitiFact Oregon started calling around the country. We had delightful chats with state officials. And we found at least 11 states besides Oregon that allow commercial gillnetting. Like Oregon, the states of Washington, Alaska, North Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana allow commercial gillnets in inland waters, including rivers. California, Virginia and Maryland allow their use in bays. Alabama allows them in the Gulf of Mexico and Michigan in the Great Lakes. Certainly, gillnet use has become more restricted as concerns grow about inadvertently trapping other wildlife. California, as we noted, allows gillnetting in the San Francisco Bay, but campaign proponents point out that in 1990 voters approved a ban on the use of gillnets in coastal waters. And while North Carolina allows gillnets in river, ocean and sound waters, the state moved last month to restrict the use in certain areas. "The quick answer is yes, we do allow them," said David Taylor of North Carolina’s Division of Marine Fisheries, "and the more complicated answer is, with many restrictions." The states of Oregon and Washington issue about 500 permits a year for non-tribal fisheries to use on the Columbia River. Of that, maybe 300 are active. The state agencies decide when and where to allow fishing -- if at all -- for runs of spring chinook, fall chinook, coho, etc. They also determine the types of gillnets allowed. For spring chinook, native fish must be returned to the water, dead, lethargic or alive. Non-tribal fishers are allowed to kill roughly 2 percent native spring chinook among them. (The rules vary for each fish run.) We’re not going to elaborate on the arguments of the two sides, other than to say that recreational fishers and conservationists insist they don’t want to kill off the commercial fishing industry and the gillnetters insist the recreational industry just wants a greater share of the Columbia River fish action. Both sides agree that the river is unique. "You don’t see this kind of large-scale use of gillnets, particularly when you have such a large number of endangered species," Stachon said in arguing for the strangeness of gillnets in the Columbia. Jim Markee, a Salmon For All lobbyist, disagrees with the "large-scale" tag, but acknowledges fishing in the river is special, for the people who eat the salmon as well as those who catch the coveted fish for people to eat. Our limited research found that states have different management needs. There are some states that don’t depend on commercial fishing so gillnets are not an issue. While not comprehensive, we found that the use of non-tribal commercial gillnets is more widespread than originally cited by the campaign. Oregon is among at least seven states that allow the use in inland rivers. Other states allow the use in bay, gulf and ocean water. We rule the statement False.	None	Stop Gillnetting Now	None	None	None	2012-06-14T00:00:00	2012-05-30	['Oregon']
-goop-00254	Jennifer Aniston Wants Brad Pitt To Help Matthew Perry Get Sober?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-brad-pitt-matthew-perry-sober/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Jennifer Aniston Wants Brad Pitt To Help Matthew Perry Get Sober?	10:47 am, September 18, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-08908	Claims that Rep. Sanford Bishop votes similar to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are "inaccurate."	/georgia/statements/2010/jul/29/sanford-bishop/gop-comparison-pelosi-inaccurate-congressman-says/	It seems like no one wants to be associated with Nancy Pelosi these days. Many Republican politicians are using Pelosi, the U.S. House speaker, as the boogeywoman this election season. And there's no place better to do that than in Georgia politics. Mike Keown, a Republican state lawmaker, tried to link the liberal Pelosi to his opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), in the Nov. 2 election for Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, which is situated in southwest Georgia and includes Albany and most of Columbus. Bishop "wants to distance himself from Nancy Pelosi," Keown said in one statement. "However, that is going to be difficult after his votes on Obamacare, every stimulus and bailout program and increasing the tax debt on every citizen in the 2nd district over $40,000." A spokesman for the 18-year congressman from South Georgia fired back in a recent news release. "Rep. [Mike] Keown's suggestion that Rep. Pelosi's voting record is similar to Congressman Bishop's is inaccurate," Bishop spokesman Ashton McRae wrote in an e-mail on Bishop's congressional Web site. McRae quickly got in trouble for using the Web site to attack Bishop's opponent. McRae posted an apology two days later. Despite the mea culpa, PolitiFact Georgia wanted to examine the claim the Bishop camp was trying to debunk. Do Bishop and Pelosi vote similarly? Bishop has fashioned himself as a moderate Democrat. He has breezed through his past three elections, winning about two-thirds of the vote against his Republican challengers, but he is apparently taking no chances. His district does not lean one way. Democrat Barack Obama beat Republican John McCain in the district by about 7,000 votes in the 2008 presidential race. Sonny Perdue, a Republican, defeated Democrat Mark Taylor by more than 5,000 votes in the 2006 race for governor. In the 2004 presidential race, Republican George W. Bush beat Democrat John Kerry by about 20,000 votes. McRae correctly points out that Pelosi and Bishop have voted differently on some issues, such as allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Pelosi is for it; Bishop is against it. The Washington Post keeps track of votes by each member of Congress. Bishop voted on more items than Pelosi, so we checked every time they voted on the same issue. PolitiFact Georgia reviewed their records and found that Bishop and Pelosi have voted on the same items 97 times since June 2008. The two voted the same way 92 of those 97 times, according to the Post database. The Post database found Pelosi voted with the majority of Democrats every time during this current Congress. Bishop voted with his colleagues in the Democratic Party 97.7 percent of the time during this Congress, the Post found. PolitiFact Georgia also checked the Web site of OpenCongress, which detailed information of each bill. We found 61 pieces of legislation (we excluded a comparison of how they voted on congratulating the New Orleans Saints for winning the Super Bowl) that both Bishop and Pelosi voted on. The two representatives voted the same way for 58 of those 61 bills. They differed on legislation such as the redeployment of military contractors in May 2007; the DISCLOSE Act, which would require corporations to name the top five donors in their political ads; and a resolution concerning the limitation of liabilities against doctors and hospitals. The OpenCongress database didn't go back further. On Tuesday, PolitiFact Georgia contacted McRae, who works in Bishop's congressional office. He referred us to the Bishop campaign for comment. We spoke late Tuesday to Bishop campaign spokesman Tim Turner, who sent PolitiFact Georgia a statement late Wednesday. Turner argued the Post database is filled with ceremonial bills. He pointed us to the National Journal, which compiles an annual rating of each member of Congress based on his or her voting record. The Journal rated Bishop as a "centrist" based on his votes in 2009. Turner argued that focusing on the percentage of times Bishop voted along with his fellow Democrats is misleading. "It only makes sense that Congressman Bishop would vote with his party to end Republican obstruction," he said. Pelosi and Bishop are not ideological twins, but two separate databases show the two Democrats vote similarly on legislation that came before them. The numbers are pretty similar. We rate the statement from the Bishop camp as False.	None	Sanford Bishop	None	None	None	2010-07-29T06:00:00	2010-07-21	['Nancy_Pelosi']
-goop-01935	Bono Did Say “Donald Trump Is Destroying America,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/bono-donald-trump-destroying-america/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Bono Did NOT Say “Donald Trump Is Destroying America,” Despite Claim	12:13 pm, January 1, 2018	None	['Donald_Trump']
-snes-01456	Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla promised to "glorify Islam" after being elected.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hoboken-mayor-ravi-bhalla-vow-to-glorify-islam-in-every-decision/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla ‘Vow to Glorify Islam In Every Decision’?	9 November 2017	None	['Islam', 'Hoboken,_New_Jersey']
-pose-00516	Will "allow increased access to state lands for forest management and all of Wisconsin’s citizens. Implement simplified and understandable regulations."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/537/implement-simplified-and-understandable-dnr-regula/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Implement simplified and understandable DNR regulations	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-12565	Says Florida has "the second-lowest taxes, per capita, state taxes of any state in the country."	/florida/statements/2017/apr/13/rick-scott/yes-florida-has-second-lowest-state-taxes-capita-d/	Gov. Rick Scott travels the state with a rap sheet of talking points laying out all he’s done to lower taxes — a topic, no doubt, on many Floridians’ minds ahead of Tax Day. (Tuesday!) Scott launched into this list during a roundtable discussion in Pensacola on April 7. "We’ve cut taxes 55 times. Our job growth rate is showing almost double the rest of the country. Our labor force is growing four times the rest of our county, and we have the second-lowest tax burden, per capita, state taxes in the country," Scott said. We previously evaluated an earlier version of Scott's 55 tax-cut claim, rating a statement that he cut taxes "more than 40 times" as Half True. We decided to focus here on whether Florida’s tax burden is the second-lowest in the land. Florida taxes near the bottom of pack Almost all credible analyses of Florida’s tax burden have the Sunshine State paying some of the lowest taxes per capita in the country. According to the Florida Department of Revenue, the state collected about $38.6 billion in state and local taxes in fiscal year 2016. In 2016, Florida’s population, according to the U.S. Census, was about 20.6 million. Do the math, and that’s a little more than $1,800 in taxes collected per person, or capita. Other estimates are close to our own. Scott’s office pointed us to the Tax Foundation, a think tank that generally has a pro-business leaning. Using the most recent data from the U.S. Census, it found Florida collected $1,836 in per capita state taxes in fiscal year 2015. That amount gives Florida the distinction of having the second-lowest state taxes per capita out of all 50 states. Our own calculation, achieved by comparing the U.S. Census 2015 Annual Survey of State Government Tax Collections (the most recent year) to 2015 population data, also puts Florida as the place with the second lowest state taxes. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com A slight wrench in Scott’s factoid is that state taxes are not the only type of taxes that Florida collects. According to Florida Tax Watch, a group that takes a critical look at state spending, Florida ranked 27 out of 50 states for per capita local tax collections in fiscal year 2014. Kurt Wenner, Florida TaxWatch vice president of research, said Florida’s local tax burden is far higher than the state’s tax burden. Florida’s low state tax burden combined with a middle-of-the-road local tax burden still leaves Florida with some of the lowest taxes per capita. The same Tax Foundation analysis cited by Scott ranks Florida as having the fifth-lowest state and local taxes per capita. Thinking beyond per capita The problem with per capita figures is context, said Richard C. Auxier, a research associate in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute. The per capita figure includes millions of people, namely children, who either pay no taxes or pay a nominal amount (the sales tax on a toy purchased with allowance money, for example). It doesn’t mean that all Floridians pay low taxes. For example, Florida’s lack of an individual income tax is good news for high earners. But low-income residents may feel more of a benefit with living in a state with a lower sales tax (Florida’s is 6 percent, which is about the 16th-highest rate in the country). One more thing: A state’s tax burden is the result of many factors, not just the influence of one chief executive. North Dakota had some of the highest taxes per capita in the latest fiscal year, but that’s not because North Dakota is a high tax state, it’s because the state experienced an oil boom which brought in more tax dollars that year than other years prior. Our ruling Scott said Florida has "the second-lowest taxes, per capita, state taxes of any state in the country." Based on our own calculations, as well as a credible analysis from the Tax Foundation, Florida has the second-lowest state taxes per capita (behind Alaska). When you include our middle-of-the-road local taxes, Florida still hovers around the bottom for per capita taxes, but it’s not the second-lowest. And it’s important to remember that just because a state’s per capita taxes is low, it doesn’t mean everyone in that state has low taxes. Scott’s measurement is accurate but doesn’t quite tell the whole story. We rate Scott’s statement Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2017-04-13T10:00:00	2017-04-07	['None']
-goop-02512	Pink, Carey Hart “On The Rocks” Claim Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/pink-carey-hart-on-the-rocks-claim-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Pink, Carey Hart “On The Rocks” Claim NOT True	9:34 pm, August 31, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10606	"If you are African-American in this country today, you are likely to have a net worth of about 10 percent of what white families have."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/22/john-edwards/black-and-white-family-net-worth-disparity-true/	During a Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C. on Jan. 21, 2008, John Edwards elaborated on his vision of "two Americas" and showed empathy toward an important bloc of Democratic primary voters by pointing out racial disparities in net worth. It came during a discussion about whether subprime lenders were targeting the most economically vulnerable people. He said he didn't know their motivations, but added: "What they have done is targeted the lowest income, most vulnerable families," Edwards said. "And anybody who's paying any attention to what's going on in America today understands, if you are African-American in this country today, you are likely to have a net worth of about 10 percent of what white families have. "This is not an accident. I mean, we can go put our heads against the wall and pretend that the past never happened, pretend that we didn't live through decades of slavery, followed by decades of segregation, followed by decades of discrimination, which is still going on today." It appears the former North Carolina senator was relying on figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2000, the median net worth of a household headed by a non-Hispanic white adult was $79,400. The median net worth of a household run by a black adult was $7,500. The figure for Hispanic households was $9,750. These figures are based on a 2003 report. Net worth is measured as the total value of a household's financial assets — such as bank accounts, property and vehicles — minus the household's financial liabilities. Though the measurement is an oft-used indicator of financial health, it doesn't always tell the whole story because the amount of income generated by a household's assets is a key factor in maintaining a desired standard of living. Still, because Edwards correctly cites Census data showing a tenfold disparity between black and white net worth, we judge his statement True. UPDATE: This corrects our first version, which mistakenly used the term family income when we meant net worth.	None	John Edwards	None	None	None	2008-01-22T00:00:00	2008-01-21	['None']
-pomt-06453	"Foster children are disproportionately victims of identity theft."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/oct/20/james-langevin/ri-rep-james-langevin-says-foster-children-are-mor/	Real problem or not? That was the question we faced after we heard U.S. Rep. James Langevin (D-RI) speaking on the House floor about a proposal intended to protect foster children from identity theft. "I, along with many others, was absolutely outraged to find that foster children are disproportionately victims of identity theft since their personal information passes through so many hands," Langevin said during a speech posted on YouTube on Sept. 21. The bill, which has since become law and was the focus of a celebratory news conference Oct. 11, requires social service agencies to run a credit check on foster youth just before they become old enough to leave the system. The goal is to allow them to clear up any problems so they can begin their adult life free of identity problems such as fraudulent loans or credit card debt they know nothing about. The law also requires that they receive help in clearing up any credit problems. But are children in state custody really more likely to be victimized? The news release issued by Langevin's office linked to a report by the Children's Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, which bills itself as "an academic, research, and advocacy law firm." The 44-page report, called "The Fleecing of Foster Children: How We Confiscate Their Assets and Undermine Their Financial Future," asserts in at least five places that identity theft is common, or a growing problem, or disproportionately affects foster children. Then the report says, on the next-to-the-last page of the narrative: "Currently, there is [sic] no available data on how many children have been affected by identity theft." If there are no data, how do you know if foster children are disproportionately affected? Instead of offering real evidence, the report includes two footnotes citing one article in Newsweek magazine. It quotes the Identity Theft Resource Center in San Diego as saying that half of the 84,000 children in California's foster care system may have been victimized. Newsweek also reported that the problem got so bad in California that the state passed a law in 2006 mandating credit checks for teens in its foster care system. We called Langevin's office seeking data. We were sent links to other articles, some congressional testimony, accounts of individual cases of identity theft. All asserted that it was a big problem but none offered any reliable numbers. Many cited the Newsweek article as a source. When we called the Identity Theft Resource Center to ask how they know that half the foster children in California have been victimized, program director Karen Barney said the organization wishes the oft-cited article would just go away because the number is simply wrong. How does she know? As part of its effort to implement the 2006 California law, the state's Office of Privacy Protection checked the credit history of 2,110 foster children, tried to clear up any problems, and attempted to estimate how many children had been victims of identity theft. Its report on the effort was released in August 2011. When the credit reporting agencies were queried, they reported that the Social Security numbers of 17 percent of the children had been used at some point. But among 12 percent of all the children, the Social Security number wasn't really linked to anything, so it just could have been a clerical error or there's no name associated with it, so it wouldn't be part of the child's credit report and would be unlikely to affect the child's credit rating, according to the California report. "We can say (the remaining) 5 percent of these kids had credit reports and that alone is of concern, because they shouldn't," said Joanne McNabb, chief of the office. But even in that 5 percent group, the problem wasn't necessarily identity theft. For example, three of the largest questionable accounts were for car loans and one was for a $217,000 home loan. But all four turned out to be the result of some type of error, not necessarily a case of identity theft. "We were able to confirm that 1 percent [of that 5 percent] were errors" that didn't involve identity theft, McNabb said. That brings the ratio down to roughly 4 percent. So are foster children disproportionately affected by identity theft, as Langevin said? To determine that, you would need to know the extent of the problem among all children. We found only two studies that examined that. Both used data collected by Debix, a company that sells identity theft protection services -- a potential source of bias -- and analyzed at Debix' request. One, released in 2008, tracked data from 500 children. It concluded that 5 percent -- 26 cases in all -- had problems with their credit file. Six appeared to be due to error, with no sign of fraud. That would bring the ratio down to 4 percent, the same as in the California study of foster children. The other study of children was done by Carnegie Mellon University's CyLab, which looks at cybersecurity issues. It concluded that "identity protection scans" of 42,232 Social Security numbers of children showed that 7.8 percent showed evidence of identity theft -- an alarming number. By that measure, foster children are only half as likely to be victims of identity theft -- not more likely, as Langevin said. But both studies, even as they throw numbers around, emphasize that their numbers should not be used to estimate child identity theft. McNabb agreed: "Neither of those is an appropriate sample to draw big conclusions." Are foster children disproportionately victimized compared with adults? Most sources put the rate of adult identity theft at about 3.5 percent. That may sound like it's in line with the childhood rate, but that's just over one year. The California study looking at foster children found that 4 percent had been victims of identity theft over their childhood. Asked about our findings, Langevin’s spokesman, Jonathon Dworkin, said there’s another element to consider. Foster children, he said, are disproportionately victimized because, without family support, they may have more trouble clearing up their credit histories if they've been victims of identity theft. Nonetheless, we think most people would interpret the context of Langevin's statement as meaning that identity thieves are more likely to victimize foster children. Our ruling Clearly identity theft is a big problem that often isn't recognized among children. Requiring the state to clear a foster child's credit history before he or she graduates from state custody seems like a good policy. Representative Langevin said, "Foster children are disproportionately victims of identity theft." The concept is apparently widely believed and asserted among child advocates. But no study has directly compared identity theft rates between foster children and other children. The California study is the only one to look at identity theft among foster children and it found a rate of roughly 4 percent. Of the two studies we found that looked at overall childhood rates, one showed a rate of identity theft that was similar to foster children. The second found a rate that was higher than the rate seen in the study of foster children. When Langevin asserts that foster children are disproportionately victims, he's making a claim based on evidence that is either scant, unreliable, or contradictory. We rate the claim as False. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	James Langevin	None	None	None	2011-10-20T06:00:00	2011-09-21	['None']
-goop-00884	Selena Gomez Trying To Steal Jennifer Aniston’s Life And Justin Theroux?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-jennifer-aniston-life-date-justin-theroux/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Selena Gomez Trying To Steal Jennifer Aniston’s Life And Justin Theroux?	10:50 pm, June 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05529	The Keystone oil pipeline "would employ 20,000 people in the United States."	/georgia/statements/2012/apr/11/johnny-isakson/isakson-keystone-pipeline-employ-20000/	Backers of a massive oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico are telling voters that it will flood the U.S. with jobs. President Barack Obama denied a permit to build the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline in January amid bitter debate over whether it would damage environmentally sensitive lands. The pipeline may still win approval, however, and some lawmakers are trying to push it forward. One of them is U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. In a Feb. 23 speech at Dalton State College, Isakson said the pipeline could employ enough people to populate Decatur. "From Day One, this project [the Keystone pipeline] would employ 20,000 people in the United States," Isakson said. This jobs figure is a well-worn talking point for pipeline supporters. Georgia U.S. Reps. Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey used it. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said it as well. We decided to take a closer look. We reviewed news accounts, read analyses of the company’s job creation figures, interviewed a spokesman for TransCanada, the firm hoping to build the pipeline, and consulted critics. We found that while the TransCanada estimate does say that 20,000 "Americans" will be directly employed by the project, that’s not what the company’s chief executive has said. Furthermore, TransCanada’s numbers clash with lower estimates from critics and the U.S. Department of State. TransCanada has said in a press release that those 20,000 jobs include 13,000 for constructing the pipeline and 7,000 to manufacture steel pipes and other equipment. It predicts it will take two years to complete. But TransCanada’s estimate does not mean they expect 20,000 people to work on the project, a spokesman told us. The spokesman provided little clarification. Fortunately, a Washington Post interview with TransCanada’s chief executive and an email interview with the economist who helped produce the company’s job creation estimates shed some light on the figure. Each "job" represents one "job year" or one job lasting for one year, they said. This means that if a single person works on the project for both years, his or her stint is counted as two "jobs." This could place the number of actual people employed by the pipeline closer to 10,000, or some 6,500 workers in construction and 3,500 in manufacturing. Not 20,000. These construction jobs are not permanent, and for the most part, they aren’t local. The positions will disappear when the pipeline is complete. The U.S. Department of State, which is in charge of evaluating the project, estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of these jobs can be filled with workers from communities in the pipeline’s path. News accounts and independent analyses have explored other shortcomings of TransCanada’s figures. A study released September 2011 by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute determined that the 20,000 jobs figure is "not substantiated." About 50 percent of the pipe will come from an Arkansas plant owned by Welspun, a company based in India, according to a press release issued by TransCanada. The rest will come from Canada, Italy and India. In 2009, company officials said that for an earlier phase of the pipeline, it imported bare pipe manufactured overseas. It’s not clear how much finish work the pipe will need once it arrives in the U.S. We asked TransCanada whether its manufacturing jobs estimates might include foreign workers, but a spokesman did not provide a response. Other analyses have called into question TransCanada’s jobs figure. A December 2011 report by Bloomberg said the company's estimate that the project would need six or seven construction workers for every mile of the pipeline is higher than the four to five worker average for earlier phases. An August 2011 estimate published by the State Department said that the project will employ "approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers" in construction jobs. An independent analysis of TransCanada’s jobs estimates also produced lower numbers. Using Cornell’s research, William Wade, president of a consulting economics firm, found that the pipeline would create an average of about 16,100 jobs for each of the two years of construction, or 32,200 "job years." Wade’s figure includes more than the jobs for those who build the pipeline. People such as factory workers and checkout clerks also get jobs when project funds are spent on construction materials and wages. If Keystone were to create 20,000 job years worth of work in construction alone, then those jobs combined with spinoffs should be much higher than 32,200 job years, Wade said. "The 20,000 jobs number seems like a mistake. It seems like an overestimate," Wade said. Our ruling: Isakson said that Keystone "would employ 20,000 people in the United States." While any construction project creates jobs, the number Isakson uses seems misleadingly high. Those 20,000 don’t represent actual people, but one job lasting for one year of a two-year project. The number of construction and manufacturing workers may be closer to 10,000, if you accept TransCanada’s estimate. And there’s strong evidence from credible sources that it may be lower. Finally, it’s an open question how many of the jobs would be in America. We give Isakson a False.	None	Johnny Isakson	None	None	None	2012-04-11T06:00:00	2012-02-23	['United_States']
-mpws-00020	Earlier this week, Gov. Mark Dayton unveiled a cornerstone of his second-term agenda: more assistance for people sending their kids to day care. Dayton wants to expand an existing child care tax credit to cover 130,000 Minnesota families. To make his case, Dayton’s administration said in a press release that Minnesota’s child care costs are unusually expensive. “Right now in Minnesota, child care costs $901 per month, on average – totaling $10,812 per year just to provide quality care for one child. These high costs make Minnesota the 3rd-most expensive state in the nation for child care, based on the cost of infant care as a share of median income (15.5%).” There are a lot of rankings and a lot of ways to measure the cost of care, but any way you look at it, Minnesota is among the most expensive places in the country to send children to day care. 	https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2015/01/poligraph-minnesotas-child-care-costs/	None	None	None	Catharine Richert	None	PoliGraph: Minnesota’s child care costs	January 21, 2015, 2:07 PM	None	['Minnesota', 'Mark_Dayton']
-snes-05211	Eminem biopic '8 Mile' will return with a sequel in late 2016.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/8-mile-sequel-2016/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	8 Mile Sequel Confirmed for December 2016?	16 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04948	"Mike Dovilla’s big ideas like expanding the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit, which helped bring films like ‘The Avengers’ to Cleveland, have helped make our state No. 1 in the Midwest for job creation."	/ohio/statements/2012/jul/27/mike-dovilla/mike-dovilla-touts-his-big-ideas-reason-ohio-job-c/	After seizing control of the Ohio House of Representatives two years ago, Republicans are now working to maintain, and even stretch, their considerable majority over House Democrats in the Nov. 6 election. Among the closely watched House races is a rematch between Republican incumbent Mike Dovilla and Democrat Matt Patten to represent a district that includes Strongsville, Berea and a few other suburbs. Dovilla, a Navy veteran and a small business owner, could be vulnerable because he voted in favor of Senate Bill 5 – the bill to restrict public workers’ collective bargaining power that voters ultimately repealed – and because the 18th House District has a solid mix of Democratic and Republican voters. With an eye on keeping his seat, Dovilla has begun distributing campaign literature that touts the achievements of his first term in office. "Mike Dovilla’s big ideas like expanding the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit, which helped bring films like ‘The Avengers’ to Cleveland, have helped make our state No. 1 in the Midwest for job creation," a piece of his recent campaign literature said. "The Avengers" is one of the highest grossing films of all time and had a positive impact on the local economy. A study commissioned by the Greater Cleveland Film Commission estimated the movie spent $25 million in Ohio and employed more than 3,870 state residents. But is Dovilla claiming a role with landing the film in Ohio? PolitiFact Ohio decided to check into his claim. When the movie tax credit was established in 2009, Dovilla was not in office. Lawmakers included the movie tax credit in the state budget passed that year. As a result, producers for "The Avengers" chose to film part of the movie in Cleveland and ended up receiving tax credits created worth about $6.7 million, according to the Ohio Department of Development. Dovilla didn’t take office until 2011. Although he had nothing to do with creating the initial movie tax credit, he did sponsor legislation this year to expand the program. The expansion doubled the money available through the credit from $10 million per year to $20 million per year. When we contacted Dovilla to explain his claim, he said the campaign literature was not meant to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the expansion of the movie tax credit and the decision to film part of "The Avengers" in Cleveland. "It says the tax credit helped bring films like ‘The Avengers’ to Cleveland, not the expansion," he said. Dovilla said the phrase "which helped bring films like ‘The Avengers’ to Cleveland" referred to the tax credit itself, not the expansion of the tax credit. Dovilla also said he believes the average person in his district would know that the Avengers was filmed in Cleveland well before lawmakers extended the tax credit and, therefore, the average person would understand that the original movie tax credit – passed before Dovilla took office – brought the Avengers to Cleveland, not the expansion that he sponsored. Mike Dittoe, a spokesman for House Speaker William G. Batchelder on a leave of absence to assist the GOP House campaigns, also said Dovilla’s campaign literature was not meant to convey the tax credit expansion attracted "The Avengers." "You could word it this way and have the same meaning as the first: ‘The Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit has helped bring films like ‘The Avengers’ to Cleveland. Mike Dovilla’s big ideas, like expanding that tax credit, have helped make our state No. 1 in the Midwest for job creation," Dittoe said in an e-mail. But that’s not what Dovilla’s campaign literature says. And in PolitiFact Ohio’s view, words matter. The problem with Dovilla’s claim is that there are different ways that a reader could interpret it. One could argue, as he does, that he was championing the success of the motion picture tax credit, and touting his role in pushing for its expansion. Or, one could look at his claim and infer a clear connection between expansion of the tax credit and filming "The Avengers" in Cleveland. Dovilla said the ad isn’t meant to suggest his idea brought "The Avengers" to Cleveland, but a natural reading of his claim could suggest exactly that. The ad is partially accurate – the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit did help bring movie jobs to the state, and Dovilla did champion the movie tax credit expansion. But that it leaves out important details and takes things out of context. "The Avengers" movie came to Cleveland due to the original tax credit, which was established before Dovilla took office. And while Dovilla supported the expansion of the credit, it does not take effect until September. On the Truth-O-Meter, Dovilla’s claim rates Half True.	None	Mike Dovilla	None	None	None	2012-07-27T06:00:00	2012-07-27	['Midwestern_United_States', 'Cleveland']
-hoer-00031	AIDS From Contaminated Take Away Food Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/aids-burger.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	AIDS From Contaminated Take Away Food Warning	March 12, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-10811	"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed the war in 2003. I opposed it in 2004 and 2005 and 2006."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/28/barack-obama/obama-has-consistently-opposed-the-war/	Obama opposed the war as a little-known state senator, and spoke out notably at a Chicago anti-war rally in 2002. In 2003, when he began campaigning for the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois, he reiterated his opposition in several debates and meetings. In other words, Obama's sweeping claim to have long opposed Iraq is true. Opponents have attacked Obama's record of opposition on two grounds. They argue that Obama should answer definitively how he would have voted if were in the Senate at the time of the vote. Obama said in 2004 he can't answer that question fully because he doesn't know what intelligence the senators had access to. Opponents also have taken comments of his out of context to suggest he supported the war, particularly his 2004 statement that "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." But that quote is pulled from a story in which Obama expresses a sentiment that now that the war has started, the U.S. should do the best job it can to steer Iraq toward stability. Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005. He has voted several times to continue funding for the war, saying that troops in Iraq should be funded even if he disagreed with the overall war. (The measure passed 97 to zero.) In recent months, like other Democratic candidates, he has voted in favor of troop withdrawals and other measures to bring the war to a conclusion.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2007-09-28T00:00:00	2007-09-12	['None']
-hoer-00799	Indian Two Faced Baby	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/two-faced-baby.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Indian Two Faced Baby	April 2008	None	['India']
-pomt-02912	"The insurance industry is actually run by mostly Democrats."	/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/04/dana-perino/fncs-dana-perino-says-health-insurance-industry-ru/	Fans of the Fox News Channel program The Five are probably familiar with the show’s format. A group of political pundits gathers around a table weekdays at 5 p.m. and shouts back and forth on the topics of the day. Most are professional pundits, though co-host Dana Perino did serve as press secretary for George W. Bush. And many times, the panel offers some harsh criticism for President Barack Obama. On its Halloween episode, co-host Greg Gutfeld broadsided Obama’s health care law and the administration’s sales job. Holding a demon puppet he called Seth, Gutfeld said that if Democrats had "to sell a razor blade" they’d "put it in an apple." "They got to hide the ugliness of their beliefs," Gutfeld said. The comment drew a response from liberal co-host Bob Beckel, who made an effort to defend the law and countered that his conservative colleagues were schilling for the insurance industry. "The insurance industry is actually run by mostly Democrats and gave President Obama a lot of …" Perino jumped in. Before she could finish, Beckel groaned, "Buuulllll …." before trailing off himself. "That is true, Bob, and the associations prove it," countered Perino. Beckel, who wears trademark suspenders, was later seen resting his arms on a pumpkin that had "single payer" written on it in marker. As fact-checkers, we’ll weigh in on Perino’s point, that the insurance industry is "run by mostly Democrats." We reached out to Perino but didn’t hear back. Of course, there is no simple way to determine the political affiliation of the entire health insurance industry. We started by checking Perino’s suggestion that health insurance associations prove her claim to be right. The two largest that we could identify are America's Health Insurance Plans and the National Association of Health Underwriters. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tallies political contributions, America’s Health Insurance Plans political action committee has contributed about $396,000 to Democrats since 2008 compared to $436,000 to Republicans over the same period of time. The CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans, Karen Ignagni, has donated to both Republicans and Democrats over the years -- including Eric Cantor and Josh Mandel on the Republican side and Henry Waxman and Charles Schumer among the Democrats. Ignagni has led health industry groups since 1993 and worked for the AFL-CIO before that. We wouldn’t conclude that means the industry is mostly run by Democrats. (We wouldn’t conclude that the industry is run mostly by Republicans, either.) The National Association of Health Underwriters PAC, meanwhile, has contributed $1.74 million to Republicans since 2008 and $494,000 to Democrats. (We found no political contributions from CEO Janet Trautwein.) Overall, the Center for Responsive Politics says that the insurance industry has contributed $94 million to Republicans since 2008 and $62 million to Democrats. (This particular comparison is only modestly helpful, however, as it includes companies that also provide property, life and car insurance.) Another way to consider Perino’s claim is to look at the men and women running the largest health insurance companies in the United States. Here is a list of some of those companies, the number of people they say they serve, and what we know about the political leanings of the chief executives: UnitedHealthcare (70 million people served): The company’s PAC, United For Health, reported that 58 percent of its 2012 federal contributions went to Republicans, while 42 percent went to Democrats. Since 2008, the group has given slightly more to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics -- $721,000 to Democrats and $704,000 to Republicans. CEO Stephen Hemsley has donated almost solely to Republicans since 2010, including $10,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $5,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Aetna (50 million people served): Aetna’s political action committee reported that it donated $285,500 to Republican candidates in 2012, compared with $170,000 to Democrats. It contributed more money to Republican candidates in 2010 and 2008 as well. CEO Mark T. Bertolini has donated to both Republicans and Democrats, including Republican U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss, Rob Portman, Kelly Ayotte and Roy Blunt, and Democrats Ron Wyden and Max Baucus. WellPoint (36 million people served): The company’s political action committee, WellPAC, contributed about $1.5 million to Republican candidates since 2008 and about half as much to Democrats. Joseph R. Swedish, who was named CEO in March, has only made one contribution to a federal candidate since 2010, $500 to Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Humana (20 million people served): Humana’s political action committee has contributed more to Republicans in every political cycle since 2000. Humana CEO Bruce D. Broussard mainly has contributed only to Humana’s PAC. The Center for Public Integrity reported that from January 2007 through August 2012 "the political action committees of the 11 largest health insurance companies and their primary trade group gave $10.2 million to federal politicians with nearly two-thirds of the total going to Republicans who oppose the law or support its repeal." In the case of America’s largest health insurers, there is little evidence to suggest they are run mostly by Democrats based on their political giving. Our ruling Perino claimed that the health insurance industry is run mostly by Democrats. We could find almost nothing to suggest that’s the case. The way most large businesses and industries show their political stripes, through campaign contributions, suggests that large health insurers and their trade associations are more likely to support Republicans. Or at the least, that they hedge their bets by supporting both sides. We rate Perino’s claim False.	None	Dana Perino	None	None	None	2013-11-04T14:12:14	2013-10-31	['None']
-snes-03814	Hillary Clinton wants to bring an end to the United States as we know it in favor of a 'hemispheric government.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-hemispheric-government/	None	Politicians	None	Bethania Palma	None	Hillary Calls for the End of the U.S. and One ‘Hemispheric’ Government	12 October 2016	None	['United_States']
-snes-05075	A black supporter of Donald Trump was shot and killed by protesters in Chicago.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-trump-supporter-shot/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	Black Trump Supporter Shot and Killed by Chicago Protesters	13 March 2016	None	['Chicago', 'Donald_Trump']
-farg-00178	There is "proof" that a U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire "was likely changed through voter fraud on November 8, 2016."	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/kobachs-bogus-proof-voter-fraud/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Kris Kobach	Robert Farley	['election fraud']	Kobach’s Bogus ‘Proof’ of Voter Fraud	September 11, 2017	[' Breitbart op-ed – Thursday, September 7, 2017 ']	['United_States']
-pose-00680	"I will conduct audits of all economic development tax deals. We need to stop the bleeding of state resources through tax credit programs that have no discernible impact."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/710/will-audit-all-economic-development-tax-deals/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Will audit all economic development tax deals	2012-08-02T17:38:04	None	['None']
-pomt-05096	President Obama’s health-care law will "add trillions of dollars in debt."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/jun/30/barry-hinckley/republican-us-senate-candidate-barry-hinckley-says/	After the Supreme Court issued its June 28, 2012, ruling upholding key provisions of President Obama's health-care legislation, Barry Hinckley, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., issued a fundraising letter warning that the decision was bad news for the national debt, which is now approaching $16 trillion. "Our country did not want or approve of ObamaCare when it was introduced and they still do not now. Americans oppose it because it will decrease the quality of care, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and add trillions of dollars in debt." Health care is certainly expensive; we wondered if the plan for mandating coverage and expanding insurance would really add that much to the debt. We contacted Hinckley's office seeking the source of their information and received no response. It turns out that PolitiFact National has examined this claim a few times, most recently when Mitt Romney made the same statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling. Here's the bottom line: according to the PolitiFact analysis, it's not going to add to the debt because the legislation also raises money to pay for the costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected back in 2010 that the health-care law would lower the deficit by about $124 billion over 10 years. In 2011, when Republicans offered a bill to repeal the health-care law, the CBO estimated that wiping out the law, which Romney is promising to do, would actually increase the deficit by about $210 billion over 10 years. The budget office acknowledges circumstances can change, the CBO isn't infallible, and the issues that come up in making an analysis can be contentious, as PolitiFact found when it looked at a statement from U.S. Rep Paul Ryan, R-Wis., judged Mostly False, that the law was "accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." How much would the new health-care law actually raise? As PolitiFact reported when it gave Rush Limbaugh a Pants On Fire for declaring that "Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world," the CBO estimates the additional revenues coming into the government will be $525 billion between now and 2019. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee of Congress with a professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants, estimates the health law will bring in more than $437.8 billion by 2019. As an aside, Obama claimed in his 2010 State of the Union speech that health-care reform "would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades." PolitiFact rated that statement as Half True. But for Hinckley's claim, congressional budget experts say he is wrong, so we will give it the same rating that Romney received: False. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Barry Hinckley	None	None	None	2012-06-30T00:01:00	2012-06-28	['None']
-hoer-00858	Viral Image of Baby Being Tattooed	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/viral-image-baby-being-tattooed.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Viral Image of Baby Being Tattooed	April 17, 2014	None	['None']
-goop-00444	George Clooney “Wasting Away” From Secret Disease?	https://www.gossipcop.com/george-clooney-wasting-away-disease-weight-loss-dying/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	George Clooney “Wasting Away” From Secret Disease?	1:55 pm, August 16, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01854	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie “At War” Over Conflicting Parenting Styles, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-parenting-styles-war-conflict/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie NOT “At War” Over Conflicting Parenting Styles, Despite Report	2:04 pm, January 11, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Angelina_Jolie']
-pomt-09377	“The bill also provides full federal funding for abortions…”	/texas/statements/2010/mar/28/john-carter/rep-john-carter-says-health-care-law-provides-full/	U.S. Rep. John Carter, R-Round Rock, lambasted the Democratic-approved health care plan signed into law last week as a federal health care “takeover bill.” Among Carter’s concerns spelled out in a March 21 press release: “The bill also provides full federal funding for abortions…” Carter spoke after a clutch of anti-abortion House Democrats agreed to vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act after President Barack Obama said he’d issue an executive order referring to continuation of a ban -- begun in the late 1970s and annually reaffirmed by lawmakers -- on spending federal funds on abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of a woman. The law prohibits federal subsidy funds, intended to help people afford health coverage, from being used to pay for abortions except in those exceptional cases. Obama’s order includes a provision to ensure that insurers offering coverage through state-level insurance exchanges charge customers separate premiums to cover abortion services. Obama's order also revisits past decisions by Congress to bar community health centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services outside of the exceptional circumstances. His order directs federal officials to “ensure that program administrators and recipients of federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services.” We sought Carter's backup for his contention that the law provides full federal funding for abortions. John Stone, Carter’s spokesman, said several aspects of the law support his claim. Let's review them one by one. First, Stone noted that plans offered to patients in the state-level exchanges are permitted to cover abortion services. Unsaid: The law specifies that each exchange must have at least one plan that does not cover abortions and that plans offering abortion services must collect separate premiums from each patient to pay for the services, presumably preventing the expenditure of federal funds on abortions. Second, Stone said provisions promising billions of dollars for community health centers and health co-ops, one vehicle for providing health insurance, lack language that would prohibit spending those dollars on abortion. Others, including representatives of community health centers, have said the promised money isn’t likely to be spent on abortions considering the centers haven’t provided abortion services in their 45-year history. A Jan. 22 Politifact.com article concludes that worrying about the centers providing abortions is “more a political dart than a legitimate concern.” Insurance purchased through co-ops would be subject to the same restrictions on abortion funding as other plans likewise offered through the state exchanges. Of course, who can say whether a court might rule that without a specific prohibition, abortions could be permitted? You can't fault organizations like the National Right to Life Committee for raising concerns about possible loopholes. Third, Stone said, the law creates a federal program to administer two or more national insurance plans, with a directive that at least one plan not provide federally funded abortion services. Stone said the provision implies “that other federally administered plans could cover elective abortions, or perhaps even be required to do so by the federal administrator. This is a sharp break from longstanding federal policy.” Stone was referring to the fact that for decades, health insurance programs offered to federal employees have been forbidden to cover abortions except under the established special circumstances. Under the new law, however, the multi-state plans cited by Stone would be sold like other privately vended plans available through the exchanges--and the law directs that any funding for abortions under the plans come from patient premiums. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, says the provision for two or more national plans is intended to broaden insurance offerings. Does the multi-state provision imply a federal administrator could require that the plans cover abortion services? No, Jost told us: That's like saying it "implies that you have to cover euthanasia," Jost said. "That's silly." Fourth, Stone said, the law’s provision for separate premiums for participants in plans covering abortion services offered through the state-level exchanges could be problematic. “This requirement would apply to anyone who enrolls in a subsidized plan that covers elective abortions, which would surely include many people who would learn of the abortion surcharge only after enrolling,” Stone said The law states, though, that a plan offering abortion coverage shall notify patients of that feature when they enroll. Besides, the provision doesn’t mean that full federal funding would pay for abortions, as Carter claims. Trying to cover all the bases, we looked at each abortion reference in the 906-page law. This search yielded no language permitting federal funding of abortions outside the previously established special circumstances, though we did find several prohibitions on abortion spending as well as a bar on discriminating against insurers or physicians who don't fund or perform abortions. One section states the law doesn’t pre-empt state laws on abortion. Another states that nothing in the law should be construed to require insurers to offer abortion services. A third section states that school-based health centers can’t provide abortion services. Two independent observers of the health-care debate concur that the law doesn't intend full federal funding of abortions. In January, the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation said: “If a state does allow plans in the exchange to cover abortions, (the law) only permits federal subsidy dollars to be used to pay for abortions that are permitted under the federal law that is in place before the plan year begins … Coverage for other abortions would have to be paid for with non-federal funds.” Indeed, requiring insurers that offer abortion coverage through state-level exchanges to collect two separate payments from customers might reduce the availability of such coverage, according to the foundation's analysis. Some “legal scholars contend that given the size of the potential pool of women and their families that will be eligible for federal subsidies under the exchange and other complexities," the foundation writes. "This (two-part payment mandate) might limit the development of insurance plans that offer either abortion coverage or a rider, and ultimately carry over to products offered in the employer market.” Kaiser’s punch line: “This complex combination of restrictions means that… many women who will obtain coverage under health reform either though Medicaid or an exchange would have to pay for an abortion out-of-pocket.” Adam Sonfield, a senior public policy associate with the independent non-partisan Guttmacher Institute, which studies and advocates on issues related to reproductive health, echoed that view. Sonfield told us the new law bans federal funding of abortion coverage. He added: “In our analysis, the law’s requirements for enforcing this ban are so onerous and stigmatizing that we expect insurance companies to drop coverage of abortion altogether, even for consumers who receive no federal subsidies at all." Last week, PolitiFact.com rated as True a House member’s statement that the new law doesn’t provide for publicly funded abortions. All told, this review leaves us agape at Carter's overreach. That is, the law does not provide full federal funding of abortions--and that's clear. Carter could have edited his blast. Instead, he makes an unsupported ridiculous claim. We rate his statement as Pants on Fire.	None	John Carter	None	None	None	2010-03-28T22:54:50	2010-03-21	['None']
-goop-02107	Brad Pitt Moving To London For Charlotte Casiraghi, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-charlotte-casiraghi-moving-london-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt NOT Moving To London For Charlotte Casiraghi, Despite Report	11:27 am, December 1, 2017	None	['London']
-pomt-05358	Says when he was governor, "we expanded participation in Virginia in early childhood programs by nearly 40 percent."	/virginia/statements/2012/may/11/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-says-pre-kinderdarten-program-expanded-4/	Democratic Senate hopeful Tim Kaine says a key step in building a workforce trained for the future is to ensure all children are prepared to enter kindergarten. And he offers his record as governor as proof of his commitment to that goal. "The research clearly demonstrates high-quality early childhood opportunities help children succeed," he wrote in a paper laying out his economic policies. "That’s why we expanded participation in Virginia in early childhood programs by nearly 40 percent..." We checked whether Virginia’s early childhood programs really did grow by 40 percent during Kaine’s term as governor from 2006 to 2010. During his gubernatorial campaign, Kaine proposed making Virginia’s pre-kindergarten program available to all 4-year-olds -- not just those from families living close to the poverty line. The universal access was estimated to cost $300 million a year. Once in office, Kaine scaled back that ambition in the face of a recession that eroded state revenues. But he did seek increases preschool programs every year during his term. Budget records show he proposed an extra $4.6 million for the 2007-08 fiscal year to add 1,250 children to the program. In his full biennial budget, which covered 2008 through 2010, Kaine sought $56 million in additional funding, according to reports. The request was pared to $40 million, then $22 million, as lawmakers sought to cope with the recession. Over the course of Kaine’s term, the Virginia Preschool Initiative saw a steady rise to its annual budget from $46.3 to $58.6 million. (That trend has continued into the recently approved budget, which provided $68.2 million for 2013 and $68.5 million for 2014.) Virginia Preschool Initiative teaches social and learning skills to 4-year-olds who will become eligible for free or reduced lunch programs when they enter public schools. The pre-K program is open to at-risk children who live above the poverty line. Children below that line qualify for the federal Head Start program. In the 2005-06 school year, when Kaine took office, 11,343 children were enrolled in Virginia’s preschool initiative. By the time his term ended, in the 2009-10 school year, the program had 15,901 children. The increase is 40.2 percent. Our ruling Kaine claimed that he was part of expanding participation in early childhood programs in Virginia by nearly 40 percent. The numbers confirm that. We rate Kaine’s statement True.	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2012-05-11T06:00:00	2012-04-04	['Virginia']
-pomt-00521	As a senator, Hillary Clinton "has her name on three laws in eight years."	/florida/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/did-hillary-clinton-have-her-name-only-three-laws-/	As Jeb Bush reels off his accomplishments as governor cutting taxes and slashing state jobs, he says he’s ready to put his record up against Hillary Clinton’s. A day after his announcement speech at Miami Dade College, Fox News’ Sean Hannity asked Bush to comment on the Democrat’s record. Hannity: "Can you name in a serious way one specific Hillary accomplishment, or what would you say that's good about her?" Bush: "She's smart. I think she's smart. I think she loves her country. I don't ascribe bad motives for people that I don't agree with. But as a senator, I think she passed -- she has her name on three laws in eight years." There is some truth to Bush’s claim about laws passed, but it doesn’t tell the full story about her legislative accomplishments as a senator. Laws with Clinton’s name Clinton was first elected as a senator from New York in 2000 and re-elected in 2006. She resigned to become secretary of state, so her Senate tenure was from January 2001 to January 2009. Bush’s spokesman sent us a list of three bills Clinton sponsored that became law. These laws were uncontroversial matters that passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and voice vote in the House and then were signed by President George W. Bush: S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York. Bush signed the bill Dec. 3, 2004. S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building." Bush signed the bill Oct. 6, 2006. S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway. Bush signed the bill July 23, 2008. But there are other ways that Senators can influence legislation even if they don’t end up as the sponsor of the final version: Co-sponsored bills: There were 74 bills that became law that Clinton co-sponsored. For example, she was one of 54 cosponsors on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, signed in January 2009 by President Barack Obama. (The fact that she co-sponsored these bills doesn’t tell us much about her role in their passage, but Bush referred to bills that "she has her name" on, so it’s worth noting those she co-sponsored.) She co-sponsored one version but another version passed: For example, she co-sponsored S.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in January 2009 while the version that passed was H.R. 1. Sponsored amendments: She put forward amendments that influenced laws sponsored by others. She sponsored three amendments on a bill for security and disaster funding. The amendments passed in 2007 and the bill passed in 2008. Two experts who study Congress -- Norman Ornstein, a scholar at American Enterprise Institute, and Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and Brookings Institution scholar -- said that the number of sponsored or co-sponsored bills signed into law isn’t a thorough measure of effectiveness or productivity for a member of the Senate. "Offering amendments on the floor, holding hearings, contributing to oversight, helping to negotiate agreements, pushing federal agencies to be responsive to constituents back home -- all of these might contribute to making a senator ‘effective,’ but none of these endeavors of course would show up in a count of bills sponsored or passed or enacted," Binder said. As for Bush’s claim about the number of laws "she has her name on," Binder said that it’s fair game to also look at the number of bills Clinton co-sponsored. "Because ‘have her name on’ is so vague, I don't see the grounds on which to exclude co-sponsored bills," she said. Ornstein said that the names that go on bills of any real significance are the committee chairs -- for example the Dodd-Frank 2010 banking reform bill. Sen. Chris Dodd and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank were the major figures behind the law, but other senators also had roles and don’t have their names on the bill. Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act "does not have Al Franken's name on it, but a really important provision, the medical-loss ratio, was his handiwork," Ornstein said. "Effectiveness can be a behind-the-scenes role, adding a serious amendment, working inside to get the language exactly right. By any reasonable standard, including the private comments of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle when she was in the Senate, she was very effective." Our ruling Bush said that as a senator, Clinton had her name "on three laws in eight years." Bush used vague language here, so it’s fair game to look at the three sponsored bills and the 74 co-sponsored ones that passed. Also, congressional experts warn that legislative influence goes beyond having your name as a sponsor or co-sponsor. Senators weigh in with amendments, debate and negotiations. The statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details so we rate this claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/57684e12-55f1-4abd-aa03-85984b69d701	None	Jeb Bush	None	None	None	2015-06-23T10:00:00	2015-06-16	['None']
-pomt-06783	Thirty-seven percent of Central Falls’ retired police officers and firefighters are out on disability pensions; in most municipalities, about 5 percent of retirees collect disability pensions.	/rhode-island/statements/2011/aug/18/stephen-lisauskas/consultant-says-37-percent-central-falls-retired-p/	On July 19, during a public meeting at Central Falls High School’s auditorium, state-appointed receiver Robert Flanders Jr. told about 100 of the city’s retired firefighters and police officers that they’d have to give up half their annual pension benefits or the city would face bankruptcy. The retirees ultimately rejected the request and, on Aug. 1, the city became the first in Rhode Island history to file for bankruptcy. Records in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court show that the city, as of Aug. 1, owed $3.6 million to its retirees, who are paid out of the pension fund. That’s equivalent to nearly two-thirds of the city’s projected $5.6-million deficit. During that July 19 meeting, Flanders’ team of financial advisers ran down the pension numbers. Seated on stage with Flanders and a handful of other advisers was Stephen Lisauskas, a consultant at the Collins Center for Public Management at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. The administration of then-Gov. Donald Carcieri hired Lisauskas as a consultant to help sort through Central Falls’ fiscal mess, paying the Collins Center $75,000 in fiscal 2010. At the meeting, Lisauskas talked about the high cost of the Central Falls pension plans -- the city, with an annual budget of about $17 million, faces $80 million in unfunded pension and benefit obligations. According to a story about the meeting that appeared in the July 20 Providence Journal, Lisauskas said that in Central Falls, 37 percent of retired firefighters and police officers are out on disability pensions, compared with a national average of about 5 percent. If that’s true, it would mean Central Falls firefighters and police are retiring on disability at more than seven times the national average. Disability pensions typically offer more generous benefits and cost municipalities more. They also allow employees who otherwise wouldn’t qualify for their maximum retirement benefits to retire early with full benefits, meaning they’re on the pension rolls longer. In Central Falls, for example, retired firefighters on disability pensions can collect 66.6 percent of their former salaries tax free regardless of their years of service. A firefighter who retires on an ordinary pension would need work for 30 to 35 years to collect the maximum 65-percent benefit. We wondered whether Central Falls police officers and firefighters had a disability rate that’s so out-of-whack with the rest of the country. First, we asked Lisauskas where he got his numbers. "We looked at the number of pensions provided on a disability basis and the city arrived at the figure that 37 percent [of retired police and firefighters] are out on disability pensions," he said. "And our pension consultants have informed us that the national average for police and fire is roughly 5 percent." The Central Falls numbers were easy enough to check; the state had provided The Journal with a list of all retired Central Falls police officers and firefighters receiving pensions. Of the 143 pensions on the list, 52 are labeled disability pensions, which amounts to 36.4 percent, very close to the 37 percent that Lisauskas cited. However, the list indicates 15 of the 52 disability pensions have been converted to ordinary pensions because of the age of the retirees. So, to be accurate, it’s currently 26 percent. Now, on the bigger question: How does Central Falls stack up with the rest of the country? First, we tried the Pew Center on the States, which collects information about public employee pensions. The center had no data on disability rates. Then we called the National Association of Retirement Administrators, which also said it was unaware of any data on disability pension rates. Surely, we thought, the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington, D.C., would know. "I’m not sure there’s a database anywhere that can answer that question," Lori Moore-Merrell, assistant to the association’s general president, said, "because the pension systems are so different and they differ from state to state." So we did some spot checks. The Rhode Island Municipal Employees Retirement System (MERS), a collection of plans run by the state, covers some police and firefighters in Cranston, Woonsocket and several smaller communities. Of the 547 recipients of police and firefighter pensions in MERS, 113 -- about 21 percent -- receive disability pensions, according to Dara Chadwick, spokeswoman for the state retirement system. That’s less than the share of disabled retirees in Central Falls -- but nowhere near what Lisauskas said is a 5-percent national average. Then, we checked outside our area code. Not all state or municipal pension systems track disability rates for retired police officers and firefighters, but we found a few that did. (Some figures are from this year, others are from 2010.) In New York state, the share of retired police officers and firefighters receiving disability pensions is 19.25 percent. (The plan does not include New York City.) In Ohio, it’s just under 35 percent. In Indiana, it’s 24 percent. In California, the state pension system lumps police and firefighters with correctional officers and school safety personnel, so it wasn’t comparable. But we learned that San Jose, Calif., had analyzed its pension costs for police and firefighters, so we checked there. Robin Opheim, senior performance auditor in the San Jose’s auditor’s office, said 67 percent of the city’s retired firefighters and 41 percent of retired police officers were receiving disability pensions as of February 2010. Rhode Island, New York, Ohio, Indiana and San Jose all have double-digit disability rates for retired firefighters and police officers. So where did Lisauskas come up with a 5-percent national average? We called him back to find out. The 5-percent average, he told us, came from actuaries he’d spoken to at Buck Consultants, based in New York City. (As it happens, Buck Consultants is the actuary for the City of Providence.) So we called Buck’s headquarters. "I’m not aware of any formal study that Buck’s done in that area," Buck spokesman Ed Gadowski said. "... I’m not sure where he got it from." One of Buck’s actuaries, Daniel W. Sherman, attended the same July 19 meeting in Central Falls where Lisauskas stated that the national average was 5 percent. So we called Sherman to see whether he knew the source of the data. "There’s no study," Sherman said. "I was just asked the question off-the-cuff: What do you think the percentage ought to be?" Sherman said he was giving Lisauskas a benchmark for the share of disability pensions in a city with a well-managed plan. "What I told Steve [Lisauskas] was 5 to 10 percent and I was thinking of all people -- all participants in the plan." By "all," he says, he meant all municipal employees including office workers, who one would expect to have a lower disability rate. In summary, Lisauskas said 37 percent of Central Falls police and firefighters are on disability pensions. That accurately describes the share of police and firefighters who retired on disability pensions, but only 26 percent are currently receiving disability pensions. More importantly, he went on to compare Central Falls with a national average that, we found, doesn’t really exist. In a crucial discussion about Central Falls’ finances, we’d expect better from a consultant hired for his expert advice. We rate the claim False. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Stephen Lisauskas	None	None	None	2011-08-18T00:01:00	2011-07-19	['None']
-pomt-08670	"Walker says he’s for lower taxes. But Milwaukee County spending has gone up by $349 million."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/sep/12/tom-barrett/tom-barrett-says-scott-walker-big-spender-despite-/	Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker makes much of his efforts to hold down taxes and spending. His focus on taxes has been a hallmark of his eight years as Milwaukee County executive: He’s slashed county jobs, cut spending on parks and programs, and has returned a portion of his paychecks to the county coffers. So when Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, a Democrat in the race for governor, uses a TV ad to accuse Walker of being a closet big spender, it raises some eyebrows. In making his claim, Barrett is relying on the Milwaukee County budgets since Walker took office in 2002. For the 2010 budget, total spending was $1,460,291,522. That’s up $349 million, or 31.5 percent, from the 2003 budget -- the first one crafted by Walker. At first glance, the claim appears accurate. But Barrett is making an old apples and oranges mash-up: He compares total spending with the tax levy. The total spending picture includes every penny that comes in the door of the Milwaukee County Courthouse and goes out again, from fees to state and federal aid. Property taxes make up about 18 percent of the total county budget. Of course, that’s the piece John Q. Taxpayer focuses on. Between 2003 and 2010, the county’s property tax levy went up 19.9 percent. Using Barrett’s approach, that was a $43.8 million increase. If you take the amount of the levy from the time Walker took office and adjust it for inflation, the total today would be $259 million. The actual figure is $4 million higher, or $263 million. Of course, Walker does not raise the levy alone. Indeed, he won the county post on a pledge to hold the levy flat. This has been the pattern: Walker submits a budget that holds the property tax levy at the previous year’s level. The County Board, with a veto-proof margin, returns items to the budget or adds new items to the mix, and the levy rises. To be sure, Walker does take the higher property tax levy and uses it as his starting point for the next year’s budget. But it has been the board, not Walker, responsible for the annual increases. That settles the tax side, but the overall argument -- made by Barrett and other Democrats -- remains: Scott Walker is a closet tax and spender. Let’s look at the spending side, too. If total county spending had simply kept pace with inflation from 2003 to 2010, it would now tally about $1.3 billion a year. But the actual total is about $140 million higher. Again, other factors are at work. In that time the county has taken on additional programs, such as Family Care, that add to the budget. The county administers the programs for other units of government and receives revenue to cover the expense. For instance, Family Care alone has a budget of about $257 million to provide services to elderly and people with disabilities. But all of the money comes from state and federal dollars rather than county property taxes. Let’s sum it all up: In his TV ad, Barrett is mixing and matching two very different sets of numbers -- tax increases and overall spending. When it comes to property taxes, it is the County Board that has been increasing the tax levy, over Walker’s objections and vetoes. Walker does, however, build that increase into each future budget. Meanwhile, spending did rise faster than inflation, but mostly because the county took on new responsibilities and state money that went with them. We rate Barrett’s taxes/spending charge Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Tom Barrett	None	None	None	2010-09-12T09:00:00	2010-08-06	['Milwaukee_County,_Wisconsin']
-afck-00200	“This decline in [sales] volumes could result in 62,000-72,000 job losses, many of which will be in small-scale farms and spazas.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/sas-proposed-sugar-tax-claims-calories-job-losses-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	SA’s proposed sugar tax: claims about calories & job losses checked	2016-08-31 10:31	None	['None']
-pomt-15319	Says Scott Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive "than any Republican president in recent times."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/jul/16/tammy-baldwin/scott-walker-more-restrictive-abortion-reagan-othe/	It’s clear that Scott Walker’s views on abortion will get intensified scrutiny now that he has joined the crowded Republican presidential field. In 2014, during the final weeks of the campaign before he won re-election as governor, Walker was attacked in a TV ad by a national political action committee that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. And weeks before his White House run announcement on July 13, 2015, Walker was targeted twice: once in a TV ad by the nation’s oldest abortion rights advocacy group and once on a TV talk show by U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, used her June 3, 2015 interview on MSNBC to cast Walker as out of step with other Republicans on abortion. After host Chris Hayes suggested that Walker’s support for a law banning abortion after 20 weeks was mainstream among Republicans, Baldwin agreed. But she drew a contrast, stating: "Yes, but if you look at the history of those who have been elected president, Scott Walker's views are clearly more extreme than any Republican president in recent times -- much more extreme than President George W. Bush with regard to the issues of having exemptions that deal with the health and the life of the mother, and the issues of exemptions for rape victims and incest." On abortion, is Walker to the right of any recent Republican president? Previous claims Some statements about Walker and abortion have missed the mark, including the two we mentioned. The TV ad by EMILY’s List shortly before Walker defeated Democrat Mary Burke in 2014 claimed Walker was "forcing some women to undergo a transvaginal probe to get an abortion." We rated it Half True. A law Walker signed says women can choose either a transvaginal or transabdominal ultrasound, though in certain cases a transvaginal probe may be medically necessary. The TV ad by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which aired in June 2015 in Iowa and New Hampshire, claimed Walker had said that "forcing women facing abortion to get invasive ultrasounds was 'just a cool thing.’ " That was rated Mostly False. The "cool" reference wasn’t to forcing some women to get vaginal ultrasounds, but rather to the ultrasound technology that produces images from the womb. Nevertheless, there is no question that for decades -- going back to before his time as governor and as a state lawmaker -- Walker has been staunchly anti-abortion. Baldwin’s office didn’t respond to our requests for information to back her claim, and Walker’s campaign didn’t weigh in, either. But we can compare Walker’s public positions on abortion to those of recent GOP presidents. NARAL, Planned Parenthood We asked NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America about how they rate politicians on abortion rights. The groups told us they don’t produce ratings on a continuum. They put politicians into broad categories -- not on a scale that would rank one as more extreme, to use Baldwin’s term, than another. NARAL gave Walker and 13 other Republican presidential contenders a grade of F, for Fail. The group points to Walker’s votes in the Legislature and measures he has signed into law as governor restricting access to abortion services. Planned Parenthood rates the Republican and Democratic 2016 contenders more broadly, on access to abortion, affordable birth control and family planning. Like most of the other GOP hopefuls, Walker was given a red X on each measure, rather than a green checkmark. Planned Parenthood notes that besides wanting to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, Walker tried to repeal a law requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and defunded Planned Parenthood, which is something Walker himself highlights in his campaign speeches. The website of the National Right to Life Committee, meanwhile, highlights the records of President Barack Obama and his four most recent predecessors, dating back to the late Ronald Reagan, but doesn’t do any ratings. So let’s look more closely at Walker and the three most recent GOP presidents, dating back to Reagan. Walker vs. Bushes, Reagan Walker’s basic position is clear. In 2010, a week before he was elected to his first term as governor, we rated True a claim that Walker wants to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. He acknowledged that was his position. As Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin told us, since then, Walker has not contradicted that position in words or actions. In fact, Walker has underscored his support for banning abortion without exceptions commonly accepted by other abortion opponents. In March 2015, Walker released an "open letter on life," which began by noting that he had "earned a 100 percent rating with pro-life groups in Wisconsin." And in June 2015, Walker pledged to sign legislation to ban abortions in Wisconsin after 20 weeks -- with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. That measure was passed by the Legislature the next month and is awaiting Walker’s signature. No recent Republican president has gone so far in opposing exceptions. As president, George H.W. Bush (1989-’93) and George W. Bush (2001-’09) both supported allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The elder Bush said in 1992 he said: "My own position on abortion is well-known and remains unchanged. I oppose abortion in all cases except rape or incest or where the life of the mother is at stake." The younger Bush declared in 2006: ''My position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother." Meanwhile, Reagan (1981-’89), an idol of Walker’s, was closer to Walker’s position. He didn’t support an exception for rape or incest, but did support one to protect the life of the mother. In 1987, he promoted a bill with a provision that "no funds appropriated by Congress shall be used to perform abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term." Our rating Baldwin said Walker's views on abortion are more restrictive "than any Republican president in recent times." Walker supports outlawing abortion in all circumstances. The three most recent GOP presidents each supported exceptions, such as allowing abortion to protect the life of the mother. We rate Baldwin’s statement True.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2015-07-16T11:22:44	2015-06-03	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-01931	Brad Pitt Going Public With Sienna Miller “Romance,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-sienna-miller-public-romance-dating/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Brad Pitt NOT Going Public With Sienna Miller “Romance,” Despite Report	11:41 pm, January 1, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03778	Says U.S. greenhouse gas "emissions are at 20-year lows."	/texas/statements/2013/apr/01/joe-barton/joe-barton-says-domestic-greenhouse-gas-emissions-/	As President Barack Obama brought up his interest in addressing global warming, a Texas congressman said U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, widely believed to be fueling climate change, are on the decline. "DID YOU KNOW?" Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, wrote on Twitter during Obama’s Feb. 12, 2013, State of the Union address. "U.S. GHG emissions are at 20-year lows while global emissions are rising." Global emissions have been on the upswing. The Environmental Protection Agency says on a web page that global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels "increased by over 16 times between 1900 and 2008 and by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008." Separately, the government’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center contributed to a December 2012 "discussion paper" stating that in 2011, estimated global carbon dioxide emissions due to burning fossil fuels and making cement were up 3 percent from 2010. We checked on Barton’s claim that domestic greenhouse gas emissions are at a 20-year low. By email, Barton spokesman Sean Brown pointed out an August 2012 web post by the U.S. Energy Information Administration stating that estimated U.S. carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy use during the first three months of 2012 "were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period." Brown also noted the Environmental Protection Agency saying in an online chart that as of 2010, concentrations of five common air pollutants--carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide--had decreased from 30 years earlier. This information did not speak to all greenhouse gases, as Barton had, but carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Perry Lindstrom, an economist with the Energy Information Administration, emailed us a spreadsheet indicating that the nation’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were estimated at 1,339 million metric tons in the first quarter of 1992 and at a slightly higher amount, 1,344 million metric tons, for the comparable months of 2012. In the intervening years, first-quarter emissions topped out at 1,580 million metric tons in 2004 and bottomed out at 1,364 million metric tons in 1993, according to the spreadsheet. Then again, the first quarter of 2012 was unusual, the agency said in its post. "Normally," the agency wrote, carbon dioxide "emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels." But such emissions were lower at the start of 2012 thanks to a mild winter, which reduced heating demand and energy use, the agency said, with other factors including a decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to low natural gas prices, and reduced gasoline demand. Still, the 2012 first-quarter emissions were lower than they had been in the first part of the year in 19 years. However, Lindstrom said by telephone, he would hesitate to reach conclusions solely by comparing emissions in part of a year to emissions in part of another year in contrast to looking, say, decade to decade. At our request, he provided a spreadsheet comparing energy-related carbon dioxide emissions for the 10 months through October 2012 to such emissions over the comparable part of each previous year over two decades. Our thinking was that this would deliver a longer view based on the latest information available when Barton tweeted. And according to this spreadsheet, the estimated emissions from January through October 2012, 4,386 metric tons, were the lowest 10-month total since 1995--17 years earlier--when such emissions totaled 4,385 metric tons. Going forward, Lindstrom pointed out, his agency projects U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to remain below 2005 levels through 2040. Jim Butler, director of global monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory, said by phone that such levelling out makes sense due to improvements in energy efficiency and shifts to fuel sources with less of a carbon footprint than coal. Mindful that Barton’s tweet said greenhouse gas emissions were at a 20-year low, we looked next at emissions of methane, nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride as estimated in the Environmental Protection Agency’s April 2012 inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions--the latest inventory that would have been available when Barton tweeted. (The agency’s 2013 "draft inventory" was posted online Feb. 22, 2013.) The 2012 inventory indicates that total emissions of three gases were higher in 2010 than 1990, while emissions of four others were lower. In keeping with Barton’s 20-year window, we used the inventory figures to gauge the difference between estimated emissions of each greenhouse gas in 2010 and 1990: --Carbon dioxide emissions in 2010 were 12 percent greater than in 1990; --Methane emissions were lower by 0.3 percent; --Nitrous oxide emissions were lower by 3 percent; --Hydrofluorocarbon emissions were higher by more than 200 percent; --Perfluorocarbons were lower by 73 percent; --Sulfur hexafluoride emissions were lower by 57 percent. Taking all the greenhouse gases into account, according to the inventory, overall emissions were 11 percent higher in 2010 than 1990--and also up 3 percent from 2009, when total emissions dipped considerably during the national recession. Aside from 2009, the previous year with lower greenhouse gas emissions than 2010 was 1997, according to the inventory. Our ruling The congressman said domestic greenhouse gas emissions are at a 20-year low. This statement depends on a comparison of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions—not all greenhouse gases--over three unusually warm winter months of 2012 to such emissions in the same months of 1992. But the latest information available when Barton tweeted indicates that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were higher in 2010 than they were 20 years earlier, though the 2010 emissions were lower than they were 13 years earlier. We rate this claim Mostly False. CORRECTION, 10:42 a.m. April 8, 2013: Thanks to a reader's nudge, this story was amended to say that the discussed levels of carbon dioxide were in millions of metric tons, not metric tons alone. This did not affect our original rating of the claim.	None	Joe Barton	None	None	None	2013-04-01T10:00:00	2013-02-12	['United_States']
-snes-00275	Did Outback Steakhouse Announce They Are Banning Supporters of President Donald Trump?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/outback-trump-supporters/	None	Junk News	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Outback Steakhouse Announce They Are Banning Supporters of President Donald Trump?	1 August 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12332	A political map circulated by Sarah Palin’s PAC incited Rep. Gabby Giffords’ shooting	/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/15/new-york-times-editorial-board/no-evidence-sarah-palins-pac-incited-shooting-rep-/	After a lone gunman opened fire on Republican lawmakers June 14 while they practiced baseball, the New York Times published an editorial that broadly condemned political violence but sparked controversy with a claim about the motive behind a 2011 attack on a Democratic member of Congress. The New York Times has since issued a correction following broad criticism. The original editorial claimed that maps circulated by Sarah Palin's PAC amounted to "political incitement," which the authors said was clearly linked to the subsequent 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz. "In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear," the uncorrected editorial read. "Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs." The editorial, penned amid the frenzy of the mass shooting, sought to connect the attack on GOP lawmakers with the 2011 Giffords shooting to make a broader point about politically motivated violence. The piece reasoned that the latest attack, which left the gunman dead and four injured, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R–La., was probably "evidence of how vicious American politics has become," and that the shooter’s derangement "found its fuel in politics." The editorial ran into trouble when it turned its focus to the Giffords shooting, so we decided to explore why the connection between Palin’s PAC and Loughner’s motivation is problematic. What we know about the Giffords shooters’ motivations According to news reports, Loughner became fixated on Giffords several years before his Jan. 8, 2011, shooting rampage that killed six and injured 14, including the Arizona congresswoman. Loughner first met Giffords in 2007 at a community event where he asked her a question and was "unsatisfied with her answer," CNN reported. It was at this point he developed a fixation for the lawmaker. Several years elapsed between the time Loughner first met Giffords and when Palin posted a note to Facebook that linked to her political action committee. The PAC circulated a map of House Democrats' districts (not individual members) the GOP would seek to recapture. According to the Washington Post, there is no evidence Loughner was aware of Palin's maps. And according to an interview with one of Loughner's high school friends, the gunman did not watch the news. His rampage was akin to "shooting at the world," said Loughner’s friend Zach Osler. Loughner was ultimately sentenced to serve seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years, without the possibility of parole. New York Times’ correction The uncorrected editorial appeared in today’s print version of the newspaper, and was available online between roughly 9 p.m. June 14 and 10 a.m. June 15, a spokesperson said. At some point before 11 a.m. this morning, staffers removed the language about the clear link between political incitement and Giffords’ shooting, and issued the following correction: "An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords," the correction reads. "In fact, no such link was established." The New York Times’ Opinion twitter account also issued a pair of mea culpas. "We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. No link was ever established," read the first tweet from the NYT Opinion account. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com A follow-up tweet read: "We're sorry about this and we appreciate that our readers called us on the mistake. We've corrected the editorial." Around 4 p.m., the New York Times amended its correction to clarify its description of the maps distributed by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. "The editorial has also been updated to clarify that in a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting, electoral districts, not Democratic lawmakers, were depicted beneath stylized cross hairs," it read. Our ruling The New York Times editorial board said a political map circulated by Palin’s PAC incited Rep. Gabby Giffords’ shooting. We were unable to find evidence Loughner was even aware of the maps, and a friend told an interviewer Loughner did not closely watch the news. The New York Times corrected its story some 13 hours after publication to say no such link has been established between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords. At PolitiFact, our rulings are based on when a statement was made. This claim rates False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	New York Times Editorial Board	None	None	None	2017-06-15T18:27:34	2017-06-14	['Gabrielle_Giffords', 'Sarah_Palin']
-chct-00340	FACT CHECK: Trump Claims Yearly GDP Never Hit 3% Under Obama	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/31/fact-check-trump-claims-gdp-never-hit-3-under-obama/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	1:20 PM 08/31/2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00188	Says Rep. Martha McSally "has repeatedly tried to limit women’s access to birth control, and she even cosponsored a bill to make contraception more expensive for women."	/arizona/statements/2018/oct/19/arizona-democratic-party/it-true-martha-mcsally-backed-bill-make-birth-cont/	The Arizona Democratic Party claims that Republican U.S. Rep. Martha McSally’s stance on women’s health care is a reason why she shouldn’t be voted into the U.S. Senate. "Martha has repeatedly tried to limit women’s access to birth control, and she even cosponsored a bill to make contraception more expensive for women," said a claim on marthaforsenate.com, a website paid for by the Arizona Democratic Party highlighting "what McSally doesn't want you to know." McSally is facing Democratic U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema in the Nov. 6 election. We wondered if McSally backed a bill to make birth control more expensive for women. Under the Affordable Care Act, most women don’t have to pay out-of-pocket for prescribed birth control. McSally supported a bill to make it easier for contraceptive drugs to be sold without a prescription — meaning insurers wouldn’t have to pay for those pills, women would. The bill McSally co-sponsored The Arizona Democratic Party is referring to the Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act, introduced January 2017 by Rep. Mia Love, R-Utah, and co-sponsored by McSally. The bill seeks to facilitate the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process for contraceptive drugs, and to make them available over-the-counter (without a prescription) for individuals 18 years old and older. (Prescriptions would be needed for women younger than 18.) The proposal also seeks to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 to allow the use of health savings accounts and health flexible spending accounts to pay for drugs without a prescription. Under the Affordable Care Act, most women don’t pay out-of-pocket for FDA-approved birth control prescribed by a doctor. Most private health insurance plans can’t charge women a co-pay or co-insurance for covered contraceptive methods, patient education and counseling. (Exceptions apply; certain exempt religious employers don't have to provide the coverage.) The Arizona Democratic Party says that since the McSally-supported bill makes contraceptive drugs available without a prescription, insurers won’t have to pay for them. Women would cover the costs. The Democratic group also noted that McSally voted in favor of repealing the Affordable Care Act. McSally’s campaign argued that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage is "meaningless" for people without health insurance. "Allowing people without health insurance to purchase over-the-counter contraceptives provides a new pathway that was not previously available and may be the only source of affordable contraceptives," said Torunn Sinclair, McSally’s campaign spokeswoman. If contraceptive drugs became available over-the-counter, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and states can still specify that they be covered by insurance, Sinclair added. She said the availability of over-the-counter products could also increase competition in the market and drive down prices, and save time and costs related to doctor’s visits. The bill McSally supports intends for over-the-counter birth control to complement, not substitute for prescribed contraceptives, Sinclair said. Experts weigh in It’s not necessarily that the cost of the contraception would increase or decrease under McSally’s proposal. Rather, it is that the out-of-pocket expenses to the consumer could increase if over-the-counter pills are not covered by insurance, said Britt Wahlin, vice president for development and public affairs at Ibis Reproductive Health, an international organization seeking to expand women’s access to contraceptives. "In essence, it is correct that over-the-counter contraception could be more expensive for a woman if it is not covered by insurance and she currently has insurance covering her pills," Wahlin said. Since there’s no language in the McSally-backed bill saying over-the-counter contraceptives would be covered through insurance, women could end up paying out-of-pocket if they choose over-the-counter drugs, said Usha Ranji, an associate director for Women’s Health Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "There is concern and speculation" that the bill was introduced and backed by conservatives to undermine the Affordable Care Act coverage, said Susan F. Wood, a health policy professor and director of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. "On the surface it appears to be expanding access," Wood said. "But unless you solve the cost problem for insured people, you are in fact reducing access." The McSally-backed proposal seeks to allow women to use health savings accounts to pay for non-prescription drugs, but that’s not how most people pay for their medication and it’s not a substitute for insurance coverage, experts said. "(Flexible spending accounts) put the burden for covering costs entirely on the consumer and don’t have much benefit for lower income people," Wahlin said. Over-the-counter birth control pills can expand access to safe, effective contraception for women who are uninsured, who live far from health care facilities, or who do not have access to a clinic system — but an affordable retail price is also necessary, Wahlin said. As McSally’s campaign noted, some states have passed laws so insurers pay for over-the-counter contraceptives. But experts said that varies per state and per insurer and could still leave some women paying out-of-pocket for birth control pills. Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy nonprofit that supports women’s access to birth control, in 2015 said that a bill introduced in the Senate (similar to the one McSally supports) was "flawed because it rests on the false assumption" that switching a drug from prescription-only to over-the-counter "will inevitably lower its costs." Guttmacher said that the only available example of an over-the-counter hormonal contraceptive was emergency contraception, and that its cost remained high since the prescription requirement was removed. Some experts also say that if the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage is eliminated, women would end up paying for other methods that still require prescription. Even if one type of birth control pill is approved by the FDA as over-the-counter, there are other oral contraceptives that would likely remain on prescription, and there are still other forms of birth control that cannot be over-the-counter, such as IUDs (intrauterine devices), said Lucia DiVenere, a government and political affairs officer for The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Our ruling The Arizona Democratic Party said, McSally "has repeatedly tried to limit women’s access to birth control, cosponsored a bill to make contraception more expensive for women." Under the Affordable Care Act, most women don’t have to pay for birth control if its prescribed. McSally voted to repeal the health care law. The bill McSally supports seeks to make contraceptive drugs available over-the-counter, which would increase access. But experts said that without language in the bill saying over-the-counter contraception would be covered by insurance, women could go from not paying to paying. Some states have passed laws to ensure no-cost contraceptive coverage, but that approach could leave women in some states paying out-of-pocket. The Arizona Democratic Party’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Arizona Democratic Party	None	None	None	2018-10-19T12:15:00	2018-10-04	['None']
-pomt-13934	Says "Michael Bennet votes for President Obama's agenda 98 percent of the time. Hardly independent, hardly bipartisan."	/colorado/statements/2016/jun/22/ryan-frazier/gop-foe-close-saying-bennet-votes-98-obama-wrong-c/	At a recent debate, Colorado U.S. Senate candidate Ryan Frazier made a plea for party unity with his opponents. "We as Republicans must unify, because the stakes are that important. And I believe any of us on this stage would be a heck of a lot better than Michael Bennet," said Frazier, a former Aurora city councilman, referring to Colorado’s incumbent Democratic senator. "You see, Michael Bennet votes for President Obama's agenda 98 percent of the time. Hardly independent, hardly bipartisan," Frazier stressed. (Watch debate video clip, courtesy KKTV) It’s a no-brainer for a Republican candidate to portray Bennet as marching in lockstep with a president who’s unpopular with GOP primary voters. Frazier is among five Republicans scrapping to win the June 28 primary and a shot at toppling Bennet in the general election. So let’s look deeper at Frazier’s claim that Bennet votes for Obama's agenda 98 percent of the time, and whether that makes him "hardly independent, hardly bipartisan." Here’s Bennet’s presidential support rate since he and Obama took office in 2009, according to CQ: Year Presidential support rate 2009 96.2 percent 2010 98.4 percent 2011 95.5 percent 2012 98.7 percent 2013 98.2 percent 2014 99.3 percent 2015 89.7 percent We asked the Frazier campaign for evidence supporting the statement. The campaign cited a Jan. 12 online statement by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which cited the annual percentage of Bennet’s votes where he supported the president’s position from 2009 through 2014. The average for those years is 97.5 percent, which rounds up to 98 percent, the figure Frazier cited. The NRSC attributed the data to CQ Roll Call, a nonpartisan news service that tracks congressional data. But the NRSC statement misstated the percentage for Bennet’s 2014 votes with Obama as "100 Percent Of The Time." CQ’s Vote Watch database says Bennet voted with Obama 99.3 percent of the time in 2014. The NRSC also left out data for 2015, when Bennet backed the president’s positions 89.7 percent of the time, according to CQ. When we add the 2015 voting data, Bennet’s seven-year average of voting with the president is 96.57 percent — just a bit lower than Frazier’s claim of 98 percent. However, Bennet’s campaign spokesman Andrew Zucker said it’s easy to use the CQ figures to distort a lawmaker’s overall record in Congress. Zucker noted that Bennet has opposed Obama’s plans when they conflict with Colorado’s interest. He successfully fought the administration’s 2010 plan to slash funding for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory in Fort Collins that is working to combat the Zika virus. He also pushed back against the administration’s proposal to cut funding for the Orion aerospace program in Colorado that supported 1,000 jobs in the state. Bennet has also voted against the president on major issues. He was one of nine Democrats to side with Republicans on a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama vetoed that bill and Bennet voted for an unsuccessful effort to override the veto. Inside presidential support ratings Here’s some background to keep in mind when sifting through CQ’s presidential support statistics. First of all, they only deal with a fraction of votes cast by Bennet. CQ only counts those votes where the president takes a "clear position" on an issue. For example, according to CQ, Obama only staked out a position on 145 of the 366 votes the Senate took in 2014. And the vast majority of the presidential support votes in 2014 — 125, or 86 percent — involved a glut of presidential nominees for federal posts, because the Democrats controlled the Senate then and had lowered the threshold for approving most nominees from 60 votes to a simple majority, CQ reported. In fact, in every year but 2009 (40 percent), a majority of the votes Obama has supported were on his nominees. Bennet called ‘party loyalist’ and ‘bipartisan problem solver’ While Frazier calls Bennet "hardly independent, hardly bipartisan," there is evidence the senator works across the aisle. Last year, the Washington Post ranked him fifth among Democratic senators who "vote against their party the most." The chart below shows how often Bennet has voted with Senate Democrats, compared to how the party majority voted, according to CQ. Bennet voted closest with the Democratic Party in 2014 -- he voted 98.8 percent to the party’s average of 98.6 percent -- but his support for the party’s position dropped down to 82.9 percent in 2015. Over seven years, Bennet voted with the Democratic Party on average 91.29 percent of the time — a few points less than the average for all Democratic senators voting with the party (94.51 percent) during that period. A CQ profile of the senator said, "Bennet has played dual roles, as a party loyalist and a bipartisan problem solver." As a Democratic loyalist, he’s fought to protect Medicare, saying, "We can’t attempt to balance the nation’s budget on the backs of our seniors," CQ reported. Wearing his problem-solver hat, Bennet worked with Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah to win FDA support for "breakthrough therapies" legislation in 2012 that sped approval of new drug treatment for cystic fibrosis, lung cancer and leukemia. Bennet often joins groups seeking compromise Bennet has been a frequent member of bipartisan groups of lawmakers working to find compromise on major legislation, the CQ profile said. He was one of three Democratic senators to oppose the January 2013 "fiscal cliff" deal, which averted income tax increases on earnings under $400,000 but didn’t cut federal spending — a deal-breaker for Bennet. Bennet, a former Denver Public Schools superintendent, has earned praise from Republicans for reaching across the aisle, including for his work on the overhaul of the No Child Left Behind law. "Michael understands that the Senate is a place where you have extended debate on important subjects and work across party lines until you come to a consensus — that’s how you get a result, and that’s how you govern a complex country," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate education committee, told the Denver Post in 2015. Our ruling Frazier said, "Michael Bennet votes for President Obama's agenda 98 percent of the time. Frazier cited the frequency of Bennet voting with the president as proof he is "hardly independent, hardly bipartisan." In this case, Bennet is close on the available numbers, but they don’t indicate a blind allegiance to Obama’s agenda, as Frazier argues. CQ data show Bennet voting for the president’s position on legislation an average of 96.57 percent over seven years. That’s just over 1 percentage point below Frazier’s figure. However, the CQ data distorts the senator’s voting record, because a majority of the time the president expresses his position is when a vote involves someone he’s nominated for a federal post. There is also independent support for the view that Bennet is a "bipartisan" lawmaker who works with and votes with Republicans more often than the Senate’s Democratic caucus as a whole. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate this claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4eba460d-d293-4da3-8c23-fa09fb1c845f	None	Ryan Frazier	None	None	None	2016-06-22T15:54:01	2016-06-08	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-05839	Says a 1915 referendum on women’s right to vote "went down in New Jersey. And it took the Legislature to pass it."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/16/loretta-weinberg/loretta-weinberg-claims-new-jersey-voted-down-1915/	The results of a referendum nearly a century ago shows the rights of one group should not be determined by public vote, according to a New Jersey senator opposed to a state referendum on gay marriage. Asked in a recent interview about Gov. Chris Christie’s desire to let New Jersey voters decide whether to allow marriage between same-sex couples, Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said, "we’re not going to do that." "So he can want to do it, but there is a strong feeling, and I know the feeling on the part of our Senate President Steve Sweeney, that we don't put equal justice ideas on the ballot. The last time that happened in New Jersey apparently was around 1915, it was women's right to vote, women's suffrage. And by the way, it went down in New Jersey. And it took the Legislature to pass it," Weinberg said in a Feb. 7 appearance on NJToday. PolitiFact New Jersey found Weinberg is right. In 1915, the men of New Jersey decided a woman’s place was not in the voting booth. Five years later, the state Legislature ratified the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which confirmed a woman’s right to vote. Here’s the history: Under New Jersey’s 1776 state Constitution, women were not specifically excluded from the right to vote. And some women did vote, according to "Reclaiming Lost Ground: The Struggle for Woman Suffrage in New Jersey" by Neale McGoldrick and Margaret Crocco. It is estimated that as many as 10,000 women in New Jersey voted between 1790 and 1807, the year the state Legislature restricted voting rights to men. Suffragists waged state and national campaigns. Though some states succeeded in granting women the right to vote before the federal amendment was ratified in 1920, states on the East Coast struggled, "challenged by political bosses, liquor interests, and others who feared that woman suffrage would result in prohibition," McGoldrick and Crocco wrote. By 1915, suffragists in New Jersey -- as well as in New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania -- managed to put a woman’s right to vote on the ballot. All four measures failed. In New Jersey, more than 184,000 residents voted against the referendum, compared with more than 133,000 who voted for it. Majorities in every county voted the ballot question down, except for Ocean County where it passed by less than 160 votes, according to a breakdown of the vote from the New Jersey Historical Society. "New Jersey law did not permit the amendment to be reintroduced into the Legislature for five years. Since the amendment had to be submitted to two successive Legislatures for approval, this meant that a New Jersey amendment was at least seven years off," according to McGoldrick and Crocco. But women in New Jersey didn’t have to wait seven years. In 1919, Congress passed the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declared no citizen could be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex. The New Jersey Legislature ratified the amendment in 1920, making the state the 29th to do so. Our ruling Weinberg claimed that when women’s suffrage was put to a referendum in 1915 "it went down in New Jersey. And it took the Legislature to pass it." Nearly a century ago, New Jersey defeated a measure giving women the right to vote by 184,390 to 133,282. Five years later, the state Legislature ratified the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We rate this claim True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Loretta Weinberg	None	None	None	2012-02-16T07:30:00	2012-02-07	['New_Jersey']
-snes-02068	A photograph shows Eric and Donald Trump Jr., sons of President Donald Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-sons-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This a Real Photograph of Donald Trump’s Older Sons?	16 July 2017	None	['Donald_Trump']
-goop-02851	Gwen Stefani Did Dump Blake Shelton, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-dump-blake-shelton-split-breakup/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani Did NOT Dump Blake Shelton, Despite Report	10:19 am, April 19, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10015	AIG "said they were giving $57 million (in retention payments) to people who were being terminated."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/18/elijah-cummings/AIG-retention-bonuses-employees-plans-to-terminate/	Often lost in the raging debate over $165 million in bonuses paid to AIG employees — amid a $170 billion taxpayer-funded bailout — is the fact that these were not performance bonuses, they were "retention awards." Essentially, they were payments made to employees to keep them from leaving the crumbling company. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., has been railing against the retention bonuses for months, but this week he came across a line in a recent AIG filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that really galled him. "Keep in mind, in their filings — AIG's recent filings — they said they were giving $57 million to people who were being terminated," Cummings said in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America on March 16. "I mean, that goes in the opposite direction of retention. And I really do think the American people are being played for fools by AIG." Sure enough, if you go to page 222 of AIG's 10-K filing last month, you'll find this line: "Restructuring expenses include $44 million of retention awards and Total amount expected to be incurred includes $57 million for retention awards for employees expected to be terminated." What? Retention bonuses to people you don't plan to...you know...retain? "As part of restructuring the company, we will ultimately eliminate jobs that are, at the moment, critical to maintaining ongoing operations and winding down certain businesses," Christina Pretto, an AIG spokeswoman, told Bloomberg. "To have one of these positions obviously implies an uncertain future, and creates an incentive to leave the company. To retain such mission-critical people, we are making retention payments to them." In all, AIG committed to $1 billion worth of retention payments. In a Dec. 5, 2008, letter to Rep. Cummings, AIG chairman and CEO Edward Liddy said retaining key employees is critical for the company to maintain its standing in the eyes of reinsurers and rating agencies, and ultimately is essential for AIG to recoup as much as it can for taxpayers. "We would be doing a disservice to the taxpayer — and would place AIG's asset divestiture plan at risk — if we did not act decisively to ensure that our key employees remain with the company," said Liddy, who took over the reins at AIG in September at the government's request. With the company posting monstrous losses, we should note that these retention payments will essentially be paid through the infusion of cash from the taxpayer-funded bailouts. At the moment, the retention payments that have drawn the most scorn are those to employees in the financial products division, the folks that got the insurance conglomerate into the deep mess it's currently in. Those agreements predate the company bailouts by the federal government. Back in April 2008 and "due to the declining market environment," the company established an employee retention plan with financial products employees "to manage and unwind its complex business," according to SEC filings. An installment payment on those retention bonuses came due on March 15 to the tune of $165 million. That's the payment that triggered the recent political storm. According to a letter sent by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to House Financial Services Charman Barney Frank on March 17, 73 employees got retention bonuses of $1 million or more; and 11 of them are no longer working at AIG (including one who got $4.6 million). In all, the New York attorney general's office found that 52 of the 418 employees who got the retention bonuses have left the company. Liddy said the retention bonuses amounted to going to those employees and saying, "You have a job. That job's going to go away after you wind down the book of business that you manage. If you'll stay..." In a congressional hearing on March 18, Frank asked if those who got retention bonuses and then left had to give back their bonus. "No," Liddy said. "The arrangement is, if you stay, wind down your particular business, do a good job of it, and we're comfortable with the job you've done, you'll get that retention bonus." "I'm trying desperately to prevent an uncontrolled collapse of that business," Liddy said. "This is the only way to improve AIG's ability to pay taxpayers back quickly and completely and the only way to avoid a systemic shock to the economy that the U.S. government help was meant to relieve. Make no mistake. Had I been CEO at the time, I would never have approved the retention contracts that were put in place over a year ago. It was distasteful to have to make these payments, but we concluded that the risk to the company and, therefore, the financial system in the economy, were unacceptably high. And if not paid, we ran the risk that we would have happen what everyone has worked so hard thus far not to have happen." Liddy said he has since asked employees of AIG Financial Products "to step up and do the right thing. Specifically, I've asked those who received retention payments in excess of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments." Some have already stepped forward, he said, and offered to give up a hundred percent of their payments. Meanwhile, legislators have been scrambling to find ways to wiggle out of the retention contracts, with some threatening to pass legislation such that if the bonuses aren't returned, they will be taxed to nothing. In a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Liddy vowed to do everything he could to reduce 2009 retention payments by at least 30 percent. But he also warned that messing with commitments to employees could lead to a mass exodus that could threaten the company's ability to make taxpayers whole. "On the one hand, all of us at AIG recognize the environment in which we operate and the remonstrations of our president for a more restrained system of compensation for executives," Liddy said. "On the other hand, we cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of the American taxpayers — if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury." Cummings isn't buying that. In a statement provided to PolitiFact, Cummings said that while he "understands where AIG is coming from in this argument, when I look at the bigger picture here, I just do not see this as being a reasonable argument for several reasons. First, it is simply unnecessary to give a $4 million bonus to someone who is already making $1 million a year — we are talking about quadrupling an annual salary — to keep someone at a company when the job market is as weak as it is. In these times, a weekly paycheck is all the retention payment anybody needs. Second, AIG is losing employees anyway, despite offering these retention payments. And, if you think about it, this makes sense. What employee is going to stay with a company when the company announces that it is liquidating its assets? This company has suffered the greatest quarterly loss in the history of corporate record-keeping in this country. Third, I just do not believe that the company is implementing the retention program in the most efficient and effective manner. I could possibly understand giving retention payments to a handful of top employees to keep them — but thousands of employees? I just cannot fathom how there can be thousands of indispensable employees right now, when there are hundreds of thousands of people in the financial sector who have lost their jobs." David Schmidt, a consultant at executive pay firm James F. Reda & Associates, said retention award programs are fairly common for companies that are in trouble. "That doesn't mean you can't be annoyed by it," he said. But the bottom line, he said, is that if the government figures out a way not to pay the bonuses, it likely means "a lot of these folks are just going to leave." The reality, Schmidt said, is that many of these employees are in high demand. This is a complex issue, and much of the detail about the retention bonuses has not yet been publicly revealed. And it's certainly debatable whether the company needs to be paying such large retention bonuses to so many employees. But the fact we are checking here is whether AIG plans to spend $57 million on retention awards for people it expects to terminate in the future. And the answer, according to the company's recent SEC filings, is yes. We rule the statement True.	None	Elijah Cummings	None	None	None	2009-03-18T17:27:19	2009-03-16	['None']
-pomt-04811	Ted Cruz is "unknown to the vast majority of Texans."	/texas/statements/2012/aug/20/paul-sadler/paul-sadler-says-ted-cruz-unknown-vast-majority-te/	The night that Ted Cruz won the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, the Democrats’ nominee characterized Cruz as an inexperienced man of mystery. In his July 31, 2012, statement, former state Rep. Paul Sadler, who also won a runoff that night, said: "Because of low turnout and outside money, a loud angry mob inside the Republican Party... nominated Ted Cruz who is untested, untried and unknown to the vast majority of Texans." Cruz, an attorney and the state’s former solicitor general, is making his first run for office. Voters can judge how tested and tried he is. Is it accurate to say he's widely unknown? By telephone, Sadler said he was trying to underscore Cruz’s lack of a legislative voting record and his belief that "we don’t know how he’ll react in the legislative process." Cruz, he said, is unknown in that way. "If that’s not said properly, I’ll concede that," Sadler said. An alternative read of Sadler’s statement is that he was saying that Cruz is unknown, in all ways, to most Texans. According to poll results, in contrast, Cruz’s name recognition grew in the months leading to his runoff against the previously front-running hopeful, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. In the run-up, those candidates and outside groups spent more than $35 million, according to a pre-runoff Texas Tribune analysis posted July 30, 2012. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-leaning North Carolina firm, and the University of Texas/Texas Tribune each conducted relevant polls of voters. In an April 2012 poll of 591 Texas voters, most of them Republican, Cruz had 41 percent name recognition, Public Policy Polling spokesman Tom Jensen told us by email. Poll respondents were asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Cruz. Some 19 percent said favorable, 22 percent said unfavorable and 59 percent had no opinion. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points. So, a majority of voters may have then been unaware of Cruz, though a poll taken the next month, before Cruz finished second to Dewhurst in the May 29, 2012, primary, suggests Cruz’s profile was on the rise. In the May 2012 UT/Texas Tribune poll of 800 randomly selected registered voters, each respondent was asked "whether you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, neither favorable nor unfavorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable opinion of Ted Cruz." Some 58 percent of the respondents, who were not just Republicans, had an opinion, while 42 percent said they did not know enough to have an opinion. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. (In the poll, 36 percent of respondents had an opinion of Sadler, 63 percent said they did not know enough about him to have one.) UT professor Daron Shaw, who helped conduct the poll, told us by email that he is unaware of empirical evidence supporting Sadler’s claim. Cruz became especially well known among active Republicans, later polls indicate. An Ohio pollster, Fritz Wenzel, polled 600 likely Texas Republican runoff voters on behalf of Citizens United, a group backing Cruz. Wenzel told us by telephone that 93 percent of the respondents in the July 2012 poll had an opinion of Cruz, while 7 percent did not know enough to have one. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.98 percentage points. Wenzel said it makes sense that likely GOP runoff voters are the most likely to know Cruz. "The people least likely to know him are Democratic and independent voters, and we did not sample them," he said. Still, Wenzel called Sadler’s claim "badly overblown. (Cruz) is clearly known to most Republican voters and that is a universe that comprises at least close to, if not more than, half the Texas electorate. Republicans have not lost a statewide race since 1994. Also in July, Public Policy Polling polled 665 likely Republican runoff voters; 85 percent had an opinion of Cruz with 53 percent favorable, 32 percent unfavorable. The poll’s margin of error was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. Broadly, PPP spokesman Jensen said, he imagines the current share of Texans familiar with Cruz falls between 41 and 85 percent -- "in the 60s," he said, "but I don’t know for sure." Our ruling Sadler said Cruz is unknown to the vast majority of Texans. He told us this was a reference to Cruz’s lack of a legislative record, not his name recognition. We’ll grant that intention, though Sadler’s claim did not read that way to us. The facts are that Cruz is widely known among Republican voters and may be known by around 60 percent of all voters. This claim has an element of truth -- Cruz’s lack of a legislative record. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Paul Sadler	None	None	None	2012-08-20T06:00:00	2012-07-31	['Ted_Cruz', 'Texas']
-goop-00909	Christina Aguilera, Demi Lovato In Power Struggle Before Billboard Music Awards Performance?	https://www.gossipcop.com/christina-aguilera-demi-lovato-billboard-music-awards-power-struggle-divas-untrue/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Christina Aguilera, Demi Lovato In Power Struggle Before Billboard Music Awards Performance?	9:59 am, May 31, 2018	None	['Christina_Aguilera']
-pomt-01152	"Site selectors who decide where businesses expand or relocate shun closed shop states like Wisconsin in favor of Right to Work states like Iowa, Indiana and Michigan."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/dec/17/wisconsin-manufacturers-and-commerce/wmcs-kurt-bauer-says-businesses-favor-right-work-s/	Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s first term was marked by a flood of pro-business legislation. With Walker poised to start a second term in January 2015, the state’s leading business lobby -- Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce -- wants Walker and Republicans to press further in the name of creating a better business climate. Tops on the legislative agenda for the group, at least based on a Dec. 8, 2014 opinion piece by its president and CEO Kurt Bauer, is so-called right-to-work legislation. "Should joining a private-sector union be voluntary as it is in 24 states or should it be mandatory?" Bauer wrote. He added: "Beyond the personal freedom component to this debate is the economic development argument. It is well-known that site selectors who decide where businesses expand or relocate shun closed shop states like Wisconsin in favor of Right to Work states like Iowa, Indiana and Michigan." Iowa’s right to work law dates to 1947. Indiana and Michigan approved the change in 2012. One four-letter word caught our attention in Bauer’s piece: "shun." Is Wisconsin getting shut out of business expansion because it allows private employers to sign contracts with unions that require all covered employees to join the union? A closer look We started by asking Bauer about the term "site selectors." Bauer told us it refers to CEOs and consulting firms who help companies search for new locations. He pointed to a 2012 survey of U.S. corporate executives regarding factors they consider when choosing sites for expansion or relocation. In that survey by Area Development magazine, 72 percent said it was important or very important that a state has passed "right-to-work" legislation. Bauer noted that in a November 2012 article in the magazine, one consultant estimated that three-fourths of his firm’s clients want only locations that are in right-to-work states. That kind of anecdotal evidence was mentioned repeatedly by site-search consultants quoted in the magazine, as well as in another publication, Site Selection. Estimates vary on the strength of the preference. States will be eliminated at the first stage in "about half" of projects, one consultant told Site Selection. After Michigan passed right to work, another consultant told the publication that "it will get Michigan a few more looks on site searches, mostly industrial ones. It’s hard to know what percentage." Some consultants say manufacturing companies are more likely to steer clear of unions when compared to firms in other sectors. Wisconsin is a manufacturing-rich state. Area Development magazine framed the right to work debate this way: Businesses tend to support right-to-work because it makes unionization less likely and in turn often means lower labor costs. Unions oppose them because right to work weakens union membership and wages. "In a right-to-work state, any worker choosing not to join the union or pay for the services still gets the benefits," the magazine noted. "Unions often refer to those workers as ‘free riders,’ and because wages tend to be lower in right-to-work states, unions famously refer to the concept as ‘right-to-work for less.’ While "shun" suggests Wisconsin simply loses out when businesses are deciding where to build, even a quick peek at the state jobs agency’s website yields examples to the contrary. Global food ingredients company Kerry expanded here as did Seneca Foods; Plexus Corp. built a global headquarters in Neenah; Amazon is opening a new facility in Kenosha. The Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation "does not track whether unionization or Right to Work Laws are a factor in a company’s decision to relocate or expand in Wisconsin," jobs agency spokesman Mark Maley said. The same 2010 article Bauer cited noted that "choosing a state with a low-union profile or locating in a (right to work) state only ranked 10th and 12th respectively among a list of 26 different site selection factors," according to Area Development’s 26th Annual Corporate Survey. In the most recent Area Development survey, published in 2013, these factors were ahead of union issues: taxes, availability of buildings, energy costs, building costs, telecommunications infrastructure, skilled workforce, highway connections, government investment in workforce development. Bauer acknowledged many factors can come into play when businesses make such decisions. Responses from his group’s own survey of members show that some executives are concerned about the lack of a right to work law. But the number (15 percent) was well short of a majority. In past years, the WMC did not ask specifically about attitudes toward unionization. But that changed in 2014, the group said. Some 260 executives participated in the survey. "When asked what one thing state government can do to improve Wisconsin’s business climate, 35 percent said reduce taxes, 15 percent said become a Right to Work state and 14 percent said reform employment laws, like harmonizing the state and federal versions of family medical leave," a WMC news release noted. Our rating Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce said: "Site selectors who decide where businesses expand or relocate shun closed shop states like Wisconsin in favor of Right to Work states like Iowa, Indiana and Michigan." There’s anecdotal evidence that some firms screen out states without right to work laws when seeking to expand, and surveys of site selectors say this issue is important. But its far down the list of top concerns for many site selectors, suggesting that "shun" is too strong a term. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce	None	None	None	2014-12-17T05:00:00	2014-12-08	['Indiana', 'Michigan', 'Wisconsin', 'Iowa']
-afck-00101	“Heart disease [accounts for] four times more [deaths] than murder.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/no-heart-disease-is-not-sas-leading-cause-of-death-as-health24-tweeted/	None	None	None	None	None	No – heart disease is not SA’s leading cause of death, as Health24 tweeted	2017-09-05 11:06	None	['None']
-hoer-00625	Giant Rabbit Photographs	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-rabbit.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Giant Rabbit Photographs	July 29, 2013	None	['None']
-snes-02420	Monica Lewinsky's son "David" was found dead in Central Park.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/monica-lewinsky-son-dead/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Monica Lewinsky Have a Son Who Was Found Dead in New York City?	16 May 2017	None	['Monica_Lewinsky', 'Central_Park']
-pomt-10679	"George Bush ... used a signing statement (on a FEMA bill) to say, 'I don't have to follow that, unless I choose to.' "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/dec/17/hillary-clinton/indeed-bush-did-it-his-way/	"(Bush) used (signing statements) as essentially a form of veto," Sen. Hillary Clinton said during a Democratic debate in December 2007. "He did it through a piece of legislation I passed, where it was pretty simple. I said: 'If you're going to have a FEMA director, it should be somebody with experience handling emergencies.'... And when George Bush signed the bill it was part of, he specifically used a signing statement to say, 'I don't have to follow that, unless I choose to.''' The legislation Clinton refers to came after the federal government's lackluster response to Hurricane Katrina. Included in a 2006 spending bill for the agency, a new requirement was added that said future Federal Emergency Management Agency directors must have a "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management" and "not less than five years of executive leadership." Bush had appointed Michael "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" Brown to the top FEMA job in 2003, even though he didn't have much emergency experience. Brown was removed from his position in the poorly managed aftermath of Katrina and the background requirement for future directors was added to FEMA's budget bill. Essentially, Bush rejected the hiring requirements added to the bill. Choosing to forgo a veto, he interpreted the new law with a "signing statement," something his administration has done to challenge more than 1,100 laws — more than all previous presidents combined. (By comparison, Bush has vetoed seven.) The administration says the statements give Bush the right to ignore parts of the bill he deems unconstitutional, usually when power of the executive branch is at issue. In this Oct. 4, 2006, signing statement, Bush took exception to the minimum standards for the FEMA director because they ruled out a "large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office." Bush said he would "construe (the qualifications section) in a manner consistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution," which gives presidents wide authority to make appointments that must be approved by the Senate. It was a formal way of saying Bush believes Congress has no business trying to dictate standards for presidential appointments and that he would ignore them. So, in effect, Clinton correctly characterized Bush's response to the FEMA minimum standards. He really was saying he wouldn't follow this requirement unless he chose to do so. But there's a larger context to Bush's refusal. The Bush administration has defended and expanded the powers of the executive branch. So it's no surprise that he doesn't want Congress meddling in his hiring decisions. Historically, aside from the occasional scandal (see Teapot Dome, Watergate, Lewinsky), nothing pits the legislative branch against the executive branch more than a president's hiring and firing of personnel. In 1868, when President Andrew Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, an angry U.S. Congress impeached him. In 1989, Bush's father got acquainted with this tension when he tried to appoint Sen. John Tower as defense secretary. The confirmation hearings got so ugly, reports of Tower's heavy drinking were made public and the Senate ultimately rejected him. In 1993, Bill Clinton encountered troubles of his own, especially when he tried appointing an attorney general. Janet Reno was his third choice after Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood withdrew during a bruising confirmation process. So it's through this presidential powers prism that the Bush administration resisted the limit on hiring FEMA's chief. "The president has the authority to choose which of his subordinate officers he'll rely on," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told the Washington Post last year. "The president has the authority to determine what the relationship is between them." We're not going to try resolving the constitutional dispute that's raised here. Bush may very well be right. But just because he is, doesn't mean Clinton isn't. Her statement about how Bush viewed the background requirements for a FEMA director is True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2007-12-17T00:00:00	2007-12-13	['None']
-pomt-03084	"(Obamacare) is a bill which has never once had a majority of Americans favor it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/26/newt-gingrich/obamacare-has-never-been-favored-majority-american/	U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, made waves this week with his 21-hour Senate speech against Obamacare. While he’s the only one reading Green Eggs and Ham to his colleagues as a form of protest, he’s far from alone in his criticism of the law. CNN Crossfire host Newt Gingrich referenced public opinion on the Sept. 24, 2013, show while criticizing President Barack Obama’s health care reform. "It is a bill which has never once had a majority of Americans favor it," he said. Gingrich’s claim comes while Congress evaluates Republican-written legislation that proposes funding the government only if Obamacare is defunded. We looked at a similar claim in 2011, but it’s time to dive into the polls again. Since the Affordable Care Act was drafted in 2009, the poll numbers have been more or less consistent across different months and polling organizations: The approval rating has hovered around 40 percent recently, with about 50 percent disapproval and 10 percent no opinion. Not much has changed since then, according to a recent CNN and ORC report of all their Obamacare polling. That’s consistent with Gallup and other polling agencies. As best as we can tell, a credible poll has never turned up a figure over 50 percent. Bigger picture Gingrich was onto something with the poll results, confirmed Larry Jacobs, a University of Minnesota professor who specializes in public opinion and polling. "It’s one of those things where when you look at the number of polling organizations, the variety of question wordings, I consider that an impressive finding and a robust one," Jacobs said. However, there’s a disconnect between the poll results themselves and Gingrich’s implication that most Americans don’t want Obamacare, Jacobs added. Although the poll results are consistent with each other, they produce lower favorability ratings than polls about health care reform that refer to the "Affordable Care Act" as opposed to "Obamacare," according to CNBC. That’s because using the president’s name in a poll is "more likely to invoke a partisan prism for evaluation," said Michael Traugott, a University of Michigan professor who specializes in public opinion and polling. In those studies that ask more generally about health care reform, Republicans respond more favorably. When pollsters ask the public about individual elements of Obamacare, like coverage for pre-existing conditions, the majority favors them, Traugott said. The main exception to this rule is the individual mandate. Another caveat to the poll results Gingrich references is the fact that a sizable segment of the public is misinformed or uninformed about the details of Obamacare. In fact, four in 10 polled by the Kaiser Family Foundation in April were unaware that the Affordable Care Act is still law. So many people indicate that they don’t favor Obamacare not because they don’t agree with the policy, but because they don’t understand the policy. "Low levels of knowledge about the details of the legislation make it unlikely that there would be widespread support for it," Traugott said. Our ruling Gingrich claimed that Obamacare has never been supported by a majority of the nation. The polls themselves show that yes, approval has hovered around 40 percent for the past few years. But Gingrich eliminates the context of other polls, which show that a majority of people do approve of individual components of Obamacare. Because the statement needs clarification or additional information, we rate his claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5247c883-0e44-4a72-960c-aeb0178d3048	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2013-09-26T17:31:35	2013-09-24	['United_States']
-farg-00443	"Trump-approved 'M.A.G.A. checks'" are available if you subscribe to an investment newsletter.	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/there-are-no-m-a-g-a-checks/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['false stories']	There Are No “M.A.G.A. Checks”	April 18, 2018	2018-04-18 16:58:27 UTC	['None']
-tron-01021	ANTIFA Protesters Sabotage Emergency Services, Snip Fiber Optic Cables	https://www.truthorfiction.com/antifa-protesters-sabotage-emergency-services/	None	crime-police	None	None	['antifa', 'leftists', 'protests']	ANTIFA Protesters Sabotage Emergency Services, Snip Fiber Optic Cables	Jul 5, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03335	A "hidden" provision in the health care law taxes sporting goods as medical devices.	/georgia/statements/2013/jul/23/chain-email/errant-email-health-care-law-comes-georgia/	There’s been a lot of confusion and controversy surrounding the federal health care law, otherwise known as Obamacare. And now there’s an email being circulated that is adding to the turmoil. Gwinnett County resident Don Smith shared the email with us and asked if it was accurate. The email contained a photo of a receipt from Cabela’s, a Nebraska-based retail store that sells sporting goods, guns and camping gear. Cabela’s is not in Georgia. Underlined in yellow on the receipt is the amount charged for a "medical excise tax." "The 2.3 (percent) Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be ‘hidden’ from the consumer, but it’s been brought to the public’s attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts," the email says. The email says it went on the Internal Revenue Service’s website and did some research. "And what do I find under ‘MEDICAL DEVICES’ under ‘MANUFACTURERS TAXES?,’ " The following discussion of manufacturers taxes applies to the tax on: Sport fishing equipment; Fishing rods and fishing poles; Electric outboard motors; Fishing tackle boxes; Bows, quivers, broadheads and points; Arrow shafts; Coal; Taxable tires; Gas guzzler automobiles; and Vaccines." Our colleagues at PolitiFact Ohio recently examined a similar email and determined anyone who gets it in their inbox should put it in their trash bin. First, though, it is true that there is a medical device excise tax. The tax is designed to offset the added costs of expanding health coverage to the uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It became law at the beginning of this year. A 2.3 percent tax is imposed on some devices. The federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act has broad definitions of the types of devices that can be taxed. They’re typically devices used by physicians or medical offices. The items that cannot be taxed include eyeglasses, contact lenses and hearing aids. PolitiFact Ohio found that none of the items listed in the chain email are included as medical devices. So why would Cabela’s tax its customers? It was an error, the business told PolitiFact Ohio. A Cabela's spokesman blamed a companywide "glitch" in its sales register system. The problem added a 2.3 percent "medical excise tax" to all purchases at its stores on Jan. 1. The error was caught the same day, the spokesman said, and the charges would be refunded. Is the tax "hidden"? Obviously not, if it was included on the Cabela’s bill. The Medical Device Manufacturers Association, a Washington, D.C.-based group, has vigorously lobbied against the tax and supported congressional bills to repeal it, saying it will take money the industry uses for research and development. In a March press release, the association said manufacturers had paid $388 million in taxes to the federal government since the tax started in January. To sum up, the email claims a medical excise tax "is supposed to be hidden from the consumer." That’s incorrect. The email also implies that items that can be taxed include fishing rods and some cars. Again, incorrect. Lastly, the email says Cabela’s sporting goods store "refused to hide" the tax. Wrong. The company said it made a mistake when it taxed customers and would refund them. Delete the email if it comes your way. Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2013-07-23T00:00:00	2013-07-16	['None']
-tron-02356	Some Motel 6 Will Only Rent Rooms To Those 21 and Over	https://www.truthorfiction.com/motel-6-military/	None	military	None	None	None	Some Motel 6 Will Only Rent Rooms To Those 21 and Over	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03182	Obama and the 8 Levels of Control by Saul Alinsky	https://www.truthorfiction.com/8-levels-saul-alinksy/	None	politics	None	None	None	Obama and the 8 Levels of Control by Saul Alinsky	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-vees-00033	In a Sept. 27 interview with CNN Philippines, Marcos and ex-senator Jinggoy Estrada were asked if they thought Trillanes’ arrest ordered by Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 150 was “right or wrong.”	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-imee-changes-tune-trillanes-amnesty	None	None	None	None	Trillanes,Amnesty revoked,Imee Marcos	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Imee changes tune on Trillanes’ amnesty	October 04, 2018	None	['Jinggoy_Estrada']
-tron-02916	Nancy Pelosi’s Son Arrested for 2nd Degree Murder	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosis-son-arrested-murder/	None	politics	None	None	['congress', 'criminal justice', 'fake news']	Nancy Pelosi’s Son Arrested for 2nd Degree Murder	May 30, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01916	President Trump plagiarized his "fire and fury" comment from Captain America comic book villain Red Skull.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fire-and-fury-comic-book-villain/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did President Donald Trump Steal His ‘Fire and Fury’ Line from a Comic Book Villain?	11 August 2017	None	['United_States', 'Red_Skull']
-snes-01653	The FBI seized over 3,000 penises during a September 2017 raid of a morgue employee's home.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fbi-seizes-3000-penises-raid-morgue-employees-home/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	FBI Seizes Over 3,000 Penises During Raid at Morgue Employee’s Home?	28 September 2017	None	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-abbc-00090	The claim: Philip Morris says "the data is clear" that plain packaging has not stopped people smoking.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/philip-morris-wrong-plain-packaging/5137682	The claim: Philip Morris says "the data is clear" that plain packaging has not stopped people smoking.	['health-policy', 'federal-government', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'smoking', 'australia']	None	None	['health-policy', 'federal-government', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'smoking', 'australia']	Has plain tobacco packaging failed to stop people smoking?	Fri 24 Jan 2014, 7:38am	None	['None']
-pomt-05590	Says "new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office conclude the final price-tag" for the health care law "will exceed $2 trillion — more than double what was initially reported."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/apr/01/frank-lobiondo/frank-lobiondo-says-health-care-reform-law-will-co/	The court of public opinion has already struck down the health care law, according to one Republican. Now, U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo said, it’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s turn. The southern New Jersey congressman said in a letter to The News of Cumberland County that health care reform passed without bipartisan consensus. And, he said, although the tentacles of "ObamaCare" are not yet fully extended, the cost of the law is already increasing. "Many of the tax increases and penalties have yet to take effect while new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office conclude the final price-tag will exceed $2 trillion — more than double what was initially reported," LoBiondo wrote in the letter published online a week before the Supreme Court started hearing arguments over provisions in the law. PolitiFact New Jersey found two problems with LoBiondo’s statement: it relies on a misleading comparison and the "final price-tag" is marked up. So how much will the law cost? LoBiondo was referring to gross, rather than net, costs. The gross cost -- the cost without accounting for additional revenues the government will collect from the law -- was estimated at $938 billion by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, two years ago. That estimate includes costs from 2010 to 2019. In a recent report, the congressional agency updated its estimate to $1.762 trillion for 2012 to 2022. The updated figure doesn’t "exceed $2 trillion." LoBiondo spokesman Jason Galanes cited other estimates the CBO released to back up the point. In those estimates, the agency tests how the costs would change in scenarios that differ from the agency’s expectation that there will be a small reduction in employment-based health insurance. Galanes said in an e-mail that "LoBiondo believes it is reasonable to project that the law could in fact reach or exceed $2 trillion in costs as three of the four scenarios considered by CBO suggest." But under the congressional agency’s current assumptions, the projected gross cost is $1.762 trillion. And that’s not "more than double what was initially reported." To reach that conclusion, the congressman made a misleading comparison. The congressional agency’s original estimate of $938 billion included 10 years of data, from 2010 to 2019. In its latest estimate, the CBO projects the gross cost of the law over 11 years, from 2012 to 2022, for a total of $1.762 trillion. So, the figures include a different number of years. Also, the latest estimate represents nine years when the law is fully implemented and, therefore, costs more. The earlier estimate included several years when the law was not fully implemented and so costs were lower. When the gross costs from 2012 to 2019 -- the years included in both reports -- are compared, the difference is significantly less than double. It’s an increase of 8.6 percent, from $931 billion to $1.01 trillion. The difference in the net cost estimate over the same time frame further erodes LoBiondo’s point. It has decreased slightly from the earlier estimate. Two years ago, the CBO projected the health care law would have a net cost of $777 billion from 2012 to 2019. Now, that estimate is $772 billion. Our ruling LoBiondo said "new estimates from the Congressional Budget Office conclude the final price-tag" for the health care law "will exceed $2 trillion — more than double what was initially reported." CBO recently projected the gross cost of insurance coverage provisions in the law at $1.762 trillion from 2012 to 2022. In 2010, the agency estimated the gross cost at $938 billion from 2010 to 2019. It’s misleading to compare those two figures since they represent different years. When comparing the years included in both estimates -- 2012 to 2019 -- it’s clear the cost did not double. It increased by 8.6 percent. And during the same time, the net cost of the law decreased. We rate this claim False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Frank LoBiondo	None	None	None	2012-04-01T07:30:00	2012-03-19	['None']
-goop-00162	Keith Urban Furious Over Russell Crowe Gushing About Nicole Kidman?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-keith-urban-russell-crowe/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Keith Urban Furious Over Russell Crowe Gushing About Nicole Kidman?	11:48 am, October 8, 2018	None	['Russell_Crowe', 'Nicole_Kidman']
-pose-00109	"There are currently over 400,000 claims pending within the Veterans Benefits Administration, and over 800,000 claims receipts are expected in 2008 alone. … Obama will hire additional claims workers and convene our nation's leading veterans groups, employees and managers to develop an updated training and management model that will ensure that VA benefit decisions are rated fairly and consistently, and stem from adequate training and accountability for each claims adjudicator."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/114/reduce-the-veterans-benefits-administration-claims/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Reduce the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog	2010-01-07T13:26:48	None	['Barack_Obama']
-vees-00020	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte, DOF differ on main driver of inflation	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-duterte-dof-differ-main-driver-inflati	None	None	None	None	Duterte,inflation,Antonio Lambino II	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte, DOF differ on main driver of inflation	October 22, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-06088	A distant relative of Donald Trump was a horse thief and a train robber.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/horse-thief-ancestor/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did Donald Trump Have a Horse Thief Ancestor?	15 October 2000	None	['None']
-pomt-09374	Marco Rubio controlled funds that "out of the $600,000 that were raised, only $4,000 went to candidates to try to improve their chances to be elected to office."	/florida/statements/2010/mar/29/charlie-crist/crist-attacks-rubio-campaign-contributions/	Down in the polls in his quest to become a U.S. senator from Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist wasted no time attacking primary opponent Marco Rubio in a nationally televised debate on FOX News Sunday. "I view public service as a calling, something that you do to try to help other people, to improve their lives, their quality of life," said Crist. "Unfortunately, recent news accounts in Florida have come out that indicate, in fact, that Speaker Rubio views public service as a way to enhance his personal enrichment." Crist said that Rubio had set up a $600,000 "slush fund" that he used for personal expenses rather than political purposes. "In fact, out of the $600,000 that were raised, only $4,000 went to candidates to try to improve their chances to be elected to office. That's not what people want. They want people who are not there to enrich themselves but who are there to enrich the lives of their fellow Floridians." Crist's statement is based on an investigation into Rubio's finances by the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times. Rubio, the former speaker of the Florida House, controlled two separate political committees, according to the report. In December 2002, Rubio created Floridians for Conservative Leadership, which raised $228,000 in donations. At the end of 2003, he created Floridians for Conservative Leadership in Government, which raised $386,000. Of those two committees, it's true that only $4,000 went to direct contributions to political candidates. Crist, meanwhile, conflates the two committees together to get to his $600,000 "slush fund." But there's an important distinction between the two: The purpose of the first fund was to "support state and local candidates who espouse conservative government policies." It was registered with the state of Florida and allowed to give contributions to political candidates. The $4,000 in direct campaign contributions came out of this fund of $228,000. The Herald/Times review of other legislators' committees showed that they typically contributed far more to other candidates and reported vastly fewer credit card payments. According to the Herald/Times report: "Rubio spent the biggest chunk of the committee's money, $89,000, on political consultants, $14,000 in reimbursements to himself, and more than $51,000 in credit card expenses. Records show those expenses were for food, lodging and airfare but do not detail who was traveling or where expenses were incurred." The second fund was to "educate the public about conservative leadership in government." It was a 527 fund, registered with the Internal Revenue Service, but not the state of Florida. Because it was not registered with the state, it was not allowed to donate money to political candidates, and indeed it did not. According to the Herald/Times report, most of the money, about $236,430, from this second fund went to pay for Republican poltiical consultants. Read more details about the expenses in the Herald/Times report. We contacted the Rubio campaign after the debate for a response to Crist's charges. Campaign spokesman Alberto Martinez reiterated that the committees' operations were entirely within the law, and that all the money was spent advancing conservative causes, even if it didn't go directly to other candidates. The second fund wasn't allowed to give contributions, anyway, he added. It was intended to help Rubio travel around the state to promote conservative ideas to the general public. Crist also said during the debate that of the $600,000, "it's been shown lately it's been used to fix his minivan, get haircuts, employ family members, things of this nature that are not what a political committee is supposed to do." But Crist here is mixing Rubio's two political groups with a separate issue: Rubio had access to a credit card for the Republican Party of Florida, and that's what he used to pay for the minivan and and hair bills. Rubio has said the minivan charge was for damage to his car that occurred at a political event, and the hair charges also included items for a silent auction event that he ended up paying for himself. Here, we're ruling on Crist's statement that "out of the $600,000 that were raised, only $4,000 went to candidates to try to improve their chances to be elected to office." He's right about the $4,000. But he arrives at the $600,000 number by conflating two separate funds, one of which was not permitted to give to candidate campaigns. So we rate Crist's statement Half True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2010-03-29T16:39:01	2010-03-28	['Marco_Rubio']
-tron-02232	Pennies to help remedy bee stings?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/copper-pennies/	None	medical	None	None	None	Pennies to help remedy bee stings?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-afck-00386	“Since 2009 there has been a 25% increase in the number of candidates from poorer schools to pass the National Senior Certificate exams. In Khayelitsha alone, the number of passes has gone up by almost 1,000 since 2009.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/is-the-das-western-cape-story-a-good-story-to-tell-we-examine-the-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Is the DA’s Western Cape Story a ‘good story to tell’? We examine the claims	2014-03-28 05:02	None	['None']
-pomt-08088	"We are the only state in the country that state employees don't contribute [to their pensions]."	/florida/statements/2010/dec/15/rick-scott/florida-government-workers-only-country-not-contri/	Gov.-elect Rick Scott is taking office next month with big plans to cut state spending. One idea Scott has suggested is to cut $1.4 billion in state pension costs by making government employees contribute to their own retirement. Scott brought up the issue during the campaign and again on Dec. 14, 2010, in a meeting with state legislators. "What do you all think about employees contributing to the pension plan?'' Scott asked legislators about ways to shrink state spending. "We are the only state in the country that state employees don't contribute'' to their pensions. Last year, according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, the state and local governments contributed nearly $3.4 billion to the retirement fund, the Florida Retirement System. Governments typically contribute between 9 and 10 percent of an employee's annual income toward retirement. Employees are required to contribute nothing. Is Florida the only state with a system like that? Not quite, according to a PolitiFact Florida review of the state retirement systems of all 50 states. But Scott isn't far off either. PolitiFact Florida individually researched the state retirement systems across the country, as well as consulted with Ron Snell, the director of state services for the National Conference of State Legislatures. Snell studies state pension and retirement systems. Most state retirement systems are based on a defined benefit plan -- a system where the state multiplies an employee's years of service by salary and by some percentage to arrive at a pension amount. To qualify, employees have to be vested into the system -- meaning they work for the state for a certain number of years, often five. They also must contribute some percentage of their pay to the overall pension fund. (In most states, individual contributions don't fund the retirement, but go into the overall pension fund.) A few states, however, have begun to adopt more private-sector-like 401(k) plans where the employee voluntarily contributes to a retirement fund and the employer either matches a portion of the contributions, or contributes on their own. And some states offer voluntary, optional 401(k) plans on top of a government pension. With state revenue sources drying up, states have been moving away from 100 percent employer-funded pensions to plans where employees are required to contribute. Missouri, for instance, will start making employees hired after Jan. 1, 2011, contribute 4 percent of their pay to their retirement plan, said Christine Rackers at the Missouri State Employees' Retirement System. Virginia lawmakers this year passed legislation requiring new employees to contribute 5 percent of their pay to their retirement. Current employees are operating under old rules where they do not have to contribute, though Virginia has discussed making them pay, too. Wisconsin also passed legislation making workers pay toward the pension fund -- though their contribution is as little as .2 percent. Where are governments still footing the entire bill? The largest chunk of state employees in Utah are not required to contribute to their retirement. But a small percentage do. In Tennessee, state employees and higher education employees are not asked to pay toward their retirement, said spokesman Blake Fontenay. But some local government employees and all K-12 teachers are required to contribute, Fontenay said. The state, back in 1981, discussed either having employees contribute toward their retirement or forgo a pay raise that year, Fontenay said. The government chose no raise. And in Michigan, employees aren't necessarily required to contribute to their retirement because they have a traditional 401(k) plan, said Kurt Weiss with the state's Department of Technology, Management and Budget. The state contributes the equivalent of 4 percent of an employee's salary into a 401(k) regardless of whether the employee contributes. The state will then match up to an additional 3 percent employee contribution. A few other states exempt certain, small classes of employees -- like public safety employees -- from having to contribute to their retirement. But in every case, the bulk of state employees are required to participate in the state retirement system through payroll deductions. Wisconsin government analysts crafted a good synopsis of the state retirement plans in 2009 as that state was pondering changes. Contribution requirements are listed on Page 22. A note: Our analysis isn't meant to say Florida's retirement plan is a better deal for state employees than employees in other state governments. It's entirely possible that other state employees receive better pensions than Florida workers, even after accounting for employee contributions. Our focus solely was on where employees are asked to contribute to their retirement. And as we previously pointed out, Florida has the lowest payroll expenditures per resident -- $38 -- in the country, according to the state Department of Management Services. The national average was $72 per resident. Which brings us back to Scott's statement. In a meeting with state legislators, Scott suggested the state might save money by requiring state employees to contribute to their own retirement. Specifically, he said, that Florida is "the only state in the country" where government workers are not required to help fund their retirement. Scott is largely on the mark. Florida will be the only state, starting Jan. 1, 2011, where no one in the state retirement system is asked to contribute toward their pension. Two states -- Virginia and Missouri -- recently switched their retirement system meaning new hires will have to pay toward their retirement, but not existing employees. Michigan doesn't force its employees to participate either, but that state has a more private-sector-like 401(k) program. And Tennessee and Utah still do not require many of their state employees to contribute toward retirement, although other employees in those states do. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2010-12-15T17:31:26	2010-12-14	['None']
-tron-00644	Metallica Sues 8th Grader for Drawing Logo on Notebook	https://www.truthorfiction.com/metallica-sues-8th-grader-for-drawing-logo-on-notebook/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Metallica Sues 8th Grader for Drawing Logo on Notebook	Jan 19, 2016	None	['None']
-vogo-00341	Statement: “Asian-Pacific Americans is the fastest growing minority group in San Diego, even faster than Latinos,” Dr. Allen Chan, a restaurant owner and advocate in the Asian community, said during an interview with KUSI recently.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-san-diegos-asian-boom/	Analysis: Every 10 years, governments across the nation redraw their political boundaries based on population shifts measured by the Census. San Diego recently approved its new City Council boundaries, spurring VOSD and other local media to gauge the plan’s winners and losers.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: San Diego's Asian Boom	September 1, 2011	None	['San_Diego', 'United_States', 'Asia', 'Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans']
-pomt-03137	"Things like … having Friday classes have been shown to be very effective on college campuses" in reducing drinking.	/oregon/statements/2013/sep/13/university-oregon/have-friday-classes-been-shown-extremely-effective/	Drinking seems to be a perennial issue for college campuses. With school starting up again, and alcohol-related tragedies in the news, Oregon Public Broadcasting’s "Think Out Loud" decided it was time to see how campuses were dealing with student drinking. In discussing the issue, one of the guests, Jennifer Summers, the director of Substance Abuse Prevention and Student Success at the University of Oregon, said increasing the number of Friday classes is one tactic that has helped reduce student drinking. Specifically she said, "Things like … having Friday classes have been shown to be very effective on college campuses." We understood the logic: We don’t get too loose unless we know we can bury our heads in bed the next morning. But was this really a tactic universities were using successfully? The nice people running the "Think Out Loud" Twitter feed pointed us to a study out of the University of Missouri. Its three authors surveyed 3,341 first-time undergraduates and found that there was a distinct relationship between the amount that students drank on a given Thursday evening and whether they had an early morning Friday class. Here’s the juiciest part: "Excessive drinking on Thursday, relative to other weekdays, was found and was moderated by Friday class schedule," the report said. "(M)odels indicated that students with no Friday classes drank approximately twice as much on Thursdays as students with early Friday classes." On average, a student with an early Friday class drank 1.24 drinks, while students without a Friday class drank 2.4 drinks. Obviously this brings up a few questions. Turns out that great minds really do think alike because the study’s authors answered most of them. First, we were curious whether there was some other factor that might determine if a student chose to take a Friday class -- and if that same factor might be the reason he or she would drink less. Here’s how the study’s authors put it: "Students who have early Friday classes may be representative of a different type of student than those who do not in terms of their general level of academic aptitude, academic major, academic persistence, or other student characteristics." They checked into it, though, and found that there was no pattern and that the "observed Friday class effect was more likely attributable to the actual timing of the class and that it was less likely attributable" to other factors. Second, we thought students might be increasing their drinking on another night. If you can’t drink Thursday, you might be extra excited to hit the bottle the next night. But the authors found that if catch-up drinking were present -- and they didn’t find much evidence it was -- it was fairly limited. We chatted with one of the authors of the study, University of Missouri psychology professor Phillip K. Wood, to clear up a few other bits and pieces. One important factor is that there appears to be a diminishing return based on the time Friday class is held. The effect "is largest for the 8 o'clock classes," Wood said. "You can go out and drink and still drag yourself to class by 10." His biggest caveat, however, was that while he was confident in the findings, a controlled experiment would be the only way to know with absolute certainty whether Friday classes were effective in reducing alcohol consumption. "At the end of the day what you really need to do is a controlled experiment," he said. The study was convincing, but we couldn’t help but wonder whether any universities had made changes based on this study’s findings. Digging deeper, PolitiFact Oregon found that the University of Iowa did. In 2007, following the findings of the study we’ve been discussing, folks at Iowa decided to increase the number of early Friday morning classes. To encourage professors and departments to teach the classes, the university offered $20 for each student in a class that was changed to include lectures or discussions on Friday. The student newspaper, The Daily Iowan, reported in March 2010 that the university's emergency-room doctor Michael Takacs found fewer students were showing up at the emergency room during Thursday evenings and early Friday mornings. Takacs guessed the Friday classes had something to do with the drop, but added "it’s hard to know for sure." We spoke with Tom Rocklin, the University of Iowa’s vice president for student life, to see if the university had documented any discernable declines in drinking. He said it’s not clear whether the Friday class increase itself "was successful because we did a number of other things at the same time which combined have led to reduced drinking among our students." Given the strong study but muddled practical applications, we thought it was time to call Summers, the substance abuse specialist from the University of Oregon. She noted that the Friday class solution was included in a list of recommendations by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Specifically, it’s included in a category of suggestions by the group that it says have "evidence of logical and theoretical promise, but require more comprehensive evaluation" or that "appear to be capable of reducing high-risk alcohol use." The University of Oregon itself hasn’t gone this direction yet, Summers said, but it’s something that’s come up as a possibility. "It's not something that you can just say, ‘Poof, let's go for it,’" she said. "Faculty play an active part in changing that." So let’s get back to our statement. Summers said that "things like …. having Friday classes have been shown to be very effective on college campuses." It’s true that one study showed there was a strong connection between Friday morning classes and how much students drank on Thursday. That said, the study was not controlled, it concerned only one campus and the effect was seen only with particularly early classes. Moreover, we weren’t able to find a clear application that showed significant reductions when more early Friday classes were offered. Most important, Summers acknowledges that the list she used as a source cited only "theoretical and logical promise." We think she overstepped here. Saying that Friday classes have been "shown to be very effective" is an exaggeration. We rate this statement Half True -- the statement is partially accurate but leaves out a number of details.	None	University of Oregon	None	None	None	2013-09-13T15:37:18	2013-09-03	['None']
-pose-01352	Moving forward, Rick Kriseman will "continue partnership on the community’s shared goal to reduce poverty in St. Pete by 30 percent by the year 2020."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/krise-o-meter/promise/1444/work-reduce-poverty-30-percent/	None	krise-o-meter	Rick Kriseman	None	None	Work to reduce poverty by 30 percent	2018-01-02T11:52:33	None	['St._Petersburg,_Florida']
-snes-04528	John Wayne once said that the taking of land from Native Americans was justifiable because they were 'selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wayne39s-world/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	David Mikkelson	None	Wayne’s World	2 May 2015	None	['John_Wayne']
-pose-00392	"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/411/work-to-overturn-ledbetter-vs-goodyear/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Work to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear	2010-01-07T13:26:57	None	['Barack_Obama']
-goop-01106	Jennifer Aniston Does Want Justin Theroux Back After ‘Failing To Rekindle’ Brad Pitt Romanc	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-back-together-brad-pitt-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Does NOT Want Justin Theroux Back After ‘Failing To Rekindle’ Brad Pitt Romance	10:49 am, April 27, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-13327	Says she "voted for a statewide fracking ban."	/florida/statements/2016/oct/05/dana-young/dana-young-mailer-leaves-out-context-fracking-bill/	In an attempt to position herself as a more environmentally-friendly candidate, state Rep. Dana Young, R-Tampa, has sent mailers touting her vote for a recent bill targeting fracking. The effects of the legislation Young voted for are not as clear cut as the claim Young makes. A third-party group supporting Young, who is facing Democrat Bob Buesing for state Senate in the newly created District 18, sent the mailer in the last weeks of September that says she "voted for a statewide fracking ban to protect our water." The group, the Florida Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, paid for the mailpiece, but the mailer says that Young approved the message. So we are putting Young on the Truth-O-Meter. The mailer refers to Young’s vote on House Bill 191, legislation aimed at regulating fracking in Florida. We were curious about the Young’s statement and the specifics of the measure. As we looked further into the bill, we found the mailer is somewhat misleading. What Young voted for would have regulated fracking, but it wouldn’t have permanently banned it. A closer look at House Bill 191 HB 191, dubbed "Regulation of Oil and Gas Resources," was sponsored by Rep. Ray Rodrigues, R-Estero, and passed 73 to 45 on Jan. 27 in the Florida House. Young voted in favor of this bill, along with 72 other Republicans, while 38 Democrats and 7 Republicans opposed the bill. Young reasoned that HB 191 could have been the first step to a permanent ban on fracking. However, the bill only called for a temporary moratorium on the process, not a "ban" like her mailer says. Democrats who voted against the bill echoed arguments of environmental groups and said a temporary ban doesn’t go far enough to protect Florida’s water. Had the bill passed (it was defeated in a Florida Senate committee), the measure would have allowed Florida to regulate fracking — a process that involves pumping large amounts of water, sand and chemicals into the ground to harness oil and gas reserves. Per the bill, fracking permits would not have been issued until a study was completed in 2017 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP would have proposed rules based on the study’s results, which would have been subject to approval of the Legislature. Point being, the bill was never intended to ban fracking permanently, but place a moratorium on the practice while its effects were studied. Democrats also took issue with the fact the bill would have prohibited Florida's counties and cities from passing local bans against fracking. According to the Miami Herald, 41 cities and 27 counties oppose fracking. St. Petersburg has passed a resolution against hydraulic fracturing, along with Broward County, which outlawed fracking in January. In addition, there were several amendments to HB191 offered up by Democrats that would have created more safeguards against fracking, including a restriction on what chemicals can be used and studies on prenatal health, but they didn’t pass. Young voted against some of these, but her spokesperson said those issues were unnecessary, trusting the DEP study would have addressed those concerns. Young’s office said she strongly opposes fracking in Florida and will continue to seek a statewide ban. Our ruling A mailer from Young says she "voted for a statewide ban on fracking." That vote is in reference to HB 191, which would have set up a temporary moratorium on fracking in anticipation of future regulations. The bill would have authorized a study on which to base further regulation. It was not an outright ban on fracking. Young’s claim is partially accurate but is missing context that would give the reader a different impression. For that reason, we rate Young’s statement Half True. Correction: A previous version of this fact-check incorrectly reported who sent the mailer. The piece has been updated to reflect that it was sent by an outside committee with Young's approval. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ed07ec3c-17f2-456c-aded-b343caaff2b7	None	Dana Young	None	None	None	2016-10-05T17:03:32	2016-10-20	['None']
-snes-01012	Did President Trump Revoke Gun Background Checks for Mentally Ill People?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/	None	Politics	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Did President Trump Revoke Gun Background Checks for Mentally Ill People?	15 February 2018	None	['None']
-snes-01477	Members of antifa groups attacked an elderly woman and Malia Obama was arrested in connection with the incident.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-malia-obama-arrested-elderly-woman/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was Malia Obama Arrested in an ‘Antifa Attack’ on an Elderly Woman?	6 November 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00098	Fact Check TV: Signing Off on Sunroad's Suggestion	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/medical-marijuana/fact-check-tv-signing-off-on-sunroads-suggestion/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: Signing Off on Sunroad's Suggestion	July 8, 2013	None	['None']
-snes-01011	The Archbishop of Melbourne, Australia, called child sexual abuse a "spiritual encounter with God, through the priest."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/archbishop-pedophilia-spiritual-encounter/	None	Religion	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did an Australian Archbishop Call Pedophilia a ‘Spiritual Encounter With God’?	15 February 2018	None	['Australia', 'God', 'Melbourne']
-pomt-11491	"I'm the only candidate on this stage who has actually cut taxes."	/new-york/statements/2018/feb/28/joel-giambra/giambra-only-gop-candidate-ny-governor-whos-cut-ta/	Former Erie County Executive Joel Giambra says he’s the only Republican candidate for governor with experience cutting taxes. Giambra said that gives him an advantage over the other two Republicans running for governor: State Sen. John A. DeFrancisco and Joseph Holland, a former housing commissioner under Gov. George E. Pataki. "I'm the only candidate on this stage who has actually cut taxes," Giambra said at a debate among the three candidates. Giambra served as Erie County Executive from 2000 until the end of 2007. He is remembered partly for proposing two different budgets for 2005 with the county in fiscal distress. He most recently worked as a lobbyist. DeFrancisco has represented part of Central New York in the State Senate since 1993. He was named deputy majority leader in 2015, the second most powerful position in the chamber. Holland has not served in a role where he would be able to cut taxes. Is Giambra right? Is he the only candidate in the race who cut taxes? Giambra’s record Giambra’s spokesperson said he was talking about experience cutting taxes while serving in an executive position. Neither DeFrancisco or Holland has ever been elected as an executive. But Giambra did not specify that during the debate. Instead, he suggested he is the only candidate with experience reducing taxes. It’s true, Giambra cut taxes in Erie County. The county property tax levy when he entered office in 2000 was about $181 million. He reduced it to about $152 million in his first budget for 2001, a cut of 16 percent. Giambra kept the levy flat until 2005, when the fiscal crisis hit. Giambra proposed two budgets for that year to respond to a $108 million deficit. Both cut county services so the tax levy would remain flat. Giambra’s proposed "green budget" cut less in exchange for a higher sales tax rate. His "red budget" proposed more severe cuts in lieu of a sales tax increase. The county legislature ultimately approved the first option. The property tax levy only increased about 3 percent in 2005. But the county’s fiscal crisis was not over. Giambra agreed to raise property taxes more than $30 million in 2006, a 19 percent increase. The total levy that year was about $188 million, or about 3 percent higher than when Giambra took office. Giambra’s final two budgets for 2007 and 2008 increased the property tax levy by 6.3 percent and 5.9 percent respectively. The final tax levy he approved totaled about $211 million. DeFrancisco’s record DeFrancisco held two of the Senate’s top positions when lawmakers cut state income tax rates twice in the past eight years. He was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2011, when lawmakers agreed to reduce state income tax rates. The committee crafts the Senate’s counter-proposal to the governor’s budget and has to approve any legislation with a fiscal impact before it goes to the floor for a vote. The lower rates were a trade-off for an extension of the state’s high tax rate on wealthy earners. DeFrancisco voted for the bill. He was deputy majority leader when lawmakers approved another set of income tax cuts in the 2016 state budget. The deputy majority leader controls what happens on the floor of the Senate. DeFrancisco voted to approve the cuts. The lower rates were first proposed by Republicans in the Senate earlier that year. They wanted to lower the tax rate for middle-income earners from 6.45 percent to 5.14 percent. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and the Assembly agreed to lower the rate to 5.5 percent instead. DeFrancisco voted for other tax cuts in that time as well, including a cut in the state’s corporate tax rate and an expansion of the estate tax. Our ruling Giambra said he is the only Republican gubernatorial candidate "who has actually cut taxes." It's true he's the only candidate in the race who has done that in an executive office. But he did not make that distinction in the debate. The two other candidates have not held an executive office. It's worth noting Giambra did not cut those Erie County property taxes alone. County lawmakers approved the budgets he proposed. He’s not the only candidate with experience cutting taxes. DeFrancisco was a leader in the Senate when the chamber voted to approve a handful of tax cuts since 2011. The tax cuts would not have happened without senators like him voting for them. Giambra’s statement is not accurate. We rate it False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joel Giambra	None	None	None	2018-02-28T16:46:58	2018-02-10	['None']
-snes-00220	Former FBI agent Peter Strzok issued a tweet calling President Trump a "dictator," a "Russian asset," and an "unhinged madman."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peter-strzok-tweet-trump-dictator-unhinged-madman/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Did Fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok Tweet That President Trump is a ‘Dictator,’ a ‘Russian Asset,’ and an ‘Unhinged Madman?’	14 August 2018	None	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation', 'Russia']
-pomt-15035	Israel has seen a "90 percent reduction in terrorist attacks" that it attributes to building a 500-mile fence.	/wisconsin/statements/2015/oct/02/scott-walker/scott-walker-israel-says-its-wall-led-90-percent-r/	With Gov. Scott Walker out of the GOP presidential race, there’s likely to be little talk about the idea of a wall with Canada. But some of the remaining candidates are calling for a wall with Mexico aimed at securing that border from illegal immigrants. And several of them have cited an example from Israel to bolster their stance -- including Walker, when he was a candidate. He pointed to one statistic we wanted to check. During an Aug. 17, 2015 appearance on Glenn Beck’s radio show, Walker recalled his trip to the Middle East where he saw the barrier that had been constructed between Israel and the West Bank. "They’ve seen something like over a 90 percent reduction in terrorist acts in that country that they attribute to having an effective fence," Walker said. "If Israel can do it effectively, there’s no reason why America can’t." That’s a significant decrease. Is it accurate? A little background Israelis and Palestinians have a long history of conflict over rights to land in the Middle East. Our quick history will start in 1947, when the United Nations set out to create a Jewish and an Arab state, but only the Jewish state came into being. The state of Israel was founded on May 14, 1948. Almost immediately, Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state. The conflict ended with armistice agreements made between Israel and its neighboring Arab states, after hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled the region. Those who stayed became Israeli citizens. The rest became refugees and remain stateless. Periodic bouts of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians continued, with arguments centered on control of land and borders. Violence and terrorist attacks ebbed and flowed along with the political tensions in the region. A major Palestinian uprising against Israel started in 2000 after failed peace talks and became known as the Second Intifada. The first Intifada took place in the late 1980s and early 90s. In 2003, Israel began construction on a barrier to separate Israelis and Palestinians and prevent terrorists from entering Israel. Behind the numbers When asked for backup, Walker’s team sent a report compiled by the Jewish Virtual Library and last updated in April 2015. It says, "since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%." The Jewish Virtual Library is a project of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, a nonprofit group with the goal of strengthening U.S. relations with Israel. Mitchell Bard, author of the report and executive director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, said the numbers for the report came from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Here’s how the numbers shake out: Year Number of attacks 2002 135 2003 67 2004 45 2005 28 2006 48 2007 10 2008 30 2009 14 2010 7 2011 11 2012 9 The report used 2002, a year before construction began, as a baseline for comparison. But 2002 was at the height of a streak of violence in the region, the Second Intifada, so that helps shade the picture from the beginning. The data shows a wave of terrorist attacks in the region between 2001 and 2006. In 2001, there were 118 attacks, while in 2000 just 29 occurred, according to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. "The year itself is an anomaly," said James Gelvin, professor at University of California-Los Angeles and author of "Israel Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War." "It was an extraordinarily bloody affair and that was when the wall was under construction," Gelvin said. "Of course, after it ended attacks would go down anyway." There is another issue: The data is outdated, only going through 2012. The following year, 2013, there were 11 incidents. Bard noted that when data from 2013 is added it still amounts to a 90 percent drop. But in 2014 the number of attacks jumped to 62. By that measure, it is more like a 50 percent drop. So, the use of outdated numbers skews the end result. In addition, the wall was not built in isolation. Even Bard, the author of the Jewish Virtual Library analysis, said "the main thing" contributing to the decrease was not the wall itself, but the activity of Israeli security forces along the barrier. He said the dramatic decrease in attacks was "in part because of the fence," but also cited checkpoints and cooperation between military and security forces as important factors. In short, attributing this short-term downward trend in attacks to the barrier is taking a very narrow approach to a more complicated issue. Finally, the way Walker constructed the statement gives it an extra twist. He noted Israeli leaders attribute the drop in terrorist attacks to the wall. By implication, he seems to agree with them. We found many references to the success of the "anti-terrorist fence" on Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Most notably on a Frequently Asked Questions page about the conflict, the ministry says, "data reveals a clear correlation between the construction of the fence and a drop in the number of terrorist attacks." Our rating Walker said Israel has seen a "90 percent reduction in terrorist attacks" that it attributes to building a 500-mile fence. A report from the Jewish Virtual Library showed a 90 percent reduction in terrorism, and the Israeli government does cite the fence as the reason for the drop. But the data used is outdated and once more recent years are added, the drop since 2002 is more like 50 percent. What’s more experts say the barrier is but one reason for the decline. Walker’s claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. That’s our definition of Half True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2015-10-02T05:00:00	2015-08-15	['Israel']
-goop-00661	Jennifer Aniston Paying Justin Theroux $5 Million To Stop Tell-All?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-justin-theroux-5-million-tell-all-buy-silence/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston Paying Justin Theroux $5 Million To Stop Tell-All?	11:36 am, July 11, 2018	None	['None']
-farg-00296	Claims a conservative news report proved he was “right” in suggesting President Obama supported terrorists.	https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trumps-isis-conspiracy-theory/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Lori Robertson	['Breitbart', 'Al Qaeda']	Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory	June 16, 2016	[' Twitter – Wednesday, June 15, 2016 ']	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-00869	The New Apple iOS 9 WiFi Assist Feature Boosts Data Usage	https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-new-apple-ios-9-wifi-assist-feature-boosts-data-usage/	None	computers	None	None	None	The New Apple iOS 9 WiFi Assist Feature Boosts Data Usage	Sep 30, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00060	"West Virginia added the highest percentage of new construction jobs in 2017 in the United States, at 14.4%. This amounted to 4,300 additional jobs! In fact, #WV was the only state with double-digit growth!"	/west-virginia/statements/2018/nov/02/west-virginia-republican-party/did-west-virginia-lead-way-construction-job-growth/	Did West Virginia lead the nation in the growth of construction jobs jobs in 2017? The West Virginia Republican Party says it did. On Sept. 14, the party tweeted, "Did you know West Virginia added the highest percentage of new construction jobs in 2017 in the United States, at 14.4%? This amounted to 4,300 additional jobs! In fact, #WV was the only state with double-digit growth! Read more about the #WVcomeback." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The tweet linked to an article from the Wheeling News-Register citing those numbers. But we wanted to confirm this with original data. It turns out that the source of the 50-state comparison is a report by the Associated General Contractors of America, a trade association in the construction industry. The comparison is drawn from data collected from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here are the five states with the biggest percentage increases during 2017. State Increase in jobs Twelve-month percentage increase West Virginia 4,300 14.4 percent California 75,500 9.8 percent Nevada 7,800 9.7 percent New Mexico 4,300 9.7 percent Idaho 3,800 8.7 percent So the party’s tweet was accurate. We also took a longer-term look at construction employment in the state. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, construction employment in West Virginia bottomed out in the second half of 2016 and rose consistently through the first quarter of 2018 before stabilizing. Still, the current level of construction employment in West Virginia hasn’t returned to its nearly three-decade peak in the period before the onset of the Great Recession. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com It’s worth noting that construction jobs, while important for people within the industry and within adjacent industries, only account for about 4.5 percent of non-agricultural employment in the state -- about 34,000 construction jobs in August 2018 out of 752,000 nonfarm jobs in all. "Total job growth clearly matters more to West Virginia citizens than employment in just one not-so-big industry," said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. Still, as far as the tweet’s limited claim goes, it is accurate. Our ruling The West Virginia Republican Party tweeted that "West Virginia added the highest percentage of new construction jobs in 2017 in the United States, at 14.4%? This amounted to 4,300 additional jobs! In fact, #WV was the only state with double-digit growth!" A look at the original data shows that the No. 1 ranking, the percentage increase, and the raw increase in jobs are all correct. So is West Virginia’s distinction as the only state with double-digit growth in 2017. We rate the statement True.	None	West Virginia Republican Party	None	None	None	2018-11-02T16:18:10	2018-09-14	['United_States']
-snes-04282	Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine admitted on Twitter to having an open marriage.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tim-kaine-open-marriage/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Tim Kaine Admits to Open Marriage on Twitter	9 August 2016	None	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-01857	Children are crossing the border because President Barack Obama said "if you come, you’re going to be able to stay, because we’re not going to enforce the law."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/13/rick-santorum/santorum-obama-said-if-illegal-immigrants-come-you/	As children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras continue to arrive at America’s border, the political finger-pointing has started. President Barack Obama said the problem could be dealt with if Congress approves his emergency funding request. Republicans charge that the president’s own policies have fueled the surge. As the panelists on NBC’s Meet the Press batted this back and forth, Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal noted an unusual feature of the latest trend. "People are not coming here to sneak over," Strassel said. "The kids are coming up here saying, ‘Take me in, too. Take me into detention.’ " Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum laid that at the president’s feet. "That’s because we have a president who said, ‘Hey, if you come, you’re going to be able to stay, because we’re not going to enforce the law,’ " Santorum said. For the record, Obama did not say those words. This fact-check focuses on whether Obama expressed the view that people who come today would be allowed to stay. We tried to contact Santorum to clarify his meaning and did not hear back. Children from Central America are currently allowed to stay in the United States and receive a hearing before potentially being deported as part of a 2008 human trafficking law signed by President George W. Bush. But Republicans have tried to pinpoint blame on Obama, pointing to Obama’s directive aimed at young undocumented immigrants in August 2012. That move, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, did change the administration’s practices. The question is, does it apply to the kids showing up today? Immigration lawyer and Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr says it does not. "Among other things, the kid must have arrived before June 15, 2012," Yale-Loehr said. The deferred action details A few months before the 2012 election, Obama issued an executive order that allowed certain young people without legal immigration status to apply for a two-year deferral of any removal proceedings. That deferral could be extended, and anyone who was accepted would also gain the ability to work in this country. Generally speaking, it targeted people who had come across the border with their parents when they were little and had lived in the United States for many years. The move came after Republicans rejected a bill, the DREAM Act, that would have put these people on the path to citizenship. The Homeland Security Department summarized who qualified: You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday; You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time; You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012; You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat. As Yale-Loehr noted, no child arriving at the border today would meet those criteria. Santorum claimed that Obama said, "If you come, you’re going to be able to stay." That would not follow under Obama’s deferred action memo, nor his public statements about the situation. A related talking point is that this move from Obama triggered the influx. However, based on numbers from the Homeland Security Department, the rapid rise began in 2011, well before Obama announced his policy. That is not to say that the policy definitively played no role. In an open letter distributed in key Central American countries, Homeland Secretary Jeh Johnson underscored that Obama’s memo did not apply to new arrivals. The fact Johnson had to write a letter suggested that Central Americans did draw hope from Obama's executive order. A broader interpretation of Obama’s policies It is possible that Santorum had other administration immigration policies in mind. David Martin, professor of law at the University of Virginia, said by 2011, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement established centralized priorities for removal proceeding actions. Priority is given to people with criminal records, recent border crossers, those who had come back after having been sent home before, and a few other groups. Martin said this is a good way to use limited resources but it could have a downside. "Undocumented people with an otherwise clean record who have been here for three or four years fall outside the priorities," Martin said. "If they know these details, they may feel somewhat reassured." That said, Martin thinks this is a charitable view of what Santorum was thinking. "That scenario is miles away from the current controversy," Martin said. In addition, there has been debate over how aggressively the administration has sent undocumented immigrants out of this country. By some measures, the government has expelled 2 million people, a much higher number than any other president, but some critics say the pace has fallen off. As Anna Law, professor of constitutional law at CUNY Brooklyn College wrote in a recent article in the Washington Post, the available deportation statistics are muddy. There are people who are caught inside this country and sent home and people who are stopped at the border and turned back. If you use both figures combined, Obama looks tough. But use the first and not the other, and he looks less aggressive. (To make matters worse, the official categories have changed over time, making it difficult to compare administrations.) Kevin Johnson, law professor and dean of the law school at the University of California-Davis, said at the end of the day, the numbers don’t support the argument that lax enforcement has anything to do with the latest problem. "(It) seems far-fetched," Johnson said. Our ruling Santorum said that Obama drew the influx of children at the border by saying, "If you come, you’re going to be able to stay." The closest thing we could find to support Santorum's point is an open letter by the Homeland Security secretary to Central Americans. That letter acknowledged there could be a connection between Obama's executive order and the influx of children from Central America -- even though the executive order would not apply to the children approaching the border today. Obama's deferred action policy applies only to people who had lived in the United States continuously since June 15, 2007. The targeted enforcement policies would provide no advantage to the children showing up at the border, and the administration has sent millions of people back to their home countries. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2014-07-13T17:05:26	2014-07-13	['None']
-pomt-11690	"Breaking: Sasha Obama just crashed her expensive new car into a lake."	/punditfact/statements/2017/dec/28/defense-usasite/fake-news-sasha-obama-crashed-bugatti-lake/	A fake news article said that Sasha Obama, speeding at 90 miles per hour, crashed her $1 million car -- a used Bugatti Veyron -- into a lake. "Breaking: Sasha Obama just crashed her expensive new car into a lake," stated a headline on Defense USA Dec. 21. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. We found no credible news reports of the former president’s daughter crashing her car. The article stated that former President Barack Obama bought Sasha the luxury car for Christmas. The fake news account cites an alleged story in the Washington Times Herald that said Sasha Obama called police after she drove into Lake Hope about 32 miles outside of Washington. (We found no such Lake Hope in the D.C. area; there is one in Ohio.) "Officers noted a ‘strong smell of marijuana’ in the crashed vehicle, but no drugs were found as the wreckage was searched," the phony article stated. The fake news article linked to the website of the Washington Times Herald, an actual newspaper in Washington, Ind. But that website, which focuses on local news in Indiana, had no such story about Sasha crashing her car. (There was also a newspaper called The Washington Times-Herald that covered the capital city, but that was sold to the Washington Post in 1954.) The headline that Sasha Obama crashed her car into a lake is fake news. We rate this headline Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	defense-usa.site	None	None	None	2017-12-28T12:13:22	2017-12-21	['None']
-snes-03771	A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/	None	Science	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?	18 October 2016	None	['New_Zealand']
-snes-06138	Photograph shows a cat burned by the spillage of a cinnamon reed diffuser.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/spilled-reed-diffuser-harms-cat/	None	Critter Country	None	David Mikkelson	None	Spilled Reed Diffuser Harms Cat?	28 January 2014	None	['None']
-thal-00123	Claim: Apple is the largest taxpayer in Ireland	http://www.thejournal.ie/apple-biggest-taxpayer-ireland-facts-tim-cook-michael-noonan-2960327-Sep2016/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: Is Apple really the "largest taxpayer in Ireland"?	Sep 4th 2016, 10:00 PM	None	['None']
-pomt-08809	"Unemployment for those with college educations is now 4.5 percent. Unemployment for those with more than a college education, below 4 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/17/laura-tyson/laura-tyson-says-college-grads-have-just-45-percen/	On the Aug. 15, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Laura Tyson -- who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council under President Bill Clinton -- broke down the nation's unemployment rates in a striking fashion. Tyson, who now teaches in the Haas School of Business at the University of California (Berkeley), highlighted the significantly lower unemployment rates of Americans with college diplomas and advanced degrees, in contrast to the overall rate. "We have to worry about the longer-run problem of this structural employment," Tyson said, "because I'm going to point out one thing for this discussion. ... Unemployment for those with college educations is now 4.5 percent. Unemployment for those with more than a college education, below 4 percent. We have a problem of education in this country, and we have to educate more of our young people fully through college education. Let's take this as an opportunity to do that." We wondered whether her numbers were right, given that the national unemployment rate for all workers in July was 9.5 percent -- more than twice as high as the figures Tyson mentioned. (Separately, PolitiFact Texas looked at a similar claim by President Barack Obama.) We looked at the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates the national unemployment rate as well as unemployment rates for various subgroups. Those subgroups include Americans of four specific educational attainment levels. They are: less than a high school diploma; a high school diploma but no college; some college experience but no college diploma; and a college diploma. For those with less than a high school diploma, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 13.8 percent during July. For those with a high school diploma but no college, the rate was 10.1 percent. For those with some college experience but no college diploma, the rate was 8.3 percent. And for those with an undergraduate degree or better, the rate was 4.5 percent. That's less than one-third of the rate for high-school dropouts -- and it's exactly as Tyson said it was. What about the unemployment rate for those with more than a college education? Economists we spoke to said that BLS doesn't regularly publish that statistic, though it can be calculated by labor and employment experts from the raw data BLS releases. Tyson didn't return our inquiry, but we checked with BLS directly, and they gave us three relevant statistics for July -- the unemployment rate for those with masters' degrees; those with professional degrees, such as law degrees; and those with doctorates. These aren't exactly comparable, since BLS does not release seasonally adjusted figures for those with advanced degrees. But we'll provide them anyway. The unadjusted July rate for those with masters' degrees was 4.9 percent. For those with professional degrees, it was 2.0 percent, and for those with doctorates, it was 1.9 percent. We calculated the overall unemployment rate for all three categories using proper weighting and found that the rate was slightly above 4.0 percent. That's not "below 4 percent," as Tyson said it was, but it's very close. In addition, the June 2010 BLS unemployment rate for those with more than a college degree is 3.3 percent. If Tyson was intending to use those statistics (which, once again, are not seasonally adjusted), she'd be correct -- but those aren't the most current figures. So, Tyson was right about the unemployment rate for college graduates and at worst, she was close on the unemployment rate for those with more than a college education. On balance, we rate her statement Mostly True.	None	Laura Tyson	None	None	None	2010-08-17T11:00:11	2010-08-15	['None']
-snes-02061	Margarine was originally manufactured to fatten turkeys.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-butter-truth/	None	Food	None	Snopes Staff	None	Butter vs. Margarine	19 July 2003	None	['None']
-pomt-07273	Says his barehanded catch posted on YouTube is real.	/florida/statements/2011/may/24/evan-longoria/rays-3b-evan-longorias-spectacular-barehanded-catc/	The video, if you haven't seen it, is amazing. Tampa Bay Rays third baseman Evan Longoria is talking to a television reporter along the first-base line. Their backs are facing the baseball diamond, and the two are standing about 125 feet from home plate -- where a fellow Ray is taking batting practice. The teammate sprays a line drive directly at them. Instinctively, Longoria wheels around his head and torso, extends his right arm and catches the ball barehanded. The television reporter gasps, Longoria shakes off the pain in his hand and tosses the ball back toward the pitcher's mound. "Keep it on the field," he says, nonchalantly. The :24-second clip was first posted on YouTube May 6, 2011 by MrSprts12 and has since been viewed more than 3.8 million times. The biggest question: Is the video real? Or is it fake? PolitiFact Florida decided to take a break from politics to put the now viral video -- and the Rays superstar third baseman -- to the Truth-O-Meter. At first glance, the catch seems improbable. And to baseball fans, maybe even impossible. But baseball players have made amazing barehanded grabs before. In 1989, then San Francisco Giants outfielder Kevin Mitchell snared a fly ball off the bat of St. Louis Cardinals shortstop Ozzie Smith with his bare right hand. And in 2005, New York Mets third baseman David Wright dove over his shoulder to catch a pop fly barehanded. Mitchell and Wright were in the middle of games, we should note, and saw the ball coming. Longoria had almost no time to react. We know several details about the video's origins, as explained by Longoria himself to the St. Petersburg Times' Marc Topkin and the Tampa Tribune's Roger Mooney. Longoria said the clip was filmed near the end of spring training, after Longoria spent nearly six hours filming a commercial for Gillette. Longoria said the video was shot at McKechnie Field in Bradenton, the spring home of the Pittsburgh Pirates. He claims it's authentic. The video -- "It's still real, by the way," he said -- was shot with a handheld camera in one take in about five minutes, after the Gillette commercial wrapped. "Unbelievable, huh?" Longoria, a spokesman for Gillette who has filmed other ads, said. "It's funny when you talk about things going viral; it really does once it gets on things like Twitter and YouTube. It goes from a small snowball to an avalanche quickly." Let's go back to the tape. Because there are several things that don't add up. In the video there are four Gillette logos visible -- two behind home plate and two on a roof facade over the third-base bleachers. But those logos aren't part of McKechnie Field in real life, Trevor Gooby, the Pirates' director of Florida operations, told a reporter for Patch.com. The logos were added digitally and included in the final video that was posted on YouTube. Next, there is the user who posted the video, MrSprts12. The user created his YouTube account May 4 and has only uploaded the Longoria video. The user lists his company as Gillette. Then there's the reporter and the video graphic identifying Longoria. There is no television station symbols or letters on the video, and the reporter is holding a microphone without a "flag" that identifies the station where the reporter works. Perhaps even stranger, we could not find the video posted on any news site. (Surely, a TV station would love to claim the video as theirs.) A strong circumstantial case that the video is doctored. But we wanted to keep looking. We asked Topkin -- who has covered baseball for the Times since 1987 -- what he thought of the video. From Detroit, where the Rays were playing the Detroit Tigers, Topkin said he believes it to be a well-crafted fake. Topkin noted several things that aren't typical during a batting practice session. There is no cage surrounding the batter to catch foul balls or stop pitches that aren't hit. There's also no screen protecting the batting practice pitcher. There are no coaches in the video hitting ground balls and no other fielders on the baseball diamond to track down any hits. And there's more. The batter, after hitting a ball right at Longoria and the reporter, isn't heard yelling for them to get out of the way. And though Longoria makes a miraculous catch, the batter returns immediately to his batting stance like nothing even happened. The cameraman doesn't warn the reporter or Longoria either. And there's the frame-by-frame analysis of the video. If you watch closely enough, the ball is falling toward the ground as it approaches Longoria and the reporter. But in the last frame -- right before Longoria catches the ball -- it appears to move upward again. "Simply put, once the ball has started into a downward trajectory, it cannot then again head upwards without an external force," wrote YouTube user meltingsmoke, one of several thousand people to comment or question on the video's authenticity. "That clearly happens just before the ball is 'caught.' (It's) not the same ball and (its) trajectory is all wrong." The Times has been asking readers online if they thought the catch was real or fake. The vast majority, though not all, say it's a hoax. With the evidence overwhelmingly suggesting the video is a fake, we asked Gillette spokesman Michael Norton if the company would put the mystery to rest. "The video was filmed while on location for a Gillette Fusion ProGlide commercial," Norton told us. "We'll leave the 'is it real?' debate up to the viewers." At PolitiFact, we're ready to make the judgment call for you. From computer-added Gillette signage, to the reaction of the cameraman and the batter, from the way major league teams conduct batting practice, to the video evidence, this viral YouTube video is a clever piece of advertising. And fiction. Longoria is a good sport -- and spokesman for Gillette -- for saying the catch is real. But we're not buying it. We say Pants on Fire!	None	Evan Longoria	None	None	None	2011-05-24T15:34:14	2011-05-19	['None']
-goop-01740	Jamie Foxx Friends Saying Katie Holmes “Needs A Makeover,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jamie-foxx-friends-katie-holmes-makeover/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jamie Foxx Friends NOT Saying Katie Holmes “Needs A Makeover,” Despite Claim	2:49 pm, January 24, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01817	Weight Loss Claims About Garcinia Cambogia	https://www.truthorfiction.com/weight-loss-claims-about-garcinia-cambogia/	None	health-medical	None	None	None	Weight Loss Claims About Garcinia Cambogia	Jul 2, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03031	Trump: Harriet Tubman Belongs on Food Stamps	https://www.truthorfiction.com/trump-harriet-tubman-belongs-food-stamps/	None	politics	None	None	['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'satire']	Trump: Harriet Tubman Belongs on Food Stamps	Aug 19, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-15149	"I was one of the few, very few, who voted `no’ on the Iran deal."	/virginia/statements/2015/aug/31/dave-brat/brat-says-hes-among-very-few-who-voted-against-ira/	Again and again, U.S. Rep. Dave Brat places himself in the vanguard of congressmen opposed to the Iran nuclear deal. "I was one of the few, very few, who voted `no’ on the Iran deal," Brat, R-7th, said during an Aug. 10 breakfast with Henrico County business leaders. "On the Iran bill, you want to know one of the few people who voted `no’ on the deal?" Brat asked at speech that night at the University of Richmond. He answered by raising his hand. And during an Aug. 18 radio interview on "The John Frederick Show," Brat reiterated, "I was one of the few votes against the Iran deal because I believe the Senate has a constitutional duty on treaties." All of this caught our attention for a simple reason: The Iran deal hasn’t come up for a vote. So we took a deep dive into Brat’s statements. The deal, you’ll remember, was reached in July between Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States. Iran agreed to limit significantly its nuclear capabilities for more than a decade in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions that have crippled its economy. Supporters say the accord, while far from perfect, has safeguards that will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the near term. They say the U.S. needed to make concessions, because many of its allies have grown weary of continuing economic sanctions against the oil-rich nation. Opponents say the deal lacks long-term guarantees that Iran -- hostile to Israel and the U.S. -- won’t develop nukes. They say the U.S. should demand that Iran renounce any future nuclear arms ambitions in exchange for lifting sanctions. Brat has made these points repeatedly. But when did the congressman vote against the accord? Jack Minor, Brat’s communications director, told us the vote occurred June 14 on a bill that gave Congress the power to review and potentially reject the Iran deal. The House overwhelmingly passed the measure, 400-25, with Brat voting in the minority. A week earlier, the bill sailed through the Senate on a 98-1 vote. It’s important to note that the roll calls were not up-or-down votes on the deal and that the bill did not directly pertain to provisions in the accord. The measure set up a review process that would require Congress, if it’s of such a mind, to pass a resolution rejecting the accord. If one or both of the chambers can’t muster a majority vote against the agreement by Sept. 17, the deal takes effect. Brat voted against the review bill because, according to Minor, it would "grease the skids" for the deal. Let’s explain: President Barack Obama had a choice on how to designate the accord: either as a treaty or as an executive agreement. He opted for the latter, and Brat objects to that decision. An executive agreement is a political accord -- as opposed to a legal one -- between heads of states. Presidents of both parties increasingly have opted to enter into executive agreements because, unlike a treaty, they give Congress narrow -- if any -- sway. A treaty, which is a binding legal agreement, must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the 100-member Senate. That would be an impossible barrier for the Iran deal, given that 41 Republicans and two Democrats in the senate already have said they oppose the deal, according to an article on The Hill, a political website. Executive agreements are not binding; they can be reversed by the next president. The trade-off, for sitting presidents, is that they do not necessarily require congressional approval. In the case of the Iran deal, with emotions high on both sides, Obama agreed to give Congress a say through the procedures bill that Brat opposed. Under the legislation, as we’ve said, Congress could reject the Iran agreement with a majority vote in each chamber. But, as Brat and others note, Obama likely would veto such a resolution. His veto would be sustained if it’s backed by one-third of the members in either house -- a low hurdle given Democratic support for the accord. That’s a far smaller threshold than the two-thirds backing Obama would need in the Senate to pass a treaty. Brat opposed the procedures bill because he believes Obama has a constitutional obligation to submit the Iran deal as a treaty, according to Minor, the congressman’s spokesman. Brat has introduced a bill, with three cosponsors, that would require the deal to be considered as a treaty. The measure is sitting in the in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Does Brat’s vote against the procedures make him one of "the few" to vote against the accord? We asked two political scientists who have studied the use of treaties and executive agreements to weigh in. Michael Ramsey at the University of San Diego said the claim is misleading, because if the procedures bill had failed, as Brat hoped, Obama would have been free to implement the Iran deal without consulting Congress. Even if Brat had carried the day, "that would have not stopped the deal," Ramsey said. Ramsey also said Brat’s statement inaccurately implies that legislators who voted for the procedures bill support the Iran deal. To the contrary, 197 House Republicans who backed the procedures bill have signed a resolution voicing disapproval of the Iran accord. All told, 219 Republicans -- including Brat -- have signed the resolution. That’s more than half of the House. Andrew Rudalevige at Bowdoin College said Brat cast a symbolic vote against the deal. But he also noted that if Congress had rejected the procedures bill, "they wouldn’t have given themselves the review and reporting requirements that were in the act, and that Obama agreed to, so you can argue they would have been worse off on the margins." Rudalevige added, "The real vote against the Iran deal will be when the resolution for disapproval comes up on the floor." Our ruling Brat says, "I was one of the few, very few, who voted `no’ on the Iran deal." But the Iran accord has not come up for a vote. What Brat voted against was a procedural bill that gave Congress the power to review and potentially reject the Iran accord. Brat objected that Obama negotiated the deal as an executive agreement instead of as a treaty, which would have been required to clear a higher level of congressional support. The congressman was in the minority on a 400-25 bipartisan vote to pass the procedures. Brat’s statement implies that those who backed the bill supported the Iran deal. To the contrary, had the bill failed, Obama could have enacted the Iran deal without input from Congress. Almost 200 Republicans who voted for the procedures that allow them to have a say subsequently have signed a resolution opposing the Iran accord. Clearly, Brat cast what he sees as a protest vote against the deal. But again, the real vote on the accord has not occurred and when it does, many in addition to Brat are poised to oppose it. We rate Brat’s statement False.	None	Dave Brat	None	None	None	2015-08-31T08:20:28	2015-08-10	['Iran']
-pomt-08677	"We've got to find 2 billion gallons (of water per day) between now and 2025."	/florida/statements/2010/sep/10/adam-putnam/adam-putnam-sounds-alarm-looming-water-crisis/	Republican Agriculture Commissioner candidate Adam Putnam is sounding the alarm about a critical water shortage he says Florida will soon be facing. "The most important issue facing Florida long term is water -- whether you want to plant an orange grove, build a subdivision, save the Everglades ... it all boils down to water," Putnam, a congressman from Bartow in Polk County, said on Sept. 9, 2010, during an editorial board interview with the St. Petersburg Times. "We've got to find 2 billion -- find, create, make, obtain through conservation -- 2 billion gallons (of water) between now and 2025. Per day." Putnam told the editorial board members assembled that the state needs to invest in alternative water supplies like reclaimed water, and create incentives for developers to invest in alternative supplies as well. The state must also advocate for more conservation and efficiency measures, Putnam said, and continue to invest in desalination facilities -- which turn salt water into drinking water. He wrote a policy position paper on the state's water supply issues, which you can read here. In this fact check we're drilling down on Putnam's basic assumption, that Florida needs to somehow develop an additional 2 billion gallons of water per day in the next 15 years. We turned to the state Department of Environmental Protection, the agency tasked to increase the state's available water supplies, for an answer. Florida used an estimated 6.9 billion gallons of fresh water per day in 2005, the DEP said, citing the most recent U.S. Geological Survey report. By 2025, it is projected that the state will use 8.7 billion gallons a day. That's an increase of 1.8 billion gallon per day, or 27 percent. Close to what Putnam said. We should note that the projected is based on the assumption that the state's population will grow to almost 25 million by 2025. Currently, the state's population is estimated to be around 18.77 million. The projection also assumes that the government will be responsible for providing water for everyone in the state. Both those assumptions could, of course, change between now and 2025. "As Florida continues to grow, pressure is put on the water resources of the state and the need to ensure these resources are available for future generations becomes increasingly important," the state wrote in its 2010 Annual Report on Regional Water Supply Planning. "Floridians have always enjoyed a quality of life that is inextricably linked to the health of our water resources. Tourists come here to enjoy pristine beaches, swim in our freshwater springs, and experience unique fishing opportunities. Florida's water resources also support large agricultural industries. If Florida did not maintain its high quality natural systems, the effects would be felt throughout the entire economy." To be sure, the DEP and the state's five water management districts have been preparing for the uptick. The water management districts are required by law to develop and update regional water supply plans every five years. And they have already identified, developed or are developing projects to help close the gap. In 2005, the Legislature created the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund and designated $100 million to be used to promote the development of alternative water supplies. The state set aside another $117 million over three years in 2006, 2007 and 2008. The Legislature stopped funding the program in 2009, the DEP said. The investment, however, helped water management districts provide funding assistance for 327 water saving projects, which will help create approximately 761 million gallons a day of "new water" available for consumptive use. That's close to 40 percent of the water expected to be needed by 2025. Most of the projects focus on adding reclaimed water capacity or demineralizing brackish groundwater. The work already being done by the state and water management districts is an important caveat when considering Putnam's comments because he makes it sound like the state has to find 2 billion gallons of water a day by 2025. In reality, the state already has projects on the book that get the state a portion of the way there. Yet, Florida has a ways to go. Putnam is right, based on the latest estimates Florida will use about 2 billion more gallons of water a day in 2025 than the state did in 2005. But the state and the five state water management districts have started planning for it, and already have identified water construction projects that will help meet some of the increasing demand. We rate Putnam's statement Mostly True.	None	Adam Putnam	None	None	None	2010-09-10T14:14:17	2010-09-09	['None']
-faly-00034	Claim: The types of disabilities have been increased from the existing 7 to 21.	https://factly.in/rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-act/	Fact: The PWD act of 1995 contained 7 disabilities. The Rights of persons with disabilities act of 2016 provides for 21 types. Hence, the claim is TRUE. But it has to be noted that this legislation was introduced by the previous UPA government and passed by the current government.	None	None	None	None	Fact Checking Government Claims on the ‘Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act’	None	None	['None']
-snes-05138	Donald Trump planned to rename New Mexico in his first act as President.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-rename-new-mexico/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Donald Trump Pledged to Rename New Mexico?	29 February 2016	None	['New_Mexico', 'Donald_Trump']
-wast-00122	And we're trying to have a DACA victory for everybody, by the way. And the Democrats are nowhere to be found.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/07/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-immigration/	None	None	Donald Trump	Meg Kelly	None	Fact-checking President Trump's claims on immigration	May 7	None	['None']
-tron-01793	7-year-old Girl Gets Breast Implants	https://www.truthorfiction.com/7-year-old-girl-gets-breast-implants/	None	health-medical	None	None	['fake news', 'medical']	7-year-old Girl Gets Breast Implants	Mar 2, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01360	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck “Flirting” At Church, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-flirting-church-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck NOT “Flirting” At Church, Despite Report	2:38 pm, March 19, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Garner', 'Ben_Affleck']
-snes-03038	President Donald Trump criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for excessive Facebook usage.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-criticize-pm-trudeaus-social-media-use/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did President Trump Criticize Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Social Media Use?	31 January 2017	None	['Justin_Trudeau', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-00568	The New York Times "had to retract" its story that Hillary Clinton’s email handling had broken certain laws.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/11/brad-woodhouse/dem-operative-woodhouse-says-nyt-retracted-charges/	Questions about Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email records during her time as secretary of state are likely to dog her throughout her presidential campaign. But the candidate will have many defenders, including Correct the Record, a super PAC created to support Clinton. Correct the Record president Brad Woodhouse, a long-time Democratic operative, dismissed the entire email matter during an interview recently on CNN. "Every federal employer has to consider what they archive as work-related and what they consider personal, and she did what every other federal official did, what every other previous secretaries of state did," Woodhouse told New Day co-hosts Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota on June 5, 2015. "Look, nobody has found -- you know, the New York Times wrote a story that some type of laws had been broken. Turns out they had to retract that. People had to back off that, and it's totally not true." In the news business, retractions don’t come lightly and we wondered if in fact, the newspaper of record had taken back part of what it reported on Clinton. In reality, the New York Times hasn’t retracted a word. The closest it came was in a column from public editor Margaret Sullivan, who wrote that the article that broke the story "was not without fault." But the lapse, Sullivan continued, was a failure to list exactly which regulations Clinton might have ignored. That lack of specificity, Sullivan wrote, allowed Clinton supporters to score political points. "Not because it highlighted a factual error — the story was accurate — but because it kicked up enough dust to obscure the facts." Sullivan, we should note, doesn’t speak for the newspaper. Her job is to serve as an internal but independent critic of the paper’s work, something akin to an inspector general in government. Formal retractions or corrections come from the editors themselves, and as we noted, that has not happened. Adrienne Watson, a spokeswoman for Correct the Record, said Woodhouse was not using the word retraction in an official sense. Rather, he was speaking of the gradual fade in New York Times coverage that insinuated that Clinton had broken some law. "Ultimately the charge was retracted, even if the New York Times never issued a correction," Watson said. "Their own experts changed their minds." Let’s unpack that. What the ‘New York Times’ said The newspaper broke the story under the headline "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules." It’s opening lines were "Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record." So the top of the story suggested a possible violation, which falls short of charging outright that she broke a law, as Woodhouse said. But the article does lay the groundwork to add weight to the idea of a potential violation. "Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them." And: "Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so." About week and half after the initial story, the New York Times wrote that the regulations on preserving emails were vague. "Although the White House has strict requirements dating back two decades that every email must be saved, there is no such requirement for federal agencies. Instead they are in charge of setting their own policies for determining which emails constitute government records worthy of preservation and which ones may be discarded." While, as the story noted, President Barack Obama signed a 2014 bill that required government officials who use personal email accounts to hand over those records in 20 days, that law took effect after Clinton left the State Department. According to Thomas Blanton, a government disclosure expert cited in the story, this gave Clinton "wiggle room." Blanton was also cited in the original article. However, it is not accurate to say he changed his mind from one week to the next. In the first New York Times story, Blanton said "it was a shame" that the emails from Clinton’s personal account had not been turned over automatically. The New York Times also cited in its first story Jason Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and Reath, who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration. At the time, Baron said he could not think of another instance when a high-ranking official used a private email account for all government business. Baron described Clinton’s email scenario as a serious breach. However, Baron did not say the practice was illegal. In the weeks that followed, he consistently said it was a bad practice. Our ruling Woodhouse said that the New York Times retracted the charge that Clinton’s handling of her email broke a law. That's wrong on two points. The newspaper never accused Clinton of breaking a law. Also, while the newspaper’s public editor said the original story should have included more details, the paper never issued a retraction or a correction. A spokeswoman for Woodhouse’s organization agreed with that point. The claim is not accurate, and we rate it False.	None	Brad Woodhouse	None	None	None	2015-06-11T10:57:02	2015-06-05	['The_New_York_Times']
-pomt-10270	"Joe Biden brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass the 1994 crime bill, putting 100,000 cops on the streets and starting an eight-year drop in crime across the country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/24/barack-obama/bidens-crime-bill-helped-some/	In citing the credentials of his newly announced vice presidential running mate, Sen. Barack Obama touted the crime-fighting record of Sen. Joe Biden. "Fifteen years ago, too many American communities were plagued by violence and insecurity," Obama said in a speech in Springfield, Ill., on Aug. 23. "So Joe Biden brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass the 1994 crime bill, putting 100,000 cops on the streets and starting an eight-year drop in crime across the country." Biden did, in fact, champion the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994 which sought – through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) – to put 100,000 additional police officers on America's streets. And crime did in fact drop in ensuing years. But several independent analyses concluded the program resulted in far fewer than 100,000 new officers on the street; and that while crime did drop, there were other more significant reasons. The effect of the COPS program was modest. We at PolitiFact have looked at this before, back when Biden was a presidential candidate and he was making similar claims on his own behalf. In November, this was the statement on Biden's Web site: "In the 1990s, the Biden Crime Bill added 100,000 cops to America's streets. As a result, murder and violent crime rates went down eight years in a row." We ruled the statement False. The Justice Department claimed it reached the 100,000 new police officers milestone in May 1999, but the department's Office of Inspector General found that the actual number was closer to 60,000. A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that from 1994 through 2001, COPS expenditures paid for about 88,000 additional officer-years. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation was even less generous, concluding that if one factored in the historic rates of growth in the number of police officers before the COPS program began, the number of officers "on the beat in 1998 was just 6,231 to 39,617 higher than in 1993." But our bigger beef was with Biden's claim that crime rates dropped "as a result" of those extra officers. The GAO concluded that while the COPS program helped to reduce crime, the effect was modest. Between 1993 and 2000, the GAO report found that COPS' nearly $8-billion in funds contributed a 1.3 percent decline in the overall crime rate and a 2.5 percent decline in the violent crime rate from the 1993 levels. However, the report states, "Factors other than COPS funds accounted for the majority of the decline in crime during this period." Between 1993 and 2000, the overall crime rate declined by a total of 26 percent, and the violent crime rate fell a total of 32 percent. A peer-reviewed study published in the February 2007 issue of the journal Criminology found that "COPS spending had little to no effect on crime." Biden took issue with our ruling in a letter to the editor, printed in the St. Petersburg Times on Nov. 10, 2007. He stated that taking the GAO's findings on what the COPS program contributed to lower crime rates still meant that more than 425 murders, more than 2,300 forcible rapes, and more than 11,000 robberies per year were prevented because of COPS. Biden cited a March 2007 policy brief from the independent Brookings Institution which concluded "COPS appears to have contributed to the drop in crime observed in the 1990s." "Given that the costs of crime to American society are so large – perhaps as much as $2-trillion per year – even small percentage reductions in crime can reap very large benefits," the Brookings report found. "COPS appears to be one of the most cost-effective options available for fighting crime." And a 2002 study by researchers at the University of Nebraska and Southwest Texas State University found COPS had a major effect on cutting crime from 1994 through 2000, particularly in big cities. "These studies confirm the common sense intuition that if you have an intersection with four street corners, and you have cops on three of the four corners, a crime is more likely to be committed on the fourth," Biden said in his letter. Lastly, Biden said, "the COPS program was not the only innovation of the 1994 Crime Bill that contributed to falling crime rates. The principle innovation of the 1994 Crime Bill was its recognition that to effectively fight crime you need an approach that coordinates prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. The Crime Bill's three-part strategy helped reduce crime in the 1990s in New York City and in cities nationwide. And it's the strategy we need to continue fighting crime in our country." We stand by our ruling, on the grounds that the 100,000 new officers claim is at best suspect, and because we believe that Biden assigned more credit for reducing the murder and violent crime rates than the program deserves. Independent reports – even ones that praise the program for reducing crime – only credit COPS for being a portion of the reason for the decline in violent crime (and only a modest portion, according to the GAO). Obama's language is a little more tempered than Biden's. While Obama parroted the dubious claim that the program resulted in 100,000 new officers on the street, Obama said only that the program "started" an eight-year drop in crime, which is a little different than saying it "resulted in" that drop. David Muhlhausen, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, notes that the beginning of the decline in violent crime actually started a bit before the funding for COPS kicked in. But stats show it's pretty close. We rate Obama's claim Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-08-24T00:00:00	2008-08-23	['Joe_Biden', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-09441	In the Senate version of the health reform bill, "Every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month towards reproductive rights, which includes abortion."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/10/bart-stupak/stupak-says-every-enrollee-office-personnel-manage/	With abortion as one of the biggest remaining stumbling blocks in the health care reform push, Rep. Bart Stupak has been in high demand on political talk shows. An antiabortion Democrat from Michigan, Stupak says he and at least 11 other House Democrats would vote against the Senate language on abortion, which he says would allow federal funding for abortions. His biggest issue is in the proposed government-created health exchange (for people who do not get their insurance through their employer), government subsidies could go to people who choose plans that cover abortions. But Stupak has repeatedly raised another point as well. "The bill that they're using as the vehicle is the Senate bill, and if you go to page 2,069 through page 2,078, you will find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month towards reproductive rights, which includes abortions," Stupak said in a Good Morning America interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on March 4, 2010. Stupak made similar statements in a Politico article on March 4 as well as in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews on March 3. The Senate language on abortion was written by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who is an abortion opponent. While the language Stupak penned for the House version would prohibit insurance companies in the exchange from offering abortion services, Nelson's plan would allow companies to offer abortion services. But Nelson sought to ensure those services would be paid through patient premiums, not federal subsidies. In order to accomplish that, the Senate bill requires that all enrollees in plans that offer abortion services "without regard to the enrollee’s age, sex, or family status" pay a separate amount to cover the actuarial value of abortion services for the entire population covered by the plan. The insurer "may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month." So that's where Stupak gets his $1 a month figure. This is not necessarily an add-on cost. Many health insurance experts quietly acknowledge what Slate's Timothy Noah referred to as the "gruesome reality" that it actually costs insurance companies less to pay for abortions than it does to pay for prenatal care and delivery. But the Senate bill specifically states that the actuarial estimate "may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care." So the set-aside for abortions is at least $1, regardless of whether it costs less than a dollar, or whether it actually saves insurance companies money. In other words, this $1 a month is not really over and above what someone would pay for their insurance otherwise. It's a mechanism to segregate a pot of money from insurance premiums (rather than federal subsidies) that would pay for abortions. But Stupak didn't say the $1 a month was an additional cost, only that it would go "towards" abortion services. And that's correct. But Stupak errs when he says that "every enrollee" would have to pay the $1 a month. That extra dollar would be separated out only for people who select a plan that offers abortion services. Someone could just as easily choose a plan that does not cover abortions. In fact, the Senate bill requires that "with respect to multi-State qualified health plans offered in an Exchange, there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of (abortion) services." In other words, if you don't want to participate in a health plan that offers abortion, and for which you'll have to pay into an account specifically for abortions, you don't have to. We further note that the Senate bill also says that a state "may elect to prohibit abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through an Exchange in such State if such State enacts a law to provide for such prohibition." So it's not required for states to offer plans in the exchange that cover abortions; but if they do have plans that offer abortion, they must also offer plans that do not. Lara Cartwright-Smith of George Washington University's public health school explains: "The legislative language he's referring to is about how the government determines the value of abortion coverage for plans offered through the Exchange to ensure that federal money is not used to pay for that coverage," Cartwright-Smith said. "This section does not apply to people who are covered outside of the Exchange, such as through an employer’s health benefit plan. Everyone buying insurance through the Exchange will have the option to enroll in a plan that does not include abortion. Those people will not pay any amount for abortion coverage and no federal funds for that plan will have to be segregated. "If, and only if, an enrollee selects an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage, then the value of that abortion coverage must be calculated and that amount must be segregated from the value of the rest of the benefits of that plan, so that the enrollee can pay for the abortion coverage separately with their own private money. The calculated value of the abortion coverage must be at least $1. This process is to ensure that federal funds aren’t used to pay for abortion coverage. These rules only apply to plans in the Exchange that include abortion coverage, so people who select a plan that does not include abortion will not have to pay for abortion coverage even if other plans in the Exchange do offer it." It's also important to note, she said, that these rules are about abortions for which federal funding is not allowed, such as elective abortions. Abortions for which federal funding is allowed, such as in cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother, may be covered by any plan in the exchange. We called Stupak's office, and they provided a statement from the congressman essentially acknowledging that his statement only refers to people who opt for a plan that covers abortions. But he warned that many people will be unaware that a portion of their premium would be earmarked for abortion. Stupak is correct that people who select a plan that covers abortions would have at least $1 a month of their premiums set aside for a fund that would pay for abortions performed for people in that plan. And everyone in that plan, even men, would have to pay into that account. But Stupak misspoke when he said, repeatedly, that "every enrollee" would have to pay into an account that would pay for abortions. In fact, the issue doesn't apply at all to people who choose a plan that does not cover abortion. And every state must offer a plan that does not offer abortion. Furthermore, people would have to be told up front if the plan they are considering covers abortions. So when Stupak says that "every" person would need to set aside this abortion money, it's not only wrong, we think it stokes misplaced outrage on an already highly charged issue. We rule Stupak's statement False.	None	Bart Stupak	None	None	None	2010-03-10T19:01:30	2010-03-04	['None']
-hoer-00944	Win a Toyota Land Cruiser Facebook	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/win-a-toyota-land-cruiser-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Win a Toyota Land Cruiser Facebook Scam	September 24, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00658	"Eliminate expressions of appreciation and recognition for individuals, groups, events, and institutions."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/688/eliminate-congressional-resolutions-to-honor-indiv/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	Eric Cantor	None	None	Eliminate congressional resolutions to honor individuals and groups	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['None']
-snes-03833	The United States was caught repainting some of their fighter jets in Russian air force colors for a false flag bombing.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-caught-repainting-fighter-jets-to-russian-colors/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	David Emery	None	U.S. Caught Repainting Fighter Jets to Russian Colors?	10 October 2016	None	['United_States', 'Russia']
-pomt-03867	"Governor Christie, his idea of jumpstarting the economy is to propose a trickle-down income tax cut last year and in his budget address this year, he stated his support for it again."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/mar/10/barbara-buono/barbara-buono-claims-chris-christie-still-supports/	When it comes to claims about tax cuts in New Jersey, gubernatorial candidate Barbara Buono just can’t catch a break. That’s because Buono, a Democrat and state senator from Middlesex County, keeps repeating a claim about Gov. Chris Christie that leaves out significant details and has accuracy issues. And she did it again Tuesday, during her first national television appearance on the MSNBC program "Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell." During a nearly five-minute segment, Buono talked about why she’s the best candidate to be New Jersey’s next governor, citing issues such as the state’s rate of unemployment, foreclosures, economic growth and taxes. "Governor Christie, his idea of jumpstarting the economy is to propose a trickle-down income tax cut last year and in his budget address this year, he stated his support for it again," Buono said during the segment. In a previous claim on this topic, Buono tied the Republican governor’s support of an income tax cut to it disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest New Jerseyans. The Truth-O-Meter ruled that claim Pants on Fire. First, some background on Christie’s tax cut proposal. In January 2012 Christie proposed cutting income tax rates by 10 percent across-the-board over three years. Under that proposal, higher-income taxpayers would have seen a greater decrease because they pay more in income taxes. But after Democrats cried foul, the governor backed off that plan and endorsed a proposal to cut income taxes only for New Jerseyans below a certain income level and based on their annual property tax bills. Christie unveiled that proposal in July. His tax-cut plan was based on a proposal made by one of Buono’s colleagues -- Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester). Under Christie’s revised proposal, homeowners with taxable income of $400,000 or less would receive an income tax credit based on their property tax bills. The credit would be phased in over four years and ultimately reach 10 percent of the first $10,000 in property taxes paid. The Legislature, however, was concerned whether the state could afford it and decided to delay any cut to see if Christie’s revenue projections would hit his target. The target wasn’t met and the tax cut wasn’t funded. Still, the governor’s office confirmed support for a bipartisan tax cut proposal in January, and again in February when Christie said during his budget speech that New Jerseyans are overtaxed and deserve a tax cut. "But, if you change your mind and concur with my conditional veto, my Administration will figure out how to pay for this long overdue tax relief," he told the Legislature. "If you do not, I am content to let the voters decide this in November." The key difference is that Gov. Christie supported a tax cut and Sweeney's plan called for tax credits. So that's not an endorsement, said David Turner, a spokesman for the Buono campaign. "In the end, you propose the tax cut you want," Turner said. "The Governor proposed his and just because there was a Democratic legislature there to stop him does not erase the original proposal. Moreover, he was doing radio commercials in a Republican State Committee radio spot despite saying that he supported the Sweeney plan. That does not qualify as an endorsement, despite the fact that he masquerades as that." Our ruling Buono said in a recent television interview, "Governor Christie, his idea of jumpstarting the economy is to propose a trickle-down income tax cut last year and in his budget address this year, he stated his support for it again." Christie did propose a tax cut in January 2012 but dropped that idea six months later to support one proposed by Democrats that would result in an income tax credit on property taxes. The plan never went anywhere, however, because Christie’s revenue projections didn’t meet their target and Democrats said the state couldn’t afford the cut. Accordingly, Buono is correct that Christie proposed a tax cut last year and also expressed support in his February budget address for a cut. But as she has done in a past fact check related to this claim, Buono leaves out that the governor dropped his original proposal in favor of a Democratic tax-cut plan that he has supported since July. That’s a critical fact that would give a different impression, and that meets our definition for Mostly False. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Barbara Buono	None	None	None	2013-03-10T07:30:00	2013-03-05	['Linford_Christie']
-pomt-00929	Thirty U.S. cities have Triple A baseball teams and "virtually everyone of them [is] playing in government owned ballparks."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/feb/26/james-skeffington/investor-red-sox-minor-league-team-says-most-tripl/	A group of investors, including the president of the Boston Red Sox, announced Monday that they had bought the Red Sox Triple A franchise, the the Pawtucket Red Sox. In doing so, they revealed they want to move the team to Providence and build a new 10,000-seat stadium on land that became available after the relocation of Route 195. Home runs over the right-field wall would land in the Providence River. Details of the project are still emerging. On Tuesday, the new owners told The Providence Journal that they planned to build the stadium with their own money but were exploring various public-subsidy options, including asking the state to give them the land, which had been earmarked for a public park. One of the new owners, lawyer James J. Skeffington, was asked what such a public-partnership might look like in an interview Tuesday with reporter Gene Valicenti on WPRO-AM. "You know, there’s only 30 cities that have Triple A teams in the United States, in major league baseball. And virtually every one of them [is] playing in government owned ballparks," Skeffington said. He went on to say that such arrangements were a way for cities and towns to induce the owners of those Triple A teams to play there. We wondered if Skeffington was right about the number of publicly-owned ballparks. We reached out to Skeffington, who told us his information was based on a consultant’s report that he would provide to us. After we called Skeffington, we contacted each of the 30 Triple A teams to find out who owns their ballpark. We learned that only three were privately owned: Security Service Field, the Colorado Springs Sky Sox’s stadium; BB and T Ballpark, home of the Charlotte Knights; and Raley Field, the Sacramento River Cats’ ballpark. Skeffington identified four stadiums as being privately owned, but our research concluded that one of those ballparks -- Aces Ballpark in Reno, Nev. -- is, in fact, publically owned. That park has been owned by the City Redevelopment Agency of Reno since 2013, according to Eric Edelstein, president of the Reno Aces. We note that there is much debate over whether public support for professional sport teams, such as helping to build stadiums, is a wise use of public money. That is beyond the scope of this fact-check. Our ruling James Skeffington said that "virtually" all of the 30 Triple A teams play in government-owned ballparks. Our research found that 27 of the 30 stadiums those teams play in are owned by a city, county or other government entity, as seen in Reno. We note that the word virtually is not an absolute. Given that, we rate the claim as True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	James Skeffington	None	None	None	2015-02-26T00:01:00	2015-02-10	['United_States']
-pomt-02224	Says opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act is part of the Koch brothers’ agenda.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/18/gary-peters/gary-peters-says-koch-brothers-oppose-paycheck-fai/	Criticizing the Koch brothers and hitting Republicans for opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act are two key tenets of the Democratic midterm playbook. So when we found the Democrat in Michigan’s open Senate race combining those attacks against his Republican opponent, effectively killing two birds with one stone — er, press release — we thought it deserved another look. Here’s the backstory: Rep. Gary Peters, D-Mich., is a co-sponsor to the House version of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that builds on the Equal Pay Act, in hopes of increasing pay transparency in the workplace. The Senate version of the bill failed to muster 60 votes needed to advance the legislation because it couldn’t garner support from Republicans. Peters’ Republican opponent in the Senate race, former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, has come out publicly against the legislation for what it requires businesses to disclose. Peters, in response, has twice issued press releases this week insinuating that opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act is part of the agenda of Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers spending heavily on campaign ads (including in Michigan) to help Republicans win the Senate. "Land has chosen yet again to stand with her out-of-state billionaire allies like the Koch brothers" in opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Peters campaign wrote in a press release titled "Land Doubles Down on Koch Agenda." We’ve caught Democrats in other states assigning positions to the Kochs with little evidence. For the purpose of this fact-check, we’re focusing on whether opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act is part of the Koch brothers’ agenda. What is the Paycheck Fairness Act? First off, it’s already illegal to discriminate against a worker based on sex. Proponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act say this would add teeth to existing law by making it easier for women to learn whether they’re being discriminated against. That’s accomplished by prohibiting companies from retaliating against employees for discussing their pay. Women would be able to discuss their salary with other employees at the workplace without worrying about violating a company policy. In explaining Land’s opposition to the legislation, a spokeswoman said this provision would require businesses to disclose the pay of any employee to any worker who asks. But the bill specifically does not apply to an "employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee’s essential job functions." The bill also makes clear that if an employer is citing a factor other than the employee's sex for a disparity in wages between workers, it must be related to education, training, experience or other job-related reasons. Another key, and controversial, component of the bill would require the federal government to collect pay information from employers by sex, race and national origin of the employees. This information would be used to identify pay disparities within industries and potential discrimination. Land’s staff said this information could be easily made public through a FOIA request or if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission publishes it online, essentially creating a searchable database of salaries. However, that is an unlikely scenario, as the law instructs the commission to consider "appropriate protections for maintaining data confidentiality." It’s also worth noting that employers with more than 100 workers are already required annually to fill out a form called the EEO1 with information on the race and sex of their employees. While it is sometimes used in academic research, names of employees are not included and the company names are usually protected. Finally, in addition to education and awareness measures, the bill also allows employees who have been discriminated against to receive punitive or compensatory damages in a civil suit. The Koch connection We asked Peters’ campaign for evidence that the Kochs oppose the Paycheck Fairness Act. They pointed us to the Center for Effective Government, a nonpartisan watchdog of money in politics. In addition to tracking campaign finance, the organization also keeps tabs on who is lobbying the government. Companies, and firms hired to lobby on behalf of companies and groups, must disclose the issues they’re meeting with Congress about. In 2009, Flint Hills Resources, a subsidiary of Koch Industries, spent $960,000 lobbying Congress on a wide range of issues, from energy to taxes. Listed among the bills Flint Hills Resources lobbied are a previous incarnation of the Paycheck Fairness Act and what would become known as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed both chambers of Congress and was eventually signed by President Barack Obama into law. Similarly, in 2010, Koch Industries hired the firm of Siff and Lake for $50,000 to lobby Congress on a handful of bills. According to a lobbying report, one of the bills was "S. 182, the Paycheck Fairness Act," a bill very similar to the current Senate bill. Specifically, Koch Industries wanted to discuss how the bill would change the way employers justify wage disparities. The reports don’t specify whether someone is for or against the legislation. A spokeswoman for Koch Industries did not respond to multiple requests for comment. But their past positions opposing government regulation makes us confident they were against the legislation. If they want to get back to us to dispute this, we’re all ears. Disclosure reports filed since have not indicated Koch Industries has lobbied on this issue, so 2010 was the company’s last public foray into the debate. Reports covering 2013 and the first three months of 2014 have not indicated Koch entities have focused on any of the Paycheck Fairness Act bills that have circulated Congress since last year (though they have until April 21 to finalize reports for Jan. 1 to March 31). Since the recently debated Senate bill was not introduced until April 1, it may take until July to learn if Koch Industries made a last-minute push against the legislation. While opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act may have been part of their agenda during earlier debates on equal pay, we don't know (and neither does Peters) if they weighed in on the bill now before Congress. Peters’ staff also highlighted a post about the Koch brothers by Think Progress, a site affiliated with the Center for American Progress that provides liberal opinion and analysis. The piece notes how several conservative and libertarian leaning organizations with Koch financing are critical of congressional action on equal pay issues. Most of the donations are relatively small compared with the overall funding of the highlighted groups. And not all of the people quoted by Think Progress were speaking directly on the Paycheck Fairness Act, but rather the general notion of a wage gap. One group, though, Concerned Women for America, did receive a significant portion of their funding from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a group funded by the Koch brothers that primarily distributes checks. Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee received $8.15 million of the $8.7 million they raised in 2011 from the Koch-affiliated group, according to IRS filings. In 2010, the group raised less than a million dollars and just $2 million in 2012, the last records on file. In a fact-sheet opposing the bill, Concerned Women for America called the Paycheck Fairness Act a "a one-size-fits-all policy" that "discourages flexible working arrangements" and "sidetracks businesses from their primary mission, which could lead to fewer job opportunities." Americans for Prosperity, a group more directly tied to the Koch brothers that has aired ads in Michigan against Peters, has not weighed in on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a spokesman told PolitiFact. Disclosure reports released later this year may reveal more information. But that's not information Peters was privvy to when he made his claim. Our ruling Peters’ campaign claimed opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act was part of the Koch agenda. Federal disclosure forms show businesses owned by the Koch brothers lobbied on similar legislation in 2009 and 2010. And a Koch-connected group gave significant funding in 2011 to Concerned Women for America, a group that has opposed the current legislation. But it does not appear Koch Industries has lobbied on equal pay issues since 2010, including the most recent legislation. Their most vocal organization, Americans for Prosperity, hasn’t entered the debate, either. In making the claim, the Peters campaign was relying on evidence from several years ago. Even if disclosure reports filed in the near future reveal that Koch entities lobbied on the issue more recently, Peters linked the Koch brothers to the legislation without knowing their involvement. Weighing all of that, we rate the statement Half True.	None	Gary Peters	None	None	None	2014-04-18T11:59:31	2014-04-14	['None']
-pomt-15105	Says Donald Trump’s polling numbers show that he’s "the highest with Hispanics that any Republican has ever been."	/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-donald-trump-highest-hispanics-an/	All that talk about how unpopular Donald Trump is with Hispanics? In Michele Bachmann’s view, the opposite is true: Trump is polling at epic levels among Hispanic voters. Bachmann, whose life after the U.S. House has included stints as a conservative cable news pundit, said on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon on Sept. 10 that Trump is remarkably popular with minorities compared to the rest of the Republican field, even as he floats mass deportations, ending birthright citizenship and building a border wall as his first orders of business. "Donald Trump's numbers show that he's the highest with African-Americans that any Republican has ever been, and the highest with Hispanics that any Republican has ever been," Bachmann said. Like, ever ever? Given that Trump himself has said he’s polling No. 1 with Hispanics, PunditFact wanted to know if Bachmann is correct. What the polls say A spokesperson for Bachmann did not return our messages asking how she knows Trump’s numbers are "the highest with Hispanics that any Republican has ever been." A survey of summer headlines indicates she is wrong Wall Street Journal: "Hispanics hold dim view of Donald Trump, poll finds" CNN: "Poll: 82 percent of Hispanics view Donald Trump unfavorably" Politico: "Poll: Trump’s popularity increasing, but not with Hispanics" Gallup: "Hispanics Frown on Trump, but Not Rest of GOP Field." Without a doubt, more Hispanics have made up their minds about Trump than the other candidates. But not in the way Bachmann said. As the Gallup poll shows below, the broader Hispanic view of Trump is strongly negative. Trump’s net favorable rating, according to Gallup, ranks last of all candidates at -51 percent (65 percent unfavorable, 14 percent favorable). The next-lowest candidates are from Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz and former Gov. Rick Perry (who’s out of the race), tied at net -7 percent. Florida natives Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio top the tracking poll, with Gallup noting Bush’s favorability jumped as Trump’s fell this summer, undermining the theory that Trump is hurting the other candidates in the race with Hispanics. Gallup’s survey is based on interviews with about 650 Hispanics from July 8 to Aug. 23 with a margin of error of 5 percentage points. It’s no outlier. A Univision Noticias poll also shows Trump lacking the most support among Hispanics. Polling by The Economist/YouGov drives home the point. In a survey of more than 230 Hispanic adults, 62 percent said they had a very unfavorable view of Trump, compared to 43 percent of 2,000 voters of all backgrounds who felt the same way. Again, all of the other candidates were viewed more favorably. The Economist/YouGov poll was based on 2,000 interviews conducted Aug. 28-Sept. 1 via an opt-in Internet panel, with a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points. Problems with data Hispanics are not a monolithic voting bloc but a growing share of the population with roots in Spanish-speaking countries. However, most Hispanic registered voters lean toward the Democratic Party, with the Republican share accounting for about 25 percent, said Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of Hispanic polling at the Pew Research Center. The more relevant figure to this discussion is how Republican Hispanic registered voters feel about Trump compared to other candidates, Lopez said, since it is their vote that will influence the GOP state primaries. The problem with that is Republican Hispanic voters have not been queried as much as the broader electorate this early in the election cycle. Doing this well requires hiring Spanish speakers for interviews, randomly surveying households and asking respondents if they consider themselves Hispanic or Latino, and then making sure at least half of the respondents are reached by cell phone, Lopez said, reflecting Hispanic household trends. Some pollsters try to get at this through micro-sampling their larger pool of poll respondents, but the results are often meaningless because the sample is so small. The Economist/YouGov poll, for example, asked voters who identify as Republican to choose their preferred GOP nominee. Broken down by race/ethnicity, 28 percent of GOP-leaning Hispanic voters chose Trump, followed by "no preference" at 18 percent, and Bush at 15 percent. Here’s the problem with running away with those results and proclaiming Trump the favorite: Just 34 Hispanic adults answered the question. Put another way, that means 10 people chose Trump, six said they had no preference, and five chose Bush. No self-respecting statistician would say this tiny sample reflects the sentiment of all registered Hispanic Republicans. Also, the higher support for Trump makes sense, since he also posts higher name recognition than the other candidates. Only 9 percent of the larger pool of Hispanic voters said they did not know how they felt about Trump, compared to 22 percent for Bush and 24 percent for Rubio. The numbers were much higher for the rest of the field. A state poll? A Google search shows where Bachmann might be going with her erroneous claim. Some blogs crowed about a poll by Gravis Marketing for the conservative One America News Network that found "Trump leads Nevada poll with overwhelming Hispanic support." The Hispanic population is small in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the first three states to hold presidential caucuses or primaries next year, but that’s not true for Nevada, which goes fourth. About 31 percent of Hispanic respondents said they would vote for Trump in a Republican primary, followed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 11.4 percent, according to OAN. While this might sound good for Trump (and Bachmann), they shouldn’t read too much into the poll’s declarations. As CBS News pointed out when Trump made reference to this poll, the OAN poll is based on robocalling, which means a computer talked with respondents. This method is not as reliable, and it’s more problematic for reaching Hispanic residents — half of whom rely only on cell phones (higher than for African-Americans and whites). Robocalls to cell phone numbers are not permitted by federal regulators. It’s also not clear if the poll included a Spanish-speaking component, Lopez said. One last red flag: The poll’s details do not show how many Hispanics were asked the question from the sample of 620 registered Republicans. So we don’t know how many Hispanic Republican voters chose Trump. (Remember how much a handful of responses from Hispanic adults made Hispanic support for Trump appear in the YouGov poll?) That said, Lopez said the Hispanic Republican registered voter results seem to align with the view of Republicans overall in that poll, "and I doubt the 31.4 percent for Hispanics is statistically different from the 27.7 percent of all Republican registered voters" in Nevada who said they would vote for Trump. Our ruling Bachmann said Trump’s polling numbers show that he’s "the highest with Hispanics that any Republican has ever been." We didn’t even have to crack open the history books of all Hispanic support for all Republicans ever to disprove her claim. Trump sits — and in many cases, firmly — at the bottom of favorability polls among Hispanics compared to the other GOP candidates. We rate the claim False.	None	Michele Bachmann	None	None	None	2015-09-15T12:13:47	2015-09-10	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Hispanic']
-goop-00910	Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively Expecting Third Baby?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ryan-reynolds-blake-lively-baby-third-child-pregnant/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively Expecting Third Baby?	5:53 pm, May 30, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10186	"Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' The Second Amendment….Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/23/national-rifle-association/fuzzy-stand-in-96-does-not-amount-to-a-plan/	In a hard-hitting direct-mail piece to its members, the National Rifle Association detailed an alleged plan by Sen. Barack Obama to transform gun-ownership regulations. Obama's "plan" appeared on a section of the mailer designed to be cut out and carried around in a wallet. The front of the wallet card said, "Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment." The reverse listed the 10 parts of the alleged plan, including: "3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." We examined item No. 1 here , and found it to be Pants on Fire wrong. Some of the other items sound just as dubious, such as: "4) Close down 90 percent of the gun shops in America." And "6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent." But let's stick to No. 3 for now. An NRA spokeswoman confirmed the authenticity of the direct mail piece, which first appeared in early August 2008. She would not delve into the details of how the organization supported its charges, but we're pretty sure we know where the NRA is coming from on this one. In 1996, as a candidate for the Illinois state Senate, Obama filled out a questionnaire for a community group called Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization. It asked if the candidate supported state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Obama’s answer: “Yes.” The Obama campaign claimed the questionnaire was filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position” on gun control and other issues, even though Obama's writing was on another part of the questionnaire. (Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said in an e-mailed statement to Politico, “He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire at the meeting, but that doesn’t change the fact that some answers didn’t reflect his views.”) But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama approved of what was on the questionnaire. There are still serious problems with using that to justify a claim that Obama has a plan to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." For one thing, the question was about a state law. The NRA claims without qualification that Obama wants to ban handguns, implying that he intends to do so on a national level. Obama says frequently that gun regulation should be tailored to different geographical areas. For another thing, Obama's answer on the questionnaire was a long time ago. On a more recent questionnaire, he said, "A complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable," but reasonable restrictions should be imposed, according to the Associated Press . At the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia on April 16, 2008, Obama said: "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." His vote in 2004, for a bill that authorized the Illinois State Police to issue concealed weapon permits to retired police officers and military police officers, supports that claim. Furthermore, as a state legislator and U.S. senator, Obama has had plenty of opportunity to propose a ban on handguns, and has never done so. Obama's alleged endorsement of a proposed state law in 1996 does not add up to a plan to ban handguns, particularly in light of evidence to the contrary that has accumulated since then. We find the NRA's claim to be False.	None	National Rifle Association	None	None	None	2008-09-23T00:00:00	2008-08-01	['None']
-pomt-05288	Says Williamson County Attorney Jana Duty "has never prosecuted a single adult felony case."	/texas/statements/2012/may/24/john-bradley/williamson-county-da-john-bradley-says-challenger-/	In the heated contest over the Republican nomination to be Williamson County’s district attorney, incumbent John Bradley has repeatedly said challenger Jana Duty, the elected county attorney, doesn’t have enough experience to do his job. In an op-ed article published on the Austin American-Statesman’s website May 14, 2012, for instance, Bradley talked up his résumé and then said: "Duty has never prosecuted a single adult felony case." Not one? Before detailing our fact-check, we think it’s important to note that we’re not tackling what kind of experience a district attorney should have and whether Duty has it — that’s open to debate. We were curious whether Bradley was correct that Duty had never prosecuted an adult felony case. On its face, such a charge illuminates a basic difference between the jobs of the district attorney and county attorney in Williamson County. Criminal prosecution of adults is split between them, with the district attorney’s office handling felony cases and the county attorney’s office handling misdemeanors. So since Duty became county attorney in 2005, adult felonies have not fallen under her purview, which means she could not have personally prosecuted them. In a write-up he emailed to us, Bradley says previous experience with adult felony cases is key because "no person can credibly or successfully lead an office without any experience or understanding of the job being done in that office." Via email, Bradley also told us that the district attorney sets office-wide policy on punishment recommendations in plea agreements. "As misdemeanor cases only involve a maximum of one year in jail and felony cases involve punishment of up to life in prison or death, felony experience is absolutely necessary," he said. As for Bradley’s experience, the write-up says he has been a prosecutor since 1987, starting out in the Harris County district attorney’s office. He joined the Williamson County district attorney’s office two years later. In 2001, Gov. Rick Perry appointed Bradley to lead the office, according to the county’s website, and he first won election in 2002. Bradley told us that he continues to personally handle some cases but that the majority are handled by assistant prosecutors. He said that on a daily basis, he discusses cases with prosecutors in his office, advises them and sets policy. To support his statement about Duty’s experience, Bradley first pointed us to a television news report in which he said Duty admitted his claim was correct. In the March 23, 2012, story by the Austin area’s YNN television channel, Bradley, in an interview, said: "I have over 20 years of experience; Jana Duty has never prosecuted a single adult felony case. And that’s the work that the DA does." Next, the YNN reporter, Alana Rocha, said: "She admits that’s true, but that her office has tried many such cases." Many adult felony cases? We found that statement confusing, so we sought clarity from the reporter. Rocha told us that Duty had admitted to her that Bradley’s claim is correct. Rocha also said that after we inquired, she checked with Duty afresh and Duty clarified that her office prosecutes juvenile felonies. In Williamson County, the county attorney’s office is responsible for juvenile cases. As further support for his statement, Bradley pointed us to a February 2012 candidate forum in Cedar Park, where, he said, Duty neither questioned the truthfulness of his claim nor offered examples of adult felony prosecution experience. According to a video of the forum on the website of the Central Texas 9-12 Project, Bradley raised the issue of experience in his closing statement, although he made a narrower claim there than in his op-ed piece, charging that Duty has never tried — as opposed to the broader idea of "prosecuted" — an adult felony case. That’s an important distinction because most felony cases are resolved through plea bargains, not trials. Bradley told us that more than 95 percent of the cases in his office end in such agreements. At the forum, Bradley said: "How can you have a district attorney run an office, decide the death penalty for people, if you’ve never stood in court in a felony case and tried an adult? And the fact is Ms. Duty" has not done so. Duty responded during her final statement that she is "also a career prosecutor" and that she has experience "trying many, many cases," pointing to work she has done in Bexar and Williamson counties. She said she has tried 30 to 40 jury trials and has handled family violence and Child Protective Services cases, including those that result in the termination of someone’s parental rights. "And again let me remind you that in a parental termination case, you are taking children away from their parents forever, and that is just as serious as putting somebody in prison," Duty said. Duty did not respond to our requests to discuss her professional experience. However, according to an Oct. 7, 2004, Austin American-Statesman news article and her campaign website, she had previously served two stints as a prosecutor: as an assistant district attorney in Bexar County after she passed the Texas bar exam in 1997, and as an assistant Williamson County attorney from 1999 to 2001. Her campaign website says Duty’s earlier work at the Williamson county attorney’s office came in the "Child Protective Services and Protective Order section" and then in the criminal division. According to legal experts we contacted, Child Protective Services cases generally involve allegations of abuse or neglect against a child’s parent or guardian and are civil, not criminal, cases. The website of the Williamson county attorney’s office says pursuing protective orders for qualified applicants is one way that the county attorney "aids in the prevention of domestic violence." A protective order is "a civil court order issued against a person who has committed family violence," the site says. Such orders can, for example, require that an abusive husband have no contact with his wife for a certain period of time. Either way, adult felony cases are not handled in the Williamson county attorney’s office. But did Duty handle such cases while working for the Bexar County district attorney, which prosecutes felonies and misdemeanors? That’s at least unclear. In her campaign bio, Duty says that in Bexar County, she "worked as the Protective Order Attorney and then as a family violence prosecutor in the family violence court." We sought information from the Bexar County district attorney’s office about the cases she handled there, but officials declined to comment. Brian Fischer, a Houston criminal defense attorney, told us that generally, prosecutions of family violence cases can involve misdemeanors or felonies. In an email, Duty replied to our inquiry about Bradley’s claim without speaking directly to its accuracy. She wrote: "My office prosecutes juvenile felony crimes and adult misdemeanor crimes (and a lot of other stuff). The Texas Rules of Evidence, the Texas Rules of Procedure (and) the elements of a felony are exactly the same for an adult case as they are in a juvenile case. In my 15 years as a lawyer, I have tried hundreds of adult misdemeanor, juvenile misdemeanor and felony crimes, Child Protective Services cases, and Protective Orders. I would venture to say that I have just as much trial experience as Mr. Bradley." Finally, we explored Duty’s intimation that there are similarities between the prosecution of adult felonies and juvenile felonies by consulting Texas legal experts, including Fischer, who specializes in juvenile law; two law professors; and a juvenile defense lawyer who prosecuted both adult and felony cases over nearly three decades in the Harris County district attorney’s office. The experts did not agree on the degree of similarities or differences between prosecuting adult and juvenile felonies. However, they all noted that juveniles can be charged with the same felony crimes as adults and that prosecutors are held to the same burden of proof in juvenile felony trials as in adult ones; they must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused has committed the crime. Also, they agreed, the rules of evidence and the elements of the crime are the same in juvenile and adult cases. The issue of procedure is more complicated. The experts told us that juvenile courts operate under a sort of hybrid system, in which rules of civil procedure govern many aspects of a juvenile felony case while others are governed by rules of criminal procedure, as adult cases are. Other distinctions: The maximum sentence a juvenile can receive is 40 years, while adults face sentences up to life in prison or even death. Duty did not respond to our questions about how many juvenile felony trials she had prosecuted. According to data from the state Office of Court Administration, there were 205 new juvenile felony cases filed in the county’s juvenile court from Sept. 1, 2010, through April 30, 2012. During that time, 142 juvenile felony cases were resolved through pleas of "true" — the equivalent of pleading guilty in adult court. Also, 31 felony cases were dismissed. There was one trial, of a misdemeanor case, according to the data. Our ruling Duty points out that her office prosecutes adult misdemeanors and juvenile felonies, though it appears that none made it to trial in recent years. Hers may be a reasonable point. Still, Bradley specified that Duty had not conducted adult felony prosecutions. This published claim rates Mostly True.	None	John Bradley	None	None	None	2012-05-24T09:00:00	2012-05-14	['None']
-hoer-00528	'Ebola Vaccine Only Works on White People'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-news-ebola-vaccine-only-works-white-people.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	FAKE-NEWS - 'Ebola Vaccine Only Works on White People'	September 26, 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-00213	"Nate McMurray lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea, too.)"	/new-york/statements/2018/oct/12/chris-collins/collins-tries-use-mcmurrays-work-asia-against-him/	Rep. Chris Collins, running for re-election to Congress in New York's 27th District in Western New York, is rolling out attack ads criticizing challenger Nathan McMurray's work in Asia. One side of a Collins mailer states: "Nate McMurray lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea too.) The other side states: "Nate McMurray: American job exporter. Nate McMurray spent many years in Asia working to identify cheap labor and offshoring opportunities for American companies. He lobbied for trade deals that outsourced thousands of U.S. jobs to China and Korea - doubling our trade deficit and devastating American businesses." We decided to fact-check the Republican's claim that McMurray, a Democrat, "lobbied to send our jobs to China. (And Korea, too.)" The citations The mailer, paid for by the Collins campaign, lists three sources for the claims it makes, though it does not have a source for the claim we focus on here. The first source, a Buffalo News story, mentions McMurray’s time working abroad, but it does not say he was "working to identify cheap labor and offshoring opportunities for American companies," as the mailer states. The News story mentions McMurray’s time in Asia, studying law in Seoul, South Korea, on a Fulbright scholarship, and working as legal counsel for Samsung. To bolster Collins’ claim that McMurray "lobbied for trade deals that outsourced thousands of U.S. jobs to China and Korea," Collins cites a journal article published by the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea, co-written by McMurray. The article is about how foreign companies can navigate Korea’s "restrictive employment agreements." There is no reference to any lobbying efforts in favor of trade deals by McMurray. The mailer’s final citation, from the New York Times, purportedly bolsters the mailer’s claim that the trade deals that McMurray "lobbied for" doubled the trade deficit and devastated American businesses. The story about the start of renegotiations of a trade pact between the United States and Korea includes a quote from Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative. He said the trade deficit in goods between the United States and Korea doubled since the United States Korea Free Trade Agreement took effect in 2012. The pact did not yield the expected increase in exports of American goods, and U.S. goods exports actually went down, Lighthizer said. Work in Asia But did McMurray lobby to send jobs to China and Korea? The lawyer who recruited McMurray to work for a Korean law firm called the claim "utter nonsense." Thomas Pinansky, the senior foreign attorney and partner at Barun Law in Seoul, South Korea, recruited McMurray to the firm and supervised his work. McMurray helped American companies enter the Korean market, Pinansky said in an interview. "The comments are utter nonsense, they’re not based factually on what Nathan was doing as an international attorney on the ground in Korea," said Pinansky, a self-described independent voter who donated $300 to McMurray’s campaign. The law firm works with American companies and others "to help them succeed in historically a difficult market to penetrate, but it’s an important one," Pinansky said. The claim that McMurray "lobbied" to send American jobs to Asia is false, he said. "Lobbying is also absurd. It makes no sense at all," Pinansky said. "Lobbying whom for what?" McMurray worked as a legal adviser in Asia from 2006 to 2013, first in China with Allen & Overy, and then in Korea with Barun Law and Samsung, according to his campaign manager, Victoria Dillon. "In none of these positions did he have the authority to outsource any jobs," Dillon said. Labor support We attempted to get evidence for this claim from the Collins campaign. Four attempts to contact the campaign, through telephone and email messages, left over two days, were not returned. McMurray’s work in Asia has been a point of attack for Collins in a recent television ad. An automated phone call also mentioned McMurray’s supposed ties to trade deals that increased the U.S. trade deficit. The identity of the person or group who paid for the automated call is not clear. In a statement responding to the Collins television ad that had a similar attack, McMurray pointed to endorsements from the labor community. They include United Steel Workers and United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Workers of America. "Do you think I’d have the support of the local and national labor community if I was going to ship jobs to Asia? Of course not," McMurray said. Our ruling McMurray worked in Asia with American companies trying to enter markets there. He also was a co-author of an article about navigating Korea's labor laws. Collins claimed "McMurray lobbied to send our jobs" to China and Korea. There is no evidence that companies sought McMurray’s legal advice to move jobs from the United States to Asia, or that McMurray lobbied on behalf of trade deals. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Chris Collins	None	None	None	2018-10-12T16:59:00	2018-10-10	['None']
-pomt-09363	"A lot of the ideas in terms of the (health insurance) exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/01/barack-obama/obama-says-heritage-foundation-source-health-excha/	EDITOR'S NOTE: An analysis of this comment by President Barack Obama was published on April 1, 2010. After it appeared, the Heritage Foundation's communications office contacted us to argue that our rating of Mostly True was too generous to the president. We did some additional reporting to review our ruling. Our second round of reporting -- primarily talking to conservative policy experts outside of Heritage -- solidified our initial conclusions. Below is the updated version of our story, which retains the rating of Mostly True, published April 26, 2010. Democrats like to parry Republican criticism of the recently passed health care law by talking about how it includes ideas that originated with conservatives. During an interview on NBC's Today show on March 30, 2010, President Barack Obama offered a specific example. Obama told host Matt Lauer that "when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts. A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation. ..." We zeroed in on the notion that the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is no fan of Obama's health care law as a whole, might have "originated" the idea of the health insurance exchange -- a virtual marketplace where individuals can purchase health insurance. Our interest only grew after we received an e-mail from Heritage president Ed Feulner that blasted Obama's claim. "President Obama this morning cited the Heritage Foundation's research in an attempt to sell his health care package as a 'middle-of-the-road, centrist approach,'" Feulner wrote. "We take great exception to this misuse of our work and abuse of our name. This is but the latest act in a campaign to sell this big-government program as a moderate law that incorporates conservative ideas. Americans should not be fooled." Feulner went on to argue that "the president knows full well — or he ought to learn before he speaks — that the exchanges we and most others support are very different from those in his package. True exchanges are simply a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance. President Obama’s exchanges, by contrast, are a vehicle to introduce sweeping regulation and federal standardization on health insurance." Heritage continued its campaign against Obama's claim in an April 19, 2010, op-ed column in the Washington Post. The director of Heritage's Center for Health Policy Studies, Robert Moffit, wrote that "the version of the exchange we did develop couldn't be more different than that embodied in this law." He charged that "the Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad. Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there." We see two related, but distinct, questions here. The first is whether Heritage did in fact "originate" the idea of health insurance exchanges. The second is whether the exchange prescribed by the new law mirrors the one that Heritage has supported. • Did Heritage originate the idea? Our research suggests that while Heritage has advocated for health insurance exchanges for many years, others did, too. Scholars credit Alain C. Enthoven -- an emeritus professor at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business who worked in the Defense Department during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- with popularizing the idea for an exchange as many as three decades ago. Still, there's little doubt that Heritage has been a consistent and eager promoter of the exchange idea, especially during the effort to design a new health care system for Massachusetts. That effort concluded with the Democratic legislature joining with the Republican governor, Romney, to implement a system that includes a health insurance exchange. On numerous occasions, Heritage scholars wrote approvingly of the exchange system in Massachusetts, known as the Connector. In a paper about the Massachusetts plan published on April 11, 2006, Edmund Haislmaier, a Heritage fellow in health care policy, wrote of the "truly significant and transformative health system changes that the legislation would set in motion." Specifically, Haislmaier wrote that "this concept of organizing a state's insurance markets around a central clearinghouse represents a dramatic departure from recent state health insurance reform proposals. States have spent the past 15 years trying to expand health care coverage to small-business employees, with virtually no positive results. The Massachusetts legislation represents a bipartisan commitment to move away from the policies that have largely failed to make progress in covering the uninsured for the past 15 years." In another paper, titled, "The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange," and published on Oct. 5, 2006, Heritage scholar Robert Moffit wrote that "the best option is a health insurance market exchange." Comparing it to a farmers' market or the used-car dealer CarMax, Moffit said the exchange "would expand coverage and choice" and would represent "a revolutionary change in the health insurance market." Journalists seemed to give Heritage credit, as well. During 2006, columns and articles citing Heritage's role in promoting the health exchange idea ran in such publications as the Washington Post, the Dallas Morning News, the New Orleans Times-Picayune and the National Review. We feel the president is largely right on this point. The idea for exchanges may have "originated" outside Heritage, but in well over a decade leading up to the introduction of the president's health care plan, Heritage clearly took a high-profile role in touting it, culminating in the proposal enacted in Massachusetts. And given that, they can hardly be shocked that the president is noting the think tank's role in developing the overall concept (even if he did so in a self-serving way). • Is it the same idea? After Obama made his comment, we spoke to both Haislmaier and to Stuart Butler, Heritage's vice president for domestic policy. Both argued that the plan now enacted into law is fundamentally different in structure than the one Heritage advocated. "What Obama and Capitol Hill did was to take a mainstream idea and push it toward a much more interventionist, regulatory model, as opposed to the original idea, which was more market-based," Butler said in an interview. To prevent Heritage scholars from moving the goalposts after the fact, we decided to analyze how similar the proposals are only by referring to policy stances that can be documented in briefing papers published prior to Obama's election. We found at least four papers that spoke directly to the health insurance exchange idea, and in these papers, we noticed several passages that advocated elements of an exchange that differ from how the bill was ultimately written. Here are some of those differences: -- Who can use the exchange? In a 2006 paper, Moffit wrote, "Ideally, an exchange should be open to all state residents and all interested employers, regardless of the size of the firm, who want to arrange health insurance through the exchange." That's not the case with the exchanges in the new law -- at least not any time soon. When the exchanges go live in 2014, they will only be open to people already buying insurance on the individual market (that is, those buying insurance independent of their employer) and to employees of small businesses with up to 100 employees. A provision does allow employees of businesses with more than 100 employees to purchase coverage from the exchange, but not until 2017, and only if their state decides to allow it. (The exception is that employees who are paying too large a percentage of their income on their employer-based health insurance will be eligible in 2014.) -- How much federal regulation will there be? Heritage scholars have regularly argued that the key regulatory role for the exchanges should be handled by the states, rather than the federal government. In a 2007 paper, Butler wrote that "each state would determine on its own such features as the infrastructure for handling premiums, as well as the regulations and requirements for accepting insurance plans into the exchange. The state also would be responsible for determining pooling, reinsurance, and risk adjustment arrangements and the degree to which firms would, if at all, be required to offer plans available through the exchange to their employees." It's true that the new health care law will create state-based exchanges. However, they will have to adhere to many federal requirements. For instance, the federal law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to define an "essential health benefits package" (and update its details every year). This will become the minimum package offered on the exchanges. The law also limits plans sold on the exchange to charging differential premiums only based on age (in a 3-to-1 ratio), geography, family composition and tobacco use (on a 1.5-to-1 ratio). And health plans on the exchange will have to abide by an assortment of other rules governing marketing requirements, provider networks and standards for presenting information to consumers. -- How portable will insurance be? In a 2007 paper published by Heritage, researcher Connie Marshner argued that health insurance exchanges would promote portability of health insurance. "When individuals are able to purchase health insurance for themselves in an (exchange) marketplace, the insurance belongs to them," Marshner wrote. "Even if they change jobs, move, or quit working and retire, they own the policy and can keep the same health insurance if they so choose." That should be the case for many people on the health care law's exchange, especially those who bought their insurance individually, as long as states don't erect high barriers that bar people from moving from one state's exchange to another. But full portability will be unlikely for those who purchased insurance on the exchange with the help of their employer. While the exchange should make it easier for those switching jobs to find new insurance, there will most likely be a disruption when that employee switches companies -- and whenever there's a disruption in coverage, there's a likelihood that their plan will have to change to one degree or another. So where does this leave us? Edwin Park, a senior fellow with the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, sees significant similarities in approach despite the differences outlined above. Park said the differences involved "rules of the road within the exchange, rather than fundamental differences in the underlying concept or structure." Henry Aaron, a fellow with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, called the new health care law "a close relative" of Heritage's plan -- "not identical to be sure, but a sibling or at least a first cousin. The essence is that you have a government or nonprofit entity that regulates the sale of insurance to individuals or businesses in order to standardize offerings and to control selling methods in order to produce real, head-to-head competition and to provide customers information in forms they can readily understand. ... Yes, they are all different; but they are all of the same family. " We also solicited the views of conservative policy experts beyond Heritage. One -- Tevi Troy, a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute -- thought Heritage had a legitimate gripe. "In the policy world, there is often a vast gulf between theoretical ideas and policies as implemented, and this case is no exception," Troy said. "While Heritage had been a leading advocate for health insurance exchanges, the law as written creates something so different from what Heritage sought that I understand why they want to remove their name from the list of proponents." However, we heard from nine people affiliated with conservative policy organizations other than Heritage who thought that the president's statement was reasonably accurate. Seven of them declined to publicly express their differences with Heritage for fear of making waves within the tight-knit conservative policy world. But two did allow their names to be used. One was Dan Miller, executive vice president of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, who acknowledged that Obama's statement was so carefully worded that the president "was able to exploit" the issue "for his own ends." The other was Daniel McCarthy, senior editor of the American Conservative magazine who has written recently about the conservative origins of the president's health care plan. "Every think tank on the left and right knows that its recommendations will undergo some deformation before they make their way into law, if they ever do," McCarthy told PolitiFact. "Heritage might prefer state insurance exchanges with greater individual choice, including for workers already covered by their employers. But I don't imagine Ed Feulner would be complaining at all if a Republican president or a Republican Congress had passed a plan that deviated from the Heritage blueprint to the same degree that Obama's bill has. While it's not true that 'lots of' the specifics in the Obama plan were dreamed up by Heritage, the overall approach is similar to policies Heritage has long championed, including the individual mandate as well as the insurance exchanges. This is only controversial because the wrong party happened to pass the law, and it's poison for any conservative to be identified with it." We agree with Heritage that the differences between its original vision and the version enacted into law are not trivial, and are enough to undercut the president's effort to secure a Heritage Foundation seal of approval for his bill. But the president helped his case by wording his statement with extreme care. Intentionally or not, he gave himself subtle linguistic running room by saying that "a lot of the ideas" for the exchange came from Heritage, including the concept of "just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market." Even if not all of the ideas in the two plans are identical, we feel that it was fair of him to say that "a lot of the ideas" are in common, including the notion of pooling. So we conclude that the president's statement qualifies as Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-04-01T13:34:21	2010-03-30	['The_Heritage_Foundation']
-snes-03766	It costs American taxpayers roughly $200,000 an hour every time President Obama travels in Air Force One to campaign for Hillary Clinton.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/taxpayers-air-force-one/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Does It Cost Taxpayers $200,000 per Hour for President Obama to Use Air Force One to Campaign for Hillary Clinton?	18 October 2016	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-02865	Trump strategist Stephen Bannon defended spousal abuse with the statement, "Nobody can blame you for beating your wife if it's out of love."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stephen-bannon-nobody-can-blame-you/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Stephen Bannon: ‘Nobody Can Blame You for Beating Your Wife If It’s Out of Love’?	27 August 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02283	Consumers are not obligated to pay back debt that creditors have written off and sold.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paying-sold-debt/	None	Legal Affairs	None	David Mikkelson	None	Are You Exempt from Paying Sold-Off Debt?	2 June 2017	None	['None']
-tron-01236	List of Facts and Figures about Illegal Immigration	https://www.truthorfiction.com/illegal-aliens/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	List of Facts and Figures about Illegal Immigration	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-bove-00185	Arnab vs Rajdeep: Ex-Colleagues Question Goswami’s Account Of Riot Coverage	https://www.boomlive.in/arnab-vs-rajdeep-ex-colleagues-question-goswamis-account-of-riot-coverage/	None	None	None	None	None	Arnab vs Rajdeep: Ex-Colleagues Question Goswami’s Account Of Riot Coverage	Sep 19 2017 5:31 pm, Last Updated: Sep 23 2017 9:26 pm	None	['None']
-snes-03367	A photograph shows two Boston Bruins fan holding a sign stating that they performed a sex act with player Tyler Seguin.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boston-bruins-fan-sign/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Boston Bruins Fan Sign	12 December 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09823	Schoolchildren across the nation "will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/	President Barack Obama plans to speak to the nation's schoolchildren on Sept. 8. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the speech will be about "the importance of persisting and succeeding in school," and the department is offering classroom materials to "engage students and stimulate discussion on the importance of education in their lives." You might think that would be a harmless topic, and that people across the political spectrum could agree on the importance of education. Not so for the Republican Party of Florida, which released a statement "condemning President Obama's use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda." "As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology," said Jim Greer, party chairman, in a news release. "The idea that schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power," he added. "The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves," he concluded. The release, which we received via e-mail, told us to click a link to learn more about Obama's speech. That took us to the U.S. Department of Education Web site, where Secretary Arne Duncan wrote that the speech was about "the importance of education." "The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning," Duncan wrote. "He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens." We asked the Republican Party of Florida for evidence that Obama intended to discuss health care, banks, automobile companies or taxes with the nation's schoolchildren. They couldn't point us to anything. A spokesman said the party was particularly concerned about the study questions the department had provided. "The goal of these materials is to tell students why they should support President Obama in his overall agenda," said Katie Gordon. "If the former administration had done something like this, the media would be handling this a lot differently," she added. We reviewed the study materials but didn't see any mention of controversial issues, let alone any attempt to indoctrinate students in socialism. The pre-K through 6th grade materials said the main ideas of the speech would be "citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty." The materials for high schoolers mention "personal responsibility, goals, persistence." We searched previous media reports to see if former President George W. Bush ever gave a nationwide address to schoolchildren, but based on our search, it appears he did not. He did, however, regularly visit individual schools and discuss the importance of education with students. We did learn, however, that President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation's students in a televised speech during school hours in 1991. ''I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid,'' Bush said, according to news reports from the time. He told students to ''block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart'' and ''work harder, learn more.'' Democrats at the time criticized the speech. "The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives. Republican Newt Gingrich defended Bush's speech, though. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" Gingrich said at the time. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education." But we digress. In ruling on Greer's statement, we wondered whether we should give him latitude for legitimate commentary on Obama's speech. But he crossed a line when he said that Obama intended to discuss "plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies" and other policy matters not germane to education. That is factually incorrect, and the party could not offer any support for the statement. For raising the specter of socialist ideology and indoctrination, the party takes its claim to an additional, absurd level. We rate the Republican Party of Florida's statement Pants on Fire! Update, Sept. 3 : Since we published this item, the Department of Education has modified a line in its classroom materials about the president's speech. A bullet point for activities after the speech used to say, "Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." Now it states, "Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short–term and long–term education goals. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals." That change, however, does not alter our ruling. Based on the press release that the Republican Party of Florida used as a basis for this claim, there remains no evidence that Obama intends to discuss the controversial policy issues of health care, banking, the automotive industry, taxes or the national debt during his address to students. And so we still find the party's claim to be Pants on Fire.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2009-09-02T11:19:27	2009-09-01	['None']
-pomt-04270	"The higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic."	/georgia/statements/2012/nov/05/larry-sabato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/	With the presidential election upon us this week, PolitiFact Georgia decided to examine a statement about national voting trends. In a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, political analyst Larry Sabato commented on the constituency of the political parties, particularly among white voters. We already checked part of his statement that "Virginia’s educational level among whites is higher than Georgia (voters’ educational level)." We rated it true. In the article, Sabato goes on to explain more of the characteristics of the political parties’ faithful. "... The higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic," he said in the story. We decided to take a closer look to determine whether there were facts to bear this out. And if so, did this claim include voters nationwide? And what about Georgia, where conservative, white voters have been a solid base for the GOP? We asked Sabato about the basis for his comments. Like his first statement, Sabato used CNN’s 2008 exit polls to substantiate his claim, according to his political analyst and media relations coordinator, Kyle Kondik. Based on the 2008 exit polls of Georgia, Virginia (where Sabato works) and nationally, whites with a college degree supported Barack Obama at a higher rate than whites without a college degree, Kondik said. Looking at CNN’s 2008 national election poll of almost 18,000 respondents, 44 percent identified as college graduates. Of those college graduates, Obama had an 8 percentage point advantage over then-Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Of voters with a postgraduate degree, Obama had an 18-point advantage over McCain. In Georgia, the GOP maintained a strong foothold. All white voters at each education level -- except of course, white Democrats -- overwhelmingly voted for McCain. The GOP nominee had a 48-point advantage over Obama among Georgia’s white college graduate respondents. At the postgraduate level, the margin between the candidates shrunk, but McCain still beat out Obama by 1 percentage point. (The postgraduate voters were not identified by race.) The Pew Research Center released data in August 2012 about GOP gains among working-class white voters that found: "Lower-income and less educated whites also have shifted substantially toward the Republican Party since 2008." Among whites without a college degree, the GOP now holds a 54 percent to 37 percent advantage among non-college whites, who were split about evenly four years ago. The partisanship of white college graduates, by contrast, has not changed, the analysis found. Back in March of this year, political scientists and authors of the Monkey Cage blog examined the voting patterns of white voters in America. Their findings also support Sabato’s analysis. When viewed in the context of educational attainment alone, without also examining income level, the blog authors concluded that high school graduates are more Republican than non-high school graduates. But after that, the groups with more education tended to vote more Democratic. At the very highest education level tabulated in the survey, voters with postgraduate degrees leaned toward the Democrats. To reach the conclusions, the political scientists (professors at East Coast colleges such as George Washington University and Georgetown) used data from Annenberg pre-election polls for 2000 and 2004 and Pew pre-election polls for 2008. With white, highly educated voters being a key demographic for the Democratic Party, political observers, such as conservative columnist Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner, are predicting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney could carry several swing states if he can sway these voters to the GOP. But the Democrats seem intent on keeping this voting bloc. Last week the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), which conducts research on civic education and on youth voting and political participation, published an analysis of about 1,110 young voters based on their educational experience. CIRCLE, which is based at Tufts University and was founded in 2001 by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts, found that youths with college backgrounds were about three times more likely to have been contacted on behalf of the Obama campaign. The Romney campaign and supporters appeared to have contacted more non-college youths. In Georgia, the numbers are harder to examine. The secretary of state does not keep statistics on voters’ education levels. The GOP in the Peach State and in the Deep South in general still has a stronghold on the white voters, regardless of the education level, said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University and co-author of the book "The Rise of the Southern Republicans." "In a state like Virginia where you have a lot of Northern migrants and people coming in from outside the state, things may be different," he said. The GOP stronghold in Georgia is evidenced by the overwhelming number of Republicans in power at the state level, as well as the strong support for McCain four years ago and early polling data showing support for Romney this year. Sabato said that "the higher the education level, the more likely [voters] are to vote Democratic." Sabato bases his claim on 2008 exit polls showing this national trend. Several polls and analysis done on data from presidential elections dating back at least a decade support Sabato’s claim. Still, looking at data for Georgia, the trend remains for white voters -- regardless of educational level -- to vote Republican. For many areas of the country, Sabato’s claim holds true. But in Georgia and the Deep South, the GOP is still firmly in control. We rate Sabato’s statement Mostly True.	None	Larry Sabato	None	None	None	2012-11-05T06:00:00	2012-10-16	['None']
-tron-01686	President Obama’s Visit and Speech at Cape Canaveral  Was Closed to NASA Employees	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-nasa-speech/	None	government	None	None	None	President Obama’s Visit and Speech at Cape Canaveral  Was Closed to NASA Employees	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01983	"Congressman Duffy has long record of voting against VA backlog fixes."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jun/16/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democratic-group-says-rep-sean-duffy-voted-against/	As President Barack Obama faced attacks over long waits for appointments at Veterans Administration health centers, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- the House Democrats’ campaign arm -- engaged in some finger-pointing. The DCCC sent out a news release claiming that U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) -- and other Republicans -- voted against fixing the VA backlog. Here is part of the June 2, 2014 news release, which was headlined "Congressman Duffy has long record of voting against VA backlog fixes." "As House Republicans shamelessly try to score political points over the crisis in veterans care, Congressman Sean Duffy’s votes tell the true story of his record: when he had a chance to fix this problem, he voted against the fixes." The release went on to quote DCCC spokesman Josh Schwerin saying, "It’s a shame that when Congressman Duffy had a chance to do something to help shorten the wait time at the VA he voted no. Congressman Duffy voted against a commonsense solution to this problem and our heroes deserve better." PolitiFact National rated a similar DCCC claim against U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami and rated it False. (The DCCC issued a series of virtually identical news releases) Leaning heavily on PolitiFact National’s work, here is a look at how the claim fares when used against Duffy. VA backlog In the item on Ros-Lehtinen, PolitiFact reporter Amy Sherman wrote: We should start by distinguishing between two related, but separate, issues relating to veterans. One concerns longstanding problems with handling benefits claims from veterans, including disability compensation, pensions, and compensation for surviving spouses or children of veterans who die as a result of their service. The other concerns long waits for service at VA hospitals. On the first issue -- benefits -- the backlog refers to requests that go unaddressed by the government for at least 125 days. PolitiFact found that the backlog nearly doubled from roughly 36 percent in the summer 2010 to 65 percent in June 2012. In April 2014, the Obama administration released numbers suggesting the backlog was shrinking, but veterans groups said they had serious doubts about the numbers. The second issue -- the wait for health care -- stemmed from news reports that revealed secret waiting lists at VA hospitals, and that some veterans died while awaiting care. This is what ultimately led to the resignation of VA Secretary Eric Shinseki on May 30. The DCCC essentially conflates the two issues in the quest to highlight any vote that portrays Duffy as voting against veterans’ interests. Of course, political groups tend to cherry-pick the records of their opponent. As the Ros-Lehtinen item noted: It’s possible to dig up a vote made by virtually any member of Congress of either party and claim that the politician is for -- or against -- anything, including veterans benefits. So, just as the Democrats were able to find some votes in which Duffy voted against a service for veterans, there are other votes which he voted for veterans’ services. Many of the votes that the DCCC cited were procedural moves or one particular vote out of a series of votes. In most of the instances, the votes broke down overwhelmingly on party lines, with Duffy joining his Republican colleagues. That said, let’s start with the votes that are directly about the backlog: The votes • Veterans Backlog Reduction Act: A bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. William Enyart, D-Ill., ordered the VA to provisionally pay any disability claim if the VA didn’t respond within 125 days. Enyart introduced the bill in April 2013 and it was referred to the House committee on Veterans Affairs. It never received a vote. The DCCC said Duffy voted against considering that bill by pointing to a vote on the "previous question" -- a parliamentary move to force a vote. During a debate about a higher education bill, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. stated "if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Veterans Backlog Reduction Act." Enyart then explained his veterans’ bill and urged a "no" vote. His fellow Democrats complied and all voted "no" while the Republicans voted "yes," which defeated his effort. Something the DCCC omitted is that in October 2013, Duffy had voted to establish a commission or task force to evaluate the backlog of disability claims of the Department of Veterans Affairs. That measure passed, 404-1. • Increasing funds to reduce the backlog in disability claims: The DCCC said Duffy voted no, along with nearly every Republican, on a motion that would have added $9.2 million to hire an additional 94 VA claims processors tasked with reducing the disability claims backlog. The June 2013 motion was a "motion to recommit" on an appropriations bill to fund military construction and veterans affairs. A "motion to recommit" in the House refers to a last-ditch attempt by the minority party to amend a bill before it passes. Left unsaid: The overall bill, which did pass, provided money to address the backlog, just not as much as Democrats proposed. • Mental health funds: On June 2, 2011, Congress agreed in a voice vote to set aside $20 million for suicide prevention for veterans. On June 14, 2011, Duffy voted against a Democratic motion to recommit that would add $20 million for veterans’ suicide prevention. The GOP argued that such services were already funded, and the motion failed. Duffy, along with nearly every member of Congress, voted for the overall bill, which increased money for the military. The bill included an additional $20 million for suicide prevention outreach, according to Congressional Quarterly. • Medical and prosthetic research: In May 2012, Duffy joined all but three Republicans in voting against a motion to recommit that would have increased funding for veterans’ medical and prosthetic research by $28.3 million. Here too, Duffy joined the overwhelming majority in passing the overall bill. The bill provided a $1.7 million increase for medical, rehabilitative, health services and prosthetic research -- an amount equal to the Obama administration’s request, according to CQ. The DCCC also cited votes Duffy took leading up to the October 2013 federal shutdown. In August, he voted for a House Republican "continuing resolution" -- a stopgap funding bill -- that the Associated Press reported would "likely result" in the shutdown of the federal government. The bill passed 230-189. The shutdown led to a delay in death benefits for veterans among other delayed services, the Washington Post reported. DCCC also cited a pair of votes Duffy took in September, including one on a motion to commit to H.J. Res. 59, to make continuing appropriations that would have ensured veterans benefits wouldn’t be delayed during a shutdown. All but one Republican voted "no." However, left out of the DCCC’s account is that Duffy voted for in favor of H.J. Res. 72, the "Veterans Benefits Continuing Appropriations Resolution" -- a mini-funding resolution favored by House Republicans to reopen slices of the government. The measure passed the House with unanimous Republican support and overwhelming Democratic opposition. (Showing how both sides play this game, the RNC plucked out that vote to attack DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a claim we rated False.) Democrats also cited multiple other votes including a few that related to housing for veterans but Republicans could point to other votes on bills that did provide housing assistance. Veterans’ group report card Meanwhile, we found a veterans’ organization that issue voting "report cards" for members of Congress: The American Veterans (Amvets) gave Duffy an A-minus in 2013, based on eight pieces of legislation. In response to questions from PolitiFact National, DCCC spokeswoman Emily Bittner said, "These Republicans’ votes speak for themselves. Taken in their totality, they show an unfortunate pattern of refusing to cross party lines and vote for commonsense fixes to the problems at the VA." However, we don't think the votes chosen show the "totality" of Duffy’s record. Our rating The DCCC said "Congressman Duffy has long record of voting against VA backlog fixes." The DCCC points to some votes that went against funding certain veterans’ services or addressing the backlog. However, the DCCC ignores that Duffy took other votes in favor of increasing funding for veterans’ services -- just not as much as Democratic proposals would have offered. The bigger issue is that most of these votes came within elaborate games of tit-for-tat, in which each side offers proposals that they expect will fail, just to get lawmakers on the other side to take votes that look superficially bad. The reality of Duffy’s voting record is much more nuanced than the DCCC’s cherry-picked account would suggest. This, combined with the "A-minus" rating he's received from a veterans' advocacy group, undercut the DCCC's claim that he has a "long" voting record of voting against the interests of veterans. We rate the claim False.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2014-06-16T05:00:00	2014-06-02	['None']
-pomt-15279	Says David Jolly refused "to cut spending for a national greenhouse in D.C."	/florida/statements/2015/jul/27/club-growth/david-jolly-refused-cut-funding-dc-greenhouse-anti/	U.S. Rep. David Jolly’s Senate campaign was only hours old when he began taking fire from his fellow conservatives. The Club for Growth, a political action committee backing Jolly’s GOP primary opponent, U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis, said that Jolly may have only been in office for 16 months, but during that time he "racked up a terrible record on fiscal issues." "Jolly is so addicted to big government, he couldn’t even muster up the courage to cut spending for a national greenhouse in D.C.," the PAC said in a statement emailed on the afternoon of July 20, 2015, the same day Jolly announced that he would be vying for Marco Rubio’s soon-to-be-open Senate seat. Jolly has only been in office since March 2014, after winning a special election for the late C.W. "Bill" Young’s 13th congressional district seat. Given such a short tenure, we wondered what action was so wasteful it would warrant Club for Growth’s assertion that Jolly had squandered too many greenbacks on a greenhouse. Flower power It turns out that "national greenhouse" is actually the conservatory at the U.S. Botanic Garden, a Washington museum first envisioned by George Washington more than two centuries ago with the mission of demonstrating and promoting "the importance of plants to the young nation," according to the garden. The garden became a reality in 1820 and has been open in its current location on the Capitol grounds since 1933. Referring to it as just a greenhouse is an understatement: The grounds include various outdoor gardens, several plant collections in the aforementioned conservatory and an amphitheater. It is devoted to the study and cultivation of all manner of plant species and is free to the public. In 2013, the garden featured a 250-pound beast of a plant known as the corpse flower, which rarely blooms and stinks of rotting flesh. Curious botany fans braved an hourlong wait just to see (and perhaps smell) the bloom. That’s not the kind of stuff you find next to the tomatoes and zinnias at the local nursery. Because of the quirk that it was established by the federal government and has long been run by the Office of Architect of the Capitol, the garden is funded through the appropriations process for the legislative branch. A Club for Growth spokesman told us the PAC was referring to an amendment to the fiscal year 2015 legislative branch appropriations bill. Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., proposed cutting $3.1 million slated for repairs and improvements at the Botanic Garden. Gosar said the cut would have reduced funding to 2014 levels, but the garden’s administrators had been planning some changes. "Rather than making minor repairs to a few small leaks in the roof, the Architect of the Capitol is proposing to tear down the entire roof and replace it with something called a new vegetative roofing system," Gosar said, referring to a plan Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers had proposed. "We shouldn’t be wasting precious taxpayer money on a new, state-of-the-art vegetative roofing system." Ayers had testified in March 2014 to the House Appropriations Subcommittee that money also would go to repair chips and cracks in the conservatory’s facade. Ayers said a vegetative roof -- think of a living garden on top of the conservatory instead of tar or shingles -- "will have a longer lifespan and will reduce water runoff." South Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said Gosar was merely "trying to generate headlines by attempting to cut much-needed funding to one of the most beloved destinations in Washington, D.C." But on May 1, 2014, the House voted in favor of the amendment, 219-198. One of the 37 Republicans who voted against the amendment -- and who as a result voted to keep the garden’s higher 2015 repair budget intact -- was Jolly. "It would have been penny-wise but pound-foolish to score political points by refusing to replace a failing roof on a federal building visited by almost 1 million Americans a year," Jolly spokeswoman Sarah Bascom told PolitiFact. "To not replace the roof jeopardized the safety of visitors and workers, and risked even greater cost should the roof and building fall in greater repair or lead to an accident with physical injury." As it happens, after the amendment to cut the roof spending passed the House despite Jolly’s opposition, lawmakers found ways to cut other spending and were able to put the roof expenditure back in the final version of the bill. The Club for Growth didn’t mention this. Changes at the Botanic Garden, which last completed an extensive renovation in 2001, are not as of yet listed among the projects on the Architect of the Capitol website. Our ruling The Club for Growth said Jolly refused "to cut spending for a national greenhouse in D.C." While "greenhouse" trivializes the U.S. Botanic Garden, the group is right that Jolly broke with most Republicans in voting against a 2014 amendment to cut funding for repairs to the complex’s roof and facade. We rate the claim True.	None	Club for Growth	None	None	None	2015-07-27T10:46:03	2015-07-20	['Washington,_D.C.']
-tron-00164	The Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked jet on September 11	https://www.truthorfiction.com/pentagoncrash/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	The Pentagon was not struck by a hijacked jet on September 11	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02902	A planning group said that to meet anticipated traffic demands by 2035, Interstate 35 between Austin and Round Rock will need a dozen additional lanes going north and 14 additional southbound lanes.	/texas/statements/2013/nov/06/sid-covington/projection-26-additional-lanes-wasnt-limited-inter/	In an opinion column on commuter trains potentially relieving traffic congestion in Austin, an advocate warned that if such a service doesn’t come to be, Interstate 35 would need to be considerably wider. "Staff for the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization recently told the city’s Transit Working Group that to meet anticipated demand by year 2035, Interstate 35 will need an additional 14 lanes southbound and an additional 12 lanes northbound between Round Rock and Austin," Sid Covington wrote in the article in the Oct. 28, 2013, Austin American-Statesman. The planning organization, known as CAMPO, coordinates regional transportation planning for Travis County and five surrounding counties. The region could plan such expansion, Covington wrote, but it would be wiser to invest in a passenger rail line connecting San Antonio and Georgetown, north of Austin. Covington chairs the Lone Star Rail District, an agency focused on providing regional passenger rail service to Central and South Texas along the Austin/San Antonio corridor. The district seeks tax money from local governments along the proposed rail route, including from the city of Austin, and has said it’s working with Union Pacific on building an alternate freight rail line so the passenger line could use existing tracks. Covington summed up: "There’s not enough concrete and available real estate for adding new lanes" ad "in finitum." We’re not judging how to relieve congestion. But did a presentation really envision 26 additional lanes on I-35? As of November 2013, the highway had up to four lanes in each direction in Austin, not counting frontage roads. Also, perhaps surprisingly, I-35 through Central Austin had about 4 percent less traffic in 2012 than it had in 2002, according to a Sept. 12, 2013, American-Statesman illustration, though it indicated the highway had as much as 65 percent more traffic in other portions north and south of downtown. To our initial inquiry about this multi-lane statement, Joseph Black, the district’s rail director, told us by phone the column got the forecasted lane counts backward. Black said the described presentation indicated a potential need for a dozen lanes southbound and 14 lanes northbound. By email, Covington then guided us to the relevant May 25, 2012, presentation to the Transit Working Group, whose membership included Austin City Council members and people from the greater community. The presentation, which we watched on the city’s online video, is dense. We promise some unpacking around the bend. At the meeting, Doug Allen, then an executive with Capital Metro, Austin’s regional public transportation provider, prefaced the lane-count detail by saying that officials worked with CAMPO’s "travel forecast model" to estimate how much additional capacity would be needed on I-35 and MoPac Boulevard through 2035 assuming both highways had "unlimited capacity." An assumption was that each highway lane would be capable of moving 2,000 people an hour, he said. Allen said the analysis, tied to projected automobile trips, suggested that six additional lanes would be needed in each direction on MoPac between U.S. 290 on the north side of the city and 38th Street, or a dozen total. He said the model indicated that 14 northbound lanes would need to be added to I-35 from Texas 71 to East Oltorf Street. That’s (gulp) 26 lanes of additional highway. Then again, Allen said that if the hoped-for passenger rail and other people-moving infrastructure comes to be instead, the described MoPac expansion would not be needed and I-35 would need only four additional northbound lanes, according to the research. By telephone, a Capital Metro administrator, Todd Hemingson, made a run at clarifying the presentation. We wondered, for starters, about the references to MoPac crossing 290 in North Austin and East Oltorf in South Austin, which it does not. Hemingson said the presentation used the equivalent of 290 and Oltorf as if they were invisibly extended to cross MoPac and I-35. And why did the calculations assume the highways had "unlimited capacity?" It’s an "all or nothing" scenario, Hemingson said. "In the transportation planning world, the purpose is to give you a suggestion of how much demand is actually out there without regard to the physical reality of how much could be carried by the highways available. Basically that’s it. It’s just a high-level look at the total demand for transportation in the" I-35 "corridor." But isn’t that assumption unrealistic? "Sure," Hemingson said. "In the real world, people would take alternate routes" if congestion grew overwhelming on the highways. "Over time, they would choose to live or work in a different locations. If it really took three hours to commute from Round Rock to downtown" Austin, "people wouldn’t do it. They’d choose to live in a different way." And was the point of the presentation that if the rail district’s passenger lines don’t happen, the highways will have to expand by that much? Negative, Hemingson said, the message is that the only way the Austin region will get close to "getting a handle on the congestion coming our way given the amazing amount of population growth that is coming is by doing all of the above," Hemingson said, meaning highway expansions, changes in commuting patterns, car pooling and passenger rail, with necessary funding still to be corraled. "It’s not reasonable to accommodate growth only by building more lanes," he said. Later, we asked Maureen McCoy, CAMPO’s executive director, to interpret the forecast. She stressed that the projection assumed traffic would never be stop-and-start on the highways. She then said the indicated additional lanes are "probably a nonstarter because of the magnitude," a reference to the destruction of buildings potentially needed to add so many lanes. "I don’t even know what you would have to wipe out to make that happen," McCoy said. The University of Texas has buildings on both sides of I-35 including a football practice facility and the UT Press. Also, hundreds of residents live near the two highways. Of late, McCoy said, there are no additional lanes contemplated for I-35; no funding has been identified. On the other hand, American-Statesman transportation writer Ben Wear wrote in an Oct. 28, 2013, commentary that the state and city of Austin have been studying the addition of a lane on each side of the highway. "Odds are they will be ‘express lanes’ like what is about to be added to MoPac north of Lady Bird Lake," Wear wrote, adding that this means the lanes would be tolled. Finally, we asked Hemingson to elaborate on the traffic projections feeding into the lane forecasts. He replied by email that the calculations were based on travel demands for 2035 in CAMPO’s long-range transportation plan. He also added that two Capital Metro employees who worked on the "thought experiment" are no longer at the agency, "so recollecting the exact details is difficult at best." He also emailed us a drawing he attributed to Allen, the staff member who made the 2012 presentation. The drawing, which we’ve posted here, shows that under the "all-or-nothing" scenario, the number of lanes on MoPac, which had up to four lanes in each direction as of November 2013, would reach seven between Texas 71 and downtown Austin, topping out at five from Lady Bird Lake to 38th Street. The drawing shows I-35 lanes topping out at 10 between 290 and 38th Street and running from seven to nine lanes on other stretches between Texas 71 to the south and U.S. 183 to the north. It all adds up to 26 lanes, the drawing indicates. Hemingson also said that "while vehicle miles traveled per capita in the region (and nationally) are down, that would not be reflected in this analysis because at the time it was run the CAMPO model inputs were based on a 2005 ‘base year,’ and so would not have been updated to reflect lower driving rates from that time to present." By phone, Covington agreed that his claim misstated the direction of the declared highway lanes and left out MoPac. It’s "nitpicking," he said, to note that his statement also didn’t mention that the projections assumed both highways could expand without constraints. Our ruling Covington said that a presentation indicated that to meet anticipated traffic demands by 2035, I-35 between Austin and Round Rock will need a dozen additional lanes going north and 14 additional southbound lanes. Those tallies reflect what a working group was told in May 2012, but the presentation by a Capital Metro official (using a CAMPO modeling system) projected 26 additional lanes on I-35 as well as MoPac; Covington’s column did not mention the second highway and also flipped the predicted number of northbound and southbound lanes. Perhaps more significantly, these lane counts were rooted in the assumption that both highways would have unlimited capacity, presumably including space enough to be widened dramatically despite the existence of major facilities along I-35 and hundreds of homes near both highways. We rate this partly accurate claim, which leaves out critical details and draws on a projection with an unrealistic assumption, as Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Sid Covington	None	None	None	2013-11-06T11:13:58	2013-10-28	['Round_Rock,_Texas', 'Austin,_Texas']
-hoer-01236	Usain Bolt in Critical Condition After Car Accident	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/fake-news-usain-bolt-in-critical-condition-after-car-accident/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake News Usain Bolt in Critical Condition After Car Accident	October 17, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01281	"In K-12 education, our kids are scoring at the bottom of science and mathematics right now in the industrialized world -- at the bottom."	/virginia/statements/2014/nov/02/dave-brat/brat-says-us-students-scoring-bottom-math-and-scie/	The debate between two professors – David Brat and Jack Trammell – vying for the 7th District Congressional seat would of course include points about education. "In K-12 education, our kids are scoring at the bottom of science and mathematics right now in the industrialized world -- at the bottom," Brat said during the Oct. 28 debate at Randolph-Macon College, where both he and Trammell teach. We asked Brat’s campaign where he got those figures. His spokesman, Brian Gottstein, sent us a column by Stanford University mathematician Keith Devlin that examines the Programme for International Student Assessment, tests in reading, science and math given to 15-year-olds every three years beginning in 2000. Most of the 34 member nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -- an industrialized group of mostly Western European and North American countries -- participate now. A smattering of other countries, such as Russia, Indonesia and Brazil, and regional educational systems in China also take part. In 2000, 32 countries participated. That grew to 65 nations in 2012, the most recent test year with published results. Gottstein referred to a particular quote from Devlin’s column: "In 2006, American students ranked dead last, 25th out of 25, in math and 21st out of 30 in science. The U.S. also scored worse than ranked countries outside the OECD (considered to be developing nations) like Russia, Azerbaijan, Slovenia and Estonia. Only 1 percent of American 15-year-olds could perform at the highest level, and 27 countries had a higher percentage of 15-year-olds who performed at level 6. And 28 percent of U.S. students appear to have essentially no math skills at all." We remember from a past fact-check that American students have typically been middle-of-the-pack performers on international tests. But let’s dig a little deeper into the statistics from this column. First, let’s look at the United States’ rankings, as reported by the National Center for Educational Statistics: Science 2000: the U.S. scores ranked 14th among the 28 OECD countries and 14th of 32 total nations. 2003: 19th among 30 OECD countries and 22nd among 41 overall. 2006: 21st among 30 OECD countries and 27th among 57 overall. 2009: 17th among 34 OECD countries and 23rd among 65 overall. 2012: 20th among 34 OECD countries and 28th among 65 overall. Math 2000: the U.S was 18th among 28 OECD countries and 19th of 32 total nations. 2003: 24th among 30 OECD countries and 27th among 41 overall. 2006: 25th among 30 OECD countries and 35th among 57 overall. 2009: 25th among 34 OECD countries and 31st among 65 overall. 2012: 27th among 34 OECD countries and 36th among 65 overall. So, Devlin was correct on the science rank in 2006, but he underplays where the U.S. ranked among its peers on the math score. The U.S. wasn’t "dead last" in its math score that year and in fact hasn’t ranked "dead last" in any PISA test. Also, Brat and Devlin are referring to outdated results. We know from the 2012 results that among the 34 industrialized countries in the OECD, the U.S. ranked 27th on the math tests and 20th on the science tests. So the U.S. position among its peers on math and science tests has edged up slightly. In summarizing the U.S. results in the latest tests, the OECD said the U.S. math scores were "below average" among the industrialized countries in that organization. The U.S. science scores, the group said, were "close to the OECD average." Our ruling Brat said U.S. students rank "at the bottom" in math and science scores among industrialized nations. U.S. students have not fallen quite to the very bottom of the stack. The latest testing shows U.S. students rank near the middle of the pack among industrialized nations for science scores and in the bottom tier for math scores. The performance is nothing to celebrate, but Brat is wrong when he says twice in his statement that U.S. students rank "at the bottom" of developed nations in math and science scores. We rate his claim False.	None	Dave Brat	None	None	None	2014-11-02T00:00:00	2014-10-28	['None']
-tron-00812	Celine Dion Dead	https://www.truthorfiction.com/celine-dion-died/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Celine Dion Dead	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03222	Says unions call Obamacare "bad for workers."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/21/mike-lee/sen-lee-says-union-call-obamacare-bad-workers/	A small but vocal cadre of congressional Republicans would like to defund Obamacare and would be willing to risk a government shutdown to make that happen. A leading voice in the Senate is Mike Lee of Utah. Lee says the new law is so bad, even key Democratic allies don’t like it. "By a margin of 2 to 1, Americans say Obamacare will make their family's health care situation worse, not better. Just 12 percent support the individual mandate. Doctors don't want it. Businesses oppose it. Unions say it's bad for workers," Lee wrote in an op-ed in USA Today. That last group, the unions, caught our eye. Organized labor is one of the pillars of the Democratic Party and lobbied hard for passage of the Affordable Care Act. We wanted to verify that Lee had his facts right. Unions that oppose the law Lee’s office pointed us to a press release and a letter. The press release from United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers called for "repeal or complete reform of President Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA)." The letter came from three of the larger unions in the country: The Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial International Union, and Unite-Here, which represents hotel workers. Those three unions sent a dire warning to the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. "We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans. We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow. We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions." The circumstances that led to this letter are complex, and we will get into them in a moment. But first, let’s look at which unions are opposing the law and which are supporting it. Many unions offer health insurance through unusual plans that allow large and small employers to buy coverage as a group, and some of the unions that are involved in these plans have the biggest objections to the health care law. Randy DeFrehn is executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, a sort of trade association for these insurance groups. DeFrehn said at least six unions have gone public with their objections to Obamacare. Behind the scenes, he said, the number is larger. "Altogether, there are a dozen or more out there," DeFrehn said. "They don’t all want to come out against the administration, but they are worried about the unintended consequences of the law." DeFrehn’s group has 23 member unions. So by his count, roughly half of them are raising red flags about Obamacare. In contrast, some very large members in DeFrehn’s organization actively support the law. That includes the Service Employees International Union, which represents housekeepers, janitors and other lower-paid workers. SEIU recently kicked off a national campaign to promote Obamacare. Even among the unions that warn of the dangers of the new law, for most of them, repeal is not the first choice. The letter to top Democrats called for "common-sense corrections." DeFrehn said that goal prevails, although calls for repeal could be the result of "ultimate frustration." What the unions don’t like One central problem with the law, in the unions’ view, is the threat it poses to the kind of health insurance their members enjoy today. Just as there are many different insurance companies, there are many different union insurance plans, about 3,000. These plans are often called Taft-Hartley plans after the federal labor law that created them. And here’s the rub: The Affordable Care Act creates insurance exchanges that will present employers with a new alternative to the current union insurance. "The unions think it will be cheaper for employers to drop out of the Taft-Hartley plans and go on the health exchange," said Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette University School of Law. "This puts pressure on the unions who want to keep workers satisfied and make sure they have a reason to belong to the union." Here’s why the unions think that could happen. DeFrehn says 90 percent of the employers in these plans have fewer than 50 workers. While larger employers will face penalties if they don’t offer health insurance, these smaller employers would not. At the end of a union contract, they would be perfectly free under the law to drop coverage and encourage workers to buy through an exchange. The exchanges could be an attractive option for another reason. In an exchange, workers with family incomes as high as 400 percent of federal poverty level would be eligible for a subsidy from the federal government. A subsidy calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy group, shows what this could mean in dollars and cents. A family of four making $92,000 a year would get about 25 percent knocked off the premium. That’s a significant discount; one that Secunda says would put the union plans at a competitive disadvantage. Over the decades, some unions have negotiated successfully for good health care benefits, even at the expense of wages. But if the unions’ nightmare scenario plays itself out as they fear, and employers drop coverage, then workers would find that they can get coverage without the union. The coverage probably wouldn’t be as good but its shortcomings might not be obvious. And maybe these workers would have less reason to belong to the union. "This could be yet another existential threat to the unions," said Secunda. There’s reason to think that some employers would exercise this option. Marshall Babson is a long-time employment lawyer and former member of the National Labor Relations Board, appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Babson represents management. Babson said for the past 20 years, he has been advising his clients to get out of Taft-Hartley plans. He said they are inefficient. "If the Affordable Care Act is a threat to these plans," Babson said, "It’s because they have been vulnerable for a long time." This is the union fear. What would actually happen under Obamacare is unknown. Jared Bernstein is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a group focused on how government programs affect people of modest means. Bernstein was chief economist and economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden during the drafting of Obamacare. He was more optimistic that the plans will remain viable. "I wouldn’t be so quick to accept the assumption that the Taft-Hartley plans will end when the Affordable Care Act arrives," Bernstein said. "One of the myths is that employers will willy-nilly dump their plans and put people on the exchange. Typically, these plans are offered for a reason. They are an important part of the compensation package that makes sense for keeping the workers you need to run a business. The ACA won’t change that." But some unions, at least, are unwilling to wait and find out. Concerns about part-timers Another significant issue for unions is how the law treats part-time workers. While the law encourages employers to provide insurance, there are two primary escape clauses. Companies with fewer than 50 workers face no requirement to offer it. And no employer need provide coverage to anyone working less than 30 hours each week. "We don’t have hard numbers but we hear anecdotally that some companies are shifting to using more part-time workers," said Brenda Carter, spokeswoman for Unite-Here. Carter said that doesn’t affect her union’s members because they are protected by contracts, but it isn’t good for non-union workers. Our ruling Mike Lee said unions say that Obamacare is bad for workers. About six unions, some of them quite large, have warned in the strongest terms that Obamacare will undercut health care coverage for their members. The evidence suggests that more than six unions share that view. However, the union community is not monolithic, and some large unions continue to support the Affordable Care Act as much as ever. And while Lee would like to do away with the new health care law, even unions with deep concerns seek to fix the law, not repeal it. Still, a significant number of prominent unions spoke against the law as it now stands and not every union would need to feel that way in order for Lee’s statement to be accurate. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Mike Lee	None	None	None	2013-08-21T11:44:30	2013-08-04	['None']
-tron-02595	Jill Carroll will now be used by political Liberals to advance their cause against the war in Iraq	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jill-carroll/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Jill Carroll will now be used by political Liberals to advance their cause against the war in Iraq	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07075	Virginia spends $400,000 on abstinence programs while losing $2.5 million in federal funds due to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s "political agenda."	/virginia/statements/2011/jun/27/naral-pro-choice-america/naral-says-mcdonnells-agenda-costs-state-federal-s/	NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia recently unveiled a video that uses a montage of numbers to criticize Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell’s stance on funding for sex education programs. Among the claims: "$400,000 -- approximate cost to Virginians to fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. $2.5 million -- federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs Virginia lost due to McDonnell’s political agenda." Are NARAL’s numbers and claims correct? We asked Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, for sources of the information. Let’s start with the statement that abstinence-only education costs the state $400,000. Keene said that’s a reference to match money Virginia provided to receive a federal grant for abstinence-only sex education. The payment allows Virginia to participate in the Title V Abstinence Education Grant Program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program promotes abstinence until marriage to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. Last September, HHS announced Virginia would receive an $889,973 grant for abstinence education for fiscal 2010. States have until Sept. 30, 2012, to spend the money. The federal cash pays for 57 percent of the cost of abstinence programs approved by HHS. Participating states are required to provide the remaining 43 percent of cost. The match money can come from a variety of sources including from state coffers, foundation dollars and in-kind donations. Virginia was required to come up with about $670,000 to match the grant. Jeff Caldwell, a spokesman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the state is paying $382,688 towards the match. The rest is coming from in-kind contributions and community organizations awarded contracts to implement the sexual abstinence programs. So NARAL is near the bull’s-eye in claiming Virginia is paying an "approximate" $400,000 for abstinence-until marriage programs. Caldwell noted that the state received federal abstinence education funding under previous governors going back to the 1990s. But in 2007, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine cut the state’s funding for abstinence-only education. McDonnell reversed that decision last year. At the same time, McDonnell chose not to seek money from another federal grant program that teaches students about contraception in addition to abstinence -- the Personal Responsibility Education Program. Unlike the federal abstinence-only money, the comprehensive sex education grant requires no match. McDonnell’s refusal to participate drew criticism from NARAL and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia. That brings us to the second part of NARAL’s claim, that Virginia lost $2.5 million in federal money for comprehensive sex education under McDonnell. As a source, NARAL cited an HHS 49-page announcement of the PREP grant, which was created under the 2010 health care reform law. The HHS synopsis shows Virginia was estimated to receive a total of $2,593,487 during fiscal years 2010 and 2011. That’s close to NARAL’s number. But NARAL is greatly understating its case. States that didn’t apply for the grant in fiscal 2010 and 2011 are not eligible to seek funding for the 2012-2014 fiscal years. So Virginia potentially missed out on much more than $2.6 million. Estimates for 2012-2014 allotments are not available, said Kenneth Wolfe, an HHS spokesman. Let’s recap: A video by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia said that abstinence-only programs pursued under McDonnell have cost the state about $400,000. Meanwhile, the group says the state missed out on about $2.5 million in federal funding for comprehensive sex education. It’s true the state spent about $400,000 for a federal abstinence-only grant. And it’s true that the McDonnell administration did not apply for a comprehensive sex education grant that would have sent almost $2.6 million to Virginia during fiscal year 2010 and 2011. Because Virginia is now ineligible to apply for the comprehensive grant through 2014, the state will wind up declining a much greater amount of money than NARAL claimed. We won’t penalize NARAL for understating its case. Its statement is True.	None	NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia	None	None	None	2011-06-27T06:00:00	2011-06-06	['Virginia', 'Bob_McDonnell']
-snes-03406	The United States military recruited Native Americans as scouts in the Vietnam War and — in the course of their training — the military discovered that long hair actually helps give people ‘almost supernatural’ tracking abilities.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/native-american-scouts-long-hair-provided-almost-supernatural-tracking-abilities-vietnam-war/	None	History	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Native American Scouts’ Long Hair Provided “Almost Supernatural” Tracking Abilities During Vietnam War?	6 December 2016	None	['United_States', 'Vietnam_War']
-pomt-01872	Says Mitch McConnell voted to raise Medicare costs for a current Kentucky senior by $6,000.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/10/alison-lundergan-grimes/did-mitch-mcconnell-vote-raise-seniors-medicare-co/	It’s not officially election season until candidates start claiming one side is trying to snatch grandpa’s benefits. Welcome to the 2014 election season. In a folksy new ad in the Kentucky Senate race, Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes shares the screen with Don Disney, a retired Kentucky coalminer, who has a question for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Grimes’ Republican opponent. "I want to know how you could have voted to raise my Medicare costs by $6,000," says Don Disney. "How are my wife and I supposed to afford that?" A long silence ensues as Grimes and Disney stare at the camera. "I don’t think he’s going to answer that," Grimes offers. "I approve this message because I’ll work to strengthen Medicare, not bankrupt seniors like Don." Medicare became a contentious talking point in 2011, when Rep. Paul Ryan unveiled a budget proposal that Democrats said would "end Medicare." We named that our Lie of the Year. Does Grimes’ claim fair any better? We decided to hop in the wayback machine to find out. Where does the $6,000 figure come from? According to the Grimes campaign, the $6,000 number comes from several studies on the effect of the Ryan budget on retirees. The Ryan budget has had several incarnations over the years. This ad focuses on his 2011 proposal, according to supporting material we got from the Grimes campaign. Under the 2011 Ryan plan, Medicare would have undergone a drastic change for future retirees. Instead of the government paying doctors and hospitals for services they provide for seniors, beneficiaries would be given a voucher they could use to purchase private health insurance to cover their care. Here’s our first hurdle: Did McConnell vote for the Ryan budget? Yes, but there are two important points. First, McConnell voted for a motion to proceed on the Ryan budget, which would have allowed it to the floor for further debate and amendments. It was not a vote on final passage. It was a preliminary vote that even the Washington Post wrote was "mostly symbolic" because it had no chance of succeeding in the Democratic Senate. (The plan passed in the Republican-controlled House.) The motion ultimately failed 40 to 57. Second, budget resolutions are not legally binding. Presidents do not sign them. It is a general outline of spending priorities that, when agreed upon, is a helpful guide. But it would require subsequent legislation to actually change Medicare programs to accomplish Ryan’s goals. Still, it’s probably fair to say McConnell was on the record supporting the Ryan budget, at least enough to get it to the Senate floor. But did it actually increase Disney’s Medicare costs by $6,000? The Congressional Budget Office, the top fiscal scorekeeper for lawmakers, said implementing the 2011 Ryan plan would lead to an increase in out-of-pocket costs for seniors. How much? Instead of paying 27 percent of all their health care costs, seniors would be paying about 61 percent. (Worth noting: Ryan subsequently changed his plan to try to reduce the cost-sharing burden on seniors in later versions of his budget.) In real dollars, the Kaiser Family Foundation said the average senior would pay about $6,800 a year more in health care costs. The Grimes campaign also pointed us to 2011 studies by Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank, that put the figure at about $6,350. But here’s the catch: these figures looked at what a 65-year-old would pay in 2022. That’s because under the Ryan plan, wholesale changes to the Medicare program would not directly affect anyone 55 or older. We learned from the Grimes campaign that Disney, the retiree in her ad, is 75 years old. So under no version of the Ryan plan would Disney be liable for the $6,000-plus in additional out-of-pocket costs that future beneficiaries would have faced if the proposal had passed. The Grimes campaign responded that in addition to changing Medicare for future beneficiaries, the Ryan budget also repealed the Affordable Care Act. That would affect current seniors in at least one way: prescription drug costs. How? Before the Affordable Care Act, seniors were required to pay 100 percent of prescription costs after the first $2,850 until they surpassed $4,550, at which point they would qualify for catastrophic coverage. By 2020, the Affordable Care Act eliminates that gap. If Obamacare was repealed, this benefit would disappear for seniors, including those currently 65 or older. So some seniors would pay more in prescription drug costs, though we don’t know how much on average. Ryan’s budget also would have cut federal spending for Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for low-income individuals, and converted the program into block grants that states could decide how to spend, Grimes’ campaign added. While we don’t know how states would have used the money, it’s possible changes to Medicaid could have impacted low-income seniors who receive both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Again, that figure is not concrete. These are both relevant talking points and worthy of consideration in the grand debate on Ryan’s proposal. However, they have little to do with the $6,000 figure used in the ad. Our ruling In the Grimes campaign ad, a Kentucky resident claims that McConnell "voted to raise my medicare costs by $6,000." The $6,000 figure cited in multiple studies measures a specific amount: The average out-of-pocket costs a new senior would pay in 2022 if Medicare changed to a more privatized system. People who turned 65 prior to 2022, like the retiree in Grimes’ ad, would remain in the current Medicare system and would not incur those costs. The counterpoint from the Grimes campaign is existing seniors will have to pay some costs if the Ryan plan passes. That may be true, but the $6,000 figure is completely unrelated to that discussion, and using a statistic about future retirees to make a broader point about current retirees makes for a misleading ad. We rate the claim False.	None	Alison Lundergan Grimes	None	None	None	2014-07-10T16:24:50	2014-07-10	['Mitch_McConnell', 'Medicare_(United_States)', 'Kentucky']
-snes-03894	A law student named John J. Wall penned a "divorce letter" to the U.S.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/u-s-divorce-agreement-letter/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	U.S. ‘Divorce Agreement’ Letter	3 October 2016	None	['United_States']
-abbc-00133	"As long as 2.5 million Australians live below the poverty line, and one out of every four are children ... We cannot say the fair go belongs to all," Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said in a speech on Australia Day, 2016.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/fact-check-how-many-australians-are-in-poverty/7120278	Mr Shorten's claim checks out. The basis for the Opposition Leader's claim comes from a 2014 report commissioned by the Australian Council of Social Service which suggests that 2.55 million Australians live in poverty, with 23.6 per cent of them children. Whilst other research from NATSEM and HILDA found slightly more Australians under the poverty line, with fewer of them children, these reports measure poverty and define children differently, and the numbers are still comparable with data in the report which Mr Shorten uses as the basis for his claim. Experts say that whilst the different reports make slightly different assumptions, all are sound in their methodology. They also said that there are many ways to measure poverty, and there's an element of arbitrariness involved.	['poverty', 'welfare', 'children', 'bill-shorten', 'alp', 'australia']	None	None	['poverty', 'welfare', 'children', 'bill-shorten', 'alp', 'australia']	Fact check: Are 2.5 million Australians in poverty and are one quarter of them children?	Thu 3 Mar 2016, 1:06am	None	['Bill_Shorten', 'Australia_Day', 'Australia']
-pomt-11916	"The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families. How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit."	/florida/statements/2017/oct/19/marco-rubio/rubio-says-child-tax-credit-key-amount-tax-relief-/	The Trump administration and Senate and House leaders have revealed a framework for tax legislation that proposes tax cuts for business, a reduction in tax brackets, and the elimination of several tax breaks. What the plan means for Americans remains to be determined. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan is entirely dependent on one thing: what happens to the child tax credit. "The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families," Rubio said on WFLA on Oct. 15. "How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit." We wondered whether increasing the child tax credit will be the only way that working families can gain under the framework. What we found is that the child tax credit is indeed central in the current tax proposal. However, the plan is so tentative that it’s premature to say that will be the only way "working families" will see relief. Why the child tax credit is key Rubio’s team sought to back up his assertion with a press release that included two charts. Both charts relayed the same message: In order to help working families, a tax plan must increase the child tax credit and make the credit refundable. So in Rubio’s mind, expanding — not just increasing — the child tax credit is key in seeing working families prosper. The Trump-backed tax framework proposes increasing the credit from the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out. Experts agreed that expanding the child tax credit is one of the central provisions that will shape the impact that middle-income households will experience under the framework. Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the existing, $1,000 child tax credit is already quite large. Parents with children under the age of 17 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child. If they owe more than $1,000 in taxes, then the credit lowers their tax liability, or the total amount of tax left on their income. If parents owe less than $1,000 in taxes then the tax liability is reduced to zero. In its current form this tax credit is nonrefundable. Greenberg said that under current law, a married household with two children making $60,000 would owe about $3,733 in individual income taxes before taking the child credit into account. After taking the child credit into account, the household’s individual income tax burden would fall to about $1,733. (His math assumes that the household takes the standard deduction and does not claim any other major credits, exclusions, or other provisions.) Still, it’s not just about increasing the credit. Transforming it into a refundable credit is also important. In 2015, Rubio and Mike Lee, R-Utah, released a tax plan that connected the child tax credit to the payroll tax, which would have increased the refundability rate. At the time, experts were unsure whether this would have benefitted low-income families because it didn’t include an expansion for them. Another reason why expanding the child tax credit is important is because the current framework eliminates the personal exemption — that is, the untaxed income pegged to the number of dependents on their return. This provision disproportionately benefits households with children. To compensate for eliminating it, the plan proposes increasing the child tax credit. "It looks like they’ll pay more under the current framework, but that’s where the child tax credit comes into play," said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. "It does its magic and wipes away that tax liability." Is it the only way working families will see relief? It’s worth emphasizing that the details of the child tax credit are a work in progress. Right now, the plan does not specify how much the credit would increase or which incomes level would qualify. More broadly, little is known about the thresholds of new income tax brackets, which could greatly affect the distribution of benefits. "From the sketchy details we have of the basic (framework), it’s pretty fair to say the child tax credit is key," said Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California. As a result, the credit has emerged as one of few options available to policymakers looking to change the tax burden on middle-income households. Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, bemoaned the focus on a specific tax break such as the child credit, favoring instead overall tax simplification. In that context, Edwards said, policymakers have lots of ways to cut taxes on moderate-income Americans. Maag, meanwhile, pointed to proposals outside the framework that would expand the earned income tax credit. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a very large increase in that credit -- a refundable credit targeted at low-income working Americans -- that would provide benefits to low- and middle-income families Our ruling Rubio said if tax reform efforts don’t expand the child tax credit, "there will be no tax relief for working families." That’s a bit overstated, since the tax proposal is in its early stages. That said, judging by what’s in the initial framework, experts say that the child tax credit is one of the few levers that could significantly affect the size of the tax burden for middle-income households. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2017-10-19T12:07:50	2017-10-15	['None']
-snes-04349	Bill Clinton was disbarred and fined over actions related to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-fined-and-disbarred-over-the-monica-lewinsky-scandal/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Bill Clinton was Fined, Disbarred Over the Monica Lewinsky Scandal	29 July 2016	None	['Monica_Lewinsky', 'Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-04721	"There is an increasing amount of evidence from public polling that the highest number of Americans ever identify themselves as pro-life."	/florida/statements/2012/aug/31/marco-rubio/rubio-says-those-identifying-themselves-pro-life-a/	U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., answered questions about abortion on Face the Nation on the eve of the Republican National Convention. Here is part of Rubio’s response: "Yes, Mitt Romney is pro-life, and the Republican Party -- although it has diversity on this issue -- is the home of the pro-life movement in American politics," Rubio said. "So are a growing number of Americans, by the way. There is an increasing amount of evidence from public polling that the highest number of Americans ever identify themselves as pro- life." We wanted to check to see if Rubio was correct that there is increasing evidence that the highest number of Americans ever identify themselves as pro-life. Polls that ask respondents to identify as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" The Gallup poll asked this question regularly between 1995 and 2008: "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Those responding "pro-life" were anywhere from 33 percent to 46 percent between 1995 and 2008. In May 2009, there was a change: 51 percent said they were "pro-life" and 42 percent "pro-choice." Just two months later in July 2009, the pro-life percentage dropped to 47 percent and stayed in that ballpark for a couple of years. The most recent Gallup data available -- May 2012 -- shows 50 percent referring to themselves as "pro-life" and 41 percent "pro-choice." So that means between 1995 and 2012, the percentage considering themselves pro-life rose from 33 percent to 50 percent. And the percentage identifying as "pro-choice" dropped from 56 percent to 41 percent. Gallup said that the "pro-choice" response was at a record low in 2012. It stated that identification with the labels had shifted "from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for ‘pro-choice’ -- from 1998 through 2008 -- to a close division between the two positions since 2009." Gallup found the pro-life position ahead twice -- in May 2009 and May 2012 -- but said it remained to be seen whether those were temporary spikes or would be sustained. Gallup noted that Democrats’ positions changed the least on abortion, while the percentage of Republicans and independents identifying as pro-life increased. The recent shift in abortion views is not due to a change in the political composition of the samples, Gallup said. We found one other poll that asks respondents if they identify with "pro-life" or "pro-choice." PollingReport.com, which lists multiple polls from different organizations, showed that a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll in 2011 asked "on the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?" Starting in 2009, each year more respondents chose "pro-life" than "pro-choice." (This poll showed occasionally pro-life edged out pro-choice narrowly in a few additional years.) For the most recent year listed, 50 percent said "pro-life" while 42 percent said "pro-choice" in 2011. Polls that ask other abortion-related questions But there are lots of different ways pollsters ask Americans for their opinions on abortion that don’t ask respondents to characterize themselves as "pro-life" or "pro-choice." These questions show that the abortion debate isn’t black and white -- the results change if pollsters ask Americans if they support abortion under certain circumstances, support Roe v. Wade or other questions about abortion. Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views, established in 1975, asks Americans if abortion should be legal in all or certain circumstances or illegal in all circumstances. That middle position of legal in certain circumstances has almost always been in the 50 percent range. The number was 52 percent in May 2012, while 25 percent chose "legal under any circumstances." Abortion-rights supporters emphasize that combined statistic to argue that most Americans support abortion in all or some circumstances. But opponents of abortion rights point to the poll question that shows when asked to narrow "certain" circumstances, more choose "only a few" rather than "most" circumstances. When you add those who chose "illegal in all circumstances" and those who said legal in "few" that adds up to a majority, said David O’Steen, director of National Right to Life. Wellesley economics professor Phillip Levine, who wrote a book on abortion policy, said that Rubio’s claim is technically correct since it simply refers to Americans using the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" labels. "How people label themselves as pro-choice or pro-life is probably of secondary importance to what sorts of policies they support," he said. "In that view of the world there has been very little movement. I would be hard-pressed to imagine other policies that have that level of stability." Most Americans have fallen into the middle category for decades of supporting abortion in certain circumstances. Our ruling Rubio said, "There is an increasing amount of evidence from public polling that the highest number of Americans ever identify themselves as pro-life." Rubio’s claim is carefully worded. He referred to Americans identifying themselves as "pro-life," so that would allow him to zero in on polls that specifically ask questions about labels. Gallup polls show that the percentage of Americans that consider themselves "pro-life" has increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 50 percent in May 2012. But policy matters more than labels. When pollsters ask respondents other questions about abortion -- such as if they favor abortion in limited cases -- the answers become more complicated, and it’s not easy to categorize those positions as "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Rubio has avoided those nuances, however, by carefully wording his statement. We rate this claim Mostly True. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the election. See video fact-checks here.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2012-08-31T15:08:11	2012-08-26	['United_States']
-pomt-10711	"So what sort of services does Romney's health care plan provide? Per the state Web site: $50 co-pay for abortions."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/27/fred-thompson/indeed-abortions-are-covered/	Fred Thompson's campaign is trying to take the much-touted health insurance program that Mitt Romney helped create as governor of Massachusetts and turn it into a liability with conservative Republican voters who dominate the party's primary elections. The Thompson campaign, which has been playing up the former U.S. senator's antiabortion stances, sent out this e-mail in November 2007: "So what sort of services does Romney's health care plan provide? Per the state Web site: $50 co-pay for abortions. "While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover 'medically necessary' abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney's plan covers ALL abortions -- no restrictions." And it's true. One of the crowning moments of Mitt Romney's tenure as governor of Massachusetts was the creation of Commonwealth Care, a state-run, state-subsidized health insurance program for people making up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Although private insurers provide the coverage, the state helps pay the bills and determines what services must be covered. That list includes abortion. And the co-pay is indeed $50. Romney has recently sought to distance himself from some details of the plan, but he has touted it in debates and interviews as a model for the nation. "I love it. It's a fabulous program," Romney said during a May 3, 2007, Republican debate in Simi Valley, Calif. "Now I know there's some people who wonder about it. Sen. Kennedy at the signing of the bill, we were all there together, he said, 'You know, if you've got Mitt Romney and Ted Kennedy agreeing to the same bill, that means one thing -- one of us didn't read it.' "But I helped write it. And I knew it well. ...The market can work to solve our health care needs, and 27 other states are working on health care programs now. It's a great program, a great opportunity for the entire country." Romney's campaign counters that the decision about what services to cover was ultimately left up to the independent Commonwealth Care Authority. But Romney was well-represented: Of the six policy-making members of the authority's 10-member board, half are appointed by the governor, and half by the state attorney general. Half of the ex-officio members also are appointed by the governor, including the chairman -- the governor's secretary of administration and finance -- and the state insurance commission. Although Romney shares responsiblity with the state legislature and the program's board, Commonwealth Care was his pet project, and he takes credit for it. We find Thompson's claims true.	None	Fred Thompson	None	None	None	2007-11-27T00:00:00	2007-11-15	['None']
-tron-03646	U.N. Disarmament Commission Study on Military Grade Weapons in U.S.	https://www.truthorfiction.com/un-disarmament-commission-082113/	None	warnings	None	None	None	U.N. Disarmament Commission Study on Military Grade Weapons in U.S.	Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States']
-snes-05015	A family of three drowned when they neglected to close their car's sunroof before going through a carwash.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/family-drowns-in-carwash/	None	Uncategorized	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Family Drowns After Leaving Sunroof Open in Automated Carwash	24 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05019	"Foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Sean Duffy’s Republican Majority."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/16/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee-says-p/	Democrats have freshman Republican Congressman Sean Duffy, R-Wisconsin, a former Ashland County district attorney, on their 2012 targets list. That was especially evident when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee unleashed a July 2, 2012 news release taking aim at Duffy’s campaign contributors. The release begins: "Foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Sean Duffy’s (WI-07) Republican Majority." Quite a claim. But hardly an original one. The DCCC made an identical Chinese prostitution attack against Jim Renacci, a Republican House member in Ohio. They also used it against Republican congressmen Scott DesJarlais in Tennessee and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania. What’s behind this lurid campaign finance claim? Our colleagues in PolitiFact Ohio dug into the issue after Renacci was targeted. Here’s what they found: The charge is tied to billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, who has donated millions to Republicans. A fired former employee of Adelson’s filed a lawsuit which alleges that Adelson personally approved of prostitution at properties his company owns in Macau, a former Portuguese colony near Hong Kong that now is part of China. PolitiFact Ohio continued: The DCCC release noted that Adelson and his wife gave $5 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC, which is backed by House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders. FEC records indicate that Super PAC hasn’t spent anything so far. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, also gave more than $60,000 to the Republican counterpart of the DCCC, the National Republican Congressional Committee, during the past election cycle. A spokesman for the Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, issued a statement that said Adelson has always "maintained a strong policy against prostitution on our properties and any accusation to the contrary represents a blatant and reprehensible personal attack on Mr. Adelson’s character." In a July 9 interview with Forbes magazine, Adelson said there’s not a "shred of evidence" to back his former employee’s charges, and "says the fact that he and his wife (a physician who specializes in treating addiction) have given millions of dollars to set up clinics around the world to treat people with drug addictions (many of them prostitutes) makes the … claims even more preposterous." Adelson also told the publication that promoting prostitution could cost him his gaming licenses in Las Vegas, Singapore and Macau. The DCCC says "Adelson has given $5 million to Speaker (John) Boehner’s Congressional Leadership Fund Super PAC, pledged $5 million to Leader (Eric) Cantor’s Young Guns Network Super PAC, given $70,800 to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and has committed at least $20 million into Karl Rove’s American Crossroads." So Adelson has contributed or pledged plenty of money to Republican candidates or committees. That’s clear. But the Chinese prostitution link is another matter. Here’s how PolitiFact Ohio put it in their review of the claim against Renacci: Do unproven charges by a disgruntled former Adelson employee coupled with Adelson’s generosity to GOP groups that are likely to back Renacci justify the DCCC’s claim that "foreign Chinese prostitution money is allegedly behind the groups funding Congressman Jim Renacci’s Republican majority?" We don’t think so. Neither do we. As our Ohio colleagues point out, the allegation that Adelson allowed prostitution at the Macau comes from a fired employee. The DCCC takes that claim and says money from prostitution was included in Adelson’s campaign contributions to GOP congressional incumbents -- including Duffy. There’s no evidence that Duffy received contributions from Adelson, and he has no control over contributions to groups that support him. "The claim that Adelson’s donations to these other groups amount to ‘Chinese prostitution money’ is dubious enough that inserting the word ‘allegedly’ can’t save it," PolitiFact Ohio wrote in its assessment. That holds no matter what name is inserted into the cut-and-paste news release. You can repeat a claim, but the smell of smoke remains the same. Pants on Fire.	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2012-07-16T09:00:00	2012-07-02	['China']
-vogo-00436	Fact Check TV: Tech Greenhorns and a Porkfest Fallacy	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-tech-greenhorns-and-a-porkfest-fallacy/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: Tech Greenhorns and a Porkfest Fallacy	February 8, 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-09501	"Holly Turner... still takes her homestead (property tax) exemption in Fort Worth."	/texas/statements/2010/feb/23/paul-workman/workman-says-turner-claims-her-homestead-exemption/	Businessman Paul Workman, one of three Republicans vying for a Texas House seat representing the southwestern portion of Travis County, has lived in the county about 25 years longer than opponent Holly Turner, whose campaign says she moved to Austin from Forth Worth in July. Workman has denounced her as a "carpetbagger," and started airing a radio ad Feb. 18 that suggests Turner is too new to the district to hold office. Among his claims: She "still takes her homestead exemption in Fort Worth." Does Workman have it right? Craig Murphy, a spokesman for Turner's campaign, flatly denied the charge, saying: "She doesn't have a homestead exemption in Forth Worth — she doesn't have a homestead exemption at all." Eric Bearse, a consultant for Workman's campaign, shot back: "She is trying to disown the downtown Fort Worth condo she bragged about just five months ago in a publication." According to Murphy, Turner's husband, Chris, has owned a condominium in downtown Fort Worth since April 2006 — eight months before he and Turner married. The two are featured in the September 2009 issue of Fort Worth Magazine enjoying the digs. Murphy said, however, that the couple moved to Austin in July 2009. Their son, Carter, started school in Austin in August. Still, the Turners met the state's criteria to qualify for the exemption on their 2009 property taxes. That is, Chris Turner owned it and they occupied it as their primary residence on Jan. 1, 2009. Also, neither spouse claimed a homestead exemption on another property (legally, they can only claim one homestead exemption between them). Holly Turner's name isn't on the deed, according to the Tarrant County property tax record — her husband's is, so he's the only one who can legally apply for and claim a homestead exemption for the property, said Mark Hutcheson, a partner at the Austin-based property tax law firm Popp, Gray & Hutcheson, LLP. The exemption cut about $900 from his property taxes, which were paid from the couple's joint checking account Jan. 31, according to tax records. Hutcheson said it's too soon to know if Chris Turner can claim a homestead exemption for 2010 because the Tarrant County Appraisal District won't re-evaluate whether the property qualifies for one until about April. Murphy said the Turners have been trying to sell the Fort Worth property for about a year, though it's not currently on a multiple listing service. Jo Ann Hicks Royer, the director of relocation at Williams Trew in Forth Worth, a real estate company that listed the Turners' condominium for about six months, called the condo market "very very slow." Hutcheson suggested it's appropriate for Holly Turner to say it's her husband's homestead exemption, not hers. Since her husband owned the condo since before they were married (we couldn't independently confirm this, but Murphy said they were married in New Zealand in December 2006), it's not community property, Hutcheson said. But Judon Fambrough, an attorney at the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University, suggested that regardless of who legally owns the property and seeks the homestead exemption benefit, Holly Turner still enjoys the resulting reduction in taxes. That's a common reality. "Community... separate... it don't matter," Fambrough said. "He'll get the tax statement so he can claim the homestead exemption and the wife will benefit." Until July, the Fort Worth condo was Holly and Chris Turner's primary residence. As such, it qualified for the state's homestead tax exemption. While Holly Turner can't personally claim the exemption, it would be disingenuous to maintain that she didn't benefit from the tax break. By the same token, to suggest that she doesn't live in Travis County because her husband received a home exemption for 2009 is misleading. Workman could safely say his opponent enjoyed the tax benefits of her household's Tarrant County homestead exemption. He overreaches by saying Turner personally takes the exemption. We rate Workman's statement as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Paul Workman	None	None	None	2010-02-23T17:17:25	2010-02-18	['Fort_Worth,_Texas']
-pomt-06297	Says that Sen. Sherrod Brown is "out there egging on a lot of these protesters who are spitting on policemen and going to the bathroom on policemen’s cars at these protests on Wall Street and other places."	/ohio/statements/2011/nov/18/josh-mandel/josh-mandel-accuses-sherrod-brown-egging-protester/	On a conservative radio program Monday, Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel let loose a provocative attack on U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, whose job he hopes to snag next year. The segment on the Tea Party Express Hour, broadcast on KCBQ/AM 1170 out of San Diego, started with Mandel, a Republican from Lyndhurst, recapping last week’s election results in Ohio. Mandel emphasized the overwhelming vote for a state constitutional amendment that registers opposition to President Barack Obama’s health care reforms. Democrats, meanwhile, have cheered the resounding repeal of GOP-backed restrictions on collective bargaining for public employees. Over the course of a sometimes fawning 12-minute interview by host Howard Kaloogian, Mandel made several incendiary comments about the Avon Democrat. One particular statement caught PolitiFact Ohio’s ear. Asked how Ohioans’ health care and labor votes foreshadow 2012, Mandel referenced the Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York two months ago and spread to communities across the country. Mandel specifically focused on reports of distasteful demonstrations that Republicans have sought to make representative of the entire movement. Brown is "out there egging on a lot of these protesters who are spitting on policemen and going to the bathroom on policemen’s cars at these protests on Wall Street and other places," he said. It was a bold accusation -- one that had us eager to find evidence of Ohio’s senior senator encouraging such offensive behavior. But we didn’t, because no such evidence exists. We first tried Joe Aquilino, a spokesman for Mandel’s campaign who pointed PolitiFact Ohio to emails and a website posting in which Brown offers supportive words for Occupy protesters. "It’s time to fight back," reads a page on Brown’s campaign website that asks visitors to stand with him as he fights for working families. "Sherrod Brown is a senator for the 99 percent of Americans who play by the rules and have had enough of Wall Street running the show." The web plea does not refer directly to Occupy Wall Street or to protesters, but the sentiments are the same. While some of the words might be seen as inflammatory, nowhere does Brown suggest that angry citizens spit on law enforcement officials or defecate on a police car. There have been reports of both types of behavior. A photograph that went viral after being obtained by the United Kingdom’s Daily Mail shows a man squatting over an NYPD cruiser. Brown, in case you were wondering, is not in the picture. Aquilino also referred us to a video, posted to YouTube, in which a band at an Occupy Portland rally jams to a repetitive chorus of "F--- the USA." Brown was nowhere near that protest. Brown did appear on the MSNBC program "Hardball with Chris Matthews" on Oct. 7. In the interview, which Mandel cited when asked about his claim, Brown praised the protesters. "I think the energy coming out of the Wall Street protesters is always a good thing," he said. Brown then seemed to immediately amend the "always" by clarifying: "When people nonviolently speak out and stand for something, it’s good to challenge authority when they do that." There was no call for such physical forms of protest -- quite the opposite, in fact. Asked about Mandel’s claim, Brown spokeswoman Meghan Dubyak offered an emailed statement stressing the senator’s support for police officers. Brown, she added in a subsequent telephone conversation, does not condone the type of behavior Mandel specified. But while none of the provided examples proves Brown encouraged protesters to attack police officers with their spit or stool, Aquilino maintains Mandel never implied otherwise on the radio. Mandel was "referencing the protesters in general," Aquilino said. "It’s a bigger-picture view of the movement. We’re not saying Sherrod Brown is out there saying to do these things." Aquilino also wrote in an email that "Josh was saying that Sherrod is supporting the protesters … who in some cases have decided to defecate on cars and spit" on police officers. But for PolitiFact Ohio, words matter. If Mandel was, as Aquilino claims, speaking "in general" and with a "bigger-picture view," why, then, did Mandel dwell on two very specific story lines? And "supporting" is far more passive than "egging on," which according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "to incite to action." As a public official, Mandel knows words matter. And given the incendiary level of other comments he made in the interview (he says at one point that Brown has "vilified capitalism" and views anyone who creates jobs as "the enemy.") his clear meaning was that Brown was encouraging protesters who are "spitting on policemen and going to the bathroom on policemen’s cars." That statement is not accurate and also makes a ridiculous claim. On the Truth-O-Meter, that rates Pants on Fire.	None	Josh Mandel	None	None	None	2011-11-18T06:00:00	2011-11-14	['None']
-farg-00377	"Wikileaks Latest: Podesta Emails Show 3 PROMINENT Republicans On Clinton Payroll."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/the-fake-podesta-email-thats-still-circulating/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	["America's Last Line of Defense", 'false stories']	The Fake Podesta Email That’s Still Circulating	September 17, 2018	2018-09-17 15:50:52 UTC	['None']
-goop-02573	Lamar Odom Planning To “Destroy” Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson Wedding?	https://www.gossipcop.com/lamar-odom-destroy-khloe-kardashian-wedding-tristan-thompson/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Lamar Odom Planning To “Destroy” Khloe Kardashian, Tristan Thompson Wedding?	2:39 pm, August 15, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-10381	"I joined the Gang of 14, seven Republicans, seven Democrats, so that we wouldn't blow up the United States Senate. Sen. Obama had the opportunity to join that group. He chose not to."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/20/john-mccain/obama-not-one-of-the-gang/	In the contest to claim the title as the true champion of bipartisan politics, both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama often portray themselves as the man most likely to have success reaching across the aisle to break the logjam of Washington politics. To bolster his case, McCain recently harkened back to the spring of 2005, when he was part of a small bipartisan effort to resolve a bitter standoff between Senate Democrats and Republicans over three conservative judicial nominees named by President George W. Bush. "I joined the Gang of 14, seven Republicans, seven Democrats, so that we wouldn't blow up the United States Senate," McCain said in a virtual town hall meeting on June 14, 2008. "Sen. Obama had the opportunity to join that group. He chose not to." At the time, the Democrats were using the filibuster to block confirmation votes on some conservative judges. Traditionally, the selection of judges had been viewed as a presidential power that was not to be curtailed. Senators felt free to vote against a nomination, but using procedural powers in the Senate to keep them from coming to a vote at all hadn't been done. The idea that Democrats were willing to use the filibuster to block judges was seen by many as an affront to the protocol-driven operations of the Senate. The Republicans, headed by Bill Frist, were bucking for the so-called "nuclear option," in which they would approve a series of procedural changes to allow the Senate to end filibusters with a majority vote, rather than a "supermajority" vote of 60 votes (essentially putting an end to the practice altogether). As part of the Gang of 14 compromise, the Democrats agreed not to support furthering the filibuster of the judicial nominees and not to initiate filibusters of future nominations except under "extreme circumstances." In exchange, the Republicans agreed not to vote with Frist on the "nuclear option." To be sure, McCain caught a lot of political heat from hard-line members of his party who wanted to move ahead with the "nuclear option." Obama was not one of the seven Democrats on the Gang of 14. At the time, Obama reluctantly supported the filibuster. "I'm not a huge fan of the filibuster," Obama was quoted as saying in April 2005. "Historically, what was it used for? Keeping me (an African-American) out of polling places." Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, one of the Gang of 14, told McClatchy Newspapers in March 2008 that it was unfair to emphasize Obama's absence from the bipartisan group, because he wasn't pressed to join. "When we got to seven (Democrats) counting myself, there was some discussion of expanding it," Nelson said, "but there was the thought it would be more unworkable." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama states: "I declined to be a part of what would be called the Gang of 14; given the profiles of some of the judges involved, it was hard to see what judicial nominee might be so much worse as to constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance' worthy of filibuster. Still, I could not fault my colleagues for their efforts. The Democrats involved had made a practical decision — without the deal, the 'nuclear option' would have likely gone through." In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times on May 21, 2008, Obama was less generous in his assessment of the deal. "The Republicans like to emphasize the Gang of 14 because frankly the Republicans got everything they wanted out of that," Obama said. "I don't think it was a particularly good compromise." One can attach whatever significance one wants to McCain's statement, but the bottom line is that it's accurate. We rate it True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-06-20T00:00:00	2008-06-14	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Barack_Obama', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'United_States_Senate']
-pomt-08728	Sharron Angle "would eliminate the Department of Education."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/01/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-sharron-angle-wants-eliminate-educ/	The Nevada Senate race between incumbent Democrat Harry Reid and Republican challenger Sharron Angle has become one of the nation's most bitter, with Angle seeking to make Reid the poster child for the poor national and Nevada economies and Reid trying to portray Angle's staunchly conservative views as out of the mainstream. In a television ad released Aug. 23, 2010, Reid's campaign says that Angle wants to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education. The ad relies on a clip from an interview Angle did with radio station KNPR, the NPR affiliate in Nevada, on May 19, 2010, when she was running in the GOP primary. The exchange quoted in the ad begins with the host asking Angle, "Would you eliminate the Department of Education or simply cut it back?" Angle replies, "I would like to go through to the elimination." We wanted to look through the rest of the interview to make sure that Angle really does believe that the department should be eliminated. First, a little background on the Education Department. Its budget for fiscal year 2010 is about $64 billion. Of this, nearly $27 billion consists of Pell Grants, which fund disadvantaged students in college and graduate school. Another $25 billion is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including funding to K-12 school systems around the country. An additional $12 billion comes from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which helps fund education for disabled K-12 students. Much of the remainder is spent on educational research. We went to the archived interview and found that the ad doesn't distort her view. Here's a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview: "I believe that anything that isn't a federally governed, enumerated power in the Constitution, which means the federal government should be paying out on this, is up for grabs here," she said. "And we have some departments like the Department of Education that passes down policy, one-size-fits-all, that fits no one. Like No Child Left Behind. We need to keep those education dollars right here in the state and put them where they will do the most good, which is right in that clasroom, with that classroom teacher. We need to cut down on those bureaucracies that take those educational dollars that should be going into that classroom. "And it angers me every time I hear (politicians) say we're going to cut teachers," she continued. "What about the agencies that never see a child, never have been in a classroom, that are passing down policy that actually overburdens our classrooms. What about those? Why don't we cut there?" That's when the host interjects. "Would you eliminate the Department of Education or simply cut it back?" Angle responds, "I would like to go through to the elimination. I think we start by defunding it, and the reason that we should eliminate it is because its not the federal government's job to provide education for our children. It's a 10th Amendment right. It should be done here in the state, and it should be done as close to the local as possible." Reviewing the exchange on KNPR, it seems to us that the ad portrayed Angle's stance accurately. She did not hesitate, backtrack or give any indication that she misspoke, even when the host gave her the opportunity to roll back the scope of her proposal. She's expressed that position before, in a Mar. 22, 2010, interview with the conservative website Nevada News & Views, when she said she would like to eliminate not just the Education Department but the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency as well. It's worth noting that there's been a long-running constitutional debate about whether the Education Department is legitimate. Erwin Chemerinsky, the liberal dean of the University of California (Irvine) law school, argues that it's proper because of Congress' spending power. Ilya Shapiro of the libertarian Cato Institute counters that the 10th Amendment's assigning of all unlisted powers to the states makes it "plain and obvious that there is no constitutional authority" for it. Regardless, on the issue raised by Reid's ad -- whether Sharron Angle "would eliminate the Department of Education" -- we found that yes, she did say she wanted to do so in several public forums. So we rate the Reid ad True.	None	Harry Reid	None	None	None	2010-09-01T17:52:48	2010-08-23	['None']
-pomt-01591	Opponent Glenn Hegar expressed pride in legislated cuts to public school funding.	/texas/statements/2014/sep/05/mike-collier/mike-collier-says-opponent-glenn-hegar-was-proud-l/	Houston businessman Mike Collier, the Democratic nominee for state comptroller, launched a video ad in August 2014 suggesting the Republican candidate, state Sen. Glenn Hegar of Katy, took pride in big cuts to public education. In Collier’s ad, the narrator says Hegar "voted to cut more than $5 billion from Texas schools, money for teachers, computers, even books -- all cut." This was a reference to actions taken by the Republican-majority 2011 Legislature in the face of a multi-billion-dollar projected revenue shortfall. "And Hegar is proud of it," Collier’s narrator says. Next, the ad shows Hegar saying: "Some people are saying, 'Oh, we’ve put more money into education.’ No we didn’t. There’s no way you can spin that. No we didn’t. But I was not ashamed to say we didn’t. I was proud that we did not." We waded into this after noticing a news account with a dash of doubt about why Hegar was proud. It wouldn’t necessarily shock if Hegar took pride. In June 2011, he issued a press release expressing pride in lawmakers balancing the 2012-13 budget in the face of a projected $27 billion revenue shortfall without tapping the rainy day fund or raising taxes; his release called the result "amazing" and "remarkable." And while Hegar made no direct reference to the school cuts, he hailed "a fiscally sound and responsible budget that funds essential services and forces state government to live within its means, just as Texas families must do." By email, Collier spokeswoman Chaille Jolink said Collier based his claim on Hegar’s comments some 38 minutes into his videotaped 2013 meeting with the Montgomery County Tea Party, which was posted on YouTube Dec. 31, 2013. Roll tape! In a question-and-answer period with group members, Hegar said he favors delivering education smarter and cheaper, perhaps online. The comptroller plays a role managing dollars, he said. "You’re really the watchdog for the taxpayers," he said. Our transcribed excerpt picks up with a member’s follow-up comment. Montgomery County Tea Party: "I think our whole education system needs to come under an audit because there’s somebody getting a lot of money and it’s not teachers. And education isn’t getting any better." Hegar (nodding): "Whenever -- I mentioned this to somebody the other day -- I said that whenever we did the cut; you mentioned earlier (gesturing away from the questioner) the cuts to education, and some people went out and said -- (gesturing in another direction) it was almost like your question earlier, was the budget balanced or was it not balanced? -- some people were saying oh, we’ve put more money into education. "No we didn’t (shaking head back and forth). There’s no way you can spin that. No, we didn’t. But I was not ashamed to say we didn’t. I was proud that we did not. "I had a lot of" school district "superintendents come up to me and tell me, you know what, thanks, because I’ve been needing to cut something over here and I’ve never been able to and you gave me the excuse. Now one, I’m about to jump on you because you just told me you wanted to and you should have, but you didn’t?… It really opened my eyes when somebody would say that we really needed to cut this stuff but I didn’t have a good excuse and you just gave it to me." MCTP: "So you were a scapegoat." Hegar: "That’s fine. I was happy to be the scapegoat; it didn’t bother me." We let Hegar’s campaign know we were checking on his declaration of pride. Spokesman David White emailed us a statement saying: "As a father of three children in public schools, Sen. Hegar believes in adequately funding our education system." White also urged us to read an Aug. 8, 2014 news blog post by the Dallas Morning News presenting a slightly different recap of Hegar's comments to the tea-party group. White then said Collier presented Hegar’s remarks "out of context." According to the tea-party video, the News’ story said, Hegar "recounts what apparently are constituent comments about last year’s restoration of nearly $4 billion of the earlier cuts. That’s when he says he was proud not to have ‘put more money in education. … There’s no way you could spend that.’" In our views of the video, we didn’t hear the senator referring to money restored. Also, we heard Hegar’s latter remark as: "There’s no way you can spin that." Our ruling Collier said Hegar was proud to cut public school funding. In 2013, Hegar said he was unashamed and proud to stand behind the cuts that Republicans passed into law. We rate Collier’s statement True.	None	Mike Collier	None	None	None	2014-09-05T17:35:48	2014-08-08	['None']
-farg-00145	"Muslim migrant beats up Dutch boy on crutches!"	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/trump-spreads-false-anti-muslim-tweet/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Jayda Fransen and Donald Trump	Saranac Hale Spencer	['immigration']	Trump Spreads False Anti-Muslim Tweet	November 29, 2017	[' Twitter (Fransen tweet and Trump retweet) – Wednesday, November 29, 2017 ']	['Netherlands']
-pomt-05531	"Our rainy day fund has gone from 89 cents to $240 million."	/ohio/statements/2012/apr/11/john-kasich/gov-john-kasich-says-rainy-day-fund-has-grown-89-c/	Gov. John Kasich has had both setbacks and victories since taking office in January 2011, but a Fox News interview on April 2 gave him the chance to focus on success. "We were the number one job creator in America in February," he told anchor Neal Cavuto, "and we are now the number four job creator in the last year" -- claims that PolitiFact Ohio checked and rated as True. Kasich went on to tout the state's fiscal progress, saying, "Our rainy day fund has gone from 89 cents to $240 million." That's quite a swing. We wondered about the numbers, and especially about that bargain-basement figure of 89 cents. We asked Kasich's office for verification. Spokesman Rob Nichols referred us first to the Office of Budget and Management. Lest we search and not find, it promptly corrected us that it's not really the "Rainy Day Fund" but the less colorful "Budget Stabilization Fund." (Bob Dylan didn't write "Budget Stabilization Women #12 & 35.") OBM issued a statement last July saying that $246.9 million had been transferred from general revenue into the Budget Stabilization Fund, giving it a balance of $246.9 million. We did the arithmetic with the exact numbers and found the starting balance was $1.78. It's the opening balance for the current fiscal year, according to OBM's summary of fund activity. Kasich's number of 89 cents is half of that. The governor explained the difference near the end of his State of the State address in February: "When I came in," he said, "we had a rainy day fund that had 89 cents, and I'm told that budget guru over there, Brian Perera, sent an 89-cent check to double the amount of money we had in the rainy day fund." Perera is budget director of the Senate Republican caucus and an acknowledged expert on state finances. The same story about him appeared almost a year ago in the blog Ohio Budget Watch. It was true, he told us. The rainy day fund, which was drained by the recession after topping a billion dollars, was left in April 2011 with a balance of 89 cents. Seeing an opportunity few of us could resist, Perera wrote himself into state legend by writing a check to the state for 89 cents and doubling the fund. Kasich actually understated the fund’s latest balance, as of March 30, when he rounded it to $240 million. The 89 cents was accurate. His statement rates as True.	None	John Kasich	None	None	None	2012-04-11T06:00:00	2012-04-02	['None']
-pomt-11742	"Earlier this year, Hurricane Harvey left more than 12 million people in Texas and Louisiana without homes."	/texas/statements/2017/dec/08/ryan-sitton/ryan-sitton-errantly-says-12-million-people-left-w/	A Texas official's guest editorial, shared on his campaign website, made us wonder about the whopping impact of Hurricane Harvey. Ryan Sitton, a Houston Republican on the Texas Railroad Commission, opened his Nov. 7, 2017, article in Drilling Contractor: "Earlier this year, Hurricane Harvey left more than 12 million people in Texas and Louisiana without homes. The devastation of this storm was more far-reaching than anyone imagined." That many people left homeless? That breaks out to an improbable 38 percent of the states’ combined populations. We sought Sitton’s elaboration; a state aide, Katie McKee, said by email that she’d typed the 12 million figure when she intended to write 1 million. McKee said that we’d brought the error to Sitton’s attention and a correction would be sought. Before we completed this fact-check, the version of his editorial on his campaign site had been amended to say 1 million; Drilling Contractor’s post still said 12 million. McKee told us Sitton intended to say the hurricane left more than 1 million people without homes, per a Sept. 8, 2017, CNN news story stating that after Harvey swirled over southeast Texas for several days, the "storm and subsequent flooding left more than 70 people dead and ravaged nearly 300 miles of the Texas coast and parts of Louisiana, flooding homes and displacing more than a million people." FEMA figures That story doesn’t say how CNN got to its million-plus figure. For our part, we fruitlessly hunted other news accounts estmating the number of Texas and Louisiana residents left homeless. Next, we turned to press releases issued by agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency starting after Harvey landed and wreaked havoc in late August and early September 2017. On Sept. 22, 2017, FEMA summed up Harvey’s punch: "More than 19 trillion gallons of rainwater fell on parts of Texas, causing widespread, catastrophic flooding. Nearly 80,000 homes had at least 18 inches of floodwater, 23,000 of those with more than 5 feet." That release further said: "Nearly 780,000 Texans evacuated their homes. In the days after the storm, more than 42,000 Texans were housed temporarily in 692 shelters. Local, state and federal first responders rescued 122,331 people and 5,234 pets." Also, the release said: "The volume of applications for disaster assistance was one of the highest in FEMA history. To date, 792,000 households have applied for assistance." (That figure was approaching 900,000 as of early December 2017.) So, per FEMA, nearly 780,000 Texas residents evacuated homes. Might that mean that many people were left without homes? A FEMA spokeswoman, Deanna Frazier, initially told us that the agency had "no data on those left homeless as a result of the hurricane." Frazier otherwise said the 792,000 figure in FEMA’s release reflected the number of Texas households that had filed requests by late September 2017 to receive grants for rental assistance, home repair, personal property replacement or direct housing (manufactured housing units or travel trailers). Estimating flood-hit homes Meantime, we noticed a Texas General Land Office press release, issued in December 2017, quoting the Texas land commissioner, George P. Bush, saying: "Hurricane Harvey affected nearly 50,000 square miles of Texas and damaged or destroyed more than a million homes." By email, Bush spokeswoman Brittany Eck attributed Bush’s "more than a million homes" to an earlier estimate of damaged or destroyed homes made by Gordon Wells, Ph.D., a research associate with the University of Texas Center for Space Research. Eck advised that when Harvey came ashore, Wells was "embedded with the GLO for hurricane response at the State Operations Center run by the Texas Department of Emergency Management." By phone, Wells told us he didn’t have an estimate of Texas residents left without homes by Harvey. But Wells said he estimated the extent of Harvey-caused flooding initially by geo-locating homes for which 338,829 flood insurance claims had been filed by early October 2017. Wells said that far more homes were flood-hit, however, considering that some 80-plus percent of homeowners and renters lacked flood coverage. "If the figure of 339,829 affected structures represents the insured population of homeowners," Wells wrote, "then the total number of impacted structures in the region would rise by a factor of five to nearly 1.7 million, including a large number with only minor water damage," Wells said. "This is higher than my original estimate of 1 to 1.1 million affected structures estimated from the insurance data available in early September." Wells cautioned too that he did not gauge the destructive results of the hurricane’s winds alone. "The distribution of the insurance claims, widespread floodwater detected in satellite and aerial imagery and the tendency for homeowners not to insure their property for flood damage lead me to estimate that water damage of some degree occurred to over one million properties in Texas as a result of Hurricane Harvey and perhaps as many as 1.7 million properties based on the best available data," Wells wrote. Fewer Louisiana residents left without homes? Sharon Karr, a Louisiana-based FEMA spokeswoman, said the federal government issued a major disaster declaration in October 2017 for 20 of the state’s Harvey-affected parishes--including six bordering Texas, a FEMA map shows. Nine of the parishes, Karr said by email, became eligible for aid to remove debris and repair roads and bridges, water control facilities, public buildings and utilities, parks and other recreational facilities. By phone, though, Karr said FEMA did not authorize "individual disaster assistance" awards that could include housing assistance. We separately noticed that Louisiana’s September 2017 request for the disaster declaration said 312 residences in the state were "impacted" by the hurricane, including 19 "destroyed" residences and 48 with "major damage." We also reached Mike Steele of the Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, who said by phone the state doesn’t have a tracking system to tally displaced residents after a disaster. Karr and Steele each suggested we elicit detail about residents left without homes from preparedness officials in Calcasieu Parish. Our attempts to do so didn’t succeed. Our ruling Sitton wrote: "Earlier this year, Hurricane Harvey left more than 12 million people in Texas and Louisiana without homes." This figure, attributed to a typo, is improbably high. We also didn’t spot an authoritative alternate count though it seems reasonable to say--based on requests for help through FEMA and a state expert’s review rooted in flood insurance claims--that more than a million Texas residents sustained home damage. It looks to us like the hurricane left far fewer Louisianans without homes. We rate Sitton's published claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ryan Sitton	None	None	None	2017-12-08T16:35:00	2017-11-07	['Texas', 'Louisiana']
-pomt-10864	"In 1972, we had a 179,000 human beings in jail in this country. Today, it's 2.3-million, and 70 percent of them are black, African-American."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/aug/30/mike-gravel/hes-off-way-off-on-whos-in-prison/	In a debate at the historically black college, Gravel said, "one of the areas that touches me the most and enrages me the most is our war on drugs that this country has been putting forth for the last generation." Then he put forth statistics. 2.3 million people in jail. 70 percent of them African-American. Yikes. He got the first one right, but that 70 percent figure? That's not just wrong, that's Pants-On-Fire wrong. The real figure, according to the June 2007 report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics that counts federal, state and local jails, is 40 percent. We're giving Gravel our harshest ruling because he botched this fact so badly and because it's such an important one to get right. It's something of a popular myth that most of the people in jail or prison are black, so to hear a presidential candidate make the false claim with such authority should not be overlooked. It also is worth noting that the 2.3 million figure that Gravel got right comes from the very same Bureau of Justice report that shows how wrong he was about the incarceration of black people. He should have kept reading.	None	Mike Gravel	None	None	None	2007-08-30T00:00:00	2007-06-28	['None']
-vogo-00106	Statement: “We made an agreement. You may remember it was a long, drawn-out process where we came to agreement that they would get money but they would give a specified amount of money to what’s gonna be the most important tourist thing for the next few years, that is our Centennial of Balboa Park,” Mayor Bob Filner said in a June 3 interview on KPBS’ “Midday Edition.”	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/parks/fact-check-mayor-overstates-hotels-commitment-to-balboa-park-centennial/	Analysis: Mayor Bob Filner has repeatedly battled with tourism officials over a contract that allows them to collect cash to market the region. The bickering didn’t stop after Filner signed the deal.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Mayor Overstates Hotels Commitment to Balboa Park Centennial	June 5, 2013	None	['Bob_Filner', 'Balboa_Park_(San_Diego)']
-vees-00362	Voting against the child restraints bill, Batocabe in a Sept. 18 Facebook post wrote:	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-lawmaker-wrongly-insists-data-child-re	Batocabe is wrong in declaring an absence of data backing the effectiveness of child restraints.	None	None	None	road safety,transportation,car seat,child restraints	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Lawmaker wrongly insists data on child restraints lacking	October 02, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-05807	Says in the last 20 years, the French have not "stood by" the United States on foreign policy.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/22/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-you-cant-name-one-time-last-20-/	At a presidential campaign event in Georgetown, Ohio, on Feb. 17, 2012, Rick Santorum took a shot at France. President Barack Obama, Santorum said, "actually went to France a year or so ago and was with Nicolas Sarkozy and said that, 'Here I am with the French Prime Minister, our best ally in the world.' Now think about this. Name one time in the last 20 years that the French stood by us with anything. But in Barack Obama's eyes, that makes them our best ally, because they fought what was in the best interest of our country." We’ll overlook the fact that Santorum misstated Sarkozy’s title -- he’s France’s president. What we were wondering about is whether Santorum is right that it’s impossible to "name one time in the last 20 years that the French stood by us with anything." We’ll focus on his underlying point, that France has consistently gone its own way on foreign policy rather than standing by the United States. We emailed the Santorum campaign asking for support for the candidate's statement, but we received no response. It’s true that France pushed for a more multilateral approach to confronting Saddam Hussein's Iraq than the George W. Bush adminstration wanted. The run-up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 represented a major break in the normally amicable U.S.-French relationship, epitomized by the House of Representatives’ decision to change the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries" in its cafeteria. But experts on United States and European diplomacy say it’s wrong to extrapolate from that one case. Overall, they agreed, Santorum’s claim is way off base. It’s "inaccurate and terribly misleading," said Richard Kuisel, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s BMW Center for German and European Studies and author of The French Way: How France Embraced and Rejected American Values and Power (2011) and Seducing the French: The Dilemma of Americanization (1993). Santorum’s "clock stopped in 2003," added Justin Vaïsse, senior fellow and director of research at the Center on the U.S. and Europe at the Brookings Institution. The role of Sarkozy A major reason for the improvement in the U.S.-French relationship has been the shift from former president Jacques Chirac to Sarkozy in 2007. "French-American military and diplomatic relations have been excellent under Sarkozy, who is an open admirer of American culture and society," said Jean-Philippe Mathy, a professor of French at the University of Illinois and author of French Resistance: The French-American Culture Wars (2000). When Sarkozy came to Washington to address a joint session of Congress in 2007, "he found himself met by a standing ovation and occasional whoops," the New York Times reported. "He at first appeared to revel in it, but as it extended to two minutes and longer, he began to appear almost embarrassed." "We may have differences, we may disagree on things, we may even have arguments, as in any family," Sarkozy said. "But in times of difficulty, in times of hardship, one stands true to one’s friends, one stands shoulder to shoulder with them, and one helps them." Sarkozy’s reception was a far cry from Chirac’s, when only about 100 members of Congress attended and "young pages were recruited to fill empty seats," the Times reported. Afghanistan The most prominent example of U.S.-French cooperation has been France’s contribution to the NATO forces in Afghanistan -- an operation instigated and heavily supported by the U.S. As of mid-January, France had 3,832 troops deployed, the fifth-largest number of any country after the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. About 600 French troops have been training the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police Force, according to the Congressional Research Service. Since the start of operations, France has lost 82 servicemembers in Afghanistan. None other than George W. Bush praised France’s commitment to the Afghanistan operation in a speech on the six-month anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "The power and vitality of our coalition have been proven in Afghanistan," Bush said. "More than half of the forces now assisting the heroic Afghan fighters, or providing security in Kabul, are from countries other than the United States. There are many examples of commitment: our good ally, France, has deployed nearly one-fourth of its navy to support Operation Enduring Freedom." Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and NATO Afghanistan is not the full extent of France’s military engagement alongside the United States. As of February 2011, France had nearly 9,000 troops in a variety of military operations across the globe, CRS wrote. In addition to Afghanistan, which is a NATO operation, France had almost 1,500 military personnel under U.N. auspices in Lebanon and at least 1,000 soldiers in Côte d’Ivoire. "France and the U.S. have been constantly on the same line regarding Côte d’Ivoire since 2002, even when the two countries were at odds over Iraq," Vaïsse said. "Last year, with the approval of Washington, France provided the troops and helicopters for the U.N. mission to oust Laurent Gbagbo and install Alassane Ouattara, the democratically elected president." France also cooperated with the U.S. in Libya -- in fact, France, along with the U.K., pushed the U.S. to action there in the first place. More quietly, but significantly, Sarkozy in 2009 ended a self-imposed exile from NATO’s integrated command structure, an absence that dated back more than 40 years to French president Charles de Gaulle. "France is currently the fourth largest contributor of troops to alliance operations and a significant financial contributor to NATO," CRS wrote. "However, it had only very limited participation in the alliance’s military decision-making structures after then-President de Gaulle withdrew the country from NATO’s integrated command structure in 1966. Despite domestic opposition from critics who fear that the move could limit French military independence, the French parliament approved Sarkozy’s decision by a vote of 329-238 on March 17, 2009. U.S. officials have welcomed French reintegration as an important step toward improving alliance cohesion and strengthening the European role within NATO." During the past 20 years or so, France has also fought in cooperation with the United States in the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s and in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-1990s. Anti-terrorism and Iran sanctions France has been a strong partner with the U.S. on anti-terrorism intelligence and coordination, especially under Sarkozy, a former Interior Minister. "France has been the best ally in the war on terrorism, having had a head start on al-Qaida networks because of bombings in Paris in the 1990s that were linked with the Algerian civil war," Vaïsse said. Finally, France has sought stringent sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear technology. France has "played a central role in pushing for three rounds of U.N. sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program," CRS wrote, including "a key role in passing the latest and most stringent U.N. sanctions against Iran to date." Those sanctions, imposed in 2010, included a ban on new investment in Iranian oil and gas industries, a ban on insurance and re-insurance of Iranian government institutions and their affiliates; and extensive asset freezes of Iranian companies and individuals. In fact, France has sometimes sought more stringent sanctions against Iran than some of its allies. "On Iran sanctions, the French are actually on a tougher line than the Obama administration -- a hard line that would be closer to Republican candidates like Santorum and Romney, and Congress in general," Vaïsse said. Our ruling Santorum’s mockery of France’s willingness to advance U.S. foreign policy goals is misplaced. It’s true that the two allies broke over Iraq policy, but that’s the exception rather than the rule. On a wide range of issues over two decades -- from the Persian Gulf War to the Balkans to Afghanistan to counter-terrorism to Iran sanctions -- France has worked diplomatically with the U.S. and has repeatedly put its troops in harm’s way. We rate Santorum’s statement Pants on Fire.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2012-02-22T14:59:38	2012-02-17	['United_States', 'France']
-hoer-00559	'Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/marijuana-overdose-colorado-kills-37-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Hoax - 'Marijuana Overdoses Kill 37 in Colorado'	January 3, 2014	None	['Colorado']
-snes-05641	Samsung is stealing data through a secret microchip in its mobile phone batteries.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/samsung-microchip/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	A (Not So) Secret Microchip?	23 June 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-01288	Kraft Heinz Recalls Taco Bell Salsa Con Queso Mild Cheese Dip	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/taco-bell-salsa-recall/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	TRUE: Kraft Heinz Recalls Taco Bell Salsa Con Queso Mild Cheese Dip	July 26, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08985	"We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration," adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs in the first six months of the year.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/15/joe-biden/joe-biden-lauds-obamas-job-creation-record/	On July 14, 2010, Vice President Joe Biden and Christina Romer, who chairs the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, held a news conference to discuss the latest quarterly report on the impact of the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009. At one point, Biden said, "We went from losing 3 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush Administration and 3.6 million, or 3.7 million in the first six months we took office -- inheriting the policy we could not possibly turn around before we could pass anything -- to the first six months of this year, actually adding almost 600,000 private sector jobs." With Republicans simultaneously putting a less favorable spin on the administration's record of job creation, we thought it would be worth checking each side's facts. (We also analyze a statement by House Minority Leader John Boehner.) We'll take the claims in order. • Did the economy shed 3 million jobs during the last six months of President George W. Bush's administration? Actually, that understates the losses. In July 2008, the general employment level was 137,075,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By January 2009, it was 133,549,000 -- a decline of about 3.5 million jobs. • Did the economy shed 3.6 million or 3.7 million jobs in the first six months under Obama? That modestly overstates the losses. In January 2009, the general employment level was 133,549,000. In July 2009, it was 130,294,000. That's a decline of 3.26 million jobs. • Did the economy add almost 600,000 private sector jobs during the first six months of this year? Very, very close. In December 2009, the number of private-sector jobs stood at 107,107,000. By June 2010, the number was 107,700,000. That's a difference of 593,000 jobs -- "almost 600,000" in our book. In all, Biden's numbers understated the losses under Bush and overstated the losses under Obama, but both of these errors work against the administration's own interests. And in the third case, Biden's number easily qualifies as "almost 600,000." All in all, we rate Biden's statement Mostly True.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2010-07-15T17:23:11	2010-07-14	['None']
-pomt-02319	"Nine out of the 10 poorest states are Red states."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/mar/28/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/	Editor's note: On Jan. 12, 2014, we rated this statement as True. We decided to re-rate our item after considering an additional poverty ranking that incorporates factors such as housing costs from state to state. The original item can be found here. The partisan blogosphere is filled with arguments over whether liberal or conservative policies are better for states. No matter what is proposed -- cutting the sales tax, raising the minimum wage, etc. -- someone can always come up with a state to cite as an example of why it's a good (or bad) idea. But we were struck by this claim posted by the pro-Democrat group Occupy Democrats on Facebook: "If Republican economic policies are so great for America, how come 9 out of the 10 poorest states are Red states?" We're not going to rule on the cause-and-effect question posed by the posting. Yet because Red states have a reputation for being more business-friendly, and because many argue that pro-business policies lead to better lives for everyone, we wondered whether the Occupy Democrats' claim was correct. When we emailed Occupy Democrats, founder Omar Rivero sent us links to several sources including a sortable Wikipedia table based on the 2010 U.S. Census, along with more recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. We also did our own search of the U.S. Census database. We’ll start with the standard definition of a Red state. At PolitiFact Rhode Island, we recognize that whether a state is Red or Blue can be a matter for debate. Our state is considered to be among the bluest of the Blue, yet it has had Democratic governors in only 20 of the last 50 years. Nonetheless, the color is typically defined by how a state votes in the presidential elections, so we're going to classify states by how they voted in the 2012 Obama-Romney race. It should be noted that there are different ways to measure poverty. Occupy Democrats says its claim is based on per-person income. We looked at that, along with median household income and median family income. By all three measures, 9 out of the 10 poorest states voted Republican in the last presidential election. (In fact, they voted Red in the last four elections.) According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma. The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma. And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina. The only Blue state on each list: New Mexico. By the way, 9 of the 10 states with the highest per-person income voted Blue in the 2012 presidential race: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington. The only Red state on the list: Alaska. It could also be argued that state-by-state costs of living should be taken into account when considering which states are poorest. Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't do its cost of living calculations by state. However, the Census Bureau's "supplemental poverty measure" tries to adjust for some of the geographical cost differences. So while, under the bureau's standard poverty measure nine of the 10 poorest states are Red, the latest Supplemental Poverty Measure changes that ranking significantly. Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee fall from the list, replaced by California (the poorest), Nevada, Florida, New York, and Hawaii, which were all Blue states in the 2012 race. (Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas -- all Red states -- make the list either way.) The supplemental measurement adjusts for local variations in the cost of housing, which is not considered by the standard poverty measure, said Kathleen Short, an economist with the Census Bureau. But there's a twist. It also counts a family's government assistance -- such as food stamps, housing assistance and tax credits for the poor -- as income, further complicating the matter. Housing costs are the biggest factor that move states in the ranking, she said. In addition, states where a lot of poor people are getting government assistance may look less poor in the supplemental ranking. Ultimately, each measure of the poorest states has its drawbacks. But the supplemental poverty measure offers a reason to temper the evidence from traditional measures that demonstrate the statement to be True. For that reason, we rule the "9 in 10" claim Mostly True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Occupy Democrats	None	None	None	2014-03-28T15:11:57	2013-12-26	['None']
-goop-02821	Sofia Vergara, Joe Manganiello Marriage ‘Over,’ 	https://www.gossipcop.com/sofia-vergara-marriage-over-joe-manganiello-divorce-cheated/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Sofia Vergara, Joe Manganiello Marriage NOT ‘Over,’ Despite Fake News Cover Story	1:19 pm, May 3, 2017	None	['None']
-afck-00005	“Up [to] 20% of high school learners have tried to take their own lives.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/teen-suicide-in-south-africa-getting-the-facts-right-helps-combat-the-problem/	None	None	None	None	None	Teen suicide in South Africa: getting the facts right helps combat the problem	2018-10-23 12:28	None	['None']
-goop-01367	Justin Bieber Giving Selena Gomez “Space” Or “Meeting In Secret”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-selena-gomez-space-time-apart-meeting-secret-made-up/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Justin Bieber Giving Selena Gomez “Space” Or “Meeting In Secret”?	3:27 pm, March 18, 2018	None	['None']
-abbc-00173	The claim: Chris Bowen says Joe Hockey has doubled the deficit by changes to Government spending and changes to Government assumptions.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/has-the-government-doubled-the-budget-deficit/5423392	The claim: Chris Bowen says Joe Hockey has doubled the deficit by changes to Government spending and changes to Government assumptions.	['federal-government', 'budget', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'chris-bowen', 'alp', 'australia']	None	None	['federal-government', 'budget', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'chris-bowen', 'alp', 'australia']	Has the Government doubled the budget deficit?	Tue 10 Jun 2014, 8:53am	None	['Joe_Hockey']
-pomt-04133	"Hurricane Sandy, the most destructive Atlantic storm ever."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/jan/06/environment-new-jersey/environment-new-jersey-claims-sandy-most-destructi/	Hurricane Sandy is probably the worst storm to hit New Jersey after it killed 40 people, remade parts of the Shore’s coastline and caused damages in the tens of billions of dollars. But just how bad was it compared with other hurricanes? "New Jersey can and must do more to slow global warming, especially after 2012's extreme weather and Hurricane Sandy, the most destructive Atlantic storm ever," Environment New Jersey said recently on its website. The most destructive Atlantic storm? Ever? Considering the magnitude of some other hurricanes in history, PolitiFact New Jersey decided to investigate. Doug O’Malley, interim director for Environment New Jersey, said 'destructive' refers to the storm's financial damages. Data shows that while Sandy may be the worst storm to ever batter New Jersey and the tristate region, it’s not the most destructive Atlantic storm in history. Let’s start with some background. Sandy slammed New Jersey on Oct. 29, leveling houses along the Shore and inland, and leaving millions without power for extended periods. The storm also unleashed a similar fury on New York and Connecticut. We checked Atlantic storms in the National Hurricane Center’s data archives, which tracks storm costs through 2010. Hurricane Irene, which hit New Jersey in 2011, is not included. Leading the list is 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, at $108 billion. Even though Katrina was largely a Gulf Coast storm, doing the most damage in Louisiana and Mississippi, it formed in the Atlantic and made landfall near Florida’s Miami-Dade/Broward county line. It then moved across south Florida into the eastern Gulf of Mexico, according to Hurricane Center data. "Katrina is still a clear runaway number one" in terms of damages, said Dennis Eltgen, a spokesman at the Miami-based Hurricane Center. Second on the list is 1992’s Hurricane Andrew, at $26.5 billion in damages. Andrew devastated parts of south Florida, continued into the Gulf of Mexico and turned north, hitting Louisiana. Those rankings change when damages are adjusted for 2010 dollars. In that case, the Great Miami Hurricane of 1926 that hit southeast Florida and Alabama ranks first, at $164.8 billion; Katrina second, at $113 billion; and Andrew fifth, at $58.5 billion. Sandy, however, is different than many hurricanes that often swing through the Gulf of Mexico. "I don’t think we were trying to claim that Sandy was more destructive than Katrina," O’Malley said. "We were trying to say Sandy was the worst hurricane to fully hit the Eastern Seaboard. That being said, Katrina did obviously really hit New Orleans but clearly, it tailed over Florida. We were counting Katrina as only hitting the Gulf Coast. We trust the National Hurricane Center. If they say it’s both, we agree with that." The governors of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut have estimated Sandy’s damages at $82 billion. President Obama has requested $60 billion in federal aid for the three states. The Senate approved the request and the House passed a $9 billion aid package Friday, and additional aid is expected to pass on Jan. 15. In making the aid request for the White House, Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy director for Management for the Office of Management and Budget, described Sandy’s place in hurricane history in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). "All told, although estimates of the total damage of Hurricane Sandy remain in flux, current projections are that Sandy is on track to be the second or third most costly natural disaster in U.S, history, behind Hurricane Katrina (2005) and close to Hurricane Andrew (1992)," Zients wrote. Our ruling Environment New Jersey claimed that October’s Hurricane Sandy is "the most destructive Atlantic storm, ever." Sandy may be the most destructive storm to hit a part of the Eastern Seaboard but in terms of most destructive Atlantic storms, that title goes to Katrina, which formed in the Atlantic and whose damages topped $100 billion, according to Hurricane Center data. Sandy, however, is very high on the list, with damages totaling at least $82 billion. Still, that’s not number one in today’s dollars or compared with storms adjusted for inflation in 2010. We rate this statement Mostly False. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com. Correction: This report has been corrected: Speaker of the House John Boehner represents Ohio, not Illinois.	None	Environment New Jersey	None	None	None	2013-01-06T07:30:00	2012-12-18	['None']
-pomt-11100	On Mike DeWine's record as attorney general: "Opioid deaths have tripled on his watch and there have been cuts to funds for first responders and people in the community fighting the crisis."	/ohio/statements/2018/jun/12/richard-cordray/richard-cordray-casts-some-blame-mike-dewine-opioi/	As opioid deaths have risen in Ohio, the epidemic has become weaponized in political campaigns. Democrat Richard Cordray has cast some blame on his rival for governor, Republican Attorney General Mike DeWine. "Mike DeWine has been a dismal failure as Ohio’s top cop. Opioid deaths have tripled on his watch and there have been cuts to funds for first responders and people in the community fighting the crisis," Cordray said in Springfield June 4. Cordray has previously pointed the finger saying DeWine and Republicans were "asleep at the switch" on opioids and that DeWine "did nothing about it." Cordray’s statement is an overreach. Although Ohio is one of the hardest hit states by opioid overdoses, this is a national problem. Opioids (including prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl) killed more than 42,000 people in 2016, more than any year on record. About 40 percent of all opioid overdose deaths involve a prescription opioid. In October, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency. The over-prescribing of opioids began in the mid 1990s amid a marketing campaign telling doctors that they should prescribe more opioids to help ease patients’ pain. Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of opioid policy research at Brandeis University, said it is "silly" to blame DeWine — or any other state attorney general — for the increase in overdose deaths. "There are certain levers attorney generals can pull to impact opioids, but they would not have any short-term impact on opioid deaths," he said. "Opioid deaths have tripled on (Mike DeWine’s) watch" Cordray's campaign cited state health data showing opioid overdose deaths tripled from 1,163 in 2011 to 3,495 in 2016, overlapping with DeWine’s tenure. Cordray was elected attorney general in November 2008 to fill a vacancy, and he lost his bid to keep the seat to DeWine in 2010. The data shows that one of the key reasons behind the spike in overdoses was the increase in deaths from fentanyl, which is up to 50 times more potent than heroin. These overdoses soared from 73 in 2011 to 2,357 in 2016. To tackle the epidemic, DeWine filed has lawsuits against drug manufacturers in 2017 and drug distributors in 2018. He has also devoted money to assist addicts and victims, added scientists and equipment to test drugs, sponsored training for law enforcement, formed a heroin unit and negotiated an agreement to reimburse local agencies that use Naloxone, a treatment to stop overdoses. But bringing the epidemic under control requires reducing the incidence of new people addicted and increasing access to treatment. Those goals are not under the purview of an attorney general. "I do not think it makes sense to blame the attorney general," said Kolodny. "I think there is a lot of blame to go around but pointing to a single state official is silly." Kolodny has criticized the federal response both under Trump and Barack Obama and called for more federal money. Orman Hall, who worked in Gov. John Kasich’s administration on the opioid epidemic, said he doesn’t believe law enforcement will solve this problem. DeWine effectively used his bully pulpit and put forth a good-faith effort to deal with the problem. However, as the attorney general, he doesn’t have access to funds to significantly impact treatment or the health care system. DeWine countered that it was Cordray "who was asleep" on the issue of opioids when he was attorney general, a position he held before DeWine. It’s also misguided to blame Cordray, because when he was attorney general the state didn’t yet fully understand the extent of the problem but was beginning to take action, Hall said. "Everybody made a good faith effort," Hall said. "Nobody has done anything very successful." "Cuts to funds for first responders and people in the community fighting the crisis." Cordray’s campaign pointed to news reports about the state budget cutting money to local governments. Some of those cuts started before DeWine was attorney general and then were exacerbated amid a nearly $8 billion budget shortfall in 2011. Kasich initiated reductions to the state’s Local Government Fund, which is used by local governments for any purpose. The cuts by the state led to cuts for police, fire and other local services. Shelby County Sheriff John Lenhart, a Republican who endorsed Cordray, told PolitiFact that the cuts hurt law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes, including crimes related to opioids. Cordray spokesman Mike Gwin said that DeWine "failed in his responsibility to stand up for law enforcement - to fight for additional money in the state budget for badly-needed resources for the first responders, sheriffs, and police officers on the front lines of this fight." However, as attorney general, DeWine doesn’t oversee the state budget signed by Kasich and can’t be blamed for state budget cuts. Our ruling Cordray said, "Opioid deaths have tripled on (Mike DeWine’s) watch and there have been cuts to funds for first responders and people in the community fighting the crisis." Opioid deaths tripled between 2011 and 2016. However, there is no evidence that DeWine bears responsibility for the spike in overdoses, something that occurred nationally. The state budget did cut money to local governments but as attorney general, DeWine doesn’t set the overall state budget. There is a kernel of truth here in that the deaths did triple on DeWine’s watch and Kasich did sign state budgets that cut money to local governments, but Cordray has failed to provide evidence that as attorney general DeWine is to blame. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Richard Cordray	None	None	None	2018-06-12T10:30:00	2018-06-04	['None']
-hoer-00715	Snake Inside Computer Photographs	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/snake-in-computer.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Snake Inside Computer Photographs	24th August 2010	None	['None']
-chct-00190	FACT CHECK: Did Terrorist Groups Target Dianne Feinstein?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/02/fact-check-did-terrorist-groups-target-dianne-feinstein/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	10:44 AM 03/02/2018	None	['None']
-snes-02095	Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger lost several fingers in a fireworks accident on 4 July 2017.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roethlisberger-loses-multiple-fingers/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger Loses Multiple Fingers in 4th of July Firework Accident?	8 July 2017	None	['Ben_Roethlisberger', 'Pittsburgh_Steelers']
-pomt-10189	Sarah Palin endorsed a Wasilla policy that charged sexual assault victims for their "rape kits."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/22/blog-posting/wasilla-had-the-policy-but-palin-didnt-comment-on-/	As bloggers have scrutinized every aspect of Sarah Palin’s record as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, many of them have criticized a city policy that sought reimbursement for forensic exams from victims of sexual assaults. The bloggers contend Palin supported the policy and have criticized her for allegedly being insensitive toward rape victims. To check out their allegations, we examined documents from the city and the Alaska Legislature and interviewed people in Wasilla, advocates for sexual assault victims and a former state legislator. We found the truth is murky. Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy. But nor have we found any evidence that she opposed it. The policy sought to have rape victims’ health insurance companies reimburse the city for the $500 to $1,200 cost of a forensic exam that is conducted after a sexual assault. Presumably, some of the cost might have been passed along to the victim through requirements for deductibles or co-payments, although victim advocates say they don’t know of anyone in the small town who had to pay such a fee. The policy generated little if any controversy during the first four years after Palin became mayor in 1996. Anne Kilkenny, a civic activist in Wasilla who has written a widely circulated e-mail criticizing Palin, told PolitiFact she does not recall that the issue ever came up. The policy came to light briefly in 2000 when the Alaska Legislature passed a law that required state and local law enforcement agencies pay the full cost of the exams. “We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence,” then-Gov. Tony Knowles said when he signed the bill into law. “Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.” Legislators and activists have said the law was prompted by Wasilla and several other communities with a similar policy. But a search of the committee minutes for the bill found no mention of Wasilla or Palin. Nor could we find any indication that city officials spoke up about the bill until after it was passed, when Police Chief Charlie Fannon was quoted in the local newspaper The Frontiersman saying he opposed it. “In the past we’ve charged the cost of exams to the victims’ insurance company when possible,” he told the newspaper. “I just don’t want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer.” He estimated the new law would cost his department $5,000 to $14,000 per year. His comments suggest the city sought the money more from insurance companies than the victims themselves. The paper quoted him as saying that "ultimately, it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs.” Fannon could not be reached for comment. His phone number has been disconnected. City officials, who have been swamped with calls and public records requests about Palin, referred PolitiFact to items on the city Web site. (They've gotten so many requests they created a page of Questions & Answers Concerning Former Mayor Palin . But those documents provide an incomplete picture because some don’t include details prior to 2000, when Wasilla had the policy. There’s no evidence that Palin ever commented on the rape kit policy. Bloggers and other critics contend that she must have known about it because she approved the city budget. “If she was against charging for the rape kit, as mayor she could have made the decision not to charge for the rape kit,” Andrew Halcro, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill when he was a state legislator, said in an interview. He ran for governor as an independent in 2006 but was defeated by Palin. City documents are inconclusive. The budget documents we reviewed were signed by Palin but don’t explicitly mention the policy. In response to recent criticism, the McCain-Palin campaign said in a statement that Palin “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test." Yet the campaign has not provided any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy. So where does that leave us? Wasilla clearly had the policy. Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims. We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con. But as mayor, she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue. So we find the bloggers' charge to be Half True.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2008-09-22T00:00:00	2008-09-12	['None']
-farg-00390	"Cops Take A Knee Then Walk Out On Redskins Leaving Them Stranded."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/cops-kneeling-still-false-a-year-later/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['national anthem']	Cops Kneeling: Still False, A Year Later	August 20, 2018	2018-08-20 21:02:31 UTC	['None']
-pomt-04492	"Carol Shea-Porter … wants to increase taxes on small business and job creators."	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/05/frank-guinta/us-rep-frank-guinta-wrong-shea-porters-small-busin/	U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta and his challenger, former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, have been going back and forth over veterans in recent weeks. In response to an ad from Shea-Porter accusing him of voting to cut funding for veterans, Guinta released an advertisement of his own on Sept. 25, charging his opponent with failing to support small businesses. "Carol Shea-Porter? She wants to increase taxes on small business and job creators," a narrator reads in the ad, aired on WMUR-TV, among other stations. "Higher taxes, fewer jobs," the ad reads, showing a faded picture of her face. To our knowledge, Shea-Porter has not advocated throughout this or any previous campaign to raise taxes on small business. So, we decided to check her record. During her time in Congress, Shea-Porter voted in favor of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (known commonly as the HIRE Act of 2009), which offered a payroll tax exemption and new hire retention credit to businesses who hire and retain unemployed workers, according to the Internal Revenue Service. And before she left office the next year, Shea-Porter voted in favor of the Small Business Jobs Act, which, as noted in past PolitiFact rulings, featured eight tax cuts for small businesses, including new and greater deductions for business start-up expenses, cell phone use and health care costs for the self-employed, among others. These votes, along with her support for the federal stimulus package and its $400 tax cut for individual workers (and $800 for working couples), seem to indicate support from Shea-Porter for small businesses. So, we asked the Guinta campaign what they were referring to in the ad. In response, the campaign directed us to a letter Shea-Porter signed onto before she left Congress. The letter, sent Dec. 9, 2010 to U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, urged the then-Speaker not to accept the House Republicans push to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all taxpayers, but to rescind the tax breaks for those making more than $200,000 a year, or as they said in the letter, "millionaires and billionaires." "First, it is fiscally irresponsible," Shea-Porter and 53 other Congressmen and women wrote at the time. "Second, it is grossly unfair. (It) will hurt, not help, the majority of Americans in the middle class and those working hard to get there." Despite their pleas, the House of Representatives agreed to extend all the cuts for two years, approving the matter Dec. 16, 2010 in the form of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law one day later, and it’s a good thing he did, according to Guinta’s campaign. Like the current situation - the tax cuts are set to expire once again at the end of the year -- failing to extend the cuts would have led to higher taxes on small businesses across the country, Guinta suggested. We’ve heard similar claims before. In November 2010, less than a month before Shea-Porter and her colleagues sent the letter to Pelosi, U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, now the House Majority Leader, earned a Barely True rating (now Mostly False) for saying the expiration of the tax cuts will raise small business taxes. The question then, just as now, is how many businesses are we talking about. At the time, Cantor referred to an oft-cited Treasury Department report that determined about 75 percent of the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers are "flow through-business owners" who claim some of their earnings through partnerships, sole proprietorship or other form of business income. The 2007 report did not indicate that all these taxpayers are small business owners, however. Rather, this income could be linked to "anyone who earned money from a source other than a regular job, such as consulting or public speaking," PolitiFact ruled at the time. "It could also be reported by those who make most of their income from partnerships such as law firms and medical practices," according to PolitiFact’s previous reporting. "And it could include investors who have very little involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company." Now, two years later, this still holds true, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The category includes many business entities that are not small and others that are not businesses at all, CBPP analysts .Chye-Ching Huang and Chuck Marr wrote in a July report, "Allowing High-Income Bush Tax Cuts to Expire Would Affect Few Businesses." "For example, taxpayers can create pass-through entities simply as a vehicle to invest in other businesses," they wrote. "Pass-through income also includes income from the incidental rental of a vacation home." According to the CBPP analysis, only 2.5 percent of small business owners, and 7.9 percent of taxpayers who receive any income from small businesses, qualify for the top two tax rates. The Tax Foundation, a more conservative, business-backed organization, contends that, however few, those higher earning businesses earn most, up to 72 percent, of total business income. "Small business owners can end up with what seem like very high annual incomes," foundation spokesman Richard Morrison wrote in an email, "but because most of that money needs to be put back into the business in order to stay afloat, they often end up both paying taxes in the top bracket ... with relatively little in actual personal income at the end of the year." Still, CBPP argues that the small number of businesses qualifying for the top income brackets means the Bush-tax cuts have little effect on small business. "Very few of the high-income taxpayers who benefit from the upper-income tax cuts are in fact ‘small businesses’ in the way the term is commonly understood," Huang and Marr wrote in their report. "Policymakers ought not let myths and lobbyists’ slogans regarding high-income taxpayers and small businesses drive them toward a costly policy that would add heavily to deficits while delivering little economic benefit." Our ruling: As Guinta suggests, Shea-Porter both lobbied and voted against extending the Bush tax cuts before she left office in 2010, calling the matter "fiscally irresponsible" and "grossly unfair" to middle class Americans. Despite Guinta’s claims, however, nowhere in the letter did Shea-Porter mention wanting to raise taxes on small businesses, nor do analyses suggest that eliminating the tax cuts for the highest income earners would have affected many business owners In votes relating more to small business, Shea-Porter offered support for the HIRE Act and the Small Business Act, among others. In total, her record shows no evidence of "wanting to increase taxes on small businesses," not now or during her time in office. We rate this claim False.	None	Frank Guinta	None	None	None	2012-10-05T16:20:29	2012-09-25	['None']
-vees-00327	Russian President Putin sent Duterte military aid to crush NPA	http://verafiles.org/articles/week-fake-news-russian-president-putin-did-not-send-duterte	None	None	None	None	fake news,terrorism	THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: Russian President Putin DID NOT send Duterte military aid to crush NPA	December 08, 2017	None	['Russia', 'Vladimir_Putin']
-pomt-06052	Rob Cornilles is a Tea Party candidate.	/oregon/statements/2012/jan/11/democratic-party-oregon/rob-cornilles-real-tea-party-candidate/	For months, Democrats have labeled Republican Rob Cornilles a Tea Party-er in order to persuade voters that he’s not as moderate as he claims. In TV commercials, on websites and in press releases Cornilles has been called the "original Tea Party candidate" or shorthanded as just "Tea Party politician Rob Cornilles." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee put up a website called teapartycornilles.comand started a twitter account for @TPartyCornilles. Its first campaign ad in the race features Cornilles saying "I was the original Tea Party candidate" from a May 2010 forum. The Democratic Party of Oregon has jumped in, just as eagerly. In a press release issued Nov. 27, 2011, Democratic Party of Oregon executive director Trent Lutz chastised Cornilles for running on a "far-right tea party platform" in 2010 and then trying to refashion himself as a moderate in 2012. "When Rob Cornilles brands himself ‘the original tea party candidate’ one year and then tries to align himself with the Occupy movement … voters are right to be skeptical about whether he has any convictions beyond getting himself elected to office." As Democrats have taken advantage of this term, we thought it might be helpful to flesh out the origin of the statement and judge the accuracy of its use. Here’s what Cornilles said in its entirety at a meeting of the Executive Club in May, 2010: "I was the original Tea Party candidate because like the Tea Party movement, I got off the couch and I decided to run for office. I am the longest tenured candidate running for Congress of all five districts in the state of Oregon. You tell me that doesn't summarize and epitomize what the Tea Party movement is all about." For party Democrats, that’s all the evidence they need. He said it, therefore he’s a Tea Party candidate. (Democrats often repeat just the first part of his quote.) The rest of us are probably scratching our heads: Why is he talking about getting off the couch? How does that make him a Tea Party original? We got some more clarity on his thoughts in a 2011 interview on KGW’s Straight Talk, which the Democratic Party of Oregon posted to its website, the realrobcornilles.com. He was asked: How closely do you affiliate with the Tea Party? "Well, I really don’t know what we mean when we say Tea Party, quite frankly. If we mean that the Tea Party is made up of individuals who decided to get up off the couch and actually hold their elected officials accountable, who decided to do more than just yell at the TV and become active and involved in the political process, then I think everybody who is paying attention right now is a part of that movement." [News Channel 8, KGW.com, 4:55, 10/15/11] More recently, Cornilles told KATU's Steve Dunn that the Tea Party quote from the Executive club meeting was taken out of context, and reiterated the explanation he gave to KGW. Moreover, the Oregon Tea Party, which is not a political third party, has rejected Cornilles, saying that the group does not plan to endorse any candidate in the special election, nor is it affiliated with a specific party. The group’s John Kuzmanich said that as much as he prefers Cornilles over Democrat Suzanne Bonamici, Cornilles does not hold core Tea Party values. For example, Cornilles has refused to call President Obama’s 2010 health care reform legislation ‘Obamacare,’ as some other Republicans do, and said in a debate last year that he wouldn’t waste time trying to repeal it, Kuzmanich said. Just as alarming to Kuzmanich, Cornilles has stated he understands why we need a new Columbia River Crossing and at one point wanted to turn Portland’s Memorial Coliseum into a multimedia production space-- when neither project reflects the group’s main tenets of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market principles. On the other side, the DPO’s Lutz has no problem sticking a group label on a candidate when that group has rejected that candidate. "I don’t think we’ve gone too far in depicting the story," Lutz said. "I think it’s holding him accountable to where he was two years ago." Amber Moon, a spokeswoman with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said it’s more than just his truncated quote from the Executive Club meeting. Cornilles is collecting money from a tea party political action committeeand he appeared at a 9/12 Project forum in early 2010, where he said that he had attended tea party meetings for "months and months and months." "The evidence speaks for itself," Moon said, "and he speaks for himself." What’s PolitiFact Oregon to think? We go back to the original question. When we first heard the claim, we thought nothing of it. But the onslaught of websites, tweets, promoted tweets, commercials and press releases made us ask ourselves: Is it true that he’s a Tea Party candidate? Certainly he’s a Republican candidate. Certainly Republicans who identify with Tea Party values are more aligned with Cornilles over the Democrat in the race. Certainly, Cornilles courted such voters in 2010, when the movement was more popular than it is now. But let’s go back to the tenets of the Oregon Tea Party, as espoused by Kuzmanich and repeated by the national Tea Party Patriots: limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market principles. Instead, Cornilles supports the Columbia River Crossing and finds deportation of illegal immigrants impractical and won’t sign a pledge to oppose new taxes. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., he’s not. Democrats say Cornilles called himself the original Tea Party candidate, but he was referring to the grass-roots nature of the party, not idealogy. Democrats point to Cornilles’ opposition to abortion as evidence of his extremism, but there are lots of Republicans who feel as he does and aren’t considered Tea Party activists. Is he pandering? Blowing smoke? That’s for voters to decide. We will note that Cornilles has been more willing to buck his party this cycle than Bonamici has. So we’re not sure how that makes him a "Tea Party" candidate. The statement contains an element of truth -- he said those things in 2010 -- but ignores critical facts, such as his platform and his lack of endorsement from the Oregon Tea Party. We rule the statement Mostly False. Return to OregonLive to comment.	None	Democratic Party of Oregon	None	None	None	2012-01-11T17:45:26	2012-01-05	['None']
-tron-00576	Chick-fil-A Will Be Open on Sundays Beginning in October	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chick-fil-a-will-be-open-on-sundays-beginning-in-october/	None	business	None	None	None	Chick-fil-A Will Be Open on Sundays Beginning in October	Sep 10, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01102	"Keystone means unlocking the Canadian tar sands."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/11/chris-coons/chris-coons-keystone-means-unlocking-canadian-oil-/	The proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline between Canada and the United States is the first big political battle of 2015. The House passed a bill Friday approving construction of the oil pipeline in spite of a veto threat from President Barack Obama, who has said he is waiting on input from the State Department before making a decision on the pipeline. On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked an opponent of the project, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., what Keystone XL means for energy and the environment. Coons responded, "Keystone means unlocking the Canadian tar sands, some of the dirtiest sources of energy on the planet, and allowing those tar sands to go across our American midwest and then reach the international market." We’ve looked into where Canada would export oil carried through Keystone XL, as well as the pipeline’s effect on the environment. But what about Coons’ claim that Keystone XL would mean "unlocking" western Canada’s tar sands? Does the pipeline make a difference between pumping, or not pumping, crude oil from the tar sands? The short story is the impact seems relatively small. Oil drilling companies in Western Canada have been extracting oil from its sands and transporting them to the United States for production for years, and that practice is expected to continue regardless of Keystone XL. But given the right circumstances, the absence of the Keystone XL pipeline could prevent the region from producing at full capacity. A Coons spokesman said "he might have been better served saying ‘further unlocked’ than simply ‘unlocked.’ " The basics The 875-mile Keystone XL pipeline, operated by TransCanada, would carry heavy crude oil mixture from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Neb. Then it would connect with an existing southern leg that opened in early 2014, delivering more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The oil would come from the tar sands of Canada’s boreal forests. Extracting this type of dirty, thick crude oil is expensive, energy intensive and produces a significant amount of carbon emissions. Critics say that Keystone XL will elevate greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change by encouraging expansion of tar sands development. However, an oft-cited U.S. State Department report about Keystone XL says the project is "unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands." This is because Canadian officials and oil producers vow that the oil will be extracted and reach the American marketplace by other means regardless of the proposed pipeline. Already, trains and several existing pipelines carry Western Canadian crude oil into the United States at an increasing rate -- almost 2 million barrels per day produced in 2013, with the United States importing about half of that. "Keystone XL would only provide a more direct and somewhat less costly method of transporting Canadian heavy crude to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining and exporting," said Anastasia Shcherbakova, a University of Texas Dallas clinical assistant professor in energy economics and energy finance. At most, Keystone XL would allow an increase in oil sands production of about 25 percent from today's levels, said Andrew Leach, a professor of energy policy at the University of Alberta School of Business. He said that tar sands will come out as long as there is someone willing to pay for the oil, and "that demand doesn’t go away if there’s no pipeline from Canada." There are several other pipelines under consideration that could carry tar sands oil to the United States. If they are built, Keystone XL on its own wouldn’t have much impact because the oil will get to the United States by other cost-effective means, said James Coleman, a law and business professor at Calgary University. On the other hand, if Keystone XL and the other pipelines aren’t constructed, oil companies could take a sizeable hit to their profit -- about $8 a barrel -- because they would have to transport the oil by rail and other means, which are more expensive, according to the State Department report. But the absence of Keystone XL on its own wouldn’t be enough to induce these added costs. Coons spokesman Ian Koski pointed to a report from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that shows projected growth to about 8 million barrels per day by 2030 (including U.S.-produced oil that travels on the Canadian pipelines) after adding the several pipelines under consideration, including Keystone. But if those pipelines aren’t included, growth appears stuck at around 5 million barrels per day. Without Keystone XL and the other pipelines, the tar sands could not be fully extracted because the oil would "have nowhere to go," he said. Koski pointed to a couple examples of Canadian oil sands mines that were put on hold due to, in part, rising industry and transportation costs: the Joslyn Mine and the Statoil Corner project. "Costs for labor and materials have continued to rise in recent years and are working against the economics of new projects," Statoil said in a statement. "Market access issues also play a role -- including limited pipeline access, which weighs on prices for Alberta oil, squeezing margins and making it difficult for sustainable financial returns." Regardless, experts and the State Department don’t think that Keystone XL will have a major impact one way or another on whether oil companies will continue to exploit the tar sands. However, there is a catch: Low oil prices could potentially curtail production. Cost of oil Oil prices have dropped to about $50 per barrel -- the lowest prices since 2009, the height of the recession. For Canadian oil sands to break even on production costs, oil prices need to be around $70 a barrel. Without the Keystone XL pipeline, transportation costs are high, which exacerbates the hit to revenue after low oil prices. The State Department’s report assumed oil prices staying at around $75 per barrel. It said that if oil prices fall between $65 and $75 per barrel, then the cost of transporting oil without the Keystone XL pipeline might make a difference as to whether or not Canada continues to produce tar sands oil at current rates. But under $65 per barrel -- where prices are now -- it’s more the sheer low price of oil that would negatively impact oil production rather than any pipeline in particular. "You still need pipes, but Keystone XL or any other individual line in and of itself is not as crucial to likely growth plans," Leach said. Additionally, the price of oil is volatile, and many experts think it will go back up again, so a long-term impact on tar sands production due to low oil prices is not likely. "Under State's analysis, blocking Keystone XL will only have an effect on oil sands production if all the other pipelines are blocked, and oil prices stay below $75 per barrel," Coleman said. "How likely is that? I'd say it's unlikely, but no one really knows." Our ruling Coons said building "Keystone means unlocking the Canadian tar sands." Oil production has been steadily growing in the Canadian tar sands without the Keystone XL pipeline. Most experts expect that trend to continue despite current low oil prices. Coons would have been on safer ground if he said Keystone XL would unlock Canada’s ability to further increase its production capacity. The pipeline would offer much lower transportation costs than current transportation methods, which would encourage greater oil production. But his literal words weren’t accurate. We rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Chris Coons	None	None	None	2015-01-11T11:46:44	2015-01-11	['Canada']
-afck-00118	“…and at least half of these [murdered] women die at the hands of their intimate partners.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/femicide-sa-3-numbers-murdering-women-investigated/	None	None	None	None	None	Femicide in South Africa: 3 numbers about the murdering of women investigated	2017-07-13 08:08	None	['None']
-hoer-00654	Young Football Player Not Allowed to Wear Pink Gloves For Breast Cancer	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/pink-gloves-football-protest.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Young Football Player Not Allowed to Wear Pink Gloves For Breast Cancer	September 11, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-13591	Says her campaign platform includes the "biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-claim-she-would-make-biggest-jobs/	In nearly every campaign speech, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton says her jobs platform is historic in magnitude. "My top priority is create an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, which is why I've set five ambitious goals to get us there," she said in Scranton, Pa., Aug. 15. "First, we are going to make the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II." We’ve heard this phrase many times, so we decided it’s time we fact-checked it. A sizeable investment Remember, Clinton is comparing her proposed spending to actual spending since World War II. No one can say at this point how much Congress might approve if she is elected president. With that in mind, let's dig into the nitty-gritty. Clinton has proposed total federal spending in several areas: $275 billion on infrastructure, $500 billion on higher education, $100 billion in energy and research, and $25 billion on housing, plus less expensive investments in a few other areas. So that’s a total of at least $900 billion in new spending over a 10-year period (or two terms plus two years after she leaves office). How does that compare to the past? According to the Clinton campaign, the largest total federal investment in three job-making categories — infrastructure, education and research and development — since World War II was about $766 billion over a 10-year period starting in 1998, when her husband Bill Clinton was president. How Clinton’s policy team came up with this figure gets a little wonky. In a nutshell, her campaign collected historical data going back to 1947 to estimate how much the federal government spent on public investments each year — including spending on non-defense infrastructure, education, and research and development. Then, for each year, they calculated how much investment increased or decreased over the following 10 years compared to that first year. (All figures were adjusted for inflation.) Here’s a taste of what that means: The Clinton campaign estimated that the total "public investment" in 1998 was $174 billion. Over the next 10 years, the total increase in public investment was $766 billion. This is much smaller than Clinton’s proposed $900 billion (or more) in increased investments over the next 10 years. It’s a rough estimation, one that doesn’t necessarily capture all aspects of public investments, let alone how the spending leads to new jobs. But experts told us this is a plausible representation of the size of Clinton’s proposals compared to historic spending increases in these areas. They added, however, that we should look at the size of the investment as a share of gross domestic product, which helps scale the spending as a share of the economy’s size at the time. We ran the calculations (thanks, Excel!) and found Clinton’s statement isn’t quite as airtight once you factor in GDP. Clinton’s investment would be larger than most years, at about a 5 percent share of current GDP. But the share was higher every year from 1954-64 (ranging from 6 to 12 percent) and in 1998 at 6 percent. Still, Clinton’s proposals amount to a lot of spending, much of which she plans to finance through changes to the tax code. Her spending proposal "does seem historically large," said Jesse Rothstein, director of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at University of California, Berkeley. Rothstein noted for comparison that total federal spending on job training is under $5 billion per year, and the entire budget of the Education Department is less than $100 billion. For a more historical comparison, consider the biggest investment in infrastructure since World War II — the interstate highway system, launched in the 1950s under President Dwight Eisenhower. The project cost about $500 billion in today’s dollars over its decades of construction, according to industry analysts. Clinton + historic spending = jobs? Clinton’s argument evokes a classic economic debate: Does government spending create jobs, or are jobs lost as a result of increased spending and borrowing? Federal investment doesn’t necessarily equal "new, good-paying jobs," though it can, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group concerned by rising deficits. But if the spending isn’t appropriately allocated, it can go to waste or get in the way of the private sector. Parts of Clinton’s platform are clearly geared toward creating new jobs, such as the $275 billion investment in infrastructure, which would involve construction jobs, and parts of a $10 billion package for the manufacturing sector that the campaign says would "reward" manufacturers for creating new, well-paid, local jobs. Other proposals are more nuanced or require making some assumptions, such as the notion that an investment in energy research and development would lead to higher productivity, as well as more private investment and eventually more jobs. The Clinton campaign argues her college and workforce training plans would result in higher-skilled workers being available for higher-skill jobs. However, much of that money will go toward reducing debt for many students. That might help some kids get through college who wouldn’t have, but for many, their job prospects would be the same — they would just have less debt. "Obviously, not every dollar of that will go directly toward paying the salary of a new job," Rothstein said. "But I think it is reasonable to count, say, relief of student debt as an investment in good-paying jobs, since a grad who gets an otherwise good job but needs to pay much of her salary in loan payments doesn’t actually have a good-paying job." Our ruling Clinton says her campaign platform includes the "biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II." Using rough estimates of public investment in several sectors, the size of Clinton’s proposals — at least $900 billion over 10 years — appears larger than any other 10-year investment since World War II. It’s worth keeping in mind, though, that when we look at the size of the historical public investments as a share of GDP, there have been 12 years since World War II with larger public investments. In terms of whether these investments will result in "new, good-paying jobs," that’s all a matter of prediction. In many cases, the new spending Clinton proposes for education, research and development, and infrastructure isn’t going to literally create new employment positions. Rather, much of the money will go to programs that the Clinton campaign argues will spur job creation. Her claim is partially accurate but requires additional information. We rate Clinton’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/33b01e65-a13b-4a49-ab8a-80c2d1801b6a	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-08-17T12:05:52	2016-08-15	['None']
-pomt-01160	When Colorado eased its medical marijuana laws, fatal accidents involving pot-using drivers soared while overall traffic fatalities decreased.	/georgia/statements/2014/dec/15/charles-chuck-spahos/drugged-driving-claim-base/	Cautions abound from opponents and supporters alike in Georgia’s debate about whether to legalize medical marijuana. The most likely measure to pass is a bill that gained traction last year and is being reintroduced this year by state Rep. Allen Peake, R-Macon, to allow cannabis oil for treatment of certain seizure disorders and other health problems. But a second bill to allow vaporized, edible and smokeable marijuana for medical use has prompted new claims about safety problems and other unintended consequences. Chuck Spahos, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, told a joint legislative committee that no district attorney in the state will prosecute those caught with cannabis oil. But he warned lawmakers about smokeable marijuana, saying that Colorado has seen the number of traffic fatalities go up among drivers who test positive for marijuana, at the same time that state’s overall traffic fatality rate declined. "Colorado has seen a decrease in traffic fatalities by 14.8 percent between 2007 and 2012," Spahos said. "But it’s up 100 percent for operators who tested positive for marijuana." "We don’t want to stand in the way of this oil being available," he said. "This is how bad it’s going to be if we let it go too far." So did medical marijuana really lead to such a dramatic uptick in stoned drivers? PolitiFact Georgia decided to check it out. First, it’s important to understand Colorado’s history on the issue. Voters there approved medical marijuana in its smokeable form in 2000. But commercialization of the drug did not really begin until 2009, when federal officials announced they would not seek prosecution of those complying with state medical marijuana laws. Voters approved recreational use of the drug last year. So the statistics Spahos referenced covered just before the rapid growth of marijuana dispensaries but before recreational use was permitted. He cited an August 2014 report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Traffic Area as his source. The report is unequivocal. The exact figures cited by Spahos are found in the findings under the report’s section for impaired driving. A chart breaks down the actual numbers: Year Statewide Fatalities Operators Testing Positive 2007 554 39 2008 548 43 2009 465 47 2010 450 49 2011 447 63 2012 472 78 Based on this report, Spahos’ claim appears accurate. However, there are several complications with the data. No one from the RMHIDTA responded to requests for comment. The report cites the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and its own research for its data. But when contacted, a spokesman for the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration referred us back to the Colorado Department of Transportation for the figures, saying each state reports different information. No federal data could confirm the report’s claim. Meanwhile, the statistics from Colorado’s DOT don’t match the RMHIDTA report. The DOT figures are: Year Statewide Fatalities Drivers Testing Positive 2007 554 26 2008 548 31 2009 465 37 2010 450 42 2011 447 52 2012 474 36 The DOT figures confirm an overall decrease in traffic fatalities, but show about a 39 percent increase for drivers who tested positive for marijuana. That’s still an increase, but hardly a 100 percent jump. More importantly, Colorado DOT spokeswoman Amy Ford said the agency is cautious to use their own data to make any pronouncements. That’s because the data is incomplete. Not every driver in a fatal crash is tested for drugs. Colorado law long allowed a conviction based on just drunken driving – at .08 percent blood alcohol level – so some agencies never bothered with any additional testing. The state only began tracking drugged driving – driving high – this year, so there is no historical data to compare, Ford said. "We do not draw an incredible amount of conclusions from that data," she said. The federal data for all states likewise focuses on drunken, not drugged, drivers. Several studies show that marijuana can slow reaction time and similarly impair drivers in much the way alcohol does. One study found that dead drivers were three times more likely to test positive for cannabis in 2010 when compared to those who died in 1999. But the marijuana will show up longer in blood work and does not appear to increase the chances of a fatal accident as much as booze, according to a 2013 study by researchers at Columbia University. So if Georgia were to legalize smoking marijuana, does that mean there would not be a rash of high drivers risking their safety and that of others? Colorado’s research indicates specific drivers – essentially young men – are more likely to drive high when the drug is legal. The state has launched a public awareness campaign to the new law that allows police to cite those motorists for driving under the influence, Ford said. In other words, there are clear dangers to driving under the influence of marijuana, much as there are for driving intoxicated. But while a regional report claims that those risks have led to a 100 percent increase in fatal crashes where the driver tested positive for cannabis, official state figures directly contradict those figures. Spahos was citing that published report, but the report and figures surrounding the topic are flawed. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Charles "Chuck" Spahos	None	None	None	2014-12-15T00:00:00	2014-12-03	['None']
-hoer-00258	'Wife Pregnant for 13 Months Needs Prayers'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/13-months-pregnant-like-farming-scam.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	LIKE-FARMING SCAM - 'Wife Pregnant for 13 Months Needs Prayers'	April 8, 2014	None	['None']
-goop-01749	Ellen DeGeneres In “Love Triangle” With Portia de Rossi, Anne Heche?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ellen-degeneres-love-triangle-portia-de-rossi-anne-heche/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Ellen DeGeneres In “Love Triangle” With Portia de Rossi, Anne Heche?	12:01 pm, January 24, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11633	"In American history since 9/11, we've had 85 major attacks in our country, 73 percent of them have been by white nationalist hate groups."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/18/cory-booker/fact-checking-cory-bookers-statistic-attacks-white/	U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said in an interview on CNN that President Donald Trump’s reported comments describing Haiti as a "s---hole" present a "moral moment" for our country and caused pain for Haitians and other minorities. Booker then pivoted to talk about minorities being victims of crimes by white nationalist groups: "In American history since 9/11, we've had 85 major attacks in our country, 73 percent of them have been by white nationalist hate groups against minorities, against Muslims, against others," Booker said Jan. 16. We fact-checked Booker’s numbers and found that he cited a valid government report. However, he took a statistic in the report and flubbed how it was labeled. Government report on perpetrators of major attacks Booker’s spokesman said he was citing numbers from an April 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Countering Violent Terrorism." The report draws on data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database that is maintained by the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. The GAO report examined terrorist violence from Sept. 12, 2001 -- the day after the 9/11 terror attacks -- through Dec. 31, 2016. It found 85 deadly attacks in the United States by violent extremists. Among those incidents, far-right violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 incidents (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 incidents (27 percent). Booker used the term "white nationalists," but that’s not exactly the same thing as far-right extremist groups. Far-right extremist groups are motivated by ideologies seeking an idealized future favoring a particular group. They include white supremacists and anti-government militias, among others. The GAO report (see page 29) shows that a subset of far-right incidents -- about 38 incidents -- were committed specifically by white supremacists. That means that about 45 percent of the 85 incidents were committed by white supremacists while Booker had said that 73 percent of the incidents were committed by white nationalist hate groups. We sent our findings to Booker’s spokesman Jeff Giertz to show that the GAO report showed a smaller percentage committed by white supremacists than the figure cited by Booker. Giertz pointed to additional perpetrators who were not identified as white supremacists in the table, but other sources such as news accounts or court records showed they held white supremacist or racist views. For example, the GAO labeled the murderers of minority victims in an Arizona incident as "far right violent extremists" but an Arizona Supreme Court ruling stated that they participated in a militia that focused on "uplifting" the white race and fostered negative views of minority groups. William Parkin, who helps direct the U.S. Extremist Crime Database, said that they break down incidents into categories based on the primary ideological motivation of the act. There could be secondary or mixed motives. "That being said, there is a fluidity between varying far-right extremist ideologies," said Parkin, a Seattle University criminal justice assistant professor. "At the individual level, it would not be uncommon for those who identify as being white supremacists to also be anti-government, and vice versa." We will note that pinpointing what percent of attacks were committed by any particular label of perpetrator is not an exact science, and that the numbers can change depending upon definitions. Another source of data on such attacks is the New America Foundation, which found that about 70 percent of deadly attacks are by people motivated by far right views since Sept. 11. However, that includes individuals motivated by views other than white nationalism including more general anti-government views and anti-abortion views. "Overall, though the definition of the ideologies is a bit too specific in Booker’s comment, it does convey the larger difference in number of deadly attacks from the far right as opposed to other motives though it is important to note that jihadists have killed more people despite carrying out fewer attacks," said David Sterman, New America analyst. Our ruling Booker said, "In American history since 9/11, we've had 85 major attacks in our country, 73 percent of them have been by white nationalist hate groups." Booker cited a GAO report that analyzed violent incidents. While Booker said that 73 percent were by "white nationalist hate groups," the report said that 73 percent were by a broader category of "far right wing violent extremist groups." The same report shows about 45 percent of incidents were committed by white supremacists. The number could rise if we counted additional perpetrators who sympathized with white supremacist ideals but were not labeled as white supremacists by the GAO. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Cory Booker	None	None	None	2018-01-18T10:04:52	2018-01-16	['United_States']
-pomt-15188	"The U.S. has now spent more on reconstructing Afghanistan than was spent on the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Europe."	/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/20/matt-wuerker/has-us-really-spent-more-afghanistan-post-wwii-eur/	The days of a massive American military presence in Afghanistan are over. Afghan forces might benefit from about 10,000 U.S. trainers and advisers, but otherwise, the country’s security is in their hands. Yet after more than a dozen years of American engagement, the situation is fragile in the extreme. Talks between the government of President Ashraf Ghani and the Taliban are on hold with no date to restart. Military casualties are up 50 percent from last year. Nearly 5,000 civilians have died so far in 2015. In this context, Politico cartoonist Matt Wuerker offered his take on the results of billions of American taxpayer dollars invested in rebuilding the country. In an Aug. 4, 2015, cartoon, a bewildered Uncle Sam stands on top of a pipeline of aid to Afghanistan riven with cracks that spell the word "corruption." Superimposed is a box that says, "The U.S. has now spent more on reconstructing Afghanistan than was spent on the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Europe." A reader asked us to verify that comparison. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, the statement holds up. But, as we’ll explain, it falls short on two points. The primary source of the claim Wuerker pointed us to one of many news reports during 2014. In June that year, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction released one of its regular updates for Congress. In a short section, it compared the two programs. "Adjusted for inflation, U.S. appropriations for the reconstruction of Afghanistan exceed the funds committed to the Marshall Plan, the U.S. aid program that delivered billions of dollars between 1948 and 1952 to help 16 European countries recover in the aftermath of World War II," the report said. The Inspector General analysts wrote that in inflation-adjusted dollars, the United States had spent $103 billion on the Marshall Plan and $109 billion on Afghanistan. The investment of American dollars is a fair yardstick, but experts noted others. Two very different programs While both efforts aimed to rebuild war-torn nations, the most striking difference is the Marshall Plan spent no money on the European armed forces. In contrast, about 60 percent of the aid spent on Afghanistan went towards arming and training the military and police. In fact, the Inspector General’s report makes note of that distinction. By its tally, building the Afghan security forces absorbed nearly $62 billion of the total. (To clarify, the total for Afghanistan excludes the cost of American military operations.) The Marshall Plan unfolded long ago, so a short summary is in order for those who might not know it well. The Truman administration and Congress created the Marshall Plan to stabilize the economies of Western Europe. In the early part, the program delivered hard goods such as food, animal feed, fertilizer and fuel. Later, direct aid shifted to providing raw materials and production equipment. Aid also came in the form of grants and loans. In the dollars of the time, spending reached $10.3 billion. About half was invested in power plants, roads, railroads and agriculture. Another portion went towards debt relief. There were loan guarantees to spur American firms to invest in Europe. Charles Maier, a Harvard historian, is a leading authority on post-World War II Europe. Maier told us that making comparisons across a span of more than 50 years is "notoriously tricky." The circumstances on the ground in Europe in the later 1940s and Afghanistan today are fundamentally different, Maier said. "The European countries — outside Greece — were really functioning administrative systems," Maier said. "Few of those societal infrastructures have been operative in Afghanistan. Also, when the aid was being provided, there was no fighting in the recipient countries, except for the civil war in Greece, 1946-49." Maier also emphasized that while the inflation-adjusted dollars might put the Afghanistan price tag above that of the Marshall Plan, when compared to the size of the American economy at the time, the Marshall Plan represented a much heftier commitment than U.S. aid to Afghanistan. U.S. GDP then and now During the years of the Marshall Plan, the size of the U.S. economy was in the neighborhood of $310 billion (in dollars at that time). So, with total spending of $10.3 billion on European reconstruction, the Marshall Plan represented about 4.3 percent of average GDP. Maier then contrasted that with the Afghanistan spending between 2002 and 2014. During those years, the economy averaged about $14.3 trillion. The money spent on Afghanistan represented about 0.75 percent of average GDP. "That's about one-twentieth of the Marshall Plan burden," Maier said. "This seems a much more rational way of thinking about the burden the U.S. was bearing." Seen through the lens of the strain on the American economy, the Marshall Plan required more effort than rebuilding Afghanistan. Our ruling Wuerker said that the United States has spent more for Afghanistan reconstruction than it did to rebuild Europe under the Marshall Plan. While the math behind the claim adds up, it's important to know that the reconstruction programs are not identical. The Marshall Plan spent no funds on military projects, while about 60 percent of Afghanistan aid was spent on security. The Marshall Plan was entirely focused on economic investments, while the spending in Afghanistan has been weighted much more toward establishing a secure space in which economic growth can occur. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Matt Wuerker	None	None	None	2015-08-20T12:15:25	2015-08-04	['United_States', 'Europe', 'Afghanistan', 'Marshall_Plan']
-goop-02641	Tristan Thompson Did Tell Khloe Kardashian To “Ditch” Rob, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/tristan-thompson-ditch-rob-kardashian-khloe-brother-ultimatum/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Tristan Thompson Did NOT Tell Khloe Kardashian To “Ditch” Rob, Despite Report	1:37 pm, July 24, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02544	Chris Pratt’s Friends Pushing Him To Date Jennifer Lawrence, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/chris-pratt-friends-jennifer-lawrence-date-anna-faris-split/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Chris Pratt’s Friends NOT Pushing Him To Date Jennifer Lawrence, Despite Report	4:54 pm, August 23, 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00100	Dissecting Big Cuts at Central Elementary	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/dissecting-big-cuts-at-central-elementary/	None	None	None	None	None	Dissecting Big Cuts at Central Elementary	June 24, 2013	None	['None']
-wast-00114	"Here's where the president has a point, though. When does the mainstream media apologize to him? When did The Washington Post apologize for saying that he moved the MLK statue, when he did not?	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/16/the-news-media-does-apologize-for-mistakes-unlike-the-white-house/	None	None	Steve Cortes	Glenn Kessler	None	The news media does apologize for mistakes, unlike the White House	May 16	None	['The_Washington_Post', 'Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.']
-snes-06093	Popular R&B singer Ciara was born male.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-ciara-was-born-a-man/	None	Entertainment	None	Snopes Staff	None	Was Ciara Born a Man?	24 February 2005	None	['None']
-pomt-13448	Mark Kirk’s claim of national security expertise is "based on his military record which he lied about at least 10 times."	/illinois/statements/2016/sep/15/tammy-duckworth/tammy-duckworth-hits-mark-kirk-military-embellishm/	In a speech Aug. 18 in Springfield, Ill., to the county leaders of the Illinois Democratic Party, U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth revived and added specificity to a charge that dogged U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk throughout his successful 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. "This is the man who knows so much about national security. He’s been wrong about every issue on national security he’s ever been involved in," Duckworth said. "And who, by the way, claims all this based on his military record which he lied about at least 10 times." Those who followed Kirk’s campaign against then-Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias likely recall that Kirk in 2010 issued clarifications and apologies related to his military claims on more than one occasion. But "at least 10?" The Duckworth campaign provided a list of Kirk’s alleged infractions. It says Kirk falsely claimed he: won the Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year Award, performed combat duty in Kosovo, was shot at in Afghanistan and while flying over Iraq, was "deployed" to Afghanistan, took part in Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, was the only member of Congress as of 2005 who was a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, commanded the Pentagon’s war room and did not violate military policy about campaigning while on duty. We decided to look into the allegations. The background Kirk served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve from 1989 to 2013 and frequently mentioned his military experience during the years he spent as U.S. representative for Illinois’ 10th Congressional District from 2001-11. There’s nothing unusual about that. As Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin noted in a June 2, 2010, column, "In American politics, military service is like a platinum credit card." Kirk might have kept his platinum card status had Terry Welch, an Afghanistan veteran and blogger at Nitpicker.com, not looked into a claim in 2005 by U.S. Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, that Kirk was the first Iraq War veteran elected to Congress. (Kirk became part of this narrative only as a side player. Schmidt brought up Kirk’s service record to refute a claim by her opponent that, if elected, he would be the first Iraq War vet in Congress.) Kirk’s official House website at the time said Kirk "is the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom…" In a series of posts in 2005 (here, here and here), Welch painstakingly dissected Kirk’s claim of Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran status. Kirk’s office eventually changed the wording, though Welch noted that it took 50 days for it to do so. "While we applaud the service of Mark Kirk, his service occurred before the March 19, 2003, start date of the mission, according to the Bush administration itself," Welch wrote in this post. The episode, though clumsily handled by Kirk’s office, faded in the years that followed. But when Kirk in 2010 became the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama, it became a crack in a dam that soon would unleash a flood of reporting on similar incidents in which Kirk inaccurately described his military career. The questions started anew in May 2010, when Kirk’s opponent, then-Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, challenged Kirk’s claim to have been named Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer of the Year in 1999. This led to an admission by Kirk that he had not won the award, but was part of a unit that won a different honor. "Commander Danny Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said Thursday the individual 1999 Naval Reserve Intelligence Officer of the Year was given to another reservist and not to Kirk," the Chicago Tribune reported. Also around that time, Kirk changed his website to remove the word "combat" from his description of military service in Kosovo. On June 3, Kirk faced new allegations of embellishment when he visited the Chicago Tribune editorial board. From the Tribune’s report: In a new disclosure, Kirk acknowledged that his campaign's promotion of him coming under fire while flying aboard an intelligence reconnaissance plane in Iraq may not be correct because there is no record of whether his aircraft was being fired upon. Kirk also acknowledged a constituent letter sent out by his North Shore congressional district office last year that described him as a member of Operation Desert Storm, though he did not participate in that effort. "I am sorry, absolutely," Kirk said. "You should speak with utter precision. You should stand on the documented military record. In public discourse, for high office, you should make sure that there is a degree of complete rigorous precession." If you’re keeping score, that’s six of the 10. On June 13, the Tribune ran a story challenging Kirk’s claim that he had been "deployed" to Afghanistan when really he had been there for short training stints. The article again quoted Navy spokesman Commander Danny Hernandez. "A deployment is a deployment and annual training is annual training," Hernandez said. That’s No. 7. On July 8, 2010, PolitiFact summarized more inaccuracies in Kirk’s telling of his military background. These found Kirk claiming, incorrectly, that he had served in Operation Desert Storm and that he "command(ed) the war room in the Pentagon." PolitiFact mentioned those and other incidents while testing the veracity of a claim by Kirk’s opponent that Kirk had been disciplined for "violat(ing) Pentagon rules...for improperly mingling politics with his military service." PolitiFact ruled the statement True, which brought more trouble for Kirk when his office persisted in claiming that he never had violated those rules. That’s 8 and 9. But Duckworth specified 10, and among those was a claim that Kirk lied about being shot at in Afghanistan. This is based on a Huffington Post article published June 4, 2010, that claimed Kirk had given conflicting accounts of whether or not he was shot at in Kandahar. In January 2009, Kirk had told the suburban Lake County News Sun that he "never got shot at" during recent service in Afghanistan. In January 2010, Kirk was asked on a Chicago Sun-Times questionnaire about the "wildest thing" he had ever done in his career. He responded, "Last year, I was with a Dutch armor unit in Kandahar, getting shot at." The original HuffPo article inferred that Kirk gave conflicting reports about the same incident. But Kirk’s campaign spokesman said in an addendum to the article that that was not correct: Eric Elk, a spokesman for Kirk, said that there is no contradiction in the statements. The Congressman, he says, was referring to two different instances in which he was in Kandahar. "He there was there in December 2008/Jan 2009 and then December 2009/Jan 2010," said Elk. That would be the last of the new accusations pertaining to Kirk’s military career. Kirk weathered the storm and made numerous statements of contrition, then went on to defeat Giannoulias in a narrow victory in November. Our ruling Duckworth said Kirk claims military and defense expertise "based on his military record which he lied about at least 10 times." There is no disputing that Kirk spent the summer of 2010 explaining and apologizing for misstatements in describing his military experience. The Duckworth campaign listed these 10 examples when we asked: Naval Intelligence Officer of the Year Award Taking fire while flying over Iraq Serving combat duty in Kosovo Being shot at in Afghanistan Being "deployed" to Afghanistan Taking part in Operation Desert Storm Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom Claimed to be the only member of Congress who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom Claimed to command the Pentagon’s war room Claimed he had not violated Pentagon policy about campaigning while on duty The fourth claim on this list, that Kirk lied about being shot at in Afghanistan, is in dispute. The original source for that claim contains an update indicating Kirk described two separate incidents. Kirk’s current campaign spokesman, Kevin Artl, reiterated that explanation when contacted for this article. The groundwork on the other nine claims was done six years ago or longer, sometimes by multiple media outlets. If you follow the links included above, you’ll see that the coverage at times creates a confusing patchwork of sourcing that makes it difficult to put all this into a smooth timeline. You’ll also see a long pattern -- albeit one that appears to have ended after the summer of 2010 -- of ambiguous language and conflicting claims throughout Mark Kirk’s frequent pronouncements on his military activity. We rate Duckworth’s claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c8059518-2eac-4135-b133-dc20c19ae331	None	Tammy Duckworth	None	None	None	2016-09-15T17:37:27	2016-08-18	['Mark_Kirk']
-vees-00160	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Salmonella multiplies in refrigerated eggs	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-salmonella-does-not-multiply-refrigera	None	None	None	None	fake news,salmonella	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Salmonella DOES NOT multiply in refrigerated eggs	June 25, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05684	Lemon Fresh Joy (a dishwashing liquid), Listerine (a mouthwash), and limes with cloves will repeal mosquitoes or knock them dead from the sky.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mosquito-killers/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Snopes Staff	None	Do Lemon Fresh Joy and Listerine Kill Mosquitoes?	3 July 2002	None	['None']
-bove-00119	Did Islamic State Auction Women On The Streets Of London?	https://www.boomlive.in/did-islamic-state-auction-women-on-the-streets-of-london/	None	None	None	None	None	Did Islamic State Auction Women On The Streets Of London?	Jan 11 2018 1:05 pm, Last Updated: Jan 12 2018 7:18 pm	None	['None']
-goop-02655	Kate Hudson NOT Pregnant, Despite Made-Up Cover Story Asking “Who’s The Daddy?”	https://www.gossipcop.com/kate-hudson-not-pregnant-made-up-cover-story-daddy-brad-pitt-danny-fujikawa/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kate Hudson NOT Pregnant, Despite Made-Up Cover Story Asking “Who’s The Daddy?”	4:17 pm, July 19, 2017	None	['None']
-bove-00066	Did PM Narendra Modi Ignore His Security Guard Dying Of Heart Attack?	https://www.boomlive.in/did-pm-narendra-modi-ignore-his-security-guard-dying-of-heart-attack/	The man who fainted on the stage was not a security officer but the state’s senior most police officer and Director General of Police Amitabh Pathak. The DGP was given immediate medical treatment at the venue itself and did not die on that day as claimed in the viral message going around on social media. But in an unfortunate turn of events, Pathak died one week later while vacationing with his family in Thailand, according to a Times of India report on August 24, 2013.	None	None	None	None	Did PM Narendra Modi Ignore His Security Guard Dying Of Heart Attack?	May 24 2018 8:57 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-11824	"Ending (Temporary Protected Status) and deporting legal workers would cost the United States ~$164 billion in GDP over a decade."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/13/joaquin-castro/rep-joaquin-castro-claims-tps-end-will-lead-164b-g/	Democratic Congressman Joaquin Castro claimed the U.S. economy would be negatively impacted if the Trump administration eliminated an immigration protection mostly benefitting Central Americans. The U.S. government routinely reviews whether to extend or terminate a country’s Temporary Protected Status designation, applied to countries with ongoing armed conflict, natural disasters, epidemics and other extraordinary, temporary conditions preventing the safe return of their nationals. Opponents of this status argue that while the protection is intended to be temporary, some designations are continuously renewed, allowing some recipients to stay in the country for many years. But Castro said ending it would come at a real cost of lost workers. "Ending #TPS and deporting legal workers would cost the United States ~$164 billion in GDP over a decade," Castro tweeted on Nov. 1, ahead of the deadline for the U.S. government to decide on the current TPS status for Honduras and Nicaragua. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The United States on Nov. 6 decided to end Nicaragua’s designation, effective in 2019. Honduras’ designation, set to expire Jan. 5, 2018, was extended until July 5, 2018, because the Department of Homeland Security said it needed more time "to obtain and assess" additional information. We wanted to know if Castro’s claim on gross domestic product losses was accurate. The Texas representative's tweet is based on a report from a left-leaning organization whose calculation included immigrants’ potential lost earnings and industry chain reactions. Another group’s estimates, without industry output calculations, found a lower GDP loss of $45.2 billion. Will ending TPS lead to an estimated $164 billion GDP loss over a decade? Castro’s office told us the congressman’s claim stemmed from an October report from the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy research and advocacy organization. The group supports the designation, which is currently in effect for 10 countries: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Immigrants living in the United States illegally as well as individuals on a valid nonimmigrant visa may apply for Temporary Protected Status if they meet certain criteria. Receiving the protection allows them to get work permits and avoid deportation, but does not lead to lawful permanent resident status. The center focused on GDP losses tied to recipients from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti, the countries with the most beneficiaries. TPS holders from those three countries "are employed at high rates," and are "key contributors" to the industries of construction, restaurant and other food services, landscaping services, child care, and grocery stores, the report said. The group’s analysis is based on estimates from the Center for Migration Studies of New York of about 302,000 TPS beneficiaries from those three countries (estimated using recent census data). If an estimated 244,200 beneficiaries from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti are removed from the workforce, the United States would lose $164 billion in GDP over the next decade, the Center for American Progress report said. The calculation derives from a broader, separate study on GDP loss resulting from the removal of unauthorized workers in the United States. The researchers multiplied the number of employed TPS recipients with the losses associated with each unauthorized worker. "By both assuming that the skill distribution of the workforce with TPS reflects that of the broader unauthorized workforce and expressing data in 2013 dollars, this analysis reflects a conservative estimate," the report said. The only other estimate of the potential consequence of ending this program that we could find was even more conservative. An April report from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated a much lower GDP loss over a decade — $45.2 billion — without the wages of an estimated 190,000 TPS individuals from El Salvador, Honduras and Haiti. Nicole Svajlenka, coauthor of the Center for American Progress analysis, said her team’s numbers are much higher because they considered "all that goes into a GDP, which is beyond earnings." "We take into account workers’ educational attainment, nativity, and work experience as well as the industry composition to determine what would change if that worker was removed," Svajlenka said. "Basically, we’re simulating some chain reactions — without these workers, some industries would shrink, other workers would shift, etc." Several researchers we reached out to said they had not done their own, independent analysis on this issue, but did not challenge Center for American Progress’ findings. David Dyssegaard Kallick, director of immigration research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, said it is sound to look at industry output when thinking about GDP loss. "GDP, after all, is about measuring total output in the economy," he said. The center’s GDP estimates can also be seen as conservative "since they do not take into account impacts associated with the likely withdrawal of a significant number of U.S.-born children of TPS holders," said Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor in the UCLA Department of Chicana and Chicano Studies. He added that TPS workers are also supporting the people hiring them, helping them generate profits. Many TPS holders also bought houses and have mortgages, said Hinojosa-Ojeda. Our ruling Castro tweeted, "Ending #TPS and deporting legal workers would cost the United States ~$164 billion in GDP over a decade." Castro accurately cited GDP loss reported by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. But at least one other report pegged a GDP loss three times as small, $45.2 billion. The report Castro used calculated lost earnings and impact on industries, the other report only looked at lost wages. We rate Castro’s claim Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joaquin Castro	None	None	None	2017-11-13T14:13:51	2017-11-01	['United_States']
-pomt-03508	My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office.	/georgia/statements/2013/jun/05/kasim-reed/distance-between-deal-reed-can-be-measured-steps/	Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal have become something of a team, delivering a one-two punch for various economic development projects in Georgia, including metro Atlanta. Although the two line up on opposite sides of the political aisle, they have managed to put the D and R aside to work together on getting funding for Georgia ports, get a new football stadium built and get Porsche to move its North American headquarters close to Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. The relationship has caught the eye of politicos far and near as an example of how leadership should work. But that hasn’t always been the case. And Reed noted this last month during the Governing Georgia Leadership Forum in downtown Atlanta. "My office is about a 300-step walk to the governor's office," Reed said. "But you would have thought previously that walk was a 10k." PolitiFact Georgia is always looking for an opportunity for a little fun and exercise. So we grabbed our pedometer and set out for a walk. At the Leadership Forum, Reed and Deal were co-presenters for a 30-minute session titled "Shared Fortunes -- Building a Better Georgia." The description of the discussion said: "the state's governor, a Republican, and the mayor of its largest city, a Democrat, discuss how they are working together to advance a common agenda." And to work together you have to be together. And being together includes office visits, so we set out to check the distance between them. Not depending on our math alone, we got out a pedometer for a more accurate step count. We walked the path from Reed’s office in Atlanta City Hall to Deal’s office on the main floor of the Georgia State Capitol, and back again, twice. We began walking at a normal pace. But the mayor stands at 6 feet, a full six inches taller than this PolitiFact Georgia reporter, so we extended our stride a bit. Our calculations found that Reed was correct. The distance from the governor’s office to the first step outside City Hall was 300 steps. Throw in the distance from the outside City Hall steps to Reed’s actual office and the step count increases between 65 and 100 steps, depending on the route through the lobby, whether you take a short ramp or the few steps up to the main office level, and stride of the walker. To sum up, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said his office was about 300 steps from Gov. Nathan Deal’s office. Walking the path that the mayor is likely to take, it is 300 steps from Deal’s office to the bottom of the first step of Atlanta City Hall, where Reed’s office is located. Walking all the way to the receptionist that sits just outside the mayor’s office adds additional steps, based on our calculations, which could make the mayor’s claim off by about one-third. Reed’s overall point was that the political divide between he and Deal has closed. Based on their history of delivering economic development projects for the city and state, that statement is correct. But the mayor is off just a bit on his distance claim if you take his statement literally. We rated Reed’s claim Mostly True.	None	Kasim Reed	None	None	None	2013-06-05T14:22:27	2013-05-29	['None']
-goop-02649	Kris Jenner Managing O.J. Simpson After Prison Release, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kris-jenner-oj-simpson-manager-prison-release-reality-show/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Kris Jenner NOT Managing O.J. Simpson After Prison Release, Despite Fake News	3:26 pm, July 21, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11182	"You’re going to have an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica because of global warming."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/21/mo-brooks/mo-brooks-incomplete-comments-antarctic-ice/	It’s not every day that a hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee goes viral, but that’s what happened on May 16, 2018, when a Republican lawmaker questioned aspects of climate change. The most frequently shared exchange from the hearing involved Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., and a witness, Phil Duffy, the president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center. At one point, Brooks suggested that England’s White Cliffs of Dover and the California coastline are continually eaten away by erosion, perhaps driving a rise in sea levels that scientists ordinarily blame on melting ice. Others have debunked the idea that cliff erosion or sediment release from rivers constitutes a significant factor in sea level rise. (Philip Bump at the Washington Post estimated the current annual sea level increase of 3.3 millimeters would require, every year, "a volume of earth equivalent to taking the top five inches of every one of the United States’ 9.1 million square miles of land area and using it to coat the bottom of the world’s oceans.") So we won’t go over the same territory. Instead, we decided to look at another comment from Brooks’ exchange with Duffy: Brooks: "Would it surprise you to know that if global temperatures rise, assuming for the moment that they do, that that actually increases the amount of ice that is collected on Antarctica?" Duffy: "That’s not true, sir." Brooks: "I made a trip down to Antarctica and met with National Science Foundation scientists, and they all agreed with global warming, and they emphasize that you’re going to have an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica because of global warming.… "Do you understand that as temperatures rise, more moisture is contained in the atmosphere and then that moisture in Antarctica collects on land, and it takes hundreds and hundreds of years for that ice that is deposited on Antarctica to actually ever reach the shoreline where it touches the oceans where it can affect in some way sea level increases?" Is it true, as Brooks said, that "you’re going to have an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica because of global warming"? In a statement to PolitiFact, Brooks reiterated what he said he learned from the scientists in Antarctica, including those who believe that global warming is real. The increase in interior ice, he said the scientists told him, should "offset the loss of Antarctic sea ice, Arctic sea ice, and whatever melting occurs in places like Greenland." (Read Brooks’ full statement here,) However, more than a dozen scientists told PolitiFact that while Brooks is correctly describing one part of the complicated interplay around Antarctic climate change, whatever ice gains materialize from this process are almost certain to be overwhelmed by melting ice that he’s overlooking. What Brooks said "is like talking about the money in your bank account by only looking at deposits and ignoring withdrawals," said Gary T. Mitchum, a professor and associate dean at the University of South Florida College of Marine Science. "It’s just flawed. I sure wish I could get away with this at my bank." Why Antarctica might see an increase in ice How could ice increase due to global warming? It stems from the tendency for a warmer climate to produce more precipitation. In the context of Antarctica, this means increased amounts of frozen precipitation. "On the whole, the amount of precipitation increases in the coldest climates as they warm," said John Nielsen-Gammon, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor. "This comes about because the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold -- and thus deliver as snow -- increases dramatically as the temperature warms." In fact, there’s already evidence of this occurring in certain parts of Antarctica. One paper documenting this was written by Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in 2015. He found significant increases in ice in eastern Antarctica. Zwally is considered a credible scientist, but other scientists said his methodology in the study is not foolproof. Critics suggest that much of the increase Zwally measured may be coming from additional snow rather than ice. Because ice contains more water than snow does, an increase in snow rather than ice would mean that Antarctica isn’t taking as much water out of circulation as the paper suggests. Indeed, a study using a different method, headed by Alba Martin-Español of the University of Bristol in England, concluded that the ice gains in eastern Antarctica were only about one-third as large as Zwally had found. Why that added ice may not matter much An even more important point is that any ice gains need to be measured against losses elsewhere. To look only at the ice gains, as Brooks did, amounts to cherry picking. "The important thing for science and policy is whether there's a net gain or loss of ice on Antarctica" from all sources, Nielsen-Gammon said. Scientists we checked with agreed that, while Antarctica’s increased banking of water through precipitation is a real phenomenon, it pales in comparison with the amount of water being lost through melting. Basically, the continent may be adding ice in one place, but it’s losing a larger amount elsewhere due to melting, evaporation, or glaciers falling into the sea. "Rep. Brooks is correct that one may expect an increase in precipitation in a warmer climate," said Justin C. Burton, a physicist at Emory University. "However, this is a small feedback effect compared to melting from a warmer climate, and especially a warmer ocean." For the past few decades, most scientific studies have shown that the net change in ice has produced shrinkage overall, not expansion, said Ted Scambos, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado. In western Antarctica, Scientific American has reported, "the floating platforms of ice that ring the coast are thinning, glaciers are surging toward the sea, meltwater is flowing across the surface, fast-growing moss is turning the once shimmering landscape green, and a massive iceberg the size of Delaware broke off into the ocean in July of 2017." "The near unanimous view is that the net effect, by a pretty big margin, would be melting," said John Reilly, co-director of the joint program on the science and policy of global change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The fear, he said, is that ice "will break loose and float out, raising sea level and in turn reduce the friction holding back ice on shore, which will then flow faster into the ocean." Given this degree of melting, Scambos said, the likeliest impact from the increased snowfall that Brooks is pointing to would be to "slow the pace of ice loss slightly," Scambos said. "Greenland, which is somewhat more impacted by climate change, has not shown enough increase in precipitation to offset the very large peripheral losses in the past few decades." Even beyond melting, sea level is increasing as the temperature warms because when water gets warmer, it expands. It’s worth noting that the net change in sea level has zig-zagged a bit. In 2011, for instance, it fell, prompting some to suggest an end to the problem. However, sea levels soon started rising again. Such blips are "common," said Gary Griggs, an earth sciences professor at the University of California-Santa Cruz. "There are year to year variations, but the overall trend is clear." All told, "the vast majority of scientists agree that a warming climate will most certainly lead to a net ice loss from Antarctica," Burton said. "The question is really how much and how fast?" Our ruling Brooks said, "You’re going to have an increase in the amount of ice in Antarctica because of global warming." Scientists agree that parts of Antarctica may already be seeing higher levels of frozen precipitation due to global warming. However, focusing on this increase amounts to cherry-picking, because the same higher temperatures also mean faster melting of existing Antarctic ice. On balance, scientists expect the amount of ice lost from added melting to be much higher than the amount of ice added from greater precipitation. The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mo Brooks	None	None	None	2018-05-21T09:49:34	2018-05-16	['None']
-pomt-00545	On same-sex marriage.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/	On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments about same-sex marriage April 28, Hillary Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait." Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is a presidential candidate. We decided to put Clinton’s statements about same-sex marriage on our Flip-O-Meter, which measures whether a candidate has changed their views without making a value judgment about such flips. We found that as public opinion shifted toward support for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton. She has had plenty of company among members of her own party to change their stance on same-sex marriage. In 2012, we gave Obama a Full Flop when he announced his support for same-sex marriage. Currently about three dozen states allow same-sex marriage. The outcome of the decision, expected in June, could mean either that same-sex marriage will become legal in all states or that some states will institute new bans on same-sex marriage. (A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign declined to comment for this Flip-O-Meter item.) Clinton’s statements during her 2000 Senate race In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Hillary Clinton would face questions about same-sex marriage starting with her 2000 campaign for Senate. Let’s look at the highlights of her statements between 1999 and 2015 in a timeline: December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband. The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets." January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship." April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said. July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman." October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law. "I support states making the decision," she said. As a 2008 presidential candidate In 2007, all the presidential contenders except for longshot candidates -- both Democrats and GOP -- were against same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. So were the majority of Americans, polls showed. May 2007: In a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign in 2007, Clinton backed away from the Defense of Marriage Act: "I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same-sex marriage." In response to a question about whether marriage should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex, Clinton marked that she was "opposed" though she stated she supported civil unions. August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?" Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges." As a 2016 presidential candidate As Clinton got ready for her second presidential bid, she again modified her position. March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013. "LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens, and they deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans." The comments put her in line with other Democrats at the time who were mentioned as potential 2016 presidential contenders, including Vice President Joe Biden, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Obama had announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012. June 2013: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton issued a joint statement about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. The congratulatory note didn’t mention that Bill Clinton had signed the law back in 1996: "the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union." June 2014: NPR’s Terry Gross grilled Clinton about her past positions’ on gay marriage in what led to a testy exchange. Gross tried to get Clinton to explain if she had truly changed her stance or if the shifting political landscape made it possible for her to announce her support. At one point Gross asked, "Would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved, allowing you to state your real view?" Clinton replied: "I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved, and it's been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations." April 2015: On the day of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about same-sex marriage bans in a handful of states in April, Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted a message of support: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait." Our conclusion Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006. As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013. It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-06-17T10:42:01	2013-03-18	['None']
-snes-02610	Being an only child (or an only son) automatically exempts you from military service in the U.S.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fortunate-son-2/	None	Military	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Only Son’ Exemption from Military Draft	8 October 2001	None	['United_States']
-pose-00696	"Chafee will oppose any changes to our taxes without first reforming our spending, particularly the mandates."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/726/oppose-tax-changes-without-reform-of-spending-and/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Oppose tax changes without reform of spending and mandates	2011-03-16T00:00:05	None	['None']
-pomt-06968	"New Mexico is the second Hollywood" because of tax incentives for the film industry.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/15/gary-johnson/gary-johnson-says-tax-breaks-made-new-mexico-secon/	Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is basing his Republican presidential campaign on his fiscal conservatism and libertarian stands, but he’s also big on tax breaks, like the rest of the GOP field. In an interview in Manchester, N.H., in June 2011 with the New Hampshire Business Review and thelobbynh.com, Johnson cited a 15 percent film production tax credit he signed in 2002, his last year in office, as the type of pro-business tax relief that can help create jobs. Under the incentive, spending on production and post-production film and television work subject to New Mexico state taxes, including wages paid to state residents and nonresident actors working through a personal service corporation, can generate a tax credit now worth up to 25 percent. (The program was capped at $50 million worth of tax credits available annually as of July 1, 2011.) "They passed a film incentive bill in New Mexico. The idea was to make New Mexico the second Hollywood. I signed the bill. I said I'm going to sign this bill but doesn't everyone see that we could be doing this for every business in New Mexico? ... It will happen. This will happen. But why the film industry? Why not all of us that have been here working all this time," Johnson said. "Well, did it work?" asked Review editor Jeff Feingold. "Yeah, it's the second Hollywood of all 50 states. New Mexico is the second Hollywood," Johnson said. Met with some friendly laughter, he continued: "No, it is, it is. They built all sorts of film studios. I can just go down the list, I can click down the list for you of all the movies that have been made in New Mexico." Johnson may have greenlighted the tax incentives for the film industry but has New Mexico’s program become a Hollywood blockbuster? The state certainly is scenic and hip -- spend a few nights in Santa Fe and a sunny day driving the High Road to Taos, and you may want to move to the Land of Enchantment, pronto. Albuquerque is only a 90-minute flight for actors and producers flying in from Los Angeles, and the sunny weather in winter and high-altitude temperatures in the summer makes for a cooperative climate for shoots, as well. But when PolitiFact asked about Johnson’s claim, his campaign wasn’t able to provide much substantiation and said determining "the second Hollywood" isn’t easy. In an e-mail, the Johnson campaign’s communications director, Joe Hunter, wrote: "While quantifying -- or even determining how to quantify -- that New Mexico or any other state is the ‘second Hollywood’ is obviously imprecise, Governor Johnson’s statement was made in the context of having signed into law tax credits that were tremendously successful in attracting the film industry to the state. Those tax credits worked, and New Mexico is consistently identified as one of the best locales for film production." Actually, it is possible to compare the size of film industries in various states, and New Mexico does have a decent story to tell. For starters, it’s no California, which tallies its film and television industry at $30 billion a year, with 140,000 production jobs, according to Amy Lemisch, executive director of the California Film Commission. And New Mexico is not about to supplant New York either. In 2008, 63,000 people were employed as actors, camera operators, film editors and other production and post-production jobs in the state, with film and television-related wages of about $5 billion, according to the New York Office of the State Comptroller. Industry experts say New Mexico can rival Louisiana, generally perceived as the third-largest state for the film and TV industry, especially since Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who succeeded Johnson, helped expand the incentive program, including raising the tax credit to 25 percent. Both states adopted film tax credits in 2002, and an estimated $674 million was directly spent on motion picture productions in Louisiana in 2010. Since the tax credit became law, the state has averaged 92 productions, and more than 6,000 jobs per year, according to Louisiana Entertainment, the state agency that works with the film industry. Louisiana has recently been the locale for Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Battle: Los Angeles, Green Lantern and 21 Jump Street, a new movie based on the TV series. Meanwhile, in fiscal year 2010 in New Mexico, $204 million was spent directly on filming, creating 184,120 "worker days" and a financial impact of $612 million, according to the New Mexico Film Office. And as the state’s production facilities – like the state-of-the-art Albuquerque Studios-- have grown and matured, the "filmography" from the state has increased from five major productions in 2003 to 17 in 2011. Among the films and TV shows shot in New Mexico over the past nine years are Rent, Transformers, Fright Night, No Country for Old Men, Breaking Bad, True Grit, In Plain Sight and Marvel’s The Avengers. Still, it’s a stretch to call the state "the second Hollywood." Jeff Begun of the Santa Monica, Calif.-based The Incentives Office, which tracks inducements from various states for the film-production industry, said by e-mail that New Mexico "is not the second Hollywood -- particularly with the new $50 million ‘rolling cap’ per year" recently imposed on available tax credits in the state. Begun said a handful of other states host more production than New Mexico, and "If anything, Louisiana would be the second Hollywood -- I think they will do fairly close to a billion dollars in production this year. "That being said, N.M. is not bad -- a 25% refundable credit with $50 million available represents about $250 million in production," Begun noted. Similarly, Joe Chianese, the senior vice president of tax production planning and business development at Entertainment Partners in Burbank, Calif., said calling New Mexico the new second Hollywood "is probably being a bit overdramatic." But he also said the state "has been busy," and noted that the crew base in New Mexico has grown from less than 300 a decade ago to more than 3,000 now. Lemisch, the director of the California Film Commission, also suggested Johnson’s claim was a bit over the top but not without some foundation. "Obviously, he was exaggerating, but New Mexico has been quite a hub, but not as much a hub as Louisiana," she said. To be clear, New Mexico hasn’t gotten all the business it wanted. Although the Disney Channel zit-flick High School Musical is set in Albuquerque, it actually was shot in Utah, which also offered incentives. It’s also worth noting that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group that researches tax and budget issues, last year reported that 41 states followed New Mexico and Louisiana’s lead, but that many of the tax credits were costing the states money while generating few meaningful jobs for in-state residents. The study said employment in the film and video production industry grew "six-fold" in the two states between 2002 and 2008, and that New Mexico also had used its colleges and universities to foster the industry. But the study also noted that employment dipped in 2009 during the recession and that the California firm that owns Albuquerque Studios, which has four of the largest sound stages in the country, filed for bankruptcy in July 2010. The studio has continued to operate during the reorganization, with major productions such as The Avengers and Breaking Bad being filmed there. So was Gov. Johnson overstating the case when he said New Mexico has turned into the "second Hollywood"? Of course, but hey, it’s show business. And he is correct in asserting that New Mexico has become a player in the movie industry. We’ll give him a Half True.	None	Gary Johnson	None	None	None	2011-07-15T06:00:00	2011-07-14	['New_Mexico']
-hoer-00328	'I'm Not Asking You to Like This' - Sick Baby Donations For Sharing	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fb-dollar-share-sick-baby-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'I'm Not Asking You to Like This' - Yet Another Sick Baby Donations For Sharing Hoax	May 7, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-12796	In the "past few weeks," President Donald Trump pointed out "Iranian violations on ballistic missile tests. By the way, these ballistic missiles are inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be destroyed.’ "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/15/benjamin-netanyahu/benjamin-netanyahu-largely-correct-iranian-missile/	Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of the danger to his country from Iranian ballistic missiles in his first joint news conference with President Donald Trump. Israel has been firmly opposed to the United States-Iran nuclear agreement even before it was signed during the Obama administration. Trump was often critical of the deal on the campaign trail. Two weeks before the Feb. 15 news conference, Iran tested a medium-range ballistic missile that could theoretically reach Israel, as well as many other targets in the region. The Trump administration considers Iran’s Jan. 29 test to be against the terms of the agreement, while Iran considers it permissible. Days later, the Trump administration announced new sanctions on Iran, specifically citing the missile test as the reason. At the news conference, Netanyahu said his goal, and Trump’s, is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. "I think beyond that," he said, "President Trump has led a very important effort in the past few weeks, just coming into the presidency. He pointed out there are violations — Iranian violations on ballistic missile tests. By the way, these ballistic missiles are inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be destroyed.’ Iranian Foreign Minister (Mohammad Javad) Zarif said, ‘Our ballistic missiles are not intended against any country.’ No, they write on the missiles in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be destroyed.’" A reader asked us to check what Netanyahu said about the Hebrew lettering. So we took a closer look. The Israeli Embassy in Washington did not reply to an inquiry, but we found news reports from March 2016, such as this one in the Times of Israel, that discussed such an incident. The claim was sourced to the Fars news service, which has been described as a "semi-official" organ of the Iranian government. We tracked down the Fars article, dated March 9, 2016. It said that the the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had successfully launched two "Qadr H" ballistic missiles at a target in southeastern Iran 1,400 kilometers away. It described the Qadr as a liquid-fueled ballistic missile that "can reach territories as far as Israel." (The Obama administration condemned the test.) "One missile," the Fars post said, "had a message written on it that said in Hebrew, ‘Israel should be wiped off the Earth.’ " The English-language version of the Fars site didn’t include the exact words, but the Times of Israel article showed a screenshot of the Farsi-language page, which specifies the Hebrew phrase "Yisrael Tsricha LeHimachek Me’Al." The Times of Israel noted dryly that "the words mean ‘Israel must be wiped out from.’ Apparently, Iran’s Hebrew writers intended to complete the phrase with something to the effect of ‘the face of the Earth’ but messed up their translation." The translation of the Hebrew in the Times of Israel article is accurate, said Michael J. Koplow, policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, a group that advocates for a negotiated two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Koplow and other experts said they see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Fars post. "This story has the ring of truth to it because I do not see why Iran would lie about it," said Michael M. Gunter, a Tennessee Technological University political scientist who studies the region. We won’t quibble over the exact wording, which Netanyahu got wrong but which conveys the same message. But we will raise one caveat. Hearing Netanyahu’s comments, one could assume that he’s talking about the most recent missile tests from January 2017, rather than the ones from 2016. Not only did his comment about the Hebrew lettering immediately follow a mention of the most recent tests, but he used the present tense to say that "these ballistic missiles are inscribed in Hebrew." We found no evidence that the most recent round of tests included missiles with threats written in Hebrew letters. "It is striking to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu must go back to an Iranian report of a March 2016 ballistic missile test to make his point about malign Iranian intentions," said Greg Thielmann, a former foreign service officer and Senate Intelligence Committee staffer who is now a board member at the Arms Control Association. He suggested that the Hebrew lettering may have been "a one-time event, and not necessarily authorized in Tehran." The botching of the text may suggest that the gambit was ad-hoc "sloganeering" by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, "rather than an explicit policy dictated from the top," Thielmann said. Our ruling Netanyahu said, "President Trump has led a very important effort in the past few weeks, just coming into the presidency. He pointed out there are violations -- Iranian violations on ballistic missile tests. By the way, these ballistic missiles are inscribed in Hebrew, ‘Israel must be destroyed.’ " He’s right that there was such an incident (with slightly different wording) during an Iranian ballistic missile launch in 2016. However, it’s worth noting that, despite Netanyahu’s implication, there is no evidence of a repeat when Iran undertook its most recent test in 2017. We rate the statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ae08540a-2931-4912-8149-8db6ea117789	None	Benjamin Netanyahu	None	None	None	2017-02-15T18:06:38	2017-02-15	['Israel', 'Iran', 'Hebrew_language']
-tron-02515	The City Councilman’s Graphic Comment that Got Him Thown Out of a Radio Studio	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bubba/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	The City Councilman’s Graphic Comment that Got Him Thown Out of a Radio Studio	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-03463	Says that when the Rolling Stones performed in an Austin park, they paid $25,000 to the nearby city of Rollingwood "for one night of inconvenience."	/texas/statements/2013/jun/17/barry-bone/rollingwood-mayor-says-rolling-stones-donated-2500/	Barry Bone says private interests that profit from occupying Austin’s Zilker Park for concerts should routinely compensate Rollingwood, a 1-square-mile city on the other side of MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) from the park. Bone, the city’s mayor, declared in an opinion column published in the June 13, 2013, edition of the weekly Westlake Picayune that C3, the promoters behind the annual Austin City Limits Music Festival, had rebuffed his request that it pay $150,000 to Rollingwood "for six nights of disruption, plus expenses, to compensate our city for the festival." Bone added: "When the Rolling Stones rolled through a few years back, they paid us $25,000 for one night of inconvenience." Talk about satisfaction. Did the Stones really pony up? We took our first cue from a Feb. 8, 2007, Austin American-Statesman news story stating the Stones’ October 2006 concert resulted in about $300,000 in proceeds going toward beautifying neighborhood parks and Zilker Park. The plans, the story said, were announced by the Austin Parks Foundation, which was described as intending to award the money as grants. "Half of it will be spent on improving smaller parks in the Barton Hills, Zilker, Bouldin Creek, Old West Austin, West Austin and Rollingwood neighborhoods," the story said, with the remaining $150,000 devoted to the park’s irrigation system. Spread $150,000 evenly among six neighborhoods and it comes to $25,000 each. But that’s indirect guidance; we sought definitive evidence. By email, Bone guided us to Abel Campos, a city accountant, who emailed us a copy of a $25,000 check, dated Jan. 12, 2007, made out to the city by the parks foundation. Campos also shared a March 20, 2007, letter to the city from Charlie McCabe, then the foundation's executive director, stating the money reflected proceeds from the Rolling Stones concert. Our ruling Bone said the Rolling Stones gave $25,000 to Rollingwood after the band performed at Zilker Park. That’s the amount of money that flowed through the Austin Parks Foundation to the city described as proceeds from the big show. We rate the statement as True.	None	Barry Bone	None	None	None	2013-06-17T15:38:54	2013-06-13	['Austin,_Texas', 'The_Rolling_Stones']
-farg-00341	“Trump Orders to Remove Obama Highway Name and Put This New Highway Name.”	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/out-with-the-old-dixie/	None	askfactcheck	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	['fake news']	Out With the ‘Old Dixie’	January 24, 2018	2018-01-24 19:27:53 UTC	['None']
-pomt-09151	Starting in 2011, "you will be required to pay taxes" on "the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/10/chain-email/w-2-tax-forms-hr-3590-health-insurance-pay-taxes/	A new chain e-mail makes the claim that most people, even retirees, will see big tax increases next year thanks to President Barack Obama's new health care law, because it will start taxing health insurance as regular income. "You really need to read this," it begins. "Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. "Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases." The chain e-mail is correct that employers will be required to start listing the cost of insurance. The requirement starts for the tax year 2011, so employees will see it on the W-2s they receive in 2012. But that amount will not be taxed. Current law excludes health insurance from taxable income, and there's nothing in the health care law that changes that. Several experts on health care benefits and the workplace confirmed that. "It will not affect your taxable income under the new law," said Dallas Salisbury of the Employee Benefit Research Institute in an e-mail interview. Since the health care law actually continues the tax exemption on employer-sponsored insurance, why include a requirement that employers report the value of health insurance on the W-2? There are several reasons. The new health insurance law will eventually penalize people who are not insured with a tax penalty. The W-2 reporting requirement will help the Internal Revenue Service verify that people have coverage, both for themselves and their dependents. There's also a tax on the so-called "Cadillac" or "gold-plated" health insurance policies, which are policies that cost significantly more than the national average. The W-2 reporting will allow the IRS to more easily collect the tax. We should also emphasize that the Cadillac tax doesn't go into effect until 2018, and it will apply to health insurance plans that cost more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage, with some exceptions for people in high-risk categories. Most people will not be affected by the tax; analysts expect it to hit fewer than 20 percent of all policies. The chain e-mail we looked at goes the extra mile to promote its deceptive claim that everyone will be taxed next year, however. "Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about," the chain e-mail states. "Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November." We looked up the Kiplinger letter and couldn't help noticing that the article states the following: "A requirement that businesses include the value of the health care benefits they provide to employees on W-2s, beginning with W-2s for 2011. The amount reported is not considered taxable income." Got that? "Not considered taxable income." So the e-mail's own evidence refutes its premise. The e-mail is correct that employers will have to let employees know how much their health insurance costs the employer. But the e-mail's main point -- and the fact that we're checking here -- is that you will be taxed on your health insurance. That is not only wrong, but refuted by its own reference. Assuming the e-mail's author read that Kiplinger entry, we can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to upset and mislead voters. This sort of fear mongering rates a Pants on Fire.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2010-06-10T17:13:38	2010-06-10	['None']
-pomt-00544	"When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Japan? It doesn’t exist, folks."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/donald-trump/donald-trump-chevrolet-tokyo-japan-doesnt-exist/	Bombastic billionaire and new GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump painted the United States as an international embarrassment these days, losing on everything from jobs to car sales to other countries. "When did we beat Japan at anything?" Trump said in announcing his candidacy June 16, 2015. "They send their cars over by the millions, and what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist, folks. They beat us all the time." We couldn’t travel to Tokyo for this fact-check, but we did hear from Chevy and other sources to shed light on whether it’s really true that Chevy "doesn’t exist" in Tokyo. Literally, it’s not true. Chevy sells cars in Japan in four models: Sonic, Captiva, Camaro and Corvette. (Here's a screenshot of www.ChevroletJapan.com): But Trump, in what we might describe as his Trumped-up speaking style, has a point in that Chevy’s Japanese sales are a big struggle story. In 2014, Chevrolet sold 597 cars in Japan. No, we are not forgetting any zeroes at the end of that figure. "To be sure, if you visit Tokyo, chances are you won’t see a single American brand car during your entire stay," said Hans Greimel, the Asia editor of Automotive News who has documented GM’s troubles in Japan. "They are incredibly rare here because their reputation is bad, and their sales are so low." Still, GM-owned Chevys and Cadillacs, plus Fords and Jeeps, are all actively sold, Greimel said. Import sales data show Chevrolet sold 367 vehicles in the first five months of 2015. Cadillac sold 358, Ford sold almost 2,000, and Jeep sold 2,756. Japanese automakers — Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, Mazda, Daihatsu, Subaru, Mitsubishi — accounted for 92 percent of the 5.45 million vehicles sold in Japan in 2014, according to financial research group IHS Automotive. One issue: In Japan, like in the United Kingdom, motorists drive on the left side of the road with the steering wheel on the right side. GM sells two Chevy cars with right-hand drive in Japan, Greimel reported, but not in Cadillac. GM spokesman Jim Cain calls GM’s strategy in Asia "a question of priorities." The Japanese market is tough for non-domestic manufacturers to crack. "We’re concentrating on markets and segments where we can be a successful and profitable growing enterprise," Cain said, "and the reality is that the barriers to entry in Japan are very high for foreign automakers." GM is more aggressive in China, Singapore and South Korea. In 2014, Chevrolet sold 700,000 cars in China, according to its 2014 global sales report. A spokesperson for Trump did not return our email. Our ruling Trump said Chevrolet cars in Tokyo don’t exist. Literally, that’s not true. Chevy sells cars in Japan. However, Chevy sales are more like a trickle compared to the flood of Japanese brands in the market. A journalist who covers the auto industry in Japan told us visitors would not likely see a Chevy during their stay in Japan. Trump has a point here, but he should have used different words to make it. We rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2015-06-17T11:45:24	2015-06-16	['Japan']
-tron-01507	NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Headed to Jail for Issuing Fake IDs	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nyc-mayor-bill-de-blasio-headed-jail-issuing-fake-ids/	None	government	None	None	['criminal justice', 'donald trump', 'liberal agenda']	NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Headed to Jail for Issuing Fake IDs	Dec 8, 2016	None	['None']
-goop-01945	Mariah Carey, Joe Jonas New Year’s Eve Feud Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/mariah-carey-new-years-eve-joe-jonas-feud/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Mariah Carey, Joe Jonas New Year’s Eve Feud NOT True	2:59 pm, December 29, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13572	"In Congress right now, we're doing the best job we have ever done in women in the federal legislature," but it’s still only "19 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/22/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-correct-about-how-poorly-us-fares-percen/	Hillary Clinton is running to become the first female president in American history. But even as she makes her potentially historic run, the number of women in Congress remains far from parity with men, said Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine. "In Congress right now, we're doing the best job we have ever done in women in the Federal legislature, 19 percent," said Kaine, a U.S. senator from Virginia. "That's the best job we've ever done. Hold on for this, folks: Nineteen percent ranks the United States 75th in the world, below the global average. Iraq is 26 percent. Afghanistan, 28 percent. Number one? Rwanda, 64 percent." We wondered if Kaine is correct that "in Congress right now, we're doing the best job we have ever done in women in the federal legislature," but it’s still only "19 percent." First, let’s look at the 19 percent number. According to the World Bank, which cites data from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the 19 percent figure is right on for 2015. The U.S. figure has remained at 19 percent in the most recent Inter-Parliamentary Union data, which is current through June 2016. Specifically, in 2016, there are 104 women serving in both chambers of Congress, comprising 19.4 percent of the 535 combined members. (In all, 76 are Democrats and 28 are Republicans.) Chamber by chamber, 20 women serve in the Senate, accounting for 20 percent of all members in the chamber, and 84 women serve in the House, accounting for 19.3 percent. Is 19 percent the highest in United States history? As it turns out, Kaine is correct on that point, too, as the following chart from the Congressional Research Service shows. "It's pretty straightforward," said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics. "It's a record high, but it's quite low." If anything, Kaine underplayed the United States’ deficit compared to the rest of the world. The U.S. rank has bounced around a bit over the past year, but it places 96th in the most recent Inter-Parliamentary Union rankings, among 191 countries for which there is data. That’s even worse than the 75th-place finish Kaine cited. By comparison, the other countries Kaine mentioned did better, though hardly close to male-female parity. Iraq had 27 percent female legislators (58th in the most recent rankings), Afghanistan had 29 percent (ranking 50th) and Rwanda was indeed No. 1 in the world with 64 percent. Our ruling Kaine said, "In Congress right now, we're doing the best job we have ever done in women in the federal legislature," but it’s still only "19 percent." He’s right that the current figure for the United States is 19 percent, and he’s right that that’s a record high. We rate the statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/669619cb-b381-46e4-8b4c-7e05ba0556f8	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2016-08-22T18:14:10	2016-08-16	['United_States_Congress']
-snes-00311	President Trump has called for the death penalty for pedophiles.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-pedophiles-death-penalty/	None	Junk News	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did President Trump Say Pedophiles Will Get the Death Penalty?	22 July 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05627	"More than half of the births in Texas are paid for by Medicaid."	/texas/statements/2012/mar/24/elliott-naishtat/democratic-legislators-say-more-half-texas-births-/	In an op-ed column questioning the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from a women’s contraception program, Austin members of the Texas House say the result would be more government-funded births. "More than half of the births in Texas are paid for by Medicaid and, without this (women’s) program, that percentage will undoubtedly increase," says the column posted on the Austin American-Statesman’s website on March 5, 2012. The Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which has a goal of reducing Medicaid-funded births, has not been eliminated, though its federal ties are in transition. Specifically, the Statesman op-ed article, by Democratic Reps. Elliott Naishtat, Dawnna Dukes, Eddie Rodriguez, Mark Strama and Donna Howard, objects to a move by the state’s Republican leaders to remove Planned Parenthood clinics as providers in the 5-year-old program, which has annually offered contraception and cancer screenings to tens of thousands of low-income women. After the state action, the federal government announced that it was phasing out its aid to the Texas program. Gov. Rick Perry replied that state funds would be found to make up for the loss. While none of the barred clinics provided abortions, state leaders said they were rightly enforcing a state law against state aid reaching any clinic with a connection to Planned Parenthood, which has other clinics that do provide abortions. We can’t judge the Democrats’ prediction that more births will need to be paid for by Medicaid because of these turns. For this article, we wondered if indeed more than half of Texas births are currently covered by Medicaid, the government insurance program that mostly serves low-income mothers and children. Naishtat’s legislative director, Nancy Walker, passed along a January 2011 Texas Health and Human Services Commission presentation, "Medicaid and Healthy Babies," stating that more than 55 percent of Texas births are paid for by Medicaid. "Medicaid is the primary public coverage program providing prenatal and perinatal care in Texas, and is the primary payor of all Texas births," the presentation says. "Texas spends over $2.2 billion per year in birth and delivery related services." In 2001, Medicaid covered 47.5 percent of all Texas births, according to a chart in the presentation. The Medicaid-funded share of births escalated to 56.5 percent in 2006, 56.3 percent in 2007 and 55.4 percent in 2008. By email, commission spokesman Geoffrey Wool confirmed the cited figures, adding that in 2010, 56.9 percent of Texas births -- or 220,899 out of 388,447 total births -- were covered by Medicaid, at an average cost of $11,600. He provided a commission chart showing the share of births funded by Medicaid for each state fiscal year from 2004 through 2010. Wool said the state’s share of the $2.2 billion annually paid by Medicaid for Texas births and related services is about $900 million. We rate the Democrats’ claim about Medicaid paying for more than half of Texas births as True.	None	Elliott Naishtat	None	None	None	2012-03-24T06:00:00	2012-03-05	['Texas']
-abbc-00382	The Coalition promised to help young people facing mental illness by establishing a National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/18-million-centre-for-excellence-in-youth-mental-health/5454844	None	['mental-health', 'adolescent-health', 'youth', 'health', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['mental-health', 'adolescent-health', 'youth', 'health', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'australia']	Promise check: $18 million centre for excellence in youth mental health	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['None']
-goop-01305	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Going Broke, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-broke-wrong/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West NOT Going Broke, Despite Claim	2:52 pm, March 27, 2018	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-03552	Says, "In Oregon in 2010, 49 percent of all pregnancies were unintended."	/oregon/statements/2013/may/24/carolyn-tomei/were-half-all-pregnancies-oregon-unintended/	In honor of National Women’s Health Week, Oregon Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, talked up the benefits of a health initiative that encourages primary care providers to ask women whether they wish to get pregnant within the year or not. The goal is to provide prenatal care to women who want a baby and contraception options to those who do not. Unintended pregnancies stress out family finances as well as taxpayers, who pick up the cost for half of all births in Oregon, Tomei said on the floor of the Oregon House. "In Oregon in 2010, 49 percent of all pregnancies were unintended. Fifty-three percent of all deliveries were paid for by Medicaid," she said. PolitiFact Oregon was intrigued by the statistic that nearly half of all pregnancies in Oregon in 2010 were unintended. How would anyone track that? What does it mean? Plus, we wanted to know if Medicaid -- a portion of which is called the Oregon Health Plan in Oregon -- paid for 53 percent of all deliveries. PRAMS Tomei said she relied on information from the Oregon Health Authority’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring Systemsurvey. The questions asked of a sampling of new mothers include alcohol consumption, child safety, breast feeding and family planning. Here’s the question Tomei said was relevant to this fact check: When you got pregnant with your new baby, were you trying to get pregnant? In 2010, 46.4 percent of new mothers surveyed said they were not trying to get pregnant. Nearly 53 percent of women said that the Oregon Health Plan or Medicaid helped pay for delivery, according to the survey. So part of what she said on the floor is backed up by the Oregon Health Authority, but the statement we’re checking is off by a few percentage points. At the same time, we found an analysis by PolitiFact Rhode Island, which checked a similar claim by a R.I. state representative who said in 2011 that "nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended." The representative received a True. The source was the Guttmacher Institute, a New York City-based group well known for its research on reproductive health. Researchers reported 49 percent of pregnancies in the United States were unintendedin 2006. In Oregon, 49 percent of pregnancies were unintended as well. So Tomei might be correct, albeit for a different year, based on Guttmacher. But bear with us, because the issue, we learned, is rather complicated. An unintended pregnancy is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Oregon Health Authority as one where the woman wanted to be pregnant later or not at all. An intended pregnancy is one where the woman wanted to be pregnant at that moment, or sooner. However, and this is important, the "pregnancy intendedness" question on the PRAMS survey is not the one that Tomei relied on to derive intention. In 2010, the percentage of new moms who wanted to be pregnant at that moment, or sooner, was 63.3. The percentage of new moms who wanted to be pregnant later or not at all was 36.6, and not 49 percent or 46.4 percent. A 2012 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds Oregon is the norm: about 37 percent of births in the United States in 2006-10 stemmed from unintended pregnancies. So why are Guttmacher numbers higher? The group based its analysis on all pregnancies, including those resulting in births, abortions and miscarriages. We can see how that would increase the percentage of mistimed or unwanted pregnancies. The question relied on by Tomei has to do with family planning. The other question has to do with "pregnancy intendedness." We honestly doubt the average person -- even a lawmaker -- could tell the difference without explanatory assistance from public health officials. The ruling If you accept Tomei’s interpretation of intended as meaning "trying to get pregnant," 49 percent is just a few points shy of 46. 4 percent. We’d give that a Mostly True since the numbers are so close. If you want to stick to a more rigid definition of unintended pregnancy, she would also be largely correct, albeit for the year 2006, based on the Guttmacher statistic. Remember, Guttmacher includes a broader universe of pregnancies, including not only births but abortions and miscarriages as well. Tomei would not be correct, however, based on the intendedness question in the PRAMS survey, which limits results to new moms who gave birth in 2010. And, according to a state epidemiologist with whom we spoke, this question is perhaps not the best way to gauge intention. PolitiFact Oregon rates the accuracy of the statement, not the ins and outs of the survey from which the statement comes. In the colloquial sense, Tomei is off by a few points. In the survey sense, she is backed up by a national study, although for a different year. We find those two factors are enough to find her statement accurate, but needing both clarification and additional information. We rule the statement Mostly True.	None	Carolyn Tomei	None	None	None	2013-05-24T03:00:00	2013-05-15	['Oregon']
-pomt-11523	Says he’s a "retired U.S. Navy officer."	/texas/statements/2018/feb/16/george-p-bush/george-p-bush-falsely-describes-himself-retired-na/	George P. Bush, seeking a second term as state land commissioner, touts his time in the Navy in a voter mailer brought to our attention by his predecessor. "Did you know there are 1.7 million veterans in Texas alone?" Bush’s mailer opens. His message continues: "Retired U.S. Navy officer George P. Bush is committed to protecting our veterans who have served this great nation." Hold on. Did Bush, who turns 42 in April 2018, retire from the Navy? Jerry Patterson, the former land commissioner challenging Bush in this year’s Republican primary, questioned that after telling us he’d received Bush’s mailer at his home after hearing about it from other veterans. Patterson asserted by phone: "It takes 20 years to retire from the armed forces." He himself, Patterson said, retired from the Marines as a lieutenant colonel after more than 20 years of service. "If this mailing goes out to military veterans, essentially he’s saying I know what you went through, I served for 20 years--and that’s not true," Patterson said. We decided to check the facts. For starters, Bush was a Navy Reserve officer. By email, Navy spokeswoman Katie Suich gave us a document confirming that George Prescott Bush was commissioned as a Navy Reserve officer on May 21, 2007, and left the Navy Reserve as a lieutenant on May 9, 2017. Bush's biographical entry on his campaign website says Bush served in "Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve." In a 2011 article for USA Today, Bush wrote: "Earlier this year, I returned to Texas from Afghanistan, where I was deployed as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve." Bush noted then that he’d been inspired to enlist in his thirties after a ceremony honoring his grandfather, President George H.W. Bush, who served during World War II. Bush campaign spokesman, Lee Spieckerman, told us that Bush was honorably discharged from the Navy in 2017, "having achieved the rank of Lieutenant." Spieckerman also passed along documents and photos including a May 15, 2007, letter congratulating Bush on his selection as an intelligence officer and a certificate showing Bush was honorably discharged as a lieutenant on May 9, 2017. Another provided document, dated Feb. 4, 2011, discharges Bush from active duty. The form says Bush served one year, four months and 15 days on active duty from June 8, 2010, through Feb. 4, 2011, following on 26 days of active duty before that. (Spieckerman showed in another document that Bush was assigned to Afghanistan from August 2010 to January 2011.) The discharge form credits Bush with previously racking up two years, 11 months and five days of inactive duty. Navy confirmation of service dates, retirement requirements We also reached out to the Navy which says on a web page: "If you decide to pursue your Navy career for at least 20 years, you’ll qualify for generous retirement pay – and even more if you serve longer." Another Navy web page says that by serving in the Navy Reserve, a person earns "points toward retirement benefits every time you drill." Suich also pointed out a Defense Finance and Accounting Service web page listing types of military retirement, most of them requiring 15 or 20 years of service. According to the page, reservists can retire at age 60 with 20 years of active service. For our part, we spotted a Defense Department website devoted to military compensation including this statement: "Service members who remain on active duty or serve in the Reserves or Guard for a sufficient period of time (usually a minimum of 20 years) may retire and receive retired pay. Members who become disabled while on duty may be medically retired and receive a disability retirement." Spieckerman says 'retired' used in colloquial sense We asked Bush’s campaign if he’s indeed a retired officer given the general requirement that a retiree serve 20 years and be age 60. By email, Spieckerman replied that Bush "was honorably discharged but is not technically ‘retired’ under Department of Defense regulations. I think that the campaign used the term ‘retired’ in campaign materials in the civilian, colloquial sense," meaning, Spieckerman wrote, that Bush "is no longer active in the military. There was no intent to imply that he was receiving retirement pay and benefits, etc." Our ruling In a voter mailer, Bush says he’s a "retired U.S. Navy officer." Bush served nearly a decade as an officer in the Navy Reserve. But that doesn’t make him a retired officer, we find. At minimum, Bush would need to have served longer to call himself that. We rate this self-description False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	George P. Bush	None	None	None	2018-02-16T17:03:40	2018-02-14	['None']
-snes-01295	Elephants think of humans as "cute," in the same manner that humans think of kittens or puppies.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elephants-think-humans-cute/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Do Elephants Think Humans Are ‘Cute’?	27 December 2017	None	['None']
-tron-03481	The Moon Will Duplicate 37 Times on September 5	https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-moon-will-duplicate-37-times-on-september-5/	None	space-aviation	None	None	None	The Moon Will Duplicate 37 Times on September 5	Aug 27, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05314	Donald Trump has been banned from entering Canada.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-donald-trump-ban-canada/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	FALSE: Justin Trudeau Bans Donald Trump from Entering Canada	26 January 2016	None	['Canada', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-01837	Why Are NFL Players on the Sidelines for the National Anthem?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nfl-sideline-anthem/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Why Are NFL Players on the Sidelines for the National Anthem?	25 October 2016	None	['None']
-thet-00012	Glasgow’s drug-related death rate is “now over 1000 per cent higher than the EU average"	https://theferret.scot/glasgow-drug-death-rate-1000-eu/	None	Fact check Politics 	Paul Sweeney MP	None	None	Claim that Glasgow drug death rate is over 1000% higher than EU is Mostly True	May 24, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01359	The CDC is "spending money on things like jazzercise, urban gardening and massage therapy" that could be redirected to Ebola.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/20/cory-gardner/amid-ebola-cases-cory-gardner-blasts-cdc-spending-/	As fears over Ebola reached a crescendo, Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., took a shot at the federal government’s handling of the disease during a debate with Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. Gardner has been gaining ground in the closely watched Colorado Senate race, and that contest is just one of many around the country in which Ebola has become an issue. Gardner, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, "Perhaps the CDC should quit spending money on things like jazzercise, urban gardening and massage therapy and direct that money to where it's appropriate in protecting the health of the American people." We wondered if it was true that the government is spending money on jazzercise, urban gardening and the like at the expense of funding for Ebola. We thought this claim deserved a closer look, so we’ll break it down into a few parts. Is the CDC spending money on jazzercise, urban gardening and massage therapy? We couldn’t nail that down for sure, but it’s plausible. We asked both Gardner’s staff and the CDC for documentation of this claim, but neither got back to us with evidence either way. However, we found an unsigned column from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page -- a leading source of conservative commentary -- that makes that claim. Here’s an excerpt from that editorial, published on Oct. 9, 2014, which focuses on the Prevention and Public Health Fund, or PPHF: "The PPHF automatically hands the Health and Human Services bureaucracy $15 billion this decade and after that $2 billion a year, with no earmarks, in perpetuity. HHS (of which the CDC is a part) can dip into this honey pot for whatever it pleases. "In 2013 HHS raided the PPHF of $453.8 million, or 48 percent of that year’s appropriation, to fund the Obamacare insurance exchanges. Those PPHF dollars that have flowed to public health are an insult to this once august field. The PPHF sponsors liberal pressure groups to lobby states and cities for higher tobacco taxes and zoning laws that restrict fast food, and its other urgent causes include dance fitness, massage therapy, painting bike lanes, salad bars in school cafeterias, pet neutering and urban gardening. "The core of public health used to be society’s interest in securing the conditions necessary for human survival—mainly meaning epidemiology and combating communicable diseases. The pity is that all too often the current CDC has diluted its mission and budget by funding political causes that the doctors and troops in West Africa (and Texas) don’t need. The list extends to anti-bullying, trans fats, prescription opiate abuse, college rape prevention, workplace wellness, ‘racial and ethnic approaches to community health,’ and promoting breast feeding." We’ll set aside the editorial’s belittling tone toward efforts to combat bullying, drug abuse and rape, and instead investigate the questions it raises about the fund and how it allocates funding. The fund was established with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare) in 2010. Initially, it was supposed to be funded by $15 billion over its first 10 years; legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2012 cut that amount by $5 billion over 10 years. The purpose of the fund is "to provide expanded and sustained national investments in prevention and public health, to improve health outcomes, and to enhance health care quality." In practice, CDC provides grants to local governments and nonprofits, who then decide how to spend the money to meet public health goals. However, the fund has proved to be "a tempting target for policy makers of both parties," according to an analysis of the fund published in the journal Health Affairs. The authors of the Health Affairs analysis wrote that it "got off to a rocky start," due to complaints by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals expressed concern that Obama was gutting the fund by agreeing to the cuts, which supported the continuation of payroll tax breaks, an extension of unemployment benefits and a "fix" to prevent cuts to physician reimbursement under Medicare -- items that had little if anything to do with preventing disease. Conservatives, for their part, questioned whether the fund needed to exist at all, particularly in a time of growing federal debt. Some Republicans proposed eliminating the fund and using some of the proceeds to pay for repeal of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that small-business owners file 1099 tax reporting forms, Health Affairs reported. Meanwhile, Republicans also questioned whether the government should be paying for things that people can do for free, like exercise. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, dismissed it as a "slush fund ... to build sidewalks, jungle gyms, and swing sets." We were only able to document broad categories of spending from the fund; once we drilled down into online disclosure forms for grants, they didn’t cite such specific details as "jazzercise," "urban gardening" or "massage therapy." But when we asked public-health experts whether such categories could have been spent on the kinds of activities Gardner criticized, they said it’s likely. The fund’s mission is to "improve health and prevent chronic illnesses by expanding preventive care and supporting proven community-based programs that reduce obesity, tobacco use and other preventable conditions, and I would think that healthy food and physical activity efforts would fit right in," said Elizabeth Rigby, an associate professor of public policy and public administration at George Washington University. Glen Mays, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Public Health, agreed. "Are there scientifically proven prevention strategies that involve helping people reach recommended levels of daily exercise through organized group activities like ‘jazzercise, urban gardening, or other forms of physical activity? Absolutely," Mays said, citing CDC’s Diabetes Prevention Program and WISEWOMAN program. "Beyond their exercise benefits, gardening programs also have been shown to increase knowledge of and access to healthy food choices, especially in urban and rural food deserts," Mays said, and in certain contexts, massage therapy could fit as well. Bottom line: We aren’t 100 percent sure that CDC dollars have been spent on jazzercise, urban gardens or massage therapy, but it’s quite possible they have been. Does Gardner’s focus accurately describe what the fund does? No, it’s pretty misleading. Here’s a flavor of how CDC plans to spend money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund in fiscal year 2014. (CDC is only one of several federal agencies that’s able to spend money from the fund, though we’ll limit our analysis to CDC because of how Gardner framed his claim.) • Immunization: $160 million; • Smoking prevention: $105 million; • Cancer prevention and control: $104 million; • Heart disease and stroke prevention: $77 million; • Diabetes prevention: $73 million; • Epidemiology and laboratory capacity: $40 million; • Nutrition, physical activity, and obesity: $39 million; • Racial and ethnic approaches to community health: $30 million; • Lead poisoning prevention: $13 million; • Infection prevention in health care facilities: $12 million; • Workplace wellness: $10 million; • Breastfeeding promotion and support: $8 million; • Miscellaneous prevention efforts: $160 million; The total for all these activities: $831 million. More than half went for categories that would be irrelevant for the items Gardner cites. And even within the $300 million-plus spent on items such as preventing obesity, diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer, experts are certain that items such as jazzercise represent a tiny fraction of what CDC is spending. The plan’s critics have chosen the silliest-sounding items -- an effective rhetorical tactic, but not a very honest one. (As for the Wall Street Journal editorial’s complaint that CDC has abandoned its traditional role in "combating communicable diseases," we’ll note that the single biggest spending item from the fund is for immunizations.) How solid is the argument that prevention funding should be shifted to Ebola? When the preventive fund was created, lawmakers explicitly tilted the authority for disbursing the funds toward the executive branch, rather than Congress, so there shouldn’t be insurmountable roadblocks to shifting money around. So CDC -- or the agency it reports to, the Department of Health and Human Services -- could probably switch dollars around if it wished. But as it happens, there’s really no need to switch money out of the fund, since the fund can be used directly to pay for Ebola expenses. Remember that $12 million we noted above that’s targeted for "infection prevention in health care facilities" for 2014? That’s relevant because, "right now in the United States, Ebola is exclusively a hospital-acquired infection," Mays said. Indeed, Mays added, the prevention fund is already funding the CDC’s Epidemiology, Laboratory Capacity, and Emerging Infections program, which "supports exactly the types of testing, contact tracing, and remediation activities that are underway by state and local health departments in Texas and Ohio in response to Ebola." So Gardner is confusing matters by making it prevention vs. Ebola. It doesn’t have to be. There’s also another issue to consider. We can see why people might chuckle at the thought of federal money going to jazzercise, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fund’s purpose -- prevention. "Prevention" has been part of the official name of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president. The "P" never made it into the agency’s common acronym -- and prevention is not as swashbuckling a sector as some divisions of CDC -- but it’s an important part of the agency’s mission nonetheless. Why? Take a look at the death statistics for diseases covered by grants from the fund. (The figures cover 2010, the most recent year available). • Heart disease: 596,577 deaths; • Cancer: 576,691 deaths; • Stroke: 128,932 deaths; • Diabetes: 73,831 deaths; • Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,826 deaths. That’s more than 1.4 million deaths annually from what medical experts, including the CDC, consider preventable diseases -- compared to (so far) just one from Ebola in the United States. This doesn’t mean we should be spending zero on Ebola; nor does it mean the fund can prevent anything approaching to 1.4 million deaths a year. It doesn’t even mean that the fund is spending the right amount of money, or for the right things. What it does mean is that Gardner’s flip dismissal of preventive-health efforts obscures the imbalance in the number of lives at stake every year. Our ruling Gardner said the CDC is "spending money on things like jazzercise, urban gardening and massage therapy" that could be redirected Ebola. We weren’t able to document such expenditures, but given the agency’s spending parameters, it’s certainly possible they’ve been made. However, by cherry-picking three chuckle- (or outrage-) inducing spending items, Gardner presents a misleading description of what the fund does. Those efforts almost certainly represent a tiny fraction of spending from the prevention fund, which is dominated by efforts to attack diseases that kill more than 1.4 million people every year, rather than one so far with Ebola. The claim contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.	None	Cory Gardner	None	None	None	2014-10-20T11:32:12	2014-10-15	['None']
-snes-01216	In January 2018, Walmart announced a plan to close 250 Sam's Club warehouses, leaving 100,000 workers jobless.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sams-club-jobs/	None	Business	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Is Walmart Laying Off 100,000 Employees and Closing 250 Sam’s Club Stores?	12 January 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10957	Says the Steele dossier "was responsible for starting" Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/23/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-says-new-carter-page-document/	President Donald Trump claimed newly released documents underlying the FBI’s surveillance of a former campaign adviser show the controversial Steele dossier was responsible for triggering the investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. On July 21, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Justice Department released the warrant application used to obtain a wiretap on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page starting in October 2016, a month after he parted ways with Trump’s team. Intelligence officials feared Page was a potential Russian agent, or the target of Moscow's recruiting efforts. On Twitter, Trump claimed the surveillance application proves the Steele dossier launched the Russia probe. "So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!" Trump tweeted July 23. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Put simply, Trump is wrong about the triggering event. The Steele dossier did not launch the FBI’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. The dossier was used, to some extent, to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to authorize surveillance of Page. But it was the actions of another Trump campaign adviser — George Papadopoulos — that actually started the investigation. Trump adviser George Papadopoulos triggered investigation The federal government started looking into Russian election involvement in July 2016 based on information from Papadopoulos. This was confirmed by Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. "The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok," the House Intelligence Committee’s GOP members wrote in a Feb. 2 memo. House Intelligence Committee Republicans confirmed in an April report it was Papadopoulos who set the FBI investigation in motion. So, what was the "Papadopoulos information"? According to the New York Times, Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton. Australian officials relayed this information to their American counterparts. Mueller appointed later Trump also confused the timeline of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s involvement. The Papadopoulos discussion of Clinton dirt that triggered the investigation took place in May 2016. Yet an entire year would pass before Mueller entered the picture. The Justice Department did not appoint Mueller to take over the FBI investigation until May 2017, roughly a week after Trump fired FBI director James Comey. Our ruling Trump said the Steele dossier "was responsible for starting" Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Steele dossier did not trigger Mueller’s investigation. It was information from Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that set the probe in motion. Also, Mueller did not take up the investigation until roughly a year after the triggering event. We rate this False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-07-23T11:31:43	2018-07-23	['Russia', 'Robert_Mueller']
-goop-00639	Ben Affleck Begging Jennifer Garner To Finalize Divorce?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-jennifer-garner-divorce-marry-lindsay-shookus/	None	None	None	Alejandro Rosa	None	Ben Affleck Begging Jennifer Garner To Finalize Divorce?	11:30 am, July 15, 2018	None	['Ben_Affleck']
-chct-00063	FACT CHECK: Feinstein Claimed That As Many As 1.2 Million Women Died From Illegal Abortions Before Roe v. Wade	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/09/07/fact-check-feinstein-deaths-illegal-abortions-roe-wade/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	5:43 PM 09/07/2018	None	['None']
-tron-03591	Media Ignores a Military Victory	https://www.truthorfiction.com/victory-ignored/	None	war	None	None	None	Media Ignores a Military Victory	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-08052	Says "there is a plan formulated by Chair (Lynn) Peterson and the cities in Clackamas County to further increase this fee in three years and split it up on projects between the county and cities."	/oregon/statements/2010/dec/31/mary-olson/does-clackamas-county-plan-turn-5-year-vehicle-reg/	People opposed to the new $5 vehicle registration fee in Clackamas County are buzzing over an under-the-radar plan that would increase the fee to $40 to fund more than the Sellwood Bridge in a few years. Lake Oswego City Councilwoman Mary Olson is one of them. In her testimony before the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners, she said: "This is not about the Sellwood Bridge. This is about a new revenue stream for Clackamas County by means of what is essentially a new tax without a vote. There is a plan formulated by (County) Chair (Lynn) Peterson and the cities in Clackamas County to further increase this fee in three years and split it up on projects between the county and cities." The Clackamas County branch of the state Republican Party has also posted an opinion on its site warning against the fee: "In an earlier meeting held on September 20th, 2010, between the cities and the county, it was stated that the Sellwood Bridge was only a part of the county’s vehicle registration fee plan, and that the fee could be as high as $40 per vehicle per year." PolitiFact Oregon hates when fees for one thing balloon into larger fees for other things. So we decided to check out the claim. Olson points to a Sept. 20 meeting hosted by Clackamas County, where city and county bureaucrats were invited to start talking about transportation funding needs and the availability of a new county-only vehicle registration fee. Eugene Schoenheit was the only member of the public present. But first we need to back up to 2009. That year the Oregon Legislature approved House Bill 2001 as a way to update Oregon’s highways and roads, including the Sellwood Bridge. The proposal included a provision allowing counties with more than 350,000 people -- that would be Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties -- to pass their own vehicle registration fees without a vote to pay for the bridge. The law also allows for those counties to implement another registration fee after July 2013 to pay for non-bridge projects. Multnomah County drivers this year started paying an extra $19 a year, or $38 for the two-year period of a vehicle tag. On Dec. 9, Clackamas County commissioners approved a fee that is $5 a year, or $10 for the two-year period. A county press release stated the additional fee would start in 2012 and end as soon the county had collected $22 million for its share of the bridge. The funds would be used only for bridge work. But what about a so-called plan to increase the registration fee and split the goods among cities and the county? Did people at the Sept. 20 meeting agree to such a thing more or less? "Heavens to Betsy, no," said Ellen Rogalin, community relations specialist for Clackamas County transportation and development. Tim Heider, spokesman for Clackamas County, added, "There is no plan. Its was just a discussion. It was a discussion about how to meet future transportation needs." About two dozen people attended the meeting, including the mayors of Molalla and Oregon City and the city managers of Canby, Happy Valley, Lake Oswego, Sandy, West Linn and Tualatin, according to a meeting summary provided by the county. The meeting was not advertised. Peterson welcomed people and led some of the discussion. "It was an initial informational discussion among cities and the county on this new law," Rogalin said. But there were specific questions, and general consensus on those specific questions that point to more than mere discussion of a new law: 1. Do you have a way to pay for unmet transportation needs in your city? General consensus: No. 2. Is there interest among the cities to have the Board of County Commissioners consider enactment of a vehicle registration fee as a source of revenue to address transportation needs? General consensus: Yes. 3. If there is agreement that a vehicle registration fee should be looked at, what are your thoughts about entering into a memorandum of understanding with the county to record this agreement? General consensus: Yes, jurisdictions would like to explore this further. Oh, and there was a handout charting how much money would be raised at $5, $10, $15, and so on, to $40 a year per vehicle. Sample memorandums were to be drafted and sent out by early November. No memorandums have been drafted and there is no date for a next meeting, Rogalin said. Again, none of this adds up to a definitive plan. But it’s fair to say that there was a definite agenda and definite movement toward tackling new fees at this meeting. The $10 two-year county bridge fee does not mean an automatic pass to ever-higher tag fees and a host of expensive new projects. According to state law, county commissioners would have to vote again on any vehicle fee increase after July 2013 for projects other than the Sellwood Bridge. While there isn’t "a plan," there clearly is planning. We find the claim Half True. Comment on this item.	None	Mary Olson	None	None	None	2010-12-31T17:57:30	2010-12-08	['None']
-snes-04756	Donald Trump said that "Portuguese people are the same as Spanish, but with worse wine."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-portuguese-people/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Donald Trump ‘Portuguese People’ Quote	17 May 2016	None	['Spain', 'Portugal']
-pomt-08941	On debating.	/texas/statements/2010/jul/24/rick-perry/perry-debated-2002-even-though-his-opponent-didnt-/	Bill White, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee for governor, issued a press release July 21 calling Gov. Rick Perry's campaign approach to debating "dramatically different from what it was in 2002," when he ran for governor against Laredo businessman Tony Sanchez. "If two debates are good, 12 will be great," Perry said in a Sept. 9, 2002, press release titled "Texans deserve more than two urban debates." "Voters in East and West Texas deserve to have their voices heard and their questions answered at gubernatorial debates," he said. At that point, Sanchez had committed to two debates in October in Dallas and Houston. According to the press release, Perry had accepted a dozen invitations to debate. Has Perry changed his tune? "Not at all," said Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry's campaign. "Gov. Perry looks forward to the opportunity to debate Bill White as soon as he releases his tax returns from his years in public service." In April, Perry said he wouldn't debate White until the Democrat released returns for the six years he served as Houston's mayor and the two years he served as a deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration. "Once he releases his income taxes and tells the public how he made his money in public service and as a business person, we'll be more than happy to discuss debates," Perry spokesman Mark Miner said, according to an April 26 story on WFAA.com. In the same story, White countered: "We'll take in consideration releasing tax returns or parts of those tax returns. We've been providing information from them to journalists as time goes on. I just want there to be a standard that's applicable to all candidates." White had already released his 2009 returns, and said he'd release returns for the years he runs for or holds statewide office. On June 8, he released his returns dating back to 2004, when he took office as Houston's mayor. But Perry's campaign said it wasn't enough, and pushed White to release more records. "By withholding tax returns for his years in public service dating back to the 1990s, Bill White has not matched Governor Perry’s level of transparency," said Perry spokesman Mark Miner in statement. "Questions remain concerning income Bill White received while Deputy Secretary of Energy under President Clinton and as chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, and how he has profited from those positions." Leaving aside the question of whether an unpaid partisan political post constitutes "public service," we found that White's Washington service was from 1993 to 1995, and he led the party from 1995 to 1998. Perry has made public his own returns going back to 1991, when he first became a statewide officeholder. The documents don't reveal everything because he's placed many of his assets in a blind trust, which means the details of those assets are unavailable. In 2001, Perry's tax return showed that the trust earned $14,790 in interest and $2,958 in dividends. In September 2009, his spokeswoman told The Associated Press his trust was worth about $896,000. What do tax returns have to do with debates? Nothing that we can think of — and Perry has not linked them in his previous gubernatorial campaigns. Which is not to say he hasn't talked about them. Flashback: In December 2001, both Perry and Sanchez released information about their 2000 income taxes. While Perry released the accompanying tax schedules that detailed how he made his money, Sanchez only revealed what he made ($6.4 million) and paid ($852,000 in income taxes), according to a Dec. 14, 2001, Austin American-Statesman report. By March 2002, when Sanchez had secured the Democratic nomination, Perry was calling on him to release the rest of his tax information, plus "his complete tax returns for the years that he served on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (1985-91) and the University of Texas System Board of Regents (1997-present)," according to a March 30, 2002, Statesman article. After Sanchez released a limited amount of information dating back to 1991, Perry was still pushing Sanchez to release his complete income tax returns so voters could know whether his financial holdings posed a conflict of interest. At the time, Sanchez's campaign manager, Glenn Smith, sounded a lot like the White campaign when he said that "it's very easy for a career politician who has always been on the public payroll to do what Perry's doing." Sanchez, a wealthy oilman and banker from Laredo, had never held an elected office. For many years, White was a private practice attorney in Houston. But for all of the candidates' huffing and puffing about income tax returns during the 2002 election, we couldn't find any evidence that Perry had made a debate conditional upon a full release of Sanchez's financial information. We also found no evidence that the Sanchez campaign ever complied with Perry's request to provide more details, and Smith told us that he didn't recall ever releasing the in-depth returns. Meanwhile, the two debates between Perry and Sanchez were held as planned. Instead of financial transparency, the sticking point for the two candidates was whether to sit (Sanchez) or stand (Perry) during the debates, according to an Oct. 9, 2002, Fort Worth Star-Telegram article. Perry, 6 feet tall, said he thought Sanchez, 5 feet seven inches, was insecure about his height. Sanchez said he just wanted to be comfortable. (They agreed to sit at one, stand at the other.) In his last run for election in 2006, Perry seemed less enthusiastic to debate his challengers, including Democrat Chris Bell and independents Kinky Friedman and Carole Keeton Strayhorn. The four faced off only once, in October. A month before, Perry told the Houston Chronicle editorial board that one debate was enough because the scheduled event, with its multiple participants, would be a "circus." Apparently height was still an issue, though. The campaigns decided that the 5-foot, 1-inch Strayhorn could stand on a riser for the event. Where do we stand? In 2002, Perry pushed Sanchez to release his complete income tax returns for the years he was on the UT board of regents and on the Parks and Wildlife Commission, but never made it a condition to debate. Indeed, Perry not only debated him twice, but goaded him to participate in 12 debates. To date, Perry has refused to debate White until he releases all of his income tax returns for the years he served the Clinton administration in Washington and the state Democratic party chairman. We didn't hear back from the Perry campaign when we asked whether he has ever set a precondition on a debate before. Since we found no evidence that Perry has ever made a debate conditional upon his opponent's release of tax returns, we call that a Full Flop.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2010-07-24T06:00:00	2010-04-26	['None']
-pomt-01212	On immigration, what reports say President Barack Obama "plans to do is roughly on the same scale" as what President George H.W. Bush did.	/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/24/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-obamas-proposed-immigration-act/	Editor’s note: After reviewing new information about differing estimates of the scale of President George H.W. Bush’s 1990 immigration order, we have changed the rating of this fact-check from True to Mostly True. Our original fact-check is archived here. President Barack Obama’s unilateral move to lift the risk of deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants has so incensed rank-and-file Republicans, their leaders are actively tamping down potential cries for impeachment. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said that sort of outrage is "bogus," and she went to the history of the immigration debate to prove it. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush, a Republican, by executive action forestalled deportations for about 1.5 million illegal immigrants -- or, at least, that was a widely reported estimate at the time of the announcement. Maddow said that represented about 40 percent of the total undocumented population in 1990. "The executive action that president Obama is contemplating would also apply to about 40 percent of the undocumented population in this country," Maddow said on Nov. 17, 2014. "So it’s roughly on the same scale." (The quotation used in our initial fact-check had slightly different wording but the same meaning.) We know there’s a vigorous debate about whether the current move has the same legal standing as the executive actions taken by Bush, and by President Ronald Reagan, for that matter. Our focus here is simply on the numbers that shaped the debate at the time the two policies were announced. (A hat tip here to Vox for their work on this.) The count for Obama According to reports at the time Maddow made her claim, Obama planned to announce plans to stop deporting the parents of children who are U.S. citizens. We saw a couple of estimates of how many people that would affect. The Pew Research Center said about 3.5 million. The New York Times put the figure at 4 million. Citing White House sources, the New York Times said an additional 1 million people would be touched by other facets of the new policy, giving a total of 5 million. That’s very close to the Migration Policy Institute’s estimate of 5.2 million. Since there are about 11.4 million undocumented immigrants, Obama’s order was expected to change the rules for between 30 and 40 percent of total population. Again, this is based on reports. But that’s all that Maddow would have had to go on when she made her comments. The count for Bush For an apples-to-apples comparison, we wanted to look at the number of immigrants who were expected to benefit from Bush’s action. Bush’s order aimed to ease a predicament created by a 1986 immigration reform law. The law took people who had been in the country for at least five years and put them on a path to legal status. But it did nothing for parents, children or spouses who didn’t qualify, even if someone else in the immediate family did. That created a scenario where families could be split up. When Congress failed to change the law, Bush did it on his own in 1990 under the banner of "family fairness." A few days after this fact-check initially appeared, the Washington Post Fact Checker cast doubt on the 1.5 million figure, to the claim by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest that Bush "expanded the family fairness program to cover more than 1.5 million unauthorized spouses and children. This represented about 40 percent of the undocumented population at the time." (See the Fact Checker’s article here.) To recap what the Fact Checker reported, on the day of the policy announcement Feb. 1, 1990, the Immigration and Naturalization Service said it could affect as many as 100,000 people. The article then noted how the estimate grew over the ensuing weeks. This suggested the 1.5 million figure was wildly inflated. However, on Feb. 21, 1990, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner Gene McNary testified before a House committee that the number could reach and even exceed 1.5 million Here’s the exchange between McNary and then-Rep. Bruce Morrison, D-Conn. Morrison: Mr. McNary, you used the 1.5 million IRCA relatives who are undocumented but who would be covered by your family fairness policy. Do I have that number right? McNary: Yes Morrison: Under your recent administrative order, these people essentially are here to stay, with work and travel privileges. Isn’t that right? McNary: We think you are right as to the 1.5 million being here. There’s an estimate of another 1.5 million that would come as a result of this change in definition. The New York Times, quoting McNary, reported that the move would affect about 1.5 million people. In 1990, there were about 3.5 million undocumented immigrants. By these numbers, being bruited about in the popular press, Bush’s policy would potentially touch the lives of about 40 percent of the total. It’s important to note that the Fact Checker was looking at a different question than we were. The Fact Checker looked solely at the numbers for Bush, not a comparison of scale between Bush and Obama. What we see when we look at these reported estimates is a range, from 100,000 to 1.5 million. Marc Rosenblum is deputy director for immigration policy at the Migration Policy Institute. Rosenblum said that while there was some confusion about the projected impact, the larger figure carried a great deal of weight. "Administration officials at the time testified that the 1.5 million number was in play at the time the family fairness policy was implemented," Rosenblum said. He noted that the actual number never reached that level because Congress later changed the law, which made it unnecessary for people to apply for special treatment. By the way, Reagan also used executive action to address the same problem, but it wasn’t as far-reaching as Bush’s. To be clear, Obama’s proposal would affect more people overall, but Maddow was clearly talking about scale. Also, Maddow was comparing the political response to the numbers that appeared in the mainstream press at the time. Those numbers may have been wrong in retrospect, but they were what politicians back then were likely to read. Our ruling Maddow said Obama’s proposed executive action on immigration policy is roughly on the same scale as one taken by Bush. Both measures unilaterally lifted or would lift the risk of deportation for certain undocumented immigrants. Current estimates of the impact of Obama’s policy are that it would touch about 40 percent of the undocumented population. In 1990, administration estimates of how many people might be affected by Bush’s policy were also in the neighborhood of 40 percent. Estimates at the low end of the scale would have pushed it well below 40 percent. There is some uncertainty here because the 1.5 million number, though widely reported at the time, did bounce around. But the Bush administration seemed to think it was offering a significant, wide-scale program at the time. So we rate Maddow’s statement Mostly True.	None	Rachel Maddow	None	None	None	2014-11-24T17:18:31	2014-11-17	['George_W._Bush', 'Barack_Obama']
-goop-00762	Bill O’Reilly Joining CBS News, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/bill-oreilly-cbs-news-replacing-jeff-glor-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Bill O’Reilly NOT Joining CBS News, Despite Report	10:57 am, June 24, 2018	None	['CBS_News', '[0', '13', '"Bill_O\\\'Reilly_(political_commentator)"']
-pomt-15020	Says Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was "forced to concede that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenue is from abortion."	/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/05/dana-loesch/Planned-parenthood-86-percent-abortion-revenue/	Conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch got Twitter fired up recently by tossing out another statistic in the ongoing debate over Planned Parenthood and abortion. In her post, Loesch claimed that Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was "forced to concede that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenue is from abortion." Loesch’s post was retweeted more than 1,500 times and served as a foil to somewhat misleading claims that 97 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is preventative health. But is it right? Did Planned Parenthood’s chief executive admit that 86 percent of its revenues come from abortions? Both the figure and Loesch’s description of the events surrounding it are flawed. We’ll explain why. The House hearing Loesch is describing the Sept. 29 meeting of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which included some tough questioning of Richards. At one point, Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., asked Richards a series of questions about the number of Planned Parenthood’s clinics, whether it conducts mammograms (Planned Parenthood typically refers women to outside clinics for those), and the claim that just 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortion-related. Lummis asked Roberts about Planned Parenthood’s 2013-14 annual report, which she said included statistics that abortions "would have been over 86 percent of your non-government revenue." "How do you explain this massive disparity between the amount of revenue you collect from abortion, and the fact that you only report 3 percent of your services being abortion?" Lummis asked. We have to stop and make clear that Lummis asked about non-government revenue, which is not what Loesch tweeted. (Loesch could have made that distinction and kept within her 140-character limit, in case you were wondering.) Dropping the words "non-government" make a major difference, which we will discuss in a moment. But first back to Richards’ answer. Richards at first responded by saying those numbers are not connected because federal money doesn’t cover abortions. (That’s correct, except in cases of Medicaid funds in instances of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother). Lummis then pressed for how many Planned Parenthood affiliates receive the majority of their revenue from abortion, and Richards said she didn’t know but would talk to her team about getting the answer. Then Richards went back to Lummis’ original question and said, "But I do think it's important to understand that abortion procedures are probably more expensive than some other procedures that we — that we provide, which might, you know, might explain what you're trying to get at." You can read the complete transcript here. But what’s clear in our reading is that Richards conceded nothing other than that abortions are relatively expensive procedures compared to Planned Parenthood’s other works. A different line of inquiry came up on this point in the third hour of the hearing. Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., tried to ask Richards how much revenue comes from abortion services, but she said she couldn’t give him a ballpark. Then Russell walked through an estimate for how he extrapolated the revenue that abortion brings in. He used Planned Parenthood’s own estimates for a surgical abortion (up to $1,500) and the abortion pill (up to $800), and then multiplied each by the number of reported abortions (over 327,000) to get a range of $261 million to $491 million in ballpark revenue from those procedures. Depending on the cost used, the ballpark abortion revenues "would come to 40 percent or 22 percent" of total revenue reported by Planned Parenthood affiliates of $1.145 billion in 2013-14, Russell said. (This method has been used by anti-abortion groups over the years.) Now we’re from 86 percent to 40 or 22 percent. Either way, Richards interrupted, saying that was inaccurate. "What was inaccurate is, I think, what you reported in terms of what the cost of an abortion," Richards said. "Obviously, it varies state to state. So I can't say. But I think your, I think your number was high." Unpacking the 86 percent The major problem with all the figures and statistics about what Planned Parenthood does and doesn’t do is that Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide much detail for fact-checkers and observers to analyze. That gets critics in trouble when they exaggerate the available data, as in this case with Loesch. Here’s how Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s 2013-14 annual report presents its revenues: Revenue Affiliates Non-Government Health Services Revenue $305.3 million Government Health Services Grants & Reimbursements $528.4 million Private Contributions and Bequests $257.4 million Other Operating Revenue $54.7 million Total Revenue $1.15 billion This doesn’t tell us much, specifically if you’re trying to answer how much revenue is generated by abortion services. The first column of numbers represents money brought in from Planned Parenthood’s network of affiliates around the country. The top line is for non-government health services revenue, $305.3 million (which would include abortions, as well as STD testing, pregnancy tests, etc.). Of course, there are more sources of revenue than that. The lines below describe $528.4 million in federal reimbursements for services from low-income patients on Medicaid, as well as $257.4 million raised in private contributions and bequests. The only possible way to get to 86 percent is to ignore those other sources of revenues, which account for more than 70 percent of everything Planned Parenthood takes in. The figure Lummis quoted is based on the assumption that of the $305 million in non-government health services revenue, $262.1 million comes from abortion procedures (Planned Parenthood’s $800 top-end estimate for an abortion pill multiplied by 327,653 abortions performed). That’s not a precise way of measuring things because abortion costs vary by state and provider. Average costs reported to members of the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers which counts some Planned Parenthood affiliates among its members, put the costs of an abortion lower, in some cases, at $500 for pregnancies 12 weeks and earlier (a mix of medication and in-clinic abortions at that stage), $1,000 between 16-18 weeks, and $2,000 after 20 weeks. As we pointed out, Loesch’s dropping of the words "non-government" makes some of this analysis academic. Loesch significantly overplays any validity to Lummis’ estimate by simply referring to revenue. A Florida legislator in 2011 made the same mistake. Applying Lummis’ estimate of $262.1 million from abortions to Planned Parenthood’s total $1.3 billion in revenue shows a lower estimated figure for the share of profits from abortions at 20 percent. (Even Russell’s statement in the hearing, which Richards said was wrong without saying why, put the share of abortion services toward revenue at 22-40 percent.) We’d be remiss if we didn’t note that the people who could shed the most light on these figures, Planned Parenthood, haven’t provided any clarifying information. Loesch provided no additional evidence to support her claim. Our ruling Loesch said Richards was "forced to concede that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenue is from abortion." At a U.S. House hearing, Richards said abortions are expensive compared to other health services offered by Planned Parenthood. But we found no evidence of her saying, or conceding, that 86 percent of revenue is from abortion. At one point in the same meeting, she said an even lower estimate for abortion revenues was "too high." On top of that, Loesch describes the reported statistic incorrectly by dropping "non-government." That phrase makes all the difference. We rate the claim False.	None	Dana Loesch	None	None	None	2015-10-05T16:36:11	2015-09-29	['Cecile_Richards']
-pomt-11083	"Senate report admits Clinton ‘gifted’ children to human traffickers"	/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/18/yournewswirecom/false-headline-wrongly-links-hillary-clinton-forme/	One conspiratorial news website recycled a years-old Senate report in an effort to link former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to negligence by the Department of Health and Human Services between 2013 and 2015 that led to the abuse of migrant children. "Senate report admits Clinton ‘gifted’ children to human traffickers," read a June 17, 2018, headline from Your News Wire, a website with a history of peddling falsehoods online. The Your News Wire story cited 2016 articles from The New York Times and New York magazine, as well as a Jan. 28, 2016, Senate report based on an inquiry into the role of HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement in protecting unaccompanied migrant children from human trafficking and other abuses. Facebook flagged this story as part of its efforts to combat false news and misinformation on Facebook's News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The story said: "Hillary Clinton’s State Department gifted an ‘unknown number’ of children to human traffickers after refusing to run the most basic checks on these so-called ‘caregivers,’ according to a bombshell Senate report released late on Thursday and completely covered up by mainstream media." This statement is wrong or misleading in several ways — starting with its attempt to frame a Senate report from 2016 as a new and shocking release that the media ignored. Casual readers could have thought the Your News Wire story related to the recent FBI Inspector General’s report, which concerned Clinton’s use of personal emails and was released Thursday, June 14, 2018. In reality, the Senate’s findings were widely reported in 2016, and the many contemporary news stories — including an Associated Press investigation that overlapped with the Senate report — made our fact-checking job easy. The Senate report said that HHS placed more than a dozen migrant children in homes where they were sexually assaulted, starved or forced into labor. The report did not say anything about Clinton playing a role in that process. Both the Senate report and AP investigation discovered that HHS, which is responsible for finding adult sponsors to temporarily house and care for unaccompanied immigrant children pending the resolution of their immigration proceedings, neglected to comply with federal law requiring that the children be protected from human trafficking and other forms of abuse. As unaccompanied children surged across the southern border toward the beginning of the decade, the department slashed several safety standards in order to quickly transfer the new arrivals from government shelters to sponsors’ homes. Caseworkers who had previously followed strict guidelines for placing children with sponsors — guidelines that required background checks, fingerprints, home studies and signed agreements to bring the children to immigration court — were instructed by agency officials in November 2013 to stop fingerprinting. Shortly after that, they were also instructed to stop requesting original copies of birth certificates, seeking personal and identifying information, or checking criminal history. The hastened process saw several children placed in households with sponsors who forced them into labor or otherwise abused them, according to the Senate and AP reports. It is unknown exactly how many of the approximately 90,000 migrant children placed into sponsor custody between 2013 and 2015 experienced trafficking or other abuse. But neither report mentioned Clinton or used the term "gift" in reference to the placement of children with human traffickers. We could not find any evidence that Clinton, who led the Department of State during President Barack Obama’s first term in office, played a part in the rollback of the safety standards governing the protection of migrant children. Not only are the State Department and HHS separate executive agencies, but Clinton also stepped down as secretary of state in February 2013, months before HHS decided to stop fingerprinting in the first of many decisions that led to the children’s mistreatment. Your News Wire tried implicating Clinton in an old but otherwise real Senate report. The website did not respond to a request for comment. We rate this statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	YourNewsWire.com	None	None	None	2018-06-18T16:22:31	2018-06-17	['Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-00542	"After the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax rate cuts ... there was more money coming into the treasury."	/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/17/ron-christie/gop-strategist-christie-tax-revenues-rose-after-bu/	Bill Maher, the bawdy and generally liberal HBO comedian, recently wondered aloud why the current roster of Republican presidential hopefuls has been selective in their criticism of the last Republican president. "I noticed that the Republicans have not been shy about throwing George W. Bush under the bus on Iraq," Maher said. "They're all saying the Iraq War was a big mistake now, but none of them say the Bush tax cuts were a big mistake." Maher targeted one of his guests, Republican strategist Ron Christie. "Were the tax cuts a good idea?" Maher asked. Christie, a former special assistant to Bush and deputy assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney, said they were. "If you look at the revenue that came in after the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax rate cuts, yes, there was more money coming into the treasury," Christie said. "That’s a fact." A reader questioned whether that really is a fact. Christie’s source of information Christie filled in some of the numbers for PunditFact that he left out on television. "Total revenue climbed from $793.7 billion in 2003 to $1.16 trillion in 2007," Christie said. "A 47 percent increase." Christie directed us to an article in Forbes that had exactly those amounts. Those figures differ widely from numbers presented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, though the bottom line is about the same. CBO says federal government revenues rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.568 trillion in 2007 (using fiscal years). That’s a 44 percent increase. Case closed? Not really. What we found is Christie is carefully picking his starting and end points to make the most dramatic comparison. Changing the timeframe makes all the difference, as we’ll show you. Including the 2001 tax cuts While Christie touted the 2001 tax cuts, he didn’t include federal revenues collected for either 2001 or 2002. If he had, the trend line would not be as clean as the picture he painted. The Tax Policy Center, a joint project of two academic centers the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, summarized the CBO numbers. This chart based on the center’s table shows revenues initially falling, not rising. Reasonable people can use different years as a starting point for comparison. Bush didn’t take office until early 2001 and the tax cuts didn’t take full effect until the start of 2002. Plus, economist Alan Auerbach at the University of California-Berkeley reminded us that there was a recession between March 2001 and November 2001. "The effects of the recession on revenue are likely to swamp any effects of tax policy," Auerbach said. Economist William Gale at the Tax Policy Center said for those reasons, 2000 could be a fair benchmark, untouched by both recession and tax cuts. Doing so presents a very different picture. In short, federal revenues were below 2000 levels (after adjusting for inflation) until 2006. They outpaced fiscal year 2000 collections for a bit, then fell again in 2008. The same pattern roughly holds if you use 2001 as the starting point. What’s that all mean? When you adjust for inflation, the 47 percent revenue growth from 2003 to 2007 becomes 28 percent. And if you start the clock in 2001, revenue growth drops to 4 percent. By 2009, of course, the numbers look even worse. Here’s another way to look at it, using data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Over Bush’s two full terms, federal revenues dropped 13 percent. Accounting for economic growth Not adjusting for inflation and cherry-picking the time period are two problems in Christie’s calculation. So is not factoring in a rising population (more people, means more taxpayers, more goods and services sold, etc.). Economists such as Gale say a better way to put federal revenues into context is by comparing them to the Gross Domestic Product. Through that lens, federal revenues as a share of the economy fell and never reached their 2001 level through Bush’s two terms. FY Percent of GDP 2000 20 2001 18.8 2002 17 2003 15.7 2004 15.6 2005 16.7 2006 17.6 2007 17.9 2008 17.1 2009 14.6 Source: Tax Policy Center/CBO Our ruling Christie said that government revenues increased after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Christie is cherry-picking his start and end dates and making flawed calculations to support his point. Data shows, and experts agree, that a complete picture of the Bush tax cuts shows that revenues initially went down, then up, then down again. Measured against the size of the economy, federal revenues at the end of Bush’s term were smaller than when he took office. Christie’s statement has some superficial accuracy but a more complete picture shows that he has omitted many details that would lead to a different conclusion. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Ron Christie	None	None	None	2015-06-17T15:00:00	2015-06-12	['None']
-pomt-02632	"In some of the states in the U.S., homosexuality remains a felony."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/19/vladimir-putin/putin-some-places-united-states-homosexuality-rema/	Americans should take a look at the superpower in the mirror before judging Russia for its anti-gay laws, says Russia President Vladimir Putin. Putin spoke to a few reporters, including ABC This Week host George Stephanopoulos, ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in February. Stephanopoulos asked if gay and lesbian athletes who "wear a rainbow pin" or something like it to protest the law will be protected from prosecution. Legally speaking, Putin said, "protesting a law does not amount to propaganda of sexuality or sexual abuse of children." He added: "I'd like to ask our colleagues, my colleagues and friends, that as they try to criticize us, they would do well to set their own house in order first," he said. "I did say, after all, and this is public knowledge, that in some of the states in the U.S., homosexuality remains a felony." Putin’s statement is misleading. Several states do, in fact, have anti-sodomy laws. Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma specifically ban sodomy for gay Americans, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah have criminal sodomy laws that apply to everyone (see this 2011 Mother Jones map). (Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli unsuccessfully tried to reinstate Virginia’s sodomy ban, which he said would have protected minors. Montana repealed its law banning gay sex in 2013.) Some, such as "buggery" in South Carolina, carry the weight of a felony, but most are misdemeanors. That part is nearly irrelevant. The key thing to know, as Stephanopoulos tried to point out, is these laws were ruled unconstitutional in the landmark Supreme Court case Lawrence vs. Texas. The case stemmed from the 1998 arrest of a gay Houston couple accused of having sex in violation of state law. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 the Texas law is an unconstitutional privacy invasion under the country’s equal protection clause and invalidated these laws. Even though prosecutions under the state’s sodomy law were rare, the court noted, the law did not serve a "legitimate state interest." The decision did not erase the laws from each state’s books -- it just knocked out their teeth. State legislatures would have to pass repeals to get them out of state statutes, and some conservative states have ignored bills that call for repealing them. The country’s sodomy laws that only applied to homosexuals are "not ancient in origin" and only started to appear in the late 1960s, said Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota constitutional law professor and author of the book Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas: How a Bedroom Arrest Decriminalized Gay Americans. The country’s early sodomy laws drew from the teachings of the King James Version of the Bible and applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals, he said. The laws were more often used not as arrest-generators but as "permission slips to discriminate against gays and lesbians" in accommodations, child custody and adoption, jobs and education, Carpenter said. In practice, prosecutors usually invoked sodomy laws on top of other charges, such as rape or prostitution. Many states started to repeal their sodomy laws in the 1960s. The laws that remain exist despite being "absolutely unenforceable," said Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director of Lambda Legal, the gay rights group that represented the couple arrested in Texas. "That is not to say that it’s not stigmatizing and sometimes potentially misleading to have them on the books, and they should be erased from history," Gorenberg said. The decade-old Lawrence vs. Texas ruling has not stopped some local law enforcement officials from using the laws, including against a gay couple who kissed at a restaurant in Texas or a sheriff’s office arresting a dozen men for sodomy in Louisiana (the Texas couple was never cited and charges in the Louisiana cases were dropped). The penalty for violating Texas’ law is a Class C misdemeanor, on par with a speeding ticket if it could really be enforced, Carpenter said. Putin’s comment misrepresents the reality in the United States, where many states have legalized gay marriage or passed anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, Carpenter said. "It’s much bigger than just sodomy laws," he said. "But if you want to focus on just that, it’s a whole lot more complicated than saying the states have felony laws. That just hardly scratches the surface." Our ruling Deflecting criticism of his country’s anti-gay propaganda law, Putin said, "In some of the states in the U.S., homosexuality remains a felony." Several states still have sodomy laws on the books, and a few specifically prohibit gay sodomy. But the laws are unenforceable and have been for a decade after a Supreme Court ruling. That makes Putin’s statement that "homosexuality remains a felony" inaccurate. We rate it False.	None	Vladimir Putin	None	None	None	2014-01-19T16:37:30	2014-01-19	['United_States']
-pomt-11193	Says Austin is "creating more jobs than any other city in the country."	/texas/statements/2018/may/16/steve-adler/steve-adler-incorrectly-says-austin-creating-more-/	Austin’s mayor made a best-in-the-nation claim about local job gains that made us wonder. Steve Adler, who seeks a second term in November 2018, was asked on KLBJ-AM’s morning May 8, 2018, "Todd and Don Show" about ending "the red tape and paperwork that businesses have to go through just to expand in this city." Adler replied: "You ought to minimize the bureaucracy as much as you can. But we’re doing something right in this city, you guys have to admit, right? We’re creating more jobs than any other city in the country. We have an economy that’s on fire. I mean, we’re doing something right," Adler said, going on to agree that he also wasn’t trying to take personal credit for the gains. Some background: We recently found accurate an Adler tout of Austin’s jobless rate. From January through March 2018, Austin’s unemployment rate ran shy of 3 percent; the rate had mostly stayed under 3 percent since the start of 2017. So, we wondered, is Austin flat-out growing more jobs than any other city in the country? Mayor cites local sort of federal data By email, Adler spokesman Jason Stanford told us the mayor made his job growth claim by drawing on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Stanford included in his reply a chart from the Austin Chamber of Commerce indicating that between March 2017 and March 2018, the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos metropolitan area--which takes in five Austin-area counties--saw greater percentage gains in nonfarm payroll jobs than nine other high-growth areas: SOURCE: Web post, "APRIL 24, 2018 - JOB GROWTH & UNEMPLOYMENT," Austin Chamber of Commerce, April 24, 2018 The Austin area was home to 1,060,200 jobs in March 2018, the chart says, and that count was up 36,800 jobs, or 3.6 percent, from March 2017. Listed as metro areas with the next-most percentage gains: Orlando (3.5 percent); Phoenix, Seattle and Riverside, Calif. (3.2 percent each); Jacksonville and Dallas (3.1 percent each). We noticed, though, that the Austin area ranked sixth among the selected regions in raw jobs gained. According to the chart, the Dallas area had 78,400 more jobs in March 2018 than in March 2017; the Phoenix area had 65,600 more jobs than before; the Seattle area had 53,200 more jobs than before; the Riverside area had 45,900 more jobs than before; and the Orlando area had 43,700 more jobs than before. To our inquiry, a chamber expert, Beverly Kerr, pointed out the chamber’s April 2018 web post showing Austin’s No. 1 rank. Kerr also commented: "The mayor might better have said Austin is creating jobs faster than any other major metro, rather than creating more jobs, since some slower growing much larger metros are bound to actually be creating a larger number of jobs." Job gains in more metro areas We sought to look over the figures. So Kerr emailed us what she described as her full fetch of job changes within 426 U.S. metro areas for the selected months, enabling us to conduct our own shake-outs. We sorted all the figures by percentage gains in jobs--finding that Austin’s 3.6 percent growth placed the area in a national tie with the Idaho metros of Idaho Falls and Pocatello and behind 28 similarly less populous areas, including three in Texas. From March 2017 to March 2018, the Midland area saw a nationally leading 9.9 percent bump, gaining 8,900 jobs; the adjoining Odessa area had a gain of 6.6 percent, 4,700 jobs; and the College Station-Bryan area saw an increase of 4.3 percent with 5,100 jobs gained, the figures indicate. We also sorted the provided figures by limiting our focus to the nation’s 49 metro areas that were home to 1 million jobs or more in March 2017. Among those areas, the Austin area’s 3.6 percent growth rate as of March 2018 placed it No. 1, we found, though 14 other areas recorded greater raw job gains. Next, we queried the BLS directly about the mayor’s claim and backup information. By email, Dallas-based economist Cheryl Abbot confirmed that the figures behind Adler’s claim were rooted in the bureau’s supplemental table posted online gauging over-the-year job changes from March 2017 to March 2018 in total nonfarm employment in metro areas with a population of 1 million residents or more as of 2010. Among the 51 areas clearing the declared population hurdle, Abbot wrote, the Austin area ranked No. 1 in percentage job growth. "And even on a net change basis, Austin ranked 11th on our table (jobs up by 36,800), competing with the likes of NYC, LA, DFW, and Atlanta, among others," Abbot said. A national analysis We also consulted Aaron M. Renn, an economist with the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Asked to provide a long perspective on the Austin area’s job gains, Renn emailed us a chart based on BLS figures showing that the Austin area topped 52 other metro areas--leaving out many--with a 51 percent uptick in nonfarm jobs from 2000 to 2017; California’s Riverside area placed second with a 46 percent increase. But among the selected metro areas, the Austin area’s raw gain of nearly 350,000 jobs over those years placed the area 10th nationally behind the metro areas of New York, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Houston, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miami, Riverside, Phoenix and Atlanta, according to the chart. Our ruling Adler told the morning radio hosts that Austin is creating more jobs than any other U.S. city. To the contrary, federal figures show the five-county Austin metropolitan area (not Austin alone) trails some other U.S. metros including the No. 1 Midland area for its pace of jobs gained and it lags more than 25 metro areas in raw jobs gained. It would be accurate to say the Austin area lately has enjoyed greater percentage job gains than other metro areas of 1 million residents or more. We rate this Adler claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Steve Adler	None	None	None	2018-05-16T13:20:50	2018-05-08	['None']
-pomt-05572	Says when New Jersey adopted guaranteed coverage and cost provisions without a mandate individual health insurance market rates "doubled or tripled" and enrollment dropped from 180,000 people to 80,000 people.	/new-jersey/statements/2012/apr/04/donald-verrilli/donald-verrilli-says-enrollment-declined-and-rates/	A mandate for individuals to buy health insurance acts as a foundation for the national health care law, according to the federal government. Without it, the entire structure weakens. During last week’s U.S. Supreme Court hearings on the law, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli cited New Jersey to support that argument. Justice Antonin Scalia, in an exchange with Verrilli, said when people "have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us." Verrilli said: "That's the problem, Justice Scalia. That's -- and that's exactly the experience that the states had that made the imposition of guaranteed issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. Rates, for example, in New Jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market." PolitiFact New Jersey found the solicitor general is largely right. Verrilli was referring to the individual market, a health insurance exchange that serves people who don’t have access to health insurance through their employer or through government programs such as Medicare. In the early 1990s New Jersey implemented guaranteed issue -- a ban on insurers rejecting applicants -- and community rating -- a requirement prohibiting insurers from charging different rates regardless of risk -- in its individual market. The federal law includes similar measures. But unlike the federal government, New Jersey didn’t require residents to purchase health insurance. And, experts said, without a mechanism to push healthier people into buying coverage the state’s individual market nearly collapsed. Data shows an initial spike then a steep decline in enrollment following the reforms. A 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs found the "current situation points to a market that is heading for collapse. Enrollment has declined from a peak of 186,130 lives at the end of 1995 to 84,968 at the end of 2001. In addition, premiums have increased two- to threefold above their early levels." Enrollment in New Jersey’s market has rebounded since that report, but participation in a plan that allows for adjustment in rates based on age, gender and location is driving growth. The market’s standard plan also now allows for rate adjustment based on age. Experts said New Jersey’s early experience with reforms was the most appropriate time frame for assessing Verrilli’s statement. By that account, his figures are roughly correct. But is Verrilli right to claim the guaranteed coverage and cost provisions sparked enrollment decline and rate increases? Health care experts acknowledged that other factors, such as a vibrant economy and loss of subsidies, may be involved, but said Verrilli’s overall point is strong. "Without a coverage mandate the guaranteed issue and modified community rating provisions had the effect of encouraging sick people to purchase insurance and discouraging well people from purchasing insurance," which led to the rate increases, said John Jacobi, a professor of health law and policy at Seton Hall Law School It’s worth noting that the average age and percentage of people who reported fair or poor health in the market increased for new enrollees from 1996 to 2002, according to a 2004 brief from Rutgers University’s Center for State Health Policy. Alan Monheit, director of the Center for Health Economics and Health Policy at UMDNJ said, "the statement is generally correct that without a mandate and with guaranteed issue and community rating that is certainly going to contribute to a potential unraveling of specific health plans within a marketplace and perhaps even the market itself." Our ruling The solicitor general said after New Jersey adopted provisions guaranteeing health insurance coverage and controlling rates in the individual market without a mandate rates "doubled or tripled" and enrollment dropped from 180,000 people to 80,000 people. Verrilli’s figures are roughly correct in the years before a modified plan was introduced that has since boosted total enrollment in the market. Experts agree it’s fair for Verrilli to point to guaranteed issue and community rating as sources of the enrollment decline and rate increase, but acknowledged there may be other factors involved. Overall, we rate Verrilli’s claim Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Donald Verrilli	None	None	None	2012-04-04T07:30:00	2012-03-27	['None']
-goop-01705	Tom Cruise Upset About Katie Holmes, Jamie Foxx “Romance Going Public”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-cruise-upset-katie-holmes-jamie-foxx-romance-public/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Tom Cruise Upset About Katie Holmes, Jamie Foxx “Romance Going Public”?	8:56 am, January 28, 2018	None	['Katie_Holmes', 'Tom_Cruise']
-pomt-10916	"Satanic leader confesses to sacrificing 675 children 'gifted' to him by doctors."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/01/blog-posting/no-evidence-so-called-satanic-leader-sacrificed-60/	A viral video shows a masked man who claims he sacrificed 675 people, many of them children, to maintain his demonic powers. The confession, which originally aired on a Ghanaian talk show, and its translations have been shared across the discredited Neon Nettle, as well as the Daily Mail. "Satanic leader confesses to sacrificing 675 children ‘gifted’ to him by doctors," read the Neon Nettle headline on July 19. We decided to investigate the so-called confession. Is it real, or another online hoax? The interview The story features screenshots from a video clip from a Ghanaian television show aired on Royal Television Ghana, also known as RTV. The man claiming to be a Satanic leader speaks with a deep voice, and hides his face with a children’s mask of Bumblebee from the Transformers movie franchise. The interviewer, a well-known television and radio presenter known as Otwinoko, does not identify the man. The original interview with the so-called Satanic leader is nearly 30 minutes long, and is part two of a series entitled "DARKNESS IN CHURCHES." The interview is conducted in Akan, a language native to Ghana. It has been summarized in English by Ghanaian news site Yen. According to the translation, the man claimed he lived with Satan for 17 years, and would conduct routine sacrifices to sustain his power. Evil doctors gave him these sacrifices, he said, many of whom were children. He also said that he was in control of over 600 demonic spirits. While there have been multiple local reports about the show itself, none have mentioned any police investigation into the issue. More widely, there have been no news reports of human sacrifice or doctors kidnapping children in Ghana. The Otwinoko Show Otwinoko, whose real name is Kwabena Asare, specializes in spiritual outrage. He vigorously questions his guests, supposed anti-Christian magicians, but doesn’t release their identities. He has dozens of other videos online, many of which follow a similar style to the interview with this Satanic leader. In one video, titled "PASTOR’S EVIL DEEDS EXPOSED," the thumbnail is a fiery 666. In another, he discusses the signs of the Antichrist. Debunking false prophets appears to be a routine feature on the show. As an individual, Otwinoko maintains a mystical persona. He is visually impaired, and he claims that jealous fellow journalists used voodoo to cause his blindness. Our ruling The article by Neon Nettle claimed that "a Satanic cult leader has confessed to carrying out more than 600 child sacrifices." A man did confess this on a Ghanaian television show. The article does acknowledge that there have been no reports of mass child killings in Ghana, Satanic or otherwise. But, Neon Nettle fails to mention that this show has a long sensationalist history of interviewing supposed spiritual deviants and granting them anonymity. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-08-01T06:00:00	2018-07-19	['None']
-pomt-00317	Says Democratic congressional candidate Tom Malinowski "supports a full repeal of the 2017 tax law, which includes vital tax incentives" for New Jersey communities.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/21/leonard-lance/malinowski-lance-tax-bill-fight/	What do you call it when both candidates were against the sweeping 2017 tax bill in Congress, yet one now criticizes the other for wanting to get rid of parts of it? Let’s call it New Jersey. This spat involves the method with which either candidate in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District would change the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and whether one of them would get rid of the parts that people like. U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance, a Republican, says Democratic challenger Tom Malinowski wants to repeal the 2017 tax law, which despite some distasteful parts also "includes vital tax incentives" for distressed areas of New Jersey communities. Lance made the claim on Sept. 10, issuing a statement that "while Malinowski speaks in glowing terms of ‘facilitating economic revitalization,’ he fails to tell voters he supports a full repeal of the 2017 tax law, which includes vital tax incentives to revitalize the city of Phillipsburg." Phillipsburg, with a riverfront corridor on the border with Pennsylvania that city officials have long wanted to improve, is among the communities hoping to benefit from an economic development provision in the tax law. Phillipsburg "will benefit greatly from the Opportunity Zones law," town Council President Robert Fulper is quoted as saying in Lance’s statement. Malinowski, Fulper says in the statement, "wants to throw the baby out with the bath water and eliminate a program that is truly doing good for our community." Does he? The campaign of Malinowski, a former assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor in President Barack Obama’s administration, says this is patently false. So what do Lance and his supporters base the claim on? New Jersey doesn’t love the entire law Before we get to the basis for the claim, it’s worth noting a bit of irony. Lance voted against this very piece of tax legislation, one of only 12 Republican House members to do so. At the time, he said he voted no "because it significantly reduces the ability of New Jerseyans to deduct state and local taxes, a provision that has been in the code since 1913." This new cap on "SALT," a popular acronym for the taxes, is making some homeowners angry in states with high real estate prices and high property taxes. In the past, they could deduct all their local property taxes from their incomes when figuring out their federal income tax obligation. Now, they can only deduct up to $10,000 for all state and local taxes, or $5,000 apiece if married but filing separately. "Also, as a deficit hawk, I do not favor adding $1.5 trillion to the national debt," Lance said when voting no. Every House Democrat voted no, too, with many saying the tax cuts in the legislation tilted too heavily to wealthy Americans. But Lance was pleased with parts of the bill, nonetheless. These included a new preferential tax treatment on investment in economically distressed areas known as Opportunity Zones. As a result, New Jersey designated and the federal government in the spring approved 169 census tracts as Opportunity Zones. Despite Lance’s vote on the overall tax bill, he was an original cosponsor of an earlier measure to create Opportunity Zones, and it got folded into the final tax package. It is not unusual to oppose a multi-part bill while liking some components. But if Congress were to repeal the entire tax package now, the Opportunity Zone program, important to New Jersey communities, could end, Lance says. Yet he claimed in his Sept. 10 statement that his challenger would do just that: repeal the entire bill. "Leonard isn't advocating for the repeal of the tax bill (and therefore opportunity zones)," Lance’s campaign manager, Jim Hilk, told us in an email. "Tom Malinowski is." One set of quotes Asked for support for that claim, Hilk sent PolitiFact three pieces of information. One was to a tweet from the Communications Workers of America, or CWA, New Jersey organization, posted from the union’s leadership conference in July. The tweet quoted Malinowski saying, "I want to be part of a majority that will fight for workers, for a $15/hr minimum wage, and will fight to repeal the GOP tax law." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Another link was to a statement issued by Malinowski’s campaign on Aug. 24. In it, the Democrat said, "In New Jersey we’ve chosen to invest in the things that matter to us, like good schools and affordable healthcare, and Congressional Republicans designed their tax bill to hurt us for making those choices. The only way to repeal that tax bill and restore the SALT deduction is to replace the Republican majority in the Congress." Note the word "repeal," Lance’s campaign points out. The third link was to a story in Insider NJ, a website that covers political news. The story was on the opening of Malinowski’s campaign headquarters in May and noted that he was surrounded by well-wishers including U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey’s 6th Congressional District. At the office opening, Malinowski said he would fight back Republican efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. He said he would fight to preserve Social Security and Medicare. And he said, according to the article, "Congressman Pallone, I will fight to repeal that tax bill." The other quotes Malinowski’s campaign says it can’t account for what others may have reported or tweeted, including what may have been partial quotes or quotes lacking a fuller context. Campaign spokesman Benji Schwartz noted a number of instances in which Malinowski said clearly that he wants to get rid of parts of the tax bill but make sure other parts, including Opportunity Zone provisions, stay or get replaced. In a joint April 13 appearance on New Jersey Public Media with two other Democrats running in the June primary, Malinowski said his experience in government made him the right candidate to "deal with the tax bill that needs to be repealed and replaced in the interest of the people in our state." NJ7 Forward, a progressive coalition, quoted Malinowski in its own description of the tax bill: "I will work to repeal the Republican tax bill and replace it with tax reform that simplifies and lowers rates for everyone, that cuts special interest loopholes rather than deductions that help the middle class." In another pre-primary piece, NJ Spotlight, which covers political and public policy news and analysis, presented various positions of the Democratic candidates. The story said Malinowski "wants to repeal the tax bill and replace it with ‘more fiscally responsible tax reform’ legislation that lowers rates, cuts special interest loopholes and ‘doesn’t explode national debt.’" On July 18, Malinowski used Twitter to link to a Bloomberg Opinion piece criticizing the tax cuts. Malinowski wrote his own opinion in the tweet: "Repeal and Replace." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com On his campaign website, Malinowski used those words again: repeal and replace. "I will work to repeal the GOP tax law and replace it with fiscally responsible tax reform," he says in a section dedicated to issues. "New tax legislation must preserve middle class tax deductions like the State and Local Tax deduction (SALT), which prevented us from being double-taxed on our state payments, close corporate and special interest loopholes, bring home money stashed in foreign tax shelters, and avoid ballooning the deficit." Our ruling Lance says his opponent wants to repeal the entire Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It is true that there was a tweet, a news story and a candidate statement in which the word "repeal" appeared without the addition of "replace." Malinowski’s spokesman said that in the single instance in which Lance linked the word "repeal" directly to his opponent, and not to a third party’s characterization, it was when Malinowski was talking solely about the SALT deduction. Malinowski wants to get the full SALT deduction back. "Replacing" it would make no sense, the spokesman said. That may be. But Malinowski has used the word "repeal" and been described by others including the CWA in New Jersey, which endorsed him, as supporting repeal. He and Lance disagree on other portions of the tax bill, but they both say they want to keep the Opportunity Zone tax incentives. Perhaps eventually there will be legislation that one of them -- the winner in November -- can vote on. Until then, there are words, and Lance was able to point to the word "repeal" several times. That doesn't mean he is totally correct on his opponent's intentions, however. For these reasons, we rate Lance’s claim Half True. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	Leonard Lance	None	None	None	2018-09-21T08:00:00	2018-09-10	['New_Jersey']
-pomt-14599	"I am the only candidate that has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. In PA, I've got Bernie's back."	/pennsylvania/statements/2016/feb/04/john-fetterman/fetterman-says-he-only-senate-candidate-backing-sa/	Who’s got love for Bernie? Braddock Mayor and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate John Fetterman boasts that he’s the only Pennsylvania candidate to endorse Bernie Sanders so far. In a Reddit AMA Tuesday, one user praised Fetterman and fellow Democratic senate candidate Joe Sestak, retired Navy admiral and former U.S. congressman, for campaigns resembling Sanders’ grassroots feel. "I'm a fan of yours, but also a long time supporter of Admiral Joe. I see you as two Bernies against the one corporate party machine candidate. I wish you could team up somehow," wrote the Redditor. "We already have teamed up, as I am the only candidate that has endorsed Bernie Sanders for President," Fetterman replied. " In PA, I've got Bernie's back." A Fetterman spokesperson furthered this in email, adding that his endorsement was unique not just for the state, but nationally: A January Philadelphia Inquirer article named the Braddock mayor as "the only statewide candidate nationally to endorse the Vermont senator." Was that so? We were intrigued and decided to check it out. Among Pennsylvania Democratic candidates for U.S. Senator, four people have declared for the April primary so far, and only Fetterman has endorsed Sanders. Katie McGinty, Gov. Tom Wolf’s former chief of staff, is endorsing Hillary Clinton. Sestak has declined to throw support officially behind Sanders or Clinton. In response to our inquiry, a Sestak spokesman repeated a statement previously given to other press: "Joe just focuses on the people of Pennsylvania so that he can continue to serve them." Wire and springs manufacturer Joseph Vodvarka from Clinton, Pa., told PolitiFact Pennsylvania that he’s yet to endorse anyone. We looked for other Pennsylvania statewide candidates who endorsed Sanders and were unable to find any. So Fetterman’s comments on Reddit are accurate. His spokesperson added that there are no other statewide candidates nationally who support Sanders, but we were able to find a few. In Sanders’ home state of Vermont, for example, he has at least three such endorsers: former State Senator Matt Dunne, a gubernatorial candidate; State Senator David Zuckerman, a candidate for lieutenant governor, and State Auditor Doug Hoffer, who is running to keep his office. In Iowa, Sanders supporter Tom Fiegen is running for U.S. Senate. Still, Sanders has a notably low number of endorsements. Only two representatives in the U.S. Congress have endorsed Sanders, according to FiveThirtyEight, and no U.S. senators or governors have. Bertram Johnson, a political science professor at Middlebury College and expert in Vermont politics, said people endorse based on three factors: probability to win, their constituents’ leanings and political connections. "Endorsers are interested in someone who can support them and has supported them in the past, who’s been an insider for decades," Johnson explained. "This is obviously something that Bernie Sanders hasn’t done, because he hasn’t really been a Democrat until he entered this race." "I don’t know that he has a longstanding national network among politicians," he continued. "I think what he’s done a good job of is using national media, like MSNBC, to cultivate support among liberal activists." Sanders’ high tally of small contributions and a long list of Hollywood endorsements reflects this, Johnson said. Our ruling What answering questions about the Pennsylvania senate race, Fetterman said, "I am the only candidate that has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. In PA, I've got Bernie's back." We found he is the only statewide candidate in Pennsylvania who has endorsed Sanders. His office later claimed he was the only statewide candidate anywhere to endorse Sanders. That’s an exaggeration; statewide candidates in Vermont and Iowa have also endorsed Sanders. We’re fact-checking Fetterman’s original claim, however, and that statement is accurate. We rate his statement True.	None	John Fetterman	None	None	None	2016-02-04T13:45:00	2016-02-01	['Bernie_Sanders']
-snes-06210	Hockey commentator Don Cherry issued a sardonic comment on Iraqi prisoner abuse.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jock-shock/	None	Quotes	None	David Mikkelson	None	Jock Shock	1 November 2004	None	['Iraq']
-tron-03252	DNC Banned Churches From Distributing Gift Baskets to Delegates at Convention	https://www.truthorfiction.com/dnc-basket-ban/	None	politics	None	None	None	DNC Banned Churches From Distributing Gift Baskets to Delegates at Convention	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-10473	"Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that put $6-billion in the pocket of big oil."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/apr/17/hillary-clinton/slippery-math-loaded-words/	In the battle to win Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are each claiming they'd be tougher on "Big Oil" than their opponent. The oil companies are a convenient bogeyman because gasoline is averaging $3.42 per gallon in the state, and the high fuel cost is driving up prices on food and many other products. In a new TV ad, Clinton says Obama has made an empty boast by saying he doesn't take money from oil companies. "No candidate does," the announcer says, adding that it's against federal law. "But Barack Obama accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies." The screen then lists names and amounts from some of Obama's oil-affiliated contributors. The announcer continues: "Every gallon of gas takes over three bucks from your pocket, but Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that put $6-billion in the pocket of big oil. Hillary voted against it." We checked the contribution claim with this item, so here we'll address Clinton's claim that Obama voted for the bill. She is referring to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a major priority for the Bush administration. She is correct that Obama voted for it, one of of 25 Democrats who did. (Clinton voted against it.) Obama said he voted for it "reluctantly." He said he wanted it to do more to reduce reliance on foreign oil, but he liked the bill's incentives for ethanol and clean coal. "This bill, while far from a solution, is a first step toward decreasing America's dependence on foreign oil," he said. "It requires that 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol be mixed with gasoline by 2012. That's 7.5-billion gallons of fuel that will be grown in the corn fields of Illinois, and not imported from the deserts of the Middle East." The bill's title said its purpose was "to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy." As you might expect, there are differing interpretations about whether the bill provided so much for the energy industry that it was a "giveaway." While Clinton is correct that the legislation included plenty of tax breaks for oil companies, the companies also had to pay a $3-billion extension of taxes on crude oil to help offset costs associated with oil spills. As we've noted with this prior item on a Clinton attack against Obama, a large share of of the $14.6-billion in tax incentives in the law actually went to "renewable" sources of energy, to accelerate the development of wind, clean-coal and nuclear power, and hybrid vehicles. (There is debate over whether coal and nuclear power should be considered renewable.) And then there's the matter of Clinton's math. She claims in the ad that the bill "put $6-billion in the pocket of big oil." That number is not accurate. The Clinton campaign said it comes from Public Citizen, one of many environmental and consumer organizations to oppose the bill. A Public Citizen report titled "The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill," had a headline that said the oil and gas subsidies totaled $6-billion. But when PolitiFact compared the group's numbers with the official estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional panel that calculates the cost of tax legislation, they didn't match. The Public Citizen report was considerably higher. We spoke with Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, who explained why: The group had produced a higher number by including all of the tax breaks for oil companies that would reduce revenue to the federal government, but did not include other tax changes that would actually cost the companies additional money and bring new revenue to the government. For example, Public Citizen estimated a provision for oil refineries was an $842-million "giveaway" over the first six years, but it neglected to include the $436-million in new taxes that the companies would pay over the next four years. So when we included the additional taxes the oil and gas companies would pay, the actual number is about $5.3-billion over 10 years. Slocum acknowledged that the $6-billion cost was "a little misleading." But he said the conclusion remained the same, that "it was just egregious to have that level of a giveaway." And so we find that Clinton is right that Obama voted for the bill, but she's using incorrect numbers about the bill that exaggerate the benefit for oil companies, and her description of the bill fails to reflect its incentives for alternative energy. Overall, we'd say that makes her statement Half True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2008-04-17T00:00:00	2008-04-15	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-04399	Two men arrested for their part in Turkey's attempted military takeover are CIA agents.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-agents-arrested-in-turkey-for-erdogan-assassination-attempt/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	CIA Agents Arrested in Turkey for Erdogan Assassination Attempt	21 July 2016	None	['None']
-bove-00163	Fact Vs Fiction: Indira Gandhi Inaugurating Vidyasagar Setu, Hindu Man Marrying A Rat	https://www.boomlive.in/fact-vs-fiction-indira-gandhi-inaugurating-vidyasagar-setu-hindu-man-marrying-rat/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Vs Fiction: Indira Gandhi Inaugurating Vidyasagar Setu, Hindu Man Marrying A Rat	Oct 13 2017 4:53 pm, Last Updated: Nov 03 2017 5:56 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-07605	"Since President Obama took office, gas prices have gone up 67 percent."	/georgia/statements/2011/mar/23/johnny-isakson/isakson-obama-policies-fuel-higher-gas-prices/	Some Republicans have repeated an interesting claim about rising gas prices. U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., joined them in a Twitter post. "Just the Facts: Since President Obama took office, gas prices have gone up 67 percent," the senator wrote. Isakson included a link to an article with a chart from the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundationthat found gas prices rose 7 percent during the first two years and two months of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency as compared with prices during a similar time span under Barack Obama, a Democrat who took office in January 2009. We figured Isakson was trying to make a case that Obama is not doing enough to cap rising gas prices. Isakson’s spokeswoman, Lauren Culbertson, told us her boss was indeed making that argument. She said the Obama administration has "contributed to the increase in gas prices" by: Restricting domestic energy production. Pushing for expanded cap-and-trade regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency. Proposing increased energy taxes of up to $90 billion over the next 10 years in his budget. Some experts dispute the argument that the president can do much about gas prices, saying they are a combination of many factors, such as demand from motorists and nations such as China, along with the rising cost per barrel for crude oil. The United States gets most of its crude oil from Canada, Mexico and OPEC nations such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela. "[The president] has limited control over gas prices," said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst for GasBuddy.com, an organization aimed at helping motorists find the best gas prices. First, let’s look at whether the Heritage Foundation got its numbers right. Crude oil accounts for two-thirds of the price of a gallon of gasoline, according to the federal government. About 10 percent of the cost comes from refining it. About another 10 percent goes toward distribution and marketing. About one-eighth of the cost of gasoline is for taxes. The foundation’s chart (exact numbers weren’t on the article) shows that average gas prices were slightly below $2 when Bush took office in January 2001. The chart shows prices rose slightly, but were still below $2 in February 2003. Their chart shows gas prices were just below $2 when Obama became president in January 2009 and were $3.10 in February 2011. The Heritage Foundation adjusted its figures for inflation. The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $1.51 the week Bush took office, according to the federal government’s Energy Information Administration. Prices were $1.74 for regular during the last week of February 2003, the EIA reported. That’s a 15.2 percent increase. By contrast, EIA figures show the average price for a gallon of regular the week Obama took office was $1.83 and has risen steadily since he moved into the White House. During the last week of February, it was $3.34. That is an 82.5 percent increase. Isakson’s math, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation, is actually lower than the federal government’s totals. Now, is the context Isakson used to present these numbers on target? Isakson believes the president should allow more deepwater offshore oil drilling. Obama ordered a moratorium after the disastrous BP oil spill in 2010. The Obama administration approved its first permit since the oil spill, The Associated Press reported last month. Obama has said domestic oil production rose to a seven-year high in 2010, but others contend that is a result of policies set in place under Bush. The president has threatened to open the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to control prices. DeHaan compared that tactic to a classic children’s story. "That typically cools the market off," DeHaan said. "But we’ve seen so many claims that the traders also discard it. It’s like the boy who cries wolf." Gas price analysts such as DeHaan and H. Rao Unnava, a marketing professor at Ohio State University, say market speculation and concerns about political unrest in the Middle East have resulted in a rise in crude oil prices in recent months. In general, they say, gas prices are largely a result of supply and demand. Federal government data shows fuel consumption rose each year between 2001 and 2007. The average price for regular gasoline also rose in each of those years. The average price rose again in 2008, when the entire nation was feeling the recession, but consumption fell. Consumption has remained steady since while gas prices have risen since the end of 2008. "I don’t think [rising gas prices] would have much to do with President Bush or President Obama," said Unnava, associate dean of undergraduate programs at Ohio State University’s Fisher College of Business. Unnava said when gas prices shot past $3 a gallon in the summer of 2006, some conservatives blamed it on increasing demand, particularly in other countries such as China and India. Twenty years ago, China was not among the top five oil consumers. Today, China is second to the U.S. So where does this leave us? There are two elements to Isakson’s claim: the actual statistics and his implication that Obama is to blame for rising gas prices. Isakson’s precise statement about gas prices is accurate. They have increased. But the overall statement, intended as a political broadside, leaves out important details and takes things out of context. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Johnny Isakson	None	None	None	2011-03-23T06:00:00	2011-03-11	['Barack_Obama']
-thet-00003	Claim Scotland spends 10 times more per person on social housing than England	https://theferret.scot/scots-housing-spend-10-times-england-half-true/	None	Fact check Housing and homelessness 	None	None	None	Claim Scotland spends 10 times more per person on social housing than England is Half True	October 4, 2018	None	['England', 'Scotland']
-pomt-06868	"Social Security didn’t cause the debt crisis. Social Security had nothing to do with the debt crisis."	/ohio/statements/2011/aug/02/dennis-kucinich/rep-dennis-kucincih-says-social-security-didnt-cau/	As talks on the federal debt ceiling turned into a standoff, President Obama pressed congressional leaders to consider a debt-reduction plan that would include changes in Social Security to reduce costs. The plan, intended as a trade to win Republican support for increases in tax revenue, drew criticism from Democrats that included Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland. Kucinich said on the House floor July 15, 2011, that Social Security was being falsely thrown into the debate, and that reducing benefits or raising the retirement age would only "give government more money for tax cuts, spending or repaying the debt." "Social Security didn’t cause the debt crisis. Social Security had nothing to do with the debt crisis," he said. PolitiFact Ohio asked Kucinich's office how he backed up his statement. They referred us to "Social Security: The Trust Fund," a recent report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. We also discovered that similar statements about Social Security and the debt crisis were previously checked by PolitiFact, and by our colleagues at Factcheck.org and the Washington Post Fact Checker. Unfortunately, we found that they rated the statements true, not true and "true but false" -- and that their stories were followed by notes about "our angry readers" and stepping on a live wire. Let's take deep breath and walk through it. Social Security is a government program funded primarily by dedicated payroll taxes. It's called a pay-as-you-go system because current revenues are used to pay current costs. For most of the past 30 years, because of reforms designed by the Greenspan Commission in 1982 to protect Social Security’s solvency, collected revenues have exceeded benefit payments to retirees, survivors and the disabled. Those surplus funds were credited to the Social Security trust fund. By the end of 2010, the trust fund totaled $2.6 trillion. Last year, Social Security began to run a cash flow deficit. Costs exceeded tax revenues, for reasons that included the recession and its high unemployment. Social Security dipped into the trust fund to make up the difference. Social Security's trustees projected that the fund would fully cover benefits through 2035, the Congressional Research Service notes, and that it would cover about 77 percent of benefits after that until 2085. Taking action like increasing the payroll tax or lifting the level of income subject to the tax above its current limit of $106,800 would keep the fund fully solvent for the entire 75 years. And this is where money meets myth, cash flow meets credit and true meets false. The trust fund is not a savings account or "lock box" into which cash is deposited. Social Security is required by law to put its entire surplus into interest-bearing government bonds -- Treasury securities backed by the U.S. government. They are IOUs -- assets to Social Security but liabilities to the rest of government. They're one part of government promising to pay back another. Once invested, the trust fund money is mingled with money from other sources of revenue in the U.S. Treasury general fund, and it is used for other government purposes that include spending, repaying debts or cutting taxes. For years, the infusion of Social Security's surplus revenue held down the federal deficit -- and, some say, encouraged spending. When Social Security operates with a negative cash flow -- that is, when benefits exceed revenues -- it draws on interest from the trust fund securities. To pay that interest and honor its IOUs to the trust fund, when the rest of the federal budget is operating at a deficit, the government has to borrow money. That contributes to the deficit -- even though Social Security is legally drawing on the surplus that was collected from its dedicated tax, and even though the Congressional Research Service says that "government borrowing from the public is not clearly linked to any particular aspect of what the government does." Kucinich was accurate in saying that Social Security didn’t cause the debt crisis. If anything, Social Security delayed it by subsidizing other spending and reducing the need to borrow money elsewhere. On the books, the Social Security trust fund has credits approaching $2.6 trillion. Social Security’s negative cash flow has begun to contribute a relatively small amount to the federal deficit, however, because Treasury has to borrow to cover the trust fund money that has been spent elsewhere. That is a recent development, and that information provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Kucinich’s claim Mostly True. Editor's note: PolitiFact Texas checked a slightly different claim about Social Security, finding it Mostly False.	None	Dennis Kucinich	None	None	None	2011-08-02T06:00:00	2011-07-15	['None']
-snes-02381	Does 'Paint Thinner' Trisodium Phosphate Lurk in Cereals?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paint-thinner-trisodium-phosphate-found-cereals/	None	Food	None	Snopes Staff	None	Is ‘Paint Thinner’ Trisodium Phosphate Found in Cereals?	15 October 2014	None	['None']
-pomt-09776	Goldman Sachs was Barack Obama's "No. 1 private contributor."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/25/michael-moore/barack-obama-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions/	Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore has a new film coming out — Capitalism: A Love Story — and he appeared on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report to promote it. The show's ironically conservative host, Stephen Colbert, defended capitalism and the bailouts of late 2008, which led to a mock debate between them. At first, Wall Street was actually angry about the bailouts, Colbert claimed. "Because it might come with strings attached," he explained. "But they forgave Obama when he didn't add any. Now all is forgiven." "That's why you like Obama so much now?" Moore asked. "I don't like Obama so much," Colbert said. "On this, I do. And your film is helping me like Obama, because you're a critic of his. You think he's in the pocket of guys like Goldman Sachs." "I point out in the film that Goldman Sachs is his No. 1 private contributor," Moore answered. "But I voted for the guy. I'm still hopeful that he's going to do the right thing and side with us, and not Wall Street. But the jury's out on that." We'll let you draw your own conclusions on their debate. We wanted to check Moore's statement about Obama's contributors and the financial services firm Goldman Sachs. Obama made a big deal during the election that he didn't accept money from federal political action committees or lobbyists. But laws require individuals to disclose their occupation and their employer when they donate to federal political candidates. We checked with the Center for Responsive Politics, a well-respected nonpartisan group that specializes in analyzing campaign data. Their numbers include contributions from employees and their immediate families. Their analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign found that University of California employees were Obama's top donor, giving a collective $1.6 million. That system is run by the state of California, and hence is a public employer. No. 2 was Goldman Sachs. Goldman employees gave Obama $994,795. Obama's next biggest donors were the employees of Harvard University, Microsoft, Google, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Time Warner, the law firm Sidley Austin, and Stanford University. View Obama's complete list and amounts here. Incidentally, Goldman Sachs ranked No.4 on John McCain's list of employee contributions, at $230,095. Moore said that Goldman Sachs is Obama's "No. 1 private contributor." The data shows that is correct. We rate his statement True.	None	Michael Moore	None	None	None	2009-09-25T17:05:40	2009-09-23	['Goldman_Sachs', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-05008	Ronald Reagan went golfing after the 1983 terrorist bombing of a U.S. Marines barrack in Beirut.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ronald-reagan-golfing-1983-beirut-attack/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Ronald Reagan Went Golfing After 1983 Beirut Attack	25 March 2016	None	['Beirut', 'Ronald_Reagan', 'United_States']
-pomt-12659	"Since the day of my election, we've already cut illegal immigration at the southern border by 61 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/22/donald-trump/trump-says-illegal-immigration-down-61-percent-ele/	President Donald Trump told supporters in Kentucky to focus on their basketball team and let him take care of the rest, such as securing the borders and kicking out immigrants in the country illegally. "We will build, that's right, a great, great border wall … And we will stop the drugs that are pouring into our country and poisoning our youth and plenty of others. We're going to stop the drugs," Trump said March 20. "A lot of them are coming in from the southern border. Since the day of my election, we've already cut illegal immigration at the southern border by 61 percent, think of that, 61 percent, and we haven't started." Trump has boasted about a 40 percent decline in illegal immigration in his first month in office. We rated that Mostly True. He is now extending the comparison to November to show even more significant cuts. Border patrol apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border declined 60 percent from November 2016 to February 2017, but immigration experts caution against assuming that declines have been a sole result of Trump’s policies. Border apprehension data The Department of Homeland Security on March 8 released illegal border crossing data that show that in the month of the presidential election, November 2016, border patrol made 47,210 apprehensions. In February 2017, there were 18,762 apprehensions, a 60 percent decline. Total southwest border apprehensions declined about 63 percent from November 2016 to February 2017. DHS defined total apprehensions as those made by border patrol between ports of entry and inadmissibility at ports of entry determined by U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations. We asked U.S. Customs and Border Patrol for apprehension data from Election Day to the day before Trump’s Kentucky speech, but the agency said it provides statistics by month, not by specific dates and timeframes. It’s worth noting that this past fall there was an unseasonal increase of unauthorized border crossings, said Christopher Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center. People rushed to the border before Trump took over and implemented new policies, he said. "After that rush to the border, it’s natural to expect a decline," Wilson said. "What we cannot still answer is whether this is a temporary or permanent decline." DHS Secretary John Kelly in a March 8 statement said illegal crossings typically rise between March and May. While Trump’s rhetoric against illegal immigration has played a role in recent apprehension decreases, apprehension levels are typically lower in the winter months and on-the-ground changes in response to policies can take longer, experts have told us. "It is almost always necessary to look at trends over a longer period, usually at least six months, to get a better sense of changes," said Denise Gilman, a clinical professor and director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law. "It seems likely that the numbers of border crossers will go back up again before long given that the human rights situation in Central America is still incredibly problematic, and Central American asylum seekers are one of the main sources of migration in recent years." Other factors worth considering, according to Gilman are that Mexico may have stepped up its enforcement efforts so that migrants don’t reach the U.S.-Mexico border, and that smugglers may be waiting to decide on new routes for bringing people across the border Our ruling Trump said, "Since the day of my election, we've already cut illegal immigration at the Southern border by 61 percent." While U.S. Customs and Border Protection does not provide border apprehension statistics for specific dates, monthly data show a 60 percent decline from the month of the presidential election, November 2016, to February 2017. Experts said other factors should be considered in the decline and that it’s too early to tell whether low apprehensions will become the new norm or if they will increase in coming months, as they typically do. We rate Trump’s statement Mostly True. Share the Facts Politifact 2 7 Politifact Rating: Mostly True "Since the day of my election, we've already cut illegal immigration at the southern border by 61 percent." Donald Trump President of the United States in a rally in Kentucky Monday, March 20, 2017 03/20/2017 Read More info	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-03-22T15:56:23	2017-03-20	['None']
-pose-00454	Will "lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/474/seek-safe-disposal-of-nuclear-waste-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Seek safe disposal of nuclear waste	2010-01-07T13:26:59	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository']
-pomt-03187	"Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa already have 70 mph" speed limits on rural interstates, and "we see that they’ve been able to do it safely."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/sep/01/robin-vos/robin-vos-says-higher-speed-limit-rural-interstate/	Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, gunned into the fast lane after a colleague proposed raising the speed limit on Wisconsin’s rural interstate highways from 65 to 70 mph. Vos embraced the idea as an overdue time-saver for drivers -- and he sought to head off criticism that higher speeds could kill. "We see all the states around us, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa already have 70, and just this last week Democrat Gov. Quinn signed the bill into law in Illinois," Vos said Aug. 22, 2013, on Wisconsin Public Television’s "Here and Now" program. "So it makes no sense not to have Wisconsin join this group." Vos added: "And certainly as we’ve driven in other states, we see that they’ve been able to do it safely. Most of the interstates were designed for 75 miles an hour anyway because they were done a long time ago and they were reduced just for fuel economy. So I think the safety standards are in place, and we can do it in a way that makes sense for all of us." Vos was more emphatic in other comments to reporters, as quoted in the Journal Sentinel, saying that in the three states he cited: "We haven't seen any issues there." We’ll examine his safety claim here and tackle the historical statement in a separate item. Where things stand For starters, most states are already at 70 or 75 mph. There are 13 at 65 mph, according to tracking by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Of those, Wisconsin is the only state outside the northeast, west coast and Alaska where 65 is the limit on rural interstates. Only Hawaii is lower, with a speed limit of 60. As more and more states have raised their limits, a flurry of sometimes-conflicting studies has tried to tease out the role of speed in vehicle-crash trends. In reviewing the research in 2013, the Council of State Governments noted that most policy makers and researchers agree that physics means higher speeds can cause more and more deadly accidents. But the council noted, "Intense debate still surrounds the idea that speed-limit hikes alone make roadways more dangerous." The challenge, an Indiana study said, is "unraveling the effects of speed-limit changes from factors such as speed enforcement; vehicle miles traveled; vehicle occupancy; seat-belt usage; alcohol use; proportions of passenger cars, minivans, pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles; and vehicle safety features, such as airbags and antilock brakes." With that in mind, let’s look specifically at the three states Vos cited. Iowa: The Department of Transportation in Iowa, where 70 became law in 2005, surveyed crash trends elsewhere and reported its findings in early 2006. "The evidence in this study and the previous seven annual comparison studies indicates that raising the speed limit in Midwestern states in the United States has resulted in an increase in traffic fatalities in the years following that increase," the department said. Iowa saw the same in the short-term aftermath of its change, according to a study that examined the 2.5 years before and after the change. Fatal and major-injury crashes increased on average from 78.8 to 90.8 per year, resulting in a 15.2 percent increase, an Iowa State study found. The study showed that early in Iowa’s own experience with 70, crashes at all severity levels increased compared to the same period before the change. And compared to a much longer period before the change, fatal and other serious across-the-median crashes rose faster than random variations in the annual data, the Iowa State researchers found in 2009. But the same Iowa State study -- also cited by Vos -- casts doubt on the significance of the simple numerical findings. More rigorous statistical testing found "no statistically significant increase in crashes," the study said. It concluded: "While it is likely changes were due to the speed-limit change (as the only significant highway safety–related public policy change in Iowa since 2004 has been the change to 70 mph on rural Interstates), the findings presented herein are necessarily observations of correlation only." The study acknowledged that looking at only 2.5 years "may not provide an adequate base of data for a reliable statistical analysis." In addition, other factors such as changing economic conditions and high fuel prices may have impacts that mask any speed limit–related changes, it said. More recently, the Des Moines Register reported in Sept. 4, 2012 that 10 percent more people had died on Iowa's interstate highways since the state raised the speed limit to 70 mph -- even though fatalities on all Iowa roads in 2011 were at the lowest level since World War II. The paper quoted Col. Patrick Hoye of the Iowa State Patrol, who said the Iowa statistics bore out warnings by traffic safety planners. "Any time you raise speeds, an accident has a greater risk for injury and death. The other thing that we see quite often on the interstates is that people are just following too closely, and at higher speeds that just makes the situation that much worse," Hoye said. We asked Iowa’s top traffic safety official, Steve Gent, about the speed limit change. Gent didn’t like the idea of the speed-limit hike, but has tempered his feelings. He told us that safety problems from 70 mph were "not as bad as we thought." More people are driving near average speeds, and fewer at very high or low speeds. That scenario is associated with safer driving. In fact, the study found that speeding was reduced, and that speeds -- on average -- increased only about 2 mph. Still, Gent said, the statistics suggest some negative safety aspects. Michigan: Michigan went to 70 in 1996 and 1997. Truck speed limits are lower. A 2000 study by Michigan State University found that total traffic crashes increased in the three years after the change -- but traffic volume increased faster. Fatal crashes went up 4.5 percent, but the combination of fatals and major-injury crashes actually fell, presumably due to increased seat belt use and airbags, the report said. Travel speeds rose only about 1 to 2 mph over three years, considering all vehicles. Overall, the study concluded: "Raising the speed limit appears to have had little effect" on speed or crash frequency. "Nothing really happened" in those three years, the author of the study, MSU engineering professor William C. Taylor, told us. "The signs changed. A few of the slower people drove a little faster. But (driving at faster speeds) didn’t change at all." Vos cited no studies on Michigan accident statistics, but did cite comments in the media by a Michigan State Patrol traffic safety official that slower is not necessarily safer on interstates. Minnesota: The state raised the speed limit on rural interstates from 65 to 70 mph in 1997. A Minnesota DOT study found that during the five years immediately following the increase (1998-2002) there was a 24 percent increase in all crashes on interstates where speed limits were increased, Kevin Gutknecht, the department’s communications director told us. There was a 70 percent increase in fatal crashes in the same locations, a DOT spokesman said. The comparison period was 1992-96. The situation was much improved when DOT compared 2007-2011 to pre-change time period. For the same locations, there was a 1 percent increase in all interstate crashes and a 19 percent increase in fatal crashes. During the 2007-2011 period, roadway engineering safety improvements, vehicle safety enhancements and changes in laws have contributed to a downturn in fatal and serious crashes, Gutknecht said. The agency’s website, we noted, advises motorists that lowering speed limits will not necessarily reduce speeds or cut crash frequencies. The comments are not specific to interstates. "The driver is much more influenced by the roadway conditions," the DOT site says. "Although lowering the speed limit is often seen as a cure-all in preventing crashes, this is not the case. Crashes are most often the result of driver inattention and driver error. However, if a posted speed limit is unrealistically low, it creates a greater speed variance (i.e. some drivers follow the speed limit while most drive the reasonable speed). This speed variance can contribute to crashes." Vos cited no Minnesota studies. Our rating Vos said "Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa already have 70 mph" speed limits on rural interstates, and "we see that they’ve been able to do it safely." Vos goes too far with the blanket statement. We found numbers suggesting otherwise in two states, and a key Iowa official attributes some negative safety impact to the change. But the Michigan experience fits his description, and researchers in Iowa cast doubt on the significance of the speed-limit change in the uptick in fatalities there. So there’s some gas in his claim’s tank. Half True.	None	Robin Vos	None	None	None	2013-09-01T05:00:00	2013-08-22	['Michigan', 'Minnesota', 'Iowa']
-obry-00042	Wisconsin Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, R-River Falls, was re-elected earlier this month to represent the 10th Senate District, beating Democratic opponent Diane Odeen. On her campaign website, Harsdorf claimed that “Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has been cut by more than half and is consistently lower than the national average.” The Observatory checked whether Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has been cut by more than 50 percent, and whether the Wisconsin unemployment rate has been consistently lower than the national average. In order to check the first part of the claim, we asked Harsdorf’s campaign staff how they arrived at the the estimated reduction in the unemployment rate. They pointed to the difference in unemployment between January 2010 and today. According to Harsdorf’s team, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in January 2010, compared to the current unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. 	https://observatory.journalism.wisc.edu/2016/11/18/harsdorf-claims-wisconsins-unemployment-rate-has-dropped-by-half-has-it/	None	None	None	Paige Scobee	None	Harsdorf claims Wisconsin’s unemployment rate has dropped by half. Has it?	November 18, 2016	None	['Wisconsin', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Sheila_Harsdorf', 'Oregon_State_Senate']
-pomt-09837	"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed back in the 1980s, the Medicare system over several years could save as much as a trillion dollars."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/24/barack-obama/obama-says-lower-obesity-rates-would-save-medicare/	We don't expect President Barack Obama to remember everything we write about him, but when he repeats a claim we had earlier found to be False, we think it's worth calling him out. On Aug. 20, 2009, President Obama held a discussion and conference call at a national health care forum sponsored by Organizing for America, the successor to Obama for America, his campaign organization. In response to a question about how food and lifestyle affect health care, the president responded, "Well, this is a great question. Look, this is an interesting statistic. If we went back to the obesity rates that existed back in the 1980s, the Medicare system over several years could save as much as a trillion dollars. I mean, that's how much our obesity rate has made a difference in terms of diabetes and heart failure and all sorts of preventable diseases." It wasn't the first time Obama had talked about the cost of obesity. The earlier instance came at a Des Moines Register presidential debate among Democratic primary contenders on Dec. 13, 2007. "Well, just to emphasize how important prevention and cost savings can be in the Medicare system, it's estimated if we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system $1 trillion," Obama said. But there's a problem. When we reviewed his claim in 2007, we found it False. We noted that he was accurately quoting that number from a report issued by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. The report states, "If we were able to reduce obesity to 1980s levels, Medicare would save $1-trillion." It attributes the number to the Commonwealth Fund and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that study — and his claim — are not supported by the data. At issue is the increased prevalence of obesity. The percent of the U.S. population considered to be obese has roughly doubled since the 1980s. Researchers have documented that these people need more health care due to complications from obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancers and other illnesses. Researchers have also developed models to calculate costs for obesity-related health care. And it's true that obesity does drive up health costs, but you can't get to $1 trillion, according to our estimates. (Our friends at Factcheck.org reached the same conclusion; check out their analysis here .) The Centers for Disease Control cited a study on health spending due to people who are overweight or obese that shows numbers significantly less than $1 trillion. We also verified our assessment with Eric Finkelstein, a health economist with the research group RTI International who has studied the issue extensively and written several papers on the topic. Finkelstein said obesity accounts for excess health spending of about $90 billion a year. About half of that — about $45 billion — is billed to Medicare and Medicaid together. Medicare's share of obesity spending therefore is between $20 billion and $25 billion. If obesity rates rolled back to 1980s levels, Medicare spending would be about half that, or about $12 billion a year. That's a far cry from $1 trillion. From the perspective of 2009, we can offer two additional developments — and neither improves the accuracy of Obama's assertion. The first is that Finkelstein and his colleagues published an updated paper on July 27, 2009, in the online version of the journal Health Affairs. In it, they said, "We estimate that the medical costs of obesity could have risen to $147 billion per year by 2008." That estimate is about 63 percent higher than it was in the previous paper. So if we increase all of our previous calculations by 63 percent, the number goes up — but not by enough to push the total cost to $1 trillion any time soon. Even the most generous estimate, factoring in inflation and other factors, would mean that $1 trillion would be reached in perhaps 30 years. And that's where the second new development comes in. Unlike in his comment in 2007, Obama actually gave a time frame the second time he cited the statistic -- specifically, "over several years." And 30 years doesn't sound like "several" to us. We contacted Finkelstein to see whether he agreed with our logic, and we reached his co-author on the paper instead. Justin Trogdon, a research economist at RTI International, said he agreed that the increase in the cost burden from obesity, while a substantial jump in a relatively short time, did not get Obama much closer to the mark. "It's a little higher today, but I don't think it's increased enough to get there," he said. "It would be tough to get to $1 trillion." Medical research supports Obama's broad point that obesity is a serious health issue that imposes significant financial, as well as physical, costs on the American public. However, obesity doesn't cost anywhere near as much as the president has said it does. Once again, we rate his claim False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2009-08-24T18:42:19	2009-08-20	['Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-04465	Says Romney invested in a firm that made goods in China that "could have been made here in America."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/09/barack-obama/obama-ties-romney-chinese-exporter/	President Barack Obama continues to go after Mitt Romney for investing in companies that sent jobs overseas. A recent Obama ad combines the outsourcing charge with an attack on Romney’s claim that he would take a tougher line than the president on trade with China. It features grainy photos of Chinese factory workers in assembly plants. An announcer says: "These appliances could have been made here in America. But a company called Global-Tech maximized profits by paying its workers next to nothing under sweatshop conditions in China. When Mitt Romney led Bain, they saw Global-Tech as a good investment even knowing that the firm promoted its practice of exploiting low-wage labor to its investors. Mitt Romney, tough on China? Since when?" We have done other fact checks on claims related to Romney’s investments in firms that engaged in outsourcing. This time, we decided to examine whether it is accurate to say that Global-Tech's appliances "could have been made here in America." Romney and Global-Tech Of course, any product could be made in the U.S. if a manufacturer built a plant. For this fact-check, though, we'll explore whether Global-Tech's small appliances could reasonably have been made here. Romney’s investment company, Bain Capital, bought a 10.3 percent share in Global-Tech Appliances through a subsidiary in 1998, according to a July article in Mother Jones. In a prospectus that year, Global-Tech described that it had two factories in China that produced coffee makers, bread makers, and other small appliances for some of the best known brands, such as Sunbeam, Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, Oster and others. It boasted that the combination of retail trends, superior manufacturing technology and low wage rates had fueled a three-fold rise in sales from $31 million in 1995 to $96 million in 1998. The Romney campaign rebutted the ad’s claims saying, "This is another 'overboard' ad from a president who is trying to distract from his failure to stand up to China." However, the campaign did not correct any of the ad’s details about Bain and Global-Tech. What was brewing with small appliances The ad’s larger point is that Romney boosted the trend toward low-cost overseas production at the expense of American jobs. The ad sets that up by saying "these appliances" -- meaning those coffee makers and hair dryers made by Global-Tech -- could in fact have been made in the U.S. But is that a fair assumption? We tried to get a picture of what was going on with the business of small home appliances in 1998, the year Romney invested in the Hong Kong based company. Coffee makers are a good example. According to the United Nations Commodity Trade database, in 1993, China exported about $23 million worth of coffee makers to the U.S. By 1998, business had doubled to $46 million. Add in the exports from Hong Kong to America and the total reached over $100 million. Goods made in China destined for the U.S. often flowed through Hong Kong. Americans seemed to have an almost insatiable demand for imported coffee makers and Chinese/Hong Kong imports satisfied over a third of it. At the time, the U.S. share of total world exports of coffee makers was about 3 percent, or $30 million. Gary Hamilton, a professor of international studies and sociology at the University of Washington who focuses on consumer goods, says the situation with coffee makers was typical. "The manufacture of most such consumer goods had already left the U.S." before Bain bought its stake in Global-Tech, Hamilton said. "Some as many as 10 to 15 years earlier." Hamilton said this was the result of forces that had begun to take shape in the 1970s. It wasn’t just low wages in China and other countries. Western companies invested in technology like barcodes and scanners that allowed them to manage inventory and supply chains across the globe. Container ships got bigger, which made transport much cheaper. The companies that made goods, such as Sunbeam, bought out similar brands and consolidated, while the on the retail side, firms such as Wal-Mart built enormous buying power. The end result made American production of these goods increasingly less competitive. "There is every reason to think that the manufacture of these items would not then and would not now return to the U.S.," Hamilton said. The remaining manufacturers There are still U.S. companies making things such as coffee makers and blenders but they occupy a tiny sliver of the market. David Riley runs Americans Working, a website that lists goods made in the U.S.. Riley noted that Bunn, an iconic coffee machine brand, is still operating in Illinois. But, "I think only high end personal units and commercial," he said. A similar website, Still Made in USA, said the same thing. We called Bunn and never heard back. There are exceptions, but in general, the more expensive the item, the better the odds it can be made profitably in the U.S. KitchenAid makes mixers and blenders at its plant in Greenville, Ohio, according to the website Still Made in USA. But its coffee grinders are largely made in India with final assembly in the U.S. It is not uncommon for manufacturers to outsource their more affordable lines while keeping the costlier versions domestic. We took a look at companies in Germany, Switzerland and Italy where exports of coffee makers remain robust. In recent years, Italy favored the world with some $500 million a year in espresso and latte makers. But there too, those countries succeeded at the high-end of marketplace and some firms outsourced their more garden variety products to low-wage nations. We should note that some big ticket products such as refrigerators and stoves retain a sizable footprint in America. General Electric told Consumer Reports it is investing $1 billion to expand its line of washing machines and dryers in Louisville, Ky..Frigidaire, owned by Sweden’s Electrolux, produces dishwashers in Kinston, N.C. If the Obama ad had referred to a broader set of home goods than just the ones made by Global Tech, then there is some basis to find that the appliances could have been produced in the U.S. But the ad was fairly specific about what products it had in mind. And in 1998, as now, those products were overwhelmingly made in other countries. Our ruling The Obama campaign ad said, "These appliances could have been made here in America." For the coffee makers and other items that Global-Tech produced, that is conceivable but unlikely. The U.S. had the technology and the trained people to do the work. But the economics of global trade made that unworkable well before Romney and Bain invested in the firm. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-10-09T17:21:21	2012-10-01	['United_States', 'China']
-pomt-02136	In some states, African-Americans are three times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites for the same crime.	/punditfact/statements/2014/may/07/van-jones/van-jones-some-states-black-defendants-are-three-t/	Oklahoma’s botched execution revived national concerns over the death penalty, with pundits highlighting who is more likely to pay the ultimate price for the most serious crimes. CNN Crossfire host and liberal pundit Van Jones connected death penalty sentences with race during a May 4 roundtable discussion on ABC’s This Week. Jones claimed that African-Americans are three times more likely than whites to be sentenced to death for the same crime, saying, "In some states, people for the same crime, three times more likely to sentence an African-American defendant to death. I think that's very, very troubling." PunditFact wondered: Is that true? Jones’ evidence The death penalty is not allowed everywhere, but 32 states have some form of capital punishment. Jones pointed to a study from the state of Washington as evidence of his claim. University of Washington researchers released a 2014 report examining the role of race in death penalty cases in that state from 1981 to 2012. The team examined trial reports of 285 adult convictions for aggravated murder during that period, controlling for many variables and probing the reports for details. The report was commissioned by attorneys for a Death Row inmate appealing his sentence to the Washington Supreme Court. The team’s most relevant finding to this fact-check: Juries were three times more likely to hand down a death sentence against a black defendant than in cases against white defendants whose cases had similar characteristics. This report is specific to the jury-sentencing stage, which is one stop in the death penalty process. For instance, prosecutors must also decide whether to pursue capital punishment, and there may be plea agreements after they make that decision. Jones sent us more information that we will discuss in the next section. What other studies say The Washington study was the only recent state-centric look at Death Row defendants’ race that experts could name. More often, research shows the victim’s race, not the defendant’s, to be a factor in death penalty cases, they said. Specifically, capital punishment is sought and imposed much more often in cases in which the murder victim is white than in comparable murders involving black victims, said James Acker, a University at Albany-SUNY School of Criminal Justice professor. This has been proven in several jurisdictions, he said, pointing to North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois and Maryland. In other words, it’s who you kill that has a more proven effect in death penalty sentencing, experts say. Other studies have linked defendants’ race and death penalty sentencing, though not always on a state level and not recently. An analysis by researchers including University of Iowa law professor David Baldus, who is cited as one of the foremost researchers addressing questions about race and capital punishment, examined a sampling of death penalty cases in Philadelphia from 1983 to 1993. The analysis found average death sentencing rates were 38 percent higher for black defendants than for other defendants. Baldus, who died in 2011, played a role in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1987 McCleskey vs. Kemp decision, in which the court determined Baldus’ research showing statistical evidence of racial discrimination in Georgia death penalty cases did not make the death penalty unconstitutional. Defendants accused of killing white victims were four times more likely to get the death penalty than those who killed black victims, his research showed. Baldus found then that race-of-defendant disparities existed in several other states, too, though ratios were not available or the studies were not always deemed well-controlled. The vast majority of death penalty cases are decided in state courts. But federal courts also decide some death penalty cases, and a 2000 analysis showed from 1995-2000, 45 percent of capital-crime cases approved for death penalty prosecution by U.S. attorneys involved black defendants, compared to 28 percent involving white defendants (a ratio of 1.6:1). Just because Washington is the only state with a reported 3:1 ratio for death penalty sentencing does not mean there are not more, experts told us. The problem is the data is very time-consuming to collect and analyze. "This is a very difficult question to pursue in research," said Raymond Paternoster, a University of Maryland criminology professor, "because you want to compare race of defendant/victim outcomes in comparable cases." That’s a lot of information from which to sift, including how the murder was committed and characteristics of the victims and offenders. "Having conducted such studies in two states (Maryland and South Carolina), it takes years to collect all the data," Paternoster said, noting the studies in Maryland and South Carolina did not show much of a disparity depending on the race of the defendant. Jones pointed to a study of racial disparities in inmates facing the death penalty in Harris County, Texas. Paternoster, who conducted the research after being commissioned by a Death Row inmate’s attorneys, found, "The probability that the district attorney will advance a case to a (death) penalty trial is more than three times as high when the defendant is African-American than for white defendants." But Paternoster told us his research isn’t necessarily representative of prosecutors’ decisions in Texas or Harris County (nor does it speak to sentences). Paternoster was examining 21 cases -- a subgroup whittled from 504 capital murder cases from 1992 to 1999 -- in which defendants’ crimes matched up with the circumstances of inmate Duane Buck’s double killing. Our ruling Jones said African-American defendants are three times more likely to receive a death penalty sentence than white defendants found guilty of the same crime in some states. We found racial disparities permeate cases surrounding the death penalty. The more proven factor is that the victim’s race affects a defendant’s sentence. Jones pointed us to a 2014 study of jury verdicts in death penalty cases in Washington, as well as other studies of metro jurisdictions. The situation in other states, however, is not as clear. Jones’ claim is partially accurate, as researchers have shown sentencing disparities by race do exist, but the state data to prove a pattern beyond Washington is either old or not exactly in line with the specific ratio Jones cited. We rate his claim Half True.	None	Van Jones	None	None	None	2014-05-07T16:06:45	2014-05-04	['None']
-snes-04926	Pilot Travel Center in Mebane, North Carolina installed urinals in the ladies' room.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mebane-travel-center-ladies-room-urinals/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Mebane Travel Center Ladies’ Room Urinals?	13 April 2016	None	['North_Carolina']
-tron-01302	The Rejection that led to the founding of Stanford University	https://www.truthorfiction.com/stanford/	None	education	None	None	None	The Rejection that led to the founding of Stanford University	Mar 16, 2015	None	['None']
-vogo-00202	Fact Checking Big Promises, Warnings	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-checking-big-promises-warnings/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Checking Big Promises, Warnings	August 27, 2012	None	['None']
-pose-00157	"Overseas, Barack Obama will establish a Shared Security Partnership Program to invest $5 billion over three years to improve cooperation between U.S. and foreign intelligence and law enforcement agencies. This program will include information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and the targeting of terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/169/spend-5-billion-over-three-years-on-cooperative-p/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Spend $5 billion over three years on cooperative programs with foreign intelligence agencies	2010-01-07T13:26:50	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-07635	A proposed revenue smart cap "gives Floridians a voice, requiring a 60 percent vote by citizens in order to impose a new tax, fee, license, fine, charge or assessment."	/florida/statements/2011/mar/16/andy-gardiner/majority-leader-andy-gardiner-says-smart-cap-bill-/	Florida's fiscally conservative Senate wants to leave its mark in the Constitution by more tightly capping the amount of taxes the state could collect in any given year. On March 15, 2011, the Senate passed what it calls a "smart cap," which would limit increases in future state spending to a formula based on annual growth of population and cost of living. The proposal still needs the approval of the House before it could be placed on the fall 2012 ballot. If it makes it to the ballot, 60 percent of voters would have to approve the amendment before it became law. Proponents say the measure makes it more difficult to raise taxes. But opponents argue the cap could harm the state during economic downturns, and that the state already has a revenue cap that is calculated by state personal income. In voicing support for a more restrictive cap, Senate Majority Leader Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, said the proposal will prevent the overuse of taxpayer dollars and will give Floridians a direct voice in charting the state's fiscal course. "It also gives Floridians a voice, requiring a 60 percent vote by citizens in order to impose a new tax, fee, license, fine, charge or assessment on Floridians," Gardiner said in a press release distributed moments after the bill, SJR 958, passed the Senate 27-13. Our fact-check: Would the cap as proposed by the Senate require voter approval for new taxes or fees? Background on cap If enacted, the revenue cap would become effective starting with the 2014-15 budget year. In that year, the state would be allowed to collect an amount equal to the state revenues collected during the 2013-14 budget year plus an adjustment for inflation and population growth. The 2015-16 budget would be created based on revenues from 2014-15 -- with another adjustment for inflation and population growth. And so on. There are several ways to break the cap, according to lawmakers. The Legislature, by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, may increase the revenue limitation for any fiscal year, and use that new figure to determine the revenue guidelines by future years. The Legislature, by a three-fifths vote, may increase the allowable state revenue for any one fiscal year. But those additional revenues would not be counted in future years. Voters also could be asked to raise the revenue cap, according to analysis of the bill. To do that, two-thirds of the Legislature would have to agree to put the question before voters. Sixty percent of voters would have to agree to raise the revenue cap for the change to be adopted. Voter say on new taxes? So the Legislature could raise the revenue cap by itself, or it could ask voters to raise the revenue cap. But Gardiner was much more specific -- saying that voters would be required to not just raise the revenue cap, but to approve a new tax or fee. It turns out, nothing like that is in the proposal. Gardiner spokeswoman Allison Fogt said he was "discussing a tax, fee, license, fine, charge or assessment on Floridians that would 'bust the cap.' " But even still, any new tax or fee that would break the revenue cap could be passed without voter approval. At a press conference on March 16, Senate President Mike Haridopolos talked about how the revenue cap doesn't necessarily tie the hands of future Legislatures because they can always override it. "With a super-majority vote, the Legislature can spend more money," he said. Our ruling In prepared remarks praising the passage of a Senate bill that would tighten a cap on the amount of revenues the state could collect, Gardiner tried to suggest the legislation also requires 60 percent of voters to approve any new tax or fee. It doesn't. Voters could be asked to raise the revenue cap, or lawmakers could do it on their own. And the proposal talks about revenue collections in general, not specific taxes or fees. We rate Gardiner's statement False.	None	Andy Gardiner	None	None	None	2011-03-16T16:07:06	2011-03-15	['None']
-afck-00377	“The Western Cape now has the highest access to water, flush toilets and electricity in the country.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/is-the-das-western-cape-story-a-good-story-to-tell-we-examine-the-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Is the DA’s Western Cape Story a ‘good story to tell’? We examine the claims	2014-03-28 05:02	None	['None']
-hoer-01124	Mega Luxury Dream House Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/mega-luxury-dream-house-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Mega Luxury Dream House Giveaway Facebook Scam	July 14, 2016	None	['None']
-para-00062	Says the Independent Public School system in Western Australia is achieving "extraordinary results" and demonstrates the value of school autonomy.	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/christopher-pyne/does-school-autonomy-beget-student-results/index.html	None	['Education']	Christopher Pyne	Michael Koziol, Peter Fray	None	Does school autonomy beget student results?	Wednesday, August 14, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.	None	['None']
-pose-00735	Will create a 10-year budget plan to offer clearer sense of state's priorities.	https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/765/create-10-year-budget/	None	kitz-o-meter	John Kitzhaber	None	None	Create 10-year budget plan	2011-01-04T21:58:42	None	['None']
-snes-02275	ISIS/Daesh created a WhatsApp group called "Interschools," and once users join it they cannot leave.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/interschools-whatsapp-warning/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Kim LaCapria	None	‘Interschools’ WhatsApp Group Warning	5 June 2017	None	['None']
-bove-00091	Cambridge Analytica – Facebook Fallout: What Does It Mean For You?	https://www.boomlive.in/cambridge-analytica-facebook-fallout-mean/	None	None	None	None	None	Cambridge Analytica – Facebook Fallout: What Does It Mean For You?	Mar 23 2018 6:31 pm	None	['None']
-tron-03358	The Government Sued on Behalf of Muslim Truck Drivers Fired for Not Delivering Beer	https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-government-sued-on-behalf-of-muslim-truck-drivers-fired-for-not-delivering-beer/	None	religious	None	None	None	The Government Sued on Behalf of Muslim Truck Drivers Fired for Not Delivering Beer	Oct 29, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05883	Photograph shows John F. Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe sharing an intimate moment.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-shot-in-the-dark/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	JFK and Marilyn Monroe Photographed Together?	22 February 2010	None	['Marilyn_Monroe', 'John_F._Kennedy']
-pomt-10982	"The Russian state has never interfered ... into internal American affairs including election process."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/16/vladimir-putin/vladimir-putin-falsely-claims-russia-never-interfe/	Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia has never interfered in American politics during a joint press conference with President Donald Trump, despite all evidence to the contrary. Putin’s assertion came on July 16, just days after Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian intelligence officials for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. "The Russian state has never interfered and is not going to interfere into internal American affairs including election process," Putin said following a one-on-one meeting with Trump in Helsinki, Finland. Trump, for his part, appeared to take his Russian counterpart at his word. "President Putin says it's not Russia," Trump said. "I don't see any reason why it would be." But the U.S. intelligence community, House and Senate panels led by Republicans, the special counsel’s team and members of Trump’s own administration have endorsed the view that Russia has interfered in American politics, in a practice that dates as far back as the Soviet era. Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election As we wrote in our story naming the 2017 Lie of the Year — Trump’s claim that Russian election interference is a "made-up story" — a mountain of evidence points to the fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In a January 2017 assessment, the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence — referred to as the the intelligence community — concluded that Russia intervened to help Trump’s election chances while hurting those of Hillary Clinton. Intelligence agencies have said the Kremlin directed the cyber-theft of private data, the placement of propaganda against particular candidates, and an overall effort to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process. A Senate panel that independently reviewed the intelligence community’s assessment backed up its findings, concluding July 3 that the agencies’ joint assessment was a "sound intelligence product." The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also said Russia conducted cyberattacks on U.S. political institutions during the 2016 campaign. Fresh evidence of Moscow’s election interference emerged in indictments stemming from the special counsel’s investigation. On July 13, Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers for their role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Clinton campaign, and subsequently leaking stolen emails and documents. In this latest indictment, the special counsel alleged that units operating under Moscow’s military intelligence agency conducted cyber operations that involved "the staged releases of documents" obtained through targeted computer hacking. "These units conducted large-scale cyber operations to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election," the indictment states. Previously, the special counsel charged 13 Russians and three Russian entities with conspiring to defraud the United States and interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Members of Trump’s own administration have endorsed a view at odds with the president. Then-CIA director Mike Pompeo — now secretary of state — said in November 2017 that he stands by the intelligence community’s January 2017 findings that Russian cyber-meddling sought to help Trump and hurt Clinton. Following Mueller’s first indictment against Russian hackers in February, Trump’s then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster called the evidence of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election "incontrovertible." Dan Coats, Trump’s top intelligence official, told lawmakers in February, "There should be no doubt that (Putin) views the past effort as successful." Coats, the director of National Intelligence, also issued a stern warning days before Trump’s meeting with Putin in Helsinki. He compared the current threat of more Russian cyberattacks to warning signs before the September 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000. "It was in the months prior to September 2001 when, according to then-CIA Director George Tenet, the system is blinking red," Coats said. "And here we are nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say, the warning lights are blinking red again." The history of Russian meddling In light of Putin’s blanket denial, we took a fresh look at Russia’s election-meddling past. Historians said the 2016 election was the first known example of a Russian attempt to sway a U.S. election in favor of a specific candidate, though there could have been additional attempts that remain classified or undiscovered. "If by ‘Russia’ one means post-1991 Russia, that statement (from Putin) appears to be correct based on publicly available information," said Lucan Way, a University of Toronto professor specializing in democratization and authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union. But that does not mean the 2016 meddling was unprecedented. Way noted that Russia has frequently interfered in the elections of post-Soviet countries since the fall of the Soviet Union. Further, the Soviet Union worked in secret to help or hurt U.S. candidates at least four times during the Cold War era. "What we are seeing with Russia's active measures today are ‘unprecedented’ in that they use new tools and technologies … but the ends are very much older, and are straight from the KGB playbook," said Calder Walton, an expert in intelligence history and international relations at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. "One can't understand Russian active measures to interfere in the 2016 election without understanding the long KGB history." In 1960, for example, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev offered Adlai Stevenson assistance from a secret propaganda campaign. Stevenson declined the offer and ultimately lost in the Democratic primary to John F. Kennedy. In 1968, Anatoly Dobrynin, the Soviet ambassador to the United States, offered to secretly fund for Hubert Humphrey’s campaign against Richard Nixon, but Humphrey rejected the bribe. In 1976, the KGB opened a smear campaign against anti-communist Democrat Henry "Scoop" Jackson, forging FBI paperwork to make it seem that Jackson was gay and distributing the fake reports to U.S. newspapers both during and after the election. But Walton said Soviet interference efforts became most active in the 1980s against Ronald Reagan, pointing to a now-public cache of top-secret KGB records called the Mitrokhin Archive. The KGB sought compromising material on Reagan in 1976 and planted some anti-Reagan articles in foreign newspapers. Ahead of the 1984 election, the KGB also worked to discredit Reagan’s policies and popularize the slogan "Reagan Means War" around the world. "There is a long history of the Kremlin interfering in internal U.S. affairs, including elections," Walton said. "This included gathering compromising material on U.S. politicians, supporting Kremlin-favored candidates in U.S. elections, spreading forgeries and disinformation campaigns to inculcate distrust among the U.S. population in their government and Western allies." Walton added that Putin’s claim is "nonsense." We've reached out to the Russian embassy and will update the fact-check if we hear back. Our ruling Putin said, "The Russian state has never interfered ... into internal American affairs including election process." A mountain of evidence testifies to the fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The U.S. intelligence community and a Republican-led Senate panel concluded independently of each other that Kremlin-directed operatives stole private data, used propaganda against particular candidates, and engaged in an overall effort to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process. A Republican-led House panel found in its own investigation that Russia conducted cyberattacks during the 2016 campaign. These findings are supported by indictments stemming from the special counsel’s investigation. There is no public evidence to suggest that the post-Cold War Russian government had previously interfered in a U.S. election at levels near the 2016 meddling, but the Soviet Union made several attempts to do so prior to its collapse in 1991. We rate this Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Vladimir Putin	None	None	None	2018-07-16T16:56:37	2018-07-16	['United_States', 'Russia']
-pomt-08095	"On the question on the DREAM Act, no -- no to granting lower tuition to illegals."	/florida/statements/2010/dec/14/john-mica/florida-congressman-says-dream-act-means-lower-tui/	A controversial plan to provide a path to permanent legal residency for children brought to the United States illegally continues to rise toward the top of the agenda in the final days of the 111th Congress. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would allow children brought to the United States illegally to obtain permanent legal status if they complete two years of college or in the military and meet other obligations. But opponents have been raising several objections about the proposed legislation, saying it could create a path for family members to citizenship, that the measure means amnesty for more than 2 million illegal immigrants and that the costs of illegal immigration already are ginormous. PolitiFact already has dealt with several of these claims, which you can read about here, but we found another one from Florida Republican U.S. Rep. John Mica that we wanted to consider. Back on Nov. 18, 2010, Mica appeared on the MSNBC show The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell to talk about several of the Democrats top end-of-the-year priorities, including the DREAM Act. At one point, Mica, O'Donnell and Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York, debated whether the DREAM Act would grant lower state university tuition to illegal immigrants who qualified. "Well first of all, on the question on the DREAM Act, no -- no to granting lower tuition to illegals," Mica said, who was first elected to the U.S. House in 1993 and is the incoming Transportation Committee chairman. "It does not do that, Congressman. It does not do that," O'Donnell jumped back in. "You can vote against it for another reason, but not that one." We wanted to see who's right? The DREAM Act explained One of the problems when talking about the "DREAM Act" has been that there have in fact been several different versions of the legislation floating around Congress. The versions all have the same general goal -- providing a path to legal residency for illegal immigrants brought here by their parents or someone else -- but the terms of each piece of legislation were different. Congress finally set the boundaries of the legislation on Dec. 7, when the House passed a version of the DREAM Act 216-198. The legislation actually was tucked in as an amendment to an innocuous bill already approved by the U.S. Senate. But the bill must still return to the Senate for a second vote. Under the bill, H.R. 5281, illegal immigrants would be able to apply for conditional nonimmigrant status for an initial period of five years if: 1.) They are under 30; 2.) Arrived in the United States before the age of 16; 3.) Have lived here at least the last five years; 4.) Received a U.S. high school diploma or GED; 5.) And have largely avoided run-ins with the law (you can get all the details by reading the bill text). Those immigrants could then apply for a second five-year period if they serve in the U.S. military or complete at least two years of a community college or undergraduate program. And after 10 years, immigrants could then become legal permanent residents. As part of the program, immigrants could receive certain federal student loans, but not federal Pell grants, food stamps or Medicaid. They must also pay application fees totaling up to $2,525. How many people are we talking about? In July, a nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute analysis of the DREAM Act concluded there are about 2.1 million people who would be potentially eligible under the DREAM Act. But the number crunching arm of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that only about 700,000 people would have conditional nonimmigrant status in 2020 -- the year before anyone could become a permanent legal resident. CBO estimated that less than half of the individuals who would initially apply for conditional nonimmigrant status would qualify to apply for a five-year extension. Tuition breaks for illegals Mica isn't saying there's some type of DREAM Act tuition discount for people taking advantage of the legislation (there isn't). He's talking about DREAM Act participants being able to qualify for in-state tuition, because they would be legal residents of a state just like other U.S. citizens. So, they'd be paying less in tuition than someone who attends an out-of-state university or a foreign national attending a U.S. university with a student visa, Mica claims. Answering whether Mica is right or not is not as simple as saying "Yes" or "No." Let's take it a step at a time. First, 11 states already allow for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The policies in those states -- California, Texas, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Wisconsin -- won't be affected by the DREAM Act. (The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously last month that illegal immigrant students may pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities). Second, the legislation that passed the House on Dec. 7 does not mention in-state tuition, and no version ever considered would mandate or force states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state rates. That's an opinion shared by Michelle Mittelstadt, a spokeswoman for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, and by Steve Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes the DREAM Act. So where's the rub? One version of the bill -- a version that never came to a vote -- sought to repeal a section of a 1996 immigration law that seemingly pertains to the issue at hand. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act included language attempting to prevent state universities from giving benefits to in-state illegal immigrants that they didn't offer to out-of-state U.S. citizens. But the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said there is disagreement about the meaning of the provision, whether it applies to tuition and whether Congress exceeded its powers in crafting the language. Also, states have effectively ignored the rule, or at least have agreed to interpret it differently. The repeal of the 1996 language is not included in the version of the DREAM Act that passed the House. More importantly, and more germane to this fact check, however, is debate over the impact of enacting the DREAM Act. While granting DREAM Act participants in-state tuition is not part of the federal legislation, it may happen as a result of the legislation, Camarota at the Center for Immigration Studies argues. The scenario, he said, is clear. An illegal immigrant in Florida, say, applies for and is granted a conditional nonimmigrant status for five years. That person then is a legal resident of Florida. If so, why would he or she not be able to receive in-state tuition, Camarota asks. And if somehow denied in-state tuition, wouldn't the applicant have a valid legal challenge? "The law isn't intended per se to do it, but it can't help but happen," he says. Others argue that universities could simply ask prospective students if they are DREAM Act participants to separate the two sets of state residents. "The House-passed legislation is silent on in-state tuition, leaving in place existing rules and approaches undertaken by different states with respect to allowing in-state tuition for unauthorized students," Mittelstadt said. Our rating Appearing on MSNBC, Mica said that passing the DREAM Act would mean "granting lower tuition to illegals." But we think he's really stretching to get there. The version of the DREAM Act that passed in the House -- as well as prior versions that were debated -- did not include language requiring states to offer DREAM Act participants in-state tuition. The closest a version of the DREAM Act came was to propose repealing a federal rule that some have interpreted as preventing states from offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. But that version never came to a vote. Moreover, 11 states already offer in-state tuition, so rates in those places -- including California and Texas -- couldn't go lower. As for the other states, the only real argument is that passing the DREAM Act could have the consequence of forcing them to offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants as well. And we guess it could. But there's no definitive evidence that it would, just conjecture and speculation. And it certainly isn't expressed in the bill language. So we rate this claim False.	None	John Mica	None	None	None	2010-12-14T17:57:11	2010-11-18	['None']
-snes-03730	A cell phone virus is circulating disguised as a video called the 'Dance of the Pope.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dance-of-the-pope-virus-hoax/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Dance of the Pope’ Virus	7 April 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04423	Says "when I voted against [an increase in the minimum wage], it was in the 80s."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/oct/15/joseph-kyrillos/joe-kyrillos-said-when-he-voted-against-minimum-wa/	Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos said he thinks the state’s lowest-paid workers deserve a raise. But incumbent U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat, accused Kyrillos of reversing course on that position. The two will face off in the Nov. 6 election. "Listen, you had the opportunity, you know, you just can't flip back and forth. You've become the biggest flip flopper. Now it's that you want to vote for the minimum wage increase but you voted against it when you had the opportunity. Why'd you vote against it?" Menendez said during a heated debate on New Jersey 101.5-FM on Wednesday night. "I already said. You look at -- I think when I voted against it, it was in the 80s. It was a long time. You were in the Assembly then," Kyrillos said, adding that "you look at things in the context of their times. You look at the legislation as it’s proposed." Let’s refresh Kyrillos’ memory here, because PolitiFact New Jersey didn’t have to go back to the 1980s to find a time when he voted against increasing the minimum wage. Kyrillos, a state senator from Monmouth County, voted against a 2005 proposal that boosted the minimum wage in two steps, eventually increasing it to $7.15 per hour in 2006. That rate didn’t change until 2009, when the federal minimum wage jumped to $7.25 per hour. When federal and state minimum wages conflict, the higher one applies, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. When we pointed out the 2005 vote to Kyrillos spokeswoman Meaghan Cronin she said Kyrillos "has supported increasing the minimum wage" and cited another 2005 bill that he sponsored. Two weeks after Kyrillos voted against the proposal that became law he introduced legislation that increased the minimum wage more, but at a slower pace. Under his bill, the minimum wage would increase in four stages, reaching $7.25 per hour on Aug. 1, 2008. That bill was referred to committee but never came to a vote. Still, Kyrillos is wrong to claim his vote against the minimum wage happened more than two decades ago, because he voted against it again less than 10 years ago. In fact, Kyrillos wasn’t even in office for much of the 1980s. He joined the Assembly in 1988 before winning a seat in the state Senate, where he has served since 1992. Then-assemblyman Kyrillos voted against a 1990 bill that hiked the minimum wage -- then set at $3.35 per hour -- in three phases, ultimately increasing it to an hourly rate of $5.05 in 1992. Menendez, who also served in the assembly at the time, voted in favor of the bill, according to assembly minutes. The assembly later voted again on the same measure after the senate amended the bill. On that second vote, Menendez again voted yes, while Kyrillos is not listed in the minutes as voting. By 1992 both Kyrillos and Menendez had joined the state senate. That year a bill was introduced to delay half of the final increase in the minimum wage hike approved two years earlier. Kyrillos voted in favor of that legislation, while Menendez opposed it. The governor vetoed the bill. Our ruling Kyrillos said, "when I voted against [an increase in the minimum wage], it was in the 80s." Actually the state senator and Republican U.S. Senate hopeful voted against a bill in 2005 that eventually increased the minimum wage to $7.15 per hour. We rate this statement False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Joseph Kyrillos	None	None	None	2012-10-15T07:30:00	2012-10-10	['None']
-snes-00181	Journalist Jen Moore died under suspicious circumstances after contacting both the DHS and the FBI with allegations that former President Bill Clinton committed sexual assault.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jen-moore-death/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Was Journalist Jen Moore Killed After Contacting Authorities About Bill Clinton?	23 August 2018	None	['Bill_Clinton', 'Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation', 'United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security']
-pomt-00401	Says Minnesota is "imprisoning half as many people as Wisconsin, and yet our states have virtually identical crime rates."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/sep/05/mike-mccabe/mike-mccabe-says-minnesota-imprisoning-half-many-p/	As this year’s governor race takes off, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has made crime and state prisons a hot topic. In an Aug. 7, 2018 tweet -- a week ahead of the primary election -- Walker claimed Democrats in the race wanted to cut the state prison population in half, which would "require the release of thousands of violent felons." We rated the claim Half True. The main problem: While a short time frame might require that, a longer time frame — and reducing incoming inmates as well as releasing some others — would not. What’s more, not every one of the Democrats made the 50 percent reduction a promise. (Tony Evers, Walker’s opponent in November, has said cutting the inmate population by half is "a goal that’s worth accomplishing.") As we cleaned out our files after the Aug. 14 primary, we came across an interesting claim we didn’t get to that remains relevant. It was from Mike McCabe, who was at the time running in a wide field of Democrats vying to replace Walker. He’s a former executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and founder of the the activist group Blue Jean Nation. In a July 6, 2018 interview on Wisconsin Public Television’s "Here & Now," McCabe stated that Minnesota is "imprisoning half as many people as Wisconsin, and yet our states have virtually identical crime rates." Is he right? Prison populations When asked to provide backup for his claim, McCabe pointed to 2016 U.S. Department of Justice data compiled into a map by The Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy center that aims to reduce incarceration nationwide. According to the data, 22,144 people were imprisoned in the state of Wisconsin, while 10,592 were imprisoned in Minnesota. That puts Minnesota’s prison population at 47.8 percent of Wisconsin’s -- not quite at half, as McCabe said. Since the states differ in size, the prison rate provides a better perspective. According to the justice department’s 2015 data, Minnesota has one of the lowest rates in the country -- 196 prisoners per 100,000 people. Wisconsin’s rate is 377 prisoners per 100,000, or nearly twice that of Minnesota. Crime rates As for the state crime rates, McCabe pointed to FBI statistics from 2016 that showed Minnesota with a rate 2,376 crimes per 100,000 residents. That is slightly higher than Wisconsin’s crime rate, which was 2,239 crimes per 100,000 residents. But it’s not quite that simple. According to Michael Tonry, director of the Institute on Crime and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, prison rate comparisons are more reliable than crime rate comparisons. That’s because prison data is all kept by the state. Crime data, in contrast, is kept and reported by local police departments, then transmitted to the state and sent to the FBI. And, though the FBI provides definitions on how to classify various crimes, in practice it can vary widely among local law enforcement agencies. Still, Tonry said if crime rates are within 20 to 25 percent, they are "for all practical purposes, the same." This would also support McCabe’s claim. Probation All of that said, there is something else to consider: In making the comparison, is McCabe missing the bigger picture? For instance, Minnesota ranks in the top five states for people on probation. As of 2015, Minnesota had a rate of 2,328 per 100,000 people, versus Wisconsin’s 1,028 per 100,000. So, more than double Wisconsin by that measure. In fact, if one examines all forms of correctional supervision -- which includes those in prison, jail, probation and supervised release -- it provides some more insight into what is really going on between the two states. Minnesota had 2,210 per 100,000 residents in some form of correctional control, according to 2015 U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics. That placed it in a tie for 14th place with Alabama. Meanwhile, Wisconsin was somewhat lower -- 1,740 per 100,000 residents, tied for 25th place with Missouri and Maryland. Policy differences Whether it is more effective to put more criminals in prison or to put them on probation is a near constant debate between Republicans and Democrats. The reason Minnesota imprisons fewer people, according to Kenneth Streit, a clinical professor of law emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is because Minnesota saw in the 1970s how its prison population was projected to increase. The state established a bipartisan sentencing guidelines commission to prioritize how to use the existing prison beds. While the state did eventually have to build more beds when crime spiked in the 1980s and 90s, Streit said it was at a "far lower rate" than in Wisconsin. In addition, Streit said Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines, which are mandatory, offer "very, very limited" instances where sentences can be consecutive. In Wisconsin, sentencing guidelines are advisory, Streit said, so consecutive sentences are more common. Streit said he believes, to that degree, McCabe has "identified a major difference" between Minnesota and Wisconsin. Our rating McCabe stated that Minnesota is "imprisoning half as many people as Wisconsin, and yet our states have virtually identical crime rates." Minnesota and Wisconsin have nearly identical crime rates, and Minnesota does indeed imprison about half the amount of people as Wisconsin. McCabe’s claim, though, misses some important information: That is, Minnesota has a higher overall "correctional control rate," which provides more insight into how the states really compare. We rate McCabe’s claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mike McCabe	None	None	None	2018-09-05T06:00:00	2018-07-06	['Wisconsin', 'Minnesota']
-pomt-14224	"You’re in more trouble if you leave your pet in the car than if you leave your child in the car."	/rhode-island/statements/2016/apr/17/john-pagliarini/do-we-value-our-pets-more-our-children/	There are two unattended vehicles in a Rhode Island parking lot on a hot summer day. One has a child inside, and the other, an animal. Police are called. In the case of the pet, police or animal control can take "all steps that are reasonably necessary to remove an animal from a motor vehicle" if the animal is at risk. They are to leave a note for the motorist and bring the pet to an animal hospital for observation. The motorist must pay all costs associated with the rescue, and can face up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $1,000 or both, according to the state’s "Animal confinement in motor vehicles prohibited" law. In the case of a child, police can "provide a verbal warning" to the parent or caregiver about risks and dangers associated with leaving a kid in a car. No fines or sanctions can be imposed, according to the state’s "Child passenger protection" statute. Wait, what? Sen. John Pagliarini highlighted this discrepancy in a senate hearing in March. This seemed outrageous, so we called and asked him to explain. He told us if you look at the law for leaving a pet unattended in a car (§ 4-1-3.2) and compare it to the law for leaving a child unattended in a car (§ 31-22-22.1), the penalties for people who leave pets behind are more severe. "It looks as though you’re in more trouble if you leave your pet in the car than if you leave your child in the car," Pagliarini said in an interview with The Journal. "One would think we value our pets more than our children." Pagliarini said he wasn’t sure if existing child neglect laws would apply in this case, but he encouraged a further look. "I hope I’m wrong," Pagliarini said. Well, we’re going to find out. Looking only at the two laws outlined above, it seems Pagliarini is correct. For example, the pet law explicitly authorizes police to break into a car with a pet inside. For a child, there is no such language. We asked Sgt. Michael Wheeler in the Providence Police Department’s Youth Service Bureau what happens in practice. "If there's a child in the car and I need to break into the car, I’m breaking into the car," he said. "We deal with everything else later on." Wheeler told us that in cases like this, Providence police are to get the child out of the car first. Then they take the child to Hasbro Children’s Hospital for assessment and contact the Department of Children, Youth and Families. Providence’s police chief, Col. Hugh Clements, who serves as the president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association, said the same thing. Police would immediately contact EMTs and get the child help. They take the child to Hasbro even if the parent, or driver, shows up during this whole process. At the hospital DCYF caseworkers, along with the hospital staff, can assess whether the child is in imminent danger or needs to be held further, Wheeler said. Under § 40-11-5 police, social workers or doctors are allowed to take a child into custody for 72 hours without parental consent if the child has any injuries caused by "other than accidental means." Leaving your child in a hot car on a 99-degree day might fall into that category, Wheeler said. Kerri White, a public information officer for DCYF, said her department might open a Child Protective Services investigation after a report like this. If investigators find the child is in danger, DCYF is to place the child on a protective hold (explained earlier) and seek a child protective order from the Family Court and remove him or her from the home. Amy Kempe, a spokeswoman in the attorney general’s office, said authorities can use existing child abuse and child neglect statutes (like § 11-9-5) to bring criminal charges against parents or caregivers depending on "the facts and circumstances of a specific incident." "Please note, cruelty to or neglect of a child is a felony with a maximum penalty of three years, $1,000, or both," said Kempe in an emailed statement. Kempe pointed to the state’s "Brendan's Law," which protects kids from serious bodily injury — meaning things like creating a substantial threat of death, broken bones, impairment of organs, etc. — or any physical injury — which the law defines as an injury "which arises other than from the imposition of non excessive corporal punishment." With these standards, a parent or caregiver could face charges of first-degree child abuse, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. Or they could be charged with second-degree child abuse and face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Enter Sen. Lou Raptakis and his amendment to the "child passenger protection" law, which was introduced in the Senate on Jan.13. His problem with the way the current law stands is that Brendan’s Law and the other statutes Kempe mentions only apply if the child is injured, unlike in the animal-husbandry bill, where the motorist is culpable no matter what. "It’s kind of absurd that a child doesn’t have the same protection as an animal does," Raptakis said. In his amendment, which he hopes will be up for vote later this month, a parent or caregiver would face the similar penalties as in the animal bill if they leave a child under 7 unattended in a car for more than 5 minutes. Our ruling Sen. Pagliarini says "You’re in more trouble if you leave your pet in the car than if you leave your child in the car." We looked at the laws, and at face value, he’s right. But, through the power of the DCYF, police, hospital staff and child neglect statutes like Brendan’s Law, parents or caregivers can get in a heap of trouble if they leave a child in these circumstances. Because the statement leaves out important details about actual practice, we rate it: Half True.	None	John Pagliarini	None	None	None	2016-04-17T00:00:00	2016-04-11	['None']
-pose-00433	"Will enter into public private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/453/create-clean-coal-partnerships/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Create clean coal partnerships	2010-01-07T13:26:59	None	['None']
-pomt-04703	"We will spend $100 billion in Afghanistan this year, fixing roads, building bridges, training police officers, and more, [and] cutting the same things in our own country."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/sep/05/david-cicilline/us-rep-david-cicilline-says-united-states-will-spe/	During last week’s televised clash between U.S. Rep. David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, who is challenging Cicilline in the 1st Congressional District Democratic primary, the topic turned to possible ways of cutting the federal deficit. Cicilline, in the WPRI-TV/Providence Journal debate, urged a swift return of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as one suggestion, noting that "We will spend $100 billion in Afghanistan this year, fixing roads, building bridges, training police officers, and more [and] cutting the same things in our own country." His message was clear: it is time for the United States to start redirecting that money toward improving America’s own crumbling infrastructure -- a theme Cicilline has been sounding for months. But we wondered if the United States was really spending $100 billion a year for Afghan infrastructure and other non-military aid. We called Cicilline campaign for its supporting evidence and while we waited for a response, did some research. PolitiFact National examined the subject of non-military aid to Afghanistan in May 2012 when it looked at whether President Obama had kept a campaign promise to increase that aid by another $1 billion to $3 billion. (PolitiFact rated it Promise Kept.) One source of information PolitiFact National cited was a May 2012 Congressional Research Service report,which found that during fiscal years 2001 through 2011-- a span of a decade -- "the Afghan intervention has cost about $443 billion, including all costs." For fiscal year 2012, which ends Sept. 30, the report says, the United States was expected to spend "about $90 billion" for military operations and another "$16 billion in aid," including training and equipment. That’s far different from $100 billion going to just to infrastructure and non-military projects in one year, as Cicilline seemed to be implying. According to a July quarterly report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which keeps a running tab of the war’s costs for Congress, "the President’s FY 2013 budget request includes nearly $9.7 billion to strengthen the Afghan security forces during this critical transition period and to fund programs to build governing capacity, promote economic development, and counter the drug trade." The special inspector general’s report also includes a graphicwhich shows that between 2002 and March of 2012, "the United States had appropriated approximately $89.48 billion for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan." The money had been allocated into five major areas: $52.15 billion for security $22.34 billion for governance and development $6 billion for counter narcotics efforts $2.37 billion for humanitarian aid $6.62 billion for oversight and operations In an e-mail, Michael O’Hanlon, director of research and a senior fellow for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, said the U.S. would spend "more than $100 billion" in Afghanistan this year "but it’s primarily for our own military forces and their military operations." Of that $100 billion about $15 billion "can be viewed as directly supporting the Afghan economy and Afghan institutions and infrastructure," O’Hanlon said. Ultimately the Cicilline camp responded. In an e-mail, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner told us the congressman’s quote was accurate because of two barely audible words that viewers likely missed last week and the four judges here at PolitiFact had to have replayed a half dozen times to actually pick up: "and more." Cicilline, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and should be able to articulate well the difference between military and non-military aid, said the United States "will spend $100 billion in Afghanistan this year fixing roads, building bridges, training police officers AND MORE [and] cutting the same things in our own country." Kayner said that statement is "factually accurate" because "Our country is spending over a 100 billion dollars a year on roads, bridges, training police officers AND MORE in Afghanistan." Our ruling The stress of debates can prompt a candidate to misspeak and mumble at times, especially when it becomes a slugfest of accusations like last week’s first televised Cicilline-Gemma get-together. But we believe anyone who watched the debate last week would have had the impression that Cicilline wasn’t talking about the cost of tanks and soldiers and running a war when he raised the $100 billion figure. He was talking specifically about redirecting money now spent on Afghanistan’s infrastructure and using it on things we’re cutting "in our own country" -- our own crumbling roads and bridges. But we are spending about $15 billion this year for that kind of non-military aid, not $100 billion. Therefore we rate his statement: False	None	David Cicilline	None	None	None	2012-09-05T00:01:00	2012-08-28	['Afghanistan']
-pose-00977	While the General Assembly authorized $3 billion in bonds in 2007, not a single dollar of that money has been issued as of today. McDonnell will assure these bonds are issued beginning in 2010...As the economy recovers, Bob McDonnell will further seek the issuance of new bonds for highly congested areas, with a goal of issuing at least another $1 billion for priority state projects.	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/1012/issue-transportation-bonds/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Issue transportation bonds	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Bob_McDonnell']
-farg-00157	"A recent Department of Labor report showed the fewest jobless claims since 1973."	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-unemployment-claims/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Eugene Kiely	['jobless claims']	Trump on Unemployment Claims	October 24, 2017	[' White House – Tuesday, October 24, 2017 ']	['None']
-goop-00918	Victoria Beckham, David Had Big Fight At Royal Wedding, Headed For Split?	https://www.gossipcop.com/victoria-beckham-david-royal-wedding-split-fight/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Victoria Beckham, David Had Big Fight At Royal Wedding, Headed For Split?	5:52 pm, May 29, 2018	None	['None']
-vees-00181	THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: Musician Jim Paredes caused a flight delay	http://verafiles.org/articles/week-fake-news-musician-jim-paredes-did-not-cause-flight-del	None	None	None	None	fake news	THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: Musician Jim Paredes DID NOT cause a flight delay	June 08, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03786	Says she has bipartisan support, including "53 sheriffs throughout the state, Democrats and Republicans."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/mar/29/patience-roggensack/wisconsin-supreme-court-justice-patience-roggensac/	Conventional wisdom holds that there is a 4-3 conservative majority among the seven justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That would indicate the balance of power is at stake in the April 2, 2013, election. Justice Patience Roggensack, who is seeking a second 10-year term, is considered to be one of the conservatives on the high court. She faces Marquette University law professor Edward Fallone, who is supported by labor unions and Democratic elected officials. The race is officially nonpartisan. Roggensack has resisted the conservative label and contends her support comes from both sides of the political aisle. In particular, she has emphasized her endorsements from Wisconsin sheriffs. In a candidates forum on March 26, 2013, in Madison, Roggensack said: "I run nonpartisan. But (in) this race, I have tried very hard to have bipartisan support. I'm supported by 53 sheriffs throughout the state, Democrats and Republicans; district attorneys throughout the state, again, Democrats and Republicans. I have strong law enforcement support. The Wisconsin Professional Police Association has just endorsed me; again, Democrats and Republicans." Roggensack made a similar statement several days earlier in an interview and has issued several news releases touting the endorsement from sheriffs. Given Roggensack’s reputation as a conservative, one would expect she has strong support from Republican sheriffs. But for her claim of bipartisan backing to be true, she’d also need to show significant support from Democratic sheriffs. Let’s see what there is. Roggensack lists the 53 sheriffs who have endorsed her on her campaign website. We ran our own check of the list, given that it doesn’t include party affiliations. We also consulted the 2011-2012 Wisconsin Blue Book. We did tallies in two ways: -- Of the 53 sheriffs listed as having endorsed Roggensack, 42 are Republican and 11 are Democrats. That’s a 79 percent to 21 percent Republican-Democrat split. The Republican sheriffs include Dan Trawicki of Waukesha County, Maury Straub of Ozaukee County and Dale Schmidt of Washington County. The Democratic sheriffs include David A. Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County, Sam Wollin of Adams County and David Kaminski of Rusk County, who is president of the Badger State Sheriffs’ Association. -- The 11 Democrats backing Roggensack make up 42 percent of the 26 sheriffs statewide who are Democrats, according to the Blue Book. Clarke is a conservative and frequent critic of policies favored by Democrats, but runs as a Democrat in a county that leans heavily in that direction. Fallone, meanwhile, lists two sheriffs among the officials who have endorsed him: Dave Mahoney of Dane County and Bob Spoden of Rock County. Both are Democrats. Our rating Roggensack said she has bipartisan support, including "53 sheriffs throughout the state, Democrats and Republicans." As expected, Roggensack has plenty of support from GOP sheriffs, but she has significant backing from Democratic sheriffs, as well. A little more than one-fifth of the sheriffs backing her are Democrats and those Democrats make up more than 40 percent of all the Democratic sheriffs in the state. We rate Roggensack’s statement True.	None	Patience Roggensack	None	None	None	2013-03-29T09:00:00	2013-03-26	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-02736	"Every dollar spent in the new Obamacare system ... goes to private-sector insurance companies."	/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/18/chris-matthews/matthews-every-dollar-obamacare-goes-private-insur/	Like most MSNBC hosts, Chris Matthews has been using his show Hardball recently to both defend the health care law and criticize Republicans who attack it. On Dec. 16, 2013, Matthews played a video clip of former Pennsylvania senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum speaking at a young Republicans event. In the video Santorum refers to the health care law as "free health care" and says it would deny care to anyone who needed it. "It’s a pretty clever system," he said. "Take care of the people who can vote. The people who can’t vote, get rid of them as quickly as possible by not giving them care, (they die) so they can’t vote against you." Santorum also compared the Affordable Care Act to the United Kingdom's government-owned health care system. Matthews, in response, was keen to note that’s completely unlike what exists in America. "Every dollar spent in the new Obamacare system -- if you want to call it Obamacare -- goes to insurance companies," Matthews said. "All the money goes to private-sector insurance companies that already exist." We decided to check Matthews' retort that "Every dollar spent in the new Obamacare system ... goes to private-sector insurance companies." We reached out to MSNBC but did not hear back. The part of the Affordable Care Act that matches Matthews’ description is the insurance marketplaces run by the federal government and by individual states. These are the places where private insurance companies can sell their plans. People of any income can purchase insurance through one of these marketplaces and if they don’t make too much, they are eligible for subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. But what Matthews overlooked is the very large role that expanded Medicaid plays in Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act allows states to open that health care program to people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. So far, only 25 states and the District of Columbia have agreed to do that. But in terms of the number of dollars and people, this side of the Affordable Care Act is roughly equal to the insurance marketplaces Matthews described. A few numbers The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number crunchers for Congress, projected that in 2014, the subsidies provided through the marketplaces would cost the government about $26 billion. The matching figure for Medicaid expansion? $21 billion. Looking at how many people will gain coverage in 2014, the budget office expects 6 million people will take advantage of subsidized policies through the marketplaces. The expansion of Medicaid, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, would add 9 million people, CBO says. (The Medicaid numbers are likely to be lower since states have opted out of the Medicaid expansion.) Health economist Jeffrey Clemens at the University of California-San Diego told PunditFact that looking forward, Medicaid expansion accounts for about 39 percent of the cost in the Affordable Care Act to get more people covered. Clemens and Thomas Getzen, professor at Temple University’s Fox School of Business and Management and executive director of the International Association of Health Economics, both said that regardless of who gets paid first, money in Obamacare continues to move through the health care industry. Some of it ends up with insurance companies, some of it ends up with doctors and other providers. Medicaid is a government-run program that pays doctors and hospitals for their services. So, those dollars also go back to the private sector, but they don’t pass through the hands of private insurance companies first. Our ruling Mathews said every dollar in the "new Obamacare system" goes to insurance companies. The use of "every" gets Matthews in trouble here. About half of the Affordable Care Act flows through marketplaces where private insurance companies sell policies. But the other half runs through the government’s Medicaid program. That expansion costs about the same as the subsidies offered through the marketplaces and at least in the near term, touches even more people. Matthews was drawing a contrast with government-owned health care systems and focused on the part of the Affordable Care Act that has dominated the news. But when he said "every dollar," he went too far. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Chris Matthews	None	None	None	2013-12-18T14:58:22	2013-12-16	['None']
-pomt-13667	Russia and China are "doing naval exercises together someplace."	/ohio/statements/2016/aug/04/donald-trump/trump-china-and-russia-doing-naval-exercises-toget/	At a rally in Columbus, Ohio, Donald Trump again made the case for improved relations with Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Wouldn’t it be great if the United States and Russia got along, combined, knocked out ISIS, maybe did other positive things?" Trump said Aug. 1, 2016. "We forced them through stupidity into an alliance with China, you know why? Because China needs oil. We were driving them both crazy, they formed -- and from the time I was a young guy I always learned, don’t ever let China and Russia get together," Trump said. "We forced them together, Obama forced them together ... because you didn’t get along with either and then eventually China came in and said, ‘Let’s make a deal on oil.’ They’re together. In fact they’re doing naval exercises together someplace." For this fact-check, we’re evaluating Trump’s claim that Russia and China are "doing naval exercises together," and that Obama "forced them together." As neighbors, China and Russia have a complicated relationship. Relations were certainly cold while Russia was part of the Soviet Union, and a small skirmish broke out between the two war powers in 1969. The relationship improved dramatically when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Their symbiosis since the early 1990s has been largely weapons-related -- with China buying advanced Russian weaponry. The calculation changed in 2014, when Russia seized control of Crimea in Ukraine. The action led to crippling sanctions organized by the United States, European Union and Canada that led a buckling of the Russian economy and a need for Russia to advance its relationship with China. Joint naval exercises following the sanctions have "a new level of seriousness," according to Lyle J. Goldstein, associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I.. A 2014 exercise in the East China Sea choreographed two submarines and 14 surface ships. A year later in the Black Sea, nine ships practiced anti-submarine warfare. "Russia is trying to prove to the United States, and to the EU as well, that they have other options, that they can go to their other friend and make serious deals," said Laicie Heeley, an expert from the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank. This includes deals on oil, as Trump said. Russia shipped 4.65 million tons of oil to China last March, and such exports have more than doubled over the last five years. This, too, has to do with the sanctions that have limited Russia’s exporting options. "Unfortunately for Russia, the partnership is much more political than economic," Heeley said. "China still represents a rather small portion of their exports, and they haven’t really been able to make the big deals or encourage the private investments that would really help their economy. They haven’t been able to come to the kind of partnership that, rhetorically, they’d like to be able to say they have." In July, a tribunal in the Hague issued a rebuke of China, siding with the Philippines in the country’s dispute over territory in the South China Sea. China is salty over the ruling, and diplomatic leaders anticipated some response. But China’s naval drills with Russia are nothing more than fist-shaking, said Heeley. "China is trying to demonstrate that they are a responsible country, and they’re not just going and conducting military drills with Russia to make everyone angry," Heeley said. "This is a measured and careful response by the country. They could be doing something much more to truly anger the international community, but instead they’re not." Our ruling Trump was correct in his claim that Russia and China are "doing naval exercises together someplace." He was right, too, that the countries have increased their oil trading, though not because "China needs oil," as Trump said. It’s more because Russia needs another oil buyer, due to limitations from sanctions. Finally, Obama did not single-handedly force Russia and China together. Both the sanctions against Russia and the tribunal’s decision against China are the result of multinational diplomatic efforts. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/247efef5-6d83-45b8-86c0-a0b92c358541	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-08-04T13:05:35	2016-08-01	['Russia', 'China']
-pomt-03528	The Obama administration has put out "more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times."	/ohio/statements/2013/may/31/rob-portman/us-sen-rob-portman-says-obama-administration-has-p/	Because we deal with lots of loose rhetoric at PolitiFact Ohio, we’re attracted like a magnet to any claim that tries to actually quantify a political or ideological point. Ohio U.S. Sen. Rob Portman delivered such a tidbit during a conference call with Ohio reporters on May 23. Portman was explaining a bill he co-introduced that could require additional cost-benefit analysis and allow more business flexibility before new federal regulations and rules could be issued. Portman says too many government regulations are imposed without a commonsense assessment of their burden on businesses and jobs. And he said that President Barack Obama’s administration has put out "more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times." We won’t attempt to assess whether current and pending regulation of the environment, worker and food safety, healthcare, wildlife or fuel efficiency are good or government overkill. But has the Obama administration finalized more of these "major" rules than other recent presidents? That part of the claim is measurable and has, in fact, been examined by groups of all political stripes, all using the same sources of government data. If all regulations were counted, Obama’s record would be nowhere near Portman’s description, especially considering a sizeable flurry of rulemaking during Bill Clinton’s first two years, as the liberal group OMB Watch, now known as the Center for Effective Government, said in a report last September. In fact, when 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney claimed that federal regulations quadrupled under Obama, PolitiFact ruled it False. But Portman said "major" rules." "Major" has a specific meaning when used by the government in this context. It means any rule with an economic impact of at least $100 million. And the White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, keeps track of these very rules, as does the Government Accountability Office. OMB calls them "economically significant" rules, which also has a distinct definition but is so close to "major" that there is no need to split hairs here. We looked at three analyses of major or economically significant rules, all broken down by year and presidency and all using OMB data. One was provided by Portman’s Senate staff, which is familiar with the data because Portman used to run OMB. Another was from the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, headed by Susan Dudley, a former regulatory affairs administrator at OMB. A third was from the Center for Effective Government. Portman’s office compared rules that were finalized in the first three years of Obama’s tenure with the first three of Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s. To guard against counting rules finalized by one administration but published by another, it excluded those that were published in the first few weeks of an incoming president’s term. Portman’s staff counted only executive branch departments and agencies and not those of independent agencies that do not report to the president. It found 162 major rules for Obama, 115 for the same period under Bush, and 135 for the same period under Clinton. A similar analysis by George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center had a similar conclusion, though the raw numbers were slightly different from Portman’s because of a technical variation in the timeframes counted. Among other things, the analysis counted every year the presidents served, allowing for comparisons of first and second terms for Clinton and Bush and the full four years of Obama’s first term. This made no substantive difference in terms of Portman’s claim. It showed that Obama still had more economically significant rules -- 217 in his first four years, compared with the next highest, 190, in Bush’s second term. Finally, there was the data from the Center for Effective Government, nee OMB Watch. Last September, it examined new regulations since 1992, and found the level fairly constant across presidencies, save for Clinton’s first years. But when it came to regulations labeled as economically significant, Obama’s record for the first 42 months of his presidency was 38 percent higher than the comparable period of Bush’s first term and 36 percent higher than the comparable period in Clinton’s. In an interview and in her report, Randy Rabinowitz, director of regulatory policy at the Center for Effective Government, cautioned that some of these comparisons can be misleading because the "major" rule threshold of $100 million has not changed since 1978, despite inflation. A rule costing $100 million in 1993, the first year of Clinton’s presidency, would cost $161 million today, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ online inflation calculator. We know of no analysis of regulations that has taken this into account. Rabinowitz also noted that many regulations grow directly out of laws passed by Congress or ordered by courts, so presidents are not merely riding roughshod over the will of lawmakers or the public. Some of Obama’s biggest rules resulted from court rulings dating to Bush, with courts requiring environmental regulation after Bush balked. But Obama’s share of these or similar statutory or judicially required rules -- 48 percent of all the rules his administration finalized -- was not much different from the share Clinton had to deal with in his first term, nor the share Bush had in his second term. This doesn’t change the facts or statistics as stated by Portman: The Obama administration has put out "more of these major rules than the Clinton administration or the Bush administration during comparable times." We rate his claim True.	None	Rob Portman	None	None	None	2013-05-31T06:00:00	2013-05-23	['Bill_Clinton', 'George_W._Bush', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-05670	A lovelorn actor portraying one of the munchkins hanged himself on the set during the filming of The Wizard of Oz.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hanging-munchkin/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does ‘The Wizard of Oz’ Include a Munchkin Suicide?	13 December 1997	None	['None']
-tron-02754	Obama Frees Terrorist that Bombed USS Cole	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-frees-terrorist-bombed-uss-cole/	None	obama	None	None	None	Obama Frees Terrorist that Bombed USS Cole	May 5, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10579	Hillary Clinton "agrees with (John McCain) in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-endorses-diplomacy/	Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican front-runner after winning Florida's primary. In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things. Among Obama's points: "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who ... agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like." On this point, Obama seems to be drawing on a difference that arose between him and Clinton in a July 2007 debate hosted by CNN and YouTube. A YouTube questioner asked if the candidates would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries." Obama said he would; Clinton said she wouldn't. Clinton explained her reasoning: "I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration." John McCain's public comments seem to reflect an openness to diplomacy while also putting restrictions on face-to-face meetings. "The most overrated aspect of our dialogue about international relations is direct face-to-face talks," he said in December 2007. "BlackBerrys work. Emissaries work. There's many thousands of ways to communicate. The question is, are you going to have direct talks, and does that enhance the prestige of the president of Iran?" It's not unreasonable to say that Clinton and McCain share a skepticism about having the president conduct face-to-face diplomatic meetings directly. But Obama strays badly in taking that shared view and equating it with what he calls "the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like." Clinton, who was asked about it directly, clearly says she would approach diplomacy differently than the Bush administration has. We find Obama's claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-02-01T00:00:00	2008-01-30	['John_McCain', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-snes-03052	Mike Pence tweeted that calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are "offensive and unconstitutional."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mike-pence-muslim-ban-offensive/	None	Immigration	None	David Emery	None	Mike Pence Said Calls to Ban Muslims Are ‘Offensive and Unconstitutional’?	28 January 2017	None	['United_States', 'Mike_Pence']
-pomt-08261	Says he's arrested more criminals, "including thousands of child predators and sex offenders," than any previous Texas attorney general.	/texas/statements/2010/nov/11/greg-abbott/texas-ag-greg-abbott-says-hes-arrested-more-crimin/	On his way to winning a third term as the state's attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott hit the airwaves with a TV ad that made him sound like a round-'em-up sheriff. "He’s arrested more criminals than any Texas attorney general, including thousands of child predators and sex offenders," the narrator says. This claim wrested the attention of reader Joyce Lynch, who suggested that we look into whether Abbott has been 'cuffing suspects while working as the state's top lawyer. First, we asked Jason Johnson, Abbott's campaign consultant for back-up evidence. He pointed to the office's criminal investigations division, "staffed by commissioned peace officers and crime analysts who undertake a wide range of investigations and activities to support detection, prevention, and prosecution of crime," according to the attorney general's website. In a document e-mailed to us, Johnson focused on two division units that Abbott created in 2003: * The Cyber Crimes Unit, which "arrests child predators who commit sex crimes against children using technology and the Internet," according to the attorney general's website. That includes people who contact youths online and try to set up a time, date and location to have sex with them. In some cases, undercover officers identify suspects by posing as children in chat rooms and on websites. The unit also makes child pornography arrests. * The Fugitive Unit, which seeks out and arrests people with histories of sex crimes who have violated their parole or sex offender registration requirements, the site says. According to an overview provided by Abbott's office, the unit has also arrested other kinds of fugitives, including "Louisiana criminals with outstanding warrants who fled to Texas during Hurricane Katrina," as well as gang members and other offenders rounded up under Falcon II, an initiative led by the U.S. Marshals Service that targeted sexual predators and violent offenders. The units work in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, including local police and the FBI, according to the attorney general's website and news releases. However, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the office, told us that the peace officers employed by the attorney general's office consistently make arrests on their own. Strickland also said that although Abbott is not a certified peace officer and cannot make arrests, he has been present during some apprehensions by his officers. According to information from Strickland, the cyber-crimes and fugitive units arrested 2,052 child predators and sex offenders from the teams' creation in 2003 through mid-October, when Abbott's TV ad began running. Of those arrests: * 1,806 were by the fugitive unit; the majority were arrests of sex offenders who had violated their parole or failed to register. * 246 were by the cyber-crimes unit and were related to child pornography or online solicitation of a child. Of those, 221 have led to convictions. Next, we wondered how Abbott's arrest record stacks up against those of his predecessors. Although Johnson didn't have data showing the number of arrests by the attorney general's office over the years, he said he was confident that the ad — claiming that Abbott has arrested more criminals than any Texas attorney general — was correct because of the surge in criminal division officers on Abbott's watch. Background: The 1991 Legislature gave the attorney general's office permission to employ up to five peace officers. Bill analyses from that time say that the office needed the extra staff to assist local prosecutors in investigations. In 1999, lawmakers removed the hiring limit, partly because of an expansion of the Medicaid fraud program within the attorney general's office. According to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, which tracks the number of peace officers in the state, the number of officers appointed by the attorney general's office rose each year between 1999 and 2010, from five to more than 150. (The growing number of peace officers of all kinds has been a trend statewide. According to a 2009 Statesman story, there are three dozen types of agencies, institutions, boards, commissions and political subdivisions that can appoint their own law enforcement agents.) According to information from Johnson, in fiscal 2002, just before Abbott became attorney general, 36 peace officers were working for the attorney general's office and made 99 arrests. That compares to fiscal 2010, when the agency employed 141 officers (as of Sept. 9) and arrested 795 people. Summing up: Abbott's campaign ad stated that he had made "thousands" of arrests. Abbott hasn't personally arrested anyone, but he has put into place criminal investigation units that had taken into custody more than 2,000 "child predators and sex offenders" through mid-October. Legislative actions during the past 20 years lend credence to the claim that the arrests outnumber those of his predecessors, though his campaign didn't have data to prove it. By the same token, most earlier attorneys general didn't have the same manpower or authority to make arrests. We rate Abbott's statement Mostly True.	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2010-11-11T06:00:00	2010-10-13	['Texas']
-pomt-14288	"Most funding for tuberculosis research (is) provided by the U.S. National Institutes for Health."	/global-news/statements/2016/apr/05/marcus-low/us-dominates-global-tb-research-spending-one-key-w/	Tuberculosis stands second to AIDS as the world’s deadliest infectious disease, killing about 1.5 million people in 2014. Only a small percentage of those deaths took place in the United States, yet the American government is the pre-eminent funder of tuberculosis research. HIV/AIDS activist Marcus Low, policy head for the South African-based Treatment Action Campaign, drove home that point when a United Nations taskforce met in Johannesburg. Low’s group urged the panel to recommend a global research and development treaty that would have governments commit money to tuberculosis -- an infection most often in the lungs -- and other disease research. By the World Health Organization’s estimate, research spending worldwide falls about $1 billion short each year. South Africa’s Business Day cited Low on March 19, 2016, as saying, "Most funding for tuberculosis research was provided by the U.S. National Institutes for Health." We asked Low if the paper had quoted him accurately. He offered a clarification. "A better formulation of that line would have been, ‘the top contributor to TB research and development, according to a report published by Treatment Action Group, is the NIH’," Low told us. We’re not sure if that means the reporter got it wrong, or Low misspoke. Whichever it is, Low went on to tell us that the line in the news article is unclear. "If most is read as more than any other, then it is correct," Low said. "If most is read as more than 50 percent, then it is not correct." Let us make things crystal clear about the American research effort. The NIH is the single-largest source of TB research money. The best overview of global tuberculosis research comes from the Treatment Action Group, a New York advocacy organization. The group assembled information from over 100 government, foundation and drug company research efforts. It’s most recent report found that the U.S. National Institutes of Health spent over $200 million on tuberculosis research in 2014. That was more than any other single entity, and represented more than 30 percent of the global investment in TB research and development. A bit over $674 million was spent worldwide. The U.S. total grows to nearly a quarter of a billion dollars when you add in the money from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and assorted other agencies. In raw dollars, the United States government has no match. But the United States is a big country with the world’s largest economy. So we assessed where America stands when you factor in population and Gross Domestic Product. Do that and an unexpected nation earns some bragging rights -- Singapore. While the small Asian nation spends about 3 percent what America does, relative to its size, it comes out on top in both of the relative rankings. The United Kingdom and Switzerland also show up in the top three, depending on the measure. (Methodology note: We adjusted spending by European Union members according to their contributions to the EU. Population data came from the U.S. Census Bureau, and GDP data came from the World Bank.) Why Singapore? Mike Frick, project officer at the Treatment Action Group, said he’s not exactly sure. It might have its roots in the legacy of the multinational drug company Novartis. "Novartis's TB research used to be based in Singapore," Frick said. "That has ended, but suggests there is some institutional capacity for TB research already established there." Certainly, the National University of Singapore is eager to build support there for continued government funding. In a March 24, 2016, webpost, it touted that it is well placed to lead the fight against tuberculosis. "Singapore is located at the heart of the TB epidemic, being close to Cambodia, Myanmar, Indonesia, China and India -- countries with the highest number of TB cases in the world," the posting said. A professor at the university’s school of public health wrote in an op-ed about TB research and "the breadth of Singapore's growing research infrastructure and human resources." All of which suggests that at least some Singaporeans see this as a competitive niche that ought be expanded. The drivers behind the spending in the United States are a combination of tradition and political activism tied to AIDS. Audrey Jackson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us the federal government has put money into health research for decades. "The U.S. has been a huge funder of science," Jackson said. "Through the National Institutes of Health, it has funded a great deal of basic science and early work to translate findings into clinical applications." Jackson noted that TB funding at the NIH itself has been flat for the past five years, "even declining if you factor in inflation," but that the latest White House budget calls for an increase. Dick Chaisson, director of the Center for TB Research at Johns Hopkins University, said the AIDS epidemic played a key role in reigniting the tuberculosis research effort in America. "Back in the 1970s, it was assumed that TB was a done deal, and all the scientific discoveries that were needed had been made, so science moved on to other issues." Chaisson said. "It turns out that the discoveries of the past were not good enough to result in TB elimination, and the advent of HIV and the emergence of drug-resistant TB made things even worse." Around 1990, New York City became ground-zero for the resurgence of tuberculosis. The New England Journal of Medicine reported that "with 3 percent of the country's population, New York City accounted for a remarkable 61 percent of cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in the United States." Frick said that because the disease hit New York, and in particular, people with AIDS, there was ample political lobbying power to draw in the federal government. By 1992, Congress had made an emergency appropriation of $100 million to combat TB. Of that, $40 million went to New York City. "That was a time when an institutional will to engage with TB research came together," Frick said. "A lot of young doctors spent their formative years in that effort and now are making decisions." A ready example supports Frick’s generational point. In 1992, New York City used part of its $40 million to create the Bureau of Tuberculosis Control. The man it picked as founding director was a young CDC doctor named Tom Frieden. Today, Frieden leads the CDC where he makes the case for more federal funding for disease control and oversees the more than $14 million it spends on TB research. Our ruling Low said that most funding for tuberculosis research comes from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. Whether he used those exact words is a bit unclear, but in the sense that the NIH is the single-largest funder of research, the statement is correct. The only caveat is that when we factor in the size of the economy, the United States as a whole falls to third and Singapore rises to the top. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Marcus Low	None	None	None	2016-04-05T12:00:00	2016-03-19	['None']
-pomt-10283	Barack Obama "openly supported (opposition leader) Raila Odinga during his visit to Africa in 2006."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/20/jerome-corsi/obama-did-not-take-sides-in-kenya/	A new book — The Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi — attacks Barack Obama as a political extremist. Taken as a whole, the book's primary argument is that Obama is a likely communist sympathizer with ties to Islam who has skillfully hidden his true agenda as he ruthlessly pursues elected office. We found factual problems with Corsi's book and question its overall tone; read our extended story here. Corsi's description of Obama's role in Kenyan politics is filled with errors and innuendo. Corsi focuses on a 2006 trip Obama made to Africa as a U.S. senator. The visit included stops in South Africa, Kenya and Chad. Obama's trip came about a year before elections were scheduled in Kenya. On one side was incumbent President Mwai Kibaki; one of his main challengers was Raila Odinga. Corsi alleges in his book that Obama openly supported Odinga, because Obama wanted to avenge his father's tribe, the Luo, against rival tribes. Corsi also suggests that Odinga is a socialist and was part of an alliance with Muslims to expel Christians in Kenya. There are a number of problems here. First, we reported previously that Odinga is not a socialist . The alliance Corsi describes between Muslims and socialists seems conjecture at best. Corsi himself says his case hinges on a secret memo that he admits may or may not exist. Corsi then states that Odinga "professes to be an Anglican Christian" but adds that "concerns even today continue to circulate among Kenya's Christian leaders ... that Odinga intends to pursue an undeclared radical Islamic political agenda." His argument here is highly speculative. What we can confirm is that Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics, and did not support Odinga during his trip. Odinga attended some of Obama's events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama "openly supported" Odinga. (We previously reported on a letter from missionaries that alleged Obama contributed to Odinga's campaign; we rated it Pants on Fire! wrong.) For this statement, we decided to scour the public record for evidence that Obama supported Odinga. We looked to contemporary accounts of the 2006 trip and found a transcript from an interview Obama gave to a Kenyan newspaper that directly contradicts Corsi's allegation. Question: "As you prepared to travel to Kenya you were obviously conscious of two things. One was about being drawn into local politics. The other was the high expectations of what you could do for Kenya now that you are a senator. How did you handle both?" Obama: "One of the things we try to do is meet with all parties. I met President Kibaki, I met Uhuru Kenyatta, I was with Raila Odinga. We met the government, met the opposition and met other groups such as human rights activists. What I try to do is give a consistent message on what I think U.S.-Kenya relations should be, but not to suggest somehow that I think one party is better than the other. That's for the Kenyan people to decide." Also, Obama's gave a high-profile speech the need for the country to move beyond corruption and tribal rivalries. This undercuts Corsi's theory that Obama was motivated by his Luo tribal heritage. "Finally, ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop," Obama said in his speech at the University of Nairobi on Aug. 28, 2006. "It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one's family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbor from neighbor." Corsi states that Obama "openly supported" Raila Odinga. We found public statements from Obama during the trip saying the exact opposite. We found no other evidence to support Corsi's statement, so we rate his statement False.	None	Jerome R. Corsi	None	None	None	2008-08-20T00:00:00	2008-08-01	['Raila_Odinga', 'Africa', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-03243	Says "President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception" to Obamacare.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/14/ted-cruz/sen-ted-cruz-says-obama-just-granted-all-congress-/	Sen. Ted Cruz wants Congress to refuse to fund Obamacare. The law’s such a mess, says the Texas Republican, that the president let lawmakers themselves off the hook. "Look, the wheels are coming off this," he told the audience at the conservative Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 10, 2013. "The Teamsters are abandoning it. President Obama just granted all of Congress an exception. And he did it because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who passed this thing came begging and said, ‘Please, please, please let us out of Obamacare.’ This thing ain't working." The audience let out a long "Boooo" at the mention of President Barack Obama’s action on behalf of Congress. But did he just grant lawmakers an exception to Obamacare? ‘Congress should get the same coverage’ For many years, Congress chose from a variety of insurance plans offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which serves more than 8 million federal and retired workers and their dependents. That stops in January, when lawmakers and some staff will be required instead to pick from plans on the health care law’s new exchanges — now known as marketplaces. That’s because Congress faces a specific Obamacare provision forcing lawmakers from their current plans into new marketplaces — something that doesn’t apply to other Americans. (Most people with health care through large employers won’t see significant changes under the law. They’re not required to use the marketplaces, which were designed to offer more options for small businesses and the uninsured.) Back in 2009, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley argued that "members of Congress should get the same coverage that we are coming up with for everyone else." He offered an amendment that required lawmakers to get their health care through the marketplaces created by the bill. It was accepted by the Senate Finance Committee without objection. Members of Congress and their staff would have to use the hefty employer contribution they used for federal plans to buy marketplace plans, instead, his amendment said. "My interest in having members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country," Grassley said. "The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better." A version of the amendment made it into the law passed by Democrats, but it lacked the clarity of Grassley’s language, raising a question: Would the government’s contribution to lawmakers’ health insurance premiums follow them? (In fact, it lacked specifics on lots of issues, such as: When would the provision kick in? Which federal agency would implement it? Which lawmakers and staffers did it cover? Could lawmakers keep their existing coverage as "grandfathered plans"?) Mass confusion ensued — along with fear that the law’s ambiguity meant lawmakers and their staffers would lose an employer contribution worth thousands toward their health care plans. They urged the administration for clarification. On Aug. 7, 2013, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management did clear things up, proposing a rule that lawmakers’ purchase of health coverage from the exchanges — now called marketplaces — would indeed be eligible for an employer contribution. (It answered some of those other questions, too.) When Obamacare’s health care marketplaces launch in January 2014, members of Congress will use them right alongside the uninsured. ‘An exception’ Did the administration's decision constitute an "exception" to Obamacare? Here's what the law said: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law … the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)." All it did was require lawmakers to use new marketplaces. They're doing that. Beyond that, the wording of the law left lots of questions. Or, as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service described it, several "legal and practical issues." To implement it, administrators had to make choices about what it meant. As a New York Times report noted last year, "In writing the legislation, members of Congress apparently assumed that the federal contribution to their premiums would continue, but the law is silent on the question." Grassley himself insisted last year that the provision made "no changes to the employer contribution to federal employee health care coverage." A Congressional Research Service analysis found some room in the law for employer contributions. Timothy Jost, an expert in health care law who supports the Affordable Care Act, told PolitiFact the government clearly acted within its regulatory authority. A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which Cruz’s office pointed to, argues the opposite. Heritage, whose lobbying arm Heritage Action has launched a "Defund Obamacare Town Hall Tour," says that the administration disregarded the law to give a "special Obamacare deal to Congress." The special deal: letting lawmakers keep the employer contribution toward health plans on new Obamacare marketplaces that Grassley assumed they would keep. Our ruling Cruz, reeling off signs Obamacare’s "wheels are coming off," said the president "just granted all of Congress an exception." That sounds like lawmakers get to opt out of health care under the law. Quite the opposite — they'll use new marketplaces alongside the uninsured and small businesses, just as it required. And it's not even accurate to say they were excepted from some provision of the law: the law itself wasn't clear. Instead, they got a clarification about the law’s effect on contributions toward their health insurance — which they will purchase on Obamacare’s marketplaces. We rate Cruz’s claim False.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2013-08-14T17:59:35	2013-08-10	['Barack_Obama', 'United_States_Congress', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-tron-00333	Green Party official targeted By airport officials and blocked from flight	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oden/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Green Party official targeted By airport officials and blocked from flight	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-00627	Sir William Golding’s Words of Wisdom About Women	https://www.truthorfiction.com/sir-william-goldings-words-wisdom-women/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Sir William Golding’s Words of Wisdom About Women	May 24, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05079	Says he "passed" eight measures, including ones to prevent groping at airport security checks and to bar "sanctuary" cities in Texas.	/texas/statements/2012/jul/03/david-dewhurst/david-dewhurst-says-he-passed-eight-notable-measur/	David Dewhurst pitched his U.S. Senate candidacy at the Republican Party of Texas convention by casting himself as an ace lawmaker. "You know some people are all about talk. I'm about results," Dewhurst told delegates June 9, adding a moment later: "Every victory, every conservative victory, I've had, I've had to bleed and fight to accomplish it, ...always adhering to our conservative principles, and refusing to take no for an answer." Dewhurst, who faces Ted Cruz, a lawyer and former Texas solicitor general, in a July 31, 2012, runoff for his party’s nomination, then said: "Over the last several years, I’ve passed defunding Planned Parenthood, the sonogram bill, voter ID. I passed the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) anti-groping bill, sanctuary cities, loser pay, border security, and the toughest Jessica’s law in the entire nation against sexual predators." As the state’s lieutenant governor, Dewhurst presides over the Texas Senate. Was he really 8-for-8 in advancing those measures into law? Most of them made it. Lawmakers in 2011 agreed on measures defunding Planned Parenthood clinics, requiring pregnant women to view a sonogram before receiving an abortion and mandating that voters present photo IDs at the polls. With Gov. Rick Perry’s approval, the 2011 Legislature also passed "loser pays," a measure intended to make it easier for judges to dismiss lawsuits, and agreed to a two-year, $70-million increase in border security funding to the Department of Public Safety, as we noted in checking a Perry campaign promise. Earlier, the 2007 Legislature approved Jessica’s Law; it permitted the death penalty for offenders twice-convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14. However, the death penalty element was struck down by a 2008 Supreme Court ruling against Louisiana’s similar law; the court held that capital punishment for such offenders was cruel and excessive, according to a June 26, 2008, Austin American-Statesman news article. However, high-profile proposals to bar airport security officers from groping passengers and to keep cities from discouraging police officers from checking the immigration status of residents did not make it into law -- and news articles and legislative records indicate that the only way the proposals "passed" on Dewhurst’s watch is that versions cleared the Senate before dying in the House. Let’s recap. State Rep. David Simpson, R-Longview, proposed his anti-groping measure on March 7, 2011, about three months into the year’s regular legislative session, records show. Simpson’s House Bill 1937, which aimed to limit where airport security could touch an individual during pat-down checks by making inappropriate contact a state crime, cleared the House, but died in the Senate after sponsoring Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, withdrew it, according to a May 26, 2011, El Paso Times news article. According to a May 24, 2011, Statesman blog post, the proposal had lost momentum, and much of its support, after John Murphy of San Antonio, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, wrote lawmakers, saying that the legislation would "criminalize searches that are required under federal regulations." According to the blog post, Murphy advised, too, that the federal government would pursue legal action to prevent its enforcement. This, Murphy’s letter said, would likely require the government "to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of the passengers and crew," the Statesman reported. Perry brought the topic back to life by adding it, on June 20, 2011, to the agenda of a summer special legislative session. A week later, two days before the session’s end, the Senate passed its bill, Senate Bill 29, according to a June 27, 2011, Statesman news article. On the session’s final day, House advocates fell short of the votes needed to send the measure to Perry, according to a June 29, 2011 Statesman news article. On the last day of the special session, Dewhurst, a vocal proponent of the measure during the special session, drew criticism from House members, who blamed the lieutenant governor for the bill’s demise, according to that June 29, 2011 Statesman article. They claimed that by adjourning the Senate before the House had even voted on the bill, Dewhurst had weakened its chances of passing into law. House critics said that by adjourning early, Dewhurst and the Senate had put the representatives in an uncomfortable position. Rep. Dan Branch, R-Dallas told the Tribune on June 28, 2011, that the Senate had left the House in a "take it or leave it" position, forcing representatives to either pass SB 29 as was or deny it outright, since the House wouldn’t have an opportunity to negotiate the bill’s terms with the Senate. One recap down, one to go. So-called sanctuary cities -- defined as places where local law enforcement officers aren’t required to alert federal authorities to residents who may be in the country illegally -- were central to Perry’s 2010 re-election. Perry ran against Democratic nominee Bill White, who Perry claimed had allowed Houston to become a sanctuary city during his tenure as mayor. On January 11, 2011, Perry declared sanctuary cities an "emergency" issue for lawmakers, according to a Statesman news article published that day. A proposal banning sanctuary cities cleared the House during the fifth and last month of the regular session, according to a May 10, 2011, Statesman blog post, as House Democrats said the ban would effectively make Hispanic Texans second-class citizens. Despite Democrats’ attempt to prevent the measure from advancing, the legislation passed out of a Senate committee on May 20, 2011, according to a Statesman news article posted that night. Still, the session ended without there being enough Senate support to bring it up for consideration. According to a May 26, 2011, Statesman news article, a vote to bring up the measure on the Senate floor was 19-12, along party lines. The proposal needed twenty-one votes, two-thirds of the Senate membership, to win consideration. Next, Perry resurrected the topic during the summer special session, according to his June 7, 2011, proclamation. The special session proceeded without the Senate observing the two-thirds’ hurdle, so SB 9 passed the Senate in mid-June, according to a June 15, 2011, Statesman news article. But, in a reverse of the regular session turns, the anti-sanctuary-city measure died in the House. According to a June 30, 2011, news article posted by the Texas Tribune, both SB 9 and the House’s version of the bill, House Bill 9, languished in the House State Affairs Committee through the end of session. Dewhurst fumed, saying two days before the session ended: "I don't pretend to understand the House... I have enough challenges with running the Senate that I'm not going to get into the House business, but I would love to see the House come together and take that legislation so we can send it directly to the governor," according to a June 27, 2011, news article in the Tribune. When we pointed out that these two proposals, unlike the others cited by Dewhurst, did not make it into law, Dewhurst spokesman Matt Hirsch said we were "picking at word choices." Our ruling In his speech, Dewhurst listed the unsuccessful sanctuary and anti-groping proposals with other proposals, saying he "passed" each of them -- a characterization leaving the impression that every one of them became a statute. That's correct for six of them. But the fact that the sanctuary and anti-groping measures fell short amounts to vital missing detail, making his statement Half True.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2012-07-03T15:57:05	2012-06-09	['Texas']
-hoer-00147	Nicotine in Tim Hortons Coffee	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/nicotine-tim-hortons-coffee.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Nicotine in Tim Hortons Coffee Hoax	October 2009	None	['None']
-para-00171	Says Australian schools would be $16.2 billion worse off over six years under a Tony Abbott-led government.	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/may/22/julia-gillard/gillards-school-claims-dont-add-up/index.html	None	['Budget', 'Education']	Julia Gillard	David Humphries, Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	Gillard's school claims don't yet add up	Wednesday, May 22, 2013 at 11:44 a.m.	None	['None']
-bove-00273	Does ‘Sir’ Really Stand For Slave I Remain?: A FactCheck	https://www.boomlive.in/does-sir-really-stand-for-slave-i-remain-a-factcheck/	None	None	None	None	None	Does ‘Sir’ Really Stand For Slave I Remain?: A FactCheck	May 07 2017 11:37 am, Last Updated: May 07 2017 1:29 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-09053	"In Florida alone, more than $3.5 billion a year is spent on health care and criminal justice for illegal immigrants."	/florida/statements/2010/jun/30/ritch-workman/workman-misquotes-immigration-report/	As Florida lawmakers prepare to introduce their own version of Arizona's strict immigration law, Republican state Rep. Ritch Workman has been championing the cause by painting the state's illegal immigrant population as the scourge of fiscal conservatism, business owners and taxpayers. "All businesses and taxpayers face the unfair burden of providing federally mandated services to illegal immigrants, and putting the brakes on this noncitizen entitlement program will save Arizona a considerable amount of money," wrote Workman in a Florida Today opinion page article on June 6, 2010. "In Florida alone, more than $3.5 billion a year is spent on health care and criminal justice for illegal immigrants. Given this, I think it is time for Florida to follow Arizona’s lead." $3.5 billion and change is a lot of money in a state that had to close a $6 billion budget gap in 2010, so PolitiFact Florida decided to take this claim on a ride through the Truth-O-Meter. Workman's district office directed us to the Florida House Majority Office, which distributes talking points to its Republican members. Staff director Todd Reid told us Workman was slightly off. He gave us a $3.8 billion figure culled from a February 2009 report, "The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Floridians," published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The report, which looks at projected government spending on education, health and incarceration, is one of many fiscal analyses distributed by FAIR, an anti-illegal-immigration group based in Washington, D.C. To determine Florida's illegal immigration tab, FAIR's special projects director Jack Martin singled out the average cost of government services according to, in many instances, other private studies, and then multiplied those figures by the group's estimated immigration population. To be sure, pinpointing the size of a demographic that doesn't want to be tracked is not an exact science, but it is worth noting that FAIR's conclusions are based on inexact estimates. For example, FAIR ranked Florida's illegal immigration population fourth in the nation, with an estimated 950,000 immigrants in 2008. In contrast, the Department of Homeland Security ranks Florida third in the nation, with 720,000 illegal immigrants in 2009. Some of FAIR's other conclusions raise questions. To start, FAIR's education costs are based on the assumption that nearly every student enrolled in English learning classes is the child of illegal immigrants, since, "the children of immigrants legally admitted for permanent residence are likely to already speak English because the parents lived in the United States as nonimmigrants, prepared for years to immigrate to the United States, or arrived from countries where English is taught in the schools," according to the report. That explanation of the students is not a fact, which casts doubts on FAIR's final education tally. Here's another example. FAIR bases its health care costs on a 2002 Florida Hospital Association survey that found unreimbursed emergency medical care for illegal immigrants toppled $40 million. But the survey includes responses from private hospitals that are not funded by the state. How about one more? FAIR produces the state's incarceration costs for illegal immigrants based on the state Department of Corrections' "illegal alien" count of inmates. However, no such count exists. Instead, the state keeps tabs on all inmates who are not U.S. citizens, whether they're in the country legally or illegally. While many of those inmates are eventually released to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for further immigration processing, including possible deportation, the state does not track whether its inmates are legal U.S. residents. "I would take FAIR's numbers with a big shaker of salt," said Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian Washington, D.C., policy group. "The organization exists to portray immigrants in a bad light." Still, even if FAIR's math passed muster, the report's findings would not validate Workman's claim. FAIR concludes the bulk of state expenses related to illegal immigrants, or $3.4 billion, is spent on educating the children of illegal immigrants, including children who were born here and thus are U.S. citizens. Only $380 million was spent on uncompensated medical care and incarceration, a far cry from Workman's $3.5 billion-claim, a seemingly impossible figure, acknowledged FAIR. "The magnitude of the fiscal cost estimate would require the inclusion of the educational costs," said Martin, who wrote the FAIR report. Just to be sure, we checked with state health and criminal justice officials. The state budget cites six criminal justice branches: the Department of Corrections, the Justice Administration, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Department of Legal Affairs/Attorney General and the Parole Commission. Representatives for each of those departments said they do not track how many illegal immigrants receive services each year. Consequently, any related costs were unknown, they said. The state's health agencies also said they don't count illegal immigrants. Nor do state courts. "The Office of the State Courts Administrator tells me that they are not required to keep such data, so they do not," said spokesman Craig Waters. Or state auditors. "We haven't been told to do that," said Kathy McGuire, deputy director of the Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, when asked for state fiscal projections related to illegal immigration. "I think it is an emerging issue. It hasn't been a concern in past sessions." Time for some math of our own. It seems Workman grossly misquoted numbers pushed by an anti-illegal-immigration group to bolster his argument against illegal immigration. But, the group's conclusions are suspect because they are based on assumptions and estimates, not facts, which multiple state agencies confirmed. None of this adds up. We rate Workman's claim False. Correction: The Cato Institute is a libertarian Washington, D.C., policy group. As originally published, we mistakenly described the Cato Institute's political leaning.	None	Ritch Workman	None	None	None	2010-06-30T18:12:11	2010-06-06	['None']
-pomt-00637	"Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance."	/texas/statements/2015/may/20/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-americans-spend-500-billion-complying-tax/	A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruz’s comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to a blog post on txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. "Every year," Cruz elaborated, "we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS." Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president. But he’d already called for a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew on a chart posted by The Washington Post in 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE: Blog post, "Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts," Wonkblog, The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citing Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) The Post relied on the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments where by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the military’s 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget "does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra," he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the military’s base budget doesn’t include overseas contingencies. But it’s "your rigged game, you make up any facts you want," Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around "compliance costs," we reached out to certified public accountant Connie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us to June 2011 testimony on compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations "costs taxpayers time and money," at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated "economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes." Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker at The Washington Post awarded two Pinocchios to House Speaker John Boehner’s claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, the Post wrote, with the "safest bet" at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes. Adjusting for inflation, that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again after noticing Cruz made his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didn’t say what he meant by compliance costs — where he’d draw the boundaries — an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayer’s basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in "lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities." For an individual, she said, it’s easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. "When you try to aggregate that nationally," she said, "it’s very difficult." She said she wouldn’t be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruz’s figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from an April 2011 analysis by supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and a May 2013 study by researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual "hidden costs" of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a "comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code." The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent "to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system.* Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the "time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes," filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, the Post’s FactChecker called the Laffer study "dubious," noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Service’s Tax Advocate — that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements — and got to its cost estimate by multiplying "it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes." Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Center’s study, led by Jason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the "average income used to monetize taxpayers’ time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates." For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including "time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection" though the authors said they couldn’t pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. "I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. It’s not that one method is better than another–or right versus wrong," Fichtner said. "All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent." Here’s a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003: Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruz’s figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organization that says it’s devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The union’s April 2014 report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRS’s National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours — the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: "The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year." (The union’s latest look at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: "Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance." This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruz’s figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senator’s spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the military’s nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2015-05-20T15:50:11	2014-07-12	['None']
-pomt-01204	Austin is "burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation."	/texas/statements/2014/nov/28/jim-skaggs/austin-area-activist-says-austin-has-fastest-growi/	An activist expressed elation after Austin voters rejected a $1 billion rail-and-roads proposition, going on to say the rail part of the plan would have been a financial headache. Jim Skaggs, founder of Citizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014, news story, that the rail costs would have been imposed "on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation." Mark Nathan, a consultant to Let’s Go Austin, which advocated for the proposition, asked us to check Skaggs’ claim. All aboard! To our inquiry, Skaggs said by email he believes he learned of Austin’s dubious status from an Austin Business Journal story. "I do not have time to research it at the moment," Skaggs wrote Nov. 5, 2014. City spokeswoman: Mild rate changes We hunted unsuccessfully for such a story while to our nudge, a city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado, said by email the city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since: Source: "Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1," page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014) Alvarado continued: "Please keep in mind the city is only one taxing jurisdiction. There’s also the county, school district, health district and then more, depending on where exactly someone lives." Also, she said, appraisals "are a factor for taxes, not just the tax rate." (She noted the 2015 tax rate is the same as the 2014 rate.) Indeed, surging property values are a driver in local government revenues, the Austin American-Statesman has noted; of late, an April 2014 news story quoted Travis County’s chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, saying taxable residential values — a home’s market value minus property-tax exemptions — were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans. Austin versus other big Texas cities Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austin’s proposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a bigger burst in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or Houston. Specifically, Quintero said, the percentage of median family income spent on property tax bills for median-value homes in the Austin area represented a little less than 1.1 percent in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2014, that figure had increased to just under 1.5 percent, representing an increase of 0.4 percent. The other big Texas cities demonstrated smaller increases over the period. National comparisons Then again, Skaggs said Austin’s tax increases were No. 1 among major cities nationally. We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-based Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study. Kerr, drawing from the latest study, issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and also that by one gauge, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most-populous cities. One institute analysis looked at how much revenue per resident different cities have taken in. Our takeaways: From 2006 to 2011, per-person property tax revenue collected in Austin by all local government units (including school districts, the city and the county) decreased 4 percent, as measured in constant 2011 dollars. Then again, per-person revenue from city property taxes alone went up 6 percent; Austin ranked 35th among the 50 largest cities for that rate of increase. Higher rates of increase were recorded by cities including Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles and Chicago, which had a 60 percent spike in per-person property tax revenue. Over a longer span, 2001 to 2011, Austin ranked 27th nationally for its 26 percent increase in per-person revenue from city property taxes. The Texas capital was outpaced in percentage growth by cities including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, New York and Los Angeles. Austin experienced a 2 percent increase in per-person revenue from all taxes from 2006 to 2011, ranking 25th in this way. Its increase trailed hikes occurring in the more populous cities of San Jose, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Los Angeles. Another institute breakdown highlighted by Kerr shows Austin ranking among cities with the greatest increases in taxes on a median-valued home. Our snapshots: From 2009 to 2013, Austin’s effective tax rate on a median-priced home increased from 1.93 percent to 2.22 percent; that bump amounted to the 11th-greatest increase (0.29 points) in the 50 biggest cities. As of that year, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Jacksonville and Chicago were the cities more populous than Austin that ranked higher by this indicator. In this instance, the effective rate is not the rate by which a government unit can generate the revenue it raised the year before. Rather, the study defines the effective rate as the total tax on a median-priced home divided by its total value, which takes into account variations in assessment rates and value exemptions across localities. While Austin’s effective tax rate in 2013 was ahead of its rate in 2009, it was less than the 2.44 percent rate of 2005. In 2013, property taxes on a median-value Austin home ran $1,049 ahead of those taxes on such a home in 2005, up nearly 26 percent. That percentage increase placed Austin 10th nationally in this way behind Portland, San Jose, Denver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Albuquerque, Columbus and Cleveland -- and only San Jose, Portland and Philadelphia had greater dollar increases than Austin. Among, say, the 15 largest cities as of that time, Austin ranked third behind San Jose and Philadelphia for the percent change in net tax 2005-2013. Over a shorter period, 2009-2013, Phoenix, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, New York and Jacksonville experienced greater increases in net property tax on a median-value home. (Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston and Indianapolis had smaller increases.) Our ruling Skaggs said Austin has the fastest-growing tax increases of any major U.S. city. Among the nation’s largest cities, Austin appears to have had the third-fastest growth in its property-tax bite on a median-valued home from 2005 to 2013. It seems reasonable to speculate local taxpayers feel the pinch. However, Skaggs didn’t provide nor did we find a sign of Austin ranking first in tax growth among the country’s major cities. We rate the statement False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Jim Skaggs	None	None	None	2014-11-28T06:00:00	2014-11-05	['None']
-snes-06043	A lucky bargain hunter became a millionaire after finding an original print of the Declaration of Independence in the frame of an old painting.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/declaration-of-financial-independence/	None	Luck	None	Snopes Staff	None	Declaration of Independence Find	30 June 2000	None	['None']
-snes-03801	Clowns are planning a "purge night" on Halloween (or the night before).	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clown-purge-on-halloween/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Clown Purge on Halloween	14 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-08295	Says Russ Feingold voted to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants	/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/01/ron-johnson/ron-johnson-says-us-sen-russ-feingold-voted-give-s/	For four years, Republican congressional candidates have attacked Democrats on a vote that combines two emotional issues -- Social Security and illegal immigration -- into one fat target. In the 2010 U.S. Senate race, Republican Ron Johnson continues the tradition, pointing to an obscure 2006 Senate vote to level the charge that Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold supported giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. Johnson has pounded away at the issue in a radio ad, automated phone calls and on his website. In the Oct. 11, 2010 debate, Feingold answered Johnson’s charge flatly: "Well, of course I don’t support Social Security benefits for undocumented people. That’s just absolutely false." Now, Johnson is denying Feingold’s denial, charging in a news release the three-term senator is lying about his own record. Got all that? Let’s put this one to the test -- and to rest. The vote in question is on an amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. The immigration reform bill -- which had Feingold’s support but never passed -- was designed to give most illegal immigrants a chance to become legal citizens. Feingold has said in campaign literature he backs requiring illegal workers to "come forward, pay hefty fines, pay taxes, learn English and civics, work, and wait in the back of the line – before earning the privilege of permanent resident status." Johnson has emphasized border security first and deporting criminals who are here illegally. He criticizes "blanket" amnesty but has backed "humane" treatment of hard-working illegals and some unspecified process involving employer penalties. At the time of the 2006 immigration reform debate, by longstanding practice, U.S. law broadly allowed immigrants who later get legal status to get credit for Social Security payments made while they were undocumented. It is common -- to the tune of billions of dollars each year -- for illegal workers to pay Social Security payroll taxes. During the 2006 debate, U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nevada, pushed an amendment to block many of those former illegals from getting that credit. The issue was ripe because the immigration bill sought to legalize the status of millions of workers. Feingold joined the 50-49 majority -- 38 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 1 independent -- to kill the Ensign amendment. That single vote has spawned campaign ads in at least 29 races, according to our friends at FactCheck.org. So was that vote, as the most recent Johnson news release put it, a "vote to grant Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants?" No. Nearly all of Johnson’s statements on this leave out the important fact that the 2006 amendment dealt with the policy on payments to formerly illegal workers -- undocumented workers who later were made legal. Currently illegal immigrants are not eligible for Social Security benefits under U.S. law -- and that would not have changed even if Ensign’s amendment had passed. The Social Security Act requires noncitizens in the United State to be "lawfully present" to receive benefits, and also prohibits payments to aliens residing in the United States unlawfully, a 2006 Congressional Research Service report noted. In October 2007, Ensign brought back a much narrower amendment during another immigration debate. The amendment prohibited Social Security payments to persons who had been convicted of misuse of a Social Security number for their work while on illegal status. Feingold voted in favor of the amendment, which passed 92-2. Johnson isn’t the only GOP candidate to turn to the issue in this race. In the Nevada U.S. Senate race, PolitiFact National ruled as Barely True a claim that U.S. Sen. Harry Reid voted "to give illegals Social Security benefits even for the time they were here illegally." If anything, Jonson’s claim is more off the mark: It implies currently illegal workers would have benefited. Where does that leave us? In just about every venue possible, Republican Ron Johnson is charging Democrat Russ Feingold supported giving Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. In truth, the 2006 amendment cited by Johnson, which Feingold did oppose, would not have prevented illegals from receiving Social Security benefits. They already were barred. In fact, Feingold wound up voting for a more modest version of the amendment the following year. This one isn’t a borderline call: False.	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2010-11-01T09:01:00	2010-10-29	['Russ_Feingold']
-pomt-06963	Says the U.S. borrows "42 cents of every dollar Washington spends today and about half of that comes from countries like China."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/jul/15/paul-ryan/gop-rep-paul-ryan-says-us-borrows-42-cents-each-do/	As an Aug. 2, 2011 deadline approaches, debate is intensifying over whether Congress should allow the federal government to go deeper in debt. The head of the nation’s central bank went so far as to say the borrowing limit must be raised in order to avert a "huge financial calamity." Seeking cuts in spending, many Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, have resisted President Barack Obama’s call to raise the debt limit. In defending his position, Ryan made a pair of striking statistical claims during a Milwaukee radio interview on July 6, 2011. "We borrow 42 cents of every dollar Washington spends today," he toldJay Weber, a conservative talk show host on WISN-AM (1130), "and about half of that comes from countries like China." The first part of the statement has to do with the federal deficit, while the second has to do with the debt. As the U.S. Treasury Department points out, a deficit occurs when the government spends more money than it takes in (through taxes, fees and other income). When there’s a deficit, the government borrows money to cover the difference by selling treasury securities. Debt, meanwhile, is the net amount of accumulated deficits. Let’s look at the two halves of the statement. "We borrow 42 cents of every dollar Washington spends today" Conor Sweeney, Ryan’s budget committee spokesman, cited two reports: A summary of the fiscal 2012 federal budget, which shows revenue of $2.17 trillion and spending of $3.82 trillion. Sweeney divided the first figure by the second to show that 57 cents of every dollar the government spends comes from revenue, which means the other 43 cents are borrowed. A June 2011 budget review by the Congressional Budget Office which, using the same math, indicates 41 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed. That puts Ryan’s claim of 42 cents smack in the middle. Our PolitiFact colleagues earlier in 2011 twice evaluated statements nearly identical to Ryan’s, using the same approach Sweeney used. They rated both statements True, even though they were off by 3 cents. To check the most recent data, we used the Treasury Department’s May 2011 revenue and spending report, the latest available when Ryan did the radio interview. It indicates that, for the fiscal year to that point in time, the government borrowed 39 cents for every dollar it spends. Ryan is also within 3 cents of that figure, so we’ll judge his first claim as essentially accurate. Now, to his second claim -- which is more complicated. "About half of (the borrowing) comes from countries like China" By saying "countries like China," Ryan meant borrowing the U.S. does from any foreign countries, according to Sweeney. So, for Ryan’s second claim to be accurate, roughly half of the U.S. debt would have to be foreign owned. There is no real dispute that the nation’s total debt exceeds $14 trillion. PolitiFact has twice used that figure in evaluating claims about the proportion of U.S. debt owned by China. In recent days, the New York Times cited the current debt as $14.3 trillion and the Los Angeles Times, in a primer on the debt-limit talks, noted that the debt had reached that level in May 2011. Moreover, the The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It, a daily debt tracking done by the Treasury Department, also shows the debt at $14.3 trillion. Indeed, that figure just about equals the nation’s debt limit -- which explains why there is urgency on the part of those who want to see the limit raised before what the Obama administration says is an Aug. 2, 2011 deadline. But according to Sweeney, Ryan wasn’t referring to that measure at all. Rather, he said, Ryan was pointing to a portion of the total debt, the far less known "debt held by the public." Citing a Congressional Budget Office study, Sweeney called that debt measure "the most significant measure for economic purposes" because it excludes treasury securities held by Social Security trust funds and other government accounts. He then pointed to the Treasury Department’s daily debt tracking, which shows total debt at $14.3 trillion, including $9.74 trillion held by the public. Sweeney also cited a Treasury Department report which said foreign investment accounted for $4.49 trillion of U.S. debt as of April 2011. (China, by the way, was the top foreign debt owner, with $1.15 trillion.) Using the $4.49 trillion figure would mean that foreign investors own 46 percent of the debt held by the public, which is the proportion Ryan claimed -- but only 31 percent of the total debt, which is debt measure most familiar to most people. So what’s the bottom line? In an interview about raising the federal government’s debt limit, Ryan made two claims in one statement: "We borrow 42 cents of every dollar Washington spends today and about half of that comes from countries like China." The first claim is essentially on the money. But we believe Ryan owed his listeners more detail if he expected them to accept his second claim. It has long been widely reported that both the nation’s debt and its debt limit are $14.3 trillion. And that’s what the radio discussion was about. So when Ryan said that half of the nation’s borrowing comes from foreign countries -- singling out China for emphasis -- his listeners would assume he meant half of the $14.3 trillion in total debt, not the much smaller debt measure he now says he was referring to, even if that second measure has strong merit in the debt limit discussion. We rate Ryan’s statement Half True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2011-07-15T09:00:00	2011-07-06	['United_States', 'China', 'Washington,_D.C.']
-pomt-06662	Says 600,000 to 700,000 government workers have been laid off in the last year and a half	/new-jersey/statements/2011/sep/12/bill-pascrell/congressman-bill-pascrell-says-more-600000-public-/	U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell says public-sector layoffs are dragging down the nation’s overall job growth. The country had no net job growth in August, a month where the private sector added 17,000 jobs and the public sector shed the same amount, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. WNYC host Brian Lehrer asked Pascrell (D-8th Dist.) in a recent radio interview about August’s stagnant employment numbers. Pascrell called the federal jobs report "disappointing" and highlighted the larger impact of decreasing government employment. "We’ve lost public jobs," Pascrell said in the Sept. 2 interview. "Whether it's policemen, firemen, sanitation people, we got to understand that there's six to seven hundred thousand of these folks who have been laid off [in the last] year and a half. If we continue to put our heads in the sand and don't recognize that that's part of the equation as well, then we're never going to address this." The nation didn’t lose as many government jobs in the time frame Pascrell mentioned, but his numbers aren’t far off. And while there’s debate on whether smaller government is better for the economy, we won’t be ruling on that issue in this Truth-O-Meter item. Pascrell’s spokesman, Paul Brubaker, told PolitiFact New Jersey the congressman was referring to local, state and federal government workers in his interview. Brubaker sent us an article from U.S. News & World Report that said, "Since the end of the recession, government employment -- including federal, state, and local jobs -- has fallen by roughly 600,000." The actual number is 595,000, according to seasonally-adjusted federal data. But Pascrell didn’t reference the end of the recession -- which the National Bureau of Economic Research says ended in June 2009 -- in the radio interview. Still, if we hold Pascrell strictly to the time frame he mentioned, he’s not wildly off from the range he cited. In the past 18 months -- from February 2010 to August, the most recent data available -- the nation lost 512,000 government jobs. During the same time frame, nearly 2.4 million private-sector jobs were created. The decrease in public-sector jobs offset the net total in those 18 months by nearly 21 percent, to about 1.9 million. We reached out to two experts from Washington, D.C. think tanks for their take on the role that decreasing public-sector employment has had on the current jobs situation. "Losses in government employment help account for the fact that overall job growth has been so slow," said Gary Burtless, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a policy think tank. "Drops in government employment have worsened the nation’s employment picture and worsened the prospects of unemployed workers who are seeking to get re-employed or to get their first career jobs." James Sherk, senior policy analyst in labor economics at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said "public-sector job losses have had a relatively minor role in the U.S. employment situation thus far" and "government jobs will not play a constructive role in pulling the U.S. out of its current situation." It’s worth noting that state and local governments employ the vast majority of public workers. Of all government employees, 64 percent work for local governments, 23 percent work for state governments and 13 percent work for the federal government. In New Jersey, 30,500 public jobs were eliminated in the 18 months from January 2010 to July, the most recent state-level figures available. Of those jobs, 18,200 were in local government, 10,900 were in state government and 1,400 were in federal government. The ruling Pascrell said 600,000 to 700,000 public employees have been laid off in the last year and a half. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the nation has lost 512,000 government jobs at the federal, state and local level in the past 18 months. Pascrell’s numbers were off, but not wildly off. And his argument that public-sector job losses are having an impact on net job growth is valid. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Bill Pascrell	None	None	None	2011-09-12T05:15:00	2011-09-02	['None']
-tron-00615	Debbie Reynolds Died One Day After Carrie Fisher	https://www.truthorfiction.com/debbie-reynolds-broken-heart/	None	celebrities	None	None	['celebrities', 'deaths']	Debbie Reynolds Died One Day After Carrie Fisher–Truth!	Dec 29, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02975	Did a Trump Supporter Kick a Pregnant Muslim Woman in the Stomach?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-supporter-kick-pregnant-woman/	None	Crime	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Trump Supporter Kick a Pregnant Muslim Woman in the Stomach?	8 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00930	The potential Iran nuclear agreement would limit Iran to the number of centrifuges needed for a weapon but too few for a nuclear power program.	/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/	The deadline for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is something of a moving target, but right now negotiators need to wrap things up by June 2015. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — along with Germany, have until then to strike a deal with the Islamic republic. If all goes the way the United States hopes, a signed agreement will keep Iran out of the nuclear weapons club. For now, the two sides are operating under an interim agreement, which rolls back Iran’s stock of enriched uranium and freezes the country’s capability to produce nuclear materials that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. In exchange, Iran can sell its oil more freely and gain access to millions of dollars in frozen assets. One element that’s fully expected in a long-term arrangement is a limit on the number and kinds of centrifuges Iran can use to enrich uranium. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said there’s an irony in that. "If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on Charlie Rose. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon." Morell told PunditFact he said 5,000 because that was lowest number he had heard was in play. The number of centrifuges in place today is a hair over 20,000, and a likely goal is to cut that to about 5,000. But Morell’s basic point struck us as just plain intriguing. We wanted to learn more about this idea that a nuclear power program would require many more centrifuges than you’d need for a bomb -- which by extension means that limiting centrifuge capacity is just one negotiating point out of many. The consensus among the experts we reached is that Morell is on the money. Matthew Kroenig at Georgetown University told PunditFact the Morell is "is absolutely correct." Ditto for Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security. Matthew Bunn at Harvard agreed with his colleagues. "People think surely you must need a bigger enrichment system to make 90 percent enriched material for bombs than to make 4-5 percent enriched material for power reactors," Bunn said. "But exactly the opposite is true." Bunn said there are two reasons. First, you need tens of tons of material to fuel a power reactor for a year, but just tens of kilograms to make a bomb. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the threshold amount for a bomb is about 25 kilograms of the most highly enriched U-235. And while yes, it’s harder to make 90 percent enriched uranium (bomb) than 4-5 percent enriched uranium (power), it’s not that much harder, Bunn said. The toughest part in the process comes when you start with the raw uranium. By the time you’ve brought that to 4-5 percent, "you’ve already done more than 2/3 of the work of going all the way to 90 percent U-235 for weapons," Bunn said. "So the amount of work needed to make bomb material is only a modest amount more per kilogram, and the number of kilograms you need for bombs is 1,000 times less. Bottom line: Making bombs takes fewer centrifuges. And without a lot of centrifuges, it’s hard to make nuclear power. For the record, some centrifuge models are better than others, so that's also a factor. Today, Iran has just one nuclear power station, the plant at Bushehr that it bought from the Russians. To keep that facility running, Iran would need to increase its centrifuge capacity ten-fold. A steady supply of fuel from Russia is what keeps Bushehr online. Centrifuges and a nuclear deal This fact that bombs require fewer centrifuges than power is a source of frustration for Albright, a physicist with the Institute for Science and International Security. "I wish it were reversed," he told us. "Then we could easily tell if the program was for weapons." As the clock clicks down to reach an agreement, the number of centrifuges and their level of sophistication will draw a lot of scrutiny. Kimball, of the Arms Control Association, said the specific terms on this front will have to resolve a crucial question: "What are Iran’s practical needs, and how do you square that with international concern about the real purpose?" Ideally, Kimball said, Russia or another nation would continue to supply the fuel, but barring that, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany aim to put on cap on the number of centrifuges for as many years as possible. Allowing about 5,000 would help. "With that, it would take 12 months for Iran to produce enough material for one bomb," Kimball said. "That would give you enough time to detect that activity." But Bunn underscored that an agreement would have many moving parts and a key element would be the number of years that Iran agreed to rein in its centrifuge capacity. "Because the sides have already agreed in the (interim agreement) that after the agreement expires, Iran is to be treated like other parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. That would mean it could build up its enrichment capacity to have enough to fuel Bushehr or even more reactors," Bunn said. The variables don’t stop there. If Iran ramped up production of fuel for nuclear power, it would need a ready supply of raw ore, which it might need to purchase on the international market. During his interview with Charlie Rose, Morell warned that the focus on declared centrifuges is misplaced, because he expects that if Iran were to try to build a bomb, it would do so in secret. The only protection against that, Morell said, is unannounced inspections at any place in the country at any time. Our ruling Morell said that it takes fewer centrifuges to make bomb-grade nuclear material than it does to supply fuel for a nuclear power plant and argued that the focus on centrifuges can go too far. That argument aside, experts agreed that Morrell has his facts right. A power plant requires tons of fuel each year. A bomb requires about 25 kilograms of U-235 enriched to the 90 percent level. If an agreement limits Iran to about 9,000 centrifuges, that would be sufficient to produce enough bomb-grade material but would leave Iran well short of the capacity to generate fuel to power nuclear power plants. We rate Morrell’s claim True.	None	Michael Morell	None	None	None	2015-02-25T16:41:01	2015-02-18	['Iran']
-snes-01777	Flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey exposed a weapons cache hidden by former President Barack Obama.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-hurricane-harvey-uncover-obamas-secret-stash/	None	Military	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did Hurricane Harvey Reveal Barack Obama’s Secret Ammunition Stash?	6 September 2017	None	['None']
-vees-00021	The reporter asked Marcos:	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-imee-marcos-disclaimer-corruption-duri	The ill-gotten wealth issue has been extensively documented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, which was established soon after the EDSA 1986 People Power Revolution that overthrew Marcos.	None	None	None	Ill-gotten wealth,Imee Marcos	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Imee Marcos disclaimer on corruption during the Marcos regime is FALSE	October 19, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00369	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck “Back Together” After “Rehab Ultimatum,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-back-together-rehab-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner, Ben Affleck NOT “Back Together” After “Rehab Ultimatum,” Despite Report	10:14 am, August 29, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Garner', 'Ben_Affleck']
-chct-00357	FACT CHECK: Did Obama Neither Condemn Nor Disavow White Nationalists After The Charleston Shooting?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/15/fact-check-did-obama-not-condemn-white-nationalists-after-the-charleston-shooting/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	3:54 PM 08/15/2017	None	['None']
-snes-00394	On a visit to the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin in June 2018, First Lady Melania Trump wore a Doctor Who-themed T-shirt bearing the word "Exterminate."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/melania-trump-exterminate-shirt-holocaust/	None	Junk News	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did Melania Trump Wear an ‘Exterminate’ T-Shirt to a Holocaust Memorial?	29 June 2018	None	['Berlin']
-pomt-14993	"Sen. Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-voted-against-brady/	Hillary Clinton used the gun debate to try and attack Sen. Bernie Sanders from the left at the first Democratic debate. Sanders’ record on the issue has been the subject of much liberal ire. After CNN moderator Anderson Cooper grilled Sanders on his vote shielding firearms companies from lawsuits, Clinton brought up another time Sanders didn’t side with gun control advocates. "The majority of our country supports background, and even the majority of gun owners do," Clinton said on Oct. 13. "Sen. Sanders did vote five times against the Brady Bill." Clinton is correct that most Americans (90 percent) support background checks. But did Sanders vote against the landmark Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated a five-day waiting period for background checks for gun purchases? Five nays from the Vermont congressman The Clinton campaign pointed to our July fact-check of an attack ad paid for by a pro-Martin O’Malley super PAC. We rated a slightly more expansive claim — "Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, background checks and waiting periods" — Mostly True. (That statement that referred specifically to background checks, which Sanders had supported.) Before it became law in 1993, the Brady bill underwent many transformations. Sanders, then Vermont’s sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, voted against the bill in its entirety five times: 1. In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House. 2. The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In November 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992. 3. After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five-day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version twice in the same day, but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time). 4. He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why. 5. The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it. In July, when we first looked into the issue, Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver told us that Sanders voted against the bill because he believed a national waiting period was a federal overreach and because he was answering to his constituents. "He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down," Weaver said. "He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont." A mixed record overall Overall, Sanders is neither a gun nut nor an anti-gunner. He’s received lukewarm marks from the NRA, ranging from a C- to F in the last 15 years. "Throughout his time in public office, Sen. Sanders has consistently voted to outlaw the most dangerous weapons and keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Sanders spokesperson Michael Briggs told us. Briggs noted that Sanders has voted in favor of banning assault weapons, closing the gun show loophole, regulating high capacity magazines, and expanding background checks in the wake of the Newtown massacre. On the flip side, Sanders has also voted to allow firearms on Amtrak trains and in National Parks, though his most recent pro-gun vote was in 2009. "(Sanders’) gun control position is a reflection of living in Vermont for 40 years," Garrison Nelson, a professor of professor of political science at the University of Vermont, told us in July. "Vermonters use guns to shoot deer and moose, not one another." Our ruling Clinton said, "Sen. Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill." Sanders voted against the Brady bill five times from 1991 to 1993. Sanders’ campaign manager told us in July that he did so because he was against a national waiting period and had to answer to the people of Vermont, a rural state with high gun ownership. Overall, Sanders has a mixed record when it comes to guns. But he did indeed register five nays on the Brady bill. We rate Clinton’s claim True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-10-13T21:26:20	2015-10-13	['None']
-tron-01634	Proving property title back to its origins?	https://www.truthorfiction.com/louisianapurchase/	None	government	None	None	None	Proving property title back to its origins?	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-03219	Alaskan Bush Pilot Views on Sarah Palin	https://www.truthorfiction.com/palin-bush-pilot/	None	politics	None	None	None	Alaskan Bush Pilot Views on Sarah Palin	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-02449	Easter Island Heads Have Bodies Buried Beneath Them	https://www.truthorfiction.com/easter-island-heads-have-bodies-buried-beneath-them/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Easter Island Heads Have Bodies Buried Beneath Them	Jul 29, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07354	Says close to 90 percent of the population growth in Texas over the last decade was non-Anglo.	/texas/statements/2011/may/09/garnet-coleman/state-rep-garnet-coleman-says-nearly-90-percent-po/	Calling a Republican redraw of Texas House districts "retrogressive," Democratic Rep. Garnet Coleman of Houston said it doesn’t reflect the state’s growing minority population. From 2000 to 2010, "close to 90 percent of the population growth in Texas was non-Anglo, yet this map reduces the number of districts where communities of color can elect their candidate of choice," he said in an April 28 press release. That day, the GOP-dominant House approved the revisions, which Coleman says eliminates one district in which Hispanics make up the majority of registered voters, sending the plan to the Senate. We’re not going to weigh in on whether the map disenfranchises voters. But we wondered whether he correctly pegged the state’s non-Anglo population growth. In April 2010, the Democratic Lone Star Project similarly said the state was expected to gain congressional seats "almost entirely due to the growth of the African American and Hispanic populations in Texas in virtually every region of the state." We rated that Mostly True, finding that Hispanic growth seemed likely to deserve credit for Texas gaining seats, but that would be uncertain until the 2010 Census was complete. One year later, it is. And responding to our request for evidence to support Coleman’s claim, Joe Madden, Coleman’s chief of staff, pointed us to data from the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the 2010 Census, Texas grew 20.6 percent in the decade. It was the fifth fastest-growing state behind Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho. By raw numbers alone, Texas’ population increased by about 4.3 million people. California, which retained the largest population, increased by 3.4 million. How much of Texas’ population growth was due to non-Anglos? According to census data, in 2000, about 9.9 million minorities — people who reported their ethnicity and race as something other than non-Hispanic white — accounted for 47.6 percent of the state’s population. From 2000 to 2010, the minority population swelled by 3.8 million, accounting for 54.7 percent of the population — and also making minorities responsible for about 89 percent of the state’s growth through the decade. According to a Feb. 18 Austin American-Statesman news article analyzing the new census data, Latinos accounted for two-thirds of Texas' growth over the decade and made up 37.6 percent of the state's total population through 2010, while blacks made up 11.5 percent of the growth. Robert Bernstein, a Census Bureau spokesman, told us that Coleman was "pretty much on the mark." We rate Coleman’s statement as True.	None	Garnet Coleman	None	None	None	2011-05-09T06:00:00	2011-04-28	['Texas']
-vogo-00178	Statement: Mayoral candidate Bob “Filner was arrested for assaulting a female baggage handler. The woman called him scary and hostile. Filner pleaded no contest,” a recent advertisement from Filner’s opponent, Carl DeMaio.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/demaio-misrepresents-filners-airport-legal-troubles-fact-check/	Analysis: It’s not surprising that San Diego mayoral candidate Bob Filner’s 2007 run-in with a baggage clerk at Dulles Airport near Washington D.C. has reared its head in the election.	None	None	None	None	DeMaio Misrepresents Filner's Airport Legal Troubles: Fact Check	October 18, 2012	None	['Bob_Filner', 'Carl_DeMaio']
-pose-00001	Increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (couples) or $200,000 (single)	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1/increase-the-capital-gains-and-dividends-taxes-for/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers	2010-01-07T13:26:45	None	['None']
-pomt-03858	"Over the last 20 years, the world has changed. It used to be that one could make a career out of working for one company. Today, the average worker stays at his or her job for barely four years."	/virginia/statements/2013/mar/12/eric-cantor/cantor-says-job-longevity-has-decreased-during-las/	House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, says Republicans must find ways to reduce economic insecurity in American families. "Over the last 20 years, the world has changed," he said during a Feb. 5 speech to the American Enterprise Institute. "It used to be that one could make a career out of working for one company. Today, the average worker stays at his or her job for barely four years." It’s a common refrain that people don’t stay at jobs as long as they used to and we wondered whether it’s true. Checking Cantor’s statement required two determinations: 1) How long does the average worker of today keep a job and, 2) Has the duration become shorter in the last 20 years? Cantor’s staff directed us to numbers from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency collects tenure data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which asks a sample of workers how long they have been with their current employer. The figures reflect the median responses, meaning that half of the workers have been with their employers a shorter time and half longer. Since 1996, the BLS has published tenure statistics every other year. Immediately before then, it was published every five years. So it’s impossible to find data that neatly compares the 20-year span Cantor referenced. But the figures do allow a 21-year comparison, from January 1991 to January 2012, the date of the last report. The median tenure for U.S. workers in 2012 was 4.6 years, longer than the 3.6 years recorded in 1991. So contrary to Cantor’s contention, the length of time employees stayed with companies increased. The problem with this data is that it includes all workers, starting at age 16. "Those people are in school, starting out doing part-time work and may have a first job in retail," said Craig Copeland, a senior research associate for the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington. "When we get to 25, we’re seeing people who are starting their career … that’s the age where people begin to have a strong workforce attachment." In an article he wrote for the institute’s newsletter, Copeland singled out the figure for all workers 25 or older. The median tenure was 4.8 years in 1991 and 5.4 years in 2012. By this measure, too, the length of time employees stayed with companies increased. Copeland’s analysis of the data goes back to 1983, when workers 25 or older had a median tenure of 5.0 years with the same company. He noted that tenure figures sway with the economy, falling during boom years when companies are hiring and rising during tight years when workers have fewer job options. The 5.4-year median tenure for workers 25 and older in January 2012 was the highest recorded in BLS reports dating back to 1983. The increase over the last 21 years has been driven by women. In 1991, women 25 and older spent a median 4.3 years with the same company. That rose to 4.4 years in in 1992 and 5.4 years in 2012. There hasn’t been a sustained change for similarly aged men. They spent a median 5.4 years working for the same company in 1991, 4.9 years in 2002 and 5.5 years in 2012. Putting all the numbers together, Copeland wrote, "Overall, employee tenure has been remarkably stable since 1983." He also noted that the number the number of workers staying in what could be considered career jobs has slowly increased. In 1983, 8.9 percent of workers had been with the same company 20 years or more. That rose to 9.5 percent in 1991, and 11 percent in 2012. Robert Topel, a University of Chicago labor economist, told us in an email that the median tenure statistics Cantor referred to are an imperfect measure of workers’ longevity with employers. The problem, he said, is that it records workers during the middle of employment stints that could last much longer. "The average completed duration of jobs in progress is roughly double the mean," he wrote. Topel said that in measuring worker longevity, "career jobs are pretty important and not materially different from the past." The BLS figures show that in 1991, 32.2 percent of workers 25 or older worked for the same company for 10 years or more. That increased to 33.7 percent in 2012. In 1991 and 2012, slightly more than half of full time workers 55 or older had been with the same company for 10 years or longer. Our ruling Cantor said job longevity has diminished over the last 20 years. "It used to be that one could make a career out of working for one company," he said. "Today, the average worker stays at his or her job for barely four years." The majority leader was referring to 2012 BLS figures that show the median length of time U.S. workers 16 and older had spent with their employer was 4.6 years. The problem with this statistic is that young workers don’t stay at jobs very long and don’t view their labor as careers. The mean tenure of workers 25 and older was 5.4 years. In either case, tenure has actually increased over the last two decades. It has actually risen by one year if we consider workers 16 and older, and by more than half a year if we consider workers 25 and older. The bottom line: There’s some accuracy in Cantor’s estimate of how many years workers stay at their jobs. But he’s off target on his his major point -- that longevity at companies has decreased over the last 20 years. All told, we rate Cantor’s statement Mostly False.	None	Eric Cantor	None	None	None	2013-03-12T06:00:00	2013-02-05	['None']
-pomt-10829	"He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/17/ron-paul/a-consistent-supporter-of-gun-rights/	According to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Ron Paul has voted consistently to keep that right from being limited in any way. In fact, he has repeatedly introduced the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act that would repeal most federal gun laws. During his tenure in the House, various measures limiting gun ownership have been considered. Here is a sampling: In 1999, the Columbine massacre instigated gun-control legislation. Amendments to gun show background check legislation would have limited ownership. He voted against prohibiting violent juvenile offenders from ever owning a gun. He also opposed keeping semiautomatic assault weapons from the hands of juveniles. The background check legislation did not pass the House at that time, but new background-check legislation did pass by voice vote this summer in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. Ron Paul was the only lawmaker to speak in opposition, calling it "flagrantly unconstitutional." In 2004, Paul voted to repeal the District of Columbia gun ban. The legislation passed the House but was not taken up in the Senate. Then in 2005, he voted to prevent D.C. from spending money to enforce one of its provisions.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2007-09-17T00:00:00	2007-09-17	['None']
-pomt-09903	A new Rasmussen poll shows people "oppose (Sotomayor's) confirmation. Only 37 percent support it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/13/jon-kyl/poll-sonia-sonia-sotomayor-support-shows-divide/	The day before the Supreme Court nomination hearing for Sonia Sotomayor began, Sen. Jon Kyl said President Barack Obama's nominee was losing the support of the American public. "It's interesting that I just reviewed the Rasmussen poll, most recent poll about American public opinion about Judge Sotomayor. They oppose her confirmation. Only 37 percent support it," the Arizona Republican said during an appearance on This Week with George Stephanopolous. Stephanopolous seemed surprised by that, and said he wasn't familiar with the poll. We wanted to check the poll for ourselves and see what it said. The Rasmussen Reports poll was conducted June 29-30, 2009, and was a national survey of 1,000 likely voters. The poll asked this question: "The United States Senate has the constitutional authority to confirm all Supreme Court nominees. Based upon what you know at this time, should the United States confirm Sonia Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice?" The results were very close. Thirty-seven percent said yes, the Senate should confirm, 39 percent said no, and 23 percent said "not sure." And it's important to note that the margin of error on the poll was 3 percentage points. So the 37-39 split is within the margin of error, and could be considered a statistical tie. As a side note, the same poll showed that most respondents expected Sotomayor to be confirmed, with 58 percent saying it was "very likely" and another 26 percent saying it was "somewhat likely." And a Gallup poll, conducted after the Rasmussen poll but released the day after Kyl made his remarks, found that 53 percent favored Sotomayor's nomination, with 33 percent opposed and 13 percent having no opinion. Kyl specifically cited the Rasmussen poll, though, and he got the number who favored confirmation right. But his comment leaves the impression that a solid majority opposes Sotomayor's nomination. Sotomayor fans could use the same data to say that "only" 39 percent oppose her nomination. In fact, the polling data reads more like a tie, with a significant percentage of people not having a firm opinion. We rate Kyl's statement Half True.	None	Jon Kyl	None	None	None	2009-07-13T14:49:46	2009-07-12	['None']
-tron-03545	Norway Targets Muslims for Deportation, Crime Rate Drops	https://www.truthorfiction.com/norway-targets-muslims-for-deportation-crime-rate-drops/	None	terrorism	None	None	None	Norway Targets Muslims for Deportation, Crime Rate Drops	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Norway']
-pomt-03316	"U.S. Department of Homeland Security has told banks -- in writing -- it may inspect safe deposit boxes without warrant and seize any gold, silver, guns or other valuables it finds inside those boxes!"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/26/chain-email/homeland-security-can-seize-safe-deposit-boxes-wit/	Nothing screams Internet credibility quite like an entire paragraph in all caps, alternating text background colors and no fewer than five question marks in an email subject line. We recently received such a chain email insisting that bank safe deposit boxes merely let people "entertain the illusion of safety." (If anyone can persuade you to take your valuables out of the bank and stuff them in your mattress, please don’t let it be a stranger who just can’t figure out that caps lock key.) Different versions of a chain email about the U.S. Department of Homeland Security seizing safe deposit box contents have been circulating through inboxes and on websites since 2006, and as recently as this month. The message sent to PolitiFact read: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY HAS TOLD BANKS -- IN WRITING -- IT MAY INSPECT SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES WITHOUT WARRANT AND SEIZE ANY GOLD, SILVER, GUNS OR OTHER VALUABLES IT FINDS INSIDE THOSE BOXES! According to in-house memos now circulating, the DHS has issued orders to banks across America which announce to them that "under the Patriot Act" the DHS has the absolute right to seize, without any warrant whatsoever, any and all customer bank accounts, to make "periodic and unannounced" visits to any bank to open and inspect the contents of "selected safe deposit boxes." Further, the DHS "shall, at the discretion of the agent supervising the search, remove, photograph or seize as evidence" any of the following items "bar gold, gold coins, firearms of any kind unless manufactured prior to 1878, documents such as passports or foreign bank account records, pornography or any material that, in the opinion of the agent, shall be deemed of to be of a contraband nature. This raises the question: Who keeps their porn in a bank safe deposit box? But porn aside, there was a lot to check out here. We contacted David McGuinn, president of Safe Deposit Specialists, a financial consulting firm that offers training, products and services to the financial industry. He told us he was flooded with phone calls when this claim resurfaced in 2013. He attributes it to the Cyprus financial crisis earlier this year. The small Mediterranean country had been in severe recession since 2009, and a banking crisis led to a rescue package from the European Central Bank. The terms of the bailout left the government desperate for cash, so officials announced in March that they would seize a portion of savers’ assets. That’s when people started warning that something similar could happen in the United States, and the chain email started circulating again, McGuinn told us. "There’s no truth to that at all," he said. The Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Customs are groups McGuinn listed as potential officials who could force open a box with a search and seizure notice. McGuinn said this process doesn’t occur frequently. And when officials do open safe deposit boxes, there are safeguards in place. Rob Rowe, vice president with the American Bankers Association, explained that good cause must be proven in order for the Patriot Act to be used to open a safe deposit box, which is private property. The email in question cited the Patriot Act as the reason the DHS can seize this property, but Rowe said that isn’t the case. Also, DHS officials wouldn’t be able to open up boxes without bank officials present, he said. "The only way to open the box without the renter’s key is to drill the lock. If and when a box is drilled, standard bank operating procedures require dual control – the presence of two officers – and many jurisdictions also require that the locksmith who drills the box to be specially licensed or certified," Rowe said. When we contacted Homeland Security about the issue, an official cited the Fourth Amendment, explaining that searches and seizures by the department may only take place with probable cause and a court-ordered warrant. Our ruling Various chain emails over the past seven years have warned readers about the possibility of Homeland Security seizing items like gold, silver and guns from their safe deposit boxes at the bank. This isn’t possible without first obtaining a search warrant, since those boxes are private property. And banking officials told us random seizures just aren’t happening. We rate this statement Pants on Fire.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2013-07-26T16:35:52	2013-07-14	['None']
-goop-00204	Did Jessica Simpson Almost Get Divorced Over Her Drinking?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jessica-simpson-divorce-drinking-eric-johnson/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Did Jessica Simpson Almost Get Divorced Over Her Drinking?	5:38 pm, September 28, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00987	Kanye West, Caitlyn Jenner Reconnecting Behind Kim Kardashian’s Back, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kanye-west-caitlyn-jenner-reconnecting-behind-kim-kardashians-back-not-true/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Kanye West, Caitlyn Jenner NOT Reconnecting Behind Kim Kardashian’s Back, Despite Reports	6:51 pm, May 16, 2018	None	['Kanye_West', 'Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-09073	Gov. Rick Perry broke his promise that he would not accept a $40,000 pay increase.	/texas/statements/2010/jun/27/bill-white/bill-white-says-perry-said-he-wouldnt-take-pay-rai/	Bill White, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, lashed out at his GOP rival, Gov. Rick Perry, over his state-paid salary during a June 17 news conference, suggesting Perry had gone back on his word not to accept a five-figure raise. “Several years ago, he signed a law giving himself a $40,000 pay increase,” White said. “He told you, the people in the press, that he wasn’t going to take that pay increase. I don’t think he kept that promise.” We decided to review White’s left-right-left combination. In response to our inquiry, White’s campaign pointed us to Perry’s tax returns, newspaper articles and actions taken by the Texas Legislature in 2007. That year, lawmakers included raises for eight top officials, including the governor, in the budget bill for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, according to a Dallas Morning News article published June 7, 2007. Perry signed the legislation into law June 15, 2007, according to information from the Legislature’s Web site. In the law, the governor’s annual salary was set to jump 30 percent, from $115,345 to $150,000 -- an increase of $34,655, which is less than the $40,000 that White quoted. Katy Bacon, a spokeswoman for White, told us when we inquired that White overstated the size of the raise at his recent press conference and “should have said about $35,000.” White’s campaign pointed us to news articles indicating Perry wouldn’t take the raise. Robert Black, then a spokesman for the governor, was quoted in the June 2007 Morning News article saying Perry would not accept the pay raise when it kicked in that September, the start of the state’s fiscal year: “He hasn’t taken a pay raise and doesn’t think it’s necessary.” A Fort Worth Star Telegram news article published June 8, 2007, quoted Black as saying that “we asked them [lawmakers] to give the governor an opt-out provision, and they did that.” A clause in the 2008-09 budget titled “Governor’s Salary Authorization” says the governor can set his salary “at any amount below the listed authorization” — in this case, $150,000. Perry’s office confirmed that he has not exercised the opt-out provision since his raise became law. We didn’t find statements from Perry or his aides to the effect that instead of refusing the pay increase, the governor would donate it to charity. Yet Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger wrote us in an e-mail: “The governor did not seek a pay raise, but the Texas Legislature authorized an increase from $115,000 to $150,000 in 2007 and 2009. Since that time, he has only taken home about $115,000 each fiscal year and has donated the rest to charity.” Perry’s take-home state pay -- meaning wages subject to federal income taxes -- increased from $103,320 in 2006 to $111,361 in 2007 and $135,925 in 2008, according to his tax returns for those years, which he has made public. Bob Martin, a Houston accountant who studied Perry’s tax returns at the request of an Associated Press reporter, told us the amount of taxes that were withheld from Perry’s pay in 2008 indicated that his gross salary was $150,000. He speculated that the difference between Perry’s taxable wages and his gross salary could be explained by pre-tax deductions such as retirement contributions; such deductions would be on Perry’s W-2 form. We found no sign of Perry making his W-2s public. In an Aug. 27, 2009 article, the Morning News reported that in 2008, Perry took “the almost $30,000 raise provided to him by the Legislature” and spread it among the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, the March of Dimes and “a foundation that provides aid to families of fallen veterans.” Perry’s 2008 tax return shows gifts of $9,996 each to the March of Dimes, the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, and the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, where Perry’s wife, Anita, works. The governor filed an extension on his 2009 tax return, so details on more recent charitable donations and take-home pay are not yet available. The White campaign says its examination of Perry’s available tax returns for the years he’s been governor found that Perry has not yet given the full amount of his pay increase to charity. The campaign did two different calculations: First, it compared the increase in Perry’s taxable state-paid income in 2007 and 2008 (about $40,000) with his total charitable gifts during the same time ($38,399). Second, it compared the increase in Perry’s gross state salary ($46,206) with the donations ($38,399). Cesinger later said the governor had “contributed an additional $8,668 in 2008 to the State Employee Charitable Campaign that was not claimed as a deduction on his tax return.” A gift of that amount would close the gap cited by the White campaign. All in all, does White land his three-part punch? He errs on the size of the raise. While Perry didn’t personally tell the media he wouldn’t take the raise, a gubernatorial spokesman speaking on his behalf was quoted in newspaper articles as saying so. Perry’s spokeswoman told us he’s made charitable donations exceeding the additional dollars that came his way in the raise. But that’s not the same as not accepting the raise in the first place. Nor has Perry used the opt-out provision put into the law to allow him to do so. We rate White’s statement as Mostly True.	None	Bill White	None	None	None	2010-06-27T06:00:00	2010-06-17	['Rick_Perry']
-pomt-05690	Says Wisconsin Assembly Republicans voted to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/12/cory-mason/wisconsin-gop-bill-would-repeal-law-ensuring-pay-e/	A bill awaiting action by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would take away the right of discriminated workers to sue employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages. The GOP-sponsored bill would reverse a right to sue granted in a 2009 law approved when Democrats controlled state government. It covers many types of discrimination, including age and race. But in criticizing his Republican colleagues for approving the new bill, state Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, issued a news release on Feb. 23, 2012 that focused on women. He said the bill would repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job." There’s no debate that the bill would repeal the right to sue contained in the 2009 law. But would it also affect working women the way Mason says? To explore how employment discrimination cases work, we spoke with two employment law experts, Milwaukee lawyers Jeff Hynes, who represents workers, and Scott Beightol, who defends employers. There are two routes to filing an employment discrimination complaint: the state Equal Rights Division and the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission. If workers prove discrimination using the state system, an administrative law judge can "make them whole" by ordering the employer to pay back pay with interest, legal fees and job reinstatement, if there was a termination. If the discrimination is proved in the federal system, often a "make whole" settlement is reached through mediation. In either system, discriminated workers can collect larger sums of money from an employer -- compensatory and punitive damages -- only by suing. A federal lawsuit has long been an option, but suing employers in state court for compensatory and punitive damages only became possible with the 2009 law adopted by the Democrats. That law is new enough, and discrimination cases take long enough to process, that no such state lawsuits have yet been filed. Under the current law, if such lawsuits are brought in state court, workers could collect as much as $300,000 in damages, depending on the employer’s size. (The employer must have at least 15 employees.) Supporters of the 2009 law said at the time it was needed to enforce laws that require men and women to be paid equally and to deter employers from committing discrimination. Opponents said the law creates an unnecessary burden on businesses when workers already had legal avenues to collect damages for suffering discrimination. Fast-forward to the GOP bill, promoted as a pro-business measure, that Walker’s spokesman said the governor is reviewing. Would it, as Mason claims, repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job"? Mason argues the law ensures equal pay for women because filing lawsuits is the major way of enforcing civil rights laws. The threat of being sued in state court makes employers less likely to discriminate against workers, which also helps ensure pay equity, he added. But ensuring the right to sue in state court, as the law does, is not the same as ensuring pay equity. Mason also said there is an indication the "pay gap" between men and women in Wisconsin has decreased since the 2009 law took effect. He cited a 2009 study and a 2010 study by the American Association of University Women, which advocates for equity for women and girls. Using median annual earnings for full-time workers, the studies found that Wisconsin women earned 75 percent of what men did in 2009, ranking the state 37th; and 78 percent in 2010, ranking the state 25th. Mason acknowledged, however, that the studies aren’t proof that the law caused the decrease in the pay gap. More importantly, the studies were an overview of pay -- they didn’t examine pay for women and men who do the same job, which is what Mason’s claim addressed. What about the experts? Hynes said the 2009 law deters discrimination because it is easier and less expensive to bring a workplace discrimination suit in state court than in federal court. If the GOP bill becomes law, he said, it would be harder for discriminated workers to collect damages and therefore harder to enforce laws prohibiting unequal pay. Beightol disagreed that the federal system is more onerous and argued that discriminated workers have the same remedies available through federal court that they do in state court. He also made the point that no lawsuits have been filed in state court since the 2009 law took effect. Our rating Mason said Wisconsin Assembly Republicans approved a bill to repeal a law that ensures "that women cannot get paid less than a man for doing the same job." The law does not ensure pay equity, but rather gives discriminated workers the right to sue in state court for compensatory and punitive damages. So, if the GOP-backed bill is signed into law, that right to sue would be lost. But discriminated workers would still be able to seek back pay and other "make whole" payments through government agencies, and they could still sue for compensatory and punitive damages in federal court. Mason’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would leave a different impression -- our definition of Mostly False.	None	Cory Mason	None	None	None	2012-03-12T09:00:00	2012-02-23	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-tron-01087	Taxpayers Paid for Convicted Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Family Travel Expenses	https://www.truthorfiction.com/taxpayers-paid-for-convicted-boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-family-travel-expenses/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Taxpayers Paid for Convicted Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Family Travel Expenses	May 18, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01379	Under the 2017 tax overhaul legislation currently making its way through Congress, all deductions for business-related expenses incurred by small business owners and the self-employed would be eliminated.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tax-bill-small-business-deductions/	None	Business	None	David Emery	None	Does the 2017 Tax Reform Bill Eliminate Small Business Deductions?	4 December 2017	None	['United_States_Congress']
-snes-03783	A photograph shows a girl killed in a drunk-driving accident, with accompanying text recording her last words.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/last-words/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Last Words	3 January 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-05091	As Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney used a line-item veto to cut "millions of dollars for firefighting equipment," including firefighters' "coats, pants, helmets and boots."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/01/mahlon-mitchell/romney-cut-millions-firefighter-gear-wisconsin-dem/	A political product of the mass demonstrations against Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in early 2011, Democrat Mahlon Mitchell lost his electoral debut in the state’s historic recall elections on June 5, 2012. But three days later, Mitchell -- defeated 53 percent to 47 percent by GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch -- was hailed as a rising star at the state Democratic Party’s annual convention. So it wasn’t surprising that Mitchell was among those chosen to criticize Republican Mitt Romney ahead of the presumptive presidential nominee’s June 18, 2012 visit to Wisconsin. Mitchell’s line of attack: As Massachusetts governor, Romney cut millions for firefighters’ equipment. It carried extra weight because Mitchell is head of the Wisconsin firefighter union. On June 12, 2012, Romney claimed that President Barack Obama wants to add more government jobs and said the nation doesn’t "need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers." The same day, the Wisconsin Democratic Party issued a news release in response, quoting Mitchell and a national Democratic Party spokesman. Mitchell claimed in the release that Romney used a line-item veto to cut "millions of dollars for firefighting equipment," including firefighters' "coats, pants, helmets and boots." His claim was similar to one made a day earlier by an Obama campaign official and another made days later by Vice President Joe Biden. Is Mitchell right? Mitchell’s evidence Asked for evidence, Mitchell referred us to Gillian Morris, spokeswoman for Obama's re-election campaign in Wisconsin. She cited a July 2006 veto Romney issued for line item 8000-0050 in Massachusetts’ 2007 budget, his last during his single four-year term as governor. The item, which was restored by the legislature, provided for $2.5 million in grants to local fire departments for firefighting equipment that would "include, but is not limited to, turnout gear." Turnout gear, said Edward Kelly, Mitchell’s counterpart with the Massachusetts firefighters union, generally includes a firefighter’s coat and pants. That’s also how turnout gear is described by the National Fire Protection Association. But Kelly said turnout gear could also be interpreted to include a helmet and boots. And in any case, the line item allowed local governments to spend the grant money on any type of fire safety equipment. Other views For context, we wondered whether Romney’s veto was indicative of his treatment of fire departments and firefighters when he was governor. Kelly said Romney cut aid to local governments, which resulted in cuts in fire department funding and led to firefighter layoffs. A February 2012 Boston Globe article also mentioned the aid cuts in recounting how, as governor, "Romney fiercely protected a costly and controversial perk for police officers after seeking and receiving the endorsement of the politically influential police unions." We also contacted Jim Stergios, executive director of the Pioneer Institute, a Boston think tank that values "free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government." He said the Romney administration generally "limited grant programs to municipalities because their view was that such programs represented a relatively unaccountable entry into local affairs." "There was also a political principle at work," Stergios said in an email. "Resist the usual small, targeted grants to local constituencies because they opened up all kinds of political fights among those constituencies (the firefighters got a grant, so shouldn't the police officers?) and localities (Bourne, Lawrence, and Worcester all wanted grants for fire stations, why shouldn't other communities?)." We asked Romney’s campaign for a response to Mitchell’s claim. Spokeswoman Allie Brandenburger provided a video clip of comments Romney gave in response to an interview question about his statement that the nation didn’t need more firefighters. That had nothing to do with Mitchell’s claim, so we emailed Brandenburger again, but got no reply. Our rating Mitchell said that as Massachusetts governor, Romney used a line-item veto to cut "millions of dollars for firefighting equipment," including firefighters' "coats, pants, helmets and boots." In 2006, Romney vetoed $2.5 million in grants for all types of fire safety equipment, including those Mitchell cited. We rate Mitchell’s statement True.	None	Mahlon Mitchell	None	None	None	2012-07-01T09:00:00	2012-06-12	['Massachusetts', 'Mitt_Romney']
-pomt-08736	"When career politician Daniel Webster became speaker of the House, he wasted $32,000 of our money on a spiral staircase for his office."	/florida/statements/2010/aug/31/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-attacks-daniel-websters-stairway-nowh/	Central Florida U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson is digging on some 1970s Led Zeppelin in his first ad attacking Republican opponent Daniel Webster. The ad is called "Dan Webster's Stairway to Nowhere." See where this is going, Zeppelin fans? It opens with someone ripping off Jimmy Page's recognizable guitar introduction to "Stairway to Heaven." A narrator talks over a black-and-white image of Webster, a longtime state legislator and former House speaker. "When career politician Daniel Webster became speaker of the House, he wasted $32,000 of our money on a spiral staircase for his office," the narrator says, before moving on to a claim that he used tax money for private flights. The ad then finishes with a spin off of Robert Plant's vocals. "And he's charged us for a stairway to nowhere." To be honest, it's a pretty poor rendition. But we're PolitiFact Florida, not American Idol, so we'll stick to the factual claims in the ad -- specifically about the stairwell. Stepping stones to the staircase Webster was elected to the state House in 1980. In 1996, he became the first Republican state House speaker in more than 100 years after the GOP seized power. That also put him in charge of improvements and renovations to House offices and facilities. Each new speaker traditionally has made changes, upgrades, or renovations. In 1999, Speaker John Thrasher, now a state senator and chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, approved nearly $7 million for the House chamber -- now adorned in mahogany -- the Speaker's Office, and House office building. In 2002, leaders of the House and Senate spent about $1.5 million on furniture, structural changes, even a private bathroom. On the other hand, former Speaker Allan Bense spent only about $1,500 on changes in 2004, according to the St. Petersburg Times. According to newspaper accounts Webster spent about $100,000 in taxpayer dollars on improvements to House facilities in his first months as speaker, including $31,983 on a spiral staircase. The staircase connected the Republican Majority Office on the Capitol's third floor with the Speaker's Office above it on the fourth floor. The staircase was intended to make it easier to move back and forth between the two offices -- namely, it allowed legislators and Webster as speaker to avoid walking through the public hallways filled with lobbyists, reporters and members of the public. The staircase "will allow us to better coordinate things between the Speaker's Office and the Majority Office," Webster said at the time. He also noted that he took the idea from Democrats, who previously had drawn up plans for a spiral staircase of their own. It was built in a spiral style because it was the only way it could work given the space. The Grayson ad includes an image of an elaborate white spiral staircase to help make its point about Webster. But that's not the Webster staircase, said Todd Reid, staff director for the Florida House Majority Office. The staircase was closed off in 2006 during more than $500,000 of renovations ordered by then-Speaker Marco Rubio. The stairway's fourth-floor landing became the new offices of the speaker's chief of staff. "It was a standard black metal staircase," Reid said. "It certainly wasn't heavy on the accouterments." Reid described the staircase as noisy and said whenever someone walked up or down it, people could hear the staircase rattling from both offices. He said the bottom half of the staircase remains in place; a closet was built around it. "If you were in Tallahassee, I'd take you in to see it," Reid told PolitiFact Florida. Your humble fact-checker didn't have time to jump in a car for the five-hour trip to Tallahassee, but we were able to send the St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald's Lee Logan for an exclusive tour. Cribs: Staircase to Nowhere-edition Logan filed the following report, complete with a picture. Behind a door labeled "No Entry" in the House Majority Office is the famed Webster staircase. The small closet without lights is used so rarely that Reid had to hunt down someone in the House Sergeant at Arms office to get a key to the door. The bottom half of the black spiral staircase is still bolted to the floor. (Stairs are simple black metal, with a black metal railing.) Pieces of the top half are also in the closet, including a large piece that rests on top of the lower portion. The ceiling of the closet is now covered over with concrete, forming the floor of the chief of staff's office on the fourth floor. Reid says it's unlikely the stairway would be re-installed because the fourth floor spot is "prime real estate" -- now the House speaker and his chief of staff have direct access to one another through a door. Before Rubio made the space into the chief of staff's office, the staircase came up through a hole in the floor and emptied into a common area that also housed a few supplies. Reid said the closet could be used for supplies if the stairs were removed. But he speculated that they weren't taken out because they're simply too big. Also, a speaker sometime in the future might find a use for the stairs. The stairs were used "irregularly," Reid said, usually on peak days when the Capitol was crowded. He also recalled former Gov. Jeb Bush occasionally using the stairs. Currently, if a staffer (not Joe Public) wanted to go from the Majority Office to the Speaker's Office, he or she could go up a back stairwell and cut through the Member's Lounge, which requires a key card and is reserved for lawmakers. Speaker Larry Cretul has said staffers can cut through the area if they don't loiter or disturb the lawmakers. Our ruling Grayson's ad is unintentionally ironic in that Webster's "stairway to nowhere" actually now is a stairway to nowhere, as it's bolted to the ground of a seldom-used closet. The stairway leads to a concrete ceiling, which now serves as the floor of an office above. Those changes were made by Marco Rubio in 2006. The stairs haven't been used since then. But that's not how Webster left it. When he became speaker in 1996, Webster did what most every speaker has done in recent times -- he spent taxpayer money on House renovations. The amount has varied wildly over the years depending on the size of the renovation. Among the $100,000 or so Webster spent, he allocated just under $32,000 for a plain spiral staircase to internally link the Speaker's Office with the House Republican Offices below. While Grayson's ad is correct on the reported dollar amount and the type of staircase, we think it's slightly misleading for two reasons. First, the imagery displayed suggests an ornate staircase when the staircase is far from ornate and only a spiral staircase by necessity. Second, it fails to provide the context that most every speaker spends taxpayer dollars on renovations, and several spent more than Webster. We rate the claim Mostly True. Now cue the Led Zeppelin ... (Update Sept. 1: We reached out to the Webster campaign before publishing this story via phone and e-mail, but did not hear back. After publication, Webster spokesman Brian Graham said in an e-mail that the staircase actually cost less than published reports. The original construction contract was for $28,126. The state paid even less, $22,242, Graham said). (Update Sept. 3: We noticed that the Grayson ad has been removed from his You Tube web page. We're not sure why).	None	Alan Grayson	None	None	None	2010-08-31T17:39:39	2010-08-27	['None']
-tron-00972	Beware of Emailed Faxes Allegedly From eFax Corporation. They Could Result in Malware Infection	https://www.truthorfiction.com/efax-scam/	None	computers	None	None	None	Beware of Emailed Faxes Allegedly From eFax Corporation. They Could Result in Malware Infection	 Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00010	Dont Use French Flag as Your Profile Picture Because ISIS Will Find You and Kill You	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/bogus-warning-dont-use-french-flag-as-your-profile-picture-because-isis-will-find-you-and-kill-you/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Bogus Warning Dont Use French Flag as Your Profile Picture Because ISIS Will Find You and Kill You	November 18, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04230	A GIF shows a photographer's 'perfect timing,' setting off a camera's flash just as a gymnast performed a midair split.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nadia-comaneci-perfect-timing/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	‘Perfect Timing’ Gymnastics Shot	17 August 2016	None	['None']
-snes-05859	A man divorced his wife after he examined a photograph of her and spotted a man hiding under her bed.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-hiding-bed-photo/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Man Hiding Under Bed’ Photo	30 January 2015	None	['None']
-vees-00480	The clandestine burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) Friday angered many, prompting a wave of protests across the country.	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-were-there-really-no-movies-about-mart	No movie about the martial law years? Wrong, and on so many levels.	None	None	None	Duterte,Marcos burial,martial law films	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Were there really no movies about the martial law years?	November 20, 2016	None	['Ferdinand_Marcos']
-pomt-14355	Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."	/florida/statements/2016/mar/22/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/	Bernie Sanders is far behind Hillary Clinton in the delegate count toward the Democratic presidential nomination, but part of his strategy is to hold out hope that superdelegates will back him at the convention. What are superdelegates? They’re roughly 700 party officials and other high-profile Democrats who get to vote on nominees at the convention. In theory, they could swing a tight race to one candidate or another. The vast majority of superdelegates have said they will back Clinton, according to news reports. But Sanders has suggested that in states where he won by double-digit margins, superdelegates should vote according to the wishes of people in their states. That led to Fox Business News’ Maria Bartiromo asking Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her take on superdelegates. Wasserman Schultz countered that superdelegates aren’t so powerful, according to history. "The purpose of superdelegates -- which by the way, have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984 -- is to make sure that party activists who want to be delegates to the convention don’t have to run against much better-known and well-established people at the district level," said the South Florida congresswoman. Have superdelegates not mattered since they were introduced in 1984? It’s clear that in elections after 1984 they were never needed to settle a nomination. However, they did play a role in 1984, although experts are conflicted about the extent of their power. Superdelegates started in 1984 Under the Democratic Party’s system, slightly more than 700 party officials and big shots get a vote as a superdelegate. That’s about one-third of the 2,383 delegates needed to secure the nomination, or about 15 percent of the total delegates. While pledged delegates vote for the candidate they were elected on behalf of, the superdelegates can vote for whomever they want at the convention. The superdelegate system was added in the 1980s after the Democratic party suffered huge losses with George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter’s failed re-election bid in 1980. The party wanted to come up with new ideas, with hopes of primaries resulting in candidates who were more likely to win general elections. A commission was formed and proposed a few reforms, including the superdelegates. The best example of when superdelegates played a role was the first year they started: former Vice President Walter Mondale’s nomination in 1984. (Ironically, the superdelegate system didn’t guarantee the results the party hoped for, because Mondale got crushed by Ronald Reagan in the general election.) Experts disagree how much credit superdelegates should get toward Mondale winning the nomination. Here is a quick snapshot: Entering the final handful primaries on June 5, 1984, Mondale was leading Sen. Gary Hart in the delegate count, with Jesse Jackson far behind. The battle for delegates became more dramatic that night when Hart won three primaries -- including the big prize of California in a cliffhanger. The Mondale campaign said -- and some news reports agreed -- that Mondale secured the needed 1,967 delegates that night in spite of losing California. But the Associated Press concluded he was "barely short of the magic majority." Mondale wanted to make it indisputable that he had enough votes -- and his campaign set a deadline of one minute before noon. So he made 50 calls in three hours to nail down an additional 40 superdelegates and declared at a press conference that he had 2,008 votes. At the convention in July, Mondale won on the first ballot. Sean Bartlett, a spokesman for the DNC, argued that Mondale won the nomination with pledged delegates, although he said that "superdelegates came close to being decisive." Bartlett pointed to a February 2016 article in The New Republic which stated that while superdelegates preferred Mondale, he "ultimately won a plurality of delegates. So while superdelegates put him over the top, he was also the narrow choice of the voters." Priscilla Southwell -- a professor at the University of Oregon who wrote an article about the 1984 Democratic nomination -- told PolitiFact Florida that she disagreed with Wasserman Schultz’s conclusion that superdelegates have never been a determining factor. "I agree that Mondale had a plurality of pledged delegates, but he did not have enough delegates to clinch the nomination on the first round without the superdelegates. So, if the superdelegates had not been there in 1984, there would have had to be a second roll call of the states, and who knows who would emerged as the nominee?" But Elaine C. Kamarck, who was in charge of counting delegates for Mondale, told PolitiFact Florida that Mondale could have won on pledged delegates alone. "It wasn’t that there weren’t enough -- the California primary came up short for him, so he didn’t get the magic number. There were plenty of delegates without the superdelegates to go over the top," she said. "I’d say they were very helpful in helping him get the nomination, but he would have gotten the nomination even without that burst in the end, because there were enough random uncommitted delegates that he could have done it." (Uncommitted delegates are similar to superdelegates in that they can make up their mind at the convention. But superdelegates hold that position by virtue of their office -- for example, the president is one.) Kamarck, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House, is a superdelegate who plans to vote for Hillary Clinton and is a lecturer at Harvard. In subsequent elections, a Democratic candidate had enough delegates early on so that the superdelegates were essentially irrelevant. In 2008, Clinton led Barack Obama in the superdelegate count in January but he overtook her by May. She suspended her campaign in June a couple months before the convention. Super delegates in 2016 So could superdelegates make a difference this year? It’s too soon to say for certain, but it appears unlikely. The blog fivethirtyeight determined in February that "superdelegates are mathematically relevant when a candidate has 41.2 percent to 58.8 percent of elected delegates." As of March 22, if we count pledged delegates Clinton has about 48 percent of the needed 2,383 delegates to win, while Sanders has 35 percent. Julia Azari, professor of political science at Marquette University, told NPR that superdelegates would only make a difference if it’s close. "I think the only chance a superdelegate will make a difference is if there isn’t really an obvious preference coming out of the electorate part of the process." Our ruling Wasserman Schultz says superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984." The first election where Democrats used superdelegates was in 1984, where they helped Mondale secure the nomination on the first ballot at the convention. It’s not clear that they were the "determining" factor. Some say Mondale would have won without them. Since that time, a Democrat has won the nomination early enough where the superdelegates haven’t mattered. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/e8147839-ca9d-483d-8aaa-408bc24a627a	None	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	None	None	None	2016-03-22T17:37:52	2016-03-21	['None']
-snes-04106	Dr. Hardin B. Jones recently revealed that chemotherapy doesn't work 97% of the time, and doctors only recommend it to get kickbacks.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chemotherapy-doctor-blows-the-whistle/	None	Medical	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Chemotherapy Doesn’t Work, Doctor Blows the Whistle	28 June 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-03010	"Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/15/louise-slaughter/rep-louise-slaughter-says-80-antibiotics-are-fed-l/	A salmonella outbreak traced to California chicken processing plants recently prompted Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., to raise a pet issue on MSNBC: antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The federal shutdown was limiting government’s ability to track infection, she said. But then she pointed to a deeper issue: "the overuse and ruination of antibiotics." An advocate for tougher requirements for farm use of such drugs, Slaughter told host Joy-Ann Reid that she’s been "trying to save antibiotics for persons — for human beings." "Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock every single day, and it's creating a terrible problem of resistant bacteria," she said. Eighty percent is an awfully big number, and we were curious: Do livestock consume the bulk of the nation’s antimicrobial drugs? It’s an important question, because according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wide use of antibiotics in food-producing animals "contributes to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals." Emergence of resistant bacteria means if you get infected with bacteria from the food you eat, it might be harder to fight that infection with antibiotics. Drug resistance may be contributing to higher hospitalization rates in the recent salmonella outbreak, for example, the Los Angeles Times reported. Here’s how it works, according to the CDC: Ranchers give animals antibiotics, which kills off or suppresses susceptible bacteria, but allows antibiotic-resistant bacteria to thrive. Those resistant bacteria may be transmitted to people through the food supply, such as by eating undercooked salmonella-tainted chicken. Since the bacteria are resistant to some antibiotics, the infections may be harder to fight, causing "adverse human health consequences." So CDC "encourages and supports efforts to minimize inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans and animals." You’re probably aware of this effort in humans — it’s why doctors are discouraged from giving their patients antibiotics to treat nonbacterial infections such as cold and flu. Widespread use of antibiotics when they’re not required helps bacteria develop defenses to the drugs in a sort of microscopic arms race. It’s also the reason the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked farmers to phase out certain antibiotics important to human medicine when used merely to promote growth in animals. (The industry says this accounts for a small amount of antibiotic use. The FDA says it’s hard to say.) So, back to the 80 percent number. It turns out it has been a popular talking point since 2010 among those who advocate for restricting use of antibiotics on farms. That’s the year the FDA released newly required data on sales of antibiotics by manufacturers for food-producing animals. The FDA didn’t release sales information on antibiotics for human use, but pointed to national projections from IMS Health, a Connecticut company that compiles proprietary health data. The numbers let folks compare the millions of kilograms of drugs sold by manufacturers for use by food-producing animals (13.1 million kilograms) in 2009 with those sold for use by people (3.3 million kilograms). The 13.1 million kilograms of antibiotics sold for animals was 80 percent of the total amount of drugs sold for both humans and animals, which was 16.4 million kilograms. We should note this comparison doesn’t account for all antibiotics sold in the United States. For example, it doesn’t count antibiotics sold for household pets. A researcher with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future first did the math for a 2010 blog post that’s been widely cited. (The most recent reports reveal a similar proportion, as calculated by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.) Pharmaceutical company lobby groups such as the Animal Health Institute, though, have cried foul. It says the number is "wrong and misleading, for several reasons," and cites the FDA. The FDA has indeed offered a "caution regarding comparisons of human and animal antibacterial drug sales data." It repeated some of those cautions in a 2012 letter to Slaughter herself. But while it offers a series of caveats about drawing "definite conclusions" from "direct comparisons" about the drug sales data — such as differences in dosages between different drugs and in the sizes of human and animal populations — it confirms both sets of sales data essentially measure the same thing. Both show the volume of antibacterial drugs, by weight, being sold to various outlets from the manufacturer. So, while they don’t offer a direct estimate of human or animal use, they do offer a comparison of sales by manufacturers for both groups. In 2011, the FDA provided the IMS Health sales estimates directly to Slaughter, describing the sales numbers as "a surrogate for human use to compare to antibacterial drug use in animals." We should note that about a third of the antibiotics used in food-producing animals are ionophores, a type not used in humans. (The agriculture industry argues this means they have nothing to do with antibiotic resistance in humans; Lawrence at Johns Hopkins says they may still contribute.) If you remove ionophores from the sales data comparison, the proportion of antibiotics that go to food-producing animals vs. humans drops to around 70 percent. There are also also plenty of limits, as the FDA points out, on the usefulness of the publicly released sales data to inform public policy on antibiotics on farms. They don’t illuminate the reasons animals get the drugs (to promote growth? to treat infection? both?). They don’t specify how the antibiotics are administered (injection? food?). The FDA’s asking for comments on how it might release more of the information it collects from animal drug companies, and says it will update reports from previous years with that new data. That might include, for example, a detail it confirmed to Slaughter’s office in a 2011 letter — that nearly all antibiotics reported for animal use to the FDA were delivered in food and water, as opposed to by injection. Meanwhile, the industry uses the current lack of detail to downplay the usefulness of the statistic, even as it fights efforts to gather and release more information. Sales data is "not at all useful for understanding the benefits or the risks of using antibiotics to keep animals healthy," Ron Phillips of the Animal Health Institute told PolitiFact. Others disagree and argue that the data is actually quite revealing. "There is some uncertainty in these data, but not enough to escape the fact that the vast majority of antibiotics in this country are used in food animals, not to treat sick people," wrote Robert Lawrence, a doctor who directs the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins. Slaughter, meanwhile, is sponsoring two bills, the Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act and the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, to require more detailed monitoring and to limit the use of antibiotics to sick animals. Among those lobbying against both: the Animal Health Institute. Our ruling Slaughter said "80 percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock." The statistic comes from a comparison of FDA sales data for food-producing animals and private sales data for humans since 2009 — not all antibiotics sold in the United States. A letter from the FDA to the congresswoman confirms that most of the drugs for livestock are consumed in food and water. That means the percentage "fed" to animals may not be quite as high as 80 percent, though it would be close. Slaughter could have said more clearly that of all the antibiotics sold for use by people and livestock, 80 percent are for animals. But she was close. We rate her statement Mostly True.	None	Louise Slaughter	None	None	None	2013-10-15T16:50:44	2013-10-09	['None']
-tron-00219	Charlie Daniels’ article about the Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba	https://www.truthorfiction.com/charliedaniels2/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Charlie Daniels’ article about the Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01453	Did Roy Moore Say Muslims Shouldn't Be Allowed to Serve in Congress?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/roy-moore-muslims-serve-congress/	None	Ballot Box	None	David Emery	None	Did Roy Moore Say Muslims Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Serve in Congress?	10 November 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09631	"President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout (health care reform negotiations)."	/florida/statements/2010/jan/05/charlie-crist/gov-charlie-crist-says-obama-breaks-transparency-p/	Don't mess with Charlie Crist when it comes to open government. It was Crist, as Florida governor, who created something called the Office for Open Government. And we've heard stories of the governor himself ordering agency heads to hand over public records requested by nosy reporters. Now Crist is taking up the cause of the nation's people in a debate over transparency when it comes to the health care reform bill. "It seems that a bill that was crafted in a closed-door, backroom meeting in the White House will end the same way," Crist, who is running for U.S. Senate, said in a statement released Jan. 5, 2010. "President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi have only aided in the secrecy with sweetheart deals and dead of the night votes." Crist is claiming that Obama broke a promise when it comes to transparency and health care reform. Lucky for us, we have this thing at PolitiFact called the Obameter , where we are tracking Obama's more than 500 campaign promises. If you'll now turn to Promise No. 517 . To achieve health care reform, Obama said in August 2008, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." If it only happened ... While the Senate and House floor debates have been televised on C-SPAN, negotiations have almost always been away from television cameras. ABC's Jake Tapper put the discrepancy in front of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs this week, to see if the final negotiations between the House, the Senate and the president would be televised. "There have been a countless number of public hearings," Gibbs said. "The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1 and 2 in the morning on C-SPAN ... I think what the president promised and pledged was so that you could see who was fighting for their constituents and who was fighting for drug and insurance companies." But, Tapper pressed, the president was talking about negotiations, not votes -- which would hardly be a campaign promise since they would have been televised regardless. "Well, but the bill gets put together on the floor of the Senate," Gibbs said. "That's where the bill got augmented. And I think if you watched that debate ... you'd have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing." Despite the action on the House and Senate floors, most of the serious negotiations on the health care bill have been done in the same fashion as other major initiatives in the past -- behind closed doors. From negotiations with the drug companies and health care interests to final assembly of the delicate compromise on abortion, the bulk of the big deliberations and discussions have occurred out of the public eye. The debate over the resulting bill may have been on C-SPAN as Gibbs claims, but the real sausagemaking took place in a private kitchen. That's why we rated No. 517 a Promise Broken. On top of that, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to House and Senate leaders last week inviting negotiations on the channel. "President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system," Lamb wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American." Obama promised an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he has failed to deliver. When Crist says "President Obama has broken his pledge to the American people to be transparent throughout this process," he's right. We rate Crist's claim True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2010-01-05T12:24:54	2010-01-05	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-tron-02992	Oregon State Leaves Donald Trump off Ballots	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oregon-state-leaves-donald-trump-off-ballots/	None	politics	None	None	['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'hillary clinton']	Oregon State Leaves Donald Trump off Ballots	Oct 24, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-02178	Dan Patrick "got caught not paying his taxes" and "pocketed his employees’ payroll taxes."	/texas/statements/2014/apr/28/david-dewhurst/ad-distorts-dan-patricks-unpaid-taxes-1980s/	David Dewhurst says the Republican who led him in the March 2014 primary for the party’s lieutenant governor nomination has a financially shaky background. Dewhurst, lieutenant governor since 2003, faces challenger Dan Patrick, a Houston state senator, in a May 27, 2014, primary runoff. In Dewhurst's video ad that came public April 16, 2014, the narrator said Patrick "got caught not paying his taxes" and "pocketed his employees’ payroll taxes." In the ad, those claims are prefaced by an excerpt from a lieutenant governor debate in which a reporter said Patrick had walked away from more than $800,000 in debts when he declared personal bankruptcy. Patrick’s bankruptcy filing has been covered before. But did he get caught not paying taxes and also pocket employee payroll taxes? Backup from news story, tax liens Via the Quorum Report, a Capitol newsletter, we came to a Dewhurst web page on his ad attributing most of what he said to a Sept. 19, 2013, Dallas Morning News story on Patrick’s financial troubles. According to the News' story, Patrick filed for bankruptcy in October 1986 under his birth name, Dannie Scott Goeb, and "walked away from about $800,000 in debts." The story said that years later, he legally changed his name to Dan Patrick. The bankruptcy was connected to a failed business venture. According to a January 2007 Texas Monthly story, Patrick and others in the 1980s had "opened Dan and Nick’s Sportsmarket, one of the first sports bars in the U.S. Located in tony Rice Village, the combination bar and restaurant was all polished brass and fine woods, full of local jocks and celebrities, TVs tuned constantly to sporting events. (Too constantly: The NFL would sue Patrick and five other bar owners in 1987 for showing blacked-out games.) For a while the business thrived, largely on the strength of Patrick’s personality," the story said, "but he soon fell prey to the same financial lunacy that infected so many Houstonians in the early eighties. He bought another bar and restaurant, and then another, expanding, finally, to five. Then the oil bust hit, and in short order the man who had made $100,000 as a sportscaster closed four of his businesses, declared bankruptcy, and watched his annual income plummet to $10,000." Payroll taxes unpaid When Patrick filed for bankruptcy, the News’ story said, he listed more than $816,000 in debts and just over $104,000 in assets. "Among his debtors," the story said, "was the Internal Revenue Service, which Patrick owed $13,186 in federal income taxes withheld from his restaurant employees’ paychecks." By email, Dewhurst campaign spokeswoman Eliza Vielma sent us information indicating that from April 1986 into November 1988, Patrick’s companies were hit with five federal tax liens totaling $18,272.26--with unpaid employee payroll taxes comprising the bulk of that total. Vielma pointed out too that Patrick’s online response to the Dewhurst claim concedes he filed for personal bankruptcy and once owed payroll taxes. Patrick’s ad response states his bankruptcy filing doesn’t prove he collected and pocketed the taxes, adding: "This is not a defense; however, it is a technical distinction. According to Patrick, these taxes were ultimately paid and the debt to the federal government was settled." Generally, employers collect half of each employee’s payroll taxes and pony up the other half, with the resulting money going to the federal government for Medicare and Social Security. The essence of Dewhurst’s charge appears to be that Patrick pocketed payroll taxes paid by workers in failing to forward it to the IRS. The News’ story said Patrick "also owed smaller amounts in property taxes to two Houston-area school districts, who later sued his companies for nonpayment. And his businesses were slapped with more than two dozen tax liens by federal, state and local governments. "Patrick said he worked extra jobs and eventually paid off the IRS," the newspaper said, also quoting Patrick as saying he couldn’t recall details of his bankruptcy case’s closing in 1992. "More than a decade later, as he got ready for his first bid for the Senate," the story said, Patrick "cleared up all the tax liens through the secretary of state’s office." Patrick: Taxes paid up We asked Patrick’s campaign for relevant documentation. Logan Spence, his campaign manager, emailed us state and federal documents showing that in April 1986, an IRS administrator signed off on a lien against Patrick’s company of $15,356.68 for unpaid employee payroll taxes. Another document showed an IRS official approving a lien of $4,297.22 for unpaid federal income taxes. At our inquiry, the Morning News emailed us excerpts from Patrick’s bankruptcy case file. The provided 10 pages show Patrick’s bankruptcy filing was initiated Oct. 27, 1986 and was closed Oct. 22, 1992. Also, a document indicates, Patrick (whose legal name was then Goeb) was "released from all dischargeable debts" on May 4, 1987. But 941 taxes incurred by Watchbear, Inc., in 1985 and 1986 were still owed to the federal government, another document indicates, totaling $13,186.29--a figure that matches what the News story described as taxes withheld from restaurant employees’ pay checks. By phone, Spence noted the $13,186 figure on the bankruptcy filing was accompanied by the words "less recent payment," which Spence described as referring to Patrick already paying some unpaid taxes. Saying all of Patrick’s debts associated with the bankruptcy of his restaurants "have been settled," Spence also emailed a photo of a Nov. 5, 1990, letter from an IRS official to Patrick, whose legal last name remained Goeb, stating that $13,186.29 had been paid in full on Nov. 6, 1989. Spence also emailed documents indicating that in January and February 2006, then-State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn cleared Patrick of liens for sales taxes previously unpaid to the City of Houston and Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County totaling $11,717.73. At the time, Patrick was making his first run for the Senate. Experts say records inconclusive about 'pocketing' By email and telephone, a couple tax and accounting experts who looked over the News-provided documents at our request said they indicate Patrick’s company failed to submit payroll taxes to the government, though both said the documents did not demonstrate Patrick pocketed the employee shares of payroll taxes--or otherwise. Arthur Agulnek, who teaches accounting at the University of Texas at Dallas, said the 941 liens show Patrick failed to pay the payroll taxes to the IRS; "he didn’t pay it where it was supposed to go." Michael Harris, a professor of accounting at St. Edward’s University, speculated: "The money was very likely spent on other bills." Our ruling Dewhurst said Patrick got caught not paying taxes and pocketed employees’ payroll taxes. The first part of this claim is backed up by records showing the IRS filed liens because Patrick’s company didn’t submit payroll taxes in parts of 1985 and 1986. Patrick also had liens filed against him for unpaid state and local sales taxes. Documents indicate Patrick caught up on his federal tax tab in 1989 and met his sales tax obligations in 2006, the year he ran for the Senate. We see no confirmation, though, that Patrick "pocketed" employees’ payroll taxes, though such taxes did go unpaid to the government at times. On balance, we rate Dewhurst’s statement as Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2014-04-28T15:00:00	2014-04-16	['None']
-pomt-04856	Says Tommy Thompson favors Obama's health care mandate, was publicly thanked by Obama for health reform support and that Thompson "says we can't repeal 'Obamacare.'"	/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/10/eric-hovde/senate-rival-tommy-thompson-backs-obamacare-says-i/	With days remaining before the four-way Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat, Eric Hovde released a radio ad that hits Tommy Thompson on federal health reform -- or in partisan parlance, "Obamacare." The July 26, 2012 radio ad, similar to a TV ad Hovde released Aug. 6, 2012, complains that Thompson is "slinging mud," distorting Hovde’s record and "hiding some things." It then addresses President Barack Obama's federal health care reform law, using sound bites from Thompson and Obama to back a three-part claim: "Thompson says he favors Obama’s health care mandate." "Obama thanked Thompson for supporting ‘Obamacare.’" "Thompson says we can't repeal ‘Obamacare.’" Candidates often use their opponents’ "own words" to make claims against them. So, how do the three parts of Hovde’s claim score out? Mandate Hovde uses the present tense to claim Thompson favors a key provision of the reform law: a mandate requiring nearly all individuals to have health insurance. But the Thompson comment used in the ad -- and cited by Hovde campaign spokesman Sean Lansing as evidence -- was made during a University of Texas speech Thompson gave in 2007. Asked about states requiring residents to have health insurance, Thompson said: "I, for one, believe the mandate for health insurance is all right." That’s the sound bite Hovde uses in his ad. But in 2007, Obama wasn’t even in office, so Thompson couldn’t have been referring to "Obamacare." Moreover, Thompson is campaigning now against the mandate and calling for the repeal Obama’s reform law in total. (A note: We did rate as False a claim by Thompson that he never supported an individual mandate. As we noted, Thompson made the 2007 comment in favor of the concept and a similar one in 2006. But those statements don’t reflect his current position.) Thanks On the second part of Hovde’s claim -- that Obama thanked Thompson for supporting "Obamacare" -- Hovde implies that Thompson endorsed Obama’s reform law. But the picture isn’t that clear. Lansing cited an address the president made to the nation in October 2009 as health care reform legislation was moving through Congress. We touched on it in rating Half True an August 2011 claim by Club for Growth, a national anti-tax group, that Thompson supported "Obamacare." As we noted in that item, Thompson expressed both support and opposition to the health care reform legislation that eventually became law. In his address, Obama said the U.S. Senate Finance Committee’s version of health care reform would soon be merged with reform bills produced by other congressional committees. He also said Thompson was among Republicans who "came out in support of reform." That’s part of the Obama sound bite Hovde uses in his ad. But Obama didn’t thank Thompson for anything, as Hovde’s ad states, much less thank him for backing his particular reform plan. He cited Thompson’s general support for health care reform, a position Thompson has reiterated during the campaign. Repeal In stating that Thompson "says we can't repeal 'Obamacare,'" Hovde again uses the present tense. But for evidence, Lansing cited a TV interview Thompson did in November 2010, which we also touched on in rating the Club for Growth claim. The Thompson sound bite Hovde uses is: "When it's all said and done, you're not going to be able to repeal health care." The full Thompson statement was: "When it's all said and done, you're not going to be able to repeal health care because President Obama is not going to sign it and they don't have enough votes to override a veto. So why push a cart up hill when you know it's not going to be able to get to the top?" Like the individual mandate part of Hovde's claim, this piece is highly misleading because it relies on an outdated statement from Thompson. Indeed, the 2010 statement was an assessment on the political realities of the time, not whether the reform law could ever be repealed. Thompson is campaigning by saying that if elected, he would be the "51st vote" in the Senate to do so. Our rating In claiming Thomson supports "Obama’s health care mandate" and that Thompson "says we can't repeal "Obamacare," Hovde uses outdated statements that falsely portray Thompson’s current positions. And Hovde falsely claims that Obama thanked Thompson for supporting "Obamacare," when the president was citing Thompson’s support of reform in general. By our math, False + False + False = False.	None	Eric Hovde	None	None	None	2012-08-10T15:28:23	2012-07-26	['Tommy_Thompson', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-13212	Says Rob Portman was a registered foreign agent whose "client was Haiti, at a time when the Baby Doc, Duvalier, who was a despot, was killing people."	/ohio/statements/2016/oct/20/ted-strickland/ted-strickland-revives-baby-doc-attack-against-por/	Former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland tied Sen. Rob Portman to the notorious former president of Haiti, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, during the final Ohio Senate debate. "There's only one of the two of us standing before this audience that's ever been a registered lobbyist, and that's you, senator," Strickland said. "Your first job as a lobbyist was with the Chinese-based firm. You were a registered foreign agent, and your client was Haiti, at a time when the Baby Doc, Duvalier, who was a despot, was killing people." Strickland’s charge is a mixed bag of accuracy. After losing his re-election bid to Republican Gov. John Kasich, Strickland oversaw the lobbying and activism arm of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, but he was not a lobbyist himself. There’s no doubt that Portman, however, was a registered foreign agent, a title that can involve lobbying. As PolitiFact Ohio has previously reported, Portman started working with the law firm Patton, Boggs & Blow after graduating from University of Michigan's law school in 1984. The Strickland campaign sent us a Buzzfeed article showing Portman’s 1985 foreign agent registration form. He was listed as a foreign agent on behalf of the Republic of Haiti, which was ruled by Duvalier at the time. Duvalier, who inherited the "president for life" post from his father, "Papa Doc," headed what human rights workers called one of the most oppressive governments in the Western Hemisphere, according to the New York Times. His regime, known for the murder and torture of of tens of thousands, was toppled in 1986. But it’s not entirely fair to imply that Portman was Duvalier’s lackey. He never lobbied on behalf of Haiti or any other foreign government. In 2005, Portman was named by President George W. Bush as his U.S. Trade Representative, a position that can’t be held by anyone who’s ever lobbied for foreign governments. Being tapped for the position prompted an affidavit from Stuart Pape, a former managing partner of Portman's law firm dated April 12, 2005. Pape said Portman filed the foreign agent registration form because he was working for the Hong Kong-based Duty Free Shoppers, Ltd., the "Chinese-based firm" Strickland referred to. But Pape said he reviewed the records and confirmed that Portman did no work for Haiti or any foreign government. On Portman’s campaign website, the Haiti registration is explained as "standard procedure" at the lobbying firm, and required of all of its attorneys. The firm, the record shows, did travel to Haiti to meet with Baby Doc. Our ruling Strickland said of Portman, "You were a registered foreign agent, and your client was Haiti, at a time when the Baby Doc, Duvalier, who was a despot, was killing people." Portman was a registered foreign agent who worked on behalf of a company based in Hong Kong. His firm’s clients included "Baby Doc" Duvalier’s government. But Portman himself did no work for the Haitian regime, according to a sworn statement by the firm’s managing partner. We rate Strickland's statement Mostly False. Correction: The original version of this fact-check incorrectly called Rob Portman a registered lobbyist. He was a registered foreign agent, a classification that included lobbying under the law at that time.	None	Ted Strickland	None	None	None	2016-10-20T20:29:02	2016-10-20	['Jean-Claude_Duvalier', 'Haiti']
-abbc-00127	Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen put the case for gender equality in a speech to the Women's Economics Network.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-02/fact-check-women-education-gender-pay-gap/8760614	Mr Bowen is correct. Over the 20 years to 2016, the gender pay gap in Australia has hovered between 15 per cent and 19 per cent. It currently sits on its 20-year average of 16 per cent. During the same period, women's educational attainment has steadily risen. The proportion of Australian women with a bachelor's degree or above rose from just under 13 per cent in 1996 to 28 per cent in 2016. In fact, since 1998, more women than men have earned a bachelor's degree or higher qualification. This appears to have had little impact on the gender pay gap.	['alp', 'chris-bowen', 'work', 'australia']	None	None	['alp', 'chris-bowen', 'work', 'australia']	Fact check: Have women become better educated whilst the gender pay gap hasn't budged?	Mon 16 Jul 2018, 8:55am	None	['None']
-pomt-11577	About 1.1 million people legally enter the U.S. each year as permanent residents -- "65 percent of that is some kind of chain migration; 22 percent is diversity lottery, ‘asyling,’ refugees; only about 14, 15 percent has anything to do with work."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/02/ron-johnson/how-legal-immigrants-us-break-down-chain-migration/	President Donald Trump drew boos when he said during his first State of the Union address that under what Republicans call "chain migration" -- and Democrats refer to as family reunification -- a "single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives." PolitiFact National rated his claim Mostly False. Lawful permanent residents (green card holders) can petition for a spouse and unmarried children to come to the United States; and U.S. citizens can also petition for married children, parents and siblings. But neither permanent residents nor citizens can directly petition for an aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew, in-law relative or grandparent. Nevertheless, Trump’s remark underscores a broader claim made by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the ways in which legal immigrants enter the United States. Johnson’s claim is different than Trump’s, but helps provide a clearer picture of the sources of legal immigration. Johnson’s claim On Jan. 12, 2018, more than two weeks before the State of the Union, Johnson was interviewed about immigration on Wisconsin Public Television’s "Here and Now" show. He said he wants to limit "the abuse of chain migration" and then made a four-part statistical claim, telling host Frederica Freyberg: From my standpoint, we have got to start closing the loopholes created by bad law, bad legal precedent that incentivize people to come to this country illegally. We have to limit "chain migration" to a common-sense level. Right now, Frederica, we let about 1.1 million people in this country legally -- in terms of permanent, legal residence -- every year. Sixty-five percent of that is some kind of "chain migration"; 22 percent is diversity lottery, "asyling" and refugees. Only about 14, 15 percent has anything to do with work. That is a crazy system, when you have literally millions -- probably hundreds of millions of people want to come to this country -- we can’t assimilate all those people. We’ve got to limit and we’ve got to limit it on a merit-based system. So, we’ve got to fix our system. Chain migration, Johnson continued, "allows an immigrant to allow in their parents, their children -- but what ends up happening is, it does chain, where those people can bring in their children, their parents; and all of a sudden, one individual and you’ve got cousins and adult children and adult siblings -- that’s what we need to limit to something that just makes common sense." As we’ll see, three parts of Johnson’s four-part claim are essentially on target. But a major part of his claim -- saying that 65 percent of legal immigration is through "chain migration" -- is misleading. Johnson’s breakdown To back Johnson’s claim, his office cited data from from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security yearbook of immigration statistics. The first part of his claim, on the total number of legal immigrants -- 1.18 million in 2016 -- is correct. As for the other three parts, here are figures for 2016, the latest year available, based on how Johnson breaks down legal immigrants: "Chain migration" 804,793 -- 68% Diversity lottery, refugees, asylees and other 240,819 -- 20% Work-related 137,893 -- 12% (Diversity lottery allocates visas to individuals from countries with historically low rates of immigration to U.S.; a refugee is a person outside his or her country of nationality who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution; an asylee is a person who meets the definition of refugee and is already present in the United States or is seeking admission at a port of entry.) So, Johnson’s claim -- based on the way he breaks down immigration groups -- is within several percentage points on the second and third categories for 2016. Moreover, those two percentages have been roughly stable for years, experts told us. But his reference to "chain migration" -- a relatively new term in the Washington lexicon that the New York Times says has been "weaponized" to sway public opinion -- is misleading in alluding to the immigration of extended-family members. Individuals in that category are admitted to the United States based on family relationships, as opposed to the other two categories Johnson cites. But in round numbers, only 120,000 of the 800,000 immigrants that Johnson lists as "chain migration" were not the spouses, children or parents, according to Stephen Legomsky, a Washington University law professor emeritus and immigration law specialist. That means extended-family members, based on Johnson’s categories, make up only 10 percent of the 1.18 million total legal immigrants. Syracuse University political science professor Elizabeth Cohen, whose specialties include immigration, told us: This idea that an immigrant receives a visa and all of a sudden five or 10 close and distant relatives are being pulled in on a chain is completely unrepresentative of how our immigration system actually works. Our rating Johnson says about 1.1 million people legally enter the U.S. each year as permanent residents -- "65 percent of that is some kind of chain migration; 22 percent is diversity lottery, ‘asyling,’ refugees; only about 14, 15 percent has anything to do with work." He’s correct on the total number, and his breakdown of two of the categories is essentially on target. But to say that 65 percent come through "chain migration" -- which typically refers to the extended-family members of an immigrant in the United States -- is misleading. The vast majority of individuals in that group are spouses, children or parents, not more distant relatives. Johnson’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Related fact check: Would Trump bill have kept his grandfather and Melania from immigrating to U.S.? (And you, too?)	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2018-02-02T06:00:00	2018-01-12	['United_States']
-snes-06021	Photographs show a woman trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border hidden inside a car's dashboard.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dashboarder-crossing/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Are These Photographs of an Illegal Border Crosser Hidden in a Dashboard?	10 February 2003	None	['None']
-pomt-03585	Says nearly 1 million people are "coming to town" in the next 20 years.	/texas/statements/2013/may/16/lee-leffingwell/leffingwell-spelman-says-nearly-million-people-are/	Austin’s city-owned utility, Austin Energy, needs more expert oversight than the Austin City Council can provide, Mayor Lee Leffingwell suggested in an opinion article he wrote with Council Member Bill Spelman. "We’ve got 20-odd departments to watch over and — with nearly a million people coming to town in the next 20 years — incredible housing, land use, and transportation problems," the pair said in the piece placed online by the Austin American-Statesman on May 5, 2013. A million people on the way? Pack. The. Bags. Leffingwell spokeswoman Amy Everhart guided us to a Spelman aide, Ashley Fisher, who said by phone that the 1 million figure reflected what the city projects to be the metropolitan region’s population gain within 20 years. Fisher said the reference to all those people "coming to town" was in keeping with how people think of Austin. Her point: "We’re part of a region growing really fast," she said. Separately, Ryan Robinson, the city’s demographer, told us he has estimated the city’s population at 824,750 as of April 1, 2013, which he said closely tracks the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of 820,611 as the city’s population as of July 2011. Robinson said he projects the city to gain 330,000 residents, reaching a population of nearly 1.2 million, by April 2035. That’s not a gain of nearly 1 million. But Robinson, who also pointed out that Austin Energy has customers outside the city limits in Travis County burgs including Pflugerville, Manor, Manchaca and Westlake Hills, said he projects the population of the counties immediately around Austin--Travis, Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays and Williamson--to increase by about 1.6 million by April 2035. As of April 2013, he said, the same metropolitan area was home to an estimated 1.87 million residents. About one third of the increase, Robinson said, is expected to come from area births outpacing deaths, what demographers call the natural increase. The remaining margin would trace to more people moving into the counties than moving out, he said. Robinson’s projections, dated January 2013, indicate the city’s population, which was under 500,000 in 1990, will crest 1 million by 2025. Hunting other population projections, we touched base with Census Bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein, who said the agency does not project the population of individual cities. Next, we consulted Rafael Gonzalez of the Texas State Data Center in San Antonio, who said similarly that the center does not project city population changes. But Gonzalez helped us download a projection suggesting that the five-county Austin region’s population, estimated at 1.8 million in 2013, would total nearly 2.6 million in 2033, assuming that migration occurs at half the pace of the first decade of this century--which Robinson, the city demographer, described as too conservative a rate for projecting Austin-area changes. Under the slower growth scenario, the Austin region would see an increase of about 800,000 residents in 20 years. Using the center's interface, we also checked population projections assuming the same migration into the counties that the region experienced during the century's first decade. Under this scenario, the counties would have more than 3.3 million residents in 2033, a nearly 1.5 million increase from 2013. Finally, we inquired into Travis County’s estimated population on the interface. If the county experiences the same in-migration levels as the first decade of the century, its population would total nearly 1.6 million in 2033, up nearly 480,000 from 2013, according to the results. Spelman, elaborating on the 1-million statement, told us by email: "If you want to split hairs and define ‘town’ as ‘the current Austin city limits,’" then it’s correct that the city’s population is expected to increase by 332,244 by 2035. "But please consider that our statement wasn’t about residency; it was about demand for city services and the scope of the problems we need to solve," Spelman said in a footnoted statement. He added that according to a 2007 economic census by the Census Bureau, some 70 percent of jobs in the five-county Austin region were in Austin, an indication, he said, that the vast majority of more than 1 million additional residents of the region will depend, at least in part, on the city for their livelihoods. "Even if new residents of San Marcos, Georgetown, Luling or Bastrop don’t work in Austin," Spelman said, "many of them will visit Austin regularly to shop, find health care or have a good time. While they’re here, these people will depend on the" city "for public safety, water and sewer, solid waste, flood control, parks and, of course, electricity." Spelman added that Austin also will share stresses on the region’s housing and transportation infrastructure. Our ruling Leffingwell and Spelman wrote that nearly a million people are "coming to town" in the next 20 years. Don’t pack those bags just yet; the city projects Austin’s population to increase by about 330,000--far short of a million--by 2035. The claim retains an element of truth, though, in that the city stands to confront pressures related to many more additional residents expected in the region. Regardless, all those newbies are not predicted to be moving to town, making the published statement Mostly False.	None	Lee Leffingwell	None	None	None	2013-05-16T06:00:00	2013-05-05	['None']
-snes-01369	A video shows a Boeing 737 Max plane taking off at a 90-degree angle.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boeing-90-degree-climb/	None	Fauxtography	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did a Boeing Jetliner Make a 90-Degree Climb During Takeoff at an Air Show?	6 December 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08418	"We refused to balance the budget on the backs of our children."	/georgia/statements/2010/oct/20/casey-cagle/cagle-ad-says/	The television ad begins with the smiling faces of several children. The next image is of Georgia Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle standing in a classroom. "Children are our priority," Cagle says. "That's why we refused to balance the budget on the backs of our children." "Cut!" some said. Didn't Georgia cut education funding this fiscal year? Aren't many school districts furloughing teachers? Didn't former Georgia Schools Superintendent Kathy Cox say the cuts are so deep that the state is now paying for only 147 of the 180 mandated days in the school year? Cagle's camp directed us to his campaign website, which has a point-by-point defense of virtually each sentence in the ad. Its explanation for saying state leaders refused to "balance the budget on the backs of our children" includes a bill passed earlier this year that gives school districts greater spending flexibility. As lieutenant governor, Cagle presides over the Georgia Senate and is one of the most powerful politicians under the Gold Dome. Kennesaw State University political science professor Kerwin Swint was among those who didn't buy Cagle's argument. Cagle's main opponent in the Nov. 2 primary, Democrat Carol Porter, posted the professor's beef on her campaign website. "To say you preserved education funding is pretty hollow," Swint told AJC PolitiFact Georgia. Over two years, state spending has dropped from $21 billion to $18 billion. State leaders blame the Great Recession. "We don't have a choice," Cox said in May during a discussion on lifting the limits on classroom sizes. "We didn't give them enough money." Cagle's campaign argues the cuts could have been worse, which is partly why it put together the ad. The lieutenant governor notes the Legislature's effort to restore funding for the school nurse program. In the fiscal year 2010 budget, which was adopted in 2009, Gov. Sonny Perdue proposed removing all $30 million the state provides for the program. The Legislature kept $29.1 million in the budget for the nurse program. In the fiscal year 2011 budget adopted earlier this year, Perdue proposed cutting the school nurse budget again, to about $27.5 million. The Senate proposed cutting the budget to about $26.8 million but eventually kept it at $27.5 million. Cagle pointed to the state's Regional Educational Service Agency as another example of the Legislature's resistance to balancing the budget on the backs of children. The RESA allows local school systems and colleges to share resources for planning, staff development, curriculum and other categories. Perdue proposed cutting all $12.1 million from the budget for that program. The Legislature kept $9.3 million. The lieutenant governor also mentioned House Bill 908, which gives school systems the flexibility to spend more money on some instructional programs, media centers and professional development. School systems can also increase class sizes. Cagle campaign manager Ryan Cassin said education spending was cut by a smaller percentage than other departments. Some state education experts say what Cagle mentioned on his website pales in comparison with the overall state cuts. "Flexibility is no substitute when you lose $1 billion," said Herb Garrett, executive director of the Georgia School Superintendents Association. Garrett said the cuts have resulted in some districts delaying buying new textbooks. Another consequence is larger class sizes, which many experts believe hurts students because the pupils get less attention from their teacher. Tim Callahan, a spokesman for the nonpartisan, 80,000-member Professional Association of Georgia Educators, said some schools are operating four days a week, there's less time for teachers to prepare lesson plans and they have fewer supplies. "I've really got to scratch my head when they say they shielded education and [are] not balancing the budget on the backs of our children," he said. Cagle correctly points out that the Legislature did restore education funding in some areas and the school systems have more spending flexibility. However, the state cuts have been, as Garrett told us, some of the largest in recent memory. The cuts have had an impact on children and instruction. Cagle's statement has some element of truth, but it ignores critical facts such as overall state budget cuts and their impact on the classroom. That rates as Barely True in our book. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Casey Cagle	None	None	None	2010-10-20T06:00:00	2010-10-11	['None']
-pomt-07651	A bill that would halt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases would help "stop rising gas prices."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/14/fred-upton/fred-upton-says-pending-bill-block-epa-curbs-green/	To hear Reps. Fred Upton and Ed Whitfield talk about their new energy bill, you'd think it will prevent gas prices from increasing before your next fill-up. Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the influential Energy and Commerce Committee, and Ed Whitfield, the Kentucky Republican who heads the Energy and Power subcommittee, recently argued in a letter to fellow lawmakers that one way to stop rising gas prices would be to pass the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 910). The bill grows out of longstanding frustration by industry groups and lawmakers who believe that Environmental Protection Agency regulations unnecessarily burden many companies. The measure -- which Whitfield’s subcommittee approved on March 10, 2011, and which now heads to the full committee -- would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases for the purpose of addressing climate change. Here’s a portion of what Upton and Whitfield wrote to their colleagues in the March 8, 2011, letter, which is headlined, "Concerned About High Gas Prices? Cosponsor H.R. 910 and Make a Difference Today!" "Whether through greenhouse gas regulation, permit delays, or permanent moratoriums, the White House takes every opportunity to decrease access to safe and secure sources of oil and natural gas," the lawmakers wrote. "Gasoline prices have climbed dramatically over the past three months. American consumers deal with this hardship every day, and as this poll indicates, the majority of respondents do not see the pain subsiding anytime soon. Americans also understand the realities of supply and demand as it relates to oil prices. Unfortunately the White House does not. ... "H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, is the first in this legislative series to stop rising gas prices by halting EPA’s Clean Air Act greenhouse gas regulations. As one small refiner testifying before the Committee on Energy and Commerce put it: ‘EPA’s proposed [greenhouse gas] regulations for both refinery expansions and existing facilities will likely have a devastating effect on … all of our nation’s fuels producers…. If small refiners are forced out of business, competition will suffer and American motorists, truckers and farmers will be increasingly reliant on foreign refiners to supply our nation’s gasoline and diesel fuel.’ "We … have taken the first steps in attempting to restrain this regulatory overreach that will restrict oil supplies and cause gasoline prices to rise." But can the bill really stop gas prices from going up, as the letter says? We’ll look at two key questions. Could the proposed EPA regulations on oil refineries actually increase prices at the pump? And when would the impact of the regulations be felt? As to the first question, experts had different opinions. The oil industry argues that regulations imposing new costs on refiners could force U.S. refineries to charge more. (The proposed regulations are supposed to shield smaller operations from regulatory impacts, but experts said that a significant proportion of U.S. refineries would indeed be affected.) "It’s Economics 101," said John Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. "The refinery business is a very low-margin business. They have no margin for error and face tough competition internationally." Others argue the refining industry could adapt to new regulations. "Looking at past public claims when the Clean Air Act was passed would show that U.S. refining capacity still managed to increase over time, despite the high expense refiners had to put out to comply with the Clean Air act," said Amy Myers Jaffe, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University. "So one might imagine, depending on the details on how carbon regulation would be implemented, U.S. industry could likely similarly adjust," Jaffe said. "It depends on the specifics of how a policy is implemented. There are no doubt some small refineries in the United States that might be really inefficient, so maybe some of them would close if they had to increase their costs substantially, but tiny, uncompetitive, regional refineries are not the main thing that makes the US refining and marketing industry ‘competitive.’" Indeed, while a shift to overseas refiners could have negative consequences for the nation -- it could weaken the United States’ industrial base, threaten U.S. jobs and pose problems for national security -- it’s not a foregone conclusion that prices at the pump would rise. If U.S. refiners become less competitive and more oil is instead imported from overseas refiners, it will be because the cost of refining overseas becomes more competitive. That’s the essence of a free market. And even if the cost of refining did go up, the cost of gasoline is volatile and affected by many factors such as global demand and supply disruptions. So there's no certainty that a bump in refining costs would necessarily translate into higher prices at the pump. As for the second question -- when any impact might be felt -- the rules wouldn't take affect for months or years. The EPA won't even propose the first-ever greenhouse-gas standards for refineries until December 2011 and doesn't plan to issue final standards until November 2012. Those standards would govern emissions for new and significantly overhauled refineries. Rules for existing refineries are expected to be unveiled in July 2011. Based on the past history of EPA regulations, the new rules aren't likely to take effect until a few years after that, experts said. So, if the bill were to pass, it would prevent EPA regulations that would otherwise take effect in 2013, 2014 or 2015. That’s a long way away. Another factor: the regulations targeted by the House bill are new ones. So if the House bill passes, it would essentially protect the status quo -- not take any explicit action to stop price hikes. So where does this leave us? While Upton and Whitfield's letter is carefully worded, it frames the argument for the bill in the context of today’s trend of rising gasoline prices. Yet the impact of the bill -- if there is an one -- would be years away. And there's no proof that the law would actually stop gas prices from rising. The added regulations now being planned may hamper U.S. refiners, but the international free market could just as easily end up keeping refining costs low. And it’s hardly assured that any changes in refining costs -- up or down -- will influence gasoline prices, which are subject to a wide array of influenes. We find their claim False.	None	Fred Upton	None	None	None	2011-03-14T12:00:34	2011-03-08	['None']
-tron-01020	Nancy Pelosi’s Daughters Arrested for Selling Cocaine	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nancy-pelosis-daughters-arrested/	None	crime-police	None	None	['congress', 'criminal justice', 'nancy pelosi']	Nancy Pelosi’s Daughters Arrested for Selling Cocaine	Jul 13, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09527	"Taxpayers even footed the bill for Perry’s trip to a bachelor party in Las Vegas."	/texas/statements/2010/feb/11/kay-bailey-hutchison/hutchison-says-public-money-paid-vegas-trip/	An unlikely voice has been injected into the political struggle over the Republican gubernatorial nomination: Fergie of the Black Eyed Peas. The pop/hip-hop singer’s "Glamorous" serves as the soundtrack for dueling videos from the Perry and Hutchison campaigns, each accusing the other of expensive travel habits. We dealt with Gov. Rick Perry's video in a previous PolitiFact Texas item; now comes Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's video portraying the governor’s travel expenditures as contributing to "a life of luxury." The Web ad includes at least five claims about Perry's travel history. The one that immediately grabbed our attention was: "Taxpayers even footed the bill for Perry’s trip to a bachelor party in Las Vegas." Did the governor experience Sin City on the taxpayers’ dime? To support the statement in the video, the Hutchison campaign referred us to a Dallas Morning News item about a visit that Perry paid to Las Vegas in October. The Perry campaign confirmed that the governor made the trip to meet with a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Nevada and to attend a bachelor party dinner for his son, Griffin. But it disputes the Hutchison claim that taxpayers paid Perry's bills. According to Perry’s office, the governor can use state funds to pay for state travel. The Nevada journey did not fit that bill, however, and Perry paid for it with a mix of campaign donations and money from the Republican Governors Association. Mark Miner, a spokesman for Perry, said the governor arrived in Las Vegas on Oct. 24. He ate lunch with gubernatorial hopeful Brian Sandoval, had dinner with his son and others at the Venetian resort and casino, and then spent the night there. Miner said that the governors group paid for the lunch and the hotel room but that he did not know what they cost. He also said he didn't know who paid for the dinner. It appears that the Perry campaign paid for the commercial flight that the governor took to Las Vegas. A campaign finance report filed last month said Perry took a Southwest Airlines flight to Las Vegas on Oct. 24 and showed a $137.60 payment to the airline on the same date. But the fact that others paid for Perry's flight, hotel and meals doesn't mean that public funds weren't spent. Taxpayers pick up the tab for the security detail that accompanies the governor when he travels. And according to the Department of Public Safety, which staffs the detail, the Las Vegas trip cost taxpayers $12,321. That includes overtime, car rentals, hotel, airfare and meals. And so, there is an element of truth to Hutchison's statement. Taxpayers paid a large portion of the cost of the governor’s trip to Las Vegas — the security detail that always travels with him. And while there, Perry attended a dinner for his son. But Hutchison's statement in the video suggests that state money paid for Perry's personal travel and that his sole purpose of visiting Sin City was to party — neither of which is accurate. We rate Hutchison's claim as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Kay Bailey Hutchison	None	None	None	2010-02-11T18:10:47	2010-02-07	['Las_Vegas']
-snes-00888	A high school principal in Minnesota singled out a pro-gun rights student during a pro-gun control protest and escorted him off campus.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/minnesota-school-walkout-gun/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did a High School Principal Target a Pro-Gun Rights Student During a Protest for Gun Control?	15 March 2018	None	['Minnesota']
-afck-00140	“Today we have surpassed the internationally accepted ratio of policemen to citizens.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/fact-checking-kenyas-deputy-president-maize-imports-debt-electricity-police/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact-checking Kenya’s deputy president on maize imports, debt, electricity & police	2017-05-21 02:49	None	['None']
-snes-04320	The Elevation Church has installed a water slide to speed up baptisms.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elevation-church-water-slide/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Elevation Church Debut a Water Slide Baptismal?	3 August 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10947	Says Congressman Tom McClintock, R-Calif., "has authored three laws since he’s been in office; two renamed post offices."	/california/statements/2018/jul/24/jessica-morse/has-republican-congressman-tom-mcclintock-authored/	Jessica Morse, the Democratic challenger in California’s 4th Congressional district race, describes incumbent Republican Rep. Tom McClintock as "a career politician" whose done next-to-nothing in Congress. Morse, 36, is a former State Department employee and first-time candidate. McClintock, 62, is seeking a fifth term representing the largely rural district east of Sacramento. Before his time in Congress, he spent 22 years as a state lawmaker. Morse made another claim about McClintock that caught our attention on Twitter: "I believe McClintock is beatable. Word is getting out that, like Trump, he is shamelessly dishonest and utterly ineffective; he has authored three laws since he’s been in office; two renamed post offices." I’m standing up to McClintock’s abysmal leadership, join me! We decided to fact-check the portion about McClintock authoring just three laws. Was Morse right? Our research Asked about the claim, Morse’s campaign said it "was simply quoting Eric Johnson, the author of the article linked in the tweet." Johnson is the editor of the Sacramento News & Review. Morse’s tweet links to his July 19 column in the publication, titled Defeat Trump’s local ally. Morse does use quotation marks in her tweet. But she doesn’t explicitly attribute it to Johnson. The impression left is that the words are hers or, at the very least, that she stands by the claim. Her tweet gives it a stamp of approval and perpetuates questionable information. In the past, PolitiFact has called out politicians, including President Trump, for quoting and retweeting inaccurate information on Twitter. In November 2015, for example, Trump tweeted an image packed with racially loaded and incorrect murder statistics. PolitiFact rated it Pants On Fire. We’ll take the same approach in our examination of Morse. Number of bills Starting with the number of bills McClintock has authored that became law, Morse’s statement is off. Websites Govtrack.us and Congress.gov show McClintock has authored four bills that were signed into law. Morse is right that two of McClintock’s bills were to rename post offices. But does the number of bills passed truly measure a politician’s effectiveness? Not necessarily, said Jack Pitney, professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College. "Bill authorship is only one dimension of effectiveness," Pitney wrote in an email. "A lawmaker can have a huge impact without being prime sponsor of a major bill. "A great deal of legislating takes place in the amending process," he added. "The amending may take place in committee, or on the floor, as part of an informal negotiation. A member of the House may not pass a measure as a freestanding bill but then be able to attach it as a part of a larger bill." Claims about members of Congress passing a small number of bills, some to rename post offices, aren’t new. In 2016, we rated Half True now Sen. Kamala Harris’ claim during a debate in the race for U.S. Senate that Rep. Lorretta Sanchez had "passed one bill in her 20 years in Congress, and that was to rename a post office." We found that was technically correct. But it ignored the fact that relatively few stand-alone bills introduced by members of Congress are passed on their own. Many are added as amendments to larger bills. Longtime Democratic House members Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, at that time, had sponsored a combined 10 stand-alone bills that became law during their careers. Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, agreed the number of laws passed isn’t the only measurement of effectiveness. Still, it’s "a reasonable way to go" when examining a politician, he said. For some conservative lawmakers, passing laws isn’t necessarily the goal, Kousser added. "Tom McClintock is not a guy who believes you need a law for everything," Kousser said. "He doesn’t necessarily view a law as an accomplishment." Our ruling Democratic challenger Jessica Morse claimed on Twitter that GOP Rep. Tom McClintock "has authored three laws since he’s been in office; two renamed post offices." Websites Govtrack.us and Congress.gov show McClintock has authored four bills that were signed into law. Two were to rename post offices. Morse’s claim is wrong on the number signed into law. But her tweet is also misleading because members of Congress rarely author stand-alone bills. Most are added as amendments to larger bills. Additionally, the number of bills authored is not necessarily the best measurement of a politician’s effectiveness. There are many other ways they can shape legislation. We rated Morse’s statement False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Jessica Morse	None	None	None	2018-07-24T15:47:14	2018-07-19	['None']
-pomt-08723	John Boozman supports "privatizing Social Security"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/02/blanche-lincoln/sen-lincoln-says-boozman-wants-privatize-social-se/	Democrats used it to defeat President Bush's plans to change Social Security, and they're using it now to try to hold on to legislative majorities in the House and the Senate. We are, of course, talking about "privatization." In her latest TV ad, Senate incumbent Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., says that there are "serious differences" between her and her opponent, Rep. John Boozman. First on the list, "unlike John, I am against privatizing Social Security and Medicare." History has shown that accusing your opponent of wanting to privatize Social Security is a good political strategy. President Barack Obama has certainly taken notice. During the 2008 campaign, then candidate Obama accused Sen. John McCain of wanting to revitalize Bush's plan to "privatize" Social Security. We rated that Barely True. And during his weekly address in August, Obama said that some Republican leaders in Congress" are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall." We rated it Barely True once again. So how does the evidence stack up in this case? When Boozman ran for Congress in 2001, he said that he supported President Bush's proposal to allow individuals under 55 to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into a personal investment account. "The future of Social Security is dependent on creating a vehicle for private investment," Boozman said. And again in 2004, "Boozman said he likes the idea of transferring a small percentage of the federal (Social Security) trust fund to 'very safe' investments," reported the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Lincoln also pointed to Boozman's statement on the "Roadmap for America’s Future," a bill from Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. The plan includes a proposal to allow people under 55 to steer a portion of their payroll taxes toward personal accounts, through which they can invest in funds chosen and managed by a federal government board. Asked by the Arkansas Times whether he supports the proposal, Boozman said that he "appreciates" Ryan's "commitment to putting our country on the road to fiscal responsibility." He added that the plan is not perfect, "but I think he is making a thoughtful and serious effort to prevent Congress from driving our country into financial ruin." But even if Boozman had said that he fully supports Ryan's proposal, whether one can rightly call that or the Bush plan "privatization" of Social Security is debatable. Consider that in both cases, current retirees or those near the retirement age would not have been directly affected -- the plans are completely voluntary and only for workers under 55. One could choose to stay in the traditional government-run system and receive benefits as promised. That's important, because the term "privatization" is often used to scare seniors into thinking that their lifetime savings will be transferred into the stock market -- the same one that took a plunge in 2008 and is still recovering. Ryan told PolitiFact in an e-mail that it would be incorrect to call even the personal retirement account portion "privatized." "In the personal-accounts system, the accounts are owned by the individual, and managed and overseen by Social Security -- not a stockbroker or private investment firm," Ryan stated. "People choosing the reformed system select from a handful of government-regulated options -- just as Members of Congress and federal employees do." Even Lincoln's own website says that Ryan's plan would only "partially privatize" Social Security, though not everyone agrees. An analysis of Ryan's "Roadmap" plan from the left-leaning Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, argues that, "what makes these accounts private is their ownership, not their oversight or management." We contacted Boozman's office to get a clarification on his proposal to transfer a small percentage of the trust fund to "very safe investments." His communications director, Patrick Creamer, sent us the following statement: "Congressman Boozman’s number one priority is making sure no benefits are cut to current and future enrollees. However, he understands the current system is unsustainable and in need of reform to ensure that future generations also receive benefits. One option he is open to is allowing younger workers to put a portion of their payroll taxes into safe investments –- but this is a decision individuals would have to make, not the government, and any proposal must have the support of the people of Arkansas to get his vote." So let's review. Lincoln says that Boozman supports privatizing Social Security. It is true that Rep. Boozman stated on more than one occasion that he supports allowing -- not requiring -- younger workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts. But even Lincoln's website admits that such a proposal only constitutes "partial privatization." In 2004, Boozman said that he would support transferring a portion of the trust fund into private investments. We are not entirely sure what that would have entailed, but when we asked him whether he supports the government putting money into the stock market, he told us that that decision lies solely with the individual workers. In short, Lincoln's ad makes it seem as though Boozman has consistently advocated handing the entire program over to Wall Street bankers, which is a significant stretch. We rate this Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Blanche Lincoln	None	None	None	2010-09-02T17:48:28	2010-08-19	['None']
-pomt-08506	"O’Shaughnessy even voted for her own personal stimulus package -- a taxpayer-funded pay raise for herself."	/ohio/statements/2010/oct/07/jon-husted/ohio-secretary-state-candidate-jon-husted-raps-opp/	Republican Ohio Secretary of State candidate Jon Husted slammed opponent Maryellen O’Shaughnessy in a recent television advertisement as a career politician who once passed legislation to increase her own pay. O’Shaughnessy, of Columbus, has heard the criticisms before. But that didn’t stop Husted from recycling them within a more current anti-Democrat framework. "O’Shaughnessy even voted for her own personal stimulus package – a taxpayer-funded pay raise for herself," the commercial’s narrator says. It’s an accusation O’Shaughnessy has heard before. Her opponent in a 2002 race for Franklin County Commissioner, Dewey Stokes, also produced a TV commercial that ripped O’Shaughnessy for raising her own pay, according to the Columbus Dispatch. O’Shaughnessy’s campaign said she couldn’t be blamed for boosting her pay because she was ineligible for the raise after she and the rest of Columbus City Council approved it. So what’s the truth here. PolitiFact Ohio asked Husted’s camp to back up its statement. It pointed to an ordinance Columbus City Council passed in December 1998 to increase the salaries of council members, the council president and the mayor. The ordinance, which passed unanimously 7 to 0, increased the pay of council members and the council president 34 percent in 2000, with annual bumps of 3 percent in the next three years. That meant pay for City Council members jumped from $25,000 in 1999 to $36,607 in 2003. The pay for council president jumped from $30,000 to $44,037 over the same time. All seven members of council, including O’Shaughnessy, declined the pay raise in 2003. The Columbus city charter discourages officeholders from voting to increase their own pay with language that says a member of council must first be elected before collecting the higher pay. "The salary of any officer, employee, or member of a board or commission in the unclassified service of the city who was elected or appointed for a definite term shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which the individual was elected or appointed…" the charter reads. So while the pay increases council approved at the end of 1998 kicked in beginning in 2000, O’Shaughnessy was ineligible for the pay hikes in 2000 and 2001, the last two years of her first term. She didn’t qualify for a higher salary until after re-elected in 2001. She qualified for a higher salary of $35,541 when she started her new term in the beginning of 2002. What all this means is that when O’Shaughnessy voted in favor of the 1998 ordinance to increase pay, there was no guarantee she would ever get the higher pay. She had to win re-election first. That’s an important caveat that Husted’s ad doesn’t mention, and the point where Hustad’s attack comes unraveled. She didn’t approve a pay raise for herself. She voted to increase pay for whomever was elected to take that council seat. The voters decided she should get the pay raise by re-electing her in 2001. We rate Husted’s statement False.	None	Jon Husted	None	None	None	2010-10-07T15:00:00	2010-09-27	['None']
-pomt-06761	The Dodd-Frank financial-reform law’s hundreds of new rules will force small banks and credit unions to burn up "an estimated 2,260,631 labor hours just for compliance."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/22/sean-duffy/rep-sean-duffy-says-small-banks-will-have-spend-22/	In 2010, Republicans denounced the sweeping financial-reform law that Democrats pushed after a financial crisis that has fueled America’s stubborn economic downturn. Job-killer, they called it. Failure. Budget buster. Regulatory overkill. Now, more than a year after President Barack Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the GOP is pushing for changes -- and trotting out some eye-popping numbers to back its claim that the measure is anti-business. Republican U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy, a freshman from northern Wisconsin, is among the naysayers -- though not to the point of signing on to the repeal bill offered by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a GOP presidential candidate. Duffy is claiming the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actually could hurt consumers and slow economic recovery by piling new regulations on local financial institutions. "For small community banks and credit unions, like those in Central and Northern Wisconsin, the hundreds of new rules will require an estimated 2,260,631 labor hours just for compliance," Duffy wrote in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Times on July 20, 2011. "Those are hours that your local bank or credit union will spend dealing with some Washington bureaucrat instead of focusing on the needs of customers like you." He added: "Just because Wall Street is in New York and has a bad reputation doesn’t mean it’s right or fair to lump the ‘little guys’ in Wausau, Hayward and Superior in with them." More than 2.2 million hours? That figure has become a talking point for various Republicans. The original source was apparently the House Financial Services Committee, of which Duffy is a member. "Banks tell us they are adding compliance people to their staffs," said Daryll Lund, president and CEO of the Community Bankers of Wisconsin, a nonprofit trade group. "The vast majority of them are talking about adding staff." But does anybody really estimate the time needed to do all the paperwork behind the new safeguards? The answer is yes. Under the federal Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, that figure is estimated by each federal agency that puts rules into effect -- and that’s where Duffy’s office pointed us when we asked for evidence to back the claim. The first batch of about 30-plus rules contains hundreds of pages of detailed estimates of the "burden hours" for each. The House Financial Services Committee totalled up the hours just for those rules, and came up with the 2.2 million hours referenced by Duffy, said Bryan Blom, Duffy’s legislative director. We sampled the calculations, and consulted several academics and lawyers involved in studying Dodd-Frank. The consensus is that the 2.2 million number is reasonable, if not low. Indeed, just one part of one rule had an estimate of 604,800 hours. But Duffy uses the number in a particular way, stretching its meaning in his claim. We noticed a couple of big discrepancies. First, Duffy’s claim attributed the 2.2 million hours to "hundreds" of new rules. The first batch of about 30 rule produced that many, so the real number will certainly be higher. More importantly, Duffy attributes the fallout from all that paperwork to small banks and credit unions. But some of the rules appear to have little to do with Main Street lenders. For example, several rules in the first batch -- including the one with the 600,000 hour paperwork burden -- regulate the transparency of activities by so-called "swap dealers." Remember swaps? Swaps transactions became famous -- or infamous -- in the financial crisis. Dodd-Frank tightened reporting of swaps "because of concerns that unregulated, poorly regulated and poorly managed swaps operations had contributed to the credit market freeze that started in 2007 and the ensuing financial crisis," Life and Health National Underwriter reported in May 2011. Most small banks don’t get involved in swaps and would not be directly affected by the rules on that, said Richard McGuigan, executive vice president of the Community Bankers of Wisconsin. A few might be indirectly affected. That makes Duffy’s use of the estimate problematic. A more cautious approach was taken in the House committee report that Duffy cited. It said Dodd-Frank will require small community and mid-sized regional banks to spend "thousands of man-hours" on regulatory compliance. It referenced the 2.2 million hours, but without so closely linking that number to small institutions. When we talked to experts, we heard over and over that nobody knows the impact yet of the law, which has been called one of the most complex bills ever. Small banks know they can’t afford to pay someone $100,000 to make sure they comply with everything, said Milwaukee attorney James Friedman, who heads the financial institutions practice group at the Quarles & Brady, which has a large national practice. And they know that Internet banking, the economy, new regulations could spell an end to many smaller institutions, said Friedman. But it’s just too early in the life of the law to know the ultimate effect on banks, credit unions or consumers, according to both Friedman and the Community Bankers of Wisconsin. Let’s cash this one in. Duffy used the sympathetic "Main Street" bankers to illustrate his concerns about the regulatory impact of the Dodd-Frank law. There’s no doubt it will create more work, and Duffy turns to an estimate from a credible source. But in dramatizing the burden, he misapplies a very precise number to one subset of the many institutions that will be affected by the law. No one knows how many of those hours will land on the small players. At the same time, he potentially underestimates the burden, attributing the paperwork load of the first batch of rules to the as-yet-uncalculated burden from the hundreds of rules to come. So there’s an element of truth in the estimates and it’s possible Duffy’s number could turn out to be low. This reminds us of the joke about two statisticians out hunting who spy a duck. The first fires a bullet -- six inches too high. The second statistician takes aim and fires -- six inches too low. The two statisticians celebrate and say, "Got him!", figuring that "on average" the two shots hit the duck. Duffy’s found the trail and is tracking his prey, but this is a blind shot at this point. We rate Duffy’s claim Mostly False.	None	Sean Duffy	None	None	None	2011-08-22T09:00:00	2011-07-20	['None']
-pomt-07580	The hour of sleep you lose during the change to daylight saving time might initially pose some health risks.	/georgia/statements/2011/mar/28/joel-keehn/daylight-saving-health-concerns-valid/	Ahhhhhhhh. Two weeks into that yearly adventure in springing forward and sleep deprivation -- better known as daylight saving time -- and most of you have probably caught up on your sleep. For all of those still grousing about the time change, take heart. You are not alone. Daylight saving time has inspired controversy for more than 100 years. Supporters tout the economic benefits. Detractors decry its effect on everything from religious worship to the natural rhythms of sleep cycles. A political party was created in Australia’s Queensland in 2008 to promote the formation of a dual time zone. One portion of the Australian state would stick with standard time, and the other would spring forward for a portion of the year. In the United States, the National PTA has lobbied Congress against daylight saving time. The PTA contends the time change presents a safety risk to children walking to school in the dark. Earlier this month, Joel Keehn, a senior editor at Consumer Reports Health Blog, said: "The hour of sleep you will likely lose ... might pose a few health risks, at least for a couple of days." Losing an hour of sleep is certainly annoying. But PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether these unnaturally early mornings were really putting people in harm’s way. Keehn said the article couches statements about health risks using careful wording, and he made sure to also cite the benefits of daylight saving time. He focused on the health effects caused by the sudden time change and potential loss of sleep, he said, because he knew other studies have determined there are benefits to having more sunlight in the evening. "What’s problematic is the switching back and forth all the time," Keehn said. On his blog, Keehn said most Americans are already sleep-deprived. The extra hour of sleep they miss in the leap forward to daylight saving time can lead to an increased chance of a car accident or heart attack. Keehn did not cite a study concerning the increased likelihood of car accidents. He did cite a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the increased chance of a heart attack following the switch to daylight saving time. Keehn also pointed out in his blog that the extra hour of sunlight in the evening may encourage more people to exercise outside and can help people who suffer from seasonal affective disorder, often referred to as the winter blues. There are many studies that support Keehn’s position. Two Michigan State University graduate students found the number of accidents and severity of accidents in mines increased on the Monday after daylight saving time begins, according to their analysis of a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database. The study of mining accidents from 1983 through 2006 revealed that the number of accidents increased by 5.6 percent and the number of days lost to these accidents increased by 67 percent. The authors drew a correlation between the increased accidents and lost sleep, finding mine workers lost an average of 40 minutes of sleep during the switch. There was no such increase in the number of accidents during the switch back to standard time, the study found. Other industries probably experience a similar increase in worker accidents, said Christopher M. Barnes, one of the authors and now an assistant professor of character development and research at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Taken as a whole, Barnes said Keehn’s statement makes sense. "It’s accurate for a few reasons," he said. "As my study showed, there’s an increased risk of accidents, and as an article in the journal Science showed, there’s an increased risk for heart attacks." But there are also studies that show daylight saving time actually promotes safety in the long run. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and accidents on the nation’s highways, found the extra hour of daylight during the busier evening commute lowers the overall number of crashes. In fact, the study concludes that using daylight saving time year-round could eliminate 900 fatal crashes, including more than 700 fatal crashes involving pedestrians. The extra hour makes cars and pedestrians more visible when the most people are traveling, said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the institute. "The research on traffic safety is clear, and DST is a benefit, not a determent, to road safety, especially for pedestrians," Rader said. A study by Stanley Coren, a professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and author of the book "Sleep Thieves," however, came to a slightly more nuanced conclusion. Coren found disruptions of internal daily rhythms make people less attentive and prone to "micro sleeps," which can be especially dangerous during the commute following the switch to daylight saving time. Coren studied Canadian traffic data and determined there was a greater risk of traffic accidents on the Monday after daylight saving time begins. His analysis showed there was a lower risk of traffic accidents on the Monday after reverting to standard time. Even so, he agreed that over the long run the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has a point. "Ultimately, it’s for the good, but in the short term, because we’re chronically sleep-deprived, it’s not so hot," Coren said. Along with increasing the chances of accidents, there’s evidence that the switch to daylight saving time also presents negative effects to the human body. An article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 stated that the stress from changing sleeping schedules during daylight saving time increases the chance of heart attacks. Dr. Imre Janszky and Dr. Rickard Ljung, both of Stockholm, Sweden, studied more than 20 years of Swedish data on heart attacks and found the number of heart attacks increased during the first three weekdays after daylight saving time begins. "The most plausible explanation for our findings is the adverse effect of sleep deprivation on cardiovascular health," the doctors said in a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine. "Our data suggest that vulnerable people might benefit from avoiding sudden changes in their biologic rhythms." So can Keehn sleep well after saying daylight saving time poses health risks? Keehn said the hours of sleep likely lost in the transition "might pose a few health risks" only in the few days after the transition. He made sure to point out the potential positives as well. Keehn cited one study to back up his positions, and there are others that do so as well. And while there is another study that shows how over the course of a year increased daylight prevents traffic accidents, these studies do not discount the temporary health effects caused by a sudden loss of sleep, nor do they attempt to. The blogger was precise in saying it was the loss of sleep that would cause health risks for a few days. We find Keehn’s statement True.	None	Joel Keehn	None	None	None	2011-03-28T06:00:00	2011-03-11	['None']
-pomt-14549	Scott Fisher "tried to expand Obamacare in Texas and even voted for an official resolution to force 1 million Texans into Obamacare."	/texas/statements/2016/feb/12/jonathan-stickland/jonathan-stickland-makes-pants-fire-claim-about-sc/	A TV ad from state Rep. Jonathan Stickland of Bedford says his challenger in the March 2016 Republican primary, Scott Fisher, voted in favor of pushing a million Texans "into Obamacare." That’s war talk for Republicans. And is it so? The narrator of the ad, which was brought to our attention by Fisher consultant Craig Murphy, says Fisher, a Bedford church pastor, is running a negative campaign backed by liberals. Also, the narrator says, Fisher "tried to expand Obamacare in Texas and even voted for an official resolution to force 1 million Texans into Obamacare." The image presented with that claim: The Obamacare law, approved by Congress in 2010, requires most Americans to have health insurance and also permits states to widen access to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance, with Uncle Sam covering the costs for three years and picking up most costs after that. In Texas, we concluded in 2015, around 1 million adults could have qualified for coverage if the state expanded access. Nobody would have been forced in; beneficiaries would have to sign up. It’s an understatement to say expansion didn’t catch on in Texas. In 2012, Gov. Rick Perry rejected the option, calling the offer a brazen intrusion into state sovereignty. The next year, the Republican-led Legislature "shot down federal efforts to cover uninsured, low-income Texans by expanding access to Medicaid," a May 2013 Austin American-Statesman news story summed up. Stickland consultant cites board resolution We asked Stickland’s campaign consultant, Luke Macias, how Stickland concluded that Fisher voted to push a million Texans into Obamacare. By email and phone, Macias maintained that documents emailed to us by Murphy demonstrate that as a member of a board, Fisher in 2013 propelled approval of a "pro-Obamacare" resolution that mentioned the Texas effect of Medicaid expansion and urged lawmakers to consider all options to cover health care for indigent Texans which, Macias suggested, would have included Medicaid expansion. Macias said the resolution’s Medicaid element added up to Fisher trying to force Texans into Obamacare. Board action in 2013 The relevant documents concern the board of managers for the Tarrant County Hospital District, the county’s tax-supported health district. Fisher was a board member from May 2005 into January 2015, district spokeswoman J.R. Labbe told us by email. In April 2013, the board was scheduled to consider a resolution calling for Texas legislators to expand Medicaid. But during the board’s April 11, 2013, meeting, according to meeting minutes, Fisher offered an alternate proposal. That resolution opened by stating Medicaid could insure more than a million low-income adults. But it closed by urging the Texas Legislature to find "sustainable" ways to fund the care of individuals lacking health coverage -- without mention of Medicaid or the Obamacare law. The substitute resolution passed unanimously, according to the minutes, which don’t show a vote on the original resolution urging Medicaid expansion. Labbe put us in touch with the board chairman at the time, Fisher supporter Trent Petty, who said by phone he didn’t advocate the original resolution once it was offered for the agenda by district staff. Moreover, he said, "our board never voted for the resolution to expand Medicaid." Petty suggested we ask Robert Earley, the district’s president and CEO, how the resolution landed on the agenda. By phone, Earley said he couldn’t immediately recall; he speculated an association circulated the proposal to hospitals and other health care entities. Petty told us that at the critical 2013 meeting, board members adopted the call to support "uncompensated care" instead of the Medicaid expansion resolution after discussion and agreement among members not to support expansion. Petty said: "Our board was not comfortable with Medicaid expansion. That substituted language was necessary because we didn’t want... to simply be silent about uncompensated care being addressed in some form or fashion by the state." Labbe confirmed that board meetings weren’t recorded, leaving us no audio or video record to review. Hospital district resolutions Let’s peek at the resolutions. The original -- unadopted -- resolution notes the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled it optional for each state to expand Medicaid in accord with the Affordable Care Act, known as the Obamacare law, and also says expansion would qualify more than a million Texas adults in poverty for Medicaid. It closes: "Now, therefore, be it resolved that: Tarrant County Hospital District Board of Managers respectfully calls on the Texas Legislature to seek all possible options for an efficient and effective Medicaid expansion." The adopted resolution opens by mentioning the Texas effect of Medicaid expansion, stating: "Whereas, the Affordable Care Act would add more than a million adult Texans living near or below the poverty line to Medicaid coverage." It goes on to (inaccurately) attribute premium increases to increased costs of providing care to uninsured individuals and to say Texas has the highest rate of uninsured (which we confirmed in July 2015) and that the estimated number of uninsured served by the district was projected to increase, burdening taxpayers and "health delivery systems." Finally, the resolution asks state lawmakers to "seek all possible options to adequately fund uncompensated and uninsured care for indigent Texans that is feasible and sustainable." Fisher’s recap We sought Fisher’s recollections. By phone, he noted that at the time of the board moves, he was Perry’s appointed chairman of the Texas Juvenile Justice Department, which is responsible for housing and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Significantly too, Fisher said, Perry had reiterated his opposition to expanding Medicaid 10 days before the board meeting. The governor said April 1, 2013: "Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration's attempt to force us into the fool's errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system." Fisher said he entered the meeting believing the board shouldn’t take a pro-expansion position, which would be "going totally opposite the recent statement of our governor." We asked Fisher why the adopted resolution opens by saying the Affordable Care Act would add more than a million impoverished adult Texans to Medicaid. He replied: "Unsustainability. Those were statements that were made that showed the unsustainability, ‘the fool’s errand’ of expanding Medicaid coverage." Murphy elaborated by email: "The Whereas statements" in the resolution "were meant, as in every resolution, as a statement of the current situation. The situation was bad." "We stripped out any call for Medicaid expansion," Fisher summed up. Macias, asked to elaborate on Stickland's claim, said by email: "Fact: The resolution discusses the benefits of Obamacare and Medicaid expansion and then asks the Legislature to keep ‘ALL possible options.’ How is Medicaid expansion not included in ‘all possible options?’" Our ruling Stickland says Fisher "tried to expand Obamacare in Texas and even voted for an official resolution to force 1 million Texans into Obamacare." At best, this claim misinterprets Fisher’s motion for the hospital district board to approve a resolution asking lawmakers to fund indigent health care. The adopted proposal urges consideration of all possible sustainable options. However, it doesn't call for forcing Texans into Obamacare. We find this claim incorrect and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Jonathan Stickland	None	None	None	2016-02-12T10:20:13	2016-02-10	['Texas']
-pomt-04080	Says Austin’s treated wastewater, put into the Colorado River, is of higher quality than water the city takes from the lake for public use.	/texas/statements/2013/jan/21/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-treated-wastewater-put-colora/	Austin get its water from the Colorado River and puts its treated wastewater into the river, Mayor Lee Leffingwell reminded colleagues at a Dec. 13, 2012, Austin City Council meeting. Yuck? "Actually, it’s not as bad as it sounds," Leffingwell said, "because it’s better quality than the water we take out of Lake Austin" for public use. "It’s treated to a high level." His comparison of upstream river water to what the Austin Water Utility pours in downstream came to our attention from a skeptical Bill Bunch, executive director of the Save Our Springs Alliance. Data analyzed by the utility, the Lower Colorado River Authority and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality delivered a mixed picture, also demonstrating there are myriad ways to gauge water quality. The utility treats lake water to drinking-water quality at two upstream plants and has two major downstream wastewater treatment plants, Walnut Creek and South Austin Regional. At the plants, screens and other devices help remove large objects and separate out significant amounts of sludge, the utility says, with the remaining wastewater passing through aeration basins where microorganisms convert pollutants into solids that get treated as sludge at the Hornsby Bend Biosolids Management Plant. The liquid that remains gets passed to chlorine basins for disinfection, the utility says, and more filtration. Ultimately, a small amount of sulfur dioxide is added to remove the chlorine before much of the treated water is put into the river. By email, Leffingwell aide Amy Everhart advised us that the mayor drew on the utility’s assessment that water downstream of its wastewater plants is of higher quality than water upstream, "meaning the discharge is of better quality than the water upriver," she said. By email and in telephone interviews, utility officials pointed us to how the state rates the quality of sections of the river, which is broken into a chain of lakes by dams. According to a chart starting on Page 80 of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, Lake Austin and Lady Bird Lake in the city are rated as "high" quality segments for aquatic life, a utility assistant director, Daryl Slusher, noted, while the section below Lady Bird Lake where Austin discharges most of its wastewater is rated more highly, as "exceptional." "This is one of the very rare instances where the overall water quality in a river segment downstream of a major urban area is classified as better than that of the upstream segment," Slusher said. Not so fast, an Austin environmental engineer said. Lauren Ross, recommended to us by Bunch, pointed out by email that monitoring by the Lower Colorado River Authority indicates distinct nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the river. In August 2012, for instance, the level of nitrogen at the Lake Austin dam upstream was rated "low," at 0.008 milligrams per liter, while the river below Austin was rated "high/critical" from Webberville to La Grange, with concentrations of 2.7 mg./liter to 6.4 mg./liter. Phosphorus levels tested "normal" at Lake Austin but were "high/critical" from Webberville to Smithville and "high" at La Grange, according to the authority. By telephone, Raj Bhattarai, who manages the utility’s division of environmental and regulatory services, said it’s understandable that water downstream would have higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, given the Austin region’s population and that nitrogen and phosphorus are components of human waste byproducts. Ross also suggested a look at differing levels of heavy metals upstream and downstream, which she said would indicate deterioration. The utility provided a chart showing average concentrations of 11 metals in Lake Austin and near the major treatment plants. Levels of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, silver and zinc were the same or higher downstream. Levels of cadmium, nickel and mercury were the same, while levels of barium were lower downstream. We weren’t sure what to make of these measurements. Ross said she wasn’t prepared to say there were health effects. We asked the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for its analysis of differences between the water upstream and water returned to the river after wastewater treatment. By email, spokeswoman Andrea Morrow responded that agency experts consider six indicators directly comparable between water checked by the commission every few months at monitoring stations on Lady Bird Lake and Lake Austin and wastewater effluent as gauged by the Austin utility at treatment plants including the Walnut Creek and South Austin Regional facilities. According to a chart prepared by commission staff, both the water upstream and the effluent have similar, reasonable acidity/alkalinity and dissolved levels of oxygen. The utility’s effluent is of greater clarity, the chart suggests, and has lower E. coli levels, which can indicate fecal contamination and the potential for waterborne disease. However, the effluent has higher levels of phosphorus (as measured at two smaller plants, Morrow said) and ammonia-nitrogen, the latter of which can be toxic to aquatic life in overly high concentrations, though it typically nourishes plants and algae, Morrow said. Among six plants where effluent has been checked for ammonia-nitrogen, average levels ranged from 0.2 milligrams per liter to 0.9 milligrams per liter compared with permitted levels of 2 or 3 milligrams per liter, varying by location. Raw lake water, upstream, averaged 0.04 milligrams per liter for ammonia-nitrogen, the chart says. Morrow wrote: "These are only a fraction of water quality parameters that could potentially be compared between the two water types, but the reality is that available data allows only a handful to be evaluated." By the indicators, she summarized, "the effluent tends to be clearer and lower in bacteria levels, while the lake water" before it is taken in by the utility "is generally lower in nutrient concentrations. Dissolved oxygen and pH were comparable between the two types. So with respect to the statement that the effluent quality is higher than the source water, for some things it’s true, for others it’s not." Ross, speaking to the commission’s chart, said the utility does not check nitrogen levels of its effluent and "failing to monitor for wastewater effluent’s most significant contributions to stream degradation hides the true impact of Austin’s wastewater effluent on downstream water quality." Bhattarai said the utility measures what’s required to be measured under its state-granted permit. By email, Slusher said the utility doesn’t disagree with the commission analysis of individual elements in the wastewater effluent, though the big picture remains, he said, that the river downstream has judged of higher quality for aquatic life than Lake Austin. In contrast, Ross said the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus downstream signal the effluent is not of higher quality, though she also said she’s not saying that the utility is not doing a good job. We gathered more detail. In the last three months of 2012, the utility said by email, the effluent from the major treatment plants had about nine times the level of ammonia that Lake Austin had in late 2010, the last time the utility checked in that stretch, and more than 850 times the amount of nitrogen that Lake Austin had in 2010. Generally, Bhattarai said, the effluent can be of better quality than Lake Austin upstream, by certain parameters at certain times, but the utility doesn’t say that is always the case. Our ruling Leffingwell said Austin’s treated wastewater, put into the river, is of higher quality than water the city removes upstream for public use. Some indicators suggest the river below Austin is of higher quality for aquatic life than the water in Lake Austin, but other measurements suggest higher downstream levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Besides, the mayor specified that the wastewater effluent is of higher quality than water in Lake Austin. The state’s analysis was that some elements of the effluent are better, some worse, with which the utility seemed to concur. This claim ultimately strikes us as oversimplifying a judgment that depends on which of many possible quality indicators is considered most significant. We rate it as Half True.	None	Lee Leffingwell	None	None	None	2013-01-21T06:00:00	2012-12-13	['Colorado_River']
-tron-03429	Explorers Have Found the Biblical Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey	https://www.truthorfiction.com/noahs-ark-turkey/	None	religious	None	None	None	Explorers Have Found the Biblical Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-01080	Halloween Mobile Home Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/halloween-mobile-home-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Halloween Mobile Home Giveaway Facebook Scam	October 31, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-04708	Image depicts a beagle blinded in animal testing carried out by L'Oreal cosmetics.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/loreal-beagle-testing/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	L’Oreal Beagle Testing	26 May 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09768	White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/30/steve-doocy/beck-and-others-repeat-claim-white-house-political/	A throwaway line in a blog posting in May — which turns out to be wrong — provided just enough fodder to allow political pundits to brand a top White House official with the political scarlet letter A, for ACORN. Under the spotlight is Patrick Gaspard, director of the White House Office of Political Affairs. It's a high-level position. In fact, that's the title Karl Rove held in President George W. Bush's White House (though senior adviser David Axelrod is probably closer to Rove's role for President Barack Obama). Gaspard had kept a very low media profile until this week, when some political pundits began calling him ACORN's man in the White House. The hosts of Fox and Friends ran with the claim about Gaspard's alleged ties to ACORN in a Sept. 29, 2009, interview with Fox News commentator Glenn Beck. "The White House political director is a fellow by the name of Patrick Gaspard," said host Steve Doocy. "And he apparently has been in bed with ACORN and, in fact, Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN. He, Mr. Gaspard, was her right-hand man. "So does ACORN have somebody in the White House in one way or another?" Doocy asked. "The answer to that is yes," said Beck. "You know what's really weird is he was also one of the top guys at SEIU (Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers East, the largest local union in America). SEIU and ACORN, the same organization . . . The president has zero credibility when he says, 'I haven't been following this ACORN thing.' This is his army, SEIU and ACORN." Fox News host Sean Hannity also ran with the story. "And now questions are being raised about a top White House adviser's connections to the group," Hannity said on his Sept. 28 show. "Now the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs, Patrick Gaspard, is said to be closely affiliated with ACORN and, according to the American Spectator, he previously worked as the political director for none other than Bertha Lewis, who is now the chief organizer of ACORN. "Sounds like ACORN has somebody on the inside of the White House. Now there's a real comforting thought." The accusations about Gaspard's employment at ACORN have their roots in an article written by Matthew Vadum for the American Spectator on Sept. 28 under the headline, "ACORN's Man in the White House." Vadum is a senior editor at Capital Research Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy. "Newly discovered evidence shows the radical advocacy group ACORN has a man in the Obama White House," Vadum's article begins. "This power behind the throne is longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard." "Evidence shows that years before he joined the Obama administration, Gaspard was ACORN boss Bertha Lewis's political director in New York." So what is the evidence? Vadum cites a May 16, 2009, posting from ACORN founder Wade Rathke's "Chief Organizer" blog. Rathke resigned last year as "chief organizer" for ACORN amid speculation about his role in helping to conceal from the full board almost $1 million embezzeled from ACORN by his brother. Bertha Lewis, then head of New York ACORN, took Rathke's place. In May, Rathke wrote this on his blog: "Tell me that 1199's former political director, Patrick Gaspard (who was ACORN New York's political director before that) didn't reach out from the White House and help make that happen, and I'll tell you to take some remedial classes in 'politics 101.'" The part in parenthases comes from Rathke. But current ACORN officials say Rathke was wrong. "He (Gaspard) never worked for us," said Brian Kettenring, a spokesman for ACORN. It's a case of mistaken identity, Kettenring said. Rathke worked for ACORN national and not ACORN in New York. He clearly confused Gaspard with someone else, Kettenring said. Scott Levenson with the Advance Group, which does PR work for ACORN, echoed that in an e-mail saying, "There is NO accuracy to the fact that Patrick Gaspard ever worked for ACORN." And so we e-mailed Rathke. "I misspoke," Rathke responded. Rathke also addressed the issue in a postscript to a blog posting on Sept. 29. "Patrick was never on the staff of ACORN," Rathke wrote. "I double checked with people I still know there, and it appears that I dropped a stitch there. Hopefully my misstatement won’t lead to the White House throwing him in front of the bus in this rush to neo-McCarthyism that has become so prominent. In this case, my memory tricked me. I’m glad to carry the weight and simply say I made a mistake, and damned if I’m not sorry and hope no damage is done to a good man doing a hard job." Interestingly, Gaspard's brother, Michael Gaspard, works for the Advance Group. And again, the Advance Group in New York does communications work for ACORN. But Kettenring said he was not aware that Michael Gaspard has, himself, actually done any work for ACORN. But back to Patrick Gaspard. The White House provided a resume for him going back 20 years. It showed he worked for SEIU and the Howard Dean campaign, among other places, but had not worked for ACORN. We're not saying Gaspard has had no interaction with ACORN, or that he doesn't have ties to ACORN's Bertha Lewis. They both were involved in New York politics and SEIU and ACORN officials run in similar circles. In fact, in an April 28, 2009, story in Roll Call , Lewis is quoted as saying that while "we don't have our own special ACORN entrance at the White House or our own special hot line," she did say she has particularly good relationships with Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Gaspard. The conservative Red State recently ran a story that Gaspard's contact info appears in Lewis' Rolodex, for whatever that's worth. But the claim here wasn't just that the two are friends. It's that Gaspard was employed by ACORN as Bertha Lewis' political director in New York. ACORN officials say he was not. And the source of that information, ACORN founder Wayne Rathke, said he misspoke when he made that claim in a blog posting. For their part, Doocy, Beck, Hannity and others are relying on the reporting of Vadum in the American Spectator . And Vadum relied on Rathke's blog posting. So the mistake is understandable. But in their zeal to paint an "A" on Gaspard's sweater, the pundits never made an effort to find out if it was right. And it wasn't. We rule the statement False.	None	Steve Doocy	None	None	None	2009-09-30T12:45:57	2009-09-29	['None']
-pomt-06029	Rob Cornilles has disputed for two years a news story that said he said he would cut Social Security and Medicare programs before trimming the U.S. defense budget.	/oregon/statements/2012/jan/14/rob-cornilles/has-rob-cornilles-disputed-statement-daily-astoria/	A statement attributed to Rob Cornilles in an article in the Daily Astorian newspaper two years ago is inaccurate, and he has "disputed" it ever since. The article paraphrased Cornilles as saying he would cut Social Security and Medicare programs before trimming the U.S. defense budget. During the debate, Democrat Suzanne Bonamici brought up the article at last week’s debate and asked Cornilles what he would cut from Social Security and Medicare, and what criteria he would use. Cornilles responded: "Well, that quote that you reference in the Daily Astorian, I’ve disputed and have for two years. That’s not what I said." Say what? We talked to the reporter who wrote the story, Cassandra Profita, who now works for Oregon Public Broadcasting, and to Steve Forrester, the editor of the Daily Astorian. Profita stands by her story and said she never heard from Cornilles after it ran. Forrester said much the same thing: The story was accurate, he said, and "We heard nothing from Cornilles. He didn’t ask us for a correction." We asked the Cornilles campaign to provide evidence that the story was inaccurate at the time and that he disputed what it said. Cornilles doesn’t recall asking for a correction, or telling either the reporter or the editor that the story was wrong, according to his campaign manager Mary Anne Ostrom. But she provided videos from a September 2010 debate with David Wu, in which he denies saying he would cut entitlements, and a recent interview with KATU(2) in which Cornilles said he would cut defense spending before entitlements. However, it wasn’t until last week’s debate that Cornilles directly called the article into question. There is little to suggest the reporter got her story wrong. Cornilles has said in at least one previous debate and in a recent interview that he wouldn’t cut entitlements, but that doesn’t amount to disputing the story for two years. We rule the statement Mostly False.	None	Rob Cornilles	None	None	None	2012-01-14T00:00:00	2012-01-10	['United_States', 'Medicare_(United_States)', '[0', '13', '"Oregon\\\'s_1st_congressional_district"']
-pomt-13336	Says Donald Trump "never said that" more nations should get nuclear weapons.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/05/mike-pence/debate-mike-pence-claims-trump-never-said-more-nat/	Throughout the Oct. 4 vice presidential debate, Democratic candidate Tim Kaine repeatedly baited his Republican opponent Mike Pence to defend Donald Trump’s controversial remarks. In one instance, Kaine criticized Trump’s position on nuclear proliferation. Kaine claimed Trump said "more nations should get nuclear weapons. Try to defend that." Pence responded, "Well, he never said that, senator." "He has absolutely said it," Kaine said. "Saudi Arabia. South Korea. Japan." Trump’s stated positions on nuclear proliferation are often contradictory, so we decided to lay them out for you here. But reading through these exchanges, it’s clear that Trump thinks it might not be such a bad thing if South Korea and Japan were to develop their own nuclear weapons, given the threat posed by North Korea. "Mr. Trump has indicated that countries need to defend themselves and that nuclear weapons are an option that they have, but not that he supports them having those weapons," said Trump spokesman Steven Chung. Here are some of Trump’s key comments about whether more countries should have nuclear weapons. March 27, 2016 The New York Times asked Trump if he’d object to Japan or South Korea having nuclear weapons, given their proximity to North Korea. Trump responded, "At some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. ... And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem." He added later in the same interview: "If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us." March 29, 2016 CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Trump, "If you're concerned about proliferation, letting other countries get nuclear weapons, isn't that proliferation?" As part of a winding response, Trump said that he both opposes nuclear proliferation ("No, no, not proliferation. I hate nuclear more than any;" "I don't want more nuclear weapons") and supports some countries obtaining nuclear weapons for the first time. "Wouldn't you rather in a certain sense have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has nuclear weapons?" he asked Cooper. Cooper also asked Trump: "Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?" Trump: "Saudi Arabia, absolutely." Cooper: "You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?" Trump: "No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves, or they have to pay us." April 3, 2016 Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace asked Trump, "You want to have a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula?" Trump: "In many ways, and I say this, in many ways, the world is changing. Right now, you have Pakistan and you have North Korea and you have China and you have Russia and you have India and you have the United States and many other countries have nukes." Trump later added of Japan and South Korea, "Maybe they would be better off — including with nukes, yes, including with nukes." May 4, 2016 CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Trump, "You're ready to let Japan and South Korea become nuclear powers?" Trump responded, "I am prepared to, if they're not going to take care of us properly, we cannot afford to be the military and police for the world." Our ruling Pence said Trump "never said" that more nations should get nuclear weapons. Trump has said some countries, namely Japan and South Korea, might be "better off" if they were to develop nuclear weapons, given their proximity to North Korea. However, he has also said — often in the same interview — that he opposes nuclear proliferation in general. We rate Pence’s claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/643323b9-c5bf-4065-bbcb-de57669277df	None	Mike Pence	None	None	None	2016-10-05T01:05:22	2016-10-04	['None']
-goop-00697	Charlize Theron, Alexander Skarsgard Settling Down And Starting Family?	https://www.gossipcop.com/charlize-theron-alexander-skarsgard-family-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Charlize Theron, Alexander Skarsgard Settling Down And Starting Family?	1:30 pm, July 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10255	"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.'"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/27/john-mccain/mccain-ad-repeats-error/	Republican John McCain has repeatedly questioned Democrat Barack Obama's familiarity with foreign affairs in the campaign for president. Because Iran threatens to become another hot spot, McCain launched a TV ad Wednesday challenging Obama as "dangerously unprepared to be president." What we're examining is the ad's claim, based on an Obama speech May 18 in Oregon, that Obama dismissed Iran as too "tiny" to represent a serious threat. The ad's announcer states: "Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel. Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat.' Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'? Obama – dangerously unprepared to be president." If this sounds familiar to you, it is. Back in May, McCain made this identical claim about this very same Obama speech when McCain gave an address to the National Restaurant Association in Chicago. If you remember all of that, then our ruling on this distortion will probably be familiar, too. Last time, we called McCain's claim False. While Obama did call Iran "tiny" and questioned whether it posed "a serious threat," we find that this new McCain ad mangles their context to the point of misrepresenting Obama's statement. Obama was speaking about whether to negotiate with Iran, which the Bush administration resisted. Obama noted that previous presidents had met with adversaries from the Soviet Union and China that were willing to destroy the United States, but that President Bush refused to meet directly with leaders of smaller global players such as Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Rather than dismiss those countries as insignificant, Obama was urging direct talks to engage them. "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union," Obama said. "They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen." We find the McCain ad, like the McCain speech before it, is grossly distorting Obama's remarks by suggesting that Obama was dismissing Iran as too small to be taken seriously as a threat. We find the claim in the McCain ad, like the McCain speech before it, to be False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-08-27T00:00:00	2008-08-27	['Iran', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-01602	Are These Cars Narrowly Missing Each Other at a Busy Intersection?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/video-busy-intersection/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are These Cars Narrowly Missing Each Other at a Busy Intersection?	11 October 2017	None	['None']
-afck-00393	“Of the R18 billion spent on service delivery in the City of Cape Town, R11billion is spent on the poor communities. #DAdelivers”	https://africacheck.org/reports/does-south-africas-democratic-alliance-really-deliver-we-assess-their-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Does South Africa’s Democratic Alliance really deliver? We assess their claims	2014-03-25 08:47	None	['None']
-pomt-02500	Says North Carolina Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis "supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/14/patriot-majority-usa/demcratic-group-says-nc-republican-senate-hopeful-/	A race in North Carolina has become one of the top battles in the war to control the U.S. Senate. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., is trying to win a second term and help keep the Democrats in control of the chamber. But she is expected to face a tough race against one of several Republicans competing in the primary. One of the leading candidates is Thom Tillis, the speaker of the North Carolina House. Patriot Majority USA, a pro-Democratic group operating independently of the Hagan campaign, has begun to run ads against Tillis, who has already benefited from a blizzard of ads against Hagan that were paid for by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. Here’s the narration of the ad: "In North Carolina, we put families first. But Senate candidate Thom Tillis sides with health insurance companies. He'd let them deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise rates for women needing mammograms. Tillis supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it, and force seniors to spend up to $1,700 more for prescriptions. He's with the special interests; hurting North Carolina families." We wondered whether it was true that Tillis "supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it." In making the claim, the ad cites articles from the Raleigh News & Observer and Reuters in 2012 about Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had just been tapped as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential nominee. The articles discussed how Ryan’s budget plan in 2011 would have made significant changes to the structure of Medicare. Under Ryan’s plan, Medicare would have changed from a program that pays doctors and hospitals fees for particular services to one in which beneficiaries would be paid an amount by the government that they could use toward private insurance premiums. This proposal, known as "premium support," would have affected people who today are under 55 only. Democrats called it radical and argued that it shifted too much of Medicare’s financial burden to beneficiaries. It was approved by the GOP-controlled House before dying in the Democratic-controlled Senate. We should note that the ad’s characterization of Ryan’s plan is more measured than the version of the talking point used by many Democrats in 2011 that was our choice as that year’s Lie of the Year. That version was that Republicans would "end Medicare," period. We do wonder how many viewers would understand what the ad means by ending Medicare "as we know it," though Democrats use the phrase routinely to describe the Ryan plan. We’ve found the "as we know it" phrasing to be highly subjective. Since the original proposal from 2011 failed to be adopted by the Senate, Ryan has offered updated versions of the plan. The most recent iteration of Ryan’s plan is less far-reaching than the original. The current version offers seniors younger than 55 the opportunity to choose the premium support model, rather than a requirement. Even introducing the option of premium support would be a significant change to Medicare, but since beneficiaries would be able to remain on traditional Medicare without being penalized, it seems doubtful that, as the ad says, the Ryan plan "would end Medicare as we know it." The bigger issue, though, is whether Tillis supports the Ryan proposal's ideas on Medicare. Does he? We asked Tillis’ campaign manager and spokesman, Jordan Shaw, for Tillis’ position on the Ryan plan. "He has said that there are some good ideas in versions of the Ryan plan, but has never gone to this level of dedication to every aspect of a specific version," Shaw said. This is a pretty vague position. Still, it gives Tillis room to say that he might prefer the current version of the proposal, which, by virtue of being optional, doesn’t fit the ad’s underlying claim that Tillis definitively supports changing Medicare as we know it. We couldn't find any more specific evidence that Tillis supports or opposes Ryan's ideas for Medicare. Our ruling Patriot Majority USA said Tillis "supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it." Tillis has acknowledged supporting aspects of Paul Ryan’s budget plan, but he hasn’t specifically said whether or not he supports the original Medicare provision that would have made significant and mandatory changes to the program. Tillis could clear this up by more forthrightly stating his views on the matter. Still, the ad exaggerates by assigning a specific position to Tillis that he hasn't actually taken. Overall, we rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Patriot Majority USA	None	None	None	2014-02-14T11:47:17	2014-02-12	['None']
-pomt-09248	Scott Maddox is a "lobbyist."	/florida/statements/2010/may/06/adam-putnam/adam-putnam-calls-scott-maddox-l-word-lobbyist/	U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam has taken to labeling his possible Democratic opponent for agriculture commissioner a lobbyist. [Insert shrieks and gasps here]. In fact, Putnam's campaign called Democrat and former Tallahassee Mayor Scott Maddox a "lobbyist bottom feeder," in a May 4, 2010, statement. Responding to news that Maddox's Tallahassee law firm had sued British Petroleum as a result of the oil spill growing in the Gulf of Mexico, Putnam campaign manager Trey McCarley said: “When in doubt, sue. As a result of his multiple losing campaigns for 3 of Florida’s 4 available Cabinet positions, Scott Maddox has confused job descriptions for the one he’s running for this time. While oil continues to pour out of the earth at a rate of 210,000 gallons per day, Scott Maddox runs to the courthouse to sue someone, anyone, in a desperate attempt to make money from misery. "The job of the Commissioner of Agriculture is to solve problems, to reduce our dependency on countries who hate us with homegrown crops that fuel our cars and power our homes and businesses. Once again Scott proves he’s a lobbyist bottom feeder running for a job he knows little about and cares for even less.” In a separate item, we're checking a claim that Maddox lost campaigns for three available Cabinet positions. In this item, we're going to see if Maddox is indeed a lobbyist, and if so, who he has represented. Putnam's campaign provided PolitiFact Florida with links to the state's online lobbyist registry. A lobbyist, for reference, is someone who attempts to influence the policy decisions of public officials on behalf of a client or interest. State lobbyists are required to register with the Florida Legislature each year and must file quarterly compensation reports listing clients and compensation ranges. Maddox registered as a lobbyist with the legislature in 2009, listing three clients -- the Leon County School Board, the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund and the Wakulla County Board of County Commissioners. Corresponding compensation reports from 2009 said those groups paid Maddox and his firm, Governance Inc. (it's also called Governance Services LLC), between $20,004 and $69,997 for lobbying services from Jan. 1-June 30. Maddox's name was removed as a Governance Inc. lobbyist in compensation reports starting July 1. Screven Watson, a Maddox adviser, said Maddox's work for the school board was to help get additional per-pupil funding while the police work was to protect police officer's pension plans. Watson said Maddox's work for Wakulla County was to fight proposed cuts in library funding to better Wakulla Springs. "If you want to call that bottom feeding, then have at it," Watson said. Maddox founded Governance, Watson said, but now is only a part owner in the consulting and lobbying business. Maddox's name and biography are listed on the Governance Inc. website. There are other instances of Maddox working as a lobbyist. In 2009, he visited several north Florida counties, asking elected officials to hire Governance to help counties fight for federal stimulus dollars. In 2008 and 2009, Maddox was registered as a lobbyist with Leon County. His lobbyist registration expired Sept. 30, 2009. His clients included Tallahassee apartment owner Arbor Properties, Inc., a Jacksonville energy company called Green Power Systems, developer Rockaway LLP and a company called M/A-COM Inc. And in 2004, Maddox received $10,000 to help a client win approval for a development proposal in Leon County that was reviled by many environmentalists. "We just hired Scott as a lobbyist to help us communicate to the government," Tallahassee developer Gordon Thames said at the time. "I thought maybe they'll listen to Scott and give him strong consideration -- maybe more so than if it was just Gordon up there." Maddox said he was a consultant for the project, not a lobbyist. Thames said he has hired Maddox on other projects. Watson said Maddox's primary income comes from work as a lawyer, but he also has lobbied for clients when needed. Maddox was not a registered state lobbyist during the 2010 session, state records show. And his Leon County lobbyist registration expired in September 2009. Putnam's campaign called Maddox a "lobbyist bottom feeder." We're not touching the bottom feeder part -- you can make up your own mind based on the clients we found that were represented by Maddox. But Maddox has made money as a lobbyist off and on for several years, representing a variety of clients. And though he's not currently registered as a lobbyist, Maddox is part owner in a firm that does state lobbying. That's enough in our minds to rate Putnam's claim that Maddox is a lobbyist True.	None	Adam Putnam	None	None	None	2010-05-06T16:50:43	2010-05-04	['None']
-pomt-12513	"In the first two years and a couple months (as California treasurer), I have saved taxpayers and ratepayers over $5.2 billion."	/california/statements/2017/apr/26/john-chiang/has-treasurer-john-chiang-saved-california-taxpaye/	California Treasurer John Chiang is known as a fiscal watchdog. But has he saved state taxpayers more than $5 billion? Chiang made that claim on March 23, 2017 at a Sacramento forum for candidates in the 2018 California governor’s race. Here’s his full statement: "Today, as your state treasurer, I am your banker. And so, in the first two years and a couple months (as treasurer), I have saved taxpayers and ratepayers over $5.2 billion." Chiang’s office made a similar statement in a March 9, 2017 press release. It said a recent "refunding of existing bonds at a lower interest rate" had pushed the "total savings to the general public, including taxpayers, from bond refunding (to) approximately $5 billion since Treasurer Chiang took office in January 2015." That’s a lot of money, even in California where the state budget is nearly $180 billion. We wondered if Chiang’s claim at the forum was right, and whether there was more to this fiscal story? We set out on a fact check. Governor’s race Chiang is among several prominent Democrats vying to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others include Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor; Delaine Eastin, the state’s former superintendent for public instruction; and Gavin Newsom, the state’s current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a former professional football player. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims by candidates in the 2018 governor's race. Tracking the truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at politifactca@capradio.org, tweet us @CAPolitiFact or contact us on Facebook. Our research At the forum, Chiang did not explain his claim or offer evidence that he’s saved taxpayers $5 billion. So, we asked his office. Deputy Treasurer Tim Schaefer told us that large figure represents future savings from refinanced state debt, not an existing pot of $5 billion. The total savings won’t materialize immediately, but rather will add up over decades as bonds are paid off at lower rates. Still, he said, Chiang "has been very aggressive since he was sworn into office in January 2015 to take advantage of a very favorable interest rate environment." The treasurer’s office also produced the chart below adding up the future savings, which it puts at $5.5 billion, based on action taken through mid April 2017. SOURCE: California Treasurer's Office Schaefer compared the treasurer’s efforts to homeowners refinancing a mortgage. "The fact that it’s over time doesn’t make it any less real," Schaefer continued. "The $5.5 billion that’s not being spent on interest costs and debt service to investors and to big Wall Street firms is $5.5 billion that will be available over time to Californians to provide the services and facilities and programs that they’ve said they need." Experts weigh in We spoke with several finance experts who said Chiang’s number is realistic, though his refinancing efforts aren’t unique. "Given the scale of California's financings and the continued low interest rate environment, it seems plausible that the state saved over $5 billion gross over many years into the future," Darien Shanske, a UC Davis law professor who has worked as a finance consultant to local governments, said by email. Jon Coupal, president of the fiscally-conservative Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, also said Chiang’s numbers are realistic, though he could not independently verify them. "Through refinancing, you can save substantial amounts of money just like when you’re refinancing your home mortgage," Coupal said, adding that Chiang has been "a good steward" of California’s tax dollars. At the same time, he said Chiang’s actions are no different from what any responsible treasurer would do. "It’s not out-of-the-box thinking," Coupal said. Bill Lockyer, who served as state treasurer from January 2007 through January 2015, also refinanced state debt resulting in 2.7 billion in future savings. Schaefer, the deputy treasurer, said Lockyer faced different financial conditions, including a spike in interest rates during the Great Recession that prevented additional refinancing. Our ruling California Treasurer John Chiang, a 2018 candidate for governor, recently claimed: "I have saved taxpayers and ratepayers over $5.2 billion," since being sworn into office in January 2015. Chiang’s eye-popping figure represents future savings from refinanced state bonds. And while experts say his number looks right, his timeline isn’t. He’s taken action that will pile up savings over future decades, a worthy accomplishment. Over time, that will free up money for other uses. Chiang is right about the total, but wrong to imply this huge amount of taxpayer money is already in the bank. We rate Chiang’s statement Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	John Chiang	None	None	None	2017-04-26T06:00:00	2017-03-23	['California']
-snes-04716	Donald Trump's son Eric said that Hispanic people should be sent back to Asia.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eric-trump-hispanics-asian-quote/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Eric Trump: ‘Hispanics Are Afraid of My Father Because He’ll Send Them Back to Asia’	24 May 2016	None	['Asia', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-04704	"By the time (Mitt Romney) left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/04/deval-patrick/did-mitt-romneys-massachusetts-rank-47th-job-creat/	Repeating a favorite talking point, speakers at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., took aim at Mitt Romney’s job-creation record as governor of Massachusetts. "By the time he left office, Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who succeeded Romney in 2006. This claim has been an old chestnut on the campaign trail since last year; we first rated it when President Barack Obama’s campaign adviser, David Axelrod, made it in June 2011. We rated it Half True then, and Half True again a year later. It became such a common talking point for Democrats the Romney campaign came up with a counterattack -- that Massachusetts under Romney initially ranked last among states in job growth, but by the end of his governorship, "we were in the middle of the pack." We gave this claim a Half True as well. As usual, we will follow our usual approach of looking at the claim in two parts: First, are the numbers correct, and second, how much was the change because of Romney's policies? We used state-level statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government’s official source of employment data. We used figures for non-farm jobs, seasonally adjusted. And because the Massachusetts governor takes office in early January, we used the data for December of each year as a baseline. We found that from December 2002 to December 2006, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states (not including the District of Columbia) in job growth. (We calculated that by using the number of jobs at the beginning and end of the period for each state to determine the percentage change and then ranking the states.) Only Ohio, Louisiana and Michigan fared worse. So the number is correct. But does Romney deserve credit for the job situation? This is an issue we've addressed often at PolitiFact with governors from many states. Economists have consistently told us that policies of a governor have a relatively small impact on a state's economy. For instance, the country was coming out of a recession when Romney took office. And it's likely that Massachusetts emerged more slowly from that recession because its pre-recession numbers were disproportionately inflated by the technology bubble, said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, an independent group that analyzes fiscal trends in the state. A lot of those tech jobs never came back. Widmer warned us when we first looked at Axelrod’s 47th-in-the-nation claim in June 2011 not to put too much stock in any governor's influence over their state's rate of job growth. The ability for governors to manage the state economy is vastly overrated, Widmer said. States are tied to larger economic forces, he added, and governors often claim too much credit when things are going well and no blame when things are going poorly. Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, echoed that point. "Presidents, governors, and mayors can have an impact on job creation during their terms in office," he said. "Almost always, however, the impact is small in relation to the effects of events and trends over which elected officials have little control, especially in their first few years on the job. A recession that is underway or begins soon after a president or governor takes office is in no way the fault of the new officeholder. The flip side is that chief executives cannot claim much credit for a strong economic recovery that begins shortly before or after they take the oath of office. The conditions that made the recovery possible were already present when their term in office began. The executive’s policies may have speeded or slowed the recovery around the margins, but the conditions that caused the recovery to begin were already present before the oath of office was administered." (As we’ve noted before, Burtless contributed $750 to Obama’s campaign in 2011. However, in 2008 he provided advice on aspects of labor policy to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and he has worked as a government economist and served on federal advisory panels under presidents of both parties.) Our rating It’s correct that Massachusetts ranked 47th of 50 in job creation on Romney’s watch. However, the Obama camp -- like the Romney camp in its rebuttal -- exaggerates Romney’s influence on the state job market. Governors simply don't have that much impact. We rated this claim Half True more than a year ago, and today, we still think it merits a Half True.	None	Deval Patrick	None	None	None	2012-09-04T22:45:17	2012-09-04	['Massachusetts', 'Mitt_Romney']
-pomt-03967	"Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of (Medicare’s) health care costs."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/14/barack-obama/obama-says-health-care-law-already-slowing-down-me/	In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama warned those who love Medicare that changes to the program are needed, because rising health care costs for seniors are "the biggest driver of our long-term debt." If changes aren’t made, Obama warned, "our retirement programs will crowd out the investments we need for our children, and jeopardize the promise of a secure retirement for future generations." Obama said he was open to changes such as asking wealthier seniors to pay more, and paying hospitals and doctors to be more efficient. But he also took credit for his signature health care law. "Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs," he said. From our previous fact-checking, we know that many of the major provisions of the 2010 health care law have yet to take effect. So how can the law already be slowing the growth of health care costs? We decided to check it out. Slowing spending As Obama made his speech, the White House posted slides on its website to back up Obama’s key points. For his health care comment, a chart showed Medicare spending projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, both before the passage of the Affordable Care Act and afterward. The chart shows the future growth noticeably slowing after the law’s passage. (View the chart here.) The numbers were part of the CBO's regular update on the country’s economic outlook and the federal budget. We reviewed the latest numbers, which were released on Feb. 5, 2013, as well as news coverage of the findings. In its report, the CBO says that health care spending has grown much more slowly in recent years, both for federal programs and overall, than it did in previous years. In response to that slowing growth, the CBO reduced its projections for future Medicare spending. Since March 2010, the CBO has lowered its projections for Medicare spending in 2020 by roughly 15 percent, the report said. However, the CBO did not specifically credit the Affordable Care Act as the reason for lowering the projections. Some aspects of the law, the report said, will slightly increase federal outlays in Medicare and Medicaid. But the CBO did say it was revising estimates based on actual reduced growth in health care spending since at least 2010. Health care law phasing in As we noted above, the health care law isn’t fully in effect yet. A new requirement for Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty won't take effect until 2014, for example. For the Medicare program, the law includes both spending and cost savings. Beneficiaries can now receive expanded prescription drug coverage and preventive care without co-pays under the law; but those benefits increase costs. On the other hand, the law has also put in place limits on payments to private insurance companies that operate the Medicare Advantage program, which saves money. Changes in payments to hospitals have also already started. That means financial incentives for hospitals that are more efficient and penalties for those that are not. When we asked White House staff for more evidence to support Obama’s comments, they pointed us to a January memo from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which specifically pointed to limits on Medicare Advantage and changes to hospital payments. Finally, a controversial Medicare payments commission -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board -- would make recommendations to make payments more efficient, reducing spending. But that board hasn’t yet convened, and it may never convene if Medicare meets pre-determined budget targets. Trends in health care spending Getting back to health care costs, it’s clear that the growth in spending is going down, both for overall health spending and Medicare. But what’s driving it? We found that experts consider it something of an interesting puzzle. Some blame the recession and the economy. When people feel poor, they don’t spend as much, even on health care. Under this scenario, health care spending will rebound when the economy is better. Others say the overall health care system is changing, moving away from payments for each procedure and test, and moving toward payments for better overall outcomes. The health care law includes provisions to encourage that switch. If this is the case, reduced spending growth should become permanent. We found a diversity of opinion on what’s going on here, and whether Obama’s comment was accurate. "Medicare spending slowed down in 2010-12, so this is not just a projection," said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "Much of the law is not yet implemented, yet some Affordable Care Act provisions to control Medicare spending -- like changes in what Medicare Advantage plans are paid -- are already in effect, and were expected to produce savings during 2011-12." Other experts are dubious that the law is having much effect at all, such as Yuval Levin, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a domestic policy staffer on health care issues for President George W. Bush. "The reduction in overall health costs has had above all to do with the weak economy, and while CBO does suggest that its projections of the effects of the Affordable Care Act have changed in a few ways since it passed in 2010 (causing both upward and downward revisions of the effects on costs), those are all projections for after 2014, when the key substantive provisions of the law will take effect," he said. "None of them could be used to suggest that ‘already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs.’" The Obama administration argues that it’s more than a weak economy driving reductions in spending. "The economic recession may have contributed to the 2010-12 decrease in growth in per beneficiary spending as consumers use less care due to its cost," says the HHS memo. "However, as almost all Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental coverage and thus face relatively low out-of-pocket costs, it seems unlikely that consumer behavior alone is responsible for the slow growth in Medicare spending." Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, said the health care system is responding to the new law already. Insurance companies and other payers know about the new payment methods the law supports, and they are planning accordingly, she said. "It’s really not at all a situation of the lights turning on Jan. 1, 2014. The lights have been on for the past six months," she said. Still, determining causes behind the spending slowdown is no easy task, warned Bradley Herring, professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University. "I think most people think the slowdown we’ve seen in health care spending over the last three years has been due to the recession. But no one’s 100 percent sure why that happened," he said. Things will get even more complicated for health policy researchers as the law deploys changes to payments and other pilot programs. Researchers will have to hypothesize how much costs decline compared with if the law had not passed. "Those are going to be difficult things to measure," Herring said. We’ll close with comments from Douglas Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office. He spoke to reporters when the office released new numbers on Feb. 5: "So, health spending has grown slowly over the past few years, both in federal programs and in the rest of the health care systems. We think that part of that owes to the recession and the loss of income in wealth, but we think that a significant part of that probably does not stem from the recession, probably arises from structural changes in the health care system. "The critical question is, whether those structural changes are very transitory changes or whether they will persist. We're doing analysis to that question. We're talking with outside experts who are also investigating the same question. I think the short summary of that is that we don't know." Our ruling Obama said, "Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health care costs." He’s right that health care costs are slowing, but there’s not conclusive evidence that the law is helping. The nonpartisan reports from the Congressional Budget Office don’t specifically say that, and some aspects of the health law translate to increased spending. Among health care experts, we found debate over how much the Affordable Care Act is contributing to an overall slowdown in health spending. Some argue that the recession is making people spend less on health care. Others say the health care system is changing to become more efficient. Many say that more study is needed. Obama’s taking credit for more than he can prove. Overall, we rate his statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2013-02-14T16:25:27	2013-02-12	['None']
-snes-05500	A 23-year-old Florida university student was arrested for marijuana possession and coerced into acting as an informant; she was subsequently murdered by drug dealers who discovered she was wearing a wire.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rachel-hoffman/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Death of Rachel Hoffman	11 December 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05528	One fart burns 67 calories.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fart-burns-67-calories/	None	Science	None	Dan Evon	None	Farting Burns 67 Calories?	24 November 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00328	"Will continue support for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which allows study of the earth's land surfaces and provides valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/345/enhance-earth-mapping/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Enhance earth mapping	2010-01-07T13:26:55	None	['None']
-tron-00630	Caitlyn Jenner to Pose Nude for Sports Illustrated Cover	https://www.truthorfiction.com/caitlyn-jenner-pose-nude-sports-illustrated-cover/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Caitlyn Jenner to Pose Nude for Sports Illustrated Cover	May 10, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03840	Usain Bolt donated $10 million and Shakira donated $15 million to help rebuild Haiti after Hurricane Matthew.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/usain-bolt-donated-10-million-to-haiti/	None	Sports	None	David Emery	None	Usain Bolt, Shakira Donated Millions to Haiti After Hurricane Matthew	9 October 2016	None	['Usain_Bolt', 'Haiti', 'Shakira']
-snes-03021	Crock the Vote	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-800000-votes-non-citizens/	None	Ballot Box	None	David Emery	None	Did a Study Show That Hillary Clinton Received More Than 800,000 Votes from Non-Citizens in the 2016 Election?	1 February 2017	None	['None']
-bove-00061	You’ve Seen This Video Clip From The UK Now Read The Story Behind It	https://www.boomlive.in/youve-seen-this-video-clip-from-the-uk-now-read-the-story-behind-it/	None	None	None	None	None	You’ve Seen This Video Clip From The UK Now Read The Story Behind It	Jun 06 2018 8:20 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-01485	Says Mark Warner told PolitiFact National's "Lie of the Year" in 2013.	/virginia/statements/2014/sep/28/ed-gillespie/gillespie/	A TV ad by Ed Gillespie, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, indicates incumbent Mark Warner has received PolitFact’s most ignoble rating: "The Lie of the Year." The commercial starts with footage from a videotape Warner posted on Aug. 10, 2009, laying out his qualified support for health care reform. At the time, Congress was considering Obamacare -- also known as the Affordable Care Act -- and there was loud debate over whether the bill would strip people of health insurance policies they liked and wanted to keep. "Let me make clear, I’m not going to support a health care reform plan that’s going to take away health care that you’ve got right now or a health care plan that you like," Warner said in the 2009 video. While Warner is saying this, the words "LIE OF THE YEAR" appear in red capital letters and, underneath them, in black caps, is the attribution to "POLITIFACT, 12/12/13." The Lie of the Year is awarded each December by our colleagues at PolitiFact National. Gillespie’s claim that Warner took the title last year was news to us because the dubious distinction went to President Barack Obama’s statements that under that ACA, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." Obama had repeated that vow at least 37 times since 2009, including during his re-election campaign in 2012. Those promises unraveled last fall when insurers informed millions of Americans who buy their own coverage -- as opposed to getting it through work -- that their policies were being cancelled because they did not meet the ACA’s minimum standards. Paul Logan, a spokesman for Gillespie, essentially told us the ad claim is fair because the promises by Warner and Obama were identical. Logan said the Lie of the Year was not directed specifically at the president, but to anyone who made the like-it, keep-it claim. PolitiFact National’s article announcing the Lie of the Year, however, only refers to the White House’s repetition of the false claim. It notes that when insurers started cancelling policies last fall, Obama’s first reaction was to deny he made a blanket promises that people could keep their pre-existing coverage. "For all those reasons, PolitiFact has named `If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,’ the Lie of the Year for 2013,’" our colleagues wrote. PolitiFact National also specified that the distinction went to Obama’s statements in a follow-up article -- which Logan also sent us -- detailing national reaction to the award. So it’s clear that Gillespie’s campaign took liberty in interpreting the PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year. There are important distinctions between Obama’s comments and Warner’s. Gillespie’s campaign is circulating tapes of two events where Warner pledged not to vote for a bill that would take away existing insurance plans: the video used in the ad and one from a September 2009 town hall meeting in Fredericksburg. Both of those recordings occurred when the ACA was being drafted. Warner was speaking about his conditions for supporting legislation; he was not offering a long-term guarantee on how the law would work. Warner wound up voting for a bill that contained language shielding existing policies from meeting the minimum ACA coverage standards, but leaving it to the White House to fill in the details. Obama subsequently imposed tough regulations that blocked insurers from adjusting the grandfathered plans to market conditions or selling them to new customers, all but assuring the death of substandard policies. Warner says he was surprised by the president’s actions. Obama repeated his like-it, keep-it line long after he imposed regulations that guaranteed the law wouldn’t work that way. The White House published the rules in June 2010 with a chart estimating between 39 percent and 69 percent of employers with grandfathered plans would relinquish them by 2013. Unlike Obama, we’ve come across no record of Warner making a like-it, keep-it statement past 2009. Our ruling Gillespie’s ad indicates PolitiFact National branded Warner with the "Lie of the Year" in 2013 for promising four years earlier that he wouldn’t vote for health care reforms that took away insurance plans people like. PolitiFact National never mentioned Warner in handing out the award. In articles and videos, our colleagues focused the award on Obama’s insistence over the years that under the ACA, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it." The statements and the circumstances behind them are not clones. The president had far greater power in shaping the law that bears his name than the senator. Warner didn’t repeat his pledge after he voted for the ACA in 2009. Obama continued to make his vow long after he added regulations to the law in mid-2010 that guaranteed the ACA would end some pre-existing insurance plans. The clear implication of Gillespie’s ad -- that PolitiFact cited Warner for telling the Lie of the Year -- is simply False.	None	Ed Gillespie	None	None	None	2014-09-28T00:00:00	2014-09-09	['None']
-snes-02769	Congressional members receive free, high-quality health care.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/members-congress-health-care/	None	Politics	None	Stephanie Larsen	None	Do Members of Congress Enjoy Free Health Care?	15 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06642	Says "160,000 kids stay home every day because they are afraid to go to school because of bullying."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/sep/15/valerie-vainieri-huttle/assemblywoman-valerie-vainieri-huttle-says-160000-/	Students dream up lots of reasons to skip school. But tens of thousands of children are staying out of the classroom every day to avoid bullying, according to Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle. The Bergen County Democrat, a primary sponsor of an anti-bullying law that is being put into practice in New Jersey this school year, said those students need to feel safe. "A hundred and sixty thousand kids stay home every day because they are afraid to go to school because of bullying," Vainieri Huttle said at a Sept. 6 news conference in Fort Lee. "These are the kids that we are concerned with this morning. These are the kids that we need to give that message to this morning, that they will be protected." Vainieri Huttle repeated the statistic in an interview on NJTV that aired the same day as the news conference, but applied the number to New Jersey. "And it certainly now is a mandate for all school districts to follow a course in anti-bullying and helping these kids get through those difficult years when, quite frankly, in New Jersey, there's like 160,000 kids that stay home from school each day because they're afraid to go to school," she said. "Because of bullying?" NJTV’s Joanna Caplan Gagis asked Vainieri Huttle. "Because of bullying," Vainieri Huttle replied. Vainieri Huttle’s spokeswoman, Andrea Katz, said the assemblywoman "misspoke" on NJTV. "She meant the United States," Katz said. Still, the statistic is questionable even on a national level. Katz sent us several sources to support Vainieri Huttle’s claim, including a 2010 fact sheet from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and several other reports, news articles and websites. "It’s a really commonly cited number," she said. "It’s out there." And it is. A number of federal, state and local agencies have referenced the number, citing various organizations and individuals as the source. Katherine Cowan, a spokeswoman for the National Association of School Psychologists, confirmed the number came from her organization, "but nearly 20 years ago." "The statistic is extremely old and not valid in 2011," said Cowan. "It’s one of those things that the media really loved and grabbed onto and took on a life of its own." Cowan said researchers calculated the number in the early 1990s from an annual survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but did not have specifics on how the statistic was determined. The CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey, which has been conducted since 1991, asks high school students several health-related questions. One survey question asks students if they did not go to school in the last 30 days because they felt unsafe at school or on their way to or from school. A survey released in 2010 found 5 percent of high school students nationwide stayed home from school on at least one day for those reasons. But the question doesn’t ask why students felt unsafe, so the statistic could also apply to students who live in a high-crime neighborhood or fear crossing a dangerous intersection on their walk to school. Though the statistic on students staying home because of bullying is no longer valid, Cowan said the impetus behind the fact -- that bullying has widespread implications -- is validated by a lot of research. Deborah Temkin, research and policy coordinator for bullying prevention initiatives at the U.S. Department of Education, said her department recognizes the bullying statistic is "likely not up to date." But, she said, "there are quite a few students who stay home from school each and every day," because of bullying. We found no other statistic that quantified the number of students who stay home because of bullying. In response to our findings, Vainieri Huttle said, "There is no doubt that harassment, intimidation, and bullying have a serious impact on the ability of New Jersey students to thrive academically and socially." Our ruling Vainieri Huttle claimed that 160,000 students stay home every day because they are afraid of being bullied at school. A spokeswoman for the National Association of School Psychologists confirmed her organization is the source of the statistic, but said the number is "extremely old" and "not valid." Vainieri Huttle used the flawed -- though widely cited, even by the CDC in 2010 -- statistic to illustrate the impact of bullying. We don’t dispute that bullying is a serious concern, but Vainieri Huttle needs better numbers to prove her point. We rate Vainieri Huttle’s claim Mostly False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Valerie Vainieri Huttle	None	None	None	2011-09-15T05:15:00	2011-09-06	['None']
-afck-00412	“More than 20 million South Africans have taken the HIV test since the launch of the campaign in 2011 which indicates confidence in the health system.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/a-first-look-at-president-jacob-zumas-2014-state-of-the-nation-address/	None	None	None	None	None	President Jacob Zuma’s sixth State of the Nation address fact-checked	2014-02-14 12:39	None	['None']
-pomt-03872	Says Jeb Bush "flip-flop-flip(ped) on immigration."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/jeb-bush-flip-flop-immigration-pathway-citizenship/	Jeb Bush was for it before he was against it. And now he’s for it again? That’s the refrain these days on where the former Florida governor stands on creating a process for people in the U.S. illegally to eventually become American citizens -- or something secondary to that, such as legal residents. Since his new book Immigration Wars was released this week, Bush has been accused of changing position. "@JebBush a flip-flop-flip on immigration? Wow. I fashioned you more of a baseball player than a gymnast. My bad. #notsurprisedatall," Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz quipped in a tweet on March 5, 2013. Bush, 60, has enjoyed distinction as an elder statesman in the Republican party since leaving elected office in 2007. But with the release of his book, Bush has indicated he’s considering a future presidential run ("I’m not saying yes, I’m just not saying no," he told MSNBC). We found that Bush, now a definite maybe for 2016, has indeed said conflicting things over time about eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants. ‘Start deporting people’ Bush, a Texas native who calls Florida his adopted home state, plunged into politics in 1994 with a run to unseat Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. Back then, there was virtually no talk of turning millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. into citizens. When asked what to do with them, Bush had one word: deportation. In an interview with the Miami Herald, he was asked, "There are something like 4 million illegals in the United States . . . . What would you do with the ones that are here?" "Start deporting people," he answered. "We have an asylum process . . . . It shouldn't take five years. We need to reform our system. ... I don't blame them for wanting to come to our country, but I don't believe it's necessarily our responsibility to allow them to come in." But he also made it clear he was not in favor of closing the border. "I believe in open, legal immigration," Bush said. He lost that election, but stormed back four years later and won the governor’s race. By 2006, Bush was well-established as Florida’s chief executive, and he wasn’t afraid to criticize members of his own party. His views, it seems, had evolved beyond "start deporting people." In an email exchange with the Los Angeles Times that year, Bush weighed in with support for proposed federal immigration reform legislation, calling it "just plain wrong" to charge illegal immigrants with a felony and opposed "penalizing the children of illegal immigrants" by denying them U.S. citizenship. He endorsed the idea of a broad guest-worker program, but the Los Angeles Times noted then that he "offered no specificity on how to treat current immigrants and whether they should be granted a path to citizenship." In 2009, Bush co-chaired a bipartisan task force for the Council on Foreign Relations, which studied immigration challenges and came up with a set of proposals. In an interview about the group’s recommendations, Bush said that if reform doesn’t happen, "we ignore an issue that needs to be solved, which is what do we do with people who are here permanently, who have made contributions, who if given a path to citizenship would do what's right and take the necessary steps to achieve legalized status and citizenship." However, in a separate op-ed about the task force recommendations, Bush simply said reform should include "a fair and orderly way to allow many of those currently living here illegally to earn the right to remain legally." 2012: Bush stakes his position Last year, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney declared that he would pursue an immigration policy so austere that illegal immigrants would self-deport -- a position later faulted for Republicans’ poor showing among Hispanic voters. Bush, meanwhile, continued his call for more welcoming rhetoric and a "broader approach" to legislation that dealt with issues beyond border security and cracking down on illegal migration. In an interview last summer with Charlie Rose, he made a clear declaration that he favored citizenship. "You have to deal with this issue. You can’t ignore it. And so, either a path to citizenship, which I would support and that does put me probably out of the mainstream of most conservatives; Or a path to legalization, a path to residency of some kind," he said. Fast forward past the election. It’s now 2013, and Republicans are smarting from their losses and pledging to remake their platform into one that appeals more to Hispanics and other minorities. A bipartisan group of Senators is working on reform legislation that includes citizenship. But Bush’s book, which reportedly went to the printer in late 2012, split the concepts of citizenship and legal residency. And in print, Bush opposed citizenship and instead proposed "a path to permanent legal resident status." "Permanent residency in this context, however, should not lead to citizenship. It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the laws can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship. ... A grant of citizenship is an undeserving reward for conduct that we cannot afford to encourage." Illegal immigrants, he and co-author Clint Bolick wrote, could return to their homeland and apply for citizenship through regular channels. After immediately catching heat over the book -- and how it conflicts with his past position -- Bush began softening up. "We wrote this book last year, not this year, and we proposed a path to legalization, so anybody that had come illegally would have immediately a path to legalization," Bush said on MSNBC. He added: "If you can craft that in law, where you can have a path to citizenship where there isn’t an incentive for people to come illegally, I’m for it. I don’t have a problem with that." He told CNN: "I have supported both — both a path to legalization or a path to citizenship — with the underlying principle being that there should be no incentive for people to come illegally at the expense of coming legally." Jaryn Emhof, Bush’s communications director, told PolitiFact in an email, "The book outlines a proposal by which immigrants -- whether they are coming to work temporarily, to go to school, to live and work as permanent residents or seeking citizenship -- can do so through an immigration process that would be much more open than before. So, it is talking about future immigrants, not those currently here illegally." We think it’s clear, however, that the book’s passages about legal status vs. citizenship very clearly refer to those already here. Our ruling Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- admittedly a bit player in this story but for her tweet -- said Bush has made a "flip-flop-flip" on immigration. Here’s a quick chronology: • Early in his political life, Bush expressed a hard-line, deportation-driven opinion and made no mention of granting citizenship or legal status to illegal immigrants. • Sometime between 2009 and 2012, he "flipped" to being in favor of a path to citizenship. He supported federal legislation in 2007 that allowed children of illegal immigrants to become citizens, and wrote frequently that Republicans should adopt a more welcoming approach. In June 2012, he clearly articulated support for a pathway to citizenship. • His "flop" came this month with the release of his book, in which he explicitly opposed citizenship, calling it an "undeserving reward" for people who came here illegally. • That was followed by a quick "flip" back to support of either citizenship or permanent legal status in the heat of television interviews. Over the years Bush has said he favored citizenship or legal residency, demonstrating openness to proposals that could be considered within a wider reform effort. So at times he has embraced both, or either one. There’s no doubt, though, that the Jeb Bush in the book had a different opinion from the Jeb Bush on the book tour. We rate the flip-flop-flip claim True.	None	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	None	None	None	2013-03-08T13:49:37	2013-03-05	['None']
-snes-03275	The Obama administration issued a ban on sending Christmas cards to U.S. military members serving overseas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/christmas-card-ban-military/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Obama Launches First Salvo in War on Christmas?	5 November 2015	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-tron-01874	Home Fires Sparked By 9 Volt Batteries in Junk Drawer	https://www.truthorfiction.com/nine-volt-battery-fires/	None	household	None	None	None	Home Fires Sparked By 9 Volt Batteries in Junk Drawer	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-03062	Farmers feed their cattle candy, such as Skittles.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/do-farmers-feed-cows-skittles/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Do Farmers Feed Cows Skittles?	25 January 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04397	Says Bill Nelson voted to cut $700 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare.	/florida/statements/2012/oct/17/connie-mack/mack-says-nelson-voted-cut-700-billion-medicare/	It is a favored line among Republican candidates to charge their Democratic opponents with cutting Medicare. U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV, R-Fort Myers, leveled the attack at least four times in the first half hour of Wednesday’s Florida U.S. Senate debate. Mack said incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson "voted to cut $700 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare." PolitiFact has addressed this claim many times, in many ways, in many states. Obamacare refers to the Affordable Care Act. It does not literally cut funding from the Medicare program’s budget. Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. We should note that the Republican plan championed by GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan also trims Medicare spending by almost exactly the same amount. The spending reductions fall largely on insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law made significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers. Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care. The overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future, even with the health care law’s cost-saving measures. The law tries to limit the program’s growth, though, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. $716 billion The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $716 billion. Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient. One impact of the law is it extends the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years to 2024. There is a connection between the Medicare cost savings and the health care law. At the time the health care law was being finalized, Democrats said it was important that the new law not add to the deficit. So the reductions in Medicare spending were counted against the health care law’s new spending. Some of the new spending goes toward Medicare recipients. It increases coverage for prescription drugs and offers preventive care at no cost to the patient. More significantly, though, the law moves to cover the uninsured, by giving them tax credits to buy private insurance. It also expands Medicaid, the state insurance program for the poor. The savings from Medicare offset that spending. The health law also imposes new taxes, primarily on the wealthy and on the health care industry. That, too, offsets the new spending. Our ruling Mack said Nelson voted to cut $700 billion out of Medicare, to pay for Obamacare. Medicare spending increases under Obamacare, but over 10 years, it rises more slowly that it would without the law. The money comes from reducing payments to insurance companies and hospitals. Part of the savings go to reduce prescription drug payments for Medicare recipients, as well as to provide free preventive care. Overall, the lower spending extends the solvency of Medicare by eight years. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Connie Mack	None	None	None	2012-10-17T20:40:22	2012-10-17	['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-03302	"Over 12,000 school kids were arrested in Florida. It makes Florida the nation's leader in that area."	/florida/statements/2013/jul/30/dream-defenders/over-12000-school-kids-were-arrested-florida-it-ma/	Meet the Dream Defenders -- a group of young people camped out in front of the office of Gov. Rick Scott seeking to overturn Florida’s "stand your ground" law and draw attention to issues such as racial profiling and arrests of school children. The group has been attracting national attention in the wake of the July 13 acquittal of George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic neighborhood watchman, in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012. Martin’s case has shined a spotlight on the intersection of race on the criminal justice system and school discipline. (Martin was serving an out-of-school suspension when he was shot while walking to his father’s home after buying Skittles and a drink.) On July 22, Florida’s Secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice, Wansley Walters, met with the Dream Defenders to talk about how to keep children out of the criminal justice system. "Over 12,000 school kids were arrested in Florida," said Monique Gillum, one of the leaders of Dream Defenders during the meeting. "It makes Florida the nation's leader in that area." Arrest data on Florida students To back up her claim, Gillum pointed to a Florida Department of Juvenile Justice report that states that 12,520 youth were arrested for school-related arrests during the 2011-12 year. (School-related includes arrests at school, the bus or bus stop, and school-sponsored events.) About two-thirds were for misdemeanors. The department pointed us to the same report to show that the number of youth school-related arrests have declined 48 percent since the 2004-05 school year. One reason for the decline is that the majority of Florida school districts have started using civil citations for non-violent misdemeanors. The citations include penalties such as community service. If the student complies, no arrest goes on their record. Being arrested at school can be traumatic. Even if the arrest doesn’t ultimately lead to a conviction, it can still hurt students because they may have to disclose it on job or college applications. The Miami-Dade school district, the largest in the state and the one where Martin was a student, was the first to implement civil citations -- and that could be why it had far fewer arrests than several smaller districts. (Walters was at the Miami-Dade County Juvenile Services Department at the time and led the effort to push for civil citations.) The report shows school-related arrests by sheer numbers and by rate per 1,000 students in counties in 2011-12. We will cite a few examples: Miami-Dade: 552, three per 1,000 Broward: 1,062, eight per 1,000 Hillsborough: 1,046, 10 per 1,000 Pinellas: 846, 15 per 1,000 Pasco: 316, 9 per 1,000 Though the numbers of arrests statewide dropped in recent years after the state relaxed its "zero tolerance" policy, critics say schools have still gone too far in criminalizing typical youthful behavior. We found arrests for infractions such as throwing spitballs, hitting someone with a tootsie pop or even for repeatedly "passing gas." (The 13-year-old boy busted for flatulence never went before a judge; the Martin County school district told us the case was "diverted/dropped with no record for the student.") "The vast majority of children being arrested in schools are not committing criminal acts," Walters told the Orlando Sentinel earlier this year. National comparison data lacking So the 12,000 figure isn’t in dispute. But comparing Florida’s school-related arrests to the rest of the nation was far more complicated. National "data-keeping in this realm is indeed pretty awful," said Kevin G. Welner, professor and director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado. That sentiment was echoed by multiple experts we interviewed. Also, Florida does a better job than most states at compiling the data. An expert at the Southern Poverty Law Center said the state has the most comprehensive data in the nation. The Dream Defenders sent us an article from Ebony, which stated, "While Florida is not alone in turning to police to discipline young people, it has the distinction of being the nation’s leader in school-based arrests." Ebony linked to a 2013 article in Color Lines, a magazine that focuses on issues pertaining to race. Its report stated: "Last year, Florida produced the highest documented number of school-based arrests in the country — and that number was an improvement over previous years." (One expert we interviewed noted the important qualifier in that sentence: documented. As we’ll see, little is documented in this area.) Gillum directed us to a 2011 report about Florida school arrests written by the Advancement Project, a national civil rights group, along with the ACLU in Florida and the NAACP. "Florida still has the highest documented number of school-based referrals to law enforcement in the country," states the report. A footnote had this to say: "Currently, this data is not collected nationwide. Many individual states report this information, but no other state reports as many school-based referrals to law enforcement as Florida." We couldn't get a definitive answer from the group about how many states actually did report data. "The report should have conveyed Florida’s data is the highest on record," Advancement Project spokeswoman Jennifer Farmer told PolitiFact Florida. "It may not be the highest in the country but it's highest on record." We found some data is collected at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. But that data appears to have significant gaps and inconsistencies. Daniel Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the University of California, pointed out a few examples of questionable numbers, including Los Angeles, which had zero referrals or arrests in 2009. Broward County had 6,640 referrals to law enforcement, but 0 arrests, while Miami-Dade had 1,670 referrals to law enforcement and 10 arrests. No matter the ranking, "Florida has a very serious issue with overly punitive discipline and over-reliance on law enforcement that harms children and adolescents in the state, and is especially harmful to children of color," Losen said. Our ruling Dream Defenders said, "Over 12,000 school kids were arrested in Florida. It makes Florida the nation's leader in that area." The number about Florida is correct: There were 12,520 students arrested at schools in 2011-12, according to the state Department of Juvenile Justice. But the Dream Defenders failed to prove that the number makes Florida the nation’s leader in school-related arrests. This appears to be a case of the state getting a bad rap because of its rare decision to publish comprehensive data. Multiple experts said that comprehensive data for state-by-state comparisons is lacking. That makes it difficult to declare Florida’s ranking for school-related arrests. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Dream Defenders	None	None	None	2013-07-30T16:38:57	2013-07-22	['None']
-snes-05276	During the Iowa caucuses, delegates are sometimes awarded through coin tosses, and Hillary Clinton won six coin tosses in the 2016 caucuses (awarding her a narrow victory).	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iowa-caucus-coin-toss/	None	Politicians	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Iowa Caucus Coin Toss	2 February 2016	None	['Iowa', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-14996	Dan Gecker voted to "double vehicle registration fees, costing (Chesterfield) county residents over $6 million annually."	/virginia/statements/2015/oct/12/glen-sturtevant/glen-sturtevant-says-dan-gecker-voted-double-car-r/	Time and again, Republican Glen Sturtevant is telling Chesterfield County voters whom to blame for doubling their car registration fees. Democrat Dan Gecker "voted to double vehicle registration fees, costing county residents $6 million annually in additional fees," Sturtevant says in at least three campaign mailers in the state Senate’s 10th District. Sturtevant, a Richmond School Board member, and Gecker, a Chesterfield supervisor, are squaring off in a key race that could determine which political party controls the state Senate, which now has a 21-19 GOP majority. They are seeking to replace longtime Republican incumbent John Watkins, who is not seeking re-election. A Sturtevant TV ad features a bike racer pedaling hard while the narrator says Gecker is in "a race to raise your taxes." Among the ensuing charges is that Gecker "voted" to "double vehicle registration fees, costing us $6 million in one year." We investigated whether Gecker really did vote to double the fee. Matt Brown, campaign manager for Sturtevant, told us the claim is based on Gecker’s actions last year, when the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors was considering the county’s 2014-15 capital improvement plan and its budget. Among the proposals was to increase the county’s $20 car registration fee to $40, to raise $7.5 million for local transportation needs that the state would match. The proposal was controversial and, at Gecker’s request during a supervisors meeting April 23, 2014, it was pulled from the capital improvement plan and voted on separately. The $20 increase passed, 3-2, with Gecker voting against it. A tape of the meeting shows Gecker offered no explanation at the time of his vote. But about 10 minutes later, he said it should be a higher priority for the county to dedicate long-term revenues for clean-water programs mandated by the federal government than to raise fees for transportation. Gecker did not push for the clean water funding, however, saying he realized his view was in the minority. Given Gecker’s clear vote against the fee increase, what evidence does Sturtevant offer that his opponent actually voted for it? Brown, in an email, replied that Gecker later that same April day voted for the entire capital improvement plan — which funds long-term construction projects — and then for the county’s operating budget. The two are connected, because revenues from the car registration fee flow into the county’s operating budget and then are allocated to the capital improvement plan. Brown said this counts as two Gecker votes for the raised fee. We should point out that the 134-page capital improvement plan was filled with line items for projects totaling $848 million over five years. The 208-page operating budget funded $766 million of services, including education, public safety and health programs. Gecker told us that while he didn’t agree with every line item, he supported the overall benefits of the spending plans. Brown cited a third vote, as well, that occurred Feb. 26, 2014 — almost two months before the budget was approved. Gecker concurred in the Chesterfield board’s unanimous vote to advertise all fee and tax rate increases being considered in the budget — including the car registration increase — and to set a public hearing on them March 26. It should be noted that this is a required step in budget deliberations and that the mere advertisement of possible tax rate increases doesn’t obligate local board or council members ultimately to support them. Our ruling Sturtevant says Gecker "voted to double vehicle registration fees, costing county residents $6 million annually in additional fees." The simple truth is just the opposite. When the $20 increase came up for a vote before the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors in April 2014, Gecker opposed it. Despite his opposition, it passed on a 3-2 vote. Sturtevant, in trying to justify his claim, dismisses this obvious vote. His campaign instead argues that Gecker subsequently voted to pass massive spending plans that fund all of the county’s public services and public improvement projects. The new registration fees were a tiny part of these plans. The Sturtevant camp also notes that Gecker, in 2014, voted to advertise that the board was considering the $20 increase. But that’s not tantamount to voting in support of the increase. Local governing boards are required to give notice for a public hearing whenever a fee or tax increase is on the table. Keep your eye on the ball. Again, the only time the fee increase came up for a direct vote, Gecker opposed it. We rate Sturtevant’s claim False.	None	Glen Sturtevant	None	None	None	2015-10-12T11:59:03	2015-10-02	['None']
-pomt-07776	Says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in his budget repair bill "is showing that no stone goes unturned as he asks everyone to tighten their belts."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/reince-priebus/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-says-wisconsin-gov-sco/	Under Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposed budget repair bill, there is no question that teachers and many other public employees would pay more for their pensions and health care. The plan, especially provisions that would curtail collective bargaining rights for public employee unions, has drawn massive protests in Madison. As the debate was heating up, newly named Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus -- former leader of the Wisconsin GOP -- offered his support for Walker in a Feb. 18, 2011, e-mail statement. He argued sharing the cost in the face of a deficit was the least that state employees could do. "Gov. Walker is showing he, like so many Republicans across the country, has the courage to have the adult conversations our country wants and deserves," Priebus said. "He is showing that no stone goes unturned as he asks everyone to tighten their belts so we can get our fiscal train back on the tracks." The debate in Madison has many facets -- and we’ve been tracking statements from all sides. We rated as True a Walker statement from his January 2011 "state of the state" speech that state workers could pay twice as much for health care and it would still be half the national average. We rated as Pants on Fire Walker’s statement that his plan leaves collective bargaining rights "fully intact." This item is about a different piece of the debate. Is Priebus right when he says Walker is asking "everyone to tighten their belts"? Let’s start with the plan itself, which clearly treats some groups of public employees differently. For starters, the bill specifically does not apply to police, firefighters and state troopers. Those public safety unions would continue to bargain for benefits under current laws, while other unions would lose the right to bargain on benefits and working conditions. Critics say those unions are being rewarded for their support of Walker, but this PolitiFact item found the picture is more complicated. The governor says the differing treatment is necessary, to ensure government can function in an emergency. Priebus’ office didn’t respond to a request to discuss his statement or what he meant when he said "everyone" is being asked to tighten belts. Some may read it as meaning everyone in the state, not just state employees. That, too, clearly is not true. The bill does not directly affect pay, benefits or negotiating rights for anyone outside state and local government. Indeed, Walker has pledged not to raise taxes and has argued the changes are needed precisely so individual taxpayers do not pay more. It is too soon to say, though, what will happen when the next two-year budget -- for the period starting July 1, 2011 -- is in place. Cuts in aid to schools and local government could push some extra costs onto local taxpayers, if the governing bodies choose to raise taxes and fees to recoup any loss in state aid. Let’s return to the original statement: Priebus argued Walker is asking "everyone to tighten their belts." But the proposal clearly exempts some public employee unions from any changes. Walker himself has said the differing treatment is necessary and justifiable. We rate Priebus’ statement False.	None	Reince Priebus	None	None	None	2011-02-22T13:24:02	2011-02-18	['Scott_Walker_(politician)']
-pomt-06659	Takes credit for "reining in" state spending when he was governor.	/virginia/statements/2011/sep/12/george-allen/allen-says-he-reined-state-spending-governor/	Republican George Allen is promising his unrelenting effort to curb federal spending if he’s elected to the U.S. Senate next year. He says he’ll bring to Washington the same kind of "sweeping reform" he brought to Virginia as governor from 1994 to 1998. His campaign web site says that when Allen was governor, "He challenged critics and sentiment that suggested it couldn’t be done, reining in government spending and substantially reducing the size of the state workforce." Last week, we looked at Allen’s claim he "substantially reduced" the state workforce and rated it Mostly True. Although there was a 9 percent drop in the number of bureaucrats during Allen’s administration, the state’s reliance on private contractors grew. In this fact check, we’ll examine Allen’s assertion that he reined in state spending. The claim runs into instant trouble because, by any measure, overall state spending increased significantly during his administration. Allen’s major effort to slash the budget and offer a tax cut was thwarted by Democrats who controlled the General Assembly. When Allen took office in January 1994, he inherited an overall $14.7 billion budget for the state fiscal year that started the previous July 1. At the end of his term in January 1998, he left behind a $20.7 billion proposed budget for the fiscal year that started the following July 1. That means Allen endorsed $6 billion in additional spending when he was governor -- a 40.7 percent increase. But looking at overall spending may be unfair. Slightly more than half of outlays during Allen’s years came from the non-general fund, over which a governor has limited control. The fund consists of earmarked revenues such as college tuition and federal highway grants. A better gauge comes from examining the general fund, which supports public education, health programs and public safety. It’s mostly supported by state income and sales taxes. The general fund was almost $6.8 billion when Allen took office. At the end of his term, he proposed a $9.9 billion general fund budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998. That means Allen endorsed $3.1 billion in additional general fund spending when he was governor -- a 45.6.percent rise. How does Allen square the increase with his claim that he reined in state spending? Allen’s advisers say the claim does not imply that bottom-line spending went down during his term or that the former governor even slowed an historic pattern of general fund budget growth. They say the statement simply means Allen streamlined specific parts of Virginia’s government. They point to his reduction of the workforce, his repeal of many regulations and his successful initiative to reduce welfare rolls by requiring recipients to find work. "When you look at spending, you can’t just look at the bottom line because the economy improved so much when he was governor," said Bill Riggs, Allen’s campaign spokesman. "What you need to do is look at specific reforms." Mike Thomas, Allen’s campaign manager, offered a similar view. "I can’t recall a single time when George Allen said he was going to cut the state budget," he said. "He said he was going to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending." Although 45.6 percent general fund growth under Allen may sound gigantic, in reality, it’s about average for a Virginia governor. The general fund budget has grown by 479 percent over the last 30 years, from almost $2.7 billion in 1981 to almost $15.5 billion this fiscal year. Many factors explain the expansion: population has grown, creating greater revenues and a greater demand for services; Medicaid costs have increased dramatically, often by 10 percent a year; and inflation. Allen tried to slow the growth by proposing a $2.1 billion tax cut in early 1995. The measure was opposed by the business community and defeated by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. After that point, Allen had little choice but to spend the revenues coming in. Thomas noted that a number of general fund expenditures during Allen’s administration did not expand the reach of Virginia’s government. For example: *A settlement with federal employees who were unfairly taxed by the state cost roughly $300 million. *The cost of the state’s mandated share of funding public education rose by more than $1 billion. *Medicaid costs rose by $244 million. *Allen was required to deposit $214 million in the state’s Rainy Day Fund. Thomas also pointed out that in Allen’s final budget proposal, he left a $260 million down payment to help his successor, Republican Jim Gilmore, keep a campaign pledge to phase out the car tax. Allen’s major spending initiative was a $400 million prison building program to keep his campaign promises to abolish parole and lengthen criminal sentencing. Our ruling: Allen takes credit for "reining in state spending" when he was governor. In fact, general fund spending grew by 46.8 percent from the budget Allen inherited when he was inaugurated in January 1994, and the budget he recommended before leaving office in January 1998. Even if you subtract about $1.75 billion in spending increases Allen aides say he was required to authorize, the general fund budget would have increased 20 percent under Allen’s watch. Allen’s advisers says the statement does not imply that the former governor reduced the budget’s bottom line or slowed its historic growth pattern. They say it simply means that Allen streamlined certain programs. Sure, Allen’s attempt to pass an historic tax cut in 1995 was thwarted by rival Democrats who controlled the General Assembly that year. Allen could accurately say he fought to curb spending. But Allen says he reined it in. That creates an impression the bottom line shrank or was stunted in growth. We rate the statement False.	None	George Allen	None	None	None	2011-09-12T09:21:34	2011-08-22	['None']
-pomt-03026	Says "(t)his 12 year council 'Seat-warmer' has never chaired, vice chaired, or led a single Council committee meeting."	/georgia/statements/2013/oct/11/bill-powell/council-candidate-errs-about-incumbents-resume/	An Atlanta City Council hopeful is attempting to raise his own profile by suggesting the incumbent is nowhere to be found at City Hall. Worse yet, she’s done little in her 12 years on the council. "Where’s CARLA? Everyone’s present at City Hall, except CARLA," read a glossy flier by Bill Powell, who’s running for the District 1 seat on the council, currently represented by three-term veteran Carla Smith. Powell criticized Smith’s actions on some issues in the district and included a claim that seemed ripe for a fact check. "This 12 year council ‘Seat-warmer’ has never chaired, vice chaired, or led a single Council committee meeting," Powell’s flier says. PolitiFact Georgia saw the flier earlier this week. The flier makes Smith appear to be a do-nothing councilwoman who needs to go, but the facts tell a vastly different story concerning whether or not she’s ever served as committee chair. The Atlanta City Council has seven committees to review legislation before it goes to a vote before the entire council. The committees typically meet twice a month at City Hall and listen to questions, concerns and criticism from residents about city services and pending legislation. The committees are community development/human resources, finance, public safety, transportation, utilities, zoning and the Committee on Council, which deals with council administrative issues. Each committee has a chair and a vice chair. The positions are appointed by the council’s president and serve throughout a calendar year. Committee chairs hold some power because they can allow or deny legislation to come up for a vote. In short, they’re important positions. Smith was first elected to the council in 2001. Her east Atlanta district includes neighborhoods such as Grant Park, Lakewood and Peoplestown as well as citywide attractions, Zoo Atlanta and the Atlanta Cyclorama & Civil War Museum. She’s seeking a fourth term on the council. Powell, a self-employed transportation consultant, is one of two candidates running against Smith. The third candidate in the race is Robert Welsh, budget manager for the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities. In 2002, Smith said she was vice chair of the council’s transportation committee. In December of that year, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Council President Cathy Woolard appointed Smith to chair the Committee on Council. "I'm thrilled and excited," the AJC quoted Smith in December 2002. "I couldn't be more pleased. I'm going to do the best job I can. It will be a fun committee to chair." Smith held that post for two years, she said. In 2003, Smith was picked to lead a committee that looked into the city’s policy on street name changes, in response to the flurry of paperwork City Hall was receiving to honor civic and political leaders, such as the late Mayor Ivan Allen. In 2006, Smith was chair of the council’s zoning committee. The committee grappled with a temporary ban on some residential construction in four northeast Atlanta neighborhoods. The following year, Smith was chair of the council’s utilities committee, which primarily deals with water and sewer issues. Smith led that committee for three years. Smith was quoted in several AJC articles in her capacity as chairwoman. Clearly, Smith chaired some council committees. So how could Powell’s flier be so off-base? The candidate said he was given inaccurate information from someone at City Hall when he went there to research Smith’s positions. "I was informed that she did not ever chair or vice chair during her 12 years," Powell said in an email. "I find this most disturbing as it was never my intention to mislead the voters on the facts." Powell apologized and said he planned to issue a retraction. Smith, who said she had not heard from Powell, said the flier contained several inaccurate claims about herself as well as Welsh. "He is the candidate," she said. "He should check and double-check all of his information." Powell could have done more research, such as reading Smith’s biography on the City Council’s website. It has information about committees she has chaired. He admitted the error. This claim, obviously, is False.	None	Bill Powell	None	None	None	2013-10-11T06:00:00	2013-10-08	['None']
-pomt-00774	Wisconsin’s attorney general and state treasurer ordered the daughter of Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson not to discuss climate change on state time.	/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/10/next-generation-climate-action-committee/group-says-wisconsin-ordered-daughter-earth-day-fo/	Two weeks before the 45th anniversary of Earth Day, Tia Nelson, executive secretary of the Wisconsin Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, was again the topic of a contentious meeting of the agency’s board. It’s been that way for several months at the obscure public lands agency, which is overseen by three board members -- Attorney General Brad Schimel, state Treasurer Matt Adamczyk, both Republicans, and Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, a Democrat. The 10-employee agency is in charge of managing some of the state's public land and operates a trust that provides funding for school libraries and makes loans to municipalities and school districts. The board has been suggested as a potential source of bonds to help finance a new Milwaukee Bucks arena. Since Adamczyk won election in November 2014, he has raised questions about Nelson’s performance and her background as an environmentalist. He requested years of her phone and travel records and unsuccessfully tried to get her fired at the March 3, 2015 meeting. Schimel and La Follette voted down a motion by Adamczyk to remove Nelson, daughter of Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson. Tia Nelson’s performance came up again at the April 7, 2015 board meeting, and not long after the meeting NextGen Climate, a group that says its aim is to bring "climate change to the forefront of American politics," posted an item on its blog saying Nelson had been muzzled by the public lands board. The group said Nelson had been banned from "engaging in global warming or climate change" work on state time and compared the action to a move in Florida to block state workers from using the term "climate change." Did the board really order Nelson -- and other agency employees -- not to talk about climate change on state time? Some background In 2007-’08, Nelson was tapped by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, to co-chair a state global warming task force. During that time she also held her position at the public lands agency. Not long after the global warming report was issued, Nelson traveled to Washington, D.C., to testify about climate change at a congressional hearing and discussed the report in other settings. Adamczyk has called her task force work theft of the state’s time and also criticized Nelson and La Follette for recently attending a land commissioners’ conference in Phoenix. At the April 7 meeting, Nelson defended herself and said she served on the task force at the request of Doyle. She said she hasn't actively worked on global warming since the task force disbanded. "I have never lobbied on climate change on state time in the entire 10 years I've been at the board of commissioners," she said. After her comments, Adamczyk asked for approval of a resolution to "prohibit staff from engaging in global warming or climate change work while on BCPL time." Adamczyk and Schimel voted in favor, La Follette voted no. We contacted Nelson and she declined to discuss the board’s action -- or climate change. She did note she was going to be on vacation April 22, which is Earth Day, giving a talk about her father at his alma mater, San Jose State University. Our rating The advocacy group NextGen Climate says Nelson, daughter of the founder of Earth Day, is under orders not to discuss global warming on state time. That’s indeed the wording of the resolution approved 2-1 by the agency’s board. We rate the statement True.	None	Next Generation Climate Action Committee	None	None	None	2015-04-10T15:05:15	2015-04-08	['Wisconsin']
-tron-01467	Robert Mueller and Nancy Pelosi Had an Affair for 13 Years	https://www.truthorfiction.com/robert-mueller-and-nancy-pelosi-had-an-affair/	None	government	None	None	['2016 election', 'fbi', 'nancy pelosi']	Robert Mueller and Nancy Pelosi Had an Affair for 13 Years	Dec 5, 2017	None	['Robert_Mueller']
-pomt-08244	"Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme."	/texas/statements/2010/nov/14/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-social-security-ponzi-scheme/	Touring behind his new book, Texas Gov. Rick Perry saluted Texas counties that opted out of the Social Security system and then echoed a Republican talking point likening the federal Social Security system to a deceptive criminal enterprise. On Nov. 8, Perry told host Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that back in 1982, two or three Texas counties happily bowed out of Social Security and are now "going to take care of their people in the future. You can't say that for Social Security. It is indeed a Ponzi scheme." Perry also called Social Security a Ponzi scheme at an Oct. 10 stop in San Antonio, according to a news article in the San Antonio Express-News. He circles the same idea in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington, writing that any proclaimed surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund is illusory because "Washington has already blown the money. You can think of it as an IOU that we're all going to have to pay... this means that our debt will increase all the faster as we pay out more than we take in... Ponzi schemes — like the one that sent Bernard Madoff to prison — are illegal in this country for a reason. They are fraudulent systems designed to take in a lot of money at the front and pay out none in the end... Deceptive accounting has hoodwinked the American public into thinking that Social Security is a retirement system and financially sound, when clearly it is not." Perry also writes that he pictures "an America ascendant" by 2026: "I see an entitlement system that has been totally and honestly revamped... There will be a retirement safety net that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme, but rather will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement." Wondering what Social Security has to do with Ponzi schemes, we found that topic has been well covered, including in fact-checking articles by PolitiFact teams in Wisconsin and Rhode Island. We'll get to those. First, what's a Ponzi scheme? According to an online post by the Social Security Administration, the term originates with Charles Ponzi, a Boston swindler who conned investors out of millions in 1920 by promising returns of up to 100 percent in 90 days on investments in foreign postal coupons. After first-round investors harvested those profits, others flocked to Ponzi, unaware his "profits" consisted of money paid in by other investors. "The reason that this is a scheme and not an investment strategy, is that the geometric progression it depends on is unsustainable," the government post says. "You must continually get more and more new people into the system to pay off the promises to the earlier members." In contrast, the administration says, Social Security is more like a "pay-as-you-go" system transferring payroll tax payments by American workers to American retirees. Its web post closes: "The first modern social insurance program began in Germany in 1889 and has been in continuous operation for more than 100 years. The American Social Security system has been in continuous successful operation since 1935. Charles Ponzi's scheme lasted barely 200 days." We asked Perry for back-up on his Ponzi scheme description. His campaign spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, pointed us to his book, adding in an e-mail: "This year, Social Security is expected to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. Americans today are being forced to pay for a program that they will no longer see any benefit from or return on their investment as it currently stands, similar to a Ponzi scheme." Earlier this year, we quoted the Congressional Budget Office's projection that this year Social Security would deliver more in benefit checks than it's projected to gather in taxes. But we also rated False a statement by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, that Social Security is out of money. In its latest annual report, issued in August, the Trustees of Social Security and Medicare trust funds confirms that tax income is running short of benefits paid. Regardless, the report says, benefit payments will not be exhausted until 2037 because until then the administration can cover the expected difference with investments made via the Social Security trust fund. News and opinion articles gauging Social Security as a Ponzi scheme date back at least to the mid-1990s. In a December 1995 op-ed article for The Washington Post, James K. Glassman (of late, executive director of the George W. Bush Institute at Southern Methodist University) wrote: "Workers think that they are investing for their own accounts, but actually their payroll taxes go straight to current retirees. There's something called a 'trust fund,' but it's small, and it's filled with dubious non-negotiable government bonds, not real assets." In a 1996 article posted on the Slate website, liberal commentator Michael Kinsley agreed that Social Security "is a Ponzi scheme. Payments from later customers finance payouts to earlier customers. The ratio of retirees taking money out to workers putting money in is rising, due to 1) people having fewer children, and 2) people living longer." More recently, Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme, which by definition is both fraudulent and unsustainable. "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff's January 2009 article in Fortune magazine says. "...Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns." Second, he writes, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted. That's when the last people to participate are out of luck; the music stops and there's nowhere to sit. It's true that Social Security faces a huge burden — and a significant, long-term financing problem — in light of retiring Baby Boomers...But Social Security can be, and has been, tweaked and modified to reflect changes in the size of the taxpaying workforce and the number of beneficiaries. It would take great political will, but the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing." Third, his article says, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see "Social") resolved to create a safety net (see "Security") in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers.By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones.That might rankle, but it's not fraud... None of this is to suggest that Social Security is a perfect system or that there aren't sizeable problems facing the incoming administration and Congress. But it's not a Ponzi scheme. And Ponzi himself, who died in a hospital charity ward with only enough money for his burial, would never have recognized it as his own." And how did our sister PolitiFacts sort this out? In September, PolitiFact Wisconsin rated Barely True GOP U.S. Senate candidate Ron Johnson's statement that Washington politicians "run Social Security like a Ponzi scheme." Despite a superficial similarity, Social Security is obligated to pay benefits, a commitment the shysters who run Ponzi schemes do not share. What’s more, participants are aware of how the system is operating. It’s all public. In a Ponzi, investors have no clue where their money is going and are told lies by the promoters. PolitiFact Rhode Island later rated False Republican U.S. House candidate John Loughlin's statement that "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme." Their analysis zeroed in on the lack of an element of deceit to how the 75-year-old Social Security program takes in money and pays it out. We'd add that Social Security is accountable to Congress and the American people while a Ponzi scheme is a crime. We rate Perry's statement False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2010-11-14T06:00:00	2010-11-08	['None']
-pomt-10070	Energy nominee Steven Chu has called coal "his worst nightmare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/18/james-inhofe/chu-said-all-worlds-coal-burned-worst-nightmare/	Steven Chu, Barack Obama's nominee for energy secretary, is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and a director of one of the prestigious national laboratories in the Energy Department. His biography on the Web site of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory describes him as "one of the nation’s foremost and outspoken advocates for scientific solutions to the twin problems of global warming and the need for carbon-neutral renewable sources of energy." But the Senate's foremost skeptic on global warming expressed concern. "Steven Chu has made troubling comments," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. "Chu has unabashedly called coal — which generates over 50 percent of our nation’s electricity — his 'worst nightmare.'" We've never had nightmares about coal or any other fossil fuel, so we wondered whether Chu made the comment and what he meant by it. It is indisputable that Chu called coal his worst nightmare. In fact, you can watch him make the comment during a videotaped talk on YouTube. (He says "Coal is my worst nightmare" at the 28-minute, 16-second mark.) It was part of a long speech he gave on renewable energy, and the video makes it clear he was talking about worldwide coal use. The context was a discussion of global warming, and he was talking about global coal supplies and what it meant for global warming. He was not talking about domestic utilities or energy prices for consumers. At his confirmation hearing, Chu was asked about the "nightmare" comment, and he explained it this way: "I said that in the following context. If the world continues to use coal the way we are using it today, and the world — I mean in particular not only the United States but China, India and Russia — then it is a pretty bad dream. That is to say in China, for example, they have not yet begun to even trap the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides. There's mercury. There's particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide. "But I also say many times in my talks that coal is an abundant resource in the world. Two-thirds of the known coal reserves in the world lie in only four countries: the United States, first and foremost, followed by India, China and Russia. India, China, Russia and the United States, I believe, will not turn their back on coal. "So it is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible. And so for that reason — and I think — again, my optimism as scientist — we will develop those technologies to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that's emitted in coal plants and to safely sequester them. So if confirmed as secretary of energy, I will work very hard to extensively develop these technologies, so that the United States and the rest of the world can use it." We watched the video, and this seems like an accurate description of the context of his remarks. So Inhofe's "nightmare" comment is literally accurate, but it divorces Chu's words of important context. Still, there are aspects of coal that genuinely disturb Chu. We deduct points for that lack of context and find Inhofe's charge Mostly True.	None	James Inhofe	None	None	None	2009-01-18T15:37:04	2008-12-15	['Steven_Chu']
-pomt-14283	Says his campaign has released his past tax returns.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/06/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-has-released-few-tax-returns-compar/	Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took some heat from CNN’s Jake Tapper during an April 3 interview. The topic: The degree of public transparency Sanders has provided for his tax returns. Tapper brought up the topic: "I’m kind of surprised that you haven’t gone further on transparency. You released the summary page of your 2014 tax returns. Hillary Clinton has posted on her website the last eight years of her personal returns, all of the returns. Before the New York primary, will you match her? Will you post your full returns for the last eight years?" Sanders responded, "You know who does our tax returns? My wife does our tax returns. We’ve been a little bit busy lately. So we will get out as much information as we can. There ain’t going to be very much exciting in that. I get a salary from the United States Senate, you know, there’s not going to be anything new in it that people haven’t seen for the last many years, but we will get it out as soon as we can." Tapper wasn’t satisfied. "But nobody has seen them at all, I guess, is the point, and whether or not there’s anything exciting in them...." At this point, Sanders interjected, "No, that is not true. That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past. Our financial situation, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed very much, but we will get out all of that information as soon as we can." How transparent has Sanders been with his tax past returns? Not very, compared with others in the 2016 presidential field. Here’s a closer look. As our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker have noted, Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy, has been collecting publicly available tax returns of presidential candidates and other top officials for its Tax History Project. This archive goes back as far as the 1913 tax returns of future president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Here’s a look at what their current archive of the 2016 candidates looks like: In other words, among the candidates still in the race, Sanders’ releases are less extensive than anybody’s but Donald Trump. (Trump, too, has faced criticism for refusing to share his returns.) And Sanders’ shortcomings are actually bigger than the screenshot above would suggest. The 2014 filings Sanders released consist of just the first two summary pages of his Form 1040 and the equivalent summary pages from his home-state Vermont tax form. Why does this matter? Unlike most of the other candidates, Sanders has not released the succeeding pages -- the nitty gritty detail of things like charitable donations and other types of itemized deductions. For instance, Clinton’s release for tax year 2014 is 44 pages long, or more than 10 times the length of Sanders’ for the same year. It’s worth noting that Sanders, as a member of Congress, files annual financial disclosures, which are accessible online back to 2012. And as a presidential candidate, he also files financial disclosure documents to the Federal Election Commission. But tax returns are much more detailed. And despite what Sanders said in the exchange with Tapper, his campaign did not provide PolitiFact with any earlier, publicly available tax forms. The campaign told the Post that it has not released any other tax returns prior to 2014. (The campaign did tell PolitiFact that they would release his 2015 returns once they are filed.) Tax and disclosure experts we contacted agreed that Sanders’ current disclosures are weak by historical standards. "If I filed the first two pages of my return with the IRS, it would not take long for them to ding me," said Kenneth A. Gross of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and a specialist in political disclosure and ethics. "There is a lot of information on the pages following the cover pages." Joseph J. Thorndike, the Tax Analysts official who heads the Tax History Project, agreed. Sanders "has not, in fact, released his most recent tax return," Thorndike said. "He has released a portion of that return. The IRS would not accept a Form 1040 as a complete return and neither should voters. Also, it’s worth noting that Sanders has not released any portion of his older returns. … If Mitt Romney had tried to release an incomplete return in 2012, the media would never have accepted it." Our ruling Sanders told Tapper that his campaign has released his past tax returns. Sanders said his 2015 return is forthcoming, and he has made other types of disclosures in the past, including congressional and presidential-candidate filings. But his releases of prior-year tax forms -- the specific documents Tapper asked about -- have been limited in several ways. He’s only released information for one year, which pales compared to most other recent presidential candidates, and even that year’s release only includes a summary page, not the full return. We rate his claim False. UPDATE: As he had promised, Sanders released his full 2014 tax return on April 15, 2016. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ba140e0d-4c11-436d-ad29-15e562ba5a98	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-04-06T12:16:54	2016-04-03	['None']
-pomt-08494	On a cap-and-trade plan.	/oregon/statements/2010/oct/09/scott-bruun/scott-bruun-sponsored-cap-and-trade-legislation-tw/	Three years ago, Rep. Scott Bruun, R-West Linn, was the co-sponsor of a bill that would have installed a statewide cap-and-trade system for Oregon electric utilities. The bill had the two major hallmarks of most cap-and-trade legislation, according to Jon Isaacs, the executive director of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters: It set a limit on emissions and then established a system by which companies could trade credits. The bill didn’t go anywhere, but a year later, in an ultimately successful effort to pick up the endorsement of the league, Bruun was happy to highlight his effort and pledged to give cap-and-trade another ago in the 2009 session. In fact, on the league’s endorsement questionnaire he listed it as the first of nine environmental issues he planned to highlight if re-elected to the Oregon House. "Rep. (Ben) Cannon and I were co-sponsors of cap and trade legislation in 2007," he wrote. "I look forward to working hard for this in 2009. I have been studying the issue intensely and am even more convinced of its appropriateness." That answer alone, Isaacs said, was one of the primary reasons why the league ended up supporting Bruun’s reelection to the Oregon House. Two years have passed since then, so what is Bruun saying these days -- you know, now that he’s campaigning for national office? "Cap and trade will cause a major tax increase for everybody in American, and will export millions of United States jobs, and will do nothing to solve the" problem of global warming, he said in February 2010 at a forum in Salem hosted by The 9/12 Project Salem. Alee Lockman, Bruun’s spokeswoman, says the congressional candidate wasn’t happy with the national legislation, which was crafted on a largely partisan basis unlike the Oregon legislation. She also noted in an e-mail that Bruun has had a change of heart in terms of the effectiveness of cap and trade. "Scott has found that the policy is flawed, and ultimately believes that the federal cap-and-trade policy is not effective." It’s clear to PolitiFact Oregon that Bruun’s views on the topic have changed pretty dramatically. We give him a Full Flop.	None	Scott Bruun	None	None	None	2010-10-09T10:23:52	2010-09-22	['None']
-goop-01768	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie Battling Over Money, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-divorce-finalized-money-battle/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie NOT Battling Over Money, Despite Report	7:50 pm, January 21, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt']
-chct-00328	FACT CHECK: Clinton Claims 'Nearly Every Newspaper' Endorsed Her Bid For The Presidency	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/09/12/fact-check-clinton-claims-nearly-every-newspaper-endorsed-her-bid-for-the-presidency/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	5:20 PM 09/12/2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08734	"Congress and President Obama have accumulated more debt since he took office than the total amount of debt accumulated during the first 200 years of the United States existence."	/georgia/statements/2010/sep/01/chip-rogers/rogers-blames-president-obama-3-trillion-debt/	Republicans have portrayed President Barack Obama as a big spender. And though state Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) doesn't politic on the federal level, he's joined the chorus blaming the president for the national debt's growth. In a flier recently received by the AJC's PolitiFact Georgia, Rogers said, "Congress and President Obama have accumulated more debt since he took office than the total amount of debt accumulated during the first 200 years of the United States existence." More than the first 200 years of the country? That sounds like a lot of debt. We decided to check it out. Rogers is running against Democrat Patrick Thompson in November. PolitiFact Georgia discussed Rogers' contention with two federal budget experts: James Horney of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation, which has conservative roots. These groups rarely agree with each other, but these experts do agree that Rogers' comparison doesn't work. "We're not big supporters of President Obama here," Riedl said, "but I do agree that it's not a fair assessment." First, some basics about the national debt. Basically, it's the total debt the country has accumulated over time. If a country spends $5 million more than it takes in for 20 years, its national debt is $100 million. There are two different kinds of that debt. There's the gross national debt, which includes money the government borrows from its own pools of money like the Social Security fund. The White House estimates that debt will be about $13.8 trillion by the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. There's also the national debt held by the public, a figures economists prefer to use.That's the amount the government borrows from individuals, banks, and state, local and foreign governments with the promise of paying them back. It will be about $9.3 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. Economists agree that both debt figures are troubling amounts, but not just because they're such massive amounts of money. It's because the debt held by the public amounts to 63.6percent of the gross domestic product, a figure that represents the value of all goods and services produced in one year within the U.S. economy. That's why when economists think about the size of the national debt, they typically describe it as a percentage of GDP. It tells them more about how much of a problem that debt poses. If a family owes $60,000 but earns $6 million a year, it's not in big trouble. But if it owes $60,000 and makes $60,000, it's got problems. Rogers didn't use this widely accepted approach when he calculated how much the national debt had grown under Obama's watch. Instead, he took the gross national debt from 1989, 200 years after the federal government was formed. This amount was about $2.9 trillion, according to U.S. Treasury Department figures. Then Rogers took the gross national debt for January 2009, when Obama came into office, which was about $10.6 trillion, and subtracted it from projected national debt for fiscal year 2010. He came up with $3 trillion, which is more than 1989's debt. (We came up with slightly more: $3.2 trillion.) $2.9 trillion is less than $3 trillion. Therefore, Congress and President Obama have accumulated more debt since he took office than the total during the first 200 years of the United States existence. Q.E.D.? Not really. Federal budget experts pointed out some big problems with Rogers' approach. First is that 1989 isn't the best year for a comparison if you're trying to figure out Obama's impact on the national debt, Horney said. A lot of debt has accumulated in the generation since then, with help from both sides of the aisle. "It's convenient to cut it off in '89 and ignore what's happened since then," Horney said. Second is that it's not fair to compare the 1989 and 2010 debt totals. Those numbers aren't adjusted for inflation. Furthermore, the comparison doesn't take into account that our current economy is very different than it was 21 years ago. The population has grown, the importance of various industries has shifted, and overall economic conditions have changed. Back then, the economy was growing. Now, we're experiencing our worst downturn since the Great Depression. Third is that it's not fair to blame Obama for budgets that he didn't control, Riedl said. The 2009 budget went into effect Oct. 1, 2008, almost four months before Obama took office. The experts we consulted suggested different approaches. By Riedl's reckoning, for 2009, you can hold Obama responsible for discretionary spending he signed off on after he took office, plus the $220 billion of the stimulus package spent that year. You can also pin the debt for fiscal year 2010 on him as well. This comes to about $2.1 trillion, according to Riedl, which is less than the national debt's dollar amount in 1989. Horney is reluctant to assign a hard number to Obama's debt responsibility. It can vary dramatically based upon what share of responsibility you think he has in Iraq spending, recovery measures and other budget items. Horney has a different approach. From Jan. 16, 2009, the Friday before Obama took office, to Aug. 24, the national debt has grown by about $2.5 trillion, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. That amounts to roughly 17 percent of the country's GDP. That's far less than the debt accumulated by 1989, when the national debt amounted to 40.6percent of the country's GDP. Conservative and liberal experts consulted by PolitiFact Georgia think Rogers took the wrong approach. Riedl called it "kind of an unfair comparison." Horney called it "misleading." Rogers said the statement wasn't designed to be misleading. He looked up the facts to make sure they were correct. "The statement itself, word for word, is factual," Rogers said. While the numbers used by Rogers are generally correct, his calculation doesn't make sense. Rogers ignored critical facts about the economy and national debt that budget analysts of all stripes routinely take into account. Plus, he blamed Obama for debt he had little, if anything, to do with. When those experts performed what they consider a more fair and accurate comparison, neither concluded that the debt Obama ran up is equal to the amount run up by this country during its first 200 years. Both came up with much lower figures. We rate Rogers' statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Chip Rogers	None	None	None	2010-09-01T06:00:00	2010-08-19	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama', 'United_States_Congress']
-pomt-07086	Phil Puckett "voted no on sending the EPA a message that they’ve gone too far not once, but twice."	/virginia/statements/2011/jun/24/republican-party-virginia/virginia-gop-says-phil-puckett-voted-against-sendi/	The Republican Party of Virginia says state Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, D-Russell, is whistling and cheering as President Barack Obama kills the coal industry. The RPV’s attack comes on the heels of warnings from American Electric Power, one of the nation’s largest utilities, that new air quality rules from the Environmental Protection Agency could force the company to shutter as many as 20 coal-fired plants and fire hundreds of employees. That’s added fuel to the fire in coal-rich Southwest Virginia, which is served by Applachian Power, an AEP subsidiary. The state GOP has declared war on the EPA for imposing "job-killing" regulations and is calling Puckett "President Obama’s lead cheerleader in Southwest Virginia." "He talks a good game on his campaign website, but when Southwest Virginia needed Puckett to stand up for coal jobs, Puckett stood up for President Obama," a recent release from the RPV says. "Phil voted NO on sending the EPA a message that they��ve gone too far, not once, but twice." We wondered whether Puckett really did vote twice to back the EPA. To support the claim, the state GOP points to two identical pieces of legislation from this year’s General Assembly session -- one introduced in the House, the other in the Senate. The measures, however, make no mention of the EPA or coal. The GOP release refers to two resolutions calling for a "repeal amendment" that were killed in the Democrat-controlled state Senate. The measures called for a U.S. constitutional amendment that would nullify any federal law or regulation at the vote of two-thirds of all the state legislatures. What does that have to do with coal jobs? Not a lot, other than the fact that if the repeal amendment survived an extremely difficult path to national ratification, then one of the countless regulations two-thirds of the state legislatures could theoretically agree to repeal might be an EPA rule affecting the coal industry. To date, North Dakota has the only state legislature that has endorsed the repeal amendment, according to Raegan Weber, director of public affairs for the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative organization promoting the constitutional change. Garren Shipley, a spokesman for the state GOP, said the intent of the repeal amendment was to alert Washington it is encroaching on states’ rights. That’s different from his party’s claim that the amendment's purpose was "sending the EPA a message that they’ve gone too far" in regulating the coal industry. The next problem is that Puckett technically did not vote against the resolution twice -- or even once. The measure introduced on the Senate side, sponsored by Sen. Ryan T. McDougle, R-Hanover, was killed by a seven-member subcommittee of the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee. Puckett is not a member of the subcommittee and did not participate in its vote. Puckett is a member, however, of the full 15-member Privileges and Elections Committee. Its chairman -- Sen. Janet Howell, D-Fairfax -- declined a procedural request by GOP senators to resurrect the resolution and allow it to be considered by the full committee. When Republicans objected, Puckett voted with other Democrats to uphold Howell’s authority to set the docket. The House version of the resolution, sponsored by Del. James M. LeMunyon, R-Fairfax, was left in the same committee without ever coming up for a vote. Shipley conceded to us that Puckett didn’t cast a single vote directly on the repeal amendment, but insisted the Democrat "did everything he could to prevent it from being brought to the floor." Now, here’s the kicker: Puckett actually sponsored a resolution this year that urged Congress to stop the same type of environmental regulations the state GOP accuses him of supporting. Puckett’s resolution died in the Senate Rules Committee. It would have urged Congress to adopt legislation "prohibiting EPA by any means necessary from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, including if necessary defunding EPA greenhouse gas regulatory activities." The measure also asked for at least a two-year moratorium on new air quality rules. So let’s look back. The state GOP says Puckett betrayed his Southwest Virginia constituents by voting twice against sending the EPA a message that new regulations would harm the coal industry. Here’s the reality: The repeal amendment, which the Republicans use as the basis for the claim, has no direct tie to the EPA or coal. It could just as easily apply to any federal law or regulation in existence, from health care reform to playground safety requirements. Puckett didn’t vote twice against the amendment; he didn’t vote on it at all. Lastly, Puckett actually introduced a resolution seeking to achieve the very goal the GOP accuses him of opposing. This one’s more than a stretch, it’s absurd. Pants on Fire!	None	Republican Party of Virginia	None	None	None	2011-06-24T11:40:16	2011-06-16	['None']
-snes-03107	Klan Folly	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-kkk-cross-burning/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Photograph Show Donald Trump at a KKK Cross Burning?	20 January 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02440	Ben Affleck Drinking At Emmy Awards, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-drinking-emmy-awards-emmys-alcohol-relapse/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ben Affleck NOT Drinking At Emmy Awards, Despite Report	12:43 pm, September 20, 2017	None	['Ben_Affleck', 'Emmy_Award']
-goop-02435	Angelina Jolie “Wasting Away” Over Brad Pitt Rejection, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-wasting-away-brad-pitt-rejection/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie NOT “Wasting Away” Over Brad Pitt Rejection, Despite Report	10:54 am, September 21, 2017	None	['Angelina_Jolie']
-pomt-01147	"My property taxes went down largely because my technical college portion went down 35.5% because of the money we put in at state."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/dec/18/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-hes-got-himself-thank-his-tax-bi/	Christmas cards no longer stuff up mailboxes this time of year, but you can count on receiving one piece of old-fashioned mail: the annual property tax bill. After getting his residential tax bill in December, Gov. Scott Walker took to Twitter to proclaim it was lighter than last year. And to take credit for the reduction. "My property taxes went down largely because my technical college portion went down 35.5% because of the money we put in at state," the governor tweeted Dec. 12, 2014 from his personal account. Walker made tax relief a cornerstone of his first term, signing legislation easing both income taxes and property taxes, among others. In January 2014, we rated Mostly True the governor’s claim that "With the tax controls we already put in place, property taxes on a typical home in December of 2014 will actually be lower than they were in December of 2010." Walker was correct that the "typical" property owner -- a hypothetical individual owning a median-valued home taxed at the average statewide property tax rate -- would have a smaller tax bill than four years earlier. But that doesn’t mean everybody is in the same boat. So let’s take a look at the bill of one flesh-and-blood person -- Walker -- and see if his claim is on target when it comes to the year-to-year change. The governor owns and lives in a $360,000 home on a busy street in suburban Wauwatosa in Milwaukee County. An online database shows his total bill fell $118 or 1.4 percent this year. His total bill: $8,364. Two of the six taxing authorities represented on the bill collected less from the Walkers this year than in 2013: the Wauwatosa School District and the Milwaukee Area Technical College. As Walker tweeted, MATC billed him 35.5% less than last year, a drop of $255 Almost all of that drop is directly attributable to state legislation pushed by Walker and other Republicans who sought to return surplus state funds to taxpayers. Walker signed Wisconsin Act 145 in March 2014, injecting additional state aid into the state’s technical college system. At MATC alone, that unexpected state aid replaced $60 million in funds that would normally have been raised through local property taxes. Consequently, the overall MATC property tax levy for 2015 dropped by 40 percent, according to MATC budget documents. In terms of the school district portion of the tax bill, the governor saw a drop in school taxes of $90, or 3 percent. So the biggest contributor to his lighter tax load, as he claimed, was the technical college portion. And it was, as he claimed, due to actions taken at the state level. A couple notes before we leave you to check your escrow accounts. Walker had less to brag about last year at this time, when his property tax bill jumped more than $1,100. It coincided with the 2013 citywide property revaluation in Wauwatosa. Walker’s property assessment rose 11 percent that year. In fact, Walker is not one of those "typical" taxpayers whose bill is lower now than four years ago. His is up $1,300. Finally, the governor wasn’t alone on his block this year in seeing a dip in his property taxes. Across Wauwatosa, more than 95 percent of property owners saw a decrease. We checked three of his neighbors’ bills. They each fell by $50 to $100. And, in contrast to their famous neighbor, they have seen a decrease in their overall bill from 2010 to 2014. Our rating In a tweet, Walker said: "My property taxes went down largely because my technical college portion went down 35.5% because of the money we put in at state." He’s right. We rate his claim True. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-12-18T08:00:00	2014-12-12	['None']
-snes-00915	Was Ellen DeGeneres Surrounded by Armed Guards at an Anti-Gun Rally?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ellen-degeneres-surrounded-armed-guards-anti-gun-rally/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Was Ellen DeGeneres Surrounded by Armed Guards at an Anti-Gun Rally?	8 March 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08124	There are "10 or 20 deaths a year from foodborne illness" in the United States.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/09/tom-coburn/tom-coburn-says-only-10-20-people-die-annually-foo/	On Nov. 30, 2010, the Senate, by a 73-25 vote, passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, a landmark bill that would expand food-safety regulations. The House had earlier passed a different version, and the two chambers are now trying to reconcile the measures before the congressional session ends. Almost two weeks before the Senate passed its version of the bill, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., made a floor speech critical of the bill. During the Nov. 18 speech, Coburn referred to the number of deaths from foodborne illnesses annually in the United States. "The question is, how do we stop the 10 or 20 deaths a year from foodborne illness? Can we do that?" Coburn asked. "Well, as a physician trained in epidemiology, we could do it. But I will posit we do not have the money to do that because it would take billions upon billions upon billions of additional dollars to ever get there. So we find ourselves in a dilemma." A number of readers wrote us to ask whether Coburn was correct, citing widespread media references to the U.S. experiencing 5,000 foodborne-related deaths a year. So we decided to take a closer look. The 10 to 20 deaths a year originates in a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The summary was published in the August 13, 2010, edition of the CDC publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The study recaps the number of illnesses and deaths caused by the 1,097 reported foodborne outbreaks in 2007, the most recent year available. The paper found that these outbreaks produced 21,244 cases of foodborne illness and 18 deaths. So, federal statistics do show that at least 18 people died from foodborne illness during the most recent year for which statistics are available. But epidemiologists say that statistic is a floor, not a ceiling, since there are several types of foodborne deaths that aren't included in that number. These were merely the deaths related to outbreaks that are officially reported to CDC. And CDC says that most foodborne illness is not associated with outbreaks, and would therefore not be included in these outbreak numbers. A more inclusive way of looking at foodborne deaths comes from the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, or FoodNet. That's a program run by the CDC's Emerging Infections Program that tracks foodborne illnesses in 10 states, based on laboratory results. In 2009, FoodNet found 74 deaths caused by the 10 foodborne germs it tracks. Since the 10 FoodNet states account for about 15 percent of the population, "a reasonable extrapolation would put you close to 500 deaths" nationally, said Craig Hedberg, a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. "These are real deaths associated with confirmed illnesses. This represents a justifiable minimum floor" for the number of foodborne deaths every year. (There may be overlap between official outbreak deaths and FoodNet-reported deaths, so we'll just use the 500 deaths figure from FoodNet on its own.) There's also a second layer of hidden foodborne deaths -- those that slip through the surveillance system and aren't tabulated as foodborne deaths at all. Many people with foodborne illness don’t seek medical care, and, even if they do, they may not see a doctor and have a lab test ordered. All of those steps are needed before FoodNet even hears about their case. The lack of lab testing means that "there is usually no way to know whether (someone) got their infection from contaminated food or from another source," CDC epidemiologist Barbara Mahon told our colleagues at PolitiFact Texas in September. "Only if they are part of an outbreak for which a source is determined -- usually less than 5 percent of cases of Salmonella infection -- would it be possible to know where that particular infection came from. Otherwise, it might or might not have been foodborne." As a result, Mahon said, estimating the true number of Salmonella deaths due to food requires looking at "many different kinds of data from multiple sources and using appropriate statistical techniques to adjust for the various sources of infection and for under-diagnosis and under-reporting." The CDC is currently working on a new estimate -- which is expected to be released soon, a spokeswoman said, -- so for now, the most recent figures come from a 1999 paper. This paper, published by the CDC and authored by a team led by epidemiologist Paul S. Mead, included the following estimate that has been quoted countless times over the last decade -- "76 million illnesses, 323,914 hospitalizations, and 5,194 deaths each year." The numbers look quite specific, but they actually mask quite a bit of uncertainty. In the paper, the authors note that "precise information on food-related deaths is especially difficult to obtain because pathogen-specific surveillance systems rarely collect information on illness outcome, and outcome-specific surveillance systems (e.g., death certificates) grossly underreport many pathogen-specific conditions." So, in order to estimate the number of deaths due to foodborne bacteria, the team calculated the number of deaths among reported bacterial cases, then doubled this figure to account for unreported deaths, and then multiplied by a percentage of infections believed to be attributable to foodborne transmission. This represented a good-faith effort to estimate the number of foodborne deaths, but it still relied on assumptions that could be -- and have been -- challenged by other scientists. At least one other paper published by CDC -- written by Paul D. Frenzen, a U.S. Department of Agriculture demographer -- warned that the estimate was "inherently uncertain." In fact, the real number of deaths, if it could be accurately calculated, might either be higher or lower than the roughly 5,000 cited in Mead's paper. "The estimate of deaths (in the Mead paper) was derived from hospital discharge and death certificate data on deaths attributed to gastroenteritis of unknown cause," Frenzen wrote. "Fatal illnesses due to unknown foodborne agents do not always involve gastroenteritis, and gastroenteritis may not be accurately diagnosed or reported on hospital charts or death certificates. The death estimate consequently omitted deaths from unknown foodborne agents that do not cause gastroenteritis and likely overstated the number of deaths from agents that cause gastoenteritis." Hedberg, of the University of Minnesota, agreed that, while the number of foodborne deaths fluctuates from year to year, the number may well be lower than the 5,000 cited commonly in the media. However, he added, it is certainly at least the 500 suggested by the tracking by FoodNet. "There can be no doubt that the number is much higher than 10 to 20," he said. Other experts agreed. "There is no factual (or imagined) truth to Sen. Coburn's comment," said Michael Osterholm, the former Minnesota state epidemiologist. When we contacted Coburn's office, spokesman John Hart noted that Coburn's broader point was that the frequency of foodborne illness has been decreasing over time. "In 1996, for every 100,000 people in this country, we had 51.2 cases of foodborne illness--the best in the world, by far," Coburn said in the speech. "But, in 2009, we only had 34.8 cases--three times better than anybody else in the world. So the question has to be asked: Why are we doing this now when, in fact, we are on a trendline to markedly decrease it? The second question that should be asked is: No matter how much money we spend, is there a diminishing return?" These are fair questions, but they don't justify Coburn's later use of a lowball estimate of deaths from foodborne illness. We would have given him some credit if he'd said there were 10 to 20 deaths per year from officially declared outbreaks, even though this still would have been misleading since official outbreaks represent a fraction of all cases. We also acknowledge that reasonable scientists can disagree over whether Mead's team made the right assumptions when they made their calculations. But Coburn's estimate also ignored a much more solid number -- the number of deaths estimated through laboratory-confirmed data from FoodNet. By themselves, the confirmed death figures just from FoodNet's 10 states are roughly five times bigger than Coburn's estimate, and the national approximation based on those numbers is 25 times as large. So we rate his statement False.	None	Tom Coburn	None	None	None	2010-12-09T14:01:14	2010-11-18	['United_States']
-vogo-00006	Statement: “Ricardo Flores Takes Our Money. Doesn’t Show Up For Work.” – A campaign mailer sent by Georgette Gomez attacking her opponent in the City Council District 9 race, Ricardo Flores.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/politics/fact-check-ricardo-flores-work-politics-balancing-act/	Analysis: Ricardo Flores is chief of staff to current District 9 Councilwoman Marti Emerald, who is not running for another term. He’s running to replace Emerald and has her endorsement.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Ricardo Flores' Work-Politics Balancing Act	November 1, 2016	None	['Ricardo_Flores_Magón']
-pomt-04134	"Switzerland (where the government) issues every household a gun . . . has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!!!"	/rhode-island/statements/2013/jan/06/facebook-posts/facebook-posting-says-gun-rich-swiss-have-lowest-f/	Gun control advocates say that fewer guns mean less gun crime. But a Dec. 16 posting on Facebook by a group calling itself the Conservatives Club argues exactly the opposite, and uses the example set by Switzerland to prove its point. The portion of the post, titled "A Little Gun History," that is in all capital letters caught our attention. It says, "Switzerland issues every household a gun! Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world!!! It's a no brainer! Don't let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target." We thought the assertion that Switzerland "has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world" was worth checking out. (We’ll also give you some background about Switzerland's policy on issuing guns.) (Coincidentally, on Jan. 2, 2013, while we were working on this item, gun policy in Switzerland made the news after a man who started shooting people on the street left three women dead and two men wounded in the Swiss village of Daillon.) One source of information about guns is GunPolicy.Org, an evidence-based database on firearm safety hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health in Australia and partly co-funded, coincidentally, by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. We ran some comparisons through their database. We're not going to get into the definition of what makes a "civilized" country; instead, we looked at GunPolicy.org’s data on gun homicide rates for 24 countries, mostly in western Europe but also Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. Switzerland's gun homicide rate was anything but "the lowest." It was fourth highest. Only Greece, Ireland and the United States had higher rates. (Switzerland also has the seventh highest suicide rate and the third highest rate of gun-related suicide, according to the GunPolicy.org data. In the latter case, only the United States and Finland had higher rates. Switzerland and Italy were tied for second for the rate of unintentional gun deaths; the United States was number one.) "Guns kept at home are not necessarily dangerous in the streets, but mostly in situations that happen at home, such as suicide and murder of family members (especially females). In this respect, Switzerland has one of the highest proportions in the Western world," said Martin Killias, professor of criminology and criminal law at the University of Zurich Law School. But homicide isn't the only type of gun crime, and the Facebook posting wasn't specific. We wanted to know about all crimes involving a gun. The problem is, "different countries classify crimes totally differently, which makes it difficult to make a broad statement like that," said Philip Alpers, a gun policy researcher at the University of Sydney who runs GunPolicy.org and edits a firearm injury prevention news service. He said the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is the best source because the organization classifies crimes in a consistent way. But that organization's website doesn't report data based on gun use, except when homicide is involved. Nonetheless, we looked at its database on various crime categories such as assault, robbery, and theft, where guns were most likely to be involved, to see whether the crime rate in Switzerland was really that low. It wasn't. Eleven out of 26 countries had lower rates of theft than Switzerland. Thirteen of 26 had lower rates of robbery. Six of 26 had lower rates of assault. So the Swiss can't boast the lowest crime rate, another claim gun advocates make. How much of a role did guns play in such crimes? The best database on that question was developed by the International Crime Victim Survey, begun in 1987 by a group of European criminologists in an attempt to compare crime rates in 31 countries and 32 major cities. The ICVS was designed to standardize results and adjust for the fact that the legal definition of a crime can vary from country to country -- as can the willingness to report a crime. The data are based on surveys of victims. The most recent surveys were done in 2004 and 2005. Once again, when you look at how often guns are used in the commission of a crime, Switzerland doesn't look like the safest place in Europe or other developed countries. Instead of being at the top of the list among the safest of the 31 countries, Switzerland was tied for 12th when it came to the use of a firearm during a robbery. (The United States ranked 30th. Mexico was last.) Switzerland was tied for 25th when it came to the risk of seeing a gun if you're the victim of an assault. (The United States was next to the bottom of the list by that measure as well.) And while only 1 percent of the sexual offenses against women in Switzerland involved a gun, the rate was 0 percent in 22 other countries in the survey. (In the United States, the rate was 5 percent.) In short, the claim about Switzerland seems completely made up. One other point is particularly important here. The description of gun distribution in Switzerland omits important information. The Swiss government doesn't hand out a gun to every household. It requires nearly every able-bodied young male adult to serve in the citizen militia, where they are issued a military rifle. The guns are supposed to be for military use only, not for personal defense. Those men are supposed to show up for 18 weeks of training, followed by seven re-training sessions (each lasting three weeks) over the next 10 years. If you want to keep your weapon after your years of service, it is refitted to scale back its firepower and you need to provide a reason for keeping it. "It's very much like the militia ideal that was embodied in the Second Amendment," said Ladd Everett of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Individuals who own military-style firearms are literally serving the national defense of their country." The ammunition for the weaponry is kept in a government arsenal. (Swiss men used to be able to keep up to 50 rounds at home and the government did a periodic inventory to make sure it wasn't being used, but that changed in 2007 when the country tightened its rules.) Ammunition purchased at shooting ranges -- which are very popular in Switzerland -- is supposed to be used there. Overall, "they have fewer guns per capita than we do and far stricter gun laws in terms of private ownership," Everett said. "If the U.S. ever attempted to implement gun laws like Switzerland's, the NRA would fight it tooth and nail." Our ruling A Facebook posting, which has been shared more than 187,000 times, said, "Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world." But Killias, a Swiss researcher, told us, "The way Switzerland is being depicted in some [accounts] is absurd." To say that the country has the lowest gun related crime rate is not true for homicide, according to the few studies of crime in various countries that includes data on gun use. It's also not true that Switzerland has the lowest crime rate, whether or not guns are involved. And survey data show that when a crime such as robbery or assault is committed, the likelihood of a gun being involved is lower in several countries than it is in Switzerland. In short, this claim appears to be completely fabricated. We rate it Pants on Fire! (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2013-01-06T00:01:00	2012-12-16	['None']
-tron-01822	Scott Walker’s Stance on 20-Week Abortion Bill	https://www.truthorfiction.com/scott-walkers-stance-on-20-week-abortion-bill/	None	health-medical	None	None	None	Scott Walker’s Stance on 20-Week Abortion Bill	Jun 2, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00288	Facebook Surcharge - 1 Per Month From January 2015	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/facebook-surcharge-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Facebook Surcharge Hoax - 1 Per Month From January 2015	October 30, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-01961	"The average age of the minimum wage worker is 35 years old."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/jun/20/erin-lynch/sen-erin-lynch-says-35-average-age-people-earning-/	On Wednesday, the General Assembly passed legislation that would raise the state's minimum wage from $8 per hour to $9 per hour beginning next year. It now awaits the governor's signature. During the debate in the Senate June 11, the chief sponsor, Sen. Erin Lynch, a Warwick Democrat, said, "One of the other pieces of opposition that's always raised relative to minimum wage is that it's mostly teenagers working part time that are making the minimum wage." Critics say "we're putting an onerous policy on small business owners or other business owners," she said. "The reality is that the average age of the minimum wage worker is 35 years old." We wondered: Is the typical minimum wage worker really 35? It turns out that Lynch isn't the first to make that claim. President Obama made the statement during a April 26, 2014, radio address that called for hiking the national minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. When PolitiFact National checked the statement in April, it concluded that it was Mostly False. Here's why. The source of Mr. Obama's statistic was a study from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank that promotes policies to help low- and middle-income workers. But the statistic didn't apply to the current minimum wage, which is $8 in Rhode Island and $7.25 nationally. It applied to people earning less than $11.10 per hour. In other words, the average age of workers making up to $11.10 is 35. After we left a message asking Lynch if she was using additional information, Senate spokesman Greg Pare sent us a three-page infographic from the Rhode Island AFL-CIO that makes the same claim. It cites the misquoted Economic Policy Institute paper as one source. John F. Killoy III, director of communications, mobilization, and research for the union organization, also referred us to a report from the liberal Center for Economic Policy and Research. It also found the average age to be 35, but it looked at people earning as much as $10 per hour which is, once again, well above the state and federal minimums. Those two reports were used, Killoy said, "because there is very little data on minimum wage workers in Rhode Island and national data on minimum wage workers does not give the best picture because the Rhode Island minimum wage has consistently been higher than the federal minimum." In fact, the average age can be a misleading statistic, and choosing it skews the average age of the group receiving the minimum wage. For example, when a bad economy sends more 70- and 80-year-olds to jobs at WalMart, the average age increases dramatically. You can see the skewing in the Center for Economic Policy report, where the average age of a low-wage earner is 34.9 years but 57.8 percent of them are younger than 35. So what's the median age of a worker earning the minimum wage? To quote PolitiFact National, "In reality, the statistics on this specific point are murky. A different study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 71 percent of minimum-wage workers are YOUNGER than 30 -- a starkly different picture of low-wage workers." According to the data on Table 7 of the BLS report, 50 percent of the 3.3 million workers earning minimum wage were age 24 and younger. That would put the median age for people receiving the minimum at or near 24 years old. "But the BLS study has an important limitation," as PolitiFact National noted. "It looked only at workers making exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and below, so it doesn’t include workers from any of the 21 states and the District of Columbia that have enacted higher state minimum wages." In the end, Lynch was relying on an AFL-CIO fact sheet that took data on low-wage workers and mischaracterized it as data on minimum wage workers. That distinction is important. The evidence, including data from the two reports cited by the AFL-CIO, suggests that the actual age of the typical person now earning minimum wage is significantly lower than 35. Clearly a lot of people earning the minimum wage are not teenagers. That's the kernel of truth in Lynch's statement. But she seems so far off, we rate her assertion Mostly False. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Erin Lynch	None	None	None	2014-06-20T00:01:00	2014-06-11	['None']
-pomt-02849	"You've seen where we're now going from a $700 million surplus to getting into the next biennium with almost a $750 million deficit."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/nov/19/mary-burke/mary-burke-says-wisconsin-has-gone-700-million-sur/	In modern politics, Republican strategist Karl Rove is often credited with popularizing the strategy of attacking an opponent’s strength to neutralize a perceived advantage for the other side. Madison Democrat Mary Burke has trotted out the tactic early in her bid to take on Republican Gov. Scott Walker in November 2014. She’s labeled Walker a big spender. Asked by a Madison Capital Times reporter if she supported the $650 million income tax cut signed by Walker in 2013, the former state Commerce secretary said she would have wanted to see whether it put the state budget in a strong position going forward. But she suggested strongly that it didn’t. "You've seen where we're now going from a $700 million surplus to getting into the next biennium with almost a $750 million deficit," Burke said in the interview published Nov. 6, 2013. "I'd love to be able to do tax cuts, but they have to be done in a way that is benefiting the state and is setting us up for fiscal responsibility in the long term." Walker frequently touts his frugal budgeting ways and emphasis on tax cuts. Did he really turn a state surplus red? Yes and no. We’ve tested one of Burke’s numbers before: Walker’s first budget (covering July 2011- June 2013) ended with a cash balance of $759 million, according to an accounting prepared in October 2013 by the nonpartisan budget scorekeeping agency, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The bureau is considered the gold standard for independent budget scorekeeping. It is also what Burke cited when we asked her for backup. Many readers may not be familiar with the second number she cites, the $750 million "deficit." The Fiscal Bureau came up with that figure, too, so Burke mentions two credible figures. But the negative number she mentions is not a concrete figure that compares easily to the hard-cash surplus Burke cites. It’s a rough projection of the amount of tax-collection growth the Legislature and governor will need in mid-2015 to balance the next two-year budget, covering 2015-’17. Legislators use it as an exercise and a benchmarking tool. During budget deliberations, they’ll call Bob Lang, Fiscal Bureau director, and ask how a tax cut -- or a spending increase for a certain program -- would affect the potential size of this budget gap down the road. The estimate is officially known as the "structural deficit," which Burke shorthands as "deficit." It’s rough because Lang doesn’t try to guess how much tax collections might rise or fall, or factor in demand for Medicaid health programs, for example. But, in part due to the tax cuts Burke discussed, it’s true that the structural deficit heading into Walker’s third budget is now estimated at that $725 million figure Burke mentioned. So there’s truth in her overall point. But we won’t have a hard number to compare to the 2013 Walker surplus until 2015. For the record, Walker’s two budgets have recorded the lowest "structural deficits" since Lang started keeping track in 1997. It’s not even close; they ranged from $1.5 billion to $2.9 billion before Walker. His first budget actually wiped out the structural deficit entirely heading into his second budget. We’ve dealt with similar mismatched numbers on the Truth-O-Meter before. We rated Half True a Walker claim that,"The $3.6 billion deficit we inherited has turned into more than a half-billion-dollar surplus." His numbers also checked out individually, and his overall point on the big turnaround from red to black in his first budget is correct. But he mixed different ways to define the size of the turnaround, throwing the numbers off a bit. Our rating Burke said the state is going from a $700 million surplus "to getting into the next biennium with almost a $750 million deficit." Her numbers check out, and she properly identifies a big swing in Walker’s budgeting, but -- like Walker’s similar claim -- there’s a problem because the two numbers aren’t easily compared. We rate her claim Half True.	None	Mary Burke	None	None	None	2013-11-19T05:00:00	2013-11-06	['None']
-pomt-04412	An Army report stated Allen West "performed illegal acts, merited court martial, faced 11 years in prison.'"	/florida/statements/2012/oct/16/patrick-murphy/patrick-murphy-attacks-allen-west-military-investi/	In a television ad, Democrat Patrick Murphy attacked Republican U.S. Rep. Allen West for a much-publicized incident that led to West’s retirement from the Army. The ad shows photos of West in his Army fatigues: "You need the facts about Allen West in 2003," states the narrator, as a manila folder opens. "West was criminally charged with violating the uniform code of military justice, found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault, and relieved of his command. The final Army report: West 'performed illegal acts, merited court martial, faced 11 years in prison.' Allen West. He just isn’t who he says he is." West and political newcomer Murphy have launched character attacks on each other in their battle for Congressional District 18, which spans parts of Florida’s Treasure Coast. We wanted to check if Murphy accurately portrayed the end of West’s two-decade Army career. In a separate fact-check, we evaluated West’s ad that Murphy tried to "hide his drunken assault of a police officer." When West fired in 2003 We first fact-checked claims about West’s military background in 2011, after hearing complimentary comments that radio host Glenn Beck made about West. (Read our earlier report for a longer account.) In 2003, West was serving in Iraq as a lieutenant colonel overseeing an artillery battalion of about 650 soldiers and officers. In early August, soldiers received a tip that West and one of his subordinate battery commanders were to be the subject of an assassination attempt. The informant offered the names of three people involved in the planning of the assassination, including an Iraqi policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi. Hamoodi was apprehended and brought in for questioning. What happened next comes from accounts provided by West and the other soldiers involved in the interrogation through sworn statements they gave during a subsequent military investigation. West joined the interrogation in progress after soldiers were unable to get useful information from Hamoodi. West said soldiers told him Hamoodi was being evasive and belligerent. That's when the interrogation got more physical. Soldiers punched and shoved Hamoodi when he wouldn't answer interrogators' questions. At some point, West sat down across from Hamoodi, took out his 9mm pistol and placed it on his thigh pointing in Hamoodi's direction. "I'm here for a reason," West said, according to a soldier. "You are going to tell me who wants to kill me, or I am going to kill you." Then they took Hamoodi outside and placed his head over a clearing barrel -- a barrel filled with sand where people can unload firearms safely. West showed Hamoodi the gun and told him he had five seconds to talk. "I brought his head down toward the barrel using my left hand to shield him away from any sand or blast," West told investigators. Then West fired into the sand, at least once, maybe three times, inches from Hamoodi's head. Then West fired into the sky. Hamoodi was alive and ready to talk. West headed back to the operations center and let the interrogation conclude. West’s actions drew criticism, but he became a cause celebre among some in the military and conservatives -- and that brought him the fame that would lead to his congressional career. Outcome of military investigation We are going to focus on the part of Murphy’s ad that says, "The final Army report: West ‘performed illegal acts, merited court martial, faced 11 years in prison.’ " We reviewed preliminary investigative reports, including sworn statements by West and other soldiers obtained by the ACLU as part of a torture investigation. (The names in the report are blacked out except on the last page it does name West.) We also read media reports, including two cited in the ad, the Boston Globe and CNN. We also contacted the West campaign and interviewed West’s military defense attorney Neal Puckett, who disputes the ad. Finally, we interviewed military justice attorneys not involved in the case. The ad mentions a "final Army report," but the quotes that follow are from media reports cited in the ad. Our efforts to independently obtain any sort of final Army report were unsuccessful. 'Performed illegal acts' Soon after the incident, the Army launched a criminal investigation into charges of aggravated assault and communicating a threat. A statement from West -- in which he confessed -- and other soldiers were taken in September 2003. The case started as an Article 32, a preliminary hearing required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers," West testified, adding later: "If it's about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." An investigating officer recommended that the case be handled through Article 15/nonjudicial proceedings, which the general commander and West accepted. (Article 15 is a noncriminal process.) The Boston Globe wrote that during a closed-door tribunal in the town of Tikrit, "West was found guilty of three counts of aggravated assault and a single count of communicating a threat. The ruling was issued after West pleaded guilty to misconduct." West’s lawyer Puckett, who did not attend that tribunal, told us in an interview that West "was adjudicated to having committed those offenses -- in a broad sense he was found guilty of those offenses." But what the ad omits is that once the case became an Article 15, it was no longer a criminal proceeding, and that point isn’t in dispute. In December, the commander reprimanded West and fined him $5,000. West then retired. So West "performed illegal acts," but they were resolved through a nonjudicial, or noncriminal punishment. 'Merited court martial' Media reports made it clear that West could have faced a courtmartial but ultimately didn’t. The Boston Globe wrote that the military said West "disobeyed laws, ignored orders . . . and mortgaged future discipline in his unit. Without discipline, there is no trust, no cohesion, and no higher purpose for which we fight." But the military also stated, "while his crimes merit a court-martial, mitigating factors were considered, including the stressful environment . . . and Lieutenant Colonel West's record as an officer and commander." And that’s why the military recommended the Article 15 route. "Frustration and anger overcame his professional ethics and personal values, and he performed what he knew to be illegal and immoral acts," said the statement issued by the Army's Fourth Infantry Division. Article 15 is supposed to be used only for minor offenses, but it can be used for serious offenses including assault, said Eugene Fidell, a who teaches military justice at Yale Law School and previously served as a judge advocate in the U.S. Coast Guard. "You can have a serious case on paper, but because of the way it is handled through nonjudicial punishment, the actual exposure is much less," Fidell said. Though an Article 15 is not a criminal proceeding, "you cannot get an Article 15 because you are a slob. You have to have committed some military crime." The ad says that West "merited" court martial -- it doesn’t say he "was" court martialed, said Murphy’s campaign consultant Eric Johnson. 'Faced 11 years in prison' West’s lawyer Puckett wrote that a military legal adviser (who he doesn’t name) confided in him that the case was never destined for trial, court martial or plans for confining West, however "there was a perceived need to have a public hearing." An officer doesn’t "face" prison, Puckett said, until he or she is courtmartialed, and that never happened. The range of punishments for an Article 15 does not include prison. But Fidell said that while West could not be sent to jail as part of an Article 15 sentence, "Lt. Col. West was certainly ‘facing’ jail when he was charged," he wrote in an email. CNN wrote that the infantry's top general in Tikrit, "could have rejected the recommendation and ordered a court martial. If he were to be found guilty at a court martial of the two articles against him, West could have faced 11 years in prison, a military prosecutor told CNN." Some other news reports we found stated West could have faced eight years. So West could have faced prison time. But the ad omits that once his case entered the Article 15 proceedings, prison was no longer a possibility. Our ruling Murphy’s ad included this sentence: "The final Army report: West ‘performed illegal acts, merited court martial, faced 11 years in prison.' " The ad cites Boston Globe and CNN reports, but it also could leave viewers with the impression that those quotes were pulled from some "final Army report," though the Murphy ad wasn’t directly citing such a report. West did violate military code and confessed to the assault, so the ad is on safe ground when it says West "performed illegal acts." The military concluded that West’s "crimes merit a courtmartial," which could have meant prison time. But the ad fails to explain that the Army found mitigating circumstances and handled West’s case through a noncriminal proceeding that meant he avoided courtmartial and prison was off the table. For the omissions we rate this claim Half True.	None	Patrick Murphy	None	None	None	2012-10-16T19:34:27	2012-10-02	['None']
-pomt-01073	Says he "balanced the budget without raising taxes."	/florida/statements/2015/jan/16/bob-buckhorn/buckhorn-balanced-city-budget-without-raising-taxe/	Ever since Florida’s real estate bubble burst, planning a budget that meets the city’s needs while living within its means has been among Bob Buckhorn’s chief challenges as mayor. For this year, Buckhorn proposed an $876 million budget that included a 2.5 percent raise for city employees and started replenishing city reserves, which he had drawn on to balance his previous budgets. Now, as he seeks a second four-year term, Buckhorn is running a cable television ad that says, "Bob balanced the budget without raising taxes." But did he? Two elements go into property owners’ annual tax bills: the value of their property and the tax rate. The first is assessed by county property appraisers. The second is set by local governments. Multiply the assessment by the tax rate — expressed in mills, with 1 mill equaling $1 in property tax for every $1,000 of assessed, taxable value — and that equals the tax owed. In Tampa, the city has kept the same tax rate — about 5.73 mills, or $5.73 in city taxes for every $1,000 of assessed taxable property value — for eight years. And Buckhorn notes that the city kept that rate even during the recession, when property values plunged, dragging the city’s revenues down with them. City property tax revenues fell from a high of $160 million in 2009 to about $117.4 million in 2013. During that time, Buckhorn said, the city didn’t raise its tax rate to try to capture more revenue. "When we were faced with a drastic decline in revenues, we didn’t raise the rates to compensate," Buckhorn told PolitiFact Florida in an interview in his office on Jan. 13, 2015. "So we’ve been consistent about this, and losing $40 million in revenue out of $160 million took a huge toll on us, but to compensate for that, we didn’t bump it up to raise the like amount. We just did more with less money. We ended up laying off 700 people." In the last two fiscal years, property values have started to rise again, so that the same tax rate now generates more revenue for the city — $123.5 million last year and an expected $132.2 million this year. Buckhorn said there’s been no tax increase because he did not raise the property tax rate. And he said at the existing tax rate it will take years for the city’s property tax revenues to climb back to where they were. "When people think of taxes," he said, the tax rate is "largely what they think about. That's what they react to." But the relationship between tax rates, the value of property and the amount of tax the two generate together has been the focus of Florida’s Truth in Millage (TRIM) law since it was passed in 1980. The TRIM law requires local governments to tell taxpayers what property tax rate would generate the same revenues for the coming year as in the current year. If property values — not including things like new construction and building additions — have risen, then the calculation determines how much officials would have to "roll back" the tax rate to generate the same level of revenue. If they propose a higher rate — including by keeping the rate they already have — then the law requires them to advertise a tax increase. That’s what the city of Tampa has done the last two years. For the city of Tampa's 2013-14 fiscal year, the adopted rate was 4.4 percent higher than the rollback rate. For the 2014-15 fiscal year, the adopted rate was about 5.2 percent higher than the rollback rate. Buckhorn said the additional revenue generated by keeping the same property tax rate instead of lowering it to the rollback rate does not count as raising taxes. "That is a function of the value of the property," Buckhorn said. "It's not a function of the baseline tax (rate) that the city assesses. If I had raised the property tax rate, then I couldn't have made that statement. There's a difference between somebody paying more because the value of their house increases versus the city assessing a higher rate to generate more revenue." That line of thinking, however, was what legislators were trying to push back when they wrote the Truth in Millage law in 1980. "This attempt by local officials to blame rising property taxes on increasing assessments and thereby ‘share’ the responsibility for tax hikes with the property appraisers is precisely the problem the TRIM disclosure provisions seek to resolve," according to a Florida State University Law Review article co-authored by then-House Finance and Taxation Committee chairman Steve Pajcic the year the law was passed. Before then, many taxpayers had focused on appealing their assessments, but with the TRIM law the Legislature was trying "to alert taxpayers to the importance of the millage rate and to encourage them to view it as the factor over which they have the most control," Pajcic and his co-authors wrote. "It is an incorrect statement to say that you haven’t increased taxes if you don’t go back to the roll-back rate, because you have," Benjamin Phipps, a Tallahassee attorney and expert on property taxation who served as counsel to the Florida House of Representatives Tax Committee and the speaker of the House in the 1970s, told PolitiFact Florida on Jan. 14, 2015. Buckhorn’s TV ad says he "balanced the budget without raising taxes." Because the city kept its property tax rate constant even as the total value of property in the city rose, the city has seen its property tax revenues rise the past two fiscal years. And it has been required by state law to advertise a tax increase for both of those years. Tax revenues are still significantly below what they were before the real estate crash. We rate this statement Mostly False.	None	Bob Buckhorn	None	None	None	2015-01-16T17:31:16	2015-01-15	['None']
-snes-05082	Parents should be aware that a code for pedophiles inexplicably showed up on a children's toy at motorsport event Monster Jam.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/code-for-pedophiles-on-toys/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Code for Pedophiles on Toys?	11 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-10366	Obama says his bill "reduced welfare rolls nearly 80 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/barack-obama/welfare-rolls-dropped-but-not-just-because-of-law/	In a new TV ad, Sen. Barack Obama takes credit for reducing welfare rolls in Illinois. The ad begins with photos of Obama after he graduated from college, of a padlocked industrial site and of a working-class neighborhood. "He worked his way through college and Harvard Law ... turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss. Fought for workers' rights." The announcer continues, "He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent ... passed tax cuts for workers ... health care for kids. As president, he'll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America. And never forget the dignity that comes from work." We previously examined Obama's claim that he passed the welfare-to-work law (and gave him a Mostly True), so here we'll examine his new claim that the law reduced welfare rolls by 80 percent. Obama was a state senator in 1997 when Illinois, like other states, was forced to adapt to the federal welfare reform law. Obama became the key Senate Democrat for the bill, working to make sure the Illinois program, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, met the federal guidelines and also had provisions to ease the transition for people leaving the program. Obama played a role in making sure the program had a child care subsidy and was the prime sponsor of another bill that required the state to study the effects of welfare reform. After the main reform law took effect, the number of welfare recipients began dropping sharply, from 167,124 in 1998 to 36,331 in 2006, which represents a 78 percent drop. So the campaign is correct about the size of the decline. But the law was not the sole cause of the decline, according to John Bouman, director of advocacy for the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, who was involved in shaping the bill. Bouman, a supporter and contributor to Obama's campaign, says the law was the main cause of the decline, but he estimates that about one-fourth to one-third of the drop was caused by the administrators of the state program who Bouman says were too hasty in ejecting many people from the program. Bouman called that "a harsh side of it that (Obama) was not an architect of — that was less the on-paper policy and more the administrative practices of the governor at the time." Dan Lewis, a Northwestern University professor who was hired to study the program (and also is an Obama supporter), says it is difficult to estimate what percentage of the decline is due to the bill or other factors such as the approach of state officials. But Lewis said he did not disagree with Bouman's estimate. Gary MacDougal, former chairman of the Illlinois Republican Party and the chairman of the Illinois Governor's Task Force for Human Services Reform, downplays Obama's role in the bill and agreed with Bouman that there were other significant factors in the decline besides the state law. He said the most important factor was the governor's reorganization of state agencies, and he said the booming economy of the 1990s was also "very helpful" in the decline. So the Obama ad is right about the size of the decline, but is reaching too far by taking credit for it. We find this claim Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-06-30T00:00:00	2008-06-30	['None']
-tron-02482	The Hamas Underground Terror Network in Gaza	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hamas-tunnels/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	The Hamas Underground Terror Network in Gaza	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00082	Fake NSW Police Warning - Tracking Devices Placed on Cars	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/nsw-police-tracker-warning-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Fake NSW Police Warning - Tracking Devices Placed on Cars	January 10, 2013	None	['None']
-pose-00339	"Will finish rebuilding the region's criminal justice system so that we do not have to rely on the National Guard to patrol city streets..Will establish a special "COPS for Katrina" program to allow communities impacted by the storm to hire and retain new officers and community prosecutors, develop community-based crime fighting strategies, and rebuild their lost infrastructure... Will strengthen Drug Enforcement Administration efforts to stop the reestablishment of drug gangs across the region...Will help local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies come together to establish an integrated regional crime control partnership so that each police chief and sheriff doesn't have to face these crime problems alone."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/356/establish-special-crime-programs-for-the-new-orlea/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Establish special crime programs for the New Orleans area	2010-01-07T13:26:56	None	['Hurricane_Katrina', 'National_Guard_of_the_United_States', 'Drug_Enforcement_Administration']
-snes-02873	Finger Chop Challenge	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/finger-chop-challenge/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Finger Chop Challenge	27 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02336	"Obamacare will drive 2.5 million Americans out of the workforce."	/florida/statements/2014/mar/25/rick-scott/cbo-report-describes-obamacare-jobs-killer-rick-sc/	Before he was governor, Rick Scott spent millions attacking Obamacare. After he was elected in 2010, he continued to bash Obamacare, and in a new attack ad, his political committee portrays it as a jobs killer. Let’s Get to Work, Scott’s political committee, unveiled the ad March 24, 2014, and it is expected to run statewide starting March 27. The ad repeats snippets of Crist’s March 9 interview on CNN when he called Obamacare "great." Here’s part of the ad script: "Great?" the narrator says. "News reports say 300,000 health plans cancelled. Obama says patients may lose their doctors. The federal government says less work hours for American jobs," the narrator says, as an apparent quote from a February Congressional Budget Office report appears on the screen: "Obamacare will drive 2.5 million Americans out of the workforce." Are 2.5 million Americans being driven out of the workforce due to Obamacare? The CBO report The Republican Party of Florida pointed to the February report by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan fiscal scorekeeper. The report has prompted numerous attacks about the impact of Obamacare and jobs -- the inaccuracies have varied depending upon the wording. This ad states that Obamacare will "drive" 2.5 million Americans out of the workforce, which could leave listeners with the impression that those folks will lose their jobs against their will. But that’s not what the CBO report says. The Florida Republicans quoted this line from the CBO report: "CBO’s updated estimate of the decrease in hours worked translates to a reduction in full-time-equivalent employment of 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024, compared with what would have occurred in the absence of the ACA." Greg Blair, a spokesman for Scott’s re-election campaign, told PolitiFact Florida: "The ad states what the report states – Obamacare will result in fewer work hours for American jobs." The CBO report says that with Obamacare providing greater access to insurance on the individual market and subsidies to help pay for it, some Americans will decide on their own to work less. That’s different from being "driven" out of work, for example due to layoffs or being fired. The CBO estimated that Obamacare would "reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive." This would equal a "decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024," the report continued. "By providing subsidies that decline with rising income and by making some people financially better off, the ACA will create an incentive for some people to work less," the report said. An important distinction in the report is that labor force will reduce by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over the next decade. That doesn’t mean 2.5 million people will leave their jobs or become unemployed. Some people will only cut back a few hours or leave a second part-time job, while others may stop working entirely. Some commentators have expressed concern about having people work less because taxpayer-subsidized insurance is available. Ultimately, it boils down to a tradeoff, Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist, previously told PolitiFact. "Admittedly there are some touchy issues with the government potentially paying or subsidizing the health care costs for people who could work but choose not to," Sinclair said. "But overall I think separating health care from employment, at least making it like any other service where employment may provide the money to pay for it but where we work doesn't determine our choices, is a good thing." Our ruling Scott's TV ad says, "Obamacare will drive 2.5 million Americans out of the workforce." The ad suggests it is an actual quote in a February Congressional Budget Office report, but we didn’t find that quote in the report. The statement relates to a CBO report that says workers who can now receive subsidized insurance will cut back on hours equivalent to about 2.5 million full-time workers by 2024. The ad is misleading because the equivalent of those hours does not translate to 2.5 million actual workers, and by stating they will be driven out of the workforce suggests it’s against their will. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2014-03-25T12:05:14	2014-03-24	['United_States']
-tron-00393	Video Shows High Diving Giraffes	https://www.truthorfiction.com/video-shows-high-diving-giraffes/	None	animals	None	None	None	Video Shows High Diving Giraffes	Feb 17, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-06134	Christmas trees are grown in all 50 States.	/oregon/statements/2011/dec/23/jeff-merkley/do-christmas-trees-really-grow-all-50-states/	Oregonians are lucky in that we don’t have to think about where we get our holiday trees. We are the No. 1 producer of firs, pines and spruce, beating out all other states in providing the scented, festive trees that grace many homes this season. Perhaps in honor of that distinction, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley helped pushed a resolution claiming the first full week of December 2011 as "National Christmas Tree Week." The resolution notes that there are close to 15,000 farms growing Christmas trees in the United States and that there are roughly 100,000 people employed in the real tree industry. The resolution also states that Christmas trees are grown in all 50 states. Apparently, this is a common statistic repeated in Christmas tree fun facts around the country. But we had to think about it. Are there really Christmas tree farms in tropical Hawaii? What about in sunny New Mexico? The claim kind of made sense -- where else would people living in those states get their trees? -- but we had to check. "Well, it's one of those things I ‘know, but can't technically verify,’" said Rick Dungey of the National Christmas Tree Association, a trade group for real farm-grown trees. He directed us to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which conducts a census survey of farms every five years, the most recent in 2007. Oregon led with 6.8 million trees harvested in 2007, out of 17.4 million nationwide. Alaska, Nevada and Wyoming were at the bottom, with zero cut trees harvested. So maybe Oregon’s junior senator had his facts wrong? We called Catherine Howard, publisher of Christmas Trees Magazine, a trade publication for growers. She said she didn’t know whether there are tree farms in all 50 states, but she suspects there may not be many -- or any -- growers in the Dakotas or in Montana. "You never hear about them; they're just not involved," she said. "And, probably, I'm guessing Arizona and New Mexico... it's very hard to grow Christmas trees in the Southwest." So now we’d stumbled upon new states that may lack tree farms, but nothing definite yet. We continued sleuthing. There are several websites where you can find a place in your state to buy fresh cut trees. The National Christmas Tree Association did not list any members in Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota or Alaska. But of course, the sites are not comprehensive. We plugged Alaska into the Christmas Tree Farm Network, and we found Bob Smith -- owner of Bob Smith’s Minnesota Christmas Trees in Anchorage. That’s right. Alaskans have flocked to him since 1962 to buy Balsam firs and Scotch pines from Minnesota. Smith said he didn’t know of any tree farms in Alaska, either, but there may be a small tree farmer he’s missed. Anyway, why are Christmas trees hard to grow in Alaska? It takes a long time, he said. "The ground never gets that warm. They get a lot of daylight in the summer, but they never get that warm." Next, we turned to the dry Southwest where we found several listings for cut holiday trees in Arizona. Mast-Roth Farms looked promising. We found the store online and learned that the family behind Mast-Roth has proudly "been bringing highest-quality Oregon Christmas Trees to the greater Phoenix area for over 30 years." Well, so much for locally grown in Phoenix. But then again, where else are Oregon Christmas trees to go? We’re not expected to consume one third of the country’s cut holiday trees, are we? Finally, we received a call from Alex Minchenkov, public affairs specialist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. He confirmed that as of 2009 there were no cut Christmas tree farms in Wyoming or North Dakota. Utah was near the bottom of the list with two tree farm operations. The numbers, he acknowledged, may not include small-scale farmers. Which brings us to our final point. Even though Merkley’s resolution highlights commercial Christmas tree farms, his statement honors the tree itself. And people in Alaska, Arizona and Nevada can always get a permit and cut their own tree from a forest. Merkley spokesman Jamal Raad points out exactly that: "The resolution says Christmas trees are grown in all 50 states, not that there are Christmas tree farms in all 50 states, which may or may not be true." We could downgrade Merkley for his statement, because we’re not sure there are tree farms in all 50 states, and the resolution emphsizes commercial tree farms. But that would be so Grinch-like. Instead, we rule the statement True. Christmas trees grow in all 50 states, and they bring a lot of joy to families in the United States. Return to OregonLive to comment.	None	Jeff Merkley	None	None	None	2011-12-23T15:09:20	2011-11-30	['None']
-vees-00210	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: US a willing mediator NOT meddler in PH-Kuwait row	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-us-willing-mediator-not-meddler-ph-kuw	None	None	None	None	fake news	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: US a willing mediator NOT meddler in PH-Kuwait row	May 10, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-09105	"Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/21/snooki/snooki-says-obama-put-10-percent-tax-tannning/	In a video promo for the new season of MTV's Jersey Shore, Snooki gets all, like, political. "I don't go tanning-tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning," Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi says after her boyfriend is shown spray-tanning her face. "And I feel like he did that intentionally for us." "McCain would have never put a 10 percent tax on tanning," she said, adding, "because he's pale, so he'd probably want to be tan." McCain entered the discourse via Twitter: "Snooki, u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama's tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!" We should hope so. McCain has a history of battling skin cancer. But let's get to the facts. Did President Barack Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning? On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka the health care bill) into law. And Chapter 49, SEC. 5000B makes this all very clear: "There is hereby imposed on any indoor tanning service a tax equal to 10 percent of the amount paid for such service." We were pretty sure Snooki was kidding about Obama passing that provision specifically to stymie the Jersey Shore crew. But it turns out that the president had mentioned her by name on May 2, 2010, and said she'd be exempt: "This next provision is called the Jersey Shore-Up," Obama said. "It reads: 'The following individuals shall be excluded from the indoor tanning tax within this bill: Snooki, J-WOWW, the Situation, and House Minority Leader John Boehner.'" ("The Situation" and "JWOWW" are other members of the Jersey Shore cast.) Alas, Obama's comment was made during the White House Correspondents Association Dinner. In other words, it was a joke. (Yes, it scares us too that Obama and McCain are so familiar with Jersey Shore.) If we really wanted to pick a fight with Snooki, we could take issue with her saying it was a tax on tanning. There's no fee on sunshine, just indoor tanning. Or that it's Obama's tax. There's no indication an indoor tanning tax was Obama's idea. It was proposed by Senate Democrats in December as an alternative to a proposed tax on cosmetic surgery. The cosmetic surgery lobby (funded by plastic surgeons) apparently held more sway than the indoor tanning lobby. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation projected the tax will raise $2.7 billion over 10 years to help offset the cost of expanding medical coverage. Legislators said they also hoped it might discourage teens from indoor tanning, as some studies suggest it is linked to higher risk of cancer. The bill was passed by Congress, but Obama signed it, so we think Snooki's assigning the tax to Obama is fair. One other small point. The indoor tanning tax goes into effect on July 1, 2010. So when Snooki made her comment, she still could've gotten her tan on sans Uncle Sam's extra reach. But we're assuming Snooki isn't so much worried about the money as the principle. We rate her comment friggin' True.	None	Snooki	None	None	None	2010-06-21T12:15:21	2010-06-07	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-14304	Expanding the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery stores is "good for everybody."	/colorado/statements/2016/apr/01/your-choice-colorado/ad-says-beer-and-wine-grocery-stores-good-everybod/	The feel-good TV ad featuring images of Colorado outdoor adventurers and happy people holding beers bottles declares it's time to "give Coloradans what they want — real craft beer at grocery stores." The political ad is sponsored by King Soopers, Walmart and Safeway, big chains that are backing a Colorado ballot measure to allow grocery and big box stores to sell full-strength beer and wine. The campaign operates under the group Your Choice Colorado. The ad features Chris Phelps, co-owner of Saint Patrick’s Brewing Company, who says if the proposal becomes reality, "People have more access to it (craft beer), the breweries have more access to the people, and it's good for everybody." That heady assessment is hotly contested by opponents, who say the ballot measure would hurt craft breweries and wineries because big grocery chains would just offer the better-known craft brands. They also warn it would cause the demise of hundreds of liquor stores, a crucial marketplace for craft brewers and wineries. We decided to examine the ad's claim that expanding the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery and big box stores will be "good for everybody." Brewhaha years in the making The brewing debate highlights a contradictory quirk about Colorado, where marijuana chain stores are legal but state law prohibits chain stores that sell alcohol. This in a state whose craft brewery industry nationally ranks first for state economic contribution per capita, second in the average amount of beer consumed by drinking-age adults (13.6 gallons annually), and third in barrels of craft beer produced (1.7 million annually). Under current state law, a grocery store chain can only have one licensed location that sells full-strength beer, wine and liquor. The one-location-per-license limit also applies to liquor stores. Otherwise, the state restricts grocery and convenience stores to selling beer that contains just 3.2 percent alcohol. Colorado is one of five states in the country that have the 3.2 percent beer restriction. (The others are Utah, Kansas, Minnesota and Oklahoma). Colorado's liquors restrictions date back more than 80 years ago to the end of Prohibition, the nation's 13-year ban on booze. Colorado liquor stores have a near-monopoly on the sale of beer, wine and hard liquor — except for the one liquor store outlet each grocery store chain can operate. Grocery store-funded study: Everybody wins! Your Choice Colorado argues modernizing the state’s "antiquated" alcohol laws will save consumers time and money, create about 200 new grocery stores, add an estimated 22,000 new jobs and boost craft beer sales by $125 million. This analysis comes from a study by a University of Denver economist funded by King Soopers, Walmart and Safeway. You can imagine why the opposing campaign, Keep Colorado Local, an alliance of liquor stores, craft breweries, wineries and the Colorado Restaurant Association, questions the findings right off the bat. Allowing full-strength beer and wine sales at grocery and big box stores will cut the prices Coloradans pay by 18 percent through increased competition, the study said. "Alcohol restrictions act like a tax on Colorado consumers, by contributing to significantly higher alcohol prices and limiting consumer choice," said the study’s author, Jack Strauss, the DU economics professor. Strauss calls the state’s liquor stores a "protected class," because they don’t face competitive pressure to lower prices and have a comparatively low business failure rate. But the economist said the law is also bad for craft-beer brewers, because their products are denied access to a wider marketplace. Passage of the ballot measure would bring tens of millions in sales to medium- to large-sized craft brewers, Strauss said, and smaller brewers could do well if they have a good product and "get lucky" by gaining access to the big retail stores. Small brewers, however, should continue to find a "specialty" product niche in liquor stores, he added. Strauss said his conclusions are supported by sales data from Washington state and Oregon, big craft-brewing states where full-strength beer and wine are sold in grocery and big box stores. He said Safeway and Kroger’s sales of local craft beer in Oregon and Washington are well over $100 million annually. Meanwhile, liquor store sales in Portland and Seattle have more sales per capita of 55 percent and 14 percent, respectively, than Denver liquor stores, Strauss said. In Colorado, he noted that liquor stores appear to be thriving near grocery and big-box stores that have their chain’s allotted one liquor-store location. He counted about 75 liquor stores near the King Soopers and Target stores that sell alcohol in Glendale and 35 liquor stores near the Safeway that sells alcohol in Littleton. Still, Strauss acknowledges there’s a possibility of "some small liquor stores potentially going under." Opponents say the big chain stores got what they paid for in the DU economist’s study. "The notion that liquor stores adjacent to a grocery store would stay in business is something that must have been authored in the creative writing department," said Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for the opposing campaign’s alliance, Keep Colorado Local. Opponent-funded study: Liquor stores will be decimated Opponents cite a 2011 study by Summit Economics on the potential impacts of allowing full-strength beer to be sold Colorado grocery and convenience stores. The study was funded by the Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and other groups representing independent liquor stores. The study said that full-strength beer legislation, which was being considered by state lawmakers at the time, would devastate mom-and-pop liquors stores. The study predicted that if the full-strength beer proposal became law, within five years: • 700 independent liquor stores -- 42 percent of the state’s 1,650 total liquor stores -- would close. • 10,000 jobs would be lost, including liquor store workers and the rippling impact across the economy. • $240 million in annual wages would be lost. There are 311 licensed craft breweries in the state and more than 50 breweries oppose the ballot measure to allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores. They say the loss of liquor stores would harm brewers, too. "Liquor law in Colorado encourages breweries to grow like nowhere else and have made us the envy of the rest of the country," said John Carlson, executive director of the Colorado Brewers Guild. "Craft brewers are able to get their beer on the shelves of local liquor stores quickly and easily because they have the cooler space and the staff of local stores are their friends and neighbors who are invested in the community’s success. Colorado brewers enhance and grow the local economy." Yet, a 2009 study for the state legislature concluded the evidence from Colorado and other states shows that allowing full-strength beer sales in grocery and convenience stores would not cause "the widespread closings of liquor stores predicted by opponents." The study was for a proposed bill that ultimately failed. Independent economists: Lower prices, negative impact on liquor stores Independent economists we consulted agree that increased competition should lead to lower prices. But they also say it will hurt the liquor stores. "We find that prices are indeed lower in states where alcohol is sold in grocery stores," said Marco Costanigro, an associate professor of economics at Colorado State University who co-authored a 2013 study, Economic and Social Implications of Regulating Alcohol in Grocery Stores. "I am pretty positive that the lower prices can be ascribed to increased competition and the cost-savings that larger distributors can achieve thanks to economies of scale," Costanigro added. Martin Shields, another CSU economist, said that while allowing full-strength beer and wine in grocery stories will likely give consumers lower prices and convenient one-stop shopping, it "will likely significantly hurt liquor stores." Research shows the potential economic winners -- and losers -- of loosening restrictive alcohol laws. In a 2012 study, Cornell University economist Bradley J. Rickard did a simulation model to assess the likely economic effects of allowing wine sales at grocery stores in New York state. Despite a poll showing that 58 percent of New York state residents support allowing wine to be sold in grocery stores, legislative efforts to make it happen have failed over 50 years. Rickard's analysis found that, if grocers could sell wine, state tax revenue would increase by $22 million annually and revenue for state wineries would grow about 13 percent. But introducing wine in grocery stores would have "negative consequences" for liquor stores, whose revenues were calculated to fall by 28 percent, the study said. Our ruling A Your Choice Colorado ad says a ballot measure to expand the sale of full-strength beer and wine to grocery and big box stores will be "good for everybody." The economic impact study funded by large grocery retailers said the proposal would save consumers time and money, create about 200 more grocery stores, add 22,000 new jobs and boost craft beer sales by $125 million. Opponents forecast precisely the opposite effect, saying it would close 700 liquor stores, cause the loss of 10,000 jobs, and hurt craft breweries and wineries. Independent economists say the proposal would increase competition, giving consumers lower prices and convenient one-stop shopping. But they acknowledge that liquor stories will be negatively impacted. The ad makes a fair point about consumer benefits but goes too far in saying the measure works out for all sides. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Your Choice Colorado	None	None	None	2016-04-01T16:52:24	2016-03-16	['None']
-snes-03890	A man wearing a clown costume was shot in Fort Wayne, Indiana.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-dressed-as-clown-shot/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Man Dressed as Clown Shot; Condition Critical	3 October 2016	None	['Fort_Wayne,_Indiana', 'Indiana']
-pomt-11776	"Close to half of the voters in America, the only tax they pay is the payroll tax."	/florida/statements/2017/nov/28/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-wrongly-says-close-half-voters-america/	Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has worked to persuade Republican leaders to expand the child tax credit so the tax overhaul benefits more working families. To do this, Rubio said he wants to make the credit refundable against payroll taxes. The Republican tax framework proposes increasing the credit from the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out, but does not include plans to make it refundable against payroll taxes. This means it only affects families with a federal income tax liability, but a good chunk of people don’t pay income taxes because the tax code exempts them. "We have to make (the child tax credit) refundable against the payroll tax," Rubio said in a Nov. 26 sit-down with CBS4’s Jim DeFede. "Close to half of the voters in America, the only tax they pay is the payroll tax." Experts have told us that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan greatly depends on what happens to the child tax credit. But we wondered about Rubio’s point about payroll taxes. (He said "voters," but we’ll focus on the available data for households.) Rubio’s exact point is a stretch, but experts said he "has the spirit of the situation right." "If the senator was trying to emphasize the widespread burden of the payroll tax as a larger component of most families’ tax burdens, he is right about that," said Adam Looney, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Differences between payroll, income taxes For the most part, payroll taxes are one of two things: deductions from an employee’s paycheck, and taxes paid by the employer based on the employee's earnings. The payroll tax is a big money generator for the government and is used for social programs, such as Medicare and Social Security. We were not able to identify an exact percentage of Americans (or voters) who only pay the payroll tax, and Rubio’s office didn’t provide any evidence to back his specific claim. We did find one estimate from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center relating to Americans that pay taxes on their income. The center estimated that 44 percent of households paid no federal income tax in 2016. In a subsequent report using the same estimates, the center said about 60 percent of people who paid no income tax still worked and owed payroll taxes. Based on the center’s estimates, this means about a quarter of all households pay payroll taxes, but not income taxes. That’s half as large as what Rubio said. So where does Rubio’s factoid come from? Rubio spokeswoman Olivia Perez-Cubas pointed to research from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation that shows the vast majority of workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do income taxes. (The data behind the analysis came from the Tax Policy Center and the Congressional Budget Office.) Specifically, it found that about 80 percent of American taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than in individual income taxes. (Keep in mind, though, that the bottom 40 percent of earners pay no individual income tax.) Len Burman, a Tax Policy Center fellow, said that 76 percent of taxpayers in 2017 owe more payroll taxes than income taxes if you include the employer portion of the tax. If you only consider the employee portion of the payroll tax, Burman said, 54 percent of households owe more payroll tax than income tax. Looney also mentioned estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which found that for 65 percent of taxpayers, the payroll tax represents the largest component of their total tax burden. "The correct observation is that for most people who pay taxes, their payroll tax payments (counting their employers’ payments as their own, which accords with economic theory) are greater than their income tax payments," said Henry Aaron, a Brookings Institution economist. It’s worth remembering that people pay a lot of other taxes besides income and payroll taxes that contribute to their overall burden to Uncle Sam — there are federal and state excise taxes, state and local sales taxes, and local property taxes. "Rubio is trying to make a reasonable point that many people try to make, but in doing so, (he) forgets that poor people pay more than just payroll and income taxes," said Joseph J. Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project at the group Tax Analysts. Our ruling Rubio said, "Close to half of the voters in America, the only tax they pay is the payroll tax." Rubio garbled the specific percentage, as the closest estimate we could find shows that about one-quarter of all households in 2016 paid the payroll tax but not the income tax. However, experts said that the point Rubio was trying to make — that for most people, the burden of the payroll tax exceeds that of the income tax — is correct. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2017-11-28T17:20:14	2017-11-26	['United_States']
-pomt-02296	"Charlie Crist signed into law an automatic 15 percent annual tuition increase that put college further out of reach for many Floridians."	/florida/statements/2014/apr/03/rick-scott/charlie-crist-signed-automatic-15-percent-annual-t/	As the gubernatorial campaign season gears up, Gov. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist are trading shots over their records on education spending, with each accusing the other of making bad decisions. One such series of volleys has been over college tuition. "While Gov. Scott is fighting to keep college tuition low and has challenged all state colleges to offer $10,000 degrees to make college more affordable for Florida families, Charlie Crist signed into law an automatic 15 percent annual tuition increase that put college further out of reach for many Floridians," a campaign email to the media said on March 26, 2014. It preceded a Scott visit to Jefferson High School in Tampa, where Scott met with students to discuss college costs. We wanted to see whether Crist approved automatic 15 percent tuition increases. High cost of learning Back in 2009, Sen. Ken Pruitt, R-Fort Pierce, sponsored a bill to increase tuition at all 11 state universities by up to 15 percent a year, an idea Crist supported. It was an extension of a plan approved by the Legislature in 2007 that allowed the largest state research universities to charge an annual increase up to 15 percent. (Prior that, the Legislature set undergraduate tutition with no cap, while the Board of Governors set graduate and out-of-state rates, not to exceed 15 percent over the previous year.) The plan, known as tuition differential, allows universities to raise undergraduate tuition beyond any legislative base tuition hike as long as the total increase does not exceed 15 percent each year. The universities may keep raising tuition until reaching the national average, which for 2012-13 was $8,893. The Legislature approved the measure during the 2009 session. Crist signed both the budget and the differential law, which went into effect that year. Prior to the announcement, Crist had been an opponent of hiking tuition, vetoing a 5 percent tuition increase in 2007 and opposing a plan for higher rates at some universities. The argument for the increase was that Florida universities needed to raise tuition in order to pay for need-based scholarships, keep top professors and be competitive with other states -- Florida public universities were 45th in tuition costs in 2011 (the state was 43rd last year, according to the College Board). Some university officials have since complained that decreased post-secondary education funding from the Legislature has necessitated the need for massive tuition increases. There are a couple of inaccuracies in the way Scott’s campaign worded its claim. First, the increase is not automatic. The Legislature sets base tuition each year. If the state budget doesn’t provide a base increase, tuition goes up at the rate of inflation. Individual universities then may ask the Florida Board of Governors for another increase, known as the tuition differential. The base increase by the Legislature and the differential, if approved by the board, can total no more than 15 percent. It can be less, and has been several times since the 2009 law was passed. The final increase takes effect in the fall term of the year it is approved. Lawmakers approved an 8 percent increase in 2009. The Board of Governors followed with a 7 percent differential increase, bringing the total to 15 percent. The Legislature and the board repeated the numbers in 2010 and 2011 -- 8 percent from Tallahassee, 7 percent from the board. But in 2012, the Legislature did not set a base tuition increase. Instead of asking for the maximum allowable amount from the board, universities asked for a wide range of differential hikes. This was done in part to protest the continued cuts in state funding to universities. The following year, Scott vetoed a 3 percent increase from the Legislature, and the Board of Governors voted to prevent universities to even raise fees, though students supported some of the hikes. Tuition statewide increased by an inflation-based 1.7 percent, which Scott had opposed. The governor appoints the Board of Governors and is allowed to voice his opinion in regards to the potential increase. When we contacted Scott’s campaign, spokesman Greg Blair took responsibility for the remark, and admitted it was not worded correctly. "It’s not automatic in the sense that it happens year over year no matter what," he told PolitiFact Florida. "However, it did take the increase out of the hands of the Legislature and the governor and allowed every school in Florida to raise tuition by 15 percent." Our ruling Scott’s campaign said in an email to reporters, "Charlie Crist signed into law an automatic 15 percent annual tuition increase." It’s true that Crist did sign a law allowing tuition increases, but they were neither automatic nor always 15 percent. The legislation allowed the Board of Governors to supplement whatever increase lawmakers provided in the state budget by increasing tuition up to a total of 15 percent. While the tuition differential was used to its fullest extent for several years, a Board of Governors vote was required each year. The governor has no say over what the board decides, but does pick the members. The amount by which the board has voted to change tuition has varied the past two years. The statement is partially accurate, but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2014-04-03T10:00:00	2014-03-26	['Charlie_Crist']
-tron-02552	Glass bottom sky walk at the Grand Canyon	https://www.truthorfiction.com/skywalk/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Glass bottom sky walk at the Grand Canyon	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00060	One of Senator Dianne Feinstein's staffers in California was a spy who reported sensitive information to Chinese contacts.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feinstein-chinese-spy/	None	Politics	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Did Senator Dianne Feinstein Employ a Chinese Spy?	20 September 2018	None	['California', 'Dianne_Feinstein', 'China']
-snes-01881	Maxine Waters said she fears that Donald Trump would lead the United States into a war, if North Korea launched a nuclear attack.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/maxine-waters-north-korea/	None	Questionable Quotes	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Maxine Waters Fears a Trump-led War After Nuclear Attack by North Korea?	18 August 2017	None	['United_States', 'North_Korea', 'Maxine_Waters', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-09226	Elena Kagan is "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/14/michael-savage/michael-savage-says-kagan-marxist/	You write your senior thesis on socialism, it's bound to come up if you want to become a Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan did. And it has. "Now the empty skirts in the media are saying that she doesn't have much of a 'paper trail' that would reveal her views on issues," said conservative radio commentator Michael Savage, "but her senior thesis at Princeton was entitled, 'To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933.' She's a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through." The question is not whether Kagan wrote the paper. It's available to anyone who's willing to pay the Princeton University Library $54.60 to read it. The question is whether the thesis reveals Kagan to be "a New York City radical, Marxist lawyer through and through." We paid our $54.60, and read the 153-page senior thesis submitted by Kagan in April 1981. And we can say for sure that nowhere in the paper did Kagan say that she is a socialist. In fact, while Kagan offers strong opinions about various theories of the decline of the socialist party, she does not give her opinions about the party's political ideas. The closest we get to an insight into why Kagan selected that topic is in the acknowledgements at the start of the paper, where she wrote, "Finally, I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas." The rest of the paper is an examination of why the socialist party never took off. Kagan focused on the socialist party in New York City as a microcosm of the national movement, and sought to answer the central question, "What caused the strange death of socialism in New York City?" And, she concludes, "The socialists' failure to maintain their momentum grew from their failure ever to achieve internal harmony." We put a call in to Savage's people at World Net Daily to see if there was some other evidence to support the "Marxist" claim other than Kagan's college thesis, and we got no reply. So we're left with the thesis. Here are the parts of it that have given some people pause (they're from the paper's conclusion): "In our times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism's glories than of socialism's greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation's established parties?" And this is the final paragraph: "Through its own internal feuding, then, the (Socialist Party) exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than a half century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one's fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope." Does this amount to Kagan showing political leanings toward socialism? Not according to Sean Wilentz, the Princeton history professor who advised Kagan on her senior thesis. "She was interested in it," Wilentz told the New York Times. "To study something is not to endorse it." According to a May 1, 2010, story on Kagan in the Daily Princetonian, "Wilentz defended Kagan against her critics, noting that she was adept at removing her personal beliefs from her academic research on labor and radical history. "Sympathy for the movement of people who were trying to better their lives isn't something to look down on," Wilentz told the Princetonian. "Studying something doesn't necessarily mean that you endorse it. It means you're into it. That's what historians do." And just to be even more clear, Wilentz said, "Elena Kagan is about the furthest thing from a socialist. Period. And always had been. Period." Indeed, in an interview with the student paper, Steven Bernstein, a classmate who appointed Kagan to the school paper, described her politics as "progressive and thoughtful but well within the mainstream of the ... sort of liberal, democratic, progressive tradition, and everything with lower case." In her later, professional career, Kagan aligned herself with the Democratic Party. In 1988, she was a staff member on Gov. Mike Dukakis' presidential campaign. She later served as associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, and went on to act as Clinton's deputy assistant for domestic policy. And, of course, she was nominated by President Barack Obama to serve as solicitor general last year. Yet there's nothing in her record that suggests she's a Marxist, as Savage claimed. Yes, she wrote a paper about socialism in college. But she never said in the thesis that she subscribed to the political ideas of socialism. In fact, she mostly adopts the dispassionate tone of a historian. And there's certainly nothing in the public record to suggest she has since become one. Writing a history thesis about socialism doesn't amount to endorsing it. So once again, we have a political commentator attacking someone as a "Marxist" with absolutely no evidence to back it up. That's not just false, it's irresponsibly so. Pants on Fire!	None	Michael Savage	None	None	None	2010-05-14T16:41:59	2010-05-10	['New_York_City', 'Elena_Kagan', 'Marxism']
-pomt-09541	"The law is very clear! 'The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the treasury for the reduction of the public debt.'"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/05/judd-gregg/gregg-claims-tarp-money-must-be-used-pay-down-defi/	President Barack Obama has proposed a boost for small businesses, but Sen. Judd Gregg isn't hot on the idea. In a hearing about the administration's latest budget, Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, criticized the White House for proposing to use funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, an initiative originally intended to keep the banking system from collapsing, to help community banks lend to small businesses. Gregg said it violates TARP rules. "The whole concept of the TARP was that as we recoup the money ... and as we recoup that money, we would use it to pay down the debt," Gregg said, responding to Obama's Feb. 2, 2010, proposal to transfer $30 billion from TARP to a new program that will support small business lending. "Now that's not going to happen. ... It's become a piggy bank. ... The law is very clear! 'The monies recouped from the TARP shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for the reduction of the public debt.'" Peter Orszag, Obama's budget chief, defended the proposal. "The degree to which shifting funds would add to our debt or deficits depends on what the net subsidy rate would be on that new activity," he told Gregg. "And remember, the purpose of TARP was to address problems in our financial markets ... and it has been remarkably successful in bringing credit spreads back down to normal levels. One of the lingering problems in our financial markets, however, is access to credit for small businesses." Late in 2009, Obama ran into similar criticism from Republican lawmakers after he announced that he wanted to use unspent TARP money for tax breaks for small businesses and investments in infrastructure projects, among other things. Then, U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said, "To use money from the TARP fund in the manner that is being discussed by the White House and congressional Democrats would be a violation of the law, and it would betray the trust of the American people." We found Pence's claim to be Half True. On one hand, the TARP legislation is quite clear: Section 106, Part D of the TARP legislation: "Revenues of, and proceeds from the sale of troubled assets purchased under this Act, or from the sale, exercise, or surrender of warrants or senior debt instruments acquired under section 113 shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." But we also talked with budget experts who said that Congress could get around those rules in a number of ways. For example, Congress could rescind the TARP money and then, in a separate action, use it to pay other expenses, said Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Congress can of course vote to spend new money on anything it wants," Dean Baker, an economist and co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, told us in December. In Gregg's case, though, he's strictly talking about what the law says, that TARP money cannot be used for anything other than deficit reduction. He's right and we find his claim True.	None	Judd Gregg	None	None	None	2010-02-05T18:31:24	2010-02-02	['None']
-pomt-07365	"I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/may/06/herb-kohl/sen-herb-kohl-says-hes-never-done-any-negative-cam/	Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsin’s Herb Kohl hasn’t announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012. But as Republicans step up their criticism of him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign. Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohl’s department and grocery store chains. In remarks to reporters in Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of today’s campaigns. He said "people don’t like anybody in public life" because of "venomous" attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in "hardly at all." Then he got specific: "I’ve been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I don’t get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But that’s just my style." So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning? That’s quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out. Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates’ strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohl’s campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter. Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns’ conduct, so we’ll limit our review to that. One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes "negative" campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim. "Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what he’s done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them," Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. "He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office." Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl. "He never did anything negative in his campaign. He’ll have the job as long as he wants the job," said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000. "Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner," said Robert Lorge, Kohl’s 2006 rival. Fair enough. Those were landslide wins. What about the earlier contests? 1988: Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. He frustrated his rivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads. At the time, Earl’s media consultant David Axelrod charged that Kohl’s popular slogan -- "Nobody’s Senator But Yours" -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president. Earl attacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl "desperate" and guilty of misrepresentation. Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiter close the gap to just a few pointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks. Engeleiter herself told us she has "nothing but positive recollections" of a "pretty cordial campaign." She also praised Kohl’s dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldn’t call Kohl’s primary race negative. Regarding Kohl’s slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said: "Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours.'" Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning. 1994: In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little time aggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an "extreme conservative" and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welch’s no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as "extreme." According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge. Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was "nastier than I expected." Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched a rare TV ad that focused on an opponent by name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohl’s record. One said that "fellow Republicans" had criticized Welch’s tactics -- something deemed misleading in a Milwaukee Journal fact check. The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a "multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign." Kohl said it was Welch who went negative. The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of "religion bashing," Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that " Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected." So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling. Looking back, though, Welch’s campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesn’t have strong opinions about the back and forth. "I don’t know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election," he told us. He didn’t recall the "distort" ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the "extreme" charge a negative attack. Kohl, Maxwell recalled, "just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election." (We could not reach Welch for comment). Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes. Lamke said the "extreme" charge by Kohl was "within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb." Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as "leans Republican." We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a "tame" response ad -- "not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesn’t like." Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madison’s Ken Goldstein said Kohl’s ad met the academic research definition of "negative" because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohl’s campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent. So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively? Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner. The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 "distort" spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohl’s campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohl’s aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an "extremist" was arguably negative. Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions. Mostly True.	None	Herb Kohl	None	None	None	2011-05-06T09:00:00	2011-04-28	['None']
-snes-00602	A man in Zambia was arrested after proclaiming he had employed a 'cannibal diet' to lose weight.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cannibal-diet-zambia-arrest/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was a Zambian Man Arrested After Boasting He Lost 280 Pounds on a ‘Cannibal Diet’?	14 May 2018	None	['Zambia']
-goop-00084	Angelina Jolie ‘Tortured By Regret’ Over Leaving Brad Pitt, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-brad-pitt-regret-leaving-split/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie NOT ‘Tortured By Regret’ Over Leaving Brad Pitt, Despite Report	4:20 pm, October 25, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Angelina_Jolie']
-snes-01094	Did Democrats Check Their Phones During Trump's State of the Union Address?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-democrats-check-phones-sotu-address/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Democrats Check Their Phones During Trump’s State of the Union Address?	31 January 2018	None	['None']
-para-00138	"Currently Australia is 71st per capita in the world in terms of refugees hosted."	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/26/scott-ludlam/greens-say-australia-rates-poorly-against-rest-wor/index.html	None	['Asylum Seekers', 'Immigration']	Scott Ludlam	Chris Pash, Peter Fray	None	Greens say Australia rates poorly against the rest of the world on refugee hosting	Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 1:42 p.m.	None	['Australia']
-snes-02982	President Trump signed an Executive Order banning childhood vaccinations for 90 days.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-eo-vaccine-ban/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did President Trump Enact a 90-Day Ban on Childhood Vaccinations?	7 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02505	North Carolina Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis would let insurance companies "deny coverage for pre-existing conditions."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/13/patriot-majority-usa/pro-democratic-group-says-north-carolina-senate-ca/	A race in North Carolina has become one of the top battles in the war to control the U.S. Senate. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., is trying to win a second term and help keep the Democrats in control. But she is expected to face a tough race against one of several Republicans competing in the primary. One of the leading candidates is Thom Tillis, the speaker of the North Carolina House. Patriot Majority USA, a pro-Democratic group operating independently of the Hagan campaign, has begun to run ads against Tillis, who has already benefited from a blizzard of ads against Hagan that were paid for by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. Here’s the narration of the ad: "In North Carolina, we put families first. But Senate candidate Thom Tillis sides with health insurance companies. He'd let them deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise rates for women needing mammograms. Tillis supports a plan that would end Medicare as we know it, and force seniors to spend up to $1,700 more for prescriptions. He's with the special interests; hurting North Carolina families." We wondered whether it was true that Tillis would let insurance companies "deny coverage for pre-existing conditions." In making the claim about pre-existing conditions, the ad cites a Charlotte Observer article from Sept. 23, 2013. That article, in turn, cites a comment from Tillis that we tracked back to a news release from his campaign. In it, Tillis said in part, "Many have asked where I stand in the battle to defund Obamacare. … I believe Obamacare is a mortal threat to our economy. It will decrease health care quality and raise health care premiums, and Republicans should do everything in our power to undo it. That means we must use every tool available to us." A spokesman for Patriot Majority told PolitiFact that "Tillis wants to repeal the ACA. Fact. If you repeal the ACA then … people could be denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Fact." But is it as simple as that? Not necessarily. It’s fair to assume that if Obamacare is repealed -- and, importantly, if nothing is passed in its place -- then the law’s consumer protections against getting denied for a pre-existing condition would disappear with it. But at least some Republican congressional leaders have been saying that they want to "repeal and replace" the law. In fact, just in the past few weeks, three GOP senators -- Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch of Utah -- have put forth a proposal that would do just that. Most important to this fact-check, their proposal would keep the pre-existing conditions protection in Obamacare -- a provision that’s generally popular even among critics of the overall law. The Burr-Coburn-Hatch proposal isn’t as ironclad on pre-existing conditions as Obamacare is. It would allow a one-time window to get pre-existing conditions grandfathered into coverage, and protection as long as coverage is continuous. But beyond the initial grandfathering period, any lapse in coverage would mean the next policy someone buys would not necessarily cover pre-existing conditions. This protection isn’t as sweeping as it is under Obamacare, but it’s better than what existed before Obamacare. For the purposes of this fact-check, however, we will consider this to be one way of keeping some form of pre-existing conditions protection. So we checked with Tillis’ campaign to see whether he supported the Republican plan or if he wants simply to repeal Obamacare, as the ad suggests. Here’s what Tillis’ campaign manager and spokesman, Jordan Shaw, said: "Speaker Tillis doesn’t believe that the Affordable Care Act is the only way to address health care problems. While he hasn’t officially endorsed the Burr-Coburn-Hatch plan because he hasn’t had a chance to discuss it in detail with Sen. Burr, he does think there are many good ideas in the plan. It is certainly a positive step toward a conservative alternative to Obamacare." So Tillis is open to legislation that would replace Obamacare, but he hasn’t endorsed the main Republican plan currently on the table that, among other things, would include some protections for people with pre-existing conditions. So what about his past statements? Has Tillis said the health care law should be replaced with something that keeps popular elements of the law in place? We asked Shaw twice if he could provide documentation -- in speeches, news releases or videos -- of cases where Tillis made this point. But he didn’t reply. So we looked ourselves. We didn’t find any. Most often, we found, Tillis has used the word "repeal" without adding "replace." For instance: • The "Meet Tom" page on Tillis’ website: "As North Carolina’s U.S. senator, Tillis will push for repeal of Obamacare, a balanced budget, and conservative economic policy." • A statement criticizing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: "My campaign to beat Kay Hagan is the key to a new conservative majority that will repeal Obamacare and balance the budget." • A tweet during the State of the Union address: "Obamacare's not working. Support repeal & end its $819.3 billion tax burden. #AskObama --> http://dld.bz/dg7Ca #SOTU." The closest he comes is another page on his website, where he says, "Thom will fight in the Senate for full repeal of Obamacare, for defunding Obamacare, and he will work to implement private-sector solutions to reduce health care costs for North Carolinians." Still, not only is his support for "private-sector solutions" vague, but he specifically cites solutions that "reduce health care costs," not ones that keep people from getting insurance if they have pre-existing conditions. Tillis is engaged in a primary against candidates fighting to win support among Republican base voters who are the hardest-line opponents of Obamacare. Given this situation, acknowledging that there are even small parts of Obamacare worth saving can be electoral suicide. However, constantly calling for repeal without acknowledging there may be a need to replace the law with something else makes it hard to be too critical of an ad that infers that he would let insurance companies "deny coverage for pre-existing conditions." Our ruling Patriot Majority USA’s ad said Tillis would let insurance companies "deny coverage for pre-existing conditions." Tillis’ staff says he is open to replacing the law, perhaps with the Burr-Coburn-Hatch proposal, but he hasn’t endorsed it yet. More importantly, we don’t find examples in which Tillis has publicly advocated replacing Obamacare with something else, at least not prior to our asking him about it in regards to this ad. Given all of this, we can’t really blame Patriot Majority USA for drawing the conclusion that Tillis would repeal Obamacare and not replace it. Still, we're left with an element of uncertainty about what Tillis' position on pre-existing conditions actually is. Overall, we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Patriot Majority USA	None	None	None	2014-02-13T15:57:56	2014-02-12	['None']
-pomt-02615	"With the tax controls we already put in place, property taxes on a typical home in December of 2014 will actually be lower than they were in December of 2010."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/23/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-typical-property-tax-bill-year-w/	In an hour-long State of the State speech, Gov. Scott Walker made 42 references to taxes while unveiling proposals for additional income- and property-tax cuts. One statement in particular grabbed our attention. "With the tax controls we already put in place, property taxes on a typical home in December of 2014 will actually be lower than they were in December of 2010." The Republican governor says that even before his new plan for more property tax relief would kick in, he and GOP lawmakers already have lowered the typical bill by virtue of past tax controls they put in place. Is he right? Walker draws his numbers in part from reports by the respected, non-partisan budget scorekeeping agency, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Every year, the bureau estimates the property tax bill of a median-valued home taxed at the statewide average property rate. It’s an illustration, not a real-world example. Even if your home is right at that statewide average, your results might be different due to various factors. And there are other variations -- higher and lower -- due to property values and levies in individual communities. Statewide, combined property tax collections for 2014 are likely to be somewhat higher than they were in 2010, noted Dale Knapp, research director at the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. That’s partly because the controls put on school districts and municipalities were not absolute. But the Fiscal Bureau’s single-property illustration is an oft-used benchmark that politicians use to communicate state budget math in a down to earth fashion. The bureau’s numbers: In December 2010, just before Walker took office, this hypothetical median home had a tax bill of $2,963. The projected figure for the end of 2014 is lower by $9 -- $2,954. (Walker also cites a state Department of Revenue report that puts the decrease at $8). It’s a tiny drop, but it’s worth noting that from 2006 to 2010, the typical bill went up by $230. So the turnaround is significant. A major factor in the drop are the tax and spending restraints Republicans have placed on local governments and schools during Walker’s tenure. We gave Walker a Promise Kept for virtually freezing property taxes in his first budget. Additionally, the property tax picture was affected by the negative news in the home market. The recession and its aftermath pushed down home values, dropping the median-valued home from a peak of $172,000 in 2008 to $148,000 by 2013. It’s projected to pop up to $151,000 by December 2014, the Fiscal Bureau estimated. Those falling home values contributed to smaller bills, said Knapp. Finally, it’s important to note that the figures Walker relies upon are projections subject to change. So when he says the median bill "will actually be lower" it should be kept in mind that we don’t know that yet. But that’s what the projection shows -- and it will be helped if legislators approve Walker’s new plan for even more property tax savings. Our rating Walker said, "With the tax controls we already put in place, property taxes on a typical home in December of 2014 will actually be lower than they were in December of 2010." It wasn’t all because of the Republican actions, and the claim is based on projections that could change. But the governor’s main point is solid based on the specific citation he highlights from a respected source. With the caveats noted, we rate this Mostly True. To comment on this story please go to JSOnline.com.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-01-23T16:28:25	2014-01-22	['None']
-thal-00133	Claim: There is faster broadband on the moon than in parts of Roscommon-Galway, the home constituency of Minister for Communications Denis Naughten.	http://www.thejournal.ie/internet-on-the-moon-2907926-Aug2016/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: Is there faster broadband on the moon than in Roscommon?	Aug 6th 2016, 8:30 AM	None	['None']
-pomt-05452	Says she made a "cold call" and persuaded an Illinois company to relocate to Wisconsin.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/apr/25/rebecca-kleefisch/lt-gov-rebecca-kleefisch-says-her-cold-call-persua/	Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch says she’s on a jobs mission. Since taking office in January 2011, she’s held small business roundtable discussions throughout the state and engaged in other efforts to boost the state’s business climate. One of the strategies: Picking up the phone. "Right after I was elected I started making cold calls down to Illinois," Kleefisch told talk show host Charlie Sykes on March 28, 2012. "The fact is, my method has met with some serious successes." Then she got specific: "You’ll remember that Fox Business News live streamed the move of one of the companies I called from Rockton, Illinois, to Beloit, Wisconsin." Kleefisch is facing a June 5, 2012, recall election. And, like Gov. Scott Walker, she has gone on the offensive, particularly on the jobs issue. "It kind of silenced the critics who said it was beneath the lieutenant governor to make cold calls," Kleefisch said on the radio. "Because how could something possibly be beneath a leader if it works and it brings jobs to the state?" Said Kleefisch spokeswoman Jeanne Tarantino: "Had she not done this, (they) would have gone to another state. That’s pretty obvious." Let’s take a closer look at Kleefisch’s claim. The company in question is FatWallet.com, an online business that helps consumers find coupon deals. FatWallet receives commissions from companies such as Amazon.com and Newegg.com each time a customer clicks through to one of those big sites. Its headquarters was an almost-new $5 million high-tech building the company had constructed in the village of Rockton, Ill., a few miles from the Wisconsin border. In January 2011, the Illinois legislature passed a bill that would tax online retailers like Amazon if they had a retail presence in the state -- including an "affiliate," or partner, such as FatWallet. State officials said Illinois is losing $150 million a year in sales tax revenue to online firms. They also wanted to protect local companies who are losing sales to online retailers. After the law was passed Jan. 6, 2011, Amazon and other firms threatened to cut off business from companies like FatWallet.com as of April 15, 2011, if the measure was signed by Gov. Pat Quinn. "I feel like I’ve been completely flipped the bird," FatWallet founder and CEO Tim Storm told the Chicago Tribune after the measure passed. "Essentially, 30 to 40 percent of our revenue gets shut off instantaneously." He also said: "The reality is that as a business owner with 52 employees, we're not going to just get shut down because of a law Illinois passes. Our customers don't care whether we're in the state of Illinois." So, that gave Wisconsin an opening -- a big one. Indeed, it would be two months before Quinn signed the measure on March 10, 2011. Tarantino said Kleefisch spoke to Storm on the phone during the first week in March 2011, and he visited her office in Madison on March 15. "She told him about the reforms in place in Wisconsin" and that the Walker administration had no plans to enact a similar tax, she said. Storm had considered moving the company to Las Vegas or Florida to escape the Illinois sales tax law, said FatWallet spokesman Brent Shelton. But Wisconsin was a lot closer, a move to Beloit was less expensive and disruptive, he said. "We were already considering Wisconsin before she called," Shelton said. So that suggests Kleefisch’s role was far from pivotal. Here is the look at the sequence of what happened. September 2010: Storm contacts the city of Beloit and asks about space in a city-owned building downtown, according to Beloit economic development director Andrew Janke. That inquiry comes after the Illinois Legislature briefly considered -- but didn’t pass -- the Internet tax law. First week of March 2011: Kleefisch, who was elected with Walker in November 2010, contacts FatWallet. Her office did not provide an exact date. March 10, 2011: Quinn signs the measure into law. March 11, 2011: Storm tweets: "@GovWalker would you like @FatWallet, the #20 best small business to work in the nation to cross the border to WI? Let's chat." March 12, 2011: Storm tweets: "What a difference 5 miles makes." March 15, 2011: Kleefisch meets with Storm in Madison. City of Beloit officials invite Storm to consider leasing the city-owned space there. Kleefisch and other state officials were not involved with the offer made to FatWallet. March 22, 2011: Gov. Walker tweets at Storm: "Good talking w/u. Welcome 2 WI. We r not going 2 raise taxes as it would drive jobs out. We want u 2 grow here." March 25, 2011: FatWallet strikes a deal with Beloit to lease the city space. The City Council held a special meeting -- it was a Friday night -- to approve a one-year lease. The lease was renewed for another year in February 2012. The company pays rent of $7,716 a month. April 8, 2011: The company moves five miles north, across the border to Beloit. Once the move was planned, Shelton alerted Fox Business News, and the channel jumped on the story and televised the event live, saying a growing Internet company was forced to relocate because of the new Illinois sales tax law. Kleefisch was waiting with an "Open for Business" sign when the caravan of FatWallet employees and the television crew arrived at the Beloit office. During the live broadcast, Kleefisch was asked by the Fox reporter about the cold call she made to Storm. "It worked," she said that day. "You can see it coming to fruition today." Shelton, the company spokesman, described an important -- but very limited -- role for Kleefisch in convincing the company to move to Wisconsin. "She was very instrumental in making verbal promises that these kind of taxes would not be passed on his (Walker’s) watch," he said. A few footnotes: FatWallet received no economic assistance from the state of Wisconsin for making the move to Beloit, and the state did not play a role in securing the lease in Beloit, according to all parties involved, including Kleefisch’s office. Shelton said the national publicity stirred by the move led to a sharp increase in the company’s sales. On Sept. 9, 2011, Storm sold FatWallet to San Francisco-based Ebates.com. Storm left the company but remains as a part-time consultant and chairman. The company’s Rockton office space was owned by another business run by Storm and not FatWallet. "That’s what businesses do, they take advantage of an opportunity," said Rockton, Ill., Mayor Dale Adams. Our conclusion Kleefisch says she "cold called" FatWallet.com and persuaded the company to move from Illinois to Wisconsin. There’s no question that she made the call and that she met with the company’s CEO. But the wheels were turning for FatWallet to move months earlier. Indeed, the company had already inquired about office space in Beloit. (Employees could literally see Wisconsin from their Rockton building). The short move allowed the company to avoid the Illinois sales tax, and ensured that its employees didn’t have to pull up roots. It’s clear from the chain of events that the state -- and Kleefisch -- played a minimal role in encouraging FatWallet to move to Wisconsin. But they certainly did not play the pivotal role, as Kleefisch suggested. We rate her claim Mostly False. (You can comment on this item on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website) (Editor's note, May 15, 2012) In a new TV ad, launched May 9, 2012, Kleefisch makes a similar claim to the one we evaluated and in materials supporting the ad her campaign indicates she first spoke with a company representative in January of 2011 -- not March as her spokesman told us. Since the claim related to her role in convincing the business to move here, not when she made her first call, it does not change our rating. Indeed, in the ad Kleefisch modifies a bit her original claim that it was her call that persuaded the company to make the move. Here’s what she says in the ad: "So I called them up and told them why they should move to Wisconsin, and they did. That’s just one of many businesses we’ve helped create more jobs."	None	Rebecca Kleefisch	None	None	None	2012-04-25T09:00:00	2012-03-28	['Illinois', 'Wisconsin']
-pomt-15183	"Zero Planned Parenthood facilities are licensed to do mammograms. Planned Parenthood, women don’t need you!"	/georgia/statements/2015/aug/21/alliance-defending-freedom/numbers-right-mammogram-claim-missing-context/	Covertly filmed videos showing fake brokers discussing terms for procuring fetal tissue have prompted federal efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, led to a statewide inquiry into how the group disposes of such tissue in Georgia and apparently created some confusion among voters. One reader forwarded us a Tweet from the Alliance Defending Freedom that shows two national maps side by side, wondering how mammograms play into the abortion debate. The first map purports to pinpoint the 8,000-plus mammography facilities licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The second map lacks a single dot, to show the number of licensed facilities run by Planned Parenthood. "Zero Planned Parenthood facilities are licensed to do mammograms," the Tweet read. "Planned Parenthood, women don’t need you!" Our reader wanted to know, is it a false flag to talk about essential women’s health care such as mammograms in the debate over Planned Parenthood? PolitiFact has been down this road before, but it’s worth a repeat trip given the defunding debate stirred by those stealth videos. The anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress says its videos show Planned Parenthood proposes to illegally sell fetal tissue, something that Planned Parenthood adamantly denies. PolitiFact recapped the facts in that controversy here. Two state agencies have since reported that abortion clinics in Georgia are properly disposing of aborted fetuses and fetal tissue. Among the 12 clinics found to be following state law was the sole facility run by Planned Parenthood Southeast in the state, in Augusta. But on the federal level, the effort by congressional Republicans to strip $500 million in annual funding to Planned Parenthood has drawn more ire on both sides of the issue. Critics of Planned Parenthood say the videos show the organization has questionable practices. Supporters denounce the effort as an effective cut to women’s health care, citing the gynecological, referral and medical services the agency also provides. Casey Mattox, the senior counsel at the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom, said he was attempting to cut off that debate by using the maps to point out that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. "You can’t go there and actually get a mammogram, which is what most people assume when they hear you can go there and get cancer screenings for breast health," Mattox said. "That is, at best, misleading, if not directly false." Mattox pointed us to the Food and Drug Administration’s list of facilities licensed to perform mammograms under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. The agency certifies the facilities across the nation and in military bases worldwide. The list, updated weekly, includes more than 8,700 facilities. A representative from the FDA did not get back to us by deadline, but a search of the list does not yield any facilities with the official "Planned Parenthood" name in its title. Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Liz Clark confirmed why: The organization does not provide mammograms at any of its health centers. (One caveat: some clinics have brought in mobile mammography vans to clinic sites for special events. But none of the machines were a permanent part of a Planned Parenthood center). So Mattox is correct, by Planned Parenthood’s own acknowledgement, that the organization does not provide mammograms. But does that mean there is no need for Planned Parenthood when it comes to accessing the tests? The answer to that is far less clear but provides the context that shows why the overall argument is muddled. Planned Parenthood provided 487,029 breast exams or breast care services in 2013, the most recent year available. Based on those clinical exams and a doctor assessing risk factors, the group refers patients for mammograms and/or specialist follow-ups for procedures such as biopsies and, in some cases, financial assistance, Clark said. In that regard, Planned Parenthood functions mostly as a privately paid OB-GYN would in referring a patient for a service the doctor’s office didn’t provide. "Focusing on one narrow data point to create a false ‘gotcha’ moment ignores the larger picture of how Planned Parenthood both provides and connects millions of people to health care in communities across the country," Clark said. "The graphic is misleading because I wouldn’t walk into a mammogram facility to get a mammogram without first visiting my OB-GYN for an exam and a referral -- which is what Planned Parenthood provides," she added. Mattox said there is no reason, though, that Planned Parenthood must serve as the referring agency. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, there are more than 13,000 clinics nationwide that provide comprehensive health care for women and could at least provide referrals and, in some cases, the mammograms themselves. The pressure to "defund" Planned Parenthood is actually to redirect the federal money to those other facilities, Mattox said. "It’s nothing unique to Planned Parenthood if all they are doing is a referral," he said. "There are other health center options, with licenses that can do this directly on site. If you go to Planned Parenthood, you need to know you are not going to get that." Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, agrees that Planned Parenthood does not need to be the referring physician for a mammogram. But the standard is for a doctor to provide the clinical, physical exam and then refer the patient for the screening at a mammography center – and it has been since 1970, Brawley said. Various risk factors determine referrals, as does the patient’s age. For women between 20 and 40, a doctor will order a mammogram if an abnormality is detected or suspected during the physical exam. For women older than 40, even a normal exam generally triggers a screening mammogram, Brawley said. "I’ve personally had patients who went to Planned Parenthood and got a referral that was also a voucher, so that the mammogram was paid for as well," Brawley said. "The first step is always to see a doctor, but there are cases where the referral was also a way for Planned Parenthood to reimburse the outside facility for the mammogram screening." Our ruling Covert videos showing discussions of fetal tissue sales have reignited the abortion debate nationally and in Georgia. In an effort to debunk defenders that Planned Parenthood provides essential women’s health services in addition to abortions, an anti-abortion group claimed that none of the organization’s clinics is licensed to provide mammograms. Federal data and Planned Parenthood’s own documents back up the claim from the Alliance Defending Freedom. However, that narrow bit of information ignores that Planned Parenthood physicians perform the clinical exams that lead to referrals for a mammogram or other specialized breast care. The physical exam is a necessary step in the process of getting the screening, although ADF has a valid point that other physicians could provide that piece of the process. That puts the claim in the realm that won’t make either side happy: partially accurate but misleading without additional details. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Alliance Defending Freedom	None	None	None	2015-08-21T00:00:00	2015-08-03	['None']
-goop-01179	Liam Neeson “Taken” With “Dream Woman” Jennifer Garner, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/liam-neeson-jennifer-garner-dating-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Liam Neeson NOT “Taken” With “Dream Woman” Jennifer Garner, Despite Claim	11:05 am, April 16, 2018	None	['Liam_Neeson', 'Jennifer_Garner']
-goop-01224	Nicole Kidman Leaving Keith Urban, Met With Lawyer Katie Holmes Used In Tom Cruise Divorce?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-divorce-keith-urban-katie-holmes-tom-cruise/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Nicole Kidman Leaving Keith Urban, Met With Lawyer Katie Holmes Used In Tom Cruise Divorce?	9:42 pm, April 8, 2018	None	['Nicole_Kidman', 'Keith_Urban']
-snes-04360	Bill Clinton said that testifying at congressional hearings meant that "Hillary suffered more than those guys in Benghazi."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-clinton-said-hillary-suffered-more-than-those-guys-in-benghazi/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bill Clinton Said Hillary Suffered More Than ‘Those Guys in Benghazi’	28 July 2016	None	['Bill_Clinton', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-12951	Says Kate Cloonen "needs that extra $68,000" lawmaker salary on top of the "$8.5 million in state contracts for her construction company."	/illinois/statements/2017/jan/05/aaron-degroot/illinois-gop-press-secretary-makes-8-million-twitt/	In early December, a group of House Democrats filed a lawsuit in response to former Illinois Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger’s decision to delay lawmakers’ pay. Munger had announced in April lawmaker pay would not be processed above any other state payments as she decided which bills to pay in the midst of an ongoing budget crisis. The lawsuit, filed by state Rep. Kate Cloonen, D-Kankakee, and five other Democrats, claimed Munger’s actions are unconstitutional and violate the separation of executive and legislative powers. Aaron DeGroot, the Illinois Republican Party’s downstate press secretary, was among many who criticized the Democrats’ lawsuit as being driven by personal greed. To make his point, DeGroot tweeted about Cloonen and the Democrats’ lawsuit, adding to an earlier tweet from the Illinois Republican Party account. "For Kate Cloonen, $8.5 million in state contracts for her construction company isn’t enough. She needs that extra $68k/year," DeGroot wrote. DeGroot’s tweet implies Cloonen made $8.5 million from the state in construction work and now she wants to be paid $68,000 for her legislative work, too. We decided to determine whether the dollar amounts are accurate, whether the practice of doing state business while also lawmaking was legal and ethical, whether comparing the numbers is relevant and what they tell us about Cloonen’s income. We’ll tackle these questions by looking at Illinois procurement law, talking to Cloonen and speaking to a political science expert about the ethics. Lawmaker pay vs. business profits Cloonen’s salary for a year of legislative work is $67,836, according to the comptroller’s office. According to her LinkedIn page, she has owned the Bonfield-based rebar installation company, JK Steel Erectors, Inc., for 25 years. Her involvement with JK Steel Erectors was scrutinized during her race against Republican Lindsay Parkhurst for the 79th House District. Since Cloonen took office in 2013, JK Steel Erectors has taken on several projects from the state, according to a document DeGroot received through a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the Illinois Department of Transportation. We reviewed this document and IDOT Director of Communications Guy Tridgell verified its accuracy. The document said JK Steel Erectors received $8.53 million on work done for the state since Jan. 18, 2013. In a phone interview, Cloonen said she also reviewed the IDOT document and said there were several instances where the compensation listed was incorrect, but she declined to provide details. "I’m not sure where he got the $8 million number from," Cloonen said. "No one knows what I netted but me because it’s a private business and I’m a private owner." Cloonen raises a valid point. While her firm was paid $8.53 million, how much her firm profited from that gross total and how much she personally netted are entirely different from her individual gross salary as a lawmaker. The legality of holding office while owning a business There also is nothing prohibiting Cloonen or any other Illinois lawmakers from holding another private job outside the legislature, according to the Illinois Constitution (Article IV, Section 2). Illinois General Assembly jobs are considered part-time, too. There are instances showing Cloonen made efforts to avoid any conflicts of interest during her time as a representative. For example, Cloonen normally votes present (instead of voting "yes" or "no") on any bills containing capital programs because of her role with JK Steel Erectors. When asked about his tweet, DeGroot said he never called Cloonen’s actions illegal. DeGroot said that during the election Parkhurst accused Cloonen of profiting off the taxpayers by using what they describe as a "loophole" in the Illinois Procurement Code which only prohibits officeholders from making other income from the state who make more than 60 percent of the governor’s $177,000 salary. In 2013, the Illinois Procurement Policy Board reviewed an instance where JK Steel Erectors was selected by Kankakee Valley Construction Co. to work on a bridge removal and replacement in Iroquois County. The board cited section 50-13 of the procurement code to clear her of any conflict. JK Steel Erectors was able to proceed with the subcontract work. Aside from her salary situation clearing her from a problem, Cloonen also pointed out JK Steel Erectors is a subcontractor. That means her business never does any direct bidding on state projects. Her company is only hired by a contractor once it wins a bid. Tridgell at IDOT verified that in an email exchange, saying, "The selection of registered subcontractors on projects is up to the discretion of the prime contractor." Attack the system, not the person Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois-Springfield, said DeGroot shouldn’t attack Cloonen for keeping a business while holding office. After all, Redfield said, Cloonen was never found to have engaged in any wrongdoing. "I don’t think you can fault her," Redfield said. "She has certainly complied with the law. Does [her position] create a conflict of interest? Yes. Is there any indication she acted unethically? No." Redfield said if DeGroot is intent on figuring out a way to eliminate conflicts of interest in the General Assembly, he should be focusing on changing the system. "If Cloonen’s situation is being characterized as a loophole, then it is incumbent of Republicans to introduce legislation to change that," he said. "As long as people comply with the law and are transparent with their relationships, it’s not fair to attack them." The only way to truly avoid conflicts of interest, Redfield said, is to make lawmakers step away from any outside employment the minute they come into office. "Then you know the legislator is making decisions that don’t benefit them financially," he said. Our ruling On Dec. 2, Illinois Republican Party’s Downstate Press Secretary Aaron DeGroot tweeted: "For Kate Cloonen, $8.5 million in state contracts for her construction company isn't enough. She needs that extra $68k/year" According to a document verified by IDOT, Cloonen’s company received $8.5 million in state construction funding for projects during her time as a legislator. Cloonen said that number is not an accurate reflection of what she personally netted from the state construction work, but she declined to share that amount. DeGroot’s tweet, though, lacks context and tries to draw a comparison between an individual salary and a company’s gross payment, not net profit, for work completed. Cloonen’s construction company only acted as a subcontractor and never directly bid on any state projects. Cloonen never was found to have a conflict of interest, and she recused herself from most votes regarding capital projects. And while political science professor emeritus Kent Redfield said Cloonen may have a conflict of interest being both a lawmaker and a business owner, he also said she operated within the law and did not act unethically. Though DeGroot’s comment about Cloonen was accurate, it omits significant information, including the fact that Cloonen was a subcontractor not hired directly by the state and regularly recuses herself from voting on capital problems. For those reasons, we rate DeGroot’s claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b5975ded-3a6a-45b7-86e3-c435001893d4	None	Aaron DeGroot	None	None	None	2017-01-05T19:59:18	2016-12-02	['None']
-goop-02643	Selena Gomez Did Celebrate Birthday With The Weeknd In Paris, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-birthday-the-weeknd-paris/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Selena Gomez Did NOT Celebrate Birthday With The Weeknd In Paris, Despite Claims	3:48 pm, July 23, 2017	None	['Paris']
-pomt-00040	"Migrants in the Guatemalan Caravan stand on, and then urinate on, U.S. flag before throwing it in the trash can."	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/nov/05/blog-posting/flag-stomping-image-2016-student-protest-wisconsin/	Migrants making their way north to the U.S-Mexico border have neither dragged nor brutalized police officers. They also haven’t haven’t burned the American flag or defaced it with a swastika. New allegations that migrants are standing and peeing on the flag before dumping it are also false. "Report: Migrants in Guatemalan Caravan stand on, and then urinate on, U.S. flag before throwing it in the trash can," reads the text stamped above a photo of someone standing on a flag spread on the ground. The image was posted to a Bill O’Reilly Fans Facebook group on Nov. 2. This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The picture isn’t fake, but it’s not current. It’s a still from a news clip of a protest at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee on April 3, 2016. Activists were protesting Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate participating in a town hall organized by Fox News. And while there has been news coverage of people urinating on the flag stateside—a suspected Boston man in September and an American activist in 2017—we could find no reports of the migrants taking such action. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-11-05T11:25:36	2018-11-02	['United_States']
-pomt-07691	Says nobody in higher education believes Gov. Rick Perry’s proposal to "serve up $10,000 college degrees" is possible.	/texas/statements/2011/mar/08/andy-brown/andy-brown-says-nobody-higher-education-believes-1/	UPDATE, 2:05 p.m., March 8, 2011: The article below corrects the name of the Midland newspaper. In a Feb. 22 web post objecting to slashes in education funding, the chairman of the Travis County Democrats sounds a skeptical note about GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s Feb. 8 call on higher education to devise a way that students could earn bachelor’s degrees at a cost of $10,000, including textbooks. "As for the governor’s preposterous scheme to serve up $10,000 college degrees, nobody in higher education believes that is even possible," Andy Brown writes. "Tuition and books for a single year easily add up to that amount, and tuition likely will increase in the face of state funding cuts." Granted, four years in college costs a bundle. But no one believes a $10K degree is even possible? We reached Brown, who said by e-mail that there is "probably someone out there who thinks it is possible at most Texas institutions, so the word ‘credible’ probably should have been included as a modifier" after nobody. "Regardless, it's not a realistic option for most higher ed institutions in Texas," Brown said, "and for Perry to imply otherwise is ridiculous." Next, we read news accounts following Perry’s State of the State address. Skepticism and uncertainty abound, the reports suggest. On Feb. 10, the Dallas Morning News quoted state Sen. Judith Zaffirini, who chairs the Senate Higher Education Committee, saying that it’s not going to happen. Among officials in higher education, Mike McKinney, chancellor of the Texas A&M University System, was quoted in the Feb. 12 Austin American-Statesman as telling state senators he has no idea how to meet Perry’s goal. The newspaper said McKinney also testified: "I'm not going to say that it can't be done." A Houston Chronicle news article, likewise published Feb. 12, says some education leaders say a $10,000 degree could be achieved at community colleges. The article quotes Bruce Leslie, chancellor of the San Antonio-based Alamo Colleges, saying: ""We already have the facilities, the infrastructure, the doctorate faculty. You could take community colleges and do that without building a whole new infrastructure, or forcing existing four-year universities to downsize." The story quotes Shirley Reed, president of South Texas College in McAllen, saying: "It is an idea that is long overdue." At the college, resident tuition for 120 credit-hours--which colleges typically require to earn a degree--is currently about $7,600, according to its website. According to a Feb. 10 Texas Tribune news article, South Texas College and two other community colleges are already authorized to offer a bachelor’s degree in Applied Technology, costing in the range of $10,000. Next, we asked the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board if anyone in higher education has rated the $10,000 degree possible. Spokesman Dominic Chavez replied by e-mail: "We interpret the $10,000 degree challenge by the governor as just that—a challenge...The question from the board’s perspective is not ‘is $10,000 the right target or a reasonable target?’ but rather ‘what can we do to get as close to it as possible?’" For national perspective, we contacted Beth Hagan, executive director of the Florida-based Community College Baccalaureate Association, which seeks to improve access to bachelor’s degrees. Hagan told us bachelor’s degrees costing $10,000 are now available through community colleges in 17 states. However, she said, they generally aren’t in the academic studies available through four-year universities. Besides, she cautioned, very few community college students get the four-year "niche" degrees, which tend to involve technologies or special skills such as nursing or teaching. Hagan said of Perry’s proposal: "If you asked a group of (community) college administrators and presidents if this could be done, they would laugh at you. Of course, it’s possible." But Perry’s call, she said, was akin to challenging a chain steakhouse to offer $1 hamburgers. "Can they do it? Sure. But they don’t want to." Perry’s communications director, Mark Miner, called Brown’s statement unfortunate, adding that it’s "just like the establishment to say it can’t be done, without trying." Catherine Frazier, Perry’s deputy press secretary, pointed out a Feb. 10 news article in the Midland Reporter-Telegram describing Midland College’s applied technology bachelor’s degree, which the article says can be earned for about $10,000. The article also says the program might not be funded in the next state budget. No doubt, there’s skepticism in higher education about Perry’s call. But it’s a stretch to say nobody believes $10,000 degrees possible. Four-year technology degrees at around that price point are already an option for some Texas students. We rate Brown’s statement False.	None	Andy Brown	None	None	None	2011-03-08T06:00:00	2011-02-22	['None']
-snes-01019	A former Canadian defense minister said aliens have visited earth and have technology that would solve climate change, but won't share it with humans because we are too destructive.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-canadian-defense-minister-claims-illuminati-are-real-and-hiding-alien-technology/	None	Superstition	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did a Former Canadian Official Say the Illuminati Are Real—And Hiding Alien Stuff?	14 February 2018	None	['Canada']
-wast-00037	I have asked Secretary of State @SecPompeo to closely study the South Africa land and farm seizures and expropriations and the large scale killing of farmers. \xe2\x80\x98South African Government is now seizing land from white farmers.' @TuckerCarlson @FoxNews	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/24/president-trumps-false-claim-about-murders-south-african-farms/	None	None	Donald Trump	Salvador Rizzo	None	President Trump's false claim about murders on South African farms	August 24	None	['South_Africa', 'Africa']
-goop-02233	Selena Gomez “Pregnant Bride” With Justin Bieber, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-not-pregnant-bride-justin-bieber/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez NOT “Pregnant Bride” With Justin Bieber, Despite Tabloid Cover Story	12:13 pm, November 8, 2017	None	['Justin_Bieber']
-goop-00155	Britney Spears Grooming Son To Become NFL Player?	https://www.gossipcop.com/britney-spears-son-nfl-player-football/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Britney Spears Grooming Son To Become NFL Player?	2:01 pm, October 10, 2018	None	['None']
-bove-00268	Yes, India Ranked 26th In Getting Electricity But It’s Not The Same As Power For All	https://www.boomlive.in/yes-india-ranked-26th-in-getting-electricity-but-its-not-the-same-as-power-for-all/	None	None	None	None	None	Yes, India Ranked 26th In Getting Electricity But It’s Not The Same As Power For All	May 20 2017 2:29 pm, Last Updated: Jun 16 2017 7:31 pm	None	['None']
-snes-05705	Photograph shows the roller coaster-like Eshima Ohashi Bridge in Japan.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-bridge-too-high/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Eshima Ohashi Bridge	11 May 2015	None	['Japan']
-goop-01635	Katy Perry, Robert Pattinson Caught Making Out, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/katy-perry-robert-pattinson-making-out-late-wrong/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Katy Perry, Robert Pattinson NOT Caught Making Out, Despite Late And Wrong Report	12:13 pm, February 4, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04389	A mass ammunition shortage is expected because President Obama and the EPA shut down the Doe Run lead smelting plant	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doe-run-lead-plant-shutdown/	None	Guns	None	Dan Evon	None	Doe Run Lead Plant Shut Down to Effect ‘Back Door Gun Control’	23 July 2016	None	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-01554	Ben Carson Says He Would Base New Tax System on Sin	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ben-carson-says-he-would-base-new-tax-system-on-sin/	None	government	None	None	None	Ben Carson Says He Would Base New Tax System on Sin	Nov 4, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-10136	"Two years ago...I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them [subprime lending] is something we have to deal with."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/08/barack-obama/obama-sounded-the-alarm-on-subprimes/	As the U.S. and world economic systems continue to falter, both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama claim to have seen the crisis coming to some degree, and tried to head it off. McCain has cited his endorsement of legislation in 2006 that would have reined in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac somewhat. And at the second presidential debate, Obama cited a letter he wrote to federal officials "two years ago." "Understand that the biggest problem in this whole process was the deregulation of the financial system," Obama said during the Oct. 7, 2008 debate. "Senator McCain, as recently as March, bragged about the fact that he is a deregulator. On the other hand, two years ago, I said that we've got a subprime lending crisis that has to be dealt with. "I wrote to (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman (Ben) Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it." The last sentence appeared to refer to this letter that Obama sent to Paulson and Bernanke on March 22, 2007. Obama's comments in the debate suggest the letter warned about the then-looming subprime lending crisis and its potential impact on the wider economy. So let's check the text. "There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures," he wrote. "We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes." He went on to suggest the two officials convene a homeownership-preservation summit where banks, investors, regulators and consumers could forge a plan to stave off foreclosures. "Rampant foreclosures are in nobody’s interest... There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy," he wrote. So yes, Obama characterized the letter accurately. In it, he not only called for action to head off the unraveling of the subprime mortgage market, but also warned about its impact on the nation's economy. He sent the letter about 18 months ago, a time frame for which "two years" is a fair estimate. We find his claim to be True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-10-08T00:00:00	2008-10-07	['Henry_Paulson', 'Ben_Bernanke']
-pomt-13083	"Surveys show that many of our citizens think we devote a full quarter or even a third of our federal budget to foreign aid."	/global-news/statements/2016/nov/09/john-kerry/yep-most-people-clueless-us-foreign-aid-spending/	Secretary of State John Kerry aired an old complaint about the public and foreign aid. In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Kerry bemoaned a persistent misconception about how much money Washington sends overseas. "Do you know that amazing surveys show that many of our citizens think we devote a full quarter or even a third of our federal budget to foreign aid?" Kerry said on Oct. 26, 2016. Foreign aid covers both military aid and more humanitarian forms of assistance such as fighting disease and boosting economic growth in other countries. Kerry’s comment accurately reflects what pollsters have seen for many years. Americans greatly exaggerate the scale of those items compared to everything else Washington spends on. To do our part to set the record straight, this chart comes from numbers in the president’s 2017 budget request. There are different ways to tally expenses across more than a dozen agencies, but by and large, foreign aid represents about 1 percent of all spending. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com To support Kerry’s claim, the State Department press office pointed to several reports including a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a widely respected source of impartial data. In January 2016, Kaiser found that only 3 percent of Americans correctly estimated spending at 1 percent or less of total spending. The average answer was that foreign aid accounts for 31 percent of the U.S. budget; 15 percent of the people thought it represented over half of all spending. That misconception is a stubborn one. In a 1998 survey, the average answer put foreign aid at 26 percent of the budget. And decades before that, nearly a quarter of respondents in a 1963 Gallup poll said Washington spends between 10 to 25 percent of its budget on foreign aid. Another 13 percent said it might go as high as half of all government spending. So the surveys back-up Kerry’s statement. Which raises the question, why do so many people get it wrong? There are many possible reasons. The first and most obvious factor is that most Americans might not know much about foreign aid. In a 2010 poll, almost 70 percent said they had heard about the World Bank, but less that 30 percent had heard about the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government’s main overseas health and development body. Boston College political scientist Emily Thorson points the finger at a more fundamental problem. It seems we aren’t very good with numbers. "People don’t think in terms of percentages," Thorson said. "We do best with ‘more than’ and 'less than.’ And they also don’t have a sense of how big the federal budget is. So if they hear we’re spending billions, they don’t see how that can be a small slice of the total." Researchers Helen Milner and Dustin Tingley, professors at Harvard and Princeton universities respectively, suggested that the way surveys ask about foreign aid might make that problem worse. "No study that we are aware of asks individuals to assign percentages to an array of government programs, with a mandatory limit at 100 percent," they wrote in 2013. In other words, asking only about foreign aid might lead people to ignore the big ticket budget lines for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and defense. It’s also possible, Thorson said, that news coverage that touches on aid can be graphic and compelling -- such as scenes from refugee camps or fighter jets in flight -- which leaves the impression that these programs play a bigger role in the budget than they actually do. Our ruling Kerry said that surveys show that many Americans think that a quarter to a third of the U.S. budget is spent on foreign aid. The actual number is about 1 percent, and surveys back up Kerry’s statement. One 2016 poll found the average estimate was about 30 percent of all government spending. A survey done nearly two decades ago found an average estimate of 26 percent. There’s nothing wrong about Kerry’s summary. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/abaebb34-ae3b-41cf-8c1c-6b7ed1c8a219	None	John Kerry	None	None	None	2016-11-09T07:40:55	2016-10-26	['None']
-chct-00235	FACT CHECK: Did Nikki Haley Threaten To Cut Off Aid To Palestinian Refugees?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/09/fact-check-did-nikki-haley-threaten-to-cut-off-aid-to-palestinian-refugees/	None	None	None	Jamie Gregora | Contributor	None	None	4:49 PM 01/09/2018	None	['None']
-vogo-00173	Statement: “Councilmember Sherri Lightner voted to hand government employee unions $28 million in bonuses,” say mailers distributed by Ray Ellis, her opponent in the District 1 City Council election, and the Lincoln Club of San Diego County.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/giving-28-million-to-unions-fact-check/	Analysis: Voters in San Diego’s northwestern neighborhoods have received at least two mailers this month accusing Councilwoman Sherri Lightner of political corruption. One ad was paid for by Ray Ellis, who is campaigning to unseat Lightner; the other was funded by the Lincoln Club of San Diego County.	None	None	None	None	Giving $28 Million to Unions: Fact Check	October 26, 2012	None	['Sherri_Lightner']
-pomt-06800	"Certainly we're going to be the most restrictive state in the land … in terms of who can get medical marijuana, how it will be prescribed and how it will be achieved in terms of moving it into the marketplace."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/aug/14/nicholas-scutari/state-sen-nicholas-scutari-says-new-jersey-has-mos/	More than a year and a half after it was enacted, New Jersey is implementing its medical marijuana law. State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, a primary sponsor of the law, said he’s glad Gov. Chris Christie decided to move forward with the program -- which, he said, is the most restrictive in the country by three measures. "Certainly we're going to be the most restrictive state in the land … in terms of who can get medical marijuana, how it will be prescribed and how it will be achieved in terms of moving it into the marketplace," Scutari (D-Union) said during a July 27 NJToday interview. Is New Jersey really the most restrictive in those three categories? Most of the experts we spoke with said New Jersey definitely has one of the most -- if not the most -- restrictive medical marijuana programs overall. Within Scutari’s three parameters, we found the state senator’s statement sound. Washington, D.C., and 16 states have medical marijuana laws. Maryland has a law, but it only allows medicinal marijuana use as a legal defense, so we aren’t considering it. The District of Columbia isn’t a state -- and Scutari said "most restrictive state." So, while we’ll look at Washington, D.C.’s program, it won’t factor into our final ruling. We’ll compare New Jersey with other programs by Scutari’s three measures -- who’s eligible to get medical marijuana, how medical marijuana is recommended and how a patient actually gets it. We should note that medical marijuana technically can’t be prescribed, but doctors can recommend it for patients. Every state describes certain medical conditions or treatments that qualify a patient to receive medical marijuana. New Jersey’s list of conditions is consistent with other states in some instances -- but of the 17 laws we are considering, only two -- New Jersey and Washington, D.C. -- don’t have a provision for chronic pain, according to a breakdown of medical marijuana laws by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which supports the legalization of marijuana. Tamar Todd, a staff attorney for Drug Policy Alliance, a drug policy reform organization, said while "pain is one of the categories where it is most needed," it also is "the category that allows the most abuse." The only mention of pain in New Jersey’s law states that a patient with cancer or AIDS or who is HIV positive, qualifies for medical marijuana "if severe or chronic pain, severe nausea or vomiting, cachexia, or wasting syndrome results from the condition or treatment thereof." "[New Jersey’s law] avoids some of the big loopholes that exist in some other states’ laws," like California and Colorado, said Jonathan Caulkins, professor of operations research and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Between New Jersey and Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital has the more restrictive list of conditions, said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, though D.C.’s law also includes some medical treatments that New Jersey does not. New Jersey, like most other states and Washington, D.C., allows other medical conditions to be added to the program. Now, let’s look at how a doctor can recommend medical marijuana for a patient and how a patient can get medical marijuana. New Jersey lists several requirements a physician must meet in order to be eligible to recommend medical marijuana. One example is a provision requiring doctors to register with the state health department. New Jersey’s medical marijuana program is the only one in the country with that mandate, O’Keefe said. Once a doctor recommends in writing medical marijuana for someone in New Jersey, the patient or a caregiver must go to one of six dispensaries -- what the state calls "alternative treatment centers." There is no provision allowing patients to grow marijuana at home in New Jersey, and patients can get a maximum amount of two ounces per month. Delaware -- which allows up to six ounces -- and D.C. -- which allows up to two ounces -- are the only other medical marijuana programs that don’t have a grow-at-home provision. O’Keefe said, "If you are talking about restrictive, I think it’s reasonable to say that having dispensaries only is more restrictive," because marijuana is being grown in a controlled setting, rather than in private homes. The ruling Scutari said New Jersey will be the most restrictive state in the nation for medical marijuana because of who can get it, how a doctor can recommend it and how it is distributed. Most experts we spoke with agreed New Jersey is one of the most restrictive states for medical marijuana overall. But by Scutari’s three measures, PolitiFact New Jersey found that the Garden State is generally the most restrictive. So, we rate Scutari’s statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Nicholas Scutari	None	None	None	2011-08-14T05:15:00	2011-07-27	['None']
-pomt-10704	"I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/nov/29/ron-paul/a-military-victory-for-paul/	Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate for president who opposes the war and one of the most ardent antiwar candidates in both parties, is on the money here. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that since January, he has received at least $53,670 from U.S. military personnel. The Houston Chronicle, after an extensive analysis of Federal Election Commission reports, puts the figure at $63,440 for the same period. The disparity in the figures is caused by the complicated nature of campaign contributions. Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for CRP, speculates that the difference between their numbers and those of the Chronicle are because the newspaper had access to small contributions and was more familiar with the military connections of people who might not have listed the military as their employer. Regardless, Paul is right that he's on top. Both sources say Democratic candidate Barack Obama comes in second, with CRP reporting he has received $45,200 from military folks. The Houston paper says active and retired military personnel funneled $53,968 to Obama's campaign. "What we were hearing from the donors is that this money was definitely a statement about the war," Ritsch said. "It doesn't mean it reflects the views of anyone else in the military. It just may be the way this small slice of people is making a statement, because it's one of the ways they can make a statement. If you're active military, there aren't too many ways you can protest the mission you've been assigned." John McCain comes in third, with CRP reporting he received $40,000 and the Chronicle saying $48,208. McCain was a Vietnam War prisoner and backs the surge in Iraq.	None	Ron Paul	None	None	None	2007-11-29T00:00:00	2007-11-28	['None']
-tron-00029	Joe Biden: Texas Church Shooting Hero Shouldn’t Have Owned Gun	https://www.truthorfiction.com/joe-biden-texas-church-shooting-hero-shouldnt-owned-gun/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['guns', 'joe biden', 'mass shooting']	Joe Biden: Texas Church Shooting Hero Shouldn’t Have Owned Gun	Nov 14, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-14433	"Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, (The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is banned from researching ways to prevent this."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/mar/09/tammy-baldwin/testing-tammy-baldwin-claim-gun-deaths-cdc-researc/	While Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin is not up for re-election until 2018, she’s still engaging in at least one of the biggest issues in the 2016 campaign. In January, she co-sponsored legislation to appropriate $10 million to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the next five years for firearm research. To promote her legislation, Baldwin tweeted this on Jan. 24, 2015, citing limits on what the CDC can do: "Over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this." We wondered if Baldwin was right. Gun violence numbers As backup for the statistic that 32,000 people die from gun violence every year, Baldwin’s team pointed to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics database. It’s the most comprehensive source for national statistics as it is a census, pulling information from death certificates. The report shows that in 2013, the latest year for which data is available, there were 33,636 gun-related deaths. Beyond that, from 2009-2013, an average of 32,100 people died each year from gun-related injuries. So Baldwin is on target with the number. About one third of gun-related deaths are homicides, with suicides counting for about two thirds of deaths. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim from presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton in October 2015: "We lose an average of 90 Americans every day because of guns." This claim was backed up by taking the number of firearm deaths tallied by the CDC in 2013 and averaging it out over a year. Clinton hit the number, but didn’t mention that most of those deaths are suicides, not homicides. Her claim was rated Mostly True. Dickey amendment In the second part of her claim, Baldwin said the CDC is "banned from researching ways to prevent" gun violence. Her tweet linked to a news release that pointed to a 1996 piece of legislation as evidence. The news release said, in part: "Currently, a Republican appropriations rider from 1996 prohibits funding for such critical research at the CDC, even though the original rider’s author, former Republican Jay Dickey, has since announced his opposition to it noting that the rider’s intention was to prevent the CDC from lobbying for gun control, not from conducting gun-violence research." This 1996 rider is commonly called the Dickey Amendment. In the early 1990s, the New England Journal of Medicine published research that concluded gun ownership, independent of other factors, increased the risk for a homicide in the home. The study was funded by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In the wake of the research, and subsequent media attention, the National Rifle Association campaigned for the elimination of the injury prevention center. While the center survived, new language in the 1996 budget bill said that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." In some ways the statement was redundant, as general funding cannot be used for advocacy. Congress also took from the CDC’s budget $2.6 million -- the exact amount invested in firearm injury research the previous year. While the language against advocating and promoting gun control did not explicitly ban the CDC from researching gun violence, the CDC stopped the work anyway. Linda Degutis, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said the action by Congress sent a strong message to the CDC. "Even though that language doesn’t say research is prohibited," Degutis said, "everyone who was making decisions interpreted it to mean that you could not do any research on gun violence." The language, and lack of funding, has carried on in spending bills and even been expanded to the National Institute of Health, another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. "It is the equivalent of a ban," said David Hemenway, director of the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University. "It’s a touch more nuanced than a ban, but there’s basically no real difference in terms of research." In the wake of mass shootings in 2013, President Barack Obama requested the CDC be granted new funding to study gun violence. Congress did not appropriate the funds. Our rating Baldwin said "over 32,000 people die from #GunViolence every year. Yet, @CDCgov is banned from researching ways to prevent this." The most comprehensive data available supports the first part of the claim, that more than 32,000 people die from gun violence every year. On the research ban, while the language from the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly ban the agency from conducting research, its interpretation effectively banned the practice. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate Baldwin’s claim Mostly True.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2016-03-09T05:00:00	2016-01-24	['None']
-pomt-08685	I "kicked crooked cops and government officials off the public pension rolls."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/sep/10/joseph-fernandez/fernandez-says-he-stripped-crooked-cops-and-govern/	Former Providence City Solicitor Joseph Fernandez, one of three Democrats running for attorney general, has painted himself as a crime- and corruption-busting prosecutor during his nearly-eight years in Mayor David N. Cicilline's administration. In a mailing to Rhode Islanders citing "the facts, plain and simple," Fernandez says that "during his term, crime dropped 30 percent over previous years" and he "protected tax dollars" because he "kicked crooked cops and government officials off the public pension rolls." We discussed the crime rate drop, which Cicilline also claims credit for, in an earlier PolitiFact item, in which we questioned whether Cicilline was directly responsible. The same question applies to Fernandez. So we focused on the pension question, and whether he actually kicked crooked officials off the rolls. Our first stop was the Fernandez campaign. We wanted to know whom they were talking about. Campaign manager Dan Herkert said the mailing referred to four people implicated in corruption probes -- former administration director Frank Corrente, former tax collector Anthony Annarino, former Police Chief Urbano Prignano and Kathleen Parsons, a former parks department employee. Herkert said that in February 2003, when Fernandez was in his second month on the job, he issued a key ruling that a criminal conviction was not required to revoke the pension of an employee who had acted dishonorably while on the job. "Based on that ruling, the Retirement Board moved forward and voted to either reduce or strip the pensions," said Herkert. "He developed the legal strategy that led to either the reduction or revocation of the pensions." But it's a lot more complicated than that. The city's Retirement Board voted to revoke Annarino's pension in February 2002 -- almost a year before Fernandez became solicitor -- after Annarino pleaded gulty to conspiracy, attempted extortion and mail fraud as part of Operation Plunder Dome, which focused on corruption in the administration of Mayor Vincent "Buddy" Cianci, now a talk-show host on WPRO (630-AM). Then in October 2002 -- two months before Fernandez took office -- the board voted to strip the pension from Corrente, Cianci's former director of administration, after Corrente was convicted of racketeering, conspiracy and attempted extortion in conjunction with the Plunder Dome probe. The Fernandez ruling first became relevant in the case of Prignano, who retired after being implicated in a police promotions cheating scandal. His case was different because it was the city's first attempt to strip the pension of an employee for violating the "Honorable Service Ordinance," even though he had never been convicted of a crime. It took until June 2008 for the board to actually vote to remove him from the pension rolls. Finally, there is Parsons, a former office manager in the parks department. She was originally granted a $1,895-a-month pension in June 2005, even though she had confessed on Nov. 24, 2004, to embezzling nearly $27,000 from an off-the-books account in the department. It took the board until April 2007, another 21 months, to vote to slash her pension by 99 percent. The Journal reported at the time that some Retirement Board members said they were not informed of her plea by Fernandez's office. He blamed it on miscommunication. Fernandez didn't prosecute any of these four cases directly. Instead, the city sometimes hires outside lawyers to act on behalf of the Retirement Board, said Vincent A. Ragosta Jr., who handled the Prignano case and independently recommended that it go forward. Ragosta issued the report that the board used to make its decision. Ragosta said Fernandez "has been at the forefront" of all the cases, hiring outside lawyers with expertise in labor and employment law, supervising those lawyers, and following the proceedings at the Retirement Board and in Superior Court, where the board's decisions needed to be ratified before they can actually be implemented. He said taking credit for the actions against the four employees is akin to the attorney general taking credit for putting a murderer behind bars even if an assistant attorney general actually tried the case. "In a broad sense, that's an accurate and truthful statement." All four cases have been long, involved and subject to appeals in Superior Court -- and in at least one instance -- to the state Supreme Court. Fernandez's office was responsible for pursuing them. He was also city solicitor when the board decided to reinstate part of Corrente's pension in August 2008, on the grounds that he had served honorably during his first stint in City Hall. There are two problems with Fernandez's claim. First, he says he "kicked crooked cops" off the public pension rolls. But the only police officer on the list the campaign supplied is Prignano. Last time we checked our dictionary, the word "cops" meant more than one. When we asked Herkert about this, he said, "the statement stands as it is. The statement is accurate." Not that part of it. Second, two of the four ex-employees are still receiving their pensions while their cases are under review in Superior Court. Prignano is getting $5,884.50 per month and Parsons is receiving $1,895.04 a month. They have not been kicked off the pension rolls at all. Herkert's response: "We're basing our statement on the actions of the Retirement Board." So the tally of those who have actually lost their pensions so far: two government officials -- Corrente and Annarino. And their pensions were acted on by the Retirement Board before Fernandez began working for the city. We think the average person reading the Fernandez campaign material would be led to believe that, thanks to the work of the former city solicitor, the city is no longer paying pension money to at least two crooked police officers and two crooked government officials. That wouldn't be accurate. Fernandez and the city get credit for trying to hold public officials accountable by pursuing the pension cases. But the statement in his mailing greatly exaggerates the facts. We rate his claim False.	None	Joseph Fernandez	None	None	None	2010-09-10T00:01:00	2010-08-25	['None']
-pomt-06747	"Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage and nearly 30 percent lived below the poverty line. Today, thanks to Medicare ... nearly all seniors have coverage and 75 percent fewer struggle in poverty."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/25/ron-kind/us-rep-ron-kind-says-thanks-medicare-75-fewer-seni/	Democrats marked the 45th anniversary of Medicare by accusing Republicans of renewing hostilities against the popular program. A partisan scrap over Medicare and the elderly? That’s nothing new. But there was one aspect of the rhetoric during the summer of 2011 that caught our attention. Democrats reminded audiences of life before and after Medicare -- the health insurance program funded by employer and worker taxes that passed in 1965 after years of debate. The comments from U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., partly echoed points made by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats: "Before Medicare, only 51 percent of Americans 65 and older had health care coverage and nearly 30 percent lived below the poverty line," Kind wrote on his website. "Today, thanks to Medicare, things are drastically different. Nearly all seniors have coverage and 75 percent fewer struggle in poverty. We wondered if the situation for seniors had improved as much as described -- and whether Medicare was the main reason why. In the early 1960s, both the elderly population and hospital care costs were surging. Private insurers repeatedly were forced to increase premium rates. "Old people were long considered ‘bad risks’ by commercial insurers, and unions had not made much headway in obtaining coverage for retired workers through employer-sponsored plans," notes an official government history of Medicare on the Social Security website. Over the objections of the American Medical Association, Congress approved Medicare by wide bipartisan margins, with President Lyndon Johnson signing the measure in July 1965. Medicare took effect in 1966. At what rate were seniors insured at that time? Kind points to a 2000 government report that said "in 1964, nearly half of all seniors were uninsured, making the elderly among the least likely Americans to have health insurance." We found wide agreement on this point among a half-dozen government and academic reports -- a range from 50 percent to 56 percent uninsured seniors in the early to mid-1960s. One report broke it down further: 54 percent had hospital coverage, and 46 percent had surgical coverage, according to survey statistics cited by the National Health Statistics Reports. It’s also true virtually all seniors have coverage today. "The folks left out are those not eligible for Social Security (either as a worker or dependent or survivor)," said Marilyn Moon, a Medicare expert at the American Institutes for Research, an independent policy group. "This is mostly legal immigrants who do not have enough earnings years to qualify. It has traditionally been about 2 percent." That covers the question of who had coverage. But what about the poverty part of it? Kind said that, thanks to Medicare, "75 percent fewer struggle in poverty." Pelosi did not use that number in her own release on this. Kind pointed us to a chart in a federal report showing a 30 percent poverty rate for seniors in the mid-1960s, and he compares it to a number Pelosi used (7.5 percent) for "today." That would get you to a 75 percent drop. But the figure didn’t reach 30 until 1967 (29.5 percent). And the 7.5 percent was off; Pelosi’s office reviewed it after we asked and will be changing her website. So we did our own check. We turned to census reports, which show 8.9 percent of seniors in poverty in 2009, the latest year available. The closest pre-Medicare census report on elderly poverty we found was 1959, when 35.2 percent of the elderly officially were considered poor. Compared to 2009, this is a 75 percent drop. (Census figures for elderly poverty were not kept for 1960-1965). So, Kind is right on the 75 percent. But his statement is aimed at a larger point -- that the poverty reduction is due to Medicare. In the Great Depression, at least half of all seniors were living in poverty, but that started to fall after the 1935 act creating Social Security. Experts agree that much of the drop in more recent decades is due not to Medicare, but to improvements in Social Security benefits, especially in the 1970s. "The poverty measures are based on cash income and do not reflect the contribution that Medicare has made to the quality of life of seniors. Almost all the decline in poverty is attributed to Social Security," said Virginia Reno, a Medicare expert at the National Academy of Social Insurance. Think of it this way: Social Security payments help determine a senior’s income. Medicare coverage impacts their health care coverage and costs, but isn’t factored into total income, which is how the poverty rate is defined. As Reno wrote in a 2010 report: "Poverty among older Americans declined in the 1960s and 1970s for the same reasons as their median incomes rose: more of them had worked long enough in covered jobs to qualify for Social Security benefits, and the level of these benefits was increased by Congress." Moon, of American Institutes for Research, added: "What can be said is that without Medicare, many of those both below and above poverty would not be able to afford health care." Kind spokeswoman Leah Hunter said the congressman did not mean to suggest Medicare was the sole reason for the poverty-line change. Let’s bring this home. Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Ron Kind	None	None	None	2011-08-25T09:00:00	2011-06-30	['Medicare_(United_States)', 'United_States']
-pomt-09109	Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is a "career politician."	/georgia/statements/2010/jun/20/doug-macginnitie/candidate-calls-opponent-career-politician/	So what makes someone a "career politician"? We at AJC PolitiFact Georgia became curious recently when we saw an advertisement mailed by Doug MacGinnitie, a Republican candidate for secretary of state. "Who would you entrust with the integrity of Georgia's elections?" it read. "A career politician or an independent thinker?" The ad didn't name names, but it was clear MacGinnitie was referring to the current officeholder, Brian Kemp, as the "career politician" in the ad. MacGinnitie campaign manager Brandon Phillips confirmed our suspicion during a telephone interview that the reference to "career politician" was aimed at Kemp. "It's a two-person primary," he said. Kemp and MacGinnitie are the only Republican candidates in the July 20 primary. Kemp, who spent four years as a state senator, has made a point during the campaign that he is the more experienced candidate, Phillips said. Kemp served in the Georgia Senate from 2003 to 2006. Gov. Sonny Perdue appointed Kemp as secretary of state in January after Karen Handel resigned to run for governor. MacGinnitie was elected to the Sandy Springs City Council in 2007. "I don't think you can convince voters that you're the best candidate because you've been around the longest," Phillips said. But does four years in the Georgia Legislature and five months as secretary of state constitute a "career politician"? The MacGinnitie campaign says yes, if you add Kemp's failed bid to become state agriculture commissioner in 2006 and that Kemp considered a run for the Georgia Senate in 2007. Phillips' argument: How do you run for agriculture commissioner and run for a job as vastly different as secretary of state four years later? "You couldn't find a more extreme example of going from one extreme to another. ... I just don't see how you do that and say you are not a career politician," Phillips said. Kemp, 46, however, has been a developer and in the real estate business since he graduated from the University of Georgia in 1987. Even when he served in the Legislature, Kemp (drawing an annual government salary of about $17,000) maintained his interest in the development game. Last year, Kemp started a manufacturing business, campaign officials said. He claims a net worth of nearly $6.3 million. Kemp will make about $120,000 this year as secretary of state and about $100,000 from his business interests, said his campaign manager, Tim Fleming. "I would consider someone a career politician who's served 20 or 30 years," Fleming said. Most of the people we talked to agreed with the Kemp camp. When he thinks of career politicians, University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock considers Georgians like U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, U.S. Rep. John Lewis and U.S. Rep. John Linder. The four men have spent an average of 17.5 years in Congress. "Four years is an awfully short time to constitute a career unless these are dog years," Bullock said in an e-mail. Bob Holmes, who served 34 years as a Democratic state representative, thought the combination of Kemp's four years in the Legislature and now two subsequent campaigns since 2002 shows "some truth" to the MacGinnitie campaign's claim. "What he's done in the past decade ... indicates he wants to be in politics for the rest of his career," said Holmes, a retired Clark Atlanta University professor. So is Kemp a "career politician"? Well, the average length of service for a U.S. senator is 12.9 years and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives is 11 years, according to Congressional Research Service. Many of those elected officials held elected posts before going to Washington. Perdue, a former state senator, has spent 19 years as an elected official. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a former state senator, is finishing his 16th year as an elected official. Then there is Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin, who's been in office since 1969. Kemp is building a political resume, but two terms in the Legislature, a failed bid for Irvin's job and this campaign don't add up at this point. We rate Doug MacGinnitie's claim as False.	None	Doug MacGinnitie	None	None	None	2010-06-20T06:00:00	2010-06-06	['None']
-pomt-08078	Earmarks requested in a federal spending bill included "$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/dec/19/john-mccain/john-mccain-says-federal-spending-bill-included-27/	One bit of conventional wisdom gleaned from the November 2010 elections is voters turned Democrats out of office in Washington because they were turned off by their spending. The results, no doubt, were more complicated than that. But even if spending were only one reason Republicans took control of the U.S. House, would an outgoing Democratic congressman -- just weeks after his party got clobbered -- make a special federal funding request for potato pests in Wisconsin? On Dec. 14, 2010, U.S. Sen John McCain (R-Arizona) took to the Senate floor to blast 2011 earmark requests made by various lawmakers. An earmark is a requirement that money approved by Congress be spent in a specific way at the request of a lawmaker. McCain, reciting with disdain some of his "favorite" requests, highlighted an earmark for "$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin." Two days later, a 1,900-page, $8 billion bill that included the earmarks was abandoned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. That means the earmarks are not likely to be funded, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense (and a University of Wisconsin Law School graduate). Nevertheless, let’s find out whether McCain’s claim was on target. The 2008 presidential candidate said his source on the earmarks he highlighted was EndingSpending.com, which has a 2011 earmarks database. The database was assembled by three Washington, D.C., organizations: Taxpayers Against Earmarks, led by Ameritrade founder Joe Ricketts; Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group; and WashingtonWatch.com, which is run by a staff member of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research foundation. Our check of the database found that an earmark request for $300,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin was made by U.S. Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wausau). Obey, who decided not to seek re-election in November after 41 years in Congress, was regarded as one of the most powerful members as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He’ll be replaced in January by Republican Sean Duffy, a former prosecutor and lumberjack athlete. So, did Obey request the potato money? Yes, said Ellis Brachman, spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee. He referred us to Obey’s official website, pointing out that members of Congress are required to post their earmark requests. Obey’s site does not label his requests as earmarks, but rather "Wisconsin projects submitted for consideration in FY 2011 appropriations." If you click there on Obey’s home page, you get a list of his more than 80 earmark requests. Among them: $36 million for studies of high-speed passenger rail between Madison and the Twin Cities; $2.5 million to replace the Bad River Tribal Youth Center in Ashland; and millions of dollars for water or waste water system improvements in communities including Cadott, Elcho and Unity. As for Obey’s potato pest request, here’s the summary: Recipient: University of Wisconsin College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Address: 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706 Amount: $300,000 Description: Funding will help promote the development and adoption of bio-intensive integrated pest management practices to reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides, enhance habitat quality, develop marketplace incentives for ecologically-produced potatoes and maintain economically viable farming operations in the fragile central sands region of Northern Wisconsin. Obey was just renewing the potato earmark request. He won $849,000 for the same earmark from 2008 to 2010, according to earmarks databases kept by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Just how important are potatoes in Wisconsin? The state ranks third in potato production, behind Idaho and Washington, according to the Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers Association. Among the threats to Wisconsin potatoes is the Colorado potato beetle, which isn’t easily killed by predator bugs. It is "the most serious insect pest" found on commercially produced potatoes in the central sands area, according to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Entomology. We wondered why McCain said the potato pest management request was for $277,000, while the database he cited and Obey put the figure at $300,000. McCain’s office didn’t reply to our question. However, a "working database" of 2011 earmarks maintained by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), indicates the request was reduced to $277,000 before being put into the bill that was ultimately abandoned. Obey’s wasn’t the only potato pest management earmark request. Maine’s congressional delegation asked for $450,000 for its program, according to the Coburn database. OK, let’s return to McCain’s claim. Citing a database, the Arizona senator said an earmark request had been made for $277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin. The database shows the request was made by Obey, the outgoing congressman. He doesn’t dispute it. (But it’s entirely possible his office considers us a pest on this issue.) We rate McCain’s statement True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2010-12-19T09:00:00	2010-12-14	['Wisconsin', 'Earmark_(politics)']
-pomt-01739	"So many people were critical of Secretary (John) Kerry going to Paris and talking with Hamas," because Kerry was seen as "supporting Hamas to the exclusion of the Arab League."	/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/04/greta-van-susteren/van-susteren-kerry-angered-arab-league-meeting-ham/	Fox News host and pundit Greta Van Susteren wrongly claimed on ABC’s This Week that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with Hamas officials in Paris on July 26 to discuss a possible ceasefire in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a back-and-forth with host George Stephanopoulos, Van Susteren described how Arab League members were upset that Kerry chose to meet with Hamas. "That's why so many people were critical of Secretary Kerry going to Paris and talking with Hamas," she said. "The Arab League thought that that was, you know, supporting Hamas to the exclusion of the Arab League." Van Susteren was not challenged about her claim on air, but no meeting took place. No American official is allowed to negotiate with Hamas because it is defined by the United States as a terrorist organization. "If Kerry or his representatives were to meet with Hamas, they would spend the next 20 years in Leavenworth (Penitentiary)," said James Gelvin, a Middle East historian at the University of California, Los Angeles. In a post on Twitter, Van Susteren acknowledged her error. "Meant to say Kerry talked to Turkey/Qatar ABOUT Hamas in Paris," she wrote. "The point I was trying to make: talking to Turkey and Qatar ABOUT Hamas had the Arab League unhappy." What happened in Paris While Kerry did not meet with Hamas in Paris on July 26, he did meet with the foreign ministers of Turkey and Qatar, two of Hamas’ major international backers. After negotiating a short-lived ceasefire, he said that many state actors have helped in the peace talks but singled out the two countries. "We’re grateful obviously for the Egyptian initiative, for the Israeli efforts initially, but also this particular effort now has been significantly assisted by the input of Qatar, the input of Turkey, and the willingness of these foreign ministers to work hard even though they were at a distance, and to engage directly with some of the Palestinian factions in order to try to help get us where we are today," Kerry said. Arab League reaction Experts we spoke with said that even Van Susteren’s modified point -- that the Arab League was unhappy by Kerry’s talks with Turkey and Qatar -- is an oversimplification. Gelvin noted that Qatar itself is a League member (though Turkey is not), and that desire for peace in the region may outweigh disapproval of Hamas. The League, which is composed of 21 member states, also hasn’t issued any statement as a group condemning or criticizing Kerry’s meeting. "Most of the Arab League, while not enamored with Hamas, wants a ceasefire simply because their lack of a strong backing for the Palestinians is very unpopular among their people," Gelvin said. Still, there are tensions between some individual League members and the United States based on Kerry’s recent diplomatic maneuvers. Steven Cook, a Middle East expert on the Council on Foreign Relations, said Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates all have been critical of Kerry’s reaching out to Qatar and Turkey. Those countries oppose Hamas in the current crisis largely out of a fear that Hamas’ political Islamist movement will spread, experts say. "The Arab states may not be fond of Israel, but they fear political Islam and Hamas as a more direct threat to their stability than Israel," said George Bisharat, a professor at the Hastings College of Law and a legal expert on the Middle East. In general, the great majority of the Arab League members are either indifferent to or enemies of Hamas, said Amatzia Baram, professor of Middle East studies at the University of Haifa in Israel. The two exceptions are Qatar and Sudan, a "friend" of Hamas because of shared ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. "It’s very clear that (most of the Arab League) supports Egypt and not Hamas. Of course, Qatar has a lot of money, which Egypt does not, but Egypt is still the most important country in the Arab world," Baram said. The ruling Van Susteren said, "So many people were critical of Secretary (John) Kerry going to Paris and talking with Hamas," because Kerry was seen as "supporting Hamas to the exclusion of the Arab League." Kerry never spoke directly with Hamas, a factual error that Van Susteren acknowledged. Instead, Kerry spoke with leaders from Turkey and Qatar -- who are seen as intermediaries for Hamas. As to her point about the meeting upsetting the Arab League, experts say some key members of the League were upset, but not all of them. We rate her claim False.	None	Greta Van Susteren	None	None	None	2014-08-04T14:08:08	2014-08-02	['Paris', 'Hamas', 'Arab_League']
-faan-00054	 “We have not taken away health care from immigrants and refugees. On the contrary, the only time we’ve removed it is if we had clearly bogus refugees who have been refused and turned down.”	http://factscan.ca/stephen-harper-health-care-from-immigrants-and-refugees/	In 2012, the Conservatives introduced health care changes that represented a cut in coverage for refugee groups beyond just rejected refugee claimants. The cuts affected ordinary claimants – people whose refugee status is, by definition, to be determined. The cuts also affected privately sponsored refugees. 	None	Stephen Harper	None	None	None	2015-10-04	mber 17, 2015	['None']
-chct-00170	FACT CHECK: Did A GOP Congressman Make Fun Of Latino Accents?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/23/fact-check-did-a-gop-congressman-poke-fun-at-latino-accents/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	2:50 PM 03/23/2018	None	['None']
-snes-02464	Is Harvard University Segregating Graduation Ceremonies?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-segregated-graduation/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is Harvard University Segregating Graduation Ceremonies?	9 May 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01597	Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep Feuding Over ‘Big Little Lies’ Season 2?	https://www.gossipcop.com/nicole-kidman-meryl-streep-feud-big-little-lies-season-2-cast/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep Feuding Over ‘Big Little Lies’ Season 2?	11:27 am, February 12, 2018	None	['Nicole_Kidman']
-goop-02010	Kim Kardashian Spending Millions On Home Security?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-home-security/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian Spending Millions On Home Security?	10:27 am, December 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00689	Oklahoma passed legislation making it legal for agencies to refuse adoptions involving LGBT parents.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oklahoma-bill-lgbt-adoptions/	None	Legal Affairs	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Oklahoma Pass a Bill Making It Legal to Deny LGBT Adoptions?	30 April 2018	None	['Oklahoma', 'LGBT']
-goop-01116	Josh Duhamel, Fergie Divorce Getting Ugly?	https://www.gossipcop.com/josh-duhamel-fergie-divorce-ugly-battle/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Josh Duhamel, Fergie Divorce Getting Ugly?	12:52 pm, April 25, 2018	None	['None']
-abbc-00072	The claim: Tony Shepherd says on average Australians go to the doctor 11 times a year.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-13/tony-shepherd-incorrect-doctor-visits/5436706	The claim: Tony Shepherd says on average Australians go to the doctor 11 times a year.	['doctors-and-medical-professionals', 'health', 'federal-government', 'australia']	None	None	['doctors-and-medical-professionals', 'health', 'federal-government', 'australia']	Commission of Audit chairman Tony Shepherd incorrect on doctor visits	Wed 14 May 2014, 5:41am	None	['None']
-pomt-03193	Says that "unlike Texas, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating."	/texas/statements/2013/aug/30/jay-nixon/give-missouri-governor-comparison-credit-ratings-m/	Responding to an ad blitz in which Texas Gov. Rick Perry urged Missouri businesses to move to the booming Lone Star State, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon suggested that taxes are lower in his state and that students fare better. Nixon, a Democrat, also singled out credit worthiness in the radio spot we noticed online Aug. 27, 2013. Unlike Texas, Nixon said, "Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating." Three days earlier, he posted a similar claim on a Twitter list of ways he ranks the Show-Me State as "#betterthantx." His credit claim snagged our attention. A chart posted online by the California state treasurer lists state general-obligation bond ratings by three rating agencies. We noticed that Missouri and Texas both earned the highest, AAA rating from both Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service. But Standard & Poor’s gave Missouri a AAA rating and Texas a rating of AA+, which is its rating immediately below AAA. Via emails from spokespersons for each of those rating services, we confirmed those ratings for both states--and we inquired into the differences. By phone, New York-based Moody’s spokesman David Jacobson told us that both states have long been stable borrowers, though Missouri has had its Moody’s AAA rating longer--since at least 1972, Jacobson said. In contrast, he said, Moody’s lowered its rating for Texas general obligation debt from AAA to AA in 1987. That year, Texas faced a recession that drove down state revenues. In 2010, Jacobson said, Moody’s recalibrated its methodology for rating state debt; Texas regained a AAA rating. A Standard & Poor’s spokesman, Olayinka Fadahunsi, emailed us a Nov. 20, 2012, report by the firm stating it had assigned its AA+ rating to general-obligation bonds issued by the Texas Transportation Commission. The report credited the Texas economy with being diverse and strong and likely to continue to generate additional jobs. Also, it said, state government had strong cash-management practices and low overall debt and retirement liabilities. On the other hand, it expressed concern at the state’s "budgetary pressures, which are primarily related to the growing proportion of school revenues Texas is required to fund, as well as insufficient new sources of recurring dedicated tax revenues to support the increased funding." The report also cited "increasing spending pressure from public assistance payments, including Medicaid," plus uncertainty about how the Obamacare law might affect the state’s health-care expenditures. "Based on the analytic factors we evaluate for states, on a four-point scale in which '1' is the strongest, we have assigned Texas an overall score of '1.8," the report said. We asked Fadahunsi to discuss the distinction between the firm’s AA+ and AAA ratings. By email, he said that "there is no one precise financial distinction." The firm’s general debt ratings’ methodology, as published Jan. 3, 2011, states that it develops a state’s credit rating by judging conditions across factors including the government’s framework; financial management; economy; budgetary performance; and debt/liability profile. "We assess each of these factors utilizing various metrics that we score on a scale from 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest)," the methodology states. "For each metric there may be several indicators we evaluate to develop the metric score. We score each indicator individually on the same scale and average the indicators' scores to develop the overall score for the metric. We average the metrics for each factor to develop a composite score for each. The scores for the five factors are combined and averaged with equal weighting to arrive at an overall score which is then translated to an indicative credit level." The report says an overall score of 1 to 1.5 is needed to draw the AAA rating. Separately, R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the Texas state comptroller’s office, pointed us to a December 2012, report by the Texas Bond Review Board which includes a chart indicating that as of August 2012, Missouri was among seven states with AAA GO debt ratings from the three major rating services. The other "perfects" were: Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia. Finally we asked Robert Coalter, executive director of the Texas Public Finance Authority, which issues bonds for the acquisition or construction of state buildings, to speak to any financial costs to Texas from not having Missouri’s three AAA ratings. Coalter said by phone that the effect is minimal, adding that any entity that issues bonds--including state agencies--sometimes obtain ratings from only one or two of the rating services. Also, he said, investment firms conduct their own research before committing to bonds. Coalter said the ratings of Texas debt are outstanding. "Our debt is considered to be top quality." Put another way, might the Missouri governor’s statement be real-world meaningless? "I do not believe it’s significant," Coalter replied. He said the claim sounded like comparing one student scoring 100 on a test with another scoring 99. Our ruling Nixon said that unlike Texas, Missouri has a perfect AAA credit rating. That’s correct, though Texas is close; two major services rate the bigger state’s GO debt AAA, one rates it AA+, which is its next-highest rating. We rate this claim as True. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Jay Nixon	None	None	None	2013-08-30T12:55:29	2013-08-27	['Texas', 'Missouri']
-para-00018	The ACT's Marriage Equality Bill would undermine the "well-established position" of "nationally consistent marriage laws".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/11/george-brandis/ACT-same-sex-marriage-equality-brandis/index.html	None	['Federal-State relations', 'LGBTI', 'Same-sex marriage']	George Brandis	Jonathan Pearlman, Peter Fray	None	ACT Bill would undermine 'well-established position' of 'nationally consistent marriage laws': Brandis	Friday, October 11, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.	None	['None']
-snes-06268	A photograph shows a store advertising "Delicious for Chanukah" hams.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hammy-hanukkah/	None	Religion	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did a Grocer Promote ‘Delicious for Chanukah’ Hams?	20 December 2011	None	['Hanukkah']
-pose-00610	"We would propose legislation to develop a new classification of differentiated charter schools: High Performing Charter Schools. These would be charter schools that have excelled both academically and operationally. We would provide greater operational flexibility, expedited approval processes and flexibility in enrolling students."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/635/new-classification-for-charter-schools/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	New classification for charter schools	2011-05-09T11:02:30	None	['None']
-pomt-12437	"What does Trumpcare do? Yank tax credits away from veterans unlike any other American."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/15/richard-blumenthal/gop-health-care-bill-yanks-tax-credits-away-vetera/	Among Democrats’ many gripes with the House Republican health care bill is the fact that it’s missing a special protection for veterans. "What does Trumpcare do? Yank tax credits away from veterans unlike any other American," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., at a May 9 press conference. Does the health care bill supported by President Donald Trump actually strip veterans of a tax protection? This issue is more complex and less far-reaching than Blumenthal’s exaggerated one-liner suggests. It is possible that if the Republican bill were to become law in its current form, a subset of veterans might not be able to access financial assistance that would enable them to choose private insurance over health care through the Veterans Administration. But the language of the bill actually treats veterans like "any other American," as opposed to what Blumenthal said. And there are regulations the Trump administration could pursue to blunt any impact (by taking a page out of the the previous administration’s playbook, we’d add). What the GOP health care bill omits Both the Affordable Care Act and the Republican health care bill (the American Health Care Act) provide government financial assistance to low-income Americans buying health insurance plans on the individual market through tax credits that subsidize premiums. To qualify for the tax credits under either system, a person cannot also be eligible for other affordable health insurance options, like employer-provided insurance, Medicaid or military-related health care. Point being, if you have access to Medicaid or can get insurance from your company, the government won’t pay for you to get insurance a different way. But there is an exemption to that rule under the Democratic-supported Affordable Care Act. Veterans who qualify for Veterans Administration health care (not all do) but aren’t enrolled in the system are eligible for subsidized premiums — allowing these veterans to choose between VA health care or subsidized private insurance. The Republican bill doesn’t include language that would have the same effect. This means that if the Republican bill were to become law in its current form, some veterans might not be able to access the tax credit. That means they’d either have to get their health care through the VA or pay full freight for a different type of insurance. This could have a tangible impact on veterans who choose not to take part in VA health care for reasons outside their control, such as living far away from VA facilities. How broad is the impact? Blumenthal said the Republican bill in its current form could affect as many as 8 million veterans, which is the approximate number of veterans as of June 2014 who qualify for VA benefits but choose not to enroll in the program, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But not all 8 million are in the market for a tax credit to help them buy private insurance. Many get health care through other means, such as Medicaid, their employer, or TRICARE, the military health benefits program. And as we already explained, that means they could not get federal subsidies to purchase a plan on the individual market under either Obamacare or its possible replacement. A report by the Urban Institute, a social and economic policy think tank, found that subsidized premiums under the Affordable Care Act played a big role in the 40 percent drop in uninsured veterans between 2013-15. But the Urban Institute’s numbers suggest that the omission from the Republican health care bill would affect far fewer than 8 million veterans. In 2010, the year Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, there were 520,000 uninsured veterans eligible for subsidized premiums, according to a 2012 report. By 2015, that number dropped to 225,000. And it’s still a subset of these groups who would be impacted by the Republican bill — those who qualify for subsidies and VA benefits. For scale, there are 21.6 million living veterans as of 2014. Why the omission? Interestingly, an earlier version of the Republican health care bill did include the relevant language, but it was removed from the final version that passed the House — a point that Blumenthal’s staff emphasized to us. Including non-budgetary language, such as this veterans provision, could derail Republicans’ plan to get the bill through the Senate using a special procedure called reconciliation. Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., has defended the omission, saying that existing federal regulations stemming from the Affordable Care Act will be able to ensure VA-eligible veterans can qualify for the tax credit. Why? There’s another wrinkle to all of this. The Affordable Care Act veteran exemption isn’t found in the text of the Affordable Care Act itself. It’s actually a 2012 IRS rule. Contrary to Roe’s point, however, regulations applied to one law don’t automatically apply to that law’s replacement, said Lisa Zarlenga, a Washington lawyer for Steptoe and Johnson who served as the Treasury’s tax legislative counsel during Affordable Care Act implementation. If the Republican health bill becomes law, the Treasury and IRS might decide that the Affordable Care Act veterans rule carries over, but it’s not guaranteed, she said. Close readers might have noticed an irony: The Democrats are criticizing the Republican bill for a protection that wasn’t built into the Affordable Care Act to begin with. In fact, the Treasury and IRS wrote the 2012 rule to deal with the difficulty of determining a particular veteran’s VA-eligibility. The fact that this rule also gives some veterans a degree of choice they otherwise wouldn’t have was an added benefit, Zarlenga said. Our ruling Blumenthal said, "What does Trumpcare do? Yank tax credits away from veterans unlike any other American." A reasonable person might hear Blumenthal’s statement and think that under the Republican health care bill, most or all veterans won’t get a tax credit to which they are entitled. It’s much more nuanced than that. Under the Republican plan, like the Affordable Care Act, a person cannot qualify for financial assistance to help them buy an individual health insurance policy if they have access to other affordable health care options. Regulations written in 2012 to comply with the Affordable Care Act said this rule doesn’t apply to veterans who are eligible but not enrolled in the Veterans Administration health care system. The Republican bill doesn’t contain language that would have the same effect. So if it becomes law in its current form, a subset of veterans might not be able to access financial assistance that would enable them to choose private insurance over health care through the VA. But a Republican administration could do what the Democrats did before them and include the benefit as part of a regulatory change. Blumenthal’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Richard Blumenthal	None	None	None	2017-05-15T16:21:57	2017-05-09	['United_States']
-snes-00140	A photograph shows multiple tornadoes touching down in Kansas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/intense-supercell-tornado-mass/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This a Picture of an ‘Intense Supercell with a Mass of Tornadoes’ in Kansas?	4 September 2018	None	['Kansas']
-tron-01369	McDonald’s Coffee Contains French Fry Grease	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mcdonalds-coffee-contains-french-fry-grease/	None	food	None	None	None	McDonald’s Coffee Contains French Fry Grease	Jul 31, 2015	None	['None']
-vogo-00568	Statement: “We came up with a very conservative cost estimate on how much money taxpayers would have been able to save had … city politicians actually listened to the will of the people and implemented competitive bidding,” City Councilman Carl DeMaio said on KUSI during an interview about his Managed Competition Clock.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-the-clock-is-ticking/	Analysis: Like an author on a book tour, DeMaio’s been making the rounds with local news media to plug an online gimmick that purportedly estimates how much money the city could have saved through managed competition in recent years.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: The Clock Is Ticking	June 15, 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-11825	"Snapchat is shutting down!'	/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/13/blog-posting/fake-headline-snapchat-shutting-down-should-just-d/	Snapchat isn’t closing shop. A viral article saying as much is a fake news story created and published on satirical news sites. We first saw the claim on breakingnews365.net under the headline "Snapchat is shutting down!" on Nov. 8, 2017. The post was sparse and contained a single grammatically depressing sentence. "Snapchat will be shutting down tommrow for the U.K. , and will shut down today for the U.s , such a shame" See? Although Snap Inc’s owner has announced that the app has seen less daily activity than expected in the third quarter of 2017, the company has made it clear that this rumor is fake news. Snopes had earlier traced the claim to Channel45news.com, another prank news site that proudly sports a "Create A Prank And Trick All Your Friends!" homepage headline and a "You Got Owned" meme-style header icon. Snapchat has been facing some financial issues due to $40 million worth of unsold Snapchat Spectacles, a device that allows you to record the world around you through a pair of sunglasses. Due to the loss of revenue from the unsold units, lowered shares and the dip in daily activity, Snap Inc CEO Evan Spiegel announced his plan to redesign the app in the wake of this fiscal low point. Although Snapchat has definitely been facing some financial woes, they have no plan of shutting down in 2017 or at any point in the near future. We rate this statement Pants on Fire!	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-11-13T13:54:14	2017-11-08	['None']
-pomt-08212	The economic impact of Atlanta's 2000 Super Bowl was $292 million.	/georgia/statements/2010/nov/19/atlanta-sports-council/2000-super-bowls-economic-impact-tallied-292-milli/	When Gov.-elect Nathan Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed told the NFL they hope to woo the Super Bowl back to town, the NFL played coy. The Super Bowl has plenty of suitors, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said last week. Winning cities tend to have brand-new stadiums. Atlanta's chances may improve if it built one, too, he hinted. That costs money, which boosters think the event can generate. Atlanta's last Super Bowl in 2000 had an economic impact of $292 million, according to a study backed by the Atlanta Sports Council, which aims to build the city's reputation as the "sports capital of the world." That figure has been repeated in media accounts and academic research for a decade. That seems like a nice little nest egg, but does the game really bring in that much money? Festivities for the nation's biggest regular event last for a week and attract celebrity guests and corporate tycoons willing to pay for luxury rental cars, hotel suites and fine dining that are well beyond the means of typical tourists. Still, skeptics say that even that degree of excess cannot support economic impact projections for the Super Bowl. Estimates for upcoming games have passed the half-billion mark. AJC PolitiFact Georgia interviewed independent sports economists to see whether they have come to a consensus on the game's worth. They haven't. Some place the amount in the tens of millions. Its harshest critics think its net effect is zero. But they do agree on this: Independent economists come up with much lower estimates than boosters do. They warn that boosters' estimates do not adequately acknowledge that a mega-event may drive away other potential visitors. They can bring such large crowds and tangled traffic that conventions opt to move elsewhere. Plus, the frenzied activity could prompt locals to stay at home. This can actually lower spending at restaurants and movie theaters. Estimates must also consider where the money is going. If visitors patronize chain restaurants and hotels based outside of the Atlanta area and buy T-shirts and caps licensed by an out-of-town sports league, the bulk of their money isn't creating local wealth. It's heading elsewhere. Further complicating the matter is that the Super Bowl's impact won't be the same in all cities. It might pack more economic punch in Detroit, which doesn't get many tourists during January or February, than it would in Miami, where hotels fill up that time of year whether or not the game is in town. Now back to the 2000 Super Bowl, which didn't go smoothly. An ice storm blanketed Atlanta, and Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was arrested on murder charges after a fight in Buckhead. He pleaded guilty to an obstruction of justice charge in exchange for testifying against his co-defendants. The Tennessee Titans battled back from a 16-point deficit before losing 23-16 to the St. Louis Rams. About 94,000 people visited the city, 87 percent of whom stayed in hotels an average of 3.7 days, according to a 2000 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The Atlanta Sports Council obtained its economic impact estimate with the help of the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and Bruce Seaman, a Georgia State University economist who studies sports and cultural events. He regularly completes economic impact studies on local institutions. We requested a copy of the original 2000 estimate from Seaman and the Sports Council, but neither was able to locate one. Seaman wrote an abstract of his findings, but not a full report. He did provide an unedited version of a letter he wrote to the Atlanta Business Chronicle that explained his methodology. We used this, a working paper he wrote that touched on the subject, and media coverage to bolster our understanding of the estimate. Seaman said the Sports Council asked for his help because he's skeptical about economic impact estimates. Critics blasted the NFL for an estimate of the 1999 Super Bowl in Miami that topped $350 million. The council hoped to avoid a similar problem in Atlanta. Here's how the study worked: It estimated the game's impact on gross regional product, personal income, employment and tax revenue. It surveyed visitors on their spending and interviewed hotel, car rental and restaurant operators. It also incorporated NFL spending. To avoid overestimating the impact, Seaman adjusted his figures to exclude money that would not go to local vendors and workers, and he considered whether the Super Bowl would displace other visitors. Seaman also looked at hotel occupancy, airport traffic and tax receipts. The data were plugged into a mathematical model that Georgia State economists developed to estimate the economic impact of large events. It gave them $292 million. But this number needs heavy qualification. It's not quite as it has been portrayed by the media and academics. The first qualification is that $292 million represents the economic impact estimate for all of Georgia, including direct spending and longer-term effects as the money made its way across the state. The original estimate for the game's economic impact on metro Atlanta was actually $215 million. The bigger problem is the original estimate is outdated. In 2005, during Atlanta's failed bid for the 2009 Super Bowl, Seaman took another look at the 2000 Super Bowl economic impact figure and revised it down to $182 million for the metro area. Now, Seaman thinks that $150 million may be a safer bet, he told AJC PolitiFact Georgia. That's in today's dollars. The estimate sank because Seaman fine-tuned the economic model in the decade since the Rams-Titans faceoff. Some significant adjustments included changes in how much fans spent on hotel accommodations and food, beverage and retail purchases outside the Georgia Dome. For instance, Seaman used to think spectators (excluding media) spent more than $100 per night on hotels, based on double-occupancy. Now he thinks that figure is $70.33. This change knocks millions off the estimate. "In retrospect, even the $182 million figure is too high," Seaman said. "But is there a positive economic impact? I contend 'yes.' " To sum up, the Sports Council's original $292 million figure was once correct, but it took on a life of its own. It was used without specifying that it measures the impact statewide, not for the metro area. And now it's no longer accurate. The true impact is likely $150 million. It might have been an OK figure to use in the early 2000s. But it's been revised downward, which means it's now False.	None	Atlanta Sports Council	None	None	None	2010-11-19T06:00:00	2000-10-01	['None']
-snes-01787	The Red Cross blocked the distribution of 400 hamburgers to Harvey evacuees in Texas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/red-cross-hamburgers/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did the Red Cross Prevent 400 Hamburgers from Getting to Harvey Victims?	5 September 2017	None	['Texas']
-pomt-07424	"Iraq has the second-largest oilfields in the world (behind) Saudi Arabia."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/25/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-iraq-has-second-biggest-oilfield/	During an April 14, 2011, interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, businessman and potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Iraq is strategically important to the United States because of its vast supply of oil. Trump said the United States spent $1.5 trillion on the Iraq War, and it could all go down the drain because the nation is so unstable. "Iraq has the second-largest oilfields in the world. Fifteen trillion dollars worth of oil, second to Saudi Arabia. We go over, we decapitate their armies. Their armies are wiped out. They have weak armies, it is a corrupt society anyway, I mean, it's totally corrupt what is going on over there. We then leave in Iran which has fought for years back and forth, back and forth, because they were basically of equal strength, well, now they are not. Iran will come in. And they will take over Iraq, within two seconds after we leave, forget it, it is not even a contest. ... "So, they are going to have the second-best oilfields in the world, second-biggest oilfields in the world that we made possible with our soldiers, thousands of people dead, wounded and … less importantly, $1.5 trillion. So, I said very simply. That if it is me, we take the oil. You know, in the old days, when you win a country, you win a country. Now with our stupid people, we win a country, we lose money, we lose soldiers, we lose lives, and then we leave." We won’t address Trump's opinions about Iraq and the war, but we did wonder whether he was right to say that "Iraq has the second-largest oilfields in the world (behind) Saudi Arabia." Trump’s comment was rather disjointed, so we had to do a bit of interpretation before looking at the statistics. (We e-mailed his office but did not hear back.) Based on the wording and context, we concluded that by referring to the "second-largest oilfields in the world," Trump meant oil reserves, not production. He clearly indicates that Iraq’s fields are a valuable resource, and we concluded that the real prize is the oil remaining to be extracted, rather than what is being produced. Second, we concluded that Trump had actually used the "oilfields" statistic to refer, interchangeably, to two distinct periods in time -- right before the Iraq War, and the present day. He used the same statistic in both referring to the eve of the Iraq War and also to what could happen in the near future if we abandon Iraq and Iran takes over. So we will look at the figures for 2002, the last full year before the Iraq War, and 2010, the most current statistics available. So do the figures back up Trump’s claim? We turned to the website of the Energy Information Administration, the federal agency that compiles energy statistics. One caveat: EIA says its estimates of energy reserves are from a variety of sources and may not be precise. Experts confirmed for us they can be inconsistent and sometimes exaggerated. That said, let’s see what EIA says about Iraq and other countries. In 2002, Iraq’s proven reserves of crude oil amounted to 112.5 billion barrels. That indeed ranks second to Saudi Arabia, with 261.8 billion barrels. By 2010, Iraq’s proven reserves had risen slightly, to 115 billion barrels, but other countries passed it by. Saudi Arabia was still first, with 262.6 billion barrels, but new to the top tier were Venezuela (211.2 billion barrels), Canada (175.2 billion barrels) and then Iran (137.9 billion barrels). So currently -- or in the near future, a time when Trump says Iran would "take over Iraq" within "about two minutes after we leave" -- Iraq ranks fifth in the world, not second, at least according to this estimate. So where does this leave us? For the part of the comment in which Trump appeared to be talking about the eve of the Iraq War, he’s correct that Iraq had "the second-largest oilfields in the world … to Saudi Arabia." But where he flashes forward to a hypothetical, near-term takeover by Iran, Trump’s statistic is off slightly, since Iraq -- while still high on the list -- has been passed by three additional countries. On balance, we rate Trump’s comment Mostly True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2011-04-25T10:19:41	2011-04-14	['Iraq', 'Saudi_Arabia']
-snes-05498	Drug testing welfare recipients (and then disqualifying those who fail from collecting benefits) is an effective method for saving taxpayer money.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/should-we-drug-test-welfare-recipients/	None	Politics	None	Stephanie Larsen	None	Should We Drug Test Welfare Recipients?	13 December 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00919	"If Tampa intends to make its waterfront a central focus of downtown urban planning, the development of the entire waterfront must be a coordinated, citywide effort. As mayor, Bob Buckhorn will immediately bring together economic development, business, housing and environmental stakeholders to develop a complete Development Master Plan designed to make the best possible use of all of Tampa’s waterfront areas and the surrounding neighborhoods. A financing plan to complete the Riverwalk and an aggressive marketing plan to program the use of our riverfront venues will be included."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/buck-o-meter/promise/951/coordinate-waterfront-development/	None	buck-o-meter	Bob Buckhorn	None	None	Coordinate waterfront development	2011-05-18T14:33:25	None	['Bob_Buckhorn', 'Tampa,_Florida']
-pomt-01800	"If you look at what we’ve done over the last several years, the crime rate has actually gone down in [Providence] and . . . the number of shootings has been going down."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/jul/24/angel-taveras/mayor-angel-taveras-says-crime-rate-shootings-have/	Providence is known for a lot of great things. One thing it doesn't want to be known for is the gun violence that regularly makes headlines. On Monday, July 14, 2014, the NAACP tried to rally support for a five-point program to deal with street crime, including providing more job opportunities in low-income communities. That was a week after five people were injured in a July 8 drive-by shooting. In anticipation of that news conference, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras, a Democrat currently running for governor, said there have been signs of hope dealing with the problem. "If you look at what we’ve done over the last several years, the crime rate has actually gone down in the city, and in terms of violence as well, we know the number of shootings has been going down year from year," he told The Providence Journal. "Several" is a vague word. But because he prefaced his statement by saying, "If you look at what we've done," we'll assume he's referring to his tenure as mayor, which began in January 2011. We contacted Taveras' office and spokesman David Ortiz provided data from the Providence police. We should note that the crime rate in the United States -- both violent crimes and property crimes -- has been declining steadily for at least the last 20 years, according to the FBI, so any reduction would not be unique to Providence. We've looked at Providence crime rates before. On December 30, Brett Smiley, now a Democratic candidate for mayor, earned a Mostly True when he said, "Of all cities in the United States with more than 100,000 people, Providence is the 183rd safest." Prior to that, on July 19, 2010, we gave former mayor David Cicilline a True for his statement that Providence had "the lowest crime rate in three decades." We found that, at the time, for 2009 the crime rate was the lowest in 44 years. Has the crime rate and the number of shootings gone down in recent years, as Taveras claims? To determine the crime rate, we used U.S. Census Bureau data for Providence combined with an updated count of crime incidents from the Providence police, as reported to the Rhode Island State Police and the FBI, from 2000 through 2013. (We spot-checked the data with reports on the FBI website.) The rates for total crimes -- including both violent crime and property crime -- have bounced around a bit from year to year but the trend is down. The rate was 52.4 incidents per 1,000 population in 2009 -- the year we used for the Cicilline fact check. It ticked up to 53.7 in 2010, and rose to 54.3 in 2011, which marked Taveras' first year in office. It dropped to 51.9 the following year and was 51.7 in 2013. Based on our research for this item and our Cicilline fact check, that 2013 rate was the lowest in 48 years. A reduction in property crimes -- burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft was responsible for most of the reduction. Such crimes make up roughly seven out of every eight crimes committed in the capital city. The 2013 violent crime rate was 6.7 per 1,000, the lowest since 2007. And what about the number of shootings? Because car backfires and fireworks might sound like a gunshot, the Police Department does not track reports of shootings, according to the city's public safety commissioner, Steven Pare. Taveras' spokesman, Ortiz, said that "When the mayor spoke of shootings, he was referencing the reports he gets regarding shooting victims. The mayor does not get reports regarding shots fired, and that is not at all what he meant." So we got data on shooting victims from Providence police. In 2011, Taveras' first year in office, the number of shooting victims jumped sharply to 108. That's 18 more than in 2010. The number had been rising steadily -- there were 47 shooting victims in 2006, the first year of the statistics provided by Ortiz. But in 2012, the number declined to 105, then to 100 in 2013. And as of July 12, the day Taveras made his statement, there were 61 shooting victims so far this year, the exact same number as of July 12, 2013. We will note for the record that crime rates are down nationally and Providence's rate had been declining long before Taveras took office. Our ruling Angel Taveras said, "Over the last several years, the crime rate has actually gone down in the city and . . . the number of shootings has been going down." While the overall rate ticked up the year before Taveras took office and during the first year of his tenure, it has declined by a few percentage points in the last two years, reflecting the long-term trend. Similarly, the number of shooting victims made a significant jump the first year Taveras was in office. The number has fallen since then, but in 2013, it was still 10 higher than the year before he became mayor. The count as of July 12 -- the date of Taveras' statement -- was not lower than the same time last year; it was identical. All things considered, the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Angel Taveras	None	None	None	2014-07-24T00:01:00	2014-07-12	['None']
-pomt-07451	"America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes. Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes."	/georgia/statements/2011/apr/20/tom-graves/tax-burden-overwhelmingly-wealthy-congressman-says/	Some of you may have come to work bleary-eyed Tuesday and angry at Uncle Sam. You procrastinators waited untl the last minute to file your income taxes, which were due by midnight Monday. In honor of the tax deadline, Tom Graves, a congressman from northwest Georgia, began sending out messages last week about the current tax system. One message, posted on his Twitter page, caught our attention. "America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes. Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes," the message said. If you’re part of either of those income classes, you may be really upset now. That’s the point most fiscal conservatives are making as President Barack Obama proposes ending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans as part of his debt reduction plan. "This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well -– we rightly celebrate their success," Obama explained in a recent speech. "Instead, it’s a basic reflection of our belief that those who’ve benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more." The top 5 percent have an annual adjusted income before taxes of about $160,000 or more. The top 25 percent have an annual adjusted income before taxes of about $67,000 or more. Instead of trying to figure who’s right about whether the rich pay their fair share in taxes, we wanted to know whether Graves’ facts were correct. Our friends at the PolitiFact national site found that U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., slipped up while talking about the subject in a recent television interview on "Today." Bachmann, who is considering a run for president, said, "The top 1 percent of income earners pay about 40 percent of all taxes into the federal government." The top 1 percent of income earners (people making more than $380,000 a year before taxes) did in fact pay 39.5 percent of individual income taxes in 2007, but they paid 28 percent of all federal taxes in 2007. That’s a meaningful distinction because, as a general rule, the burden of the income tax is tilted heavily toward the upper end of the income spectrum, while the payroll tax burden -- another major federal tax -- is paid somewhat more evenly by poor and rich alike. PolitiFact rated Bachmann’s claim False. Graves, by contrast, avoided Bachmann’s linguistic error. His spokesman, John Donnelly, directed us to a report by the Internal Revenue Service that was completed this past winter, based on 2008 data. The report shows that the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 58.7 percent of federal income taxes. The top 25 percent of taxpayers paid 86.34 percent of total income taxes. The National Taxpayers Union keeps a chart of such data on its website, and its spokesman said Graves’ math is accurate. The group supports the Republican proposals to cut the federal debt, which includes spending cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and no tax increases. "The [tax] burden is inordinately high on the top 50 percent of income earners," spokesman Doug Kellogg said. Eric Toder, a veteran tax expert at the centrist to liberal Urban Institute, said his organization analyzed income tax rates for 2010 and also found similar numbers to what Graves put on Twitter. Toder noted that the current annual income cap on Social Security is $106,800, which is less than what the top 5 percent of earners pay. Obama said Tuesday that he wants to raise the income cap on Social Security. Graves was off by a percentage point in relaying the figure for the top 5 percent, but both of his numbers are very close to the IRS data. And while using only the federal income tax as a stand-in for the total federal tax burden paints a somewhat skewed picture, Graves was careful to make his words in the tweet accurate. So we rate his claim as True.	None	Tom Graves	None	None	None	2011-04-20T06:00:00	2011-04-13	['United_States']
-goop-01653	Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber Pilates Class Really A Secret Date?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-justin-bieber-pilates-class-secret-date/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber Pilates Class Really A Secret Date?	2:58 pm, February 3, 2018	None	['None']
-chct-00182	FACT CHECK: Does The US Have A $500 Billion Trade Deficit With China?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/10/fact-check-us-500-billion-trade-deficit-china/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	12:08 PM 03/10/2018	None	['None']
-mpws-00041	Last week, the five Republican candidates competing to unseat Gov. Mark Dayton gathered for a joint press conference to criticize a proposed office building for the state’s senators. The group was unified in its belief that the project spells wasteful government spending. To underscore his opposition to the building, candidate Scott Honour pointed out that government is spending more on its citizens than ever before. “Our government spends two-and-half-times as much per citizen today as it did 30 years ago.”​ 	https://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2014/04/poligraph-honour-claim-about-govt-spending-correct/	None	None	None	Catharine Richert	None	PoliGraph: Honour claim about gov’t spending correct	April 2, 2014, 2:30 PM	None	['Mark_Dayton', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-goop-02347	Kendall Jenner, Blake Griffin Talking Kids, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kendall-jenner-kids-blake-griffin-baby/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kendall Jenner, Blake Griffin NOT Talking Kids, Despite Report	11:23 am, October 14, 2017	None	['Kendall_Jenner']
-goop-00078	Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts Feud Forcing Hollywood To Choose Sides?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-julia-roberts-feud-hollywood-celebrities-choose-sides/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts Feud Forcing Hollywood To Choose Sides?	3:00 am, October 27, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-vogo-00130	Statement: “San Diego has more trees than any other city in the nation,” ABC 10 News reported in a March 1 story.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/a-tall-tale-about-san-diegos-trees-fact-check/	Analysis: ABC 10 News recently declared that San Diego has a natural claim to fame: the city with more trees than any other in the nation.	None	None	None	None	A Tall Tale About San Diego's Trees: Fact Check	March 12, 2013	None	['San_Diego', 'American_Broadcasting_Company']
-pomt-13372	Says "Catherine Cortez Masto failed Nevada rape victims. While attorney general, thousands of rape kits were never sent for DNA analysis."	/nevada/statements/2016/sep/28/senate-leadership-fund/ad-accuses-catherine-cortez-masto-not-addressing-r/	A new Nevada ad campaign claims Democratic Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto "failed Nevada rape victims" during her tenure as the state’s attorney general. Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC with ties to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has launched several ads attacking the former attorney general on the issue of untested rape test kits. "Catherine Cortez Masto failed Nevada rape victims," the ad says. "While Attorney General, thousands of rape kits were never sent for DNA analysis." Cortez Masto’s campaign has taken the ads seriously, as she’s staked much of her candidacy on her record of combating human trafficking and violence against women (even releasing two ads attempting to push back on the claims). However, it’s hard to find any evidence that she took on the specific problem of the state’s rape kit backlog while in office from 2006 to 2014. How the backlog happened "Rape kits" are shorthand for sexual assault forensic evidence kits, intended to be collected soon after a sexual assault or rape by a nurse or doctor. It collects a variety of evidence including the patient’s medical history, tissue and hair samples from the victim’s body and clothes, photos of injuries sustained by the victim, and biological samples such as saliva, blood, semen, urine, skin cells and hair. Nevada came under fire in October 2014 when a nonprofit group released a report showing Las Vegas tested only 16 percent of kits collected by police between 2004 and 2013, with more than 4,300 left unprocessed. Nationwide, the backlog of untested kits was estimated to be more than 400,000 in 2014. Kits aren’t tested for several reasons, including if police decline to request a test in favor of other evidence or if the victim decides not to proceed with prosecution. Testing kits can also be expensive (up to $1,500 for an individual kit), which contributes to backlogs. Advocates say that testing every kit is important because DNA samples from the kits are entered into an FBI database which can uncover new leads and introduce evidence linking sexual assault or rape cases together. Who to blame? The Senate Leadership Fund ads use several pieces of evidence to claim that Cortez Masto "neglected" the issue for eight years, including video of an October 2014 exchange between her and a member of a criminal justice committee on the backlog issue. The video highlights a question from Richard Siegel, former president of the Nevada American Civil Liberties Union, asking Cortez Masto if she’s aware of recent articles about the unprocessed rape kit backlog issue. Cortez Masto responds that she hasn’t (clip begins at 2:17:40), which the ad highlights as evidence that she had "no idea" of the issue. A review of the video shows the ad plays the exchange relatively straightforward, but Siegel (who is supporting Cortez Masto) says it’s taken out of context and ignores all the other work she did on the issue. "The truth was the opposite of that," he said. "She was the leader without any question with anything to do about sexual violence." Still, there isn’t much evidence that Cortez Masto specifically tackled the backlog issue while in office, though she did support legislation expanding access to rape test kits and more broadly sought support for victims of human trafficking and sexual violence. The most direct evidence provided by the Cortez Masto campaign is a 2012 letter that she and 52 other state attorneys general signed urging Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The letter references a "rape kit that goes unprocessed for lack of funding" as an example of the consequences for not reauthorizing the bill. Cortez Masto also worked on legislation expanding access to sexual assault kits, secured grants to combat violence against women, and helped draft legislation preventing rape or domestic violence victims from being compensated due to their "conduct," which critics say is a form of victim-blaming. As for the ad’s central claim, there is little direct evidence that she took direct action on dealing with the backlog. Her successor, Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt, made filling the backlog a campaign pledge and was able to secure roughly $3.7 million in grants and redirected settlement funds to pay for funding the backlog about a year after taking office. Though the funding is secured, filling the backlog is still a work in progress. Out of about 8,000 total untested kits, the Attorney General’s office says about 1,500 have been sent out for testing as of August 2016, with expectations that roughly half of backlogged kits will be sent out for testing by the end of next year. Adding to the complexity is that responsibility over untested rape kits is a jurisdictional web, as Nevada is an outlier among most states in not having a dedicated state-level forensic lab. The state is instead served by two separate police-run facilities in Reno and Las Vegas servicing the rest of the state. "The attorney general has no responsibility over the laboratory or over the police agencies that the laboratory serves," said Renee Romero, former director of the Reno-area forensic lab. So there is no statutory requirement that Nevada’s attorney general must oversee rape test kits and any potential backlogs, but as the state’s top law enforcement officer, they clearly have the discretion and freedom to take on issues that aren’t clearly laid out in state law. The ads also claim that Cortez Masto was unable to find money needed to address the backlog, while her successor "quickly" found funds to fill the backlog. Laxalt did gain approval from legislators in December 2015 allocating $3.7 million targeting the backlog, but those funds came from various sources, including a one time payment of $1.7 million in settlement funds from JP Morgan Chase case over fraudulent debt collection practices. The initial action against the bank was taken by a group of 13 state attorneys general (not including Nevada) that negotiated the national settlement. Nevada received $1.7 million from that deal, which Laxalt asked to have specifically dedicated to filling the rape-kit backlog. Cortez Masto’s office did send out an advisory in 2014 encouraging Nevadans to file complaints about fraudulent debt collection practices with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, though it’s difficult to draw a line between that press release and the ultimate settlement agreement, which Nevada played no part in negotiating and coming in July 2015, after she left office. "It is unclear what former Attorney General Masto is referencing when she states that her work 'helped fund testing of Nevada’s rape kit' backlog," Attorney General’s office spokeswoman Monica Moazez said in a statement. Laxalt’s office also applied for and received around $1.9 million in federal grant money to address the backlog, which wasn’t available when Cortez Masto was in office. But it’s not a new issue, as Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars targeting rape-kit backlogs since 2004 (though it’s been criticized for not effectively tackling the problem). One reason Cortez Masto may not have tackled the backlog issue specifically is because the extent of problem wasn’t revealed until the final months of her term. The first reporting as to the actual extent of the backlog appeared in October 2014, just two months before Cortez Masto left office. Our ruling Senate Leadership Fund claims, "Catherine Cortez Masto failed Nevada rape victims," and "while attorney general, thousands of rape kits were never sent for DNA analysis." The ad is misleading in the sense that it portrays Cortez Masto as insensitive to the plight of victims of rape, but the charge that nothing was done to reduce the backlog during her time as attorney general is accurate. However, the labs where rape kits are tested are run by police, and not directly by the attorney general. We rate this ad Half True.	None	Senate Leadership Fund	None	None	None	2016-09-28T17:38:58	2016-09-13	['None']
-pomt-02146	After the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, "the ambassador's body was dragged through the street."	/punditfact/statements/2014/may/05/laura-ingraham/ingraham-recycles-incorrect-benghazi-claim/	Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham restated a debunked talking point Sunday, claiming that the body of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was "dragged through the street" following the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. "We have to not forget, we have four dead Americans," Ingraham said during a roundtable discussion about the Benghazi attack on ABC's This Week. "The ambassador's body was dragged through the street. Okay? It was beyond heartbreaking and beyond infuriating." Stevens' body was not dragged through the street, at least not in the way Ingraham suggests, multiple accounts and three official reviews make clear. PolitiFact examined a similar claim in September 2013 and the facts remain the same. The bottom line: Good Samaritans took Stevens to a hospital where he could receive medical treatment. The most recent summary of the events came from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in January 2014. In an appendix, the report provides a timeline. It has this entry for 1 a.m. Sept. 12, 2012: "Local Libyans found the Ambassador at the Mission Facility and brought him to a local hospital. Despite attempts to revive him, Ambassador Stevens had no heartbeat and had perished from smoke inhalation." Two other government bodies said much the same thing. An Accountability Review Board, headed by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen and veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering, declared that Stevens was brought to the hospital by six civilians. "To the best knowledge of the Board these were ‘good Samaritans’ among the hordes of looters and bystanders," the review concluded. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee -- controlled by Republicans -- reported that "local Libyans found the remains of Ambassador Stevens in the main diplomatic building at the Benghazi Mission and transported him to the hospital. The Libyans apparently did not realize who the Ambassador was, but they alerted the State Department of his location by using the cell phone that was in the Ambassador’s pocket. Libyan doctors tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate Ambassador Stevens upon his arrival at the hospital." The Associated Press interviewed the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens. CNN spoke to Libyans who said they had found Stevens. The CNN report includes amateur video that shows rescuers pulling Stevens through a window. It seems established fact that Libyans brought Stevens directly to the hospital and there were no signs that anything else took place. Our ruling Ingraham said that the body of Ambassador Stevens was dragged through the street. We reached out to Ingraham but did not hear back. After reading three government reports and independent press accounts, we find that Stevens, overcome by smoke from the fire, was brought to a Libyan hospital where efforts to revive him failed. To be dragged through the streets implies disrespect. There are no reports of public abuse of his body. This claim was debunked long ago and the truth has been widely available. We rate Ingraham's claim False.	None	Laura Ingraham	None	None	None	2014-05-05T17:31:43	2014-05-04	['United_States', 'Libya', 'Benghazi']
-pomt-15310	The Iran deal "violates promises the president made to the American people." ... "It is not an anytime, anywhere inspection process."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/19/marco-rubio/rubio-iran-deal-breaks-anytime-anywhere-inspection/	The agreement reached with Iran over nuclear weapons remained a top issue on the Sunday July 19 news shows, with critics of the deal urging that it be scuttled by Congress. On CNN’s State of the Union, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., told host Jake Tapper that "this deal violates promises the president made to the American people on multiple fronts. It is not an anytime, anywhere inspection process." This issue also came up on the same day on CBS’s Face the Nation, when Secretary of State John Kerry said of anytime, anywhere inspections, "This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating. It was not on the table. There's no such thing in arms control as ‘anytime, anywhere.’ There isn't any nation in the world, none that has an anytime, anywhere. We always were negotiating was an end to the interminable delays that people had previously. " On Rubio’s claim, we see two questions. First, does the Iran deal fall short of an "anytime, anywhere inspection process"? And second, did Obama promise that it would include an inspection regime that strict? Does the Iran deal fall short of an ‘anytime, anywhere inspection process’? We addressed this question in the course of checking a recent claim by Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., that "thanks to the Obama administration’s negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year." We found that it’s correct that certain specific Iranian assets that will be under 24/7 monitoring by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. According to the agreement, "for 15 years, Iran will permit the IAEA to implement continuous monitoring, including through containment and surveillance measures, as necessary, to verify that stored centrifuges and infrastructure remain in storage, and are only used to replace failed or damaged centrifuges." This round-the-clock monitoring will explicitly include "electronic seals which communicate their status within nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors, as well as other IAEA approved and certified modern technologies," according to the agreement. For instance, at an Iranian facility like Natanz, where more than 5,000 centrifuges will be operating, the IAEA will have cameras that provide 24-hour monitoring, said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at the Harvard Kennedy School. In addition, the agreement says, "Iran will permit the IAEA regular access, including daily access as requested by the IAEA, to relevant buildings at (the Iranian nuclear facility at) Natanz ... for 15 years." However, this sort of 24/7 surveillance will not be the rule everywhere in the Iranian nuclear archipelago. "At most locations, inspections will be every once in a while, on a schedule the inspectors judge to be sufficient based on the sensitivity of the activities at that location, how long it would take for Iran to do something there that would make a difference, and so on," Bunn said. In fact, even if Iran ultimately agrees to a contentious inspection, the wait could be as long as 24 days. The agreement spells out that if the IAEA and Iran can’t work out their differences over suspicions about undeclared nuclear materials or activities within 14 days, a joint commission empowered by the agreement would try to resolve the situation for another seven days. Once the commission decides what to do, Iran would have three more days to follow through. In other words, when looking at Iran’s nuclear complex as a whole, "the IAEA can’t just drive up with no warning — it’s not ‘anytime, anywhere,’ " Bunn said So on this point, Rubio is justified in suggesting that the deal doesn’t include "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Did Obama promise that the agreement with Iran would include an ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspection regime? This question is a bit more complicated. We located at least one, and possibly two, instances in which Ben Rhodes -- an assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speechwriting -- said the deal would include "anytime, anywhere" inspections. One of Rhodes’ comments came in an interview with Tapper on April 6, 2015. Tapper asked Rhodes, "So the Israelis have put out this list of things that they think should be in the final deal with Iran, including allowing inspectors to go anywhere, anytime. That seems perfectly reasonable, no?" Rhodes responded, "Well, Jake, first of all, under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has." The second of Rhodes’ comments came on the same day, in an interview with Israel's Channel 10, April 6, 2015. After objecting to the paraphrases used in a widely cited Times of Israel article about the interview, the White House sent us a transcript of the exchange. Rhodes was asked, "Will the IAEA have the ability to visit anywhere, anytime?" Rhodes responded, "Yes, if we see something we want to inspect. So in the first case we will have ‘anytime anywhere’ access to all of the nuclear facilities. We’ll have the ability to look across all of their supply chain, their uranium mines and mills, their centrifuge production and storage facilities. But I think what you're mainly referring to is if there's a suspicious site, for instance, on a military base in Iran, and we want to seek access to that we will be able to go to the IAEA, and get that inspection because of the additional protocol of the IAEA that Iran will be joining, and some of the additional transparency and inspection measures that are in the deal." Much of the coverage has focused on Rhodes’ agreement with the interviewer’s words that the IAEA will "have the ability to visit anywhere, anytime." The White House notes, however, that Rhodes’ full comments are more nuanced, spelling out the more complicated -- and not instantaneous -- process of inspecting suspicious sites not already cited in the agreement. So we see one pretty clear statement, plus one somewhat less clear statement, made by the Obama administration that backs up Rubio’s claim. "The answer given by Ben Rhodes is consistent with the messaging that the Obama administration has been providing since the nuclear talks with Iran began," said Rick Brennan Jr., a senior political scientist with Rand Corp. "In fact, in 2012 President Obama declared that the final deal with Iran would ensure ‘the end to their nuclear program,’ which we now understand is not accurate." That said, though, Rhodes' comments are something of an outlier to the words other White House officials have said. In general, the message from senior White House officials has been that the inspections regime in the deal would be strong by historical standards -- and strong enough to achieve its goals -- but not allowing "anytime, anywhere" inspections. Critics like Rubio "are trying to imply that the Obama administration promised that international inspectors bust into any undeclared Iranian site, whenever they felt like doing so, and without cause," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. However, that was not the administration’s goal, because "no sovereign state would agree to such an arrangement; no such access is necessary to verify compliance; and any such arrangement would waste the inspectors' resources. Iran is a large country and the inspectors should and will focus on particular areas/sites of concern." A good example of the White House's usual wording is the briefing held by Press Secretary Josh Earnest on March 9, 2015. Here are some of the phrases Earnest used to describe the extent of the inspection regime: • "We're going to insist that the Iranians agree to intrusive inspection measures that will resolve the broader international community’s concerns." • "What we are seeking from Iran are a whole set of commitments from them … to comply with an intrusive set of inspections to verify their compliance with the agreement." • "They’re going to have to agree to a set of very intrusive inspections." • "Any sort of agreement that is reached will require serious commitments on the part of Iran to an intrusive inspections program that allows international inspectors not just into their nuclear facilities, but also into the manufacturing facilities that are manufacturing parts and equipment for their nuclear facilities that would require inspections at uranium mines in Iran." • "We would insist … that Iran commit to comply with a historically intrusive set of inspections." • The deal would "impose an intrusive set of inspections that would verify Iran’s compliance with the agreement." Such language has been echoed numerous other times by White House officials, including Obama. In a Rose Garden address on April 2, 2015, four days before Rhodes’ televised comments, Obama said: "Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. … International inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to Iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program -- from uranium mills that provide the raw materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program." Obama repeated the sentiment in his weekly address on April 4, 2015, and the message was echoed by others -- including Rhodes himself. At a press briefing at Camp David May 14, 2015, Rhodes said, "Under this agreement that we're pursuing with the Iranians, (the nuclear) program will be rolled back and face significant limitations that it doesn’t currently face, and there will be the most intrusive inspections regime of any arms control agreement that we've ever had." Rhodes tried to clarify the "anywhere, anytime" phrasing in an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett on July 14, 2015. "We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called ‘anytime, anywhere’ where you can basically go anywhere in the country, look at whatever you wanted to do, even if it had nothing to do with the nuclear program. What we did seek is beyond this comprehensive verification of the nuclear sites. If we have a suspicion about a site, we have the ability to go to the IAEA, the organization that conducts inspections, and to say, we need to inspect that site." So Rubio’s not wrong to say that the Obama administration promised "anywhere, anytime" inspections. However, it’s also reasonable to point out that most of the administration’s statements on this point have not used that specific language. Our ruling Rubio said that the Iran nuclear deal "violates promises the president made to the American people" because it "is not an anytime, anywhere inspection process." Rubio has a point that a senior administration national-security official did, in at least one case and possibly two cases, say on television that the deal would include "anytime, anywhere" inspection provisions. However, focusing on these two comments is a bit of cherry-picking, since most of the White House’s statements on this issue have avoided that term in favor of ones that can be more plausibly used to describe the provisions of the agreement that were ultimately reached. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2015-07-19T16:52:10	2015-07-19	['United_States', 'Iran']
-pomt-13011	Wisconsin has only one county, Dane, "that's hand counting the votes" in the 2016 presidential recount.	/wisconsin/statements/2016/dec/09/sean-duffy/wisconsin-presidential-election-recount-only-dane-/	A Twitter war (well, skirmish) broke out between two Wisconsin congressmen after one of them, Republican Sean Duffy, called Madison a Communist community. In making the attack, Duffy also made a claim about the state’s recount of 2016 election results, which was forced by Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and supported by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. "We only have one county that's hand counting the votes, that's Dane County, which is the home of Madison," Duffy told Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson on Dec. 1, 2016. "It's the progressive-liberal-Communist community of Madison. "And they’re taking as long as they can -- the Stein and Hillary folks who are on the ground are taking as much time contesting ballots, slow walking as much as they can." Six days later, Democrat Mark Pocan, a decades-long resident of the Madison area, tweeted: Demanding an apology from @RepSeanDuffy for calling Madison communist community that doesn't believe in democracy & freedom on @FoxNews. That led Duffy to respond the same day with his own tweet: The PC crowd is humorless. For those offended by my "communist" comment, I'll send a therapy dog to your "safe place" of choice in Madison. And the next day, Pocan went on Carlson’s show to talk about the spat some more. Perhaps lost in the back-and-forth was Duffy’s claim about the recount -- that Dane is the only county in Wisconsin recounting ballots by hand. The recount Stein raised millions of dollars over the Thanksgiving holiday to pay for presidential election recounts in Wisconsin and two other states. She also said Wisconsin uses illegal voting machines, which we rated Pants on Fire. We noted in that item that the vast majority of voting machines in Wisconsin are optical readers. Voters fill out a paper ballot and feed it into the machine, which then electronically records the vote. Meanwhile, a small percentage of votes are cast on touch-screen machines -- but in Wisconsin they also generate a paper record for each ballot cast. As of early afternoon on Dec. 9, 2016, with the recount expected to be completed within two or three days, 88.5 percent of the Wisconsin votes had been recounted. Clinton had gained 49 votes on Republican Donald Trump, who won the state by some 22,000 votes in the original count. All told, there was a net change of 1,322 votes in the presidential race among the more than 2.63 million ballots that had been recounted. As for how the recounting has been done, the majority of Wisconsin’s 72 counties (including Dane, but not Milwaukee) are doing it by hand. Here is what the county election clerks told the Wisconsin Election Commission at the outset of the recount about their plans for the recount: 47 counties: Recount by hand 13 counties: Combination of hand count and optical scanners 12 counties: Optical scanners A word on the process in Wisconsin: Every ballot is first examined by the recount workers so the candidates’ representatives can see it and raise any questions or objections to it. If the recount is conducted by hand, the ballots are sorted into piles for each candidate for counting by hand. If the recount is by machine, the ballots are fed into the tabulating machine for counting. The commission told us it did not follow up with the clerks to see if any of their plans had changed. But there were news reports about hand counts being done in various counties, including Brown, Clark and Marinette. In any case, Duffy was not claiming that Dane was the only county doing hand recounts, according to Duffy spokesman Mark Bednar. Duffy "was explaining that Dane County was the only county where there were reports on the ground of Stein supporters trying to slow-walk the recount process," Bednar said. But that’s not how it came out in the interview. Duffy declared that only Dane County was hand counting votes. But many counties decided to do the recount by hand. The "slow walking" part of what Duffy said has to do with Stein and Clinton supporters and nothing to do with Dane County. Our rating Duffy said Wisconsin has only one county, Dane, "that's hand counting the votes" in the 2016 presidential recount. But several dozen counties committed to doing recounts by hand, Dane being one of them. We rate the claim Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/b3f85e86-7ccc-4ba0-92e7-7491472043c2	None	Sean Duffy	None	None	None	2016-12-09T18:01:11	2016-12-01	['None']
-hoer-01069	US Powerball Free $1 Million Jackpot Facebook Survey	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/us-powerball-free-1-million-jackpot-facebook-survey-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	US Powerball Free $1 Million Jackpot Facebook Survey Scam	November 20, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02930	Has the Process to Impeach Donald Trump Begun?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/has-the-process-to-impeach-donald-trump-begun/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Has the Process to Impeach President Donald Trump Begun?	15 February 2017	None	['None']
-vogo-00490	Statement: “Every single year in eight years that the site was located next to it, we had what are called emergency shutdowns,” Hueso said Oct. 22 at a City Council meeting about placing a temporary winter homeless shelter near Perkins Elementary School in Barrio Logan.	statement: “every single year in eight years that the site was located next to it, we had what are called emergency shutdowns,” hueso said oct. 22 at a city council meeting about placing a temporary winter homeless shelter near perkins elementary school in barrio logan. determination: false.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-roundup-ben-hueso/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check Roundup: Ben Hueso	November 8, 2010	['None']
-snes-01613	Actress Judi Dench has Havey Weinstein's initials tattooed on her butt.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/judi-dench-harvey-weinstein-tattoo/	None	Entertainment	None	Dan Evon	None	Does Judi Dench Have a Harvey Weinstein Tattoo?	9 October 2017	None	['Judi_Dench']
-pomt-08665	John Boehner wants to reopen a tax loophole "that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/13/barack-obama/obama-said-boehner-opposes-tax-rule-keep-profits-a/	President Barack Obama has been in campaign mode this month, no doubt looking toward the elections less than two months away. In two speeches recently, he's said American companies shouldn't be rewarded for shipping jobs and profits overseas, but warned that Republicans don't agree. Obama discussed aid the federal government sent to the states in August, part of a package to pay teacher salaries. The aid was offset by changes to the tax code that closed what Obama said were loopholes for corporations. "By the way, this bill that we passed to save all those jobs, we made sure that bill wouldn't add to the deficit," Obama said in a speech on Labor Day. "You know how we paid for it? By closing one of these ridiculous tax loopholes that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas. I mean, this was one of those loopholes that allowed companies to write off taxes they pay to foreign governments –- even though they weren't paying taxes here in the United States." "So middle-class families were footing tax breaks for companies creating jobs somewhere else," Obama added. "I mean, even a lot of America's biggest corporations agreed that this loophole didn't make sense, agreed that it needed to be closed, agreed that it wasn't fair -– but the man who thinks he's going to be speaker, he wants to reopen this loophole." We wanted to know two things: Is the law Obama talks about really "one of these ridiculous tax loopholes that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas"? And does Ohio's John Boehner -- the current House Republican leader -- want to reverse the law? Let's take these questions in order. Obama signed the bill into law on Aug. 10. It sends $26.1 billion to states facing budget shortfalls, providing $10 billion for salaries and compensation for teachers and another $16.1 million to help states pay for Medicaid, the long-standing government insurance program for the poor and disabled. The law also includes "offsets," which is any kind of spending cut or tax increase that balances out the new spending so that it doesn't add to the deficit. This closed the "loopholes" that Obama mentions by taking away exemptions and credits that previously existed, which increases revenues by $9.8 billion over 10 years. The summary of the law from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service lists seven different credits or exemptions that the law changes. The United States government taxes its companies on foreign profits, which not all countries do. But companies don't have to pay taxes on foreign earnings until they bring their profits back to this country. So companies tend to keep the money with their foreign subsidiaries as long as possible. But companies also get U.S. tax credits for taxes they pay to foreign governments. Some companies figured out how to game the system by keeping their profits overseas while still claiming a tax credit for taxes paid on the same income to foreign governments. That's the loophole the new law is trying to address. It says companies can't claim the foreign tax credit until they report their income. Boehner's office sent us several letters from business groups who opposed the law. During the debate over the measure, companies said any increase in taxes would make American companies less competitive with their foreign rivals. "The current U.S. system is inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S. economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to be considered today will only make matters worse," wrote Larry Burton, executive director of the Business Roundtable, in a letter to members of Congress. The Business Roundtable represents chief executive officers of major U.S. companies. We queried several tax professors via e-mail to see what their take on the new law was. We got a range of responses, but they all agreed that companies with international operations can shield profits from being taxed, and these changes make that harder. "The rules that were changed were necessary, if narrowly targeted, reforms of the foreign tax credit rules," said Robert Peroni of the University of Texas at Austin. "The old rules resulted in overstated foreign tax credits for some U.S. multinational corporations, resulting in those corporations paying lower U.S. income taxes than they should have paid under a properly designed U.S. international income tax system." "It's hard to deny that there was a problem. There clearly was a problem," said David Rosenbloom of New York University. "But companies worried that any rules that the IRS adopts will be very hard to confine to only the abuse situations." The tax experts also said it's difficult to prove whether American companies with business overseas employ fewer people in the United States because of the tax rules. "The connection between the loophole and jobs being shipped overseas is tenuous at best," Rosenbloom said. Finally, Lawrence Lokken of the University of Florida warned us that even experts disagree about the effects of some international tax rules. "Whether the current system encourages companies to move jobs offshore, and whether these fixes will discourage companies from doing so, are hotly debated issues. You can find entirely respectable opinion on each side of the issues," he said. So does Boehner want to reverse the new rule? Yes, said his spokesman Michael Steel. Boehner "opposes the change the President mentioned but would strongly disagree with the way the President characterizes it," Steel said via e-mail. We're fact-checking Obama's statement that John Boehner wants to reopen a "tax loopholes that actually rewarded corporations for shipping jobs and profits overseas." The tax experts we spoke with said the rules did attempt to close loopholes in the tax system. The loopholes had to do with companies keeping profits overseas. Boehner does oppose the measure. The point we question is whether re-opening the tax loophole will result in jobs being shipped overseas. We do not see a connection there, based on what the tax experts said. That's a pretty big caveat. So we rate Obama's statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2010-09-13T14:10:59	2010-09-06	['John_Boehner']
-wast-00035	This is pure politics, and the prosecutors can make an indictment read like a scandalous novel if they want to. \xe2\x80\xa6 My prosecutor and the acting U.S. attorney that issued the court orders to search my house and my office, they just attended a Hillary Clinton fundraiser with another U.S. attorney out of here in San Diego. So, you have three \xe2\x80\x94 you have three U.S. attorneys.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/28/gop-congressman-claims-democratic-prosecutors-are-out-get-him/	None	None	Duncan D. Hunter	Salvador Rizzo	None	GOP congressman claims Democratic prosecutors are out to get him	August 28	None	['United_States', 'San_Diego', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-vogo-00001	Statement: “Almost all homelessness is linked to drugs or alcohol,” El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells said in an Oct. 29 interview with Fox 5 San Diego.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-homelessness-tied-drugs-alcohol/	Analysis: El Cajon has the region’s second-largest number of hepatitis A cases, and city leaders there have redoubled efforts to combat the health crisis recently.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Is Most Homelessness Tied to Drugs and Alcohol?	November 9, 2017	None	['El_Cajon,_California', 'San_Diego']
-pomt-08739	Under the new health care law, "if a landscaper wants to buy a new lawnmower, or a restaurant needs a new ice-maker, they have to report that to the feds."	/ohio/statements/2010/aug/31/john-boehner/rep-john-boehner-gets-it-right-new-business-tax-ma/	Congressional Democrats found a lot of ways to pay for the country’s health insurance overhaul, some more popular than others. But one in particular has small lawn services, work-at-home parents and the nation’s smallest businesses mighty concerned. In a move to increase government revenues for health care while cutting tax abuses, Congress included a provision in the bill, approved in March, requiring businesses to file Internal Revenue Service reports on expenditures above $600 to any single vendor. Here is how John Boehner, the House Republican leader and a leading critic of the provision (and the health insurance bill), derided it when he spoke at the City Club of Cleveland on Aug. 24: "If a landscaper wants to buy a new lawnmower, or a restaurant needs a new ice-maker, they have to report that to the feds. If you're a mom-and-pop grocery store, and you buy $1,000 worth of merchandise from 15 different vendors, that's 15 different forms you have to file." We have to assume that Boehner, who’s from southwestern Ohio, meant the mom-and-pop store is spending $1,000 on each of the vendors, rather than spreading a $1,000 purchase among 15 vendors (because that would only be $66.66 each). If that is the case, Boehner’s statement is true, or will be as of Jan. 1, 2012. But Boehner is not the only one calling it nuts. So is the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and even a Cleveland congressman who is generally Boehner’s ideological opposite. "This obviously was something that needed to be better thought out," said that congressman, Democrat Dennis Kucinich, in a telephone interview. "It has to be fixed, and it will be fixed, because it’s not tolerable." Businesses were already required to file an Internal Revenue Service Form 1099 for payments of $600 or more for services they obtained, such as accounting or advertising advice. But according to the National Taxpayer Advocate Service, a watchdog arm of the IRS, the prior law "generally did not require a person to report payments to purchase goods, presumably because the purchaser could not determine the amount that (less cost of goods sold) would have been income to the vendor." And under "a longstanding regulatory regime," the Taxpayer Advocate Service said in a June 30 report to Congress on a host of IRS-related tax issues, "there was an exception for payments to corporations as well as to tax-exempt and government entities." There had been earlier efforts to eliminate the corporate exemption, which would assure that even if a small business was paying in cash for a corporation’s services, the corporation could not avoid paying taxes. But the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- specifically in section 9006, amending the Internal Revenue Code -- went further by including goods as well as services. Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee figured this would help pay for part of the health care bill. Congressional Quarterly reported that provision "aims to discourage tax cheating by vendors in the form of not disclosing all of their income. The premise is that vendors are more likely to report all of their income and to pay all of the taxes they owe if their customers are telling the IRS, via form 1099, how much they are paying vendors in a given year." How extensively would this affect businesses? Quite extensively, says the Taxpayer Advocate Service. The provision "would apply to businesses of all sizes, charities and other tax-exempt organizations, and government entities." That includes 26 million non-farm sole proprietorships, 4 million S corporations, 2 million C corporations, 3 million partnerships, 2 million farming businesses, 1 million charities and other tax-exempt organizations, "and probably more than 100,000 federal, state, and local government entities." Small business owners would have to get Tax Identification Numbers or Employer Identification Numbers from their vendors -- and if a vendor refused to provide one, "the business is required by law to impose back-up withholding at the rate of 28 percent of the purchase price," says the Taxpayer Advocate Service report. Let’s say you own a two-person landscaping company and want to buy $600 worth of mowers from a guy who refurbishes them in his spare time. He won’t give you his identification number. So you’re supposed to pay him $423 and withhold another $168, or 28 percent -- and file the appropriate withholding forms, of course. That’s assuming that the backyard repairman is willing to part with his mowers at this point in your transaction. In the words of the Taxpayer Advocate Service, this "could significantly impair the normal course of commerce." Boehner and fellow Republicans are using this provision to lampoon Democrats. Yet Democrats say they, too, want to get rid of the provision. The problem is that Democrats need to find a way to make up the revenue, estimated at $17 billion, if they give up this particular one.. Before leaving for their August recess, House Democrats suggested a tax on multinational corporations that move operations offshore, but that failed. Senate Democrats this fall may try to get some of the money by removing a manufacturing tax deduction from big oil and gas companies while keeping part of the provision intact. They would raise the reporting threshold to $5,000 and exempt companies with fewer than 25 employees. But as CQ reports, Senate Republicans have a different idea: Repeal the whole provision and soften the health care bill’s requirement that individuals buy insurance with, if needed, government subsidies. If the insurance bill were to cost less, it would reduce the need for this money, Republicans say. You may agree or disagree with any of these approaches, but the issue here is simply Boehner’s statement on the $600 reporting requirement. It’s about mom-and-pop stores and lawn-mowing services, and we rate it True. Comment on this item.	None	John Boehner	None	None	None	2010-08-31T11:30:00	2010-08-24	['None']
-goop-00567	Robin Williams Murdered By Drug Dealers, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/robin-williams-murdered-drug-dealers-death-knife/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Robin Williams NOT Murdered By Drug Dealers, Despite Report	12:13 pm, July 27, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04955	Says India "gained jobs thanks to Romney."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/priorities-usa-action/super-PAC-ad-mitt-romney-outsources-jobs-india/	A super PAC ad uses the splendor of the Olympics opening ceremonies as a backdrop to denounce Mitt Romney as an outsourcer and tax dodger. The ad, by the pro-Barack Obama group Priorities Action USA, opens with an overhead shot of an Olympic stadium packed with people, cameras flashing. Romney, who led the 2002 Salt Lake City games, strides onto a stage and waves. Olympic teams from China, India, Burma, Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands parade in as an announcer makes multiple charges that Romney sent American jobs overseas and stashed his personal wealth in offshore accounts. "Welcome to the Olympics," the voiceover says. "There’s Mitt Romney, who ran the Salt Lake City games, waving to China, home to a billion people. Thousands owe their jobs to Mitt Romney’s companies. "India, which also gained jobs thanks to Romney, an outsourcing pioneer. And Burma, where Romney had the uniforms made for the 2002 games." The announcer continues with claims about countries where Romney has had bank accounts or corporations. The ad was apparently removed from YouTube because of copyright concerns, but we are checking its claims because they received so much coverage on cable news channels and the Web. Here we’ll look at the claim that India "gained jobs thanks to Romney." (We've previously examined the claim he was a "pioneer" of outsourcing.) Outsourcing governor? A spokesman for Priorities USA Action provided two different examples to back this up: a state contract that included use of a call center in India while Romney was governor of Massachusetts and a software company that also had a call center in India while it was owned by Romney's firm Bain Capital. First, the call center from Romney's days as governor. Last month, the Obama campaign released an an ad that said Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, "outsourced call center jobs to India." PolitiFact looked into that claim and found it wasn't so clear-cut. We rated it Half True. When he was governor, Massachusetts had a $160,000 a month contract with Citigroup to process debit cards for food stamps, as well as offshore contracts through its child support enforcement and unemployment insurance programs in 2005. Citigroup outsourced its customer service call center to a facility in India. So it’s an important point that the state wasn’t outsourcing work to India -- a state contractor was. But Romney chose not to to end the arrangement. During budget negotiations in 2004, the second year of Romney’s term, the Democratic-controlled legislature sent Romney a budget with an amendment that "would prohibit Massachusetts from contracting with companies that ‘outsource’ the state's work to other countries," according to the Boston Globe. At the time, many states were contracting with companies that outsourced some form of their work overseas. The Government Accountability Office found that in 2005, 43 states had contracts with companies administering state programs in which some of the work, primarily customer service and software development, was done overseas. The revelation prompted 38 states to consider similar bans on contracting with companies that outsourced, the Globe wrote. Romney was forced to weigh two competing interests: protecting and promoting jobs in his state vs. saving taxpayers money. The Globe pointed out that lawmakers in Kansas considered a similar measure but pulled the plug when they learned it would cost the state an additional $640,000. The prohibition in Massachusetts’ was favored by labor unions but opposed by some economists who said it didn’t make economic sense for taxpayers to pay more for low-skill jobs. Ultimately, Romney vetoed the measure because he said that even if those jobs were back in the United States, they would not necessarily have been in Massachusetts. Outsourcing claims at Bain Priorities USA Action also pointed us to Bain’s involvement with the technical support firm Stream International. Bain bought a stake in the software company CSI in 1993, and later merged it with another firm to form Stream International, according to the Washington Post. In the mid 1990s, Stream was setting up tech-support call centers outside the U.S. There's no question that Stream had employees in India because it boasted in an October 2000 news release that it had a joint venture with the Indian company Tracmail to provide customer service at locations that included India. However, Romney left Bain in 1999 to head the Salt Lake City Olympics, so he was gone from day-to-day operations by the time of this press release, though he remained CEO of Bain until 2002. But PolitiFact has rated claims of his continued involvement to be Half True because he founded the company and was responsible for its overall direction, and documents indicate he continued to be involved to some extent for the next couple of years. Our ruling Priorities USA Action said that India "gained jobs thanks to Romney." While Romney was governor, Massachusetts had contracts with companies that had customer service call centers in India. That’s not the same as the state directly sending work overseas, but Romney blocked a legislative effort to stop it. And it's reasonable to conclude that India gained some jobs, at least while the Massachusetts arrangement was in effect. At Bain, he was part of a move to invest in CSI, which later merged with another firm to form Stream International, which announced the call centers in India a year after Romney departed to run the Olympics. So yes, India got some jobs from CSI, but Romney's influence was early and ultimately indirect. As for being a pioneer, Romney and Bain joined the bandwagon, but they didn’t lead it. Outsourcing was an established practice by private equity firms to cut costs at companies they invested in. They were more like disciples than pioneers. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.	None	Priorities USA Action	None	None	None	2012-07-26T15:08:14	2012-07-25	['None']
-pomt-08486	In 2009, "the state Legislature passed more than $5 billion in tax increases."	/wisconsin/statements/2010/oct/11/leah-vukmir/gop-state-senate-candidate-leah-vukmir-says-legisl/	With Democrats hoping to retain control of the state Senate, one of the most hotly-contested races features two lawmakers from Wauwatosa -- Republican state Rep. Leah Vukmir vs. Democratic incumbent Jim Sullivan. Going door to door, Vukmir distributes a flier that says she will work to improve the economy, attract more jobs and cut taxes. In it, she also laments the current tax burden in the state, saying that in 2009, the Legislature "passed more than $5 billion in tax increases." We’ve been here before. And though the Legislature did raise taxes -- and fees -- quite a bit in 2009, the total wasn’t anywhere near $5 billion. Our research was done after Rebecca Kleefisch, the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor, made almost the identical claim. We found that taxes and fees were upped by $3.14 billion in 2009. Consequently, we gave Kleefisch’s statement a False rating. To try to get closer to $5 billion, Vukmir’s campaign includes -- as Kleefisch did -- a$1.5 billion boost in net property taxes. But we’ll repeat what we said in the Kleefisch claim: Property tax levies are set by local taxing bodies, such as the city and the county, not by the Legislature. And we’ll give Vukmir’s claim the same rating: False.	None	Leah Vukmir	None	None	None	2010-10-11T09:00:00	2010-10-09	['None']
-tron-01400	Girl Scout Cookies Fund Planned Parenthood	https://www.truthorfiction.com/afa-gsusa-cookies/	None	food	None	None	None	Girl Scout Cookies Fund Planned Parenthood	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01392	Was a Girl Named Heaven Ray Cox Missing From Her Texas Home?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/heaven-ray-cox/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Missing Child Alert: Heaven Ray Cox	29 November 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00783	Gwen Stefani Did Suffer Two Miscarriages This Year, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-miscarriages-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani Did NOT Suffer Two Miscarriages This Year, Despite Report	2:46 pm, June 20, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01398	"An overwhelming majority of Republican and Democrat law enforcement leaders have endorsed Brad Schimel."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/oct/13/brad-schimel/brad-schimel-says-most-republican-and-democrat-col/	Political scientists say that in a tight race between little-known candidates and few defining issues, endorsements can have more influence than usual. That might be why Brad Schimel, the Republican candidate for state attorney general, is calling himself "law enforcement’s choice." And it’s probably why the first thing that pops up on the Waukesha County district attorney’s campaign website is a boast regarding 89 endorsements. In a new TV ad just a month from his Nov. 4, 2014 face-off with Democrat and Jefferson County District Attorney Susan Happ, the ad’s narrator says that as a "decorated prosecutor and father of two girls, Brad Schimel puts public safety ahead of politics." The TV spot, which began airing Oct. 1, 2014, continues: "It’s why an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democrat law enforcement leaders have endorsed Brad Schimel." Is Schimel right? Behind the numbers Schimel defines "law enforcement leaders" as county sheriffs and district attorneys. A solid majority of them -- about 60 percent -- run as Republicans, so Schimel had a natural advantage vs. Happ. But a fair number of law enforcement officials decline to endorse, so the advantage is not guaranteed. We analyzed the endorsement lists of both candidates and here’s what we found: Combined, Happ and Schimel claim 112 endorsements from current DAs and sheriffs. Schimel has received 80 percent of those endorsements. If you were to look at all sheriffs and DAs -- including those who have not issued endorsements -- his total of 89 would represent about 60 percent. Significantly, Schimel won over nine Democrats and one independent. In contrast, Happ’s 23 endorsements were all from within her party -- not a single Republican official defected to her side. Bottom line, Schimel started with a natural "base" of 60 percent, but wound up with 80 percent support from those who endorsed. So, by that measure his "overwhelming majority of Republican and Democrat law enforcement leaders" claim holds up to scrutiny. But his claim can also be read as a majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats. By that measure, he is accurate with Republicans, but not with Democrats. Of the 32 Democrats who have endorsed, Happ received 23 compared to Schimel’s nine. For Schimel, that is 28 percent of the nods from Democrats. That’s 28 percent more than Happ won from Republicans, but not a majority. Our rating Schimel’s ad says that "an overwhelming majority of Republican and Democrat law enforcement leaders have endorsed Brad Schimel." The AG candidate has won 80 percent support from those who endorsed, and wooed 9 Democrats into the fold. He has won a clear majority overall, and from Republicans, but not from Democrats alone. That makes for a partially accurate claim, our definition of Half True.	None	Brad Schimel	None	None	None	2014-10-13T05:00:00	2014-10-01	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-chct-00179	FACT CHECK: Did Sarah Palin Say, 'I Can See Russia From My House'?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/14/fact-check-did-sarah-palin-say-i-can-see-russia-from-my-house/	None	None	None	David Sivak | Fact Check Editor	None	None	11:23 AM 03/14/2018	None	['Russia']
-snes-03786	A clown was arrested after police found eleven human bodies stuffed in a freezer at his residence.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/police-find-11-bodies-in-clown-freezer/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Man Dressed as Clown Arrested After Police Find 11 Bodies Stuffed in Freezers at His Home	16 October 2016	None	['None']
-pose-01202	"I will create the position of Education Outreach Coordinator in the Mayor's Office. This coordinator will facilitate community focus on critical shared policies as well as programs such as those described below."	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/adler-o-meter/promise/1292/create-education-outreach-coordinator/	None	adler-o-meter	Steve Adler	None	None	Create an education outreach coordinator	2015-01-19T00:02:00	None	['None']
-snes-03789	A Maryland doctor who participated in a secret surgery to remove a blood clot from Hillary Clinton's brain died suddenly under mysterious circumstances.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clinton-dies/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Maryland Doctor Who Treated Hillary Clinton for Blood Clot on Brain Mysteriously Dies	15 October 2016	None	['Maryland', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-13623	"California is home to the largest death row population in the Western Hemisphere."	/california/statements/2016/aug/12/yes-62-death-penalty-repeal/does-california-have-largest-death-row-western-hem/	Californians will decide in November whether to abolish — or possibly speed up — the state’s death penalty. Proposition 62 would eliminate capital punishment, replacing it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as the state’s maximum punishment for those found guilty of murder. It would apply retroactively to the nearly 750 inmates on California's death row. Proposition 66, meanwhile, would keep the death penalty but proposes a faster appeals process. Campaigns for the competing ballot measures are making numerous claims as they seek to persuade voters. A provocative statement by the Yes On 62 campaign on its twitter page caught our attention: "California is home to the largest death row population in the Western Hemisphere." The Yes On 62 campaign to abolish California's death penalty made the claim at the center of this fact check on its twitter page above. Home to nearly 40 million people, California leads the way in many numerical categories. We wondered, however, whether that includes this somber grouping. Our research The largest death row populations in the Western Hemisphere belong to states within the United States, not separate countries, said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit is considered an authority on death penalty topics, and opposes capital punishment. As of August 5, the California Department of Corrections lists 746 prisoners on the state’s death row. That’s nearly double the next largest total — Florida’s 388 — according to figures from that state’s department of corrections. Texas’ total is nearly 250, the third highest. Beyond Florida and Texas, there aren’t any states in the United States that are even close, Dunham said. PolitiFact California: Truth be told: California has ‘largest death row in Western Hemisphere’ Create your own infographics Nor are other countries in the hemisphere anywhere close. "Most of the Western Hemisphere has abolished the death penalty. Apart from the United States, the retentionist countries are Cuba, Guatemala and Guyana and then a couple of countries in the Caribbean. None of them have death rows that are remotely the size of California’s or even Florida’s," Dunham added. Canada did away with the death penalty in 1976; Mexico eliminated it in 2005. The Cornell Law School’s Death Penalty Worldwide database shows it’s been several years since Cuba, Guatemala or Guyana executed anyone. There are 19 states in the United States with no death penalty. Several have abolished capital punishment in recent years, including Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey and Maryland. There are two federal death rows, including one in the military, both of which are much smaller than California’s. Explaining the backlog Reasons cited for California’s massive death row vary. Dunham says death penalty appeals backlog in the courts because the state fails to provide prisoners with enough legal help. Bill Bradley, spokesman for the No On 62 campaign, said delays result from a system that allows inmates and their attorneys to "file appeal after frivolous appeal to delay justice." Another cause: Executions have been on hold in California since 2006 following a legal challenge to the state’s three-chemical lethal injection method. The state has executed just 13 people since it reinstated the death penalty in 1978. Experts say execution is the third leading cause of death on California’s death row, behind natural causes and suicide. When asked, a Yes on 62 campaign spokesman pointed to research by the Death Penalty Information Center and the Cornell Law School database to back up its "largest death row" statement. Bradley of the No on Prop 62 campaign described the claim about California’s large death row as "technically true" but dismissed its significance saying "California has the largest of everything." A guard stands watch over condemned inmates on death row at San Quentin State Prison. (AP Photo/Ben Margot) Confusing claim? While California clearly has a large death row, there’s an aspect of the Yes On 62 claim that could be considered confusing. California has fewer people on death row than are condemned to die across the United States. So, how could it have "the largest death row population" in the Western Hemisphere? Experts explain it this way: In the United States, death sentences are primarily the product of state courts. The federal government plays less of a role compared to central governments in other countries. As a result, the size of death rows have long been tracked by state and not necessarily as a national, comprehensive total. "It may be a dramatic way of making the point," Dunham said of the Yes On 62 claim. "But the point is still accurate." We used a similar interpretation of the claim as we examined its accuracy. Frank Zimring, a law professor and death penalty expert at UC Berkeley, agreed California has the largest death row in the Western Hemisphere. He estimated it ranks behind only a handful of countries on the planet, including China and Iran. Our ruling The Yes On 62 campaign to abolish the death penalty said "California is home to the largest death row population in the Western Hemisphere." Death penalty experts and public data show California has nearly 750 people condemned to die. That’s nearly twice as many as the next closest state or country, Florida at 388, in the Western Hemisphere. The claim could be confusing to some because California’s death row is smaller than the total number of people with death sentences across the United States. But experts say death rows in the U.S. are ranked individually, making California’s stand far out from the rest. We also found that few countries in this hemisphere still have the death penalty, which is helpful to note but does not take away from the accuracy of the statement. We rate the claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/0599459e-7406-4f74-b9f5-acc2afb79cb6	None	Yes On 62 campaign to abolish California's death penalty	None	None	None	2016-08-12T06:00:00	2016-08-01	['California', 'Western_Hemisphere']
-tron-00865	Soflo Hack to Unlock iPhones Without Passkey	https://www.truthorfiction.com/soflo-hack-unlock-iphones-without-passkey/	None	computers	None	None	None	Soflo Hack to Unlock iPhones Without Passkey	Mar 8, 2016	None	['None']
-tron-00086	President Obama’s Uniparty Slush Fund	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obamas-uniparty-slush-fund/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['barack obama', 'congress', 'government waste']	President Obama’s Uniparty Slush Fund	Nov 21, 2016	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-06032	The Great Wall of China is the only man-made object visible from the moon.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/great-wall-from-moon/	None	Science	None	David Mikkelson	None	Is the Great Wall of China Visible from the Moon?	12 November 2001	None	['China']
-pomt-03035	The health care marketplaces have "no privacy protections."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/09/tom-cotton/aca-marketplaces-have-no-privacy-protections-cotto/	When it comes to Web design, everyone’s a critic. The Affordable Care Act’s new online marketplaces certainly aren’t an exception. But some Internet complaints directed in President Barack Obama’s general direction go beyond cosmetics, attacking security, too. Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who opposes Obamacare, was particularly vocal on MSNBC about the issues he saw with the new system. He said lawmakers now realize some of the downfalls of the system, including technical concerns. "They realize that the websites aren't ready, that there's no privacy protections, that there's likely to be data breaches," he said. Now, it’s clear that there are lots of bugs in the online marketplaces where consumers browse and purchase health care plans. There have been reported issues with the live chat function, registration process and speed of service, among other things. It’s not even clear how many people have been able to buy insurance, but it doesn’t seem like very many. Cotton, though, said that the websites have no privacy protections and are therefore likely to be hacked. We decided to look into it to determine just how vulnerable consumer information is. Where does your personal data go? As users navigate healthcare.gov, they get pointed toward the marketplace websites appropriate for their specific states. To apply for health insurance, they have to submit some sensitive information, including a Social Security number and last year’s income. The site itself routs responses through a data hub, so that the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration can verify customers’ identities and confirm eligibility for subsidies to buy health insurance. This information isn’t stored in the hub itself, though, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the online marketplaces. So information isn’t sitting there waiting to be stolen. There are baseline privacy standards for the marketplaces that come directly from the health care reform legislation itself and previous health privacy laws. All the information collected must be relevant to determining eligibility and enrollment, said Christopher Rasmussen, a Health Privacy Project analyst at the Center for Democracy & Technology. The information is submitted through secure protocols that government websites have long followed, said George Smith, an expert in the technology and science of cybersecurity. The U.S. Department of Commerce developed a cybersecurity framework (that we would link to, if not for the government shutdown) that includes guidelines and best practices for organizations to secure their IT systems, designed to complement risk management already in place. Scott Borg, CEO of the U.S. Cyber Consequences unit, a nonprofit institute that researches the economic consequences of possible cyber attacks, said the marketplaces are more secure than most popular e-commerce sites because they’re less complicated. "We can expect the health insurance industry websites after the Affordable Care Act is fully operating to be simpler, less numerous, and more like each other," Borg said. "This will make them easier to secure and, in general, should improve their cyber security." Potential data breaches When we asked Cotton’s office about his statement, his staff pointed us to an August report indicating that government agencies pushed back some early security testing deadlines. This is true, but CMS reported later that the security testing was completed in September. That includes security testing done by an independent organization. The final security authorization for the marketplace websites were completed on Sept. 6, two days behind the original timeline and several weeks before the marketplaces opened in October. We also looked at an incident of a state website leaking personal data that a spokeswoman from Cotton’s office referred us to. MNsure, the Minnesota marketplace, accidentally emailed a spreadsheet identifying 2,400 insurance agents to an insurance broker’s office. But that didn’t involve consumer data, and it happened prior to the opening of the MNsure marketplace on Oct. 1. Also, MNsure reported that this was due to human error, not an IT glitch. Can the marketplace websites be hacked? Data isn’t lying around for federal employees to take, but we also wanted to see how easy it might be for hackers to access. "In general, it is very difficult to assess whether any website has adequate data security without conducting an internal security audit or attempting an attack from the outside," said Anton Dahbura, the executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Information Security Institute. However, we found no evidence that the healthcare.gov webpages are any more vulnerable to to attack than other websites associated wtih traditional e-commerce. "These are actually going to be more secure than most government sites need to be," Borg said. Our ruling Cotton claimed that there are no privacy protections in the new online health care marketplaces. However, we found federal privacy regulations in the Affordable Care Act that keep the system’s data hub from storing user data. The cybersecurity experts we spoke with said that the security precautions in place on healthcare.gov are at least as strong as secure e-commerce websites consumers are already accustomed to using. No one we spoke with raised concerns about privacy. The most relevant complaints we saw remain that the websites are slow, not that consumer information is vulnerable. We rate Cotton’s statement False.	None	Tom Cotton	None	None	None	2013-10-09T13:50:51	2013-10-03	['None']
-pomt-12314	Says Barack Obama "acknowledged over 20 times" that his administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans "immigration edict was a violation of law and the separation of powers."	/texas/statements/2017/jun/21/ken-paxton/ken-paxton-inaccurately-says-barack-obama-repeated/	A Texas Republican, pleased at the revocation of a federal effort to shield older immigrants from deportation, elaborated that then-President Barack Obama repeatedly acknowledged that his administration's 2014 immigration order wasn’t legal. In a June 2017 press release, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton applauded the June 5, 2017, Department of Homeland Security decision rescinding the Obama-era policy memo announcing the program to protect parents of certain immigrants from deportation. The Obama-era effort, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, never took effect after Texas and 25 other states persuaded a federal district judge to block implementation--a move ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. Paxton said: "I applaud President (Donald) Trump for acknowledging what President Obama himself acknowledged over 20 times – the Obama Administration’s DAPA immigration edict was a violation of law and the separation of powers." We requested the basis of Paxton’s claim that Obama had, over 20 times, said DAPA was offered in violation of federal law. Kayleigh Lovvorn in Paxton’s state office answered by email: "All of Barack Obama’s quotes on the subject are documented, archived, and available online." Checking Obama’s statements We’ve been over such turf before though Paxton’s claim that Obama said the DAPA in particular violated the law adds a twist. In December 2014, we gave Mostly True ratings to statements by a U.S. House member and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to the effect that Obama had many times said he couldn’t act to protect immigrants from deportation unless Congress revised immigration laws. U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, said at a December 2014 hearing of Obama’s past statements on immigration: "The president said over 20 times that he did not have the legal authority to do this, to take this executive action, and that this is not how democracy works." McCaul’s count was overly high, we found. But Obama had often said through March 2014 that absent congressional action, he couldn’t do more by himself to protect immigrants living in the country without legal permission. In a 2015 interview, Abbott said: "22 times Barack Obama said he did not have the authority to implement this type of" anti-deportation "measure. And then the day after he signed this into law, he said, quote, ‘I just changed the law.’" Like McCaul, we found, Abbott overstated the confirmed instances of Obama indicating he couldn’t independently do more to prevent deportations. Obama’s statements since DAPA Notably, those fact-checks were based on statements that Obama made long before announcing DAPA. In contrast, Obama insisted he was within the law when he announced DAPA in November 2014 as a follow-up to his administration’s established effort to keep certain young immigrants from being deported (as of June 2017, the older program--Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals--was left intact by the Trump administration). A 2014 memo from the federal Office of Legal Counsel said DAPA fell within Homeland Security’s discretionary powers to enforce immigration laws. That office, in the Justice Department, is responsible for providing authoritative legal advice to the president and executive-branch agencies. In announcing DAPA, Obama changed his declared position on his ability to act unilaterally as PolitiFact noted at the time. Obama told the country he was launching DAPA to delay deportations of unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for more than five years and who had children who were citizens or had green cards. The intent was that if an applicant could pass a background check and pay a fee, he or she could qualify for a work permit and avoid deportation for three years at a time. Obama also reaffirmed that he’d have preferred Congress act on comprehensive immigration reform. Regardless, he said: "The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every single Democratic president for the past half century." After Paxton made his 2017 claim, we searched for post-2014 instances of Obama saying he didn’t have the authority to impose the DAPA--and came up empty. Obama in May 2015 vowed to defend his authority to carry out DAPA. As reported by the Miami Herald, Obama said: "In the short term, if Mr. [Mitch] McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do." A footnote in a legal brief filed by Texas and other states pointed us to Obama’s comment to reporters in June 2015, after a federal district judge held up DAPA, indicating the president believed he’d acted legally. Obama said then: "I am absolutely convinced this is well within my legal authority, Department of Homeland Security’s legal authority. If you look at the precedent, if you look at the traditional discretion that the executive branch possesses when it comes to applying immigration laws, I am convinced that what we’re doing is lawful, and our lawyers are convinced that what we’re doing is lawful." Obama’s pre-DAPA calls for congressional action Then again, Obama was previously clear about needing Congress to act first. The March 2015 legal brief filed by Texas and other states led us to a January 2015 article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics presenting many of the Obama quotations we’d confirmed for the McCaul and Abbott fact-checks. Here are a few of the times when Obama seemed to say that he lacked independent legal authority to act on immigration: In October 2010, Obama told Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo, a radio host on Spanish-speaking Univision, that he couldn’t achieve comprehensive immigration reform without congressional action. "I am president, I am not king," Obama said. "... I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it." At a Univision event in March 2011, Obama was asked if he could stop deportations of students with an order. That’s "just not the case," Obama said, "because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws." Simply issuing such an order, he said, "would not conform with my appropriate role as president." Yet he also hinted at wiggle room, saying: "That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity. In an April 2011 speech in Miami and the next month in El Paso, Obama said he couldn’t bypass Congress and change immigration laws himself, saying that’s not how a democracy works. Addressing the National Council of La Raza in July 2011, Obama drew exhortations to act without waiting for congressional agreement. He called that idea "tempting," then said "that's not how our system works." In September 2012, Obama was asked if he would follow up his recent protective move for students by doing something similar for non-criminal immigrants such as the parents of U.S.-born children. Obama replied that "as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do… we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally," as in parents deported. At a presidential debate the next month, Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney were asked: "What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society?" Obama said: "I've done everything that I can on my own." In a January 2013 Telemundo interview, Obama was asked why he couldn’t protect mothers living here without authorization from deportation as he had aided law-abiding students. "I’m not a king," Obama replied, tracking his response the same month to a similar query from Univision and his reply at a February 2013 Google Hangout town hall where he also said "we’ve kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can." The same year, Obama was asked by Telemundo if he would consider freezing deportations of the parents of students benefiting from the administration’s 2012 action. Obama replied that if he broadened his protective orders, "then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option." We previously confirmed similar statements by Obama in a November 2013 speech in in San Francisco and a March 2014 Univision interview. Our ruling Paxton said Obama "acknowledged over 20 times" that his administration’s DAPA "immigration edict was a violation of law and the separation of powers." Paxton might have been trying to revisit mostly accurate earlier claims about what Obama once repeatedly said. But there are significant differences between the earlier statements and this one. Paxton specified that Obama was speaking about his DAPA policy; in fact, Obama’s statements were made long before DAPA was announced and were not about a specific policy initiative. Contrary to Paxton’s statement, Obama has always maintained the DAPA policy was legal. We find that Paxton’s statement has an element of truth but ignores the critical fact that Obama has stood by his DAPA policy since it was issued. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ken Paxton	None	None	None	2017-06-21T16:02:15	2017-06-16	['None']
-abbc-00048	The claim: Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop says the Abbott Government inherited the worst set of financial accounts in Australia's history.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/fact-check--australia27s-economic-inheritance/6162670	The claim: Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop says the Abbott Government inherited the worst set of financial accounts in Australia's history.	['government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'australia']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'australia']	Fact check: Did the Government inherit the 'worst set of accounts' in history?	Thu 3 Mar 2016, 6:00am	None	['Australia']
-tron-02593	Bits of Wisdom From Abraham Lincoln	https://www.truthorfiction.com/lincoln-quotes/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Bits of Wisdom From Abraham Lincoln	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07513	Abortion services are "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/	As the government inched toward a shutdown on April 8, 2011, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., gave a speech on the Senate floor to respond to Democratic charges that the major sticking point in the negotiations was a disagreement over Planned Parenthood. Many Republicans want to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood because the organization does abortions. The federal government currently provides Planned Parenthood with $363 million annually, but by law, that money cannot be spent on abortion. It is spent on other types of health care services, such as cancer screenings, breast exams, and tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Some opponents of abortion say that by sending any money to Planned Parenthood, taxpayers are still supporting abortions indirectly, since money is fungible. That’s why they’re pushing to eliminate all funding for the organization. Here’s a portion of what Kyl said on the floor: "Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don’t have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." We got many requests to fact-check his statement. Planned Parenthood says the statistics are dramatically different -- that 90 percent of its services are preventive in nature, compared with 3 percent that are abortion-related. Planned Parenthood calculates the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent. In a fact sheet last updated in March 2011, the group lists the following breakdown of its services: Contraception (including reversible contraception, emergency contraception, vasectomies and tubal sterilizations): 4,009,549 services Sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment: 3,955,916 services Cancer screening and prevention: 1,830,811 services Other women’s health services (including pregnancy tests and prenatal care): 1,178,369 services Abortions: 332,278 procedures Miscellaneous (including primary care and adoption referrals): 76,977 Total services: 11,383,900 By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. And that would make Kyl’s statement way off. We should note a few caveats. First, we think many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthood’s use of "services" as its yardstick likely decreases abortion’s prominence compared to what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion above 3 percent in the calculations. Second, it’s worth noting that Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, although the group says each affiliate’s numbers are independently audited. (There is no single, national audit.) So we have no choice but to accept their accuracy more or less on faith. Still, even with those caveats, we do think that Kyl has vastly overstated the share of abortions. We checked with Kyl’s office but did not hear back. However, a few hours after the speech, CNN anchor T.J. Holmes told viewers that the network had received a statement from Kyl’s office saying that the senator’s remark "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions." The statistics from Planned Parenthood and the statement from Kyl's office make it clear that he erred by saying abortion counts for well over 90 percent of the group's services. We find his claim False.	None	Jon Kyl	None	None	None	2011-04-08T18:18:07	2011-04-08	['None']
-snes-00852	Will There Be a Sequel to 'Napoleon Dynamite'?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/napoleon-dynamite-sequel/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Will There Be a Sequel to ‘Napoleon Dynamite’?	23 March 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-15322	"In New Orleans, nearly 100 percent of our kids are in charter schools."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/16/bobby-jindal/bobby-jindal-says-nearly-100-percent-new-orleans-s/	Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal appeared on Fox News Sunday July 12, 2015, to talk policy, taxes and Louisiana's success. He especially lauded the state’s advances in education. "In Louisiana, we privatized our state charity hospital system. We've got statewide school choice, where the dollars follow the child instead of the child following the dollars. In New Orleans, nearly 100 percent of our kids are in charter schools. Doubling the number doing reading and math on grade level in five years." Not a lot of school districts across the nation can claim charter school attendance rates that are quite so high. Using data from the 2012-13 school year, 92 percent of school districts had less than half of their total students attending a charter school. Is New Orleans that different? According to data, the answer is yes. In 2012-2013, the New Orleans School District had 84.1% of all its students attending charter schools. In 2013-14 that number increased to 91 percent. New Orleans’ charter school rate is uncharacteristically high even compared to other Louisiana districts, as the following chart shows. Why do students overwhelmingly attend charter schools in New Orleans? The answer may have something to do with the sheer number of charter schools there. Of the 82 schools currently in the Orleans Parish, 76 are charter schools. Only 6 are non-charter public schools. Why so many? The history of charter schools in New Orleans tracks back to 1995. That year, Louisiana passed its first charter school law, which allowed up to eight volunteer districts to have charter schools established. In 1997, the law was changed so that any districts could volunteer, although "the number of charter schools statewide was capped at 42." In 1998, the first charter school opened in New Orleans. However, it would be almost a decade before charter schools became prevalent in there. The Louisiana Legislature established the Recovery School District in 2003. The RSD "is a special school district run by the Louisiana Department of Education that intervenes in the management of chronically low-performing schools." That year, "chronically low-performing schools" were defined as those that earned the "lowest performance label, Academically Unacceptable (AUS), for four consecutive years." That first year, 17 schools were identified for takeover. Sixteen of those schools were in New Orleans. After the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education gave the RSD the green light to take control of the schools, the RSD had the choice of either "directly operat(ing) the schools itself, or to contract with universities or non-profit organizations to operate them as charter schools." Laura Hawkins, the deputy chief of staff at RSD, said the RSD always had the goal of establishing charter schools, believing from the start that it was "the best strategy." Still, before 2005, there were only a handful of charter schools in New Orleans. "Charter schools were a nascent movement," said Hawkins. And then Hurricane Katrina came. Brian Beabout, a professor of educational leadership at the University of New Orleans, has studied education reform in post-Katrina New Orleans. "In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, (New Orleans) temporarily lost 100 percent of its students and did not reopen a single school for more than two months," Beabout wrote in a 2007 article. When the Orleans Parish School Board did reopen public schools in January 2006, those schools were reopened as charters. Why? "OPSB opted to open the schools as charter schools to take advantage of the U.S. schools," said a Cowen Institute report. "(The OPSB) had easy access to government money," said Hawkins. Part of the Katrina legacy After the hurricane, many in New Orleans realized they had the opportunity to start with a "clean educational slate" and restructure the school system. In response, the state Legislature introduced Act 35. "(This) amendment changed the focus from chronically failing individual schools and added a ‘district in academic crisis,’ " Beabout said. "(The amendment) was tailored specifically to wrest control of New Orleans public schools from the locally elected school board and put them in the hands of the RSD. They defined any district with a certain percent of failing schools as "in crisis" and took control of all schools in the district which performed below the state average. Initially, 114 schools were transferred over the RSD for control. The Cowen Institute reports that under Act 35, the RSD "was empowered to lease, rebuild, or renovate the school facilities as necessary for the successful operation of schools, but it could not sell any school buildings, as they still belonged to the OPSB." Because of the sudden increase of schools given to it for control, the RSD did not have enough approved charter organizations established. Because of this, the RSD took direct control of some schools as a school district. Over the years, as more charters were established, the number of schools run directly by the RSD decreased. In 2014, the RSD became a 100 percent charter school district. For the record, all of this largely played out before Jindal was elected governor in 2007. Our ruling Jindal said that "in New Orleans, nearly 100 percent of our kids are in charter schools." As of the 2013-14 school year, 91 percent of student in New Orleans go to charter schools. However, the high percentage is a reflection of the fact that the majority of schools in New Orleans are charter schools. Most of them were established after public schools within "in crisis" school districts (read New Orleans Public Schools) were handed over to the state-controlled RSD in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Over the years, these schools were converted to charter schools. Jindal’s statement is accurate. We rate it True.	None	Bobby Jindal	None	None	None	2015-07-16T11:08:54	2015-07-15	['New_Orleans']
-pose-00548	Will create a "state funded 'Turnaround Taskforce'" to "provide needed guidance to school districts ensuring that they don’t drain financial resources from Wisconsin’s many successful schools."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/571/create-turnaround-task-force-to-help-school-dist/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Create "turnaround task force" to help school districts with failing schools	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-12226	"America has more people employed as tax preparers (1.2 million) than as police and firefighters."	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/18/george-will/do-tax-preparers-outnumber-firefighters-and-police/	Newspaper columnist and TV pundit George Will says the current U.S. tax code takes more manpower to maneuver than firefighting and law enforcement combined. "The complexity of the code, which is about 4 million words, is why America has more people employed as tax preparers (1.2 million) than as police and firefighters," Will wrote in a July 12, 2017, column on tax reform. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate’s annual report to Congress this year, the 2016 tax code indeed came to roughly 4 million words. And even they agreed it’s convoluted. The tax code "rewards taxpayers who can afford expensive tax advice and discriminates against taxpayers who cannot," the report said. But are there more Americans employed as tax preparers than police and firefighters? After a reader asked us to look into it, we found it’s not the case. Will did not respond to our request for comment, but the number in the story linked to a U.S. News & World Report article from 2012, which we eventually traced back to an Internal Revenue Service report citing a 2007 statistic. The number given was that between 900,000 and 1.2 million people were "preparing tax returns for a fee." We asked the IRS for a more recent estimate. About 713,448 people had current preparer tax identification numbers, or PTINs, in 2017, the closest estimate to the number of people employed as tax preparers this year. This is an annually renewed credential that the IRS requires of every tax preparer, a prerequisite that wasn’t in place when the original estimate Will cited was created. The Labor Statistics Bureau found in May 2016 that 657,690 people are employed as police and sheriff's patrol officers. In turn, the BLS counted 315,910 firefighters. When we added the number of these civil officers together, they exceeded tax preparers by 260,152 people. The BLS had a much lower figure for people employed as tax preparers -- 70,030 people -- but these don’t include individuals who were self-employed or identified as attorneys, accountants or auditors, as the survey only allows people to identify one occupation. Will isn't the only person to make this mistake. A May 13, 2017, Economist article also included the outdated information. Our rating Will said that the number of tax preparers outnumbered the number of firefighters and police officers in the United States, but he was looking at outdated data. When we looked at the most recent statistics from the IRS and BLS, we found that the sum of firefighters and police officers outnumbers tax preparers. We rate this statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	George Will	None	None	None	2017-07-18T16:21:24	2017-07-12	['United_States']
-hoer-00197	Can a Positive Home Pregnancy Test Indicate Testicular Cancer?	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/male-pregnancy-test-testicular-cancer.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Can a Positive Home Pregnancy Test Indicate Testicular Cancer?	December 18, 2013	None	['None']
-pomt-03849	"Super Bowl L by everybody's estimation is a $500 million economic impact to the state of Florida."	/florida/statements/2013/mar/14/ron-book/dolphins-lobbyist-says-super-bowl-50-everybodys-es/	The Miami Dolphins are seeking tax break subsidies to help pay for a $400 million stadium renovation. Project supporters hope that such a massive investment will lead to more Super Bowls in the future. South Florida is competing with San Francisco to host the 50th anniversary Super Bowl in 2016. The NFL will announce the winner in May. Stadium supporters told a state Senate committee March 6 that the public will reap benefits from the big bucks that come from a Super Bowl. "A single Super Bowl generates over $300 million in economic benefits to South Florida and its businesses," said Sen. Oscar Braynon, a Democrat who represents Miami Gardens, where the Sun Life stadium is located. Long-time Dolphins lobbyist Ron Book upped the ante: "Super Bowl L by everybody's estimation is a $500 million economic impact to the state of Florida," Book said. That’s a pretty strong claim that "everybody" estimates a half-billion impact from a single Super Bowl. Is there widespread agreement on that number? The Dolphins are seeking about $200 million in public financing for about half the cost of a major stadium renovation. It would include state sales tax rebates and an increase in the Miami mainland hotel bed tax from 6 to 7 percent. County voters would have to approve the hotel bed tax increase. The bill has received favorable votes in committees but faces an uphill public relations battle: A recent poll showed 73 percent of county voters are against the financing plan. Legislators will make a decision based on the backdrop of another much criticized deal for a Miami team: In 2009, Miami-Dade County and the city of Miami partnered with the Marlins baseball team for a $634 million stadium/parking complex. Since opening in 2012, that stadium has had sluggish attendance and failed to revitalize the neighborhood. And it had political consequences: It helped lead to the recall of Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez. Book points to study by host committee Book pointed us to a study -- commissioned by the Super Bowl Host Committee -- about the 2007 Super Bowl in South Florida done by Sports Management Research Institute, whose clients include the NFL and other major sports entities. Total economic impact to South Florida: $463 million. "I cannot share all of the information that we have as to the NFL’s plans for Super Bowl L," Book wrote in an email to PolitiFact Florida. "You must just accept that everybody in the country that wanted the opportunity to bid for Super Bowl L believes it’s a $500 million-plus economic impact to host that game." The 2007 Super Bowl drew about 75,000 visitors to watch the Indianapolis Colts defeat the Chicago Bears 29-17. The study Book cited examined spending on hotels, restaurants, transportation, entertainment, retail and other services during the game day and associated events. Researchers collected data from about 3,000 visitors at airports and a half-dozen hotels -- including some lavish spots such as The Breakers in Palm Beach County. Researchers also examined other economic impact studies, hotel occupancy, surveyed businesses and other information. The study concluded that direct economic impact from spending was about $298 million. Then it added in the spending to prepare for the Super Bowl and the induced spending from new money flowing through the area, and the total came to $463 million. The biggest winner was Miami-Dade County, followed by Broward, and then neighboring Palm Beach and Monroe counties. The study did not subtract out the normal tourist spending that would have happened during the period without a Super Bowl. "We track whatever was spent by the Super Bowl fan. Period," Kathleen Davis, president of the firm that did the study, told PolitiFact Florida in an interview. Davis has also taught sports management at multiple universities -- and she has been to 11 Super Bowls. While South Florida is already a tourist mecca in the winter even without a Super Bowl, these visitors were richer -- with an average household income of about $220,000 a year -- and spent more, the study concluded. Attendees spent more than four times the typical Broward County visitor and nearly three times that of a Miami-Dade visitor. They stayed an average of five nights and spent about $668 per day. The same firm did a study of the 2010 Super Bowl in South Florida and concluded it was $333 million amid the economic downturn. Experts say studies inflate benefits of Super Bowl There is no dispute that a Super Bowl in South Florida draws some high-rollers who rent limos, wine and dine at our best restaurants and clubs, hit the shops at tony malls and book luxurious hotel suites in South Beach, Coral Gables, Fort Lauderdale and other cities. Businesses that cater to these tourists can rake in some hefty profits. "The Super Bowl is a magic event," said Broward tourism chief Nicki Grossman, who says direct spending for the 2007 Super Bowl was about $65 million in Broward County. Super Bowl visitors "buy things normally any other traveler wouldn’t. Some spend more to say they spend more." Studies by the National Football League or the host committee often peg the impact anywhere between $300 million and $600 million, depending on the analysis. A study about the 2008 Arizona Super Bowl -- coordinated in part by a business professor who served on the Host Committee -- concluded a $500 million impact. A study examining the 2009 Super Bowl in Tampa said it resulted in spending totaling $375 million. We didn’t find a study predicting the economic impact of the 2016 Super Bowl in South Florida -- the 2007 study doesn’t actually predict the impact for 2016. (Economists often look at the impact after the event.) But many independent economists say the benefit is much lower than boosters’ totals. These economists share a joke: take the boosters’ estimates and move the decimal place one point to the left. Economists say boosters dangle the enormous revenue figures as politicians are weighing whether to support public funding. Holy Cross Economics Professor Victor Matheson, together with Professor Robert Baade, wrote in a 2004 paper that for Super Bowls held between 1970 and 2001, the host city experienced an average increase in personal income of about $92 million and that the game could not have contributed more than $300 million. In today’s numbers, the $92 million means $120 million and the $300 million would equal just under $400 million, Matheson told PolitiFact Florida. "Not only is our best guess a fraction of the boosters' estimates, but we are also quite certain that any estimate over $300 million is flat-out wrong," he said. We asked Matheson if Miami would warrant going with the higher figure rather than the average. "Miami might be slightly better off than some other cities since it has more hotel rooms than most other Super Bowl host cities allowing for more visitors before capacity constraints are hit," Matheson wrote in an email. "On the other hand, as a big warm weather destination, it has rather large numbers of tourists anyway during late January, early February that will be crowded out by Super Bowl fans. Overall, I would expect the economic impact in Miami to be typical of the average host city." Studies by boosters often take the number of attendees and multiply that by expenditures to arrive at a gross direct spending total. Then they use a multiplier to calculate an indirect effect of those initial expenditures circulating around the economy. Matheson told us, "Economic consultants seem to be pretty good at adding and multiplying, but not so good at subtracting." Economists say boosters ignore some factors that affect the bottom line, which they call the substitution effect, the crowding out effect, and leakages. Substitution is when someone spends money on the Super Bowl that they would have spent elsewhere in the economy. Since an event such as the Super Bowl draws so many out-of-town visitors, the substitution effect is far less than from a regular game. Crowding refers to other visitors deciding to stay away from the area to avoid the congestion, resulting in the loss of spending from those folks. That means if hotels are largely full anyway, economists focus on the net effect from the increased bookings (and inflated costs) -- not the total revenues of hotels. (During the 2007 Super Bowl, attendance at Monkey Jungle, a south Miami-Dade tourist attraction, plummeted.) And leakages occur when money spent on chain hotels and restaurants leak back to corporate headquarters -- not the local economy. "The local employees changing sheets or running room service, they don’t get 10 times their wage that week," said Professor Craig Depken, an economist at the University of North Carolina. Some economic models used to calculate economic benefits do account for leakage. But Matheson wrote that those models calculate leakage based "on the normal inter-industry relationships that exist in local economies, and during a mega-event these relationships may be anything but normal." PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated the economic impact of multiple Super Bowls. According to its analysis, direct visitor spending has ranged from a low of close to $120 million in Detroit in 2006, to high of about $200 million in Dallas/Fort Worth in 2011. The firm (which wasn’t paid by the Host Committee) projected $185 million in economic impact for the New Orleans Super Bowl held earlier this year. Dolphins spokesman Eric Jotkoff said that Book took the $463 million in the 2007 study and cited a $500 million in 2016 as a result of inflation and increased spending because "Super Bowl L promises to be the biggest Super Bowl in the game’s history." Our ruling Lobbyist Ron Book said "Super Bowl L by everybody's estimation is a $500 million economic impact to the state of Florida." First, Book uses numbers from a study commissioned by the Host Committee. The numbers take a broad measure of all spending that went on during a Super Bowl week in 2007, without accounting for usual economic activity. In fact, it’s among the highest estimates we reviewed for economic activity generated by a Super Bowl. But the main problem with Book’s claim is that "everybody" agrees on that number. Economics professors argue that studies by boosters routinely inflate costs and fail to take into account net costs or fully account for the fact that some spending locally is sent to corporate chains. We rate this claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/997c16ae-1610-4f19-8604-b63254dee497	None	Ron Book	None	None	None	2013-03-14T13:09:43	2013-03-06	['None']
-tron-03323	Pope Francis: Personal Relationships with Jesus are Dangerous	https://www.truthorfiction.com/pope-francis-relationships-jesus-dangerous/	None	religious	None	None	['christianity', 'pope francis', 'religion']	Pope Francis: Personal Relationships with Jesus are Dangerous	Jul 24, 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00321	Garbled Facebook Message Warns of 'New FB Cloning Scam'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/new-fb-cloning-scam-warning.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Garbled Facebook Message Warns of 'New FB Cloning Scam'	June 14, 2013	None	['None']
-snes-01254	Was Michelle Obama Arrested for Domestic Violence?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michelle-obama-arrested-for-domestic-violence/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Was Michelle Obama Arrested for Domestic Violence?	8 January 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14682	"We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-us-has-lowest-percentage-americans-w/	During the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, took aim at the nation’s economic record under President Barack Obama. "The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama," Cruz said. "But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this country." We decided to fact-check Cruz’s statement that we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today since 1977. Cruz is on to something. One key employment statistic known as the civilian labor force participation rate is at its lowest level since the 1970s. This statistic takes the number of Americans in the labor force -- basically, those who are either employed or who are seeking employment and divides it by the total civilian population. Here’s a chart going back to the mid 1970s. When the civilian labor force participation rate is low, it’s a concern, because it means there are fewer working Americans to support non-working Americans. But we’ll offer two asterisks for Cruz’s statement. First, as we’ve noted before, a notable factor in the decline of the labor-force participation rate is the aging of the Baby Boom generation. As more adults begin moving into retirement age, the percentage of Americans who work is bound to decline. When we last looked at this question in 2013, Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, told us he had estimated that the labor-force participation rate would have fallen in recent years on the basis of aging alone. That said, Cruz has a point that the recession exacerbated that decline. In a weak job market, some people who might otherwise want a job may return to school, become full-time parents or retire early. Second, there’s another way to read Cruz’s words. He said "the lowest percentage of Americans working" since 1977, which could also refer to a different statistic, the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of people who are employed and divides it by the civilian population age 16 and above. The difference in this case is that using the employment-population ratio, Cruz’s statement is incorrect. Unlike the labor-force participation rate, the employment-population ratio has actually been improving in recent years, although it’s below its pre-recession highs. Here’s a chart showing this statistic over the same time frame: If you exclude the Great Recession, the employment-population ratio was last at its current rate in 1984, not 1977. So by that measurement, he’s close. Our ruling Cruz said, "We have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977." He’s put his finger on a trend that worries economists of all stripes, but his wording was sloppy. In addition, it’s worth remembering that this particular trend is being driven at least to a degree by demographic trends beyond the control of any president. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2016-01-14T22:24:09	2016-01-14	['United_States']
-pomt-02232	A recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans and 56 percent of Democrats "say the biggest threat to our nation's security is big government."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/16/marsha-blackburn/gop-rep-marsha-blackburn-says-56-percent-democrats/	Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., isn’t as well known nationally as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, or Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. -- two lawmakers who are weighing presidential bids in 2016. But like Cruz and Paul, Blackburn recently trekked to Manchester, N.H., to address the New Hampshire Freedom Summit, a gathering sponsored by the conservative groups Americans for Prosperity and Citizens United. In her speech on April 12, 2014, Blackburn -- like many of her fellow speakers -- took aim at the government and earned applause from the staunch conservatives in the audience. "Gallup did a survey recently," she said, "and what they found was that 72 percent of all Americans say the biggest threat to our nation's security is big government. That is amazing. Now, the really fascinating part of this is 56 percent of all Democrats say the biggest threat to our nation is big government. Now I’ve got to tell you something -- when the Democrats say the government is too big, we all know the government is too big." We wondered whether it was true that Gallup found that 72 percent of Americans, and 56 percent of Democrats, "say the biggest threat to our nation's security is big government." We didn’t hear back from Blackburn’s office, but we quickly found the study she was referring to. It was a poll taken in early December 2013, which we think qualifies as "recent." It has a sampling error of 4 percentage points. The survey asked the Gallup question that’s been asked with identical wording since 1965: "Which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future -- big business, big labor or big government?" Gallup reported that 72 percent of all respondents said "big government," calling it "a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question. The prior high for big government was 65 percent in 1999 and 2000. Big government has always topped big business and big labor, including in the initial asking in 1965, but just 35 percent named it at that time." In the December 2013 version of the poll question, Blackburn’s percentages were on target. Here’s the breakdown by party: Party of survey respondent Big government is biggest threat Big business is biggest threat Big labor is biggest threat Republican 92 percent 4 percent 3 percent Independent 71 percent 20 percent 5 percent Democratic 56 percent 36 percent 6 percent All respondents 72 percent 21 percent 5 percent Gallup said it expects the results to continue to fluctuate as it asks the question periodically, since both parties tend to be more suspicious of government whenever the opposite party controls the White House. In general, though, Republicans have long been more wary of big government, the data shows. Democratic concern about big government maxed out at 62 percent in 2005, during George W. Bush’s presidency -- a high level, but much lower than the GOP’s current 92 percent rate. But what about Blackburn’s talking point? Gallup’s question gave respondents one of three choices -- big government, big business and big labor. Blackburn didn’t mention that framing, and that’s an important distinction to make. We think most listeners, when hearing someone cite results of a poll about "the biggest threat to our nation's security" and "the biggest threat to our nation," would assume that respondents were choosing from a larger universe of possible threats. Yet the way the question was worded prevented respondents from considering any number of possible threats to the nation’s security, ranging from radical Islamism to climate change to a weak economy. Pollster.com co-founder Charles Franklin, a professor of law and public policy and director of the Marquette Law School Poll, agrees that there’s a disconnect between the poll question Gallup asked and the way Blackburn framed it. "The Gallup question is not specific as to the nature of the possible threat, and seems to imply one of these three should be selected," he said. "The reason for the threat, or its nature, would almost certainly vary across partisans and lead to very different conclusions as to what should be done." For instance, a CBS News poll taken in March 2014 asked, "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?" It left the question open-ended for the respondent to answer. The economy and jobs finished first with 30 percent, followed by health care with 7 percent, the budget with 5 percent, "President Obama" with 4 percent, and four topics with 3 percent -- immigration, education, "miscellaneous government issues" and religious values. No fewer than 37 percent split their answers among other topics in segments smaller than 3 percent. The economy topped the list in several other versions of the CBS News question asked over the previous year. And Gallup itself has asked a similar open-ended question as well, most recently in June 2013. The question was, "Looking ahead, what is your greatest worry or concern about the future of the United States?" The economy finished first with 17 percent, followed by "the debt/deficit/nation’s finances" with 11 percent, "employment/jobs" with 11 percent, and "wars/conflicts in other countries" with 5 percent. The closest category to "big government" in this poll was "government not working for the betterment of the people," with 4 percent, and government "overreach/power" with 3 percent. Combined, these two categories drew a distinct minority of respondents -- 7 percent, a far cry from the 72 percent "consensus" found in the more limited-question poll Blackburn cited. Our ruling Blackburn said a recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans and 56 percent of Democrats "say the biggest threat to our nation's security is big government." She got the numbers right, but the specific poll only offered respondents three options: "big government," "big business" or "big labor." Her phrasing gives the misleading impression that there is wide consensus -- even among Democrats -- that "big government" is the biggest threat to the nation’s security. Other polls, including Gallup’s own, show that when respondents are asked an open-ended question, other issues such as the economy rise to the top of the list. So Blackburn is essentially cherry-picking among polls. Blackburn’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True.	None	Marsha Blackburn	None	None	None	2014-04-16T12:19:45	2014-04-12	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'United_States', 'Gallup_(company)']
-pomt-11883	"To be clear, all my investments are in a trust that I don’t control."	/illinois/statements/2017/oct/27/bruce-rauner/rauners-blind-trust-procedures-dont-excuse-lawsuit/	A lawsuit filed Oct. 5 against Gov. Bruce Rauner by a former business associate has piqued the interest of those who follow Illinois politics. But the substance of the suit remains unknown because, in a highly unusual move, the complaint and three exhibits in the case filed in Cook County Circuit Court are sealed. The plaintiff’s attorney says he wants the records made public and says they’re under wraps at Rauner’s request. When asked about the lawsuit after a public appearance on Oct. 20, Rauner said he knew nothing about it. "To be clear, all my investments are in a trust that I don’t control. I did that when I became governor," Rauner said. "I can’t comment on any business disputes. That gets settled in its own process." This lawsuit is likely to draw more interest as it plays out, which makes this a good time to look into Rauner’s claim that he has no control over the business interests that predate his term as governor. Big business Rauner’s vast wealth had been a point of contention in his 2014 campaign against incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn, who consistently tried to portray Rauner as economically out of touch with the vast majority of voters. After winning the election, Rauner sought to allay concerns that his extensive business portfolio -- which would generate $279 million in income in his first two years in office -- would make him vulnerable to conflicts of interest as governor. So shortly before his inauguration on Jan. 12, 2015, Rauner announced he was turning over control of his financial affairs to New York-based Roundtable Investment Partners and released a document detailing the "blind trust commitments" by which he would abide. "To avoid even an appearance of a conflict of interest, I am designating an investment adviser under a power of attorney and establishing specific blind trust procedures during my service as governor to eliminate my day-to-day involvement in any company or issuer in which I hold any security interest or investment," Rauner said in the document. "At all times during my service as governor, any information regarding the business and affairs of the issuer, including information on the financial performance of the issuer, or otherwise related to my status as a security holder in the Issuer, will go to the investment adviser and not to me." But while Rauner invoked "blind trust procedures" in his explanation, the business arrangement he entered into was a power of attorney, not a blind trust. The Chicago Tribune explained the difference in an article that appeared shortly before Rauner’s inauguration: What Rauner did instead (of creating a blind trust) was create a different, less rigorous structure known as a power of attorney that granted management authority over much of his wealth to a New York investment adviser…. If Rauner had set up an actual blind trust, he would have had to transfer to it ownership of most of his wealth. Rauner would still have been the beneficiary of the trust, but he would have relinquished control over his assets to an independent trustee pledged to keep the governor in the dark about transactions. Rauner’s press secretary, Patty Schuh, said Rauner was speaking colloquially when he spoke of a "trust" rather than a "power of attorney" in his statement about the lawsuit. Even if Rauner had wanted to created a blind trust, however, a quirk in Illinois ethics law would have prevented it. Legally blind Under Illinois law, state officeholders are required to file annual statements of economic interest in which they must list all their business interests in the state. In a blind trust like those used by federal officials, an officeholder turns over ownership of financial interests to a trustee who is prohibited from communicating with the official on investment matters. Such a setup would prevent Rauner from fulfilling the state economic disclosure requirements. Rauner’s then-press secretary Lance Trover explained the compromise arrangement to the Tribune: "This is the strongest possible structure that both established blind trust procedures and allows the Rauners to fully comply with the state's economic disclosure laws moving forward," said Trover, who noted that blind trusts can be used to shield a politician's assets from public view. "Doing this ensures to the people of Illinois that Gov. Rauner will not try to hide his financial assets behind a blind trust." The reporting aspect of Rauner’s setup is a key distinction between it and a blind trust. Because Illinois requires that he submit an annual summary of his economic interests, Rauner can’t legally blind himself to knowledge of his investments as would be required in a blind trust. "If you still have to report it, it does defeat the purpose of a blind trust," said Larry Noble, senior director and general counsel of The Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C., campaign ethics watchdog group. Noble believes voters would be better served if Illinois law didn’t favor mandatory disclosure over true blind trusts. "If you know what assets are in there, even though you’re not calling the shots you still have a conflict," Noble said. There are two other significant differences between Rauner’s arrangement and a blind trust as defined by federal law. In a blind trust, there can be no relationship between the officeholder and the trustee. Rauner is an investor in Roundtable and its CEO, Geoffrey Boisi, donated $50,300 to Rauner’s 2014 campaign. Even though Rauner has pledged to leave all business activities to Roundtable, his pledge is not legally binding. There is no legal prohibition on his communicating with or receiving reports from Roundtable, and he retains the right to make investment decisions if he so chooses. That could be significant in relation to the current court case, Noble said, because it gives Rauner a convenient way to quickly dispel any controversy that develops over the alleged secrecy. "He could say, ‘In the interest of disclosure I authorize my trustee to make it public,’ " Noble said. Our ruling Rauner said, "To be clear, all my investments are in a trust that I don’t control." He was not being clear when he said his investments were held in trust. A quirk in Illinois ethics law means candidates can’t establish blind trusts like those used by federal officials, so Rauner’s investments are handled through a power of attorney granted to Roundtable Investment Partners. It’s not technically a "trust," as Rauner called it, but if he is following his "blind trust commitments" pledge, the power of attorney arrangement appears to come as close as Illinois law permits. The power of attorney system he established doesn’t legally prohibit him from contact with Roundtable, however, so he’ll have a hard time hiding behind it if pressure mounts to make the substance of this month’s lawsuit public. Rauner’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out some important details. We find it Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bruce Rauner	None	None	None	2017-10-27T05:00:00	2017-10-20	['None']
-vogo-00119	Statement: “(Five-year deals with the city’s unions) give us in the first year $25 million, almost free money, because of a calculation of our pension payments, and $25 million in the second year,” Mayor Bob Filner said in an April 8 interview with KPBS.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/labor-deals-and-pension-savings-fact-check/	Analysis: Last June, San Diego voters approved a pension reform initiative that supporters claimed would save the city nearly $1 billion over the next 30 years.	None	None	None	None	Labor Deals and Pension Savings: Fact Check	April 12, 2013	None	['Bob_Filner']
-snes-02902	Mything Teeth	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-washington-wooden-teeth/	None	History	None	David Emery	None	Did George Washington Have Wooden Teeth?	21 December 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14577	"Ted Cruz defended a Chinese company that stole an invention from an American inventor."	/new-hampshire/statements/2016/feb/07/marco-rubio/rubio-attacks-cruz-role-lawsuit-defending-chinese-/	Getting tough on China has been a recurring theme among the candidates running for president in 2016 In Bow, N.H. last week, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said one his GOP rivals isn’t telling the whole truth about his record standing up for American firms against the Chinese. "Ted Cruz was counsel on record for a Chinese company that stole an invention from an American inventor in Florida," Rubio said. "Here you have someone who goes around talking tough about China, but he leaves out the fact that when China stole an American inventor’s product, he stood with the Chinese." "That is a fact," Rubio said. We decided to check it out. The case The case in question involved a man named Jordan Fishman, the CEO of Alpha Mining Systems, a Florida-based specialty tire company. In 2009, he sued a Chinese tire manufacturer, Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., in U.S. District Court, in Virginia, accusing them of stealing blueprints and violating his copyright. His company was manufacturing tires in China when he said an employee conspired with Shandong Linglong, "to steal our copyrighted blueprints and make low-quality knock-off tires," Fishman wrote in an Op-ed published in the Concord Monitor. Fishman won the suit and was awarded $26 million in damages in 2010, according to federal court records. But the Chinese company appealed and hired the Washington D.C. law firm Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, where Cruz was a partner. Lawyers argued the court erred in its original verdict because the Copyright Act could not be used to enforce damages against a foreign company when no violation occurred within the United States. Federal court records list R. Ted Cruz as one of the lawyers representing the Chinese firm. The court rejected the appeal and affirmed the decision in June 2012 to award Fishman $26 million in damages. But collecting the money proved difficult. In October 2012, federal marshals seized Shandong Linglong property in an attempt to enforce the court order, according to industry news reports. The claim We reached out to Rubio’s campaign, which provided links to several news articles about the case and Cruz’s involvement. The case gained political attention in 2012, when Cruz was running for U.S. Senate against David Dewhurst. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim that Cruz represented a Chinese company "found guilty of stealing blueprints from an American manufacturer." That claim was rated Mostly True. This isn’t the first time Rubio has made such an accusation during his presidential campaign, and Cruz has defended himself calling it a "bogus attack." We reached out to Cruz’s campaign, which said Cruz’s involvement in the case was minimal. "When Cruz worked for Morgan Lewis, the law firm represented a Chinese tire company, he had nothing to do with the trial," said Rick Tyler, Cruz’s Communications Director. "He helped edit briefs, but did not argue the appeal." Our ruling Marco Rubio said "Ted Cruz defended a Chinese company that stole an invention from an American inventor." Cruz’s firm represented a Chinese firm found liable for stealing blueprints. While other lawyers argued the appeal, Cruz’s name appears as one of the lawyers representing the Shandong Linglong Rubber Co. against an American company. Cruz and his firm were not involved with the original case, just the appeal. We rate Rubio’s claim Mostly True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2016-02-07T17:33:02	2016-02-02	['United_States', 'Ted_Cruz', 'China']
-pomt-02640	"Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/17/lisa-bloom/americans-are-20-times-likely-die-gun-violence-cit/	As shootings at a Florida theater and a New Mexico school rocked the news this week, CNN host Piers Morgan greeted viewers Tuesday with alarming stats about gun violence. Then one of Morgan’s guests jumped in with numbers of her own. After questioning the sheriff investigating the theater killing, Morgan turned to Lisa Bloom, a lawyer and author of Swagger: 10 Urgent Rules for Raising Boys in an Era of Failing Schools, Mass Joblessness, and Thug Culture. "Let me give you another number: 20," Bloom said. "Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries. Why? Because other civilized countries rein in guns." We can’t quantify whether gun policies are preventing gun violence, as Bloom said, but we can look at her claim that "Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries." First of all, it’s not typical to refer to peers of the United States as "civilized countries." More often, they are grouped as "developed," "advanced industrial" or "high-income countries," many being in Western Europe. When we asked Bloom what she meant, she directed us to a Washington Post infographic comparing gun-related murders per capita for the United States and the nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The global consortium of 34 countries includes Western Europe, Turkey, Israel, Chile, Japan and South Korea. Mexico is also in the group, but the Post did not include it because its murder rate is exceptionally high amid a drug war. (The OECD considers all but Mexico, Chile and Turkey as "advanced" countries. Those three are "emerging.") The United States is tops -- way tops -- for gun deaths, with a 2010 rate of 3.2 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population, according to statistics collected by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Chile was second at 2.2, followed by Turkey and Switzerland, tied for third at 0.8. The rest of the countries fell below 1, if they made the map at all. The U.S. rate is more than 20 times the rate of Australia, France, the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland), Israel, South Korea, Japan, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. The U.S. rate firearm-related deaths is closer to 10 or 16 times the rates of countries such as Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain. (Country to country comparisons are slightly imperfect due to the variance in how data is reported. For example, the rate for Turkey and Switzerland is based on each country’s most recently reported year, which is 2006 and 2004, respectively. You can see more on this Google spreadsheet we compiled using U.N. data for firearm death rates from 2004 to 2010.) Post foreign affairs blogger Max Fisher concluded, "The U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times the average for all other countries on this chart. That means that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country." A related fact-check from PolitiFact examined a 2011 study by researchers of the Harvard School of Public Health and UCLA School of Public Health. Their findings, while based on data for 23 high-income, populous countries from the World Health Organization now almost a decade old (2003), mirror more recent trends. The United States, they found, has more firearms per capita, the most permissive gun control laws and a disproportionate amount of firearm-related deaths from homicides, suicides and accidents. "The United States had a homicide rate 6.9 times higher than those in the other high-income countries, driven by a firearm homicide rate that was 19.5 times higher than those in the other high-income countries," the report says. "For 15 year olds to 24 year olds, the firearm homicide rate in the United States was 42.7 times higher than in the other countries." Bloom said her particular statistic is widely reported, and she will include more stats on gun deaths in her upcoming book, Suspicion Nation. "No matter how you analyze the data, the numbers are deeply disturbing," she said. Our ruling Bloom said, "Americans are 20 times as likely to die from gun violence as citizens of other civilized countries." Her phrasing is imperfect ("civilized" countries versus "developed"), and depending on what countries you count you can reach a slightly different figure. But Bloom’s point is well-sourced and largely accurate. The United States has a much higher rate of the world’s most developed countries. We rate her statement Mostly True.	None	Lisa Bloom	None	None	None	2014-01-17T09:30:00	2014-01-14	['None']
-pomt-11764	"Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime"	/new-york/statements/2017/dec/01/kathy-sheehan/being-undocumented-immigrant-us-not-crime/	Albany Mayor Kathy M. Sheehan said in a national television interview that it’s not a crime for immigrants to live in the U.S. without documentation. Sheehan, a Democrat, was defending her city’s status as a so-called "sanctuary city" to Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The city's law enforcement officials do not report undocumented immigrants to federal authorities unless they commit a serious crime. "Simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime," Sheehan said. "The U.S. Supreme Court has said that." Carlson was left baffled. "You just said that being here illegally is not illegal? I’m not aware of that Supreme Court decision," Carlson said. "How is that true?" Sheehan cited a court ruling. "In Arizona v. the United States, the Supreme Court said simply being here undocumented is not a crime," she said. "There are civil violations and then there are criminal violations." So, who’s right? Sheehan or Carlson? What’s Sheehan talking about? The Supreme Court case Sheehan cited involved a 2010 challenge to an Arizona immigration law from the Obama administration. The law required that immigrants carry documents proving their status in Arizona. Police were also instructed to stop and seek documents from anyone they suspected of being undocumented. Those without documents faced a state criminal charge. The Obama administration contended Arizona could not create a state level criminal charge for the violation because it’s already regulated by Congress. The Supreme Court agreed with the Obama administration and struck down that section of the Arizona law, among other parts. Civil or criminal Experts supported Sheehan’s claim by pointing out how the U.S. legal system works. People who break the law in the U.S. have committed either a criminal or civil violation depending on how the law defines it and how prosecutors choose to proceed. Being in the U.S. without documentation is considered a civil matter, said Nancy Morawetz, professor of clinical law at New York University School of Law. "Being present in the U.S., that status, is not a crime," Morawetz said. That doesn’t mean undocumented immigrants can live in the U.S. without consequence, said Rick Su, a professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law. Federal authorities can deport them. A criminal violation comes with a punishment, like time in prison. Civil cases come with penalties instead. Deportation is considered a penalty under federal law, not a punishment. "Congress can decide what they want to make a crime and what they want to make a civil violation," Su said. "What they’ve decided is that immigration violations by themselves are civil violations." The Supreme Court confirmed that decision in Arizona v. United States. "What the Supreme Court said in Arizona v. U.S. is that generally being unlawfully present in the U.S. is not a crime, and that’s definitely true," Su said. "What the court did, is say Congress had made these civil violations and Arizona is trying to make them criminal violations." Why a civil matter? It’s easier to deport undocumented immigrants through civil proceedings, Su said. In deportation proceedings, immigrants face a special immigrant judge. The government does not have to provide a public attorney to immigrants who cannot afford one in these cases. The burden is then entirely on the immigrant to show they are in the country lawfully. They are also not entitled to any kind of due process. There are some immigration laws that can land an immigrant in criminal court. Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, for example, but staying after a temporary visa has expired is a civil violation. As much as two-thirds of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. entered legally with a visa, according to the Center for Migration Studies. Our ruling Sheehan said "simply being in this country without documentation is not a crime." It may be semantics, but Sheehan is right. Living in the U.S. without documentation is a civil violation, not a crime. PolitiFact Florida rated a similar claim Mostly True earlier this year. As its fact check noted, however, those in the U.S. without documentation may have committed a crime by entering the country illegally. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that generally opposes loosening immigration laws, told PolitiFact Florida that "it's easy for such individuals to run into separate criminal problems even beyond their method of entry, such as filling out an employment eligibility form to get a job when they aren’t eligible to work." But their illegal presence is not a crime. Sheehan's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kathy Sheehan	None	None	None	2017-12-01T19:09:57	2017-11-16	['None']
-pomt-15250	Since parole abolition, Virginia's "crime rate has fallen to third lowest in the country, our recidivism rate is down 20 percent and that’s the second lowest in the country."	/virginia/statements/2015/aug/03/mark-obenshain/obenshain-says-virginias-crime-and-recidivism-rate/	Republicans are denouncing Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s efforts to study whether Virginia’s no parole policies, in effect since 1995, should be eased. Among the most vocal critics is state Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg, who ran unsuccessfully for attorney general in 2013. Here’s what he said during a July 21 radio interview on WRVA in Richmond. "We’ve been studying this for the past 20 years and we’ve got great experience and shown that this whole truth-in-sentencing movement actually works, and what the governor is doing is messing with success. Our crime rate has dropped to, what, third lowest in the country; our recidivism rate is down by 20 percent, and that’s the second lowest in the country. The governor just doesn’t need to do this." Virginia’s no-parole policy -- a legacy of former Gov. George Allen, a Republican who served from 1994 to 1998 -- requires that criminals serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentences. McAuliffe, a Democrat, says he’s not talking about easing the program for violent offenders. But the governor has appointed a bipartisan commission to explore whether there are better ways to handle thousands of non-violent inmates, particularly drug offenders. The governor’s action is sure to be an issue this fall when all General Assembly seats are up for election. So we decided to see whether Obenshain’s statistics on the drop in crime and recidivism rates since the advent of no-parole hold up. Crime rates Obenshain said his information that Virginia has the third lowest crime rate came from a staff briefing on parole reform given to the Senate Finance Committee last November. The PowerPoint presentation cited statistics from the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report dating back to 1994 -- the year before no-parole went into effect. One slide said Virginia had the third lowest violent crime rate in 2013 -- the most current year available -- and called it a "significant improvement" from 1994, when the state ranked 14th. We verified those rankings through the FBI reports. The ranking, however, needs some context. Violent crime has been has been waning throughout the U.S. in recent decades. Nationally, 714 people out of every 100,000 were violent crime victims in 1994; that dropped 368 in 2013, a 48.4 percent decrease. In Virginia, 358 people per 100,000 were victims in 1994. That dropped to 188 in 2013, a 47.4 percent decrease. In other words, Virginia’s decline in violent crime rates is consistent with national trends. The Powerpoint slide that Obenshain cites does not connect Virginia’s decrease to no-parole. To the contrary, it contains this caveat: "There are many factors involved in the national drop in crime rates over the last two decades, many of which are not unique to Virginia." The FBI also compiles property crime rates. Virginia has also seen a decline in this category that is consistent with U.S. trends. Nationally, 4,660 people out of every 100,000 were property crime victims in 1994. That fell to 2,732 in 2013, a 41.4 percent decrease. In Virginia, 3,690 per 100,000 were victims in 1994, and that dropped to 2,066 in 2013, a 44 percent decline. Recidivism rates Obenshain also cited the Finance Committee briefing last November as his source for claiming that Virginia’s recidivism rate has dropped by 20 percent and is the second lowest in the nation. A slide in the presentation said, "Virginia’s rate has dropped from 28 percent for offenders released in (fiscal year) 2004 to 22.9 percent for those released in (fiscal) 2009. Virginia has the second lowest recidivism rate among the states that have a comparable measure. Virginia had the eighth lowest recidivism rate for offenders released in 2004." The figures come from the Virginia Department of Corrections. You may have noticed that the drop between the years Obenshain cites is 5.1 percentage points. But you have to pay close attention to language. The decrease from 28 to 22.9 is an 18.2 percent drop, which the senator rounds to 20 percent. Virginia’s computes its recidivism rate by calculating the percentage of of inmates who are returned to prison for committing new crimes within three years of their original release. DOC records show the rate was 25.4 percent for prisoners released in 1992 -- three years before no parole began. So the decrease in the rate since the advent of the policy is about 10 percent -- or half the figure Obenshain offered. Now, let’s discuss Virginia’s national ranking. The DOC has distributed a chart showing that Virginia’s 22.9 percent for prisoners released in 2009 was the second lowest in the nation. There are no national standards for computing recidivism rates. DOC uses the three-year recidivism rates other states publish. Tama Celi, statistical analysis and forecast unit manager for DOC, the Virginia Department of Corrections, said the footnoted chart does not offer an apples-to-apples comparison. The years for each state’s recidivism rate vary, she said, and different states have different criminal laws defining thresholds for violations. "The states are measuring their own criminal justice systems and laws," she said. Two experts on recidivism told us comparing state numbers has little value. They noted that states have different ways of defining three-year recidivists. Some like Virginia, with lower rates, require a high standard of a former inmate being sent back to prison. Others, with higher rates, require lower standards for recidivism such as being convicted or arrested for a crime. "You want to believe these crime statistics are solid, but they really don’t tell you much," said Danielle Rudes, a professor of criminology at George Mason University. "To me, they don’t offer any evidence that Virginia’s abandonment of discretionary release has been successful. They don’t offer any evidence to the contrary, either." Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project and The Pew Charitable Trusts, agreed. "On the surface, it seems like recidivism rates are a straightforward issue but, in reality, it’s fraught with complexity," he said. Gelb directed a Pew effort several years ago to equate all state recidivism rates by a standard formula. The study found that Virginia had a 28.3 percent, three-year recidivism rate for prisoners released in 2003. That ranked fifth among the 41 states that cooperated. The study broke down recidivists into two categories -- those who returned to jail for committing new crimes and those who went back for violations such as breaking parole or probation conditions. Virginia’s recidivism rate for new crimes was 23 percent, which ranked 28th among 41 states. Its recidivism rate for technical reasons was 5 percent -- the fifth lowest among the states. Our ruling Obenshain says that since parole abolition, "Our crime rate has fallen to third lowest in the country, our recidivism rate is down 20 percent and that’s the second lowest in the country.’ Virginia’s violent crime rate did drop to the nation’s third lowest in 2013. The recidivism rate is a stickier issue. It fell by 10 percent over the last 20 years -- half of what Obenshain said. And the No. 2 national ranking, released by Virginia’s DOC, is fraught problems because different states compute their recidivism rates in vastly different ways. But on the whole, crime trends have gone down in Virginia and we rate Obenshain’s statement Mostly True.	None	Mark Obenshain	None	None	None	2015-08-03T12:33:03	2015-07-21	['None']
-snes-02388	Rep. Trey Gowdy's son was found dead in a Washington, D.C. dumpster.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trey-gowdys-son-dead-dumpster/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Was Trey Gowdy’s Son Found Dead in a Dumpster?	22 May 2017	None	['Washington,_D.C.', 'Trey_Gowdy']
-pose-00389	"Obama will strengthen anti-monopoly laws and strengthen producer protections to ensure independent farmers have fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and fair prices for their goods."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/408/strengthen-anti-monopoly-laws-to-favor-independent/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Strengthen anti-monopoly laws to favor independent farmers	2010-01-07T13:26:57	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-00003	A photograph shows a 'lava moon' melting into a waterfall.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lava-moon-waterfall/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is This a ‘Lava Moon’ Melting Into a Waterfall?	5 October 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04178	Pastor Creflo Dollar was told by God to endorse Donald Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/creflo-dollar-endorses-trump/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Creflo Dollar Endorses Donald Trump	25 August 2016	None	['God', 'Donald_Trump']
-snes-03221	Former Clinton Foundation CEO Eric Braverman has gone "missing."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-clinton-foundation-ceo-missing/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Former Clinton Foundation CEO Missing?	2 January 2017	None	['Clinton_Foundation']
-pomt-11868	Says actor Morgan Freeman said, "Jailing Hillary" is the best way to "restore public faith in government."	/punditfact/statements/2017/nov/01/blog-posting/fake-news-morgan-freeman-did-not-say-he-wanted-hil/	A bogus story that claimed actor Morgan Freeman roundly criticized former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton circulated on the Internet prior to Halloween, but it turns out readers were being tricked by fake news. "Morgan Freeman: ‘Jailing Hillary’ Best Way To ‘Restore Public Faith In Govt,’ " read the headline on a story we first saw Oct. 30, 2017, on SnapUSANews.com. Facebook users reported the story as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media site’s efforts to cut down on fake news. We also saw the same post dated Oct. 29 or later on several other websites. The story claimed that Freeman made the statements during a promotional appearance in New York for the National Geographic series The Story of Us. "Hillary should be in jail for her unlawful deeds and President (Donald) Trump should absolutely, absolutely make sure this happens to send the very strong message that no-one, and I mean no-one, is above the law in the United States of America," the fake story quoted Freeman. Freeman also allegedly said in a profane rant that President Donald Trump was elected to imprison Clinton. Until she is punished, Freeman said, "everyday Americans will forever know, deep down, that there is one law for those with money and power, and another for the rest of us." The fake story rightly points out that Freeman made a video suggesting how Trump should have handled allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. The Story Of Us is a miniseries featuring Freeman traveling the world to interact with different cultures, and premiered on Oct. 11. But the rest of this story is fiction. The 80-year-old actor has been an ardent Clinton supporter, narrating political advertisements and a biographical video about the former secretary of state for the Democratic National Committee during her campaign. The post appeared Oct. 29 on the fake news site YourNewsWire.com, under the byline of Baxter Dmitry. YourNewsWire.com has spread fake stories putting words in the mouths of famous people before, such as when they wrongly posted that Vladimir Putin had said Pope Francis was "not a man of God." As in that case, there’s no proof that Freeman made any of the comments about jailing Clinton. We rate this statement Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-11-01T13:55:58	2017-10-29	['Morgan_Freeman']
-pomt-00780	"Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/09/rand-paul/rand-paul-debt-has-tripled-bush-took-office/	Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame for America’s increasing debt, said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in a speech announcing his presidential campaign April 7. "Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration," Paul said. "And it’s now tripling under Barack Obama’s watch." Quite a few readers asked us if the debt has tripled since Obama took office in January 2009. We took a look at the numbers, and it hasn’t. It's increased about 1.7 times. However, Paul’s office said this isn’t the proper interpretation. Looking at the whole statement -- not just the second clause -- Paul wasn’t saying the debt has tripled under Obama alone. Instead, he was saying that it doubled under President George W. Bush. And since Obama took office, it has risen to a point that is triple what it was when Bush first took office. By this measure, Paul’s statement is closer to accurate. Let’s go through the numbers. Paul’s interpretation We used the Treasury Department’s Debt to the Penny clock, which is a daily log of federal debt going back about 20 years. The debt held by the public and gross federal debt (which includes debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings) are both considered appropriate measurements. But we only have data that goes back far enough for the gross federal debt, so we’re going to stick with that measure. When Bush’s term started Jan. 20, 2001, the gross federal debt was $5.73 trillion. At the end of his term, Jan. 20, 2009, the gross federal debt was $10.63 trillion. This means that the debt just about doubled under Bush. The gross federal debt under Obama -- as of April 7, 2015 -- is $18.15 trillion. So, the debt is a little more than triple what the debt was when Bush took office in 2001, $5.63 trillion. Pinning the debt A lot of factors contribute to the debt other than the policies of the current president. By talking about debt growth spanning both a Republican and Democratic administration, Paul sidesteps this issue somewhat, but we wanted to provide some extra context. For example, the debt has increased so dramatically in Obama’s term -- particularly in the first couple years -- largely due to the recession, which unfolded before Obama took office, said Neil Buchanan, an expert in law, economics and the national debt at George Washington University Law School. "The gross debt increase in 2009 was huge, because of the decreased tax revenues and increased benefit payments caused by the Great Recession," he said. Two other large contributors to debt since 2009 are the government’s continued borrowing to fund military operations in the Middle East and increasing costs of the health system, said Linda Bilmes, an expert in national budgetary issues at Harvard University. Both of these were a result of previous administrative policies and external factors. Bilmes noted, though, that Obama has decided to continue the military operations (increasing the debt) and attempted to slow the growing costs of health care through the Affordable Care Act (lowering it). Additionally, measuring the debt in raw dollars does not reflect inflation or the fact that a larger economy can handle a larger amount of debt. A better measurement would be the debt burden, or how the debt compares to the gross domestic product, Buchanan said. During the Bush administration, debt as a percentage of GDP went from about 55 percent to about 68 percent. As of 2014, it’s shot up to 103.2 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. Our ruling Paul said, "Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch." This statement is confusing. A person could easily interpret it to mean that debt has tripled since Obama took office -- which would be incorrect. Paul, on the other hand, said that it means debt today, under Obama, is triple what it was when Bush’s term started. Indeed, today’s national debt is about triple what it was in January 2001, when Bush took office. It's also worth noting that many factors other than a particular president's policies affect the national debt. From one not-so-obvious angle, Paul's numbers are correct. But because the statement could so easily be interpreted in another, less accurate way, we rate it Half True.	None	Rand Paul	None	None	None	2015-04-09T15:30:27	2015-04-07	['George_W._Bush', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-03238	Medicaid spending declined by 1.9 percent in 2012, the second such decline in 47 years.	/georgia/statements/2013/aug/16/kathleen-sebelius/obama-official-touts-lower-medicaid-spending/	The Obama administration’s top health care official recently gave a speech in Atlanta and made some specific comments about Medicaid spending that we wanted to diagnose. PolitiFact Georgia was alerted to comments U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made on the topic through Twitter posts from people who heard her speak. "Sebelius says Medicaid spending dropped 1.9% in 2012. First time in 47 years," one person tweeted. But as we’ve learned with the popular social media tool, you can’t always tell the whole story about something in 140 characters. Sebelius offered more context in her speech. "(D)espite some of the rhetoric in Washington, the cost outlook for Medicaid is as strong as it’s been in a long time," Sebelius said during her speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures. "In 2012, Medicaid spending per beneficiary actually fell 1.9 percent, the first time it had fallen in 47 years, except for the year when prescription drug costs shifted to Medicare Part D." PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know whether Sebelius was correct that Medicaid spending per beneficiary declined by nearly 2 percent last year. We also wanted to find out how many times there has been a decline since the program was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965. Medicaid has been a big issue in Georgia over the past year. The state’s top political leaders have refused to join the Obama administration’s plans to expand Medicaid coverage, starting in 2014. Sebelius told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in an exclusive interview during her recent visit here that the state’s stance would hurt many working-poor families. But Georgia leaders say the state cannot afford to pay for the estimated 650,000 residents who would be eligible for Medicaid under the expansion. The federal government has pledged to pick up nearly the entire tab in the coming years. Georgia leaders are dubious Washington can follow through with such a commitment and fear state taxpayers might have to foot the bill. There have been many news accounts in recent years about the rise in spending on Medicaid, which provides health services to many low-income Americans. An estimated 54 million Americans receive Medicaid, according to congressional testimony. Medicaid spending has consistently grown higher than the nation’s economic input. The costs rose dramatically in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Many fear it is a budget buster unless costs are brought under control. So how could Sebelius be right about a cost decline? The secretary’s office sent us an actuarial report it put together to support her claim. It was a report on the current fiscal health of the Medicaid program, with statistics on past, present and future spending. "Acute care fee-for-service Medicaid expenditures are projected to grow at an average rate of 5.7 percent per year over the next decade. In 2012, these expenditures are estimated to have declined by 1.9 percent. But they are projected to increase in 2013 and later years," the report says on Page 27. By 2012, the report means the federal government’s fiscal year 2012, which began Oct. 1, 2011, and ended Sept. 30, 2012. Sebelius said in her speech that Medicaid spending in 2020 will be 14 percent lower than previously projected. One government spreadsheet we looked at showed federal Medicaid spending rose steadily since its creation. The only years we saw a decline were in 2006, the year when Medicare Part D took effect, and in 2011, which would include portions of fiscal year 2012. Medicare Part D was a drug benefit plan that federal officials said would save seniors money. Medicaid recipients eligible for the Part D benefits were automatically enrolled into the new Medicare program, which lowered total Medicaid spending, federal officials say. "As a result of this shift in coverage, Medicaid drug spending (net of rebates) decreased 44 percent from 2005 to 2006," according to the Medicaid report that a HHS official sent us. The same HHS report attributed the 2012 decrease in Medicaid spending on a decline in costs on hospital services and prescription drugs. Some news accounts said fewer new recipients added to the Medicaid rolls helped decrease spending. The HHS report says that was a small factor. The report credits the controversial Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as being another small factor in the spending decline. Other organizations sent us reports with similar findings: The only other year Medicaid spending decreased was in 2006. To sum up, Sebelius said per capita Medicaid spending declined by about 2 percent in 2012, the first time in the history of the program that happened, aside from 2006. The reports we reviewed confirm her claim. She was making a much larger point: That Medicaid costs might not increase as rapidly as some had predicted, even though they will still go higher. The federal government has warned spending is going to rise again sharply in the next few years. Her claim is accurate but could have used a little more context. We rate this claim as Mostly True.	None	Kathleen Sebelius	None	None	None	2013-08-16T00:00:00	2013-08-12	['None']
-pomt-10261	"Less than four cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/26/democratic-national-committee/yes-only-an-ounce-on-prevention/	This year's Democratic platform sets a goal of providing more affordable health care. One way to attack medical costs is to prevent chronic illness through less expensive preventive care, although the subject is ripe for academic dispute. The platform states: "Yet despite all of this, less than four cents of every health care dollar is spent on prevention and public health." This is true. A report in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that 3 percent of total health expenditures went toward preventative health care. The 1992 report looked at figures from the Health Care Financing Administration about the costs of different kinds of health care. The authors included spending that either reduced disease and injury or enhanced health. The small percentage from that long-ago report is still widely repeated. An article May 28, 2008, in the Journal of the American Medical Association about preventive medicine refers for cost estimates to an article in the Harvard Health Policy Review in fall 2006, which cites the 1992 report. The Harvard publication also mentions a 2006 article in Health Affairs by former surgeon general David Satcher that estimated spending on preventive care at less than 2 percent. In 2004 testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Dr. Dean Ornish, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco and founder of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute, described how three-quarters of health-care spending goes toward chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. But he said less than 2 percent was spent on preventing those ailments. We should note, we're not ruling on whether preventive care is cost effective, but rather on the specific claim that we're currently spending only 4 percent on it. We would like to be using figures more recent than 1992, but that appears to be the last time researchers used government figures to calculate the percentage of health care spending that goes to prevention. With that in mind, we have to say the Democratic Party platform claim is True.	None	Democratic National Committee	None	None	None	2008-08-26T00:00:00	2008-08-13	['None']
-goop-02525	Drake Did Say Nicki Minaj’s “Camel Toe” At VMAs Made Her “Sexier,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/drake-nicki-minaj-camel-toe-vmas/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Drake Did NOT Say Nicki Minaj’s “Camel Toe” At VMAs Made Her “Sexier,” Despite Report	5:27 pm, August 29, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03427	Says 92 percent of Texas counties had no abortion provider in 2008.	/texas/statements/2013/jun/25/wendy-davis/wendy-davis-says-92-percent-texas-counties-had-no-/	A Democrat bent on talking to death a proposal pitched by backers as improving the safety of abortion clinics while imposing other limits bandied a statistic about existing access to abortion toward the beginning of her filibuster. State Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth quoted to Senate colleagues from written testimony submitted at a March 19, 2013, hearing on a different bill by Physicians for Reproductive Health, a group whose website says it advocates reproductive health services. From the testimony, which Davis called "compelling," the senator apparently read aloud: "‘While Texas women have the right to safe, legal abortion, in reality there are already very few facilities in Texas to provide this essential care. In 2008, 92 percent of Texas counties had no abortion provider.’" Davis said the testimony attributed the statistic to the New York-based Guttmacher Institute, a research group focusing on reproductive health issues. And is the statistic accurate? In a telephone interview, Guttmacher spokeswoman Rebecca Wind said the statistic came from the latest round of its occasional national study tabulating abortion providers by county, "Abortion Incidence and Access to Services in the United States, 2008." However, Wind counseled, another statistic built into each study can be more revealing. In Texas in 2008, she said, 33 percent of women of child-bearing age lived in the counties without abortion facilities, according to the study, which based its count of women on U.S. Census Bureau figures. Generally, Wind said, "metropolitan areas have higher numbers of women and higher numbers of providers." The study covering 2008 was published in 2010; Wind said an updated census, covering 2010-11, is to be published in 2014. The description of methodology in the study covering 2008 said, "All facilities known or expected to have provided abortion services in 2007 and 2008 were contacted, including hospitals, clinics and physicians’ offices." There were 67 Texas facilities, the report said. The study noted that it had likely missed some providers. "Undoubtedly, some abortion providers were not counted because we were unable to identify them," the study said. A 1994 survey found Guttmacher’s 1992 count overlooked "a number of small providers," it said. "Undercounting has likely become more pronounced over the last decade" as non-surgical facilities offered an abortion-inducing drug. We also looked for a state-level count of abortion providers by county. By email, Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services, told us that according to the state’s most recent count, 74 facilities reported having performed abortions in 2011. Of those, the agency said, 41 were holders of an abortion facility license, 28 were hospitals, four were ambulatory surgical centers and one was a physician’s office. We did not obtain the locations or addresses of those listed in 2011, but Williams provided addresses for the state’s 36 abortion facility license-holders as of late June 2013 (a group that excludes hospitals, doctors’ offices and ambulatory surgical centers). By telephone, Williams said most Texas abortions are performed at such facilities. A small percentage of abortions take place in hospitals and physicians’ offices, she said. By our calculation, the 36 centers were located in about 18 Texas counties, or 7 percent of the state’s 254 counties. Geographically, they were located from Beaumont and Jefferson County near Louisiana west to El Paso County and from Lubbock County on the plains south to Hidalgo and Starr counties on the Rio Grande. The centers were mostly in the populous counties of Harris, Fort Bend, Dallas, Tarrant, Travis and Bexar. Our ruling Davis said that in 2008, 92 percent of Texas counties had no abortion provider. Her statement matched the Guttmacher Institute’s findings, which seem supported by the locations of Texas abortion facility license holders as of late June 2013. But the institute’s study also said it likely undercounted facilities, while presenting an arguably more meaningful statistic; 33 percent of Texas women of child-bearing age lived in counties lacking abortion providers, meaning more than 65 percent lived in a county with a provider. Davis’ statement lacked these clarifications, making it Mostly True.	None	Wendy Davis	None	None	None	2013-06-25T19:28:42	2013-06-25	['Texas']
-vogo-00211	Counting Military Jobs in San Diego: Fact Check	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/counting-military-jobs-in-san-diego-fact-check/	None	None	None	None	None	Counting Military Jobs in San Diego: Fact Check	August 7, 2012	None	['San_Diego']
-pomt-15136	The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe humans are causing climate change has been debunked by the "head" of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "That number was pulled out of thin air."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/	Appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum doubled down on his skepticism of man-made climate change. Santorum made two claims to back his point. First, in a large survey of climate scientists, "57 percent don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2," according to Santorum. (We found that claim False.) Second, Santorum said that a widely cited figure of scientific consensus on climate change — 97 percent — has been debunked by the "head" of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he said. "The 97 percent figure that’s thrown around, the head of the UN IPC (sic) said that number was pulled out of thin air. It was based on a survey of 77 scientists," he said on Aug. 28. "Not even 97 scientists responded to that survey." Several readers asked us to look into Santorum’s claim. His campaign didn’t get back to us, but we found that Santorum misstated both who objected to the figure and what that person objected to. From 2002 until recently, the chairman of the IPCC was climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri, who resigned from his post in February 2015. To our knowledge, neither Pachauri nor current chairman Ismail El Gizouli has criticized the 97 percent figure. Pachauri has, in fact, endorsed the notion of scientific consensus on climate change. "By overwhelming consensus, the scientific community agrees that climate change is real," he said at a press conference in 2010. Santorum is likely referring to Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex who’s been a vocal critic of the 97 percent figure. He is not, as Santorum claims, the "head" of the IPCC, though he was the convening lead author of a chapter of the IPCC’s fifth report. He has since parted ways with the IPCC. Currently, Tol serves as an adviser to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. That group, says Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist at the University of Bristol who studies the rejection of climate science, is "the U.K.’s most prominent source of climate change denial." The "thin air" quote Santorum cited is from Tol’s testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. "I mean it is pretty clear that most of the science agrees that climate change is real and most likely human-made," Tol said on during a 2014 hearing on the IPCC. "But the 97 percent is essentially pulled from thin air. It is not based on any credible research whatsoever." Tol was specifically referring to a 2013 survey by John Cook, who studies climate communication at the University of Queensland. Cook’s study found that among over 4,000 studies that took a position on man-made climate change, 97.1 percent "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global phase" and 97.2 of 1,300 authors who responded agreed with the position. Tol takes issue with Cook’s methodology. By his analysis of Cook’s data, the real figure is around 91 percent. (Cook replied critiquing Tol’s methodology and standing by his survey’s original finding of 97 percent.) "There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans," Tol writes in his analysis. "I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this." So Santorum is talking about the wrong person. And his reference to "a survey of 77 scientists," is talking about something else entirely. The study Santorum is attempting to describe is a 2009 survey by Peter Doran, a professor of earth science at Louisiana State University. About 90 percent of around 3,000 surveyed earth scientists said they think climate change is happening, and about 82 percent said human activity is contributing to it. The 97 percent figure comes from a subsample of climate scientists in Doran’s study, and Santorum correctly describes its small size: 74 out of 77 respondents said they agreed that climate change is man-made. Beyond his and Cook’s study, a 2010 study of over 1,300 climate researchers and their work also showed a 97 to 98 percent consensus. "They keep talking about how ‘the’ 97 percent study is wrong," Doran told PolitiFact in an interview. "Well it turns out, we never know which study they are referring to because there have been three peer-reviewed studies of late that have arrived at this 97 percent number in different ways and by different people." Our ruling Santorum said, "The 97 percent figure that’s thrown around, the head of the UN IPC (sic) said that number was pulled out of thin air. It was based on a survey of 77 scientists." Santorum’s claim confuses several points. First, the critic of the 97 percent he’s referring to isn’t the "head" of the UN’s climate panel, but an economist who has collaborated with but has since left the IPCC. Second, the 97 percent doesn’t come from one specific survey — it appears in at least three. And finally, the study Santorum describes isn’t the one the economist objects to. Moreover, Tol himself doesn’t refute the notion of broad scientific consensus on man-made climate change. Santorum’s claim is inaccurate. We rate it False. Correction, Sept. 3, 2015, 10:45 a.m: Cook's analysis looked at over 4,000 studies that took a position on man-made climate change. An earlier version of this fact-check had a different figure.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2015-09-02T16:00:21	2015-08-28	['None']
-snes-01921	The national debt saw a "surprising" decline of $102 billion between 20 January and 27 July 2017.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/national-debt-trump/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did the National Debt Fall by $102 Billion After Donald Trump’s Inauguration?	14 August 2017	None	['None']
-vees-00450	What you want to know about ‘VERA FILES FACT CHECK’	http://verafiles.org/articles/what-you-want-know-about-vera-files-fact-check	None	None	None	None	#verafilesfactcheck,#verafiedPH	What you want to know about ‘VERA FILES FACT CHECK’	February 26, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00715	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Divorce Papers Signed?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-divorce-papers-signed/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Divorce Papers Signed?	12:08 pm, June 30, 2018	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-07282	"The new light bulbs will cost roughly six times the cost of the light bulbs we now use."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/23/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-new-government-regulations/	Is the government going to force you to buy light bulbs that cost $50? That's just one claim from opponents of new light bulb efficiency standards. We are fact-checking several claims from the fundraising letter circulated by AmeriPAC, a conservative political action committee, and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) Action Fund, which seeks contributions and support for a bill to repeal the light bulb efficiency standards included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In this item, we will address the groups' claim that the law will force consumers to buy light bulbs that are significantly more expensive than conventional light bulbs sold today. The groups contend that the law -- which is being rolled out in phases -- will "outlaw" incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs. It's a claim we rated Pants on Fire, for reasons that have an impact on this claim as well. But we'll get to that in a bit. First, here's the wording of the claim in a letter from CDFE: "Democrats in Congress passed legislation that raises the cost of a single light bulb to $50!" Ron Arnold of CDFE backed up this claim with a link to a May 16, 2011, AP story about two leading light bulb makers showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace the 100 watt light bulbs that will be phased out in January -- and which were projected to cost about $50 each. Later in its letter, the CDFE claims that "the new light bulbs will cost roughly six times the cost of the light bulbs we now use." The letter quotes a Dec. 19, 2007, study from US News and World Report which states, "Each cone-shaped spiral CFL [compact fluorescent light] costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb." There are, however, two major problems with the claims in the letter. The first, said Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, is that there are two costs to a light bulb: the front-end cost of a light bulb at the store and the cost of electricity to operate it. The CDFE letter only considers one side of the equation -- the up-front cost. The curly-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs use about 75 percent less electricity than comparable incandescent bulbs and last about 10 times longer, according to an analysis by the Department of Energy. As a result, the DOE concluded, "typical CFLs can pay for themselves in less than nine months and then start saving you money each month." That point would have been clear had the CDFE letter contained the full context of the study from US News and World Report, instead of just cherry-picking one sentence. Here's how the fuller Q & A reads: How do I save money, when a CFL costs six times as much as an old-fashioned bulb? Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12 percent discount to estimate the savings. As for LED light bulbs, it's true that some were put on the market with a $50 price tag, but the Department of Energy and most industry experts expect that price to come down dramatically as more products enter the market. Also not mentioned is that LED lights use about 20 to 25 percent of the energy of a traditional incandescent equivalent, and the LED light can last up to 25 times longer. The other problem with the claim in the CDFE letter is that it assumes the law will limit light bulb options to either fluorescent or LED bulbs. In fact, however, all of the major light bulb manufacturers have developed new halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the law's new efficiency standards. We spoke to Randy Moorhead, vice president of government affairs at Philips, which began selling its latest halogen incandescent bulbs at Home Depot in April. Moorhead said the EcoVantage light bulb -- which puts off as much light as a traditional 100 watt bulb -- comes with a suggested retail price of $1.49. That's roughly triple the cost of the existing 100 watt bulbs. However, it saves about $3.36 is reduced energy costs to the customer over the 1,000-hour life of the bulb, he said. In other words, the bulb may cost $1 more up front, but saves $3.36 in energy costs -- for a net savings of $2.35. Philips also offers a premium bulb that costs even more up-front but saves more over the life of the bulb. The Department of Energy put out a fact-sheet detailing the up-front costs and longer-term energy costs of all the light bulb options. The data is clear, said, Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, while light bulbs that meet the new efficiency standard cost more than the traditional incandescent light bulbs, "the energy savings more than pays off the extra cost." We asked Arnold, who penned the CDFE letter, about the potential long-term cost-savings of the more energy efficient bulbs. "We're not obligated to tell the other guy's side of the story," Arnold said. Perhaps not, but we think it's awfully misleading to warn about up-front cost without also mentioning the longer-term savings. The claims in the CDFE letter also assume that consumers will have no options come January when the new efficiency standards kick in. Even if you consider only the up-front cost of light bulbs, consumers would not be obligated to buy LED bulbs that cost as much as $50 apiece; nor would they be forced to purchase fluorescent alternatives that go for $3 apiece. There also are halogen incandescent bulbs for $1.49. It's true that all of these options will cost more at the store than traditional incandescent bulbs cost today. But when you factor in the cost of electricity needed to power the light bulb, they will end up costing significantly less. We rate the claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	AmeriPAC	None	None	None	2011-05-23T12:03:30	2011-05-16	['None']
-bove-00089	Congress Apologetica?: New Links With Cambridge Analytica Raise Questions	https://www.boomlive.in/congress-apologetica-new-links-with-cambridge-analytica-raise-questions/	None	None	None	None	None	Congress Apologetica?: New Links With Cambridge Analytica Raise Questions	Mar 29 2018 12:08 am, Last Updated: Mar 29 2018 2:21 pm	None	['None']
-hoer-00257	'Devil's Pool Fall Epic Selfie Video'	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/devils-pool-fall-facebook-promotion-scam.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	SCAM - 'Devil's Pool Fall Epic Selfie Video'	April 10, 2014	None	['None']
-vogo-00274	Statement: “In the last two years we’ve (had) a 65 percent increase, and from November to December last year, in one month, we saw a 9 percent increase,” county Supervisor Ron Roberts said in an interview with KPBS Feb. 6.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/food-stamps-big-growth-fact-check/	Analysis: Roberts appeared on KPBS last week to preview his State of the County address and provide an update on efforts to expand the county’s food stamps program.	None	None	None	None	Food Stamps' Big Growth: Fact Check	February 13, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-06320	Says the Treasury Department "says 41 percent of all business income reported on individual returns would be hit by the [millionaires’] surtax" that "would harm small businessmen and women, the very people we are counting on to create new jobs."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/nov/13/rodney-frelinghuysen/rodney-frelinghuysen-claims-proposed-millionaires-/	The millionaires’ tax proposal made its latest appearance in New Jersey this summer. Now it’s in the national spotlight. Congressional Republicans and Democrats are going toe to toe on whether to raise taxes on individuals making more than $1 million to pay for pieces of President Barack Obama’s jobs proposal. U.S. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.) joined the national fray after a bill for $60 billion in spending on transportation and infrastructure that would have been paid for with an income tax hike of less than 1 percent was blocked in the Senate. "To offset the ‘temporary’ spending, the proposal would contain a permanent tax increase on Americans earning $1 million annually. Here’s the problem: the so-called ‘millionaire surtax’ is a permanent tax to pay for a temporary benefit," Frelinghuysen wrote in a Nov. 4 newsletter. "And the President’s own Department of the Treasury says 41 percent of all business income reported on individual returns would be hit by the surtax. Thus, the President’s tax would harm small businessmen and women, the very people we are counting on to create new jobs and hire new workers!" PolitiFact New Jersey found the congressman used a statistic that refers to all businesses to make a point about small business owners. The 41 percent figure comes from an August technical paper from career staff at the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis. It identifies small business owners for the purpose of tax policy analysis. According to that paper, business owners with more than $1 million in adjusted gross income received 41 percent of business income, or about $237 billion. We should note that represents earnings, not individuals. Individuals with more than $1 million in income account for 2 percent of all business owners. But small business income, by the paper’s broad definition, accounts for about 28 percent of that overall income, or $67 billion. Large business income accounts for nearly 72 percent of all business income, or $170 billion. If you drill down further, and look at just small business income, individuals with more than $1 million in income received between 14 percent and 18 percent of small business income and represent 1 percent of small business owners. For large business owners, those making more than $1 million in income received 83 percent of large business income and represent 13 percent of large business owners. Frelinghuysen’s emphasis on small business owners is "not consistent with what he just said about the 41 percent," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "He draws an implication that doesn’t really tie to what he just said." "The sentence following the 41 percent number could be viewed as misleading in its reference to ‘small’ business people, although it is not incorrect," said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in an email. "Some of the tax would indeed fall on (‘harm’) small businesses," he said, "although more of the tax would fall on large businesses." It’s worth nothing that Frelinghuysen also said it’s small businesses that "we are counting on to create new jobs and hire new workers," but the Office of Tax Analysis paper found that slightly more than one-fifth of small businesses fit its definition of an employer. A spokesman for the congressman said Frelinghuysen is "en route back to the United States from an official visit to our troops in Afghanistan and is unavailable to comment," but said the congressman’s statement was correct. "I regret that the Star-Ledger has chosen to apply another interpretation to the Treasury Department data," he wrote in an email. Our ruling Frelinghuysen claimed the Treasury Department said "41 percent of all business income reported on individual returns would be hit by the surtax. Thus, the President’s tax would harm small businessmen and women, the very people we are counting on to create new jobs and hire new workers!" The congressman’s use of the statistic is misleading. Frelinghuysen applies the statistic to small business owners, saying it would hurt the individuals we are counting on to create jobs. But the figure represents income from all businesses, not just small businesses. And the same report he’s basing his information on found that slightly more than one-fifth of small businesses are employers. We rate the statement Mostly False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Rodney Frelinghuysen	None	None	None	2011-11-13T07:30:00	2011-11-04	['United_States_Department_of_the_Treasury']
-hoer-00668	'Reminder to Update Your Legacy Blogger Account' Email	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/legacy-blogger-message.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Legitimate: 'Reminder to Update Your Legacy Blogger Account' Email	30th April 2012	None	['None']
-snes-06143	A photograph shows workmen who accidentally trapped their van within a barrier of bollards.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trapped-by-bollards/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Does This Photograph Show a Workmen’s Van Trapped by Bollards?	19 February 2008	None	['None']
-pomt-13368	Says Rob Portman "even voted to allow people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns."	/ohio/statements/2016/sep/29/ted-strickland/sen-rob-portman-voted-let-terrorists-buy-guns-nope/	CORRECTION, 5:48p.m., September 29, 2016: Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly described an amendment by Sen. Susan Collins. The story has been updated to reflect her as the author of that measure. Our rating on the claim did not change. A new TV ad from Democratic Senate candidate Ted Strickland features a veteran of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who says he carried a gun "so we wouldn’t have to worry about terrorists using them here." But Sen. Rob Portman, Strickland’s Republican opponent, "is blocking commonsense laws to stop terrorists and criminals from getting guns. Sen. Portman said no to background checks on all purchases," the ad’s soldier continues. "He even voted to allow people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns." That last statement caught our attention. No, Portman did not vote to allow suspected terrorists to purchase guns. The attack obscures what really happened. The ad cites Senate voting records from June 20 and 23. First, we’ll consult the record. Votes 106 and 109 were two of four votes on gun control measures considered by the Senate after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. On June 12, Omar Mateen, a man who had twice been investigated by the FBI for suspected terrorist ties, killed 49 people and wounded 53 at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla.. Vote 106 asked senators to vote to end the debate, or to keep debating, an amendment by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein which would authorize the U.S. attorney general to deny requests to sell firearms to "known or suspected terrorists." Portman voted "nay," a vote against bringing the issue up for passage or failure. The week ahead of that vote, Portman told reporters in his weekly media conference call, "I do believe that you should not be able to buy a weapon when you’re on the (terrorist) watch list." Strickland’s ad doesn’t mention the other three votes taken that day, June 20, 2016, on the issue of suspected terrorists and gun sales. All four measures failed, largely along party lines. Portman voted in favor of Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s amendment to "address gun violence and improve the availability of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System." He also voted in favor of Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s proposal, an alternative to Feinstein’s measure to prevent watchlisted terrorists from buying guns. The main difference between the Feinstein amendment and the one proposed by Cornyn had to do with due process -- granting an avenue for an individual to appeal if they are wrongfully listed as a terror suspect and denied a gun purchase. The Republican amendment allowed authorities to detain a terrorism suspect who tries to obtain a firearm, and gave a judge 72 hours to determine whether there was enough proof to bar the gun sale. Feinstein’s amendment provided for an individual to appeal to the Justice Department if they felt they were wrongfully listed and barred from buying a gun. It did not have a three-day limit for the government to make its case. Republicans argued that Cornyn’s amendment, with a stronger check-and-balance requiring a court order, was necessary in light of well-known errors on federal no-fly and terrorist watch lists. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy is often cited as an example after he was erroneously stopped for extra airport security checks because "T. Kennedy" was an alias used by a terror suspect. A motion to table a tweaked version of Feinstein’s amendment, proposed by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine -- the "Vote 109" referenced by Strickland’s ad -- failed on June 23 with a 46-52 vote, short of the 60 votes required to advance. Portman voted "yea," or against the amendment, in line with all but eight Republicans. Our ruling Strickland’s campaign ad said of Portman, "He even voted to allow people on the terrorism watch list to buy guns." The ad distorts facts on many levels. People on the terrorism watch list could already buy guns before the votes in question. Portman voted along party lines on the gun control measures that came up for Senate vote on June 20 and 23. He voted against Feinstein’s amendment to enact a blanket ban on firearm purchases by terrorists or suspected terrorists. But he voted for the Republican version of the legislation, sponsored by Cornyn, that would ban a gun sale after a three-day period of judicial review to determine whether an individual was on a watch list for legitimate reasons. The vote for Cornyn’s legislation was literally a vote to stop terrorists from buying weapons — but the extra hurdles for the government were not supported by Democrats. We rate the ad’s claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/75c564aa-58eb-4640-9db2-99437d9cd9cd	None	Ted Strickland	None	None	None	2016-09-29T15:00:10	2016-09-21	['None']
-pomt-10809	"With those first principles, it allowed a fellow like me to get in his truck and go from one end of the state to the other; started 20 points down and wound up 20 points ahead on election night."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/02/fred-thompson/driving-his-truck-to-victory/	Yes, it's true. Fred Thompson combined his folksy charm (the truck) with a set of conservative principles (less government, lower taxes, more free markets) to win election to the U.S. Senate in 1994. And, indeed, in February of that year Thompson trailed Democrat Jim Cooper by 19 points — 36 to 17 percent — according to polling at the time by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. Thompson went on to win the race, which was a special election to complete the term of Al Gore who became vice president, with 60 percent of the vote to Cooper's 39 percent (a 21 percentage-point spread). Thompson won re-election to a full term two years later, defeating Democrat Houston Gordon, 61 to 37 percent. The truck played a role for the lobbyist and actor. He leased it to campaign in the state, building his down-home bona fides among voters. In the same speech Thompson also pointed out, correctly, that President Bill Clinton won Tennessee twice. But it's worth noting that Thompson's first victory, 1994, came in a tidal wave year for Republicans, who took control of Congress. "That was kind of a watershed year in Tennessee," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon.	None	Fred Thompson	None	None	None	2007-10-02T00:00:00	2007-09-21	['None']
-abbc-00278	Liberal Democratic Senator David Leyonhjelm says that the Government's proposed changes to Senate voting will make it almost impossible for small parties to win a seat, based on similar reforms made to NSW upper house elections.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-10/fact-check-senate-voting-reforms-david-leyonhjelm/7203556	Senator Leyonhjelm's claim is overstated. The Senator's assertion that abolishing group voting tickets in the NSW upper house elections resulted in most people choosing to vote for only one party above the line is backed up by the data. However, experts told Fact Check that the proposed Senate voting changes could not be directly compared with NSW because voters would be instructed to number six squares, which differs from the instructions to number one square in NSW.	['minor-parties', 'federal-elections', 'australia']	None	None	['minor-parties', 'federal-elections', 'australia']	Fact check: What do the proposed Senate voting changes mean for above the line voting?	Sat 12 Mar 2016, 8:29am	None	['New_South_Wales', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-04494	Says black women are "fastest-growing demographic group in ... Texas seeking concealed handgun licenses."	/texas/statements/2012/oct/05/stefani-carter/stefani-carter-says-black-women-texas-fastest-grow/	You might be surprised to learn who cares about the Second Amendment, lawmaker Stefani Carter suggested in a recent USA Today opinion article. "What is the fastest-growing demographic group in my state of Texas seeking concealed handgun licenses? Black women," wrote Carter, a Dallas Republican running for re-election to the Texas House, in the Aug. 30, 2012, piece. We decided to check out who’s taking advantage lately of Texas’ concealed-handgun law, which since January 1996 has allowed permit holders to carry such guns in most public places while excluding others, such as churches. Katy Aldredge, a deputy district director for Carter, told us Carter’s main source was a July 12, 2012, post on The Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning legal analysis blog written by law professor Eugene Volokh of the University of California-Los Angeles. Aldredge also sent us links to annual reports on concealed handgun licenses on the Texas Department of Public Safety website. Aldredge said Carter found Volokh’s blog and compared his data to the DPS reports of licenses issued. (We did the same, and the data matches.) Aldredge also said that despite the word "seeking" in her article, Carter was discussing licenses issued, not applications. In his blog post, Volokh looked at how many of the permits issued in each year went to black men and women and white men and women. By email, he told us that he did not look at the DPS’ other race groupings because they were too small or too unclear. Those categories are "American Indian or Alaskan Native," "Asian or Pacific Islander," "Multi-Racial" and "Other/Unknown." Volokh’s post said that most Hispanics seem to be counted as "white" in the DPS numbers, "following the modern demographic approach of treating Hispanic as an ethnicity rather than as a separate race." But Hispanics are Texas’ largest minority. According to the latest state QuickFacts sheet from the U.S. Census Bureau, Texas’ 2011 demographics (including some overlap) were: 44.8 percent white, 38.1 percent Hispanic, 12.2 percent black, 4 percent Asian, 1 percent "American Indian and Alaska Native," 0.1 percent "Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander." The DPS numbers, not separating Hispanic and white, show that of the CHL permits issued in 2011, 86.5 percent went to whites, 6.8 percent to black, 3.4 percent to "other/unknown," 2 percent to "Asian or Pacific Islander," 1 percent to "multi-racial," and 0.33 percent to "American Indian or Alaskan Native" Texans. Volokh’s analysis found that among black and white permit recipients, from 1996 through 2011, the percentage of women in the total was consistently smaller than the percentage of men but that this gender gap was narrowing slightly. The uptick among black women, he said, was "especially striking": Black women got less than 1 percent of the 317,205 permits issued from 1996 through 2000, he said, but got 1.63 percent of the 558,190 permits issued from 2007 through 2011. Seeking another expert view, we contacted conservative writer John Lott, whom we saw cited in an April 24, 2012, New York Times news story that discussed "growth in the number of people with concealed-carry permits" nationwide; the Times described Lott as "a researcher of gun culture who has held teaching or research posts at a number of universities, including the University of Chicago." When we asked him by email about Carter’s statement, Lott took a look at Texas data from 2000 through 2011, comparing the number of permit recipients in a particular race category each year with the number of people in that race category who got permits in 2000. The jump in multi-racial women permit holders from 2000 to 2011 was the most extreme, but Lott cautioned that result is exaggerated because the category is small -- meaning the addition of a few people can dramatically alter the percent change -- and because more people these days describe themselves as multi-racial than in 2000. Throwing out that category because of its size -- as Volokh did -- Lott told us, "Carter is correct that black females since 2000 have had the largest percentage increase." He created this chart of the Texas data for us: That’s a lot of little colored lines, but we determined that the DPS numbers back up Lott’s finding: The biggest increase between 2000 and 2011 was in the category of multi-racial female permit recipients, which jumped from 28 in 2000 to 318 in 2011. That 139-person difference produced the 1035.7 percent change charted by the dark-brown line at top. The number of black female permit-holders rose 554 percent from 2000 to 2011 -- a smaller percent change, but involving a larger number of people: 2,046. The records show 369 black women in Texas had CHLs in 2000 and 2,415 had them in 2011. In a later interview, Volokh took a look at the multi-racial numbers and agreed they were statistically unreliable, for the same reasons: because it was such a small group and some of its growth likely came as people began adopting that term for themselves. "I’d still say that black women were the fastest-growing demographic group of any substantial size," he told us. But that observation, like Lott’s and Carter’s, is limited by the demographic groups DPS used. Without breaking out Hispanics -- nearly 40 percent of Texans -- separately, we see no way to give an accurate picture of the demographics and changes among Texas’ concealed-carry permit holders. Carter’s piece didn’t mention the lack of data on Hispanics. Why such changes occurred is murkier. Carter’s opinion article cites some statistics about crime against black women and mentions nationwide increases in women owning guns. Volokh limited his analysis to the numbers rather than the reasons behind them. Lott told us that black women as a group overlap with the two categories of people who benefit the most from concealed-carry permits, according to his research: people who are physically weaker than assailants (primarily women and elderly people) and people who are likely victims of violent crime, including low-income residents of high-crime urban areas. Our ruling Carter claims black women are the fastest-growing group of permit-seekers. We accept her explanation that she meant to refer to permits issued each year. And her statement fairly captures available data and research. However, the lack of information on Hispanic permit recipients makes it impossible to conclude which Texas subgroups are getting permits most often. We rate the statement as Half True.	None	Stefani Carter	None	None	None	2012-10-05T15:49:34	2012-08-30	['Texas']
-snes-03639	Marijuana legalization has led to an increase in crime and fatalities all over Colorado.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marijuana-responsible-colorado-crime-increase/	None	Crime	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Is Marijuana Responsible for Colorado Crime Increase?	2 November 2016	None	['Colorado']
-pomt-08634	"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/17/barbara-boxer/ad-sen-barbara-boxer-attacks-carly-fiorina-layoffs/	In a race to represent California in the U.S. Senate, Republican Carly Fiorina has emphasized her "real-world" business experience as chief executive officer of one of the world's largest tech companies. But Fiorina's controversial six-year tenure as CEO of computer-maker Hewlett Packard has also been used by Democrats to attack her. The latest attack ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer picks up on a thread introduced in the primary -- accusing Fiorina of laying off tens of thousands of workers at HP, shipping jobs overseas and all the while padding her own bank account and toy box. Here's what the announcer in the Democratic incumbent's ad says: "As CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers. Fiorina shipped jobs to China. "And while Californians lost their jobs, Fiorina tripled her salary, bought a million-dollar yacht and five corporate jets ... Carly Fiorina. Outsourcing jobs. Out for herself." Fiorina was named CEO of Hewlett-Packard in July 1999, the first woman to lead a Fortune 100 company. She reorganized the company's structure and pushed for a controversial 2002 merger with Compaq Computer Corp., in an attempt to get a greater share of the personal computer market. The merger succeeded, but HP's board fired her anyway in February 2005 (with a $21 million severance package), primarily due to the company's sluggish stock price and missed earnings targets. Fiorina has numerous detractors, but she also has defenders of her time at HP. In fact, the Fiorina campaign set up the "Hewlett-Packard and Carly" website, where a number of former HP employees and executives tout her tenure as HP's CEO. But the issue for us is the Boxer ad's claim that Fiorina layed off 30,000 workers and shipped jobs to China. That HP laid off about 30,000 workers while Fiorina was CEO is largely undisputed. The larger context very much is. In an interview with InformationWeek on Oct. 16, 2006, Fiorina talked about the merger with Compaq. "When we combined the R&D budgets of HP and Compaq, we didn't have to have two R&D teams working on industry standard servers, for instance. We could have one. That's why the merger was such a great idea. We could decrease the cost structure by billions and billions of dollars. In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people. That's why I understand where the anger came from." And Fiorina has not been shy about acknowledging that many jobs were outsourced overseas. In January 2004, Fiorina provocatively told Congress, "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore." In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal the following month, Fiorina wrote that while "attention has focused on a handful of companies, like HP, which have sourced some jobs to other countries" the U.S. "must focus on developing next-generation industries and next-generation talent" rather than following Japan's attempt at "protectionist proposals to limit or prohibit the practice." Moreover, Fiorina contends that over the entire course of her tenure at HP, the company created more jobs than it cut. She explains this in an exchange with Chris Wallace in a Fox News interview on June 13, 2010. "But, Ms. Fiorina, if the issue is jobs, Senator Boxer says your record is what you did as the head of Hewlett-Packard, "Wallace said. "And the record shows, according to her -- and it's not just her, the facts are that during that time you laid off more than 30,000 American workers, and many of those jobs went to India and China." "It is true, I managed Hewlett-Packard through the worst technology recession in 25 years," Fiorina said. "And in those tough times, we had to make some tough calls. "It is also true that, net-net, we created jobs," she said. "We doubled the size of the company from $44 billion to $88 billion. We tripled the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day. We quintupled the cash flow. We improved the profitability in every product segment and ... "What about the 30,000 American jobs that...you laid off?" Wallace asked. "You know, every family and every business in California knows what it means to go through tough times," Fiorina said. "And every family is cutting back, and every business is laying off right now. I don't say that with delight. I say that with sorrow. But yes, it is true that jobs are being taken out of California. By the way, China fights harder for our jobs than we do. Texas fights for our jobs. Nevada fights for our jobs. North Carolina fights for our jobs. We have to start fighting for our jobs in this nation and in our state." Let's take a look at that "net-net" claim. Or, as she told the Los Angeles Times in a May 20, 2010 story: "We had more employees by the time I left HP than either pre-merger HP or pre-merger Compaq had, combined." Here's the math: According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because "in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports." Moreover, the proxy reports are for worldwide employment figures. They don't tell you how many American jobs were lost or gained. In its response to the Boxer ad, the Fiorina campaign claims the only numbers that are relevant are the ones that show that in October 1999, HP had about 84,400 employees worldwide; and in October 2005, the company had 150,000 employees worldwide -- so that under Fiorina's leadership HP nearly doubled its number of employees worldwide. It's not that simple. For one, there was the Compaq merger. Pre-merger, the companies had a combined workforce of 148,100. It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad. A company as large as HP is very dynamic, so it's possible that the initial layoffs resulted in a stronger company that contributed to job growth in the long run. That's good in the macro sense, but it doesn't cancel the fact that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. So we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Barbara Boxer	None	None	None	2010-09-17T16:46:21	2010-09-15	['Carly_Fiorina']
-abbc-00355	The Coalition went to the 2013 federal election with a commitment to deliver a "better" National Broadband Network.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/nbn-speeds-promise-check/5543512	None	['information-and-communication', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'australia']	None	None	['information-and-communication', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'australia']	Promise check: Deliver minimum broadband speeds of 25 mbps by 2016 and 50 mbps to 90pc of fixed line users by 2019	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Coalition_(Australia)', 'National_Broadband_Network']
-pomt-11289	"Laura Ingraham just fired!!!"	/punditfact/statements/2018/apr/23/red-state-wave/no-laura-ingraham-wasnt-fired/	A clickbait headline said that Fox News’ Laura Ingraham was fired, but the story that follows didn’t back up that phony statement. "Breaking: Laura Ingraham just fired!!!" stated an April 22 headline on Red State Wave, which styles itself as a conservative website. The article was written by "MAGA student," a reference to Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan Make America Great Again. A disclaimer states that redstatewave.com is a "passive service for storage and dissemination of the works that redstatewave.com members may choose to post and distribute." Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. The headline is a hoax and intended to draw in readers. The story that followed never said that Ingraham was fired. Instead it said she "fired off on Democrats." The story posted Ingraham’s April 20 tweet related to the recent Democratic National Committee lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump’s campaign, Russia and WikiLeaks alleging election interference. The DNC filed the lawsuit in federal court in New York April 20. "My personal advice to Democrats is this: Keep doing what you're doing because the American people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for," Ingraham tweeted. The conservative website sides with Ingraham. "Democrats continue to show the American people that they have no identity and no sustaining message for their platform," the website said. "2018 may not be ‘in the bag’ as they have predicted." In March, Ingraham took a week off as advertisers pulled out of her show following her comments about Parkland survivor David Hogg. The controversy began when she posted an article about Hogg being rejected by four colleges and said he was whining about it. She later apologized. Fox News said at the time that her break was a pre-planned vacation. On her show, The Ingraham Angle, she said that she was spending Easter break with her children. Fox News co-president Jack Abernethy issued a statement of support for Ingraham to the Los Angeles Times on April 2: "We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts. We look forward to having Laura Ingraham back hosting her program next Monday when she returns from spring vacation with her children." A headline said that Ingraham was "just fired," but the story refers to her firing off at Democrats. The headline is designed as a trick to draw in readers. We rate this statement Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Red State Wave	None	None	None	2018-04-23T13:59:16	2018-04-22	['None']
-pomt-10320	Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/31/john-mccain/no-tax-offered-on-electricity/	A television ad from Sen. John McCain got attention because it contrasted photos of Sen. Barack Obama with tabloid stars Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. "He's the biggest celebrity in the world," the ad's narrator said. "But, is he ready to lead? With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says no to offshore drilling. And, says he'll raise taxes on electricity. "Higher taxes, more foreign oil, that's the real Obama," the voice concludes. We know that Obama does not support expanded offshore drilling, because he says it won't do anything to reduce gas prices. But we were intrigued by the claim that Obama wants to raise taxes on electricity. That's not something we recalled from his policy proposals. In a prepared memo in support of the ad, the McCain campaign pointed to an interview Obama had with a Texas newspaper in February 2008. "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas," Obama said in the interview. The McCain campaign argued that because coal and natural gas are major sources of electricity, Obama supports a tax on electricity. But the context of the interview (which we've looked at before ) shows Obama was making a statement of principle rather than a policy proposal. In the interview with San Antonio Express-News columnist Carlos Guerra, Obama discussed funding sources for education. Guerra then asked, "Have you considered other funding sources, say taxing emerging energy forms, for example, say a penny per kilowatt hour on wind energy?" Obama replied: "Well, that's clean energy, and we want to drive down the cost of that, not raise it. We need to give them subsidies so they can start developing that. What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas. But I think that the real way to fund education is for local communities to step up and say this is important to us. There are no shortcuts." If you look at Obama's proposals, he does not advocate an electricity tax or a carbon tax, but instead proposes a cap-and-trade system. A campaign spokesman said that was what Obama was talking about in the interview. The idea behind cap-and-trade is that the government sets a limit on how much carbon industries can emit (the cap). The government then issues permits to companies and allows them to buy and sell the permits as needed so they can conduct business (the trade). If the policy works as planned, overall emissions decline, companies determine for themselves the best way to lower emissions, and the free market rewards those who lower emissions most effectively. Cap-and-trade systems can raise the cost of energy for some consumers if companies have to buy additional permits for emissions, but they are not usually considered a tax. McCain, incidentally, also supports a cap-and-trade system. "It wouldn't officially be considered a tax," said Eric Toder of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "The proposal for a cap-and-trade system would raise prices for some people, but both candidates support cap-and-trade." Yes, Obama did use the word "tax" in the interview, but he was reacting to a question about taxing clean energy and making the point that producers of clean energy should not be given a disincentive. And he concluded that energy taxes should not be used to fund education. The McCain ad says that Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity" and points to a line from one interview that requires a lot of explanation. Obama's proposals don't say anything about a tax on electricity. Is Obama open to the idea of taxing dirty energy? Arguably yes. But that's some distance from saying he wants to tax electricity. We find the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-31T00:00:00	2008-07-30	['None']
-pomt-08072	"CEOs now earn 431 times what their workers earn."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/21/bumper-sticker/bumper-sticker-says-ceos-make-431-times-what-their/	Most bumper stickers don’t lend themselves to fact-checking. So many are simple statements of support for candidates or opinions. After all, how can you fact-check "I believe in whirled peas?" But we came across one in downtown D.C. the other day that made us go, Hmm. "CEOs now earn 431 times what their workers earn. Support unions." 431 times? Really? It wasn’t hard to find the source of the number at the heart of the bumper sticker’s claim. For many years the liberal Institute for Policy Studies and the non-profit group United for a Fair Economy have produced ratios of CEO pay to worker pay. On its website, United for a Fair Economy says it "raises awareness that concentrated wealth and power undermine the economy, corrupt democracy, deepen the racial divide and tear communities apart." We found a chart on the site that showed CEO pay at 431 times the average worker’s pay. But the number was out of date: It was the number for 2004. The car, a Volkswagen, looked like a more recent model than 2004, but maybe the bumper sticker was printed before the car rolled off the assembly line. We wanted to look at fresher numbers, and we found them in a Sept. 1, 2010, annual compensation survey, now produced by the IPS alone but still using pretty much the same sources of data as earlier studies. This survey found the ratio had dropped to 263 times the average workers’ pay by 2009. IPS took CEO data from an Associated Press online survey for the S&P 500 companies that included salary, bonuses, perks, above-market interest on deferred compensation and the value of stock and option awards measure by their fair value on the day of the grant in its definition of total compensation. Their data on worker pay came from the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics "Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees" and on the average weekly hours for those same workers. According to Gary Steinberg of BLS, that category includes everyone except those whose principal work is supervisory and covers 80 to 85 percent of all workers. Other studies also have found a considerable gap between executive and worker pay. A Financial Times story from Aug. 30, 2010, noted: "S&P 500 chief executives last year received median pay packages of $7.5 million, according to executive compensation research firm Equilar. By comparison, official statistics show the average private sector employee was paid just over $40,000." Recent legislation passed by critics of high corporate compensation has guaranteed that the ratio of corporate chieftain pay to worker pay will continue to be a high-profile issue. U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank's financial reform law requires all United States corporations to report CEO pay compared to the median pay for all other employees. With the rules in the works, the business community has raised concerns about the difficulty of carrying them out. Barbara H. Franklin, chairman of the National Association of Corporate Directors, noted in the NACD’s comments to the Securities and Exchange Commission: "The median pay figure can be highly misleading for a global company operating in regions where there is a low cost of living and hence a lower level of wages. Indeed, there is simply no way to calculate this with any utility or accuracy. It would take global companies months and thousands of hours to come up with a completely useless number. We would urge the SEC to implement this provision with extreme care." Do these types of comparisons make any difference? We turned to Graef Crystal, an expert in executive compensation and a frequent critic of CEO pay, for his views. "These numbers get thrown around a lot by people to prove whatever," he said. Some CEOs might be surprised by the numbers, he said, but generally what matters most to executives and those who set their pay is how they compare to their peers, he said. "They don’t look down, and they don’t look across at China." In fact, he said, as proxy statements disclose details about pay that may now be opaque, it could ratchet up pay. He also noted that there is a "significant correlation between sales volume and the pay of CEOs." Crystal has his own database of companies, which produced an average pay rate of $10.1 million in 2009, he said. But if you sort it by sales volume, the top 100 companies average $14.4 million, Expand it to the top 200, and the average drops to $11.7 million. The S&P 500 is only part of a much larger universe of publicly traded firms. It is made up of 500 firms which have market capitalization (number of shares multiplied by stock price) of $10 million or more. In contrast there are nearly 6,000 publicly traded firms on the nation’s two largest stock exchanges. So comparing the compensation of CEOs at only the select companies in the S&P 500 to the pay for all nonsupervisory production workers is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Turning back to the bumper sticker, is it true that corporate executives earn 431 times as much as the average worker? Not any more, since the most recent study in the same series found the figure in 2009 was 263 times the average worker pay. But, having gone through the pain of removing outdated bumper stickers ourselves, we’ll allow a little leeway for the figure’s lack of currency. And, leaving aside the question of whether it is warranted or not, there is still a sizable gap between corporate executive pay and worker pay, although probably not as large as the gap between S&P 500 CEOs and the average of all nonsupervisory production workers, some of whom work at much smaller companies. So we’re rating the bumper sticker Half True. CLARIFICATION: An earlier version of this story said the bumper sticker was on a Volkswagen VR6, suggesting that was a VW model. It is an engine model on the car, so the reference to the VR6 has been deleted for clarity.	None	Bumper Sticker	None	None	None	2010-12-21T13:08:57	2010-12-20	['None']
-tron-01557	Government Could Withhold up to 30% from Social Security Checks in 2016	https://www.truthorfiction.com/government-could-withhold-up-to-30-from-social-security-checks-in-2016/	None	government	None	None	None	Government Could Withhold up to 30% from Social Security Checks in 2016	Oct 16, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-05383	The congressional district for Miami-Dade and Broward counties has a "staggering drop-out rate of almost 61 percent."	/florida/statements/2012/may/07/rudy-moise/rudy-moise-miami-dade-broward-drop-out-rate/	Rudy Moise, a Democrat running for Congress in South Florida, says his district "is going in the wrong direction." He cites some troubling statistics on his campaign website: "We're No. 2 in crime in the state. Unemployment is at 17 percent amongst minorities in my district. And we are losing our future with a staggering high school drop-out rate of almost 61 percent." The figure that caught our eye was the double-digit dropout rate. Moise will face Democrat U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami Gardens, in the primary. (Wilson now represents Congressional District 17, but as a result of redistricting they will face off in District 24.) First, some background about the race between Moise, a Haitian-American doctor, and Wilson, an African-American former state legislator. The district largely lies in Miami-Dade County and includes a slice of Broward County. About 59 percent of the district is black or African-American. The Census also shows that within the district, about 11 percent were born in Haiti. Haitian-Americans had hoped to win this seat in Congress in 2010 when U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek left to run unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate. But the Haitian community didn’t coalesce behind one candidate, and four Haitian-American candidates ran in a crowded primary, with Moise earning the most votes among the Haitian candidates. Moise’s 2012 bid drew attention in April when Haitian president Michel Martelly urged Haitian-Americans living in the district to vote for Moise. Moise’s claim about dropout rates doesn’t mention Wilson, a former Miami-Dade school board member and principal who founded a dropout prevention program about 20 years ago. Moise points to report on black males When we asked Moise’s campaign for evidence, they pointed us to a report by the Schott Foundation about black males and education for 2007-2008. The Florida report shows graduation rates for black males by county and state: 27 percent in Miami-Dade, 39 percent in Broward and 37 percent in Florida. Moise’s campaign took those rates and subtracted from 100 and got the "almost 61 percent" dropout rate. That works on pure math, though some educational experts say the dropout rate isn’t simply the inverse of the graduation rate. More significantly, the number only counts the dropout rates for black males compared to white males. So that rate leaves out other students, including females. PolitiFact examined the Schott report for a previous claim by state Rep. Stephen Wise, R-Jacksonville, about the gap in graduation rates between black and white boys. Michael Holzman, a research consultant for the Schott Foundation, told the Tampa Bay Times he simply divided the number of standard diplomas awarded in 2008 by the number of students who entered high school four years earlier. The calculation does not include people who obtained a GED. Miami-Dade had the seventh-lowest graduation rate among the 59 districts examined while Pinellas, Palm Beach and Duval fared worse. Pinellas officials criticized the Schott report, saying that the formula it used was oversimplified, and, among other shortcomings, did not account for students who transferred away from the district. Calculating dropout rates tougher than it sounds There are other ways to calculate the dropout rate, as our colleagues at PolitiFact Texas and PolitiFact National have shown in previous fact-checks. "A dropout rate seems like it should be the most intuitive thing in the world, but it’s not," said David Bills, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Education who specializes in comparative statistics. "There are almost as many ways of calculating state dropout rates as there are states." One way to calculate it is to track individual students as they progress from freshman year of high school until graduation. This provides the most accurate data, but tracking students this way requires a lot of effort, so many school districts do not do it. An alternative is to track the decline in enrollment between freshman year and graduation. This is known as the AFGR, or averaged freshman graduation rate. It's much easier to do -- and it's the most consistent "apples to apples" statistic across the 50 states -- but it is undermined by a greater risk of error. That's because this method does not necessarily distinguish between students who actually dropped out and those who left for other reasons, such as moving to another state or graduating early or late. Students who leave for other reasons can be excluded, but this is not always done, and not doing it tends to inflate the apparent number of dropouts. Standardization mandated by provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act has reduced these errors over time, but the statistics are not yet perfect, our experts said. The real dropout rates So what are the dropout rates for Miami-Dade and Broward? One measure Florida uses is the National Governor’s Association, or NGA, which counts standard and special diplomas as graduates but excludes GEDs and students who transfer to adult education. These graduation rates are based on a cohort: it is the percentage of students who graduate within four years of their first enrollment in 9th grade. In Broward County in 2010-2011, about 76.5 percent graduated with a standard diploma within four years, 3.3 percent dropped out at anytime during the four years and 20.2 percent were listed as "not graduating." Students are listed as "not graduating" if they need a fifth year or received a certificate of completion, for example, which means they didn’t meet all the requirements for a diploma. In Miami-Dade County, those figures were 77.7 percent graduating, 6.8 percent dropping out and 15.4 percent not graduating. (Starting in 2010-11, all states had to start calculating the Federal Graduation Rate, which is the most restrictive measure. This rate counts as graduates only recipients of standard diplomas, not special diplomas for students with disabilities or GEDs. The federal graduation rate for Broward was 71.6 percent and in Miami-Dade it was 71.3 percent, but the data we saw didn’t show figures for dropouts or other in-between categories.) Although the inverse of the graduation rate isn’t the dropout rate, those students who don’t get a diploma within four years are at risk of dropping out, said Thomas C. West, an affiliated researcher with the Everyone Graduates Center at John Hopkins University. "They are not with their peers," he said. "Something has gone wrong." Both Miami-Dade and Broward sent us data showing the single year dropout rate per high school in the school districts. The majority of the high schools had dropout rates in the single digits. But both had some schools with double-digit dropout rates -- typically these were smaller schools that served targeted populations such as special needs, teen parents or students who had left school in the past. The Moise campaign responds When we told Moise’s campaign about our conclusion, campaign manager Willis Howard said they would change the claim on the website to refer to black boys. He said that it’s important to talk about graduation and dropout rates for black students because of the demographics of the district: "We are talking to predominantly black folks. … We’ve got to bring some light to we have an outrageous amount of dropouts in this district and South Florida and we’ve got to figure it out." Our ruling Moise said that his district has a "staggering high school dropout rate of almost 61 percent." Moise points to a report about graduation rates from the Schott Foundation which provides some interesting data. But we have several problems with it as it relates to Moise’s dropout claim. • Most critically, Moise's claim is based on a measurement for black males. We saw nothing in his comment to indicate he was talking about male dropouts only. • Also, the number is based on 2007-2008 data even though data is available from 2010-2011. • The number subtracts graduation rates from 100 percent and concludes that the rest are dropouts. This leaves out some categories such as students who need a fifth year to graduate. • Finally, the data is for the entire Broward and Miami-Dade school districts, not the congressional district, which includes only portions of those districts Moise didn’t explain these caveats on his campaign website when he made his claim. He erred by trying to boil down a complex area of data into a single phrase about dropout rates that requires far more explanation and more thorough data. We rank this claim False.	None	Rudy Moise	None	None	None	2012-05-07T15:17:17	2012-05-01	['None']
-abbc-00303	The claim: Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm says that it is "well established that inappropriate levels of infrasound, regardless of the source, cause adverse health impacts".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/wind-farms-david-leyonhjelm-fact-check/6553746	The claim: Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm says that it is "well established that inappropriate levels of infrasound, regardless of the source, cause adverse health impacts".	['wind-energy', 'alternative-energy', 'environmental-impact', 'environmental-health', 'australia']	None	None	['wind-energy', 'alternative-energy', 'environmental-impact', 'environmental-health', 'australia']	Fact check: Does infrasound from wind farms make people sick?	Thu 3 Mar 2016, 1:30am	None	['None']
-pose-00145	"To maintain the size of the fleet at an affordable cost, Obama will modernize the many capable ships that we now have and tilt the investment balance towards more capable, smaller combatants, while maintaining the Navy's ability to command the seas. He will support sea basing ships capable of supporting humanitarian missions as well as combat mission. He will increase investment in riverine craft and small coastal patrol craft, and ensure the maximum interoperability between the Navy and the Coast Guard. "	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/157/modernize-ships-and-invest-more-in-small-vessels/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Modernize ships and invest more in small vessels	2010-01-07T13:26:50	None	['Barack_Obama', 'United_States_Navy']
-snes-03541	Hillary Clinton staged a photo op encounter with a hiker the day after she lost the 2016 presidential election.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-staged-hiking-photograph/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Hillary Clinton Staged Hiking Photograph?	15 November 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02456	Angelina Jolie Returning To “Dark Side” To Get Brad Pitt Back?	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-returning-dark-side-brad-pitt-back-spiritual-rituals/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Angelina Jolie Returning To “Dark Side” To Get Brad Pitt Back?	1:23 pm, September 16, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-01226	Berkeley and the Marines	https://www.truthorfiction.com/berkeley/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Berkeley and the Marines	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-04601	Muslims assaulted a Denny's waitress for serving bacon during the holy month of Ramadan.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dennys-waitress-assaulted-by-muslims/	None	Junk News	None	Snopes Staff	None	Denny’s Waitress Assaulted by Muslims for Serving Bacon During Ramadan	16 June 2016	None	['None']
-vogo-00539	Fact Check TV: School Pay Raises, Homelessness Costs and Broadway Pier	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-school-pay-raises-homelessness-costs-and-broadway-pier/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: School Pay Raises, Homelessness Costs and Broadway Pier	August 9, 2010	None	['None']
-goop-02805	Tristan Thompson Did Tell Khloe Kardashian He Needed “Space” To Focus On Basketball, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/tristan-thompson-space-khloe-kardashian-focus-basketball-playoffs/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Tristan Thompson Did NOT Tell Khloe Kardashian He Needed “Space” To Focus On Basketball, Despite Reports	9:53 am, May 11, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-01129	Buy a car from a millionaire’s estate of 4,000 cars	https://www.truthorfiction.com/estatecars/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	Buy a car from a millionaire’s estate of 4,000 cars	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pose-00625	Cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), "a move that would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/651/end-tarp/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	John Boehner	None	None	End TARP	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program']
-peck-00064	Has Uganda’s public health expenditure dropped by 90% since 2013?	https://pesacheck.org/has-ugandas-public-health-expenditure-dropped-by-90-since-2013-79e5e98e8c2	None	None	None	Emma Laura N Kisa	None	Has Uganda’s public health expenditure dropped by 90% since 2013?	Aug 9	None	['None']
-snes-06177	During a 9/11 commemoration ceremony, Michelle Obama asked, 'All of this for a damned flag'?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/all-of-this-for-a-damned-flag/	None	Politicians	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘All of This for a Damned Flag’?	14 May 2012	None	['Michelle_Obama']
-goop-01701	Rihanna Pregnant, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/rihanna-pregnant-grammys-performance/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Rihanna NOT Pregnant, Despite Speculation After Grammys Performance	12:35 pm, January 29, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07899	"From 1980 to 1990, the top 1 percent saw their income go up by roughly 80 percent" while "the median wage in the country over (the same) 10 years went up 3 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/03/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-tanglles-wall-street-journals-steve-/	Rachel Maddow got into a spirited back-and-forth with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher show Jan. 21, 2011, over the effect of the Reagan tax cuts and income inequality. Moore got the ball rolling with his comment, "I say the Reagan tax cuts were the greatest economic policy of the last 50 years." Maddow disagreed. As the two exchanged arguments, Maddow tried to get out a statistic about growing income disparity during the 1980s, but she was repeatedly interrupted. Frustrated, Maddow raised her hand and finally stood up to belt out her point. "From 1980 to 1990, the top 1 percent saw their income go up by roughly 80 percent," Maddow said. "The median wage in the country over 10 years went up 3 percent. That means for the best people, the people that were best off in the country, it was the Matterhorn, and for everybody else in the country, it was like this (she drew a flat line with her finger). So, if you were rich, Reagan was awesome, and if you were anybody else, it sucked." "You've got to get the statistics right," Moore said. "That's not true." In fact, Moore said, "everyone's income went up...The lowest income people had the biggest gains." Economists disagree over the effect of tax cuts, and we're certainly not going to try to settle that here, but we can check the underlying statistics behind Maddow's point. The problem is that there are lots of ways to slice income statistics (do you include investment income such as capital gains? pre- or post-tax income?), and neither Maddow nor Moore responded to our e-mails seeking clarification and backup material. In a Jan. 22, 2011, article on the conservative NewsBusters website, reporter Noel Sheppard wrote that, "Not surprisingly, Maddow was 100 percent wrong." Sheppard attacked Maddow's claim about the median wage in the country going up just 3 percent between 1980 and 1990. NewsBusters cited a Census Bureau table which shows that median income for men in 1980 was $12,530 per year; and grew to $20,293 in 1990 -- a 62 percent increase. For women, this figure went from $4,920 in 1980 to $10,070 in 1990 -- a 105 percent jump. "This means that the median income for the entire population in that decade rose at roughly the same rate as Maddow claimed the income for the top 1 percent did," Sheppard wrote. Those figures are correct for the actual income figures at the time. But they aren't adjusted for inflation. When the 1980 and 1990 figures are adjusted for inflation, the increase for men gets awfully close to Maddow's figure -- going from $31,054 in 1980 to $32,284 in 1990, a 4 percent increase (the median income jump was 31 percent for women). Further complicating things, however, is that Maddow toggled between two different statistics, first citing income statistics for the top 1 percent; then citing overall median wage figures. Income and wage are two different things. Income can include a lot of things other than just wages, such as investment income or capital gains. To get more precisely at what Maddow cited, Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution pointed us to Census Bureau figures for the median annual wage of "workers who are on full-time schedules." These statistics show that the inflation-adjusted median earnings of full-time male workers fell 4.5 percent between 1980 and 1990 (declining from $46,127 to $44,033 ) while the real median earnings of full-time female workers increased 13.6 percent (climbing from $27,750 to $31,535). You would think the Census would provide combined figures in this category for for men and women, but it doesn't. As a result, Burtless said, "it’s hard for me to guess whether the real median wage for both men and women increased exactly 3 percent during the decade. However, the estimate does not look unreasonable in view of the relative number of male and female full-time workers in the labor force." As for Maddow's claim that from 1980 to 1990, the top 1 percent saw their income go up by roughly 80 percent, the Census Bureau again leaves us wanting. The Census Bureau tracks income by quintiles, but not the top 1 percent. It's unclear where Maddow got her statistic, but several economists suggested it must have been from the analyses of tax data performed by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez. So we contacted Saez, an economics professor at the University of California Berkeley, who said tax data he compiled with Piketty show that average inflation-adjusted income (pre-tax) per family in the top 1 percent increased from $427,000 in 1980 to $661,000 in 1990. That's a 55 percent increase. Meanwhile, the average income (pre-tax) per family in the bottom 90 percent fell slightly from $30,900 in 1980 to $30,800 in 1990, he said. You can see all of the results in Table A6 of their report. So how did Maddow get to 80 percent? Saez believes Maddow must have used statistics in the report that did not include capital gains (Table A4), which show the same stagnation in the bottom 90 percent but a bigger, 74 percent increase at the top 1 percent. "All economists agree that the 1980s saw a huge increase in inequality," Saez said. There was "increased concentration at the top and big losses at the bottom (especially during the early 1980s recession)." Added Burtless: "Ms. Maddow seems to be completely correct that incomes at the very top increased many times faster than the real median wage." As for Moore's claim that "everyone's income went up...The lowest income people had the biggest gains," he's only half right. It's true that everyone's income went up. But adjusted for inflation, the lowest income people saw the smallest percentage of gain. Said Burtless: "Incomes rose in the bottom, middle, and top portions of the income distribution as Mr. Moore stated, although the income gains were certainly bigger at the top compared with the bottom. These results clearly show that low-income Americans did not obtain the biggest income gains between 1980 and 1990." According to Census data, when presented in equivalent 2009 dollars, the income among the lowest fifth increased about 6.3 percent (from $10,682 to $11,400). That's the lowest gain compared to other quintiles: 7.9 percent for the second lowest fifth; 8 percent for the middle fifth; 10.5 percent for the fourth fifth, and 20.3 percent in the highest fifth. Incomes rose 28.2 percent among the top 5 percent. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute summed up the Maddow-Moore exchange this way: "She's right, he's wrong. He might have been thinking about the '90s, when everyone’s income did indeed go up, even at the bottom, (but even in the nineties the people at the top made the biggest gains). You have to go back to the '50s and '60s to find business cycles where growth was faster at the bottom." Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton and author of "Unequal Democracy," believes the best indicator of the real income change of the top 1 percent between 1980 and 1990 is the Piketty/Saez figure of 55 percent. "I’d say Maddow exaggerated a bit but got the general story right, whereas Moore was not within shouting distance of anything true," Bartels said. "Of course, how much of this can be attributed to the Reagan tax cuts is a separate question, and worth debating in its own right." Again, we're not wading into the debate about whether Reagan tax cuts had anything to do with the growing gap in income inequality. To see some of the varying viewpoints among economists on that issue, check out an article by Slate's Timothy Noah on Sept. 9, 2010, which ran under the headline, "The United States of Inequality: Can We Blame Income Inequality on Republicans?" At issue are the statistics Maddow and Moore used to underpin their arguments. In this case, Maddow said that "from 1980 to 1990, the top 1 percent saw their income go up by roughly 80 percent" and that at the same time "the median wage in the country over 10 years went up 3 percent." The median wage in the country, expressed in constant 2009 dollars, does appear to be in the range Maddow cited (though with statistics broken out separately for men and women, we can't be precise). As for Maddow's claim that the top 1 percent saw their income go up that decade by roughly 80 percent, that's close but only if you cite numbers that do not include capital gains. It's not unreasonable to cite those numbers, but the economists we spoke to preferred to use figures that included capital gains, which show the top 1 percent saw an increase of 55 percent. Either way, Maddow's point that the 1980s were much more of a boon for the very rich than everyone else is valid. And so we rate Maddow's statement Mostly True.	None	Rachel Maddow	None	None	None	2011-02-03T12:37:06	2011-01-21	['None']
-bove-00013	Were 35 Airports Built Over The Last 4 Years As PM Modi Claimed?	https://www.boomlive.in/were-35-airports-built-over-the-last-4-years-as-pm-modi-claimed/	None	None	None	None	None	Were 35 Airports Built Over The Last 4 Years As PM Modi Claimed?	Sep 24 2018 10:51 pm, Last Updated: Sep 24 2018 11:21 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-10948	"In December of 2017, the Prince William board of supervisors had a meeting ... (Corey Stewart) skipped that meeting to go campaign in Alabama for Roy Moore to be a U.S. senator … You haven't disavowed Roy Moore's name yet."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/24/tim-kaine/kaine-correct-stewart-skipped-board-meeting-campai/	During a recent campaign debate, Sen. Tim Kaine took aim at Republican Corey Stewart’s support for former Senate candidate Roy Moore, who lost an Alabama special election after facing multiple allegations of sexual misconduct. "In December of 2017, the Prince William board of supervisors had a meeting ... you skipped that meeting to go campaign in Alabama for Roy Moore to be a U.S. senator," Kaine said at the July 21 debate, noting that the meeting covered topics such as zoning and the opioid crisis. Several minutes later, after Stewart dodged Kaine’s original question, Kaine added: "You haven't disavowed Roy Moore's name yet." Stewart, the at-large chair of Prince William County’s board of supervisors, has battled frequent criticism for his history with the far right. He has since renounced some activists with whom he previously associated, but he has not been shy about supporting estranged figures in his party, so we decided to see whether Kaine’s claim checked out. Stewart’s absence On Dec. 12, 2017, the Prince William County board of supervisors met to consider, among other things, an increase in spending on the county’s substance-abuse treatment programs. Stewart was not present at that meeting. He was on the campaign trail in Alabama with Moore, carrying out a plan he announced two days earlier in a news release, according to local reports. Stewart also detailed his visit to Alabama in a Facebook live video. He said he planned to fly to Atlanta, and drive a rental car to Montgomery in order to show support for Moore, who he said was a fellow "anti-establishment, pro-Trump candidate." "If you’re wondering, why am I going down to Alabama, why is it important, and that is because we’re all in this together, folks, we’re all in this together," Stewart said. "It is the establishment Republicans who are together colluding with Democrats, with liberals, and they’re trying to take out every single anti-establishment, pro-Trump candidate." "I’m going down there to support him," Stewart added. "Next year, when the establishment comes after me … I’m hoping, of course, that I will get his help as well." Stewart later tweeted a photo taken at the Moore rally in Alabama. "With @UofAlabama students at the @MooreSenate rally! #MAGA #DrainTheSwamp," he wrote. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Stewart’s support for Roy Moore Most conservatives severed ties with Moore, but Stewart supported him even as accusations surfaced detailing his sexual misconduct with teenagers. "I am not going to cut and run from a good man like Judge Roy Moore," he said in a Facebook live video. Ian Sams, communications director for the Kaine campaign, pointed to multiple occasions when Stewart defended Moore or explained his belief that Moore should have been presumed innocent until proven guilty because the accusations were decades-old. In a post-debate interview with PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff, who moderated the debate, Stewart refused to condemn Moore. "I do believe (Moore) when he said he didn’t do that," Stewart said. "I thought that he was treated unfairly," Stewart added. "I don’t think it’s right that 40 years after something supposedly happened, somebody comes out and says that you do something, and then, instead of them having to prove that you did it, it was left upon him to try to prove that he didn’t do it." Stewart campaign spokesman Noel Fritsch acknowledged Stewart’s continued support for Moore in an email. "Corey never claimed to have disavowed Moore," he wrote. "To claim so would be false." Our ruling Kaine said Stewart skipped a Prince William County board of supervisors meeting to campaign for Moore. Stewart missed a Dec. 12, 2017, meeting at which the board of supervisors voted on a proposal to boost funding for programs meant to cope with the opioid crisis. Instead, he attended a rally for Moore in Alabama because he said it was important to support an "anti-establishment, pro-Trump candidate." Stewart has not disavowed Moore and refused to do so in an interview after the debate. We rate Kaine’s statement True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2018-07-24T15:26:17	2018-07-21	['United_States', 'Alabama', 'Roy_Moore']
-pomt-09712	You must list all your guns on your 2010 tax return.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/02/chain-email/list-your-guns-your-1040-no-bill-never-passed/	It's a scary time to be a gun owner in the United States — at least if you believe some of the claims made by gun-rights groups and spread in chain e-mails. We recently investigated a claim made by Gun Owners of America that a version of a health care bill currently in Congress "could be used to ban guns in home self-defense," and rated it False. We gave the National Rifle Association a Pants on Fire for making a similar claim during the 2008 election. So we were skeptical when a reader forwarded us a chain e-mail that claims the following: "Now 'all Guns' must be listed on your next (2010) tax return! As if we didnt [sic] have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered! Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun." The e-mail continued: "This bill was introduced on Feb.. 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. BUT... this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama ? ...... you must be kidding!" The e-mail is wrong in so many ways that it's hard to know where to begin. But here we go: • The "Obama staff" can't introduce bills, only members of Congress can. • No such bill was introduced on Feb. 24 of this year. But there was such a bill introduced on Feb. 24, 2000, by Sen. Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. • The bill didn't pass. Indeed, it died in committee, as most bills do. The e-mail wrongly says the law will take effect with your "next tax return." The bill would have required people to register handguns in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, the government would have shared that information with law enforcement agencies, and guns would have been taxed when they were manufactured or sold. But again, the bill did not pass. • The National Rifle Association wrote a blog post discrediting the e-mail, saying that it was "recycling an old alert that wasn’t even accurate when it was new," and noting that the bill in question "disappeared without any action by the Senate, back when Bill Clinton was still in the White House." The e-mail is also ridiculously false with its claim that "this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective." Although Congress has its share of closed-door meetings, bills are made public on the Thomas Web site . Indeed, that's how we found this one. It's worth noting that variations of this chain e-mail have been circulating for many years. The Web site UrbanLegends.about.com wrote about this rumor back in September 2000. Only recently has a new version emerged. And like so many incorrect e-mails we've examined lately, it targets President Barack Obama. This e-mail makes so many ridiculously false claims that we have to set the meter ablaze — Pants on Fire!	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2009-11-02T13:50:58	2009-11-01	['None']
-bove-00086	Fact Vs Fiction: Cop Dies During Bharat Bandh; Old Pics Go Viral	https://www.boomlive.in/fact-vs-fiction-cop-dies-bharat-bandh-old-pics-go-viral/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Vs Fiction: Cop Dies During Bharat Bandh; Old Pics Go Viral	Apr 06 2018 5:22 pm, Last Updated: Apr 09 2018 5:26 pm	None	['None']
-snes-04193	A woman who was impregnated by a goat has had a goat-child.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/woman-gives-birth-to-a-human-goat-hybrid/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Woman Gives Birth to a Human-Goat Hybrid?	23 August 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-08684	"When the mayor of Providence's brother wrote over 100 grand in bad checks to the city, Joe Fernandez didn't have the guts to prosecute him. He let him off the hook."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/sep/10/peter-kilmartin/kilmartin-says-fernandez-didnt-prosecute-mayors-br/	Democratic Attorney General candidate Peter Kilmartin came out swinging against primary opponent Joseph Fernandez last week, accusing the former Providence city solicitor of not having the courage to prosecute John Cicilline, Mayor David Cicilline's brother, after John wrote two bad checks to the city. "When the mayor of Providence's brother wrote over 100 grand in bad checks to the city, Joe Fernandez didn't have the guts to prosecute him. He let him off the hook," the Kilmartin campaign ad says. The facts of this case have been widely reported but the story broke two years ago. So let's review. In the spring of 2006, Providence was trying to collect back taxes from Felix Nelson Garcia for his storefront property on Cranston Street. John Cicilline, Garcia's lawyer, wrote a $75,000 check on his law office account to the city tax collector's office, to be used as collateral. Garcia was to pay the tax bill once he refinanced the property. To allow the refinancing to happen, the city lifted a lien on the property. When that check expired, Cicilline wrote a replacement check on the same account, which apparently never had sufficient funds to cash it. Cicilline maintained that the city knew that the money wasn't there. City officials said they agreed to the deal because Cicilline was a well-regarded criminal lawyer who was unlikely to jeopardize that distinction or do anything to embarrass his brother. (Cicilline was subsequently sentenced to 18 months in federal prison after pleading guilty in June 2008 to shaking down drug-dealer clients. He is now disbarred.) The check was never cashed and the property changed hands without the city getting its money. The incident led to the firing of Tax Collector Robert P. Ceprano. ProJo.com reported the news of the bad check on Sept. 18, 2008. By then, Garcia's bill, with interest, had grown to $132,000. Five days later, Providence Police Chief Dean M. Esserman asked the state police to investigate. They spent nearly nine months on the probe, before sending the case to Attorney General Patrick Lynch. Two months later, Lynch's office decided against criminal prosecution. Now back to the campaign ad. During all of this, Fernandez, as city solicitor, was Providence's top lawyer. Neither Fernandez nor his office prosecuted the case. Kilmartin says Fernandez should have done that, implying that he didn't because John Cicilline is the mayor's brother. The Kilmartin ad leaves out a lot of important information. It is true that Cicilline wrote two bad checks totaling "over" $100,000. The actual total was $150,000. But the second $75,000 check was a replacement for the first check, which had expired. Cicilline never owed the city "over $100,000," as the ad implies. As a result, the phrasing of the Kilmartin ad is technically true but grossly misleading. Second, and perhaps more important, state law prohibits any city or town solicitor from prosecuting a felony. That authority rests with the attorney general, who declined to take action after an independent investigation by state police. Robert Craven, a lawyer for the Kilmartin campaign and former state prosecutor, argued that Fernandez should have repackaged the case as a misdemeanor charge or filed a civil suit against Cicilline to get the money. (That wouldn't actually be a prosecution. Only crimes are prosecuted; civil cases are litigated.) The Fernandez campaign said that, by that time, the city solicitor's office had a conflict of interest because Ceprano (the fired tax collector who had been represented by Fernandez's office) had sued the city for wrongful discharge. To avoid the conflict, Fernandez hired Deming E. Sherman, of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, to pursue a civil lawsuit to recover the unpaid taxes. David M. Zlotnick, professor of law at Roger Williams University School of Law, said Fernandez's sending the case to a private lawyer seems more than reasonable. "If you refer the case to outside counsel, then the suit is going to get pursued." In a later e-mail he said, "There seems to be no effort to sweep this under the rug or avoid tackling a serious matter." Sherman says Fernandez instructed him about a year ago to explore potential civil action against Scott L. Hammer, the private attorney who dealt with the Garcia account on the city's behalf. The campaign provided us with an April 21, 2009 letter from Sherman acknowledging that he would represent the city "in connection with potential litigation against Scott L. Hammer and John M. Cicilline..." Sherman said he has been actively pursuing a case against Hammer and depositions are still being taken. He would not say whether any action was planned against Cicilline, who has since been released from prison. And, for the record, the Kilmartin ad says, in big letters, "Joe Fernandez failed to prosecute corruption - Providence Journal 4/1/09." The Journal's story that day, headlined "Deadline near for suit in Providence tax case," says no such thing. To sum it up: * Kilmartin's ad cites a dollar amount that is misleading. * He attacks Fernandez for not bringing criminal charges, when Fernandez, by law, had no authority to do so. * He faults him for not bringing a civil case, when Fernandez, for ethics reasons, turned the case over to a private lawyer to pursue potential civil action. His allegations against Fernandez fall into the realm of ridiculous, and we give him a Pants On Fire!	None	Peter Kilmartin	None	None	None	2010-09-10T00:02:00	2010-09-01	['None']
-goop-00127	Bradley Cooper Joining ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’?	https://www.gossipcop.com/bradley-cooper-rupauls-drag-race-shangela/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Bradley Cooper Joining ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’?	3:42 pm, October 16, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05430	"In my years in the State Legislature, I have never voted for a tax increase."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/apr/29/joseph-kyrillos/us-senate-hopeful-joe-kyrillos-claims-he-never-vot/	After two decades as a state senator, Joe Kyrillos has been involved in politics long enough to know one should never say "never." But that’s just what Kyrillos, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, did in this April 17 statement on his campaign website: "In my years in the State Legislature, I have never voted for a tax increase." That’s a bold claim, but as PolitiFact New Jersey found, also an inaccurate one. Kyrillos, who represents part of Monmouth County, voted in December 1997 to double the tax rates on cigarettes and tobacco products. In more recent years, Kyrillos also has supported some measures labeled by his own Republican colleagues as "tax increases." First, we’ll talk about that tax increase on smokers. About a month after then-Gov. Christine Whitman won re-election, the Republican-controlled Legislature on Dec. 18, 1997 approved Assembly bill A-2157. That legislation doubled the cigarette tax from 40 cents to 80 cents per pack, and the tobacco products wholesale tax from 24 percent to 48 percent of the wholesale price. According to the minutes of that day’s proceedings, Kyrillos was one of 33 senators to vote for the bill. The next day, Whitman signed the bill into law. Also, in 1998, Kyrillos was a co-sponsor of a bill to increase the gas tax, but since the measure never made it to the Senate floor, Kyrillos didn't get a chance to vote on it. That’s good enough to prove Kyrillos’ claim is wrong, but let’s also look at his votes on what his own Republican colleagues have referred to as "tax increases." Over the last several years, the Democrat-led Legislature has approved numerous tax and fee increases -- a subject that Republican legislators frequently criticize. In October, we fact-checked a claim by Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. that Democrats had increased taxes more than 115 times. Calling them all "tax increases," a Senate Republican spokesman sent us a list of tax increases, fee hikes and tax policy changes between fiscal years 2003 and 2010. Kyrillos voted against most of those bills, but not all of them. Here are a couple of examples where -- by his own party’s measure -- Kyrillos supported tax increases: In January 2008, Kyrillos supported a bill that increased fees and penalties related to handling explosives. In June 2009, Kyrillos voted for legislation that, in part, allowed certain municipalities to impose a tax on car rentals. It’s worth noting that Kyrillos has rejected certain major tax increases in recent years. For example, when the Legislature agreed in July 2006 to increase the sales tax to 7 percent and expand it to various transactions, Kyrillos said no. Kyrillos also rejected a measure in June 2009 to temporarily increase certain state income tax rates. In response to our findings, Kyrillos spokeswoman Meaghan Cronin pointed to the senator’s record of opposing "broad-based tax increases, such as increases in income, sales and business taxes." Cronin cited four of Kyrillos’ specific votes against new or increased taxes. Those measures included the sales tax increase in 2006; a hotel tax in 2003; a business tax increase in 2002; and a tax against health insurers in 2005. "Most recently, Senator Kyrillos supported Governor Chris Christie’s local 2 percent property tax and spending cap," Cronin said in an e-mail, referring to a July 2010 vote in favor of the cap. Our ruling In an April 17 message on his campaign website, Kyrillos offered this biographical note: "In my years in the State Legislature, I have never voted for a tax increase." Kyrillos has voted against certain major tax hikes -- such as increasing sales and income taxes -- but the senator is wrong to claim he "never voted for a tax increase." In December 1997, Kyrillos voted to double the tax rates on cigarettes and tobacco products. More recently, Kyrillos has supported some measures labeled by his own Republican colleagues as "tax increases." We rate the statement False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Joseph Kyrillos	None	None	None	2012-04-29T07:30:00	2012-04-17	['None']
-pomt-12100	"We’ve got a police station that’s under construction right now, they are actually ahead of schedule and under budget."	/florida/statements/2017/aug/24/rick-kriseman/new-st-pete-police-station-under-budget-and-ahead-/	Rick Baker has accused Mayor Rick Kriseman of spending wildly on a new police station, saying it's $35 million over budget. Kriseman, in contrast, says the project is actually under budget. "We’ve got a police station that’s under construction right now, they are actually ahead of schedule and under budget," Kriseman told Beauty & The ‘Burg, a podcast on LifeImprovementRadio.com, on Aug. 9. That makes two competing narratives about the police station from the two leading candidates in the Aug. 29 mayoral primary. We wondered who was right — is the new police headquarters under budget, over budget, or none of the above? The upshot: It’s simply too soon to say anything about the budget and timeline for the construction of the new police department building. What you need to know about St. Petersburg's plans for a new police department For over a decade, there have been plans to replace the city’s police building on 1300 First Ave. N. The old headquarters was built in multiple parts. The east side of the police station was opened in 1951 and it included a jail and additional space for police operations. The building on the west side was opened in 1978. Eventually, the jail located inside the east side building was shut down and inmates were sent to the Pinellas County jail. It was not until 2015 that Kriseman announced there was enough money to construct a new police headquarters. St. Petersburg plans to spend about $86 million on new police facilities. That includes $79 million for the headquarters and $6.5 million for a new shooting range. The building will be 167,500 square-feet and able to withstand a Category 4 hurricane. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new headquarters was in late April 2017. City officials estimated the project will be done in December 2018, and fully operational in spring 2019. Is the project under budget? Not really. The basis for Kriseman’s comment was the possibility of the city not tapping into a $1.4 million contingency fund for unexpected costs. "The mayor's remarks were based on conversations with staff, who informed him that things are progressing well, no surprises, and that there is a chance we may not need all the contingency money and could finish under budget," said spokesman Ben Kirby. "But there is a long way to go." City architect Raul Quintana said the amount of contingency dollars fluctuates during various points of the project. "Generally, the earlier we are in a project and the greater the unknowns, then the higher the project contingency," Quintana said. Despite the possibility of not needing this money, Quintana said the nature of the project is very complicated, so the city plans to keep the contingency money in play. So, only four months in, it’s too soon to say the project is under budget with certainty. The construction contract with the Construction Manager is a little more than $61 million and the city has spent about $4 million. As for the timeline, Quintana said the project was ahead of schedule by at least three weeks and said he "feels good" about how the project has progressed. But with so much time to go, there are some factors that could affect the timeline, such as the weather. For the record, Baker's point that the project is massively over budget is also misleading. We're fact-checking what he said about the new police station in a separate fact-check to come. Baker’s campaign argued that Kriseman’s remarks were directly contradicted by reporting on the police station. They sent three news articles that allude to how the costs and plans have evolved over the years. But the stories don't refer to the project as either over budget. Here's what happened: In 2006, with Baker as mayor, the original estimate to replace the police station came in at $50 million. As the economic downturn set in, the city looked at other options, including building a scaled-down version while making updates to the old facility. However, after the economy picked back up, Kriseman announced the city would have enough money to build a new station again for $70 million. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Jeff Forrest, the president of Winter Park Construction in Maitland, Fla., and someone used to handling big construction projects said it’s too premature to make claims about a project of this size being under or over budget. Same goes for the timeline. "If I was building a project I would never communicate that early in a job because there’s just too many unknowns," Forrest said. "There’s too many opportunities just to easily lose that time." He said there are a number of challenges including labor shortages in the construction industry and Florida’s volatile weather that could affect the timeline and costs of a project. "We can all be optimistic. I’m an optimistic person, but I’m a realistic person when it comes to building and recognizing the challenges that exist," he said. Our ruling Kriseman said construction on the new police station is "ahead of schedule and under budget." In reality, there is no definitive evidence that supports Kriseman’s claim about being under budget, and the city’s architect estimates that the project is three weeks ahead of schedule. The most important thing to note in this check is the that the police station still has a long way to go and the progress could change. So any claims about the project being over or under budget or ahead of schedule are too premature. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Rick Kriseman	None	None	None	2017-08-24T17:11:45	2017-08-09	['None']
-pomt-10358	E-mail quotes Maureen Dowd column that Obama has received suspicious contributions from Saudi Arabia, Iran and China.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/08/chain-email/fake-column-spreads-unfounded-claims/	Add this one to the many ways chain e-mails are spreading false information in the campaign: bogus columns. A new chain e-mail, echoed by dozens of blog postings, claims to have a column from New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that criticizes Sen. Barack Obama for accepting suspicious contributions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and China. It has Dowd's byline and a headline that says "OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING." Some versions of the e-mail even have Dowd's picture. The column, which is dated June 29, 2008, says Dowd got a call from "one of the Obama's campaign [sic] internet geeks" who told her the campaign has received a flood of small contributions from overseas. The contributors were difficult to trace, the column says, but they came from a small number of banks and credit cards in various countries, particularly from "Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries." The column says that "another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP (Internet provider) with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges." The column says campaign officials were aware "these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters," but they concluded it was legal to accept them. Federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to the presidential campaigns, but donations from Americans living overseas are legal and fairly common. The column calls the decision to accept them "a shocking revelation" and says the Obama campaign should be audited. (You can find the full text of the e-mail here .) The column is a fake. Dowd told us she did not write it and that "It just seems like anyone who is familiar with my column would know this wasn't me." For more detail on how the e-mail spread, see our story Bogus Dowd column spreads quickly. It's not clear who wrote the column. One of the early appearances of the column was when it was posted June 29, 2008, on a blog on AZCentral, the Arizona Republic newspaper site, by someone identified as Thomas Moore. In his bio, he describes himself as "a retired journalist/technical writer/illustrator" and a fan of Barry Goldwater. His photo on the blog is a computer animation of a man waving a McCain sign, although Moore has no apparent ties to the McCain campaign. When someone pointed out on his blog that the column was a fake, Moore wrote, "It appears that I may be the fool for posting the editorial, since I don't find it on the NYT Website, either. I'm checking with the friend who sent it to me, as to whether he copied it directly from the Website." But Moore then mused that it still might be accurate and that the New York Times might have pulled the column from the Web site because the newspaper feared a lawsuit. Moore could not be reached for comment. A posting on his blog from Monday said he was departing for a long sailing vacation. "I should return in September," he wrote, "so in my absence please torment the liberals just as if I were here." The Obama campaign says it follows federal law and does not accept donations from foreign citizens. Donors must certify that "I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident." Because the column is fake and provides no factual evidence to back up its assertion about foreign contributions, we don't consider there is enough evidence to address the allegation here. The issue for the Truth-O-Meter is whether Dowd wrote the column. She didn't, which makes the claim False.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-07-08T00:00:00	2008-07-08	['Iran', 'Saudi_Arabia', 'China', 'Barack_Obama', 'Maureen_Dowd']
-pomt-01965	The decision to cancel the trademark of the Washington Redskins "is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/19/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-reaches-claim-obama-blame-washington/	The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the trademark registration of the Washington Redskins June 18 because it disparages American Indians, marking the latest but not the last development in a decades-old battle over the NFL team’s name. Should supporters of the team’s name blame Obama? That’s who conservative radio pundit Rush Limbaugh singled out on his popular radio show. Limbaugh says President Barack Obama audaciously, whimsically canceled the trademark in a show of political power and out of hyperpolitical correctness. "This is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript of his June 18 show. "... All this stuff is coming out of the executive branch. All of this, well, tyranny. It's all coming from the executive branch, and Obama owns the executive branch." At best, that’s an unproven conspiracy theory. We’ll walk you through it. Background about the ruling The ruling does not mean the team has to change its name. The team will keep its trademark registrations throughout the appeals process. If the ruling is upheld and the team loses, the team can still use the name "Redskins" but it could lose the legal rights of having a trademark, such as the federal government blocking counterfeit goods with its logo. There's also a possibility it could retain its "common law" rights without the federal trademark based on how long it has been used. Team attorneys played down the significance of the June 18 decision by highlighting the same trademark board’s 1999 ruling that also "canceled" the team’s name after an earlier challenge. The team won on appeal. Meanwhile, the trademark agency has not allowed trademarks with the term "Redskins" about a dozen times since 1992, when the earlier case was filed, because it "may" disparage American Indians, the Associated Press reported. Obama’s fingerprints The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is an independent administrative tribunal -- an identity it stressed in media materials announcing the decision. It operates within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which is a division of the Department of Commerce. The Commerce secretary, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office director and deputy director are presidential appointees that serve at his pleasure. From there, the Commerce secretary chooses the board’s 21 judges with input from the Patent and Trademark Office director. The chief judge, currently Judge Gerard F. Rogers, picks judges to preside over specific cases. In the Redskins matter, Rogers picked veteran judges because the case was viewed as setting a binding precedent for the board in similar cases, said Patrick Ross, Patent and Trademark Office deputy chief communications officer. The judges do not get terms or lifetime appointments. But they can’t be fired willy-nilly. They work like other civil service employees, not political appointees, and must be fired for cause. Like umbrella agencies for thousands of administrative judges around the country, the director and deputy director cannot tell the judges how to rule in a certain case. So, as in all things in Washington, politics plays some role. But the administrative law system is set up to try to remove politics as much as possible by creating barriers between the work of the judges and the politics of the bosses serving layers above them. Obama did wade into the debate last year, saying he would "think about changing" the team’s name if he were the owner in an October Associated Press interview "I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real legitimate concerns that people have about these things," Obama said. About the judges and their role Obama’s comments, plus the letter to team owner Dan Snyder signed by 50 U.S. Democratic senators, did draw politics into the fracas. But did that pressure interfere with an otherwise impartial decision? "There’s no evidence for that," said Elizabeth Rowe, University of Florida College of Law professor and director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law. "There is no room for that in the way the system is set up." The office makes hundreds of decisions a year and operates independently of the White House, she said. The decisions are made based on specific rules from Congress and legal interpretations from various courts’ decisions and precedents in intellectual property cases. And importantly, none of the three judges involved in the ruling were appointed while Obama was in office. All three took their seat during the terms of President George W. Bush. Judge Karen Kuhlke was appointed May 1, 2005. Judge Peter Cataldo was appointed May 14, 2006. And Judge Marc Bergsman was appointed Nov. 13, 2006. Bergsman dissented with Kuhlke and Cataldo in this case, arguing the trademark should not be canceled because the plaintiffs failed to show that a "substantial composite" of American Indians find the team’s name offensive and that its evidence was essentially a "database dump" that proved little. Kuhlke and Cataldo, on the other hand, found the trademarks were disparaging to Native Americans at the time they were registered, and the five people who brought it forth had standing because they were members of Native American tribes. As we noted earlier, judges in the same administrative court issued the same finding in 1999, before it was overturned on appeal. Our ruling Limbaugh said, the decision to cancel the trademark of the Washington Redskins "is not the Patent and Trademark Office. This is Barack Obama." Limbaugh, for whom a spokesman could not be reached, does not prove that Obama usurped the administrative law judges’ hands in canceling the trademark. The court issued the same decision in 1999. This time, the two judges who found the trademarks disparaging were appointed in the Bush years. The judges do not serve at the pleasure of the president and have to be fired for cause. We rate Limbaugh’s claim False.	None	Rush Limbaugh	None	None	None	2014-06-19T17:05:14	2014-06-18	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-14015	The University of Wisconsin System had a "jobs-for-life tenure program" for professors.	/wisconsin/statements/2016/jun/03/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-uw-tenure-policy-used-promise-jo/	In Wisconsin, "tenure" has become a contentious word. In March, the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents made it easier for tenured professors to lose their jobs. The move spawned outrage among faculty members and put lawmakers who supported the changes on the defensive. While some faculty members dubbed the new policy "#FakeTenure," Gov. Scott Walker framed the changes as modest and necessary tweaks to give the system more flexibility to deal with tight budgets and changing student needs. On May 16, 2016, in an interview with conservative radio host Charlie Sykes on WTMJ-AM, Walker described recent no-confidence votes by faculty members aimed at the UW Regents and System President Ray Cross as overreactions. People were upset, Walker said, because the Regents "had the audacity to put just a slight restraint on this ‘jobs-for-life’ tenure program that they have at the University of Wisconsin System." Walker used the jobs-for-life phrase several times that week. It’s not an uncommon refrain. Supporters of university reform frequently characterize tenure as a "job-for-life" guarantee, a concept meant to sound absurd to workers outside of academia. While the concept of tenure dates to the Middle Ages, tenure as we know it was defined in 1940 and quickly became the widespread practice at colleges and universities. It was created to bolster academic freedom and to protect professors from being fired for expressing unpopular views or pursuing research considered controversial. But what about Walker’s claim? When it comes to the old UW tenure system, is he right about "jobs for life"? How the program worked As evidence that UW faculty members had "jobs for life" under the former policy, Walker spokesman Tom Evenson pointed to the Board of Regents’ policy document on tenure. The statement defines tenure as an appointment of a faculty member "for an unlimited period." Evenson noted Merriam Webster defines "unlimited" as "not limited in number or amount" and added: "The UW System’s use of ‘unlimited’ in this case is obviously in reference to the unlimited period under which one is employed under a tenure appointment." Evenson also cited an opinion piece for the website Right Wisconsin written by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. That piece said records obtained by Vos’ office from the UW System showed only six tenured faculty members were fired for just cause in the last 20 years. The UW System has 4,560 tenured faculty members, according to the article. That makes the odds of being let go very low — but not non-existent. Next, we asked a UW System spokesman about the system’s policies. Spokesman Alex Hummel acknowledged there have been few cases of faculty members being dismissed after attaining tenure, but said the word "unlimited" does not signify eternity. Rather, he said, it recognizes the lack of a specified limit. He also said the six-in-20-years statistic doesn’t account for situations in which faculty members, when faced with being fired, chose to resign instead. He didn’t have data on how many times this happened in the same time period. We also checked with the American Association of University Professors, which advised UW on its changes and whose model policies form the basis of tenure at institutions around the country. A spokeswoman said the UW System’s original policy aligned with the group’s model procedures, which say tenured appointments can be terminated for three reasons: just cause, such as misconduct; program discontinuations due to educational considerations; or financial emergencies that threaten the university’s existence. The changes in UW’s tenure policies expanded the criteria decision-makers use to determine if a program should be discontinued. In the past, if a program was discontinued, faculty members would have the option to be placed in another department. Under the new policy, decision-makers can consider — among other factors — if the program’s work is duplicated in another department, if student demand for the program has decreased or if the program is not cost-effective for the institution. In such cases, no new job is guaranteed and the decision is ultimately left to chancellors. Even before the change in Wisconsin, "faculty members with tenure could lose their jobs in case of financial exigency," Laura Markwardt, a spokeswoman for the group, said in email. "They could also be terminated for cause." Thus, the old policy had grounds for dismissal, undermining Walker’s "jobs for life" claim. The fact it was rarely used does not mean it was not there. But we think the underlying point Walker was making is a valid one. As a practical matter, the extremely rare usage of the provisions can, in effect, make it a job for life. Our rating Walker described the UW System’s original policy as a "‘jobs-for-life’ tenure program." He left out the fact that even before the Board of Regents broadened the grounds for dismissal of tenured faculty members, individuals could be dismissed under several circumstances, such as misconduct and financial difficulties that threaten the university’s existence. But because dismissals under that policy were extremely rare, being granted tenure effectively promised someone a job for life. Our definition of Half True is "the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context." That fits here.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2016-06-03T04:55:00	2016-05-16	['None']
-pomt-15046	Says "Bernie Sanders was there when it came to (same-sex) marriage 20 years ago. ... He was there when it wasn't popular."	/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/	Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his presidential campaign serve as an almost constant reminder that Hillary Clinton has not always taken the lead on issues near and dear to the more liberal members of the Democratic Party. She only recently declared that she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline that would link oil from the tar sand fields of Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. On same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views evolved. As PolitiFact has described, in 1999, Clinton both supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and woman, and legal recognition of civil unions. By 2007, she opposed DOMA, but fell short of backing same-sex marriage. Then in 2013, she came out in favor of same-sex marriage pure and simple. Chuck Todd, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press, focused on same-sex marriage during an interview with Clinton on Sept. 27, 2015. "Bernie Sanders has been where you are on these issues," Todd said. "Bernie Sanders was there when it came to marriage 20 years ago. Do you think one of the reasons he's doing well right now is some progressives think, ‘Well, you know what? He was there when it wasn't popular.’" Clinton said Sanders could speak for himself and used the question to attack Republicans. Here, we wanted to look at whether Sanders supported same-sex marriage two decades ago. What we found was long-standing support for gay rights in general, a voting record consistent with same-sex marriage, but not much in the way of public statements on behalf of same-sex marriage itself. An early gay rights backer Todd said Sanders was "there" on same-sex marriage 20 years ago, but we found evidence pointing back even further. In the early 1970s, Sanders ran for governor of Vermont under the banner of the Liberty Union party, a coalition of leftist groups. The party platform called for making taxes tougher on corporations and lighter on families, an end to the Vietnam War and a number of measures to get government out of people’s private lives. "The Liberty Union believe that there are entirely too many laws that regulate human behavior," Sanders wrote in an open letter. "Let us abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or ‘right’ on people. Let’s abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)." There’s an image of that letter, thanks to Alternet. While you could read Sanders’ sweeping reference to all laws dealing with homosexuality as including same-sex marriage, it doesn’t specifically say that. As mayor of Burlington, Vt., Sanders supported a gay pride parade in 1983, saying "we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each other’s lifestyle." Sanders also put through a 1984 housing anti-discrimination ordinance that protected people based on "his or her sexual preference." In 1995 on the House floor, Sanders came to his feet to chastise a Republican congressman who attacked supporters of a tougher Clean Water Act as "the same people that would put homos in the military." According to a Boston Globe article at the time, "You used the words 'homos in the military,' " Sanders shouted at Cunningham. "You have insulted thousands of gay people who have put their lives on the line in countless wars defending this country." So Sanders has a long track record on the side of gay rights in general. When it comes to same-sex marriage and Todd's reference to "20 years ago," Todd is pointing to Sanders' votes related to the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 In May 1996, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., introduced a bill most notable for its section on definitions. The bill, best known as DOMA, empowered states to disregard same-sex marriages that might be legal in other states. It also defined marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Sanders had a couple of key opportunities to vote as DOMA moved through the House. As the bill was headed for a final vote, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., offered an amendment that would allow each state to set its own definition of marriage. Sanders joined about 100 lawmakers in supporting Frank’s amendment, far short of the total needed. On DOMA itself, Sanders was part of a smaller group of opponents, just 67. The bill passed and President Bill Clinton signed it in September. We wondered if Sanders made any public statements about DOMA in 1996. A search of the Congressional Record and the Nexis news database turned up nothing. His campaign staff couldn’t provide any examples from that time. We contacted Susan Murray, a Burlington lawyer and a co-founder of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force. Murray said members of her group met with Sanders in 1996. "He opposed DOMA and explicitly told Freedom to Marry so," Murray told us. "The meeting was not focused on whether Bernie affirmatively supported marriage equality." Same-sex marriage was not on the legislative table in the mid 1990s. When Todd said Bernie was on board before it was popular, the survey numbers back him up. In 1996, Gallup found that 68 percent of the public opposed marriage between couples of the same sex. Vermont passed a civil union law in 2000. Sanders supported it. The year before, Gallup found that 62 percent of the public opposed marriages between people of the same sex. In 2006, Sanders opposed a Republican-sponsored constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In an Associated Press interview, Sanders said the measure was designed to divide the public, and he praised Vermont’s civil union law. Vermont "led the way," but noted that it was "a very divisive debate." The AP reported that when asked if Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, Sanders said, "Not right now, not after what we went through." Our ruling Todd said that Sanders was "there" 20 years ago on the issue of same-sex marriage. What we found specific to same-sex marriage is that Sanders opposed defining marriage exclusively as between a man and a woman. He expressed that opinion through his votes, and in conversations with activists in his state. Todd’s claim is accurate. We rate it True. Editor's note, March 21, 2016: This fact-check has been updated to include Sanders' 2006 positions and comments to the Associated Press.	None	Chuck Todd	None	None	None	2015-09-29T17:00:21	2015-09-27	['Bernie_Sanders']
-pomt-14941	"The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country."	/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/26/sean-hannity/250000-syrian-refugees-us-fact-check-trump-hannity/	Editor’s note: After this fact-check originally published, Sean Hannity responded and provided the source of his claim. We have updated the fact-check to include his source and our analysis of it. The original version of this fact-check is archived here. The ruling remains Pants on Fire. The waves of refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq have given the conflict there a domestic immediacy in the race for the White House. While Europe is absorbing the great majority of refugees, some are headed toward the United States. The question is, how many? About 250,000, according to Fox News host Sean Hannity. During an interview with Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush on Oct. 19, 2015, Hannity worried that ISIS would try to infiltrate the arriving masses. "You see the backlash emerging now in Europe over the refugee problem for Syria and Iraq," Hannity said. "The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 refugees into this country." "We can’t take 250,000 refugees," Bush responded. "I’ve never heard that, and that would be impossible to imagine logistically for us to screen." In plain fact, President Barack Obama never said that, nor as far as anyone can tell has any member of his administration. In September, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Obama "informed his team that he would like them to accept -- at least make preparations to accept -- at least 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next fiscal year." The 250,000 figure would dwarf the 120,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict the European community said it aims to relocate inside its members’ borders. What gives? A refugee crisis Hannity said his figure was based on a Sept. 20 Associated Press report. The AP report said that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would accept up to 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2016 and up to 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017. In Fiscal Year 2015, the United States accepted nearly 70,000 refugees. Add those three numbers together and you get 255,000 refugees, Hannity said. That math is right, but none of it makes Hannity's claim accurate. The Associated Press report Hannity cited is discussing the total number of refugees admitted to the United States worldwide. But Hannity, in his remarks Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, was discussing refugees coming from Iraq and Syria, fearing they might be infiltrated by ISIS or al-Qaida. Here, again, is what Hannity said Oct. 19: "You see the backlash emerging now in Europe over the refugee problem for Syria and Iraq," Hannity said. "The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 refugees into this country." And Oct. 20: "You see what’s happening in Europe, there’s a huge backlash because of Syrian refugees and Iraqi refugees and the cost … We’re being told by our National Intelligence Director that ISIS and al-Qaida, not if, they will infiltrate the refugee community. This president has committed to nearly 250,000 coming to America." In reality, the commitment Hannity talks about largely has been the standard practice of the United States going back decades. The United States has been accepting on average more than 83,000 refugees a year worldwide from 1980-2008, State Department records show. In Fiscal Year 2013 (the last year for which we have data), the State Department said it would admit up to 70,000 refugees. It ended up admitting 69,926, records show. Those refugee spots are not awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis. They are allocated specifically by region. Europe has an annual limit. So does Africa. So does Near East/South Asia, the area that includes Syria and Iraq. In Fiscal Year 2013, for example, the United States accepted 4,205 Cuban refugees and 16,000 from countries in East Asia. So what’s changing? For Fiscal Year 2016, the Obama administration has proposed raising the cap to 85,000 refugees -- an increase of 15,000 refugees over the previous year. In 2017, the cap would move to 100,000. Many, though not all, of those extra spaces would be used for Syrian refugees, the State Department says. "We expect to admit some 1,600-1,800 Syrian refugees in FY 2015. In FY 2016, we project we will admit at least 10,000 Syrians," the State Department said in a report to Congress. The number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the United States has fluctuated over the years. In Fiscal Year 2013, the United States admitted 19,488 Iraqi refugees, up from 12,163 and 9,388 in Fiscal Years 2012 and 2011, respectively. Here is a breakdown of the State Department’s proposal by region for FY 2016: Refugee Admissions in FY 2014 and FY 2015 Proposed Refugee Admissions by Region for FY 2016 Region FY 2014 Actual arrivals FY 2015 Ceiling Revised FY 2015 Ceiling FY 2015 projected arrivals Proposed FY2016 Ceiling Africa 17,476 17,000 20,400 22,600 25,000 East Asia 14,784 13,000 17,300 18,200 13,000 Europe and Central Asia 959 1,000 2,300 2,350 4,000 Latin America/Caribbean 4,318 4,000 2,300 2,050 3,000 Near East/South Asia 32,450 33,000 27,700 24,800 34,000 Regional Subtotal 69,987 68,000 70,000 70,000 79,000 Unallocated Reserve 2,000 6,000 Total 69,987 70,000 70,000 70,000 85,000 Source: State Department The Migration Policy Institute gathers data to track the movement of people across the globe. "We are not aware of any suggestion that the United States would seek to resettle 250,000 refugees from Syria or Iraq," Michelle Mittelstadt, the institute’s director of communications, told us. Our ruling Hannity said, "The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country." Hannity says his number represents a three-year figure of the total number of refugees the United States is expected to admit worldwide. But that’s all lost on the viewing audience, who gets no idea of the time frame and would reasonably think he’s talking about only refugees from Syria and Iraq. From 1980-2008, the United States has accepted around 83,000 refugees a year. The Obama administration has said it will accept around 70,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2015 and is saying it will accept 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2016 and 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017. Over those three years, that’s about 6,000 refugees more than the recent annual average. Overall, Obama is asking the country to take in an additional 45,000 refugees in 2016 and 2017. Most, but not all, of those additional refugees will come from Syria. Hannity’s claim rates Pants on Fire!	None	Sean Hannity	None	None	None	2015-10-26T17:16:45	2015-10-19	['Iraq', 'Syria']
-tron-00497	Bald eagles change their lives at 40	https://www.truthorfiction.com/baldeagle/	None	animals	None	None	None	Bald eagles change their lives at 40	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04665	Says Charlie Bass forfeits right to equal cost for TV ads under FCC rules	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/sep/07/ann-mclane-kuster/ann-mclane-kuster-accused-charlie-bass-dirty-campa/	With the primary days away, some congressional campaigns are already focused on their future adversaries on the long road to Washington. Democrat Ann McLane Kuster, looking to overcome incumbent Rep. Charlie Bass, R-NHto be the next U.S. representative for New Hampshire’s 2nd Congressional District, cried foul when she saw a new ad targeting her as a "left-wing darling." She accused Bass of violating federal regulations with his ad, "Not Working for Us," which is running locally on WMUR. Attack ads, like Bass’, are subject to a specific set of rules, and when they are broken, the candidate is no longer entitled to the same ad rate as competitors, Kuster argued. "Congressman Bass's campaign is in violation of a rule which states that within 45 days of the Primary Election, candidates must include ‘a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the candidate’ for a period of no less than four seconds at the end of advertisements," Kuster said in a news release emailed to New Hampshire reporters on Aug. 31. "Congressman Bass’s ad, ‘Not Working for Us,’ fails to meet this basic requirement and includes no photograph or other image of the candidate for any duration at the end of the advertisement." The lowest unit charge was established in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to protect candidates from excessive advertising costs -- charges no more than the lowest rates available to regular commercial advertisers. It’s ultimately up to the FCC to decide if its rules were broken, but PolitiFact New Hampshire decided to find out if Kuster was right about what the FCC rules say. When to show face Kuster’s Campaign Manager Garrick Delzell said he had no comment on the situation, but emailed us portions of Section 315 of The Communications Act of 1934 and a letter to WMUR outlining the accusations against Bass’ advertisement. The Communications Act requires that broadcast stations charge candidates for federal office for advertising "during the forty-five days preceding the date of the primary runoff election and during the sixty days preceding the date of a general or special election, in which such person is a candidate, the lowest unit charge of the station for the same class and amount of time for the same period," said Paul Burkett, Kuster for Congress treasurer, in a letter to WMUR. "A candidate loses this right to preferential pricing, however, if a candidates makes ‘any direct reference to another candidate for the same office, in any broadcast using the rights and conditions of access under this Act, unless such reference meets requirements of subparagraphs (C) or (D).’" In other words, Kuster argues that because Bass’ ad is directed at her, it had to meet certain requirements. OK, so let’s look at those subparagraphs. In this case it’s C, which deals with television broadcasts. It says that at the end of a TV broadcast, two things must appear simultaneously: (i) A clearly identifiable photographic or similar image of the candidate; and (ii) A clearly readable printed statement, identifying the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the broadcast and that the candidate’s authorized committee paid for the broadcast. Kuster is right that Bass’ ad doesn’t contain a photo of Bass during the last four seconds of the broadcast.In the ad, Bass’ image does appear, but it’s during the first two seconds of the spot. In addition, the first words people hear is "I’m Charlie Bass and I approve this message." During the last four seconds of the commercial, it displays the words, "Approved and Paid for by Bass Victory Committee," and there’sno picture of Bass. According to Kuster, that means "the Bass Victory Committee and Charlie Bass are no longer entitled to benefit from the lowest unit charge." We called the Federal Communications Commission. Know your opponent The extra photo requirement relies on the idea that Kuster and Bass are running for the same office. Cut and dried, right? Well,as it turns out, the section of the Communications Act that Kuster cited does not even apply to her race against Bass -- at least not yet. When Congress adopted Section 315, commonly referred to as the "equal opportunity" or "equal time" provision, it required opposing candidates receive the same treatment -- that, if one candidate for an office gets air time, his opponent "for that office" is entitled to equal air time at the same cost, according to the FCC’s "The Law of Political Broadcasting and Cablecasting: Political Primer 1984." But the term "for that office" requires some careful distinction. Which candidates are actually opponents, and whether stations are required to afford them "equal opportunity" under Section 315, depends entirely on the election. "The FCC for many years interpreted Section 315 to mean that before the primaries or the nominating conventions take place, only those candidates who seek the nomination of the same party for the same office are entitled to opportunities equal to those of each other, since only they are opponents at that point," according to the Primer. In other words, the primary and the general election are considered two separate races. Opponents in a primary are candidates of the same party running for the nomination to run in the general election. Even if Bass and Kuster consider themselves opponents at this point, the FCC views it differently. In Bass’ case, his opponents are Gerard Beloin, Will Dean, Miroslaw Dziedzic and Dennis Lamare until the primary on Sept. 11. No Democrats have filed to run against Kuster in the primary, but under FCC rules, she still wouldn’t be Bass’ opponent until the general election in November. The content of Bass’ "Not Working For Us" advertisement -- which has been running for more than a week -- does not deal with "equal opportunity" issues or violate Section 315 because, according to the FCC, Bass’ opponents are the Republicans running against him in the primary, not his presumed Democratic opponent in the general election. For its part, WMUR doesn’t see anything wrong with the ad -- or what they are charging Bass for it. "At this point, it’s the opinion of our FCC attorney that the spot we’re running is legal and the rates we’re charging the campaign are fine as well," said Jeff Bartlett, WMUR’s President and General Manager. "From the FCC’s point of view, that’s fine," he added, referring to the image of Bass. "You can run it at the beginning or the end. There’s no regulation compelling us to do anything about it, because the FCC, which regulates us, says they can run it either place." Even if Bass and Kuster were currently considered opponents and Bass was found in violation of the rules, WMUR could still give him the lowest ad rate anyway, according to an opinion published by the Federal Elections Commission. (It’s worth noting, the Federal Election Commission has its own set of rules ensuring candidates identify themselves in TV ads and the Bass advertisement passes those bars too — his image can appear at the beginning or the end.) Our ruling Kuster says Bass’ "Not Working for Us" TV ad forfeited its right to WMUR’s lowest rates because it violated FCC rules. The rules Kuster cite only apply to advertisements about Bass’ Republican opponents in the primary. Until Kuster and Bass are direct opponents for the Second Congressional District general election race, her accusation is moot. Moreover, even if Bass did violate the rules, WMUR is still free to charge him the lowest rate. We give Kuster a False.	None	Ann McLane Kuster	None	None	None	2012-09-07T19:09:31	2012-08-31	['None']
-pose-00839	"My first act as county executive will be to order a complete review of all functions and operations, to root out the corruption once and for all. The parade of scandals and investigations must be brought to an end so we can focus on creating jobs and maintaining services."	https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/fitz-o-meter/promise/871/review-all-operations-to-root-out-corruption/	None	fitz-o-meter	Ed FitzGerald	None	None	Review all operations to root out corruption	2011-01-20T13:56:11	None	['None']
-tron-01385	KFC Using Genetically Engineered Chickens With No Feathers or Beaks	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mutant-kfc/	None	food	None	None	None	KFC Using Genetically Engineered Chickens With No Feathers or Beaks	Mar 20, 2015	None	['None']
-faly-00058	Fact Check: In whose tenure did MSP increase at a greater rate?	https://factly.in/fact-check-in-whose-tenure-did-msp-increase-by-a-greater-percentage/	Fact: From the above graph and corresponding table, we can see that under the UPA II government, the average growth for each crop (except wheat) was higher than during the current NDA government. The aggregate average growth of the MSP (all crops) during the UPA II rule was 11.28%, while that under the NDA government has been 4.91%.  These numbers were calculated by taking the average of average growth rates of all the crops during these periods. This results in a difference of 6.48 percentage points as opposed to what was claimed by Dr. Singh of 15.7 percentage points. Only in the case of Sugarcane was the difference between growth of MSP in two governments 15 percentage points.Although the magnitude of the difference is less than what is claimed, there is still a significant difference in the growth of MSP during the UPA and NDA governments. Hence the claim is PARTLY TRUE	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: In whose tenure did MSP increase at a greater rate?	None	None	['None']
-tron-02877	Forward an email for Justin Mallory and he’ll get contributions for treating his epilepsy	https://www.truthorfiction.com/justinmallory/	None	pleas	None	None	None	Forward an email for Justin Mallory and he’ll get contributions for treating his epilepsy	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-vees-00265	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Poe blocking Facebook app if reelected	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-poe-not-blocking-facebook-app-if-reele	None	None	None	None	Grace Poe,fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Poe not blocking Facebook app if reelected	April 13, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00753	Selena Gomez Trying To Break Up Justin Bieber, Hailey Baldwin?	https://www.gossipcop.com/selena-gomez-break-up-justin-bieber-hailey-baldwin/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Selena Gomez Trying To Break Up Justin Bieber, Hailey Baldwin?	5:39 pm, June 25, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02563	Says Peyton Manning struggles in cold weather games.	/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/31/tweets/does-nfls-most-prolific-passer-struggle-cold/	It’s pretty much impossible to avoid talk about Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning and his career in cold weather. So we won’t even try. Blame the two-week gap between the conference championships and the Super Bowl. Blame ESPN for its non-stop coverage of the big game. Blame whoever decided a Super Bowl in New York (er, New Jersey — sorry, Sen. Booker) was a good idea. Blame the sports media that has exhausted nearly every angle of analysis before Sunday. Whatever the reason, Manning’s performance in frigid temps is one of the most talked about story angles heading into the first outdoor Super Bowl in a northern city. You can find a few examples here, here, here and here. People have come down on both sides of the debate. But is it true? We went deep into the future Hall of Famer’s numbers to find out. Small samples The biggest problem we found in drawing broad conclusions about Manning’s statistics in cold weather games is that the sample size is relatively small. Even for a quarterback who has dropped back to pass 9,300 times in his career including the playoffs, Manning has only played a small fraction of his 262 games in the cold. Much of that is because Manning spent the first 14 seasons of his career with the Indianapolis Colts, who played in the RCA Dome and later Lucas Oil Stadium, which are domed stadiums. It’s also due to Manning’s prowess. In leading perennial Super Bowl contenders to the playoffs, Manning’s Colts were often a top-seeded team. That means they got to play at home, instead of outdoors at a time when temperatures drop. Ten of Manning’s playoff games during his time in Indianapolis were at home in a controlled environment, while seven were on the road. And then there’s the comparison problem. What if all quarterbacks just play worse when it’s cold out? In those temperatures, the oblong ball is harder to throw and catch, the wind becomes a factor and you would expect teams to run the ball more. Not exactly conditions that make for prolific passing performances. Despite all of this, in the true spirit of sports punditry, let’s weigh in anyway, shall we? Manning in the cold Pro-Football Reference keeps a game log for NFL players. Included in each entry is the weather that day. Using that information, we broke down all of Manning’s performances, noting the temperature for each game and his stats. We won’t rely too heavily on his win-loss record, but rather his individual effort. There is a notable difference just comparing Manning’s passing numbers outdoor (136 games) versus indoor (126 games). The below numbers include playoff appearances and tally completions, attempts, yards, touchdowns and interceptions per game. Venue Completions Attempts Comp % Yards TDs INTs Passer rating Indoor 22.43 33.99 65.98 267.90 2.10 0.88 99.66 Outdoor 23.85 36.83 64.76 275.86 1.93 0.96 93.95 So, inside, Manning completes a few more passes per attempt, throws slightly more touchdowns, slightly fewer interceptions and his quarterback or passer ratings (which factors in completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns and interception to create a metric that compares quarterbacks) is much higher. The average QB rating for all NFL QBs in 2013 was 84.1 and a perfect score is 158.3, though anything over 90 is considered very good. So basically he’s amazing indoors and a little less amazing outside. Let’s breakdown the outdoor games even further by weather. Manning has played 97 games where its 50 degrees or warmer, and 39 games where it’s colder (as you can see, the sample sizes are getting smaller). Temp Completions Attempts Comp % Yards TDs INTs Passer rating 50 and up 24.32 37.19 65.47 281.22 2.00 0.91 97.21 < 50 22.69 35.95 63.12 262.54 1.77 1.08 89.03 There’s greater parity here. Completion percentage is relatively close regardless of the temperature, but the yards are down a bit when in games under 50 degrees, as are touchdowns. Also, interceptions are up when the temperature drops, and Manning’s QB rating dips below 90. Still a very good quarterback, but not his elite self. But what if it gets even colder, like it will be in East Rutherford, N.J., on Sunday. The high for the day is currently forecast in the mid 40s, but kickoff isn’t until 6:30 p.m. and temperatures will be lower then. So let’s assume it’s 40 degrees or less during the game. Manning has 26 games in that environment. It’s worth noting that all but four of them were on the road (hostile environment) and five of them were in the playoffs (good competition). What does it look like per game? Temp Completions Attempts Comp % Yards TDs INTs Passer rating 40 and colder 22.65 36.12 62.73 258.35 1.69 1.15 86.46 Manning’s numbers continue to fall with the temperatures. And his record during that stretch is 12-14. But maybe Manning has improved. The early knock on the former University of Tennessee star was he choked in big games, and he now owns a Super Bowl ring that says otherwise. Perhaps he is better of late in the cold. With a sample size this small you can cherry pick dates that prove or disapprove that point. For example, since joining the Broncos, Manning is just 3-3 in games where it’s 40 degrees or colder out, but his numbers are stellar. Team Total completions Total attempts Comp % Total yards Total TDs Total INTs Passer rating Colts 421 680 61.91 4887 26 26 80.43 Broncos 168 259 64.86 1830 18 4 102.31 But if you pick a different range of games and temperatures, you’ll get an entirely different result. For example, Sports Illustrated (citing ESPN numbers) notes that, "Manning’s teams have lost seven of the 10 regular-season and postseason games in which the temperature was 32 degrees or colder. He has thrown 12 interceptions in those games to 11 touchdowns, his completion percentage is 59.4 in those games (career percentage: 65.4), and his 214.1 yards per game total is quite a bit below his career average of 269.5." We can say Manning has been great as a Bronco in cold weather. Or we can say Manning has a recent history of not performing when it’s below freezing. And in both cases, we’d be right. That’s what happens when sample sizes are small. Manning vs. the league Analysis of Manning’s cold weather performance also often fails to include how other quarterbacks perform when temperatures drop. While league stats in cold weather aren’t readily available, we can try to piece it together ourselves, thanks to Yahoo!, which provides career regular season splits at various temperatures. We took the career passer ratings of the 34 quarterbacks in the league last year with significant playing time and compared it to their career numbers when the temperature is between 21 and 40 degrees, as it should be for Sunday’s Super Bowl. But many of those 34 quarterbacks have played just a game or two in those temperatures. That’s not nearly enough to draw a conclusion. So we also broke out the quarterbacks with 10 or more regular season games in cold weather — there are 12 of them — and compared their quarterback ratings. (This rating is an imperfect metric, but it does factor in completion percentage, yards, touchdowns and interceptions and is widely used.) Player Games in cold Career passer rating Career passer rating in 21-40 degrees Difference Tom Brady 44 95.7 95.0 -0.7 Ben Roethlisberger 36 92.6 91.9 -0.7 Eli Manning 18 81.2 74.2 -7.0 Aaron Rodgers 17 104.9 106.9 2.00 Jay Cutler 17 84.6 90.2 5.6 Joe Flacco 14 83.7 86.8 3.1 Carson Palmer 14 85.9 80.4 -5.5 Philip Rivers 12 96.0 98.3 2.3 Matt Cassel 12 80.5 78.4 -2.1 Jason Campbell 11 81.8 78.1 -3.7 Ryan Fitzpatrick 11 77.5 77.8 0.3 Peyton Manning 10 97.2 92.6 -4.6 Career quarterback rating of 34 qualifying 2013 QBs* 216 8837 80.9 -7.8 Career quarterback rating of QBs with at least 10 starts in cold weather 278 90.1 82.0 -8.1 *Qualifying QBs averaged 14 pass attempts per teams’ games played, per ESPN Manning only has 10 games in the cold, compared to Tom Brady of the New England Patriots, who has played in 44. Ben Roethlisberger of the Pittsburgh Steelers has played in 36 cold weather games, twice as many as the next closest quarterback. Both Brady and Roethlisberger had very small dropoffs in their performance in cold weather versus their career numbers. Perhaps that’s a sign that with more games played, statistics will trend toward their career averages. Or maybe Brady and Big Ben, who both play in the Northeast, are familiar with the cold weather and it doesn’t affect them as much. Across the league, there is a significant drop off in quarterback rating when it gets cold out. The rating of the 12 players we focused on in 21-40 degree temperatures is more than 8 points lower than those players’ combined career quarterback rating. (We determined this by plugging all the combined career and cold weather stats of the quarterbacks into this handy calculator, which computed the complex passer rating formula for us. If you’re looking for an average drop off between the 12 players, it’s about -0.53 points, but that doesn’t factor in the number of games played in these conditions.) So there is reason to believe quarterbacks tend to play worse in the cold. Manning is not as good in his 10 regular season games played when the temperature is between 21 and 40. Among quarterbacks with 10 or more games in the cold, it’s one of the larger drop offs. Only his brother, New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning and Carson Palmer of the Arizona Cardinals, saw greater discrepancies in their performances. But Manning’s rating of 92.6 is still the third highest of the 14. Only Brady and Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers are better. All three are considered elite players and future Hall of Famers. For the record, Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson has a quarterback rating of 93.6 in two games in cold weather. Our ruling For the purpose of this analysis, we’re fact-checking some of the many tweets we saw this week about Manning and his struggles in the cold weather. So is Peyton Manning worse in the cold? Overall trends say yes, though the sample size is small. Manning’s numbers go down the colder it gets. But we also found that’s typical throughout the league. And since joining the Denver Broncos, Manning has been quite fantastic in conditions close to what we’ll see in the Super Bowl. And even at his worst, he’s still Peyton Manning. Claims that Manning struggles in cold weather are accurate, but require additional explanation. As such, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Tweets	None	None	None	2014-01-31T14:55:00	2014-01-28	['None']
-pomt-09921	"Yes, this would be the same congressman (Rep. Pete Hoekstra) who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top-secret mission to Iraq."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/keith-olbermann/olbermann-says-rep-hoekstra-tweeted-whereabouts-to/	Once again, U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., is embroiled in a twitterversy. It centers on his Tweet likening the messages of disgruntled Republicans during a congressional squabble with the messages from bloodied Iranian protesters who say they were disenfranchised. Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown , noted on June 18, 2009, that this wasn't Hoekstra's first Twitter controversy. "This would be the same congressman who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top secret mission to Iraq," Olbermann said. Here's the background on that: Back in early February (not last year, as Olbermann said), Hoekstra was part of a legislative delegation that went to Iraq. The delegation included House Minority Leader John Boehner; House Minority Whip Eric Cantor; John McHugh, R-N.Y.; Jo Bonner, R-Ala.; and Tom Latham, R-Iowa. Some media learned or were told about the trip beforehand, but for security reasons agreed to keep the story embargoed until the group returned. But while on the trip, Hoekstra sent several Tweets. "Just landed in Baghdad," one said. And another: "Moved into green zone by helicopter. Iraqi flag now over palace. Headed to new US embassy. Appears calmer, less chaotic than previous." A Congressional Quarterly reporter took Hoekstra to task with a Feb. 6 story headlined, "So Much for Embargoed." That story, and a follow-up on Feb. 10, questioned whether Hoekstra broke protocol for such trips by providing sensitive information that could pose a security risk. The story of Hoekstra's Tweets got picked up in media outlets around the globe. "Generally speaking, we encourage the members to hold off any communication until they are wheels down at Andrews," Courtney Littig, spokeswoman for Democrats on the intelligence committee, told the New York Times . Hoekstra called the controversy "nonsense," and noted that similar trips by congressional delegations had been preceded by news conferences. Some legislators have even invited the public to sign banners they could give to the troops. Hoekstra's staff provided reporters with citations showing instances in which Democrats have issued press releases prior to legislative trips to combat zones (including one from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2005 prior to a trip to Iraq); or even held live press conferences from war zones (including one from then Sen. Barack Obama in Afghanistan in 2008, and a 2005 interview with then Sen. Hillary Clinton in Baghdad in 2005). "The only difference is the technology," said Dave Yonkman, a spokesman for Hoekstra. "He was trying to give his constituents as much information as he could about his congressional activities." Nonetheless, Hoekstra's Tweets prompted the Pentagon to review its policy on congressional delegations traveling to war zones. And on March 13, 2009, Department of Defense Legislative Affairs distributed this policy to all services: "In order to protect the movement of the CODEL (congressional delegation) and all of the associated supporting personnel in the combat zone, it is important to maintain strict operational security. Adherence to operational security complicates the enemy's targeting process by ensuring they do not have flight plans, travel times, or party composition specifics, all elements needed to prepare a successful attack on U.S. personnel. In addition to the individual losses, the enemy could easily exploit any successful attack against key U.S. lawmakers for propaganda purposes, possibly extending the conflicts. "To this end, CODELs or staffdels should not communicate — via any means — their movements in advance of the trip, communicate their current locations, or communicate future movements or method of movements while in the AOR (area of responsibility) . . . Again, DoD's goal is to ensure members are offered the opportunity to present their initial observations in the combat zone while ensuring the safety of everyone in the traveling party and those who are supporting the group." In other words, congressmen shouldn't be Tweeting about their whereabouts or where they are heading in a combat zone. And if they do want to make public statements — including live press conferences — those should be coordinated with military officials. But Olbermann is wrong to characterize the delegation's trip as a "top-secret mission to Iraq." The term "top-secret" means something in military and government circles. There is a hierarchy of classified information, beginning with "confidential," graduating to "secret," "top-secret" and "special classified information." You need varying levels of security clearance in order to be privy to classified information. This trip was none of those. But more to the point, "top-secret mission to Iraq" conjures images of rifle-toting troops on a highly sensitive military operation. This wasn't a military mission, it was a congressional visit. In fact, many in the news media knew about the trip, but just agreed to keep it embargoed. Hoekstra's staff knew about it. His wife knew about it. "We're not talking about something that was classified," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. "Not at all. Top-secret? No. We see these reported all the time in the press." So Olbermann hasn't just exaggerated, he's incorrectly described the visit as a "top-secret mission." Without knowing the background, you might think Hoekstra spilled the beans on some covert military operation. We rule Olbermann's statement False.	None	Keith Olbermann	None	None	None	2009-06-24T13:34:11	2009-06-18	['Iraq']
-pomt-14615	"Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/31/ted-cruz/ted-cruzs-false-claim-trump-clinton-and-sanders-ha/	One day before the Iowa caucus, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas slammed Republican rival Donald Trump on NBC’s Meet the Press by lumping him in with the Democrats. "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care," Cruz said on Jan. 31. "Which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor." Trump, who’s leading Cruz by almost six points in Iowa, called Cruz a liar on ABC’s This Week. But is Cruz right that the Republican front runner has the health care plan as the two leading Democrats? Not exactly. Trump, Clinton and Sanders all seem to support one particular health care policy: allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. Beyond that specific proposal, however, the three candidates’ overarching positions on health care are not at all "identical" and, one could argue, actually contradictory. Let’s examine each candidate’s health care plan, starting with Sanders'. Sanders’ single-payer system One of the central platforms of Sanders’ agenda is his proposal for universal health care under a single-payer system. Sanders seeks to expand Medicare — the health safety net that covers those over 65 — to all Americans. The plan, which is described in detail on Sanders’ website, "will cover the entire continuum of health care." "As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card," the proposal reads. "Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges." To pay for the $1.38 trillion plan, Sanders is proposing a 6.2 percent payroll tax, a 2.2 percent income-based premium tax and a slew of taxes for higher income households. Sanders argues that a single-payer system would give the government leverage to trim administrative costs and drug prices. But it’s not clear those significant tax increases and cost reductions would cover the costs of his plan. Clinton to defend Obamacare Clinton, who says single-payer "will never, ever come to pass," proposes instead to hold up and build upon the Affordable Care Act. According to her website, Clinton will defend President Barack Obama’s 2010 landmark health care law, also called Obamacare, from efforts to repeal it. She also wants to expand health care access for rural Americans and work to lower the costs of deductibles, copays and prescription drugs. Specifically, she proposes: • Exempting three doctor's visits per year from deductibles; • Providing a refundable tax credit (up to $2,500 for individuals, $5,000 for families) for Americans whose out-of-pocket health care expenses are more than 5 percent of their income; • Blocking or modifying unreasonable insurance rate hikes. Trump’s ambiguous plan Trump, who once voiced admiration for single-payer, has yet to release a health care plan or propose anything beyond vague suggestions. But Trump consistently has said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act — a position contradicting Clinton’s vow. Obamacare would be replaced with "something terrific" that "takes care of everybody," Trump promises but swears now that it wouldn’t be a single-payer system — a position antithetical to Sanders’ plan. What that "something terrific" would actually look like is unclear. His comments over the past few months suggests he’s been adding to a grab bag of sometimes contradictory ideas. Trump has suggested a health care system in which insurance companies deemed financially stable can offer plans across state lines. He’s also advocated for the government to negotiate with hospitals and drug companies for lower prices and to provide coverage for lower income Americans. Here are some examples of what he’s proposed: • Jan. 31, 2016, This Week: "We're going to work with our hospitals. We're going to work with our doctors. We've got to do something. …But that's not single payer and as far as Obamacare is concerned, one of the staples of my speech — and you can ask any of my many supporters — is repeal and replace Obamacare. It's a disaster. • Jan. 25, 2016, Farmington, N.H., rally: "Drugs, with Medicare — they don’t bid them out, they don’t bid them out. They pay like this wholesale incredible number. They say like $300 billion could be saved if we bid them out. We don’t do it. Why? Because of the drug companies, folks." • Oct. 25, 2015, This Week: "I'm okay with the (health) savings accounts. I think it's a good idea; it's a very down-the-middle idea. It works. It's something that's proven. The one thing we have to do is repeal and replace Obamacare. It is a disaster." • Oct. 14, 2015, WHO Radio: "If we get rid of the artificial lines drawn around each state and companies from Iowa can bid in New York … you’ll get these great plans. And the only thing the government should be involved in is they have to be really solvent companies in case there’s a catastrophic event or whatever. As far as the other group, as far as what we can do, I don’t want to see people doing in the streets." • Sept. 27, 2015, 60 Minutes: "Obamacare's going to be repealed and replaced. ...I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now. ...The government's going to pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most part, it's going to be a private plan, and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition, with lots of competitors, with great companies, and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything." Our ruling Cruz said, "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have the identical position on health care, which is they want to put the government in charge of you and your doctor." While Trump, Clinton and Sanders have all proposed to reduce prescription drug prices, that one policy is a far cry from having "the identical position on health care." Cruz’s description of that position (putting the government in charge of you and your doctor) can only reasonably be applied to Sanders’ single-payer system. Clinton has proposed specific ways to defend and expand Obama’s health care law. Trump, whose exact plan is unclear, has said repeatedly that he’d repeal and replace Obamacare with a market-based alternative. To suggest that Trump, Clinton and Sanders have the same health care proposal is inaccurate. There are many specific differences between the three plans. We rate Cruz’s statement False.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2016-01-31T16:16:16	2016-01-31	['Bernie_Sanders', 'Donald_Trump', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-tron-01154	The faith of Atlanta hostage Ashley Smith	https://www.truthorfiction.com/ashley-smith/	None	crime-police	None	None	None	The faith of Atlanta hostage Ashley Smith	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Atlanta']
-pomt-04222	Says President Barack Obama "did not come into office with the economy in a free fall."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/26/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-says-economy-was-not-free-fall-whe/	The nation’s persistent unemployment and weak job growth were a focus of the 2012 presidential campaign, with Republicans arguing the problems showed flaws in how President Barack Obama tackled the economy. In many ways, the Democratic argument was previewed more than a year before the election, when strategist David Axelrod described the situation Obama walked into: "I think he came to office at a time of tremendous challenge in this country," Axelrod said. "The economy was in free fall and we had two wars and someone said to me the other day, ‘You know his slogan should be GM is alive and bin Laden is dead.’ " We thought of that statement when we heard this one from first-term Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson: "The reason we're not creating those jobs is because of the choices, the policies, that President Obama took," he said in an Oct. 10, 2012 appearance on CNN’s "Starting Point" show. "You know, because here is the fact: he did not come into office with the economy in a free fall." Johnson continued: "We were losing jobs, but the fact is, within two months, we entered the second quarter, we only lost 0.7 percent GDP (Gross Domestic Product). But the economy bottomed out and then we started recovery the third quarter." The show’s host, Soledad O’Brien, asked Johnson: "You don't think the economy was in free fall then?" Johnson responded: "No. The economy began to recover in the third quarter. It'd basically flattened out by the second quarter and it actually grew close to 4 percent the next three quarters. But then President Obama's policies took effect and they started scaring consumers and business owners and as a result the economy totally stalled." While the comment came before the election, with Obama’s win it seems relevant to take a look at where things stood when he started. The numbers The National Bureau of Economic Research determined that the recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009. So there’s no argument that Obama took office while the economy was in the midst of the downturn. Matters worsened in the fall of 2008, before he took office, when credit markets seized up and companies and consumers found it virtually impossible to borrow money. The housing crisis accelerated, and job losses escalated dramatically. One barometer of the economy is an index of 85 economic indicators compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. A reading less than zero means below average growth. In January of 2009, the Chicago Fed index was -3.99, the lowest level reached during the months of the recession. Graphically, it’s the point on the bottom of a deep V shape. Another measure is unemployment. The Labor Department said that in December 2008, the economy lost 661,000 non-farm jobs, in January 2009, that number reached 818,000. Finally, there’s the Gross Domestic Product, a broader, quarterly measure of the economy. The change in GDP for the last three months of 2008 was -8.9 percent, and for the first three months of 2009 it was -6.7 percent. Of course, that figure includes more than the month of January. Johnson’s case When we asked Johnson about his statement, he did not dispute any of those numbers. Rather, he said, they prove his point. "Yes we had a severe recession," he said. "But by the time the president started governing, that recession had pretty much bottomed out." Johnson noted that many important economic indicators don’t function in real time -- they lag behind actual activity. That means that the Obama’s actions had little immediate impact on the economy, and when they were reflected, they showed a drag on the recovery. "The economy began to recover in the third quarter," he said. "It has basically flattened out by the second quarter. And it actually grew close to 4 percent in the next three quarters. But then President Obama’s policies took effect and started scaring consumers and business owners. And as a result, the economy totally stalled." Other views Brian Jacobsen, chief portfolio strategist for Wells Fargo Funds Management in Menomonee Falls and an associate professor at Wisconsin Lutheran College, said the "free fall" characterization was a poor analogy to choose. "It's probably more fair to simply say things were bad and to leave it at that," he said in an email. "The economy isn't a ball hurtling through space. It's not an engine that runs out of a gas. It is not a ship that needs steering. These are all analogies that can be useful and colorful at times, but like all analogies, they have their limits." Jacobsen added: "In short, I'd say that Ron Johnson was literally correct: The economy was not in free fall. It was bad and many people probably didn't know whether things were going to get better or much worse. In hindsight, we now know that things continued to ‘go down hill,’ but wasn't dropping like a rock." Aldo Laurenti, deputy chief economist for Mesirow Financial, noted that stock market losses in the fall of 2008 continued into 2009. "The Dow lost about 400 points in January 2009, following losses on the tunes of 2,100 points in October 2008 and another 1,000 in the two central weeks in November 2008,"he wrote in an email. Laurenti said that the decline in gross domestic product was $313 billion in the last quarter of 2008, and $153 billion in the first quarter of 2009. Households lost assets of $2.4 trillion in that period of 2009, "after losing a shocking $12.7 trillion for the whole year 2008," he said. Those assets included financial holdings, and also property, including real estate. Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody’s Analytics, wrote about the housing part of the downturn in September 2012. He noted: "The Obama administration deserves credit for quickly ending the housing free fall. In particular, Obama empowered the Federal Housing Administration to ensure that households could find mortgages at low interest rates even during the worst phase of the financial panic. When banks were making few loans of any kind, mortgage borrowers could still obtain credit because of the FHA." Let’s add it up. Johnson disputed Obama’s assertion that the economy was in "free fall" when he took office. Was the economy plunging downward, hit bottom, or had it hit and was on the upswing? As Jacobsen notes, it’s hard to call January 2009 a time of free fall in a technical sense. Cratered might have been a better way for Team Obama to describe it. Johnson is correct on the lagging nature of economic indicators and agrees that the economy was in rough shape at the time. We rate his claim Half True.	None	Ron Johnson	None	None	None	2012-11-26T09:00:00	2012-10-10	['None']
-pose-00799	Will "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes."	https://www.politifact.com/texas/promises/perry-o-meter/promise/830/oppose-and-veto-tax-increases/	None	perry-o-meter	Rick Perry	None	None	Oppose and veto tax increases	2011-01-13T12:33:38	None	['None']
-pomt-11072	Says May 2018 marked the 401st straight month of global temperatures exceeding the 20th century average.	/texas/statements/2018/jun/20/jim-spencer/jim-spencer-may-2018-marked-401st-month-global-tem/	A reader inquired about an Austin weathercaster saying the planet has sweltered through hundreds of months of consecutive record temperatures. "Last week, Jim Spencer said during his weather forecast that record-breaking heat has been going on for over 400 months," the reader said by email. KXAN-TV’s Spencer, the reader said, had called April 2018 the 400th straight month with global temperatures above the 20th century average and that when May data was official, that would mark month 401, the reader said. We didn’t track down such a broadcast. But when we asked Spencer about making the statement, he pointed by email to his June 18, 2018, blog post stating that May 2018 "marks the 42nd consecutive May and the 401st consecutive month with" global land and ocean "temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average." All those months? We launched this fact-check. NOAA conclusion Spencer told us he relied on information posted online the day of his post by the National Centers for Environmental Information, which is in the authoritative National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. According to the centers, the report, "Assessing the Global Climate in May 2018," was developed by its scientists as "part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides to government, business, academia and the public to support informed decision-making." In May 2018, the assessment states, Earth’s temperature across global land and ocean surfaces ran 1.44 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 58.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The report also says: "The years 2014-2018 rank among the five warmest Mays on record, with 2016 the warmest May at 1.58°F above average. May 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive May and the 401st consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average," the report states. That 20th century average, USA Today said in a May 2018 news story, serves climate scientists as a benchmark for global temperature measurements. That's because it's fixed in time, the story said, "allowing for consistent ‘goal posts’ when reviewing climate data. It's also a sufficiently long period to include several cycles of climate variability." Land temperatures alone, the centers’ assessment says, ran 2.05 degrees Fahrenheit above the comparable 20th century average of 52 degrees Fahrenheit. In May 2018, the report says, record "warmth was observed across parts of North America, Europe and Asia as well as the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. Record cold May temperatures were limited to northeastern Canada and the northern Atlantic Ocean, off the southern coast of Greenland." An accompanying text box says: "As a whole, North America had its highest May temperature since 1998 and the second highest since continental records began in 1910. The contiguous U.S. had its warmest May since records began in 1895." State climatologist For another perspective, we asked John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist based at Texas A&M University, about Spencer’s citation of the global temperature analysis. By email, Nielsen-Gammon credited Spencer with accurately rendering NOAA’s 401-month finding though he also noted that other researchers analyze changes in temperature over time, reaching varied consecutive-month conclusions. Nielsen-Gammon said that in response to our inquiry he checked several other analyses. "NOAA happens to have the longest streak of temperatures above the 20th century average, which may be why that particular statistic seems to be quoted most often with the NOAA data," Nielsen-Gammon wrote. The climatologist said other analysts reported ongoing streaks ranging from 399 months per figures compiled by British researchers to as few as 291 months, according to figures analyzed by Berkeley Earth, a California-based nonprofit. "So speaking scientifically, it has almost certainly been at least 291 consecutive months of global temperatures above the 20th century mean, and probably much longer, with 399 or 401 months being the best estimates," Nielsen-Gammon said. "If you believe the NOAA estimate, it's 401 months." Nielsen-Gammon elaborated: "What this means is that average global temperatures have increased so much that not even natural variability can produce a month colder than the 20th century average, and hasn't been able to do so for some time. The global warming signal is well above the noise level. At this rate, about the only thing strong enough to cancel out global warming for a month would be a volcanic eruption much stronger than Krakatau." Federal official reaffirms 401-month mark We also heard back by email from Derek "Deke" Arndt of the NCEI, who reaffirmed its 401-month finding which, he said, traces to the NOAA Merged Land Ocean Global Surface Temperature Analysis Dataset containing monthly readings all the way back to January 1880. Asked why other researchers have indicated fewer months of global temperatures exceeding the 20th-century average, Arndt said he believes those others draw on different datasets. We also alerted Spencer to the alternate findings of fewer months in a row when the planet’s temperature outpaced the 20th-century average. By email, Spencer noted that Nielsen-Gammon described 399 or 401 months as the best estimates. Our ruling Spencer wrote that May 2018 marked the 401st straight month of global temperatures exceeding the 20th century average. This claim accurately echoes the findings of respected NOAA researchers. Missing: Clarification that other entities have reported fewer consecutive months that this pattern has held, possibly as few as 291 months. We rate Spencer's claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Jim Spencer	None	None	None	2018-06-20T19:16:17	2018-06-18	['None']
-goop-02137	Meghan Markle Pregnant In Engagement Photos, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-pregnant-engagement-photos-baby-bump-prince-harry/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Meghan Markle NOT Pregnant In Engagement Photos, Despite Baby Bump Speculation	1:57 pm, November 27, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-00089	Did Scarlett Johansson Date Bobby Flay?	https://www.gossipcop.com/scarlett-johansson-bobby-flay-date/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Did Scarlett Johansson Date Bobby Flay?	12:00 am, October 25, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02728	Robert Pattinson, FKA Twigs ‘Clashing On Family And Career Plans,’ 	https://www.gossipcop.com/robert-pattinson-fka-twigs-not-clashing-family-career-plans-fake-news-story/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Robert Pattinson, FKA Twigs NOT ‘Clashing On Family And Career Plans,’ Despite Fake News Story	6:57 pm, June 20, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-04632	Under Obama, home values in Florida collapsed, construction jobs were lost and the state had a high foreclosure rate.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-ad-blames-obama-florida-housing-woes/	A new Romney campaign ad poses the "Are you better off?" question to a particularly hard-hit population: Florida homeowners. Against a black and white image of Obama, a narrator says, "Here in Florida, we’re not better off under President Obama. Home values collapsed, home construction jobs lost, high rate of foreclosure." Mitt Romney, the ad promises, will provide an antidote to all these ills: alternatives to foreclosure, an end to the mortgage lending freeze and 700,000 new jobs for Florida. (We contacted both campaigns for comment on the ad, but didn't hear back.) In a state where homes lost more than half their value in the recession, it’s a handy line of attack. But we found that the claim -- faulting Obama for depressed house values, lost jobs and high foreclosures -- oversimplifies a problem with many layers and puts too much blame on the president for a crisis that began before he took office. 'Home values collapsed' We’ll start by examining home values. The ad cited Zillow, a real estate website, as backup for the claim. We talked to their head economist, Stan Humphries, who shared some interesting statistics. Home values in Florida began rising in earnest in 2003 and 2004. That accelerated through 2005, hitting a peak in May 2006. The median home value in Florida that month: $257,800. Since that time, the median value has plummeted by 51.2 percent through July 2012, to $125,700. So yes, home values have declined during Obama’s term. But there’s more to the story. Humphries pointed out that the decline under Obama so far amounts to 22.3 percent. Under his predecessor, George W. Bush, Florida home values fell 35.5 percent. "More of those declines happened on Bush’s watch than on Obama’s watch," Humphries said. Here’s another thing to note about the Obama years: Home values in Florida bottomed out in October 2011. (Median price: $122,400). They’ve been climbing since, and in the past year they inched up 1.3 percent. Zillow forecasts an appreciation rate of 6 percent in Miami, 2.3 percent in Tampa and 2.8 percent in Orlando. That’s better than the expectation for the nation as a whole, Humphries said. 'Home construction jobs lost' For data on construction jobs, we turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the past decade, construction jobs in Florida enjoyed steady growth, hitting a peak in June 2006 of 691,900. They began to steadily decline at that point, shedding 100,000 jobs by October of 2007 and another 100,000 by September 2008. The most recent jobs figure is for July 2012: 308,800. But a closer look at those numbers reveals this: • Jobs lost from the peak until Obama took office: 231,000 • Jobs lost since he took office: 138,200 Notice too that the timeline for construction layoffs parallels the decline of home values -- a peak in mid 2006, followed by a steady drop-off. "When housing prices started to fall, (there was) no need to build new homes," said Ken Thomas, an independent bank consultant and economist in Miami. "It was the housing crisis, the collapse of the housing bubble, that basically did in the construction workers." 'High rate of foreclosure' According to RealtyTrac, a website that collects and tracks foreclosure data, the Florida foreclosure wave crashed ashore about a year after home values collapsed. In May 2006 (the month home values peaked), Florida had 7,455 new foreclosure filings. In May 2007, that figure leapt to 17,000, a 128 percent increase. Filings didn’t slow down for a long time. Several months in 2009 saw more than 30,000 new cases. Only in mid 2010, when the robo-signing scandal among banks came to light, was there a noticeable drop-off. Banks ceased new filings as they re-assessed their practices. And since then? Foreclosures are on the way up again. RealtyTrac found that Florida’s foreclosure rate in August 2012 jumped to second highest in the country, with 14,726 new filings. That means one in every 328 housing units under a foreclosure notice. Here's how the foreclosures appear relative to Obama: • From May 2007 (beginning of the increase) to January 2009 (when he took office): 519,977 new filings • From February 2009 (his first full month in office) to August 2012: 866,938 new filings "Unlike other foreclosure cycles in the past, this wasn’t the result of a bad economy. It was the excesses in the housing market in terms of prices and overbuilding," said Daren Blomquist, vice president at RealtyTrac. Added Humphries: "The foreclosure rates are a natural consequence of home value loss of 50 percent. That leaves a huge amount of negative equity. That is what fuels a lot of foreclosures." Blame game So who’s a weary homeowner to blame? Here’s Ken Harney, a syndicated real estate columnist: "Blaming Obama for property value declines that were underway during the Bush administration, and caused in part by financial regulators who were asleep in the cockpit during the Bush years, is ridiculous," Harney told PolitiFact. "The Obama administration is open to criticism for the poorly designed, timid and poorly executed foreclosure-prevention and loan modification efforts it created following the housing bust, but had nothing to do with the underlying problems that took down Florida's hyperinflated property values." So while it’s clear Obama didn’t cause these troubles, what did he do to fix them? As we’ve previously reported, he pursued a number of remedies, with only modest success. The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, which Obama signed in 2009, makes it a federal crime to make a materially false statement on a mortgage application or to willfully overvalue a property to influence any action by a mortgage lending business. PolitiFact's Obameter gave that a Promise Kept on our Obameter. And new standards for helping people understand their mortgage were included in the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul passed in 2010, another Promise Kept. But he's had limited success with efforts that would have provided the most help to homeowners. A temporary foreclosure moratorium in early 2009 halted filings while banks waited for the new administration to get its plan in place to address the crisis. It’s not clear, though, that it ultimately kept many people out of foreclosure. Analysts say a change in bankruptcy law that Obama sought to allow judges to modify individual loans could have made a significant difference, but it died in Congress. A foreclosure prevention fund was the heart of Obama’s promise. He originally pledged $10 billion but ended up setting aside $75 billion, using TARP funds. He predicted the money would assist 9 million homeowners. But after three years, far fewer have won permanent mortgage help. We rated that Promise Broken. Our ruling Romney’s ad claims that under Obama, home values in Florida collapsed, construction jobs were lost and the state’s foreclosure rate soared. This much is true: The median home value in Florida has dropped by more than half; 300,000-plus construction jobs have disappeared and the Sunshine State continues to rack up a large number of foreclosure filings. But each one of those trends began well before Obama was elected. Analysts say they have been driven by a natural and inevitable market correction much more than by any government policies. But since the ad draws a cause/effect relationship -- the cause being Obama’s presidency, the effect being a sour housing market -- it’s worth noting that more of the decline in home values happened on Bush’s watch, and in the last year Florida housing has again begun to appreciate. At PolitiFact, claims that cite a true statistic but apply misplaced blame on a politician or office holder are commonly rated Half True. We think this three-part claim stretches the truth even further. Homeowners in Florida who have watched their property value sink and their neighbors’ houses abandoned in foreclosure know this didn’t start when Obama walked into the White House. They’re in at least year seven of this grim reality. Romney’s ad leaves out many critical facts to create a misleading impression. We rate it Mostly False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2012-09-14T10:11:04	2012-09-07	['None']
-pomt-00302	Says he "did not try to leave the scene of the accident" that led to his arrest for driving while intoxicated.	/texas/statements/2018/sep/25/beto-orourke/beto-orourke-claim-he-didnt-try-leave-drunk-drivin/	Nearly a month after a police report surfaced on his 1998 arrest for driving while intoxicated, Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Beto O’Rourke fielded a follow-up question during his Sept. 21, 2018 debate with Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Gromer Jeffers of the Dallas Morning News said to O’Rourke: "You have addressed your 1998 DWI arrest numerous times during your public career. But not this question: As the Houston Chronicle pointed out recently, a witness said in that accident that you tried to leave the scene of the accident. Did you and should voters be concerned about this incident?" O’Rourke replied at the Southern Methodist University debate: "I did not try to leave the scene of the accident--though driving drunk, which I did, is a terrible mistake for which there is no excuse or justification or defense and I will not try to provide one. I can only tell you that I was able to have a second chance in my life." O’Rourke went on to tick-tock his subsequent opening of a business with friends in his hometown of El Paso where, he said, he met his wife with whom he’s raising three children. Also, O’Rourke said, he won election to the El Paso City Council and, in 2012, to the U.S. House, which he’s leaving after this year. "I made the most that I could with my second choice and my opportunity," O’Rourke said. Readers asked us if O’Rourke tried to leave the scene of his accident and arrest. Houston Chronicle news story cites police report The Chronicle, in an Aug. 30, 2018, news story, said a police report shows that the incident was a more serious threat to public safety than previously reported. The newspaper, citing the report, said that O’Rourke was driving drunk at what a witness called "a high rate of speed" in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile east of the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median. The story said that the witness, described as stopping at the scene, later told police that O’Rourke had tried to leave the scene. The report, the story says, refers to an unnamed "motorist’s description of O’Rourke’s dark-colored Volvo passing him quickly about 3 a.m. on I-10." The story says that O'Rourke reportedly struck a truck going in the same direction and crossed a grassy median into the opposite lanes. The story says that according to the police report, "O’Rourke then attempted to leave the scene but was stopped by the same motorist he had just passed. The unidentified motorist ‘then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and to try to get the defendant (O’Rourke) to stop,’ the report says." The story says that O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time. He was arrested at the scene, the story said, and charged with DWI, but completed a court-approved diversion program and had the charges dismissed, post-arrest developments we confirmed for a previous fact-check confirming the September 1998 arrest and a previous one, when O’Rourke was a college student, for getting past a fence to enter the University of Texas at El Paso campus in the wee hours. Police agency confirms report's authenticity By email, we asked the Anthony Police Department to review the 12-page partially-redacted police report posted next to the Chronicle story. In response, a department officer, Linda Hartt-Goggin, said the posted report "appears to be a true redacted copy of the original report." Hartt-Goggin said by phone she couldn’t find the department’s report on the accident itself. She speculated that it was lost when a room was flooded. According to APD Investigator Richard Carrera’s report, filed three days after the accident, O’Rourke said after his 3 a.m. arrest that he’d been driving to Los Alamos in New Mexico. The officer’s report says that he met at the scene with a witness--called the "reporter" in Carrera’s report--and his partner, the driver of "the American Medical ambulance." By phone, Hartt-Goggin told us the ambulance company serves private clients out of Las Cruces, NM. Our attempts to reach a Las Cruces official with American Medical Response, a Colorado-based company, didn’t draw an immediate response. Carrera’s report says the witness said that he initially saw a green Volvo pass his vehicle at a high rate of speed westbound on I-10. "The vehicle then lost control moments later and struck a truck traveling the same direction," the report says. "After the driver/defendant struck the truck, it sent the defendant’s vehicle across the center median and to a complete stop facing east bound," the report says. "The defendant/driver then attempted to leave the scene," the report says. But the witness "turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and to get the defendant to stop." The report says that when the officer engaged O’Rourke in conversation, he wasn’t understandable due to slurred speech. The report says the officer asked O’Rourke to step out of the vehicle and "upon doing so the defendant almost fell to the floor," the report says. Separately, the Austin American-Statesman asked the Texas Department of Public Safety for agency reports on file about the incident. M.L. Calcote said in a September 2018 letter sent by email that the agency didn’t have responsive records. O'Rourke stands by debate statement We asked O’Rourke’s campaign about the witness telling Carrera that O’Rourke tried to leave the accident scene. By email, Chris Evans said O’Rourke stands by what he said at the debate about not trying to leave. Evans noted that the "police report shows he was arrested for a DWI, not for leaving or attempting to leave the scene." Our ruling O’Rourke said he didn’t try to leave the scene of his 1998 DWI accident and arrest. Records indicate O’Rourke was arrested at the scene and wasn’t charged with trying to flee. But the September 1998 Anthony Police Department report on the incident says a witness said O’Rourke tried to leave the scene before police arrived and the witness kept him from doing so. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Beto O'Rourke	None	None	None	2018-09-25T18:09:13	2018-09-21	['None']
-tron-01936	How Bikers Handle PETA Protesters	https://www.truthorfiction.com/peta-biker-protester/	None	humorous	None	None	None	How Bikers Handle PETA Protesters	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-thet-00080	Could Scotland hold a second referendum without Westminster’s permission?	https://theferret.scot/can-scotland-hold-second-referendum-without-westminsters-permission/	None	Fact check 	None	None	None	Could Scotland hold a second referendum without Westminster’s permission?	April 7, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-11645	"Oprah tells Fox News host ‘all white people have to die.’"	/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/16/americannewscom/oprahs-comments-about-race-2013-bbc-interview-dist/	Oprah Winfrey gave a speech at the Golden Globes Jan. 7 that focused on race, gender, injustice and the importance of speaking the truth, all of which fueled talk about Winfrey running for president in 2020. The speculation has led to numerous claims about her past statements recirculating on Facebook including her alleged comments about white people in 2014: "Oprah tells Fox News host ‘all white people have to die,’ " stated an Oct. 12, 2014, headline on American News. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. We found that the headline distorts what Winfrey said — and where she said it. While the headline said that Oprah made the comment about white people on Fox News, Winfrey’s comments came in an interview with the BBC. Winfrey was interviewed by the BBC’s Will Gompertz on Nov. 13, 2013, to coincide with the release of her film The Butler in which she played Gloria Gaines, the wife of a White House butler. Gompertz asked Winfrey to weigh in about whether racism still exists. Winfrey said that society has evolved on race relations, but there are still places where people are terrorized because they are black. "As long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, the problem is not solved. There is a whole generation -- I said this for apartheid South Africa, I said this for my own community in the south -- there are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in that prejudice and racism and they just have to die." Winfrey’s overall point during the interview is that race relations have improved from decades ago, but there are older people in the United States and other countries who grew up surrounded by racism. The inference of her comments is that when older racists die out, that particular type of racism will die out. Note that Winfrey didn’t say "all white people have to die" — she didn’t say "white people" at all. While some on the left have shown some support for Winfrey’s 2013 statement, her comments drew criticism from conservatives. About a week after her BBC interview, her comments were criticized on Fox News' The Kelly File by former U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., a Fox News commentator. West criticized Winfrey and Obama for trying "to use the race card to talk about the failures and the faults not in his racial content but in the content of his character and the failure of his policies." We emailed American News and did not get a reply. Our ruling A headline on American News said that "Oprah tells Fox News host ‘all white people have to die.’" We found multiple versions of this story circulating with similar headlines. The headline gets key details wrong and twists Winfrey’s words. She did not say that all white people have to die. What Winfrey actually told a BBC interviewer in 2013 was that some older people grew up surrounded by racism. When she said "they just have to die," she seemed to be suggesting that a certain type of racism will have to die out when this generation dies. We rate this claim False. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	AmericanNews.com	None	None	None	2018-01-16T16:33:02	2014-10-12	['Oprah_Winfrey', 'Fox_News_Channel']
-pomt-00507	ISIS reaches "about 100 million people a day" through social media.	/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/25/stanley-mcchrystal/stanley-mcchrystal-isis-reaches-100-million-people/	We’ve analyzed ISIS’s infamous ability to reach people on social media before, and found the claim that ISIS posts 90,000 social media messages each day to be Mostly True. Retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal upped the ante recently on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show. McChrystal, former commander of the U.S. and International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan appeared on Hewitt’s show to discuss his new book, Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. At one point, McChrystal talked about the successes of ISIS's strategy. "ISIS, I think, is a 21st Century manifestation of information technology. Think about their agility on the battlefield … but think about how many people they influence every day with their information operations. They reach about 100 million people a day through various things. They only have (to) recruit a tiny percentage of those to have a real impact." 100 million people? That’s more than the population of Germany. On a daily basis. PunditFact attempted to reach McChrystal through his book publisher, his consultancy and through Twitter but did not hear back. However, according to experts, 100 million seems to be giving ISIS a little too much credit. Earlier this year, PunditFact reached out to J.M Berger, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, to comment on ISIS’s Twitter posts. During that interview, Berger referenced a study he and his colleague, Jonathon Morgan, had been working on. Since then, the full study has been published. In the ISIS Twitter Census, Berger and Morgan uncovered an estimated 46,000 Twitter accounts tied to ISIS supporters. These accounts were found in a time period from September to December 2014. The study also includes that each account had an average of 1,004 followers. In PunditFact’s previous article, Berger placed the estimated total number of tweets per day at about 200,000 (including retweets). In theory, if ISIS-backed accounts sent up to 200,000 tweets a day, and each went to 1,000 people, that would be more than 200 million people reached. But that’s not how it works. For starters, many of the followers overlap. Second, just because someone posts a tweet doesn’t mean it reaches every follower. Lastly, Twitter has been trying to identify and suspend ISIS-supported accounts. The New York Times reported in April that Twitter had suspended 10,000 ISIS accounts "for tweeting violent threats." "A whole lot of those followers overlap, so you can't draw a really reliable conclusion," Berger said. "Also that data is from October, and tens of thousands of accounts have been suspended since then. The numbers are wildly different now." VOICES from the Blogs, a spin-off of the University of Milan, also confirms this. In its study, Luigi Curini, associate professor of political science, Stefano M. Iacus, professor of probability and mathematical statistics and Andrea Ceron, assistant professor of political science, have tracked "the aggregate level (of) sentiment toward ISIS by monitoring (Twitter) posts written in Arabic language." "Assuming that the followers of each ISIS Twitter account are completely unrelated to each other ... is quite unrealistic," said Curini. Curini also pointed to the importance of considering the content of the tweets issued by these accounts. "Some of those tweets are jokes, personal conversations, or contain content that does not express any opinion. That is, not all the 100,000 to 200,000 tweets per day on average are tweets of ‘ISIS propaganda.’ " Berger also acknowledges that not all tweets influence people. He describes a metric called "impressions," which are a count of "how many people have a message cross their timeline or how many times a message is otherwise seen or glimpsed. "It is feasible that ISIS could rack up to 100 million impressions a day, but it's not certain. … Scoring an impression is not the same thing as reaching or influencing an audience member," Berger said, "but impressions are how people discover content, so they do count for something. But not necessarily a one-to-one impact; impressions can include the same person returning to content repeatedly." So not only do followers’ accounts overlap, but the content of messages might not even leave an impact the user who sees it. McChrystal, in his quotation, seemed to be talking about the actual influence ISIS exerts via social media. But what about other social media accounts? "ISIS has a presence on virtually every social media network that is worth having a presence on, including but not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Tumblr, VKontakte and Google Plus, in significant numbers. They even pop up with the occasional odd account on LinkedIn," said Berger. Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be data available yet to measure just how much of an impact ISIS has on these other sites. "Getting data on the presence of ISIS supporters on other social networks is for a number of reasons more complex," said Curini. "According to our monitoring (of Arabic public profiles), Twitter weights between 80 percent to 90 percent of the total presence of ISIS discussion on the net. And we also know that on the other channels on the net, the average support for ISIS is considerably less than on Twitter." Our ruling McChrystal said ISIS reaches "about 100 million people a day through various things." ISIS certainly has taken its war to social media, and experts agree that their strategy has some bite. But saying ISIS social media posts reach 100 million people a day is, at best, a high-end guesstimate, researchers say. And there are lots of caveats to consider. Thousands of ISIS social media accounts have been shut down in recent months. Followers of ISIS accounts often overlap. And not all the messages sent actually reach every follower, or leave a lasting impression. McChrystal’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate it Half True.	None	Stanley McChrystal	None	None	None	2015-06-25T11:11:46	2015-06-12	['None']
-snes-04415	Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that the family's greenskeeper missed his own sister's wedding in order to work for the Trumps.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-jr-tweet/	None	Politicians	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Donald Trump Jr.: Our Greenskeeper Skipped His Sister’s Wedding	19 July 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02411	Meg Ryan In “Anorexia Horror,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/meg-ryan-anorexic/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Meg Ryan NOT In “Anorexia Horror,” Despite Report	3:00 pm, September 28, 2017	None	['None']
-tron-00260	McDonald’s Fries Contain Dimethylpolysiloxane	https://www.truthorfiction.com/mcdonalds-fries-contain-dimethylpolysiloxane/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	McDonald’s Fries Contain Dimethylpolysiloxane – Truth!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-chct-00019	FACT CHECK: Trump Flew To Texas To Hold A Rally For Ted Cruz - Here Are 3 Checks On Their Claims	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/10/23/fact-check-trump-texas-rally/	None	None	None	Brad Sylvester | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	2:22 PM 10/23/2018	None	['Ted_Cruz', 'Texas']
-hoer-01068	Jeep Grand Cherokee Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/jeep-grand-cherokee-giveaway-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Jeep Grand Cherokee Giveaway Facebook Scam	November 20, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-11051	Says Hillary Clinton once "supported a border wall until she ran for president in 2016."	/punditfact/statements/2018/jun/27/cal-thomas/did-hillary-clinton-support-border-wall-mexico/	As President Donald Trump continues to press an aggressive border enforcement policy, some conservatives have said Democrats’ expression of sympathy for children separated from their parents is a more about political expediency than sincere concern. As evidence of Democrats’ calculating approach to immigration, syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas argued Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton supported a border wall prior to her 2016 White House bid, when "build the wall" became a Trump rallying cry. "Need proof that the current controversy over children of undocumented immigrants is more political than humanitarian?" Thomas wrote June 20. "Hillary Clinton said she was ‘adamantly against illegal immigrants’ and supported a border wall until she ran for president in 2016." We decided to revisit Clinton’s record to see if she once backed a wall along the lines of what Trump proposed during the election. We found that while Clinton supported more border security, the plans back then were not the kind of wall Trump has proposed, and Trump himself said that what Clinton supported was inadequate. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 Thomas’ column linked to a video clip of Clinton discussing her voting record on immigration while a senator. "I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in," Clinton told an audience at a campaign stop Nov. 9, 2015. "And I do think you have to control your borders." Clinton voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which President George W. Bush signed after the measure cleared the Republican-held Congress. It authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico. The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles. Then-Sen. Clinton voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19. (Notably, then-Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer voted for it, too.) Originally, the act called on the Department of Homeland Security to install at least two layers of reinforced fencing along some stretches of the border. That was amended later, however, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which got rid of the double-layer requirement. Fence versus wall So how does the fence-building measure Clinton supported compare to Trump’s wall? For her part, Clinton sought to distinguish the two after TV news anchor Jorge Ramos put the question to her at a campaign event. "What is the difference between your idea and Donald Trump’s idea on building a wall with Mexico?" Ramos asked at the Jan. 11, 2016 Iowa Black and Brown Forum. "So we do need to have secure borders and what that will take is a combination of technology and physical barrier," Clinton said. "You want a wall then," Ramos interjected. "No, we’ve —" she said. "You said that," he said. "Well, I voted for border security, and some of it was a fence," Clinton said. "I don’t think we ever called it a wall. Maybe in some places it was a wall." On one hand, the differences in semantics between a wall and a fence may not seem too significant because both block people. However, there are significant differences between the fence Clinton voted for, and the wall Trump pitched during the campaign, which he promised would be an impenetrable, physical, tall and "beautiful" wall that Mexico would pay for. The plans Trump articulated for the wall during the campaign were somewhat vague and inconsistent. He said the wall didn't need to run the nearly 2,000 miles of the border, but about 1,000 miles because of natural barriers. He said it could cost between $8 billion and $12 billion, be made of precast concrete, and rise 35 to 40 feet, or 50 feet, or higher. In any case, Trump himself criticized the 2006 fence as too modest during the 2016 election. "Now we got lucky because it was such a little wall, it was such a nothing wall, no, they couldn't get their environmental -- probably a snake was in the way or a toad," Trump said. (Actually, the project didn’t face environmental hurdles; we rated that part of the claim Mostly False.) Our ruling Thomas said that Clinton "supported a border wall until she ran for president in 2016." Clinton did vote for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. But the fence she voted for is not as substantial as the wall Trump proposed. Trump himself called the 2006 fence a "nothing wall." Thomas’ statement is partially accurate, but ignores important context. We rate it Half True.	None	Cal Thomas	None	None	None	2018-06-27T10:57:26	2018-06-20	['None']
-pomt-02466	"Most folks’ wages haven’t gone up in over a decade."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/feb/23/barack-obama/even-adjusting-inflation-most-americans-havent-see/	After giving his fifth State of the Union address, President Barack Obama hit the road. One of his first stops was a GE gas engines plant in Waukesha, a city about 20 miles west of Milwaukee. In both the House chamber and on the factory floor, the president insisted that over the past four years, corporate profits and stock prices soared while wages fluttered. In the State of the Union, Obama claimed that "average wages have barely budged." PolitiFact National rated his statement True, finding the average had risen no more than 1.7 percent above inflation from 2008 to 2012. In Waukesha on Jan. 30, 2014, the president alluded to a slightly different statistic and was more bold. He said: "Because the truth is -- and you know this in your own lives, and you see it in your neighborhoods among your friends and family -- even though the economy has been growing for four years, even though corporate profits have been doing very well, stock prices have soared, most folks' wages haven't gone up in over a decade." We wondered: Even taking inflation into account, is it true the majority of Americans haven’t seen their wages increase in more than 10 years? Obama’s evidence Income inequality was a big topic in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union. So, one thing to make clear upfront is that in his Wisconsin remarks, the president singled out wages -- the paycheck you get from your job. That’s a narrower category than income, which can include money taken in from other sources such as investments or government benefits. When we asked for evidence to back the president’s wages claim, a White House spokesman cited a database from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the median weekly earnings for full-time workers in the final quarter of each year from 1999 through 2013. The median wage means half of workers earned more than that amount and half earned less. From the database, we assembled the following table. The wage figures are adjusted for inflation. Year Weekly wages, 4th quarter of each year 1999 $335 2000 334 2001 340 2002 336 2003 337 2004 337 2005 332 2006 337 2007 332 2008 340 2009 344 2010 341 2011 335 2012 334 2013 334 So, the inflation-adjusted median wage during the final quarter of 2013 was $334 -- $1 lower than during the final quarter of 1999, more than a decade earlier. However, the table also shows that the median wage went up in some years and down in others during the period cited by the president. It was as high as $344 and as low as $332. Outside experts We put Obama’s claim and the database to four experts: economist Aparna Mathur of the conservative American Enterprise Institute; economist Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan; Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance research director Dale Knapp. They agreed that it’s not possible to track the wages of actual individuals over a period of more than a decade, and so it can’t be known whether most of them had a higher wage in 2013 than in 2009. But the experts also agreed the median wage figure cited by The White House is the best available. As Steuerle told us: "Looking at the median tells us what is happening across the economy, but not what is happening to each individual worker over time." Two other points, neither of which bears directly on the accuracy of Obama’s wage claim: Mathur said the broader measure of income gives a better picture of the standard of living of low- and moderate-income people, since it includes assistance such as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. And Tanner said total compensation, including things such as health and retirement benefits, has risen in recent years even if wages haven’t. Our rating Obama said: "Most folks’ wages haven’t gone up in over a decade." It’s not possible to know, considering all Americans, whether most of them saw a wage increase in the period cited by the president. But he cites the best-available figure, which shows the median weekly wage, adjusted for inflation, was $1 less at the end of 2013 than it was in 1999. We rate the president’s statement Mostly True. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2014-02-23T05:00:00	2014-01-30	['None']
-pomt-11423	Shoes on the Capitol lawn represent 7,182 students who were killed in U.S. schools since 2012.	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/16/blog-posting/facebook-post-incorrectly-says-7182-students-were-/	Thousands of pairs of shoes dotted the lawn of the U.S. Capitol this week, prompting photos and media coverage about what it meant. Global activist group Avaaz set up the demonstration of 7,000 pairs of shoes on March 13 to represent child deaths from gun violence since the 2012 Sandy Hook school massacre. Many major news outlets including CNN and USA Today shared striking images of the shoes, but some Internet bloggers were confused about what the shoes really symbolized. Take, for example, Equality House, one of many blogs that shared this post on their Facebook page: See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The image says that shoes on the Capitol lawn represent 7,182 students "killed in U.S. schools since 2012." (The image offers a comparison to deaths from overseas wars since 2001, which is a safer estimate.) But that’s the wrong interpretation. It’s been more than five years since Sandy Hook, so the display featured 7,000 pairs of shoes. That total includes children who are killed at home, in neighborhoods, and by suicide. Far fewer children have been killed in schools. The estimate for 7,000 child gun deaths traces back to a June 2017 study by Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal. It found that 1,300 children die from gunshot wounds every year. The study looked at children from birth to 17 years of age. The Avaaz news release stated that the shoes symbolize the children who have been killed by all gun violence since the Sandy Hook school shooting, not children killed in U.S. schools. There isn’t one uniform way of tracking school shootings and deaths, but no matter which what you look at it, the 7,000-figure isn't accurate. The New York Times published an analysis of the number of people who have been shot in school shootings on Feb. 15, the day after the Parkland school shootings. Using data from the Gun Violence Archive, the Times found that 138 people have been killed in school shootings since Sandy Hook. That total includes school personnel who are not students, so the number of students would be even smaller. The Gun Violence Archive defines a school shooting as an incident that occurs on the property of an elementary, secondary or college campus and only included incidents in which people were injured or killed. So, even if you count all of the other instances of a student being killed on a school campus (for which there is no official count) it’s likely it would not come anywhere near 7,182. Equality House, for its part, noted the difference between the image and the way Avaaz described it in the caption of its post. But the group still circulated the flawed information and did not delete it. Our ruling Bloggers said shoes on the Capitol lawn this week represented 7,182 students killed in U.S. schools since 2012. That’s not accurate. The pairs of shoes symbolized more than 7,000 children who had been killed by gun violence since the Sandy Hook school shooting. The number of children killed in school violence, while fluid, is certainly smaller than that total. We rate this claim False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-03-16T16:17:54	2018-03-14	['United_States']
-pomt-15122	Says Scott Walker rejected legislation to make college loan payments tax deductible and the result was "to raise taxes on students."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/09/hillary-clinton/scott-walker-rejected-bill-make-student-loan-payme/	Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign will make its first stop in the Badger State on Sept. 10, 2015. The visit, with a private fundraiser and a public event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, comes one month to the day after Clinton proposed a 10-year, $350 billion college affordability plan. That plan aims to reduce the cost of four-year public schools, make two-year community colleges tuition-free and cut student loan interest rates. Speaking about the plan the next day, Aug. 11, 2015, the Democratic frontrunner took a swipe at the Republican White House contenders and singled out Gov. Scott Walker. "I think this is a major challenge and I want us to address it. Not one word from the other side," Clinton said during a campaign appearance in New Hampshire. "And you take somebody like Governor Walker of Wisconsin, who seems to be delighting in slashing the investment in higher education in his state." She added: "And most surprisingly to me, rejecting legislation that would have made it tax deductible for you, on your income tax, to deduct the amount of your loan payments. I don't know why he wants to raise taxes on students. But that's the result when you don’t look for ways to help people who are not sitting around asking for something, who are actually working hard every day to get ahead." Some of the national press coverage of her speech focused on the claim. Politico’s headline was: "Hillary accuses Walker of raising taxes on students." The response of Walker’s campaign at the time wasn’t a denial, but rather an emphasis on how he had frozen tuition in Wisconsin for four consecutive years. So, did Walker reject a bill to make college loan payments tax deductible, and in doing so did he raise taxes on students? The legislation Clinton’s campaign didn’t respond to our requests for information to back her statement. But a bill introduced by Democrats in the Wisconsin Legislature in 2013, and two similar measures introduced in 2015, proposed creating a state authority to refinance student loans and allow Wisconsin student loan borrowers to deduct student loan payments from their state income tax. The maximum benefit for the tax deduction was estimated at $531 a year for single filers in top tax brackets and $1,062 for married couples. The 2013 bill was introduced in the GOP-controlled state Senate but died in February 2014 without a vote. Democrats have since tried twice to push the measure forward. In May 2015, as an amendment to the state budget, the measure failed on a party-line vote in the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee. Separate legislation mirroring the 2013 bill also was introduced in June 2015. The bill has been referred to a Senate committee, but no further action has been taken. The state Department of Revenue estimates the deduction would reduce tax revenue to the state by $79.5 million per year. So, a tax deduction measure has never made it to Walker’s desk. Walker’s position As for Walker’s position on the deduction, we addressed that in October 2014 when the liberal Greater Wisconsin Committee stated that Walker "opposed a plan to help Wisconsin students refinance their student loans." The reference was to the Democrats’ 2013 legislation, which included the tax deduction. We rated the claim False. The group contended that since Walker didn’t speak, or take action, in favor of the measure, he opposed it. But as we noted, no votes were ever taken by a committee or the full Legislature, so the bill never reached Walker’s desk. And while Walker didn’t move to advance the bill, we found no evidence that he expressed opposition to it. We also noted that Walker had been quoted as saying he would be willing to look at measures like the Democrats’ refinancing bill, but that he questioned whether the proposal was "more than just politics." "If it was a good idea, I’m sure they would have passed it four years ago when they controlled the Assembly and the Senate and the governorship," Walker said at the time, referring to 2010, when Democrats controlled state government. One of the backers of the legislation, state Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, told us that although Walker has never been asked to approve or reject the measure, his opposition to it is apparent. "It’s pretty clear, if he wants a piece of legislation, it comes to his desk," Larson said. Perhaps. But it's unknown what action Walker might have taken had the bill made it to him. As for the rest of Clinton’s claim, it’s clear that because the tax deduction measure didn’t become law, student loan borrowers didn’t get the benefit of a deduction. But that didn’t mean their taxes were raised as a result, which is what Clinton claimed. Rather, the status quo remained in effect. Inaction means nothing changed, positively or negatively. Our rating Clinton said Walker rejected legislation to make college loan payments tax deductible and the result was "to raise taxes on students." The Republican governor hasn’t stated support for Democratic-sponsored measures that would have provided the tax deduction, but he has never rejected such legislation, either. Since Walker has been in office, the measures have never been approved by the GOP-controlled Legislature and therefore have never been sent to the governor’s desk. Moreover, failing to pass legislation that would have provided a tax deduction doesn’t mean that taxes on student loan borrowers were increased. We rate Clinton’s statement False.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2015-09-09T12:36:34	2015-08-11	['None']
-pomt-04969	"Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-mitt-romney-tax-plan-would-cut/	After a flurry of attack ads in the past two weeks, President Barack Obama this week released a TV ad in which he spoke directly into the camera and discussed how his policy approaches differed from Mitt Romney’s. He cited taxes as one area where they had different philosophies. Obama said, "Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top." We’ll check whether this is an accurate characterization of Romney’s plan. Romney has posted some key elements of his tax plan on his campaign website. Here’s a summary of the provisions for individual taxpayers: • Cut marginal rates by one-fifth on a permanent, across-the-board basis • Eliminate interest, dividend, and capital gains taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income below $200,000 • Eliminate the estate tax • Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax To analyze the Romney tax cut, we turned to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, an independent think tank that evaluates the tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates. The Tax Policy Center looked at two versions of Romney’s tax proposal. We will use the analysis of the more recent of Romney’s two plans, which the group published in March 2012. The Tax Policy Center ran two sets of numbers, one that gives Romney credit for extending the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and for an annual adjustment in the Alternative Minimum Tax and one that doesn't. Under the analysis that gives Romney credit for extending the Bush tax cuts and the AMT, people in each of the 11 income ranges in the center’s study saw a tax cut, with after-tax income increasing by anywhere from 0.3 percent for people who earn less than $10,000 to 19.8 percent for people earning more than $1 million per year. Under the other measurement, which we find is more appropriate, people in eight of the 11 income ranges got cuts -- all except the income ranges below $30,000. For those earning more than that, after-tax income would increase by anywhere from 0.8 percent for those in the $30,000 to $40,000 range to nearly 12 percent for those earning more than $1 million. So Obama is telling part of the story. Yes, there are substantial benefits for people at the top, but he ignores that most people in the middle and lower reaches of the income ladder would benefit as well. Using the calculation that does not give him credit for the Bush and AMT extensions, people earning from $40,000 to $50,000 would see a cut of $512 on average, while taxpayers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 range would see a cut of $1,122. Still, there is support for Obama's point because the Romney tax cuts are tilted toward the wealthy. The biggest winners under Romney’s tax plan are those earning more than $1 million. That group accounts for less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, but would receive 26 to 31 percent of the Romney plan’s tax benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center's calculations. Our ruling Obama is correct that Romney’s plan does indeed cut taxes for high-income Americans -- quite heavily in fact -- but the rich aren’t the only ones who would see a cut. Taxes would be reduced in lower income ranges, too. Still, the plan gives a large share of the benefits to higher income taxpayers. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-07-24T17:56:59	2012-07-23	['None']
-pomt-10578	Hillary Clinton "agreed with (John McCain) on voting for the war in Iraq."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-and-mccain-had-same-vote-on-iraq-war/	Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic contrast to John McCain, the apparent Republican front-runner. In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues. Among Obama's points: "It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq." Obama is referring to the 2002 vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, widely considered to have given President Bush the authority for the invasion. Clinton voted for the measure, as did McCain. Obama was not in the U.S. Senate at that time, though he did give a speech opposing the war while an Illinois state senator. Obama is right: Clinton and McCain were on the same side in voting for the use of force in Iraq. We find this claim to be True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-02-01T00:00:00	2008-01-30	['John_McCain', 'Iraq', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pose-00163	"From both a moral standpoint and a practical standpoint, torture is wrong. Barack Obama will end the use torture without exception. He also will eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	End the use of torture	2010-01-07T13:26:50	None	['None']
-goop-00208	Julia Roberts Leaning On Richard Gere Amid Marriage Crisis?	https://www.gossipcop.com/julia-roberts-richard-gere-marriage-crisis/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Julia Roberts Leaning On Richard Gere Amid Marriage Crisis?	10:56 am, September 27, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00077	Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-recalls-all-aircraft-carriers/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	['barack obama', 'conspiracy', 'liberal agenda', 'national security', 'patriotism']	Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers	Jan 4, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04627	Search engine Google manipulated results in favor of Hillary Clinton.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/google-manipulate-hillary-clinton/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Google Manipulates Searches for Hillary Clinton	10 June 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-02203	Capital Metro originally said MetroRail's yearly operating costs would be "about $2.5 million. Last year ... it cost $13 million to operate."	/texas/statements/2014/apr/24/bob-cole/austin-rail-lines-costs-more-double-2004-estimate-/	When it comes to proposed passenger rail, KOKE-FM talk host Bob Cole of Austin said recently, "Austin has been just like every other city in the country: The facts and figures they give you to sell it are far from the truth." Take the MetroRail commuter trains that Austin transit agency Capital Metro started running from Leander to downtown in 2010. Cole said on his March 31, 2014, morning show, "They told us that the annual amount to operate this thing’s going to be about $2.5 million. Last year ... it cost $13 million to operate it." Is the 32-mile Red Line costing five times more than expected? Worth bearing in mind: As we noted in a 2012 fact-check, the commuter train isn’t supposed to pay for itself; it’s considered a public service. Capital Metro opened the diesel-powered MetroRail service to passengers in March 2010, has expanded it somewhat and plans a major overhaul to provide more capacity -- the trains are mostly packed during rush hour, as we explored in a 2013 fact-check. Also, MetroRail is separate from a proposed electric-powered urban passenger rail line, decades in the making, that the City of Austin might take to voters in November 2014 for authorization of several hundred million dollars in bonds. Cole's backup information Big electric-rail proposals like that, Cole told us by phone, are why he initially supported MetroRail, a smaller diesel-train project on existing freight track -- as a less-costly way to test the waters. He was later dismayed, he said, to see MetroRail’s costs exceed Capital Metro’s initial predictions. Cole told us he drew his dollar amounts from memory, having tracked the project since before voters approved it in November 2004. Capital Metro cost calculations We found no instances of Capital Metro giving a $2.5 million annual operating costs figure, or any estimate other than $5 million, in 2004. Then again, that $5 million estimate included $3 million a year for lease-purchase of the required rail cars. By phone and email, Capital Metro spokeswoman Francine Pares told us something surprising: The 2004 estimate solely covered the expected cost of a rail contractor, including service delivery, dispatching, supervision, vehicle maintenance and right-of-way maintenance. She said the estimate left out costs including "fuel, track maintenance, bridge maintenance, signal maintenance, communication system maintenance, signal crossing maintenance, inspections" and "administrative costs." The "full system had not been designed yet, so no estimates could be made as to how the full system would be built out," Pares wrote. Pares stressed, too, the estimate emerged six years before trains started running and before how often trains run was stepped up. A timeline she provided indicated the trains, originally penciled in to have 5,100 service hours a year, are projected to exceed 14,200 service hours in the fiscal year through September 2014. "Operating costs have increased as the inflation, labor, fuel and service hours have increased each year," she said. Before voters acted in 2004, Capital Metro issued an estimate of likely operating costs without specifying what the estimate left out: From August 2004 Capital Metro presentation: Accounting for rail cars About the rail cars: Before the November 2004 vote, an Aug. 17, 2004, Austin American-Statesman news story reported details of the final recommended version of the $60 million plan. On operating costs, the story said, "Not included in the $60 million is the upfront cost of the six self-propelled hybrid-diesel rail cars the agency thinks it would need initially to provide rush-hour service at 30-minute intervals when the line opens in 2007 or 2008. Those cars would probably cost about $3 million a year for a lease-purchase. Even including that lease cost, Capital Metro estimates initial annual operating costs of $5 million," the story said. That $5 million in 2004, adjusting for inflation, projects out to $5.8 million in 2010 dollars and $6.2 million in 2013 dollars. But after the 2004 vote, Capital Metro decided to buy the train cars instead of leasing to own and took out a loan in 2006 for the purchase. Statesman news stories in 2008 and 2011 said the agency was spending $4.4 million a year in debt payments on the loan (comparable to the $3 million annual lease-purchase payments projected in 2004). Cole said that because of that change, "they no longer include the train cost in operating (costs)," and the figures of $2.5 million and $13 million that he gave on the air were operating costs that excluded the lease or purchase costs of the train cars. If he’d included the car payments, Cole said, he’d have been able to say annual operating costs went from a projected $5 million to actual $15 million. MetroRail costs from 2011 on Costs have gone up, Capital Metro's Pares said, as have service hours. By email, she sent figures from fiscal 2011 -- the line’s first full fiscal year of service, ending Sept. 30, 2011 -- through the actual costs for 2013 and the projected amount budgeted for fiscal 2014: 2011: 10,731 train service hours. Direct operating costs $9.1 million; principal and interest payments on train car loan $4.4 million; total $13.5 million. 2012: 11,502 train service hours. Direct operating costs $10.3 million; principal and interest payments on train car loan $1.7 million; total $12 million. 2013: 11,466 train service hours. Actual operating expenses $10.5 million; principal and interest payments on train car loan $2.9 million; total $13.4 million. (Direct operating costs were still being finalized, Pares said.) 2014: 14,100 train projected service hours. Operating budget $12.6 million; principal and interest payments on train car loan $2.9 million; total $15.5 million. So, with the car lease or loan payments included, Capital Metro originally estimated $5 million operating costs, which projects out to $6.2 million in 2013 dollars. The agency ultimately spent $13.4 million to operate the line and make debt payments on the rail cars in 2013. Excluding the car payments, 2004’s estimate was $2 million (equal to $2.5 million in 2013 dollars) and 2013’s costs were $10.5 million. Some context: In an April 22, 2010, news story, the Statesman reported that a Texas Sunset Advisory Commission report found mismanagement at Capital Metro, including poor planning that caused MetroRail to cost $140 million plus $8 million in loan interest on the cars. MetroRail’s financial picture subsequently improved. In December 2011, the agency reduced its car payments by refinancing the loan, and a Feb. 3, 2013, Statesman news story said that, thanks largely to a $9 million federal grant, "the commuter line is much closer to covering its $14.5 million annual operating cost than in its first two years." Our ruling According to Cole, Capital Metro originally said MetroRail annual operating costs "would be about $2.5 million. … last year, it cost $13 million to operate." He’s correct, even conservative, on the 2013 costs. But Cole understates MetroRail’s initial projected operating costs of $5 million, or $6.2 million in 2013 dollars, which Capital Metro told us didn’t roll in fuel and other costs. The rail line’s 2013 operating costs, including payments on the rail-car loan, were about $13 million--more than double the inflation-adjusted 2004 estimate, perhaps in part due to trains having more service hours than initially envisioned. We rate Cole’s statement as Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Bob Cole	None	None	None	2014-04-24T06:00:00	2014-03-31	['None']
-tron-00956	A Thank You from Google For Submitting  Your Resume	https://www.truthorfiction.com/google-resume/	None	computers	None	None	None	A Thank You from Google For Submitting  Your Resume	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02330	"Our high school graduation rate is the highest on record."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/26/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-high-schoolers-are-graduating-al/	During his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama warned Congress that the American education system was putting millions of students at a disadvantage in the 21st century job market. "Over the next 10 years, nearly half of all new jobs will require education that goes beyond a high school degree. And yet, as many as a quarter of our students aren’t even finishing high school." But recently, a politician gave a speech in Orlando claiming the school system was on a roll. "Our high school graduation rate is the highest on record. Absolutely," the politician said. "More young people are earning college degrees than ever before." So who had the nerve to test the president’s assessment of the U.S.education system? The correct answer: Barack Obama. Yup, just three years after Obama used the high school graduation rate as a call to action, he’s now using it to proclaim the achievements of his administration. We gave Obama a Mostly True in 2011 when he claimed up to 25 percent of Americans drop out of high school. So how does his current statement, that the graduation rate is at a record high, stack up? Counting diplomas Tracking the number of Americans earning a high school diploma seems like a simple task, but it has proven to be a tough stat to track. The U.S. Education Department utilizes a stat called the Average Freshman Graduation Rate. It’s an estimate of the number of high school students who graduate on time in four years, and it’s used by looking at enrollment data from year to year. States and local school districts for years used various methods to determine the percentage of students who graduate high school. Maine in 2007 and 2008, for example, counted students who graduated from private schools with publicly funded tuition in their state tallies. The statistic mostly measures public school students, another major hole in the national data. As a result, national figures had flaws and year-to-year comparisons were difficult because so many schools count degrees differently. "It does seem like dropout rates should be easily and unambiguously measured, but for a million reasons they’re not," said David Bills, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Education. "Until recently many schools have been pretty casual about record keeping," he said. "At what point is a kid a dropout? When he doesn’t show up for a month? A semester? What if he moves to a different city and enrolls there and nobody tells the original school? Or a kid drops out at 15 and gets a GED at 19? All of these little things can turn out to be pretty significant." More recently, the federal government has worked with states to get everyone on the same page with a new more vigorous statistic, the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, that will create a uniform method for tracking high school graduation rates in public school students moving forward. "Basically the feds have thrown their hands up in the air and said, ‘Let’s get it right from here on, and not worry about stuff in the past that we can’t fix,’ " Bills said. What the numbers say Nevertheless, when we talked to experts, they still thought graduation rates were improving and they pointed to a number of markers. The White House sent us toward numbers from the National Center for Education Statistics at the Education Department, which put the graduation rate at 81 percent in 2011-12. The previous high was in 1969-70, when the graduation rate was 78.7 percent. Again, comparing stats collected in 2012 versus 1970 isn’t apples to apples, but it does show trend lines, said Jim Hull, senior policy analyst at the Center for Public Education. "These are really just estimates, but you can get an accurate description of what’s going on," Hull said. "It might not be 80 percent are graduating, but we know the trend is definitely going up, and it’s a lot more than in the 1990s." Other methods for calculating graduation rates exist, and not all of them say recent years are the highest on record. Editorial Projects in Education, publishers of Education Week, put the graduation rate at 74.7 percent in 2009-10. "That’s pretty good, by historical benchmarks and the rate has been moving up in recent years," said Christopher Swanson, vice president of research and development. But at 77.1 percent, 1969 remains the watermark in their calculations, he said. Despite differences in methodology and problems collecting consistent data, there is general agreement that high school diplomas are on the rise. "All of (the measurements) show the same general trend toward a higher proportion of kids finishing high school," Bills said. Our ruling Obama said, "Our high school graduation rate is the highest on record." On paper, it’s an accurate claim using the federal government's metric, but that only accounts for public school students and states and local school districts collect the data differently, creating inconsistencies. We also found another trusted model that puts the high point at 1969. Still, the general sense in the education industry is that rates are on the rise and considerably higher than 20 or even 10 years ago. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True. Correction, April 9, 2014: The initial version of this story incorrectly stated that the Education Department had changed how it calculated the Average Freshman Graduation Rate, citing a March 2013 press release. However, that release was referencing a different statistic, the Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate, which Obama was not referencing in his speech. The story has been adjusted to reflect this correction. This does not change our rating of Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2014-03-26T10:15:56	2014-03-20	['None']
-pomt-02833	"The reason we have a national debt is not because of defense spending. What is driving our long-term debt are Medicare and Social Security programs."	/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/	Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., gave a speech about foreign policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute Nov. 20. After his speech, a Floridian in the audience asked him a question about how to convince Americans to support consistent defense spending. During part of his answer, Rubio made some claims about the debt. "The reason we have a national debt is not because of defense spending. What is driving our long-term debt are Medicare and Social Security programs that are structured in unsustainable ways." We decided to check in with several economists across the political spectrum and ask if Rubio’s assessment about the debt was correct. Medicare, Social Security and defense The economists we interviewed generally agreed that Medicare and Social Security account for huge chunks of our long-term debt. However, they also said that defense spending is also a factor, and some experts noted that Rubio left out a couple of other important factors: interest payments on the debt and Medicaid. Rubio didn’t quantify the role of defense in our national debt or specify a timeframe, he simply said that debt isn’t due to defense spending. But it’s a bit too simplistic to let defense spending entirely off the debt hook. "It is incorrect to say our current debt has nothing to do with defense spending, because we spend a lot of money on national defense every year, and we have large deficits -- therefore defense spending is one of the causes of our debt increase," said Josh Gordon of the centrist Concord Coalition. Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute sent us numbers which showed that based on 2014 total spending, "defense is 17 percent of the problem, Medicare is 17 percent of the problem, and Social Security is 24 percent of the problem." Rubio zeroed in on the long-term debt and Medicare and Social Security -- and there is evidence to support his claim. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that spending as a percentage of gross domestic product for entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security will grow much faster than defense. Defense spending will also grow, but at a far slower rate. Here’s a chart we found from the CBO that illustrates that general point; the CBO includes other health programs in the top line in addition to Medicare: By 2023, "the share of total spending by the entitlements will be much more than defense, and thus increasingly the entitlements are more drivers of deficits and debt than defense," Edwards said. While entitlements are more of a problem, "defense and other areas of spending are problems as well." All of our spending is responsible for the debt, said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow in the Economic Studies program at the Brookings Institution and a past senior adviser on welfare policy for President George W. Bush. "However, if you look at the most expensive and rapidly growing items as the major culprits, which seems reasonable to me, then Social Security is the biggest item, and Medicare in particular and health care in general the most rapidly growing in most years," Haskins said in an email. "Rubio’s list does not include a huge item, and that is interest payments. Over the next few decades, interest payments are likely to be the biggest single item in our budget and the most rapidly growing." Romina Boccia, a fellow in federal budgetary affairs at the conservative Heritage Foundation, cited spending growth in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare subsidies for our long-term deficit. "Social Security is the largest federal spending program and has held this position since surpassing defense in 1993," she said. Dean Baker, a liberal economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, argued that Social Security can’t drive the debt. "Under the law it can only pay benefits insofar as it has money in the trust fund," he said. "This means that it cannot possibly spend more than was collected in Social Security taxes." (We should note that the questions around the Social Security trust fund are particularly complex. Earlier this year, we rated a claim that the Social Security trust fund is "sound" as Half True.) So what’s the solution to reducing our debt? "Reversing the upward trajectory of the debt will require taking a look at ways to control health costs and reform Social Security," said Jason Peuquet at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "But that doesn't mean other savings can't play a vital role. Reforming the tax code to raise more revenue and reducing other spending will be vital elements in actually getting the debt under control." Our ruling Rubio said in a speech, "The reason we have a national debt is not because of defense spending. What is driving our longterm debt are Medicare and Social Security programs." Rubio is correct that Medicare and Social Security are drivers of our debt -- but there are other factors, too, including Medicaid and interest, economists said. Also, defense spending isn’t entirely off the hook. While Medicare and Social Security are projected to grow as a percentage of GDP, defense is projected to shrink by the same measurement -- but defense is a factor in our debt, albeit a far lesser one. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2013-11-22T14:06:39	2013-11-20	['Medicare_(United_States)', 'Social_Security_(United_States)']
-bove-00139	Uttar Pradesh CM Adityanath’s Claim Of No Riots During BJP Rule False	https://www.boomlive.in/uttar-pradesh-cm-adityanaths-claim-no-riots-bjp-rule-false/	None	None	None	None	None	Uttar Pradesh CM Adityanath’s Claim Of No Riots During BJP Rule False	Nov 22 2017 3:36 pm, Last Updated: Nov 23 2017 12:13 pm	None	['None']
-tron-02490	Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd Said “No” to Sharia	https://www.truthorfiction.com/australia-pm-sharia/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd Said “No” to Sharia	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Julia_Gillard', 'Kevin_Rudd']
-pomt-03359	"Women still earn about 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for working the same job."	/virginia/statements/2013/jul/15/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-says-women-earn-77-percent-mens-pay-same/	Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe is pledging to increase penalties against Virginia employees who discriminate against women in terms of pay. "The gender wage gap is real, and women still earn about 77 cents for every dollar a man earns for working the same job," McAuliffe says in a video on his his campaign website. McAuliffe, in his statement, became the latest in a growing list of Democrats to mischaracterize an actual figure on the gender wage gap released by the U.S. Census Bureau. Other notables include President Barack Obama and former President Jimmy Carter. McAuliffe is wrong to say that the 77-cent figure describes the actual pay difference between men and women "working the same job." The 77-cent figure compares the median pay of all full time, year-round male and female workers, regardless of occupation. Many experts say some of the gap is likely caused by discrimination, but most of it is due to career choices. "One of the big factors explaining why women earn less than men is that jobs typically done by women have lower earnings than jobs typically done by men," said Ariane Hegewisch, study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. A 2009 analysis by the nonpartisan CONSAD Research Corp. in Pittsburgh concluded that three-fourths of the disparity can be explained by trends common to women: they tend to choose occupations that have relatively low wages; they tend to have degrees leading to lower-paying occupations than men; they tend to have a shorter work history; and they take more time off from work for childbirth and child care. The American Association for University Women issued a report this year that offered similar explanations for the pay gap, saying it is partly due to "men’s and women’s choices, especially the choice of college major and the type of job pursued after graduation." "For example, women are more likely than men to go into teaching, and this contributes to the pay gap because teachers tend to be paid less than other college graduates," the report said. Pamela Coukos, a senior program advisor at the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a July 2012 blog post that "economists generally attribute about 40 percent of the pay gap to discrimination -- making about 60 percent explained by differences between workers or their jobs." Is there a way to drill down on pay difference for men and women doing the same job? The Bureau of Labor Statistics compiles figures on median weekly earnings by men and women with the same occupation. They show that women’s pay lags men in nearly all professions that are measured. For example, women credit counselors and loan officers in 2012 earned 79.1 percent of men. Women accountants and auditors earned 73.8 percent of their male counterparts. Women computer programmers earned 84.2 percent of what men earned in that field. But even those broad occupational categories don’t provide an apples-to-apples comparison of people "working the same job," said Karen Kosanovich, an economist with the BLS. The BLS, she explained, can look at the weekly earnings of men and women in the general category of "physicians and surgeons" -- but that doesn’t mean they’re the same type of doctor. Within that broad category are general practitioners and cardiologists, department heads and physicians who have just started their careers. "We can’t do same-job analysis," Kosanovich said. A final note: Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for McAuliffe, said his boss got the information for his statement on gender gap pay discrimination from a web post by the National Partnership for Women & Families. That posting, however, does not say the census data compared the pay of men and women doing the same jobs. Our ruling By saying women earn 77 percent of what men earn for "working the same job," McAuliffe took a valid figure and blew it out of proportion. Contrary to McAuliffe’s assertion, the 77-percent figure is not a comparison of the earnings of women doing the same jobs as men. It is a broad comparison of the median annual pay for men and women regardless of occupation. It does not factor in that men tend to chose higher paying professions than women and work more hours. We rate McAuliffe’s statement Mostly False.	None	Terry McAuliffe	None	None	None	2013-07-15T06:00:00	2013-06-18	['None']
-tron-01717	U.S. Congressional Representative asked General Petraeus about carbon emissions reduction in the war on terror	https://www.truthorfiction.com/giffords-petraeus/	None	government	None	None	None	U.S. Congressional Representative asked General Petraeus about carbon emissions reduction in the war on terror	Mar 17, 2015	None	['David_Petraeus']
-pomt-09505	“In this judicial race, special interest groups have demanded money from me, in exchange for endorsement and support.”	/texas/statements/2010/feb/20/eve-schatelowitz-alcantar/judicial-aspirant-eve-schatelowitz-alcantar-says-d/	Deep inside a voters guide circulated in the Austin area by the League of Women Voters of Texas, a judicial candidate makes a sit-up-quick claim. Eve Schatelowitz Alcantar, seeking the Democratic nod for Travis County’s 299th District Court, says: “In this judicial race, special interest groups have demanded money from me, in exchange for endorsement and support.” Demanded? That got our attention. Schatelowitz Alcantar told us her claim traces to the first question asked of candidates on a written survey distributed before a Jan. 28 forum at which Austin Democratic groups weighed endorsements. Such endorsements can be pivotal; they're touted by candidates in their advertising. Schatelowitz Alcantar said she didn't get any at the forum, which involved more than half a dozen Democratic clubs. In the question singled out by Schatelowitz Alcantar, the Travis County Democratic Party notes that the party pays for a coordinated campaign benefiting the Democratic ticket on the November ballot. It doesn't pussy-foot in asking candidates to pitch in, saying the party “would like to know if you, a 2010 Democratic primary candidate, will be willing to fully contribute to the coordinated campaign and if you are willing to make that pledge right now. This is a yes or no question.” The amounts sought, per office, range from $2,500 for justice-of-the-peace candidates up to $7,500 for candidates for district judge and county judge. Schatelowitz Alcantar conceded the survey question made no direct link between a candidate's commitment to give money and endorsements from Democratic clubs. “There is nothing explicit,” she said. “But let me ask you this: Why do you think they ask that question in the first place?... The purpose of asking that question was to gain the endorsements of those clubs.” We didn't find any clubs that acknowledged such a quid pro quo at work. Natomi Austin, president of the Black Austin Democrats, said answers to the question did not affect her club's endorsements. "When it comes to asking for money, people always consider it to be heavy handed," Austin said. Fred Cantu, president of the Austin Tejano Democrats, said the only complaints he heard about the question came from "people who had never participated in the process or had never contributed.... Schatelowitz Alcantar is maybe a little naïve about the process, if anything. If she was to get nominated and she had a Republican opponent, I guarantee she’d feel very different in the fall." Schatelowitz Alcantar said two other candidates for state district judgeships were appalled by the question: William Gammon and Keith Lauerman. Both reported getting no endorsements at the forum. Gammon said he found the donation question heavy-handed, but didn’t assume his negative reply would drive endorsement decisions. “The implication is you either pony up or nobody’s going to like you,” Gammon said. “It wasn’t a demand. That would be overstating it.” Lauerman said the question initially confused him because he thought it meant he was expected to donate before knowing if he’d won the March primary. He said he agreed to the pledge after a consultant assured him otherwise. Austin lawyer Andy Brown, who chairs the Travis County Democratic Party, said candidates' answers to the question don't affect the party's support: “There’s no action we’re expecting because of it. The bottom line is we (the countywide party) don’t endorse in the primary." Brown noted that in 2008 about one third of some $560,000 raised by the party was donated by candidates. “The goal here is for people to realize that the campaign in the fall does not run itself," Brown said. "Travis County is not inherently a Democratic county unless we put a lot of resources into getting the vote out this fall." Neither Brown's predecessor as party chairman, Austin lawyer Chris Elliott, nor leaders of several of the Democratic clubs that made endorsements in connection with the forum, saw anything inappropriate in asking candidates if they'd pledge to pitch in for the fall campaign. Elliott said: "Maybe that's a good way to get people committed." Clearly, Schatelowitz Alcantar didn't soft-pedal her objections to the way the Democratic Party's question puts a squeeze on candidates to contribute to the fall campaign. But Schatelowitz Alcantar overreached in saying the query was a demand for money in return for endorsements. No one we contacted--including the judicial aspirants recommended by Schatelowitz Alcantar--shared her interpretation. We rate Schatelowitz Alcantar's statement as False.	None	Eve Schatelowitz Alcantar	None	None	None	2010-02-20T21:33:00	2010-01-28	['None']
-snes-01899	In August 2017, a California crowd hire company provided actors for protests against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crowds-on-demand/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Was a Crowd Hire Company Involved in Protests Against a White Supremacist Rally?	15 August 2017	None	['California', 'Virginia']
-pomt-08896	"The first professional baseball team was from an Ohio city."	/ohio/statements/2010/jul/30/yvette-mcgee-brown/ohio-first-state-professional-baseball-team/	OK, so it probably won’t make or break the governor’s race in 2010, but a recent speech from Democratic lieutenant governor candidate Yvette McGee Brown touched on an oft-repeated piece of baseball lore to establish the importance of Ohio’s cities. While speaking on urban issues June 22, McGee Brown reeled off a list of accomplishments born in Ohio, including the widely-repeated claim that "the first professional baseball team" was formed in an Ohio city. But is baseball’s professional lineage so clearly rooted in the Buckeyes State? It was time to take a 7th inning stretch from serious politics and see if this claim was a hit or an error. In a timeline for his acclaimed documentary on baseball, filmmaker Ken Burns asserts that the first professional baseball team was the Cincinnati Red Stockings of 1869, which finished its tour of the National Association of Base Ball Players matches with a sparkling 70-0 record. An open and shut case? Not so fast. A history of the Red Stockings compiled by the Society for Cincinnati Sports Research suggests that the club’s secretary John Joyce knew that "all the top Eastern clubs were paying their star players" but not admitting it when he set out in 1869 to pursue a team of the best players at every position. Clearly, there were professional baseball players prior to the Red Stockings season of 1869. Gabriel Schecter, a researcher at the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, said the key is that the Red Stockings were the first all-professional team where the players were openly paid — payroll records tally $9,400 for 10 players. "That’s the distinction that has to be made," Schecter said. "Prior to the Red Stockings, there were players here or there who were paid or who were given jobs, but it wasn’t a full team being paid above board." For example, a powerhouse team from Washington that toured in the late 1860s prior to the Red Stockings turning pro was stocked with players on the federal payroll. "All or most of the players had those jobs that basically subsidized them so they could play ball," he said. "The question is how much work those federal employees actually were doing," he said. A timeless question no doubt, but it probably doesn’t equate to professional in the sense we use it today. Still, was it possible that an entire team of players was being paid under the table prior to the Red Stockings? "I can’t say that I’m 100 percent sure," Schecter said. "I think that’s very unlikely because it would have been uncovered by now." Because it appears that no other team fielded a lineup of fully-professional players prior to the Cincinnati Red Stockings in 1869, we rule this claim to be True. If only all the calls made on the diamond were so clear-cut. Comment on this item.	None	Yvette McGee Brown	None	None	None	2010-07-30T09:10:00	2010-06-22	['Ohio']
-goop-01440	Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt Friends Urging “Fairy Tale Ending,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-brad-pitt-fairy-tale-ending-reunion-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt Friends NOT Urging “Fairy Tale Ending,” Despite Reports	1:23 pm, March 6, 2018	None	['Jennifer_Aniston']
-pomt-06827	The United States has "the longest surviving constitution."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/08/jon-huntsman/oldest-surviving-one-document-text/	As he toured New Hampshire last week, Jon Huntsman wore his patriotism like a lapel pin. Even as he condemned President Barack Obama over what he labeled failed policies and leadership, Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, saluted the American work ethic and the United States Constitution, which he touted as the world’s oldest. "We've got some great things going for us here that we forget sometimes," Huntsman told workers during an August 2, 2011 tour of Cirtronics Corp., a manufacturing firm in Milford, New Hampshire. "We have rule of law. We have the longest surviving constitution. … What we don't have is leadership." The rule of law in America is hard to question, and as for presidential leadership, we'll leave that to the candidates to debate. But, does America really have the world's longest surviving Constitution? That sounded like a question for PolitiFact. To start, we went straight to the source, the National Constitution Center, located on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. At 222 years old, America’s governing document is broadly considered the world’s longest surviving constitution, according to Dr. Steven Frank, the Constitution Center’s chief historian. Ratified in 1789, it beats out Norway’s constitution, which took effect in 1814 and Belgium's, implemented in 1831, according to a list compiled by Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon, constitutional law professors at the University of Chicago. "It's the most durable constitution in the world today," said Frank, of the Constitution Center. "Historians agree. It's been around longer than any other written constitution." But, that left us to wonder, what constitutes a constitution? The definition of the term is a significant question in political theory, according to Ginsburg, the University of Chicago law professor. But the term is loosely defined as a collection of laws or governing statutes that "sets fundamental norms about the structure of government and its relationship with citizens," Ginsburg wrote in an e-mail. He also serves as one of the lead investigators for the Comparative Constitutions Project, a research project launched at the University of Illinois to analyze governing documents around the world. In their study, project researchers have found that enduring constitutions are usually made easy to amend to allow for growth and re-interpretation, Ginsburg said, and they are typically written by large cross-sections of people to encompass many points of view. "The funny thing is, the things which make constitutions endure aren't really found in the U.S. one," he said, pointing out that the United States Constitution was written by 100 rich, white men. "It seems to be very exceptional, the reason it endures." Elsewhere around the globe, many countries don’t follow a single constitution but instead operate under what historians call a "multi-text approach," in which national laws are based on different documents and statutes, many of which pre-date the United States Constitution. The United Kingdom, for instance, derives its constitution from a large number of documents, including the Magna Carta, which dates back to 1297, according to Jef Ruchti, editor-in-chief of World Constitutions Illustrated, a publication of William S. Hein, & Co. "All told, it is traditional to consider that the U.S. Constitution is the oldest surviving one-document constitutional text. However, the others models do outdate it," Ruchti wrote in an e-mail. "And that is not even getting into the continuing debate as to whether the form of government of the Iroquois Nations had an impact on the writing of the U.S. Constitution or not." The republic of San Marino is often considered to have the earliest written governing documents still in effect. The republic, an enclave surrounded by Italy, has no formal constitution, but instead is governed by the Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini, a series of six books, written in Latin in the late 16th Century that dictates the country’s political system, among other matters. Our ruling: Historians and legal scholars alike may debate the definition, but most of us are clear in our concept of a constitution as a single governing document. As long as that’s the case, there is little room for argument. The U.S. Constitution is the longest surviving constitution in the world. Still, there are other countries that have multiple governing documents that are older than the U.S. Constitution. We rate Huntsman’s claim Mostly True. Update: After this item comparing the longevity of the U.S. Constitution to others around the world appeared, two readers noted that the Massachusetts state constitution is even older. Ratified in 1780, it served as a model for the authors of the U.S. Constitution, which was written seven years later, according to an account provided by the Massachusetts Judicial Branch.	None	Jon Huntsman	None	None	None	2011-08-08T14:05:54	2011-08-02	['United_States']
-pomt-11164	Says "Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of MS-13."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/24/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-nancy-pelosi-came-out-fa/	President Donald Trump cast Democrats as supporters of MS-13 gang members and uninterested in fighting crime. Trump routinely brings up brutal crimes committed by MS-13 members while highlighting his administration’s goal to incarcerate or deport them from the United States. At the May 22 Susan B. Anthony List’s Campaign for Life Gala, Trump claimed Democrats want open borders and don’t want to stop illegal immigration. "And the other day — just the other day — Nancy Pelosi came out in favor of MS-13," Trump said. "That’s the first time I’ve heard that. She wants them to be treated with respect, as do other Democrats." Trump repeated the charge against House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on May 23 during a roundtable discussion on MS-13, saying: "I noticed recently where Democrats, Nancy Pelosi as an example, are trying to defend MS-13 gang members. I called them animals the other day and I was met with rebuke. They said, ‘they are people.’ They are not people. These are animals." We wondered about Trump’s claim that Pelosi "came out in favor of MS-13" and that she has defended gang members. Trump distorted the facts. Pelosi said "calling people animals is not a good thing," but did not focus her comments on MS-13 gang members. Trump’s ‘animals’ remark Trump made headlines earlier this month after labeling some people who come to the United States as "animals." His comment came during an immigration meeting with California officials. While Trump did not specifically mention MS-13 gang members in the "animals" sentence, his statement came after a sheriff spoke about "bad guys" and MS-13 gang members. (Here’s the full context.) Some interpreted Trump as saying all immigrants are "animals." Trump went on Twitter May 18 to fight back that assessment: "Fake News Media had me calling Immigrants, or Illegal Immigrants, ‘Animals.’ Wrong! They were begrudgingly forced to withdraw their stories. I referred to MS 13 Gang Members as ‘Animals,’ a big difference - and so true. Fake News got it purposely wrong, as usual!" Trump tweeted. What Pelosi said Pelosi clearly chose the interpretation of Trump’s words at the roundtable that was least favorable to Trump. But that doesn’t mean she was embracing violent gang members. At a May 17 press conference, the day after Trump’s "animals" comment, Pelosi said "calling people animals is not a good thing" and defended "undocumented immigrants." She did not mention MS-13 gang members. Pelosi said "we're all God's children" and spoke about "a spark of divinity in every person on Earth." "And so when the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, ‘These aren't people. These are animals,’ you have to wonder, does he not believe in the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person? ‘These are not people. These are animals.’ The president of the United States," Pelosi said. White House spokesman Steven Cheung said in an emailed statement, "Pelosi either is peddling an out-of-context quote that mainstream media outlets have corrected or retracted (AP and CNN), or defending MS-13 gang members whose motto is rape, control, and kill." The White House said the "animals" term is language Trump has used before when talking about MS-13 gang members. Still, Pelosi did not defend MS-13 gang members or come out in their favor, as Trump claimed. She centered her comments on "undocumented immigrants" and rebuked using the word "animals" to refer to people. Our ruling Trump said Pelosi "came out in favor of MS-13." Trump’s claim is based on Pelosi’s criticism of Trump for using the word "animals" during an immigration meeting with California officials. Trump used that term after a sheriff spoke about MS-13 gang members. A day after Trump’s comment, Pelosi said "calling people animals is not a good thing" and defended "undocumented immigrants." Pelosi did not mention MS-13 gang members in her comments. While Trump blasted media reports and others for missing the context of his remarks, he did just that with Pelosi’s comment. We rate it False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We updated this story on May 29, 2018 to include reaction from the White House after the story published, emphasizing that Trump has previously used the term "animals" to refer to MS-13 gang members.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-05-24T09:00:00	2018-05-22	['Nancy_Pelosi']
-pomt-01638	"Over 60 percent of the provisional ballots cast in [the 2012] election were disqualified because those folks were not duly registered as voters."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/aug/26/john-carlevale/john-carlevale-60-provisional-ballots-2012-ri-elec/	The issue of voter identification continues to percolate through the political campaign season. It surfaced again when John Carlevale, a Republican running for secretary of state, was interviewed on the Aug. 10 edition of WPRI's "Newsmakers" program. Carlevale said he supports the state's current -- and controversial -- voter ID law, which requires voters to present photo identification. He contended that evidence for why it is needed surfaced during the 2012 election, the first in which the law was partially in effect. "Those folks who were not able to show valid ID were given a provisional ballot," he said. "And what did we learn from that? Over 60 percent of the provisional ballots cast in that election were disqualified because those folks were not duly registered as voters." (Voters may also be issued provisional ballots if they show up at the wrong polling place or didn’t register 30 days before the election. Such ballots are later counted if the voter’s registration is confirmed.) We wondered whether 60 percent of the folks who got a provisional ballot weren't actually registered to vote. We emailed Carlevale to ask for supporting evidence. Meanwhile, we called the state Board of Elections, where executive director Robert Kando reported that 2,357 provisional ballots were issued in 2012; 1,189 of those were ultimately disqualified because the person had not registered. That's 50.4 percent, not 60 percent as Carlevale reported. When we heard back from Carlevale, he reported getting slightly different numbers from the Board of Elections: 2,231 provisional ballots with 1,188 (53.2 percent) not counted because they were disqualified. Kando said Carlevale was given incorrect numbers. Whether it's 50.4 percent or 53.2 percent, that's well below the "over 60 percent" Carlevale claimed. He said in an email that he had misread his notes, apologizing for the error. It turns out that the number can vary. In the 2010 non-presidential election, where the turnout was much lower, there were 918 provisional ballots statewide and only 197 of those -- 21.5 percent -- were disqualified because the person was not registered. That was before the Voter ID law had been implemented. We also checked Providence's numbers. Kathy Placencia, administrator of elections for the Board of Canvassers, said the city gave out 449 provisional ballots for the 2012 general election and 98 were rejected because the person had not registered by the deadline. That's 21.8 percent. In 2010 it was 38.3 percent. Our ruling Secretary of State candidate John Carlevale said, "Over 60 percent of the provisional ballots cast in [the 2012] election were disqualified because those folks were not duly registered as voters." Data from the Rhode Island Board of Elections shows that the actual total was 50.4 percent. He's off the mark, but close enough to earn a Half True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	John Carlevale	None	None	None	2014-08-26T00:01:00	2014-08-10	['None']
-pomt-01731	"25 percent of all drug-related fatal vehicle accidents in the U.S. involve marijuana."	/florida/statements/2014/aug/05/dont-let-florida-go-pot/medical-marijuana-opponents-say-drug-often-involve/	Medical marijuana opponents are taking to the streets to oppose Amendment 2, citing statistics that drugged driving would be a major side effect to legalizing cannabis. Don’t Let Florida Go To Pot, a coalition of more than 40 organizations fighting against the proposed medical marijuana amendment, says on its website that the drug is implicated in a fourth of all fatal accidents. "Twenty five percent of all drug-related fatal vehicle accidents in the U.S. involve marijuana," the group says under the header "Statistics" (the number is repeated on an infographic on the site). Was marijuana a factor in a quarter of all fatal car accidents involving drugs? PolitiFact Florida hit the books to see what Don’t Let Florida Go To Pot was driving at. For the record First of all, we have to note this check began when we noticed on Aug. 4, 2014, that the Statistics page actually had the sentence, "25 percent of all fatal vehicle accidents in the U.S. involve marijuana." That certainly sounded like too much to us, so we asked the group about it. Eric Pounders, spokesman for the Florida Sheriffs Association, responded to our questions that evening by saying the statement included the phrase "drug-related." That’s not what we read, but it’s what the site says now. Pounders concluded that although the prior phrasing had been used as recently as three months ago, it had been clarified to be more accurate. He told PolitiFact Florida we may have "encountered a previous version of the site that had been temporarily restored to fix an issue." In any event, he said the 25 percent stat came from an October 2011 White House Office of National Drug Control Policy report that measured the rate of positive results among drivers that had been tested for drugs in fatal crashes between 2005-2009. The study used National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System data of accidents across 50 states in which the driver was killed and subsequently tested for drugs. The report noted that of the roughly 127,000 fatal crashes in that time frame, almost 78,000 drivers were tested for drugs. Winnowing down those results, positive tests for cannabinoids rose steadily from 22.6 to 26 percent between 2005 and 2008, dropping slightly to 25.3 percent in 2009. There are some problems with that data. First of all, there is no set procedure or uniform level of toxicity for drug testing among the states, as laws and protocols vary widely. The report says "a positive test result does not necessarily imply impairment or causation," and says testing often is inaccurate. Furthermore, data in which a driver may have been using drugs but survived a crash in which someone else died is not included. There is often no universally accepted threshold of impairment for illicit drugs, the White House report says. There also is some question as to whether the specific presence of cannabinoids, including the main psychoactive chemical component, tetrahydrocannabinol, is an accurate indicator of impairment. The NHTSA states, "It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person's THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects." That’s in part because cannabinoids linger in a person’s system long after they’ve ingested the drug. "Marijuana, unlike alcohol and most other drugs, stays in a person’s system for up to 30 days," says Ben Pollara, spokesman for United for Care, the group promoting Florida’s Amendment 2. "So its presence in a person’s blood is not an indicator that they were impaired at the time of the accident." That 25-percent figure seems to track with other studies of drug-related fatal crashes, however. One 2011 study from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Md., examined fatal single-vehicle accidents between 1998 and 2009 that involved speeding, failure to obey or yield, inattention and failure to use a seat belt. That study found about 23 percent of those crashes involved cannabinoids, although the study adds the caveats that the drivers’ drug levels were not available, and those deaths most often involved speeding and the driver not using a seat belt. When you change the parameters of the research, the numbers vary. A 2014 Columbia University study looking at six states reported marijuana was present in 12 percent of accidents in 2010, up from 4 percent in 1999. A University of Colorado School of Medicine study released in May 2014 comparing Colorado to 34 other states concluded marijuana was present in 10 percent of fatal accidents by the end of 2011, as opposed to 4.5 percent at the beginning of 1994. But yet another study from 2012 from universities in Oregon, Montana and Colorado measured crashes in medical marijuana states. The study found that while instances of drugged driving went up in those places, total fatal accidents dropped somewhere between 8 and 11 percent overall. The possible reason, in a nutshell? Most people probably smoke their weed at home instead of driving home drunk from a bar, the study’s authors hypothesized. Alcohol still remains the most abused substance involved in fatal drug-related accidents -- as high as 60 percent, depending on the year and study. Montana State University economics professor D. Mark Anderson, one of the authors of the study showing a decrease in fatalities, said that the numbers didn’t supply a direct link between marijuana use and accidents. Indeed, none of the research PolitiFact Florida cited above claimed to establish a definite cause and effect. "Maybe 25 percent of all people involved in fatal vehicle accidents also drank milk for breakfast," Anderson said. Our ruling Don’t Let Florida Go To Pot said, "25 percent of all fatal drug-related vehicle accidents in the U.S. involve marijuana." Some other research backs up that number, although the studies are limited in scope and descriptiveness. Reports usually don’t show whether marijuana use was the cause of the accident or how long ago the drug was ingested, and are limited in several other ways. Marijuana, for example, can be detected in person’s system for weeks after ingestion. The study cited by the group also only measured drivers that died and were tested for drugs, a very specific scope that doesn’t tell the whole story. Experts warned it’s not wise to imply causation among marijuana users in fatal crashes, but a 25 percent rate of involvement has been established in some studies. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Don't Let Florida Go To Pot	None	None	None	2014-08-05T17:23:48	2014-08-05	['United_States']
-pomt-06966	"POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job."	/ohio/statements/2011/jul/15/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-obamas-economists-/	Republicans in Congress were not functioning independently of one another on their first workday after the Independence Day holiday. Shortly after noon on July 5, House Speaker John Boehner’s "tweeted" a July 3 blog posting from the conservative Weekly Standard’s website, labeling it "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job." Around 4 p.m., the National Republican Congressional Committee followed suit with multiple press releases that used the same Weekly Standard blog item to target dozens of Democrats in Congress, including Ohio’s Betty Sutton. Its headline: "New Report Shows Dems’ Failed Stimulus Cost $278,000 Per Job As Economy Got Worse." It went onto claim that Sutton’s "government spending spree" "delivered little except skyrocketing debt owed to foreign countries like China." By 4:55 p.m., the National Republican Senatorial Committee had recycled the Weekly Standard blog posting to attack Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. This time the claim was: "President Obama’s own top economists estimate that the Obama-Brown stimulus debacle cost taxpayers an average $278,000 per job." PolitiFact Ohio thought the concerted GOP effort made it worthy of a look. Since Boehner kicked it off on Twitter, we’ll use his tweet. The Weekly Standard blog item that spawned the statistic cites a July 1 report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, which states the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "saved or created between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs as of the first quarter of 2011." It also tallies the sum of the stimulus bill’s outlays and tax cuts at $666 billion. The $278,000 per job figure doesn’t appear anywhere in the White House report. To come up with that number, the publication divided the $666 billion stimulus total by the low-end 2.4 million job estimate to come up with a dollars per job statistic that it rounded off to $278,000. The blog item contends this statistic "provides further evidence that President Obama’s ‘stimulus’ did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy and a whole lot to stimulate the debt," and insists "the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the ‘stimulus’ and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead." After Republicans began to circulate the blog item, White House spokesman Jay Carney said its conclusions were "based on partial information and simply false analysis." White House spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn issued a statement that noted the Recovery Act bolstered infrastructure, education, and industries "that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families." The White House points out that Recovery Act dollars didn’t just fund salaries - as the blog item implies - it also funded numerous capital improvements and infrastructure projects. Lumping all costs together and classifying it as salaries produces an inflated figure. Furthermore, the publication created its statistic with the report’s low end jobs estimate. Had it instead gone with the 3.6 million job figure at the top end of the range, it would have come up with a smaller $185,000 per job figure. Republicans made a similar assertion in November 2009, using similar calculations to contend that the stimulus cost taxpayers more than $246,000 per job. Back then, they divided $160 billion in stimulus spending by 650,000 jobs that the White House estimated the measure had created or preserved. A "fact check" conducted at the time by the Associated Press called that math "satisfyingly simple but highly misleading." "Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for the material, supplies and that workers’ output - a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped form a factory floor, railroad tracks laid," the 2009 Associated Press item noted. The Weekly Standard claimed that the stimulus actually "has been working in reverse the last six months, causing the economy to shed jobs." It derives this conclusion from the fact that as of two quarters ago, the stimulus had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs - or 288,000 more than it has now. Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi says the Weekly Standard misinterpreted that data. "It’s not that ARRA [the stimulus] is now costing the economy jobs, it is that the economy is now creating jobs without ARRA’s help," Zandi told TPMDC. "This is exactly the objective of fiscal stimulus, namely to end recession and jump-start economic recovery." The day after the White House responded to the GOP’s dissemination of the Weekly Standard blog item, its author penned a defense that reiterates his claims. He says he never said that $278,000 per job went to salaries, but "rather that each job has cost taxpayers $278,000." Yet, his original item did say taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead if the government had simply "cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the ‘stimulus?" So where does that leave Boehner’s tweet that said "POTUS’ economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per job." The figure attributed to the president’s economists does not appear anywhere in the White House report. Rather, the Weekly Standard attributed the number to economists at the White House after it made its own calculations and conclusions. The methodology used to get that number was previously termed suspect because it lumps all costs associated with stimulus projects together as if they are wages, suggesting it would have been cheaper to just "cut a $100,000 check" to each person who found work as a result of the stimulus. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Boehner’s tweet (and the subsequent variations of his claim) as False. Comment on this item.	None	John Boehner	None	None	None	2011-07-15T06:00:00	2011-07-05	['None']
-pose-00327	Will work to launch "without further delay" the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, "an international effort to improve climate, weather, and hydrological predictions through more accurate and more frequent precipitation measurements."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/344/support-improved-weather-prediction-program/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Support improved weather prediction program	2010-01-07T13:26:55	None	['None']
-pose-00897	"He will appoint a Director of Protocol, International Trade and Commerce who will report directly to the mayor. This person will be charged with the following responsibilities: Serve as the Mayor’s point person for all international commerce activities; To reenergize the partnership of Tampa International Airport, the Port of Tampa, the city of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce to develop and expand our regional international trade efforts; Work to attract and identify locations for foreign consulates; Work with the Tampa Port Authority and the Florida Ports Council to expand the Port of Tampa’s infrastructure in order to allow the port to actively pursue significant container business; Work more closely with the Governor’s Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development and Enterprise Florida to participate in statewide international trade initiatives; Aggressively target, pursue and schedule trade missions led by the mayor and accompanied by regional partners and local Tampa Bay businesses; Assist the new director of Tampa International Airport (TIA) in pursuing more international flights for TIA."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/buck-o-meter/promise/929/appoint-a-director-of-protocol-international-trad/	None	buck-o-meter	Bob Buckhorn	None	None	Appoint a Director of Protocol, International Trade and Commerce with specific responsibilities	2011-05-18T14:33:25	None	['Hillsborough_County,_Florida', 'Tampa,_Florida', 'Tampa_International_Airport', 'Tampa_Bay', 'Port_of_Tampa_Bay']
-pomt-13973	Says Hillary Clinton "plans to massively increase admissions (of Middle East refugees) … including a 500 percent increase in Syrian refugees coming into our country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/13/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-let-500-pe/	The mass shooting inside an Orlando nightclub is even more evidence that the United States needs to restrict the number of foreigners coming into the country, Republican Donald Trump argued in a speech attacking Democrat Hillary Clinton. Refugees are potential terrorists, Trump said, and when it comes to refugees, "our government has been admitting ever-growing numbers, year after year, without any effective plan for our own security. Having learned nothing from these attacks, she now plans to massively increase admissions, without a screening plan, including a 500 percent increase in Syrian refugees coming into our country. Tell me. Tell me, how stupid is that?" Trump’s claim that there is no screening plan rates False; there is a screening plan. But we also wondered if Clinton wanted to bring in that many more Syrian refugees from Syria, a country devastated by warring factions. When the refugees began making their way to Germany and other European countries, with many men, women and children dying in the process, there was concern that the United States was not helping European countries deal with the influx. During a Sept. 20 appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, Clinton was asked if President Barack Obama's plan to increase the number allowed into the United States to 10,000 was enough. (The United States had accepted about 2,000 in 2015.) "Look, we’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II, and I think the United States has to do more, and I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in," Clinton said. Clinton said she would be "looking to really emphasize some of those who are most vulnerable, a lot of the persecuted religious minorities, including Christians, and some who have been brutalized, like the Yazidi women." A jump to 65,000 would be a 550 percent increase. To put this in context, Clinton has also made it clear that, under her administration, the United States wouldn't blindly accept anyone from Syria. The Clinton campaign pointed us to a Dec. 15, 2015, speech she made at the University of Minnesota-Minneapolis. "We also have to be vigilant in screening and vetting refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals," Clinton said. " Rigorous vetting already takes place while these refugees are still overseas, and it’s a process that historically takes 18 to 24 months." "It would be a cruel irony indeed if ISIS can force families from their homes and then also prevent them from finding new ones," she said. "So after rigorous screening, we should welcome families fleeing Syria." Our ruling Trump said Clinton "plans to massively increase admissions (of Middle East refugees) … including a 500 percent increase in Syrian refugees coming into our country." Clinton has, in fact, said that in response to the refugee crisis she would raise Obama's limit of 10,000 to 65,000. That's 550 percent more, a bit higher than what Trump said. But Clinton has also made it clear that they would have to first be vetted by a screening process, an important detail in the context of Trump's larger point that would-be terrorists have to be kept out of the country. Because the statement is mostly accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate it Mostly True.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/c1af08da-8464-444e-8305-88bf395617a0	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-06-13T17:55:19	2016-06-13	['Middle_East', 'Syria']
-snes-01904	A photograph shows President Trump with "Millennial Matt," an alt-right figure involved in the white nationalist march in Charlottesville.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-photographed-with-charlottesville-white-nationalist/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Trump Photographed with Charlottesville White Supremacist?	14 August 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04381	Chinese restaurants in one of South Africa's capital cities are now allowed to sell dog meat.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pretoria-chinese-restaurants-dog/	None	Food	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Pretoria Chinese Restaurants Granted Permission to Sell Dog Meat	25 July 2016	None	['South_Africa', 'China']
-pose-01283	“We are going to convene my top generals and give them a simple instruction. They will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS. We have no choice.”	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1375/develop-plan-defeat-isis-30-days/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Develop a plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days	2017-01-17T09:01:28	None	['None']
-snes-01335	A photograph shows a dog defecating on the steps of 10 Downing Street.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dog-defecate-10-downing-street/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Dog Defecate on the Steps of 10 Downing Street?	13 December 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-13708	"Just on the issue of immigration alone, it is next to impossible to find a policy difference between (Donald) Trump and Congressman (Joe) Heck."	/nevada/statements/2016/jul/28/catherine-cortez-masto/nevada-senate-candidate-not-ideological-soul-mate-/	National and state Democrats are trying to tie Nevada Republican Senate candidate Joe Heck to the controversial immigration policies of Donald Trump,including Senate candidate Catherine Cortez Masto. In a recent news release, Cortez Masto’s campaign called the two Republicans "ideological soul mates." "Just on the issue of immigration alone, it is next to impossible to find a policy difference between Trump and Congressman Heck," stated Cortez Masto’s release. With immigration being a top concern for Nevada’s sizable Hispanic population, we thought it was worth comparing the two candidates to see if it really is "next to impossible" to find a policy difference. Priorities On the surface level, there are many policy differences on immigration between Heck and Trump. Trump’s immigration platform is detailed on his campaign website, and centers around three topics previously distilled by PolitiFact: Build a border wall across the U.S.-Mexico border, and require Mexico to make a one-time $5 to $10 billion payment to pay for it. Increase enforcement of immigration laws, including ending birthright citizenship and ending funding for so-called sanctuary cities. Focus on American workers, including halting green cards for foreign workers until more domestic workers are hired and increasing the minimum prevailing wage for H-1B visa program recipients. Heck’s campaign and House websites acknowledge a "broken" immigration system but focus on different policy solutions. While echoing Trump in calling for implementing a mandatory E-verify system for employers and calling for increased border security, Heck says he’s open to granting citizenship or legal status to people not legally in the country if his other proposals are addressed in a "meaningful" way. Both campaigns sent lengthy responses to PolitiFact. One thing is clear: There is daylight between Heck and Trump on a number of immigration policies. Birthright citizenship Democrats claim Heck and Trump share identical positions on wanting to "end birthright citizenship and repeal the 14th Amendment." It’s true both Republicans have mentioned re-examining the concept of jus soli — extending citizenship based on place of birth, not parental nationality — but Heck and Trump differ on rhetoric. Trump explicitly calls for an end to the policy, calling it the "biggest magnet for illegal immigration." (He also cites Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid’s 1993 bill "clarifying" the concept, though Reid later called it the "low point" of his legislative career.) Heck has also called for a similar re-examination of the policy, but in a less direct tone. His most pointed comments came in 2012, where a tracker captured Heck saying he supported changing the concept. "My personal opinion is that if you’re gonna be a citizen – be considered a citizen – you should be born to at least one parent that’s a U.S. citizen," he said at the time. Heck generally hasn’t gone as far since then, most recently telling a Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter that "it needs to be part of the discussion" but stopping short of a full endorsement. Legal scholars generally agree that birthright citizenship is on solid constitutional ground, but several believe it would only take a congressional act to "clarify" citizenship for children born of people not legally in the United States, and point out that the court has never fully adjudicated the issue. 2013 immigration bill Cortez Masto says Heck and Trump both opposed the 2013 bipartisan immigration legislation, commonly referred to as the "Gang of Eight" bill. That glosses over important parts of the story. In 2013, Heck described the legislation as having positives and negatives but ultimately said he’d vote against the Senate bill as written, pointing to concerns over border security and wanting to toughen the education requirements for the children of people not legally in the country looking to apply for citizenship. The bill never received a House vote, but Heck still took independent action on the immigration bill. The Republican worked on draft legislation providing a pathway to citizenship for people illegally brought into the country as children, and publicly criticized House leadership in 2013 for failing to vote on any immigration legislation. Trump, on the other hand, told Bloomberg that he only really started following the immigration debate since he started running for president in 2015. "When I made my (announcement) speech at Trump Tower, the June 16 speech, I didn’t know about the Gang of Eight. … I just knew instinctively that our borders are a mess," he said in May. This is contradicted by several tweets and interviews Trump did in 2013, calling the legislation a "death wish" for the Republican Party. Trump later criticized primary rival Marco Rubio’s involvement in the legislation, calling it "nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties." DREAMers/DACA One of Heck’s most notable forays into the immigration debate was a failed attempt to bring forward a Republican version of the long-languishing Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Heck worked for around six months to try to find a compromise path supported by both parties, businesses and immigration activists before trying to roll out the measure in December 2013. Heck’s version of the legislation, which had a pathway to citizenship for immigrants brought unlawfully into the country as children, fell flat after immigration activists and several other stakeholders declined to back the proposal over concerns that it only addressed part of the problem and wanted to hold out for a more comprehensive immigration plan. Additionally, Heck has voted against funding for Obama’s executive orders allowing undocumented children and their parents to receive work permits and exemptions from deportation. He’s on the record voting for several amendments that would strip the program’s funding and voted in 2015 to block funding for an expansion of the program while joining with 25 other House Republicans to support the existing program. In the past, Heck has tried to frame his mixed voting record on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in terms of his stated opposition to the president’s use of executive orders establishing the programs. Trump is clearly opposed to the issue, and in 2015 called for the full rescission of executive orders protecting DREAMers from deportation, as well as the mass deportation of the roughly 11 million people not legally in the country. He’s also publicly opposed the DREAM Act itself. Heck has routinely called Trump’s proposals unrealistic. "I don’t think they can find, round up and afford to deport 11 million people," he told reporters in March. The wall/border security Heck also differs on Trump’s signature piece of immigration policy — building a massive border wall with Mexico. The Heck campaign provided PolitiFact with a form letter sent to constituents who ask about the proposed border wall. The letter stresses Heck’s commitment to border security while gently dismissing Trump’s plan for a massive, thousand-mile concrete wall as being inefficient. "Physical barriers are certainly effective in areas with high cross-border traffic; however, there are vast stretches of our border that have relatively few crossings, and preventing these crossings could be more easily achieved through other methods," he says in the letter. Part of Heck’s stated reasoning for opposing the 2013 immigration bill had to do with border security — the Republican specifically called for additional border fencing and for more manpower along the border to stop illegal crossings. H1-B visas Trump and Heck also differ on what to do with temporary H1-B visas for skilled foreign workers. Trump’s plan explicitly calls to increase the minimum prevailing wage (an averaged wage paid to workers in a similar field) for H1-B recipients over fears that the program depresses wages for American workers. It also makes an unspecified point of forcing companies to hire American workers before foreign workers in the visa program. Heck’s campaign provided PolitiFact with a form letter sent to voters who ask about limiting the visas, which details Heck’s concerns that scaling back the program could hurt economic growth. "By restricting H-1B visas, growth in the U.S. in STEM fields could be restricted," Heck says in the letter. Sanctuary cities Another area of immigration policy overlap for Trump and Heck is in defunding so-called "sanctuary cities," or areas where local law enforcement doesn’t routinely report undocumented migrants to immigration authorities. There’s no agreed-upon or legal definition of a "sanctuary city," and use of the moniker is somewhat fluid. Trump seized the issue after the shooting death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco last year by an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times, and has forcefully called for cutting off federal grants to cities that refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement. While he hasn’t been as vocal as Trump, Heck did vote to block federal law enforcement funds from sanctuary cities as part of a House bill in July 2015. The White House promised to veto the measure, which has defeated in a procedural vote by Senate Democrats. Our ruling Cortez Masto claims that "on the issue of immigration alone, it is next to impossible to find a policy difference between (Donald) Trump and Congressman (Joe) Heck." There are areas where Heck and Trump overlap on immigration policy: mandatory E-verify for employers, upping border security and questioning birthright citizenship. However, Cortez Masto made it sound like Heck and Trump are lockstep on the issue, and that's clearly not the case. There are major stated policy differences between the two Republicans — Heck opposes mass deportation, which Trump campaigned on during the primary season. And Heck has supported a pathway to citizenship for people not legally in the country, as well as supported a version of the DREAM Act. It wasn't "next to impossible" to find those differences. We rate this statement False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/311dcdb1-c61d-47a8-a370-327fe6ef5998	None	Catherine Cortez Masto	None	None	None	2016-07-28T16:34:07	2016-07-14	['None']
-pomt-10516	"You don't even have to go outside Obama's campaign to find advisers who are anti-Israel."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/14/tennessee-republican-party/anti-israel-not-even-key-advisers/	A news release from the Tennessee Republican Party titled "Anti-Semites For Obama" seeks to cast doubt on Sen. Barack Obama's public pronouncements of support for Israel, alleging that some of the Obama campaign's key Middle East advisers are anti-Israel. Two names getting the most discussion are Zbigniew Brzezinski, a national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and Robert Malley, once a special assistant to President Bill Clinton for Arab-Israeli Affairs. These men ring alarm bells for some pro-Israel people who follow Israeli-Palestinian relations. Whether either is anti-Israel as described is a matter of opinion. More important, the Obama campaign claims neither is a formal adviser. The news release from the Tennessee Republican Party is direct. "You don't have to go outside Obama's campaign to find advisers who are anti-Israel," states Bill Hobbs, communications director for the Tennessee Republican Party, in the release. "Robert Malley, a principal foreign policy adviser to Obama, has advocated negotiating with the Iranian-funded radical terrorist group Hamas and urged that Hamas — which sends suicide bombers to kill innocent women and children — receive international assistance." The comments appear to parrot several articles written by Ed Lasky for the American Thinker, a conservative daily Internet publication. In a Jan. 16, 2008, article titled "Barack Obama and Israel," he claims that Obama "has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous presidents (both Republican and Democrat)." Lasky claims that "Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel" and that he "has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades." Marc Zell, co-chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel, stated in an article in the Jerusalem Post that Brzezinski heads up Obama's "problematic" Middle East team. Brzezinski is faulted for advocating dialogue with Hamas prior to the November 2007 Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, Md. In a meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders on Feb. 24, Obama stated that he does not share Brzezinski's views with respect to Israel. Moreover, Obama said, "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. He came to Iowa to introduce (me) ... for a speech on Iraq." Brzezinski, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed that in an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Times. "I am a private supporter of Sen. Obama, and by not being part of the campaign as such I retain the right to continue advocating publicly my own views regarding policy issues — which I have done for years and on the record," Brzezinski wrote. "My views have been supported by Israelis who desire peace and I have frequently consulted them. The McCarthy-like comments you cite emanate from the fanatical right which for years has opposed any serious effort to end the tragic Middle Eastern conflict." Malley's chief offense among many pro-Israel activists is a letter he penned to the New York Times in which he claimed all sides, including Israel and not just the Palestinians, were to blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit. The furor against Malley reached such a pitch that five former Middle East policy leaders (including Sandy Berger, former national security adviser, and Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel) wrote a statement on Malley's behalf. In part, it read, "Over the past several weeks, a series of vicious, personal attacks have been launched against one of our colleagues, Robert Malley. ... They claim that he harbors an anti-Israeli agenda and has sought to undermine Israel's security. These attacks are unfair, inappropriate and wrong. They are an effort to undermine the credibility of a talented public servant who has worked tirelessly over the years to promote Arab-Israeli peace and U.S. national interests. They must stop." Obama's campaign states that while Malley has offered advice and opinions on a couple occasions, he is not a formal adviser either. "The truth is that Obama did ask for advice from some people who might be considered not the most enthusiastic pro-Israel policy wonks in Washington," said Shmuel Rosner, chief U.S. correspondent for Haaretz, a leading Israeli paper, who has written extensively about Obama's Middle East advisers. "However, these people are not in any way formal advisers that help shape Obama's policy on Israel-related topics." The day-to-day Middle East policy advisers with Obama's campaign, as confirmed by U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, who co-chairs Obama's Florida campaign, and other campaign staffers, are: Dan Shapiro, a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council; Eric Lynn, a former foreign policy adviser to Rep. Peter Deutsch; Tony Lake, a former national security adviser to Clinton; and Dennis McDonough, foreign policy adviser to former Sen. Tom Daschle. These advisers are considered centrist Middle East policy wonks, Rosner said, and certainly not anti-Israel. "I don't think their advice would be much different than what Hillary Clinton would get from her advisers, or that (John) McCain would get from his Middle East advisers," Rosner said. Consider that in position papers and interviews, Obama has said he does not think the United States should be talking to Hamas. "Either he (Obama) didn't ask Malley for his advice, or he did ask for his advice and didn't accept it," Rosner said. While some would argue that it is problematic for Obama to even talk to people are who are not seen as pro-Israel, Rosner said, "I think it's all a bit hysterical." The allegations that Obama has surrounded himself with advisers who are anti-Israel are largely based on two men who, according to Obama's campaign, are simply not key advisers to Obama. Those who do comprise the heart of Obama's Middle East advisory team are described by most as centrists and pro-Israel. We rate the claim from the Tennessee Republican Party news release False.	None	Tennessee Republican Party	None	None	None	2008-03-14T00:00:00	2008-02-25	['Barack_Obama']
-wast-00082	Data doesn't lie: Clinton Foundation was \xe2\x80\x98slush fund' while Hillary was a Senator/Secretary/Pres candidate. Trump Foundation helped people in need with 100% to charities, but @realDonaldTrump voluntarily shut his down. Yet who is the sleazy NY AG suing?!	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/06/27/foundation-face-off-the-trump-foundation-versus-the-clinton-foundation/	None	None	Brad Parscale	Glenn Kessler	None	Foundation faceoff: The Trump Foundation vs. the Clinton Foundation	June 27	None	['Clinton_Foundation', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-07126	Says the state budget includes spending on commercials for Fortune 500 companies.	/texas/statements/2011/jun/17/david-simpson/state-rep-david-simpson-says-state-budget-includes/	State Rep. David Simpson says the state budget lawmakers sent to Gov. Rick Perry spends money in the wrong places — such as on Walmart commercials. "Despite conservative boasts of cost cutting, not raising taxes and not using the Economic Stabilization Fund, or ‘rainy day fund,’ the budget still preserves about $500 million of pork for special interests including film and music makers, video games and commercials for Fortune 500 companies," the Longview Republican said in a June 5 op-ed in the Longview News-Journal. It’s well-reported that the state promotes music, film and even video games. But this is the first we’ve heard about funding TV spots for the top 500 U.S. companies that Fortune magazine ranks by revenue every year. To back up the statement, Simpson aide Michael Bullock noted that the 2012-13 budget the House approved on May 28 appropriates $32 million for film and music marketing, a program overseen by the governor’s office. The budget provides $16 million each year to "market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry," according to the May 26 House-Senate conference committee report. What does that have to do with Fortune 500 TV spots? Bullock pointed us to a March report by the Texas state comptroller analyzing the state’s economic development incentives for 2010. According to the report, lawmakers in 2007 revised the Film Industry Incentive Program, created in 2005, so its grants could be extended to companies working in "the entire moving image industry," sweeping in makers of commercials, TV programs and video games. In 2009, the Legislature appropriated $64 million in incentives for the biennium. According to the report, from April 2009 through August 2010, the Texas Film Commission approved 152 applications to help fund the production of commercials, awarding $2 million to grantees who, all told, said they’d spend $37.4 million in Texas. And did any of the commercials promote Fortune 500 companies? The report lists a handful. As of Aug. 31, the company Action Figure No. 1. Inc., had received more than $8,000 for an AT&T television commercial, which was one of three commercials made for AT&T, a Fortune 500 company, by three different companies using state grants totaling about $25,600, the report says. Also, the company Radical Media received $32,000 in grant money to make a commercial for Walmart, another Fortune 500 company, and the company Modern Times received $11,133 to make a commercial for the TV show "Friday Night Lights." That show aired on NBC, a network owned by the Fortune 500 company General Electric. We wondered if each Fortune 500 company benefits from grants going to separate production companies. Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed told us the grants can go to either the production company, advertising agency or the client — such as a Fortune 500 company — involved in a supported TV ad. Lastly, we turned to the Texas Film Commission, which says on its website that certain commercials — such as ads for state agencies or those that portray Texas negatively — aren’t eligible for incentives. Otherwise, state law permits incentives for a TV commercial project of up to 5 percent of the amount spent on the project in the state, according to the commission. To qualify, the maker must spend at least $100,000 in Texas, at least 60 percent of its shooting days must be completed in the state and at least 70 percent of the paid crew, cast and extras must be Texas residents. Nashed told us TV commercial projects will continue to be eligible for incentives in 2012-13. We rate Simpson’s statement True.	None	David Simpson	None	None	None	2011-06-17T06:00:00	2011-06-05	['Fortune_(magazine)']
-pomt-02667	"What do Rutgers University, Kean University, Montclair State University, New Jersey City University, Stockton College, Rowan University and William Paterson all have in common? They all graduate less than 50 percent of their students within four years."	/new-jersey/statements/2014/jan/12/joseph-cryan/joe-cryan-claims-four-year-graduation-rate-7-unive/	New Jersey has a long history of spending heavily on education. The state for years has spent money on urban school districts and federally mandated programs to help youngsters in need. Now, says Assemblyman Joe Cryan, the time has come for public colleges and universities that accept state funding to be more accountable for its graduation rates. "What do Rutgers University, Kean University, Montclair State University, New Jersey City University, Stockton College, Rowan University and William Paterson all have in common?" Cryan (D-Union) asked during a Dec. 19 Assembly session in which he discussed a new state panel formed to study the affordability of higher education. "They all graduate less than 50 percent of their students within four years." That statistic seemed a bit startling to the Truth-O-Meter, but we found that Cryan is correct. Cryan’s statistic is based on data reported by the schools themselves, as required, to the state. That data then goes to the U.S. Department of Education, where it can be accessed on the website for the Institute of Education Sciences. The institute’s website shows data for students starting in fall 2004 and fall 2006. Cryan’s claim is based on 2004 data. Here’s a breakdown of the graduation rates for each of the schools Cryan mentioned, based on a first-year, full-time equivalent student graduating with a bachelor’s degree in four years. It’s worth noting, though, that the graduation rates increase if students take six years to complete their degree: SCHOOL FOUR-YEAR RATE, STARTING FALL 2004 SIX-YEAR RATE, STARTING FALL 2004 Rutgers University 48 percent 77 percent Kean University 17 percent 47 percent Montclair State University 31 percent 62 percent New Jersey City University 8 percent 37 percent Richard Stockton College 40 percent 64 percent Rowan University 44 percent 70 percent William Paterson University 17 percent 49 percent Sources: Asm. Joe Cryan’s office; U.S. Department of Education website, Institute of Education Sciences College Navigator, Retention and Graduation Rates Cryan noted that he didn’t include some schools, such as the New Jersey Institute of Technology, because its curriculum requires five years to earn a bachelor’s degree. We reached out to each of the schools cited by Cryan. Not all responded but some that did said that there’s more to graduation rates than numbers. "There’s a big difference between a kid going to Harvard and a kid going to New Jersey City University, a big difference between going to William Paterson and to Rutgers," said Joe Cardona, vice president of university relations for Rowan University in Glassboro. "Their preparedness profile, their economic profile -- all of those really tie in to your ability to excel and to be able to achieve whatever the degree program is." Comparing schools with different missions, populations and demographics is akin to comparing apples and oranges, Cardona added. Taking six years to complete a bachelor’s degree has become a more accepted timeframe, according to Cardona and Steve Manas, a spokesman at Rutgers New Brunswick. "The current national standard for graduation rates is six years, and Rutgers' rate is 75 percent, comparable to AAU (Association of American Universities) peers," Manas said in an e-mail. "The latest graduation rate for four years is 52 percent." Maryjane Briant, a spokeswoman for Stockton College, confirmed Cryan’s graduation rate number for the Atlantic County school for students starting in 2004, but noted that the number has climbed significantly since. The four-year graduation rate for Stockton students starting school in fall 2009 was 53 percent, she said. To reiterate, Cryan’s numbers are accurate for students starting their degrees 10 years ago, but schools that spoke with us generally pointed to higher graduation rates from more recent timeframes. Cryan said many families that save money to send their children to college plan or expect it to be a four -year program, not six. And he re-emphasized his concern that institutions accepting state money for higher education need to be more accountable for on-time graduation rates. He also disagreed that it’s unfair to compare students attending schools that may have different missions and demographics. "What demographic is allowed not to graduate on time?" he said. "What students do you favor over others as a result? Our ruling Cryan said, "What do Rutgers University, Kean University, Montclair State University, New Jersey City University, Stockton College, Rowan University and William Paterson all have in common? They all graduate less than 50 percent of their students within four years." Cryan cited statistics reported by the schools he names for first-time, full-time students starting a four-year program in 2004. The graduation rates trend upward, though, for more recent years, and the rates jump substantially for students who took six years to earn their bachelor’s degree. Still, Cryan’s claim is technically accurate and we therefore rate his claim True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Joseph Cryan	None	None	None	2014-01-12T07:30:00	2013-12-19	['Rutgers_University', 'Richard_Stockton_College_of_New_Jersey', 'Montclair_State_University', 'Kean_University']
-pose-00020	Require employers who do not offer retirement plans to offer their workers access to automatic IRAs and contribute via payroll deduction.	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/22/require-automatic-enrollment-in-ira-plans/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Require automatic enrollment in IRA plans	2010-01-07T13:26:45	None	['None']
-pomt-04356	Says Mitt Romney was clear that he "would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/23/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-opposed-any-government-help-resc/	The recovery of the American auto industry offers proof of the old saw that success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan. Mitt Romney has said that President Barack Obama followed the plan Romney laid out in 2008. For his part, Obama has said Romney would have let General Motors and Chrysler fend for themselves as they went through bankruptcy. In their final debate before the election, Obama repeated his charge against Romney. "You keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here," Obama said."You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace." In a spirited back and forth, Romney insisted the president was wrong. "I said that we would provide guarantees," Romney said. "That was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet." In this fact-check, we’ll examine Obama’s charge that Romney would not provide government assistance to the car companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. Early in 2008, Romney said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club that, "I am not open to a bailout, but I am open to a workout. Washington should not be a benefactor, but it can and must be a partner." Later that year, Romney wrote a now well-known New York Times op-ed called "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Both men encouraged voters to look at that. We did, and here is what Romney wrote: "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk." Romney’s campaign said this referred to the government providing a guarantee to private lenders who stepped in to keep the carmakers running while they went through bankruptcy. Such a guarantee would have drawn in private lenders even at a moment when conventional credit markets were frozen. In bankruptcies, it is not uncommon to allow companies to continue to operate because this gives the creditors the best shot at getting more of their money back. By definition, a bankrupt business is short on money, and in order to make payroll and pay suppliers, there is something called debtor-in-possession or DIP financing. But Romney did not speak of DIP financing directly. We asked Laura Beth Bartell, a bankruptcy law professor at Wayne State Law School, if the term he did use, "post-bankruptcy financing," would mean the same thing. "I can’t read Romney’s mind as to what he meant when he used the phrase," Bartell said. "But most bankruptcy lawyers would interpret ‘post-bankruptcy financing’ to refer to DIP financing." However, Romney’s term "post-bankruptcy financing" has been used in a different sense as well. Sometimes it means the financing a company receives once the bankruptcy is completed. (For example, a 2007 article in CFO with the headline "Delta receives post-bankruptcy financing" described a multibillion dollar package for the troubled airline that took effect after the company was out of bankruptcy.) Steve Rattner, the former auto bailout chief in the Obama administration and a vocal critic of Romney, said Romney was using the term in this second sense - the longer-term loans that sustain a business after it exits bankruptcy. "He was referring to the practice on Wall Street of providing ‘exit financing’ to companies coming out of bankruptcy," Rattner said. "But because there was not DIP financing available, the companies would have never come out." Bartell disagreed. She said the term can have both meanings but noted that Romney was writing about a managed bankruptcy. "I cannot imagine why he would be discussing the ability of the car companies to get financing after they emerged from bankruptcy when all the talk at the time was about their ability to get financing to allow them to operate during a bankruptcy." Total certainty of Romney’s intent may be elusive. John Pottow, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said the term was used loosely in the op-ed. "I'm not sure what it meant because the logical thing is for it to mean DIP financing," Pottow said. "But the contextual thing means exit financing, because he's implying we shouldn't do anything during bankruptcy, only after bankruptcy." We asked the Romney campaign for any comments the governor made in 2008 that would clarify his meaning. The staff said they did not know of any. Romney’s op-ed deals almost entirely with how GM and Chrysler ought to function after restructuring. He said almost nothing about the process of bringing the companies to that point -- some nine words out of more than 800. This adds to the uncertainty surrounding his intent. Our ruling Obama said Romney would not provide government assistance to the car companies, even if they went through bankruptcy. Romney’s term "post-bankruptcy financing" can have two meanings. It can refer to money used during bankruptcy and money used right afterwards. The distinction has great practical significance in this case, because without the loans in the middle of a bankruptcy, there might be no automakers to lend to on the other side. We can't know for sure which meaning Romney had in mind. However, Obama made a strong assertion. He said Romney would offer no government aid even if the carmakers went through bankruptcy. Romney’s words were vague and quite limited in number but he did speak of a government guarantee, and that would be the case whether he meant for loans during or after bankruptcy. We rate Obama's statement Mostly False.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-10-23T15:13:32	2012-10-22	['United_States']
-tron-01750	State Department Reported Arizona to the United Nations Human Rights Commission	https://www.truthorfiction.com/arizona-un-report/	None	government	None	None	None	State Department Reported Arizona to the United Nations Human Rights Commission	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-chct-00110	Is Crime In Germany Really Up 10 Percent After An Influx Of Migrants?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/06/21/fact-check-crime-germany-10-percent/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	5:44 PM 06/21/2018	None	['Germany']
-pomt-12837	"It would take $135 billion to eradicate global poverty."	/global-news/statements/2017/feb/07/blog-posting/135-billion-enough-end-global-poverty-no/	Twitter followers of the cheekily named What the F*** Facts got some bold guidance recently. "The world spent $1,735 billion on war in 2012," the outfit tweeted on Jan. 24, 2017. "It would take $135 billion to eradicate global poverty." This claim has been popping up on the web since at least February 2013, but the 5.5 million followers of WTF Facts has to count as one of the widest audiences yet. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We decided to vet the numbers. The takeaway is while $135 billion wouldn’t hurt, the statement glosses over a host of problems that undercut the core promise to end poverty. It isn’t central to this fact-check, but the military spending figure largely checks out using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Now to assess the money needed to lift people out of poverty. We started with the number of people living on less than $1.90 a day, which is the current global poverty line. Estimates vary, but economists at the World Bank put the 2012 figure at 880 million people. Then we calculated how much more the average poor person in that group would need to make to get above $1.90 a day, with the help of World Bank economist Christoph Lakner. The approximate answer for 2012 is it would have taken about $187 billion to lift each person out of poverty that year, or $50 billion more than the $135 billion in the tweet. That’s a lot, but on the other hand, the economists we reached said none of the figures are rock solid. "The numbers are approximate for several reasons," said Indermit Singh Gill, professor of public policy at Duke University. "One is the correction for purchasing power. These are based on surveys every five years or so, done by different agencies in various parts of the world. The second are corrections within countries for cost of living — especially between rural and urban areas." Whatever the right amount it would take to eradicate poverty, economist Charles Kenny at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C., said the concept of giving the world’s poorest people more cash has a lot of merit. "All the evidence is that if you give them money they spend it wisely on things that can increase their long-term earnings — better nutrition, health care, education, investments in equipment and so on," he said. But Kenny also said the practical challenge of getting the money to the right people is enormous. "We have estimates of global poverty, but we don’t know which households are actually poor on this standard, and who they are changes a lot over the course of a year," Kenny said. Skeptics of simple cash tranfers abound. International development researchers David Steven and Ben Oppenheim at the New York University Center on International Cooperation emphasized that much more than a lack of income makes people poor. "$135 billion is roughly the same as current overseas development aid, and it hasn't ended poverty yet," Steven said. Oppenheim said the quality of government makes a big difference and donor nations can’t "buy development." "If we could do that, Afghanistan would look more like Switzerland by this point," Oppenheim said. "The central lesson from decades of semi-successful efforts at poverty reduction is that effective institutions are absolutely critical. And the ingredients for that are time and political will, not just capital." The tweet didn’t say that the money had to come from the wealthiest nations. Laurence Chandy, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote recently that in many nations, local billionaires could make a big dent in their home country’s poverty. They note that the task is easier today than in 2012 because the world has far fewer poor people. Chandy and his colleagues Christine Zhang and Lorenz Noe asked what would happen if the uber-rich gave away half their wealth over a span of 15 years. The results varied from place to place. In Colombia, Georgia and Swaziland, they wrote, a single billionaire’s gift could end extreme poverty immediately. In other countries, it would take the generosity of all of their billionaires. "This would end poverty in China, India, and Indonesia — countries that rank first, second, and fifth globally in terms of the absolute size of their poor populations," they said. An article from the Center for Global Development calculated that about three-quarters of global poverty could be eliminated if developing countries gave cash to the poorest by raising taxes on their wealthiest citizens, eliminating subsidies for fuel and reducing their military spending. Our ruling What the F*** Facts said that in 2012, $135 billion would eradicate global poverty. In 2012, there were about 880 million people living on less than $1.90 each day. Using World Bank numbers, the one-year price tag back then would have been closer to $187 billion. While the data are far from perfect, the tweet’s figure falls short by about 25 percent, which is a significant gap. But the bigger problem is the idea that a cash transfer alone would eradicate poverty. The experts we reached emphasized that good governments and other institutions were essential to eliminating poverty in the long-run. While money would help, it couldn’t deliver the desired results on its own. The statement has some superficial accuracy, but it suggests a simple fix to a much more complicated problem. We rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/78722821-2985-4d39-9fb5-b31d18702078	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-02-07T14:09:49	2017-01-24	['None']
-hoer-00936	Warning about Fake $50 Australian Banknotes	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/inaccurate-warning-fake-50-australian-banknotes/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Inaccurate Warning about Fake $50 Australian Banknotes	December 3, 2010	None	['None']
-goop-00187	Channing Tatum, Jenna Dewan Back Together?	https://www.gossipcop.com/channing-tatum-jenna-dewan-back-together-divorce-off/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Channing Tatum, Jenna Dewan Back Together?	1:55 pm, October 3, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08449	"Sharron Angle voted to protect sex offenders."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/oct/15/harry-reid/harry-reid-blasts-sharron-angle-vote-against-bill-/	Last week we checked an ad in which Republican Sharron Angle attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., for voting "to use taxpayer dollars to pay for Viagra for convicted child molesters and sex offenders." We rated Angle's charge Barely True. Now Reid is parrying the sex-offender charge through an ad of his own that essentially accuses Angle of protecting sex offenders with a vote she once cast against a Nevada Assembly bill. The ad opens with a statement by Roberta Vande Voort, a family therapist in Las Vegas. "I work with kids who have been abused, and their stories break my heart," Vande Voort says. "But when the Assembly created a program to weed out sex offenders by helping youth and church groups do background checks on volunteers, it passed with only two members voting no. Sharron Angle was one of them. She said background checks were an invasion of privacy. Sharron Angle voted to protect the privacy of sex offenders instead of the safety of our kids." Narrator: "Sharron Angle: Ideas so extreme, they're dangerous." Naturally, we thought it imperative to check Reid's sex-offender-coddling allegations as thoroughly we did Angle's. The ad refers to Assembly Bill 239 from 1999. As introduced, that bill would have set up a $200,000 account designed to cover the costs state agencies incur while doing criminal background checks of volunteers who work with children. The first stop for the bill was the Judiciary Committee, of which Angle was a member. In introducing the bill to the committee, the bill's sponsor, Republican Assemblyman Dennis Nolan, explained to fellow legislators that during the previous two sessions, he had sought to pass legislation that would allow nonprofit organizations to better screen potential volunteers who would be working directly with children. He said that past efforts had failed because opponents said that "the $40 cost associated with performing a background check would have a chilling effect on volunteerism." So AB 239 focused on providing money for background checks, with the idea of removing the cost problem from the equation. According to minutes of the committee's March 1, 1999, meeting, Angle expressed some concerns about the bill -- including the one on privacy grounds cited in Reid's ad. "Ms. Angle expressed concern with the possible invasion of privacy and liability issues included in the bill," the minutes say. "She stated voluntary programs always stepped up to become mandatory, and she did not want to see the state get involved with things of a First Amendment nature." Angle asked Nolan to discuss the risk of a "chilling effect" from the bill. Nolan responded that there would be a chilling effect if an expense was mandated upon the nonprofit organization -- but he added that AB 239 "was not a mandate of background checks but an attempt to assist with the costs if an organization wanted to utilize the option." Nolan added that keeping information confidential was crucial, and as to her point about liability, he said that liability existed whether or not background checks were performed. On the First Amendment issue, Nolan said that "the legislature continually dealt with First Amendment issues and that he believed there was a balance. ... The rights we are weighing here are the rights of innocent children who participate in organizations under the supervision of adults and the need to make sure those children are protected." Ultimately, the committee approved an amended version of the bill that changed the $200,000 from a guaranteed appropriation into a funding source consisting of "donations, gifts, grants, and any appropriations the legislature saw fit to make." At the end of the meeting, the committee unanimously sent the bill to the floor. This is important because, despite the concerns Angle stated in committee, she did not object to the measure going to the floor. By April 15, the bill came to a vote before the full Assembly. Despite her assent in committee, Angle did vote against it when it came to the floor, and the measure passed, 40-2. (We did not receive a response from Angle's staff explaining why she voted against the bill.) Having cleared the Assembly, the bill then went to the Senate, where it was amended further. On May 20, the newly amended version passed the Senate by a 20-1 vote. (Interestingly, the one Senate dissenter was future U.S. Rep. Dina Titus -- a Democrat and an ally of none other than Harry Reid. When we contacted Titus' staff for an explanation, a spokesman said that Titus voted against the bill because the amendments in the Senate had "watered down" the measure so much by protecting nonprofit groups from liability that it "removed any incentive for organizations to use it." Now that the Senate had approved the amended version, AB 239 had to go back to the Assembly so that an identical version of the bill could be sent to the governor. On May 24, the Assembly approved the new version of the bill, though not through a roll call vote. If Angle had found two fellow Assembly members to back her, she could have requested a roll call vote, but she did not, according to the minutes. Ultimately, on May 31, 1999, the bill was signed into law. Angle's camp did not get back to us, but in comments published Aug. 30, 2010, in a Las Vegas Review-Journal blog, a spokesman addressed AB 239 as well as two other bills that Reid was touting as evidence of Angle's indifference to law enforcement. "Sharron agrees with the spirit of those bills and the need for law enforcement to have the proper tools," the spokesman said. "However she had concerns with the execution. At the time, Sharron raised questions in committee regarding the unintended consequences in regards to personal privacy and costs." So where does this leave us? The ad is correct on the substance of the bill, and it's correct that on the most important vote she took on the bill -- the roll call vote on the Assembly floor -- Angle was indeed one of two legislators who voted against it. The ad is also correct that Angle cited privacy as a concern during the debate. But the ad glosses over a few bits of context. When the identical bill came up in committee, Angle did not vote against it, nor did she demand a roll call vote on the amended version when it came back to the Assembly from the Senate. In addition, she cited other concerns beyond privacy that may have played into her decision to vote against the bill, including legal liability (which was addressed in the bill's final version), the possibility that such programs could one day become mandatory and First Amendment concerns. These failures, in our view, do not greatly undercut the ad's argument, however. The notion that Angle "voted to protect the privacy of sex offenders instead of the safety of our kids" is an oversimplification. But Angle did vote against it at least once for reasons including concerns about invasion of privacy, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	Harry Reid	None	None	None	2010-10-15T17:30:44	2010-10-07	['None']
-pomt-11933	The NFL is "getting massive tax breaks."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/12/donald-trump/nfl-getting-massive-tax-breaks-donald-trump-said/	President Donald Trump continued his challenge of the National Football League in a tweet, this time to push tax reform. "Why is the NFL getting massive tax breaks while at the same time disrespecting our Anthem, Flag and Country? Change tax law!" Trump tweeted. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com What tax breaks is the NFL receiving, and what tax law is Trump referring to? There are ways that Trump’s tweet is both right and wrong. But the bottom line is that the NFL continues to benefit from major tax breaks, especially in the construction of its stadiums. The White House first directed us to a press release by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., who is re-introducing legislation to end professional sports leagues’ tax exempt status. "The NFL League Office has received a special tax carve-out since 1966, when the tax code first listed ‘professional football leagues’ as trade organizations," the statement read. "Though individual teams are not tax-exempt, the NFL League Office is." It’s true that in order to allow the NFL and AFL to merge in 1966, legislative maneuverings grouped professional football leagues with trade associations under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code, thus exempting them from paying taxes as not-for-profit organizations. However, amid public criticism, the NFL decided to drop the not-for-profit status in 2015 and file regular taxes. "The owners have decided to eliminate the distraction associated with misunderstanding of the league office’s status, so the league office will in the future file returns as a taxable entity," Robert McNair, the chairman of the league’s finance committee, said in an April 2015 statement. The tax exemption was only applicable to the league’s administrative office anyway, rather than the 32 individual teams, or even the subsidiaries that control the NFL’s licensing, sponsorships, marketing, publicity, promotion, broadcast, merchandise and distribution. So tax law could be changed to repeal an exemption that is no longer being used by the NFL. It is, however, still in use by other sports leagues, like the NHL, PGA Tour and LPGA. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders didn’t provide any details on the tax reform Trump was calling for in a press conference, though she did acknowledge the change in the NFL’s tax status, and pointed to another tax issue affecting the NFL. "While the NFL may have given up its tax-exempt status a few years ago, it's been well-documented that billions of taxpayer dollars continue to subsidize the construction and renovation of professional sports stadiums," Sanders said. "If this industry is going to use money from American taxpayers to build the very fields they play on, is it really too much to ask that they show respect for the American flag at the beginning of the game?" The experts we spoke with disagreed on whether to call it a subsidy, as the federal government isn’t pumping money to team owners to build stadiums. Rather, it’s not taxing the bonds issued by local governments to help build stadiums. While it might not be a subsidy, the experts agreed that it still qualified as a tax break. Cities want to have stadiums in their backyard (though the economic results aren’t too convincing), so they issue bonds to help pay for them. And thanks to the 1986 tax code reform, if a municipality finances over 90 percent of a stadium, those bonds enjoy the same tax exemption as would a public project like a road or bridge. Brookings Institution took a closer look at these numbers in a 2016 study and estimated that over a 15-year period since 2000, the federal government lost a potential tax revenue of $1.11 billion on bonds issued by local governments to finance NFL stadiums. Major League Baseball stadiums benefitted more, though, resulting in a loss of $1.41 billion. Combining football, baseball, basketball and hockey stadiums, the federal government lost $3.2 billion over the 15-year period. "That’s a drop in the bucket for how much our federal budget over 15 years is," said Ted Gayer, vice president and director of the Economic Studies program at Brookings who led the study. "But we think it’s an egregious misuse of federal dollars." The researchers found that sports stadium financing is costing the federal government only 25 percent, on average, of what it’s costing the local governments who are issuing the bonds, but Trump was referring to the federal tax break. Assessing Obama’s 2016 budget, which tried to repeal tax-exempt bond financing of professional sports facilities, the Office of Management and Budget estimated it would save $542 million on all sports stadiums (not just the NFL) between 2016 and 2025; but Congress didn’t approve the change. Two bipartisan bills addressing the issue have also been introduced in the House and Senate. Our ruling Trump said the NFL is "getting massive tax breaks." Since 2015, the NFL hasn’t benefitted from a not-for-profit tax break enjoyed by many professional sports league offices. However, it does enjoy tax exemptions on municipal bonds used to build stadiums. Other sports leagues also benefit from this tax code loophole, sometimes to a greater extent. We rate this statement Mostly True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-10-12T18:10:30	2017-10-10	['None']
-goop-02701	Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner At “War” Over Makeup Lines, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-makeup-kylie-jenner-war-feud/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner NOT At “War” Over Makeup Lines, Despite Report	5:21 pm, July 1, 2017	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-07509	Proposed fees for Rhode Island beaches will still be "less than some of the town beaches."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/apr/10/richard-licht/licht-says-proposed-fees-ri-state-beaches-are-stil/	After an unusually cruel winter and chilly spring, we couldn’t stop dreaming of hot summer days at the seashore. Then Governor Chafee proposed nearly doubling fees at state beaches. It hit us like a bucket of ice water. Under the plan, the price for a season pass would increase to $60 for Rhode Islanders from $30. Daily rates for state residents would jump to $10 from $6 during the week and to $14 from $7 on weekends and holidays. Fees for out-of-staters would also increase. While discussing the proposed fees on WJAR-TV’s "10 News Conference" on April 3, Richard Licht, director of the Department of Administration, asserted they weren’t out of line. "For $30 more, you are getting a season pass to one of the greatest sets of beaches in the country. …You still, at $60, are less than some of the town beaches charge … I don’t think that’s an inordinate burden on the people of Rhode Island," Licht said. Could the fees at state beaches still be lower than town beaches — even if doubled? When we inquired where Licht got his information, the governor’s spokesman, Michael Trainor, told us we’d hear back by the next day. While we waited, we made some phone calls and found 14 coastal communities that charge admission to their beaches. Most of the beach fees have been set for the season. Like a beach ball on a breezy day, the fees are all over the place. And there are many different categories, covering residents, non-residents and seniors. (The Chafee administration ultimately referred us to the state Department of Environmental Management, which cited many of the same figures we found in our survey.) We decided to focus on the fee that the majority of state residents -- who don’t live in beach communities -- would pay for a season pass or a single day at the shore. If they visit a state beach, they’d all pay the new fees. If they visit a town beach, they’d pay that community’s non-resident fee. The most expensive non-resident season pass costs $175 for Little Compton’s South Shore Beach. Middletown’s Sachuest Beach, also known as Second Beach, charges $140. Next comes Charlestown, at $90. Passes go for $80 at Newport’s Easton’s Beach and South Kingstown Town Beach and $70 at Wuskenau Town Beach in Westerly. So how does the state’s proposed $60 season pass compare? Of the eight towns that offer passes to non-residents, the state fee would be less than all but Portsmouth, which collects $50 for a pass to Sandy Point Beach, on the Sakonnet River. So far, so good for Licht. But what about daily fees? (Remember, we’re comparing state fees to local non-resident fees, setting aside favorable pricing for residents.) Let’s begin with weekdays. The Chafee administration wants to increase the $6 daily state fee to $10. Three towns -- Warren, Bristol and Tiverton -- charge just $5 per day. Westerly charges $6 and Portsmouth charges $7. Prices are higher at the ocean beaches: $10 in Charlestown, Narragansett, Middletown and Newport; $12 in Little Compton; and $15 a day in South Kingstown and Jamestown. (Narragansett also charges a separate fee to walk onto the beach.) Two towns -- Barrington and North Kingstown -- don’t allow non-residents to park at their beaches. So the $10 state fee would be less than 5 of the 12 towns that welcome out-of-towners. On weekends and holidays, the state’s new fee would be $14 -- less than fees in 8 of the 12 beach towns. So when Licht says the new state fees are less than "some" of the town beaches, we can���t disagree. In fact, the state fees are lower in many instances. We won’t kick any sand at Licht on this one. We rate his claim True.	None	Richard Licht	None	None	None	2011-04-10T00:00:01	2011-04-03	['Rhode_Island']
-pomt-02863	"The $3.6 billion deficit we inherited has turned into more than a half-billion-dollar surplus."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/nov/15/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-he-turned-36-billion-deficit/	Barely weeks old, the 2014 governor’s race already is producing a downpour of conflicting claims about Gov. Scott Walker’s budgeting record. He turned a big deficit into a surplus! No, he turned a surplus into a big deficit! Walker makes the first claim early and often in his new book, "Unintimidated," at one point writing that "the $3.6 billion deficit we inherited has turned into more than a half-billion-dollar surplus." Meanwhile, Democrat Mary Burke, Walker’s lone challenger so far, tells reporters: "You've seen where we're now going from a $700 million surplus to getting into the next biennium with almost a $750 million deficit." Is one or both correct? Are they both all wet? Today, we’ll just look at the claim by Walker. We’ll examine Burke’s another day, but here’s a partial spoiler alert: Burke and Walker are talking about budgets from different years. The governor’s $3.6 billion number is one of his favorites. We fact checked it in February 2011, when Walker pointed to the big budget hole as he prepared to unveil a budget covering mid-2011 to mid-2013. We rated False a claim by Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan, who is now a member of Congress, that Walker’s $3.6 billion estimate was "a bogus figure." Outside experts agreed that Walker’s number was reasonable. What about the second figure cited by Walker -- the "more than a half-billion-dollar surplus"? A footnote in "Unintimidated" indicates Walker relied on a media account of a January 2013 report by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which predicted that Walker’s first budget would end with a $484 million surplus. The surplus number actually grew after Walker submitted his book (it’s due out Nov. 19, but we obtained an advance copy). An October 2013 memo from the same source documented an official surplus of $759 million in the state’s main account at the end of Walker’s first two-year budget (June 30, 2013). This memo was not available when Walker submitted the book, a spokeswoman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told us. So, Walker’s numbers are on target or close, based on what he knew when he wrote that passage. But there’s a problem lining them up next to each other and suggesting a positive swing of more than $4.1 billion. Fruit salad The two figures measure different things. It’s a classic case of apples and oranges. The $3.6 billion "deficit" is actually not a deficit at all in a concrete accounting sense. It’s a pre-budget estimate designed to illustrate the size of the shortfall or challenge the governor faces when putting together a budget. "Actually, it's more like apples, oranges and coffee beans," Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance president Todd Berry said. "The term 'deficit' has been used to describe multiple fiscal conditions, past, present, and future, that are actually quite different from one another. Both sides of the aisle know this and will interchangeably use these various definitions to spin things any way they want." The pre-budget "shortfall" is a soft number, Berry noted, in that it includes state agency spending wish lists, many of which are destined for the circular file. In any event, here’s bottom line #1: That $3.6 billion shortfall that preceded Walker’s first budget is best compared to the projected shortfall Walker faced in his second budget. That number was actually a positive one -- $177 million, according to Walker administration reports. That underscores Walker’s success at reducing budgeting tricks in the first budget. So, the swing isn’t more than $4.1 billion, it’s more like $3.77 billion. The apples-to-apples view still favors Walker, just not quite as much as he portrayed. Our rating Walker says in his book that "the $3.6 billion deficit we inherited has turned into more than a half-billion-dollar surplus." There’s some truth here, in that Walker cites accurate or close-to-accurate numbers that show a turnaround from red to black in two years. But his claim has a context problem because it mixes two different ways to define the size of the turnaround. When viewed properly, the turnaround falls a little short of what he says. We rate his claim Half True. To comment on this item, please go to JSOnline.com.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2013-11-15T05:00:00	2013-11-13	['None']
-pomt-05113	Says the Constitution "specifically states the Congress shall write legislation for immigration policy," so Barack Obama lacks the authority to defer the deportation of young illegal immigrants.	/texas/statements/2012/jun/27/john-carter/john-carter-says-xxx/	John Carter, among Republican critics of an Obama administration move potentially enabling hundreds of thousands of young illegal residents to avoid deportation, sees a constitutional hitch. On June 18, 2012, the Round Rock congressman told Austin’s KLBJ, 590 AM: "The Constitution of the United States... specifically states the Congress shall write legislation for immigration policy in the United States." Carter added that the Democratic president did not have the authority to act as he did. Is that right? In telephone interviews, lawyers versed in the Constitution and U.S. immigration laws told us that while there is no explicit language in the Constitution saying immigration policy shall be set by Congress, Article I, Section 8 has long been interpreted as giving Congress that role. The fourth clause of the section says Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform "Rule of Naturalization," as in determining who can legally be in the country. By email, Carter spokesman John Stone agreed the same section was the basis of Carter’s claim. That authority settled in gradually, according to a 2009 primer on U.S. immigration laws published by the Federal Judicial Center, which promotes research and education related to the federal courts. States often imposed their own restrictions, the primer says, until Congress began regulating aspects of immigration in 1875. "Over the next forty years, Congress created broad categories of excludable aliens, a narrower class of deportable aliens, and the beginnings of an immigration bureaucracy," the primer says. In 1921, Congress added numerical restrictions, and in 1952, Congress codified immigration laws; this was followed by a comprehensive overhaul in 1980 and actions in 1986 enabling millions of illegal immigrants already in the country to attain legal status while establishing sanctions on employers of illegal immigrants, according to the primer. So, Congress has the power to write immigration laws, as Carter says. Is it also correct, as Carter told KLBJ-AM, that the Obama administration overstepped its constitutional authority? Stone, Carter’s spokesman, said by email: "I assume you would agree that the president has absolutely no authority to change any law. If you contend a president has authority to interpret and enforce law as they see fit, Congress and the voters be damned,... you have just endorsed a dictatorship to replace our republic, and destroyed the American rule of law." According to a half-dozen legal experts we consulted, the administration’s move can be legally justified. At issue is a June 15, 2012, memo from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano directing immigration officials not to try to deport young immigrants illegally in the country who had not otherwise run afoul of the law. "As a general matter, these individuals lacked the intent to violate the law," Napolitano’s memo says, adding that her directive, based on the government’s authority to apply "prosecutorial discretion," is needed to "ensure that our enforcement resources are not expended on these low priority cases but are instead appropriately focused on people who meet our enforcement priorities." As a result of that action, hundreds of thousands of residents under age 30 already in the country illegally could be permitted to apply to stay for two-year, renewable intervals, also qualifying to apply for work permits. Napolitano’s memo refers to this status as "deferred action." Napolitano closed with language that strikes us as insistent there is no new law being written by the executive branch: "This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It remains for the executive branch, however, to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law. I have done so here." Similarly, Napolitano said in a June 15, 2012, interview with CNN that none of the beneficiaries would be put on paths to citizenship. "Not at all," Napolitano said. "In fact, that's where Congress needs to act. We continue to urge the Congress, you know, pass the DREAM Act," which would create a path to citizenship for certain young illegal immigrants. The lawyers we interviewed by phone told us that while Congress makes immigration laws, the executive branch has the authority to enforce the laws by applying prosecutorial discretion -- in this instance, directing officials to grant young low-priority illegal residents "deferred action" standing. Ben Winograd, a staff attorney with the American Immigration Council, which favors an expansion of legal immigration, said: "The president certainly had the authority to act as he did. He didn’t create any new laws." Jamin Raskin, an American University law professor, said: "The president has not sought to change the citizenship status or legal residency status of the young people he’s talking about. All that he’s done is to prioritize the enforcement agenda of the executive branch." Disclosure: Winograd told us he personally supports Obama but speaks to the law mindful that he advises the non-partisan council. Raskin described himself as an Obama supporter poised to serve on the rules committee at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. Neither man said his personal politics controlled his judgment on this issue. Michael Olivas, a University of Houston law professor, said the Obama administration is offering to defer removal actions against qualified immigrants just as previous administrations have done so. He forwarded a link to his paper being published by the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal quoting research by Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, a Penn State University professor expert in immigration law, indicating that according to records obtained through open-record requests, President George W. Bush’s administration employed "deferred action" an average 771 times in the years 2005-2008, while the pace dropped to 661 per year on average during the first years of the Obama administration. Philip Bobbitt, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas School of Law, pointed us to a June 22, 2012, blog post by Washingon appellate lawyer John P. Elwood in which Elwood says that presidents generally have the power to categorically enforce laws. Yet, Elwood is uncertain that specific provisions of immigration law allow Napolitano to exercise her discretion as announced in her memo. His post closes with his hope that the Office of Legal Counsel, the U.S. Justice Department’s arm devoted to providing "authoritative" legal advice to the president and executive branch, issues an opinion on the legal basis for the administration’s action. In a telephone interview, Elwood, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, told us that deferred action has been offered in the past to categories of individuals who share similar plights such as Chinese immigrants who were in the U.S. in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 or immigrants fleeing civil war in Liberia. "I don’t think you can say as a general matter, the president doesn’t have such authority," Elwood said. "The bigger question is whether this exercise" by Napolitano "differs from the past categorical exceptions, if it is a bridge too far." Disclosure: Elwood told us he has donated to Romney’s campaign, though his personal political interests do not influence his opinion on this topic. Our ruling Congress has the power to make immigration laws, as Carter says. Less clearcut is Carter’s interpretation that Obama has overstepped his authority. Most legal experts we consulted thought Obama was on solid ground. We rate Carter’s statement Half True.	None	John Carter	None	None	None	2012-06-27T15:53:05	2012-06-18	['United_States_Congress', 'Barack_Obama']
-pomt-00639	"There are more members of the U.S. Senate than the number of WI families who would benefit from GOP estate tax break."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/may/20/tammy-baldwin/are-there-more-us-senators-wisconsin-residents-who/	To demonstrate how few people would be affected by repealing what Republicans deem the "death tax," Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin compared the payers of the tax to the most selective group in the nation — the United States Senate. Baldwin tweeted this from her account (@SenatorBaldwin) on May 5, 2015: "There are more members of the US Senate than the number of WI families who would benefit from GOP estate tax break." That same night, Baldwin took the Senate floor to talk about the Republican budget, which had just been approved. She voted against the budget, and voiced her disdain for the elimination of the estate tax. "The Republican budget continues the same, failed, top down economics where Washington rigs the rules in favor of special interests, in favor of millionaires and billionaires," she said. Republicans support the elimination of the estate tax saying the tax discourages saving and investment that could help others in the economy. Democrats see the tax as a way to level the playing field between rich and poor and maintain tax revenue. Some form of an estate tax has been on the books since 1916. The tax is imposed on the transfer of a deceased person’s estate. Only estates valued at or above the exemption amount — $5.43 million for 2015 — are required to pay. Republicans repealed the estate tax for 2010, but Congress reinstated the estate tax starting in 2011. The new Republican budget would abolish the estate tax entirely. In January, we rated Baldwin’s statement that middle-class Americans "pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires" as Half True. Turns out, some do and some don’t, depending upon the source of a person’s income. We wondered if Baldwin was right this time. Would fewer than 100 state families really gain from the tax break? Digging into the numbers The Tax Policy Center estimates that the estate tax kicks in for two out of every 1,000 deaths. In 2013, the latest year for which data is available, 49,917 people died in Wisconsin. By that math, some 100 Wisconsin families would have paid the estate estate tax that year. But, just 63 estates paid the tax in that year. Looking back, the last year for which more than 100 estates paid the tax in Wisconsin was 2009, when the exemption amount was much lower — $3.5 million. That year, 290 estates paid. Each year since then, the exemption amount increased and the numbers of families paying the tax in Wisconsin decreased. When we asked Baldwin’s office for backup, staffers directed us to a report by the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities, a left-leaning think tank. That report made state-by-state estimations for the number of estate tax payers in 2016. Sure enough, the center estimated that in 2016 just 70 families in Wisconsin would face the estate tax, well below the 100 family mark Baldwin established in the tweet. The report made projections for 2016 because it would be the first full year that the estate tax would be repealed, if the measure is also passed by House Republicans and signed by President Barack Obama. The report created the estimate based on numbers from the IRS and Congress’ own Joint Committee on Taxation. For 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation projects that 5,400 estates nationally will pay the tax. To create a state-by-state estimate, the report used IRS tax data from 2013. The center assumed the proportion of families from Wisconsin paying the estate tax in 2016 would be the same as in 2013. According to 2013 IRS data, 63 Wisconsin estates paid the tax out of 4,687 total. Applying the same ratio to the 2016 estimate, about 72 families would pay the estate tax from Wisconsin. The report rounded each estimate to the nearest 10 because so few estates pay the tax each year. That put the state estimate at 70. The math adds up, but what about the report’s methodology? Matthew Gardner, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, called the estimation "pretty rock solid" and said the Center on Budget Policies and Priorities used a sensible starting point. "To be able to do anything differently, you would have to know exactly how many people were going to die in 2016," Gardner said. Bob Williams, a fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute, said the "back of the envelope" calculation made sense. Williams did cite a concern about the use of a single year the projection for 2016. What if 2013, he asked, was an outlier? After all, the number varies from year to year. To account for that point, we calculated a new ratio for Wisconsin estate tax payers using the average for a period covering four years, 2010 to 2013. The new figure was lower than the one just for 2013. By that measure, 50 state families would pay the estate tax in 2016. But Baldwin was a bit imprecise in how she made the claim. She did not provide a time frame for the figure and, if imposed, the elimination of the tax would be ongoing. That is, each year more estates would benefit from it. In just the six years of Baldwin’s term, some 400 families would benefit. Our rating Baldwin claimed that "There are more members of the US Senate than the number of WI families who would benefit from GOP estate tax break." The experts we consulted said the estimate cited by Baldwin was a reasonable one. But Baldwin’s claim did not provide a time frame for when the families would be affected, and many more than the 70 she cited would benefit over time. We rate Baldwin’s statement Mostly True.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2015-05-20T14:48:43	2015-05-05	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'United_States']
-farg-00369	"Chuck Schumer, Democrat Senate Minority Leader, Accused of Raping His Daughter’s 16 Year Old Friend: Friend Then 'Committed Suicide.'"	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/phony-schumer-sex-scandal-rebooted/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Saranac Hale Spencer	["America's Last Line of Defense", 'false stories']	Phony Schumer Sex Scandal Rebooted	September 27, 2018	2018-09-27 19:58:52 UTC	['Chuck_Schumer']
-pomt-08259	Says that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993.	/ohio/statements/2010/nov/11/george-voinovich/sen-george-voinovich-suggests-25-cent-increase-rev/	Gasoline prices are climbing, nudging $3 a gallon in Ohio. If a politician was bent on self-preservation, this would not be the best time to propose a tax that would raise the price a little more. But before you suggest firing U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, remember that he’s retiring at the end of the year. Before then, the Ohio Republican wants to start raising the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents -- one cent a month, for 25 months. This would create more than 750,000 jobs by funding road and bridge construction projects, he says, and a portion of the tax could be used to reduce the federal deficit. The general proposal is not new; Voinovich has been pushing it for months. But Voinovich and a Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, trotted it out again on Nov. 5 with a letter to the co-chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The commission, appointed by President Barack Obama, is working toward a Dec. 1 deadline on a proposal to reduce the deficit and address looming fiscal issues. It is not PolitiFact’s mission to say whether Voinovich’s proposal is sound, though there are opponents to his idea. Nor will we take bets on the likelihood of it passing in the very short time Voinovich has left in office. But in a news release announcing the letter, Voinovich on Nov. 8 stressed that the federal fuel tax has not been raised since 1993. Seventeen years without an increase seems like a long time. Has it really been that long? According to the Congressional Research Service, it has. The reasons include not only the long-term nature of highway funding bills and the projects they pay for, requiring years of planning, but also a political distaste among many lawmakers for higher gasoline taxes. Some key dates in the heated history of fuel taxes provide a sense of the challenge. These come from the Congressional Research Service, which provides in-depth analysis for both houses of Congress: 1932: The federal government levied its first fuel tax, at 1 cent per gallon. 1941: The federal tax became permanent under the Revenue Act of 1941. 1973 to 1980: Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter considered gas taxes for a variety of reasons, from fighting inflation to spurring alternative energy development to reducing oil imports. None of these increases passed Congress. 1982: President Ronald Reagan proposed a gas tax to improve the nation’s highways, and Congress agreed. This raised the tax from 4 cents a gallon to 9 cents a gallon. Reagan was a hero to many conservatives, and Voinovich has cited Reagan’s gas-tax initiative while arguing for his own. 1990: With President George H. W. Bush’s signature, Congress raised the gasoline tax to 14.1 cents a gallon, saying it would reduce the federal deficit. 1993: President Bill Clinton failed to get support for a broader energy tax, but Congress passed an alternative, raising the gasoline tax to 18.4 cents a gallon. The purpose was deficit reduction. That’s where the tax stands today: 18.4 cents a gallon. It is charged to refiners but passed along to consumers at the pump. The good news for drivers is that the tax stays flat regardless of how much they pay for gasoline. If the per-gallon price at the pump is $2.00, it includes 18.4 cents worth of federal gasoline taxes. If the price jumps to $3 a gallon, the federal gas tax share is still only 18.4 cents. But Congressional Budget Office projections show that the 18.4 cents a gallon isn’t enough to keep pace with planned highway and transit projects, let alone with the possible rate of inflation. That’s even before considering proposals like Voinovich’s to ramp up road and bridge repairs. "The Interstate Highway System is more than 50 years old and many roadways and bridges are reaching the end of their useful life," he and Carper wrote in their letter to the fiscal reform commission. Starting in 2014, the Highway Trust Fund will go into the red, according to CBO projections, which note that its figures are strictly for illustrative purposes -- because under law, the fund is not allowed to incur negative balances. Unless the gas tax is raised or highway projects cut, the fund will have to draw money from the general treasury, with negative budgetary consequences, CBO figures show. Voinovich notes that that has happened before -- in 2008, 2009 and this year. Altogether, Congress had to transfer $34.5 billion from the general treasury so it could maintain a positive balance in the Highway Trust Fund. The fund fell short those years because of the recession and the high cost of gasoline -- Americans cut out some of their driving -- and from better fuel efficiency, which reduced gasoline consumption. While arguably good for the environment, this created a shortfall for the fund that pays for highway repairs. The trust fund needs $34 billion over the next six years, Voinovich says, and if it doesn’t get it from gasoline taxes, Americans will face the choice of higher deficits or fewer road repairs -- which in turn "will create additional unemployment and continued deterioration of infrastructure." The Congressional Research Service agreed with the need in general, saying in an April 2010 report: "The Highway Trust Fund is in need of an increase in funding." But the report ended with a dose of political reality: "However, a gasoline tax increase is also likely to be unpopular with consumers. It might also drain purchasing power, especially from an economy that is weakened by recession." Voinovich has a difficult case to make. He’s been pushing it for months. But he’ll apparently have some sympathy from the debt commission; in a draft report released Wednesday, Nov. 10, the commission proposed a higher gasoline tax -- raising it gradually by 15 cents beginning in 2013 -- as a way to pay for transportation improvements without raiding the general government treasury. That’s less than Voinovich proposed, and it’s unknown if the provision will be included in the commission’s final report. Also unknown is whether a super-majority of the commission will agree with the full extent of commission proposals -- which include an array of discretionary spending cuts and an eventual raise in the Social Security retirement age -- and whether Congress then will approve the recommendations or shelve them, putting off decisions for another day or year. But when it comes to the history of gas-tax hikes, the facts are on Voinovich’s side, so we rate his statement True. Comment on this item.	None	George Voinovich	None	None	None	2010-11-11T10:00:00	2010-11-08	['None']
-pomt-13112	The media "never show crowds."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/03/donald-trump/trump-says-media-doesnt-show-his-crowds-rallies-he/	Time after time, Donald Trump has complained that the media doesn’t show show the magnitude of his crowds at rallies. "I have to put up with some of the most dishonest people in the world — the media," Trump told a crowd in Pensacola, Fla. "They never shows crowds like that — look at that, it goes all the way back. They never show crowds. They don't show crowds." We wondered if the media really never showed Trump crowds, so we turned to the archives and a former CBS photojournalist to figure it out. The coverage Most rally coverage shown on television focuses on the candidate speaking behind the podium, rather than showing the whole crowd. There’s a reason for this. At campaign events, one television network organization is responsible for controlling the head-on pool camera, and other cameras are responsible for wide shots and reaction shots. Les Rose, a professor at Syracuse and former field producer and photojournalist for CBS, said whoever is working the head-on pool camera is not working for the employer, but working for every television network or station in America. Of course, local news stations and national stations bring their own camera equipment to cover the event, but media outlets are dependent on the footage that is shot on these head-on pool cameras. The cameraperson in charge of the head-on pool camera has a very specific goal: get a shot of the candidate walking onto the stage, a shot of the candidate walking off the stage and the candidate saying the speech. "If (Trump’s) looking strictly at that feed (from the head-on camera), then you’re never going to see a crowd because that’s not the gig," Rose said. The reason news outlets often show the head-on pool footage is because the audio is the most clear in comparison to the other camera responsible for the reaction shots. Rose said the other cameras pick up natural sounds like applause that can make it harder to hear the actual speech. Still, this doesn’t mean the media doesn’t show crowds at Trump rallies. A quick Google search quickly debunked this. Reporters have shown Trump’s crowds through photos. See examples here, here, here, here and here. News stories: "More than 15,000 fired-up Donald Trump fans turned out Monday night to cheer on the presidential nominee heading into the final two weeks of the campaign," reads the lede of a story from the Tampa Bay Times from his Oct. 24 rally in Tampa. "His supporters routinely pointed, as the nominee did, to the huge crowds still flocking to see him as evidence that his campaign remains strong," reads a line from a New York Times article from Trump’s rally in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. The Washington Post even wrote a story about Trump’s crowds that looked into the actual size of crowds at Trump rallies. "Ever since Trump launched his presidential campaign in June 2015, he has attracted massive crowds to rallies across the country," reads the article. "During the primaries, Trump’s head counts were nearly always larger than those of his Republican rivals or Clinton’s, whose audiences back then usually topped out at 1,000. But instead of celebrating the actual size of these crowds, Trump has routinely exaggerated the already large numbers." They also wrote a story about large crowds and how they don’t necessarily correlate with large vote totals. Social media Many reporters have documented Trump’s crowds on Twitter. Ashley Killough, a CNN reporter covering Trump, tweeted a photo of his crowds at a Cinncinati rally with the caption: "Massive crowd at Trump's rally in Cincinnati." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Adam Smith, Tampa Bay Times political editor, tweeted this photo of a Florida rally with the caption, "Trump to 7k crowd promises to pump up NASA and more space exploration." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com BuzzFeed News political reporter Rosie Gray tweeted a video of Trump’s crowd in Newton, Pa., booing the media. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com New England Cable News reporter Danielle Waugh tweeted a photo of the crowd with the caption: "Here's a look at the packed gym for Trump rally in Lisbon, Maine - in case he says media never shows crowds:" See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com CNN Producer Noah Gray tweeted a few shots of a Trump crowd in Geneva, Ohio. The caption: "Pano of crowd at Trump Vegas rally." See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com Our ruling Trump said that the media "never show crowds" at his rallies. This often repeated claim doesn’t take a lot of effort to debunk. The media has documented Trump’s crowds through stories, social media, photos and videos. We rate his claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/47dcbd66-e130-4850-9aa6-01a1e236246b	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-11-03T17:21:07	2016-11-02	['None']
-tron-01572	New Islamic Youth Outreach Center in Dearborn “Sympathetic” to ISIS	https://www.truthorfiction.com/new-islamic-youth-outreach-center-in-dearborn-sympathetic-to-isis/	None	government	None	None	None	New Islamic Youth Outreach Center in Dearborn “Sympathetic” to ISIS	Jul 10, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-04482	Says U.S. Senate opponent Tommy Thompson favors raising taxes on small businesses.	/wisconsin/statements/2012/oct/07/tammy-baldwin/baldwin-says-thompson-wants-raise-taxes-small-busi/	When the first debate in the U.S. Senate race turned to government spurring job growth, Democrat Tammy Baldwin said spending on education, research and infrastructure could boost private-sector employment. Then she trained her criticism on her opponent, Republican Tommy Thompson: "Unfortunately my opponent is supporting a budget plan that -- because he's giving such huge tax breaks to the very wealthy and raising taxes on the middle class and small businesses -- they are slashing those very investments that I think are essential to growth." Thompson turned to Baldwin and responded: "When you don’t have a record you attack the other person. I’m not in Congress -- you are." Thompson then ticked off a list of positive Wisconsin jobs numbers and tax cuts approved during his governorship from 1986 to 2001. The two words -- "small business" -- jumped out for one reader, who asked us to check it out. We’ve dealt before with the other part of Baldwin’s claim, that Thompson wants to raise taxes on the middle class. We rated Half True a claim in a Baldwin TV ad that Thompson "wants to give a new $265,000 tax cut to millionaires like himself while raising taxes on the middle class." The budget plan offered by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which Thompson has endorsed -- and some of Thompson’s own proposals -- would mean big cuts for upper-income earners. But we said the middle-class part drew a questionable conclusion based on worst-case-scenario assumptions about what tax deductions Thompson and Ryan would eliminate. Now, what about raising taxes on small business? When asked for backup, the Baldwin campaign pointed us back to the debate and Thompson’s statement that "we gotta do away with," the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which Republicans term "Obamacare." If you eliminate the law, her campaign said, you also eliminate the law’s income tax credit for hundreds of thousands of small businesses. In other words, Thompson would in effect raise taxes on small businesses. The reference to the federal health reform law was not part of the original Baldwin claim. She spoke broadly about the effect of Thompson’s plans on small business, so we have to take a broader view as well. First, it strikes us as legitimate for Baldwin to hold Thompson to his word on "Obamacare," and on the Ryan budget he has explicitly endorsed. And the health care law does contain a Small Business Health Care Tax Credit designed to cut premium costs and encourage businesses to offer insurance coverage to employees. It’s no small change, either. As of mid-2011, 228,000 taxpayers had claimed more than $278 million in credits, according to federal figures. Those numbers were well below expectations, due in part to some businesses saying credits were not worth the paperwork. But businesses taking the credits can get a break of up to 35 percent on premium payments, and up to 50 percent after 2013. Small businesses and tax-exempt employers can claim the credit for up to six years, as long as they pay at least one-half the cost of health insurance coverage for their employees. One limitation is that it applies only to businesses that pay lower-end wages. So is the loss of a tax credit the same as a tax increase? Experts take both sides, as PolitiFact Wisconsin and PolitiFact New Jersey have noted. In 2011, we gave Gov. Scott Walker a Promise Broken on his pledge to oppose all tax increases because he cut income tax credits related to property and income status. In that case the issue was settled by the official nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which called the changes a tax increase. Thompson, meanwhile, has pounded Baldwin as a tax-raiser because she wouldn’t make permanent for everyone the Bush tax cuts of 2001-’03 that are set to expire -- cuts that included a bevy of sweetened tax credits. At first cut, then, Baldwin’s camp makes a point. But there’s a lot more to this one. First, the federal health reform law includes multiple tax increases for individuals and businesses. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said it’s unfair to pick out just one side of the ledger and ignore the other. Edwards noted the legislation contained a new tax on medical devices companies, some of which are small businesses. Indeed, the tax hikes in the law are one of Thompson’s rationales for opposing the law. What’s more, Thompson has proposed replacing portions of the law with various reforms. One, it turns out, is a tax credit designed -- as in the original law -- to reduce premium costs for small businesses. In Thompson’s case, he would give the credit directly to employees of small businesses instead of the employers, but the goal is the same: To reduce costs. As we noted, there’s a bigger picture here as well -- the impact of Ryan’s federal budget plan and Thompson’s own RESTORE America tax plan on small businesses. Thompson’s plan, mirroring Ryan’s, calls for cutting the top corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Thompson says he would create just one more bracket, at 10 percent. This would apply to businesses large and small. It’s impossible to calculate the net tax effect of Thompson’s positions on small business taxes, in part because he advocates tax simplification but hasn’t revealed which deductions he would end. But he clearly backs a much broader tax break for business -- something that also went unmentioned by Baldwin. Our rating Baldwin said Thompson favors raising taxes on small businesses. Her campaign cited Thompson’s call to repeal the federal health law, which would end a new small-business tax credit in that law. So there is an element of truth. But Baldwin ignores the tax increases that would also be eliminated by a repeal, as well as the fact Thompson would create a different version of the same tax credit. More importantly, she skates past Thompson’s emphasis on tax cuts -- in particular his broader support for dramatically lowering income tax rates for business -- to create an opposite impression among voters. We rate her claim Mostly False.	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2012-10-07T09:00:00	2012-09-28	['Tommy_Thompson', 'United_States']
-pomt-11754	Wisconsin's Lincoln Hills youth prison has a "66 percent recidivism rate," while "states like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/dec/06/gordon-hintz/recidivism-rate-wisconsins-lincoln-hills-youth-pri/	For two years, Wisconsin’s youth prison for males has been under an FBI-led criminal investigation into allegations of prisoner abuse, child neglect, sexual assault, intimidation of witnesses and victims, strangulation and tampering with public records. Should the facility, Lincoln Hills School, be shut down? That question was posed to Wisconsin Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz in an interview on Nov. 21, 2017, the day after the Oshkosh Democrat toured Lincoln Hills. Responding to Wisconsin Eye TV host Steven Walters, Hintz said an alternative would have to be developed first. Then he made a statement that seemed to indict the facility, saying: We have a 66 percent recidivism rate for the kids there, in the three years after they get out. States like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent." So, 66 percent of Lincoln Hills inmates commit new offenses within three years of being released? And that’s eight times higher than in states such as Missouri, which has been held up as a potential model for Wisconsin? We’ll see that, as national experts have stated, comparing states on juvenile recidivism is not easily done. The trouble at Lincoln Hills Lincoln Hills generally holds inmates as young as 13 and as old as 25, with most inmates in their mid-to late-teens; some adults are being held for crimes they committed as juveniles. Incarcerating an inmate there costs more than $100,000 a year. Groups such as Youth Justice Milwaukee, which is calling for Wisconsin’s youth prisons to be closed, argue that conditions at Lincoln Hills can lead to higher recidivism -- inmates committing new offenses after they’re released. Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele has gone even further than Hintz, saying 75 percent of Lincoln Hills inmates fall back into criminal activity. Meanwhile, Missouri -- when facing problems similar to those at Lincoln Hills, such as fights between inmates, long stints in solitary confinement and injuries inflicted by guards -- replaced large institutions with small facilities, closer to young offenders' homes. But the contrast in recidivism between the two states is not how Hintz portrays it. Hintz’s partially accurate evidence To back Hintz’s claim, his office cited a January 2017 report by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau. It says that according to the latest available data, Lincoln Hills has a three-year recidivism rate of 63 percent. That is, 278 juveniles were released from Lincoln Hills in 2011 and 63 percent returned to either a juvenile correctional facility or an adult prison, or were placed on probation for a new offense, by 2014. So, Hintz’s claim of a 66 percent recidivism rate at Lincoln Hills is high by only three percentage points. Missouri’s definition of recidivism is roughly similar to Wisconsin’s, but has four parts. It includes youths who are sent back to the juvenile system, are sent to adult prison, are put on probation, or are put into a 120-day program. But the latest State of Missouri figures show Missouri’s three-year recidivism rate, for 2013 to 2016, is 30 percent. That’s far less than Lincoln Hills’ 63 percent. But it’s also much higher than the 8 percent Hintz claimed. That lower rate applies only to the first part of Missouri’s recidivism definition -- youths who commit new offenses and are sent back to the youth system. Apples and oranges There are also other problems with comparing Lincoln Hills to Missouri: Lincoln Hills Missouri Latest three-year recidivism rate is 2011-2014 Latest recidivism rate is 2013-2016 Only male inmates Male and female offenders Inmates have committed serious, violent crimes — including homicide and robbery — or have had repeated run-ins with the law and didn’t turn their behavior around after being sent to group homes. Youths have committed a wide variety of offenses, from serious felonies to truancy and curfew violations. Those create a major apples-to-oranges problem for Hintz’s statement, particularly the fact Missouri’s count includes many less serious offenders than Lincoln Hills. Our rating Hintz says Wisconsin's Lincoln Hills youth prison has a "66 percent recidivism rate," while "states like Missouri, that have more of a regional model -- 8 percent." He is essentially correct on Wisconsin. The latest figures show that 63 percent of Lincoln Hills offenders are returned to either a juvenile correctional facility or an adult prison, or were placed on probation for a new offense, within three years of being released. But the comparison to Missouri misses on several counts. Missouri reports a three-year youth recidivism rate of 30 percent, not 8 percent -- and even that is misleading. While Lincoln Hills incarcerates only serious male offenders, Missouri’s youth correctional system includes males and females who commit offenses ranging from serious crimes to truancy. So, Hintz is comparing two significantly different populations. Hintz’s statement contains an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression -- our definition of Mostly False. Related fact checks Federal Judge James Peterson: We’ve rated a claim that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, "has less restrictive confinement than the youth at Lincoln Hills." Mostly True. Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn: In Milwaukee County, juveniles arrested for car theft "get sent immediately home, because under the point system in juvenile court" on holding suspects, "a stolen car gets zero points." Mostly False. State Sen. Leah Vukmir (R-Brookfield), a 2018 candidate for U.S. Senate: In 2016, there were 5,570 people in Wisconsin "who committed crimes on probation and they were not revoked." Half True. Federal Judge James Peterson: "Ted Kaczynski has less restrictive confinement than the youth at Lincoln Hills." Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Gordon Hintz	None	None	None	2017-12-06T06:00:00	2017-11-21	['Wisconsin', 'Missouri']
-snes-02968	ISIS murdered 250 children by putting them into a dough kneader.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/isis-murder-250-children-dough-kneader/	None	War/Anti-War	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did ISIS Murder 250 Children with a Dough Kneader?	9 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08696	"Boccieri voted to spend a billion dollars an hour, every hour, for his first 50 days in office"	/ohio/statements/2010/sep/08/jim-renacci/jim-renacci-rips-rep-john-boccieris-votes-spend-bi/	Republicans have been singing this campaign season about federal spending, hoping their charge that Democrats are spending too much money too fast strikes a chord with voters. Jim Renacci, who is challenging incumbent John Boccieri in Ohio's hotly contested 16th Congressional District, has joined the chorus. "Boccieri voted to spend a billion dollars an hour, every hour, for his first 50 days in office," Renacci's campaign website says. That's a serious Congressional shopping spree, one that PolitiFact thought we should check out. We started with the Renacci campaign, asking it to cite a source for its data. Campaign Manager James Slepian sent us to a posting on Politico by Mike Allen, who was reporting on a comment by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican. McConnell, on the 51st day of Barack Obama's presidency, decried spending by the Democrat-controlled Congress, saying "In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus. To put that in perspective, that's about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour - most of it borrowed. There's simply no question: government spending has spun out of control." Here's how the math works. The combined totals of the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus bill (about $787 billion) and the Omnibus Spending Bill for 2009 (about $410 billion) is about $1.2 trillion. The Senate passed the omnibus bill on March 10 -- Day 50 for the Obama administration (the stimulus package was approved in February). Divide $1.2 trillion by 50 days and you get $24 billion a day, or $1 billion an hour. But McConnell's statement used a slightly different time frame than Renacci's statement. The 111th Congress convened its first session on Jan. 6, two weeks before Obama's inauguration. But coincidentally, the House votes on the omnibus bill and the stimulus package also fit a 50-day window. The House approved the final version of the stimulus bill on February 13 -- Day 29 for the House to be in session. The omnibus spending bill was approved Feb. 25 -- Day 50. Boccieri voted in favor of both bills. So the calender works, and the math works, theoretically. But there is a point about the math that needs to be clarified. It is true that the total for those two bills is about $1.2 trillion. And that can be broken down to $1 billion an hour, every hour, for 50 days. And Congress voted to spend that total. But Congress did not vote to spend it by the hour, nor did it spend it within that 50 days. The omnibus spending bill provided money to fund the government for all of 2009. And as Michael Scherer noted in his Swampland blog for TIME magazine that March, even if John McCain had been the new president and Republicans had controlled Congress, most of that spending would have been approved anyway. "No Republican has proposed not funding the government. ... And Republicans would still have needed to find a way to pass the omnibus in the first weeks of the new year." As for the stimulus money, it was projected to be spent over several years, although the bulk has been awarded at this point. As of Aug. 20, $505 billion of the $787 had been awarded in tax benefits, entitlements and contracts, grants and loans. We rate Renacci's statement as Barely True. Comment on this item. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Jim Renacci	None	None	None	2010-09-08T10:30:00	2010-09-01	['None']
-pomt-05448	Says "my advocacy questioning contracting out in Parks … delayed and altered the renewal of the Brooks contract, and reduced the number of contracted employees in Parks from over 100 to fewer than 40."	/oregon/statements/2012/apr/26/amanda-fritz/amanda-fritz-responsible-dropping-number-parks-wor/	Portland Parks & Recreation has long used a contractor to hire workers for seasonal help as lifeguards, instructors, front desk help and such. Organized labor has protested the use, claiming it is a way for the city to avoid paying benefits. Portland city commissioner Amanda Fritz, who is up for re-election in May, opposes privatization of city jobs and recently claimed credit for reducing the number of workers on contract at parks. "At my urging, Commissioner (Nick) Fish reviewed contracting out in Parks. As a result, the number of contracted employees dropped from over 100 to under 40 in the three years I've been in office," she wrote in response to a questionnaire by Occupy Portland. She repeated the claim in another primary election questionnaire: "My advocacy questioning contracting out in Parks, despite not being the Commissioner in Charge of that bureau, delayed and altered the renewal of the Brooks contract, and reduced the number of contracted employees in Parks from over 100 to fewer than 40." The questions for PolitiFact Oregon are straightforward. Did the number of workers on contract at parks drop? And, more importantly, was Fritz responsible for the reduction? Parks spokesman Mark Ross confirmed that in 2009, the bureau had on average between 60 to 120 workers through S. Brooks and Associates. In February 2009, there were 57 workers. By July 2011, the number was 36. So Fritz is correct on the numbers. But was she behind the drop in contracted hires, as she claims? Pinning down this part proved challenging for PolitiFact Oregon. Fritz’s office says yes, and that but for her intervention the numbers would not have declined. However, Parks and Recreation and the city’s Human Resources director both credit a rule that went into effect in January 2008, allowing seasonal city employees to work more hours, thereby reducing the need to hire workers on contract. (A representative for Brooks did not return phone calls or email requesting comment.) "The number had started to dramatically decrease in 2008 once we made the charter change and it has continued to decrease as a result of the charter change and as a result of the types of programs and activities that parks is running," said HR director Yvonne Deckard. Previously seasonal workers could work at most 860 hours in a year. The rule change increased the maximum to 1,200 hours a year. Fritz, we should point out, joined the City Council in January 2009. She had nothing to do with the new hours. So, what is Fritz’s office talking about? Well, in February 2009, the City Council considered renewing the Brooks contract for another five years. This was a sore subject with Laborers’ Local 483, the union that represents many parks workers. Leaders there raised the issue of contract workers with Nick Fish soon after he inherited the bureau in January. Fritz also lobbied Fish to reconsider the contract. "I do recall strongly that she had a concern about that contract," Fish said. "She wanted to know more about it. She did in fact meet with me about it. She's the reason it got scaled back." The City Council eventually agreed to a one-year renewal, not five years. But we still wanted to know how renewing a contract for a shorter period of time reduced the use of Brooks workers. Tim Crail, a spokesman for Fritz, explained that the shortened time period prompted Fish’s office, the parks bureau and labor leaders to "negotiate moving classifications, which has resulted in a reduced reliance on the Brooks contract to fill certain job classifications. Thus the reduction from 100 to 40," he wrote. "But for Commissioner Fritz questioning the five year extension on February 25th, 2009, the changes would not have occurred." Yet that’s not what happened. Crail didn’t have the number of positions recategorized. The contract and its amendments, which we requested, did not change. And Fish told us that talks between parks and labor didn’t result in a new agreement on when to use contract workers. Fish can’t recall how the parks bureau came to reduce its reliance on Brooks. It may have been a combination of concerted effort and scheduling as allowed under the 1,200-hour rule. (By the way, the maximum is now 1,400 hours a year.) "It was both my belief, her belief and, ultimately, the bureau position that we would lessen our reliance on these positions," Fish said. "It’s clear we did not want it used as much." So, how do we rule on Fritz’s statement? The commissioner accurately states that she questioned the use of contract employees at the bureau. It’s also accurate for her to say that from 2009 to 2011, the number of contract employees used by the parks bureau went from 100 to 40. What Fritz has not showed is that but for her questioning, the changes would not have occurred. After all, Fish had concerns about the use of contract workers. Labor had concerns. The terms of the Brooks contract did not change materially after 2009. The city, notably, did not reclassify positions to favor direct hires, as her office claims. Certainly Fritz’s questioning helped prompt a council-level discussion about an issue dear to the union and troubling to the parks commissioner. But the mechanism to reduce the use of contracted temps was a rule change, which stemmed from a charter change, in effect a year before Fritz took office.	None	Amanda Fritz	None	None	None	2012-04-26T00:00:00	2012-04-12	['None']
-snes-02623	A New Zealand Woman died in Pensacola in an attempt to take an "alligator selfie."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alligator-selfie-hoax/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did a Tourist from New Zealand Die Taking an ‘Alligator Selfie’?	13 April 2017	None	['Pensacola,_Florida', 'New_Zealand']
-farg-00502	Katie Couric canceled an interview with Hillary Clinton because Clinton called former President Obama a racial slur.	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/katie-couric-didnt-cancel-clinton-interview/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Sydney Schaedel	['fake news']	Katie Couric Didn’t Cancel Clinton Interview	September 1, 2017	2017-09-03 13:09:02 UTC	['Bill_Clinton', 'Barack_Obama', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Katie_Couric']
-snes-04489	A man absorbed in playing the new Pokemon Go app caused a major traffic accident.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-stops-to-catch-pikachu/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Major Highway Accident After Man Stops in Middle of Highway to Catch Pikachu!	9 July 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-04045	Says state workers have not had across-the-board raises in six years.	/florida/statements/2013/jan/29/michelle-rehwinkel-vasilinda/state-workers-have-gone-six-years-without-raises-s/	Unlike recent years, Florida leaders aren’t talking about budget cuts and layoffs and pay cuts. This year, they’re talking raises. Gov. Rick Scott, facing a tough reelection bid in 2014, wants the state’s projected budget surplus to go toward $2,500 raises for every public school teacher. The Legislature’s Republican leaders reacted with reserve. Senate President Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said teachers are deserving of a raise but so are other state workers, such as correctional officers. House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, said teacher performance should be part of raises, in line with the merit pay plan Scott signed into law in 2011. Then there’s Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, D-Tallahassee, who filed a bill that would award 7 percent raises to all state employees, many of whom live in Tallahassee. She calls it the "State Employee Fairness Act" and says it would cost the state $487 million. "I think the guy or the woman who sweeps the floor and the folks who test the water for (The Department of Environmental Protection) deserve raises across the board," Rehwinkel Vasilinda told the Tallahassee Democrat. "Those people haven't seen raises in six years." A reader recently emailed PolitiFact Florida wondering if state employees have really gone that long without a raise. We looked at the issue two years ago, when then-newly inaugurated Scott toured state agencies and gave employees a chance to ask him questions. A Department of Corrections employee told Scott, who had campaigned on shrinking the state workforce and requiring workers to contribute to their pensions, that public employees have already made sacrifices to help the state’s bottom line. We rated the worker's claim that "state employees haven't received a raise in five or six years" Mostly True. At the time, it had been almost four years and five months since the last general pay adjustment for state workers in 2006. And in 2006, state employees got a lump-sum $1,000 bonus in 2007. With that precedent in mind, we checked in again with the Department of Management Services. The last across-the-board raise the Legislature approved for all state employees was a 3-percent raise on Oct. 1, 2006, a little more than six years ago. "Across the board" is an important distinction. A few state agencies have given pay raises within their departments since 2006, said DMS spokesman Ben Wolf. The Florida Highway Patrol implemented a 5 percent pay increase in 2008, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission issued a 3 percent raise for its law enforcement officers on Jan. 1, 2011, he said. "Other individual employees have received pay increases since 2006 for exemplary performance," Wolf said. Rehwinkel Vasilinda, who represents thousands of state employees who work in the capital city, wants all workers to have a 1 percent raise for every year they did not get a raise, plus 1 percent going forward. "A one-time bonus is not a raise," she said. Florida leaders anticipate a budget surplus this year, but they’re not sure how much will be on hand until estimates are completed in March. That has not stopped interest groups from already clamoring for funds after a years-long dry spell. Sen. Bill Montford, D-Tallahassee, told the Tallahassee Democrat he will introduce a 4 percent salary hike for state workers. Rep. Dwayne Taylor, D-Daytona Beach, introduced a bill that would give state employees a 2 percent raise, and Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, is co-sponsoring the measure in the Florida Senate. Two percent may be what’s feasible, Rehwinkel Vasilinda said, but it does not go far enough. "(Taylor) was doing what he thought was probable and that it would not be a radical departure than what’s gone on the past six years," she said in an interview with PolitiFact Florida. Scott has said he will again ask the Legislature to provide money for agency heads to dole out performance-based raises to high-performing employees, but we won’t know the details until he releases his 2013-14 budget recommendations, which will be released by Feb. 3. The Senate’s budget chief, Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, has said he would rather address pay inequities at certain agencies than give across-the-board raises. Rehwinkel Vasilinda’s bill uses statistics to bolster the case for Florida workers getting a salary bump. Florida may be on track to be the third-most populous state, but in 2011 its state worker-to-resident ratio was the lowest in the nation. At 112 workers to 10,000 residents, Florida’s ratio was 47.4 percent lower than the national average. Florida also spends less money on its state government workforce than any other state. According to DMS, Florida’s 2011 payroll expenditure per state resident was $37, which is 50 percent less than the national average of state government payroll expenditures of $74. Our ruling Rehwinkel Vasilinda claimed state workers have not had a raise in six years. She’s correct that they have not had an across-the-board raise since Oct. 1, 2006. The context of her quote makes it clear she was referring to raises for all state workers, so we rate her claim True.	None	Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda	None	None	None	2013-01-29T11:24:53	2013-01-24	['None']
-tron-02446	Lawn Jockey Statues are Racist	https://www.truthorfiction.com/lawn-jockey-statues-are-racist/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Lawn Jockey Statues are Racist	Jan 29, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05240	"Forty years ago ... about half of congressional districts were genuinely competitive. Today, only about 10 percent of House races on Cook Political Report are listed as ‘toss-ups’ or ‘lean’ to one party."	/georgia/statements/2012/jun/04/john-barrow/barrow-election-competitiveness-down-congress/	Life for moderate Democrats has grown so lonely that Blue Dog U.S. Rep. John Barrow has taken to singing the blues. Barrow warbled his lament in The Washington Post, where he blamed gerrymandering for squeezing moderates out of Congress in a May 17 op-ed. Georgia Republicans drew the Blue Dogs’ co-chairman out of his district in 2011, putting him into heavily Republican territory. He has since moved from Savannah to Augusta as part of a bid to keep his seat in the upcoming election. "Forty years ago, when I was an intern on the Hill, about half of congressional districts were genuinely competitive," Barrow wrote. "Today, only about 10 percent of House races on Cook Political Report are listed as ‘toss-ups’ or ‘lean’ to one party." Congress has been unfriendly territory for moderates lately. The 2010 election culled half the Blue Dog membership, and the partisan fervor that helped kill those congressional careers shows no sign of letting up. But have things changed that much in 40 years? PolitiFact Georgia contacted Barrow spokesman Peyton Bell for more information. Bell said Barrow was going by memory on the statistics from 40 years ago. We searched for data to see whether we could confirm his claim. But first, we checked Barrow’s take on the Cook Political Report numbers. Politicos use this publication widely for odds on political races nationwide. It classifies congressional races into three categories: lean, tossup and likely. "Tossups" are races where either party can win. "Lean" races are competitive, but one party has an advantage. "Likely" races are the least competitive. Cook lists 23 Democratic and 32 Republican seats as "lean" or "tossup" in its May 17 analysis. This means that nearly 13 percent of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are in play. This is close to the 10 percent that Barrow used. Barrow’s statement about congressional races 40 years ago was much weaker. Gary Jacobson is a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego, who studies Congress and congressional elections, especially voters and partisan polarization in Congress. The data he sent us stretches back to the end of World War II. Jacobson assessed the competitiveness of House races by tabulating election results. He calculated the proportion of those that were won with less than 55 percent and 60 percent of the vote. By these definitions, very few races are competitive. Forty years ago, in 1972, only some 15 percent of House races were won with less than 55 percent of the vote. Only 28 percent were won with less than 60 percent. "By neither standard were anything like half the seats competitive," Jacobson said. These rates have gone up and down in the past 40 years. In the 18 years after World War II, the number of races won with 60 percent of the vote or less hovered between 35 percent and 45 percent. The number of those won with 55 percent or less ranged between 20 percent and 28 percent. Since then, the numbers have fluctuated greatly, according to Jacobson’s data. Races were particularly noncompetitive in 1988 and the early 2000s, but they show no clear trend, Jacobson said. The proportion of races won by 60 percent or less of the vote rebounded and broke the 35 percent mark within four to six years of those declines. Those won by 55 percent or less rose above 20 percent. This isn’t to say that moderates are having an easy time. Congressional districts do appear to be getting more partisan, according to other data Jacobson has compiled. But this trend does not appear to be related to redistricting, he said. Half of Barrow’s statement is accurate and the other half isn’t. Barrow’s assessment of Cook Political Report numbers is on target, but House races four decades ago were not as competitive as he recalled. We therefore give Barrow a Half True.	None	John Barrow	None	None	None	2012-06-04T06:00:00	2012-05-17	['None']
-hoer-00720	Famous Violinist Joshua Bell Plays At Metro Station	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/joshua-bell-subway.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Famous Violinist Joshua Bell Plays At Metro Station	2nd August 2010	None	['None']
-snes-05269	Sweden has installed road signs to warn drivers about distracted walkers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sweden-sign-distracted-walkers/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Signs Warning Drivers about Distracted Walkers Were Installed by Artists	3 February 2016	None	['Sweden']
-pomt-14705	Canadian-born Ted Cruz "has had a double passport."	/texas/statements/2016/jan/06/donald-trump/donald-trump-incorrectly-says-ted-cruz-has-had-dou/	New Yorker Donald Trump told The Washington Post that uncertainty over whether Ted Cruz of Texas satisfies the citizenship requirement to be president puts Republicans in a precarious position. Hold on. Legal scholars concur that the Canadian-born but mostly Texas-reared Cruz, battling Trump and others for the Republican presidential nomination, likely fulfills the constitutional imperative that the president be a "natural-born citizen." But there’s a note of uncertainty because the Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the citizenship provision for presidential office holders. The question circulates because Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970, to his Delaware-born mother Eleanor Darragh and Cuban-born father. If Darragh was an American, then under American law, Cruz was an American at birth. We were curious about Trump’s claim in a Jan. 5, 2016, interview with the Post -- offered by the candidate without documentary evidence -- that Cruz has had more than one passport, implying the Houston lawyer spent some time trying to pass as a citizen of either Canada or the U.S. Prior to a Trump rally in Lowell, Mass., the Post asked Trump about Cruz’s Canadian roots. Trump replied: "Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem. It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head." Trump went on: "I’d hate to see something like that get in his way. But a lot of people are talking about it, and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport." There’s no such thing, far as we could tell, as a "double passport." We suspect Trump was suggesting Cruz had obtained both one U.S. and a Canadian one--though our requests for factual backup drew no replies from Trump representatives. Meantime, when we asked Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler about Cruz ever having a "double passport," Tyler replied that Cruz had "never" had a Canadian passport or, he said by email, applied for one. Whether he knew it or not, Cruz for much of his life had dual citizenship, meaning citizenship in Canada and the United States. A Canadian government website says: "You do not apply for dual citizenship and there is no related certificate. Canadians are allowed to take foreign citizenship while keeping their Canadian citizenship." In August 2013, when the Dallas Morning News reported Cruz’s dual status, Cruz said that it came as a surprise to him and his parents. "Nothing against Canada," Cruz said, "but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American." That News’ story said that unless Cruz "formally renounces that citizenship, he will remain a citizen of both countries, legal experts say. That means he could assert the right to vote in Canada or even run for Parliament. On a lunch break from the U.S. Senate, he could head to the nearby embassy — the one flying a bright red maple leaf flag — pull out his Calgary, Alberta, birth certificate and obtain a passport." (We checked a Canadian government web page; it says an adult in the United States seeking a new Canadian passport must apply by mail.) In 2013, Cruz reacted to the News’ story by vowing to shed his Canadian citizenship, which he successfully renounced as of May 14, 2014, the News reported in June 2014. Our ruling Trump said Cruz "has had a double passport." Trump didn’t provide and we didn’t find evidence that Cruz, who relinquished his dual citizenship in 2014, ever carried passports for the U.S. and Canada--nor, Cruz’s camp advises, did he ever apply for a Canada passport. We rate the claim False. FALSE – The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Donald Trump Canadian-born Ted Cruz "has had a double passport." Read more Share Embed	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-01-06T14:56:06	2016-01-05	['Ted_Cruz']
-bove-00055	‘Rahul Gandhi Not A Hindu’: Did Mahatma Gandhi’s Great Grandson Say This?	https://www.boomlive.in/rahul-gandhi-not-a-hindu-did-mahatma-gandhis-great-grandson-say-this/	None	None	None	None	None	‘Rahul Gandhi Not A Hindu’: Did Mahatma Gandhi’s Great Grandson Say This?	Jun 21 2018 7:28 pm, Last Updated: Jun 25 2018 6:00 pm	None	['Mahatma_Gandhi']
-snes-01029	Vyacheslav Ivanov, a former executive at Rosatom, was killed in a February 2018 plane crash as part of a "deep state" plot to cover up corruption by the Clintons.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uranium-one-vyacheslav-ivanov/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Was a Russian Nuclear Executive Killed in a Plane Crash to Cover Up Clinton Corruption?	12 February 2018	None	['Bill_Clinton']
-pomt-07948	The United States has "one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/25/barack-obama/barack-obama-state-union-says-us-corporate-tax-rat/	In his State of the Union address on Jan. 25, 2011, President Barack Obama brought up the idea of simplifying the tax code. "Over the years," he said, "a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change." In noting the nation’s high corporate tax rates, Obama offered a statistic that is more often raised by Republicans. But is it right? We checked this fact before, when it was offered by newly elected Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Toomey for areas where Obama and congressional Republicans could work together. "I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities," Toomey said. "Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates, because we have the highest in the world right now." Using the most straightforward definition of "corporate tax rates," Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies, ranks the "combined corporate income tax rate" in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services. We found that for 2010, the U.S ranked second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point -- 39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations. Still, the issue is complicated, so let’s delve a bit deeper. The OECD rate is the "statutory" rate -- that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But as Obama indicated, many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the "effective tax rate." The World Bank has assembled data from 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out. The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden. This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky. There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't get into. In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden. Taking into account these complexities, we rated Toomey’s comment Mostly True. Obama’s statement is actually more accurate than Toomey’s, because he hedges a bit by saying that the United States has "one of" the highest corporate tax rates in the world. He's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. And U.S. tax rates also are among the biggest by more nuanced measures. So we rate Obama’s statement True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-01-25T23:02:57	2011-01-25	['United_States']
-tron-01592	The “Bill of No Rights” from Georgia Representative Mitchell Kaye	https://www.truthorfiction.com/billofnorights-ht/	None	government	None	None	None	The “Bill of No Rights” from Georgia Representative Mitchell Kaye	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-chct-00206	FACT CHECK: Have House Republicans Done 'Nothing' On Immigration Reform?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/02/09/fact-check-have-house-republicans-done-nothing-on-immigration-reform/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	4:55 PM 02/09/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07127	"Do this research … watch how much crime picks up if you take away [football]."	/georgia/statements/2011/jun/17/ray-lewis/ray-lewis-crime-claim-gets-flagged/	For more than a decade, Ray Lewis has been one of the most fearsome players in professional football. Lewis, a 12-time Pro Bowl linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens, recently offered a prediction if the ongoing National Football League lockout continues through this season that sounded scarier than getting tackled by him. There’s talk that NFL owners and players are closer to a labor agreement, but if not, Lewis says watch out. "Do this research," Lewis told ESPN. "If we don’t have a season, watch how much evil, which we call crime, watch how much crime picks up if you take away our game." Lewis, to be clear, was talking about fans committing more crime, not players. Lewis, as some Atlantans remember, has a criminal history in this city. In 2000, Lewis and some friends got into an argument at a Buckhead nightclub with two men who were fatally stabbed. Lewis pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to probation. Lewis now speaks of his Christian faith and is one of the sport’s most popular players. Thus far, many bloggers and others have laughed at Lewis’ comments. Considering his size and hitting ability, we won’t. Still, we decided to be game and, as Lewis advised, do some research. We tried to talk to the former Super Bowl MVP or one of his representatives, but our efforts were unsuccessful. Our first thought was to look at past NFL work stoppages and see whether crime did increase. In the Super Bowl era, there have been two work stoppages during the regular season. In 1982, the 16-game season was cut down to nine games because of a 57-day labor dispute from late September to mid-November. There was a 24-day strike in 1987. We thought it would be more interesting to see whether there was an increase in crime in 1982 than 1987 because the work stoppage in the earlier year was almost two months long. The nation’s violent crime rate in 1982 was slightly lower than it was the year before the work stoppage, according to FBI crime data. The violent crime rate dropped more significantly the following year, the data show. Northeastern’s Sport in Society center examined Lewis’ claim after a call from us and also focused on the 1982 NFL work stoppage. It, too, reached a similar conclusion. "There is very little evidence supporting Lewis’ claim that crime will increase the longer the work stoppage lasts," the center told us. The Baltimore Sun also looked at crime in 1982 and found an increase during the strike in only one category: homicides. The Sun tried some other methods to tackle Lewis’ claim. The newspaper’s Crime Beat blog looked at crime data last season when the Ravens had their bye (off) week. The Sun found there was slightly more crime during the bye week. The Sun looked at crime in Baltimore the four weeks before the season started and the first four weeks of the season. There was the same number of crimes. The Sun also examined the crime rate there at the end of the Ravens’ season and what happened afterward. What did it find? There was less crime after the season ended in early January. The Sun stressed several times that its findings were unscientific. We tried the Sun’s approach and examined Atlanta crime statistics during the Falcons’ bye. The Falcons’ bye weekend in 2010 was Sunday, Oct. 31, and Monday, Nov. 1, just like the Ravens’. Again, it may be unscientific, but the data do not help Lewis’ argument. They show crime declined around that time. Two weeks beforehand (Oct. 17-23), there were 771 Part I offenses reported. Part I crimes include murder, rape, robbery, auto theft and aggravated assault. There were 755 of those crimes Oct. 24-30. Between Oct. 31 and Nov. 6, there were 736 of those crimes. There were 683 Part I crimes Nov. 7-13. We decided against comparing crime from the last week of the Falcons’ season and the week after. The last week of the Falcons’ season was also the week a snow and ice storm kept much of the region’s population at home. "[The storm] caused a decrease in crime, since there were very few people on the streets," Atlanta police spokesman Carlos Campos said. The FBI says crime typically decreases during football season, but it doesn’t see a correlation, according to a newspaper account provided to us by the Sport in Society center. The FBI believes criminals prefer to strike when the weather is warmer. Some current and former NFL players have argued Lewis has a point, including his quarterback, Joe Flacco. One criminologist we interviewed had a different take. Northeastern University professor James A. Fox heard Lewis’ comments and did a study. He looked at key FBI data from the last three years available, 2006 through 2008, focusing on the week before the Super Bowl because there were no games that week and there was intense interest in football around that time of the year. Fox, who was referred to us by the FBI, found no increase in crime the week there was no football. "I took the Ray Lewis challenge and I don’t see any evidence of [a crime increase]," said Fox, the author of several books on crime who also writes a crime and punishment blog for the Boston Globe. We, too, took the challenge and found no substantive evidence that Lewis has a point. Hopefully, we won’t see this fall whether Lewis is right. For now, we’re throwing a flag on this claim. Our rating is False.	None	Ray Lewis	None	None	None	2011-06-17T06:00:00	2011-05-25	['None']
-abbc-00179	During the 2013 election campaign the Coalition said its first legislative priority in government would be to scrap the carbon tax.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-22/abolish-the-carbon-tax-promise-check/5344596	None	['tax', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'environment', 'environmental-policy', 'liberals', 'abbott-tony', 'australia']	None	None	['tax', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'environment', 'environmental-policy', 'liberals', 'abbott-tony', 'australia']	Promise check: Abolish the carbon tax	Sun 8 May 2016, 9:13am	None	['Coalition_(Australia)']
-goop-01221	Blake Shelton, Kelly Clarkson At War?	https://www.gossipcop.com/blake-shelton-kelly-clarkson-war-feud/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Blake Shelton, Kelly Clarkson At War?	11:39 am, April 9, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07793	Oregon Health Plan rations "covered procedures under certain circumstances"	/oregon/statements/2011/feb/19/wesley-smith/one-pundit-says-oregon-health-plan-rations-covered/	UPDATE, Feb. 21, 2011 -- When we researched this claim, we made three attempts to reach Wesley J. Smith, the author of the Weekly Standard article. He did not respond to our messages, so we researched the claim on the assumption that he was referring to rationing of covered services that the state had previously said it would pay for. After our item was published and rated False, Smith contacted PolitiFact Oregon and said he was misinterpreted. He said he he never meant to imply -- nor did he write -- that the Oregon Health Plan declines to pay for treatment it has previously indicated it will cover. Rather, he says, he meant simply to say that while the Oregon Health Plan does cover some chemotherapy, there are certain treatments that fall under that broad umbrella that would not be covered. "I wasn't saying that she (Barbara Wagner) thought the plan would have permitted her to have the drug. I never meant to imply that. All I was trying to say was that sometimes ... there will be a time when a treatment can be denied under the plan." He added that the claim that we chose to focus on surprised him. He said he would have been a "little more precise" has he known that sentence, in particular, would garner so much attention. The assertion that the Oregon Health Plan rations "covered procedures under certain circumstances" can be read a few different ways. Our take initially, absent Mr. Smith's comments, was that he was implying that the plan could ration treatments that it had previously purported to cover. His clarifications, however, indicate to us that there is a certain amount of underlying truth to what he argued. As such, we've moved the Truth-O-Meter to Half True. Our updated article is below. Also, Barbara Wagner's name was misspelled when this analysis was initially published. The spelling has since been corrected. ----------------------- You might think that naming something "Lie of the Year" would put an issue to rest. Apparently, you’d be wrong. PolitiFact National called Sarah Palin’s assertion that Barack Obama’s health care overhaul would lead to "death panels" Lie of Year back in 2009, but the term keeps cropping up. In a recent Weekly Standard article one writer, Wesley J. Smith, applied the label to Oregon’s own Medicaid program. "‘Single payer’ and ‘death panels’ go together like ‘See’s’ and ‘candy,’" he writes. Smith takes aim at several targets -- Wisconsin, Canada’s Medicare, Britain’s National Health Service and, of course, "Obamacare" -- but here’s what he says about the Oregon Health Plan: Oregon, a decidedly liberal state, provides an unequivocal example. In 1993, the Clinton administration gave permission to the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s Medicaid program, to introduce rationing. The system involves a treatment schedule that lists 649 potentially covered procedures. The state pegs the number of procedures the state will cover to the available funds. Patients requiring procedures above the cutoff line are out of luck. As of October 2010, only the first 502 treatments were covered. But even that low number doesn’t tell the full story of rationing in Oregon. The Oregon Health Plan also rations covered procedures under certain circumstances. Chemotherapy, for instance, is not provided if it is deemed to have a 5 percent or less chance of extending the patient’s life for five years, meaning that a patient whose life might be extended a year or two with chemo may not receive it. Worse, even though it is not a formally ranked procedure, assisted suicide is covered under state law. Thus, when two recurrent cancer patients were rationed out of receiving potentially life-extending chemotherapy in 2008, an administrator wrote a letter assuring them that the state would pay for the costs associated with their assisted suicides. Talk about a death panel! There’s a lot to take in here. Did Oregon really start rationing in 1993? Did we really deny lifesaving chemotherapy to a patient? Ultimately, we decided to fact-check one statement that, on its face, might seem a little tame, but, in fact, seems to speak to the implications of Smith’s piece. So, here it is: Does the Oregon Health Plan ration "covered procedures under certain circumstances"? Before we jump into that question, however, we wanted to take this opportunity to correct some factual errors that Darren Coffman, director of Oregon’s Health Services Commission, pointed out when we called to chat with him about the article. 1) The Oregon Health Plan has a list of 679 potentially covered lines of treatment, not 649. The word "procedure" isn’t very accurate when used here, either. Each of those entries is a medical condition with a corresponding treatment plan that could include dozens of procedures. Some conditions are repeated multiple times, Coffman said. Cancer of the liver, for instance, has several lines of treatment. 2) Smith writes that chemotherapy isn’t covered if it has a "5 percent or less chance of extending the patient’s life for five years, meaning that a patient whose life might be extended a year or two with chemo may not receive it." That rule was changed two years back, Coffman said. Now, it’s less cut and dried. Instead there are four conditions under which chemotherapy might be denied. For example, a treatment that has less than a 50 percent chance of extending life, on average, six to 12 months, based on the "best available published evidence" would not be covered. Still, the basic concept remains: If there’s a small chance the treatment will extend life significantly, the state will not cover it. Next, let’s look into this idea of Smith’s that the Oregon Health Plan started "rationing" after 1993 when the Clinton administration gave then- and current-Gov. John Kitzhaber permission to change the way the Medicaid program worked. Kitzhaber did change the way the state’s Medicaid program worked in 1993. And it was a significant change. Here’s the before and after: Before 1994, Oregon’s Medicaid program worked the way most any other state’s program worked. The program covered individuals and families who were either so high risk that private insurance companies would not cover them or who were making a certain percent of the federal poverty level. That option left tens of thousands of Oregonians uninsured. If you made too much to get into the state’s program but not enough to afford a private insurance package, you simply went without. Furthermore, if the state’s budget dipped, officials simply reset the bar at which people were eligible for the program, essentially cutting off people who made too much. After 1994, the state began to prioritize health care treatments. Kitzhaber created a commission that developed this much-talked-about prioritized list. The list gave higher priority to the most effective treatments as indicated by the latest research. At the top, you have preventive care for children and maternity care; at the bottom, plastic surgery, which is, of course, not covered. Every two years, the Legislature draws a line, saying, essentially, we can cover treatment option 502 and up. Or whatever government income might allow. Legislators do not pick which services to provide; they simply draw a funding line. After 1994, the number of treatments covered shrank, but by limiting the services provided -- and therefore the costs -- Oregon could afford to include more folks in the program. Under the new guidelines, the health plan added some 55,000 people who would have otherwise been ineligible, according to state numbers. So which of the above options are rationing? Well, Susan Tolle, the director of Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Ethics in Health Care, says both are. The way most states work -- and the way Oregon worked before ‘94 -- is if you don’t meet the poverty level stipulated "you’re thrown out. You get nothing. You’re ineligible. You don’t receive benefits of any kind. It’s not a discussion of what’s fair or not fair," Tolle said. "I believe that is rationing. And it’s what we did before the Oregon Health Plan." Now, she says, "the Oregon Health Plan has created much more transparency about rationing than before … we are much more public about what people are getting and not getting." Coffman puts it this way: "We’ve chosen to try to cover more people and limit some of the services according to treatments that have been shown to be ineffective or have lower impact on personal health." This is actually what private insurance companies do, as well. We’re convinced by what Tolle says. It may be that the Oregon Health Plan’s current configuration seems more like rationing, given that there’s a prioritized list. But any Medicaid program "rations," whether by denying some services, or denying all services. Oregon takes the former route. This is important, because the idea that Oregon is somehow fundamentally different in the way it denies care is central to Smith’s argument that the state rations even those services that it purports to cover. Let’s move on to his proof: He says Oregon denied life-extending care and instead offered physician-assisted suicide to two cancer patients. This story has roots in a controversy that erupted in summer 2008. According to an Associated Press story and an editorial in The Oregonian from the time, Barbara Wagner, a 64-year-old Springfield woman with lung cancer, was told that the Oregon Health Plan would not cover a prescribed cancer drug, but that it would cover end-of-life care, including physician-assisted suicide. Now, as the editorial from the time pointed out, Wagner had received thousands of dollars worth of care through the Oregon Health Plan in the previous years. And she would continue to do so. However, a specific drug she had been prescribed cost some $4,000 a month and did not meet the standard -- in place at the time -- that the drug should have a 5 percent chance of extending her life by five years. (Under the revised standard, according to Coffman, the outcome would have been the same: the state would not pay for the chemotherapy drug.) At the time, Kitzhaber co-wrote an opinion piece along with the then-chairman of the Oregon Health Services Commission. Here’s how they explained what had happened: "The Oregon Health Plan covers nearly all chemotherapy prescribed for cancer patients, including the multiple rounds of chemotherapy that the woman in this case received. The request for second-line treatment was denied because of the drug’s limited benefit and very high cost." It’s true, Kitzhaber continued, that the Oregon Health Plan covers doctor-assisted suicide but "weighting the cost of end-of-life treatment against the voter-approved Death With Dignity Act was never part of those discussions. No treatment has ever been denied because death would be more ‘cost effective.’" So, with that all sorted out, the question remains, did the Oregon Health Plan decide to ration previously covered treatment? Well, in the case of the woman mentioned above, that doesn’t seem to be the case. From the get-go, the medication she requested would not have been covered. There are clear guidelines for what sorts of treatments should and should not be covered. This drug was never one of them. This wasn’t the case just for the cancer patient in question. It’s the case for all covered under the Oregon Health Plan. So this situation aside, can the Oregon Health Plan suddenly restrict covered treatment lines? It cannot. The process is clear: A commission, every two years, prioritizes treatment plans based on the most current research. There are some 679 of these lines. The state Legislature then draws a funding line -- currently at treatment line 502. That line, and all those above it, are covered, Coffman says. Period. We read Smith’s comment that the plan rations covered procedures to mean that the plan denies patients care it has previously said it covers. However, Smith says that’s not how his words should be interpreted. Instead, he was trying to indicate that while chemotherapy is generally covered under the health plan, there are instances when it’s not. He’s right to a certain extent. Chemotherapy is included in several of the 502 treatment lines currently covered, but the type of chemotherapy covered and the situations under which it is covered are clear and immutable. We understand what he’s saying, but it somewhat confuses and ignores the way in which the prioritized list works. The list is not one of broadly covered procedures -- chemotherapy, organ transplant, physical therapy, etc. -- but one of medical conditions and very specific treatment plans. Smith’s clarification is welcome. It’s also necessary to understanding his argument. As such, we find his claim that the Oregon Health Plan rations "covered procedures under certain circumstances" to be Half True -- the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important, clarifying details.	None	Wesley Smith	None	None	None	2011-02-19T06:00:00	2011-01-31	['None']
-pomt-03863	Research found that "over the course of the existence of the Brady Bill ban, the use of assault weapons in crimes decreased by two thirds."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/mar/11/edward-flynn/milwaukee-police-chief-edward-flynn-says-use-assau/	Coming off his emotional congressional testimony backing legislation to renew a ban on military-style assault weapons, Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn appeared on MSNBC. Asked about criticism alleging that the previous ban had almost no impact on the nation’s homicide rate, Flynn cited studies on the ban done for the U.S. Department of Justice. Researchers, said Flynn, found that "over the course of the existence of the Brady Bill ban, the use of assault weapons in crimes decreased by two-thirds. " He added: "Now, they couldn’t prove causation. Police implemented and embraced a wide variety of strategies and tactics during those 10 years as well. But it’s foolish not to see that there was a correlation. And to demand perfect social science causation proof before we can say that something had an impact on a phenomenon is foolish, it’s rhetorical and it doesn’t relate to the reality of policing." As Congress debates tightening gun controls after the Newtown school massacre, we thought it was worth checking Flynn’s assertion about assault-weapon use during the ban that began in 1994 and expired in 2004. Did a study show a two-thirds drop off in use of assault weapons in crimes? The claim is in wide circulation, having found its way into talking points that U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) offers for the renewal of the assault weapons ban. The National Rifle Association, which is fighting the ban, disputes the number. At issue is a 2004 study, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department. Its author, Christopher S. Koper, also did the federally sponsored report for Congress on the short term (1994-1996) effect of the ban. Koper is a veteran criminology researcher, formerly of the Police Executive Research Forum. At the time of the 2004 study he was a professor affiliated with the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. He is now at the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. The 1994 ban was aimed at semiautomatics, including rifles and pistols, with features "that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense (examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers)," the study said. Flynn and Feinstein point to a conclusion in Koper’s 2004 report that found a big decline in the percentage of assault weapons among the guns seized by law enforcement and sent to federal officials for tracing. That percentage dropped by 70 percent between 1992-’03 and 2001-’02. That is, the percentage went from 5.4 percent to 1.6 percent of guns seized, the study found. The percentages are low because the guns are rarely used in gun crimes. That 70 percent drop is the main evidence for the "two-thirds" claim. There’s another piece of data from Koper’s study that suggests such a major decline. It’s the experience in Boston pre-ban (1991 to 1993) and post-ban (2000 to 2002). There, police saw a 72 percent drop in assault weapons among all guns recovered by police. Let’s take a closer look at both. "The overriding point is that we found consistent evidence across multiple national and local data sources that the use of (assault weapons) declined substantially during the ban years," Koper said in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin. The apparent drop was mainly in assault pistols, not assault rifles. In addition, Koper wrote, based on figures collected in six metro police department "there were indications in the data that (assault weapons) were becoming increasingly rare over time." Koper, however, made clear that he did not try to come up with one definitive number that illustrated the decline in assault weapons seen in the data. A reading of the study shows why. It cautions in great detail that data that shows a 70 percent decline nationally is not conclusive. First, a large majority of guns recovered by police are not sent to federal authorities who trace the gun from its manufacture to sale. So those guns may not be representative of the types of firearms seized by police, the study noted. In addition, the drop may be attributable "in large part" to changes in tracing practices, the study noted. Still, Koper noted in the 2004 study that the dramatic decline started in the year of the ban. Ultimately, he concluded that the trace data "suggest" an actual decline in use of assault weapons in crimes. Koper told us the national tracing data "may overstate the drop, but it's understandable that people cite that number since it's a national figure." He added: "At any rate, there are lots of subtleties in this and no one right answer." The National Rifle Association critique of the Flynn-Feinstein claim is that "traces are not synonymous with crimes." The study acknowledges that, but cites a variety of reasons why guns recovered by police should serve as a "good approximation" of the types of guns used in violent crime, even though many are not clearly linked to such crimes. When we asked Flynn about this, Police Inspector WilliamJessupwrote back saying: "While there are limitations with any type of data, Chief Flynn does consider the 70 percent drop in ATF traces on assault weapons to be a reasonable proxy for the level of crime involving assault weapons during that period." Local findings Koper told us that people who refer to a "two-thirds" drop might also be referring to the study’s finding of a 72 percent reduction in assault weapon use in Boston based on police data about crime guns there. Other metro areas in the study also saw a decline, but only Boston’s dropoff was in the two-thirds range. Milwaukee County was in the study. Data collected here -- just on guns used in homicides -- showed a 17 percent drop from 1995 to 1998 compared to before the ban. That was the smallest reduction among weapon trends studied in Baltimore, Boston, Miami-Dade, St. Louis, Milwaukee and Anchorage. The reductions generally were between 32 and 40 percent, the study said. The Koper study concluded by finding "mixed" success at reducing criminal use of banned guns -- as well as ammunition feeding devices known as large capacity magazines. The decline suggested by the national trace data and the experience in several cities "was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns" equipped with large capacity magazines, based on data studied in Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage, the study found. There was an immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines and it grew as more imports came in, it noted. Bottom line, the study said, was that "because the ban has not yet reduced the use of (large capacity magazines) in crime, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence." The ban’s exemption of millions of pre-ban weapons and magazines ensured gradual effects that "are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future," the study found. Our rating In a cable TV appearance, Flynn said researchers had found that "over the course of the existence of the Brady Bill ban, the use of assault weapons in crimes decreased by two thirds." Flynn accurately quotes the 70 percent figure from an oft-cited study by a veteran researcher for the U.S. Department of Justice. The study makes no claim that the ban caused the apparent decline, but neither does Flynn. Flynn’s claim suffers somewhat, though, from an excess of certainty. The study and its author offer numerous and serious cautions that make clear the 70 percent figure -- while suggestive of a major drop -- is not a definitive figure. And the study makes clear that not all weapons traced by authorities are, as Flynn’s statement implied, used "in crimes." Those are important details that were missing. We rate his statement Half True.	None	Edward Flynn	None	None	None	2013-03-11T09:00:00	2013-03-01	['None']
-tron-00874	A virus for the cell phone	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cellvirus/	None	computers	None	None	None	A virus for the cell phone	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-00230	'Secret Sister Gift Exchange'	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/beware-of-secret-sister-gift-exchange-schemes/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Beware Of 'Secret Sister Gift Exchange' Schemes	November 10, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-05250	Carolina Panthers quarterbacl Cam Newton was arrested for "fixing" Super Bowl 50.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cam-newton-arrested/	None	Junk News	None	David Mikkelson	None	Cam Newton Arrested for Fixing Super Bowl?	8 February 2016	None	['Cam_Newton', 'Carolina_Panthers']
-pomt-13461	Says U.S.-Mexico border has "1 million legal border crossings each and every day."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/14/donald-trump/trump-says-1-million-legal-crossings-along-us-mexi/	Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump broke from his tough talk on immigration recently to highlight a more positive exchange between Mexico and the United States: legal border crossings. "The United States and Mexico share a 2,000-mile border, a half a trillion dollars in annual trade and 1 million legal border crossings each and every day," Trump said during his visit to Mexico Aug. 31. "We are united by our support for democracy, a great love for our people and the contributions of millions of Mexican Americans to the United States." Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto during that same press conference also cited legal crossings, saying, "We share the most travelled border through which every day, legally, more than a million people cross it and over 400,000 vehicles." Given the focus on illegal crossings, we decided to take a look at the flip side: Do 1 million people cross the border legally every day? Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for information. Border patrol processings We couldn't find definitive figures pointing to the 1 million estimate. But experts said it sounds reasonable based on figures we do have for U.S. entries and how intertwined cities are in the border region. A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection told us that along the southwest border, the daily average number of inbound legal crossings of pedestrians, passengers and crew into the United States has increased in recent years. Legal crossing were 462,793 in fiscal year 2013, 483,501 in 2014, and 507,767 in 2015. CBP said 1 million daily crossings seemed accurate when taking into account outbound crossings, which the agency does not track. An entry is recorded for every visit into the United States from Mexico, so one individual could represent multiple crossings in one day. Transportation Department data, compiled from the Homeland Security Department, reflect similar border flows. Pedestrians and passengers on buses, trains and personal vehicles accounted for about 474,686 entries into the United States per day in fiscal year 2014, according to the department’s border crossing/entry data. In fiscal year 2015, that grew to about 496,660. Reasons for travel The border region includes four U.S. states (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas) and six Mexican states and is home to about 14 million people, according to December 2014 data from the Mexican government. The 2014 figures also say one million people cross the U.S.-Mexico border daily. Border cities like El Paso/Juarez and San Diego/Tijuana "are really single urban entities divided by an artificial border," said Douglas S. Massey, sociology and public affairs professor at Princeton University and director of the university’s Office of Population Research. "People often live on one side of the border and work on the other and vice versa, with huge movement in both directions," Massey said. "There are also many, many daily trips in both directions for shopping, business and recreation." The U.S. government also allows Mexican citizens to use Border Crossing Cards to enter the country from Mexico "by land, or by pleasure vessel or ferry." Border crossing cards allow people to go back and forth at will, Massey said. Many of the entries from Mexico to the United States also are Americans coming back into the country, Massey said. Crossings have increased since the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994, he said. "Legal border crossings at the dozens of ports of entries located along the U.S.-Mexican border significantly benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies, which is why the numbers continue to rise," said Noe Garcia, president of the Border Trade Alliance, a nonprofit advocating for improved border affairs and trade relations among Canada, the United States and Mexico. Trade between the United States and Mexico in 2015 totaled about $583.6 billion, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Commerce Department figures show United States exports of goods and services to Mexico also supported about 1.1 million jobs in 2014. We emailed Mexican officials for their entry tallies, but didn’t get a response. Our ruling Trump said the U.S.-Mexico border has "1 million legal border crossings each and every day." Border patrol and Transportation Department data show there are around half a million daily border crossings from Mexico into the United States. While that number doesn’t necessarily represent unique individuals (rather total crossings), the border region is home to about 14 million people, many who cross back and forth between the nations to go to school, work and for recreational purposes. So while there isn’t a hard number pointing to the 1 million total crossings, experts believe it’s a plausible estimate given the needs of the millions of people who live in the border region. With that caveat, we rate Trump’s statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2ea495f3-90ef-4d42-acec-8dc9edc98939	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-09-14T10:53:12	2016-08-31	['None']
-hoer-00233	Facebook Releases New Security Checkup Tool	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/facebook-new-security-checkup-tool.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Facebook Releases New Security Checkup Tool	August 5, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-06501	"Every worker pays 15.3 percent payroll tax."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/12/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-workers-now-pay-153-percent-payro/	Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was the talk of the debate held Oct. 11, 2011, in Hanover, N.H., with Cain’s Republican opponents for the presidential nomination assailing the plan as unworkable. At one point, moderator Charlie Rose warned other candidates that mentioning the plan meant more rebuttal time for Cain. "If you keep mentioning 9-9-9 and Herman Cain, I'm going to have to go back to him every other question," Rose said. Basically, Cain’s plan would replace the existing laws on income taxes, payroll taxes and corporate taxes with flat tax rates of 9 percent -- a 9 percent income tax, a 9 percent national sales tax and a 9 percent corporate tax. Cain’s opponents focused on the proposed new sales tax. "We're not going to give the federal government, Nancy Pelosi, a new pipeline, a 9 percent sales tax for consumers to get hammered by the federal government," said Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania. "How many people believe that we'll keep the income tax at 9 percent? Anybody?" Cain’s plan seems to have struck a chord with some voters because it appears easy to understand, particularly compared with the current tax code and its mish-mash of different rates, deductions, credits and loopholes. But would voters be better off? The day after the debate, Cain was grilled by NBC’s Chuck Todd, who wanted to know how the plan would affect working people. Todd quoted an analysis by economist Bruce Bartlett that said, "At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut." "First of all, the fact that I got attacked so much and my plan got attacked so much last night, that's a good thing," Cain said. "Because it gives me an opportunity to correct some of those misperceptions. "For example, here's what a lot of people missed, including Bruce Bartlett. ...Start with the 9-9-9 and the fact that every worker pays 15.3 percent payroll tax. Now they're going to pay 9 percent, okay? That's a 6 percentage point difference. The 9-9-9 plan replaces payroll tax, capital gains tax, corporate income tax, personal income tax and the death tax. So, five taxes we replace with those three. We start with throwing out the current tax code." Cain is suggesting that the new national sales tax would be a smaller percentage than today’s payroll taxes. But the 15.3-percent number he mentioned didn’t sound quite right to us, so we decided to check it out. What we found is that Cain is counting both worker and employer contributions to payroll taxes to arrive at the 15.3 percent number. First, here’s a quick primer on how payroll taxes work: If you work for an employer, the employer deducts payroll taxes before you get your paycheck and then sends the money on to the federal government. The taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare; it's listed as FICA on your pay stub. Typically, workers pay 6.2 percent of their first $106,800 in earnings for Social Security taxes, and they pay 1.45 percent on all their earnings for Medicare hospital coverage. That’s a total of 7.65 percent in payroll taxes for workers making less than $106,800. But the employer also has to match those taxes, bringing total contributions on behalf of an individual to 12.4 percent for Social Security and 2.9 percent for Medicare. That means total payroll taxes for each worker reach 15.3 percent, the number Cain mentioned. So most workers see only about half the amount Cain mentioned deducted from their paychecks. (And for every tax rule now in place, it seems like there are exceptions. The exception in this case is on the self-employed. They are required to pay the worker’s share of payroll taxes and the employer share. So that group would be paying the 15.3 percent Cain mentioned.) Also in Cain’s defense, many economists believe that if the government were to end payroll taxes, it would mean higher pay for workers -- maybe not immediately, but at least over the long run, because it’s part of the cost of labor. Still, there’s no rule or law that would require employers to give workers a raise equal to the employer's share of payroll taxes previously paid to the government. The taxes paid now are not considered part of workers’ wages in any formal or legal sense. We have to add one other note of explanation that’s particular to the current economic downturn. In 2010, President Barack Obama and Congress knocked 2 percentage points off Social Security taxes for workers, as an economic stimulus measure. So this year, most workers are paying 4.2 percent while employers pay 6.2 percent. That means the current overall number isn’t 15.3 percent, but 13.3 percent. One final note on the 9-9-9 plan itself: In our review of the commentary on Cain’s tax plan, we saw that economic analysts have said the Cain campaign needs to release more detailed information on the plan so that it can be properly modeled, to find out how much revenue it would generate and how it would affect taxpayers of different income levels. Cain said in the interview with Todd that he intended to release more information on the plan soon. Our ruling Cain said, "Every worker pays 15.3 percent payroll tax." That's not accurate. Workers only pay half that, with the exception of the self-employed, as we mentioned above. The worker contribution is normally 7.65 percent, and thanks to the payroll tax rollback of 2010, the number this year is 5.65 percent. You can reach that number only by including the half of the tax that employers pay. Some economists say that if the employers’ half of payroll taxes were ended, workers would see a proportional rise in wages over the long run. But whatever the case, Cain was talking about the reality today. Workers don't pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax, so we rate Cain's statement Mostly False.	None	Herman Cain	None	None	None	2011-10-12T17:53:29	2011-10-12	['None']
-pomt-10365	"I didn't say" it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/	In a recent radio interview , newscaster Amy Goodman challenged Ralph Nader for saying in 2000 that it didn't matter whether Gore or Bush won. Nader denied saying that, which immediately raised our interest here at PolitiFact. We could've sworn we remembered Nader repeatedly saying there was no difference between the two. In fact, we thought it was a central theme of his 2000 campaign. Here's the full exchange, from the June 18 broadcast of Democracy Now!: Goodman: "Ralph Nader, you said in 2000 it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president. Do you feel that way today?" Nader: "I didn't say that. I said the similarities between Bush and Gore tower over the dwindling real differences that they're willing to argue over." We scoured hundreds of news reports from 2000 looking for an instance of Nader saying Gore and Bush were the same, or that it didn't matter which was elected, or any equivalent phrase. We didn't find those words, but we did find many instances of supporters, opponents, reporters and commentators characterizing Nader's position in those terms. For example, in a New York Times opinion piece in August, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote: "While I admire Mr. Nader's high-minded ideals, his suggestion that there is no difference between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush is irresponsible." Nader took exception to this paraphrase of his position, as he did from time to time throughout the campaign. "I have indicated that there are 'few major differences' between the two parties," Nader responded in a letter to the Times, "not that there is 'no difference between Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush,' as Mr. Kennedy wrote." There's a reason Kennedy and so many other observers were left with this impression. Again and again throughout the campaign, Nader implied that he thought Bush and Gore equally objectionable. "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies," Nader said in a news conference in September 2000. "The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later. "It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity." Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore." Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party." A few other news reports quoted Nader saying outright that it didn't matter whether Gore and Bush got elected, but these reports didn't provide enough context for us to feel comfortable pinning the sentiment on Nader. For example, here's a line from a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece on Oct. 26, 2000: "In comments as hostile to Gore as to Bush, Nader said it 'doesn't matter' which of them wins because both parties are mired in 'decay.' " Maybe he said that, but without a fuller quote, we have to allow for the possibility that he stopped just short of saying it, as he did in most of his campaign appearances. So no, Nader never explicitly said "it doesn't really matter whether Gore or Bush is president." But his talk of "Republicrats," "Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum," and "one corporate party" left many people — friend, foe and impartial observer alike — with the impression that that's what he believed. We find Nadar's statement that he "never said" it to be Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Ralph Nader	None	None	None	2008-06-30T00:00:00	2008-06-18	['Al_Gore', 'George_W._Bush']
-pomt-12023	"Long gas lines forming in North Korea."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/sep/19/donald-trump/are-gas-lines-forming-north-korea/	As North Korea continues to try the West’s patience with a series of nuclear and missile tests, President Donald Trump is touting the success of tightening sanctions against the rogue nation. Referring to a conversation he had with South Korean president Moon Jae-in, Trump tweeted on Sept. 17, "I spoke with President Moon of South Korea last night. Asked him how Rocket Man is doing. Long gas lines forming in North Korea. Too bad!" Is it true that there are "long gas lines forming in North Korea"? We checked with several experts and reviewed the fragmentary news reporting out of Pyongyang. Gasoline supplies do seem to be short in North Korea these days, and the White House provided one article that cited long lines in April. But the unusual nature of the country’s top-down system of control and its minimal levels of car ownership suggest the idea of "long gas lines" is exaggerated. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com What’s the evidence? The White House told us that the remark referred to the sanctions package against North Korea approved by the United Nations on Sept. 11 that, in part, "reduces about 30 percent of oil provided to North Korea by cutting off over 55 percent of refined petroleum products." It’s unclear whether these particular sanctions could have acted quickly enough to show up on North Korean streets within a week. But they did provide one article citing long gas lines in North Korea, well before the most recent round of sanctions. It was an Associated Press dispatch from April that said in the wake of the initial gas shortage, "lines at other stations were much longer than usual and prices appeared to be rising significantly." There is strong evidence that North Korea has been facing gasoline shortages this year. NKNews, an independent news outlet with operations in Seoul, London and Washington, reported that petroleum and diesel prices are "far higher than usual" in North Korea this year. The April price spike began amid "rumors" that China had been considering a halt of all crude oil sales, NKNews reported. The publication also reported that the government in September imposed "new restrictions against customers filling up jerry cans to buy extra supplies, while a number of gas stations were reported as being closed in the city." All told, gas prices have more than doubled this year, data from NKNews shows. That said, more recent coverage suggests that lines at gas stations aren’t widespread. The NKNews article cautioned in its headline, " ‘Long gas lines’ not forming in North Korean capital, sources say." The Washington Post concurred, writing that Trump’s long gas lines claim "has residents puzzled." So how can gasoline be in short supply in North Korea without many signs of lines forming at the pump? To explain, let’s take a look at the hermit kingdom’s unusual relationship with the automobile. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com A "traffic lady" in Pyongyang, North Korea, in 2008. (Wikimedia commons) Cars in North Korea Personal automobiles in North Korea are rare. They are primarily for government or military use, or by the very richest members of the elite. Private citizens typically can’t own cars unless they have government ties. "You are more likely to know somebody with a private jet than a North Korean is to know somebody with a car," Car and Driver magazine wrote in 2010 There is some anecdotal evidence that the number of cars in North Korea has risen in recent years, possibly due to a spike in the registration of privately purchased vehicles under the name of state enterprises, according to the publication DailyNK. But car ownership rates remain low in comparison to most countries. The combination of legal obstacles and high costs put cars out of the reach of ordinary North Koreans, who live in one of the world’s poorest nations. So, despite the increase in automobile use, the Associated Press reported from the capital of Pyongyang in December 2015 that "it’s unusual to have more than a dozen or so cars waiting behind a red light at any time of day, in any part of the city. At night, the roads remain virtually empty." The size of the vehicle fleet in Pyongyang is so modest that it’s easy to spot examples from a 1974 purchase of Volvo 144 sedans that are still puttering around the city. (North Korea never ended up paying for them, and Sweden is reportedly still tabulating interest on the purchase in the vain hope that the debt will be settled one day.) See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com A billboard for Pyonghwa Motors in a Pyongyang park in 2007. The ad shows a Pyeonghwa Hwiparam, the North Korean version of the Fiat Siena. (Wikimedia commons) Not that North Korean drivers would have many places to go if they did have access to cars. By land area, North Korea is about 20 percent bigger than South Korea, yet it has less than 1 percent of South Korea’s paved-road mileage. Even adding in unpaved roads, the North has only 26 percent of the road mileage that the South has. "Public transport in the major cities is done by electrically driven buses, and many trucks in the countryside are converted to wood burning," said Erik van Ingen Schenau of the China Motor Vehicle Documentation Center in France. "Outside Pyongyang, people have no cars, and the cars in Pyongyang are (driven by) the upper class, except for some taxis and government vehicles." Because of this, gas lines in North Korea mean something different than ones in the United States. "They indicate not enough supply for non-regime elite ‘luxury’ use," said Joseph DeThomas, a former ambassador who now teaches at Penn State’s School of International Affairs. "It is not meaningless, but it may be less meaningful than would shortages of diesel for ground transport, kerosene for heat and air transport, and heavy fuel oil for power generation, industry and other similar needs." See Figure 5 on PolitiFact.com Our ruling Trump referred to "long gas lines forming in North Korea." North Korea does appear to be facing a gasoline crunch, with prices rising in recent months. But experts we contacted, along with media reports that appeared in response to Trump’s tweet, uncovered little evidence of lines at the pump, likely because the North Korean government exerts such control over gasoline and automobiles that the impact of such shortages are far narrower than they would be in the United States. We rate the statement Half True See Figure 4 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-09-19T10:00:00	2017-09-17	['None']
-pomt-13695	Says "Donald Trump has defended" World War II internment camps.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/29/joaquin-castro/joaquin-castro-says-donald-trump-defended-world-wa/	U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, used his speech on the final night of the Democratic National Convention to share the story of his grandmother, an immigrant from Mexico. His grandmother didn’t always feel welcome in the United States, he said, but she believed her sacrifices would pay off with opportunity for herself and her family — much like immigrants from other countries. "This room is filled with many proud Americans who can tell similar stories about their own families. Great-grandchildren of Irish immigrants who came to cities like New York and Boston and saw signs that read 'No Irish Need Apply' and just worked harder," Castro said. "Grandchildren of Americans who suffered in World War II internment camps — the same camps that Donald Trump has defended — and grew up to be business owners, war heroes, and public servants. Children of immigrants who have contributed to our country as doctors, police officers, and — guess what — even impartial judges." Castro’s jab at Trump caught our attention. Did he really defend internment camps during World War II? Trump did not explicitly defend the internment camps. But he made a lot of people think along those lines by not outright condemning the World War II detention of Japanese Americans during multiple interviews. Trump has said he needed to be there to truly say. We reached out to Castro’s team for more information on that statement, but did not hear back. Trump’s campaign also did not respond by deadline. ‘Racial prejudice, wartime hysteria’ Amid fears about national security after the Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued several executive orders, including Executive Order 9066. The order was to remove people of Japanese ancestry (citizens and immigrants) outside the Pacific military zone. About 120,000 people (including many who were native-born U.S. citizens) were placed in internment camps. Some were detained for up to four years in remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. The United States did not formally apologize for the internment camps until 1988, when President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, which said the World War II actions toward Japanese Americans "were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership." "The experience of mass imprisonment devastated the Japanese American community," said Eric L. Muller, Dan K. Moore Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, who has written books about Japanese Americans during World War II. "The financial losses were vast. Families were torn apart both emotionally and physically," Muller said by email. "A stigma and shame attached to the community that it took decades to shake." Trump’s comments on internment camps Seventy-four years to the day of the Pearl Harbor attack, Trump made his first call to ban Muslims from entering the country. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on," his statement read, citing (shaky) research that "there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population." This idea was, and has continued to be, very controversial. Asked about the ban the next day on Good Morning America, Trump defended his proposal by comparing it to the actions of Roosevelt, "one of the most highly respected presidents." "What I'm doing is no different than FDR," Trump said. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "I take it you are praising the setting up of internment camps for Japanese during world War II?" Trump repeated, "No, I’m not." A similar back and forth occurred on MSNBC that morning when host Joe Scarborough asked Trump, "You certainly aren't proposing internment camps, are you?" "I am not proposing that," Trump said. "It was tough stuff, but it wasn't internment. We're not talking about the Japanese internment camps. No, not at all. But we have to get our head around a very serious problem, and it's getting worse." Also on Dec. 8, Time magazine reported that Trump had waffled on internment camps in a recent interview. Trump told Time that he "would have had to be there at the time" to give a proper answer on whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans. "I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer," Trump told Time. He continued to tell the magazine that wartime sometimes requires tough decisions. A week later, the Japanese American National Museum in Los Angeles, Calif., issued a statement cautioning against provocative rhetoric deliberately provoking fear "of any one group." "To cite the unlawful incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II as an appropriate action and one that could be emulated today is to completely misunderstand that shameful chapter of history," the museum said. On March 27, ABC’s Jonathan Karl asked Trump if he would "rule out" the idea of internment camps for American Muslims, noting that Trump had not proposed internment camps. "I would rule it out, but we would have to be very vigilant," Trump said. "We're going to have to be very smart. We're going to have to be very rigid and very vigilant. And if we're not very, very strong and very, very smart, we have a big, big problem coming up." Since announcing the Muslim ban in December, Trump has slightly shifted his position, telling the Wall Street Journal in June that instead he would temporarily suspend immigration from "regions that have been a major source for terrorists and their supporters." Our ruling Castro said Trump has defended World War II internment camps. Trump likened his proposed Muslim ban to how Roosevelt handled World War II. When pressed by journalists if he supported the internment camps for Japanese Americans under Roosevelt’s order, Trump said he was not praising that exactly. In another interview, Trump said he hates the "concept" of internment camps, but "would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer" on whether he supported or opposed Roosevelt’s action. So Trump’s comments are not as specific as Castro claims, but Trump never mounted an affirmative defense. Sometimes he declined to defend them, other times he has said he would have had to be present when the internment camps were in use. We rate the claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/4e626cbf-8ee1-4b41-b0a5-3073c0fd45f8	None	Joaquin Castro	None	None	None	2016-07-29T01:15:11	2016-07-28	['Donald_Trump']
-pomt-10204	"Through competition as governor, I got agreements to build a nearly $40-billion natural gas pipeline."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/15/sarah-palin/there-is-no-agreement-to-build-and-its-not-40-bil/	In her early campaign appearances, Gov. Sarah Palin has repeatedly boasted about her role in advocating a new natural gas pipeline in Alaska. And she has not always stuck to the truth, as we explain in a story here . This is her at a campaign appearance in Fairfax, Va., on Sept. 10, 2008: "I'm ready to join John McCain in Washington so we can end the corrupt practices of the abuse of earmarks once and for all. We'll do that. Through competition as governor, I got agreements to build a nearly $40-billion natural gas pipeline. That's going to help all of you." A commitment to build new natural gas pipeline from Alaska's remote but resource-rich North Slope would indeed be quite an accomplishment. Alaskans have been seeking it for some three decades. As Palin campaigned for governor, she sharply criticized her predecessor's plan to have major oil companies build the pipeline. After she was elected governor, she sought competing proposals. In August 2008, the Legislature accepted one from TransCanada Corp., a Calgary-based company. Under a plan Palin spearheaded, TransCanada will get $500-million in state funds to design and seek approvals for the pipeline. But they are not obligated to build it. Financing and approvals are far from certain, and the company can back out even if those contingencies come through. Several experts we spoke to were skeptical that TransCanada's plan would come to fruition. "I'll believe it when I see it," said Sarah Ladislaw, a fellow specializing in Western Hemispheric energy issues at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Palin has repeatedly mischaracterized the agreement with TransCanada. In a news conference in Alaska on Aug. 1, 2008, she said the state never before had "commitments to build this line. Now we do." In its news story the next day, the Anchorage Daily News wrote: "That's incorrect. TransCanada has not promised to actually build the gas line, one of the state's grandest and most frustrated economic development dreams. The state license ... is not a construction contract and does not guarantee a pipeline will be built. Rather, it's an exclusive deal under which the state will provide up to $500-million plus other incentives, such as a coordinator to speed up permits, in exchange for TransCanada doing its best to secure the customers, financing, and U.S. and Canadian regulatory clearances." Palin also frequently says the pipeline would cost "nearly $40-billion," as she did in this claim. We're not sure where she got that figure — neither her office in Alaska nor the McCain campaign returned our calls to tell us. TransCanada estimates the cost at $26-billion. Yes, there could be cost overruns. But experts were skeptical the price could reach Palin's estimate. Palin's accomplishment sounds impressive in her words — far more than it actually is. The agreement she reached — with the help of the Alaska State Legislature — is not a commitment to build, but rather a commitment to begin planning the massive project. Palin's claim suggests that construction is assured, but that's just not true. And if it were, it wouldn't be a $40-billion pipeline. Those are two significant flaws in this claim Palin makes repeatedly. Still, there is a new agreement that was forged with Palin as governor, so we rate her boast as Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Sarah Palin	None	None	None	2008-09-15T00:00:00	2008-09-10	['None']
-snes-04731	An animated image captures a real-life road rage incident.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/one-way-to-stop-road-rage/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	That’s One Way to Stop Road Rage	23 May 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01934	"Under Governor Crist, 3,000 teachers laid off."	/florida/statements/2014/jun/26/rick-scott/scott-ad-blames-crist-3000-teachers-laid/	Former Gov. Charlie Crist often tells voters that he saved thousands of teachers’ jobs when he accepted federal stimulus dollars during the recession. But Republican Gov. Rick Scott’s political committee, Let��s Get to Work, slams Crist for the loss of thousands of teacher jobs in a TV ad. Here is part of the script: "Governor Crist cut education by $300 million. Under Governor Crist, 3,000 teachers laid off," says the narrator, as text on the screen cites the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Governor Crist allowed college tuition to go up 15 percent every year. Our schools and students paid the price." Here, we will fact-check if 3,000 teachers were laid off under Crist and if he was to blame. The ad launched in the Orlando, Tampa and West Palm markets starting June 24. (We’ve already fact-checked claims about the 15 percent college tuition differential.) Spoiler alert: State data shows the number of teachers statewide dropped between the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years by a number slightly larger than what the ad reports. But determining how many were laid off is tricky, and if the Republicans want to blame Crist, then they should also blame the Republican-dominated Legislature that signed off on the cuts amid a recession. How Florida cut education during the recession In the years leading up to Charlie Crist winning the governor’s race in 2006, the Florida economy was booming, pushing up funding for education. The K-12 budget when Crist took office was nearly $18 billion, including state and local dollars. But in 2007, Florida’s tax collections sagged as the economy crumbled. The Legislature held a special session in September to determine how to fill a $1.1 billion hole in a $71 billion state budget. Education and health care, two of the largest expenses ended up taking huge hits. Crist promised if voters approved a property tax cut in January 2008, it wouldn’t diminish school funding. He proposed a budget plan that called for a $1 billion increase in funding. But in 2008, the state continued to suffer from a recession that led to more cuts. Republican leaders rejected Crist’s call to expand Lottery games and a property tax hike to pay for schools. "No Tax Increases," declared a sign on the House floor as lawmakers debated the final budget bill in 2008. By the end of the session, lawmakers cut K-12 by more than $300 million. Democrats, the minority party in Tallahassee, and the teachers’ union opposed the cuts. "We all want to do more," said Crist, a Republican at the time, at the end of the session. "You just do the best you can." Amid shortfalls, the Legislature continued to slash the budget in 2009. But then the state got some help from the feds. In 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the $787 billion federal stimulus bill that saved jobs for teachers and other government workers nationwide. Crist proudly touts his support for the stimulus -- saying that he stopped "the layoffs of some 20,000 school teachers during the global economic meltdown." Without stimulus dollars, there could have been massive teacher layoffs, though it’s difficult to pinpoint the precise number. State data indicated that about 19,000 full-time equivalent jobs for instructional personnel were saved by the stimulus. Crist was a big-time cheerleader for the stimulus (literally embracing President Barack Obama over it) but the main credit for passing it goes to Obama and Congress. We rated Crist’s claim that he stopped 20,000 teacher layoffs Half True. Republicans cite report for teacher layoff numbers The ad attacking Crist for 3,000 teacher layoffs relies on a September 2009 report by the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research that tallied jobs shed from state and local governments during the recession. The report includes a list that shows the lost teacher jobs in Florida added up to about 3,700. Here’s the problem with the way the ad uses that report: it doesn’t explain that it was based on news articles about layoffs or potential layoffs. The report explains that caveat clearly: "This list shows press accounts of government planned job cuts. In some cases, the cuts may not have actually been implemented because of subsequent budget adjustments. Also, the job losses may have been met through attrition rather than actual layoffs." For example, one article cited in the report stated that Miami-Dade, the state’s largest district, "cut nearly 1,000 teaching positions." But the Miami Herald reported that many teachers were moved into other jobs, and a district spokesman told PolitiFact Florida that no teacher was laid off. Broward initially cut about 400 teachers, but rehired about 75 percent of them. While Marion County announced it would cut about 500 workers, the stimulus "saved us from having to lay a single person off in 2008 or 2009," a school district spokesman told PolitiFact Florida. Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties -- none of which were cited in the report -- didn’t lay off any teachers. (The report only cited about 15 percent of Florida’s school districts.) State data doesn’t show reasons for teacher declines School districts report to the state Department of Education the number of teachers they have each year. That data showed 3,282 fewer teachers in the fall of 2008 compared to 2007 -- about a 2 percent decline. There was a smaller drop the next year. It’s fair to assume that some of those declines were due to layoffs, but the districts don’t tell the state how many of the declines were due to layoffs or other reasons such as teachers who retired, quit or were fired. "There were some layoffs during the steep downhill dive of the state economy, but there was a strong effort in school districts to avoid teacher layoffs," said Ruth Haseman Melton, director of government relations for the Florida School Boards Association. In some districts that meant other support workers -- such as custodians or bus drivers -- absorbed the bulk of the layoffs, she said. Our ruling A TV ad by Scott’s political committee says that under Crist, 3,000 teachers were laid off. The ad omits some key points. The number was derived from media reports about possible layoffs, not all were actual layoffs. Also, Crist accepted federal stimulus money that preserved thousands of teacher jobs. Finally, Crist was not solely responsible for teacher layoffs. Crist and the Republican-led Legislature signed off on budget cuts amid a national recession -- and no single politician is responsible for that economic meltdown. Clearly, some teachers were laid off statewide, but the ad lacks evidence that it amounted to 3,000 positions. We rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2014-06-26T11:57:38	2014-06-23	['None']
-tron-01432	Gerber Recalling Banana Baby Food Owing to the Discovery of Pieces of Glass in Some Products	https://www.truthorfiction.com/gerber-banana-baby-food/	None	food	None	None	None	Gerber Recalling Banana Baby Food Owing to the Discovery of Pieces of Glass in Some Products	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-abbc-00313	The claim: NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley says electricity privatisation pushes up power prices and households in privatised South Australia have the highest bills.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/fact-check-does-privatisation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316	The claim: NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley says electricity privatisation pushes up power prices and households in privatised South Australia have the highest bills.	['government-and-politics', 'elections', 'privatisation-and-deregulation', 'alp', 'nsw']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'elections', 'privatisation-and-deregulation', 'alp', 'nsw']	Fact check: Does privatisation increase electricity bills?	Thu 3 Mar 2016, 5:56am	None	['South_Australia', 'New_South_Wales']
-goop-02287	Beyonce Gave Jay-Z Marriage Rules?	https://www.gossipcop.com/beyonce-marriage-rules-jay-z/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Beyonce Gave Jay-Z Marriage Rules?	5:12 pm, October 27, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-02340	Says he "forced Washington to open up the Arctic Ocean to oil drilling."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/24/mark-begich/mark-begich-ad-says-he-forced-dc-open-arctic-oil-d/	As a Democratic senator from Alaska -- a state that President Barack Obama lost by 14 points in 2012 -- it’s been in Mark Begich’s best interest to distance himself from many of the president’s policies as the midterm elections approach. But there’s one topic where Begich has been touting his ability to influence Obama -- oil drilling, a crucial issue for Alaskans, whose economy is heavily dependent on oil production. In Begich’s latest statewide TV ad, the narrator -- Begich’s wife, Deborah Bonito -- highlights his commitment to fighting for Alaskan issues, including drilling. ‘There’s nowhere he won’t go to listen and stand up for Alaskans," the ad says. "He forced Washington to open up the Arctic Ocean to oil drilling." We thought we’d take a closer look at Begich’s involvement in the Alaska Arctic drilling. When Royal Dutch Shell started fighting to drill in the Arctic, Begich wasn’t yet in office. By February 2008, Royal Dutch Shell held leases to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, portions of the Arctic Ocean near the Alaskan mainland. No one had drilled there for two decades. But lease-holding companies can’t drill without first clearing a number of other procedural hurdles. Once it had sold Shell leases, the government still needed to grant dozens of technical approvals, including exploration plans, water permits and air permits. That’s where Begich, the only Democrat elected statewide, came in. After getting elected in November 2008, he made his priorities known to the White House. The New York Times reported that when Begich and Obama first met in 2008, Begich said of oil drilling issues, "If I’m elected, this is what I’m going to focus on." Begich -- a Democrat working with a Democratic administration -- may have had more sway than his colleague, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, in pushing along the permitting process. Peter Van Tuyn, whose law firm Bessenyey and Van Tuyn LLC has fought against oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, agrees that Begich has had a key role on the issue. "His biggest influence has been picking up the phone or having those people into his office or in hearings and saying ‘Dammit, we need to get this done,’ " Van Tuyn said. Begich told the Times that "any time (Obama) initiated a call, I felt that was carte blanche to make my case" for Arctic drilling. As of 2012, Begich had assembled a six-page chronology of contact on oil drilling between his office and the White House. Eventually, in September 2012, Shell began drilling in the Chukchi Sea. However, it didn’t go according to plan. After spending $5 billion on the project, Shell wasn’t able to fully drill any wells that season. In March 2013, an Interior Department report found that Shell had violated permits, didn’t test certain systems in advance and lost a drilling rig. After that, Shell said it still planned to drill during the summer of 2014. But the company backed out in January after a court sided with environmental groups in ruling that in 2008, the federal government had underestimated how much oil drilling would happen when awarding the lease. This ruling didn’t block all drilling, but it did put more legal obstacles in Shell’s way. The administration could choose to appeal the decision, which only directly affects one lease sale, not all Arctic lease sales. Shell’s CEO said there was too much uncertainty to move forward with drilling in 2014. Other companies have leases to drill in the area as well, but experts told us they’ve hung back and waited to see how Shell does. So, in 2014, no companies are drilling in the Alaska Arctic, despite the efforts of Begich and others. Our ruling Begich’s ad claimed that "he forced Washington to open up the Arctic Ocean to oil drilling." Begich wasn’t in the Senate when the government awarded leases to Shell, but the leases were only the first step toward drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Numerous other federal permits were required before Shell could drill there, and by multiple accounts, Begich played a key role in pushing the administration from the time he began serving in the Senate. Shell did drill in 2012 -- the first activity in that region of the Arctic in decades -- though after complications arose, including legal ones, the company hasn’t done so again. So Begich can rightfully take credit for helping advancing Shell’s oil-drilling permits in the Arctic Ocean, but there’s currently no drilling taking place. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Mark Begich	None	None	None	2014-03-24T16:54:53	2014-03-20	['None']
-pomt-12107	"Rosa Parks’ daughter praises (President Donald) Trump’s response to Charlottesville."	/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/23/blog-posting/fake-news-rosa-parks-had-no-daughter-could-praise-/	A fake news story that said civil rights icon Rosa Parks’ daughter lauded President Donald Trump’s comments on clashes in Charlottesville, Va., was easily identifiable as fake news, because Parks didn’t have any children. The headline on an Aug. 20, 2017, post on ForFreedomWorld.com read, "Breaking: Rosa Parks’ daughter praises Trump’s response to Charlottesville." The story was posted a week after Aug. 12 clashes between white nationalists and anti-racism protesters over efforts to take down Confederate monuments. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media giant’s efforts to combat fake news. The fake story is obviously designed to shock readers that the child of a civil rights hero like Parks could embrace controversial comments by Trump, who had called the violence in Charlottesville a result of "hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides." The post quoted someone named Muriel Parks-Rosenberg speaking at an event at the Kennedy Center. "President Trump’s reaction has been criticized by the Left, but I don’t see what he did wrong," she is quoted as saying. "He strongly spoke out against hate both from those who make racial animus their primary cause and anarchists who showed up hoping to watch the world burn." "My mother would have been proud of the President’s words," she allegedly told the crowd. "Liberals who seek to use this rally to further their cause and attack President Trump need to go away and never come back. To me, Donald Trump is a modern civil rights icon." Parks is credited as helping spark the civil rights movement after refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man in Montgomery, Ala., in 1955. Parks died in 2005 at age 92. But she didn’t have a daughter who spoke in support of Trump, because Parks never had any children. The photo with the story is actually of Ohio state lawmaker Nina Turner. The story was originally posted on Aug. 19 on OurLandOfTheFree.com, a parody site that, like other sites that created stories we’ve debunked, attempts to fool conservatives with absurd stories. OurLandOfTheFree.com said at the bottom of its home page that the site’s creators "make no guarantee that what you read here is true. In fact, it most definitely is not." Its About Us page noted, "All posts should be considered satirical and all images photoshopped to look like something they’re not." Stories from sites like OurLandOfTheFree.com often are shared on other outlets, with no indication they are made up. Notably, the Republican Party of Virginia was fooled by this story. A volunteer for the group posted the original link on the party’s Facebook page, but it was eventually removed. This claim came from a website that fabricates all of its content. We rate it Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-08-23T10:13:59	2017-08-20	['None']
-pomt-03089	"According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing Obamacare would increase the budget deficit."	/new-hampshire/statements/2013/sep/25/carol-shea-porter/carol-shea-porter-says-repealing-obamacare-would-i/	Since the health care law proposed by President Barack Obama passed in 2010, Republicans have made it a top priority to dismantle the program. The latest attempt involves a House spending bill, which would keep the federal government running through mid-December, but also strip all funding for the Affordable Care Act. Obama has already threatened to veto the bill, but as the proposal was being debated, U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, was quick to denounce it. When it came up for a vote on Sept. 20, 2013, Shea-Porter joined nearly every other member of her party in voting against the resolution, which passed the House, 230-189. In a written statement, Shea-Porter called the resolution (H.J.Res.59) an "irresponsible political ploy," and said repealing Obamacare would increase the budget deficit. She cited information from the Congressional Budget Office, which provides nonpartisan analysis of the federal budget and the economy to Congress. "I agree with most Americans that we should keep the government open, but Speaker Boehner and House Republicans are threatening to shut it down unless Congress defunds the Affordable Care Act, a law that was passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court," Shea-Porter said in the statement. In addition to risking a government shutdown, she added, "according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing Obamacare would increase the budget deficit." We wondered if her claim was true, so we checked the CBO’s published research. We found that the CBO has been asked to estimate the cost of repealing Obamacare twice previously. First, in July 2012, CBO projected that repealing the new health reform law would increase the deficit by an estimated $109 billion over a decade. CBO was asked to study repealing Obamacare a second time in May 2013. The office determined it didn't have enough time to do a full study, and referred Congress to its earlier projections from 2012. A closer look at the CBO’s research shows that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit because the net savings from eliminating new insurance mandates would be offset by spending increases and revenue reductions. Here’s a broad look at the CBO’s calculations: • The health care law expands health insurance coverage, but not without increasing some costs for the federal government. The law provides subsidies for some people who buy health insurance through new exchanges. It also increases spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and establishes tax credits for certain small employers. Repealing the new coverage provisions would yield a net savings of $1,171 billion over 10 years. • The new health care law would also bring in new revenue, mostly by increasing a payroll tax for Medicare hospital insurance and extending it to net investment income for high-income taxpayers. The law also imposes new excise taxes on some equipment manufacturers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over 10 years. • CBO has also calculated that the Affordable Care Act would produce major savings in health care costs, primarily through reductions in Medicare spending. Repealing those efforts would increase direct spending by an estimated $711 billion over 10 years. We should note a few caveats, however. First, the CBO acknowledges those projections are only estimates, since it’s still highly uncertain what the effects of the Affordable Care Act will be. Second, the CBO analysis referenced above was based on a 2012 proposal to repeal Obamacare. In her press release, Shea-Porter blurs the difference between defunding and repealing Obamacare -- two approaches that sound similar but actually are somewhat different. Unlike a repeal of the law -- that is, completely striking it from existence -- defunding it would leave all of the provisions in place. Because defunding is a more complicated proposal to analyze than a simple repeal, the CBO did not do a full analysis of the defunding proposal. So the most recent numerical CBO estimate of the impact on the budget deficit is one based on a prior proposal to repeal the law, not the more recent proposal to defund it. Our ruling Shea-Porter said that, "according to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing Obamacare would increase the budget deficit." She phrased her press release carefully -- she said "repealing" the law would increase the deficit. The CBO did indeed make that projection more than a year ago. However, it’s worth noting that her release targeted a different legislative approach -- defunding Obamacare, rather than repealing it -- and that’s an approach about which the CBO has not yet passed judgment. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Carol Shea-Porter	None	None	None	2013-09-25T17:14:00	2013-09-20	['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act', 'Congressional_Budget_Office']
-pomt-05227	"District 22 includes about 80% of the district I have represented since 2010. District 20 includes about 20% of the area I have represented since 2010."	/florida/statements/2012/jun/06/jack-latvala/new-pinellas-redistricting-maps-trip-jack-latvala/	Sen. Jack Latvala wants to be president of the state Senate in a few years. To do it, the Clearwater resident needs the support of two kinds of people: a majority of his Republican colleagues and a lot of new voters in his re-election bid. Latvala, who returned to the Senate in 2010, tried to explain to his constituents just how many new voters he would face in two "sensible-looking" Pinellas County-dominated districts drawn by the Legislature during the redistricting process. "District 22 includes about 80% of the district I have represented since 2010," he wrote in a June 2012 newsletter to constituents. "District 20 includes about 20% of the area I have represented since 2010 as well as much of the area in North Pinellas County that I represented in the Florida Senate from 1994 to 2002." Latvala decided on June 6, 2012, to enter the District 20 race. A reader asked us to review his comments from the newsletter. We decided a graphic -- a first for PolitiFact -- could do most of the talking. Latvala’s current District 16 sprawls across Tampa Bay and includes the west coast of Tampa, the northwest corner of Hillsborough County and the eastern half of Pinellas County. In all, 431,916 residents live there, according to our analysis of Senate redistricting data. This year, the Legislature operated under new voter-approved restrictions to draw districts that are compact and more in line with county boundaries. So lawmakers divided District 16 into four new districts around Tampa Bay -- 17, 19, 20 and 22. About 277,692 of those District 16 residents, or 64 percent, are now in District 22, which covers central Pinellas County, the southern Pinellas beaches and hops the bay to encompass south Tampa. It’s not 80 percent, as Latvala claimed. About 19 percent of District 16 residents are now in District 20, which blankets the northern Pinellas County cities of Largo, Clearwater (where Latvala currently lives), Safety Harbor and Oldsmar. This part is in line with what he told newsletter recipients. The point Latvala was trying to make, he told us, is that he has one of the highest percentages of taking on new territory as a result of redistricting. Basically, he knew that District 20 included only 20 percent of the population of his old District 16, which is correct. But he wrongly assumed that the remaining 80 percent of his old district would be moved into new District 22. (We're talking about people here, not land area.) Latvala’s newsletter is wrong about District 22 but right about District 20. We rate his statement Half True.	None	Jack Latvala	None	None	None	2012-06-06T13:58:21	2012-06-01	['None']
-tron-03244	Attorney’s letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi	https://www.truthorfiction.com/guthrie-to-pelosi/	None	politics	None	None	None	Attorney’s letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-tron-02292	Bad Angel Pilot Lt. Louis E. Curdes Shot Down His Girlfriend in WWII	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bad-angel-pilot-lt-louis-e-curdes-shot-girlfriend-wwii/	None	military	None	None	None	Bad Angel Pilot Lt. Louis E. Curdes Shot Down His Girlfriend in WWII	Jun 28, 2016	None	['None']
-afck-00294	“Literacy and numeracy skills at primary school level are well below the international average.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/national-youth-policy-unemployment-and-education/	None	None	None	None	None	National Youth Policy: unemployment and education claims fact-checked	2015-06-10 01:12	None	['None']
-pomt-02374	Says 50 percent of millennials don’t associate with "any political party."	/florida/statements/2014/mar/17/rock-vote/half-millennials-dont-associate-democrat-or-republ/	Millennials are not big fans of professing commitment, according to a recent poll. They’re not ready to declare a lifelong love for a political party (or a spouse, for that matter). In Facebook lingo, they might say "It’s complicated" or claim to be in an open relationship with political parties. "They should call us the ‘party pooper’ generation," tweeted Rock the Vote, an organization focused on increasing young registered voters, on March 11, 2014. "50% of #millennials don't associate w/ any political party." After hearing about the youth vote helping elect President Barack Obama, we wondered if that statistic could be correct: Do half of millennials not associate with a political party? Identification and voting aren’t the same In the tweet, Rock the Vote linked to a study released by Pew Research Center in March. Pew conducted the telephone survey of 1,821 adults nationwide in February, including 617 millennials ages 18 to 33, and analyzed previous surveys. This survey asked a variety of questions, ranging from whether they know what a "selfie" is to their thoughts on the tea party. As for millennials, Pew concluded: "They are relatively unattached to organized politics and religion, linked by social media, burdened by debt, distrustful of people, in no rush to marry — and optimistic about the future." The survey showed that 50 percent of millennials describe themselves as political independents, up from 38 percent in 2004. Meanwhile, 27 percent identify as Democrats and 17 percent as Republicans. But a follow-up question shows how they tilt: The 50 percent who self-identified as independents were then asked if they leaned more to either party. Among those 50 percent, 44 percent lean Democratic and 31 percent lean Republican. That leaves about 25 percent who either mentioned another party or say they are independents and don’t lean. When Pew included "leaners," they found that half of millennials identify as Democrats or say they lean toward the Democratic Party, which is 16 points greater than the percentage who identify or say they lean Republican. A Democratic leaner "behaves like a Democrat, thinks like a Democrat, votes like a Democrat," John Petrocik, a University of Missouri political science professor, told PolitiFact Florida. Many voting experts told us that when stated in isolation, describing half of millennials as independents is misleading because it omits their partisan leanings and voting behavior. "A substantial proportion of self-described independents vote consistently Democratic or Republican; they just don’t like to use a party label," said Peter Levine, professor of citizenship and public affairs at Tufts. "True independents -- those who really don’t know which party they’ll support -- are few, and they tend to have low turnout." In the past, millennials have overwhelmingly voted Democratic. In 2008, 66 percent of voters age 18-29 voted for Obama -- that fell to 60 percent in 2012. Other surveys The Pew survey isn’t the only recent poll to look at millennial party identification. A 2012 survey done by American National Election Studies, a collaboration of Stanford University and the University of Michigan, divided respondents into strong and not very strong Democrats and Republicans; independents who lean Democratic or Republican; and flat out independent. Not surprisingly the number of true independents drops -- and it’s far below 50 percent for respondents ages 18-33. Strong Democrat 16.47% Not very strong Democrat 19.77% Independent-Democrat 11.81% All Democrats and leaners 48.05% Independent 16.36% Independent-Republican 11.26% Not very strong Republican 13.37% Republican 10.96% All Republicans and leaners 35.59% Partisan leanings and voting behavior, "demonstrate quite clearly that millennials are by far the most Democratic age group in the American electorate today," said Alan I. Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University. Independents in Florida So what about here in Florida, where about 25 percent of the electorate is independent? In the ages 18-29 category, 40 percent were registered Democrat, 27 percent Republican and 29 percent no party affiliation as of August 2012, according to University of South Florida professor Susan MacManus. "They see themselves as neither (Democrat or Republican) but when push comes to shove, depending on the candidate, they tend to lean Democratic," MacManus told PolitiFact Florida. Our ruling Rock the Vote said "50% of #millennials don't associate w/ any political party." The group quoted a Pew study that showed half of millennials don’t self-identify with either major political party. However, that statement could create a misleading impression that their vote is up for grabs and they have no leanings, and that’s not the case. Half of millennials identify as Democrats or say they lean toward the Democratic Party, which is 16 points greater than the percentage who identify or say they lean Republican, Pew found. Other data and polling experts suggest millennials lean decisively toward Democrats, even when they identify as independents. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Rock the Vote	None	None	None	2014-03-17T17:51:41	2014-03-11	['None']
-goop-00659	Sandra Bullock Does Fear Getting “Dumped At The Altar,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/sandra-bullock-dumped-bryan-randall-marriage/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Sandra Bullock Does NOT Fear Getting “Dumped At The Altar,” Despite Report	12:11 pm, July 11, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-00811	Kylie Jenner Waiting To Have Second Baby Or Wants To Conceive On Father’s Day?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-travis-scott-second-baby-fathers-day-made-up/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kylie Jenner Waiting To Have Second Baby Or Wants To Conceive On Father’s Day?	10:41 am, June 16, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00743	Breast Cancer Site Email	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/breast-cancer-email.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Breast Cancer Site Email (Not a Hoax)	30th January 2010	None	['None']
-pomt-03247	Says President Franklin Delano Roosevelt "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/	Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining power of public-employee unions were philosophically in line with principles espoused by President Franklin Roosevelt, the liberal Democratic icon. Walker drew the comparison in a July 29, 2013 speech at the Governmental Research Association policy conference hosted by Milwaukee’s Public Policy Forum. The governor, whose Act 10 law wiped away most subjects of bargaining for most public unions and shifted more pension and health-care costs to workers, argued the changes helped balance government budgets and made merit more important than teacher seniority in schools. "We think it has a dynamic impact going forward on how we perform, and that is putting power in the hands of the people duly elected at the state and at the local level," Walker said. "It’s why -- some people are surprised to know this -- the position I pushed is not unlike the principle that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not exactly a conservative, pushed as well when it came to public sector collective bargaining," Walker added. "He felt that there wasn't a need -- and others like him, (former New York Mayor Fiorello) LaGuardia and others -- felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people. We are the people." Did Roosevelt -- the patron of the post-Depression boost in organizing by industrial unions in the private sector -- really take the position that when it came to federal government employees, there "wasn’t a need" to have collective bargaining? Before we check Walker’s claim, let’s stipulate the obvious: There are dramatic differences between Walker and the architect of the New Deal, from their approaches to governing in times of economic distress to their views on the proper size and role of the state. In the labor realm, when it came to private-sector unions whose cause he championed, FDR called collective bargaining a "fundamental individual right." Walker, meanwhile, has not ruled out signing "right to work" limits on private-sector unions, though he’s not pushing it now. That’s one reason the comparison so riled Democrats and union leaders. "FDR brought us out of the Great Depression with strong investment in workers and jobs programs that worked," Wisconsin State AFL-CIO leader Phil Neuenfeldt said. "Scott Walker is drowning in a jobs deficit and to compare himself to FDR is laughably delusional." But Walker in his speech made a claim on a very specific historical point: FDR’s views on collective bargaining for public employees. And that is the claim we are examining. Where Roosevelt stood Compared to the mountain of evidence on FDR’s sympathetic stance on protections and rights for private laborers, the historical record on his attitude toward public-sector unions is less than a few inches high. Walker cites an on-point and oft-quoted FDR letter that conservatives frequently highlight when arguing for limits on unions in the government sector. That letter, we found, dominates scholarly debate over Roosevelt’s views on this issue. And it’s easy to see why: The president’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention. In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers. Organizations of government employees "have a logical place in Government affairs," he wrote. But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government." Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walker’s comment: "All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management." Roosevelt didn’t stop there. "The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote. When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind. "The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters." Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFE’s bylaws rejected strikes. The letter, the FDR Presidential Library site points out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's "official position" on collective bargaining and federal government employees. Roosevelt had previously laid out his views on public-sector unions at a July 9, 1937 news conference. His statements there add more weight to Walker’s claim. A reporter directly asked Roosevelt "whether he favored government employees joining unions to the extent of collective bargaining with the government." Roosevelt’s response made clear he thought managers should listen to worker concerns, whether raised by union representatives or not. Federal workers are free to join "any union they want," he said. But he recalled that in 1913, when he was Navy assistant secretary, he told a union official the Navy would not enter into a contract with the union because it had no discretion under federal law. "The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay," Roosevelt said. His thinking then still applied, Roosevelt told the reporters in 1937. At the end of news conference, Roosevelt was asked, after making the point that Congress sets compensation: "In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?" Roosevelt: "Not in the government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise." Taken together, the letter and news conference remarks positioned Roosevelt as deeply skeptical of the need and wisdom of collective bargaining power for unions in the federal system. When he wrote that the unique circumstances would make it "impossible" for government officials to make a binding deal on behalf of the government, that didn’t leave a lot of ambiguity. Same with the phrase "insurmountable limitations." What the scholars say Perhaps because of the strong wording of his views, the 1937 letter remains -- nearly 75 years later -- the best piece of evidence on this topic. Even scholars and union officials who chafe at Walker linking himself to FDR have acknowledged the letter’s significance. "Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike," public-sector labor scholar Joseph McCartin told Salon.com shortly after Walker’s dramatic action in 2011. And the current head of the National Federation of Federal Employees says Roosevelt’s words meant he "believed that there should be no right to federal bargaining over wages and benefits." The union chief, William Dougan, told us Roosevelt feared that dealing with multiple unions could lead to pay disparities. To be sure, Roosevelt’s views were in part a product of his time. At the time, government unions had no collective bargaining rights, and it was not uncommon for elected officials to stand against union bargaining rights for government employees. Even in the private-sector, labor rights were still developing, their constitutionality still under debate in the courts. The notion of expanding those powers to the government sector had not yet taken hold -- and it would not under FDR. It wasn’t until 1962 that President John F. Kennedy’s executive order allowed bargaining, and then just over working conditions. Federal unions still cannot bargain over pay and benefits. Still, there are prominent scholarly voices who think Roosevelt’s 1937 letter has been misinterpreted, at least in part. One such voice is McCartin, the Georgetown University history professor who told Salon that "Roosevelt absolutely did not favor collective bargaining for federal workers and especially did not favor the right to strike." When we asked McCartin about that interview, he said he had spoken prematurely. He and other historians note that Roosevelt wrote that collective bargaining, "as usually understood," cannot be transplanted into the public service. Historians and union officials have parsed the phrase for decades, debating its meaning, and sometimes disagreeing with each other. The phrase, some say, leaves open the possibility that Roosevelt supported a modified form of collective bargaining, different from what private workers had created. They note that in the letter, Roosevelt directed his opposition most specifically at the right to strike. Dougan, the union official, believes Roosevelt appeared open to bargaining over working conditions. Several scholars emphasize that Roosevelt later praised a union contract negotiated between the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority and unions representing workers for the electric utility created by the federal government in 1933. The TVA’s board, appointed by Roosevelt, chose as a matter of policy to recognize the unions and bargain with them. The TVA Act signed by Roosevelt did not direct or discourage such bargaining. The TVA episode is "the only effective rebuttal" offered to the words in FDR’s letter, wrote Wilson R. Hart, a longtime labor relations adviser in the federal government who examined Roosevelt’s thinking on unions. Hart felt that the apparent contradiction between FDR’s TVA comments and his 1937 letter strongly suggested that Roosevelt was not denouncing all elements of collective bargaining in the letter. How Walker’s action compares Scholars, including McCartin, believe FDR’s views might have evolved in favor of public sector bargaining -- and against what Walker did. We won’t judge that for this item, but we’ll end with a few observations regarding the two situations, separated by nearly three-quarters of a century. In substance, Walker’s move dramatically limited, but did not completely end, collective bargaining by most public employees. His Act 10 allowed the state to cut benefits and try to limit pay increases. He argued that unions had become too powerful and that elected representatives of the people should have more control over taxpayer-funded compensation. Roosevelt said in the 1937 press conference that compensation levels for federal employees should be set by Congress and the president, not through bargaining with unions. So both men -- decades apart -- envisioned a limited role for unions in the public sector. But the differences in context make the two men’s views hard to compare. Walker acted after 50 years of collective bargaining between the state and its employees -- in the birthplace of public collective bargaining -- while FDR expressed his views before labor won that toehold into that arena. Our rating Walker said FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people." The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelt’s 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDR’s deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining. While Roosevelt was open to discussion with represented and unrepresented employees over working conditions, he seemingly had major concerns about a formal, contractual bargaining process. Scholars cite Roosevelt’s positive comments on the Tennessee Valley Authority labor contracts, and debate certain phraseology in FDR's writings, but it’s limited evidence compared to the clear impression left by the letter and press conference remarks. Roosevelt saw a "logical place" for unions in government affairs, but the most compelling evidence suggests he drew the line at collective bargaining with them. We rate Walker’s narrow statement True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2013-08-13T20:00:00	2013-07-29	['Franklin_D._Roosevelt']
-pomt-11418	"Irish superstar Saoirse Ronan dies after on-set accident in St. Lucia."	/punditfact/statements/2018/mar/20/st-lucia-times/fake-news-circulates-death-hoax-about-saoirse-rona/	Ladybird actress Saoirse Ronan is the victim of an Internet death hoax. "BREAKING: Irish superstar Saoirse Ronan dies after on-set accident in St. Lucia," said the headline from St. Lucian Times, a website with no "about" page or social media accounts. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat online hoaxes. The Irish-American actress is alive. Aside from that major fact error, there are many other inaccurate points in this post. The made-up story said that Ronan died following an on-set accident where she fell 20 feet off a balcony onto a concrete floor while filming her new movie Mary Queen of Scots in the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. But we found that the film was actually filmed in the United Kingdom, across various parts of England and Scotland, and not in St. Lucia. The article fabricated quotes by British film producer and co-chairman of the production company Working Title Films Tim Bevan, who is co-producing the film. A coroner named Bradley Cyril is also quoted as saying Ronan died at Beausejour Medical Center of blunt force trauma due to her fall, passing away shortly after being placed on a ventilator. We found a similar Beausejour Health Centre in Canada, but we did not find any facilities by the name of Beausejour Medical Center, and none in St. Lucia. Consequently, we couldn’t find anyone named Bradley Cyril who works as a known coroner. Also mentioned in the story are supposed injuries suffered by actress Charlize Theron, the "irreplaceable star" for Mary Queen of Scots. Not only is Theron injury-free, she is not in the film. The film is also under the production companies Working Title Films and Focus Features, not Good Universe. We rate this post Pants on Fire.	None	St. Lucia Times	None	None	None	2018-03-20T10:51:02	2018-03-16	['Republic_of_Ireland']
-pomt-08188	Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes on small businesses.	/virginia/statements/2010/nov/26/eric-cantor/eric-cantor-says-expiration-bush-tax-cuts-will-rai/	It’s the worst economy in 80 years and Democrats want to raise taxes on small businesses. That’s the way Rep. Eric Cantor and other Republican leaders describe efforts to let some Bush-era tax cuts expire. During post-election interviews this month, Cantor vowed the GOP will use its newly won majority status to insist that all of the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, including those for the wealthy, be extended past their scheduled expiration at the end of the year. Cantor, like many Republicans, says raising the highest income bracket will penalize small businesses. "The question is are we going to raise taxes on small businesses right now, when we’re looking at those very individuals, those small businesses, to create jobs," Cantor, the soon-to-be House majority leader, said on CNN. "I don’t think many people think that’s a good idea." In addition, Cantor wrote in a Sept. 20 Op/Ed in the Wall Street Journal "roughly half of small business income in America will face a higher rate" if the Bush tax cuts die. Since Cantor is playing a huge role in the national debate on taxes, Virginia PolitiFact examined his claims. First, a little background. Cantor’s assertion focuses on the top bracket of income taxpayers: individuals with earnings more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000. President Bush cut the top tax rate to 35 percent. President Obama wants to raise it to its previous 39.6 percent level, saying it would lower the deficit. How does that tie into small businesses? The GOP for years has pointed to a 2007 Treasury Department report which found that about 75 percent of the wealthiest tax filers are "flow through-business owners" who report some type of non-wage income, such as money from a sole proprietorship, a partnership or an S Corporation (which chooses to pass corporate income, losses, deductions and credit through to its shareholders for federal tax purposes). But that doesn’t mean all these wealthy taxpayers are small business owners. In the words of PolitFact National, which also has vetted this issue: "This kind of income could be reported from anyone who earned money from a source other than a regular job, such as consulting or public speaking. It could also be reported by those who make most of their income from partnerships, such as law firms and medical practices. And it could include investors who have very little involvement in the day-to-day operations of a company." It’s impossible to know how many of these taxpayers are small business owners. Federal tax law does not provide a standard definition of "small business." About 155.4 million individuals and families file income taxes in the United States. The Tax Policy Center, a research group started by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, analyzed IRS figures this summer and found that 2.2 percent of all taxpayers reporting business income -- 540,000 filers -- would be affected if Congress increases the tax rate on top earners. The debate narrows to how many of these wealthy taxpayers should be considered small business owners -- a determination, as we’ve said, that’s impossible. Although there’s no concrete definition of a small business owner, it seems reasonable to us that he or she would make half of his or her income from business ventures. The Tax Policy Center found that 272,000 of the wealthiest filers do that. The average adjusted gross business income -- the money they keep after all deductions -- for these taxpayers is $718,827. "The spin-miestering version of the argument doesn’t mention this," said William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the Tax Foundation, a business-backed tax policy group in Washington. "The viewer would think we’re talking about the appliance store owner on the corner." Cantor’s math wrongly assumes that the non-wage income of all top earners comes from small businesses. Cantor bases his Wall Street Journal claim that "roughly half of small business income in America will face a higher rate" if the Bush tax cuts die on a July 12 congressional report. "According to the Joint Committee on Taxation," deputy press secretary Megan Whittemore told us in an e-mail, "raising taxes only on those owners of small businesses with incomes above $200,000/$250,000 would still subject approximately 50 percent of small business income to a tax increase." But that’s not what the report says. It says 50 percent of all flow-through business income in the top bracket would be subject to a higher levy if the Bush tax cuts expire. And it adds this caveat: "These figures for net business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered `small.’’’ Whittemore, in her e-mail explaining Cantor’s claim, also said "half of those in the top bracket get at least 25 percent of their income from small business sources." She referred to another analysis by the Tax Policy Center, done in 2008. We found Cantor’s office was again misinterpreting the results. The study said slightly more than half top earners made at least 25 percent of their net income from business profits. The statistical table Cantor’s office sent us makes no reference to small business. Let’s summarize: Would ending the Bush tax cuts raise levies on small businesses, as Cantor’s says? Sure, some extremely successful small businesses would be affected, but probably not many. The IRS does not offer a standard definition for a small business. Cantor consistently takes IRS data on the percentage of top earners who report some business income and says it comes from small business. You can’t make that leap, as one of the reports cited by Cantor says. What we know is that a sizable percentage of the nation’s top earners make some of their money from business profits. Their business income could come from any number of places, including stores or partnerships in law firms, medical practices or Wall Street trading houses. About 272,000 Americans in the highest income tax bracket report more than half of their earnings come from business profits. Their average business income is $718,827, according to the Tax Policy Center, whose figures Cantor sometimes uses. That hardly sounds like a corner shop owner, whose image Cantor seems to invoke when he says Democrats are trying to raise taxes on small businesses. We rate the claim Barely True. (Cantor’s wife, Diana F. Cantor, is a member of the board of directors of Media General Inc., parent company of the Richmond Times-Dispatch). Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Eric Cantor	None	None	None	2010-11-26T11:58:37	2010-11-03	['None']
-goop-01252	Jennifer Aniston Back On Hollywood Dating Scene, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-aniston-dating-hollywood-false/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Aniston NOT Back On Hollywood Dating Scene, Despite Report	10:03 am, April 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10790	"We spent $223-million on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/12/john-mccain/half-baked-alaska/	Make that almost spent. For critics of the earmarking process, in which lawmakers can assign federal money to favored projects, the so-called "bridge to nowhere" had it all. The bridge money was written directly into the 2005 highway bill by just one person, then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska. The law set aside $223-million to build a bridge in Young's home state that would connect the Alaska town of Ketchikan to Gravina Island. Gravina Island has 50 people living on it. Critics seized on the project as a prime example of how the earmark process invites wasteful spending. There was such a firestorm of criticsm that in November 2005 Congress removed the earmark requirement. Alaska still got the federal transportation money, but the state no longer was required to use it on the bridge. Nonetheless, McCain continues to speak as if Congress still is requiring that the bridge be built. He says $223-million was "spent" on the bridge, but that's not true. The "bridge to nowhere" never was built.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2007-10-12T00:00:00	2007-07-25	['Alaska']
-vees-00105	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Rehashed report makes claims about rifles purchased during Aquino admin	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-rehashed-report-makes-false-claims-abo	None	None	None	None	Noynoy Aquino,rifles	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Rehashed report makes FALSE claims about rifles purchased during Aquino admin	August 10, 2018	None	['None']
-pose-00676	"I will present legislation that will make group health benefits available to independent workers, as they are in New York."	https://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/promises/linc-o-meter/promise/706/make-group-health-benefits-available-to-independen/	None	linc-o-meter	Lincoln Chafee	None	None	Make group health benefits available to independent workers	2012-07-17T18:44:52	None	['New_York_City']
-pomt-00005	"Caravan Violence: Invaders Shoot At Police, Set Fire To Immigration Checkpoint"	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/nov/13/blog-posting/guns-burned-mattresses-fuel-violent-caravan-claim/	As a caravan of migrants makes its way toward the United States, narratives continue to emerge that depict participants as violent invaders. An Oct. 31 Facebook post from the Conservative Daily Post carries the headline, "Just In: Migrant Invaders Set Fire To Facility, Open Fire On Police." Clicking the link takes readers to a story on conservativedailypost.com with the headline, "Caravan Violence: Invaders Shoot At Police, Set Fire To Immigration Checkpoint; The violence is ratcheting up as firearms, firebombs and rocks are being used by the caravan." The website says the story has been shared over 3,300 times. This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Several elements of this story suggest that it is factually challenged. The arson It’s hard to find a lot of information about the referenced arson, but here’s what we know. A link in the Conservative Daily Post story takes readers to an Oct. 30 Breitbart report that, in turn, relies on an Oct. 29 story from Televisa News, which says a fire broke out in the area of an immigration checkpoint in Pijijiapan, Chiapas, which is located in Mexico, 90 miles by road to the Guatemalan border. The Televisa News story does not say when the fire happened. At the time of the arson, the checkpoint was housing 21 men who were being detained and awaiting deportation to Guatemala, the Televisa story says. The fire caused minor damage and no injuries. In addition, according to Televisa, the fire seems to have been caused by one or more migrants who had already left the caravan and were planning to go home, but were detained by Mexican officials. Though the date of the fire is not included in the story, we know based on news reports, including the timeline in this USA Today story, that the beginning of the caravan was about 90 miles from Pijijiapan on Oct. 28, the day before the story was first published online -- and at a time when the caravan was traveling about 40 miles per day. Additionally, the photograph that accompanies the Conservative Daily Post story shows a U.S. Border Patrol facility at night, a stock image found on Shutterstock and other stock image sites. The caption reads, "An immigration checkpoint facility was set on fire and police were shot at as the migrant invasion force becomes more violent." Together, the image and caption could give the impression that the arson happened at a U.S. border facility, which is not what the Televisa story states. A Nexis search of U.S. news and wire clips for the period of Oct. 12, when the first caravan formed, to Nov. 7, turned up no stories about an arson at a border checkpoint. The shooting Conservative Post Daily says the shooting occurred when two men "saw the officers guarding the group of trespassers and decided to open fire." Trespassers refers to the migrants. The best information we have about this incident indicates there was only one gun. An Oct. 29 statement from the Ministry of the Interior says only one of the two Hondurans was armed and the man fired while attempting to flee from police. The news release does not suggest why the pair, ages 22 and 17, were fleeing or why they would shoot officers guarding the caravan. The gun jammed with nine .380-caliber bullets still in the weapon. Nobody was hurt. The location of the shooting: the town of Ignacio Zaragoza in Chiapas, Mexico, near the Guatemalan border where a second caravan was forming and roughly 230 miles from the leading edge of the main caravan. Our ruling The Conservative Daily Post reported, "Caravan Violence: Invaders Shoot At Police, Set Fire To Immigration Checkpoint." Combined with the photograph of a U.S. border patrol facility, it gives the false impression that the fire and shooting involved U.S. officials and an American facility. The evidence shows it did not. The fire was in southern Mexico, it was reportedly caused by men who had left the caravan and were returning south, but were detained by Mexican officials. There were no "invaders" (meaning more than one person) shooting at police, unless it took both of the arrested males to fire the same gun. If they were part of the caravan, it's not clear why someone would shoot at police guarding them. And the incident occurred in Mexico far from the U.S. border. Because the statement contains elements of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-11-13T11:03:56	2018-10-31	['None']
-pomt-03879	"We have over 300,000,000 weapons, firearms in this country. That’s almost as big as the population."	/new-jersey/statements/2013/mar/07/james-florio/jim-florio-claims-number-guns-us-almost-big-popula/	As the gun violence debate rages on across the nation, a former New Jersey governor is offering a statistic about the prevalence of weapons in the United States. "We have over 300,000,000 weapons, firearms in this country. That’s almost as big as the population," Florio said during an interview for Governors’ Perspective, an occasional segment for "On the Record" with Michael Aron on NJTV that aired Feb. 16. Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman also participated in the interview. Florio’s statistic seems pretty high – there are almost as many firearms as people in the United States? He’s correct. First, let’s review population totals. As of Monday, the U.S. Census Bureau’s POPClock lists the nation’s population as 315,433,299. Now let’s look into that guns figure. Florio, a Democrat, told us he got the number from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition. "All of the gun control organizations use it," Florio said. "No one has really refuted it." The coalition of more than 850 mayors from across the country works to prevent criminals from getting guns illegally while also supporting legal gun ownership, according to its website. It’s worth noting that the National Rifle Association even cites the statistic, based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high, upwards of 300 million, and now rises by about 10 million per year," the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said in a firearms safety fact sheet released Jan. 17. Donna Sellers, a spokeswoman for the ATF in Washington, said there is no national firearms registry, except for those firearms defined in the National Firearms Act, and instead pointed us to manufacturing and import/export reports maintained on the ATF website. "We would have no way of knowing how many firearms there are," Sellers said. Florio also is correct that other gun-control organizations cite the 300 million figure. The Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence directed us to a September 2010 Gun Control Facts report that looks at population, gun manufacturing in the United States, ownership, crimes and more. "As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010," the report by James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith stated. "There’s no perfect estimate of firearms in the U.S. because creating a national registry of firearms is prohibited by federal law," Alex Katz, a spokesman for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in an e-mail. "But academics and interest groups across the political spectrum broadly agree on the 300 million figure." A November 2012 report titled "Gun Control Legislation" from the Congressional Research Service also supports that number. As of 2009, the report states, "the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns." Our ruling Florio said during a recent television interview, "We have over 300,000,000 weapons, firearms in this country. That’s almost as big as the population." Data from a variety of sources including the Congressional Research Service, NRA and others confirm the 300 million figure. While population and firearms figures have fluctuated over the years, Florio’s point is clear: there’s nearly one gun for every person in the United States. We rate his claim True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	James Florio	None	None	None	2013-03-07T07:30:00	2013-02-16	['None']
-pomt-07927	Says President Barack Obama revealed in his State of the Union address that he "now is against earmarks."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/28/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-tea-party-pushed-barack-obama-shift/	In the first-ever meeting of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Jan. 27, 2011, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., shot a rhetorical barb at President Barack Obama over earmarks. An earmark is a requirement that money approved by Congress be spent in a specific way at the request of a lawmaker. Critics have long argued that earmarks are likelier to serve the interest of a particular congressional district or constituent group than the national good. At the Tea Party Caucus meeting, Paul said, "Before we were even sworn in, the Republican caucus got together ... they forswore and said, 'No more earmarks.' Are they going to co-opt us? I went to my first State of the Union the other day, and guess who is now against earmarks? The president of the United States has been co-opted by the tea party!" We decided to see whether Paul was correct that Obama had changed his stance on earmarks. First, here’s what Obama said during his Jan. 25, 2011, State of the Union address. To the applause of lawmakers, he said, "And because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it. I will veto it." Now let’s look at what he said during the 2008 campaign. As a candidate, Obama spoke out several times against earmarks. In fact, our Obameter has been tracking no fewer than three earmark-related promises. They are: • Through the "Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act, will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate." (We rated this one a Compromise.) • "And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." (We rated this a Compromise.) • "Barack Obama is committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994." (We rated this one Promise Broken.) As our promise ratings indicate, his record on earmarks as president has been less than consistent. In March 2009, for instance, Obama said he would sign a $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing a reported 8,570 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion. ABC News’ Jake Tapper wrote at the time that Obama seemed a little embarrassed about it, refusing to sign the bill in public or even to release a photograph. Appropriations bills covering fiscal year 2010 contained 9,499 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion, according to the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense. His inconsistent opposition to earmarks convinces Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, that Paul’s observation is accurate. "Given the huge number of earmarks signed into law by Obama, I think his subsequent back-pedaling is a testimony to the power of the tea party, or at least a testimony to the broader grassroots revolt against big government," Mitchell said. Mitchell added that Paul may be guilty of "a bit of puffery in his rhetoric." We also asked Steve Ellis, a veteran earmark-watcher for the nonpartisan group Taxpayers for Common Sense, for his interpretation. "While the president hasn’t called for the outright abolishment of earmarks before, he has been for earmark reforms and reductions," Ellis said. Ellis said that, as a senator, Obama went through an "arc" in his views and actions on earmarks. In his first year, Obama followed the lead of fellow Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin. Durbin sat on the Appropriations Committee, a major institutional source of earmarks, and that year, Obama "got all sorts of earmarks." The following year, Ellis said, Obama did not pursue earmarks for any for-profit companies, and the year after that, he went further than the rules required and released all of his earmark requests since becoming a senator. In his final year in the Senate, Obama gave up earmarks entirely. "Of course he was positioning to run for president, but still," Ellis said. We think Paul is right to note that Obama’s State of the Union position was stronger than what he had expressed during the campaign, a point at which the tea party movement had not yet emerged. It’s also worth noting that, so far in his term, Obama has only inconsistently carried out his stated policies on earmarks. As president, Obama has signed legislation that included a significant number of earmarks. In his State of the Union address, he said would veto legislation with earmarks. Still, we think it’s an oversimplification for Paul to imply that Obama had done a wholesale change on the issue, whether due to tea party pressure or some other reason. It would be inaccurate to describe Obama as someone who uncritically supported earmarks, at least after his first year or so in the Senate. In fact, as a candidate, he made three separate promises to rein them in. On balance, we rate Paul’s statement Mostly True.	None	Rand Paul	None	None	None	2011-01-28T16:35:15	2011-01-27	['Barack_Obama', 'State_of_the_Union_address']
-snes-03065	A Gucci ensemble worn by Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway to the inauguration closely resembled a 1970s 'Simplicity' pattern.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kellyanne-conway-simplicity-pattern/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Kellyanne Conway’s Inaugural Dress Copy a 1970s Simplicity Pattern?	25 January 2017	None	['None']
-snes-02150	Despite arguing that government benefits constitute an immoral redistribution of wealth, Ayn Rand received Social Security payouts later in life.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/	None	History	None	David Emery	None	Did Ayn Rand Receive Social Security Benefits?	23 June 2017	None	['Ayn_Rand']
-pose-00733	Will create a single unified state budget for education - the Oregon Education Investment Fund - that would combine the pre-K dollars in the Oregon Department of Education with the State School fund as well as the budgets for community colleges at the Oregon University System.	https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/763/create-single-state-education-budget/	None	kitz-o-meter	John Kitzhaber	None	None	Create single state education budget	2011-01-04T21:58:42	None	['Oregon_Department_of_Education']
-pomt-03053	The growth in health care costs "has been reined in through the Affordable Care Act."	/virginia/statements/2013/oct/04/jim-moran/moran-says-obamacare-has-reined-growth-health-care/	U.S. Rep. Jim Moran says Obamacare is stunting the growth in health care costs. "Rising health care costs have handicapped consumers and choked family budgets," Moran, D-8th, said in a Sept. 12 statement. "Thankfully, that growth has been reined in through the Affordable Care Act." We asked for proof and Moran’s office pointed to a 2012 report from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It said total U.S. health care spending in 2011 was $2.7 trillion. That was a 3.9 percent increase over 2010. The study said the growth rate was low by historical standards, as were the 2009 and 2010 growth rates of 3.8 and 3.9 percent respectively. The Kaiser Family Foundation wrote in April that health care spending is growing at the slowest rate since the government began keeping official tallies in 1960. Obamacare was signed into law in 2010, so the low growth rates somewhat match up with the creation of the law. But they also coincide with the nation’s slow recovery from the Great Recession, and many economists see this as the real reason for slowed growth in health care spending. The 2012 CMS report cited by Moran’s office doesn’t credit Obamacare for the slowed spending. It said the lagging growth rate "largely reflects the lingering effects of the recent recession and modest recovery." CMS said the downturn led to lower health spending as employers cut costs and the number of people with private insurance dropped. In a companion piece in Health Affairs, a policy journal, CMS officials said Obamacare had "no discernible impact" on overall health care spending in 2011. Shortly after Moran made his statement, CMS released its 2013 report on health care expenditures. It’s charts showed that, with or without Obamacare, costs would have increased by an average of about 3.9 percent a year in 2010 and 2011 -- the latest years for which conclusive research is available. Moran’s office also pointed to a pair of May reports by two separate teams of Harvard University researchers that examined the reasons beyond the economy to explain the slow cost growth in recent years. One paper said that various factors -- such as insurers shifting costs of benefits to people in employer-sponsored insurance -- drove the slowdown. The second paper found the recession accounted for only 37 percent of the slowdown while another 55 percent is "unexplained." David Cutler, a co-author of the second report who advised Obama’s 2008 campaign, told our colleagues at PolitiFact National that Obamacare is "one likely explanation" for the slowing cost growth. The Kaiser Family Foundation, in its April report, said the lackluster economy accounted for 77 percent reason the increase in health care spending has slowed. It attributed the other 23 percent to structural changes within the health care system, such as rising levels of patient cost sharing that discourage use of services. A co-author of the report, Larry Levitt, told ABC News he thinks Obamacare "is responsible, indirectly, for a good bit of what the economy doesn’t explain." But, Levitt added, "the precise impacts can’t be proven." Drew Altman, the CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, also said in an op-ed in Politico that the specter of reforms from the law means "it is entirely likely that Obamacare has played and will continue to play a role in the slowdown in health-care cost growth and accelerating market change." A May 2013 report from the Urban Institute, notes the slowdown in health care spending began in 2002, pre-dating the recession and Obamacare. The cause, the Institute said, could be related to a long-time slide in real incomes. Alwyn Cassil, a spokesman for the Center for Studying Health System Change, said Moran’s statement is "overly simplistic" and an "overly optimistic" view of Obamacare’s impact. Many of the law’s provisions haven’t even gone into effect yet, she said. In 2014, CMS is projecting health care costs will rise by 6.1 percent. The agency said the increased rate will be driven in part by expanded health insurance coverage under Obamacare. About 11 million people are estimated to gain insurance next year as the mandates on Medicaid expansions kick in and people start buying plans on state-based health exchanges. Over time, about 30 million uninsured people are expected to get coverage. The law requires efficiencies in the delivery of health care that supporters of Obamacare say will stunt the long-term growth in costs. But as we’ve noted before, it’s an open question whether those measures will be sustainable. Our ruling Moran said health care costs have been "reined in through the Affordable Care Act." Other Democrats have made similar statements. The rate of cost growth began to slow in 2009 -- the year before Obamacare was passed, when the nation was in recession. Many analysts say the slow economic recovery is the major reason health care spending have been rising at historically low rates. Research by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says that Obamacare has played "no discernable role" in the slowed growth rate. That doesn’t mean Obamacare has played no role. Some analysts, including the CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, believe Obamacare has helped slow costs, but say they can’t quantify its impact. All told, Moran’s statement is highly exaggerated and we rate it Mostly False.	None	Jim Moran	None	None	None	2013-10-04T12:31:41	2013-09-12	['None']
-pomt-08167	Says Sen. Sherrod Brown voted to keep "an extreme, job-killing Internal Revenue Service paperwork mandate."	/ohio/statements/2010/dec/02/national-republican-senatorial-committee/republicans-get-early-jump-2012-campaign-season-at/	You can always tell when one election cycle ends and another begins. The punches don’t stop, but the names of those being attacked change. So the 2012 election cycle is upon us already, and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown is up for re-election to another six-year term. Brown, an Ohio Democrat, does not have a Republican opponent yet, but it’s early. Not wasting time, however, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, used a congressional vote by Brown on Nov. 29 to criticize him for what it called his "out of touch" and "extreme partisan" agenda. Brown, the NRSC said in a news release, voted to keep "an extreme, job-killing Internal Revenue Service paperwork mandate." The attack was no surprise. Republicans would love to defeat Brown. But we wondered whether this particular attack was fair. The vote was on an amendment to kill an unpopular paperwork-filing requirement for small businesses. Because of a provision in this year’s health-care law, businesses will have to report to the IRS all purchases exceeding $600 that they make to a single vendor. The requirement, which kicks in in 2012, was seen by its original sponsors as a way to boost federal revenue and help pay for the health-care overhaul by making sure that businesses that sell to other businesses report all their income and pay taxes on it. But in order to make sure the sellers pay their taxes, the provision puts a new onus on the buyers to report their transactions, whether a landscaping service is paying for lawn mowers or gasoline or an advertising agency is paying freelance artists. Small businesses say this will create a paperwork nightmare, especially for solo operators and mom-and-pop businesses that buy supplies in small batches. Many members of Congress agree. Yet two votes to kill it failed on Nov. 29. One was on an amendment by Sen. Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican who attached it to an unrelated food safety bill. Johanns’ measure would have repealed the controversial paperwork provision while directing the White House to recapture the lost tax revenue by taking back unspent money in various federal programs. The Office of Management and Budget would make those decisions. Every Senate Republican and 21 Democrats voted for the amendment, which failed to get the two-thirds majority needed for passage. Brown and 34 other Democrats voted against it, Brown’s objection was two-fold, according to discussions we had with him and his communications director. He said that decisions on program cuts should be made by Congress, not the executive branch. And he said that the cuts could have been too extensive, since the Johanns measure called for revoking "all available unobligated funds," specified in his amedment at $39 billion. That could include money approved by Congress but not yet spent for disaster relief, cyber-security investments and public housing rental assistance, according to a Senate Appropriations Committee list of unspent federal money. So Brown voted no. And Republicans slammed him in their press release. "Thanks to Sherrod Brown's out-of-touch Washington agenda, Ohio's small businesses will have to spend their time and money filling out mountains of government paperwork rather than doing business and creating jobs," NRSC Press Secretary Amber Marchand said in the release. "With Ohio's families suffering from high unemployment, Brown once again chose to put his extreme partisan agenda ahead of the best interests of his state, and that's why he will face an uphill battle in 2012." Never mind the over-the-top rhetoric, which is typical in political criticism regardless of which party makes it. There’s a more basic problem with the attack on Brown on the small business paperwork provision. About 22 minutes after voting no, Brown voted yes on a different amendment to do the same thing: kill the paperwork requirement. This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, had 42 Democratic votes and two Republican votes in favor. But unlike the Johanns amendment, this one did not specify how the government would recoup lost tax revenue if the paperwork provision -- and the taxes it could bring in -- went away. It is fair to debate which of these amendments was better, and whether there should be spending offsets. Johanns said that the Baucus amendment would add $19 billion to the federal deficit. But that’s a broader economic debate. Democrats including President Barack Obama say they have heard the complaints about the paperwork provision and are pretty sure they’ll deal with it before it kicks in. You don’t have to agree with them, or to like Brown’s position or the Baucus amendment. But by saying Brown "voted in favor of an extreme, job-killing paperwork mandate," the NRSC exaggerates that single vote, distorts its context and ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. One more critical fact: Brown separately co-sponsored the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, another potential bill by Baccus to get rid of the paperwork requirement, on Nov. 18, 11 days before the vote on which he was slammed. We’d rule the NRSC’s claim False but for the fact that Brown did cast a "no" vote on the Johanns amendment. But with so much context missing, the Truth-o-Meter’s arrow stays in the low range: Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	National Republican Senatorial Committee	None	None	None	2010-12-02T06:00:00	2010-11-30	['None']
-pomt-02497	Obamacare includes a "$700 billion cut from Medicare for seniors."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/feb/14/national-republican-congressional-committee/nrcc-says-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/	Since the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans and their allies have claimed the Affordable Care Act slashes funding for Medicare, the federal healthcare program for seniors. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made almost identical claims in the 2012 presidential election as well. It appears the GOP playbook for the 2014 midterms will be similar. An early indication is in Florida’s special election to replace the late U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., where the National Republican Congressional Committee is airing an ad hammering Democrat Alex Sink’s support of Obamacare. The ad says the law includes a "$700 billion cut from Medicare for seniors." We’ve tackled this claim repeatedly throughout the years. There’s some truth to it, but quite a bit of context is missing. Obamacare does not literally cut funding from the Medicare budget, but tries to bring down future health care costs in the program. Much of this is accomplished by reducing Medicare Advantage, a small subset of Medicare plans that are run by private insurers. President George W. Bush started Medicare Advantage in hopes the increased competition would reduce costs. But those plans are actually costlier than traditional Medicare. So the health care law reduces payments to private insurers. Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care. The goal is get health care providers to increase their efficiency and quality of care instead of cutting benefits for seniors. The overall trend in Medicare spending is still expected to increase, even after the adjustments in the Affordable Care Act. How much are the spending reductions? That has changed throughout the years as estimates get updated. In 2011, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan scorekeeper of fiscal legislation, estimated that the reductions in Medicare spending in the Affordable Care Act we about $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. A more recent estimate from 2013 anticipated about $716 billion in Medicare savings from 2013-2022. It’s also worth noting that the preferred plan of Republicans in 2012, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget, assumed the same cuts to Medicare. When asked to back up their claim, the NRCC pointed us to our own story from Nov. 2, 2012, about Young’s last Congressional race. In it, we fact-checked an ad in which Young claimed he "opposed $716 billion cut to Medicare." We gave it a Half True. Our ruling In its ad against Sink, the NRCC said the Affordable Care Act includes a "$700 billion cut from Medicare for seniors." There is reduction in spending to Medicare outlays, but it’s fueled by finding savings in the program, a move that Republicans actually supported in the Ryan budget. Medicare spending still increases in the coming years. We rate the statement Half True.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2014-02-14T12:05:53	2014-02-12	['Medicare_(United_States)']
-snes-00245	A photograph of a massive California wildfire captured the phenomenon of a 'firenado.'	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/firenado-in-california/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Image Show a ‘Firenado’ in California?	6 August 2018	None	['California']
-goop-01497	O.J. Simpson Wants To Star In ‘Chicago’ On Broadway?	https://www.gossipcop.com/oj-simpson-chicago-broadway-musical-fake-news/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	O.J. Simpson Wants To Star In ‘Chicago’ On Broadway?	4:57 pm, February 25, 2018	None	['Chicago']
-snes-06412	Former President Barack Obama could run for, and serve as, Vice President of the United States.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/former-president-becomes-vice-president/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Could Barack Obama Serve as Vice President?	4 February 2008	None	['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']
-snes-01153	Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver proved that the meat in McDonald's hamburgers is "unfit for human consumption" due to the use of beef trimmings treated with bacteria-killing ammonium hydroxide.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jamie-oliver-mcdonalds-burgers/	None	Food	None	David Emery	None	Did Jamie Oliver Prove McDonald’s Burgers Are Unfit for Human Consumption?	22 January 2018	None	['Jamie_Oliver']
-pomt-00728	"I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/23/marco-rubio/rubio-cap-and-trade-would-hurt-economy-might-not-h/	It’s no secret that Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is skeptical of human-caused climate change. While he’s unsure of the effect humans have on the climate, Rubio is certain that addressing the problem would wreck the economy. "If we do the things they want us to do, cap and trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climates change vs. how much will it cost to our economy?" Rubio asked rhetorically on CBS’ Face the Nation April 19. "Scientists can't tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes. But I can tell you with certainty it would have a devastating impact on our economy." We wondered about Rubio’s claim that it’s a "certainty" that cap and trade would "devastate" the economy. Rubio has a point in that scientists can’t say exactly how much of an effect cap and trade would have on climate change trends. But predictions about cap and trade on the economy carry the same level of uncertainty -- a lot depends on the specifics of the policy. Additionally, most estimations show a modest -- rather than "devastating" -- impact. We reached out to Rubio’s staff but didn’t hear back. Devastation? Cap and trade is a simple concept: The government sets a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. To comply, companies must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or purchase allowances to continue polluting. Proponents say that because emissions would cost companies more, it’s in their interest to find ways to limit their pollution, through new technology or otherwise. Critics say cap and trade would cause companies to slow down production or pass along additional costs to customers. Quite a few states already have cap-and-trade programs, such as the Northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative among 10 states, as well as the Western Climate Initiative, which includes several states (primarily California) and parts of Canada. The European Union has a cap-and-trade program among its member nations. Existing cap-and-trade programs haven’t devastated their local economies. For example, an independent consulting firm looked at the economic impact of the group of Northeastern states engaged in a cap-and-trade program that has lowered emissions by 40 percent since 2005, and the results were positive. The 2011 analysis found that the program created $1.6 billion in value added to the regional economy. It also created 16,000 jobs, and residents collectively saved more than $1 billion on energy bills. Depending on the policy specifics, different programs would have different effects on the economy and climate change, said Duke University energy policy professor Billy Pizer, though the ideal policy would seek to balance costs and benefits. "Europe, California, New England—they all have cap and trade and nothing has been devastated," Pizer said. "There is nothing about a generic cap and trade that is devastating." The European Union program has struggled over the past few years -- in part due to the global recession and falling carbon prices on the continent. However, a 2012 report out of the Environmental Defense Fund found that costs were significantly lower than predicted. The report cited another study that found the program "did not significantly affect" employment, profits or added value. Joseph Aldy, an energy policy professor at Harvard University, pointed out that former President George H.W. Bush established a cap-and-trade program designed to mitigate acid rain. A recent study out of Harvard found that the program created annual benefits of up to $116 billion, compared to just $2 billion in costs -- mostly as a result of public health improvements. For a national cap-and-trade program, estimates of economic impact are all over the map. Consider the analyses of a failed 2009 proposal for a federal cap-and trade program and their effect on household costs. The Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ independent research arm, found the bill would cost about $175 per household annually. The conservative Heritage Foundation predicted instead a much higher cost: $1,241 per household annually. On the other end of the spectrum, the American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy estimated that a family could save $750 after the bill had been in effect for eight years. Economic benefits from cap and trade could come from more energy-efficient technology and less climate-change related costs, according to advocates. For example, the 2010 Economic Report from the President said the 2009 congressional proposal could save the economy up to $2 trillion as a result of avoided damages from more intense climate change. The Energy Information Administration, a statistical office within the U.S. Energy Department, looked at the cap-and-trade proposal and found that the macroeconomic effects were minimal -- with the bill, economic growth by 2035 would be 0.3 percent less than it would be absent the bill. They also found that a later cap-and-trade proposal would have a similar effect. We should note that one expert -- Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute -- told us the 2009 proposal would have been "devastating" to the economy because it involved unacheivable goals and assumed the eventual invention of technology that doesn’t exist yet. Michaels, a climatologist, noted though that this wouldn’t be the case for every cap-and-trade policy. "It is political hyperbole to say that the impacts would be ‘devastating,’ " said Gilbert Metcalf, a professor of public finance at Tufts University. "I agree with Rubio that the economic impacts are probably easier to forecast than the climate impacts; (the economic impacts) are just not what he is saying they are." Our ruling Rubio said, "I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy." Existing cap-and-trade programs have not proven to be "devastating" in their economic impact. While estimates for proposed programs vary, most experts and analysts have found modest potential impact on the economy; some even show a positive impact. Based on the evidence, Rubio can’t be certain about the potential impact of cap and trade. We rate his claim False. Note: This claim was fact-checked as part of a reward to our Kickstarter campaign to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union. Thanks to all who contributed.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2015-04-23T17:21:41	2015-04-19	['None']
-pomt-09067	"Phoenix, Arizona, is the No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world."	/texas/statements/2010/jun/28/john-mccain/mccain-says-phoenix-second-kidnapping-capital-worl/	Will Congress answer President Barack Obama’s call to tackle immigration reform this year? "Not until we get the borders secure," said John McCain, R-Ariz., on NBC’s Meet the Press on June 27. "By the way, on that issue, why is it that Phoenix, Arizona, is the number two kidnapping capital of the world? Does that mean our border's safe? Of course not." PolitiFact Texas earlier checked a similar statement by Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who recently rallied delegates at the Republican state convention by commiserating with Arizona, which has come under fire for its law that makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime. "Phoenix, Arizona, I'm told, is now the No. 2 kidnapping capital in the world, right behind Mexico City," he said. "That's unacceptable in America. We understand. We in Texas understand the frustrations people feel in Arizona." McCain’s office didn’t immediately respond to our query, but he’s made the claim before — and so have at least 20 news organizations, including the Associated Press, The Arizona Republic and United Press International. Far as we could tell, ABC News broke the story, reporting on Feb. 11, 2009: "Phoenix, Arizona, has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone." Some media outlets attributed the news to ABC, while others just said Phoenix was "known as" the No. 2 kidnapping capital. The Los Angeles Times more specifically reported that Phoenix "police received 366 kidnapping-for-ransom reports" in 2008 and that they estimate "twice that number go unreported," according to a Feb. 12, 2009, article. But there's a hitch: None of the stories says how the kidnapping ranking was reached. Also, while all the stories specify the number of kidnappings that have occurred in Phoenix since 2008, none says how many kidnappings were reported in other cities. We asked ABC to elaborate on its report, a request that didn't immediately yield supporting evidence when we first published this item two weeks ago. Meantime, we kept digging. Neither the FBI nor the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, an arm of the U.S. Department of Justice that serves as the United States' representative to Interpol, could confirm that Phoenix has the second-highest frequency of kidnapping cases worldwide. LaTonya Miller, an Interpol spokeswoman, said the agency doesn't track local kidnapping rates. An FBI spokeswoman, Denise Ballew, suggested we call city police departments to compile a kidnapping count since unlike local authorities, the bureau tracks kidnappings that result in someone being taken from one jurisdiction to another, such as across state lines. Short of the time we'd need to call authorities in every medium- to big-size city in the world, we contacted Daniel Johnson, an overseas kidnapping operations consultant at ASI Global, a Houston-based company that coaches clients through kidnappings. You read that right: Say an insured family travels to Bulgaria and the father is kidnapped for ransom; ASI Global will deploy to Bulgaria to help the family negotiate with the abductor. Johnson said: "From our internal experience in the last year, Mexico by far has been the biggest location for kidnappings" followed by Honduras, Venezuela, Nigeria and the Philippines. The company has handled domestic cases but Thompson said they don't compare in volume to overseas incidents. Thompson said the company annually dispatches a consultant to handle about 50 to 100 cases a year. Mexico City, Caracas, Venezuela, and Tegucigalpa, Honduras are the three cities where they work on the most kidnapping cases, he said. Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence for Stratfor, an Austin-based global intelligence company, separately chimed in: "According to our analysts, there is no way that Phoenix is the No. 2 city in the world for kidnapping and there are significantly more kidnappings in many other cities throughout Latin America," he said. "San Salvador, Guatemala City, Bogota as well as several cities in Mexico certainly have higher kidnapping rates than Phoenix." That said, Stewart said Stratfor doesn't track such kidnapping statistics, noting that it's "extremely difficult to measure given the fact that so many cases go unreported and that the record keeping in many of the most effected countries is inaccurate." The company bases its information on "intelligence that we gather through our network of human and open sources, as well as the experience of our analysts," he said. Johnson also said that generally, the problem with kidnapping statistics is there's "no reliable empirical data" and kidnappings are "inherently under-reported, anyway." Kidnappers nab someone and tell you not to tell the police, he said, adding that especially outside the United States, people typically don't report the incidents to law enforcement. Among countries that track kidnappings, Johnson said, the definition of "kidnap" varies. An "express kidnapping," for instance, can be classified as a prolonged robbery, he said. Someone takes to you against your will from ATM to ATM until your checking account is depleted. Robbery or kidnapping? Sgt. Tommy Thompson, a public information officer at the Phoenix Police Department, also said kidnappings are under-reported. "Herein lies the problem with the numbers," Thompson said. "Does Bogota, Colombia, keep records? Does Mogadishu, (Somalia), keep records?" He said Phoenix has been dealing with the issue for several years now, and the number of reported kidnappings have actually decreased since this story broke in 2009. There were 358 reported kidnappings in 2008 (10 fewer than reported by the LA Times, due to later reclassification of the crimes), 318 in 2009 and there were 105 from January through May 2010, he said, putting the city on track to sustain less than 300 this year. Mindful that "spillover violence" from Mexico has become a politically-charged term in the U.S., Thompson said almost everyone who is kidnapped in Phoenix is involved in criminal activities such as illegal border crossings and the drug trade. "Unless you're involved in the dope trade, there's a very very slim chance" that you'll be kidnapped, he said. "Everyone wants to tie it to their political agenda," Thompson said. "Again, the two overwhelming questions are, do they keep records elsewhere in the world and are there more people — other agencies — across the nation who are even willing to talk about such a problem?" "It was the media that said 'second in the world only to Mexico City,' and it was basically because we were open enough to say that we have an issue with kidnappings and not try to hide it," Thompson said. True, "Kidnapping capital" is a headline-grabbing label. But so far, we've seen no evidence that it's accurate, or even close. And since we first considered this claim earlier this month, no one has stepped forward with more information. Phoenix has experienced hundreds of kidnappings over the past few years. However, we couldn't find reliable around-the-planet evidence to confirm that only Mexico City experiences more of them. In fact, experts advise that such rankings can't be made based on available information. If they could, they speculate, other cities would prove to have more kidnappings than Arizona's capital. We found nothing confirming Phoenix as No. 2 in kidnappings worldwide. We'll reconsider our rating if compelling evidence surfaces, but for now McCain's statement is False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2010-06-28T16:18:21	2010-06-27	['Arizona', 'Phoenix,_Arizona']
-pomt-04730	President Obama’s education "solution" includes an effort to "nationalize curriculum."	/florida/statements/2012/aug/30/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-nationalize-curricu/	Who should decide how to teach children to write a sentence or multiply numbers -- local leaders or the feds? Rick Santorum, who dropped out of the GOP presidential primary, touched on that theme in his Aug. 28 speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa: "A solid education should be the second rung on the ladder to success, but the system is failing. President Obama's solution has been to deny parents choice, attack private schools and nationalize curriculum and student loans. Mitt Romney believes that parents and the local community must be put in charge -- not the Department of Education." Has Obama tried to "nationalize curriculum"? We could not track down Santorum to ask him to explain his statement, but Education Week wrote that his statement was "an apparent dig at the Common Core State Standards, which are not an initiative of the federal government, but have been embraced by the federal Department of Education." ‘Common Core' standards The movement toward Common Core standards pre-dates Obama’s presidency. The Council of Chief State School Officers -- a national organization of public officials who head state education departments -- discussed developing common standards during its annual policy forum in 2007, a year before Obama won the presidency. In 2009, the council and the National Governors Association agreed to create the Common Core State Standards, developed them with the help of teachers, parents, and experts, and unveiled them in 2010. The council’s website described it as a "state-led effort spearheaded by governors and school chiefs" to set expectations for language arts and math in order to help students prepare for college and work. To date, 45 states and the District of Columbia have adopted the standards in language arts and math, and one state, Minnesota, adopted only the language arts standards. Most of the states plan to implement the standards over the next few years. Texas, Virginia, Nebraska and Alaska did not adopt the standards. We should note that standards are not the same thing as curriculum, but the standards alone have sparked lots of debate. Critics say the efforts amount to federal overreach and question whether the standards were sufficiently rigorous. The Pioneer Institute, a Boston think tank that focuses on individual responsibility and limited government, wrote a paper in February arguing that the Common Core standards were a "road to a national curriculum." It also argued the federal government is herding states into accepting the standards (more on that in bit). Conservative Washington Post columnist George F. Will echoed the institute’s views in a widely distributed March column. The federal government has had a role in encouraging states to adopt the standards. For states to get either federal Race to the Top grants or waivers from the mandates of No Child Left Behind, they have to prove they have standards to prepare students for college and work. They don’t have to adopt the Common Core Standards -- but that works as one way to qualify for grants or waivers. (A Center for Education Policy survey found that the rigor of the standards was the top consideration in states’ decisions on adopting the standards, although Race to the Top grants were also a factor.) So far, 33 states have received waivers -- and all but one of those adopted the Common Core standards. Though the standards were not written by the federal government, there is a perception among some that the feds are driving it. U.S. Secretary of Education Secretary Arne Duncan rejected that idea, telling South Carolina legislators "the idea that the Common Core standards are nationally-imposed is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy." But he does favor the standards. "We have 50 different standards, 50 different goal posts," he said in 2009 before the Common Core standards were unveiled. "And due to political pressure, those have been dumbed down. We want to fundamentally reverse that. We want common, career-ready internationally benchmarked standards." Obama has appeared to take credit for states adopting the standards while avoiding the issue of whether states did that due to the financial incentives, reported Education Week in its Curriculum Matters blog. "For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, almost every state has now agreed to raise standards for teaching and learning—and that's the first time it's happened in a generation," Obama said in August 2012. The blog noted that Santorum’s comment about nationalizing curriculum "hit that local-control nerve that's so raw at the moment, raising the specter of little children everywhere turning the same page in their history books at the same moment on the same day in November, all because of ‘the feds,’ or, at the very least, ‘outsiders.’" Education experts We interviewed five education experts about Santorum’s claim and they all disagreed that Common Core standards nationalize curriculum. Our experts included education professors at the University of Florida, Columbia and Harvard; Chester Finn, a former assistant secretary at the Department of Education in the 1980s who is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which works to reform education; and Andy Rotherham, co-founder and partner at Bellwether Education Partners. All of them disagreed with Santorum’s claim. Experts generally emphasized that the standards are voluntary. And setting standards -- such as understanding decimals or reading comprehension -- isn’t the same as telling educators what curriculum to use to teach those standards. "It describes a destination -- again, voluntary for states -- not the means of getting there," Finn said. "Yes, if a bunch of states faithfully implement it (45 have signed up but many won't seriously implement them), it will bring greater commonality to what is taught across the country in those two subjects. In my view that's a good thing. Why should 5th graders in Portland, Maine, and Portland, Ore., be learning different math?" Columbia Professor Jeffrey Henig said the movement toward Common Core standards pre-dates Obama and has had considerable bipartisan support. "The Obama administration is broadly supportive of this movement and has used some of its ability to use grant funds to leverage state reforms, but it is not accurate to characterize it as leading the initiative," Henig wrote in an email. Our ruling Santorum said Obama has tried to "nationalize curriculum." Santorum appears to be adopting an argument from critics of the Common Core standards. But Santorum’s statement is misleading for several reasons. For starters, the discussion about common standards pre-dates Obama. Although the vast majority of states have adopted those standards, they are voluntary. The states don’t have to adopt the Common Core standards to apply for Race to the Top grants or waivers from No Child Left Behind, although that’s been the preferred route so far. Finally, it’s important to note that standards aren’t the same as curriculum. States can agree on a standard about multiplication or reading but create different curriculums to teach those skills. Santorum has oversimplified a complex topic and fed into the generic "federal takeover" argument. We rate this claim Mostly False. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the election. See video fact-checks here.	None	Rick Santorum	None	None	None	2012-08-30T16:12:58	2012-08-28	['None']
-vees-00352	On Oct. 16, Belmonte talked about the city’s Road Safety Code in a news report on the morning show “Umagang Kay Ganda.”	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-vice-mayor-belmonte-wrong-saying-most	Road crash data from the past six years negate Belmonte’s claim.	None	None	None	road crash,road safety,road safety data,quezon city	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Vice mayor Belmonte wrong in saying most road crashes in QC happen at night	October 18, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06471	Says Barack Obama "never worked in the private sector" before he was elected president.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/18/mitt-romney/romney-says-barack-obama-has-no-private-sector-exp/	When Barack Obama was seeking the presidency in 2008, Republicans frequently derided his career experience, saying it was limited to a scant four years in the U.S. Senate, some time in the Illinois Senate, and having been a "community organizer" in Chicago. Today, with the unemployment seemingly stuck above 9 percent, the GOP is returning to that theme, asserting that Obama doesn’t have the business savvy and private-sector experience to lead the country out of the economic doldrums. At the Bloomberg/Washington Post debate held at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., on Oct. 11, 2011, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked how he would get the country moving again. Romney replied, "I’d be prepared to be a leader. You can’t get the country to go in the right direction and get Washington to work if you don’t have a president that’s a leader. And three years ago, we selected a person who had never had any leadership experience, never worked in the private sector, never had the opportunity to actually bring people together, and he hasn’t been able to do so. "He said he'd bring us hope and change. Instead, he’s divided the nation and tried to blame other people," Romney said. The Romney campaign did not respond to two e-mails seeking sources for his claim. But Obama’s work experience, or lack thereof, is well-plowed ground, and he clearly has worked outside of government. As PolitiFact reported two years ago when Joe Scarborough falsely asserted that Obama had never "received a paycheck from a profit-making business," the president does, in fact, have some experience outside of government, albeit not in the Fortune 500 world. In fact, the bulk of his income in recent years has come from royalties from sales of his books. Some of the relevant jobs in Obama’s work history include: — A stint in 1983-84 as a research assistant at Business International Corp. in New York City, where he helped write a newsletter. — Working from 1985 to 1988 as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project in Chicago; — Working from 1993 to 2004 as an associate, and then a partner, at the Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where his work included employment-discrimination and voting-rights cases. The job also overlapped with his time in the Illinois Legislature. Obama himself in the past acknowledged that much of his experience was as a legislator, but during a meeting with the editorial board of the Valley News in West Lebanon, N.H., in November 2007, also noted that he had quickly built a $100 million political organization that at the time was rivaling the long-in-the-making Clinton machine. Asked at that 2007 meeting when he had first had to fire someone, Obama gave an answer that might hold water in any corporate boardroom. Obama said when he was 25, and working as a community organizer, he hired a woman who was "significantly older than me to help set up a college prep program for local young people" but that it "became clear after two to three months that she was poorly suited for the job." "It was brutal. She had left another job to take this one, and in some ways I realized it was my fault, not having recognized that she didn’t fit in this task," Obama said. "What I took from it was that you clean up your messes quickly. When you make a mistake you correct it, even when it’s hard." The ruling: Obama may not have the corporate chops of Romney, but he’s worked in several jobs in the private sector -- and had management experience. And if you count his best-selling books that have brought Obama millions of dollars in royalties, he also knows something about entrepreneurship. We rate Romney’s statement False.	None	Mitt Romney	None	None	None	2011-10-18T18:37:52	2011-10-11	['None']
-faan-00007	 “Trudeau’s carbon tax will raise gas prices by 11 cents/litre.”	http://factscan.ca/andrew-scheer-carbon-tax/	Gas prices are projected to rise by 11 cents per litre by 2022 in provinces and territories without their own carbon pricing systems. However, the federal carbon tax likely won’t apply in BC, Alberta, Ontario, or Quebec. These provinces already have their own carbon pricing systems in place. Gas prices will likely increase a few cents in those provinces in order to align with federal carbon pricing standards, but that increase won’t reach 11 cents. 	None	Andrew Scheer	None	None	None	2018-05-21	arch 29, 2018	['None']
-pomt-04850	"(The Tax Policy Center) found that Romney would raise taxes on the average middle class family by $2,000 to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/aug/12/new-jersey-democratic-state-committee/mitt-romneys-tax-cut-proposal-blasted-new-jersey-d/	Millionaires and billionaires could see trillions in tax cuts paid for by the middle class if Mitt Romney gets his way, New Jersey Democrats claim. Just as President Barack Obama has done in a recent campaign ad, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee has latched onto a new study from the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Policy Center. The study says that under the presumptive Republican presidential candidate’s proposals, wealthy taxpayers pay fewer taxes and middle- and lower-income taxpayers pay more. "The non-partisan organization found that Romney would raise taxes on the average middle class family by $2,000 to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires," the committee said in an Aug. 1 news release. The Democrats are right about the $2,000 tax hike on the average middle-class family, but they’re wrong in citing "$5 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." Those wealthy taxpayers would get a tax break, but not that much. First, let’s explain the purpose behind the study. Romney has proposed various tax cuts, including a 20 percent reduction in all federal income tax rates. But Romney’s plan also allows certain tax benefits for low-income households to expire. Those changes would mean lower taxes at most income levels -- but that’s before the candidate’s plan is paid for. The Romney campaign has not specified how the plan would offset that tax revenue loss, but the Tax Policy Center study gives it a shot. In short, those tax cuts would require eliminating or reducing certain tax deductions and write-offs, according to the study. Those items include mortgage interest deductions and education-related tax credits. Still, for wealthy taxpayers, the cost of losing those tax loopholes is less than the money gained from the tax cuts. That’s why they’re left with a net tax break. But for middle- and lower-income folks, it’s the other way around. They stand to lose more in tax loopholes than gain by the tax cuts, leaving them with a greater tax bill at the end of the day. So, the Democrats’ claim accurately makes that overall point, but wrongly compares the $2,000 and $5 trillion figures. Think of it as an apples-to-oranges comparison. After factoring in eliminating or reducing the tax loopholes, the average tax hike in 2015 would be about $2,000 for taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year, who also have children. But the $5 trillion represents the potential tax cuts over a 10-year period before you account for eliminating or reducing those loopholes. Higher-income taxpayers would end up with a net tax break, but the total savings would be far less than $5 trillion. Here’s the number Democrats should have cited: taxpayers with incomes exceeding $1 million, on average, would get a roughly $87,000 net tax break in 2015. Take away those tax loopholes, and wealthy taxpayers would still get that amount. It’s also worth noting that Democrats are wrong to suggest only "millionaires and billionaires" would benefit from Romney’s plan. Those wealthy taxpayers would receive the greatest net tax savings, but other average taxpayers making more than $200,000 would benefit as well. For instance, taxpayers earning between $200,000 and $500,000, on average, would receive a net tax break of roughly $1,800. Our ruling In a news release, the committee claimed the Tax Policy Center "found that Romney would raise taxes on the average middle class family by $2,000 to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." But those two figures don’t relate to one another. The $2,000 tax hike accounts for eliminating or reducing the tax deductions and write-offs that pay for Romney’s plan, but the $5 trillion does not. The more appropriate comparison would be the average net tax break of about $87,000 for those wealthy taxpayers. Still, the Democrats’ overall point is correct: the study shows that high-income taxpayers would receive a tax break, while middle- and lower-income taxpayers pay higher taxes. We rate the statement Half True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	New Jersey Democratic State Committee	None	None	None	2012-08-12T07:30:00	2012-08-01	['None']
-pomt-02575	"Of the 20 bills [Rep. David] Cicilline has sponsored in his three years in office, not a single one has advanced past the embryonic committee stage."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/jan/30/ian-prior/republican-official-says-none-20-bills-us-rep-davi/	It's never easy being a member of the minority party. Ask the Republicans in the Rhode Island General Assembly or in the U.S. Senate. Ask the Democrats in the U.S. House. Ian Prior, of the National Republican Congressional Committee, raised that point in a Jan. 14, 2014, Providence Journal commentary, saying that voters in Rhode Island can’t afford to have an all-Democrat delegation to the U.S. Congress. If the Republicans retain control of the House and win the Senate in the next election, he wrote, "Rhode Island could well find itself with a complete loss of influence at the federal level." To make his point, he focused on the accomplishments of U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat. (Prior was campaign manager for Cicilline's 2012 Republican opponent, Brendan Doherty.) "To see what a lack of influence looks like, one need look no further than Representative Cicilline’s record in Congress. Of the 20 bills Cicilline has sponsored in his three years in office, not a single one has advanced past the embryonic committee stage. This is a testament to the lack of effectiveness a backbencher in the minority party has in Congress." We decided to see whether Prior was accurately describing the number and fate of Cicilline's proposals. When we contacted him, he said he was not counting legislation Cicilline has co-sponsored because it's easy to add your name to a bill someone else has drafted. Prior sent us to the website GovTrack.US, which showed Cicilline has sponsored 21 pieces of legislation, not 20. However, his count was accurate at the time he submitted his commentary. But that same website says not all of the legislation has remained stuck in committee. One bill, H.R. 2027, was reported out of the House Committee on Natural Resources on Nov. 17, 2011. It never received a vote by the House, according to the website. (That bill involved the boundaries of four coastal areas, in Newport and Middletown. It was resubmitted as H.R. 277 in the current Congress and sent back to committee on Jan. 15, 2013, where it remains.) When we asked Prior about that legislation, he said, "I did not say that he hadn't gotten a bill out of committee, but rather that it had not gotten past the 'committee phase' which includes the [House] Rules Committee." By his definition, if it doesn't get past the Rules Committee, it doesn't count as going past the "embryonic committee phase." But the database Prior used to prove his point -- and others we checked -- don't use that standard. And here's nothing "embryonic" about a bill that makes it through a committee, which is usually where most of the hard work on a bill is done. Cicilline's chief of staff, Peter Karafotas, said that if Prior "did understand the legislative process, he would know that the vast majority of bills that reach the House floor for a vote never go through the Rules Committee" and in the current Congress, "57 percent of the bills the House voted on never went through the Rules Committee. " Karafotas also argued that just looking at the number of sponsored bills reported out of committee can be misleading and oversimplifies a Congressman's influence. Karafotas said Cicilline had also sponsored 10 amendments to bills on the floor of the House, 4 of which passed. In addition, he cited 11 Cicilline amendments that were incorporated into legislation when it was in committee. He said those are just examples. Prior's larger point is that a Democrat in a Republican-controlled House or Senate will have trouble passing legislation. Darrell M. West of the Brookings Institution said there is little evidence that states with both Republicans and Democrats in their congressional delegations fare better. And he said nobody should be surprised that a Democrat can't get bills out of committee in a Republican Congress. "The Speaker (of the House) only moves bills from his own party, and that's true whether there's Republican or Democratic control," a fact that even more likely to be true "because of the extreme polarization and hyperpartisanship. Republicans never want to see a Democratic initiative see the light of day," he said. Our ruling Ian Prior said, "of the 20 bills [Rep. David] Cicilline has sponsored in his three years in office, not a single one has advanced past the embryonic committee stage." In fact, one did. In addition, 4 of the 10 amendments Cicilline offered passed. Prior’s point is that legislators in a minority party have no influence. That's true to some degree. But he is ignoring other evidence of influence that a member of Congress can wield, including amendments to Republican bills. Because his statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, we rate it Half True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Ian Prior	None	None	None	2014-01-30T00:01:00	2014-01-14	['None']
-pomt-11604	"The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so okay, they’re at a record level."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/29/donald-trump/trump-gets-polar-ice-trend-backwards/	President Donald Trump, who once called climate change a hoax spread by China, downplayed concerns about global temperature trends in an interview with Piers Morgan. Morgan asked Trump if he believed that climate change exists. "There is a cooling and there is a heating and I mean, look – it used to not be climate change – it used to be global warming," Trump said in an interview broadcast Jan. 26. "That wasn’t working too well, because it was getting too cold all over the place. The ice caps were going to melt, they were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, so okay, they’re at a record level." We looked at what’s been going on with the polar ice. Trump is wrong that the ice caps are at record levels. In March 2017, NASA published a news brief with the headline, "Sea Ice Extent Sinks to Record Lows at Both Poles." Researcher Julienne Stroeve with the National Snow and Ice Data Center said Trump’s claim was "odd." Stroeve said polar ice is at "a record low in the Arctic (around the North Pole) right now and near record low in the Antarctic (around the South Pole)." The National Snow and Ice Data Center gathers data under contracts with NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, the extent of the ice is down from the 30-year average. The key difference between the two polar zones is that the levels have bounced around more in Antarctica. This chart, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center numbers, shows the yearly averages back to 1979. In no way are the ice caps at record highs. Physicist Kent Moore at the University of Toronto said the satellite record going back to 1979 is well validated and reliable. For the Arctic ice certainly, but also broadly for the Antarctic too, Moore said "there is variability from year to year but the long-term trend is downwards." Moore did note though that some climate models are predicting a slower rate of loss than scientists have seen in the past. The White House press office pointed to a 2015 NASA report that found ice was forming in parts of Antarctica at a faster rate than it was being lost in other areas of the continent. In other words, there was a net increase in the ice mass on the continent. But a full reading of the report showed that the gains were slowing down and researchers said that in 20 to 30 years, losses would outstrip gains. We note that the study is not directly comparable to other data because it measures the ice in tons, while historically, researchers have tracked how far the ice is spread out, that is, its area, not its weight. Moore and Stroeve said the area measurements are more reliable because the observational data has been gathered over many decades. More accurate volume measurements have only recently come on line. Moore said recent work at the University of Washington suggests that even in terms of volume, the amount of polar ice has been falling. Our ruling Trump said that the ice caps are at record levels. They are not. The numbers show that the extent of the ice at both poles is smaller than it was decades ago. The shrinkage is more striking in the Arctic, but the overall trend is downward at both ends of the earth. By no means are the ice caps at record high levels. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-01-29T15:59:06	2018-01-26	['None']
-tron-02547	CEO Doesn’t Want Black People Wearing Timberland Boots	https://www.truthorfiction.com/timberland-boots/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	CEO Doesn’t Want Black People Wearing Timberland Boots – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00277	Says New Jersey U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance was "rated among the most bipartisan in Congress."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/02/congressional-leadership-fund/new-jerseys-leonard-lance-bipartisan-least-perspec/	Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" provide a shorthand for understanding political positions. So does "bipartisan," conferring an air of grownup responsibility -- someone who won’t throw flames. A new TV ad from the Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to elect Republicans, says that GOP Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey was "rated among the most bipartisan in Congress." The ad seeks to draw a contrast with Lance’s Democratic challenger, Tom Malinowski, a former State Department official for human rights in President Barack Obama’s administration. Although there’s certainly some flame-throwing in this very ad, casting Malinowski as fiercely liberal and Lance as the adult in the room, it raised a good question: Is Lance really that bipartisan? To understand the answer, understand first that labels comes with certain conditions. Here’s how Lance got that label. Group rankings The Congressional Leadership Fund, which has no formal ties with Lance but wants to keep him in Congress, based its claim on rankings from the Lugar Center and Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. They produce rankings of bipartisanship that are not based on single bills or issues -- say, the Affordable Care Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act or gun rights. Instead, they assess the frequency with which a lawmaker sponsors bills that draw support from the opposite political party, and how often a member joins as a co-sponsor of a bill introduced on the other side of the partisan aisle. For all of 2017, Lance ranked 13th most bipartisan in the House of Representatives. When looking at the entirety of the previous Congress, factoring in 2015 and 2016, Lance ranked 75th. While not in the very top tier, it was high, considering the House of Representatives has 435 members (although only 427 were counted because some members served too short a time for the rankings). More groups These ranking do not count ceremonial bills or legislation to name a post office. They also are statistically weighted and standardized for such things political party, so as not to unfairly disadvantage scores of the current party in power. That’s because minority party members generally can’t move legislation without getting a sponsor from the party in power -- and therefore, they could appear to be more bipartisan. But this is just one set of ratings. So we checked others. Interest groups pushing specific agendas show different results, which is natural. For example, the League of Conservation Voters, which supports environmental legislation, says Lance voted for its positions 34 percent of the time in 2017, but he has only a 23 percent lifetime score. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, promoting a pro-business agenda, gave Lance an 86 percent score in 2017 but a 90 percent cumulative score. FreedomWorks, allied with the tea party movement, gives Lance a score of 44 so far this year, and 47 for 2017. That meant Lance had the highest tea party-related score in 2017 of anyone in the New Jersey delegation. For the sake of perspective, New Jersey isn’t a hotbed of tea party activism, and Lance has at times voted against its positions on taxes and health care. Yet the Tea Party Express recently announced it would endorse him anyway, saying Lance "has a stellar record of advocating policies that encourage economic growth, job creation, fiscal responsibility and a less intrusive federal government." Want a different viewpoint? The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, vowing to maintain reproductive and women’s health rights, gives Lance a rating of only 3 percent this year. The Human Rights Campaign, supporting legislation for LGBT rights, gave Lance a score of 48 for the combined two sessions of the 114th Congress in 2015 and 2016. That was a big leap from his score of 30 in the previous two-year session -- and only 15 in the two years before that. What a difference How does Lance stack up in New Jersey itself? GovTrack, a project that gathers data from across the partisan divide, ranked Lance second, not first, for bipartisan leadership in 2017, with Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey’s 4th Congressional District, ranked first. Yet the Lugar Center ranked Smith 24th nationally, which is not chopped liver, but it is below Lance’s rank of 13. The explanation: Different groups use different methodologies. We wondered how Congressional Quarterly, which closely follows the votes and actions of every member of Congress, summed up Lance. In a summary last updated in July 2017, Congressional Quarterly said Lance "is one of about two dozen moderate-to-mildly conservative Republicans, many of them from New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, who wield outsized influence since they can make the difference between victory and defeat for GOP leaders on high-profile legislation." He doesn't consistently vote with the party. For example, Lance was one of a handful of Republicans who voted against the repeal-and-replace health care bill in 2017 -- and thus, against his party’s position -- saying he worried it wouldn’t fully protect people with pre-existing medical conditions. Lance is also a member of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, a group equally divided between Republicans and Democrats who say they want to find bipartisan solutions to the nation's problems. Yet the website FiveThirtyEight said Lance votes in line with President Donald Trump’s positions 87.1 percent of the time. Our ruling How one views Lance can depend on ideology and agendas. There are plenty of partisan votes when he sides with his party, as the interest-group ratings show. Yet he crosses the aisle at times, especially on sponsorships and co-sponsorship, and sometimes on important messaging or substantive bills. How do we put all this together? The Congressional Leadership Fund did not say Lance was the most bipartisan member but, rather, that he was rated among the most bipartisan. Based on one standard -- sponsorships and co-sponsorships -- he was. Yet it helps to have this additional information, including the views of other rating systems and groups. We rate the claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Congressional Leadership Fund	None	None	None	2018-10-02T09:00:00	2018-09-27	['United_States_Congress']
-snes-04714	The FBI released a study ranking the connection between likelihood of criminal behavior and zodiac signs.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fbi-revealed-the-most-dangerous-zodiac-signs/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	FBI Revealed the ‘Most Dangerous’ Zodiac Signs?	25 May 2016	None	['Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-pomt-08503	Says that "93 percent of the time John Boccieri voted with Nancy Pelosi."	/ohio/statements/2010/oct/08/national-republican-congressional-committee/nrcc-ad-bills-rep-john-boccieris-voting-record-pro/	Turning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi into an electoral boogeyman is all the rage this year among Republicans trying to gain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans have spent much of 2010 portraying Rep. John Boccieri as Pelosi’s clone. The GOP candidate for Boccieri’s seat, Jim Renacci, has repeatedy stated that Boccieri votes with Pelosi 94 percent of the time. The National Republican Congressional Committee label’s Boccieri as one of "Pelosi’s Puppets" on its website. It attacks his voting record in a television ad it began airing this week. "In fact, 93 percent of the time, Boccieri voted with Nancy Pelosi," the ad claims. "Nancy Pelosi can count on John Boccieri," concludes the ad, which pictures of both legislators. "What about us?" PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look. The NRCC cites a Washington Post voting database to back up its contention. But Boccieri dismisses claims that he frequently votes with Pelosi as dishonest because House speakers seldom vote. The Washington Post voting database shows Pelosi has voted a mere 94 times in the past two years, while Boccieri has cast 1,550 votes. "That is just a tradition for Speakers -- they often don't vote," says Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly. " She votes on some bills, not all." The Washington Post says its database represents "the percentage of votes on which a lawmaker agrees with the position taken by a majority of his or her party members," rather than the frequency with which they vote with a particular party leader. It says Boccieri voted with his party 94 percent of the time over the past two years. The average party loyalty for all members is listed at 90.6 percent. Why does the NRCC claim the the Washington Post database represents how often Boccieri votes with Pelosi rather than how often he backs the Democratic majority? NRCC spokesman Tory Mazzola thinks there’s no difference because Pelosi is the party leader. "Speaker Pelosi is the leader of John Boccieri’s party, and this non-partisan, independent database confirms that he votes with Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic party at almost every turn." said an email from Mazzola. The difference between the 94 percent statistic in the database and the 93 percent number in the ad may be because the Washington Post regularly updates the database, and extra votes were cast since the NRCC extracted its information. We don’t think it’s worth arguing over such a small difference. But how much would the statistic change if Boccieri’s votes were measured against the 94 votes that Pelosi actually cast? Did he vote with her 93 percent of the time? We decided to do the math. We exclude three quorum calls from our calculations because they’re noncontroversial votes where everyone says they’re "present." With those out of the picture, Boccieri voted with Pelosi in 77 out of 91 votes, an agreement ratio of 84.6 percent, which makes the Democrat from Alliance look somewhat more independent than Republicans maintain. And Boccieri differed from Pelosi on some key votes: He voted against the first incarnation of a health insurance reform bill that he ended up supporting after it was altered by the U.S. Senate. He backed an amendment designed to block tax dollars from funding abortions. He voted against a Pelosi-backed bill to restrict oil drilling after the BP spill. He supported a symbolic measure that would have blocked the government from using $350 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Fund money. There still is a kernel of truth here. The NRCC’s underlying point is that Boccieri votes with the majority a lot. But the NRCC’s accuracy suffers because it chose to try to tie Boccieri to a politican it deems unpopular, rather than say what the Washington Post’s database shows. And when you look at how the House speaker’s votes match up with Boccieri’s, his support hasn’t been as lockstep as the Republicans claim. We rate the NRCC’s claim as Barely True. Comment on this item. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	National Republican Congressional Committee	None	None	None	2010-10-08T06:00:00	2010-10-04	['Nancy_Pelosi']
-goop-01446	Prince Harry, Meghan Markle “Having Baby Already,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/prince-harry-meghan-markle-baby-already-pregnant-false/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Prince Harry, Meghan Markle NOT “Having Baby Already,” Despite Report	1:54 pm, March 5, 2018	None	['Prince_Harry']
-pomt-04413	Paul Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/16/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-paul-ryan-cut-embassy-security-300-/	In the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky., Joe Biden and Paul Ryan sparred over embassy security in the wake of the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. "This lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," Biden said. When we checked with the Obama campaign, a spokeswoman said that the claim of a $300 million cut can be supported in either of two ways. One -- which was noted by several fact-checkers in the aftermath of the debate -- is that Ryan, as the chairman of the House Budget Committee, put forward such severe cuts in his budget proposal that, running the numbers, embassy security funding would suffer a cut of $300 million. The second was was to compare the relevant budget lines in the president’s proposed fiscal year 2012 budget to the amount passed by the House of Representatives last year. We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded): Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million Total: $2.64 billion Cuts from Ryan’s proposed budget The Obama administration’s Office of Management and Budget has run the numbers in the Ryan budget and argues that it will cut non-defense discretionary spending as a whole by 19 percent between 2013 and 2014. A 19 percent cut to a $2.64 billion line item works out to just over $500 million -- even more than the number Biden cited. Leaving aside whether this percentage is accurate, using it in this context is problematic. First, it’s not an immediate cut -- according to OMB, the 19 percent cut would happen in the second year of Ryan’s budget, with the first year representing a 5 percent cut. More importantly, as the Romney-Ryan campaign noted in an interview -- and as we have written in the past -- all of this is a speculative proposition. Ryan’s budget did not reduce federal expenditures across the board, and assuming that every item under Ryan’s budget would be cut equally isn’t the most accurate way to look at it. (That said, the lack of detail in Ryan’s plan has left the Romney-Ryan ticket open to such attacks.) Cuts in spending already passed by Congress Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded): Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million Total: $2.31 billion The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- a bit above the $300 million Biden cited. Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president. But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.) The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee. This may be a distinction of interest only to budget wonks, but by muddying the difference, Biden is able to hold up Ryan’s budget -- a long-standing target of Democratic attacks for its approach to Medicare and other federal programs -- as the perpetrator of the cuts, rather than the more obscure appropriations bill. Our ruling Both ways of defending the claim of a $300 million cut have some justification, but also come with problems. Extrapolating from Ryan’s budget is a speculative exercise, while the enacted appropriations figures were not directly shaped by Ryan's budget. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2012-10-16T17:18:21	2012-10-11	['None']
-pomt-14391	Says a YouTube video shows Thomas DiMassimo, the man who rushed Trump at an Ohio rally, "dragging the American flag on the ground like it was a piece of garbage."	/georgia/statements/2016/mar/17/donald-trump/trump-correct-about-video-showing-flag-desecration/	The American flag has always been an important backdrop to U.S. politics. And now it has been raised as an issue in the Donald Trump campaign, after 22-year-old Thomas DiMassimo jumped a barrier and rushed the stage March 12 at a Trump event in Dayton, Ohio. DiMassimo was promptly arrested. The DiMassimo incident and its aftermath captured much of the weekend news cycle amid concerns over repeated confrontations between pro- and anti-Trump factions. On NBC’s Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd noted that after the Dayton rally, Trump tweeted a video that purportedly showed DiMassimo posing with a gun against the backdrop of an ISIS flag, with Arabic-language music playing in the background. Trump was referring to a video that, as it turns out, had been posted on YouTube in order to troll DiMassimo. PolitiFact previously looked at Trump’s DiMassimo-ISIS claim and rated it False. But Trump also made another point -- that DiMassimo had desecrated a U.S. flag. And, Trump said, there was a video to prove it. "He was walking, dragging the American flag on the ground like it was a piece of garbage," Trump told Todd. "I don’t like that, and a lot of people don’t like that." PolitiFact decided to check this claim as well. DiMassimo has numerous Atlanta connections. His mother works as manager of Atlanta’s infrastructure bond program, and his father is a metro area teacher. Cartersville attorney Lester Tate is representing the family and helped Thomas DiMassimo, who was released from jail the same day he was charged, retain an attorney in Ohio. Tate declined to comment when contacted for this fact-check. DiMassimo did not respond to an email request for comment. According to news reports, YouTube videos and his own Facebook page, DiMassimo has a history of using flag desecration as a form of protest. He ripped up a Confederate Flag at a Stone Mountain protest last year. One video, titled "Not My Flag" and uploaded by YouTube user "Tommy DiMassimo," shows DiMassimo taking part in a protest at Wright State University, where he was a student, in April 2015. The video shows him dragging a U.S. flag behind him and ultimately standing on it. The video had been viewed more than 311,000 times as of this fact-check. It had 270 likes and more than 2,300 dislikes. Mistreating the flag is an incendiary topic. There have been attempts to ban the practice throughout U.S. history, but it is not illegal, even to the point of damaging or destroying a flag. According to U.S. law, "desecration" of the flag applies to "whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas vs. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. vs. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), that it is unconstitutional for a government to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as symbolic speech. Text accompanying the DiMassimo video states the demonstration was held to support Valdosta State University student Eric Sheppard, who was arrested for bringing a gun on campus during a protest at the Georgia school. Sheppard also desecrated a U.S. flag in that protest. In the video of the Wright State University demonstration, a counter-protester confronts DiMassimo and the other protesters. The man is carrying a U.S. flag on a pole across his shoulder. "You need to learn respect," yells the man, who then references U.S. deaths in the Vietnam War. "I’ve got 58,000 of my brothers who died for this flag." One of the protesters yells, "You know what this stands for?" At that point, DiMassimo, who is standing on a U.S. flag, yells: "Racism, capitalism, imperialism." Our ruling Trump said Thomas DiMassimo had desecrated a U.S. flag by "dragging the American flag on the ground like it was a piece of garbage." He is correct. A YouTube video posted by DiMassimo shows him dragging a flag on the ground and later standing on it. This is offensive to many, but legal under the First Amendment. We rate Trump’s statement True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-03-17T00:00:00	2016-03-13	['United_States', 'Ohio']
-pose-01293	"That means reversing two of the worst legacies of the Clinton years...First, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. Second, China's entry into the World Trade Organization."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1385/reverse-chinas-entry-world-trade-organization/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Reverse China's entry into the World Trade Organization	2017-01-17T09:04:00	None	['China', 'Bill_Clinton', 'North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement', 'World_Trade_Organization']
-pomt-13454	"When Moammar Gadhafi was set to visit the United Nations, and no one would let him stay in New York, Trump allowed Gadhafi to set up an elaborate tent at his Westchester County (New York) estate."	/virginia/statements/2016/sep/15/tim-kaine/kaine-accurately-recalls-time-gadhafi-had-tent-put/	Tim Kaine says Donald Trump has a fondness for dictators, including the late Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi. During a speech in Wilmington, N.C., Kaine said Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, even was willing to host to the Libyan president, in 2009, two years before rebels killed Gadhafi during a NATO air campaign in that country. "When Moammar Gadhafi was set to visit the United Nations, and no one would let him stay in New York, Trump allowed Gadhafi to set up an elaborate tent at his Westchester County (New York) estate," Kaine, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said on Sept. 6. Sarah Peck, the Virginia communications director for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign, pointed us to a June 7 article in BuzzFeed News about the tent episode. BuzzFeed examined Trump’s rental of his estate to Gadhafi during the Libyan leader’s September 2009 trip to New York City, where the dictator gave a rambling address to the U.N. General Assembly. BuzzFeed noted that when Gadhafi traveled, he often did so with a North African-style tent where he could stay overnight. Before the New York trip, Libyan officials sought permission to put a tent in Central Park in Manhattan, but the North African dictator’s request was denied, according to press reports. They also sought to put the tent in Englewood, N.J., just outside the city, but local officials there balked. The tent instead was erected on Trump’s 213-acre Seven Springs estate in Bedford, a suburb north of New York City. The Journal News, a local newspaper covering that town, reported in a Sept. 24, 2009, article that Gadhafi’s plans were to entertain guests at Trump’s estate. The Libyan campsite there included the camel-patterned tent, a couch, chairs, a satellite dish and a fire pit. Those living quarters were put up without any approval from Bedford officials, who were miffed at the possibility that the notorious dictator was going to visit their town. Amid the controversy, the news media descended on the upscale neighborhood surrounding Trump’s estate to chronicle the tent flap. Bedford officials ordered the tent taken down, saying it violated zoning laws. Trump, through a spokeswoman, said in a statement that he had asked the Libyans to take down the tent. The Libyans complied but only for a while. They put it back up amid reports Gadhafi was planning to visit the estate. Town officials, under police escort, went onto the property and ordered the tent struck yet again. The tent was taken down again and hauled away the next day. Joel Sachs, Bedford’s town attorney, told us there’s no indication Gadhafi ever made it to the property. Local news reports said the Libyan leader never got to see the estate. Sachs told The Journal News in 2009 that officials at the estate said one of Gadhafi’s sons did venture to Seven Springs. Gadhafi ended up staying at Libya’s U.N. mission in midtown Manhattan. Sachs told us this week that Trump, in 2009, denied to town officials that he knew Gadhafi was the one renting space on his property, telling the town he thought it was being leased by some of his Middle Eastern business associates. Sachs said he didn’t find the denial plausible and told us that officials at the estate indicated Trump was aware of Gadhafi’s plans to use the property. The Associated Press has noted that in in the years after the episode, Trump acknowledged he rented the property to Gadhafi. "I made a lot of money with Gadhafi," Trump said in a June 5, 2016, interview on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "If you remember, he came to the country, and he had to make a deal with me because he needed a place to stay. And he paid me a fortune, never got to stay there. And it became sort of a big joke," Trump said. During an interview five years earlier on Fox News, Trump made similar comments. "I rented him a piece of land … and then I didn’t let him use the land," Trump said, according to the transcript of the March 21, 2011, Fox interview. "I don’t want to use the word ‘screw,’ but I screwed him. That’s what we should be doing. I rented him a piece of land in Bedford, New York. I rented him a piece of land. He paid me a fortune, and I didn’t let him use the land." Trump also addressed the issue in a 2011 CNN interview. "What did I do with Gadhafi? I leased him a piece of land for his tent," Trump said. BuzzFeed reported in its article that a Libyan entourage had stayed at Trump’s estate for weeks before Gadhafi’s visit to New York, as did members of a public relations firm representing Libya. Our ruling Kaine said, "When Moammar Gadhafi was set to visit the United Nations, and no one would let him stay in New York, Trump allowed Gadhafi to set up an elaborate tent at his Westchester County (New York) estate." There’s no doubt Gadhafi rented space at Trump’s estate to put up his tent. Trump acknowledges now that he leased land to Gadhafi, although he couches it as a boast to show he snookered the Libyan leader out of a lot of money. We rate Kaine’s statement True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/206bb9f0-024b-44e5-b95b-c34ae90096d5	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2016-09-15T00:00:00	2016-09-06	['New_York_City', 'Muammar_Gaddafi', 'Westchester_County,_New_York', 'United_Nations']
-pomt-04812	Says Gov. Scott Walker "raises the pay of inmates, but we don't raise the pay of staff in our correctional institutions."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/19/marty-beil/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-gave-raises-working-pri/	Wisconsin state employees union leader Marty Beil is no fan of Gov. Scott Walker. And his criticism has not relented since Walker survived an historic recall election in June 2012. Beil took aim at Walker on July 19, 2012 in an interview with John "Sly" Sylvester, a liberal radio talk show host on WTDY AM-FM in Madison. Walker "raises the pay of inmates," Beil complained, "but we don't raise the pay of staff in our correctional institutions." In 2011, Walker curbed state employees’ collective bargaining powers and cut their take-home pay by forcing them to pay more for their pensions and health insurance. He also put tighter restrictions on overtime for corrections workers. But has the Republican governor increased the pay of inmates who work in prisons, yet not given raises to the officers who work there? Beil's evidence Beil is executive director of the Madison-based Council 24 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, which represents corrections officers and a variety of other state employees. Asked for evidence to back his claim, he forwarded to us a May 2012 email from Lizzie Tegels, warden of the New Lisbon Correctional Institution, a 500-cell, medium-security prison 80 miles northwest of Madison. It says the prison would no longer pay a lower wage to inmates during their first 60 days of work. Paying new inmate workers a few pennies per hour less during their probationary period costs more -- in staff time to adjust pay rates -- than if the inmates received the regular wage, the email said. So, this isn’t giving any working inmates a pay raise. Rather, inmates new to working would get a higher starting wage than they would have previously, but only during their first two months on the job. Beil told us the change wasn't occurring only at New Lisbon, but suggested we contact the Department of Corrections for details. Since Beil's claim was aimed at Walker, we contacted the governor's office, as well as the Department of Corrections. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie and DOC spokeswoman Linda Eggert confirmed that corrections employees have not received a general raise since Walker took office in January 2011. Indeed, lawmakers in November 2011 imposed a two-year pay freeze on state employees, although merit raises can be given. So, the second part of Beil’s claim, that corrections workers haven’t gotten any raises under Walker, is correct. DOC response As for inmate pay, the governor’s spokesman provided a response written by the office of Corrections Secretary Gary Hamblin. According to the memo: Wisconsin prisons can pay working inmates a lower wage during their probation period, but most don't; neither does Badger State Industries, which oversees the manufacturing of license plates and other goods made by inmates. Eliminating the lower pay rate at New Lisbon means that current and future workers now start at the regular pay grade. That ranges from 9 to 42 cents an hour (and 1 to 20 cents through Badger State Industries). About 1,000 inmates work at New Lisbon, with about 20 to 25 on probationary status at any given time. Eggert said DOC surveyed all prisons after we contacted her and found that none had given inmates any raises or eliminated lower probationary rates like New Lisbon did. So, the higher pay rate is limited to the relatively few working inmates at one prison, and only applies to their first two months on the job. Our rating Beil said Walker has raised the pay of working inmates, "but we don't raise the pay of staff in our correctional institutions." Neither group, however, has received a pay raise. The pay rate at one prison is now higher for new workers during their two-month probation period, but that was done not to give inmates raises but to save money for taxpayers. Since Beil’s statement has only an element of truth, and leaves out critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False.	None	Marty Beil	None	None	None	2012-08-19T09:00:00	2012-07-19	['None']
-hoer-00970	Allegiant Air is Giving Everyone Free Plane Tickets	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-allegiant-air-is-not-giving-everyone-free-plane-tickets/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Allegiant Air is NOT Giving Everyone Free Plane Tickets	April 27, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14649	Says Donald Trump "thinks that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/24/bernie-sanders/yes-donald-trump-really-did-tweet-climate-change-h/	For the second time in a week on national TV, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders attacked Republican candidate Donald Trump by citing Trump’s views on climate change. Trump "thinks that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese," Sanders said Jan. 24 on NBC’s Meet the Press, echoing a similar statement he made in the Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C. (Watch the clip.) Did Trump really say that? He definitely tweeted that view once in 2012, though he has since distanced himself a bit from that theory. The clearest example comes from a tweet sent by Trump on Nov. 6, 2012. "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." So Sanders certainly has evidence to support his claim. But Trump has somewhat backed off after Sanders' comments, calling the Chinese link a "joke." On Jan. 18, after Sanders had attacked Trump’s climate change views in the Democratic debate, Trump told Fox & Friends, "Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money. I know much about climate change. I'd be — received environmental awards. And I often joke that this is done for the benefit of China. Obviously, I joke. But this is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change. They burn everything you could burn; they couldn't care less. They have very — you know, their standards are nothing. But they — in the meantime, they can undercut us on price. So it's very hard on our business." So Trump has said his 2012 tweet was a joke. However, he has used the word "hoax" repeatedly in describing climate change, although he doesn’t always fault China. (For the record, in 2014 we rated the claim that climate change is a "hoax" Pants on Fire.) Most recently, on Dec. 30, 2015, Trump told the crowd at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C., "Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and … a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it." That’s three times using "hoax" in one sentence. Trump has also used the word on Twitter since that 2012 tweet. On Jan. 25, 2014, Trump tweeted, "NBC News just called it the great freeze — coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?" On Jan. 29, 2014, Trump tweeted: "Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!" That same day, he tweeted, "Give me clean, beautiful and healthy air - not the same old climate change (global warming) bullshit! I am tired of hearing this nonsense." Trump also called climate change a "hoax" on Jan. 6, 2014, edition of Fox & Friends. Trump said on Sept. 24, 2015, on CNN’s New Day, "I don’t believe in climate change." And as we noted earlier, even when calling his earlier tweet a joke, Trump on Jan. 18, 2016, said that climate change "is done for the benefit of China, because China does not do anything to help climate change." Our ruling Sanders said that Trump "thinks that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese." Trump did tweet that view in 2012. Whether Trump still feels that way is less clear. Asked about it recently, the real estate developer called it a joke. However, Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" in speeches, tweets and media appearances, and while he hasn’t necessarily repeated the charge that China "invented" climate change, he has said as recently as Jan. 18, 2016, that action on climate change "is done for the benefit of China." We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-01-24T14:25:13	2016-01-24	['None']
-pomt-03653	Federal prosecutions for lying on background checks to buy guns are "down 40 percent" under President Barack Obama.	/virginia/statements/2013/may/01/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-prosecutions-lying-gun-backgroun/	U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-6th, wants the Department of Justice to strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws before Congress adds more. He was part of a panel on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on April 14 and criticized President Barack Obama’s administration for lax prosecution of people caught lying on federal background checks necessary to purchase to guns. "Enforcement is down 40 percent overall in his administration," Goodlatte said. U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., challenged the statement. "George Bush’s presidency had the same dismal record on enforcement of the background check as this presidency has during the last four years," he said. We decided to check whether enforcement is down 40 percent under Obama, a figure Goodlatte cited three days before gun control legislation failed in the U.S. Senate. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System began operating in 1998. It’s an automated system that enables a gun seller to instantly check a series of state and federal databases to determine whether a potential purchaser is eligible to buy a gun under national and state laws. A very low percentage -- about 1 or 2 percent -- are rejected each year, usually for a felony conviction or indictment. Other reasons, such as adjudication for mental illness or an outstanding order of protection, are also grounds for denial. Goodlatte’s spokeswoman sent us to TRAC, a Syracuse University website that collects monthly data from the Department of Justice. We looked there, as well as the department’s original reports. We focused only on prosecutions resulting from background checks -- as opposed to prosecution of other gun offenses -- because Goodlatte’s comments were directed at background checks. We also ignored prosecutions by state officials because the congressman’s statement referred to the presidential role. Federal prosecution data is available from 2002 through 2010, except for 2004. During the six years data is available for former President George W. Bush’s administration -- 2002-2003 and 2005-2008 -- a total of 628 federal cases were prosecuted as a result of failed background checks. That averages about 105 annually. Only two years of statistics are available for Obama’s administration: 77 cases were prosecuted in 2009 and 44 in 2010. That averages to about 61 annually. Another year of data should be released this summer. When we compare the administrations -- realizing there are years of data missing for each -- there has been a 42 percent decline in average annual prosecutions between the Bush and Obama years. So Goodlatte’s claim sounds right, but it’s missing important context: The Justice Department has never placed a high priority on pursuing perjury charges from background checks. There are about 70,000 denials for gun purchases a year. Under Bush, 15/100th of 1 percent of the cases were prosecuted. Under Obama, 8/100th of 1 percent of the cases were prosecuted. Goodlatte glossed over this fact as he assigned blame to Obama. He set up his statement with some quick statistics: "We have determined of the 76,000 people who were found to have lied on the background check in 2010, 4,700 of them were referred by the ATF for further investigation and prosecution, 62 of them were prosecuted," he said. (We should note that 62 prosecutions is inaccurate; the correct number is 44). "Every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee signed a letter to the president and the attorney general asking why that is and why there isn’t greater enforcement," Goodlatte continued. "Enforcement is down 40 percent overall in his administration. The answer we got about the background checks was, `those are paper crimes.’" Goodlatte didn’t respond when Gutierrez said the Bush and Obama administrations "had the same dismal record." Why is Uncle Sam reluctant to prosecute these cases? A 2004 reportfrom the Department of Justice’s inspector general provided several answers. It said agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms viewed the violations "as distracting from more important cases, such as those involving firearms, traffickers, gangs, arson and explosives" and "saw little purpose in investigating a standard case in which the NICS successfully prohibited a person from purchasing a firearm." The report also said that the cases lack "jury appeal" for prosecutors because it is difficult to prove that a prohibited person intentionally lied on the background check and in many parts of the nation "juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle." Our ruling Goodlatte said enforcement of laws against lying on federal background checks for gun purchases "is down 40 percent" under Obama. The congressman had the percentage right, but he glossed over the law’s history of lax enforcement. During the Bush and Obama administrations, only a tiny fraction of 1 percent of the violations was prosecuted. The Justice Department has seen little value in prosecuting cases in which background checks have already stopped prohibited people from buying guns. Goodlatte, in seeking to level partisan blame, offered a juicy statistic without context. We rate his statement Half True.	None	Bob Goodlatte	None	None	None	2013-05-01T06:00:00	2013-04-14	['None']
-pomt-10312	John McCain will keep the estate tax at 0 percent, the same as it is now.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/04/chain-email/larger-estates-will-be-taxed-just-like-now/	A chain e-mail claims that Sen. Barack Obama intends to raise pretty much all your taxes, while Sen. John McCain will leave them alone. The problem is that most of the e-mail's detailed assertions are false. Here, we'll look at the e-mail's claims about McCain and the estate tax, which it refers to as the inheritance tax. For an examination of the e-mail's other claims, read our full article here . The e-mail claims that President George W. Bush "repealed" the estate tax, and it now stands at 0 percent. Though Bush reduced the tax, he did not repeal it. Rather, under his 2001 tax cut package, the estate tax reduces every year and then goes away for just a single year — 2010 — before reverting back to higher rates. (See the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center on estate taxes for more details.) Currently, the estate tax generally applies only to estates worth more than $2-million (or $4-million for couples). Above those amounts, the tax rate tops out at 45 percent. Both Obama and McCain support renewing the current estate tax with a few changes. McCain proposes to increase the exemption to $5-million ($10-million for couples) and reduce the tax rate to 15 percent. Obama proposes to increase the exemption to $3.5-million ($7-million for couples) and leave the top rate at 45 percent. Although the e-mail captures the broad idea that McCain wants to reduce estate taxes more than Obama, it is wrong when it says McCain wants a "0 percent" estate tax, and it's also wrong that the estate tax is at zero percent now. We rate this statement False.	None	Chain email	None	None	None	2008-08-04T00:00:00	2008-07-23	['None']
-snes-03659	Paul Ryan's wife Janna is a secret liberal who voted for Obama twice.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paul-ryans-wife-is-a-liberal-who-voted-twice-for-obama/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Paul Ryan’s Wife Is a Liberal Who Voted Twice for Obama?	31 October 2016	None	['Barack_Obama', 'Paul_Ryan']
-goop-00498	Celine Dion, Russell Crowe Dating, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/celine-dion-russell-crowe-not-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Celine Dion, Russell Crowe NOT Dating, Despite Report	4:31 pm, August 8, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02966	"Woodrow Wilson borrowed $30 billion to fund World War I in 1917. That money has not been paid back. And we are still paying interest on it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/23/andrew-napolitano/fox-news-andrew-napolitiano-says-us-still-paying-i/	The recent fight over raising the debt ceiling -- the limit on how much debt the federal government can carry at a given time -- has brought added scrutiny to the history of the United States’ reliance on debt to finance its operations. During a recent Fox News interview, legal commentator Andrew Napolitano offered an arresting factoid. "The government today will borrow money to pay debt on money it has already borrowed and spent," he said. "I’ll give you one statistic. Woodrow Wilson borrowed $30 billion to fund World War I in 1917. That money has not been paid back. And we are still paying interest on it. That’s 95 years ago." Really? We’re still paying off the cost of World War I? We checked with experts to see if Napolitano is correct. The United States government borrowed a fair amount during the World War I era. Hostilities related to World War I began in 1914, but the United States officially entered the war against Germany in April 1917 and against Austria-Hungary in December 1917. According to Treasury Department statistics on annual debt loads for the United States, the nation’s total debt rose by $23.8 billion between July 1, 1916 (the last available figure before war was declared on Germany) and July 1, 1919 (the first available date after the armistice that ended the war). That’s less than Napolitano said, but a different Treasury data source -- the department’s annual report from June 1920 -- said the U.S. had borrowed a total of $37 billion to finance the war. These two figures average out to about $30 billion, so we’ll accept Napolitano’s figure as a plausible estimate. To finance the war, the government sold Liberty Bonds and Victory Loans. Our first thought upon hearing Napolitano’s claim was that there were still Americans with fraying security certificates in their safe deposit boxes who receive periodic interest payments from the Treasury. But this is not the case. When we contacted the Treasury Department for this story, officials did some digging and found that there are actually still eight Liberty Bonds and two Victory Notes that haven’t yet been redeemed. However, these financial instruments have been mature since 1947, so they haven’t earned any interest for almost 70 years. (Their total value, however, isn’t shabby -- almost $4.2 million.) Napolitano told PolitiFact that he wasn’t referring to ongoing interest payments. Instead, he was referring to the fact that the World War I-era debt was "rolled over." For further explanation, we turned to Linda M. Hooks, an economist at Washington & Lee University. "The initial debt issued to pay for the war no longer exists," Hooks said. "However, Treasury debt gets ‘rolled over.’ That is, the Treasury sells new bonds to pay off the old bonds that are maturing. So those bonds did mature and get paid off, but the Treasury sold new bonds to pay them off, and then sold new bonds when the second batch matured, and so on." So, Hooks said, "in that sense, you could say the debt is still out there. However, it would be very hard to assign any specific current bond to that specific historical incident." Other experts are even more skeptical of Napolitano’s characterization of rolled-over debt as being "not paid back." Since the public debt has not been zeroed out since 1835, by Napolitano’s argument, "we are still paying off Civil War debt or even the cost of the 1848 Mexican War," said Franklin Noll, a historian of United States government financial and monetary history. And that, he added, doesn’t make sense. Neil Buchanan, a George Washington University law professor who specializes in economics, agrees, calling Napolitano’s claim "obviously false." All rolling over debt means, he said, is that federal elected officials have decided that it makes more sense to borrow money to finance other priorities than to increase taxes. "Every well-run business does this," Buchanan said. "A company might borrow money to build a new office headquarters, and years later its total debt might be higher than it was when the headquarters was financed. That doesn't mean the company is still paying interest on the loans to build the headquarters. It means that the company found that it had better things to do with its money than reduce its debt. Any growing enterprise will do that, and the U.S. economy has been growing for over 200 years, with occasional setbacks." Our ruling Napolitano said that "Woodrow Wilson borrowed $30 billion to fund World War I in 1917. That money has not been paid back. And we are still paying interest on it." The original Liberty Bonds and Victory Notes stopped paying interest decades ago. But Napolitano argues that, because the United States has never subsequently zeroed out its debt, the original World War I debt has been rolled over countless times, leaving subsequent bondholders to pay off a small, ancestral fraction of that old debt. That’s one way of looking at it, but not a view that carries much weight with experts, who call the rollover method straightforward and uncontroversial. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Andrew Napolitano	None	None	None	2013-10-23T12:42:56	2013-10-17	['Woodrow_Wilson']
-pomt-10174	"You know, we spent $3-million to study the DNA of bears in Montana."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/26/john-mccain/bear-study-funding-actually-undersold/	A joke meant to highlight a serious issue about wasteful federal spending apparently went over well enough before an audience in Orange County, Calif., last month, that John McCain decided to trot it out before a national audience at the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, 2008. "You know, we spent $3-million to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain said at the debate. "I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3-million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control." The bear study in Montana has become a go-to line in McCain’s stump speeches, and we fact-checked an almost identical line when McCain said it before an audience of evangelicals at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., on Aug. 16, 2008. The U.S. Geological Survey is indeed conducting a study that involves the DNA of bears in Montana, but the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project actually has received more earmarked funding than McCain mentions — to the tune of $4.8-million, according to Katherine C. Kendall, the researcher in charge of the study. The study had received $3.1-million in earmarked money by 2003, the year McCain first started taking aim at the project (he mentioned it on the Senate floor as part of a speech criticizing earmarks). But apparently McCain's campaign rhetoric hasn't been updated to reflect the additional $1.69-million the study's gotten since 2003. And, strictly speaking, the point of the project isn't really to analyze the bears' DNA, it's to use their DNA to take a census. The researchers collect hair left when the grizzlies scratch themselves on trees, then use DNA extracted from the hair to identify individual bears. This helps researchers count the number of grizzlies that live in Montana, considered one of the last strongholds of this endangered species. Kendall said it's a much cheaper — and safer — way to count them than traditional methods, which involve capturing grizzly bears and saddling them with satellite collars. It also has resulted in doubling the previous population estimates. The new figures, when paired with the results of another study on population trends, may eventually lead to removing grizzlies from the endangered list. McCain's math is a little dated. And he clearly is suggesting "the study of bear DNA" is a frivolous use of federal money, but we won't argue the merits of the project. McCain claims $3-million in federal money has been used to study the DNA of bears, and that's Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-09-26T00:00:00	2008-09-26	['Montana']
-pomt-00325	Since 2009, "millions of Americans have lost their health care plans."	/missouri/statements/2018/sep/20/josh-hawley/hawleys-claim-lost-health-care-plans-has-it-upside/	Josh Hawley, Missouri's attorney general and Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, is taking a strong stance on health care and the effects of the Affordable Care Act as he campaigns across Missouri. The act, signed into law in early 2010 by President Barack Obama, has a goal of providing accessible and affordable health insurance to more people. It also sought to expand Medicaid and provide support for medical research techniques aimed at decreasing health care costs. In an Aug. 20 op-ed for the Springfield News-Leader, Hawley again focused on the Affordable Care Act. "McCaskill told us that if we liked our healthcare plans, we could keep them. She said the cost of health insurance would go down. She said prescription drug prices would fall. She lied. Since then, millions of Americans have lost their health care plans." Because of the contradiction between Hawley’s assertion and the promises of the ACA to insure more Americans, we decided to take a closer look. Where do his claims come from? When we asked his campaign team about the claim, we were linked to a Washington Post blog by Sarah Kliff from 2013. This blog, along with several other supporting documents sent to us, focuses on cancellation notices sent out by insurance providers to those with plans that were grandfathered in when the Affordable Care Act took effect. "Grandfathered plans" are plans that didn’t meet ACA standards but were still allowed to be sold as coverage for a period of time after the ACA was enacted. The notices made people aware that their grandfathered plans were being phased out of the insurance marketplace, as explained by Kliff in her post. They also provided other coverage options and at least 90 days notice prior to the plan being discontinued, per government requirements for the individual health insurance market. On the surface, these notices can seem alarming, so we reached out to experts to see if they actually meant that people who received them lost health care coverage. Benjamin Sommers, associate professor of health policy and economics at Harvard University, said it is entirely possible that some people who received cancellation notices lost health care coverage, but only if they didn’t seek new coverage. Most individuals would have been able to obtain new coverage after receiving a cancellation notice. "Many of those individuals were likely eligible for subsidized coverage under the ACA and may have been able to switch onto those plans, in some cases at lower cost," said Sommers. How did the ACA affect the number of covered Americans? A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report shows that in the years following the enactment of the health care act, the percentage of uninsured Americans ages 18-64 has steadily dropped from 22.3 percent in 2010 to almost 12 percent this year. The biggest drop during the time when the main provisions of the ACA took effect was between 2013 and 2015. We spoke to expert Loren Adler, associate director for the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, about the number of Americans the policy incorporated. He noted that roughly 20 million more people gained health care coverage during this time period. Cicily Hampton, senior director of health science and policy at the Society for Public Health Education, said the uninsured rate is likely to rise after Congress dropped the individual mandate in its December 2017 tax bill. The individual mandate penalizes people who did not buy any health insurance although they could afford to by requiring them to pay a fee, subsequently causing more people to purchase insurance plans. By removing this, some Americans may not purchase health insurance because they will no longer be fined for doing so. Our ruling U.S. Senate candidate Josh Hawley wrote in an op-ed for the Springfield News-Leader that "millions of Americans have lost their healthcare plans." He has focused in on this issue as a part of his campaign. But our experts and even the source provided by Hawley’s team contradicted this, clarifying that just because you received a cancellation notice doesn’t mean that you no longer have health insurance. Hawley’s claim is misleading because it asserts that coverage was automatically lost. Other options and a sizable time period were given to those experiencing cancellations. Coverage was only lost if a new plan was not sought out by the individual before his or her previous plan was phased out. For those reasons, we rate this claim Mostly False.	None	Josh Hawley	None	None	None	2018-09-20T09:24:05	2018-08-20	['United_States']
-vees-00369	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: The sins of martial law, in tranches	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-sins-martial-law-tranches	None	None	None	None	Martial Law,Human rights	VERA FILES FACT SHEET: The sins of martial law, in tranches	September 23, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-08328	Vows to keep Georgia's race for governor "civil" and focused on the "positive."	/georgia/statements/2010/oct/29/nathan-deal-and-roy-barnes/candidates-claims-run-civil-campaign-veer-track/	Well, everybody seemed to be on the same page when it all started. The 3-month-old race between former Gov. Roy Barnes, a Democrat, and former Congressman Nathan Deal, a Republican, to determine who will become Georgia's next governor was to be a civil affair, hard-focused on the key issues. Or, so said both campaigns at the outset. Just listen to Deal spokesman Brian Robinson in a Sept. 13 metro Atlanta television interview: "They [voters] want a positive vision and Nathan Deal will offer [that] in tone and in message." Or Barnes himself in an Aug. 11 TV interview: "You know, it’s a Southern tradition to be civil and polite. … just because we have differences, doesn’t mean that we have to call each other names." Oh really now? We thought today -- four days before Election Day -- would be a good time to look back at those lofty campaign goals as the governor’s race nears the finish line. Voters go to the polls on Tuesday to choose between Deal, Barnes or Libertarian John Monds. And they’ll have to wade through a lot of noise from one of the nastiest campaigns in recent Georgia history to cast their ballots for the state's next chief executive. Here are a few of the campaign’s lowlights, brought to you by the campaigns and their Republican and Democratic surrogates: -- Dale Peterson, a failed GOP candidate for Alabama’s agriculture chief, weighs in with a YouTube video for Deal on behalf of the Republican Governors Association. Wearing a white cowboy hat and brandishing a vintage lever-action rifle across his shoulders, Peterson reminds viewers that Georgia voters fired Barnes in 2002 after one term in office: "He screwed things up so badly y'all chunked him out." Peterson adds: "He's just the same old amb’lance chaser he’s always been." -- The Barnes camp enlisted its own cast of colorful rural types in a television ad that featured two old geezers sipping coffee in a folksy cafe. They incrementally ramp up the trash talk as they bash Deal. Finally one of them delivers a zinger: "He’s slippery as a bag of snakes," one man intones as the pair breaks into howls of laughter. And those were just warm-up exercises in character assassination that prefaced what was to become outright fabrication by both camps. -- The Barnes camp conceded that it added fake audio questions to the soundtrack of a TV ad that shows Deal leaving a debate, apparently trying to evade reporters. "Why won't you answer questions?" a male reporter appears to yell at Deal in the ad. Then a woman yells: "Why won't you answer questions?" Trouble was, those reporters did not exist. The Barnes camp simply added audio to make the footage appear more dramatic. -- The Deal camp, meanwhile, ran a TV ad showing a "quote" from a Barnes campaign aide that was never uttered. The ad quoted Barnes spokeswoman Anna Ruth Williams saying, "Barnes represented the child molester." She never said those words. The Deal campaign later attributed the quote to an "Ann Williams." And then there were the just-plain-awful, highly misleading attacks by both camps on the other candidate’s voting records two decades back: -- In one, Barnes accused Deal of trying to weaken Georgia's rape shield law. PolitiFact Georgia earlier ruled that Half True because it left out critical context. A male narrator in the ad asks viewers to consider "How many rapes would go unreported?" if the rape shield law had been weakened. -- Deal, meanwhile, accused Barnes of trying to make it more difficult to convict child molesters. PolitiFact Georgia ruled that one Barely True, finding it contained only a trace of truthfulness. "Barnes voted against a bill in the state Senate that would have made it easier to gain convictions in child abuse cases," Deal said in a press release. University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock said this year’s campaign is one for the books when you rate it on the Nastymeter. "It’s unprecedented for Georgia," Bullock said. "It’s been the harshest campaign we’ve seen for governor." Much of the uncivil behavior was predictable. Both campaigns had huge war chests, and well-heeled allies on both the Democratic and Republican fronts were more than willing to join the fray. Polls have shown the race relatively close, which always makes for a bruising campaign. And both Barnes and Deal have long political records each side can target. Kennesaw State University professor Kerwin Swint, who teaches a class on campaigns and elections, said Barnes and Deal have resorted to attack ads for a simple reason: They work. "It does with regular voters because they’re more likely to pay attention," said Swint. "It puts attention on the other candidate’s vulnerability." But it also leads to an uninformed electorate, numbed by the endless attacks and counterattacks. Somewhere amid it all, the real issues confronting Georgia get lost. Smoke is rising from this gubernatorial battleground, and it long ago obscured both camps' vows to run a "civil" and "positive" campaign. The race has been about as uncivil and negative as they come. We give both the Deal and Barnes campaigns our lowest rating: Pants On Fire.	None	Roy Barnes and Nathan Deal	None	None	None	2010-10-29T06:00:00	2010-10-28	['None']
-pomt-03659	"One in five" women in the military "are receiving unwanted sexual contact," as are "3.3 percent of men."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/29/kirsten-gillibrand/kirsten-gillibrand-says-one-five-military-women-3-/	In an interview with MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand offered a striking statistic about sexual misconduct in the military. "We've had sexual assaults in the military forever," Gillibrand said on April 23, 2013, but "a new report the DOD published found is that one in five ... women are receiving unwanted sexual contact, but also 3.3 percent of men." We wondered if Gillibrand -- who is sponsoring legislation on the matter -- was reporting the numbers accurately. The report Gillibrand mentioned is the Health-Related Behaviors Survey of Active Duty Military Personnel from the U.S. Defense Department. (Gillibrand shorthands the agency as the DOD). The study, which samples tens of thousands of members of the military anonymously, is undertaken every three years. The just-released report covers 2011, addressing such issues as alcohol and tobacco use, mental health and other issues. The study found that 21.7 percent of women had experienced "unwanted sexual contact ... since joining the military, by someone in the military." (It found that 5.8 percent had experienced unwanted sexual contact by a civilian since joining the military.) The comparable percentage for men experiencing unwanted sexual contact was 3.3 percent (by a member of the military) and 2.4 percent (by a civilian). So Gillibrand has accurately reported the percentages. The only element of her claim that’s slightly misleading is that she referred to service members who "are receiving unwanted sexual contact." That makes it sound like they are currently having unwanted contact or had it in the recent past. In fact, the statistics refer to unwanted contact that happened "since joining the military," which, for some survey respondents with long tenures in the military, may have been years ago. It’s worth noting that the percentages have risen since the 2008 survey. That year, 12.4 percent of women and 2.2 percent of men had experienced unwanted contact. (The 2008 survey did not distinguish between contact by members of the military and civilians.) In addition, only a small fraction of these cases are reported to the authorities, and only some of those proceed to trial. The report is unclear about whether the increase from 2008 to 2011 stems from a rise in the number of incidents or fuller reporting of the incidents that do occur. Whatever the reason, the report did say that "reported rates of unwanted sexual contact, particularly among female service members, warrant attention and action." Our ruling Gillibrand said that "one in five" women in the military "are receiving unwanted sexual contact," as are "3.3 percent of men." Her phrasing is somewhat misleading because her words suggest more recent incidents than the survey indicates. The survey included incidents anytime since the person joined the military. Still, her numbers are correct. We rate her statement Mostly True.	None	Kirsten Gillibrand	None	None	None	2013-04-29T10:09:48	2013-04-23	['None']
-pomt-06721	Says potential GOP U.S. Senate candidate Tommy Thompson supported "Obamacare"	/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/31/club-growth/club-for-growth-says-potential-Republican-US-Senat/	Ever since former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson surfaced as a potential candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2012, the conservative Club for Growth has waged a campaign to stop him from becoming the Republican nominee. The anti-tax group argues that rather than Thompson, who served as the health and human services secretary under GOP President George W. Bush, Wisconsin Republicans should support "a pro-growth conservative." In casting Thompson as not conservative enough, Club for Growth has focused on the signature legislation of Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency: the federal health care reform law, which Republicans have labeled "Obamacare." Club for Growth launched its campaign on May 18, 2011, the day after Thompson was mentioned in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as a possible candidate for the seat being vacated by 23-year Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl. The group issued a statement saying Thompson "supported Obamacare," following it the next day with an Internet ad claiming he "was a champion of Obamacare." The attacks continued, with Club for Growth saying in late May 2011 that Thompson helped implement the law; in June 2011, that he is (rather than was) a champion of the law; and in mid-August 2011, that he supported "Obamacare." Then in a TV ad released Aug. 23, 2011, Club for Growth, as it did in its Internet ad, used a video clip in which Obama says Thompson supports health care reform. That’s quite a few statements. But the main claim is that Thompson, who is expected to launch a formal campaign committee after Labor Day, supported "Obamacare." That is the claim we’ll test. The health care reform plan is formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Signed into law by Obama in March 2010, it aims to expand health care coverage, control costs and improve delivery of services. We asked Barney Keller, a spokesman for Club for Growth -- which has a Wisconsin affiliate that has not joined in the criticism of Thompson -- for evidence to back the national group’s claim. He cited six developments: Oct. 4, 2009: The White House issued a statement from Thompson and Dick Gephardt, the former Democratic House majority leader from Missouri, saying the health care reform bill to be considered by the Senate Finance Committee has "some issues that remain troublesome and unresolved," but that it was "another important step toward achieving the goal of health care reform this year." The statement also said: "Failure to reach an agreement on health reform this year is not an acceptable option." Oct. 9, 2009: In his weekly address to the nation, Obama said the Senate Finance Committee version of health care reform would soon be merged with reform bills produced by other congressional committees. Obama also said Thompson was among Republicans who had "come out in support of reform." It was a video clip from that address that Club for Growth used in its ads. Oct. 13, 2009: Thompson wrote an article for the liberal Huffington Post website, saying health reform legislation before Congress "offers a big opportunity to lower our nation's health costs by expanding the use of "community health teams." He urged the bill being considered by the Senate be amended to "provide increased support for CHTs." So, looking only at Club for Growth’s first three points, Thompson expressed reservations about the health care reform legislation as it stood at the time, but also spoke favorably of it. Club for Growth’s other three points cited developments after the bill became law. June 30, 2010: Thompson was pictured with Obama’s health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, and other former federal officials in a photo on the White House website. Sebelius wrote in a blog post that Thompson and others who attended a meeting with her that day "offered some great ideas about implementation and outreach, suggestions about strategies to make sure that the Affordable Care Act is successful." So, Thompson participated in a meeting on implementing the law, but that isn’t evidence that he supported the law or all its provisions. Nov. 2, 2010: Asked why he didn’t think Republicans would try to repeal the law, Thompson said on CNBC: "I think because when you -- when it's all said and done, you're not going to be able to repeal health care because President Obama is not going to sign it and they don't have enough votes to override a veto. So why push a cart up hill when you know it's not going to be able to get to the top?" Thompson’s statement argues that repealing the law wasn’t possible, it doesn’t by itself express support for the law. June 27, 2011: In another Huffington Post article, Thompson urged governors to set up health insurance exchanges as a "market-based solution" that would allow insurance companies to compete in their states. If the governors didn’t act, he warned, the federal government would set up the exchanges. Again, Thompson’s statement itself doesn’t express direct support for the law, but rather warns what would happen under the law if governors didn’t set up the exchanges. So, that is Club for Growth’s case that Thompson supported health care reform. We asked Darrin Schmitz, a consultant to Thompson, for a response to the claim. He made six points in arguing that Thompson never supported what became law. "Thompson does support health care reform," Schmitz said. "He has never made a secret of that. But there is no evidence he supported Obamacare -- because he didn't." The points cited by Thompson: June 17, 2008: Thompson said at a forum on health care reform, nearly four months before Obama was elected: "I don’t want a mandate" forcing people to buy health insurance. That’s accurate, but Thompson also said moments later: "I’m not opposed to it, I just don’t think it’s the most practical way." So, it’s clear Thompson had reservations about a central component of health care reform, which requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance. But that doesn’t establish that Thompson opposed the entire plan. Sept. 23, 2009: Thompson told a Fox News affiliate in Washington, D.C.: "The problem is (Obama) is reaching for other items that divide us. And I’m trying to pull us back together as Americans to what really unites us." Thompson had been asked whether Obama was communicating effectively on health care reform. The quote is accurate, although Thompson preceded that comment by saying there should be hope that a health care reform bill can be adopted because "everybody can rally around" changes he advocated that "take up about 90 percent of health care." So, Thompson expressed support for a reform bill being passed, but he had differences with Obama. Oct. 14, 2009: After Democrats produced a TV ad that referenced Thompson and criticized other Republicans for not supporting health care reform, Thompson told Fox News he protested to the White House and the ad was taken down. He said had not given permission to be used in an ad that criticized Republicans. Asked whether he supported the reform bill, Thompson said: "Not this one." Thompson also said in the interview: "What I’m trying to do is bring the parties together, saying there’s 80 percent of this health care bill that both political parties can support, which would be good for America ....Let’s team up together, let’s get something done." So, Thompson voiced opposition to the legislation, although he said it contained many good elements and that he wanted some type of reform legislation approved. Dec. 20, 2009: Thompson said in another statement issued with Gephardt: "The bill before the Senate this week isn't and shouldn't be the final answer, but the status quo is simply unacceptable." The statement also said: "Let's work together on a bipartisan basis to make this a reality." That is Thompson again stating reservations about the legislation, but expressing opposition to the status quo, not to the legislation. March 20, 2010: On the day the House approved the reform bill, which had already been approved by the Senate, Thompson said the legislation "has the potential to change the current social services fabric because the health insurance transformation that will pass will be the beginning of a government-controlled health care system." Thompson had been asked whether the bill would "fundamentally alter the social safety net." His brief response certainly was critical of the final legislation. We found that in 2007, during his brief run for president, Thompson expressed opposition to a government-run health care system and support for market-based alternatives. He reiterated that position in testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in May 2008, prior to Obama’s election. June 15, 2011: Thompson said the law "has got to be repealed and replaced and re-written." Thompson’s opposition to the law, made to Republican donors after criticism of his stance on the reform law had escalated, is not evidence that he didn’t support the measure earlier. So, where has this review put us? Preferring that a more conservative Republican run for an open U.S. Senate seat in Wisconsin in 2012, Club for Growth has repeatedly claimed that Thompson supported "Obamacare." It’s a potentially pivotal question, particularly among conservative voters in a primary election, should Thompson enter the race. The evidence shows he expressed both support and opposition to the health care reform legislation that eventually became law. On the one hand: Thompson described the measure, as it worked through Congress, as "another important step" toward achieving health care reform and as a "big opportunity" to lower health care costs. On the other hand: The day after calling the bill a "big opportunity," Thompson said he opposed the measure. Two months later, he said the bill wasn’t "the final answer," but that keeping the status quo was "simply unacceptable." Thompson never came out clearly for or against what became law, despite the fact that he now says he supports repealing it. He made it possible for Club for Growth to claim he supported Obamacare and for himself to deny he supported it. There is evidence to support both positions. We rate Club for Growth’s statement Half True.	None	Club for Growth	None	None	None	2011-08-31T09:00:00	2011-08-23	['Tommy_Thompson', 'United_States', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-pomt-05744	"In some communities, for $10,000 worth of (PIP) coverage it’s $1,500 a year."	/florida/statements/2012/mar/02/rick-scott/rick-scott-floridians-pay-1500-pip-premium/	Gov. Rick Scott says abuse of Florida’s auto insurance law is forcing drivers to pay more for their car insurance. He’s made reforming the law, also known as personal injury protection, or PIP, his second-highest priority this legislative session. He appealed to people’s purse strings in a recent interview with WTSP Tampa Bay. "It impacts the poorest families in our community the most. In some communities, for $10,000 worth of coverage it’s $1,500 a year," Scott said. "It’s just money out of families’ pockets that they could put into education, food, shelter." If Scott’s right, that’s a steep annual fee for not much protection. We wanted to know if it’s true, and for whom. A primer on PIP before we get rolling: The requirement is meant to guarantee treatment from injuries sustained during auto accidents, regardless of who is at fault. Over recent years, officials say, the system has been abused by people staging car accidents to collect money for treatment they do not need. We previously checked a claim from Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater that Florida is the No. 1 state in the country for staged car accidents. We rated that Mostly True. For this fact-check, we asked an array of people interested in the PIP fight if Scott’s figures are right. State officials and insurance industry representatives pointed us to a report from Florida’s PIP Working Group, coordinated by the state’s insurance consumer advocate at the request of her boss, Atwater. The 65-page report bills the information in its PIP review as the "most reliable and current insurance and claims data available." It offers average PIP premiums from two insurance companies for different kinds of motorists with mostly clean driving histories. It focuses on three cities with high allegations of PIP fraud: Tampa, Orlando, Hialeah. The working group only examined premiums from State Farm, which insures one in five vehicles in Florida, and Direct General, a "non-standard" company that typically takes on high-risk motorists. The other major state insurers -- Geico, Allstate and Progressive -- are not included. The report shows instances of high PIP premiums that match Scott’s estimate. For instance, a young Hialeah professional with State Farm and one minor violation and one not-at-fault accident paid $1,765 for PIP coverage in 2011. In Tampa, the premium for the same person was $1,077. According to the same report, an average family with teen drivers and two vehicles purchasing Direct General insurance would pay $1,571. The cost is even higher in some cases, escalating more than $800 over three years. In Hialeah, the average family with teen drivers and two vehicles and no accidents or violations on State Farm paid $2,450 in 2008 and $3,270 in 2011. We asked the state how many drivers might be included in each of these categories -- since the report targets specific insurance companies, specific cities and specific types of drivers -- but we did not receive an answer by our deadline. So while we do not know the sample size of the data, we do know that $10,000 worth of PIP coverage in Florida can cost $1,500 or more each year. But Scott made a broader claim in his WTSP interview -- that the cost of coverage is dependent on your community, not necessarily your personal situation, your insurance carrier or how large your deductible is. The information to substantiate that claim is much more difficult to pinpoint -- largely because insurance coverage is tailored to individual situations. We found a wealth of information on PIP premiums across the state from the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. We received several spreadsheets from the office detailing average PIP premiums in 2010 from Florida’s top five insurers. The numbers are required of insurance companies when they file for rate requests, which has been pretty often lately. They’re broken down for different types of drivers by coverage areas. Our takeaway: There are plenty of good drivers who don’t pay nearly $1,500 a year. Through Geico, a Hialeah retiree with a clean driving history would pay $450 a year for $10,000 in coverage. A married, middle-aged couple who share two vehicles with their adult children and have a clean driving record would pay $406 a year in Central Orlando through Geico, anywhere from $327 to $860 a year in Hialeah and $253 a year in St. Petersburg. In rural cities and counties, the family would pay even less: Ocala, $179; Central Jacksonville, $193; Northeast Florida counties, $153; Panhandle counties, $128. With so much variance between drivers, driving histories, plans and location, pulling an average statewide PIP premium from this data wouldn’t be wise-- even if it was easily available. We requested a median premium but did not hear back from the Office of Insurance Regulation by our deadline. But consider this: In 2011, Insure.com determined Florida’s overall auto insurance premium costs were $1,476, below the national average ($1,561). Another measure used by the Insurance Information Institute found Florida’s average car insurance expenditure to be $1,006 (based on 2009 statistics). PIP is just one part of your car insurance bill. Our ruling Scott said, "In some communities, for $10,000 worth of coverage it’s $1,500 a year." A state report shows that in some instances, drivers pay $1,500 a year -- or even more -- for $10,000 worth of coverage. The report also makes clear that the instances of high premiums are in places where fraud allegations are highest. Still, those high premiums also depend on individual circumstances. People in Hialeah could pay $1,500 or more for coverage. But people also could pay less. What you pay depends on how many cars you own and what kind of driver you are. It doesn't depend solely on which community you live in. With that clarification in mind, we rate Scott's statement Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2012-03-02T13:47:49	2012-02-25	['None']
-snes-05833	A virus is circulating with the name "Black in the White House" (aka "Black Muslim in the White House").	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-muslim-in-the-white-house/	None	Computers	None	David Mikkelson	None	‘Black Muslim in the White House’ Virus	4 August 2010	None	['White_House', 'Nation_of_Islam']
-pomt-12960	"Breaking: Crew of Air Force One Refuses to Fly Obama 6000 miles ‘Just to Play Golf’ "	/punditfact/statements/2016/dec/30/buzzfeedusacom/no-air-force-one-did-not-refuse-take-obama-hawaii/	The claims circulated on social media that Air Force One won’t transport the Obamas for vacation are flights of fancy. The website BuzzFeedUSA.com, which appears to be registered to an address in Macedonia and has no connection to the real BuzzFeed.com, posted an article on Dec. 20 with the headline, "Breaking: Crew of Air Force One Refuses to Fly Obama 6000 miles ‘Just to Play Golf.’ " The article states that the captain of the fleet had enough with the Obamas’ frivolous flights and wouldn’t take the president to Hawaii "just for the day" to play a round of golf with a friend. This is not true. The Obamas set out for their annual Christmas vacation to Hawaii — Barack Obama’s birthplace — the evening of Dec. 16, four days before the article posted. Here’s video of them departing on Air Force One that night. Per White House pool reports, Obama played rounds of golf on Dec. 17, 19, 21 and 23. The First Family has also spent time at the beach, walked a nature trail at a botanical garden, played escape the room and dined at a popular Japanese restaurant — all in Hawaii. On Christmas Day, the President and First Lady visited troops at a marine base, again in Hawaii. Several of the other claims made in the article are entirely fabricated. The Obamas never took Air Force One to Chicago for White Castle burgers. There is no Air Force Osprey specifically to transport the First Dog. (Here’s an article describing Bo walking up and down the aisle of Air Force One.) The article’s assertion that Air Force One is not obligated to fly anywhere "unless it was on official business" lacks critical context. Vacation trips fall under the official travel category as the president and vice president are assumed to be always on duty, according to the Congressional Research Service. The article also includes a picture of the First Family’s dog, Bo, departing a marine helicopter. As our friends at Snopes point out, the image was taken in 2013 during the Obamas’ vacation on the Martha’s Vineyard. Embed from Getty Images After the photo, the article then concludes with a wink: "It’s a fairly well-known fact that after about 150 words and a picture that may or may not be related, most conservative readers will stop reading and go comment that the Muslim should be executed for playing golf. Therefore, less than 20% of those who clicked this article will have made it this far." While BuzzFeedUSA.com’s article fetched no comments, many who read the same article posted on a different fake news site seem to have missed this disclaimer and praised the dissident pilot. If this kicker isn’t enough to convince you that the article is fake, or if you only read the headline, we’ll state it more emphatically: It’s Pants on Fire! https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3641530f-d560-42b8-be6f-23070da52b09	None	BuzzFeedUSA.com	None	None	None	2016-12-30T15:35:08	2016-12-20	['None']
-pomt-03771	"It is legal in Ohio to fire an employee or evict a tenant just for being gay."	/ohio/statements/2013/apr/02/progressohio/progressohio-says-ohio-lacks-law-prohibiting-emplo/	The U.S. Supreme Court put the focus on same-sex marriage when it heard cases challenging California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but attention elsewhere fell on a wider range of rights issues. The liberal advocacy group ProgressOhio Education used the opportunity to send out a fundraising email highlighting its work "for the rights of all Ohioans" beyond marriage. "Did you know," the email asked, "it is legal in Ohio to fire an employee or evict a tenant just for being gay?" The assertion took PolitiFact Ohio by surprise. We asked ProgressOhio for more information. Executive director Brian Rothenberg said the failure of state legislation prohibiting employment and housing discrimination left gay people without legal protection in those areas. He pointed to a recent legal case as underlining that point. The legislation he mentioned was the Equal Housing and Employment Act, House Bill 176, which would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of classifications for which it is illegal to discriminate for housing, employment and public-accommodation purposes in Ohio. (It already is illegal in Ohio to discriminate against a person on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, age and ancestry.) Introduced in the 128th General Assembly, H.B. 176 was passed by the Ohio House in September 2009, but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate and died with the end of that legislative session. Similar legislation, House Bill 335, was introduced in the 129th General Assembly in October 2011. It suffered a similar fate, dying without a vote in either chamber. The legal case Rothenberg cited, Inskeep v. Western Reserve Transit Authority, was decided in March by Ohio's 7th District Court of Appeals. The court dismissed the suit of a man who claimed he was harassed on the job because of his sexual orientation, ruling that Ohio's employment discrimination statute does not protect "sexual orientation." The court said in its decision: "Several states have chosen to enact legislation prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals by adding sexual orientation as a protected status in their discrimination statutes. Because Ohio has not, it has been concluded that sexual orientation is not protected." We looked further and found that Ohio prohibited discrimination within state employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity under an executive order issued by then-Gov. Ted Strickland in 2007. After it expired, Gov. John Kasich issued an executive order in January 2011 prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, but not gender identity. Both orders applied only to public employees in state jobs. Twenty-nine Ohio cities and counties now have anti-discrimination ordinances, according to a tally by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Ohio’s lack of protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation parallels both federal law and the law of 28 other states, according to Business Management Daily, the advocacy group Equality Ohio and the ACLU. On the Truth-O-Meter, the statement that it is legal in Ohio to fire an employee or evict a tenant for being gay rates as True.	None	Progress Ohio	None	None	None	2013-04-02T18:00:00	2013-03-26	['Ohio']
-goop-02188	Angelina Jolie’s Kids Putting Her “Health At Risk,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-kids-health/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie’s Kids NOT Putting Her “Health At Risk,” Despite Report	10:25 am, November 17, 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00291	'Pieces of iPad' Giveaway Facebook	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/pieces-iPad-giveaway-facebook-scam.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'Pieces of iPad' Giveaway Facebook Scam	October 29, 2013	None	['None']
-snes-05142	Hillary Clinton said children should be raised and trained by the state, and parents should have only a secondary role.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-takes-village-quote/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Hillary Clinton Said Children Should Be Raised by the State?	29 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-03337	New school testing standards "will consume approximately twenty days of testing for elementary, middle and high school students."	/florida/statements/2013/jul/22/will-weatherford/new-tests-could-take-20-school-days-say-will-weath/	Florida is in the midst of implementing new, tougher academic standards to make its students more internationally competitive. To do that, the state needs to replace the well-known FCAT exam with a new set of tests. As the 2014-15 deadline approaches, though, questions are being raised about whether the new testing system, called PARCC, is the best choice. On July 17, Florida’s top lawmakers weighed in with a resounding "no." House Speaker Will Weatherford and Senate President Don Gaetz sent a two-page letter to education commissioner Tony Bennett urging him to withdraw from PARCC (the acronym stands for Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) and instead craft a "Florida plan" for testing. They listed five key reasons, including cost, technology requirements and time spent testing. (We can only rate one person on our Truth-O-Meter, so we're rating Weatherford, but the ruling applies to both.) To that last point, they pointedly wrote, "According to information provided recently through PARCC and earlier by the Florida Department of Education (FLDOE), the complete PARCC assessments will consume approximately twenty days of testing for elementary, middle and high school students." That figure -- 20 days of testing -- puzzled some readers of the letter, which the lawmakers circulated widely. Were students going to be tested for a full 20 days? In fact, the leaders were on the mark — if not a bit conservative — to folks well versed in the language of high-stakes testing. But the number makes sense only if you understand that schools are given a window to test students. The current FCAT, for example, takes 12 days for schools to administer. It’s important to understand the broader context of this debate, too: The new testing system is meant to complement the Common Core State Standards, which have become increasingly debated across the country. Advocates like Bill Gates, Jeb Bush and the Obama administration say the system will create higher expectations for students and provide more rigor to propel them ahead. An odd combination of teacher unions and tea party activists, meanwhile, are pushing for states to abandon the model. The unions say that teachers and schools are not prepared for the change, while the tea party groups argue against a nationalized curriculum and testing. Setting that debate aside, it’s important to know that school testing is not typically a one-day thing for students or teachers. A Florida fourth-grader currently spends about 5 hours 40 minutes over four days taking FCAT exams in reading, math and writing, for instance, according to a state analysis. That same student would sit for 9 hours 20 minutes of PARCC year-end testing, over six to nine days. PARCC also would have mid-year testing, also with a 20-day window to get them all completed. And, the PARCC estimate does not include what the Florida DOE listed as "a set amount of additional time yet to be determined. ...This may in turn also increase the number of testing days." The days-long testing windows give schools time to cycle children through the computerized portions of the tests. Many schools do not have enough machines or bandwidth to test all children at the same time. That gives credence to the leaders’ choice of the word "consume" when writing about what tests do to the school day. Even under FCAT, many teachers have observed that testing season takes over school classrooms and computer labs. Gaetz and Weatherford are not alone in their concerns. Oklahoma state superintendent Janet Barresi, a Republican who had her state join PARCC as one of her first actions in office, three weeks ago announced she would abandon the tests. Like Weatherford and Gaetz, Barresi cited increased testing time as one of her key concerns. Oklahoma fourth-graders currently take only two hours of state tests. "We just felt like that’s a significant leap," department spokeswoman Tricia Pemberton told PolitiFact. "We do want the increased rigor of a PARCC-type exam … but we just want to do a little less of that at this point." Commissioner Bennett has been evaluating PARCC, along with other testing options for Florida that he could go with. He has said he will take the lawmakers’ concerns into consideration as he makes his recommendation. Our ruling In a letter to the state education commissioner, Gaetz and Weatherford said they were concerned that new standards would increase test-taking time for Florida’s students, describing the PARCC standards as "consuming" 20 days for elementary, middle and high school students. The word "consuming" implies that those days will be taken up completely by testing. That’s not the case for students, who will not be tested continuously for 20 days. But it’s on the mark for schools, which would have a 20-day window in which to administer tests to different students within the school. In fact, schools generally expect to focus on little else besides testing procedures for that time period. The current FCAT tests work the same way, but that testing window is shorter, at 12 days. The lawmakers could have been more clear that if PARCC standards are adopted, students will not face 20 days of continuous testing. But in context, their statement is generally accurate. We rate the statement Mostly True.	None	Will Weatherford	None	None	None	2013-07-22T12:19:25	2013-07-17	['None']
-tron-01722	American Aircraft Manufacturer Excluded From Bidding on Air Force Contract	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hawker-beechcraft-usaf-bid/	None	government	None	None	None	American Aircraft Manufacturer Excluded From Bidding on Air Force Contract	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-05422	"Nobody is leaving Memphis. That's a myth."	/tennessee/statements/2012/may/01/joe-brown/nobody-leaving-memphis-says-city-councilman-joe-br/	When Memphis Mayor A C Wharton kicked off the budget season by presenting his administration’s plan for financing city government for 2012-13, budget chairman Jim Strickland talked about the possibility that a proposed one-time tax for schools might make more people vote "with their tail lights" by leaving the city. That brought a challenge from Memphis City Councilman Joe Brown, who is a reliable advocate of increasing city government taxes and spending. "Nobody is leaving Memphis," Brown said. "That's a myth." Even the mayor’s budget document cites the negative migration trend, noting that tax revenues "have been negatively impacted by years of population decline and decimated by the recent recession." So we felt obligated to put Councilman Brown’s claim to the Truth-O-Meter Brown did not respond to numerous messages or emails asking for evidence to support his claim. It’s worth noting here that this Joe Brown, the city councilman, is not the same Joe Brown from Memphis famous for being a TV judge. No, this Joe Brown is the councilman who attracted international attention for Memphis in 2004 when he barred seven Iraqi community and civic leaders from City Hall, citing fears of terrorism. "We don’t want another Oklahoma City," he said at the time, adding confusion about domestic terrorism with his confusion about the origins of the 9/11 attacks. When we contacted Strickland about Brown’s claim, he went straight to the numbers, saying that his analysis shows the city has been bleeding residents at a yearly rate of about a half-percent of the population – roughly 3,000 more people leave the city than move to it. He says he’s even looked at Memphis Light, Gas & Water data that show yearly declines in customers. "All the evidence points to people voting with their tail lights," Strickland said. "They are leaving. Most of the people leaving are middle class and Memphis is losing its middle class." U.S. Census Bureau numbers from 2000 and 2010 back up Strickland. We have tracked this closely at The Commercial Appeal over the years, and Tom Charlier reported on it extensively in a piece last March. Between the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses, Memphis’s population fell from 650,100 to 646,889 -- but those raw numbers mask a larger story of population shifts out of the city. One key variable involves Memphis’s 2002 annexation of an 11.5-square-mile area of Cordova -- which contained 35,000 residents. If population in all other parts of Memphis had remained stable, at the very least the city should have shown an increase of 35,000 from the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census. There’s also the matter of births far out-numbering deaths, which all things being equal would lead to population gain. While these numbers are not readily available for specific cities in Tennessee, the state does track them by county. University of Memphis researcher Charlie Santo pointed us to data that shows that in Shelby County, of which Memphis comprises 69.7 percent of the population, there were 145,120 births between 2001 and 2010 and 76,463 deaths. Thus, the county should have added 68,657 people based on more births than deaths, and if we apportion 69.7 percent of that to Memphis, that means the city could have expected to grow by 47,854 people. Add that 47,854 to the 35,000 Cordova residents forced into the city limits by annexation, and you see that, had there been an absolute zero rate of migration into or out of the city, Memphis’s population should have increased over the decade by 82,854. And, yet, the city showed a population decline of 3,211 people over that period. So more than 85,000 people that would have been expected to be present in census calculations were in fact nowhere to be found inside of Memphis. We also know that the six incorporated suburban cities and towns inside Shelby County grew by 33 percent between 2000 and 2010, adding a total of 41,918 residents. Suburban towns and cities in bordering counties also showed great growth. And in Mississippi’s DeSoto County, which borders Memphis and Shelby County to the south, population grew by 37 percent, with the addition of 43,507 residents. We cannot say exactly how many of those new suburban residents came from Memphis, but the Census Bureau numbers from its 2010 American Community Survey reveal substantial migration from Memphis to the suburbs. The 2010 ACS, a scientifically rigorous U.S. Census sampling, shows a yearly migration out of Memphis of 32,580 people -- 11,425 moved from Memphis to the remainder of Shelby County, 5,767 moved to a different county in Tennessee and 15,388 moved to different state. We did not get numbers for in-migration, because Brown’s comment focused specifically on whether people are leaving Memphis. But the numbers from the decennial census make it clear more people are moving out of Memphis every year than are moving in. As Charlier wrote, this is a staggering trend because it marks only the second decline in a decennial census since the yellow fever epidemic of the 1870s. Smart City Memphis blogger Tom Jones, a former longtime Shelby County government administrator, put it into greater historical context: "Within the 1970 city limits of Memphis, there are more than 30% fewer people; if Memphis were not able to masquerade its population losses through annexations, the city might well have lost more people than any city in the Sun Belt." Our ruling Brown defends his desire to raise taxes and increase spending in Memphis by saying it's "a myth" that residents are leaving Memphis. But he need only look at the mayor's budget document, which says the city has suffered "years of population decline." And numbers from the Census Bureau show a more detailed story of the steady out-migration. It has been masked by annexations and yearly births outnumbering deaths, but it's a very real trend. We rate this claim Pants On Fire.	None	Joe Brown	None	None	None	2012-05-01T12:02:28	2012-04-18	['None']
-tron-01684	Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens, firearms and state sovereignty	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oklahoma-laws/	None	government	None	None	None	Oklahoma Laws concerning the 10 Commandments, illegal aliens, firearms and state sovereignty	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-01850	"74 percent of Republicans support the Affordable Care Act."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/14/donna-edwards/democratic-rep-donna-edwards-says-74-republicans-s/	From the day it was passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote, President Barack Obama’s health care law has polarized Americans by party affiliation: Most Democrats support it, most Republicans oppose it. So we were curious when we heard Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., cited strong Republican approval for the law on the July 13, 2014, edition of CNN’s State of the Union. It came during a roundtable discussion of frayed partisan relations in Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner’s effort to sue Obama over his administration’s alleged overreach on implementation of the health care law. Edwards said, "I don't understand the politics (of the lawsuit), quite frankly. I mean, 74 percent of Republicans support the Affordable Care Act. And so they're suing against their own Republicans." We decided to take a closer look at whether 74 percent of Republicans really "support the Affordable Care Act." We started by checking with Edwards’ office. Spokesman Benjamin Gerdes said Edwards was referring to a poll by the Commonwealth Fund, a think tank that supports "better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency" in health care, "particularly for society's most vulnerable." The poll reached 4,425 adults by telephone between April 9 and June 2, 2014. Pollsters interviewed a sample of adults between 19 and 64 who had selected a private plan or enrolled in Medicaid due to provisions in the Affordable Care Act, or who have had Medicaid for less than 1 year. One of the questions was, "Overall, how satisfied are you with this new health insurance?" The poll found that 74 percent of the Republicans who had signed up for health coverage at least in part due to the ACA said they were satisfied -- specifically, 30 percent somewhat satisfied and 44 percent very satisfied. That satisfaction rate was rate slightly lower than it was for Democrats (85 percent) and Independents (82 percent), but still overwhelmingly high. That’s a notable finding, suggesting, essentially, that if you try the ACA, you’ll like the ACA -- even if you’re a Republican. But Edwards didn’t say that 74 percent of Republicans who signed up for coverage as a result of ACA said they were satisfied with the coverage they got. Instead, she said, "74 percent of Republicans support the Affordable Care Act" -- a much broader assertion, and one that’s undercut by a host of survey data. For instance, here are three recent polls: • Quinnipiac Poll, June 24-30: "Do you support or oppose the health care law passed by Barack Obama and Congress in 2010?" Republicans: 9 percent support, 90 percent oppose. • Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll, June 12-18: "As you may know, a health reform bill was signed into law in 2010. Given what you know about the health reform law, do you have a generally favorable or generally unfavorable opinion of it?" Republicans: 15 percent support, 74 percent oppose. • Gallup, May 21-25. "Do you generally approve or disapprove of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, signed into law by President Obama that restructured the U.S. health care system?" Republicans: 8 percent support. (Figures for "oppose" were not posted.) By contrast, support for the law among Democrats ranged between 66 percent and 83 percent in these polls -- a yawning partisan gap. When we got back in touch with Gerdes, he acknowledged that Edwards "did misspeak." Our ruling Edwards said that "74 percent of Republicans support the Affordable Care Act." She actually has a reasonable point to make -- that, contrary to the popular impression of the law, most Republicans who have signed up for insurance through the law say they are satisfied with it. Still, that’s not how Edwards phrased the claim on CNN. On the broader question of whether Republicans "support the Affordable Care Act," the results in recent polls have ranged from 8 percent and 15 percent -- far lower than the 74 percent a viewer would be led to believe from watching Edwards during the roundtable segment. We rate her claim False.	None	Donna Edwards	None	None	None	2014-07-14T17:32:55	2014-07-13	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-10834	Poor people go to a "payday lender...and they pay 300, 400, 500 percent interest."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/sep/13/john-edwards/on-the-money-about-loans/	At a campaign stop in Americus, Georgia, John Edwards said the U.S. has "the worst saving rate in the industrialized world." As a consequence, when the bills come in many working Americans can be short of money. "And so the result is, they go to the payday lender, right? And they pay 300, 400, 500 percent interest." He is right about those interest rates, and some experts think he understates the problem. Over the years, a number of groups have looked at the practices of such lenders and found that the rates they charge are enormously high. Jean Ann Fox, Director of Consumer Protection for the Consumer Federation of America, an expert on the subject who has testified in Congress, says "the bottom line is he is being conservative in his description of how expensive these loans are." A November 2006 study by Fox's organization, the CFA, "Cashed Out: Consumers Pay Steep Premium to 'Bank' at Check Cashing Outlets," concluded that "check cashers make two-week term payday loans based on personal checks held for future deposit at effective annual interest rates between 390 percent -780 percent." The average cost of a $300 loan was 406 percent annual percentage rate, according to this survey. The Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan, nonprofit policy group that focuses on fighting abusive lending practices, has a list of the signs of predatory payday lending. The number one sign is lenders who typically charge an interest rate of 400 percent APR or higher. Payday loans allow an individual to use a post-dated personal check to get a small, short-term cash advanThe Congressional Research Service also looked into this lending system and explained how they work: Typically, an individual writes a post-dated personal check to the lender, typically for $100-$500. The lender holds onto the check until the borrower's next paycheck. The fee on a two-week loan (the usual amount of time between pay periods) is between $15- $17 per $100. That may seem like a small amount, but it is equal to an annual percentage rate of between 391 percent and 443 percent, according to CRS. The Center for Responsible Lending produced yet another study, this one in November 2006, "Financial Quicksand: Payday Lending Sinks Borrowers in Debt with $4.2 billion in Predatory Fees Every Year." The report found that nationwide "borrowers were paying more in interest, at annual rates of 400 percent, than the amount of the loan they originally borrowed." A 2004 report from the Consumer Federation of America, "Unsafe and Unsound: Payday Lenders Hide Behind FDIC Bank Charters to Peddle Usury," put the average loan rates close to 500 percent. "Edwards is right on the money," says Ellen Schloemer, research director at the Center for Responsible Lending. "The rates are outrageous."	None	John Edwards	None	None	None	2007-09-13T00:00:00	2007-08-29	['None']
-pomt-07051	"Only seven of 18 federal food assistance programs have been associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes, while the remaining 11 have not been effective."	/ohio/statements/2011/jun/30/jim-jordan/rep-jim-jordan-says-7-18-food-programs-check-out-1/	Duplication and wasteful spending in federal welfare programs are targets near and dear to Rep. Jim Jordan. The Ohio Republican chairs an influential group, the Republican Study Committee. The group’s political beliefs generally intersect with those of the Tea Party, and they include a desire to stop wasteful government spending. Toward that end, Jordan called a hearing of a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee, which he chairs, to talk about potential duplication in federal welfare programs. Reading his opening remarks, Jordan touched on a General Accounting Office recommendation that more study is needed on the effectiveness of the federal programs. "They found that only seven of 18 federal food assistance programs have been associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes," Jordan said, "while the remaining 11 have not been effective." PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look. Were nearly two-thirds of the food assistance programs really deemed ineffective? We started with a GAO report, released in March 2011, that identified 34 areas where agencies, offices, or initiatives have similar or overlapping objectives or provide similar services. The areas spanned the federal government, touching on programs in agriculture, defense, economic development, energy, general government, health, homeland security, international affairs, and social services. In some cases, the report said, financial benefits ranging from hundreds of millions to several billion dollars annually could be realized by improving efficiency and eliminating duplication. Eighteen programs, most of them overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, spent more than $62.5 billion on domestic food and nutrition assistance in fiscal year 2008. Programs' spending ranged from $4 million for the smallest program to more than $37 billion for the largest. The system of programs works to ensures that millions of low-income people are adequately fed. The GAO found that the system "shows signs of overlap and inefficent use of resources." During the hearing, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the Cleveland Democrat who is the oversight committee’s ranking member, told Jordan he would support more study but not cuts in benefits. (See related PolitiFact item) The GAO "did not find waste, fraud and abuse in the administration and delivery of these programs," Kucinich said. "It does not recommend delivering fewer benefits to those in need." Jordan said the GAO report left the question of whether the programs are working. What the report did not say that 11 of 18 programs were not effective. Jordan’s press secretary, Meghan Snyder, acknowledged that his characterization of the 11 programs as ineffective "was a misstatement. It should have been 'have not been shown to be effective.' " She quoted the pertinent statement in the GAO report: "Little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11 programs because they have not been well studied." That's an important distinction. Nothing can fairly be said about the effectiveness of programs that have not been evaluated. Jordan's point was that the programs do need to be studied, Snyder said. Language she cited from the report shows the GAO would agree: "As part of its broader recommendation, GAO suggested that USDA (the U.S. Department of Agriculture) consider which of the lesser-studied programs need further research, and USDA agreed to consider the value of examining potential inefficiencies and overlap among smaller programs." Where does that leave us? The first part of Jordan's statement, part of remarks he read at the hearing, was correct in that seven of 18 food assistance programs were associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes. But the second part of his claim, that other 11 were found to be ineffective, was inaccurate. To his credit, his office readily acknowledged the mistake. But a tenet of PolitiFact is that words matter, and in this case, a part of his remarks made in a formal hearing was inaccurate. His underlying point -- that more assessment of the programs is needed -- is buttressed by the GAO report. With half the statement on point but the other half off target, on the Truth-O-Meter his claim rates as Half True.	None	Jim Jordan	None	None	None	2011-06-30T06:00:00	2011-06-01	['None']
-pomt-10412	"Sen. Obama has been to Iraq once."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/29/john-mccain/mccain-leads-in-iraq-trips-8-1/	Sen. John McCain, seeking to back up his claim that Sen. Barack Obama is inexperienced on national security matters, said at a town hall meeting in Nevada that his opponent had been to Iraq only once. "The security of this nation and its future security against the threats and the challenge of radical Islamic extremism, is transcendent," McCain told a crowd in Reno on May 28, 2008. "It's always transcendent to every president, all throughout our nation's history. And so Sen. Obama and I have a strong disagreement on this issue. And Sen. Obama has been to Iraq once." News accounts confirm, and the Obama campaign did not dispute, that the senator has indeed traveled to Iraq just one time during the war, in January 2006. He traveled with Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo.; Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.; and Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn.; and met with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, American intelligence and reconstruction specialists and Iraqi election officials, according to news accounts from the time. He also played basketball with troops in Kuwait. And in a phone call with reporters back home, he reaffirmed his skepticism about the war effort. "There is not going to be a military solution here in Iraq," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times at the time. He said it was time to "start phasing down troops" and "to give the Iraqis more ownership." McCain has been to Iraq eight times. One can argue about the significance of the disparity, but not about the numbers. We rule McCain's claim True. Read our Fact Sheet on which candidates have been to Iraq and what their position on the war is.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-05-29T00:00:00	2008-05-28	['Barack_Obama', 'Iraq']
-pomt-07388	"A vast majority of the production in the United States comes from small independent oil and gas companies."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/03/dan-boren/rep-dan-boren-says-most-domestic-oil-produced-smal/	During an April 27, 2011, interview with Stuart Varney of Fox News, Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., argued against eliminating certain tax breaks for oil companies -- an idea that had gained support in recent weeks as gasoline prices soared nationwide. Boren argued that the biggest financial pain from ending such tax breaks would be felt by smaller companies like those based in his oil-rich state. The tax breaks, he said, "go to small independent companies like we have in Oklahoma. Did you know a vast majority of the production in the United States comes from small independent oil and gas companies? And the new rigs that are … drilling right now in the United States, they are not the ExxonMobils of the world. They are the Devons, the Chesapeakes, and even smaller companies that are based in Oklahoma that are employing a lot of … Democrats (in) blue-collar jobs. And the president needs to understand that." We wondered whether "small independent oil and gas companies" actually account for "a vast majority of the production in the United States." We turned to the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the trade group that represents independent oil and gas companies. They pointed us to a study the group commissioned from the consulting firm IHS Global Insight and released earlier this month. The study compared the reach of the "independent" sector to the bigger firms in the industry. It defined independents as "all North American operators in the lower 48 states and Alaska, excluding BG, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ENI, ExxonMobil, Hess, Marathon, Murphy, Occidental, Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Statoil, and Total." Using the statistical tables provided, we calculated a few relevant percentages. We’ll summarize them here: U.S. oil and gas production for 2010 (amount produced) Onshore: Independents accounted for 72 percent of production Offshore: Independents accounted for 42 percent of production Total: Independents accounted for 67 percent of production U.S. oil and gas production for 2010 (dollar value) Onshore: Independents accounted for 70 percent of value Offshore: Independents accounted for 37 percent of value Total: Independents accounted for 62 percent of value So independents accounted for between 62 percent and 67 percent of domestic oil and gas production in 2010. That’s a healthy majority, but we think Boren’s description of it as "a vast majority" is exaggerated. There’s another factor to consider. Boren said he was referring to "small independent oil and gas companies." The statistics above certainly include some of those smaller companies, but it also includes some that aren’t so small. These include the two that Boren specifically mentioned. Devon Energy Corp. reported $9.9 billion in total revenue and $4.6 billion in net income in 2010, while Chesapeake Energy Corp reported $9.4 billion total revenue in 2010 and $1.8 billion in net income. Both companies are small compared to, say, ExxonMobil Corp ($105 billion in revenues, $9.3 billion in net income for 2010), but they’re hardly run out of someone’s basement. So we think the suggestion that those companies qualify as "small independent oil and gas companies" is misleading. Ultimately, Boren makes a valid point that a majority of U.S. oil production comes not from the biggest multinational oil companies but from independent firms. Still, it’s not a "vast majority," as he said, and some of the firms in the "independent" category -- including the two he cited by name -- are hardly what most people would consider "small." On balance, we rate Boren’s statement Half True.	None	Dan Boren	None	None	None	2011-05-03T11:00:42	2011-04-27	['United_States']
-hoer-00095	Cruise Control Hydroplane Warning	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/cruise-control-warning.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Cruise Control Hydroplane Warning	20th February 2012	None	['None']
-pose-00941	"In cooperation with our universities and community colleges, Bob McDonnell will establish at least one Virginia Health Sciences High School (academy or Governor's school) to specifically prepare students for further study in nursing, medical technology, pharmacy, medical equipment specialties and veterinary or medical school."	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/975/establish-a-health-sciences-high-school/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Establish a health sciences high school	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Bob_McDonnell']
-pomt-04686	"In the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-says-45-million-jobs-have-been-create/	During his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., former President Bill Clinton repeated a talking point often used by Democrats to tout President Barack Obama’s record on job creation. "In the last 29 months," Clinton said, "our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs." But Clinton is cherry-picking the numbers to paint Obama’s record in the most favorable light. Other methods show less impressive growth in jobs -- even declines. First of all, Clinton was using private-sector job figures, not total job figures. Right off the bat, that paints Obama’s numbers favorably, since government jobs have declined during much of Obama’s term. If you count from the start of Obama’s term, private-sector jobs have increased by 332,000, but total jobs have decreased by 316,000 due to losses of government jobs. Since this time frame includes the start of Obama’s term -- when the economy was in free fall and before Obama’s policies had time to take effect -- we don’t think this is the best way to measure it. The way Clinton did it is another way to count it. Clinton started counting from the low point of jobs in February 2010. Using this method, private-sector jobs increased by about 4.5 million. However, starting the count at the low point is a bit of cherry-picking. If you instead start at the official end of the recession in June 2009, private-sector jobs increased by 3.4 million. That’s well below Clinton’s 4.5 million figure. We realize that speakers at political conventions are going to put the best gloss on the numbers they have available, so it’s not surprising that Clinton would use the 4.5 million figure. But getting to 4.5 million requires starting the count at the most favorable point possible for Obama. In addition, as we’ve written previously, presidents are not the only factor in job creation. The national, and world, economies are too big for any one person to control. So crediting Obama’s policies is at best partially correct because there are so many other factors -- such as policies of the Federal Reserve, the willingness of banks to lend money, and global business trends -- that play a role. Our ruling While it’s true that by most measures, the number of jobs in the United States has increased on Obama’s watch, Clinton has done some cherry-picking in coming up with the 4.5 million number. But he chose his words carefully in describing the jobs picture. He said, "In the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4.5 million private-sector jobs." On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Bill Clinton	None	None	None	2012-09-06T12:40:12	2012-09-05	['None']
-pomt-01806	"Tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engines in our state."	/florida/statements/2014/jul/23/nan-rich/nan-rich-says-tourism-and-retirees-dominate-florid/	Florida is famous for its tourists and retirees. They spend plenty of bucks in the Sunshine State -- but is the state reliant on them for its economic strength? Former state Sen. Nan Rich, the underdog who’s challenging former Gov. Charlie Crist in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, touched on that topic during a speech to the Florida Press Association in Coral Gables on July 11, 2014. (Crist spoke a day earlier; Republican Gov. Rick Scott declined an invitation to speak.) "Our state’s economy is unlike any other in the country," Rich told the association, according to Miami Herald reporter David Smiley who attended the speech. "Today, tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engines in our state. And while they do create jobs, they are mostly lower-paying service industry jobs." Since the economy is a top issue in the battle for governor, we decided to check her statement that tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engines in Florida. A look at the data We found no cut-and-dried answers to the question of which sectors are Florida’s dominant economic engines. However, we did find evidence that shows tourism and retirees play an important role in the state’s economy -- too important, some say. Rich told PolitiFact Florida that she was relying on a 2014 report by the LeRoy Collins Institute, a public-policy group at Florida State University, titled, "Tougher Choices: Shaping Florida’s Future." It was written by professors Jim Dewey and David Denslow with the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida. The report examines state spending, demographics and jobs. Among the conclusions is that "Florida’s reliance on retirees and tourists comes at a price as the demands of older residents and tourists are disproportionately linked to lower-paid service jobs. … Compared to the rest of the nation, Florida has relatively fewer high-skill high-wage jobs and relatively more low-skill low-wage jobs, many serving tourists and retirees." Without the negative spin, the state’s official 2013 economic development plan concurs on the importance of tourism and population growth, which has traditionally been driven by retirees. "Historically, Florida’s economy has been driven by agriculture, tourism, the military, and population growth, which in turn produced gains in construction, real estate, retail trade, and services," the plan says. About 19 percent of Florida’s population was at least 65 years old as of 2013, according to the U.S. Census. Bureau. Florida had the highest percentage of seniors in the nation as of 2010. We turned to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis to look at real gross domestic product by industry in the state of Florida -- the total amount of economic activity by sector, adjusted for inflation. Unfortunately, the data does not include "tourism" or "retirees" as an industry. One category that combines arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food service -- a rough approximation of "tourism" -- produced $46.9 billion in GDP in 2012. That was substantially smaller than the state’s biggest generator of GDP -- "finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing," at $161.8 billion. But the latter category also includes some sectors relevant to Rich’s claim, such as real estate purchased by retirees. Other categories that exceeded the arts and entertainment sector included professional services, education and health care, and government. Some of these also generate economic activity due to seniors, particularly health care. The actual answer, apparently, appears to be more of an assumption than a provable fact. A Visit Florida spokeswoman told PolitiFact Florida that tourism is "the state’s No. 1 industry" and generates 23 percent of the state’s sales tax revenue and employs about 1.1 million Floridians. However, when we asked what economic measures prove that tourism is the top industry, Visit Florida spokeswoman Kathy Torian said: "It's an aspirational statement rather than a scientific fact. ... We feel that the combination of sales tax revenue, employment and economic impact from visitor spending make the case for the tourism industry." Experts' views We also interviewed four economists who study the state’s economy, and they generally agreed that tourism and retirees play a vital role in Florida’s economy, though with some quibbles. Bill Seyfried, an economist at Rollins College, said he’d prefer the term "important engines" rather than "dominant." "Clearly, both tourism and retirees have strong impacts on the Florida economy -- more than most other states -- but the state economy is becoming more diversified as evidence by deeper integration with the global economy, which is likely to get a further boost with the expansion of the Panama Canal, as well as increased growth in professional/technical services, growing aerospace and life-science sectors," he said. Seyfried examined state GDP data from 2011-2013 and found that growth came from "many sectors, not dominated by a few related to tourism. One can question whether some of the growth from 2011-2013 reflects a rebound from the crash, but the growth across sectors suggests a lack of overdependence on a few factors," such as tourism and retirees. Kwame Donaldson, an economist at Moody’s, told PolitiFact Florida that the state’s large senior population influences many other aspects of the state’s economy. "Because of Florida’s large retiree population, its residents are more dependent on nonwage income than in any other state, which means that long periods of stock market gains (like the one we currently enjoying) provide an extra charge to Florida’s economy," Donaldson said. "In many, many ways, Florida’s economy depends on its senior population, so I think it is accurate to describe this population as an economic engine." Our ruling Rich said, "tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engines in our state." We didn’t find a simple way to quantify whether tourism and retirees are the dominant economic engine in Florida, but a combination of statistical data and expert analysis suggests that both are important engines, and possibly too important, due to the low-wage jobs they bring. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Nan Rich	None	None	None	2014-07-23T12:06:36	2014-07-11	['None']
-snes-00135	The United States government canceled an $80 million contract with sports apparel manufacture Nike, Inc. because the company "hates America" and "disrespects dead veterans."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/federal-government-cancel-nike-contract/	None	Junk News	None	David Emery	None	Did the Federal Government Cancel an $80 Million Nike Contract?	4 September 2018	None	['United_States', 'Nike,_Inc.']
-pose-00738	During the debate Oct. 7 he pledged not to raise taxes and said he favored allowing the fifth phase of the five-year, 21-percent income tax reduction that was delayed under Gov. Ted Strickland. The reduction took affect Jan. 1, 2011. He has said he intends to leave it in place despite the need to fill an $8 billion hole in the state budget.	https://www.politifact.com/ohio/promises/kasich-o-meter/promise/768/restore-the-delayed-income-tax-reduction/	None	kasich-o-meter	John Kasich	None	None	Preserve the delayed income tax reduction	2011-01-07T15:00:03	None	['Ted_Strickland']
-pomt-04094	Says Texas public school funding grew three times the rate of enrollment from 2002 to 2012.	/texas/statements/2013/jan/16/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-texas-education-increased-phenomen/	Asked about restoring public education aid, Gov. Rick Perry suggested that’s the wrong question. According to a Jan. 9, 2013, Texas Tribune news story, Perry replied at a press conference earlier that day: "We’ve had public education funding growing at three times the public education enrollment. So you’ve had a 70 percent increase of funding from 2002 to 2012. You've had a 23 percent increase in enrollment... I think under any scenario over the last decade, the funding that we have seen in the state of Texas for public education has been pretty phenomenal." Those contrasting figures seemed surprising given that the revenue-strapped 2011 Legislature modified school finance formulas--sending schools $4 billion less than if the formulas had stayed the same--and also made other school funding cuts. We were mindful, too, of other flawed education spending claims. Of note, Republican lawmakers have said Texas did not cut such spending (Pants on Fire), that they raised education spending (Pants on Fire) and also that they raised education’s share of the budget (Mostly True). Enrollment increased about 20 percent from 2001-02 to 2011-12, from more than 4.1 million to nearly 5 million students, according to a December 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. By email, agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us 2012-13 enrollment is expected to exceed 5 million, but the total has not been settled. And how much did spending increase or decrease during the period? To find out, we measured spending on public schools in two ways: how much spending from all sources--state, local and federal--changed and how much the state itself spent. Overall expenditures Overall school expenditures, counting state, local and federal sources, totaled $27.9 billion in 2002 and $44.2 billion in 2012, according to a chart from the Legislative Budget Board, which tracks fiscal issues for lawmakers. That makes for a difference of 58 percent, though that’s also before adjusting for inflation, which the board’s staff did by converting figures to 2004 dollars using an inflation adjuster devised by the federal government, the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government. In 2004 dollars, Texas public school spending in 2002 totaled $30.1 billion. In 2012, the total was $33.3 billion--11 percent greater than in 2002. By this measure, then, it looks like school enrollment went up faster than spending. Then again, we learned, these figures were not behind Perry’s statement. State spending alone Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told us by email that Perry was referring to the difference in state education spending alone "as those are the funds the state has control over." The budget board’s chart shows $10.9 billion in state spending on the schools in 2002 and $18.9 billion in 2012, for a 73 percent difference, or a little more than Perry’s declared 70 percent. Adjusting for inflation, though, reduces the increase to 20 percent. In 2004 dollars, such spending was $14.2 billion in 2012, compared to $11.8 billion in 2002. Analyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities and school lobbyist Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency official, each pointed out another wrinkle, suggesting that any consideration of state education spending should take into account changes in law approved in 2006 resulting in the state picking up about $7 billion more in annual costs in return for school districts cutting local maintenance & operation property tax rates. Castro said by email: "The property tax cut was $14.2 billion a biennium, or $7.1 billion every year. That means the state had to put in that amount of money a year to offset local property taxes falling by the same amount." The shift in funding sources did not, in itself, step up aid received by the schools, Castro said. Moak said by phone: "This was simply a source-of-funds transfer." To adjust for the annual cost shift, we subtracted $7.1 billion from the state spending in 2012, suggesting a $0.9 billion difference from the 2002 spending. However, adjusting for inflation makes the 2012 state spending equal $8.2 billion in 2002 dollars--25 percent less than the $10.9 billion spent in 2002. We asked Frazier about taking inflation and the tax-swap law into consideration. She replied by email: "The governor has laid out the accurate facts." Our ruling Perry said education spending escalated more than three times as fast as enrollment from 2002 to 2012. We accept that he was talking about state education aid, which outpaced the 20 percent growth in enrollment by about the cited margin. But that’s without considering inflation and the impact of the annual tax swap set in motion by lawmakers and Perry, which drove up state spending without in itself delivering more school aid. Make those adjustments and it looks like Texas schools in 2012 fielded 25 percent less in state aid than what they fielded in 2002. We rate this claim as False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2013-01-16T15:06:23	2013-01-09	['None']
-goop-02109	Scott Disick Writing $10 Million Kardashian Tell-All, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/scott-disick-tell-all-kardashians-book-10-million-dollars/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Scott Disick NOT Writing $10 Million Kardashian Tell-All, Despite Reports	2:07 am, December 1, 2017	None	['None']
-goop-01203	Justin Theroux Back On Dating Scene Following Jennifer Aniston Split?	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-theroux-dating-jennifer-aniston-split-not-true/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Justin Theroux Back On Dating Scene Following Jennifer Aniston Split?	7:05 pm, April 11, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-07497	"There used to be 16 workers for every one person on Social Security. ... Now it’s three."	/georgia/statements/2011/apr/12/mark-warner/va-senator-says-fewer-workers-supporting-more-soci/	(Editor’s Note: This week – all week – PolitiFact Georgia is taking a look at the federal debt. You can comment on our Truth-O-Meter findings by joining our Facebook page. Hit the "like" button and you’re ready to comment.) A bipartisan barnstorm on the national debt swept through Atlanta on Monday, bringing unsettling news on just how far into the red the U.S. government has sunk. Georgia’s own U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican, and U.S. Sen Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s editorial board and attendees at a Rotary Club luncheon that we need to address the national debt now. One of the reasons is Social Security. Fewer workers are supporting a growing number of retirees. The simple math points to a disaster just down the road. "There used to be 16 workers for every one person on Social Security. ... Now it’s three. That’s not anybody’s fault; it’s just demographics," Warner told the AJC’s editorial board. Sounds bad. But is Warner right? First, a little background. For years, no officeholder dared talk about cuts to Social Security, which was often referred to as the highly charged "third rail" of U.S. politics. The warning was clear: touch it and risk political death. But the soaring federal debt has allowed politicians of all stripes to begin talking about reining in Social Security expenses. Proposals range from increasing the Social Security tax to raising the retirement age. The problem is an aging population -- too few workers supporting too many retirees -- and a government that has borrowed heavily from the Social Security Trust Fund. A nonpartisan General Accounting Office report recently warned: "In the next two decades America’s population will age dramatically, and relatively fewer workers will be asked to support ever-larger costs for retirees." Warner warned that unless something is done, Social Security beneficiaries could see a 22 percent cut in benefits by 2037. Chambliss said the government is now writing checks out of the general fund to pay beneficiaries. About 40 cents of every dollar of that money is borrowed, he said, and the country is paying interest on that money. That inflates the federal debt. U.S. News and World Report recently reported that last year Social Security ran its first cash deficit in more than 25 years. "This is troubling because the federal government for years has been borrowing the system's surpluses, and now there's nothing left to borrow," the magazine reported. "Worse, the government is going to have to borrow just to pay back what it owes Social Security." Chambliss and Warner are part of what’s informally known as the "Gang of Six," a clutch of senators who are trying to garner support for cutting the debt by curbing federal expenditures and raising additional revenue. The group also includes Sens. Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill.; Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. It has been meeting since the December release of a report by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. That commission, convened by President Barack Obama, suggested a series of ambitious deficit-cutting reforms. The Gang of Six is trying to garner support for its cause. It has a difficult mission. Straightening out the national debt means reforming cherished entitlement programs, including Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare health benefits for the elderly. We interviewed experts from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the conservative Heritage Foundation and the libertarian Cato Institute to check out Warner’s claim. They agreed with Warner’s general contention. They said the best data come from the Social Security Administration, which says that in 1950 there were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient. In 2011, the ratio is 2.9 workers for each recipient. This year, about 157 million U.S. workers support some 55 million Social Security recipients, according to the SSA’s data. In 1950, 48 million workers supported 2 million recipients. That’s very close. We rate Warner’s claim True.	None	Mark Warner	None	None	None	2011-04-12T06:00:00	2011-04-11	['None']
-pomt-11897	Insurance companies "have made a fortune with Obamacare."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/23/donald-trump/trump-says-insurers-made-fortune-obamacare-they-di/	As two dozen senators attempt to carve out a short-term compromise on the Affordable Care Act, President Donald Trump is sending mixed signals. At the heart of the deal are payments to insurance companies that sell certain policies on the Obamacare exchanges. In tweets and remarks, Trump both praised the compromise effort championed by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and flagged his displeasure. "I am supportive of Lamar as a person & also of the process, but I can never support bailing out ins co's who have made a fortune w/ O'Care," Trump tweeted Oct. 18. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The bailout, as Trump calls it, is no bailout; the money actually ends up with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. But here we zero in on Trump’s statement that insurers "have made a fortune with Obamacare." There’s no question that the companies’ profits have been enormous. The question is, was Obamacare the cash cow? Based on the filings of the companies, and the analysis of people on Wall Street, at universities and a respected neutral health policy group, the answer is, no. The White House press office pointed to a news article that reported booming profits for the top five for-profit insurance companies, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group. Collectively, they had $4.5 billion in net earnings in the first three months of 2017. That cash was"the biggest first-quarter haul for the group since the Affordable Care Act exchanges went live in 2014," the article said. But the article doesn’t actually tie those profits to Obamacare. The fact is, Obamacare does not just include the exchanges where people buy private insurance. The exchanges themselves are a small slice of the overall insurance business. Despite the enormous attention paid to the exchanges, they make up less than 4 percent of the insurance market for people under 65. And contrary to Trump’s assertion, they have dragged profits down, not boosted them up, experts say. Returns from the exchanges have been so bad, three out of five of the companies listed in the article have fled. Aetna reported that it lost $650 million in 2016 and 2017 from the policies it sold in the individual market. For 2018, Aetna pulled out of every state exchange. UnitedHealth Group has also left the exchanges. It put its combined losses at over $1 billion in 2015 and 2016. Humana, which had sold in 11 states, got out too. Cigna trimmed its participation from seven states to six. Cigna CEO David Cordani told CNBC in August that the market is "challenging," and that "we are losing money, but we are losing a little less than we expected." For 2018, Anthem also remains, but withdrew from Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin, and trimmed back the number of counties it serves in Kentucky, Georgia and California. It was going to leave Virginia completely, but then struck a deal with the state to sell in counties that would otherwise have no carrier. Moody’s Investor Service ranked it as a positive development for companies that exited the exchanges, saying it "lowered exposure to this challenging business." The overall individual market, which includes plans sold on and off the exchanges, brought an estimated $4.7 billion in underwriting losses in 2016, according to the consulting group Oliver Wyman. The news has not been all bad for the companies. Premium hikes in 2016 and 2017 began to balance things out. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a neutral source of health sector statistics, found that insurers who stayed in the exchanges had figured out how to come out ahead, but it took a couple of years for them to get there. Obamacare beyond the exchanges So Trump missed the target completely when he linked the exchanges and the multi-billion dollar profits of five big insurance companies. But Obamacare is much more than the exchanges and parts of the program have both helped and hindered company profits. On the negative side of the ledger, the Affordable Care Act imposed limits on the spread between premiums collected and medical services paid out. For individual and small group plans, companies must spend at least 80 percent of premiums on providing care. For the large-group plans, the percent is 85 percent. "This provision has likely had a modest downward effect on profits," said Larry Levitt with the Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2015, companies that fell below those minimums rebated about $400 million to customers, government numbers show. A tax on insurance companies helps finance Obamacare. Congress lifted it for 2017, but it is slated to return in 2018 with an estimated value of nearly $13 billion. Sheryl R. Skolnick, director of U.S. equity research at Mizuho Securities, tracks UnitedHealth Group specifically. "That health insurance industry fee in 2018 is projected to cost the company $.75 a share on just about 1 billion shares," Skolnik said. On the positive side of the ledger, the one clear bright spot for insurers in Obamacare was the expansion of Medicaid. In the 32 states that extended the program to adults making as much as 138 percent of federal poverty, coverage is mainly handled through private insurers. "Mostly as a result of expansion programs under the ACA, health plans and service providers experienced strong Medicaid growth over the early years of ACA," according to a report from Mark Farrah and Associates. Health care analysts at Milliman, an actuarial consulting firm, estimated that insurers had underwriting gains of $1.5 billion in 2016. That was a year when exchange losses topped $4 billion. A study in Michigan found that operating margins for the companies that managed Medicaid in that state improved four-fold between 2013 and 2015. How does this all add up for each of the five big insurance companies? Precision is difficult, but between the losses tied to the exchanges, regulations and taxes on one hand, and profits on Medicaid on the other, Skolnik said it’s a wash. "I think it's fair to say that the health insurance industry has probably lost close to as much as they've gotten under the ACA," Skolnik said. Which raises the question, where did those hefty profits come from? The bulk of the business lies in employer-based coverage, which makes sense since that accounts for nearly 60 percent of the under-65 insurance market. Over the years, companies have benefited by shifting more of the costs onto customers through higher deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. And mergers in the industry have also helped. "Consolidation among insurers has led to higher margins," said economist Amanda Starc at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Medicare Advantage, a quasi-private version of traditional Medicare, has also been a key profit center for insurers. Under the program, the government contracts with insurance companies to deliver health care to seniors. The rising number of retirements among baby boomers has fueled that market. Enrollments are up, and the insurance companies have worked hard to keep their costs down. "They are very aggressive there which gives them the clout to get better provider contracts," said J.B. Silvers, a professor of health finance at Case Western Reserve University. Our ruling Trump said insurance companies have made a fortune with Obamacare. The White House cited the companies’ surging profits as proof. But just because insurers made billions since the time when the Affordable Care Act took effect, doesn’t mean that the ACA delivered those profits. Most of the companies had steep losses on the Obamacare exchanges and got out. Every report we saw and every expert we reached said insurers made their huge profits elsewhere, largely through their work in the large group or employer-based market or through the Medicare Advantage program. The expansion of Medicaid, another part of Obamacare also helped, but to a smaller degree. The fortune that Trump cited didn’t come from Obamacare. We rate this claim False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-10-23T17:13:26	2017-10-18	['None']
-snes-00501	Did Barack Obama Pardon More Than 330 Criminals During His Final Week in Office?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barack-obama-pardon-330-criminals-final-week-office/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Barack Obama Pardon More Than 330 Criminals During His Final Week in Office?	6 June 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02906	Kim Kardashian Ruining ‘Keeping Up With The Kardashians’ Ratings, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-ruining-keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-ratings-kuwtk/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Kim Kardashian NOT Ruining ‘Keeping Up With The Kardashians’ Ratings, Despite Report	10:29 am, March 26, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03715	Putin issued an ultimatum to President Obama to stop "smearing" Russia, or risk starting World War III.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/putin-gives-obama-ultimatum/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Putin Gives Obama Ultimatum	24 October 2016	None	['Russia', 'Barack_Obama', 'Vladimir_Putin']
-pomt-00234	Says New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance voted repeatedly "to let insurance companies charge more to people aged 50 and over."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/09/tom-malinowski/age-claim-new-jersey-leaves-out-something-importan/	Older people vote, and Tom Malinowski, the Democratic challenger in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, seems to have them in mind. In a television ad criticizing incumbent U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance, Malinowski says Lance voted more than 60 times "to gut affordable health care." These votes included provisions to let insurers deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, and "to let insurance companies charge more to people aged 50 and over." This is all about the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. The last part of the claim by Malinowski, a former U.S. State Department official, intrigued us because of a unique aspect of a New Jersey law in effect before the Obamacare was passed. It already limited how much more insurers could charge their oldest customers based on age. Those differences, however, were not quite as narrow as required by Obamacare. But let’s dispense quickly with something else first. When Malinowski says Lance, a Republican, voted more than 60 times to gut affordable health care, he is speaking of the array of votes in Congress between 2011 and 2017 concerning the federal law, passed by Democrats in Congress in 2010. Some of the votes were to fully repeal the health law. Some were to delay its implementation. Some were to eliminate or stall tax provisions within it -- to delay the IRS’ ability to penalize taxpayers who refused to get health coverage, for example, or to stop the planned taxes on durable medical equipment sales. The tax was one of the many ways the law was paid for. Lance did not go along with his party on one of its biggest, most recent bills. He voted against a repeal-and-replace measure in 2017. He said it would not adequately protect people with pre-existing conditions. But what about the age differential -- and what did it mean in New Jersey, specifically? We took a look. Age differences Older people go to the doctor more than young adults do. That’s a reality that affects the premiums insurers charge. As a result, insurers typically charged their oldest customers buying individual policies five times or more the premiums of their youngest adult customers before the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, according to a 2017 research report by the actuarial firm Milliman. Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms found that people in their early 60s could face a ratio of 6-to-1, Milliman’s report noted. The ACA changed that, mandating that in the individual market, premiums for the oldest adults could be no greater than three times those for the youngest. This didn’t affect large employer plans, which tend to have a range of ages that balance out big price differences anyway, and it didn’t apply to Medicare, the federal program for people 65 and older. But in the individual market, it held down what would have been higher prices for the oldest buyers, while raising premiums for younger buyers. Other mechanisms in the act, particularly taxpayer subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket costs, helped temper some price changes. It bears noting that the ACA does not say a thing about the age of 50, as Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed to us. The law just refers to youngest-vs.-oldest adults. But political campaigns like to use specific ages, and 50 seems to have a meaningful resonance for voters. So what would happen if Congress got rid of the ACA? Multiple analyses say younger buyers would see premium reductions while older ones would see price spikes. This could be particularly true if older customers lost one of the ACA’s other protections, a prohibition on basing premiums on medical conditions. Lance cited that concern when voting against the 2017 American Health Care Act, although he had voted for other repeal variations before then. New Jersey’s difference So it’s cut and dried, right? Not quite. States used to have significant sway in how they regulated insurers, and New Jersey already limited premiums based on age. While the national average ratio of premiums for young adults to older ones was 5-to-1 or greater, New Jersey law in 2009 limited age differences to 3.5-to-1. Mathematically, that’s 17 percent higher for the oldest customers than allowed under the ACA (which allows a rate discrepancy of 3-to-1). That’s not as high as rates might be if New Jersey had no cap on age differences, but it nevertheless could amount to hundreds of dollars a month, said Benji Schwartz, Malinowski’s campaign spokesman. It is hard to determine exactly how high or low rates would be for Lance’s constituents even with a 3.5-to-1 age ratio -- that is, even if older customers could be charged 17 percent more than younger customers -- because age was just one of the pre- and post-ACA pricing factors, Joel Cantor, director of the Center for State Health Policy at Rutgers University, told us. Other variables went into the mix. But when the ACA kicked in, "most people saw major reductions," Cantor said. "As we say, run the movie backwards and people would be hit with major premium increases," Cantor said. Our ruling Malinowski’s ad said that Lance voted repeatedly "to let insurance companies charge more to people aged 50 and over." The ad contains elements of truth but leaves out important facts: The ACA already allows insurance companies to charge older customers more — just not as much more as they did before. New Jersey limited those differences already, just not as much as the ACA. The congressional bills to change or eliminate the ACA would not have affected people on employer plans or Medicare. These factors matter. We rate the claim Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tom Malinowski	None	None	None	2018-10-09T12:13:45	2018-10-03	['None']
-hoer-00851	Dryer Lint Filter Email	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/dryer-lint-filter.html	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Dryer Lint Filter Email	February 2005	None	['None']
-goop-02063	Justin Bieber Did Say “Hollywood Elites Killed Unborn Child” With Selena Gomez, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/justin-bieber-killed-unborn-child-selena-gomez-hollywood-elites/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Justin Bieber Did NOT Say “Hollywood Elites Killed Unborn Child” With Selena Gomez, Despite Fake News	2:00 pm, December 8, 2017	None	['None']
-farg-00211	"Since the fourth quarter of last year" the U.S. economy has "added almost 50,000 jobs in the coal sector. In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs."	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/scott-pruitt-coal-jobs/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Scott Pruitt	Eugene Kiely	['Coal']	Scott Pruitt and Coal Jobs	June 5, 2017	[" NBC's Meet the Press – Sunday, June 4, 2017 "]	['United_States']
-snes-03517	Kid Rock was photographed wearing a t-shirt featuring an electoral map in which blue states are labeled "Dumbfuckistan."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kid-rock-dumbfckistan-t-shirt/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Emery	None	Kid Rock Wears ‘Dumbf*ckistan’ T-Shirt	18 November 2016	None	['None']
-goop-02638	Megyn Kelly Replacing Matt Lauer On ‘Today Show,’ 	https://www.gossipcop.com/megyn-kelly-replacing-matt-lauer-today-show/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Megyn Kelly NOT Replacing Matt Lauer On ‘Today Show,’ Despite Tabloid Cover Story	11:15 am, July 26, 2017	None	['Matt_Lauer']
-goop-01054	Khloe Kardashian ‘Ditching’ Tristan Thompson, Moving To LA With Baby, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-tristan-thompson-moving-baby-la/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Khloe Kardashian NOT ‘Ditching’ Tristan Thompson, Moving To LA With Baby, Despite Report	5:33 pm, May 4, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03984	State support for local schools per pupil has decreased by at least 25 percent over the past decade.	/georgia/statements/2013/feb/12/empowered-georgia/georgia-lawmakers-cutting-education-funding-group-/	Are the people who run this state devoting less money to Georgia’s public schools than they did a decade ago? Yes, says one group. EmpowerED Georgia, a group of parents and teachers that estimates its membership at 3,500, has a chart on its website claiming the decrease has been at least 25 percent per student since 2002. The group says state lawmakers, through tax credits and other programs, have been overly supportive of private schools in recent years at the expense of public schools. A PolitiFact Georgia reader saw the claim about the size of the decrease and asked us to investigate. The EmpowerED Georgia graphic says the decrease is based on information on midterm education spending it found on the Georgia Department of Education’s website. "The key point I was making is that the state allotments to local school systems over the last decade have decreased by a significant percentage on a per-student, inflation-adjusted basis," said EmpowerED Georgia co-founder Matt Jones, a teacher at Toombs County School in Lyons. "The method of measuring the exact rate of inflation is a technical issue, but the approach used is the most relevant one for state and local governments. We believe that 25 percent is the best estimate possible." Here’s what EmpowerED Georgia found: In fiscal year 2002, which began July 1, 2001, and ended June 30, 2002, the state spent about $5.6 billion on education. In fiscal year 2012, which began July 1, 2011, and ended June 30, 2012, the state spent about $7.04 billion. EmpowerED Georgia divided the total spent by the number of public school students in Georgia, which has increased from nearly 1.5 million pupils in 2002 to about 1.65 million in 2012. It calculated the difference of per-pupil spending between those years and adjusted it for inflation. It used a price index that state and local governments use for various costs. In fiscal year 2002, EmpowerED Georgia found the average spent on each student was $3,873. Ten years later, the organization said the total was $2,910. The difference, according to these numbers? A 25 percent decrease. Case closed, right? Not so, say state education officials. Those officials say some perspective is necessary here. The state budget, for example, is smaller than it was, when adjusted for inflation. State spending decreased significantly after the Great Recession in 2008. The education budget cannot escape all cuts, education officials say. Class sizes are larger than they were. There’s new technology in the classroom. It’s difficult to make such a comparison, they say. "They are theoretically being more productive with larger classes," Lou Byars, the department’s director of financial review, said of Georgia teachers. Jones wrote an op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that rejected the state’s argument about the recession’s impact on education spending. "[T]hat does not explain why k-12 programs have been reduced virtually every year since 2002. Nor does it explain how, under these dire budgetary restrictions, the General Assembly has miraculously been able to find funding for a private school tuition program and a new system of state charter schools," he wrote. Education officials also questioned EmpowerED Georgia’s methodology. "The idea of adjusting it for a (consumer price index) or a (government price index) is not a good way to do it," said Scott Austensen, the state Education Department’s chief financial officer. A government price index uses a combination of elements that state and local governments face when preparing and adjusting a budget, such as construction prices, wages and health care costs. Kelly McCutchen, president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, a fiscally conservative think tank, questioned the use of such an index. "We don't like the government spending index because it has little to do with overall inflation and more to do with comparing your rate of growth with other government out-of-control spending growth and has nothing to do with the ability of taxpayers and their income growth to fund the program," McCutchen said. Georgia State University’s Fiscal Research Center completed a report in November on the recession’s impact on school revenue. Like EmpowerED Georgia, it found state spending on education in Georgia had declined by 25 percent between 2002 and 2011. It, too, used an inflation index of state and local government prices. Overall, education spending has declined by about 12 percent, if you include local and federal spending in the state. Cynthia Searcy, who wrote the GSU report, said EmpowerED’s spreadsheet looked accurate to her, although they used slightly different numbers. Georgia State University associate professor Carolyn Bourdeaux, who edited the report, believes state and local government price indexes more accurately capture the cost of government to operate. To sum up, EmpowerED Georgia claims that education spending is down about 25 percent over the past decade. The larger point about a decrease in education spending is not disputed by state education officials. But they disagree with the use of state and local government price indexes to conclude there’s been a 25 percent decrease. EmpowerED Georgia’s math is supported by the Georgia State study. Still, there are some factors that deserve consideration when examining this claim, such as the recession’s impact on state spending and larger class sizes. The group’s statement contains an element of truth but needs a lot of context to be fully understood. Under the definitions of our rating scale, this rates as Half True. Staff writer Karishma Mehrotra contributed to this article.	None	EmpowerED Georgia	None	None	None	2013-02-12T06:00:00	2013-01-07	['None']
-tron-03196	Shorebank Bailed Out Because of Connections With Obama	https://www.truthorfiction.com/shorebank-obama-ties/	None	politics	None	None	None	Shorebank Bailed Out Because of Connections With Obama	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-02726	If you look carefully, you can see the phrase "Hail Satan" embossed on the US $10,000 bill.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hail-satan-hidden-10000-bill/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Were the Words ‘Hail Satan’ Hidden on the United States $10,000 Bill?	27 March 2017	None	['None']
-tron-02620	Cesar Millan Died of Heart Attack	https://www.truthorfiction.com/cesar-millan-died-of-heart-attack/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Cesar Millan Died of Heart Attack – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-09450	The health care bill will "create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/08/nancy-pelosi/pelosi-claims-health-care-reform-will-create-thous/	House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put a new spin on health care reform during a recent meeting between President Barack Obama and members of Congress. "It's about jobs," she said. "In its life [health care reform] will create 4 million jobs, 400,000 jobs almost immediately." To be clear: Pelosi was not arguing that the bill would literally put people to work in the field of health care. Rather, she claims that cheaper health care will allow businesses to hire more workers, thus creating more jobs. "Imagine an economy where people could change jobs, start businesses, become self-employed, whether to pursue their artistic aspirations or be entrepreneurial and start new businesses, if they were not job-locked because they have a child who's bipolar, or a family member who's diabetic with a pre-existing condition, and all of the other constraints that having health care or not having health care places on an entrepreneurial spirit," she said. We'll start out by noting that both sides claim that health care reform will either create or destroy many jobs. The Democrats assume that their bills will make health care less expensive, meaning that employers will have more money to hire more workers. For instance, Obama's Council of Economic Advisers estimated in December that health care reform could create 320,000 additional jobs. The Republicans, however, are claiming the opposite. They maintain that the House and Senate versions of the bill, as well as a recently released proposal by Obama, would levy such hefty fines on employers -- if they don't offer their employees health insurance -- that employers would end up laying off workers to keep costs down. To back up this claim, they point to a Congressional Budget Office report from July 2009 that cited several older studies. One study from 2007 estimates that 224,000 workers could be unemployed if employers were required to provide insurance that cost, on average, $2 per hour worked. A second study, also published in 2007, found that an employer mandate could cost about 750,000 jobs. But that study also took into account a minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $7.25, the current rate. Ultimately, the CBO concludes that requiring employers to offer health insurance will reduce employment, but the effect "would probably be small." Another study by the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also looked at the employer mandate in June 2009. At the time, the Senate bill would have required employers who do not offer insurance to fully cover the cost of coverage for their lowest income employees who purchase insurance through a new health care insurance exchange. The group concluded that such a requirement could deter employers from hiring low-wage workers and might ultimately lead to job losses. All this information shows that health care reform may have some impact on employment, but there's a catch: Since the CBO and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities did those analyses, the Senate has changed its bill to say that employers will not be required to offer insurance, but that employers with 50 or more employees must help workers defray the cost if they qualify for new tax credits to help buy insurance. Obama's proposal includes similar language. Employers with 50 or more workers that don't provide coverage would be penalized, but the proposal would exempt the first 30 workers when calculating a $2,000 per worker fine. That background is meant to demonstrate one thing: The House, Senate and Obama proposals are moving targets. As a result, it is nearly impossible to quantify with any certainty how many jobs will be created -- or lost -- from health care reform. And we want to emphasize here, we've found no studies on lost jobs that examine the current proposals, which include fines but not full employer mandates. So, we asked Pelosi's office for more information. Her spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, pointed us to a recent study by the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning public policy think tank. According to the report, "one important way to create jobs is to slow the growth of medical spending. If health care cost increases slow down, then businesses will find it more profitable to expand employment, and workers will more readily move into those new jobs." The study is a combination of data collected by Neeraj Sood, a professor at the University of Southern California who has looked at the impact of rising health care costs on employment, and David Cutler, a economist at Harvard University who has studied the impact of health care reform on care and insurance premiums. The initial impact of health care reform would be lower administrative costs, the authors argue. Those costs are associated with the marketing, underwriting and brokers’ fees charged by health insurance companies. The authors also argue that health care reform would make treatment more cost effective. Eventually, those efficiencies would trickle down to employers; in short, they won't have to pay as much to cover their employees and can instead use that extra cash to hire more workers. All told, the authors of the report estimate that health care reform could produce, on average, 250,000 to 400,000 jobs a year over the next decade. To come up with those job numbers, Cutler and Sood modeled two scenarios. In the first, medical cost reductions would occur at a moderate 0.75 percentage points annually, producing an average of 250,000 jobs every year. In the more aggressive scenario, medical cost reductions are as high as 1.5 percent annually, producing an average of 400,000 jobs per year. In reality, the number of jobs produced per year would vary, according to the report. For instance, in 2013, the number of jobs created under the second scenario would be about 210,000. That number would climb to nearly 800,000 in 2019. So, in her statement, Pelosi assumes that 400,000 jobs are created every year for a total of 4 million over 10 years. But Pelosi is cherry-picking the most optimistic number from one study. A more moderate rate of reduction could produce fewer jobs per year, according to the report. Furthermore, she fails to mention that the 400,000 is an average, meaning that some years could produce a higher number of jobs and others could produce fewer jobs. And finally, there's clearly a lot of uncertainty about whether the health care bill, with its fines on employers who don't provide health insurance, will create jobs or cut jobs. As a result, we find Pelosi's claim Half True.	None	Nancy Pelosi	None	None	None	2010-03-08T14:16:36	2010-02-25	['None']
-pomt-10227	Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "said, quote, 'I can't stand John McCain.' "	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/04/sarah-palin/unreservedly-so/	Trying to portray her running mate as a maverick still capable of shaking up the political establishment, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin used her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention to reference Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's public distaste of John McCain, and get a retaliatory dig in at the sharp-tongued Nevada Democrat. "Harry Reid, the majority leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee," Palin said Sept. 3, 2008. "He said, quote, 'I can't stand John McCain.' Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man." Reid did, indeed, express exactly those sentiments in an Aug. 21 interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Asked about Connecticut Independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's decision to accept a prime-time speaking slot at the Republican convention, Reid defended the former Democratic vice presidential nominee and related a conversation the two men had after Lieberman informed him of his decision. Lieberman continues to vote with Senate Democrats on procedural matters, and chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Democratic-controlled chamber. "He (Lieberman) has a close personal relationship with John McCain. I don't fully understand why he does," Reid told the newspaper. "I told him last night, 'You know, Joe, I can't stand John McCain.' He said, 'I know you feel that way.' '' It's not the first time Reid has leveled a harsh personal critique at his colleague. In May, Reid appeared in a video posted on the Web site BigThink.com in which he contrasted McCain with then-Democratic primary rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and called the Arizonan a flawed candidate, in part, because his temper prevents him from getting along with colleagues. Reid went on to dismiss McCain's record of bipartisanship as something of a myth. "I think that this illusion that's out there that he's a great bipartisan person is really without much foundation," Reid stated. "He worked with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, that's nice, he's reached across the aisle in a couple of occasions, but there have been a couple of occasions … he supports the president in all of his crazy economic policies, he has supported the president on this war, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, so I can't get much of my juices flowing for John McCain. There are a lot of them flowing to do everything I can to make sure that he's not president." The personal criticism is a bit puzzling, if only because McCain and Reid have had few public run-ins. McCain has been out campaigning, and absent from the Senate chamber, for most of the time Reid has served as majority leader. And during the six years Reid served as Senate Democrats' second-in-command as whip, he supported McCain's biggest legislative accomplishment: the 2002 rewrite of the nation's campaign finance laws that McCain shepherded with Russ Feingold, D-Wis., which Reid referenced in his video clip. But the lawmakers from neighboring states have had decades to get to know each other, and presumably build up personal animosities. They both arrived in Washington as newly elected congressmen in 1982, and both moved to the Senate in 1986. There, they've displayed distinctly different personalities. The high-energy McCain is blunt, funny and testy — and has irritated colleagues in the clubby chamber by being quick to discard customary courtesies. Reid, in contrast, is an effective behind-the-scenes operator who comes off as taciturn and dour, and who shuns the kind of self-promotion that consumes many of his colleagues. Their common trait is boxing: Reid was a former amateur fighter, while McCain spent time in the ring as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy. Reid's assessment of McCain's bipartisanship in the video is harsh, even by most Democratic critics' standards. It was McCain who worked with liberal icon Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts in 2006 on an immigration overhaul that most Democrats backed to create a guest worker program and give longtime illegal aliens a chance to become citizens. In 2005, he helped broker a deal among a bipartisan group of senators to prevent a showdown over Democrats' ability to filibuster conservative judicial nominees. And he defied his party by opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 (he now supports making them permanent) and pushing for stricter fuel efficiency standards and caps on greenhouse gases to combat global warming. But at least Reid can't be accused of sugarcoating his personal impressions. He's on the record as not being able to stand John McCain. And because Palin correctly cites his recent remarks, we judge her statement True.	None	Sarah Palin	None	None	None	2008-09-04T00:00:00	2008-09-03	['Harry_Reid', 'John_McCain']
-pose-00284	"Will immediately review (mandatory minimum) sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the ineffective warehousing of nonviolent drug offenders."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/300/reform-mandatory-minimum-sentences/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Reform mandatory minimum sentences	2010-01-07T13:26:54	None	['None']
-goop-00552	Kylie Jenner, Travis Scott Did “Break Up,” 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kylie-jenner-travis-scott-did-break-up-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kylie Jenner, Travis Scott Did NOT “Break Up,” Despite Claim	1:18 pm, July 30, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-09094	With his decision on whether to fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama "has to fix yet another problem he inherited from the Bush administration."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/23/ed-schultz/ed-schultz-says-mcchrystal-was-obama-problem-inher/	It's moot now that President Barack Obama has accepted the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, but liberal TV host Ed Schultz delivered a stinging commentary in which the liberal TV host he told the president to "fire this jackass." McChrystal -- who along with his senior staff was portrayed in a Rolling Stone profile making disparaging comments about numerous senior officials, including Vice President Joe Biden -- was relieved of his duty on June 23, 2010, one day after the article became public. In the 24 hours between the time the article surfaced and McChrystal's departure, Schultz delivered a rant excoriating the general. "Gen. McChrystal has put the president of the United States in an untenable position," Schultz told viewers of The Ed Show on MSNBC. "The president either has to fire him or let this culture of insubordination permeate through the ranks of the men and women under his command. ... The man in charge of 90,000 American lives in a war zone shouldn‘t waste time running his mouth or cutting corners on the truth. His job demands the highest level of honor and loyalty. It's about loyalty. And this stupid interview proves that he doesn't live up to that code." Schultz continued, "This was a stupid move by McChrystal. So, once again, here's President Obama. He has to fix yet another problem he inherited from the Bush administration. I want the president to step up, stand up, take charge, and fire this jackass, Gen. McChrystal. Our troops deserve more." Most of what Schultz said is opinion, which falls outside of our purview. But we zeroed in on one thing Schultz said: "So, once again, here's President Obama. He has to fix yet another problem he inherited from the Bush administration." Is it appropriate for Schultz to blame President George W. Bush for the McChrystal "problem"? McChrystal is a career military officer who rose steadily through the ranks from his first day as a second lieutenant in 1976. It's true that McChrystal served in several senior Army positions during the years that Bush was president, including as commanding general of the Joint Special Operations Command from 2003 to 2006. In Afghanistan during 2001 and 2002, McChrystal was chief of staff of military operations. He also ran commando operations in Iraq, and he served in two positions with the joint staff in Washington. But there's a much stronger argument for linking his career to Obama than to Bush. On May 11, 2009 -- less than four months after being sworn in -- Obama ousted Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, and installed McChrystal. It was widely seen as a deliberate shake-up designed to improve the execution of the long-running war. In announcing the move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that ''fresh eyes were needed'' and that ''a new approach was probably in our best interest.'' So while McChrystal served in senior positions under Bush, he was specifically tapped by Obama to run the war in Afghanistan. To the extent he's a "problem," it seems clear to us that he's Obama's problem, not Bush's. We considered the possibility that Schultz was saying that the "problem" Obama inherited from Bush was the war on Afghanistan as a whole. But while there's a bit of vagueness in Schultz's wording, we decided that the most sensible interpretation is that he was referring to McChrystal specifically. The entire rant, from beginning to end, is about McChrystal and the awkward position he put Obama in, and the immediate sentence before the statement we're analyzing was, "This was a stupid move by McChrystal." (We contacted MSNBC's publicity department but received no clarification about what Schultz meant.) So if Schultz believes that McChrystal is a problem inherited from Bush, he's wrong. Obama didn't just appoint McChrystal to fill a vacant spot; he effectively sacked the general in charge to create a vacancy that he then proceeded to fill with McChrystal as his fix-it man. The lesson for Democrats is that not everything can be blamed on President Bush. We rate Schultz's comment Pants on Fire!	None	Ed Schultz	None	None	None	2010-06-23T16:57:57	2010-06-22	['Barack_Obama', 'George_W._Bush', 'Stanley_A._McChrystal']
-pomt-01112	"Estimates say individuals who escaped these high tax states have taken with them around $2 trillion in adjusted gross income."	/florida/statements/2015/jan/08/rick-scott/people-moved-2-trillion-worth-income-escape-high-t/	Rick Scott began his second term as Florida’s governor in much the same fashion as he started his first -- by railing against high taxes. In his inaugural address on Jan. 6, 2015, Scott boasted that scads of people had moved to Florida in recent years, allegedly lured by the state’s lack of income tax and low cost of living. "Over the last 20 years, millions of people have escaped from states with climbing tax rates to move to states with lower taxes," Scott said. "For starters, estimates say individuals who escaped these high tax states have taken with them around $2 trillion of adjusted gross income. They’re voting with their feet." Scott went on to point out that between 1992 to 2011, New York and Illinois had lost billions in adjusted gross income, and that "their No. 1 destination was Florida." The Sunshine State, meanwhile, had "inherited" more than $100 billion in adjusted gross income from other states in the same time period. Considering Florida just last year passed New York as the third-most populous state in the union, it’s obvious people are moving into the state. We wondered about the larger point here, whether $2 trillion in adjusted gross income transferred into Florida and other states to avoid higher taxes. Feet not really voting Scott’s office told us the estimate came from author and tax wonk Travis H. Brown’s book How Money Walks: How $2 Trillion Moved Between the States, and Why It Matters, which touts adjusted gross income movement as proof that states with high taxes persistently lose population and money to low-tax states. Brown’s publicist did not respond to our request for comment, so we couldn’t ask him specifics about his theory. His essential argument, according to his book, is that "it appears that there is a direct correlation between state personal income tax rates and income migration. Money is walking, and we can see exactly where it’s going." Brown combined Internal Revenue Service and Census data of the adjusted gross income (defined as all the money a person makes minus adjustments) of people who moved between states in a 15-year period between 1995 and 2010, using available records. He argued these stats show how these migrations affected states, including Florida, which is the largest net income beneficiary using this point of view, to the tune of $86.4 billion over 15 years, according to Brown. Similar conclusions about taxpayer migration have been drawn by the business-backed Tax Foundation and the New York-based Empire Center. The argument has become a popular anti-tax talking point, just as Scott used it. We ran Brown’s methodology by a number of experts, and we didn’t find many economists who know of Brown’s work well enough to comment on it. Brown identifies himself as a "political consultant and legislative lobbyist by trade" in his book. Cristobal Young, a Stanford sociologist who has co-authored studies on millionaire migration in New Jersey and California that found tax rates had little impact on migration, said he was familiar with Brown’s book and website but paid little attention to them because Brown’s conclusions are "not an academic or scientific work." One economist who did critique Brown was Michael Mazerov of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Mazerov said that it’s not clear from Brown’s book whether the $2 trillion number is meant to represent all the money moving out of high tax states into low tax states, or whether it’s simply the sum of all adjusted gross income moving across states, i.e. all the money that didn’t stay in the same state over a 15-year period. That’s a critical distinction, and we found contradictory wording in the book on that point. We tried to reach Travis to clear up this point, but we didn’t hear back. We’ll update this fact-check if we do. Looking at Brown’s website tool, Florida’s biggest gains were from New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the state also lost residents to North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arizona and Texas -- albeit far fewer people left the state, resulting in a net population gain. Florida is one of nine states with no individual income tax, along with Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming (some of those states do tax parts of a person’s income, such as investment dividends). That means that while Florida is gaining residents in net migration, a good chunk of people are still moving out to states that have higher taxes than Florida. States with no income tax also usually have higher property or sales tax rates to compensate. The Tax Foundation said Florida ranked 27th in tax burden back in 2010. Mazerov raised other issues with Brown’s theory, chiefly that it doesn’t consider the full dynamics of people moving between the states. First, it’s not as if taxed income simply evaporates or transfers if someone moves out of a state. In most cases, it’s likely someone else in the state takes a job when someone leaves it. The person who moves would then earn income from another employer in their new state. Lyman Stone, formerly an economist with the Tax Foundation, has agreed on Medium.com that Brown’s IRS data "simply doesn’t show the migration of income, but rather shows the migration of people who formerly earned a given stream of income." Tracking income migration also doesn’t account for people who move to new states but continue to work in their old ones, nor does it include people who move because they are laid off (their jobs simply don’t exist anymore) or are part-time residents of the state -- which accounts for an estimated 800,000 people in Florida. That brings us to a host of caveats about the supposition that people are moving to Florida -- or any other state, really -- primarily for lower taxes. Research shows that taxes simply aren’t a major consideration for people who move between states. Only about 2 percent or fewer Americans move between states in any given year, and factors such as new jobs, better weather, nearby family and housing costs are much more important. Brown’s book acknowledges these factors, but still focuses on the correlation with states with low or no individual income taxes. According to a recent Gallup poll, the national average of people who say they plan to move within the next year who cite taxes as a reason is only 3 percent. Even residents of Scott’s favorite punching bag, New York, only cited taxes 14 percent of the time as a reason for wanting to move. In Florida’s case, where the cost of living is no longer as inexpensive as it used to be, climate is an especially strong factor, and the trend of more people moving from so-called "Frostbelt" states to "Sunbelt" states has been going on for decades. The University of Florida’s Population Program in the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida has said jobs are the main reason people in their 20s, 30s and 40s move to the state, while climate is biggest for people in their 50s and 60s. One major factor common to all age groups? Family living in the area. Our ruling Scott said, "Estimates say individuals who escaped these high-tax states have taken with them around $2 trillion in adjusted gross income." That stat comes from an anti-tax advocate who measured the adjusted gross income of people who moved between states. There is disagreement about how much can be assumed by measuring that income migration, and even whether the $2 trillion in movement is among all 50 states or just from high-tax locations to lower-tax ones. In either case, there is plenty of research showing that of the relatively small number of people who move between states, very few of them cite taxes as a reason. We rate the statement Mostly False. CORRECTION, Jan. 9, 2015: This article has been updated to clarify the affiliation of Lyman Stone. Help fund PolitiFact's Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2015-01-08T13:57:39	2015-01-06	['None']
-pomt-09793	For middle-class families under the Baucus plan, "13 percent of what they make could be deducted directly from their paychecks . . . the so-called 'Max Tax.'"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/17/keith-olbermann/olbermann-glosses-over-detail-baucus-plan/	When it comes to health reform, all eyes have been watching the powerful Senate Finance Committee. The committee has been trying to reach consensus between Democrats and Republicans. The committee released its findings on Wednesday in the form of a "Chairman's mark," a report that sets out the parameters of legislation. None of the committee Republicans would support the bill at this stage. And some Democrats didn't like it much either. Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann of MSNBC savaged the proposal on his show Countdown that night, reserving particular criticism for committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. "If it were up to Senator Max Baucus, middle-class families would be forced — literally forced — to pay far more on health care than they already do right now," Olberman said. "Thirteen percent of what they make could be deducted directly from their paychecks and mainlined to insurance companies, the so-called 'Max Tax.'" A few moments later he described the plan in more detail. Baucus' plan, he said, "would give coverage to 30 million Americans who currently do not have any, first, by extending Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor; next, by providing government subsidies to modest-income families and individuals to help them buy over-the-counter coverage. ... That means any individual making more than $32,500, or any family of four making more than $66,150, is on their own subject to the 'Max Tax' of 13 percent." For families earning $66,000, he added, "that is $700 a month they'd have to pay. If the families do not buy that insurance at that rate, they would be fined nearly half that amount." We wanted to see if he was accurately describing the plan as a 13 percent "tax" for the middle class. We found Olbermann got a lot right —- especially in his lengthier explanation — but he also left out details that would provide a fuller picture of the Baucus plan. He was right about the expansion of Medicaid. Anyone who makes less than 133 percent of the poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid under the new plan. Right now, in addition to being poor, you also have to be either elderly, pregnant, blind or disabled. Olbermann's claim about the 13 percent "tax" is based on the caps that limit how much people would pay for health insurance. Baucus' plan caps the premiums for those who earn 133 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level. Some of these people would get credits to make up the difference between the caps and what the insurance would cost. If they get a credit, they would send their premium payments to the federal government, which would then pay the insurer. The caps on how much people would have to pay for insurance are based on their income. The caps gradually increase from an estimated 4.7 percent for people at the lowest income levels, up to 13 percent of income for people who earn 300 percent of the poverty level. They stay at the 13 percent level up to 400 percent of the poverty level. Olbermann used the example of a family of four at 300 percent of the poverty line. According to the plan, the family would have income of $66,150 and pay premiums of $8,600 a year, or $716 a month. So Olbermann's numbers are solid. We have to add a few caveats here, though. Olbermann twice called these payments a tax. They are not a tax. They are a cap on premiums paid for health insurance. Other Democratic health reform plans in Congress have similar requirements that "force" people to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Their caps on premiums are more generous than 13 percent, but they still require people to pay a percentage of their income for insurance. For a detailed comparison of the three Democratic bills on this point, the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has created a handy chart . The center has criticized the Baucus plan for not being as generous for people of modest incomes as the other Democratic plans. Another caveat to Olbermann's remarks is that under Baucus' plan, none of this applies to people who already have coverage some other way. If people of modest incomes get coverage through work, for example, they keep paying whatever it is they pay now. They would not have to pay additional premiums or a penalty. Finally, we want to note that it is very difficult to make a direct comparison of how much people who now buy insurance on their own would pay under the reform plans, because the proposals would substantially change requirements for what medical treatment must be covered. We hoped to either confirm or refute Olbermann's statement that families would be forced "to pay far more on health care than they already do right now." But if they buy on the individual market, we're not sure what they're paying now. We looked for current data on this point, but were unable to find it. Right now, standards for minimum coverage vary greatly from state to state. This state-to-state variation also makes it difficult to find current data on what an "average" price for a family of four pays for an "average" plan. Obviously, if a family is uninsured now, they're going to pay more to get coverage. So back to the statement we are fact-checking. Olbermann said that for middle-class families, the Baucus plan would mean that " 13 percent of what they make could be deducted directly from their paychecks and mainlined to insurance companies, the so-called 'Max Tax.'" He's right that for people who are uninsured now, the upper limit would be 13 percent, and that money would go to insurance companies. But it's to pay for coverage they don't have now — not a tax — and some people would pay less. And all of the plans under consideration in Congress require people to pay something for coverage. So we rate Olbermann's statement Half True.	None	Keith Olbermann	None	None	None	2009-09-17T18:30:39	2009-09-16	['Max_Baucus']
-pomt-01110	Agriculture contributes $71 billion to Georgia’s economy annually, making it the state’s largest industry.	/georgia/statements/2015/jan/09/georgia-farm-bureau/71-billion-question-what-value-or-impact-agricultu/	The new year brings with it a new legislative session and updated annual figures on agriculture statistics such as the average yield of, say, peanut farms. Those two factors combine in the budget process, when state lawmakers make policy decisions based, in part, by who is affected by their decisions. An alert reader had that process in mind when asking PolitiFact Georgia to check an oft-repeated claim by the Georgia Farm Bureau and politicians: Agriculture is the Peach State’s top industry. How big? The headline on a Georgia Farm Bureau web page touts, "Georgia Agriculture – The state’s $71 billion industry." A bullet point underneath is a bit more nuanced. "Agriculture contributes more than $71.1 billion annually to Georgia's economy," it reads. The distinction matters, as we’ll get to in a minute. But before we get into semantics, we have to delve into some economics. We contacted the farm bureau, which directed us to the 2013 Ag Snapshot published by the Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development at the University of Georgia. The center conducts an annual survey which allows farmers to report acreage, yield, crop price and other details. The 2013 report – which looks at 82 commodities using 2011 data – concludes the direct economic value of agriculture is $13 billion. Two pages later, it concludes that direct value, combined with the values along the supply chain from fertilizer and seed to first-line processing plants, "generated a total economic impact of $71.1 billion" for Georgia. How? Center officials told us they add to the the $13 billion what the actual economic value (using federal data compiled by a private firm) of the businesses along the ag supply chain. In 2011, the tally was $44 billion. It then induces a multiplier, adding in what workers in all of those jobs spend on daily living, to arrive at the $71 billion figure. "We are looking at the contribution of all the sectors related to agriculture," said center economist Sharon Kane. "It’s so much more meaningful to report the overall impact." The IMPLAN Group LLC, the North Carolina firm that operates the input-output modeling system and provides the figures for ag-related sectors, did not return calls to confirm data. We also contacted the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to try to verify the agriculture numbers. It couldn’t, exactly. The agency’s Economic Research Service division can offer only somewhat comparable data in its Farm Income and Wealth Statistics tables. According to that division, Georgia’s net valued added by farms in 2011 was $2.9 billion. That’s a huge difference from between the $13 billion that farmers reported. Definitions account for part of the gap – Georgia counts timber, nurseries and agriculture tourism such as hunting licenses, while the federal agency does not. But even then, there is at least a $9 billion gap between state and federal figures. To make sense of that gap, and the calculations themselves, PolitiFact Georgia reached out to Bruce Seaman, an economist who studies economic impacts of projects and industries. Seaman, a professor of economics at Georgia State University, said the varying definitions of agriculture likely accounts for much of the massive gap in the figures. More concerning, he said, is the mixing of "impact" and "contribution" when throwing around the $71 billion figure. The Agribusiness report answers the question of how much activity is going on in agriculture and its related industries. That is the industry contribution, Seaman said. It is a snapshot of the industry, which shows agriculture makes up about 10 percent of the overall state economy. That’s very different than saying it has the same impact, or importance, he said. Consider: In 1905, about a third of all jobs in the United States were in agriculture. But Seaman said that did not mean those jobs had a proportional impact on the overall economy, or the United States would have collapsed as jobs moved into manufacturing. "It describes how much activity is linked to an industry," he said. "But it does not mean that if the agriculture industry declined by half, the economy would suffer a $35 or $36 billion loss." So, looking at the big picture, is agriculture Georgia’s largest industry? Think of it as a pie (pecan, of course. Made in Georgia). Based on the state and federal data – and adding in sectors that are directly linked to growing cotton and raising broilers – the $71 billion figure might be a bit too high, but can be mostly verified. But that figure is simply agriculture’s slice of the pie that is Georgia’s economy. In this study, making ag’s slice smaller or larger doesn’t make the pie any bigger. Agriculture is the largest single component in the state economy. But it requires another type of study to know its actual economic impact. The Georgia Farm Bureau statement is accurate, but needs some additional context to fully understood. We rate the claim Mostly True.	None	Georgia Farm Bureau	None	None	None	2015-01-09T00:00:00	2015-01-08	['None']
-pomt-11409	Robert Mueller’s investigative team has "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/21/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claims-about-Mueller/	During a weekend tweetstorm, President Donald Trump took aim at Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team of investigators. "Why does the Mueller team have 13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans? Another Dem recently added...does anyone think this is fair? And yet, there is NO COLLUSION!" he tweeted on March 18. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Here, we’re going to take a closer look at Trump’s assertion that Mueller’s team has 13 "hardened Democrats," some "big" supporters of Hillary Clinton, and no Republicans. (The White House did not respond to inquiry for this article.) How many Democrats and Republicans are on Mueller’s team? The Special Counsel’s office had made public the identities of 17 attorney staff members through March 21. Their backgrounds are summarized here. Through public records, we were able to independently confirm that at least 12 people on Mueller’s staff are registered Democrats. They ones we confirmed are Greg Andres, Rush Atkinson, Ryan Dickey, Michael Dreeben, Kyle Freeny, Andrew Goldstein, Adam Jed, Elizabeth Prelogar, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee, Brandon Van Grack, and Andrew Weissmann. Another member of Mueller’s team -- Aaron Zelinsky -- has been reported to be a registered Democrat by both the Washington Post and the Daily Caller. The Daily Caller also reported that Zelinsky wrote, "I’m a Democrat," in a Huffington Post column supporting same-sex marriage in November 2012. In the meantime, we were able to independently confirm that two other members of Mueller’s staff -- Scott Meisler and Aaron Zebley -- are registered to vote but have not chosen a party affiliation. We were unable to independently confirm the status of two other staff members, Zainab Ahmad and Brian M. Richardson. According to the Daily Caller, Ahmad "appears to have registered as a Republican at the age of 18, but has since changed her registration status to unaffiliated." We’ll also note that in the jurisdictions in which the Mueller lawyers live -- primarily the District of Columbia, Maryland and New York -- the Democrats are the dominant party, meaning that many races are effectively decided in Democratic primaries rather than in the general election. However, Trump’s assertion that there are no Republicans on the team is undercut by the fact that its leader is Mueller, who is registered as a Republican in the District of Columbia. Mueller was appointed to offices by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as by Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. In addition, Mueller was appointed by Rod Rosenstein, who was nominated for deputy attorney general by Trump himself, and who previously was appointed as a U.S. Attorney by George W. Bush (and later kept on by Obama). The Daily Caller has also reported that Mueller has occasionally donated to Republicans in both statewide and national races. Fox News has referred to Mueller as the "only known Republican" on the team. It’s worth noting the importance of the word "known," since other FBI or Justice Department personnel are assisting the investigation in certain capacities. The names of investigative and office support personnel have not been made public, the Special Counsel’s office told PolitiFact. James D. Robenalt, a Cleveland lawyer who runs a continuing legal education class on Watergate and its lessons, said that FBI agents in particular are likely helping gather evidence. Agents "come in all political stripes, though most are not active politically," Robenalt said. "FBI agents, as most law enforcement, tend to be conservative, law-and-order types, so my guess is most would tend to be Republicans or conservative Democrats or just plain Independents." So Trump is using some sleight-of-hand to say that there are "zero Republicans" on Mueller’s team. The team is led by a registered Republican, and there may be other registered Republicans working with Mueller whose identities the public simply doesn’t know about. How many team members supported Clinton? Trump has a point here, too, but it’s worth keeping the scale of the donations in context. Two of the 13 publicly known Mueller staffers donated what might be characterized as "big" sums to Clinton’s 2016 campaign -- Quarles, with $2,700, and Rhee, with $5,400. During the 2016 campaign cycle, $2,700 was the maximum donation an individual could make to a campaign. Such a donation could be made twice -- once for the primary campaign and then again for the general election. A third member of the team, Weissmann, donated $2,300 to Clinton, but that was in 2007, when she was making her first presidential run. (The Daily Caller separately reported that he attended Clinton’s election-night party in 2016.) Three other team members donated smaller amounts: $250 by Freeny and Prelogar, and $200 by Atkinson. Does Mueller’s team have ‘13 hardened Democrats"? How you define "hardened" is a judgment call. But if you measure by campaign donations, the point is overblown. Seven of the registered Democrats have no record of writing checks to federal candidates. Based on federal disclosure data, Quarles is easily the most generous donor on the team, giving in excess of $35,000 over the better part of two decades. Most of these donations went to Democratic candidates or entities, but it’s worth noting that Quarles also made two donations totaling $2,750 to Republicans -- former Virginia Gov. George Allen and former Rep. Jason Chaffetz. He was the only team member to give donations to federal Republican candidates. The second-most generous team member was Rhee, who gave $11,950 to Democrats in federal races. Weissman ranked third, with $6,600, followed by Andres and Goldstein, both of whom gave in the mid-$3,000 range. Freeny, Prelogar, Van Grack and Atkinson also gave money in federal races, with donations from $200 to $800. The Daily Caller found additional donations totaling a little less than $12,000 in state and local races by eight of the staff members. These donations were to Democrats. So the donor on the team who gave the most money is also the only one to donate to Republican candidates as well. Four other staff members gave between $3,000 and $12,000 over a span of several years, four more gave donations only in the hundreds of dollars, and seven more didn’t give any money at all in federal races. How much do these affiliations matter? Mueller’s team has the legal right to register to vote with a party or by making personal donations. Such activities are protected under the Hatch Act, originally passed in 1939. It’s also important to note that Mueller was prevented from considering political affiliation when putting together his team. Both Justice Department policy and the Civil Service Reform Act "prohibit using political affiliation and may also prohibit using certain ideological affiliations in hiring and taking other personnel actions with regard to career attorneys," the department’s inspector general has written. Moreover, the career attorneys on the Mueller team are bound by professional codes to pursue justice and rise above partisanship. Every federal employee swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Lawyers practicing in the federal courts swear a separate oath "that as an attorney and as a counselor of this court, I will conduct myself uprightly and according to law, and that I will support the Constitution of the United States." Brett Kappel, an attorney specializing in political law and government ethics at the firm Akerman LLP, said that in his experience, "Justice Department lawyers tend to skew towards the Democrats while FBI agents are overwhelmingly Republican. Both of them take an oath to dispense justice without fear or favor with regard to political party, and I’ve never seen anyone from either group act in a partisan way." "I don’t think one should ever ask about party affiliation when it comes to prosecutors," Robenalt added. "They come in all stripes. The question is whether they are qualified — and as I understand it, the team assembled is highly qualified." Robenalt said he wouldn’t advise young Justice Department lawyers to voluntarily eschew all political activity today for fear of getting attacked if they one day join a politically charged investigation. "It is a First Amendment right and crucial to our democracy," he said. "My guess is most will stay away from politics, but our country was built on the idea of freedom of belief and expression." One final point worth remembering is Trump's own history of donations to Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign (five, worth $4,100) and first presidential campaign (two, worth $2,300, though they were refunded in 2009.) Our ruling Trump tweeted that Mueller’s team has "13 hardened Democrats, some big Crooked Hillary supporters, and Zero Republicans." Mueller’s team does have 13 registered Democrats and no registered Republicans, and several team members made donations to Clinton’s campaign in various amounts. However, Trump leaves out a crucial registered Republican — Mueller himself — and glosses over the fact that we don’t know the identities, or the partisan affiliation, of other Justice Department or FBI staff who are working with the investigation. It’s also questionable to say that the multiple non-donors are "hardened" Democrats. We rate the statement Half True. CORRECTION, March 22, 2018: The article has been changed to reflect that Rosenstein was "kept on" in his existing job by Obama. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-03-21T17:03:45	2018-03-18	['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Robert_Mueller']
-pomt-13512	Says that in 2015, "illegal" immigrants accounted for 75 percent of federal drug possession convictions and 5 percent to 30 percent of convictions for murder and kidnapping plus two other crimes.	/texas/statements/2016/sep/02/sean-hannity/sean-hannity-says-illegal-immigrants-account-75-pe/	During Austin tapings of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity thrice showed figures suggesting immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission have lately been convicted of up to 75 percent of federal crimes. In back-to-back August 2016 episodes featuring Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Hannity presented a slide listing the percentage of "illegal immigrant federal convictions" in fiscal 2015 for five crimes. On night one, most noticeably, Hannity showed the slide at the top of his show while saying "in the last year alone, illegal immigrants" were "responsible for 18 percent of drug trafficking; 30 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking; 75 percent of drug possession; 10 percent of money laundering; 21 percent of national defense; and 5 percent of murder sentences," going on to say numerous crimes have been committed lately in Texas. Some 30 minutes later, Hannity showed the slide again and said to Trump: "Something’s wrong." "Yeah, it’s wrong, it’s wrong," Trump replied, "and everybody knows it’s wrong." So, we wondered, was Hannity right about the listed crimes? His slide referenced the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which gathers information on federal crime and sentencing issues and where Sekemia Mwonyonyi replied to our inquiry with an email showing how to reach the aired figures by clicking through commission statistics posted online. Separately, Nazgol Ghandnoosh of the Sentencing Project, which says it focuses on reforms in sentencing policy, also laid out the methodology. As a result, we built a chart demonstrating that Hannity accurately drew his numbers from data presenting percentages of 32 federal offenses for which citizens, non-citizens and, in particular, "illegal aliens" were sentenced in fiscal 2015. Ghandnoosh said by email that Hannity’s percentages regarding five of the federal crimes accurately tracked the commission tallies. In general, those classified as "illegal aliens" accounted for 25,670, or 37 percent, of 70,225 individuals convicted of all federal crimes in the 12 months through September 2015. That includes 18,782 sentenced for immigration offenses. The "illegal alien" category accounted for the following share of convictions in the crimes cited by Hannity: • 1,640 of 2,181 total convictions (75 percent) in which the primary charge was simple drug possession. • 13 of 43 convictions (30 percent) for kidnapping/hostage taking. • 21 of 100 convictions (21 percent) for "national defense" crimes, which include convictions for exporting arms, munitions or military equipment without a license or providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations or for terrorist purposes, per a 2013 commission report. • 3,555 of 19,989 convictions (18 percent) for drug trafficking. • 69 of 665 convictions (10 percent of them, for money laundering. • 5 of 91 convictions, or 5.5 percent, for murder. Mwonyonyi noted another aspect by pointing out to us that 73 percent of all the "illegal alien" federal offenders in the year--that is, 18,782 of 25,670 individuals--were primarily sentenced for immigration violations unique to the federal government. "If you take out the immigration crimes," Mwonyonyi wrote, "you find that illegal aliens committed about 14% of all non-immigration federal crimes." Sliced another way, the commission tallies show U.S. citizens drew 51 percent or more of all convictions across 29 offense categories including manslaughter (96 percent U.S. citizens); murder (84 percent); sexual abuse (95 percent); robbery (98 percent); drug trafficking (74 percent); bribery (93 percent); money laundering (76 percent); racketeering/extortion (87 percent); child pornography (96 percent); and burglary/breaking and entering (100 percent). Notably too, Hannity’s chart presents percentages of unauthorized immigrants convicted of selected federal crimes--not exploring the residency statuses of the far greater number of U.S. residents prosecuted by state and local authorities. That's probably leaving out a lot of people. For instance, as of August 2016, Texas alone held some 146,800 state prison inmates. As we completed this fact check, federal prisons altogether held nearly 193,000 inmates. Our ruling Hannity's slide states that in fiscal 2015, "illegal immigrants" represented 5 percent to 75 percent of U.S. residents convicted of five federal crimes ranging from murder to simple drug possession. Those figures accurately reflect federal data though a comprehensive picture would arguably fold in individuals convicted on similar state and local charges. We rate the statement True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/8cea2cab-94b1-4f22-bd4e-b23a515342cf	None	Sean Hannity	None	None	None	2016-09-02T14:33:12	2016-08-23	['None']
-bove-00147	Fact Vs Fiction: Fake Jet Airways Ad, Fake News About Narendra Modi	https://www.boomlive.in/fact-vs-fiction-fake-jet-airways-ad-fake-news-about-narendra-modi/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Vs Fiction: Fake Jet Airways Ad, Fake News About Narendra Modi	Nov 10 2017 3:17 pm	None	['None']
-pomt-01641	"The United States is the only industrialized country that does not guarantee paid time off to care for a new child."	/virginia/statements/2014/aug/25/don-beyer/beye/	Former Lt. Gov. Don Beyer has his eyes set on the 8th District congressional seat in Northern Virginia, calling for stronger guns laws, protecting the environment and expanded family leave when a baby arrives. "The United States is the only industrialized country that does not guarantee paid time off to care for a new child..." Beyer, a Democrat, says on his campaign website. We wondered if he’s right. The Family and Medical Leave Act entitles some workers to 12 weeks of unpaid leave time when they have babies. The law has many exceptions; it does not apply, for example, to businesses with fewer than 50 employees or to workers who have been at a company for less than a year. Three states -- California, New Jersey and Rhode Island -- provide paid family leave through payroll taxes. And some companies go beyond federal requirements and provide paid leave. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates 12 percent of private industry workers have access to paid leave. But the bottom line, as Beyer says, is that the U.S. does not require parents be compensated when they take time off to care for newborns. How does that compare to the rest of the world? Beyer’s office pointed us to a report released this year by the International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency. It examined maternity and paternity leave in 185 countries and territories and found that 99 percent of them require compensated maternity leave -- paid by the countries through a social insurance program, by employers, or a combination of these sources. Mothers in only two countries, the United States and Papau New Guinea, aren’t guaranteed paid maternity leave, according to the report. Beyer’s office also sent us a link to a PolitiFact National story that President Barack Obama’s claim in June that the U.S. is the only developed country that doesn’t provide paid maternity leave. Our colleagues rated Obama’s claim Mostly True, saying that U.S. leave policies for mothers is among the most meager in the world. But they noted that paid maternity leave isn’t a universal right around the world because many countries don’t offer the benefits to all working mothers of newborns. For example, temporary workers don’t receive cash benefits in Canada, home workers don’t get maternity leave in Norway and Switzerland, and some civil servants don’t get leave in Japan. Canada also excludes migrant workers and moms that own more than 40 percent of their business and it requires women to have at least 600 hours of insurable employment to be eligible. There’s a wrinkle that makes Beyer’s statement a slightly different from Obama’s comment on maternity leave. Beyer uses the phrase "family leave," which can be interpreted as including paid time off for fathers. In the U.S. dads, just like moms, have a right to time off, but it’s not paid. The ILO worldwide data on fathers is not as extensive as on mothers, but suggests most developed nations offer paternity leave benefits. Amy Raub, a principal research assistant at the World Policy Analysis Center at UCLA told us a handful of other developed countries, in addition to the U.S., don’t provide paid time off for fathers. Our ruling Beyer says the U.S. is the only industrialized country that doesn’t guarantee parents paid time off to care for their newborns. To a very large extent, he’s right. The U.S. is the only developed country that doesn’t mandate paid leave for working mothers, according to United Nations’ statistics. But there are two footnotes to Beyer’s statement: 1) Many nations that mandate paid maternity leave don’t offer the benefit to all moms and; 2) There are a handful of developed nations in addition to the U.S. that don’t offer paid paternity leave. So we rate Beyer’s statement Mostly True.	None	Don Beyer	None	None	None	2014-08-25T13:34:47	2014-08-25	['United_States']
-snes-04703	Oprah Winfrey endorsed Donald Trump for president.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/oprah-endorsed-donald-trump-false/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Oprah Endorses Donald Trump	26 May 2016	None	['Donald_Trump', 'Oprah_Winfrey']
-goop-02161	Queen Retiring For Prince William, Kate Middleton To Have “Christmas Coronation	https://www.gossipcop.com/queen-not-retiring-prince-william-kate-middleton-christmas-coronation/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Queen NOT Retiring For Prince William, Kate Middleton To Have “Christmas Coronation”	1:20 pm, November 22, 2017	None	['Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge', 'Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge']
-pomt-10908	"When a sinkhole began dumping toxic water in Florida's aquifer, Rick Scott tried to cover it up."	/florida/statements/2018/aug/01/gwen-graham/gwen-graham-lacks-proof-florida-gov-rick-scott-tri/	Gwen Graham says Florida needs a governor who will fight to protect clean water, unlike, she said, Gov. Rick Scott. "When a sinkhole began dumping toxic water in Florida's aquifer, Rick Scott tried to cover it up. I worked with the press to expose the secret sinkhole and hold Scott accountable," she tweeted July 18. Graham is one of five Democrats seeking the party’s nomination in the Aug. 28 primary to replace Scott, who is term-limited and running for U.S. Senate. Graham’s tweet linked to a 2016 Politico article in which Graham, then a congresswoman, was quoted blasting the state over its handling of a sinkhole at Mosaic’s Polk County phosphate plant. Here’s what Graham’s tweet has a point about: Scott’s administration, more specifically the Department of Environmental Protection, kept quiet about the sinkhole for weeks, later saying it didn’t know it was a sinkhole. But she went too far in stating that Scott himself "tried to cover it up." Her tweet also leaves out the actions Scott took once he did learn about the sinkhole. Sinkhole opened up at a plant in 2016 On Sept. 15, 2016, WFLA-Channel 8 broke the story about the sinkhole, which was the first time Mosaic commented about it publicly. The next day, WFLA reported that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection knew about the sinkhole but did not disclose it to the public. The 45-foot-wide sinkhole opened underneath a gypsum stack at a Mosaic phosphate fertilizer plant, dumping at least 215 million gallons of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer over three weeks. Mosaic workers became aware of the leak on Aug. 27 and notified the department on Aug. 28. State inspectors arrived within 24 hours. Their initial report didn’t use the word "sinkhole," but "water loss incident." Environmentalists and the media called for more transparency by the state government. But state law at the time did not require the department to inform the public about a spill into the aquifer if it had not spread off-site. DEP officials described their response to the spill as going "above and beyond the requirements of Florida law by working with Mosaic to notify the nearest adjacent home­owners who may want their drinking water wells tested." Jon Steverson, DEP secretary at the time, said he didn't know it was a sinkhole, which was why he didn't tell Gov. Rick Scott about it until Sept. 16, 2016, the day after it hit the news. (Scott’s office confirmed to PolitiFact that he learned about it on that day.) "I knew at the time in late August that there was a water loss incident," Steverson told reporters weeks later. "I was not aware of the sinkhole until a much later point in time." Not announcing the incident, which was allowed under the law at the time, is not the same as a "cover up," which could imply that state officials and Scott schemed to hide the information. Mosaic apologized for not notifying the public sooner. Once Scott was notified, he took action during the next couple of weeks. Responding to criticism from Graham at the time, Scott spokeswoman Jackie Schutz told the Tampa Bay Times that Scott had directed the DEP to expedite its investigation and asked the Florida Department of Health to work with DEP to ensure drinking water was safe. Scott initially defended his agency by saying state law didn’t require DEP to notify anyone unless the pollution left Mosaic’s property. "Within 24 hours after they (the DEP) were notified, they started the investigation,'' Scott said Sept. 22. "If somebody's done anything wrong, we're going to hold them accountable.'' But days later, Scott declared the law "outdated" and announced a temporary emergency rule that included 24-hour public notification requirements. He also vowed to propose legislation for the upcoming session that would make such a policy permanent. "I am demanding any business, county or city government responsible for a pollution incident to immediately tell the public," Scott said. "That is common sense and our residents deserve that." A judge later said that the Legislature would have to set such a rule change, and it did just that in 2017 when it unanimously passed a bill signed into law by Scott. Steverson, who was Scott’s pick to lead the department, quit a few months after news about the sinkhole broke. Scott’s spokesman said Scott didn’t ask Steverson to step down. Mosaic said repairs were completed in June 2018. The state is reviewing the company’s report to ensure all repairs were effectively completed. Graham’s role After the story came out, Graham spread the word about it through statements to the media. Graham criticized the state’s response, called for an investigation and filed public records requests to Scott’s office and the environment protection department seeking electronic communications about the sinkhole. She received hundreds of pages of materials, but the communication between state officials was largely after the news broke. Graham raised questions about why the emails between state officials didn’t begin earlier. "If this is the sum total of the communication that went on between DEP and the governor’s office over this massive potential contamination," Graham said, "Florida families have a lot to be concerned about." In her tweet’s accompanying Politico story, she was more nuanced about Scott’s role. "I don’t know which is worse," Graham said in 2016. "Either Gov. Rick Scott knew about the sinkhole and didn’t inform the public, or leadership at the Department of Environmental Protection is so irresponsible they didn’t alert the governor to a potential public health disaster." Graham spokesman Matt Harringer didn’t point to any evidence that Scott himself had covered up the sinkhole, as her tweet indicates, but said his administration did and that the buck stops with the governor. "It is completely fair to use ‘Rick Scott’ and ‘his administration’ synonymously," Harringer said. "The governor is the ultimate head of the Department of Environmental Protection — and often takes credit for their actions." Our review of her comments found that she more often pointed the finger more broadly at Scott’s administration or the Department of Environmental Protection. On Facebook in September 2016 she wrote: "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants — but the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has tried to keep a toxic sinkhole secret from the public. That's just wrong." On an April 2018 press release on her campaign website she wrote, "Graham has a record of holding Scott accountable for polluting Florida’s waters. In 2016, she launched a public records investigation to expose his administration’s role in covering up a toxic sinkhole." But the July 18 tweet was not the only time that she blamed Scott for a cover up. The environment page on her campaign website states, "When a massive toxic sinkhole opened up in Central Florida and state regulators tried to cover it up, Gwen fought for the public to know by exposing Governor Scott’s secrecy." Our ruling Graham said, "When a sinkhole began dumping toxic water in Florida's aquifer, Rick Scott tried to cover it up." She exaggerates by stating that Scott tried to cover up the sinkhole. News reports show that the head of the environmental protection department didn’t inform Scott until the media reported about it, which happened about three weeks after the sinkhole started. The department does not earn good marks for transparency: It initially labeled the sinkhole as a "water loss incident" and did not inform the public right away. But Graham goes too far in calling it an attempted cover up. Not announcing the incident was allowed under the law at the time. Graham’s tweet went further than past statements about the issue by squarely blaming Scott. The quick jab does not account for actions he took after he learned about the sinkhole, including an emergency order to change the notification rule and calling for a permanent law change about public notification (which he signed). Graham’s campaign now says that blaming Scott himself for the cover up is the same as blaming the administration. But the tweet should have been more precise. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Gwen Graham	None	None	None	2018-08-01T13:58:52	2018-07-18	['None']
-pomt-13725	Says Gov. Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Coffman "take the same positions on a number of things ... Coffman and Pence oppose equal rights for LGBT Americans."	/colorado/statements/2016/jul/27/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/dccc-links-mike-pence-mike-coffman-says-both-oppos/	The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence and Colorado Republican Rep. Mike Coffman oppose gay rights. A July 20 DCCC news release says that Coffman, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Pence make for an "extreme" ticket and Trump and Coffman "share many of the same dangerous ideas." It compares Coffman’s and Pence’s record on eight different issues, from the minimum wage to abortion. The implication is that Pence and Coffman share the same positions, including on gay rights. "Trump’s VP pick also makes perfect sense for Coffman, given that they take the same positions on a number of things like ... Coffman and Pence oppose equal rights for LGBT Americans," the release states. PolitiFact dug into the claim that Pence and Coffman "take the same positions" in their opposition to equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. The DCCC release tries to back up its claim by saying when Pence was an Indiana congressman in 2007, he said the Employment Non-Discrimination Act -- a bill known as ENDA that sought to prohibit employment discrimination against gay people -- "wages war on freedom of religion in the workplace." The release failed to mention that Coffman took a different approach; he co-sponsored a 2013 version of ENDA. In other words, Coffman supported legislation to prohibit workplace discrimination based on "sexual orientation or gender identity" that Pence opposed in 2007. We asked about the omission, and a DCCC spokesman said "that was just for space" given that the release was running five-pages long. The news release cited Coffman’s opposition to same-sex marriage, referring to Denver Post coverage of a 2014 election debate where he said, "Certainly I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Ultimately it’s going to be up to the voters of Colorado to make that decision. I will respect as a member of Congress whatever decision that they make." In a series of yes-or-no questions, Coffman answered "no" when asked, "Should Colorado recognize same-sex marriage?" He also replied "yes" when asked, "Do you support Colorado’s ban on same-sex marriage?" After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2015 that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex message, some Colorado Republican lawmakers condemned the decision. Coffman, however, said in a statement, "The world is changing, and while I’ve supported traditional marriage, the court has ruled a ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. It is time we move forward and focus on the big debates of our day — how to keep our country safe and get Americans back to work." Coffman’s spokeswoman, Cinamon Watson, dismissed the DCCC attack as "a bald-faced lie," saying Coffman is "no Mike Pence" on gay rights. She directed us to praise of Coffman by an array of LGBT organizations and Democratic flip-flopping on gay marriage by President Barack Obama and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Supporting gay rights Coffman does have a mixed record on support for LGBT rights, which some attribute to the 2011 redistricting of his 6th Congressional District, which shifted from staunchly conservative to a more diverse, middle-of-the-road swath of Denver suburbs. Gay advocacy groups have lauded Coffman for taking certain stands. Examples include: In 2015, One Colorado commended Coffman for co-sponsoring the Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act, to ensure that "all military families have equal access to the benefits they earned serving our country -- even if they do not live in a state with marriage equality." In September 2014, the Log Cabin Republicans PAC endorsed Coffman as one of its "strongest allies in Washington," including his co-sponsorship of anti-workplace discrimination legislation and support for renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which for the first time included protection of LGBT people. In February 2016, the American Unity Fund praised Coffman for becoming the first Republican to co-sponsor the Juror Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits excluding someone from serving on a jury based on sexual orientation or gender identity. He was also the only Republican to co-sponsor the Freedom from Discrimination in Credit Act of 2015, which seeks to expand the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, he voted for the Peters’ Amendment, which prohibits discrimination in federal transportation and housing programs and passed the House with strong bipartisan support. Coffman’s support for LGBT rights contrasts with Mike Pence’s hard-line stand on social issues. In April 2015, Coffman was one of eight Republicans who penned a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights praising the agency's first-ever briefing dedicated to discrimination against LGBT Americans, The Hill reported. The letter came in the aftermath of the controversy over an Indiana religious freedom law signed by Pence, who later signed a revised measure facing business boycotts and a firestorm of criticism. "(Coffman) is as not as extreme as Mike Pence, and I would say not many people are as extreme as Mike Pence," Austin Montoya, spokesman for One Colorado, told PolitiFact. Opposing gay rights Coffman has taken other positions, though, that advocates of gay rights don’t like. Montoya cited Coffman’s votes against repealing the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, and his support of the Defense of Marriage Act (before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples in 2013). And while Coffman did co-sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which failed to become law, Montoya noted that Coffman has not co-sponsored the more expansive Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include discrimination protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Our ruling A DCCC news release said, "Coffman and Pence oppose equal rights for LGBT Americans." The release stated that Coffman and Pence "take the same positions on a number of things," including on gay rights. DCCC and other critics have a point in saying Coffman opposed same-sex marriage, repealing the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy and he supported the Defense of Marriage Act. But he has backed legislation to protect gay Americans from discrimination in the workplace, in securing credit, in federal transportation and housing programs and in military benefits. Advocacy groups have praised Coffman’s support on some protections and said he is not as steadfast an opponent as Pence. We found several examples where the pair do not align. We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fb91919a-bd52-46a0-af26-f910a8c191f8	None	Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee	None	None	None	2016-07-27T16:07:51	2016-07-20	['Mike_Pence', 'Mike_Coffman', 'LGBT']
-snes-03582	A white man was beaten by a group of black people for voting Trump.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-mob-beats-white-man-for-voting-trump/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	‘Black Mob’ Beats White Man for Voting Trump?	10 November 2016	None	['None']
-goop-01601	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston Engaged, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-jennifer-aniston-not-engaged-false/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston NOT Engaged, Despite Absurd Report	5:03 am, February 12, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt']
-pomt-09294	"Obama did not open new lands to offshore drilling – all of these areas were already open for drilling once Congress and President Bush lifted the moratorium in 2008. Instead, President Obama yesterday announced what areas he would CLOSE to offshore drilling."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/23/house-natural-resources-committee-republicans/obama-didnt-expand-offshore-drilling-boehner-says/	UPDATE: This item was originally attributed to House Republican Leader John Boehner because we found this news release on his website. But after we published it, Boehner's staff pointed out to us that it actually originated with the Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee. So we are republishing the item and attributing it to them. Our analysis and ruling has not changed. A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama announced that he's going to open up new areas for offshore drilling. But according to conservative members of Congress, he's actually closing them. Here's such a claim in a news release from the Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee. "Obama did not open new lands to offshore drilling – all of these areas were already open for drilling once Congress and President Bush lifted the moratorium in 2008. Instead, President Obama yesterday announced what areas he would CLOSE to offshore drilling." The claim has been made by other Republicans, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who said at the April 9, 2010, Southern Republican Leadership Conference that, "after inheriting a good pro-development GOP plan, that opened up both coasts for drilling, the Obama administration halted development." So yeah, we're confused. Obama's March 31, 2010, announcement about offshore drilling didn't come as too much of a surprise to those who have been following the issue closely. During the campaign, Obama went from being staunchly against the idea of allowing more drilling to saying he would be open to the prospect, a shift for which we gave him a Half Flip. So, when he said on March 31, 2010, that he'd be allowing new drilling, we made the call that he hadn't drifted too much from where he'd ended up at the end of the campaign. Here are the basics of Obama's plan, which lasts from 2012 through 2017: • The coasts of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and part of Florida's eastern seaboard will be open to "exploration, study and potential development." • The northern coast of Alaska in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas will also be open to study and potential development. • The Bristol Bay area off of the southern coast of Alaska in the North Aleutian Basin is now protected by a presidential memorandum until 2017. Investigating whether the Republicans are right about Obama's drilling proposal requires a little history. In 1981, Congress authorized an annual offshore drilling moratorium, which was renewed regularly until 2008. Included in that ban were almost all of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts as well as parts of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1990, former President George H.W. Bush imposed an executive moratorium that overlapped with the areas prohibited from drilling under the congressional ban. In 2008, former President George W. Bush lifted his father's ban on drilling. And in the same year, amid high gas prices and election pressures, Democratic leaders allowed the nearly 30-year-old ban on drilling to lapse. Shortly before Bush left office, the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior issued a new five-year leasing plan that proposed opening up areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico to new drilling. Also included in the proposal were Bristol Bay as well as the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas. So, Obama was left with a drilling plan from the former administration, and choices to make as his administration crafted its own energy policy. Under the Bush plan, those areas would have been opened quickly with only a short period of time for citizens, lawmakers and others involved in the process to vet the proposal. So, on Feb. 10, 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar decided to extend the comment period on the new plan for another 180 days. During that time, Salazar held public meetings in the areas that would be impacted by the new drilling. And that brings us to March 31, when Obama announced that he would be allowing new drilling. Looking at his plan -- and the proposal Bush put on the dockets right before he left office -- it's clear that Obama decided to move forward on some parts of the Bush proposal, including drilling in the Atlantic, but scrap other parts, such as drilling in the Northeast and in Bristol Bay. So, generally speaking, the Republicans are correct that the areas where Obama is proposing new drilling were already open when Bush and Congress lifted the bans in 2008. But there is one area that is part of Obama's proposal that was not protected by either ban. It's a swath of ocean in the eastern Gulf of Mexico that is off limits until 2022 as part of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. Congress will have to rescind this law in order for drilling to take place there. The Republicans on the committee also said that the only news in Obama's drilling announcement is what areas he plans to close to drilling. Indeed, Bristol Bay has been closed to drilling until 2017 by presidential memorandum. But areas off the coast of California, for instance, have simply not been included in Obama's current drilling plan, which lasts until 2017. So, they're not officially closed, just off the table for now. Republicans also point out that most areas in Obama's plan will be studied for potential drilling first, which could slow the entire process. In theory, some of those areas may never be leased at all, but that remains to be seen. Let's recap: There is some truth to the Republicans' assertion that Obama hasn't opened new areas to drilling given the Bush proposal that was already on the books. But he overlooked the patch of ocean in the eastern gulf that was not part of Bush's plan and is in Obama's proposal. On their second point, the Republicans are also on less than solid ground. Indeed, Bristol Bay -- which likely would have been leased for drilling under the Bush administration -- is closed to drilling, at least until 2017. But other areas not included in Obama's current five-year drilling plan, such as areas in the Pacific, are not technically closed; they're just unavailable for the time being. As a result, we give the Republican members a Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	House Natural Resources Committee Republicans	None	None	None	2010-04-23T11:32:46	2010-04-05	['Barack_Obama', 'George_W._Bush', 'United_States_Congress']
-snes-00858	Does Facebook's Green 'BFF' Prove Your Account is Secure?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-facebooks-bff-prove-account-secure/	None	Technology	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Does Facebook’s Green ‘BFF’ Prove Your Account Is Secure?	22 March 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-03473	On the coal industry	/virginia/statements/2013/jun/14/terry-mcauliffe/mcauliffe-flip-flops-coal/	Terry McAuliffe wasn’t hot about coal in 2009 when he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. "We have got to move past coal," he said during an April 29 debate that year. "As governor, I never want another coal plant built. I want us to build wind farms, biomass, biodiesel and solar. That’s my emphasis." McAuliffe also issued a 30-page energy plan in 2009 that called for the development of clean energies and offered no hope for coal, other than an eagerness to retrain workers leaving the industry. He called for upgrades in emission controls that would make Virginia coal plants "the cleanest in America" and make the state "a leader in carbon sequestration." This year, McAuliffe seized his party’s gubernatorial nomination without opposition and Republicans are claiming he’s taken a much warmer position toward the fading coal industry, a long-time staple of the economy in Southwest Virginia. Proof of change, the GOP says, can be found in a May 8 article in the Bristol Herald Courier which quotes McAuliffe -- after visiting the headquarters of Alpha Natural Resources, one of the nation’s largest producers of thermal and metallurgical coal -- as saying he wants to help the coal industry grow. "I was over at Alpha Natural Resources talking about what they need done to make sure we have a healthy work force of coal, that coal can continue," McAuliffe told reporters. "We need to make sure we do what we need to, to make sure this vital industry here in Virginia continues to grow. I can really help them on exports; to open up those Asia markets in China and Korea. As governor, I want to help them create more jobs to help exports around the world." Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for McAuliffe, did not reply to three requests to explain whether his boss’s coal policy had changed. Schwerin, however, did provide some information to The Virginian-Pilot in a May 23 article. "Terry believes we need to support coal workers, both through increased exports throughout the world, and workforce training to ensure that displaced workers can find new careers," he said. "The fact is, we need an all of the above energy policy that focuses on increasing renewable energy like wind and solar while supporting existing Virginia industries." Comparing all the statements, it’s clear McAuliffe is friendlier to coal now then he was four years ago, when he urged Virginia to "move past coal." This year, unlike 2009, he is promising to help the industry "grow," promising to promote coal exports to Asian markets and calling for an "all of the above energy policy." McAuliffe does not mention coal in a 13-page agenda entitled "Keeping Virginia Competitive in a Global Economy," or on campaign website site posts about his agendas on energy and jobs. In each of the postings, he talks up the need to create clean energy jobs -- particularly wind power. But McAuliffe’s words in Bristol ring loudly. We rate his new position on coal a Full Flop.	None	Terry McAuliffe	None	None	None	2013-06-14T06:00:00	2013-05-08	['None']
-goop-00489	Kourtney Kardashian Having “Crisis” After Younes Bendjima Breakup, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-younes-bendjima-breakup-crisis-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kourtney Kardashian NOT Having “Crisis” After Younes Bendjima Breakup, Despite Claim	3:55 pm, August 9, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05245	The McDonald's fast food chain has implemented a policy barring their customers from buying food for homeless people.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-homeless-policy/	None	Business	None	David Mikkelson	None	McDonald’s ‘New Policy’ Bans Customers from Buying Food for the Homeless?	9 February 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07622	"When I took office in 2003, we had very little reserves."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/mar/20/david-cicilline/cicilline-says-providence-had-very-little-reserve-/	On March 3, Providence’s new mayor, Angel Taveras, released "staggering" figures showing that the city has a $180-million structural deficit for this fiscal year and next and has nearly depleted its reserve or "rainy day" funds. "I thought we had a Category 3 hurricane," Taveras said. "This is a Category 5." In the wake of that announcement, Taveras’ predecessor, U.S. Rep. David N. Cicilline, was criticized for leaving the city in poor financial shape and draining reserve funds to balance his last city budget. Cicilline denied that he had masked an emerging financial crisis in Providence and he defended his accomplishments during his eight years as mayor, saying that, "When I took office in 2003, we had very little reserves, and we worked very hard to build up our reserves." We decided to take a look. We began by asking Cicilline’s communications director, Jessica Kershaw, to provide the basis for the former mayor’s statement. In reply, Cicilline’s congressional office issued a statement saying: "When referring to the unreserved fund balance, or rainy day fund, as the attached Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows, in 2003, when Cicilline took office as mayor, there was $10 million, and the Cicilline administration more than doubled that by building it up to $22 million by 2008." Attached to the statement was a page from the city’s audited financial statement for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2010. That page shows Providence had an "unreserved" general fund balance of $10.2 million at the end of fiscal year 2003. That total rose to a high of $22.36 million at the end of fiscal year 2008, but it plunged to $2.08 million at the end of fiscal year 2010. So does $10.2 million represent "very little reserves"? Well, at that time $10.2 million was just under 3 percent of the city’s $345 million in actual general operating spending for 2003. Certainly, that’s not nearly as much as the $22.36 million in unreserved fund balance that the Cicilline administration had accumulated by fiscal year 2008 -- about 5 percent of the city’s actual spending that year. But it’s a whole lot more than the $2.08 million that the Cicilline administration had left by the end of fiscal year 2010 -- about 0.5 percent of the actual spending. And it looks really good in comparison with the $220,814 that remained in those reserves as of March 11. But what is the standard for determining whether a city’s rainy day fund is sufficient? Public finance literature often focuses on a 5 percent standard. And this year, the Government Finance Officers Association executive board is recommending revised "best practices" that call for the equivalent of two months -- or 16.6 percent -- of annual spending. With that in mind, did Cicilline have "very little reserves" when he had $10.2 million, or about 3 percent? Gary S. Sasse, the former Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council director and state revenue director who is now financial adviser to the Providence City Council, said, "I would say 3 percent is marginal reserves. It doesn’t meet the requirement of 5 percent. But it’s better than nothing. It’s better than we have right now." City Treasurer James J. Lombardi III, a critic of Cicilline’s financial practices, said that while the 2003 unreserved fund balance fell below the 5 percent threshold, that doesn’t mean Providence had "very little" reserves at the time. "Clearly, it was a lot more than we have today," he said. Plus, the Cicilline administration had other restricted contingency accounts as a cushion, Lombardi said. And in 2003, the city’s assets included the Dunkin’ Donuts Center, which it later sold. Now, the city has slashed its unreserved general fund balance, depleted restricted contingency accounts and borrowed at least $60 million to balance the budget, he said. Cicilline has defended his decision to use reserve funds and to borrow money to balance budgets, saying those actions were better than cutting city services and significantly raising taxes. "It was a judgment that I made that that was the best way to navigate through the worst economy since the Great Depression," he said. So where does that leave us? Certainly, it’s true that when Cicilline took office, the unreserved fund balance did not meet the often-cited 5 percent threshold and it fell well short of the 16.6-percent goal that a professional group now recommends. But it’s a stretch for the former mayor to characterize the $10.2 million he had in 2003 as "very little." After all, that’s almost five times what was in the reserve fund in his last year in office. Given municipal finance standards, there is an element of truth in Cicilline’s claim, but his statement ignores critical facts that would give a much different impression. On the Truth-O-Meter, that is the definition of "Barely True." Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	David Cicilline	None	None	None	2011-03-20T00:00:01	2011-03-04	['None']
-pomt-11391	Small businesses in West Virginia "make up about 96 percent of our state's economy."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/26/joe-manchin/joe-manchin-target-small-business-share-west-virgi/	Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., recently cheerleaded West Virginia small businesses in a tweet from his Senate account. Manchin tweeted, "Did you know #WV has more than 120k small businesses & they make up about 96% of our state's economy? Remember this & #shopsmall #WVSBDC #SBDCday" See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We were surprised that small companies comprise 96 percent of West Virginia’s economy, so we took a closer look. As it turns out, Manchin used the wrong terminology, ultimately making his claim incorrect. We turned to data from the federal Small Business Administration, which offers fact sheets about small businesses in every state. Manchin’s in the ballpark for the number of small businesses in the state. The SBA counts 115,673 small businesses, a number that is apt to fluctuate regularly, as companies start up and go out of business. (The agency’s definition of a small business is one with fewer than 500 employees.) And the fact sheet has a number close to the 96 percent figure Manchin cited. The SBA says that 98.9 percent of West Virginia’s businesses are small businesses. But that does not support what Manchin said. Saying that almost 99 percent of West Virginia's businesses are small firms is not what economists refer to as a "percentage of the economy." That term refers to the percentage of all economic output, which is sometimes called state-level gross domestic product. The fact sheet doesn’t provide small business output as a percentage of the economy, but it’s certainly well below 96 percent. Why? Because while small businesses account for nearly 99 percent of employers in the state, they only account for about half — 50.1 percent — of West Virginia employees. So it is not credible to say that half of the workforce produces 96 percent of the output while the other half — the big-company workforce — produces just 4 percent of output. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if the half of West Virginia employees working for big companies account for more than half of economic output, said Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution. "In the nation as a whole, employees at smaller businesses tend to earn lower compensation than employees in larger businesses, probably indicating they are less productive," Burtless said. "All these facts lead me to believe there is no possible way those 120,000 small businesses can account for 96 percent of the production or output of the West Virginia economy." Manchin’s office declined to comment for this article. Our ruling Manchin said that small businesses in West Virginia "make up about 96 percent of our state's economy." This appears to be a case of mistaken terminology. Small businesses do make up nearly 99 percent of the state’s employers, but only half of its employees. The way it is worded, Manchin's claim exaggerates the output of small businesses and underplays the economic influence of large companies in the state. We rate the statement Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Joe Manchin	None	None	None	2018-03-26T17:34:41	2018-03-21	['None']
-pomt-07529	"We’ve lost 26 million jobs … since (Obama’s) been president."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/06/reince-priebus/rnc-chair-reince-priebus-says-us-has-lost-26-milli/	During an interview on NBC’s Today show on April 5, 2011, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus criticized President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy. Asked by host Meredith Vieira whether the recent run of job growth and falling unemployment numbers "throw a real monkey wrench" into his party’s argument, Priebus said, "No, not at all. Under this president, he’s promised millions and millions of jobs. We’ve lost 26 million jobs, Meredith, since he’s been president. He promised under an $850 billion stimulus program that we’d be on a path to recovery. We’ll none of that has come true. … I think that pointing out a snail’s pace in the job (growth) numbers is not going to be enough to undo 26 million jobs that are lost, Meredith." We wondered: Has the number of jobs really declined by 26 million since Obama has been president? The answer: Not by any standard method of calculating job losses. We turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official arbiter of U.S. employment numbers. We found that in January 2009, when Obama was sworn in, 133,563,000 Americans were employed. Today, that number is 130,738,000. That’s a significant decline -- but of 2.8 million jobs, a number roughly a tenth of what Priebus cited. We then looked at the difference between the highest level of employment during the recent recession and the lowest level. From its peak in December 2007 to its bottom in February 2010, a total of 8.7 million jobs were lost. That’s still only about one-third of the number Priebus gave -- and that period was split roughly evenly between the presidencies of George W. Bush and Obama. We arrived at these figures, as economists do, by comparing job gains with job losses to determine a net total. It’s theoretically possible that 26 million jobs were lost during the Obama presidency and that 23.2 million jobs were created, leaving a net of 2.8 million jobs lost. But even if that were the case, economists across the political spectrum say it would be highly misleading of Priebus to focus on the job losses without citing the offsetting job gains. It would not be "kosher to count only one-half of the jobs equation," said Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute. Gary Burtless, an economist with the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution said it would be "absurd" to cite the gross job numbers instead of the net numbers. Just for a sense of scale, if it were a net number, losing 26 million jobs, as Priebus indicated, would mean losing about 20 percent of the nation’s jobs -- something on the scale of the Great Depression. We e-mailed the Republican National Committee’s press office for an explanation, but they did not reply by the time we posted this story. Perhaps Priebus simply misspoke, or perhaps he misplaced a decimal point and ended up wrong by a factor of 10. Whatever the reason, the 26 million figure he cited on the Today show was ridiculously wrong. We rate it Pants on Fire.	None	Reince Priebus	None	None	None	2011-04-06T10:33:46	2011-04-05	['None']
-snes-01976	The FBI has warned all Americans to be cautious of produce at grocery stores that might have been sprayed with poison.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fbi-warning-to-all-americans-about-poisoned-produce/	None	Food	None	Kim LaCapria	None	FBI Warning to ‘All Americans’ About Poisoned Produce	19 July 2016	None	['United_States', 'Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-pomt-13161	"Nearly half of African-American children under the age of 6 are living in abject poverty."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/28/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-half-young-black-children-are-ab/	On the campaign trail, Donald Trump has often recited statistics about the economic plight of African-Americans, arguing that Democrats have done little to improve the lives of one of their core constituencies. The Republican presidential nominee did so again during a rally in Springfield, Ohio, on Oct. 27. "Nearly half of African-American children under the age of 6 are living in abject poverty," Trump said. It turns out that the poverty rate for young African-Americans is disproportionately high, but not nearly as high as Trump suggests. While the Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this article, we suspect that he came across the statistic in a "State of Working America" report published by the liberal Economic Policy Institute. An infographic packaged with the report said, "45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children." If that were a current statistic, Trump would be on pretty solid ground. But it’s not. It’s not obvious from the infographic, but the State of Working America report was published in 2012. And the data itself is now six years old. The full text of the report says, "In 2010, close to half (45.8 percent) of young black children (under age 6) were in poverty, compared with 14.5 percent of white children." The problem is that 2010 was during and just after the Great Recession, so poverty rates were unusually high. To find out what the rates are now, we turned to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data we found is for children under age 5 and covers 2015. That’s slightly different, but Census data specific to poverty levels among children age six do not change the percentage significantly. For African-Americans under five, the poverty rate was 37.4 percent. That’s quite a bit lower than the "almost half" of African-American children that Trump cited. The percentage falls even further if you give weight to Trump’s use of the term "abject poverty" and look at the poorest of the poor -- those with incomes at half of the poverty level or less. For African-Americans under 5, that half-of-poverty rate is 20.4 percent. That’s even further from "almost half." We should note that compared to other racial and ethnic groups, the poverty levels for African-Americans are indeed high. Here’s a summary for children under 5: Group Percent at poverty level Percent at half-of-poverty level African-American 37.4 percent 20.4 percent Hispanic 30.2 percent 13.1 percent White 12.8 percent 8.4 percent Asian 11.9 percent 5.0 percent Our ruling Trump said, "Nearly half of African-American children under the age of 6 are living in abject poverty." The poverty rates in question were as high as Trump says they were at the depths of the Great Recession, but they have since eased, to somewhere between 20 percent and 37 percent, depending on which income threshold you use. Still, the rates for African-American children are disproportionately high, so Trump has a point even if his statistics are too old and exaggerate the scale of poverty in that age group. On balance, we rate the statement Half True.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-10-28T13:00:00	2016-10-27	['None']
-snes-06229	In 1995, former president George H.W. Bush resigned as a Life Member of the NRA.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bush-nra-resignation/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did George H.W. Bush Resign from the NRA?	23 December 2012	None	['George_W._Bush']
-snes-04203	The second season of 'Stranger Things' will be written by Stephen King.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stranger-things-stephen-king-netflix/	None	Entertainment	None	Dan Evon	None	‘Stranger Things’ Season Two to be Written by Stephen King?	22 August 2016	None	['None']
-tron-00802	Actor Don Adams was in the Marines and the only member of his unit to surivive a WW II battle	https://www.truthorfiction.com/don-adams/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Actor Don Adams was in the Marines and the only member of his unit tosurivive a WW II battle	Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States_Marine_Corps']
-snes-01732	Permanent Closure at Walt Disney World Due to Hurricane Irma?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/permanent-closure-walt-disney-world-due-hurricane-irma/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Permanent Closure at Walt Disney World Due to Hurricane Irma?	14 September 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00967	"Nearly one in five women in America has been a victim of rape or attempted rape."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/16/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-nearly-1-5-women-us-has-been-rap/	On the occasion of this year’s Grammy Awards, President Barack Obama released a public-service announcement targeting sexual violence, particularly against women and girls. In his videotaped statement, Obama mentioned a statistic about the prevalence of rape -- with a frequency that was startling enough to provoke several PolitiFact readers to ask us to check it out. "Right now," Obama said, "nearly one in five women in America has been a victim of rape or attempted rape." Is that statistic correct? We took a closer look. We’ll start by noting that this is a different statistic than one that drew some criticism when the Obama White House and other political figures raised it last year. Vice President Joe Biden, for instance, said, "One in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of (college), before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years." Biden and others were referring to college campuses -- unlike Obama’s most recent comment, which was referencing overall patterns in the population. We’ll discuss the evidence for both "one in five" statistics in a moment, but first, let’s look at where Obama’s recent claim came from. The CDC study The number comes from the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which was released in September 2014 by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey was based on landline and cellphone interviews with more than 12,000 people who were 18 years or older, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey’s summary table shows that 19.3 percent of women interviewed reported experiences that the authors categorized as rape or attempted rape. That’s "nearly one in five," so on the broad figure Obama cited, he correctly reported the CDC’s finding. What qualified as rape in the survey? This is where it gets a bit complicated. The three subcategories listed are: • "Completed forced penetration," 11.5 percent. • "Attempted forced penetration," 6.4 percent. • "Completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration" without the ability to consent, 9.3 percent. However, you can’t just add up all three subcategories -- you’d get 27.2 percent, which is significantly higher than the survey’s overall rate for rape of 19.3 percent. CDC explained that the subcategories are derived from the overall rape estimate, and they overlap. Within each estimate, victims are counted only once, but due to the possibility of re-victimization, the same respondent may be represented in multiple categories, CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard said. Comparing the CDC study with the campus study As we noted, the campus study had some methodological problems. The biggest was that researchers surveyed undergraduates at two unnamed large public universities (one in the Midwest and one in the South) -- a sampling that may not be valid for the entire country. Large universities may not be representative of experiences at mid-size or small colleges. Further, the two colleges selected may not even be representative of large campuses. In addition, the results for the campus survey were gleaned from 5,446 Web-based responses. Web-based polls yield a lower response rate than other methods, and researchers say that could skew results. By contrast, the CDC study was based on the tried-and-true technique of telephone polling -- and used a far larger, and more random, sample. It’s also worth noting that the studies had slightly different scopes. The campus survey was about "sexual assault," which included not only rape but also "forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)." By contrast, the CDC figures cited by Obama focused exclusively on cases of penetration or attempted penetration. For these reasons, we consider talking points based on the CDC study to be significantly more credible than those based on the campus study. Experts agree. Last year, when we interviewed Mary Koss, a public health professor at the University of Arizona, she told us that the Campus Sexual Assault Study "is not the soundest data (the White House) could use." For this fact-check, however, she said the CDC provides the best available data. Obama, she said, is "basically right. No survey is perfect, but this survey is considered very sound in the field." We do see one legitimate reason for caution. The CDC study takes a public-health approach in its methodology, asking respondents about their past experiences without looking at whether the activities may have qualified as crimes per se, as our friends at the Washington Post Fact Checker have noted. Surveys that take a criminal-justice approach, by contrast, focus on activities that were presumed to have been criminal. Because of this methodological difference, criminal-justice surveys tend to report significantly lower rates of rape than public-health surveys do. For instance, the CDC study came up with 1.9 million cases of rape in 2012, whereas the National Crime Victimization Survey found far fewer rapes -- 347,000 -- over the same period. So, given two survey methods to choose from, Obama picked the one that produced the higher number. Ordinarily, we take issue with claims that cherry-pick results. In this case, however, we aren’t as critical of his decision, since independent scientific experts have long questioned whether criminal justice surveys under-report instances of rape. Notably, in 2014, the National Research Council concluded that under-reporting of rape in the National Crime Victimization Survey was "highly likely." William D. Kalsbeek, an emeritus professor of biostatistics at the University of North Carolina and co-chair of the National Research Council panel, told PolitiFact that "the search continues for the best way to measure rape and sexual assault in population surveys. Our panel found that the broader, behavior-based definition of rape and sexual assault used by (the CDC study) is preferable to the more limiting, legal-based definition" used in the criminal-justice survey. Our ruling Obama said that "nearly one in five women in America has been a victim of rape or attempted rape." A well-respected survey by the CDC found that 19.3 percent of women reported experiences that are considered to be rape or attempted rape under the survey’s guidelines. There are other surveys, using a different methodology, that show lower rates of rape, but researchers say the data in the CDC study is at least as credible, if not more so. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2015-02-16T12:06:15	2015-02-08	['United_States']
-snes-03459	Colorado has offered free birth control for five years, leading to: a 40 percent drop in unintended pregnancy, a 42 percent drop in abortions, and millions of dollars in healthcare savings.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/colorado-birth-control-facts/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Colorado Birth Control Facts	29 November 2016	None	['None']
-snes-04600	Amazon.com CEO and founder Jeff Bezos has revoked Donald Trump's shopping privileges.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jeff-bezos-donald-trump-amazon/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Jeff Bezos Revokes Donald Trump’s Amazon Shopping Privileges	16 June 2016	None	['Jeff_Bezos', 'Donald_Trump']
-vees-00458	(Source: Press conference with defense and security team, Malacañang Palace, Jan. 29, 2017, watch from 17:03 - 17:35)	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-which-court-ruled-west-philippine-sea	Was it the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that issued the landmark ruling that invalidated China's historic rights to the South China Sea?	None	None	None	Duterte,South China Sea,west philippine sea,Xi Jinping,Duterte China visit,The Hague,Permanent Court of Arbitration,International Court of Justice	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Which court ruled on the West Philippine Sea dispute?	February 04, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-09208	"You’ve got almost twice as many cops in New York City as you do on our entire border. That’s nuts."	/texas/statements/2010/may/21/david-dewhurst/dewhurst-says-nypd-force-almost-twice-size-border-/	Asked whether Texas needs to follow Arizona’s lead and enact a hard-line immigration law, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said in a May 12 interview with the Texas Tribune that he was more interested in “a long-term solution” to illegal immigration: securing the border. Claiming the federal government had done “virtually nothing” to address the situation, Dewhurst said border operations conducted by “local sheriff’s departments, local police departments, the state and our federal partners” had taught the following lesson: “At the end of the day, [even with] all of the technology in the world, you need people.” To emphasize his personnel point, Dewhurst compared the number of U.S. Border Patrol agents to the number of police officers in the nation’s largest city, New York. “You’ve got almost twice as many cops in New York City as you do on our entire border,” Dewhurst said. “That’s nuts.” Nutty, maybe. But does Dewhurst's statement reflect reality? Answering our query, his office provided figures from the New York Police Department indicating that it has about 34,500 officers and from U.S. Customs and Border Protection that the Border Patrol has about 19,100 agents on the northern and southern U.S. borders. The Border Patrol is part of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection division of the federal Department of Homeland Security. We checked, and those figures stand up. The website for the New York Police Department says the agency's "current uniformed strength is approximately 34,500." And Steven Cribby, a spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said the Border Patrol numbers about 20,000 -- 17,000 of whom are stationed on the U.S-Mexico border. An additional 2,100 employees are on the border with Canada, with the rest patrolling coastal waters, primarily near Puerto Rico. Counting only the border agents that work the southern and northern borders, the NYPD force is about 81 percent larger than the Border Patrol, almost twice the size, as Dewhurst says. (That calculation leaves out the Border Patrol agents who work coastal waters. If you add those, the New York force is 73 percent larger.) We wondered, though, if it's reasonable to compare cops working the nation's biggest city to officers monitoring our international borders. We put that question to several law enforcement and criminal justice experts, including Samuel Walker, professor emeritus of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. His assessment: "The comparison of the NYPD and the Border Patrol is completely wrong, given their very different roles and working environments." Walker's point, which we heard separately from other experts: The two organizations have dramatically different missions and environments. The New York Police Department responds to calls for service from the city’s more than 8 million residents and numerous visitors, while fighting all kinds of crime, in a dense urban area. In contrast, the experts said, the Border Patrol has much narrower responsibilities, which they have to fulfill across vast spaces -- much of it sparsely populated. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the agency’s primary mission has been to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the country, Cribby said. Agents are also tasked with preventing undocumented immigrants from entering the country illegally and stopping drug and human trafficking along the border between the legal ports of entry. Even comparing staffing levels of different police departments can be tricky. The usual basis for comparison is the number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Those ratios vary widely across the country and even from city to city. Based on the most recent numbers available, New York's ratio in 2008 was 4.3 officers per 1,000 residents; the national rate was 2.5. “It’s often like comparing apples to carburetors because there is so much difference in how departments use people,” said Craig Fraser, director of management services for the Police Executive Research Forum, a nonprofit research and consulting group in Washington. In some cities, police officers do jobs that are performed by civilian personnel elsewhere. Some police departments have fewer officers because other local law enforcement agencies, like a sheriff’s office, pick up slack. It's even trickier to compare agencies with such different duties as the Border Patrol and the New York Police Department, as Dewhurst did. So where does all of this leave his statement? The lieutenant governor accurately characterizes the relative sizes of two law enforcement agencies -- the Border Patrol and the New York Police Department. He may have a point that the border needs more federal agents -- though there is disagreement over whether more boots on the ground will prevent illegal immigration -- but comparing the size of that force to the cops in the Big Apple is not a valid way to prove it. Because his comparison takes the numbers out of their proper context, we rate his statement as Half True.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2010-05-21T06:21:48	2010-05-12	['New_York_City']
-pomt-12935	On resigning her Texas House seat.	/texas/statements/2017/jan/10/dawnna-dukes/full-flop-dawnna-dukes-sworn-after-vowing-resign-h/	Months ago, Dawnna Dukes declared that she’d resign her Texas House seat, effective Jan. 10, 2017. Yet on that date, the 11-term Austin Democrat, who's been under investigation for possibly using taxpayer resources for nongovernmental purposes, joined House colleagues in getting sworn in to serve a fresh two-year term. Dukes represents House District 46, which extends from East Austin north into Pflugerville. Dukes’ actions prompted us to roll out the PolitiFact Flip-O-Meter. Let’s recap: In 2013, Dukes sustained injuries in an automobile accident that she subsequently blamed for often missing House meetings. In two 2016 investigations, too, the Austin American-Statesman uncovered questionable expenses on Dukes’ campaign spending reports and revealed that she was absent from the Legislature for much of the 2015 session, even as she apparently attended several social events. The newspaper also found that Dukes’ consulting company and her subcontractors made more than $1 million over four years working to boost the number of minority- and women-owned companies working for the Austin school district, but had little to show for its work. Dukes then stressed persistent injuries and her desire to care for her daughter in initially telling the Quorum Report, a Capitol news organization, about her plans to resign. That report’s Sept. 26, 2016, story about Dukes’ plans quoted her as saying that multiple visits to the emergency room combined with a more serious evaluation of her condition from physicians had forced her to re-evaluate her situation. "This has been a very difficult decision to make," Dukes said. "However, in light of my ongoing health issues and concerns, I find that I can no longer provide the active, effective leadership that is needed to continue my sworn duties. I must take the time to focus all of my energy to heal and continue to provide for my young daughter and extended family." Later that day, the Statesman noted in its news story on Dukes’plans that she’d been dogged by a criminal investigation into use of taxpayer resources for nongovernmental purposes. Her retirement announcement came days after the Texas Rangers delivered the findings of their probe to the Travis County district attorney’s office, which was reviewing the file, the story said. The story also said Dukes was "allowing her current term to expire rather than resigning immediately, allowing her to make an extra $3,220 per year in retirement benefits from the state because serving any amount in January counts as a full year when calculating pension benefits." Also noted: Dukes’ name would still appear on the November 2016 general election ballot. Without campaigning for the seat, Dukes went on to defeat her Republican opponent in the heavily Democratic district. Still, the expectation remained that the seat would become vacant starting Jan. 10, the first day of the 2017 regular legislative session, and remain vacant pending the results of a special election to be called by Gov. Greg Abbott. Next, though, the Statesman reported Jan. 7, 2017 that Dukes had notified the new Travis County district attorney, Margaret Moore, that she was no longer planning to step down. Three days later, about half an hour after the noon start of the 2017 session, Dukes joined colleagues in the House and was sworn in to serve a fresh two-year term. Earlier, Dukes explained her move in a Jan. 9, 2017, Facebook post, which she described as her replies to questions from the Texas Tribune, that after constituents urged her to reconsider her plans, her doctors "gave me the green light and I decided to ensure District 46 had experienced representation starting on" the session’s opening day. After her swearing-in, Dukes reaffirmed that explanation to reporters. She also declined to discuss the county's probe, saying, "Anything concerning legal is in the process, or not, and I don’t plan on discussing it." After we posted this story, Dukes responded to our earlier requests for comment on whether she'd flip-flopped by saying her late-breaking decision to fill the seat honored her longstanding commitment to voters who gave her the 2016 Democratic nomination before she announced her plan to resign the seat. Voters went on to re-elect her, Dukes stressed. Doctors gave her encouragement, Dukes reaffirmed by phone, and constituents "talked me into keeping the promise to serve." Asked if she plans not to resign at all, Dukes said she intends to serve "as long as the people elect me." Our ruling Summing up, Dukes said in September 2016 that she’d resign her seat in early 2017. On Jan. 10, 2017, however, she was sworn in to serve an additional two years representing the Austin-area district. We find this a FULL FLOP. Full Flop A major reversal of position; a complete flip-flop. UPDATES, Jan. 10, 2017: This story was revised to clarify when the Statesman reported on possibly questionable uses of goverment resources. We also heard back from Dukes and added her elaboration about deciding to get sworn in. These revisions didn't affect our Flip-O-Meter rating. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/43553e90-2b5d-4a23-a195-4a45f99271c0	None	Dawnna Dukes	None	None	None	2017-01-10T16:29:39	2017-01-10	['Texas_House_of_Representatives']
-snes-05850	The idea for FedEx earned that company's founder a failing mark while he was a college student.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/term-paper-goods/	None	Business	None	Snopes Staff	None	The Origins of FedEx	28 May 2009	None	['None']
-goop-00098	Scott Disick Wanted Baby With Sofia Richie?	https://www.gossipcop.com/scott-disick-sofia-richie-baby-false/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Scott Disick Wanted Baby With Sofia Richie?	12:00 am, October 24, 2018	None	['None']
-vogo-00191	Statement: “We’ll be the first city that actually doesn’t subsidize it,” Mayor Jerry Sanders said during a Fox 5 interview about his bike-sharing plan.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/mayor-misspoke-on-bike-sharing-claim-fact-check/	Analysis: Earlier this week, Mayor Jerry Sanders announced a plan to bring bike-sharing to San Diego and promised the program wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime. It would be funded solely by private investors.	None	None	None	None	Mayor Misspoke on Bike Sharing Claim: Fact Check	September 20, 2012	None	['None']
-hoer-01165	Royal Caribbean Australia Win a Cruise	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/royal-caribbean-australia-win-a-cruise-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Royal Caribbean Australia Win a Cruise Facebook Scam	February 28, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07199	Planned Parenthood "raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years."	/florida/statements/2011/jun/07/marjorie-dannenfelser/abortion-opponents-claim-planned-parenthood-had-30/	A debate in Congress earlier this year about whether to yank millions of dollars in federal funding for Planned Parenthood spawned a whole slew of claims by politicians about abortion. The Truth-O-Meter weighed in on several claims: everything from a claim by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain that Planned Parenthood's early objective was to "help kill black babies before they came into the world," which got a Pants on Fire, to Richard Corcoran, a Florida state representative, who claimed that "90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted," which received a True rating. Before we delve into a new claim about Planned Parenthood, here is a summary about the debate from an April 21 fact-check by our colleagues at PolitiFact National: "Even though Planned Parenthood cannot use federal money to provide abortions, Republicans passed an amendment in the U.S. House in February that would block all federal funding to the group. Republicans contend that any support for Planned Parenthood can provide indirect support for abortions. The amendment, which did not have sufficient support to pass the Senate, was a key issue in the budget debate that nearly led to a government shutdown on April 8, 2011. It was not included in the budget agreement that prevented the shutdown." Planned Parenthood receives about $363 million a year from the federal government, which can be used for cancer screenings, annual exams, birth control and other preventative services. Now, a leader of an organization that advocates for pro-life legislation claims that Planned Parenthood is a money-maker. The claim comes from a U.S. News and World Report Washington Whispers blog on May 26 about U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- the Democratic National Committee chair who represents part of South Florida -- who called the GOP "anti-women" after the vote to de-fund Planned Parenthood. In response, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said: "The truly ‘anti-woman’ organization here is Planned Parenthood and the party that continues to defend its taxpayer funding when it has raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years. Fifty-four percent of Americans don’t want to be coerced into contributing to an organization they don’t believe in just by paying their taxes — nor should they be." For this Truth-O-Meter, we wanted to check Dannenfelser's claim that Planned Parenthood "raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years." We'll focus on two parts: Is the dollar figure right, and is 'profit' the right word? We contacted SBA List spokeswoman Mallory Quigley, who referred us to "excess of revenue over expenses" listed in Planned Parenthood's annual reports. Here is what those reports show: 2005-06: $55.8 million 2006-07: $114.8 million 2007-08: $85 million 2008-09: $63.4 million Total: $319 million. Although Planned Parenthood doesn't dispute the numbers pulled from the annual reports, a spokesman says it's not that simple. Spokesman Tait Sye notes that the full text of that line in the annual report for 2008-09 is "excess of revenue over expenses excluding investment losses." He points to the next line showing that the organization lost $78.1 million in investments that year, which should be subtracted from the four-year total. He also says that the group sometimes receives multi-year grants that show up as revenue in one year but are really spread out over several years. In the reports from other years, the financial data does not refer to investment losses or gains, and Sye said those amounts were simply included in the totals for those years. The extraordinary losses when the markets plunged for almost all investors, presented differently in the 2008-09 report, makes it awkward to combine the four years since Planned Parenthood didn't detail its investment losses or gains previously. Subtracting the $78 million would leave the group with about $240 million in revenue over expenses in the four-year period. But how much more or less is unknown since we were unable to obtain the actual investment income for the other years. We asked the SBA List why it didn't factor in the investment losses. Quigley responded: "We added up the bottom-line numbers that Planned Parenthood listed for excess revenue." We think the number is somewhat overstated because of those 2008-09 losses, but we can't tell by how much. In the second part of our fact-checking, does the "excess revenue over expenses" constitute a "profit"? We sent Dannenfelser's claim to experts in nonprofit management and heard back from four. Three disagreed with using the term "profit" to describe excess revenues over expenses: Christopher Stone, faculty director of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University; Herman B. "Dutch" Leonard, professor of public management at Harvard Kennedy School of Government and at the Harvard Business School; and Beth Gazley, assistant professor at Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. "Bottom line: a nonprofit’s surplus should not be confused with profit," Stone wrote in an e-mail. "Profits are generated by businesses to reward investors. Businesses also use profits to provide additional compensation (bonuses tied to profits) for employees who help generate the profits for investors. Because nonprofits may not use their surpluses for either of these purposes, these surpluses should not be confused with profits. All surpluses must be devoted to the charitable purposes of the organization." And Gazley wrote: "But more to the point, the 'taxpayer'-funded portions of the Planned Parenthood affiliates’ budgets are either program grants or reimbursements for services eligible for Medicaid. So the government-funded parts of the (Planned Parenthood) budget would NOT be generating a 'profit' – they would be used in full each year. This means any excess of revenues over expenses (AKA 'profit') would have come from other sources – private donations, endowment income, etc. So Ms. Dannenfelser’s argument that the taxpayers are somehow subsidizing this 'profit' is misleading." We asked Gazley how she knew the taxpayer portions were not the source of the excess revenue. She cited her 16 years of experience as a fundraiser and management consultant for nonprofits, and her service as both a board member and past president of a developmental disabilities agency that is primarily Medicaid funded. "Based on my experience with other NPOs, it is very hard (to carry a surplus of federal funding from year to year) given the care that is taken in the calculation of formulas to reimburse only for real costs," she wrote. Sye, the Planned Parenthood spokesman, also said the federal funds are not part of the excess of revenue over expenses -- in fact, he said, the government money never covers the full cost of services. Back to whether we can call that excess of revenue over expenses a "profit." Terri Renner, longtime CPA and lecturer at Indiana University's school of Public and Environmental Affairs, argued that "the excess of revenues over expenses is the accounting definition of profit." "Any time an organization of any kind has revenue that exceeds expenses - it's making a 'profit,' " Renner wrote in an e-mail. "NPOs don't like that word - so they use different vocabulary ('revenues over expenses'). The key difference is that for-profit organizations usually distribute part of the excess to the owners as compensation for their investment and reinvest the rest back into the company. NPOs reinvest all of the money back into the organization - theoretically." Planned Parenthood, of course, disagrees with characterizing the sum as a profit. "To be clear, Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit entity and so we do not generate a profit," Sye said. "Obviously the reserves are reinvested to meet the health care needs of women we serve. Every healthy nonprofit will have reserves." We asked Quigley of the SBA List, why refer to this figure as a "profit" for a nonprofit? She responded by e-mail: "We feel the point is clear — we’re not saying nonprofits shouldn’t have a profit, but rather wish to point to excess in profit and question why this organization would need to be supplemented by American taxpayers. Planned Parenthood does not need to receive $363 million in taxpayer funding per year." Let's return to Dannenfelser's claim: "The truly ‘anti-woman’ organization here is Planned Parenthood and the party that continues to defend its taxpayer funding when it has raked in more than $300 million in profits over the past four years." We said we'd examine both the dollar figure and the word "profits." We think the "more than $300 million" description is off base because of the $78 million in losses, but neither Planned Parenthood nor the SBA List is saying definitively what the investment gains or losses were for the four-year period. Still, there is some element of truth in that it's at least scores of millions of dollars. In the second part of our ruling, we looked at whether "excess revenue over expenses" for a nonprofit is the same as "profit." Most of the experts we consulted say no. And the one who would call it profit agrees that it's not treated the same way as profit for a corporation. Companies distribute their profits to shareholders and owners, while nonprofits put their excess revenues back into the organization's work. We think the real sting in this claim comes from the word "profits," so we weighed that more heavily than the vague dollar figures in our ruling. We rate this claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Marjorie Dannenfelser	None	None	None	2011-06-07T13:58:11	2011-05-06	['None']
-pomt-00701	"The Iranians are now saying that what we're saying the deal is and what they understand it to be are two different things."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/01/marco-rubio/iran-united-states-disagree-nuclear-deal-framework/	How can the United States and Iran come to a deal on Iran’s nuclear program when the two countries can’t even agree on what they supposedly agreed to? That’s the point presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. -- a vocal critic of the negotiations -- made on National Public Radio April 13. "I still have tremendous questions about whether this deal's even viable," he said. "The Iranians are now saying that what we're saying the deal is and what they understand it to be are two different things." President Barack Obama and the other negotiating parties -- Iran, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany -- hit a milestone in early April. They established a framework agreement that lays the foundations for a final deal, to be reached in the summer. So we wondered: Are the United States and Iran’s descriptions of what the deal will entail so different? It’s important to keep in mind that the agreement reached in Lausanne, Switzerland, was a framework, not a final deal. The framework itself isn’t publicly available, and the parties still have plenty of details to hammer out. For these reasons, there’s room for the negotiating parties to fill in the blanks with details that appeal to constituents. Even so, some of the differences between the United States’ and Iran’s descriptions of the agreement are significant -- such as the timeline for sanctions relief and how much access international inspectors will have to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Back in April, Iran and the United States decided to set these differences aside, hoping to successfully address them later, said Matthew Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University and an expert in nuclear weapons policy. "These differences are important, however, and could very well kill the deal," Kroenig said. Officials in both countries have said the other’s descriptions run counter to what was decided in Lausanne, and if they can’t agree, the potential for a deal might die. Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted and said on Iranian television that the American factsheet was "in contradiction" to the framework agreement, according to the New York Times. Responding to a question about Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s pushback against the deal, Obama told reporters April 11, "If that is his understanding and his position -- in ways that can't be squared with our concern about being able to embark on vigorous inspections to assure that Iran isn't cheating under any program, and that we don't have the capacity to snap back sanctions when we see a potential violation -- then we're probably not going to get a deal." Significant discrepancies We reached out to Rubio’s team and didn’t hear back. But Iran and the United States have each produced factsheets about the agreement, in addition to a joint statement from the negotiating parties. If you want to look at the details yourself, Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs put together a side-by-side comparison of all three fact sheets and relevant political statements. A major discrepancy between Iran and the United States is the timeline and conditions for pulling back sanctions against Iran. According to the American factsheet, the United States and European Union will "suspend" sanctions against Iran after it has been verified that Iran is complying with the deal. The sanctions can "snap back" into place if it is discovered that Iran is not complying. Iran’s summary, on the other hand, says the sanctions will be "revoked" as soon as the deal is implemented -- distinguishing a permanent change from the ability to reinstate sanctions. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said April 4, "During the talks we (both sides) always talked about lifting economic, financial, and banking sanctions. We never talked about the suspension of the sanctions, and if that were the case, no agreement would form." Additionally, Obama said the sanctions relief would be "phased in," while Rouhani said the sanctions would be canceled on the "very first day of the implementation of the deal." Another point of contention is the level of access international inspectors will have to Iran’s nuclear facilities. The American factsheet has several bullet points emphasizing that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors will have near universal access to Iranian nuclear facilities. Obama called it "unprecedented," noting that Iran will also be required to grant access to the material supply chain in addition to the facilities themselves. Iran’s summary of the framework says much less about verification processes. It says Iran will comply with some of the agency’s protocols "on a voluntary and temporary basis." Additionally, Iran’s religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said international inspectors will not have unlimited access to nuclear facilities. "It must absolutely not be allowed for them to infiltrate into the country’s defense and security domain under the pretext of inspections," Khamenei said, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. While the discrepancies over sanctions and levels of verification are important, others are a just matter of spin, said Graham Allison, director of Harvard’s Belfer Center and a nuclear weapons analyst. For example, regarding one of Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities, the United States factsheet says, "Almost two-thirds of Fordow’s centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed." Iran’s factsheet, on the other hand says, "More than 1,000 centrifuge machines and all related infrastructure in Fordow will be preserved and maintained." Both descriptions are accurate -- Fordow currently has 2,710 centrifuges, and the deal will lower that number to 1,044. While the differences in the public descriptions may be striking, Allison said people should not pass judgment on the final deal yet, given that the real negotiations are conducted in private, meaning the real contents of the deal are private, too. "Poisonous political divides in both Washington and Tehran mean that a host of commentators and even journalists seize on, and even exaggerate, these differences for their own political ends," Allison said. Our ruling Rubio said, "The Iranians are now saying that what we're saying the deal is and what they understand it to be are two different things." Leaders in Iran and the United States are both accusing the other of distorting the framework agreement reached in April -- and there are some dramatic and significant differences in the way the two countries are describing aspects of the agreement. It’s important to keep in mind that the agreement is not the final deal, and many details have yet to be solidified. But Obama and experts have said some of the differences that have surfaced, if unresolved, could kill the final deal. We rate Rubio’s claim True. Note: This claim was fact-checked as part of a reward to our Kickstarter campaign to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union. Thanks to all who contributed.	None	Marco Rubio	None	None	None	2015-05-01T09:49:46	2015-04-13	['None']
-snes-03237	No Guns for Pensioners?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/social-security-recipients-barred-from-owning-guns/	None	Guns	None	Snopes Staff	None	Social Security Recipients Barred from Owning Guns?	30 December 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09513	"As Houston's mayor, I helped our area lead the nation in job growth."	/texas/statements/2010/feb/17/bill-white/white-says-houston-led-nation-job-growth/	Former Houston mayor Bill White, running for governor, frequently touts his experience leading the country's fourth-largest city, which he casts as an economic powerhouse. "As Houston's mayor, I helped our area lead the nation in job growth," White wrote responding to a questionnaire from the League of Women Voters of Texas, a nonpartisan group that encourages active participation in government. The league published White's and other candidates' responses in its primary election Voters Guide for the March 2 party primaries. Houston led the entire country in job growth? Sounds wondrous. We wondered if White was rightfully bragging. Katy Bacon, White's spokeswoman, pointed us to data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics that White's campaign used to compare the job growth in the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown area to growth in the rest of the United States. You're reading right: The White campaign compared Houston's job growth to job growth in other states. And it found that over his six years as mayor, Houston gained more jobs than any state outside Texas. The skinny: Some 244,100 jobs were added in the Houston area during the period, compared to 156,800 in Washington, the state with the second-highest increase in jobs. Texas was first with 943,000 new jobs. We confirmed those numbers — and found a wrinkle the White campaign overlooked. It turns out that Dallas, which gained 265,800 nonfarm jobs from 2003 through 2009, led the country in job growth. When we noted that that put the Houston area in the number two spot — in contrast to leading, as White says in the voter guide — Bacon said: "Even if we're number two or number three, we're still leading the nation." Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics in Dallas, guided us to the way she said most economists gauge job growth — by the rate at which jobs increase, instead of the gross number of jobs added. By that calculation, Wyoming led the nation with nearly 12 percent job growth during White's mayoral tenure, followed by Houston (about 10.6 percent), Utah (10.2 percent), Dallas and Texas (both about 9.9 percent). Abbot's approach seemed reasonable. After all, counting raw job gains for any community or state would give areas with more residents a natural advantage in the competition. By the same token, relatively few jobs in a place with a small population can have an outsized impact, percentage-wise. Take Odessa, with 21.5 percent job growth, or Grand Junction, Colo., with 14.2 percent. Another example of the numbers game: Farouk Shami, a Houston businessman and White's opponent in the Democratic primary, has said that the ranks of Houston's unemployed increased by 42,000 people on White's watch. By singling out the raw number, Shami downplays factors including whether employment increased too as population grew, not to mention a devastating recession that affected the entire country. No matter how the job numbers are sliced, Houston experienced significant job gains while White was mayor. It added more nonfarm jobs than any other state during that time — but still, fewer jobs than Dallas. By percentage, Houston boasted the second highest rate of nonfarm job growth (San Antonio was first) among the 10 biggest cities in the country. Houston was among the national leaders. But it wasn't No. 1. We rate White's statement as False.	None	Bill White	None	None	None	2010-02-17T22:36:27	2010-02-02	['Houston']
-pomt-12424	"Jefferson Davis statue to be replaced with Obama likeness."	/punditfact/statements/2017/may/18/tdalliancecom/obama-statue-replacing-jefferson-davis-new-orleans/	A website masquerading as a Fox News Channel page ran a fake news story saying officials in New Orleans are replacing a memorial to the leader of the Confederacy with a statue of former U.S. President Barack Obama. "Jefferson Davis statue to be replaced with Obama likeness," read the headline on a May 12, 2017, post on TDAlliance.com. The site has a banner reading "Fox News: The FB Page," and several other posts resembling news stories. This particular post was flagged by Facebook users as possibly being fake, part of the social media site’s efforts to battle fabricated stories in news feeds. The story built on a real news story from NPR about the Big Easy replacing Confederate icons around the city. This particular account is from May 11, recounting how work crews had to remove the Davis statue in the middle of the night after "death threats against city officials and contractors." The TDAlliance.com post used bits and pieces from that real story, then added fake news that an Obama statue will take Davis’ place. "The Obama statue will be patterned after one erected in Kenya last year and will reportedly cost the Louisiana taxpayers an estimated $800,000 dollars," the story read. It also added that the Davis monument would be "melted down and cast into smaller statues of Black Lives Matter leaders." Looking at the crude composite image plastered on the story, we saw a familiar sight: A real bronze statue of Obama installed in San Juan, Puerto Rico, back in 2012. When last we saw this statue, it was erroneously cited as being erected in the White House (read here for more about that contrived tale). TDAlliance.com appears to alter existing news stories, or make subtle changes to comments from officials in myriad posts. The site’s registration does not denote the administrator. We attempted to reach the site through its Contact Us form, but did not receive a response. The site’s About Us page reads, "Fox News The feedback Page is a Conservative Christian look at the Government, today’s news , and mostly a way for the page author to attract hot chicks." Its Facebook information page calls the site "the #1 name in newsfotainment." Not only is the site’s story wrong about there being an Obama statue in the works in the Crescent City, but it steals details from a legitimate news story from a real media organization to make its ruse harder to discern, all while impersonating Fox News. We rate this claim Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	TDAlliance.com	None	None	None	2017-05-18T10:00:00	2017-05-12	['Barack_Obama', 'Jefferson_Davis']
-hoer-00246	'Facebook Law For Idiots' Video From CollegeHumor.Com	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/college-humor-facebook-law-for-idiots.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	'Facebook Law For Idiots' Video From CollegeHumor.Com	December 6, 2014	None	['None']
-snes-03858	Musician Kanye West is wanted by police for a jewelry "insurance scam."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kanye-west-wanted-for-jewelry-insurance-scam/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Kanye West Wanted for Jewelry Insurance Scam	6 October 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-12253	"Obama goes to G20 summit ... Everywhere President Donald Trump goes, Obama shows up, too."	/punditfact/statements/2017/jul/11/blog-posting/no-obama-did-not-follow-trump-g20-summit-germany/	A website that makes no guarantees that its information is factual claims former president Barack Obama went to the G20 summit, trailing current President Donald Trump and not leaving him alone. "Obama is a shadow president that will not leave the current administration alone. He has been doing everything he can to mess up what Trump is doing. And being a liberal elite, he can get away with it. Everywhere President Donald Trump goes, Obama shows up too. A little odd, no?," said a July 8 post on world-politicus.com headlined "Obama Goes To G20 Summit." "This concerning practice has gotten on the last nerve of the Trump administration and it shows that they are concerned with what Obama is trying to do. Obama needs to realize that he is no longer the president, no matter how much he wants to be." This year’s G20 meeting was held July 7-8 in Hamburg, Germany. The "Group of Twenty" — 19 countries and the European Union — meet to discuss the world economy, international cooperation, and other topics. G20 finance representatives have been meeting regularly since 1999. Heads of state and government for the 19 countries and top representatives for the European Union began meeting annually since 2008 in response to the financial crisis. Obama attended the summits when he was president, but his spokesman confirmed to PolitiFact that he was absent from this year’s event, "nor was he in Germany." Obama was not even traveling abroad during that time, said Kevin Lewis, Obama’s spokesman. "The last time that he was in Germany was about a month ago," Lewis said July 11. The G20’s website lists Trump’s name and photo as the U.S. leader, not Obama. Trump is included in official photos of the event, not Obama. And had Obama actually appeared at the event, it would have made international news and being widely reported. World-politicus.com’s "Disclaimer Policy" page said all information on the website is "published in good faith and for general information purpose only," but does not assure that the information is true. World-politicus.com "does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information," the website said. We reached out to world-politicus.com but did not get a response. The article in world-politicus.com also appears in another website, wetheproudpatriots.com, with the headline "Obama Shows Up In Germany For G20 Acting Like The President… Look What He Did To Screw Trump." The "Terms and Conditions" page for wetheproudpatriots.com says it "does not represent or imply that it endorses the material there posted, or that it believes such material to be accurate, useful or non-harmful." Our ruling World-politicus.com published a post headlined, "Obama Goes To G20 Summit," adding "Everywhere President Donald Trump goes, Obama shows up, too." Obama has attended previous summits, but his spokesman confirmed to PolitiFact that he was not present at this year’s event, "nor was he in Germany." There are no photos or videos of Obama at the meeting of global leaders — had he been there, it would have made headlines. We rate the world-politicus.com’s statement Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-07-11T15:37:53	2017-07-08	['Barack_Obama', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-13864	"40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun."	/florida/statements/2016/jul/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-right-about-far-reaching-/	In the wake of the Orlando shootings and lacking congressional action regarding gun reform legislation, many are calling attention to the the devastating truths about gun violence in the United States. One of the vocal supporters advocating for tighter gun restrictions is Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla. Wasserman Schultz took to her Medium page to lament the occurrence at Pulse Night Club and to express the need for stricter gun legislation that she believes can prevent future gun violence fatalities, especially by suspected terrorists. In her June 18, 2016, post, Wasserman Schultz wrote that "40% of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun — gun violence has touched someone you know." Many other politicians have made many claims regarding gun violence, but this assertion seemed particularly far-reaching. Do two out of every five Americans know someone whose death can be attributed to a gun? We took a closer look. The evidence We reached out to one of Wasserman Schultz’s campaign representatives, and they told us that the 40 percent figure came from an October 2015 Huffington Post article that cited a YouGov poll from the same month. YouGov is an online market research organization that utilizes a network of over 4 million users who offer their personal views and experiences by participating in surveys. The poll that Wasserman Schultz refers to surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults selected by a random sample stratified by age, gender, race, education and region. One of the questions asked in the survey was, "Do you personally know anyone who has been killed by another person with a gun?" The poll found that 22 percent said yes, with 6 percent saying the person was in their family and the other 16 percent saying it was someone else they knew. Another question asked, "Do you personally know anyone who has committed suicide using a gun?" On that question, 28 percent of participants answered yes, with 7 percent knowing a family member who used a gun to commit suicide and 21 percent saying they knew someone else who committed suicide with a gun. The 40 percent figure asserted by the Huffington Post article as well as in Wasserman Schultz’s Medium post come from the total percentage of participants who had professed to knowing someone who had died because of a gun. The 40 percent figure is reached once you take into account the overlap between the respondents who knew both a homicide and a suicide victim. We reached out to to Peter Moore of YouGov, who published the poll online, to ask if Wasserman Schultz’s claim accurately encapsulated the results. "I’ve had a look at the full dataset, and I can confirm that the 40 percent figure is accurate," Moore said. "Her statement does properly capture the poll’s findings. It is also consistent with other similar survey data." We asked Moore about possible sources of error in the survey, and he responded, "There are none in particular beyond the general margins of error associated with surveys," which was determined to be 4.1 percent by YouGov. To contextualize the YouGov poll, we reached out to James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology, law and public policy at Northeastern University. While not debating the results or methodology of the poll, he did offer some caveats. He noted that suicides account for a large share of the deaths -- a fact that may not be obvious from Wasserman Schultz’s statements. He also said that the poll’s wording leaves a fair amount of interpretation to the respondent. Respondents "have to decide how well they know someone," he said. "There are better ways to write questions like this so it’s not so vague." In all, the way the questions were worded may make the percentage sound "a lot worse than it is," Fox said. Past data While there have been many surveys conducted regarding guns and gun violence, the most similar polls to the YouGov poll were surveys conducted in 1993 and 1999 by Gallup. The question in both years was, "Not including military combat, has anyone close to you--such as a friend or relative--ever been shot by a gun?" In 1993, 64 percent responded no and 36 percent responded yes. In 1999, the percentage of people answering yes dropped to 31 percent, compared to 69 percent responding no. It’s important to note that the Gallup questions refer to people getting shot -- a larger universe than those getting shot and killed. So, it’s not a direct comparison. Though the Gallup results can by no means confirm or refute YouGov and Wasserman Schultz’s claim, the numbers do not appear drastically different. With limited inquiry into the number of people who are close to victims of gun violence, it is difficult to ascertain a clear estimate. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said, "40 percent of Americans know someone who has been killed by a gun ." Wasserman Schultz is right about the 40 percent figure if you consider the YouGov poll findings. It’s important to note that a majority of the 40 percent figure comes from suicide deaths, not homicides. And there is limited research on this topic generally. Overall, we rate her claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/26bdb266-7613-4006-af9c-19d4e47313e8	None	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	None	None	None	2016-07-07T14:03:46	2016-06-18	['United_States']
-hoer-01184	Wat are u Doing in This Video Facebook Message	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/phishing-scam-wat-are-u-doing-in-this-video-facebook-message/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	PHISHING SCAM: Wat are u Doing in This Video Facebook Message	February 25, 2015	None	['None']
-hoer-01113	Get 2 Free Qantas Airways Tickets	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/get-2-free-qantas-airways-tickets-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Get 2 Free Qantas Airways Tickets Facebook Scam	August 21, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01215	In "the past four or five" presidential elections, "people who poll high at the beginning are not the people who end up being the nominees."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/nov/24/scott-walker/those-who-poll-well-early-dont-become-presidential/	When we examined what Gov. Scott Walker said on national talk shows following his re-election, we promised to fact-check one particular statement he uttered. Walker made the claim Nov. 11, 2014 on Fox & Friends, as speculation built that he would seek the Republican nomination for president in 2016. Walker was asked about his relatively low score, in an exit poll of Wisconsin voters, about whether he would make a good president. In replying, he changed the focus, making what is essentially a definitive claim about national polls on possible presidential contenders. "No, I mean, in the end, any poll right now is ridiculous," the governor said. "You look over the past four or five elections, people who poll high at the beginning are not the people who end up being the nominees." Given that Walker ranks ninth out of 11 potential GOP presidential candidates, according to Real Clear Politics’ polling averages, such a claim, if true, could mean a run isn’t necessarily a lost cause. Of course, the 2016 election is still two years away, most voters aren’t paying close attention and the potential candidates will do plenty of jockeying in the meantime. "Campaigns certainly matter," pollster Gary Langer, who directs ABC News polling, told us. "However, being an early leader has its advantages." Wisconsin poll The poll alluded to by the Fox interviewer was an exit poll of Wisconsin voters who had just cast ballots in the Nov. 4, 2014 mid-term elections. Amid a wave of GOP wins nationwide, Walker was re-elected that day by a margin of 52 percent to 47 percent. But only 42 percent of the state voters in the exit poll, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, said Walker would make a good president. Walker’s evidence We asked Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick for evidence to back Walker’s statement about early polling in presidential races. She noted some instances in which an early front-runner did not get nominated for president, including two in 2008. Hillary Clinton, who held a big lead in early polling, lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama; and Rudy Giuliani, who dueled with John McCain in early polling, lost the GOP nomination to McCain. But Walker’s claim takes us all the way back to the 1996 presidential election. So let’s get a fuller account of early polling and who the nominees turned out to be. Early presidential-preference surveys To avoid comparing apples and oranges, we looked at polling only for open seats; in other words, polls for nomination races in which an incumbent president was not seeking his party’s nomination for another term. In 2016, that’s the playing field for both parties. We relied primarily on polling data provided by researcher Kathleen Weldon from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research and work that FiveThirtyEight.com blogger Nate Silver did in 2011 for the New York Times. Both assembled data from major national polls. As we’ll see, despite Walker's sweeping claim, there are a number of examples that don’t support him. 1996: Kansas Sen. Bob Dole was the clear Republican front-runner and he won the GOP nomination. Roper data showed him well in the lead in nearly every early poll. And Silver’s measure found Dole had a 39-point edge over Texas Sen. Phil Gramm in polls taken from January to June of 1995. Dole lost the election to Democratic incumbent Bill Clinton. 2000: Both parties had clear early front-runners and both of those candidates became the nominees. Roper said George W. Bush led all other Republican contenders by September 1997 and Vice President Al Gore was well ahead of other Democratic contenders five months earlier. In Silver’s averaging -- for polling done from January to June 1999 -- Bush led Dole’s wife, North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole, by 28 points while Gore led his nearest rival, New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, by 33 points. Bush edged Gore in the election. 2004: Gore was the clear front-runner in early polls, well ahead of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, but he decided nearly two years before the election not to run. Later, in early 2003, Kerry and Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman were tied in the polls, according to the Pew Research Center. Kerry eventually claimed the Democratic nomination. Kerry lost the election to Bush, who won a second term. 2008: The results in this election were mixed. As we noted, Hillary Clinton was the clear front-runner, initially polling well ahead of Kerry and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, before losing the Democratic nomination to Obama. Later, she led Obama by 15 points in Silver's averaging of the poll results from January through June 2007. On the Republican side, as we noted, Guiliani and McCain polled well early. Roper said Giuliani, the former New York mayor, led McCain, the Arizona senator, in most polls in 2005, but only by a few points.. McCain lost the election to Obama. 2012: One of the candidates who polled well early won the GOP nomination. Roper said polls from 2009 revealed a tight race among former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, before Romney claimed the Republican nomination. Romney lost to Obama, who won a second term. So how does this all shake out? Five contenders -- Bob Dole in 1996, Bush and Gore in 2000, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 -- all scored high in the earliest polls and went on to win their party’s nomination. Our rating Walker said that in "the past four or five" presidential elections, "people who poll high at the beginning are not the people who end up being the nominees." Some who polled high since 1996 didn’t become the nominee, of course, but that isn’t enough evidence to back Walker’s flat statement. Indeed, five contenders who polled well early did, in fact, become the presidential nominee. For a statement that has only an element of truth, our rating is Mostly False.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-11-24T06:00:00	2014-11-11	['None']
-hoer-00695	Dog Comes Home With Deadly Snake Around His Snout	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/black-lab-snake-snout.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Dog Comes Home With Deadly Snake Around His Snout	22nd March 2011	None	['None']
-pomt-02913	The average fast food worker is 29, and most fast food workers "are on some form of public assistance."	/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/04/bill-maher/bill-maher-average-fast-food-worker-29-most-are-pu/	HBO host and comedian Bill Maher recently blasted conservatives who oppose increasing the minimum wage, pointing to a new study that says the median income for fast food jobs is $8.69 an hour. That’s "barely enough to gas up the car you’re living in," he said, a quip met with ooo’s from the studio audience. He closed Real Time with Bill Maher on Oct. 25, 2013, with more factoids about the plight of workers employed in fast-food restaurants. "Consider the fact that most fast food workers, whose average age by the way now is 29, I'm not talking about kids, are on some form of public assistance, which is not surprising," Maher said. "When even working people can’t make enough to live, they take money from the government in the form of food stamps, school lunches, housing assistance, day care." Maher’s point being that by opposing an increase to the minimum wage, Republicans are forcing fast food workers to need some type of public assistance -- something Republicans also oppose. We won’t comment on the policy, but we did wonder about two specific factual claims: that the average fast-food worker is 29 and receives public aid. On the age point, 2012 Current Population Survey data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics show the median age of front-line (the people who take orders or cook food) workers, including those at fast-food restaurants and excluding managers, is 29.2. A BLS spokesman said this would be the most reliable category to use. Maher’s researcher pointed to a 2012 Atlantic story that said the median age for these workers is more than 28, citing the BLS. (While Maher said average age and not median age, the median, or midpoint of a dataset, is actually a better representation of fast food workers as a whole, experts told us.) As for the claim about public assistance, that comes from the study Maher referenced on air. Released Oct. 15, it grabbed headlines with its bold conclusion: "More than half (52 percent) of the families of frontline fast food workers are enrolled in one or more public programs, compared to 25 percent of the workforce as a whole." The study was done by a team of six researchers from the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Urban and Regional Planning, and University of Massachusetts-boston Labor Resource Center. It was funded by a group that supports raising the minimum wage, Fast Food Forward. The report argues that low wages lead to frontline fast food workers seeking public benefits, in addition to a lack of health insurance and a limited amount of paid hours. Researchers used data for Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps and temporary cash assistance -- the country’s biggest programs for low-income families. Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Berkeley Labor Center, said the figures in the report are conservative because they do not account for other income-support programs, such as child care, rental assistance and free or reduced school feeding programs that do not have readily available data. The report relied on 2007-11 survey data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, federal and state data for the four social programs, U.S. Census Bureau survey data, and employer-provided statistics for fast food workers. Workers counted for the report had to put in at least 27 weeks of work a year at at least 10 hours per week, which accounted for most workers. The researchers looked at benefits on the family level because some programs do not directly support the worker but their children (CHIP) or are paid at the family level (food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit). Jacobs said he was not expecting the percentage of fast food workers who earn a public benefit to be so high. But the report acknowledges that because these programs are meant to prop up low-income households, it would seem likely for low-wage industries to employ many of the beneficiaries. To that end, the restaurant and food services industry has the highest public program participation rate of any sector, the report found. "One argument could be, ‘This is how these programs are supposed to work,’ " Jacobs said. "Then you get into the question of what is better: Do we want to have large firms putting the labor costs onto the public, or should firms internalize those costs?" Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette University School of Law who supports raising the minimum wage, said Maher’s point is basically correct. "He should have said a ‘majority’ of fast food workers (get some form of public assistance)," Secunda said. "That would have been more precise than ‘most.’ " Opponents of increasing the minimum wage did criticize the center for including CHIP and the Earned Income Tax Credit as categories, as those are used by some middle-class families. The tax credit was created in 1975 to provide low-wage and moderate-wage workers with an incentive to work. Michael Saltsman of the conservative Employment Policies Institute said the EITC was designed for these workers, and it boosts wages even for families earning close to $50,000 a year. He pointed out that the EITC represents the biggest chunk of program enrollment in the study. David Neumark, an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine who has written against minimum wage increases, said the fact that the research was funded by a group that supports raising the minimum wage does not necessarily undermine the analysis. But Neumark doesn’t equate raising the minimum wage with less dependence on public assistance. "We could have fewer people employed at higher wages, and some of those would use fewer public benefits," he said. "But those no longer employed would be more dependent on public assistance, and lose out on the opportunity to build skills and advance out of low-wage jobs." For its part, McDonald’s USA did not answer our questions about the average age of its restaurant workers or how many are on food assistance. A spokeswoman sent us a statement that said the chain employs hundreds of thousands of people, and "wages are based on local wage laws and are competitive to similar jobs in that market." Our ruling To make a point about the need to increase the minimum wage, Maher pointed to the plight of fast food workers, who, on average are 29 and receiving some form of public assistance. The median age, which economists say is a more accurate measure than the mean age, is 29, according to the best information we could find. As for receiving public assistance, Maher is referencing a university report funded by a group that supports increasing the minimum wage. The report concluded that 52 percent of the families of fast-food workers are receiving some type of public assistance. That’s not exactly how Maher put it -- he didn’t refer to families -- but some assistance programs specifically are meant to help families and children. Experts, meanwhile, said that while the methodology behind the report appears credible, there is some matter of opinion of what constitutes public assistance. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Bill Maher	None	None	None	2013-11-04T12:02:26	2013-10-25	['None']
-pose-00092	"As president, Barack Obama will direct his Secretary of Labor, the Labor Department's Office of Disability Employment Policy, and its Job Accommodation Network to bring together employers, employer associations, human resources professionals, disability advocates, service providers, and the labor movement to identify, promote, and disseminate best practices in accommodating workers with disabilities."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/95/create-a-best-practices-list-for-private-businesse/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Create a best practices list for private businesses in accommodating workers with disabilities	2010-01-07T13:26:48	None	['United_States_Department_of_Labor', 'Barack_Obama']
-afck-00330	“We are making progress in fighting crimes against women and children. The SAPS Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offences Investigation Unit has secured 659 life sentences against perpetrators of crimes against women and children.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/sona-2015-key-claims-fact-checked-part-1/	None	None	None	None	None	SONA 2015: Key claims fact-checked	2015-02-13 03:07	None	['None']
-tron-03652	Noted Narcissism Expert Wrote that Barack Obama Appears to be a Narcissist	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-vaknin/	None	warnings	None	None	None	Noted Narcissism Expert Wrote that Barack Obama Appears to be a Narcissist – Truth! & Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-02609	Supereme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been rushed to a hospital in an unresponsive state.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ginsburg-taken-to-hospital-unresponsive/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Ruth Bader Ginsburg Taken to Hospital Unresponsive?	14 April 2017	None	['None']
-snes-06406	Muhammad Ali offered a pithy quote about religion while visiting the World Trade Center site after 9/11.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thanks-for-sharing/	None	September 11th	None	David Mikkelson	None	Thanks for Sharing	31 October 2001	None	['World_Trade_Center']
-vogo-00424	Statement: “And what do commuters gain after spending $3.4 billion? It will take seven minutes longer to travel from La Jolla Village Drive to Oceanside during rush hour. For $4.5 billion, drivers will save one minute and carpools will save 10 minutes,” State Sen. Christine Kehoe wrote in a letter to the Union-Tribune published Feb. 27.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-the-benefits-of-widening-interstate-5/	Analysis: Last month, Kehoe proposed legislation that would make it harder for state transportation officials to expand freeways near the coast. The issue reignited a simmering local debate over adding lanes to Interstate 5.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: The Benefits of Widening Interstate 5	March 3, 2011	None	['U-T_San_Diego', 'Oceanside,_California']
-tron-02031	Ants can invade your brain, so don’t eat sweets at bedtime	https://www.truthorfiction.com/antbrains/	None	insects	None	None	None	Ants can invade your brain, so don’t eat sweets at bedtime	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07395	Says "in Canada, the number of CT scan machines per 1,000 people is like one-tenth of what we have here in this country. That's why people have to wait."	/georgia/statements/2011/may/02/herman-cain/Oh-Canada-Cain-says-nation-behind-U-S-in-CT-machin/	Health care in the United States is costly for patients. But it might prove even more costly for elected officials next year. Both Republicans and Democrats hope to wield public concerns over health care as a potent weapon in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, and some early candidates have already started swinging away. Former Godfather's Pizza CEO and conservative activist Herman Cain set up a presidential exploratory committee in January and last month attacked President Barack Obama’s health care initiative. He described the health care plan approved by Democrats in the House and Senate as socialized medicine that increases wait times for diagnostic tests. Cain, a cancer survivor, said longer waits could put cancer patients like him in danger by delaying discovery. Cain told The Root, a black perspectives online magazine: "In Canada, the number of CT scan machines per 1,000 people is like one-tenth of what we have here in this country. That's why people have to wait." That’s a huge difference, so PolitiFact decided we’d pass this statement through our own diagnostic equipment to see whether Cain’s prognosis is accurate. Computerized tomography scanners are X-ray machines that emit several beams from different angles simultaneously to produce detailed images of any part of the body. CT scanners are used to look for bleeding in the body, tumors and other internal damage. Unfortunately Cain would not tell us how he determined the number of CT scanners in Canada and the United States. In fact, neither he nor anyone from his staff would say anything to us beyond, "I don’t think we’re going to comment." But PolitiFact did find data quantifying the number of CT scans per capita. Canada had 12.7 CT scanners per 1 million residents in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United States had 34.3 per million in 2007, the last year the organization had data for the United States. Canada has fewer CT scanners per capita than Greece and Portugal, two countries on the verge of bankruptcy, and it certainly has fewer than the United States, but not "like one-tenth." It’s more like one-third. Even though Cain’s numbers were not factually accurate, his general opinion that decreased diagnostic capacity puts patients at risk still deserves scrutiny. Canada spends less on medical treatment and therefore does have less capacity, said Edwin Meyer, founder of Buffalo-based Cross Border Access, a company that helps negotiate hospital billing rates for Canadians coming to the United States for medical services. Canada does a good job prioritizing who needs service right away and by doing so keeps costs for patients low, Meyer said. But a person with a non-life-threatening injury that keeps them out of work and causes constant pain may not receive diagnostic services and surgery right away. "People that are in need but stable can end up waiting a long time," Meyer said. While the United States has better capacity in general, many Americans, like the uninsured, do not have access to this capacity, said William Custer, a professor at the Institute of Health Administration at Georgia State University. The high number of CT scanners has also helped to drive up the cost of health care in the United States, but Custer said there is little evidence that this more costly service leads to better health outcomes. Ultimately, you can’t judge a national health care system on medical capacity alone, he said. "They make trade-offs and we make trade-offs," Custer said. "It’s a matter of taste." If Cain had said Canada has one-third the number of CT scanners of the United States, he would have been correct and then we could have examined whether this lack of capacity really does make Canada’s system inferior. That’s not what he said, though, and it doesn’t take a 3-D X-ray imager to know that one-tenth is different than one-third. Prognosis: False.	None	Herman Cain	None	None	None	2011-05-02T06:00:00	2011-03-17	['Canada']
-pomt-00649	"We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops" in Iraq.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/18/jeb-bush/obama-refused-sign-plan-place-leave-10000-troops-i/	During a tough campaign week focused on the Iraq War, former Gov. Jeb Bush shifted blame for problems there to President Barack Obama, saying that Obama’s actions helped hand the country over to Islamic State. A University of Nevada student attending a town hall-style meeting in Reno asked Bush why he was placing the burden on Obama, at one point telling Bush, "Your brother created ISIS." Bush countered that the Obama administration hadn’t followed through on proper planning. "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress," Bush said. (Watch video of the exchange above.) The claim came in the middle of a rough few days for Bush, who was being criticized for his changing answers on whether he would have invaded Iraq. We wondered if it was true that Obama could have signed a deal to leave 10,000 U.S. troops in the country after the war’s end. The exit When Obama took office in January 2009, he inherited a plan that President George W. Bush forged in 2008 with then-Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. That Status of Forces Agreement called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011. It was widely assumed a new plan would be negotiated after the 2008 version expired in 2011. There were no stipulations about a specific number of American military personnel to be left behind. Obama ran on the campaign pledge of bringing a responsible end to the Iraq War, and announced shortly after taking office that combat operations would end in 2010. A high of 168,000 U.S. service members were in the country after the 2007 surge, drawing down to about 43,000 after combat troops left in 2010. He said in October 2011 almost all troops would be home by Christmas. About 200 Marines would stay to train the Iraqi army and act as security for diplomatic personnel. In short, he kept the 2011 timeline Bush and al-Maliki had chosen. When it came time to renegotiate a new agreement, there was little consensus on whether a residual force should stay in the country. Military leaders in Baghdad and the Pentagon pushed for as many as 24,000, but the White House rejected that amount. (For the record, U.S. forces in South Korea number more than 28,500.) Obama reportedly did consider leaving up to 10,000 troops in strategic locations after the exit, but that plan faced opposition both in the United States and in Iraq. Obama ruled out a force that size during an August 2011 conference call. Negotiations led to the idea of a smaller, continuous force of 3,500 troops, with up to 1,500 more rotating in and out, and about a half-dozen F-16’s. But this plan ran into several roadblocks, including the insistence by Washington that those troops be immune to Iraqi -- although not American -- prosecution should they commit a crime. Austin Long, a Columbia University international and public affairs professor, said al-Maliki allegedly supported the residual force and may have signed a new plan, but the Iraqi parliament would not. Facing the prospect of a weak agreement that didn’t protect remaining troops the way the United States wanted, when neither Baghdad nor Washington wanted to leave them there, negotiations broke down. No new agreement was reached, and no residual force was formed. There has been plenty of debate whether it was Washington or Baghdad that was more intractable on a new agreement. The aftermath So a plan to leave 10,000 troops didn’t exist when Obama took office and was never fully realized by his administration. But would an agreement to leave American troops have stabilized the nation the way Jeb Bush claimed? We were curious what experts would say about this point. (Bush’s campaign didn’t return our requests for comment.) "I think most observers would agree that a residual U.S. force would have prevented the Islamic State from achieving as much as it has in Iraq," Long said. "But it is also unlikely that a residual force would have completely stabilized Iraq, as the sources of instability are fundamentally political." Remember that the country was considered relatively stable in 2011; ISIS elements existed prior to that, but largely formed into the force it is today after American troops left -- and mostly in Syria at first. Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, said a recent Iraqi delegation to the institute agreed the terms of the planned renewal could not have passed parliament. "They said that the Iraqi government was too weak, and unwilling to go against the wishes of those Iraqis who wanted the Americans to leave," Preble said. Our ruling Bush said, "We had an agreement that the president could have signed that would have kept 10,000 troops, less than we have in Korea, that could have created the stability that would have allowed for Iraq to progress." Obama inherited a timeline to exit Iraq from George W. Bush and followed it, but there was no agreement to leave a large force behind. The Obama White House considered 10,000 troops for a short time but ruled it out, suggesting a much smaller force. Negotiations with Iraq broke down, however, and there was no agreement that met conditions Washington wanted. Experts told us Bush parsed his words carefully enough to have a point that a residual force would have likely helped Iraq fend off ISIS. But there was no consensus to leave 10,000 troops in place. We rate the statement Mostly False.	None	Jeb Bush	None	None	None	2015-05-18T11:47:50	2015-05-13	['Iraq']
-tron-03564	President Trump Rolled Back Law Designed to Block Gun Sales to People with Mental Illness	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-trump-rolled-back-law-blocking-gun-sales-mentally-ill-truth/	None	trump	None	None	['barack obama', 'donald trump', 'guns', 'mass shooting', 'nra']	President Trump Rolled Back Law Blocking Gun Sales to the Mentally Ill	Feb 15, 2018	None	['None']
-faan-00001	 Crime guns are “often stolen or illegally diverted or smuggled in from the United States.”	http://factscan.ca/bill-blair-crime-guns/	While the data on this topic is limited and somewhat flawed, experts agree that historically, most crime guns in Canada have arrived unlawfully from the US. Some new reports contradict this view and imply that a higher rate of crime guns are domestically sourced, however, these reports show that domestic crime guns have been illegally diverted (straw purchases), as opposed to being legally owned by the perpetrators.	None	Bill Blair	None	None	None	2018-10-13	July 28, 2018	['United_States']
-vees-00303	Sara Duterte did call Rappler, Liberal Party 'idiots'	http://verafiles.org/articles/week-fake-news-sara-duterte-did-not-call-rappler-liberal-par	None	None	None	None	fake news,Rappler,liberal party	THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: Sara Duterte did NOT call Rappler, Liberal Party 'idiots'	January 19, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-05259	A photograph shows two Siberian tigers stalking a firefighter in the Washington Cascades.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/siberian-tigers-washington-cascades/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Siberian Tigers Stalk Firefighter in Washington Cascades	5 February 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00664	Do away with the concept of ''comprehensive'' spending bills. "Let’s break them up, to encourage scrutiny, and make spending cuts easier. Rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the House floor individually, to be judged on their own merit. Members shouldn’t have to vote for big spending increases at the Labor Department in order to fund Health and Human Services. Members shouldn’t have to vote for big increases at the Commerce Department just because they support NASA. Each department and agency should justify itself each year to the full House and Senate, and be judged on its own."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/694/do-away-with-the-concept-of-comprehensive-spen/	None	gop-pledge-o-meter	John Boehner	None	None	Do away with the concept of ''comprehensive'' spending bills	2010-12-22T09:57:30	None	['United_States_Department_of_Commerce', 'United_States_Department_of_Labor']
-snes-01402	A man named Shane Patrick Boyle died shortly after starting a GoFundMe fundraiser for insulin.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shane-patrick-boyle-died-after-starting-a-gofundme-campaign-for-insulin/	None	Medical	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Shane Patrick Boyle Die After Fundraising to Pay for Insulin?	27 November 2017	None	['None']
-snes-04044	All Alaska residents who live in the state 190 days a year and who are not felons receive $2,000 a year.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alaska-pay-to-stay/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Will Alaska Pay You $2,000 Not to Leave the State?	13 September 2016	None	['None']
-wast-00113	"Our immigration laws are a disgrace. \xe2\x80\xa6 And just to show how ridiculous \xe2\x80\x94 we have judges. We have thousands of judges. Do you think other countries have judges? We give them, like, trials."	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/17/trumps-claim-that-u-s-is-only-country-with-thousands-of-immigration-judges/	None	None	Donald Trump	Salvador Rizzo	None	Trump's claim that U.S. is only country with \xe2\x80\x98thousands' of immigration judges	May 17	None	['None']
-pomt-10954	On supporting Mitch McConnell as U.S. Senate majority leader.	/wisconsin/statements/2018/jul/24/kevin-nicholson/does-gop-us-senate-candidate-kevin-nicholson-suppo/	Kevin Nicholson, a Republican running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin, frequently casts himself as an outsider who wouldn’t be part of the political class in Washington, D.C. That stance has helped the first-time candidate draw endorsements from national conservative organizations. Now, you can’t get much more insider than Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican who, despite his long tenure, so many Republicans seem to not to like. So, a key question for voters in the Aug. 14, 2018 GOP primary in Wisconsin is: Where does Nicholson stand on keeping McConnell as the majority leader? As it turns out, the answer is: For, against and somewhere in between. To address the question, we turn to our Flip-O-Meter, which rates a person’s consistency on an issue. Nicholson’s positions Early in the campaign, Nicholson was okay with McConnell. He told Politico in September 2017: "I have no issues voting for Mitch McConnell." But by October 2017, Nicholson favored replacing him. A Nicholson campaign spokesman told the Associated Press the original Nicholson comment had come before the Senate failed to repeal and replace Obamacare, saying: "Kevin has made it clear he’s prepared to support new leadership because of the Senate’s failure to pass a conservative agenda." The same comment about supporting new leadership was reported by the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison. A similar report appeared the same month in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The newspaper stated that Nicholson opposes McConnell, with the campaign spokesman reiterating: "Kevin has made it clear he’s prepared to support new leadership because of the Senate’s failure to pass a conservative agenda." Also that month, there were two key endorsements of Nicholson, both of which cited McConnell. The pro-Donald Trump Great America PAC, with ties to former Trump White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, endorsed Nicholson. People close to Bannon said Nicholson, when meeting with Bannon, made it clear he would oppose McConnell as Senate majority leader, the Journal Sentinel reported. See all of our fact checks in the Wisconsin U.S. Senate race. FreedomWorks for America, a super PAC affiliated with a group that helped start the tea party movement, also endorsed Nicholson, saying Nicholson "has indicated that he would oppose Mitch McConnell’s failed leadership." Nicholson’s shift was noted in November 2017 in a Politico article that carried the headline, "Republicans flee from McConnell in 2018 primaries." The article pointed out that Nicholson "originally said he would support McConnell, but has since won Bannon's endorsement and now supports ‘new leadership’ for Senate Republicans." But Nicholson would shift again. Some eight months later, on July 16, 2018, Nicholson moved to somewhere between support and opposition. This was the exchange when Nicholson was interviewed by major Trump supporter and former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who was filling in for conservative Milwaukee radio talk show host Mark Belling: Clarke: Will you vote -- when the new leadership is chosen in the next Congress — will you support Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader? Nicholson: I mean, that's a hypothetical; it's hard to predict, right? Like, at the end of the day, I know that who's ever in leadership -- and I'm saying this, like, transparently and honestly as I can -- if they're putting forth good ideas, I'm going to be right there with them, kicking down doors to make it happen. At the end of the day, though, if what they’re doing is foisting upon us all 2,000-plus-page omnibus bills that land on the desks of U.S. senators 48 hours before they have to be passed, with no ability to be amended, I’m going to be the first guy pushing back. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc. Asked about the varying statements, Nicholson campaign spokeswoman Ronica Cleary sent us an email that didn’t address Nicholson’s position on McConnell, saying in part: "Kevin has been consistent in saying that institutions should always be open to changing leaders when they aren’t functioning properly, and he believes that the entire Senate should be subject to term limits -- including leadership. This is why he’s limited himself to two terms. Ultimately, as he said on the radio this week, he is not going to answer hypotheticals." Our rating Nicholson has gone from supporting McConnell as majority leader, to saying he wanted new leadership to now somewhere in between, saying the question is a hypothetical. Had we rated Nicholson’s first shift, he might have earned a Full Flop. But at this point, for being somewhere between support and opposition on McConnell, that’s a partial change in position. We give Nicholson a Half Flip. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kevin Nicholson	None	None	None	2018-07-24T06:00:00	2018-07-16	['Mitch_McConnell', 'United_States']
-pomt-11023	Says Sen. Bill Nelson "voted for higher taxes" 349 times.	/florida/statements/2018/jul/05/rick-scott/did-sen-bill-nelson-vote-higher-taxes-349-no/	For years, Republicans have criticized Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson for voting to raise taxes again and again. Nelson's opponent in the 2012 U.S. Senate race, Connie Mack, claimed Nelson raised taxes 150 times. That number grew to 272 before the November 2012 election. Now, Nelson’s current competitor, Gov. Rick Scott, is upping the ante in a new television ad. "Forty years later, a lot of things have changed, but Bill Nelson is still in Washington," the narrator says. "Still collecting a paycheck. Besides reading speeches, what’s Nelson done all those years. 349 times he’s voted for higher taxes." Scott’s evidence included about 349 votes Nelson cast in the Senate starting in 2001, as well as votes he took in the U.S. House of Representatives (1979-90). With that, we wanted to see if it was true. We have rated similar claims that Nelson voted to raise taxes False because the total was bolstered by non-binding resolutions, which cannot change the tax law, and double counted multiple votes on a single piece of legislation. Although the list is not exactly the same, we found that Scott’s team uses the same tallying tricks implemented in the past, which inflates the number of times Nelson voted for higher taxes. Scott’s list uses misleading math In 2012, we fact-checked Mack’s claim that Nelson voted to raise taxes 150 times and ruled that claim False. Two months later, we fact-checked Mack again. This time he claimed that Nelson voted for higher taxes 272 times and that also rated False. As we concluded in those checks, Mack’s list was boosted by including budget resolutions and counted multiple votes on the same piece of legislation. Scott’s 349-time claim does the same thing. More than half of votes on his list are Democratic budget resolutions, which set nonbinding parameters for considering tax and spending legislation. So it's technically incorrect to say the budget resolution will raise, lower or even keep taxes the same. Budget resolutions do not change tax law. Joshua Gordon, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a group that urges deficit reduction, offered another important distinction. "Voting to lessen the size of a tax cut in a budget resolution is also not voting for a tax increase," Gordon told us. Scott’s tally makes the additional mistake of counting multiple votes on the same budget resolution. For example, Scott’s list includes nine votes Nelson took on a 2008 budget resolution. Again, those votes do not alter how much in taxes anyone pays. Overall, we found that nearly half of all the votes Scott counted were from non-binding resolutions. The mathematical gymnastics continues in other parts of Scott’s list. Scott’s tally includes multiple votes on the other pieces of legislation. It’s common for senators to take multiple votes as both parties engage in maneuvering and introduce competing amendments. For example, in 2017, Scott counted 19 of Nelson’s votes against H.R. 1 — the GOP tax bill. By voting against the bill, Scott’s office argues Nelson voted for higher taxes. In reality, Nelson’s votes would have kept the status quo. And while the tax bill that passed Congress and was signed into law cuts taxes for most Americans, not every American is guaranteed a tax cut. Scott’s "claim is predicated on the idea that tax cuts are ‘free,’" Joe Rosenberg, a research associate for the Tax Policy Center, said. "The claim could equivalently be phrased as ‘Nelson voted to reduce the federal deficit 349 times.’" Besides tallying tricks, Scott’s statement omits that Nelson has sometimes voted in favor of tax cuts. Nelson voted for President Ronald Reagan’s major tax cut package in 1981 and Nelson also voted to extend President George W. Bush-era tax cuts in 2006 and 2010. Nelson also supported the 2009 stimulus package, which included more than $200 billion in tax cuts. "The statement you are fact checking is that Nelson VOTED in favor of higher taxes 349 times," said campaign spokeswoman Kerri Wyland. "He did. Every member of Congress should be held accountable for every single vote they take – that is part of their job and it is what American families expect. Every vote cited was an opportunity for Bill Nelson to make his position on taxes clear, and every time he voted in favor of higher taxes." Our ruling Scott said Nelson "voted for higher taxes" 349 times. Just like Republicans in the past, Scott’s list overstates the number of times Nelson voted for higher taxes by including nonbinding budget resolutions, which accounted for almost half of the 349 votes on the list. Scott also counts multiple votes on the same piece of legislation, which further inflates the number. And as we’ve concluded in previous checks, the list neglects that Nelson has, on occasion, voted for lower taxes. We rate this claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2018-07-05T09:40:52	2018-06-13	['Bill_Nelson']
-pomt-03465	A data system that goes along with Common Core is designed to collect up to 400 data points on each child, which can include personally identifiable data.	/georgia/statements/2013/jun/17/angela-bean/common-core-opponent-goes-too-far-claim-about-data/	The Common Core State Standards have become a hot-button issue in some areas of metro Atlanta. Opponents run the gamut: state lawmakers, conservative groups, tea party members, parents and some school board members. Many see adoption of the standards as a backdoor way for the federal government to implement a national curriculum and take away local control of education. A self-described citizen activist from Fayette County, Angela Bean, has been one of the opposition leaders, and she has taken the anti-Common Core message on the road to various school and community meetings. In a newspaper article this month, Bean -- who is also an executive board member of the Fayette County Republican Party -- identifies another reason for hating Common Core: There are concerns about the longitudinal data system that goes along with Common Core, Bean told The Newnan Times-Herald. The system is designed to collect up to 400 data points on each child, which can include personally identifiable data. Does Common Core allow for this amount of extensive data collection? And, if so, what data is being collected? We checked with the initiative’s founders for more information. Common Core refers to a set of national education standards adopted by 45 states, the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories. The standards were created after years of discussion by private nonprofit education groups and state education departments, and they are designed to better prepare students for college and careers, and ensure that students in all states learn the same academic concepts in the same grades. The Obama administration has used its education funding grant process to encourage states to adhere to the new standards, but no state is required to adhere to Common Core. Georgia’s state Board of Education adopted Common Core performance standards on July 8, 2010. And the standards rolled out in school districts during the 2012-2013 school year, said Dorie Turner Nolt, a spokeswoman for the Georgia Department of Education. We checked with the Council of Chief State School Officers, a national organization of public officials who head state education departments, and one of the founders of the Common Core standards, about Bean’s data collection claim. Organization officials said there are no data collection requirements with Common Core, and they address the issue on its website. "States are still responsible as they were previously to report their accountability (on tests and other student assessments), but Common Core doesn’t add any new data reporting, said Margaret Millar, the CCSSO’s director of membership services. Kathleen Porter-Magee, an education expert at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute who has studied Common Core, agreed that there are no requirements for any sort of data collection or data mining. "If a state chooses to collect achievement data, that is a decision the state chooses to make," she said. "But is is not lumped in with Common Core." So, if Common Core doesn’t have a data collection component, or require data collection, has Georgia decided to collect data independently? Turner Nolt, with the Georgia Education Department, initially responded to Bean’s statements in another article, also printed in The Newnan Times-Herald. In that response, Turner Nolt refutes the claims that Georgia is participating in a data collection system, known as inBloom. That system is one of several education data collection systems, but it is not aligned with Common Core, state and and national experts maintain. (Some individual Georgia school districts are participating in inBloom. We reached out to company officials for specifics but did not receive a response by press time) The state Education Department does collect student data annually and makes that data available in a user-friendly format for teachers and other school officials in its Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant Program. The system is available for access by every public school district in the state. There are currently more than 65,000 teachers using the system. The system collects data points in about 10 categories, Robert Swiggum, the state department’s chief information officer, said in an email to us about the SLDS data program. The categories include: a student’s name, grade, gender, ethnicity, birth date, attendance, enrollment history, test scores, courses taken and grade received, and any subgroup (example: English language learner, retained, economically disadvantaged). Each of the categories has dozens of data points that can vary depending on how many tests each student takes, those test scores, the number of courses taken and the length of time a student has been in school. Turner Nolt said the data in the state’s SLDS system has been collected for years, but that the information is now computerized. The systems does collect personally identifiable data, as Bean claimed, but the information is not shared beyond the student’s teachers and school administrators, Turner Nolt said. To sum up, Bean claimed a data system companion of Common Core collects up to 400 data points on each child, which can include personally identifiable data. Bean’s claim incorrectly intertwines Common Core and a data collection system. Our research found that Common Core does not include a data collection component. Georgia’s Education Department does collect student data as part of a separate annual collection cycle, then provides the information in a digital format for teachers and school officials to use. Bean’s statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts about the separation of Common Core and data collection. We rated her claim Mostly False.	None	Angela Bean	None	None	None	2013-06-17T00:00:00	2013-06-01	['None']
-goop-01148	Jennifer Garner Pregnant With Ben Affleck, Josh Duhamel Or Mystery Man’s Baby?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-pregnant-ben-affleck-josh-duhamel-baby-mystery-man/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Jennifer Garner Pregnant With Ben Affleck, Josh Duhamel Or Mystery Man’s Baby?	5:55 pm, April 18, 2018	None	['Ben_Affleck', 'Jennifer_Garner']
-pomt-10449	Every family health insurance policy has "a $900 hidden tax" to subsidize health care costs of the uninsured.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/02/hillary-clinton/a-reasonable-estimate-for-uninsured-costs/	“You know you’re going to bankrupt the country with health care, right?” talk show host Bill O’Reilly began as an introduction to talk with Sen. Hillary Clinton about her health care plan. “Oh, no, I’m not,” said Clinton, who appeared on the The O’Reilly Factor on April 30, 2008. Clinton boiled her plan down to this: “Everybody who has health insurance who’s happy with it, you keep it. No changes. But what I am going to do is take an already existing plan -- it’s not government-run, it’s not a new bureaucracy. It’s the way Congress and federal employees get their health care. And we’re going to open it up to every American, because I think it’s about time...” “But you’re going to subsidize it,” O’Reilly interjected. “Well, we are,” Clinton said. “But here’s why. You already are subsidizing it. Your family policy has a $900 hidden tax. Why? Because when some poor person who doesn’t have health insurance...” “...goes to the emergency room...you’ve got to pick it up,” O’Reilly said, finishing her sentence. The $900 figure is key to Clinton’s plan. Yes, she is saying, the government will subsidize her health care plan. But, the thinking goes, private insurance companies will charge lower premiums to their existing customers because they will no longer have to subsidize health care costs incurred by uninsured people. Think of it like this, said John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a non-partisan group that has analyzed health care plans for both Democrats and Republicans: Someone shoplifts a loaf of bread from the grocery story. The price of bread is inflated a bit for everyone else to offset the store’s loss. “That’s kind of what’s going on with healthcare,” Sheils said. Hospitals have to treat people who come in and need medical care. And if those people don’t pay, “it’s kind of like walking out of the story without paying for bread,” he said. The cost is shifted onto those with private insurance. Sheils said Clinton’s claim that family health insurance policies subsidize the uninsured to the tune of about $900 a year is “in the ballpark.” Sheils believes the number is a little lower, closer to $800 per year. Hillary cites that same $900 figure in her formal health care proposal, the American Health Choices Plan. “One cause of the crisis in the health care system is that rather than containing costs, the system shifts them: about half of all hospital losses are passed along to other payers,” according to her plan. “Rather than reducing prices, the system raises families’ costs. “And, rather than covering all Americans, the system charges insured families a “hidden tax”: premiums are roughly $900 higher to pay for the cost of care for the uninsured.” It cites a report from Families USA called “Paying a Premium: The added cost of care for the uninsured.” The report was based on an analysis of data by Kenneth E. Thorpe, former Clinton administration health expert, now a professor at Emory University. Thorpe says Clinton’s figure actually is low. According to his analysis, about $922 of a family policy was used to subsidize the uninsured in 2005. But the cost of health care has gone up since then, as have the number of uninsured. In 2008, the number is closer to $1,270, he said. “The only way for hospitals to offset the costs (of the uninsured) is to have private insurers pay more than it’s worth,” Thorpe said. “It is their only means to stay financially solvent.” In 2005, private health paid about 25% more than the cost of care in hospitals, Thorpe said, citing a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress. O’Reilly didn’t contest Clinton’s numbers, but he did take umbrage with subsidizing other people’s health care. “I mean, I don’t want to be paying for someone who’s taking heroin and drinking a bottle of gin a day,” O’Reilly said. “But I assume you want to pay for some hardworking families whose kid has juvenile diabetes,” Clinton said. “Or some woman... that just gets diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis." “I don’t mind doing it,” O’Reilly said. Clinton’s point was that, to an extent, family health policy holders already are shouldering some of the burden for the uninsured. There may be some debate about whether the number is exactly $900 a year, as she stated, but several health policy experts agreed that she’s at least close. We rate her statement True.	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2008-05-02T00:00:00	2008-04-29	['None']
-goop-01483	Katie Holmes, Jamie Foxx Battling Over Prenup?	https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-jamie-foxx-prenup-battle/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Katie Holmes, Jamie Foxx Battling Over Prenup?	10:12 am, February 28, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-13490	"Marco Rubio voted against funding health clinics that provide critical care during this public health emergency (Zika)."	/florida/statements/2016/sep/08/naral-pro-choice/naral-misleads-attack-marco-rubio-about-zika-fundi/	As the number of Floridians infected with the Zika virus continues to escalate, political groups and and candidates have lobbed attacks in the U.S. Senate battle in Florida. NARAL Pro-Choice America, a liberal organization that supports abortion rights, attacked Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio’s record on Zika in an ad airing on TV in Orlando and West Palm Beach and online. NARAL endorsed Rubio’s opponent, U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter. "The Zika virus is here. It’s dangerous to pregnant women. And it has no cure. But Marco Rubio voted against funding health clinics that provide critical care during this public health emergency," states the narrator while text states that Rubio "voted against contraception and family planning." The narrator then continues: "And Marco Rubio continues to be against a woman's right to choose an abortion even if they are infected with the Zika virus." The ad shows video of someone clad in protective gear spraying for mosquitoes and anxious looking women including one who is pregnant. The ad began airing as Congress returned from recess to debate Zika funding again. On Sept. 6, a Senate bill failed to receive the necessary votes to move forward. We will zero in on Rubio’s votes related to Zika. Rubio’s voting record and public statements about Zika show that he has repeatedly shown support for Zika funding requests, including by President Barack Obama. The ad is referring to Rubio’s votes in favor of Zika legislation that would have cut funding to one organization in Puerto Rico, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood. Zika bills In February, Obama requested $1.9 billion for vaccine research, testing and mosquito control related to Zika. Rubio announced his support for Obama’s request at a press conference in Miami April 8. A timeline from Rubio’s office states he was the first congressional Republican to announce his support. Since that time, Rubio has repeatedly called on his colleagues in floor speeches, media outlets and press conferences to pass a bill. On May 12, Rubio and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla, announced they would introduce legislation to provide the full $1.9 billion request. "There's no reason every proposal to address Zika cannot be bipartisan and earn broad support, and I'm hopeful we can reach a final outcome that fully addresses the problem," Rubio said at the time. On May 17, Rubio voted with the majority, 68-29, for a motion on an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to provide $1.1 billion to combat Zika. Rubio reluctantly voted for the compromise measure while still calling for Obama’s full funding request. Two days later, the Senate passed the full bill 89-8 with Rubio voting with the majority. The bill called for spending $1.1 billion to prevent, prepare and respond to the Zika virus domestically and internationally including on the development of a vaccine. House and Senate negotiators then got together in a conference committee. Republicans added a clause to block any money for Profamilias, the Puerto Rican branch of Planned Parenthood. The services of that family planning agency are relevant here because Zika can be transmitted through sex, and condoms can reduce the chance of getting Zika. Profamilias served 8,000 people in 2015. Democrats saw that as a "poison pill" intended to doom the bill, while Republicans said Democrats were refusing to compromise. While the bill would have blocked funding for Profamilias, it would not have blocked funding for Puerto Rico entirely. The ad omits that the bill provided funds that would potentially help clinics and hospitals in nearly every municipality on the island. Puerto Rico has 20 community health centers operating at 84 sites. Profamilias has seven clinics on the island, and in each area there is another type of facility that would have been eligible for Zika funding. The ad cites two Rubio votes in June on the appropriations bill that included the $1.1 billion for Zika. The first vote, on June 14, was a motion to proceed and passed 94-3. So NARAL is attacking Rubio for voting in favor of something that was supported by virtually every senator of both parties. The second vote was on June 28 when the Senate voted 52-48 to bring up the Zika measure. It failed to reach the 60-vote threshold, so the underlying bill didn’t reach an up or down vote. Rubio voted for the measure. "Shame on Washington for failing to pass Zika funding," Rubio said after the bill died. "We’ve been on top of this issue for five months, and it’s a failure of both parties in this town, including the president of the United States, that it’s taken this long to even get to this point." One final note about the ad’s attack on Rubio for opposing abortion, including for women with Zika. Rubio told Politico in August: "I believe all human life should be protected by our law, irrespective of the circumstances or condition of that life." Our ruling NARAL’s TV ad said, "Marco Rubio voted against funding health clinics that provide critical care during this public health emergency (Zika)." The text on the screen stated that Rubio "voted against contraception and family planning." The ad creates a misleading impression that Rubio’s votes show he is indifferent to funding clinics to combat Zika. Actually, he has repeatedly supported Zika funding requests, including $1.9 billion sought by Obama. The ad cherry-picks votes by zeroing in on Rubio’s votes on measures that would have blocked funding to the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Puerto Rico. The ad doesn’t explain that despite that block, the bill still could have provided money to fight Zika both in Puerto Rico and the United States. Nothing passed due to the gridlock over that issue. As for the statement about Rubio’s voting record, we rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/aa91b4ec-4be7-4979-a670-89978e01dab9	None	NARAL Pro-Choice America	None	None	None	2016-09-08T11:47:20	2016-09-06	['Marco_Rubio']
-tron-02481	Hole Under Lock Car Break-ins	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hole-break-in/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Hole Under Lock Car Break-ins	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00628	Drake, Blac Chyna Dating, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/drake-blac-chyna-dating-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Drake, Blac Chyna NOT Dating, Despite Reports	2:35 pm, July 17, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-02607	Planned Parenthood Brochures Distributed to Girl Scouts at United Nations	https://www.truthorfiction.com/girl-scouts-un/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Planned Parenthood Brochures Distributed to Girl Scouts at United Nations	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-00933	An emergency medical responder said he was given a "stand down" order during the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-first-responder-stand-down-parkland/	None	Viral Phenomena	None	Bethania Palma	None	Did a First Responder Say He Was Told to ‘Stand Down’ in Parkland?	3 March 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-00913	Six of the nation’s 10 wealthiest counties, "according to median income, are in and around the Washington, D.C. area."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/02/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-most-10-richest-counties-are-aro/	Speaking at an event to mark Ronald Reagan’s birthday, Gov. Scott Walker complained about, of all things, income inequality. It's not like the Wisconsin Republican was about to Occupy anything. He was making a larger, Reagan-like argument -- that there is too much power concentrated in Washington, D.C. During his remarks, given Feb. 6, 2015 at the late president’s alma mater, Eureka College in Eureka, Ill., Walker said: "In fact, if you have any doubt, if you looked last year, the numbers that we saw put out showed that six of the top 10 wealthiest counties in America -- six of the top 10 wealthiest communities in America, by county, according to median income -- are in and around the Washington, D.C., area," Walker said. "That tell you anything about where we're growing the economy in this nation?" The governor made the same six-in-10 claim a week earlier, in another speech -- in Washington. And again in remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference outside of Washington. Let's see if it's true. The numbers We’ll note at the top that Walker was careful to make his claim about counties and median income. Nothing wrong with that. The median divides the income distribution into two equal parts: one-half of the households falling below the median income and one-half above the median. But it's worth noting that you'd get a different picture if you picked variables such as cities or average income. For median household income, the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures for counties are estimates for 2013. The figures were released in December 2014. As Walker stated, six of the top 10 counties are in Washington suburbs, either in Virginia or Maryland. County Name Median Household Income Estimate for 2013 Loudoun County, VA $117,680 Falls Church city, VA $117,452 Los Alamos County, NM $110,930 Fairfax County, VA $110,658 Howard County, MD $108,503 Hunterdon County, NJ $107,203 Douglas County, CO $105,192 Arlington County, VA $101,533 Morris County, NJ $99,950 Montgomery County, MD $97,873 (Technically, Falls Church is an "independent city" but is treated as a county by the Census Bureau.) As we noted, the top 10 look much different if you consider average income. That's because super-rich residents can skew the data much higher. Indeed, in July 2014, Money published a list, based on IRS figures from individual tax returns, for the 2012 tax year. No suburban county around D.C. made the top 10. The highest average income was $296,778 in Teton County, Wyo. Three of the top 10 counties were in Texas. Salim Furth, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, told us the D.C. area ranks high in median income because of its "high-paying jobs in and around government, and high real estate prices which nudge out retirees and people with low incomes." David Egan-Robertson, a demographer at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Applied Population Laboratory, said many federal jobs, as well as private-sector positions in the D.C. region under federal contract, require high levels of expertise. And "to attract and retain this high level of expertise requires higher levels of compensation." One footnote: In early 2013, our colleagues rated two claims similar to Walker's. Also made by Republican politicians, those claims relied on data slightly older than what Walker cited. Both U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin had said seven of the nation's 10 richest counties were in suburban Washington. PolitiFact Ohio and PolitiFact National, respectively, rated both claims True. Our rating Walker said six of the 10 wealthiest counties, "according to median income, are in and around the Washington, D.C. area." The latest U.S. census estimates for median household income, for 2013, bear that out. Six of the top 10 counties were in D.C. suburbs in Maryland or Virginia. We rate Walker's statement True. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s web page. ------ More on Scott Walker For profiles and stories on Scott Walker and 2016 presidential politics, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Scott Walker page.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2015-03-02T05:00:00	2015-02-06	['Washington,_D.C.']
-goop-01856	‘Big Bang Theory’ Cast Feuds, Salary Disputes Tearing Show Apart?	https://www.gossipcop.com/big-bang-theory-cast-feud-salary-fights/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	‘Big Bang Theory’ Cast Feuds, Salary Disputes Tearing Show Apart?	10:51 am, January 11, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05824	"Shelby County donated – I’m sorry, gave – 44 schools to the city of Memphis."	/tennessee/statements/2012/feb/19/chris-thomas/suburban-advocates-say-shelby-county-gave-memphis-/	During a Shelby County Commission discussion over the possibility of transferring school facilities to suburban municipalities, Chris Thomas made a point that has become almost a suburban mantra. In that meeting and another held on Feb. 10, Thomas and suburban colleagues Wyatt Bunker and Terry Roland hammered home the contention that Shelby County always "gave" school facilities to Memphis, free of charge, when the city took areas through annexations. Following that precedent, they argue, the county should give buildings to suburban cities wanting to split from the controversial new unified school district and form municipal districts. Memphis City Councilman Shea Flinn, during the Feb. 10 deliberations, vented his frustrations on his Twitter feed: "Dear comm Bunker that 44 school system (sic) given to Memphis is False. It was done by agreement an (sic) other consideration was given. Damn." And: "My head might explode with the number of times that bull (expletive) is going to come up." So who is right here, on an issue of utmost importance as Shelby County’s system of public schools goes through an historic transition? At least since 1965, have annexations resulted in Shelby County just giving school buildings to Memphis’s special school district, Memphis City Schools? We found a complicated set of legal and historical circumstances, and, as with other issues associated with the impending transfer of Memphis’s public schools to the county, stances that have reversed over time, depending on residency. Memphis stakeholders who once argued buildings must be given over without consideration now want the suburbs to pay up, while suburban interests who once argued a city should compensate the county now say the county should give buildings to suburban towns free and clear. Thomas and other advocates for the suburban municipalities cite feasibility studies from suburban school consultants Southern Educational Strategies. The studies say: "Since the 1960’s, at least 44 of these facilities, plus the furniture, fixtures, and equipment held in trust for the students were transferred by Shelby County Schools to the special school district at no direct cost to the Memphis City Schools." One figure in the study shows that for each year since 1965 exactly $0.00 flowed to Shelby County in exchange for the schools. Thomas’s statement is worth quoting in full, because it captures the prevailing suburban view: "I think it’s funny over the past many years that Shelby County donated – I’m sorry, gave – 44 schools to the city of Memphis . . . when they annexed areas. And now all of a sudden when a municipality, when a city in the county wants to educate those children, we are going to say we are going to charge you but we were giving them to Memphis? Personally I think that stinks. I think it’s unfair." Flinn cites, among others, blog posts from Smart City Memphis, the consultant firm run by Tom Jones, a close aide to county mayors from the late 1970s until the early 2000s. "It’s how you understand a contract — consideration is more than just cash," Flinn said. Smart City’s blog has taken serious issue with those studies, and in particular targeted former suburban Shelby County Schools (SCS) superintendent Jim Mitchell. A post titled "Town Districts School Building Fiction" quotes Mitchell at a suburban forum saying, "That is not what’s been done in this county for 45 years." Meaning, the county had not gotten payment from Memphis for schools during annexations. Jones wrote: "Let’s say it simply: he is wrong." He added: "There have been torturous negotiations to give county government financial consideration . . . using waivers of ADA funding requirements, offsetting financial credits, or through joint design of schools by city and county school district." In other words, although there was not a direct cost, Memphis-partisans point out that the county was indirectly compensated in other ways, such as agreements to allow the county to forego what is commonly referred to as the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding requirement. ADA requirements mean that for every $1 the county gives for capital improvements to the suburban system, it has had to give a corresponding share to Memphis City Schools (MCS) based on the city’s much-larger student population. "When I’ve heard the county commissioners, it’s like, ‘Oh, they annexed and they got the schools la dee da,’ " Flinn said. "But that’s not an accurate rendition. It was a negotiated transaction, with give and take on both sides." Where the feasibility studies do reference negotiated agreements between the city and county over the schools, to waive ADA requirements, they do so in the form of footnotes. Ernest Kelly, the attorney at Evans, Petree who litigated for MCS for decades, said those footnotes came out of years-long legal wrangling. Those footnotes show that Memphis ultimately agreed to allow Shelby County a $12 million waiver on ADA funds as "credit" for Memphis taking schools in annexations from the late 60s and early 70s. To Memphis at the time, $12 million spent on suburban school capital improvements meant, because of the then $5.7-to-$1 ADA split, it stood to see $68.4 million flow into its coffers from county government. That $68.4 million equates to $229 million in purchasing power in the 2010 economy, and the website MeasuringWorth.com calculates that $68.4 million in projects in the 1978 economy equates to $433 million in projects in the 2010 economy. For the suburban school system, the $12 million credit — equivalent to $76 million in projects today — allowed for construction or renovation of some of the very buildings municipalities want to receive for free. A Jan. 27, 1978, article from longtime Commercial Appeal education reporter Jimmie Covington, now working to help Collierville start a municipal system, points out: "For several years, the county has not had to share school construction funds with the city because of credits received from the city system for county schools which were annexed. However, about $4 million in county school building projects approved for this year have about exhausted the credits." In an April 28, 1978, article, Covington wrote that "the city system has paid the county for annexed schools by waiving" the ADA share. Kelly does emphasize that MCS felt strongly it could have and should have received buildings without any considerations, based on an 1898 case, Prescott vs. the Town of Lennox. While cautioning that the legal niceties related to an annexation differ from the current circumstances, Kelly explained that Lennox determined facilities are a public trust and therefore "the buildings ought to follow the kids." "We were all suited up and ready to go to Chancery Court," Kelly said Thursday, but there were other variables, some having nothing to do with schools – like the city’s desire to push the burden of costs related to the city’s public hospital over to the county. Cut a deal giving the county something for the annexed schools, MCS was told, so we can save money on the hospital issue. "So the legal argument didn’t get resolved on one side or the other," Kelly said. "We had a compromise that . . . eliminated the risk of paying money, which would have been painful and in our view unjust. From the county’s point of view, they got something." Two of the planners most involved in more recent transfers – longtime and recently-retired SCS chief of operations Richard Holden and former MCS director of planning Louise Mercuro — each said there were agreements in which MCS again agreed to allow the county to waive ADA requirements. "Most of them had to do with schools that would eventually become part of Memphis City Schools," Holden said. For some buildings, MCS and SCS cooperated with joint funding, planning and designing. "It was never a straight policy that they give the schools, ever," Mercuro said. "The county always got something out of it, one way or the other." Holden, now a key member of the county’s schools merger transition commission, said that after SCS became an elected board, in 1998, there was more of a push from the suburbs to get fair value from MCS for annexed schools. "In the latter years Shelby County Schools board members thought there should be some compensation," Holden said. Longtime SCS board chairman David Pickler agreed with that assessment. According to a Feb. 12, 2003 article, one of the initial proposals for financing what became Arlington High School involved crediting the county for $37 million for annexed schools. Both Memphis and suburban school boards "agreed to the proposal in concept" but it did not come to fruition. Arlington High School was eventually financed with bonds paid for by a tax levy on non-Memphis residents only. Our ruling So did Shelby County in fact "give" 44 school buildings to Memphis City Schools? As the consultants note, exactly $0.00 in real dollars has exchanged hands for the buildings MCS took over during annexations. But there were serious past negotiations where the county received considerations of real value, even if it never got a check. Some of the suburban municipalities, in fact, benefitted from new schools or renovations made possible by Memphis agreeing to "credit" the county for some value of schools it took over. Because of that, we rate the statement Half True.	None	Chris Thomas	None	None	None	2012-02-19T09:00:00	2012-02-06	['Memphis,_Tennessee']
-pomt-07607	"There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts you should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/22/ann-coulter/ann-coulter-says-lexposure-low-levels-radiation-ar/	As news broke last week that Japan's nuclear disaster may result in low levels of radiation wafting all the way to the U.S., political pundit Ann Coulter wrote a column arguing that too much is made of exposure to low levels of radiation. In an appearance on Fox's O'Reilly Factor on March 17, Coulter argued some exposure to radiation may actually be good for you. "There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts you should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer," Coulter said. Before you go sticking your head in the X-ray machine, a little perspective is in order here. While there are scientists who subscribe to the theory that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects -- it's called hormesis -- it is still an outside-the-mainstream opinion. "There is not a shred of evidence that radiation is good for you," said Eric Hall, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University in New York City. As for hormesis, Hall said, "No one in the mainstream believes it." Said Fred Mettler, a radiation expert at the University of New Mexico: "Ms. Coulter -- who I find very enjoyable -- might be better sticking to political opinions." Mettler, the U.S. representative for the United Nations committee on the health effects of radiation, pointed us to a chapter on hormesis from his book, Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation. In the book, Mettler calls hormesis "a concept that is controversial at best." "Early studies in the United States seemed to suggest a hormetic effect, or at least there were areas of higher radiation background that had lower cancer incidence," Mettler wrote. In particular, Mettler cited the work of T. D. Luckey, professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, Columbia, School of Medicine, who argued in multiple studies that evidence shows "a significant decrease in cancer mortality rates of lightly exposed humans." Mettler cautioned not to read too much into such studies, however. "In addition to variability in populations, statistical uncertainties, potential bias factors, and chance, on one hand there will be instances in which there was less effect than predicted," he wrote. "This is all understandable without invoking a unifying hypothesis of hormesis." Owen Hoffman, a radiation-risk expert at Senes Oak Ridge Inc., a center for risk analysis, said that studies show low levels of radiation might eliminate some cancer but initiate others. "Certainly radiation kills cells and can stimulate immune responses," Hoffman said. "Thus it is possible for precursors of cancers, which are produced in the absence of above-background radiation exposure, might be eliminated through the processes of cell killing and immune response activation. But radiation exposures, even at background levels, can also initiate, promote new cancers and accelerate the manifestation of cancers that would occur in later life in the absence of exposure." Hoffman also pointed to the work of Dr. Charles Land of the National Cancer Institute, who "has shown in several of his recent publications that there is considerable uncertainty in the estimation of radiation risk. In his work, he does not give much credibility to the possibility that radiation induces a protective or beneficial effect. On the other hand, he concludes that even if some credibility could be given to the possibility of a threshold or beneficial effect of radiation exposure at low doses and low dose rates, the biological and epidemiological evidence that new cancers may be initiated or promoted by radiation exposure cannot be completely ruled out." "At present," Hoffman said, "carefully conducted epidemiological evidence does not support the presence of such beneficial effects in human populations that have been carefully monitored and followed up over time." In her blog post, Coulter cited the work of Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who "compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties covering 90 percent of the U.S. population. His study in the 1990s found far fewer cases of lung cancer in those counties with the highest amounts of radon -- a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates." We e-mailed Cohen and asked him about Coulter's statement. "Word for word, what she says is correct," Cohen responded. "It could go further and say that no other confounding factors (like socioeconomics, geography, etc., 500 were explored) can explain the results. However, my study was designed to test the assumption that the danger of radiation is simply proportional to the radiation dose, which is the only evidence that low-level radiation may be harmful. My conclusion was that that assumption is false. "Whether low-level radiation is protective against cancer, a theory called hormesis, is debated in the scientific community," Cohen said. "There is evidence on both sides." So where does this leave us? We are not rating whether hormesis -- or as Coulter put it, the theory that exposure to low levels of radiation is actually good for you and reduces cases of cancer -- is correct. Reputable scientists disagree about that. We're rating whether Coulter was correct in saying there is "a growing body of evidence" that radiation in excess of approved exposure levels may be beneficial. There is a small but growing body of research to back up those claims. But the fact is that the mainstream of the scientific community has not embraced the theory. They point to limitations of those studies and argue the research falls well short of scientific evidence. Coulter failed to present this counter-weight, the opinion shared by the majority in the scientific community, which doesn't buy into -- and in many cases outright rejects -- the idea that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects and reduce the risk of cancer. And so we rate Coulter's claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Ann Coulter	None	None	None	2011-03-22T13:10:51	2011-03-17	['None']
-pomt-04227	Says Gov. Scott Walker has "led people to believe that if Wisconsin doesn’t implement a (health-care) exchange, Obamacare doesn’t happen here."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/nov/25/jon-erpenbach/erpenbach-says-walker-misled-federal-health-care-l/	Republican Mitt Romney’s defeat in the November elections, coupled with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2012 ruling, put an end to debate about whether President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law would take effect. Or did it? Gov. Scott Walker, a vocal critic of the law, seemed to bow to legal and political realities on Nov. 16, 2012, when he announced his administration was "complying with the law, whether we like it or not." The statement was part of an announcement that he would not create a state-run insurance marketplace to put the law into effect. Rather, Walker told reporters, he would let the federal government run it, another of the options under the law. Democrats and some prominent business organizations wanted a state exchange, arguing it could be better tailored to Wisconsin’s needs, and any problems could be dealt with at the local level. State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) issued a statement criticizing the decision. "I am disappointed that Governor Walker does not have enough faith in the people of Wisconsin to help create a health insurance marketplace that best fits our needs as a state," Erpenbach said. That critique was a common refrain from Democrats that day. But Erpenbach added a twist that caught our eye. Walker, he said, "has led people to believe that if Wisconsin doesn’t implement an exchange, ObamaCare doesn’t happen here." The background A core of conservative critics of "Obamacare" believes that states maintain the ability to challenge -- and possibly block -- the federal health care reform law if they decline to run the exchanges. The legal theory holds that an unintended loophole in the law could block federally run exchanges from functioning legally in states. The state of Oklahoma made a version of the argument in amended court filings in September 2012. Wisconsin tea-party groups lobbied Walker not to create an exchange in part by raising this issue. And one of the leaders of that effort, Ross Brown of the Dane County group known as We the People of the Republic, feels it was a likely factor in Walker’s decision. Brown said he has no hard proof of that. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie told us the governor had not opted against a state exchange to keep the legal option open. Werwie said Walker’s is aware of the legal argument and has not ruled out pursuing it, but added that it was not under active consideration now. "At this time, this is how the Walker administration is moving forward," Werwie said. Erpenbach’s claim While there is some fuzziness about what could happen in the future, Erpenbach’s claim was entirely about the past -- that Walker had led residents to believe if the state did not create an exchange Obamacare would not be implemented here. Erpenbach pointed us to several Walker statements at key junctures in the "Obamacare" drama: February 2011: Walker joined 21 Republican governors favoring repeal of Obamacare if the courts don’t first strike it down. Lacking either, they wrote, federal officials should change the law to address the GOP governors’ fiscal and philosophical objections. They said that, lacking major improvements, they’d let the feds run the exchanges. December 2011: Walker suspended planning for a state-run exchange, a change in position. He had previously talked about creating one. He cited the pending Supreme Court case. In neither case was there a hint that Walker’s position on the exchanges was a move to stop the law. Erpenbach argues that Walker omitted the fact that if Wisconsin didn’t run the exchange, the feds would. But the clear context of Walker’s statements, and the news coverage of it, was that it was either/or. January 2012: Walker stopped work on a state exchange, eliminated his own Office of Free Market Health Care and turned down $37 million in federal planning money. Here’s how he explained his decision on creating an exchange: "Stopping the encroachment of Obamacare in our state, which has the potential to have a devastating impact on Wisconsin’s economy, is a top priority. Wisconsin has been a leader and innovator in health care reform for two decades, and we have achieved a high level of health insurance coverage without federal mandates. When job creators and Wisconsin families are facing difficult times it doesn’t make sense to commit to a federal health care mandate that will result in hidden taxes for Wisconsin’s families, increased health care costs and insurance premiums, and more uncertainty in the private sector." In that statement, Walker directly linked the exchange decision to "stopping" Obamacare in Wisconsin and not committing to it. And he did not explain the federal role. June 2012: After the Supreme Court upheld much of the law, Walker issued a statement saying that "Wisconsin will not take any action to implement Obamacare." He pinned his hopes for stopping it on the fall elections, and made it sound like the last hope: "I am hopeful that political changes in Washington, D.C., later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level. If there is no political remedy from Washington and the law moves forward, it would require the majority of people in Wisconsin to pay more money for less health care." He again pledged not to phase in any parts of the law pending the election outcome. Around the same time, we fact-checked a Walker op-ed piece in the Washington Post. We rated False his claim that a study showed that Obamacare would "devastate Wisconsin" by pushing people off employer-sponsored insurance, driving up premiums, increasing dependency and making 122,000 people ineligible for Medicaid. After the Nov. 6, 2012 elections, Walker contemplated his final decision on a state or federal exchange. This is when the tea-party lobbyists and Obamacare critics such as Sen. Frank Lasee, R- De Pere, pressed him to let the feds do it -- in part hoping to keep alive a possible legal challenge. Walker, though, made no mention that we could find of that legal option when he announced on Nov. 16, 2012, he’d let the feds run it. Rather, he focused on possible costs to taxpayers. Wisconsin "will defer to the federal government’s insurance exchange," Walker wrote to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. One historical footnote: Walker’s remarks to reporters on Nov. 16, 2012, included the assurance that "We are complying with the law, exactly as the law is written." Was that a sly nod to the potential legal problem with how the law was written? Werwie said no, that Walker simply meant the law gave states the option of not creating an exchange and deferring to the federal government. Our rating Erpenbach said Walker "has led people to believe that if Wisconsin doesn’t implement an exchange, ObamaCare doesn’t happen here." There’s no doubt that some conservative Obamacare critics see a link between stopping federal health care reform and not creating a state exchange. They are thrilled that Walker did what he did, in part for that reason. But Walker for the most part clearly cast his rhetoric about "stopping" the law in terms of the Supreme Court case and the election. And he has mostly made it clear that no state exchange would instead mean a federal exchange -- not no Obamacare. An exception was his January 2012 remarks, which coupled some heated language about stopping the law with his decision to punt the exchange to the federal government. That gives Erpenbach’s claim an element of accuracy, but we rate his claim Mostly False.	None	Jon Erpenbach	None	None	None	2012-11-25T09:00:00	2012-11-16	['Wisconsin', 'Scott_Walker_(politician)']
-pomt-06982	"There are 30,000 people that have been killed with seat belts."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/jul/13/joseph-trillo/ri-rep-trillo-says-30000-people-have-died-because-/	During the June 29, 2011, Rhode Island House debate over legislation to allow the police to stop motorists who are not wearing seat belts -- a bill that has now become law -- supporters said it would encourage more people to belt themselves in. Critics countered that the proposal was one more attempt to chip away at our personal freedoms and could encourage racial profiling. Few will disagree that seat belts save lives. But this was one instance where House Minority Whip Joseph Trillo, who said he regularly uses his seat belt, couldn't restrain himself. "There are 30,000 people that have been killed with seat belts, where they've gotten into accidents, the cars were on fire, they've been knocked out, they haven't been able to get out of the vehicle," he said. "My point is, even if the majority of people are saved, why do we keep forcing people to do things that they feel it's their own individual right to make a decision?" When we saw him make that comment on Capitol TV, we were intrigued. Thirty thousand people have lost their lives because they wore their seat belts? We were driven to call him that evening to ask him for the source of that statistic. A few emails and another phone call later, he reported that he couldn't find the source. "I know that I got it in an email. It brought me to a credible site. I don't remember what it was though," he said. "I'm not sure whether it's cumulative or on a yearly basis." Undaunted, he cited a page on the website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- which we checked -- saying that in 2002, 2004 and 2006, the number of people who died while wearing a seat belt was 12,000, 13,000 and 12,500, respectively. When we pointed out that being killed while wearing a seat belt doesn't mean they would have survived if they had been unbelted, Trillo argued that "if 12,000 to 13,000 are dying with seat belts every year on a national level, even if 2,000 couldn't get out of the car, it still could cumulatively add up to 30,000." We tried to find the source of Trillo's statement. A Google search came up blank. But we did find a website that talked about "23,000 people who run the risk of being trapped and fatally killed by a seat belt each year!" It also warned against seat belt use because "psychiatrists say that exposing young children to practices such as bondage from an early age can cause confusion during puberty." Needless to say, it was a humor website. So we decided to go the extra mile to look for some real data. Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Product Safety Commission sent us to the NHTSA. Its most recent estimate is that 12,713 lives were saved in 2009 by people wearing seat belts, and another 3,688 fatalities would have been prevented if every driver had used one. (In Rhode Island, 11 lives were saved because of seat belt use and 10 died because they were not belted in, according to that report.) When we asked them for the number of deaths in which the use of seat belts was a contributing factor, they came up empty. NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database of motor vehicle fatalities logs lots of causes of death, listed as "most harmful event." Wearing a seat belt isn't one of them. After Trillo's comment about being trapped in a burning car, we searched the database and found there were 157 fire- or explosion-related fatalities in passenger vehicles in 2009 where the victims were using their seat belts. If you add people who died by immersion in water, the number jumps to 243. Even if seat belts trapped the occupants in every case, that would represent less than one percent of fatalities and it would take 123 years (at the 2009 rate) to match Trillo's 30,000 figure. (Lap belts have only been mandatory in U.S. cars since the 1960s.) We even put out a message to the 32,000 people who follow PolitiFact National on Twitter, asking people to email us if anyone had any reliable information on the question. One response led us to Sgt. William Mahoney, an accident scene investigator for about seven years with the Kansas City, Mo., Police Department, which handles about 65 to 75 traffic fatalities per year. "I've never seen a death that's been classified as having been caused by a seat belt," he said. "I'm not saying they don't exist. I've never seen one." When we asked Lt. Col. Raymond White of the Rhode Island State Police if, in his 28 years in law enforcement, he has ever seen an instance where someone probably would have survived a crash if they hadn't been wearing their seat belt, he said, "That's never been the case." And William Hall, who manages the occupant protection program at the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Center, said that in the 30 years he's been with the center he hasn't seen any estimate comparable to Trillo's. "I have no clue as to where he may have gotten it," he said, noting that it's "quite likely" that, if the number was real, he would be aware of it. Hall said that "less than one half of one percent of all crashes involve a post-crash fire or going in the water. So that's a very low probability event. There are probably some extremely rare, rare circumstances where someone might have not been killed if they had been unbelted, but that's very, very hard to substantiate. It could mean it's just a non-survival crash and you're not going to make it, seat belt or no seat belt." In summary, when Trillo asserted that 30,000 people "have been killed with seat belts," the context of his statement made it clear that he was saying that seat belts contributed to their deaths, not simply that 30,000 people who died happened to be wearing seat belts. When we asked him for the source of his information, he couldn't produce it. "When we're doing all those bills, I'm trying to assimilate a lot of information. I'm not taking notes on it. I'm just reading stuff," said Trillo. In fact, when we suggested it might be wise to take note of his sources in case someone -- like PolitiFact, for example -- wanted to know where his facts came from, his response was, "I could care less." But we care because, if seat belts are really that dangerous, we want to know. And if a politician is exercising his right to be fooled by an email, we want to know that as well. With more than 30,000 fatal traffic accidents in the United States each year, we suspect there must be at least a few in which victims might have survived had they not been wearing a seat belt. But a search of Google, a question to the 32,000 readers who get our Twitter feed and queries to three federal agencies, two law enforcement agencies and others with an interest in tracking the dangers of seat belts produced no evidence that 30,000 people have died from wearing seat belts. Ever. Trillo's statement deserves to be strapped in for a one-way ride to Ridiculousville. We award his inflammatory claim a Pants On Fire! (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.) https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/87dc1867-d4aa-4c0c-9e25-b1f4dc55659c	None	Joseph Trillo	None	None	None	2011-07-13T08:00:00	2011-06-29	['None']
-pomt-00387	Says Scott Walker refused federal funds and "Wisconsin families now pay nearly 50% more than Minnesotans for the same health care."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/sep/07/tony-evers/evers-base-attacking-walker-health-care/	In his first TV ad after winning the state’s Democratic nomination for governor, Tony Evers blamed incumbent Scott Walker for high health care costs in Wisconsin. The 30-second ad focused on the Republican governor’s decision to turn down federal funds that would have expanded Medicaid in 2014. "When Walker was running for president, he played politics and rejected millions in federal health care money that would have lowered costs for our families," the ad says. "Minnesota’s governor took the funds. They made changes. Wisconsin families now pay nearly 50% more than Minnesotans for the same health care." There’s a core statistical claim about health care costs, but also implications about the reasons behind it. Let’s dig in. States far apart in 2018 premiums The 50 percent claim is simple enough. The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit think tank focusing on national health issues, uses benchmark plans for comparisons between states — specifically the second-lowest cost silver premium for a 40-year-old in each county. Their approach, which is widely accepted, shows a $569 average premium for Wisconsin in 2018 and a $385 average premium for Minnesota. Thus, Wisconsin premiums are about 48 percent higher for people purchasing individual insurance through the state and federal marketplaces created after the Affordable Care Act, according to the latest data. So the ad is largely correct about the number. But it is incorrect to attribute that number to "families," since the analysis it is drawn from is based on the cost an individual would pay. The ad also focuses on why those premiums are higher, pointing to Walker’s Medicaid decision. Declining Medicaid was part of Walker’s Obamacare alternative, and was his first major policy initiative as a presidential candidate. (Democrats have come after Walker for this decision before, including a claim by then-gubernatorial candidate Dana Wachs that the move cost Wisconsin $1 billion, which we rated Mostly True in June 2018.) Medicaid expansion would have covered everyone making less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Walker instead did what’s called a "partial expansion" of Medicaid, covering everyone making less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level. The full expansion would have moved more low-income people out of the marketplace, which affects premiums for those who remained in it. But how much? Medicaid just one of many factors Experts say Medicaid may be a factor in the premium difference, but it is just one of many that could explain differences in premiums between two states. A handful of studies have shown Medicaid expansion has some impact on premiums, but not much, said Adam Searing, a research professor at Georgetown University. Several studies showed Medicaid expansion reduced premiums by 2 percent to 7 percent, while a study in New Hampshire actually showed an increase in premiums after Medicaid expansion. JP Wieske, deputy commissioner of the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, called it "total poppycock" to claim that Medicaid decisions drove the difference between Wisconsin and Minnesota premiums. He said Medicaid would be "very far down" the list of factors affecting Wisconsin health care premiums. "I’m not sure it would be top three or five," Wieske said. Other factors in premium determination include reinsurance, risk pool differences and competition between insurers and providers, said Linda Blumberg, a fellow at the nonpartisan Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. She said the amount attributable to Medicaid is "likely to be small relative to the other factors." Sabrina Corlette, another research professor at Georgetown University, said the ad over-reaches and oversimplifies by comparing two states based primarily on the Medicaid distinction. "It is just challenging to draw hard and fast conclusions when you’re just comparing one state to another, because states can have very different policy and market dynamics," she said. Minnesota’s health care system has a unique history that includes a state-run high risk pool (for the most costly patients) that dates to the 1970s and MinnesotaCare, which at the time of the Medicaid expansion already covered many people who became eligible, said Jim Schowalter, chief executive of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. So Medicaid expansion had a different impact in Minnesota than Wisconsin. "It’s an apples and oranges comparison because of the different programs and eligibility," Schowalter said. Corlette said it’s fair to note, though, that Minnesota has been more proactive than most states about addressing health care costs. "Minnesota has really leaned in, and where there are policy levers available to try and keep people covered, get rates lower, make the marketplace run smoothly, they have taken advantage of those," she said. "I think that’s fair to say about Minnesota and its political leadership." Sam Lau, a spokesman for Evers’ campaign, said the ad was drawing a distinction between the states’ leadership. "In contrast to Scott Walker's inaction, there are numerous decisions and changes Minnesota made to lower its health care costs, and now in 2018, average health costs in Wisconsin are nearly 50% higher than in Minnesota," he said. "Health care policy is complex, but despite its complexities, health care costs can be lowered." Reinsurance helped Minnesota, soon Wisconsin, too Walker campaign spokesman Austin Altenburg said the ad actually makes the case for Walker’s record on health care. Walker pushed for a reinsurance program for Wisconsin, which will be in effect for next year. The plan, called the Health Care Stability Plan, is projected to lower premiums by 10 percent compared to what they would have been and takes effect in January, according to the insurance commissioner office. It is funded by $166 million in federal money and $34 million in state dollars. The 50 percent gap in premium costs only developed this year after Minnesota implemented reinsurance. In 2017, Wisconsin actually had lower premiums than Minnesota — $368 compared to $412. But Wisconsin’s premiums jumped to $569 in 2018 as insurers raised rates after losing $500 million in the Wisconsin marketplace from 2014 to 2017, said Elizabeth Hizmi, spokeswoman for the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. Some insurers reduced coverage areas and others left the Wisconsin market altogether. Meanwhile, Minnesota’s rates stayed consistent as the state instituted reinsurance. Under that program, the state paid a portion of medical expenses for insurers beyond $50,000 and until $250,000, meaning insurers took on less risk from the sickest people and could offer lower overall rates. "Our premiums today have everything to do with reinsurance," Schowalter said. Our rating Evers’ ad is built around the claim that Wisconsin premiums are 50 percent higher than Minnesota’s, but it goes astray on several fronts. The ad attributes the figure to "Wisconsin families," when it comes from an analysis that looks at the premium cost for a 40-year-old individual in each county. And while the ad notes Minnesota "made changes," the framing of the issue — starting with Walker’s rejection of the funds and ending with the difference in health care costs — leaves viewers with the impression that Walker’s decision is the sole, or at least a primary reason, the states have such different premiums. Experts say that’s not correct. Several other policies and market dynamics play a more significant role than Medicaid in determining premiums. Furthermore, differences in the health insurance markets between Wisconsin and Minnesota make simplistic comparisons between the states unreasonable. The ad contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. That’s our definition of Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tony Evers	None	None	None	2018-09-07T06:00:00	2018-08-27	['Wisconsin', 'Minnesota']
-pomt-02411	Oregon has never before tried to create a land-use plan for "what it should look like for 50 years."	/oregon/statements/2014/mar/06/state-rep-brian-clem-d-salem/has-oregon-never-created-land-use-plan-what-it-sho/	For more than 40 years, Oregon has maintained a national reputation for its comprehensive land-use system. However, political wrangling and costly, time-consuming lawsuits have frequently hamstrung the process. Mere mention of the words "land use" can divide many rooms down the middle. The Claim The Oregon Legislature just waded into a years-long attempt by the Portland region to create a 50-year supply of urban and rural reserves. Lawmakers jumped in after the Court of Appeals found parts of the plan fatally flawed. State Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, helped broker a bill, also with a 50-year horizon, that put into law significant parts of the plan the court tossed out. The bill trimmed the number of urban reserves, particularly in Washington County, and made a few other growth-boundary tweaks. Clem called the effort groundbreaking. "This reserves effort is a big deal," he told reporters on Feb. 28, 2014. "We’ve never tried this before -- beyond that five-, six-year cycle, what it should look like for 50 years." There’s something new under the sun when it comes to Oregon land-use law? PolitiFact Oregon checked. The Analysis Clem’s claim hinges on both the 50-year time frame built into the new law -- is that a first? -- as well as the contents of the bill, the "reserves." Given the tricky legal landscape, we called veteran land-use attorney Ed Sullivan. Everything the state is dealing with today, he said, stems from Senate Bill 100, the 1973 law requiring cities and counties to prepare their own plans in accordance with statewide goals. Rules based on the law require the Portland area to maintain a 20-year supply of "buildable land," Sullivan said. They also require a review every five years to determine whether the urban growth boundary needs expanding. Fast-forward to the mid-1990s, when the counties and Metro -- the regional planning agency -- wearied of the every-five-year review scramble. They tried something different. Using existing authority, they designated more than 18,500 acres for urban reserves -- enough to accommodate growth for 30 years, according to projections. So there was language in a 1997 plan outlining a time frame longer than five years, but not the 50 contained in Clem’s claim. However, the state Court of Appeals tossed that plan out, and it never took effect. We called Dan Chandler, now strategic policy administrator at Clackamas County, who worked on the 1997 case. What’s different this time, he said, is the first-ever inclusion of rural reserves -- a classification of land that didn’t exist in the law until 2007. The bill creating rural reserves, he added, established the legal path to the deal just struck in Salem. We emailed Clem at his legislative office, and he called us a few minutes later. He knew about the legal existence of urban reserves but hadn’t realized the Portland area in the late 1990s -- in an ultimately doomed effort -- designated more than 18,500 acres for future growth. "But what I was talking about in my claim," he said, "was how no one has ever done both urban and rural reserves in one big effort. In fact, just before the quote you’re focusing on, I specifically mentioned SB 1011, which is all about urban and rural reserves together. Without both components, I don’t think we could have pulled this off." We checked with Christian Gaston, The Oregonian reporter who has been writing about the Legislature’s land-use action. He confirmed Clem’s account. Dubbed the "grand bargain," the new law has received near-universal acclaim. One Clackamas County commissioner has expressed misgivings, but all of the groups that mounted court challenges against the most recent Metro/counties plan, including watchdog land-use group 1000 Friends of Oregon, say they are satisfied with the outcome. The Ruling The Portland area now has a new way to plan where growth will and won’t occur, as well as a solution for avoiding those burdensome five-year periodic review cycles. Clem, in touting the law, said "we’ve never tried this before," meaning no one has devised a land-use plan that looks out a half-century. That’s on the mark, since Metro and the three counties signed off on a plan 17 years ago that identified enough acreage to accommodate growth for three decades -- not five. It’s important to note, however, that since that plan died after successful legal challenges, it was never "tried." Clem rightly notes that the 1997 plan did not address rural reserves. In addition, he gets points for context. In his claim, he used the words "reserves" in referring to the first-ever inclusion of both urban and rural reserves in the same bill. The reporter who wrote the story that included his claim backed Clem’s account. So while it’s true that a plan was developed nearly 20 years ago that looked out far more than five years, that rocky iteration of Oregon’s land-use history was never actually put into effect. We rate Clem’s claim True. Return to OregonLive.com/politics to comment on this ruling.	None	Brian Clem	None	None	None	2014-03-06T16:54:06	2014-02-28	['None']
-pomt-00196	"In Congress, Ron DeSantis demanded that any new health law eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions."	/florida/statements/2018/oct/18/andrew-gillum/fact-checking-attack-ron-desantis-about-pre-existi/	Florida Democrats are turning Ron DeSantis’ Obamacare opposition against him in the state’s closely watched governor’s race. An ad for Democrat Andrew Gillum's campaign highlights patients with conditions including breast cancer, asthma, epilepsy and arthritis. "They are called pre-existing conditions and everybody knows somebody who has one," says the ad produced in partnership with the Florida Democratic Party. The ad then pivots to DeSantis’ time in the U.S. House. (He resigned in September to focus on his campaign.) "But in Congress, Ron DeSantis demanded that any new health law eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions," the narrator says. "He’d let insurance companies deny them coverage. And when he was asked what cancer patients should do without health insurance, DeSantis said 'show up to the emergency room.'" In a related fact-check, we explained the full context of the comment DeSantis made about the emergency room and cancer patients. DeSantis and Gillum could not be further apart on health care. Gillum has called for expanding access to health care and supports Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal, and DeSantis supported efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. DeSantis has been quiet on health care policy that he likes so far in his campaign. He has not yet released a health care plan, and the issues page on his website doesn’t mention the topic as of three weeks before Election Day. Did DeSantis really call for not including pre-existing conditions in a new law? His comments were more nuanced. DeSantis and a GOP Obamacare replacement The crux of the Democrats’ attack focuses on a decision by DeSantis to support House Republicans’ American Health Care Act, a 2017 bill that put protections for pre-existing health conditions in jeopardy. The Affordable Care Act barred insurers from rejecting people on the basis of pre-existing conditions, or charging them exorbitant rates for their premiums. We didn’t find examples that showed DeSantis "demanded" protections for pre-existing conditions be dropped in a new bill. But he was a part of the conservative wing of House Republicans, known as the Freedom Caucus, which did appear to force changes in the legislation behind the scenes. In March 2017, Freedom Caucus members said they wanted the bill to attack the law’s insurance coverage mandates, the Washington Post reported. House leaders who drafted the bill had steered clear of insurance mandates, but the Freedom Caucus didn’t want a watered-down bill. "I think we can probably be more aggressive," DeSantis said at the time. The Freedom Caucus wanted several of the key provisions of the law repealed, including the individual and employer mandates, the essential health coverage required in every plan and community rating rules that limit the factors insurers can use when setting premiums. DeSantis was part of the Freedom Caucus meeting with President Donald Trump about plans to change the bill. When the caucus wouldn’t join Republican leadership, the bill collapsed. DeSantis issued a statement calling the bill a "a flawed piece of legislation produced by a hasty process" which left "the core architecture of Obamacare in place" and didn’t do enough to addressing rising premiums and lack of consumer choice. Republicans continued to work on it. In late April 2017, Fox’s Lou Dobbs asked DeSantis about the effort by the Freedom Caucus to get the necessary votes for a health care plan. DeSantis replied: "Well, I think we should get the votes. I mean, we promised to fully repeal it. That's what I think we should do. That's what most conservatives want to do. We have resistance to doing that, so this bill is a compromise bill that rolls back a lot of Obamacare, then allows states to effectively opt out of the premium-hiking regulations. "And so that should be something that everyone in the conference should be able to get behind who ran on repealing Obamacare. And I think if we do that, and hopefully, the Senate will make it better, and the states that opt out, I think you can see some premiums start to go down, which would be a huge win for consumers." The New York Times explained a series of changes to the bill that won over the Freedom Caucus, including one that would affect people with pre-existing conditions. States would be allowed to waive a rule to allow higher prices for consumers who had a lapse in coverage of more than 63 days. Then, these consumers would buy insurance through a separate pool. This would have undermined the key provision of the Affordable Care Act to ban insurers from charging higher prices to those with pre-existing conditions. While the Freedom Caucus wanted to push health care closer to the pre-ACA days, the legislation didn’t do away with pre-existing condition protections completely. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that 6.3 million people could potentially face higher premiums for one year under the bill due to pre-existing health conditions. On May 4, 2017, DeSantis joined a narrow majority to vote for the bill, which passed the House on a mostly partisan 217-213 vote. (It later died in the Senate.) DeSantis and the Senate version The Democrats also point to comments by DeSantis in favor of a subsequent effort to overhaul the bill, known as the Graham-Cassidy bill. "So I think that this is clearly better than Obamacare," DeSantis said on Fox Business News Sept. 21, 2017. "It really empowers the states to fashion solutions. And I think that would be good for a large number of states who really are suffering under Obamacare." That bill did address pre-existing conditions, by requiring states to show they intended to keep coverage accessible and affordable if they wanted billions in federal aid dollars. But other parts of the bill would have allowed states to give insurance companies a free hand in charging those people higher premiums. Experts said the bill’s language protecting people with pre-existing conditions was vague and subject to broad interpretation. This bill also died. DeSantis has said he supports protections for pre-existing conditions DeSantis, much like other Republicans nationwide this year, has been trying to thread the awkward needle of opposing the Affordable Care Act while declaring support for pre-existing condition protection. WPLG’s Glenna Milberg asked DeSantis about pre-existing conditions at an Oct. 15 campaign event in West Miami a few weeks after the ad appeared. DeSantis replied "100 percent you need pre-existing." He also said that before Obamacare, pre-existing condition protection existed, which isn’t quite right. Before, individual market insurers in all but five states maintained lists of so-called declinable medical conditions, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many insurers also maintained a list of declinable medications. A spokesman for DeSantis told the Tampa Bay Times in September that DeSantis supports protections for pre-existing conditions. His campaign did not respond to our request for comment. Our ruling Gillum's ad said, "In Congress, Ron DeSantis demanded that any new health law eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions." We didn’t find an example of DeSantis individually demanding protections for pre-existing conditions be dropped in a new bill. However, he was part of the Freedom Caucus, the conservative wing of the House, that forced changes that weakened protections for pre-existing conditions. "Eliminate" is too strong. In May 2017, DeSantis voted in favor of the Republicans’ American Health Care Act in 2017, an Obamacare replacement bill that would have put pre-existing condition protection in jeopardy for some patients. DeSantis also voted for the Graham-Cassidy bill that said states had to show they intended to keep coverage accessible and affordable in order to get federal aid. But the bill also would have allowed states to let insurance companies charge higher premiums to sicker people. We rate this statement Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Andrew Gillum	None	None	None	2018-10-18T12:01:37	2018-09-26	['United_States_Congress']
-pomt-08637	About $4.89 billion in one-time money was used to balance the current state general revenue fund budget.	/ohio/statements/2010/sep/17/ted-strickland/strickland-administration-figures-one-time-money-u/	The fine print tucked among the hundreds of pages of Ohio’s state budget that details how state programs are paid for doesn’t normally make for a very hot political issue. However, this is no ordinary state budget that is paying the bills in Ohio. The current budget relies heavily on federal stimulus money and other nest eggs. Ohio is now relying on an unprecedented level of one-time money in its budget. Those sources include: Stimulus funding Draining of little-used state accounts Debt restructuring A loan from the school facilities commission Proceeds from cuts to state employees Ohio’s Office of Budget and Management attempts to tackle this controversial subject on its website with an estimate of exactly how much one-time money is used. A chart there totals the one-time resources affecting the general revenue fund at $4,887,844,809 — we’ll call it $4.89 billion -- a numerical statement that we are attributing to Gov. Ted Strickland since the cabinet-level office ultimately answers to him. That number is billions of dollars lower than estimates some other analysts have provided, so PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a closer look at the state’s accounting of one-time money. One-time money is simply funding that won’t reoccur in the next budget cycle, and it’s being used to make ends meet in the $50.5 billion general revenue fund budget. Think of it this way: If you find a $50 bill in the alley you might use it to pay your cell-phone bill this month. Next month you won’t have that $50 coming in to use on the bill, thus it’s one-time money to you. Republican lawmakers seized on the heavy use of the one-time money during last year’s budget debate. They accused Gov. Ted Strickland of promoting an unsustainable budget that would steer Ohio off a budgetary cliff when the next state budget rolls around. This was a key argument for Republicans, as only six of 67 GOP lawmakers voted for Strickland’s budget in the House and Senate. The implication is that the more one-time money used in the current state budget, the bigger the structural imbalance will be when that money isn’t there to prop things up next time. And next time is soon -- the next budget will be rolled out in the spring of 2011. Strickland spokeswoman Amanda Wurst quickly put us in touch with David Ellis, the state’s assistant budget director, to explain the details on how his office compiled its one-time number. Ellis said that the $4.89 billion figure only includes all of the one-time money contained in House Bill 1, the state’s primary budget document that passed in mid-July 2009. He said it doesn’t encompass any changes to the state’s budget made in subsequent pieces of legislation since the bill was signed into law more than 14 months ago. However, since House Bill 1 was passed, as Ellis knows, the state has felt the impact of other spending-related provisions that have come into effect. The biggest change was the delay of an income tax cut worth $844 million contained in House Bill 318, but that delay is supposed to end after this budget. Additionally, the OBM one-time list does not include an increase in the reimbursement rate for prescription drug coverage under Medicaid Part D, worth $152 million, that happened in Feb. 2010 long after the state budget was enacted; nor a raid on the state’s tobacco fund, worth $627 million, in combined state and federal funds still tied up in court. Tally those figures and the state’s use of one-time money in the general revenue fund portion of the budget rises from $4.89 billion to $6.51 billion. Ellis said budget officials see no point in updating the one-time number. "We’ve not felt compelled to update it at each turn of the page," Ellis said. "It’s not been updated because it has no bearing on the day-to-day operations of the office or the day-to-day operations of the budget." Wurst, who serves double duty as the budget spokeswoman, noted that reporters who ask budget questions are told the one-time figure doesn’t include any changes made after mid-July 2009. "We always make that clear to reporters, such as yourself, that the figure hasn’t been updated," she said. Wurst argues that the public isn’t being misled by the number because to get to the chart depicting the one-time money requires clicking on a previous tab titled "budget highlights." Therefore, she argues, it’s clear that the context of the one-time money is from within the state budget bill passed some 14 months ago. What Wurst doesn’t mention is that the one-time money chart is the only place that such a figure appears anywhere on OBM’s website. And, of course, it wouldn’t require a major programming overhaul to more clearly label the chart so that the public realizes that the one-time figure only includes items passed in House Bill 1. A second argument advanced by Ellis is that the $627 million related to the state’s raid on the tobacco fund shouldn’t be counted as one-time money because it remains tied up in court. The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments on July 6 about whether the state should be allowed to use money from Ohio’s settlement with Big Tobacco on "optional" Medicaid services and human-service programs. A ruling has not yet been issued. "We absorbed those costs into our budget," Ellis said. "We didn’t have the money to spend." That’s true — to a degree. While money shifted from underspending in other Medicaid areas is plugging the hole made by the tobacco funds currently held up by the Supreme Court case, the Strickland administration still hopes the court will give it the green light to use those dollars. And even if you don’t count those funds, the budget office’s one-time number is still off by about $1 billion. So let’s go to the scorecard and add it up: The state budget office acknowledges its $4.89 billion figure is outdated but says it’s not misleading to the public. A more updated figure isn’t available anywhere on OBMs website. And, there certainly are political considerations for having the number appear as low as possible. And Strickland budget officials question whether the $647 million raid on the state’s tobacco fund should be added to the total at all because the Ohio Supreme Count hasn’t yet ruled on whether that money can be put to use. Whether you count the $647 million in tobacco money tied up in court or not, it’s clear that the $4.89 billion one-time money figure is off by at least $1 billion. The fact that reporters are apprised immediately by Wurst that the figure is incomplete shows that the administration realizes that it isn’t an accurate representation of how much one-time money is used in the state budget. That suggests to us that the Strickland administration knows that continuing to use the $4.89 billion one-time money figure on its website could mislead the public. That’s why we rate the statement as False.	None	Ted Strickland	None	None	None	2010-09-17T11:30:00	2010-09-17	['None']
-pomt-13486	Says Patrick Murphy "never worked as a CPA" and was "never a small business owner."	/florida/statements/2016/sep/08/national-republican-senatorial-committee/republican-group-misleads-attack-patrick-murphys-r/	The National Republican Senatorial Committee says it’s fact-checking U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy’s resume as a certified public accountant and small business owner. Murphy, a Jupiter Democrat, is running against incumbent Republican Sen. Marco Rubio. The NRSC’s TV ad begins with a video clip of Murphy saying in 2012, "I believe that my background as a CPA and a small business owner is exactly what we need." The narrator then reads lines from a CBS4 Miami report and says, "Never worked as a CPA," and "Never a small business owner." Did Murphy distort his work experience? We heard similar attacks against Murphy during the primary, and wrote a guide to attacks on Murphy’s resume. There are a lot of nuances to how Murphy has characterized his work experience, and the TV ad makes it sound clear cut. It’s not. 'Never worked as a CPA?' Murphy did work as a CPA. But he first held a lesser title and then worked as a CPA for less than a year. Murphy started at Deloitte in Miami 2007 as an "audit assistant." He applied for his CPA license from Colorado in 2009; at the time Colorado required fewer semester credits than Florida. After he obtained the license in September 2009, he was promoted to "audit senior." He left in May 2010. To get the license, Murphy took a test through the state of Vermont. (The exam is the same everywhere, so he didn’t have to travel to Vermont to take it.) CBS4 reported that Murphy "never worked a day in his life as a Certified Public Accountant." This is a matter of semantics: He did work while a CPA for several months at Deloitte, but he worked in Florida while holding a Colorado CPA license. Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida, previously told PolitiFact Florida that Murphy’s path -- starting as an audit assistant at Deloitte, taking the CPA test and getting licensed in another state and then being promoted -- would have been common. Many new hires at firms such as Deloitte have not passed the CPA exam. These non-CPA assistants can’t sign audit opinions or tax returns; however, they do audit work without having a CPA license from any state, McGill said. "Bottom line: He can fully work as an audit assistant or even audit senior or manager in for Deloitte in Miami without being licensed in Florida (or anywhere)," McGill said. "It only becomes critical to have the Florida license if he becomes a partner." Murphy was promoted to "audit senior" after obtaining his license. "They are the boots on the ground doing the actual work," he said. Murphy acknowledged in a 2012 debate that his CPA license was from Colorado after his Republican rival, U.S. Rep. Allen West, accused him of misleading voters about his credentials. "I am a certified public accountant in the state of Colorado," Murphy said. "I never hid that." Murphy’s 2016 campaign website said that after college, he "went on to work as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) for Deloitte and Touche, auditing Fortune 500 companies." A Murphy spokesman referred to an article by the Sun Sentinel which quoted a former supervisor of Murphy’s at Deloitte from 2007 to 2009. She gave $250 to his campaign in 2011. "Patrick is a licensed CPA who did valued accounting work in Florida," Courtney Connolly told the Sentinel. 'Never a small business owner' Murphy was a small business owner. But the business was owned by multiple people and grew out of a business owned by his father. The business was Coastal Environmental Services, a company formed to clean up the Gulf oil spill. Ultimately the firm only did work in the Gulf for a few months. In 2010, Murphy, his father Thomas P. Murphy Jr. and Dan Whiteman incorporated Coastal Environmental Services. The elder Murphy owns the affiliated Coastal Construction, and Whiteman was listed as the president of both firms. Annual reports show Patrick Murphy was a director in 2011 and 2012. Once elected to Congress, he remained an owner but no longer a director. State records don’t show if someone is an "owner," and Murphy hasn’t said if he financed the firm. By "owner" Murphy presumably meant that he had an economic interest, University of Florida corporate law professor Stuart Cohn previously told PolitiFact Florida. "Records filed with the state do not require listing those who had such an economic interest, whether as a shareholder or otherwise," Cohn said. "So, it is not possible from the state records to determine who owned what economic interests and in what percentages." The Murphy campaign shared an IRS document with PolitiFact Florida that showed that Murphy, his father and Whiteman were shareholders in 2010. (The campaign blacked out the percentage each owned, as well as the names of three additional shareholders.) Whiteman previously told PolitiFact Florida that as vice president Murphy "managed the company’s affairs." "It's typical for business partners to have multiple ventures together, so it’s not unusual for some of the owners of Coastal Construction to also be owners of Coastal Environmental," Whiteman said. Most of Murphy’s annual congressional financial disclosures do not mention his position with Coastal Environmental. In 2015, he amended his 2012 form to show that he was the firm’s vice president. In 2013, 2014 and 2015 he doesn’t list the firm at all. The company has been dormant since 2010, so it hasn't generated any income and doesn't need to be reported as an asset on the forms, said Joshua Karp, Murphy’s campaign spokesman. Our ruling The NRSC ad says Murphy "never worked as a CPA" and was "never a small business owner." Murphy did work as a CPA, albeit for only several months. He first worked as an audit assistant, and then got licensed through the state of Colorado. Murphy has been an owner of Coastal Environmental Services. The firm only did work in the Gulf for a few months in 2010 and has since been dormant. Since it is a private business, we lack some information about it such as whether he put up any money to finance the business. He was a co-owner along with his father. In both cases, the word "never" is too extreme to characterize Murphy’s work experience. However, in both cases we are talking about Murphy working for brief periods of time. Murphy may be overselling his resume, but the ad also exaggerates when it says "never." We rate this claim Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/48c429c2-9a50-4d02-beac-b18e0f30905b	None	National Republican Senatorial Committee	None	None	None	2016-09-08T15:53:55	2016-09-07	['None']
-goop-02853	Kris Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner Had “Secret Meeting” About Book?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kris-jenner-meeting-caitlyn-confronted-book-memoir-kuwtk/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kris Jenner, Caitlyn Jenner Had “Secret Meeting” About Book?	3:07 pm, April 17, 2017	None	['None']
-vees-00097	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: 'Death' of prosecutor in viral ‘5-minutes' video	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-death-prosecutor-viral-5-minutes-video	None	None	None	None	fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: 'Death' of prosecutor in viral ‘5-minutes' video a HOAX	August 21, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-00612	Oprah Winfrey Announces She’s Getting Married	https://www.truthorfiction.com/oprah-winfrey-announces-shes-getting-married/	None	celebrities	None	None	['celebrities', 'entertainment', 'facebook']	Oprah Winfrey Announces She’s Getting Married	Apr 20, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-07246	"We are in the bottom 10 in dollars in the classroom and the top 10 in dollars in the bureaucracy and red tape."	/ohio/statements/2011/may/30/john-kasich/gov-john-kasich-says-ohio-near-bottom-classroom-sp/	Gov. John Kasich took office complaining that not enough money spent on public education was going towards classroom instruction. The implication was that Ohio’s public schools instead are spending too much on administrator salaries and slighting schoolchildren. Well, he’s not implying anymore, he’s now saying as much. "We are in the bottom 10 in dollars in the classroom and the top 10 in dollars in the bureaucracy and red tape," the governor told a national television audience on May 12 during a live interview on FOX News cable television. The governor has made similar claims in the past, but his statement also contained something new, so Politifact Ohio decided to take a look. It has been well documented that Kasich’s first operating budget released in March suggested putting the squeeze on public school education, proposing to cut funding to local school districts by 11.9 percent next fiscal year and another 4.9 percent the year after. It would seem contradictory to cut funding to schools and yet chide them for not spending more in the classroom, school officials say. At the same time, Kasich wants to increase the number of charter schools, direct competition to school districts. But the Republican governor insists he is giving the districts choices for how to save money and compete and yet still boost classroom spending all while drawing down fewer state dollars. One is with controversial Senate Bill 5, the collective bargaining reform law that is suspended while a challenge is mounted against it by labor groups, including teachers unions. The law sharply curtails collective bargaining power of teachers and other public union workers, bans strikes and eliminates binding arbitration. The other option the governor says districts can turn to is cutting their administrative and overhead costs by trimming the number of administrators they employ and looking for ways to consolidate their services. PolitiFact Ohio checked a variation of the first part of Kasich’s statement last November when the new governor complained that Ohio was 46th in the country in classroom spending. We rated that claim Mostly True. New this statement is the claim that Ohio ranks in "the top 10 in dollars in the bureaucracy and red tape." It turns out the governor based his most recent statement, including the new part of the claim about administrative costs, on the same information as his previous comments, a 2010 report from the Greater Ohio Policy Center and Brookings Institution. The report, ‘Restoring Prosperity: Transforming Ohio’s Communities for the Next Economy,’ focused on ways to improve Ohio’s economy by strengthening the state’s urban cores. Revising how education dollars are spent was one of the report’s conclusions. "Ohio ranks 47th in the nation in the share of elementary and secondary education spending that goes to instruction and ninth in the share that goes to administration," the report states. A spokesman for Kasich said it was that line in the 76-page report that the governor is referring to with his comments. It’s important to note, though, that the statistics, from the National Center for Education Statistics, are from a state-by-state analysis of data from the 2007-2008 school year, meaning they are about three years old. The Dayton Daily News, which reviewed U.S. Department of Education statistics, recently reported that Ohio was 12th highest in terms of the amount of money spent on administrative costs and 46th lowest for spending in the classroom. While those statistics do not perfectly match Kasich’s statement of Ohio being in the top 10 for administrative spending, they were close enough that the administration highlighted the story in support of Kasich’s position. We agree. That the Education Department’s data has Ohio slipping to 12th on administrative spending is not enough to make the governor’s underlying point inaccurate. Knowing it provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate the governor’s statement Mostly True.	None	John Kasich	None	None	None	2011-05-30T06:00:00	2011-05-12	['None']
-tron-03146	Hillary Clinton’s former boss says he fired her from an investigative position because she was a “liar” and “unethical”	https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/	None	politics	None	None	['congress', 'hillary clinton', 'liberal agenda']	Hillary Clinton’s former boss says he fired her from an investigative position because she was a “liar” and “unethical”	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07708	"Thirty-five states have accepted high-speed intercity rail money."	/florida/statements/2011/mar/04/raymond-lahood/us-transportation-secretary-ray-lahood-35-states-h/	U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says that the decisions made by Republican governors in Ohio, Wisconsin and now Florida to refuse federal money for high-speed rail projects shouldn't overshadow the fact that the vast majority of governors and states embrace the idea of bullet trains in their backyard. "Thirty-five states have accepted high-speed intercity rail money. Thirty-five," LaHood told a March 2, 2011, meeting of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. "There's a lot of enthusiasm and energy and very good plans around the country for high-speed, intercity rail. ... Just in the last two weeks, I probably received half a dozen or more letters from either governors or senators that are ready. They have their plans ready. If there is more money to be made available, they are ready to get in. America is ready for high-speed intercity rail. And the fact that 35 states have accepted the money is proof of it." A video copy of LaHood's speech is attached to this story. His comments about rail begin about six minutes in. We decided to check LaHood's claim that 35 of the country's 50 states have accepted money for high-speed rail projects. High-speed rail has been a priority of President Barack Obama's administration, which set aside $8 billion in the 2009 federal stimulus package for rail projects and awarded an additional $2.5 billion to fund rail projects in October 2010. Florida, for instance, was offered $2.4 billion in federal money to help build the 84-mile-long corridor linking Tampa and Orlando. The total project was estimated to cost about $2.7 billion, with either the state or a private contractor picking up the remaining share. The Tampa-Orlando line was conceived as one of the first legs in what Obama envisioned as a nationwide high-speed rail network. A second line eventually would have connected Orlando and Miami, with future lines connecting Jacksonville to Orlando and Jacksonville to Tallahassee. Eventually, a network of high-speed rail lines would be able to carry passengers from Miami up the eastern seaboard, or as far west as Los Angeles and Seattle, linking 80 percent of the country's population. Florida Gov. Rick Scott rejected the money for his share of the network in an announcement on Feb. 16, 2011, joining a group of critics who believe the federal money could be better spent on state road systems, or by not being spent at all. The federal government revoked a $400 million grant to Ohio for high-speed rail after the state's new governor, John Kasich, said he would not participate. The same thing happened in Wisconsin, where the federal government pulled back $810 million to build a high-speed line between Milwaukee and Madison after newly elected Gov. Scott Walker made it clear that he would not accept the money. All three states received or spent federal dollars on their rail projects before nixing them entirely. Justin Nisly, a spokesman with the U.S. Department of Transportation, said that, in total, 35 states and the District of Columbia have received federal funding through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program either as part of the 2009 stimulus or the 2010 grant awards. Here's the transportation department's list of states that received money -- Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington and West Virginia. That's 35 states alright. But in going through the list, along with the accompanying grant information the Transportation Department provided (here and here), we found several caveats to LaHood's claim. Maybe high-speed, maybe just intercity First, the list is not just high-speed intercity service. It's high-speed or intercity service. That's why Kansas is on the list though it's not planning a high-speed line. Kansas is planning to possibly use an existing freight-line to move people between Kansas City and Oklahoma City. On top of that, the list includes three states that have loudly rejected federal funding for high-speed rail projects. Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have combined to say no to nearly $3.6 billion in federal moneys. Each of those states did spend or receive some federal dollars before killing their projects, but not nearly enough to construct a high-speed line. Wisconsin has a second asterisk. While it rejected money for a high-speed line between Milwaukee and Madison, it did accept $2 million to upgrade the existing Hiawatha Amtrak line linking Milwaukee and Chicago. But that's upgrading an existing Amtrak line, not developing a high-speed rail line. Money for tracks, stations, tunnels Other states on the list are receiving money, but not for high-speed rail service. Four states included on the list received funding only to create broad statewide rail plans, not money to engineer or plan the feasibility of specific high-speed rail corridors. To develop the broad vision documents, New Mexico received $100,000, Idaho received $200,000, Nevada received $640,000 and West Virginia received $1 million. And still other states received money to renovate existing track or stations -- which would improve service -- though without creating high-speed rail lines. (High-speed rail doesn't have a singular measure, but most people agree a high-speed line should reach speeds in excess of 125 mph). Maryland's $70 million in funding was to plan for the replacement of two tunnels on existing rail track, and to plan for the building of a new train station at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Indiana received $71 million to improve existing regular rail service between the town of Porter and the Illinois state line. It also had asked for $2.8 billion to develop a high-speed line linking Chicago and Cleveland, but was rejected. (Ohio's decision to reject a high-speed line likely makes Indiana's application moot). That's at least 10 states that either have rejected the idea of high-speed rail, or are receiving federal funding -- but spending on something other than you'd consider a high-speed rail project. That doesn't include another handful of states that received federal funding just to study the possibility of constructing a high-speed rail corridor. A study which, by no means, signals that state wants to build a line, or will (If you don't believe us, ask Florida's new governor). Other lists differ from LaHood's One more interesting point about LaHood's 35-state claim: It's not the same number used by the Federal Railroad Administration. On its website, the railroad administration keeps a "current list of High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail project funding." (A word of caution: You'll need to install Microsoft Silverlight to view the list. If you're having trouble, we copied the list and posted it for you to see here.) The list includes awards to states totaling $4.8 billion, including the first $66 million awarded to Florida as part of its Tampa-Orlando line, and $45 million given to Wisconsin and Ohio before those states pulled out of the program. Excluding Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio, the railroad administration says 15 states and the District of Columbia have been awarded some type of high-speed rail funding. They are: North Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Colorado, Delaware, Maine, New York, Georgia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Washington, Oregon, California, Vermont and the District of Columbia. For the record, high-speed rail corridors are still being actively planned in California, in Oregon and Washington, in Illinois, and throughout the northeast. Our ruling LaHood told transportation officials that "35 states have accepted high-speed intercity rail money." It seems clear that 35 states, plus the District of Columbia, have so far been awarded money for rail projects through the 2009 federal stimulus or a subsequent federal grant. And yes, the program is called High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. But to say all of that money is directed for high-speed intercity rail stretches common logic. First it's really high-speed or intercity rail. Next, three of those 35 states have subsequently said no thanks. And several other states are taking the money, but not using it to develop new high-speed rail lines. We understand that you can make an argument that all of that money could one day result in a high-speed rail project. But based on the results in Wisconsin, Ohio, and now Florida, we're far from ready to go there just yet. We rate this statement Half True.	None	Raymond LaHood	None	None	None	2011-03-04T17:45:14	2011-03-02	['None']
-pomt-15379	Says Jeb Bush "oversaw (an) average in-state tuition increase of 48.2 percent during his tenure."	/florida/statements/2015/jun/30/florida-democratic-party/florida-dems-say-tuition-went-482-percent-jeb-bush/	Former Gov. Jeb Bush likes to advertise education reforms during his two terms in office, but the Florida Democratic Party wants to remind voters those changes came at a price. In a joint press release with the Texas Democratic Party ahead of a fundraising visit to the Lone Star state, Democrats compared Bush to fellow presidential hopeful Rick Perry, the former Texas governor. In a chart listing dubious gubernatorial achievements, Dems said Bush "oversaw (an) average in-state tuition increase of 48.2 percent during his tenure." Did public university tuition go up by almost 50 percent in eight years during Bush’s two terms? That number is more or less correct, but there’s more to the Bush-era education overhaul than that. Higher-cost education Before we dive into the convoluted tuition-setting process, keep in mind that Florida’s governor does not set tuition rates, the Legislature does. The governor does sign off on the rate in the final budget, and can veto an increase. But the Florida Democratic Party said he "oversaw" the increases, so we need to keep that wording in mind. When Bush took office, the State University System was governed by the Board of Regents, which was designed to protect university interests and often fought with legislators over how money was spent at schools. One of those battles led Bush to work with then-Speaker of the House John Thrasher and the Legislature to dissolve the Board of Regents in 2000. The Regents’ duties were turned over to the state Board of Education and a governor-appointed Board of Trustees at each university. But that system soon added the current Board of Governors, created when U.S. Sen. Bob Graham (also a former governor) masterminded a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2002. Now let’s get down to the numbers. Florida Democratic Party officials didn’t elaborate on their claim for us, but they did include a link in their press release to back up their point. A chart from the Florida College Access Network, a student advocacy group, showed average in-state, undergraduate tuition and fees for students taking 30 credit hours at State University System schools over a number of years. Doing the math from that source, we found that the percent change of the systemwide average from the 1999-2000 fiscal year (Bush’s first year in office) through 2006-07 (when he left) really was 48.2 percent. This is the number the Florida Democratic Party is likely using. 1999-2000 2006-07 Percent change $2,170.98 $3,217.65 48.2 percent Source: Florida College Access Network But this is PolitiFact, so you know we found more to the numbers than that. Things get a little complicated because Florida’s fiscal year starts in July, while governors are inaugurated in January. That means there’s some overlap in which a new governor is working with his predecessor’s budget for six months. If we’re really going to compare tuition numbers, we should start with the fiscal year that started before Bush took office in January 1999 to establish the baseline for what tuition was when he began his first term. If we look at it that way, the percent change is even higher. 1998-99 2006-07 Percent change $2,061.75 $3,217.65 56 percent Source: Florida College Access Network We also need to keep in mind that these College Access Network totals are averages for all the universities in the system, with tuition and fees reported together -- a common measurement because fees are mandatory. But to get an accurate count, we have to split tuition and fees, because some fees can vary from school to school. Neither the governor nor the Legislature set fees. That’s up to the Board of Governors (and the Regents before them), which has final say over fee hikes. We asked the Board of Governors for the systemwide tuition rates for the time frame we’re looking at, to see what the actual rate of tuition increases were. They are reported by credit hour, but the rate of change is still easy to calculate: 1998-99 2006-07 Percent change $46.99 per credit hour $73.71 per credit hour 56.9 percent Source: Board of Governors So Bush oversaw a tuition increase of almost 60 percent. Whether that’s a lot in relative terms is a different matter. His campaign pointed out undergraduate students saw an average annual increase of about $145 with a full load of classes. A Bush spokeswoman also said his successors have raised tuition at a higher rate than that, which we’ve dealt with in other fact-checks. We can look at a couple of nationwide measures, again reported in tuition and fees, which can give us a rough idea of how much costs were going up across the country while Bush was in office. The National Center for Education Statistics shows that between 1998-99 and 2006-07, in-state undergraduate tuition at four-year public institutions went up more than 75 percent. The College Board, which uses NCES data in part to come up with its figures, puts that at about 72.7 percent. Florida universities have historically had low in-state undergraduate tuition rates, with the biggest increases passed off on out-of-state residents and graduate students. The College Board’s annual Trends in College Pricing report showed that when Bush left office, public universities in Florida charged the least among all 50 states for in-state, undergraduate tuition. Only Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia averaged less in 2006-07. Our ruling The Florida Democratic Party said Bush "oversaw average in-state tuition increase of 48.2 percent during his tenure." While not having the power to increase tuition himself, Bush did sign budgets in which the Legislature increased tuition substantially. We came up with 56.9 percent ourselves, counting the strict cost of tuition per hour over the eight years Bush was governor. That hike doesn’t beat estimates of the nationwide average at the time, however, and in-state, undergraduate tuition was still quite a deal compared to other states when Bush left office. The statement is accurate, but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True.	None	Florida Democratic Party	None	None	None	2015-06-30T11:39:26	2015-06-25	['None']
-snes-03445	Wells Fargo and Chase are invested in the Dakota Access Pipeline.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chase-and-wells-fargo-among-banks-financing-dakota-pipeline/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Chase and Wells Fargo Among Banks Financing Dakota Pipeline?	30 November 2016	None	['None']
-snes-05476	President Obama gave Syria $195 million to celebrate a Muslim holiday.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mixture-obama-195-million-muslim-holiday/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Obama Give Syria $195 Million to Celebrate a Muslim Holiday?	17 December 2015	None	['Syria', 'Barack_Obama', 'Islam']
-pomt-00855	In 2007, when Nancy Pelosi met with President Assad of Syria, "nobody got upset."	/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/18/sean-hannity/hannity-unlike-iran-letter-response-no-one-got-ups/	Republicans are accusing Democrats of a double standard when they criticize a letter that 47 GOP senators sent to Iranian leaders. The Democratic criticism charges that the senators, in warning Iran’s leadership against a pending nuclear deal, stepped on President Barack Obama’s responsibility for handling foreign policy. But some Republicans counter that Democrats have taken on similar diplomatic efforts. On his show March 10, 2015, Fox News host Sean Hannity said that Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., acted counter to President George W. Bush’s strategy of diplomatically isolating Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, by traveling to Syria in 2007 to open up relations. Pelosi was then the House speaker. Yet this barely caused a ripple at the time, Hannity suggested. "In 2007, when Nancy Pelosi met with President Assad of Syria against the Bush administration's wishes, nobody got upset," Hannity said. "But now this is the greatest sin of all times, and they're being called traitors in the New York Daily News on their cover." Hannity was correct to say that Pelosi’s visit with Assad went against Bush administration policy. At the time, the administration had adopted a strategy of diplomatically isolating Syria and not engaging in direct talks with Assad, because of the country’s role in conflicts in Lebanon and Iraq. Pelosi’s office has pushed back against Hannity’s claim that Pelosi’s visit and the Republicans’ letter to Iran are equivalent. But we won’t delve into that question here. Instead, we’re going to look at whether Hannity was correct to say that "nobody got upset." Politicians and staff The reality is that Republicans -- and some others -- at the time said Pelosi went beyond the role of representative and stepped unwelcome into the role of secretary of state. For starters, the Bush administration spoke out publicly against the 2007 trip. Addressing reporters in reference to Pelosi’s trip, Bush himself said, "Sending delegations hasn’t worked," according to the New York Times. "It’s just simply been counterproductive." Vice President Dick Cheney also offered a harsh critique in an interview with radio host Rush Limbaugh. "I'm obviously disappointed," Cheney said. "I think it is, in fact, bad behavior on her part. I wish she hadn't done it, but she is the speaker of the House, and fortunately I think the various parties involved recognize she doesn't speak for the United States in those circumstances. She doesn't represent the administration. The president is the one that conducts foreign policy, not the speaker of the House." On CBS, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said, "We did ask her not to go. We did not believe it would advance the diplomatic efforts in the Middle East. I think most Americans would not think that the leader of the Democratic Party in the Congress should be meeting with the heads of a state sponsor of terror." Media In addition, both mainstream and the conservative media criticized Pelosi for the trip -- covering the back-and-forth extensively on the editorial pages, nightly shows and the Sunday political talk shows. Here are a few examples: • The Washington Post editorial board: "The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president…. Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish." • The Wall Street Journal editorial board: "What was Ms. Pelosi hoping to accomplish other than embarrassing President Bush? With her trip, Ms. Pelosi has now reassured the Syrian strongman that Mr. Bush lacks the domestic support to impose any further pressure on his country." • Former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan: The trip was a "thumb in the eye of the president of the United States, and it does send a mixed message." • Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., in an interview with Hannity: "I don't understand why, as speaker of the House, she would be going to see a dictator in Damascus when the White House has publicly asked her not to go there." • Then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.: "I believe her visit to Syria was a mistake, that it was bad for the United States of America and good for the Syrians." Hannity himself Hannity, one of the most popular hosts at the cable news network with the highest ratings, also addressed the trip on several occasions. On his show April 5, 2007, Hannity said Pelosi’s intention by taking the trip was to embarrass Bush. Two days later, Hannity called Pelosi the "Diva of Damascus" who was "conducting her own foreign policy" that was "dangerous for America." And on April 12, 2007, he accused Pelosi of "making friends with America’s enemies." "Why is the San Francisco liberal willing to compromise with radicals and apparently not the president?" he said. Through a spokeswoman, Hannity told PolitiFact that he was specifically referring to comments made in support of Pelosi’s trip by Obama and Hillary Clinton, then both serving in the Senate. Hannity does have a point that Clinton (and some other Democrats, as noted by The Daily Show) did support Pelosi’s trip yet have spoken out against the Iran letter. For instance, in 2007, future Secretary of State Clinton said, "I applaud Speaker Pelosi. I have long advocated engagement with countries in the region, including Iran and Syria. By contrast, Clinton said of the Iran letter, "Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief." For a reminder that nothing is ever entirely new in politics, check out this passage from an April 2007 New York Times article about Pelosi’s Syria trip: "Democrats say the complaints have a certain political expediency to them, and note that many of the same people criticizing Ms. Pelosi’s decision to delve into foreign policy were fine when Newt Gingrich, then the Republican speaker of the House, made his own foray into foreign policy back in 1997." Our ruling Hannity said that in 2007, when Nancy Pelosi met with President Assad of Syria, "nobody got upset." In reality, many politicians, pundits and editorial boards spoke out against Pelosi’s trip, including Bush and Cheney. Hannity told PolitiFact that he was referring specifically to comments made in support of Pelosi’s trip by Obama and Hillary Clinton. However, that point would not have been obvious to viewers watching the show. Rating Hannity on what he actually said on television, we find his claim False.	None	Sean Hannity	None	None	None	2015-03-18T11:14:01	2015-03-10	['Nancy_Pelosi', 'Syria']
-pomt-11062	"Fact: Over 90,000 kids were detained under Obama. And no one cared."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/25/brad-parscale/tyes-immigrant-children-detained-under-obama-they-/	As President Donald Trump faced criticism from the left and right for his administration’s policy leading to separation of undocumented immigrant children from parents, conservatives fired back by arguing that President Barack Obama also detained children. "Fact: Over 90,000 kids were detained under Obama. And no one cared," tweeted Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale June 20. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in April the Trump administration would refer all people caught crossing the border illegally for prosecution, including adults traveling with children. As a result of that zero-tolerance policy, officials said about 2,300 children had been separated from their parents at the border between May 5 and June 9. In response to the political backlash, Trump signed an executive order June 20 stating the administration will temporarily keep families together pending proceedings. We found multiple claims on social media and on conservative websites stating that 90,000 children were detained under Obama, so we decided to fact-check the figure. Parscale also tweeted a Daily Caller article that included photos taken during a media tour of detention facilities in Texas and Arizona in 2014. These images show immigrants in caged-in facilities and sleeping on floors. (In May, Trump correctly tweeted that Democrats had mistakenly tweeted 2014 pictures from Obama’s term showing children from the border in steel cages.) Parscale declined to comment on the record. Child immigrants during Obama’s tenure Parscale appears to be referring to unaccompanied minors fleeing gang violence and poverty in Central America during Obama’s tenure. Those unaccompanied minors who crossed the border without parents are a different group from the children separated from their parents at the border in recent months. A report to the U.S. Senate in 2016 stated that since the beginning of fiscal year 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services had placed almost 90,000 unaccompanied minors with sponsors in the United States. Under the terms of the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, unaccompanied minors from countries other than Canada and Mexico were transferred from Border Patrol to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, by law within 72 hours, said David Fitzgerald, co-director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at University of California San Diego. These minors were detained in a jail-like setting until they could be placed with a parent, family member, or other sponsor living in the U.S. They stayed with those caregivers until the end of their immigration proceedings, which would decide whether they could stay permanently or be deported. Under Obama, most of these detentions were short-term before the unaccompanied minors were released to a caregiver. There isn’t a clean answer for average detention time, but in federal filings in the Flores settlement case, the government said that for residents booked into family residential facilities during a stretch between October 2015 and May 2016 the average length of stay was 11.8 days. (The Flores settlement was a January 1997 court agreement between advocates for unaccompanied minors detained by immigration authorities and the Justice Department. The agreement determined immigrant children must be held in the "least restrictive setting.") During Obama’s tenure, it was possible for undocumented children to be separated from a parent once they were already in the country if their parents ultimately got deported. While some children were separated from their parents under Obama, this was relatively rare, and occurred at a far lower rate than under Trump. 'No one cared' Parscale said that "no one cared" about child detentions under Obama. But family detention under Obama was highly controversial. The majority of the Senate Democratic caucus -- 33 senators -- along with 178 House Democrats sent a letter in June 2015 to the Homeland Security Secretary urging an end to family detention. "The prolonged detention of asylum-seeking mothers and children who pose no flight risk or danger to the community is unacceptable and goes against our most fundamental values," they wrote. The UN Refugee Agency filed an amicus brief in litigation against the detention of minors. Several rights organizations including the ACLU filed briefs in the July 2016 case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Flores settlement applies to all children, whether accompanied or unaccompanied by their parents. Our ruling Parscale tweeted, "Fact: Over 90,000 kids were detained under Obama. And no one cared." The 90,000 children refers to the unaccompanied minors from Central America during Obama’s tenure. Children were detained by the federal government until they could be released to a parent or other caregiver in the U.S. However, Parscale omits that this group of children detained is a different situation from the recent Trump administration policy. The 90,000 refers to minors who crossed the border without any parents during Obama’s tenure. Those unaccompanied minors were detained until they were placed with a caregiver. The Trump administration policy separated children from their parents when they crossed the border. We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Brad Parscale	None	None	None	2018-06-25T12:12:42	2018-06-20	['None']
-pose-00982	As governor, Bob McDonnell will build bipartisan consensus behind a plan to grant a tax credit to employers for expenses incurred in allowing employees to telecommute pursuant to a signed telwork agreement.	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/1017/seek-telecommuter-tax-credit/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Seek telecommuter tax credit	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Bob_McDonnell']
-afck-00181	“We welcome the decline in rhino poaching incidents since October 2015 which is for the first time in a decade.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/facts-alternative-facts-zumas-10th-state-nation-address-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Facts or alternative facts? Zuma’s 10th State of the Nation Address checked	2017-02-10 07:12	None	['None']
-pomt-11593	"We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/31/donald-trump/trump-exaggerates-energy-exports/	President Donald Trump put himself on the side of average Americans in his effort to reduce government regulations, particularly on energy. "We have ended the war on American Energy and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal," Trump said. "We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world." There are different ways to understand the claim that America is "now ... an exporter of energy." One way to read Trump’s statement is that the United States only recently began to export energy. This is flat wrong. "We have been exporting coal, natural gas, electricity, refined products and energy technologies for a very long time," Paul Sullivan, a professor at National Defense University, told us in August. "Liquefied natural gas exports from Alaska to Japan have been around for a long time." Trump might have meant that the United States had only recently become a net exporter of energy — meaning the total of all U.S. energy exports recently overtook the total of all U.S. energy imports. That’s also inaccurate. "This has been falling, but we are still a huge net energy importer," Jason Bordoff, who directs Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told us. In its most recent projections, the federal Energy Information Administration concluded that the United States would become a net energy exporter around 2026, depending on the course of future patterns of global supply, demand and pricing. The United States has been a net coal exporter for many years. It has been a net exporter of refined petroleum products since around 2011. So neither of those would make Trump correct. Natural gas has done better. In the Energy Information Administration's January 2018 shorter-term energy outlook, it reported that "in 2017, the United States was a net exporter of natural gas for the first time on an annual basis since 1957." We reached out to the White House and did not hear back. Our ruling Trump said, "We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world." The United States has been exporting different forms of energy for many years. It has been a net exporter of coal and refined petroleum products, a fact that predates Trump. The one new development is natural gas. For the first time since 1957, the United States became a net exporter in 2017. Overall though, it is a net energy importer, a situation that’s not expected to change until midway through the next decade. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-01-31T00:20:25	2018-01-30	['None']
-pomt-09965	Democrats in Congress "had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/13/newt-gingrich/gingrich-wrong-democrats-and-waterboarding/	Under pressure of a lawsuit, the Obama administration recently released memos on the interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. The memos detailed techniques that included waterboarding, a simulated drowning maneuver widely considered to be torture. Some torture opponents have called for the prosecution of Bush administration officials. Republicans, meanwhile, are firing back at Democrats in Congress, saying that they implicitly condoned the actions. Democrats "had control since January of 2007," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said in a television interview. "They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." There is a grain of truth in his claim, but he conveniently ignores the actions of the Democratic Congress. Democrats did pass legislation in 2008 that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U.S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush vetoed the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto. This was a big issue during the 2008 presidential campaign, because Sen. John McCain opposed the bill, even though he had said waterboarding is torture. At the time, McCain said he wasn't comfortable restricting intelligence personnel to the Army Field Manual. It's worth noting that some elected officials do not believe that Congress needed to pass a law saying that waterboarding was illegal. McCain, for example, said in 2007 that waterboarding already was illegal. "It's in violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in violation of existing law," he said at a debate in St. Petersburg. After the Bush administration memos were released, McCain said the legal reasoning behind them was "deeply flawed," though he did not call for prosecutions. So Democrats did try to change laws to end waterboarding after gaining control of Congress and initially passed the law. But they were stopped by a presidential veto. So Gingrich's statement that they " haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law," is only true because of the veto. The Democrats certainly tried to pass a law that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding. We rate his statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2009-05-13T17:24:31	2009-05-10	['United_States_Congress', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pose-00110	"As president, Obama will transform the paper benefit claims process to an electronic system that will be interoperable with the VA's health network as well as military records. This will reduce error rates, improve timeliness, and enhance the overall quality of the claims decisions."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/115/institute-electronic-record-keeping-for-the-vetera/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Institute electronic record-keeping for the Veterans Benefits Administration	2010-01-07T13:26:48	None	['Barack_Obama']
-pomt-06402	Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to freeze pay for state employees includes a 5.4 percent raise for himself.	/wisconsin/statements/2011/oct/28/blog-posting/bloggers-say-gov-scott-walker-taking-pay-raise-whi/	The reaction to Gov. Scott Walker’s state employee pay plan, which calls for no pay raises for state workers for the next two years, fell along party lines. Republicans said it was a measure of continued tough economic times and tight budgets. Democrats and union leaders complained the pay freeze came on the heels of legislation passed by Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature that requires state workers to pay more for the health insurance and pensions. Some left-wing bloggers found even more reason for outrage. They said that while the average state worker was being hit again, others -- including Walker -- weren’t sharing the pain. Of course, Walker is the guy who as Milwaukee County executive liked to tout the fact he was giving back some of his salary. And as governor likes to note he’s so frugal he brings a brown bag lunch to work. Nothing stirs up bloggers quite like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. The Cognitive Dissidence blog said this: "It is noted that Walker is giving himself a $7,500 raise. Not only is he being overly generous to himself, but he is also lavishing the love on some of his top henchmen like Becky Kleefisch, J.B. Van Hollen and Mike Huebsch." Another blog, Uppity Wisconsin, made a similar claim, saying Walker "clearly thinks the hard-working, ultra-efficient, super-effective guy who's Wisconsin governor (that would be him, as defined by him) deserves a significant pay raise -- a 5.4 percent raise." There were more examples, as the claim was picked up by other bloggers. Some reporters even contacted the governor’s office to ask about the issue. Residents called the governor’s office to register their complaints. And we received numerous emails -- from both sides -- urging us to sort it out. So did the governor’s compensation plan -- scheduled to take effect in January -- pad his own salary? Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the state’s largest employee’s union was to blame for spreading the misinformation. Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, issued a news release Oct. 28, 2011 that criticized Walker for taking a higher salary than his predecessor -- but that was after the blog posts and the initial outrage. So we’ll focus on the bloggers’ pay raise claims. The bloggers all cite this 184-page document which outlines Walker’s overall compensation plan for state workers. It includes a chart (page 67) showing the salaries for the state’s constitutional officers, such as state treasurer, secretary of state, attorney general and, of course, governor. For each, an "incumbent’s salary" as of July 5, 2009, is shown, with a line through it and another line shows the new pay rate as of Jan. 1, 2012. In the case of the governor, the salary of $137,092 is shown with a line through it. The salary to take effect next year is listed as $144,423. A raise, right? That’s how the bloggers interpreted the chart. But that’s not how pay for elected officials is set. The state constitution bars elected officials from increasing their own pay. That’s why changes are set before elections and always take effect in the future, when the new officials are in place. So, Walker’s pay was determined before Walker ever took office, according to state Legislative Reference Bureau. Indeed, the higher salaries were proposed by Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration and approved by state lawmakers back in 2008. Under that measure, Walker is already being paid $144,423 and that salary will remain in effect -- with no change -- during the four-year term. The other constitutional officers will also receive flat pay. So what of the chart that the bloggers referenced? "We’ve been getting a lot of confusion on this," said Tim Lundquist, a communications officer for the state Department of Administration, who pointed to the Office of State Employment Relations. "The OSER people say this is the way it has to be drafted,’" Lundquist said. Greg Gracz, head of the employment relations office, tried to clarify matters with a memo Oct. 27 that said: "No increases for rates for office for constitutional officers are proposed." But his attempt with a chart to clear up the matter is equally misleading -- and incorrect. That new chart shows the governor’s pay under a column titled "effective July 5, 2009" as $144,423. It shows the same pay under another column, effective Jan. 1, 2012. That suggests to the average reader (or blogger) that Gov. Jim Doyle was paid that amount. He wasn’t. The pay raise took effect when Walker took office. Our conclusion Bloggers dug into the pay plan proposed by Walker and found what sure looked like the ultimate hypocrisy: the governor giving himself a raise while freezing state workers pay for two years. The document they cited makes it look like there’s a raise coming, but there is not. Elected officials cannot increase their own pay. A quick look at the Blue Book or a phone call to the Legislative Reference Bureau would have told them that. So there’s no pay raise for Walker, or the lieutenant governor, state treasurer, secretary of state, and attorney general. Although the confusion is understandable because of a sloppy and confusing state compensation document (and an equally poor followup memo), it muddles things for residents. Here’s the clearest answer possible: The claim is False.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2011-10-28T14:58:53	2011-10-26	['None']
-goop-00434	Reese Witherspoon Furious That Nicole Kidman Got Rights To ‘Big Little Lies’ Author’s New Book?	https://www.gossipcop.com/reese-witherspoon-nicole-kidman-big-little-lies-author-new-book/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Reese Witherspoon Furious That Nicole Kidman Got Rights To ‘Big Little Lies’ Author’s New Book?	5:36 pm, August 17, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08567	Says Daniel Webster thinks wives should submit to their husbands.	/florida/statements/2010/sep/28/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-calls-opponent-taliban-daniel-webster/	U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson -- the man who described the Republican Party's health care plan as "die quickly" and who later equated the health care system to an American holocaust, who suggested former vice president Dick Cheney was a vampire who could turn into a bat and fly away at a moment's notice, and who said putting Republicans in charge of government was akin to making members of al-Qaida pilots -- is making another series of eye-catching claims. Grayson, an Orlando-area Democrat facing a difficult re-election fight against former Florida House speaker Daniel Webster, launched a stinging television attack Sept. 25, 2010. The title of his advertisement? "Taliban Dan Webster." (We guess we should note in fairness that the ad starts out pleasantly enough -- with Grayson's disclaimer saying he approved of the message and a picture of him smiling and holding two of his children). The meat of the ad is a back-and-forth between a female narrator and Webster, speaking his own words. Here's the transcript: Female narrator: (Speaking over images of terrorists holding guns and people burning the American flag) "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida." Webster: (Black-and-white video, dressed in a suit, holding a microphone) "Wives submit yourself to your own husband." Female narrator: "Daniel Webster wants to impose his radical fundamentalism on us." Background type: Daniel Webster wants to MAKE DIVORCE ILLEGAL. Webster: "You should submit to me. That's in the Bible." Female narrator: "Webster tried to deny battered women medical care and the right to divorce their abusers." Webster: "Submit to me." Female narrator: "He wants to force raped women to bear the child." Webster: "Submit to me." Female narrator: "Taliban Daniel Webster. Hands off our bodies. And our laws." The ad is fertile ground for fact-checkers and produced rebukes from Webster's wife, Sandy Webster, and Webster campaign manager Brian Graham. "Alan Grayson's latest attack on my husband is shameful," Sandy Webster said in statement. "Mr. Grayson seems to have a problem telling the truth and no problem misleading the public. Dan has been an amazing husband and father and the finest man I have ever known. Mr. Grayson should be ashamed of his nasty smears against my husband." We decided to immediately check to see if Grayson is correctly quoting Webster, and we will fact-check the other claims in another report to be posted quickly. Grayson spokesman Sam Drzymala said the audio and video of Webster come from a speech he made for the Institute in Basic Life Principles, which Drzymala described as a "right-wing cult." The Institute in Basic Life Principles describes itself as a Christian teaching organization that provides training and instruction on how to find success by following God’s principles found in Scripture. Some of its specific teachings are controversial. Among them, the Institute teaches that a mother violates Scripture when she works outside the home, that married couples are to abstain from sex 40 days after the birth of a son, 80 days after the birth of a daughter and the evening prior to worship, and that people should avoid rock and even contemporary Christian music because it can be addictive. Webster has been involved with the group for nearly 30 years and continues to participate in training and also speaks at seminars. In a 2003 interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Webster said he home-schooled his six children on Institute curricula and said the group's teachings have had a major influence on his life. One of those Institute beliefs describes the complementary roles of a husband and wife. "The man provides servant leadership and the woman responds with reverent submission and assistance," according to the group's website, which goes on to quote Ephesians 5:22–33 -- Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. . . . Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it . . . . Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. According to the Institute, a wife is never supposed to "take over," writing that "in response to pressures within the family or within a marital relationship, a foolish wife will take matters into her own hands." A wife also is to "stay beautiful for her husband." "Resistance or indifference to your husband’s need for physical intimacy is the unspoken crushing of his spirit," the Institute says on its website. In other places on the website, the Institute talks about a wife's need to submit to a husband's spiritual leadership. In his 2003 interview with the Times, Webster declined to discuss specific teachings and whether he disagreed with any of them. "I believe what I believe," he said in the 2003 interview. "It has not affected the way I've served. I don't think anyone can tell you that I've forced my beliefs on anyone else." Bill Gothard, founder and president of the Institute, said the image and video of Webster was taken from a talk to fathers at the group's 2009 Advanced Training Institute Conference in Nashville. The Advanced Training Institute is a home-education curriculum provided by the Institute in Basic Life Principles. In an interview with PolitiFact Florida, Gothard said the quote is severely distorted and manipulated. "It couldn't be any more starkly misused," Gothard said. "That gets my adrenaline up. A man who stoops to that level should not be in any office." Gothard said Webster was leading a talk to a group of fathers and was discussing prayers they should say. Webster's point was that they shouldn't pray for their wives to do something, rather they should pray for what they could control in their own life. "I am stunned how he could have taken what Daniel said, and turned it around to say the opposite of what Daniel was saying," Gothard said. PolitiFact Florida asked for, and received, a video with Webster's extended comments. The video confirms Gothard's recollection of the 2009 speech. "Have verses for (your) wife. I have verses for my wife," Webster said in an unedited excerpt provided by the Institute. "Don't pick the ones that say, 'she should submit to me.' That's in the Bible, but pick the ones you're supposed to do (laughs). So instead (laughs) that you'd love your wife -- even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it ... and, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it." Webster goes on to make the same point about praying for children. "Pick out the ones that have your responsibility listed into it," Webster said. "Yes, children are to obey their parents, but more importantly we're as fathers to, um, not provoke them to wrath." So in his message Webster was telling fathers that they should not pray for the first half of the passage in Ephesians (Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands) but pray for the second (Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it). The Grayson ad clearly suggests that Webster thinks wives should submit to their husbands, and the repeated refrain of "Submit to me," is an effort to scare off potential female voters. But the lines in the video are clearly taken out of context thanks to some heavy-handed editing. The actual point of Webster's 2009 speech was that husbands should love their wives. Maybe Webster thinks wives should submit to their husbands. But there's no evidence in this ad, especially Webster's own words, to support that allegation. We rate Grayson's claim False.	None	Alan Grayson	None	None	None	2010-09-28T10:39:29	2010-09-25	['None']
-pomt-14274	Say Bernie Sanders "won Nevada after all."	/nevada/statements/2016/apr/07/blog-posting/no-bernie-sanders-didnt-retroactively-win-nevada/	Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Nevada’s presidential caucuses back in February, but some supporters of Bernie Sanders are claiming the Vermont senator might have won the state after all. The pronouncement came after Sanders delegates ended up outnumbering Clinton’s during the hectic Clark County Democratic Convention on April 2, leading many media outlets and supporters to declare that Sanders retroactively "won" the state by outmaneuvering Clinton. So, did Sanders add another state to his column as many have claimed? The answer is no, and it likely will remain that way. We’ll tell you why. Caucus math Nevada has a total of 43 delegates it sends to the Democratic National Convention in July. Eight of those are so-called "superdelegates," made up of elected officials like Sen. Harry Reid and other party powerhouses who get to independently decide which candidate to support. (Four currently support Clinton, one supports Sanders and three are neutral so far.) Of the remaining 35 delegates, 23 are so-called "district-level delegates" who are allocated based on February caucus results in each of the state’s four congressional districts. Clinton won 13 of those, while Sanders won 10. The remaining 12 are doled out during the state party convention in May. Of that 12, there are five pledged "party leader and elected official" delegates and seven "at-large" delegates awarded proportionally, so whichever campaign has a majority of supporters at the state convention will win the odd-numbered delegate from those groups. Ideally, the process is supposed to look something like a Matryoshka doll — smaller amounts of delegates at each step of the process, but retaining the same proportions of the initial February caucus. Initial estimates from February had Clinton winning 20 delegates and Sanders taking 15. But that didn’t happen at the Clark County (Las Vegas) convention in early April, as the Sanders campaign had 2,964 delegates show up compared to 2,386 for Clinton. In February, Clinton won a total of 4,889 delegates in Clark County but less than half of those showed up for the county convention. Accusations flew from both campaigns about questionable practices before, during and after the county convention, with the Sanders campaign claiming party officials tried to "depose a neutral official," and Clinton surrogates like Nevada state director Michelle White upset with a "number of irregularities" in the convention process. Leaving those accusations aside for the moment, the practical outcome is that Sanders now has a larger number of delegates (2,124) attending the state convention in May than Clinton (1,722). That means they’ll be in a position to pick off a few of those remaining 12 convention delegates. Based on the numbers, it’s likely that Sanders will be able to flip delegates and go from a projected 20-15 deficit to a more narrow 18-17 delegate split. (This count doesn’t factor in the superdelegates, who are also tilted toward Clinton.) For Sanders, that’s not "winning" Nevada. Longtime Nevada political journalist Jon Ralston and the Associated Press reported in the immediate aftermath of the county convention that the likely final result remains a Clinton victory. "Clinton’s widely expected to keep her Nevada win except in the unlikely event of a Sanders blowout at the state level or if Clinton-backing superdelegates defect to the Sanders camp," the AP reported. Our ruling Several reports claimed that Bernie Sanders retroactively won Nevada’s presidential caucuses, based on higher-than-expected turnout at a major county convention. Sanders likely swung two delegates his way after the county convention, but we won’t know for sure until the state convention selects the delegates in May. Either way, Clinton still holds a narrow delegate lead, projections show. That lead is larger if you include the support of Nevada’s so-called "super-delegates." We rate this claim False.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2016-04-07T15:56:40	2016-04-02	['Nevada', 'Bernie_Sanders']
-snes-04943	A month after Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Nevada's caucuses, Bernie Sanders retroactively collected more delegates to win the state.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-won-nevada/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bernie Sanders Won Nevada?	9 April 2016	None	['Bernie_Sanders', 'Nevada', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-pomt-01541	"Income inequality is worse in towns run by Democrat mayors than in towns run by Republican mayors."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/16/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-income-inequality-worse-cities-demo/	During a recent interview with NPR, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., took aim at the belief -- widely held among Democrats -- that Republican policies are encouraging greater income inequality. "I think inequality can be a problem, and interestingly seems to be getting a little bit worse under this administration," Paul said. "Income inequality is worse in towns run by Democrat mayors than in towns run by Republican mayors." (Here’s the full transcript.) A reader asked us to check whether Paul’s claim about cities under Democratic and Republican mayors is correct. So we did. We located a study by the Brookings Institution released earlier this year that ranked the top 10 and bottom 10 cities by income inequality -- and there does appear to be something to what Paul said. Of the study’s 10 most unequal cities, nine have Democratic mayors. They are Atlanta, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, New York, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore. Of the 10 most unequal cities, only Miami has a Republican mayor. By contrast, seven of the 10 most equal cities have Republican mayors -- Oklahoma City; Omaha, Neb.; Fort Worth, Texas; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Mesa, Ariz.; Arlington, Texas; and Virginia Beach, Va. The other three either have a nonpartisan mayor (Raleigh, N.C., and Las Vegas) or a Democrat (Wichita, Kan.). So on the numbers, Paul has a point. The question is, does this discovery mean anything? Experts we spoke to urged taking the claim with a grain of salt -- if not a whole shaker. Here are a few reasons why. Mayors aren’t all-powerful players in the local economy. Where claims of this sort are made, PolitiFact tries to establish whether credit or blame is deserved. In this case, then, is it reasonable to attribute patterns of inequality exclusively, or even primarily, to a mayor? No -- many factors play into a city’s economic success. The mayor of Detroit doesn’t have much power over the international market for automobiles, and no mayor of New York can take all the credit for the economic juggernaut of Wall Street. While mayoral policies may have an effect on the margins, such factors as the state and national business cycle, broad demographic patterns and international business trends tend to have a much greater impact on economic inequality in cities. In addition, it’s worth remembering that "cities attract people on the basis of many factors, of which the party of their political leaders is probably a minor one," said William Frey, a senior fellow in Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program. Inequality patterns in cities may be at least as much about population size and geographic patterns as they are about partisan leadership. Focusing on the partisan differences obscures a more fundamental difference between the most and least unequal cities. The more unequal cities tend to be very big, and the less unequal cities tend to be more modestly sized. The median population of the 10 most unequal cities on the Brookings list is about 630,000, compared to about 430,000 for the most equal cities. (If you used the mean, rather than the median, the average population of the 10 most unequal cities would be even higher -- almost 1.9 million residents per city.) So it’s not exactly apples-to-apples if you compare the attributes of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago on the one hand with those of Colorado Springs, Virginia Beach and Arlington on the other. All other things being equal, larger cities tend to have a wider distribution of incomes on both extremes, since they have more residents. That, almost by definition, means larger ratios between the top and the bottom. In the meantime, big cities tend to attract more wealthy people -- i.e., people who can choose to live anywhere they want -- because megacities are likelier to have world-class amenities. "The real wealth ‘peaks’ tend to be in the big cities, so they have high tops as well as lower bottoms, while the income profiles of smaller localities are typically more ‘compressed,’ " said Jamie Peck, a professor of geography at the University of British Columbia who has studied urban and political patterns in the United States. How old a city is can matter, too, said Jed Kolko, the chief economist and vice president of analytics at the real estate website Trulia. In older cities many middle-income residents have relocated to the suburbs, leaving behind higher levels of inequality. By contrast, newer cities -- such as Mesa (which is near Phoenix) or Arlington (which is near Dallas) -- often contain many suburban areas or are, in effect, suburbs themselves, Kolko said. Such cities tend to have more modest income ranges. Why does all this matter? It undercuts the notion that partisan leadership has much to do with why certain cities become relatively unequal and certain become relatively equal. Causation may actually run the opposite way. It’s always important to remember that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. In this context, it’s not necessarily that Republican leadership creates greater equality, as Paul’s comment presumes. Rather, it could be that greater equality prompts people to vote Republican. Or it could be unrelated. "I think it runs more in the direction that inequality provides conditions for Democratic success, rather than Democrats causing inequality," said Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who specializes in electoral patterns and geography. And any explanation other than political leadership causing greater equality weakens Paul’s point. The pattern holds only if you look at cities, not metropolitan areas. If you look at Kolko’s research -- which studied inequality in broader metropolitan areas, rather than in cities per se -- Paul’s pattern falls apart. Of the 10 metropolitan areas with the most equality, only one has a Republican mayor -- Colorado Springs. The other nine either have a Democratic mayor, a nonpartisan one, or no mayor at all because they’re an unincorporated area. This list includes Lakeland-Winter Haven, Fla.; Allentown, Pa.; Salt Lake City; Bethesda-Rockville-Frederick, Md., Tacoma, Wash.; Las Vegas; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Raleigh; and Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, Fla. What Paul’s office says Brian Darling, a spokesman for Paul, cautioned that the senator was not simply casting aspersions on Democratic mayors’ handling of their cities’ economies. "What he was saying is that Democrats are not solving the problem," Darling said. "It may be an unsolvable problem. Democrats love to talk about the issue and have been allowed to position themselves as the warriors for those harmed by income inequality, yet they are not a party of action" on this issue. That’s a reasonable point, but we think a typical listener hearing Paul’s comment would have assumed that he was arguing that Republican policies have promoted greater equality in cities than Democratic policies have. And as we’ve found, that’s far from clearcut. Our ruling Paul said that "income inequality is worse in towns run by Democrat mayors than in towns run by Republican mayors." He has a point that one credible study shows a fairly strong correlation between low inequality and a Republican mayor. But experts say it’s a stretch to draw conclusions from this. The claim inflates the actual powers of mayors to shape inequality in their cities and it ignores the role of population size and suburbanization in driving inequality. It also glosses over the fact that metropolitan areas, as opposed to cities, show no such relationship. The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.	None	Rand Paul	None	None	None	2014-09-16T11:31:08	2014-09-11	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-11557	"Violent crime in Puerto Rico is on the rise as nearly one-third of the island remains without power."	/florida/statements/2018/feb/07/bill-nelson/fact-checking-statistics-about-puerto-ricos-storm-/	Florida Sen. Bill Nelson is calling on the federal government to help Puerto Rico address the fallout from Hurricane Maria, a Category 4 storm that hit the island more than four months ago. Nelson, a Democrat seeking re-election this year, and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Feb. 1, encouraging federal justice officials to "engage with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to best determine how federal law enforcement can assist the territory in these trying times." The letter comes in the middle of reports of increased crime in Puerto Rico, which Nelson emphasized in a tweet accompanying news reports about the letter. "Violent crime in Puerto Rico is on the rise as nearly one-third of the island remains without power," Nelson tweeted Feb. 2. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com We wondered if Nelson’s statistics about Puerto Rico’s storm recovery were accurate. Let’s take a look. Nelson’s communication director Ryan Brown said the claim was in reference to recent news reports about an uptick in killings in January 2018. "If you look at Nelson and Rubio’s letter, they clearly discuss the murder rate when discussing the increase in violent crime," he said. "But they also clearly cite recent media reports." Take for example the Associated Press article from Feb. 1. "One of Puerto Rico’s deadliest months in recent years has closed, with 78 killings reported in January as the U.S. territory struggles with a surge in violent crime and growing discontent among thousands of police officers," it reads. That's almost a 35 percent increase from the previous year at the same time. There were 58 recorded killings in January 2017, according to statistics from Gobierno de Puerto Rico Policia. In addition, the AP reported that Puerto Rico normally sees an average of 56 homicides a month in the last two years. The AP reported that the uptick in killings came after increased dissatisfaction among thousands of police officers. In late December, police officers began calling in sick after the government fell behind on repaying millions of dollars worth of overtime following Hurricanes Irma and Maria. Nelson has a point about a recent uptick in killings, but Nelson said "violent crime," which includes other crimes such as sexual assault, robberies and aggravated assault. The most recent data for violent crime we could find was from Gobierno de Puerto Rico Policia. The report compared the month of January 2017 to the month of January 2018 and showed that violent crime dropped 12 percent, from 716 incidents in January 2017, to 630 incidents in January of 2018. But, comparing violent crime from one point in 2017 to the same point in 2018 is not an apple-to-apples comparison, experts said. Here's why: Hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans fled the island after Hurricane Maria. It's hard to say exactly how many Puerto Ricans have left. University of Florida economists estimate the post-Maria moves to Florida are around 50,000 as of Jan. 6, according to an Orlando Sentinel article. Secondly, criminologists and experts familiar with the situation in Puerto Rico said it’s possible that the number of recently reported violent crimes (outside of homicides and murders), might be an undercount. "Homicides are reliably measured, but the measurement of other violent crimes depends on reports by the victim or someone else to the police," said Richard Rosenfeld, a professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri - St. Louis. Part of the reason it’s difficult to track violent crime outside of murders, has to do with the lack of power and resources on the island. Like Nelson accurately said, nearly one-third of the island remains without power. On Feb. 2, the acting executive director of the Electric Power Authority Justo L. González Torres announced that a little more than one million or 70.92 percent electric customers in Puerto Rico have power. That leaves about 450,000 customers (roughly one-third) without power. Our ruling Nelson said that "violent crime in Puerto Rico is on the rise as nearly one-third of the island remains without power." Nelson is accurately citing the percentage of Puerto Rico power customers still without power, but his claim about violent crime requires some context. Nelson is referring to a recent uptick in killings in January of this year, not overall violent crime. The most recent estimate we could find shows that violent crime has actually dropped 12 percent in January compared with same point last year. Still, that doesn’t mean Nelson is wrong. Experts said the uptick in killings is significant, and that the crisis in Puerto Rico has more than likely reduced crime reporting by victims and perhaps also the recording of crime reports by the police, so the official statistics might be undercounting the number of violent crime incidents. With everything considered, we rate this claim Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bill Nelson	None	None	None	2018-02-07T10:36:54	2018-02-02	['Puerto_Rico']
-pomt-09023	“The insurance commissioner can’t do squat about health care.”	/georgia/statements/2010/jul/08/ralph-hudgens/insurance-commissioner-candidate-hudgens-says-offi/	Candidates in the Republican primary for insurance commissioner are in a snit over “squat.” The tiff began June 22, when one hopeful for the office, state Sen. Ralph Hudgens of Hull, was a guest on "The Martha Zoller Show." The radio talk show is broadcast by Gainesville-area WXKT-FM and through a video feed on the Internet. Zoller and Hudgens discussed the race, which for many has become a contest over which candidate can stop provisions of the massive federal health care bill passed in March from taking effect in Georgia. Bashing the bill, which is unpopular among Republicans, is a favorite tactic for candidates wooing conservative voters. Hudgens criticized the rhetoric, arguing that the insurance commissioner's power over federal health legislation is limited. The show went to break. Hudgens and Zoller chatted off-air. Unknown to Hudgens, the Internet feed streamed on. So while radio listeners heard commercials, Web viewers heard Hudgens in a moment of what he thought was off-the-air candor: “The insurance commissioner can’t do squat about health care,” Hudgens told Zoller. But is that the case? Response to Hudgens was swift. The Twitter account of Republican opponent Maria Sheffield, a favorite with the tea party movement, fired off a post: "Seriously, Ralph?" it read. "GA needs a conservative to stop Obama -- I will." Hudgens was unfazed. He publicly embraced the gaffe. In an interview with PolitiFact Georgia, he said voters need to understand the limits of the insurance commissioner's power over federal health legislation. No recording of Hudgens' statement is available, but he said he was trying to make the point that the insurance commissioner's power to keep the new federal health legislation from taking effect in this state is limited. Zoller confirmed with PolitiFact Georgia that this is what he meant. Hudgens' argument goes like this: The post of insurance commissioner is an administrative office. It cannot set public policy, tax or pass legislation. It can't sue in federal court to have the law struck down. It therefore cannot block the federal health care law from taking effect in this state. The insurance commissioner can influence how the health care overhaul takes shape in Georgia by creating regulations and making other decisions about how the federal bill will be implemented in Georgia, Hudgens said. For instance, in April, current insurance commissioner and Republican gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine decided that the state will opt out of becoming involved in the creation of a state "high-risk" pool for people with pre-existing conditions. "As far as fighting Obamacare, I'll say it again. He [the insurance commissioner] can't do squat," Hudgens said. Experts said that because thousands of pages of rules and regulations that outline how the bill will be implemented have yet to be written, much of what an insurance commissioner can do has yet to be established. But the consensus is clear: What an insurance commissioner can do to block federal health care law is limited. Sandy Praeger is commissioner of the Kansas Insurance Department and chairwoman of the Health Insurance and Managed Care Committee for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Federal officials are consulting with the group as they write health insurance regulations. "It is the law of the land. I think we have to obey the law," Praeger said of the health legislation. "But there are ways to comply with the letter of the law and not the law's spirit." Praeger and others pointed out two major provisions of the federal health care bill over which the state has significant say: high-risk pools and health insurance exchanges. High-risk pools are designed to help people with pre-existing conditions get coverage until Jan. 1 2014, when broader insurance provisions go into effect. A state may contract with the federal government to set up the pool itself or opt out as Georgia did. Still, state residents will be able to get insurance from a high-risk pool, said Glenn Allen, a spokesman for the state Insurance Commissioner's Office. "This decision does not mean that Georgia citizens will not have access to a high-risk health pool, they will; but the federal government and not the state of Georgia will bear the financial risk," Allen said in an e-mail. The federal government will put a pool in place that Georgians can use, Allen said. So even though Georgia has chosen not to be involved, high-risk pools will be created. The same goes for health insurance exchanges. They were created to make the pricing of policies easier to understand. Initially, individuals buying insurance on their own and smaller employers will be the primary participants. If the federal government decides that a state won't have an operational exchange by Jan. 1, 2014, or that what it has is not up to snuff, the U.S. secretary of health and human services will create one or contract with a nonprofit that will. Bill Custer, an expert on health policy and director of Georgia State University's Center for Health Services Research, said the state has an important but limited role in such exchanges: "[T]he law specifically gives the states a great deal of flexibility in the design of the exchanges and the regulatory authority over health insurance. It also states that if the states decline to act the Feds will." Even Hudgens' opponent Sheffield acknowledged the limits of the insurance commissioner's power. "As insurance commissioner you can't stop it [the federal health care law] from happening and you can't override that," Sheffield told PolitiFact Georgia. Hudgens' overall point was accurate. There's little dispute that while the insurance commissioner can shape how the federal legislation is enacted in Georgia, he cannot stop it from going into effect. The problem is that Hudgens overstated his position. He used the word "squat," as in "diddly squat." Bupkis. Nada. Nothing. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but Hudgens still earns a Mostly True.	None	Ralph Hudgens	None	None	None	2010-07-08T06:00:00	2010-06-22	['None']
-goop-02319	Sam Smith Record Label Wants His Heart Broken For Successful Album?!	https://www.gossipcop.com/sam-smith-heartbroken-second-album-record-label/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Sam Smith Record Label Wants His Heart Broken For Successful Album?!	3:45 pm, October 21, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00318	Says Tony Evers "wants to cut Wisconsin's prison population in half, a dangerous plan that today would mean releasing thousands of violent criminals back into our communities."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/sep/21/scott-walker/tony-evers-supports-cutting-prison-population-50-r/	A week before the primary vote, when Republican Gov. Scott Walker didn’t know which opponent he would face in the Nov. 6, 2018 general election, he tweeted this claim: "A number of Democrats running for governor want to cut the prison population by 50%" and "that would require the release of thousands of violent felons." Our rating was Half True. There was no evidence to back up the "require" part of Walker’s claim, particularly if a 50 percent reduction were done over a period of years, rather than swiftly. A new, similar Walker attack — zeroing in on Tony Evers — has a similar problem. All our fact checks in the governor’s race. The new claim On Sept. 12, 2018, a month after Evers, the state schools superintendent, emerged from the primary as the Democratic nominee, Walker elevated his attack to a television ad. The governor’s spot begins with a narrator portraying Evers as putting the public at risk, saying he "failed to remove abusive teachers from our schools." Then the narrator asserts that Evers "wants to cut Wisconsin's prison population in half, a dangerous plan that today would mean releasing thousands of violent criminals back into our communities." Walker’s use of the word today aims to avoid the problem that the word require caused in his previous fact check. That is, a 50 percent reduction "today" — rather than say, over a period of years — would require the release of thousands of inmates convicted of violent crimes. There are currently about 23,000 inmates, two-thirds of whom have committed a violent offense, according to the state Department of Corrections. That two-thirds portion includes inmates being held for a violent-crime conviction; and it includes those who served their time behind bars for that original offense, but were returned to prison for violating conditions of probation or extended supervision that was also part of the sentence for the original offense. Violent offenses include crimes such as murder, rape and robbery, as well as crimes such as assault, extortion and hit-and-run with bodily injury. But Evers has not put a time frame on how he would achieve a 50 percent reduction. And it’s important to keep in mind that releasing half the inmates who are in prison isn’t the only way to cut the prison population in half. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc. Evers’ plan On the day Walker’s TV ad was released, Evers reacted by telling reporters: "That’s a lie. I never said that. We will not release violent criminals. We’re not going to get in the gutter with Scott Walker." (Walker has also made a claim similar to the one in his TV ad in a private telephone poll of voters done by his campaign.) To back the first part of Walker’s claim — that Evers supports a 50 percent cut -- Walker’s campaign cites an exchange during a July 12, 2018 debate between Democrats who were running for governor. A reference was made to the group Milwaukee Inner-City Congregations Allied for Hope. Moderator: The multi-racial interfaith organization MICAH launched a campaign in 2011 to cut the state prison population by half, from 22,000 to 11,000. It now sits at 23,000. Do you support that original goal, and how would you balance reducing the prison population — Evers: Absolutely, and that's a goal that’s worth accomplishing … We have to stop people incarcerating people for non-violent crimes. The Walker campaign argues that Evers’ response means he is committing to a 50 percent reduction over four years because MICAH’s website refers to a campaign in 2011 to get the 50 percent cut by 2015. But neither the question to Evers, nor his response, mentions four years. And we found no evidence that Evers has committed to any time frame. Evers has said Wisconsin should cut parole revocations and expand drug courts as ways of reducing the number of people being sent to prison. He has also said he would consider releasing some inmates early; treating 17-year-olds as juveniles instead of adults for criminal charges; and overhauling truth-in-sentencing so prisoners could be released for good behavior. Kenneth Streit, a clinical professor of law emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School, told us it’s possible to achieve a 50 percent cut without releasing inmates convicted of violent crimes — or at least not thousands of them. Streit has studied corrections policy since 1990 and has assisted the Legislature and the Department of Corrections in developing and evaluating adult community corrections programs. He said the population could be reduced by about 5 percent annually over the next decade through steps such as changing sentencing guidelines and tripling funding for treatment-based probation that would reduce the number of people going back to prison for probation revocations. Whether a 10-year time frame, or longer, would be acceptable to advocates for the 50 percent reduction is unclear; many want a quicker turnaround. But, despite Walker’s claim, it’s also not clear that Evers would seek a 50 percent cut over a period that would force the release of thousands of inmates convicted of violent crimes. One more point before we close: Ryan King, research director at the nonprofit Justice Policy Institute, who formerly did studies for the Urban Institute and the Pew Research Center, said research shows that people who are in prison for violence are less likely to be rearrested after release than people sentenced for other offenses. Our rating Walker says Evers "wants to cut Wisconsin's prison population in half, a dangerous plan that today would mean releasing thousands of violent criminals back into our communities." Evers has stated that a 50 percent reduction is a goal. But he has not put a time frame on achieving that — a crucial factor in determining whether inmates of convicted of violent crimes would have to be released. Experts say a 50 percent reduction over a relatively short period, say a few years, would require the release of inmates convicted of violent crimes. But some say it’s possible to cut the population in half, perhaps over 10 years, without the release of any violent offenders, or at least not thousands of them. For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2018-09-21T06:00:00	2018-09-12	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-12326	"Trump welcomes Jamaica as a U.S. territory"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/19/blog-posting/claim-jamaica-became-us-territory-fake-news/	An undated post on CNewsGo.com claimed that President Donald Trump had finally confirmed the rumor of Jamaica becoming a U.S. territory, but the story continues to be nothing more than a hoax. The unnamed author claimed Jamaica has become a permanently inhabited territory of the United States with its own organized government as determined by an Organic Act passed by Congress. There is no date provided for the decision, and we could not find any legislation relating to such news. This is because Jamaica is its own country, declaring its independence from the United Kingdom and creating its own constitution in 1962. The United States then established diplomatic relations with the country and has maintained them to this day. Trump met with Jamaican Ambassador to the United States Audrey Marks in early April, when they discussed bilateral trade, but they made no mention of Jamaica becoming a U.S. territory. This story seems to prey on common geographical ignorance; we couldn’t help noticing during our research that a frequently googled question is whether Jamaica is located in the United States. The fourth-largest island in the Caribbean is in fact located about 90 miles south of Cuba. The country does not require visas for visits under six months, but it does require passports from U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The rumor dates back to February of this year, when Mediamaxzone.com reported falsely that the Jamaican prime minister had hinted Jamaica would become a U.S. territory. While it has been circulating for a while, it’s time we shed light on this hoax. We rate it Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-06-19T16:59:41	2017-06-16	['United_States', 'Jamaica']
-farg-00392	"Iraq Vet SHOT While Saving Woman And Baby Being Attacked By BLM THUGS."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/unsupported-claim-about-black-lives-matter-is-revived-on-facebook/	None	fake-news	Facebook pages	Saranac Hale Spencer	['false stories']	Unsupported Claim About Black Lives Matter Is Revived on Facebook	August 8, 2018	[' Friday, August 3, 2018 ']	['None']
-pomt-03489	"We (Georgia) collect fewer state taxes per capita than any other state … although state taxes are low, Georgia is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government."	/georgia/statements/2013/jun/11/jason-carter/tax-policy-hurts-georgia-senator-says/	State Sen. Jason Carter -- grandson of former Georgia governor and former President Jimmy Carter -- was the guest speaker at a Marietta Rotary Club meeting last month. In Republican-dominated Cobb County, the Decatur Democrat delivered a speech that veered from the traditional GOP message. Carter told the attendees that continual shrinkage of the government -- which has been a conservative standard -- is hurting Georgia in the long run. "We collect fewer state taxes per capita than any other state. We have won the small-government competition," he said. "... And although state taxes are low, Georgia is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government." Is Georgia collecting fewer state taxes while receiving lots of federal government funds on the back end? PolitiFact Georgia decided to look into it. Carter told us that The Marietta Daily Journal, where we first saw his Rotary Club comments, left out part of his statement. He told the crowd that his tax and dependency claims were based on information from the Tax Foundation, Carter told PolitiFact Georgia in a phone interview. He also cited an Atlanta Journal-Constitution article as a second source for his dependency claim. "The discussion was about the difference in the levels of government. And while we’ve shrunk the federal government, we’ve increased the burden on the state and local governments," Carter said. "The key is the state government taxes." We found the Tax Foundation statistics that Carter cited in the organization’s "Facts and Figures" report of state tax data, released in March. The report, by the nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, includes state tax and federal dependency data for fiscal year 2011. According to the charts, Georgia ranked last with $1,639 in state taxes collected per capita.(Georgia’s 2010 population was about 9.7 million.) The chart is based on the census’ definition of state tax collections, Tax Foundation officials told us. The next closest state was South Carolina at $1,650. Alaska collected the most state taxes per capita at $7,708. A second Tax Foundation chart, also for fiscal 2011, showed that Georgia also ranked last in the amount of state revenue collected per capita, at $3,807. The revenue data include the taxes levied by the state as well as other general revenue used to operate, such as licenses, fees and transfers from the federal government. We next went to the Census Bureau’s state government tax collections summary report, released in April, for fiscal 2012 data. Governing magazine, which covers politics, policy and management issues of state and local governments, aggregated the census data. We compiled Governing’s data into a spreadsheet and found that Georgia ranked second-to-last for the lowest total state taxes per capita, at $1,711.44. New Hampshire ranked last at $1,675.94 taxes collected per capita. So Carter’s tax claim was correct in fiscal 2011 but off a bit for the following fiscal year. On the second part of his claim, Carter again used Tax Foundation data, along with an AJC story published about a week before his Rotary Club speech. The Tax Foundation used figures from the Census Bureau to determine states’ dependence on the federal government. The organization divided each state’s intergovernmental revenue, or grants and other aid received from the federal government, into the state’s general revenue, which includes all tax revenue. Those calculations, also in the Facts and Figures 2013 report, showed that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in the nation in fiscal 2011. Federal aid accounted for about 41 percent of general revenue. Mississippi was the most dependent, getting 49 percent of its revenue from the federal government; Alaska was the least dependent with 24 percent. The AJC story reported that about 31.6 percent, about $12 billion, of Georgia’s state agency spending was made up of federal funds in fiscal 2012, according to the paper’s review of budget records. The paper found that Georgia has been using federal money to fill budget gaps created by shrinking tax collections and higher demand for state services such as Medicaid. Georgia legislators have discussed forming a committee to study the state’s federal government dependence. To sum up, Carter said that the Peach State collects fewer state taxes per capita than any other state, yet is the eighth-most-dependent state on the federal government. Based on Tax Foundation and census data for fiscal 2011, Carter is correct on his tax collection claim. Advance the data forward a year and Georgia moves up a step in its collections for fiscal 2012. On federal government dependence, analysis of census data shows that Georgia was the ninth-most-dependent state in fiscal 2011. Carter’s overall point is that Georgia is fostering a smaller state government but at the same time relying heavily on federal funds. He seems correct on that point. But his calculations were slightly off. We rated his claim Mostly True.	None	Jason Carter	None	None	None	2013-06-11T00:00:00	2013-05-27	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-pomt-01650	Says drug cartels are using social media to offer rebates so more children from Central America get smuggled to the United States.	/texas/statements/2014/aug/22/henry-cuellar/henry-cuellar-claim-social-media-rebates-and/	EDITOR’S NOTE: Our first review of this claim, posted Aug. 12, 2014 and readable here, resulted in a Pants on Fire rating. That story appeared just before the State Department emailed a fresh statement leading us to take down the article and do more checking. In the end, we rated this statement Mostly False. In a "did-you-know?" moment, a Laredo congressman said drug cartels offer rebates for children from Central America to lure other kids to make the overland journey to the United States. In an interview with ABC News and Yahoo News, posted online July 16, 2014, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar talked up legislation he and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, had introduced enabling immigration judges to determine quickly whether any unaccompanied child apprehended on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico should be sent home. Agreeing that poverty and violence in Central America have been factors in children flocking north, Cuellar told reporter Jeff Zeleny: "The drug cartels found an incentive, and this is what we’re trying to cut off, these incentives. Finally a last thing: Did you know that they’re even using social media -- social media that says if you get recruited, we’ll give you a rebate if you bring another child with you." Zeleny: "So an advertisement of sorts?" Cuellar: "Oh, without a doubt. They have marketing. They’re very sophisticated organizations." Cuellar’s mention of rebates being floated by cartels via social media stirred our curiosity. After all, the cartels aren’t known for guiding children to the U.S. from the countries south of Mexico, though they do find ways to profit from people passing through their territories. Also, rebates sounded unwieldy at least if the rebates were anything like the return of part of the up-front payment for a service or item such as what you get if you mail a form to a postal box. By phone, Cuellar told us his claim tracked what he heard from an official in the U.S. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, which is part of the State Department, in a July 11, 2014, briefing of a congressional delegation in Guatemala City. "When they mentioned rebates, it got my attention," Cuellar said, adding the briefer (whom he did not identify) also mentioned discounts. At our request, Cuellar’s office emailed photos of what Cuellar described as his post-briefing journal entry. The presented July 11 entry doesn’t mention drug cartels, repeatedly saying "smugglers" instead. The relevant portion says: "Less Mexicans going north so smugglers looking for new markets (CA) & social media used to recruit." We took "CA" to mean Central America. The next page opens by saying "smugglers rebate $s if they bring someone with them." His office guided us to State Department spokespeople who emailed us several statements. None of them covered all of what Cuellar said. Spokeswomen Mo Mimnaugh and Susan Bridenstine each said smugglers employ social media and Mimnaugh specified that embassy staff told Cuellar "smugglers are known to provide rebates for positive referrals. This information is from Guatemalan government sources." Bridenstine said smugglers sometimes offer discounts to ferry children. Otherwise, we found no news stories on cartels using social media to offer rebates. Also, outside experts expressed doubts about the claim. News stories don’t mention rebates In an email, Mimnaugh pointed out a news story about smugglers using Facebook. The July 7, 2014, article from Prensa Libre, a Guatemalan news service, was headlined, "Coyotes coordinate through Facebook." The story quoted a smuggler identified only as Juan saying he logs onto Facebook to smooth the logistics of guiding almost 100 people a month from Latin American countries into Mexico. Facebook, he said, is cheaper than a telephone call. Other news stories talked about smugglers, social media and occasional discounts without mention of cartels offering rebates. An Associated Press news story, datelined Tecún Umán, Guatemala, said: "Coyotes get their business through social networks, from friends and family, or referrals from prior customers," without saying where that information originated. The 1,900-word story also was published July 21, 2014, after Cuellar spoke to ABC News, making us loathe to consider it because Cuellar wouldn’t have had it as an information source. Some news stories refer to smugglers or the drug cartels vending travel packages. A June 26, 2014, news story in the New York Times quoted Raul L. Ortiz, deputy chief of the Border Patrol for the Rio Grande Valley, saying families and children had become a high-profit, low-risk business for Mexican narcotics cartel bosses who, Ortiz said, had taken control of human smuggling across the Rio Grande. "They now offer family packages, migrants said, charging up to $7,500 to bring a minor alone or a mother with children from Central America to the American side of the river." A July 9, 2014, news story in El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, quoted Ana Cecilia Oliva Balcarcel, director of immigrant protection at the National Institute of Migration in Mexico, describing special offers to migrants that, in some cases, cover up to three trips into the United States for a $6,000 payment, the story said. She was further quoted as saying people prefer to purchase such packages from traffickers rather than going to the trouble of applying for a humanitarian visa from Mexico. Expert: ‘Sounds like talk-radio chatter’ To our inquiries, academic experts on immigration expressed no awareness of rebates being offered to families or children via social media, though some said smugglers might occasionally employ social media. (Spokespeople for Twitter and Facebook declined to comment.) Wayne Cornelius, a professor emeritus at the University of California at San Diego, said via email he hadn’t heard of evidence supporting the rebate claim "and I deal frequently with attorneys providing legal representation for unaccompanied child migrants. It sounds more like talk-radio chatter." Also by email, Austin-based security and intelligence consultant firm Stratfor, which describes itself as a "geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting," provided a statement from Tristan Reed, its security analyst for Mexico, who said that while drug cartels employ social media, Stratfor had no specific examples of rebate offers "at the moment." Generally, Reed said, "even if Mexican organized crime were advertising their human smuggling services via social media -- which itself makes their operations more vulnerable -- it's only occurring in an isolated manner." Cuellar’s office urged us to query San Antonio consultant Alonzo Peña, former deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who said by email that from his experience, "I can tell you that what the congressman said is not at all outside the realm of possibility or incredible." Peña also said by phone: "I haven’t heard the word ‘rebate’ used" in the context of smuggling children. If the drug cartels aren’t directly ferrying children north, he said, they no doubt find ways to profit from the vulnerable traffic. "I know the cartels are using social media for just about everything they do," he said. Texas professors who study immigration across the Rio Grande expressed skepticism. Nestor Rodriguez, a University of Texas sociologist who has done research in rural Guatemala, said he’d be surprised if formal rebates are offered via social media or otherwise though perhaps smugglers offer discounts if, say, a group of children is expanded by one or two kids, driving down overall expenses. "I never heard of anyone going to a web page to find a smuggling tour," Rodriguez said, saying arrangements are done face to face. "I’m not saying it couldn’t happen." Tony Payan, director of the Mexico Center at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, said the congressman’s statement struck him as flawed in several ways. Drug cartels don’t smuggle people, he said, leaving that to others, though one cartel levies a "right-of-way" charge for people being smuggled through its territory, he said. "No. 2, this assumes the people doing this, both fleeing and doing the human smuggling, have access to the Internet," Payan said. "Most do not have access to the Internet; they do not operate that way. They don’t want to leave any record of this." And, Payan said, the people who are leaving have no web access at home and don’t necessarily even have cell phones. "Smugglers tend to operate person to person, do their own recruitment, go colonia to colonia," Payan said. "I haven’t seen any of this evidence of social media." After Mimnaugh said Guatemalan government sources had mentioned rebates, Payan said by email the embassy’s response sounded like cherry-picking to defend the congressman. Payan suggested we query Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, an associate professor of government at the University of Texas-Brownsville. Correa-Cabrera called Cuellar’s claim unfounded and ridiculous, adding she would need to see independent evidence before she put credence in the Mimnaugh rebates’ statement. Cuellar, informed of the lack of published evidence and skepticism among most experts, told us he believes the government briefer over others "because those are the people on the ground and they’re not sitting in some university office looking up information." Our ruling Cuellar said drug cartels are offering rebates via social media so more children from Central America get guided to the United States. The elements of Cuellar’s statement — cartels, social media and some sort of rebate or, perhaps, discount — stem from a State Department briefing for which we found minimal degrees of confirmation. We rate the claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Henry Cuellar	None	None	None	2014-08-22T12:51:33	2014-07-16	['United_States', 'Central_America']
-snes-00378	Several cities have started to use "silent fireworks" in order to make the shows more enjoyable for children, pets, and people with PTSD.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/silent-fireworks/	None	Science	None	Dan Evon	None	Silent Fireworks	3 July 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12287	"Texas mothers are dying during childbirth at the highest rates in the nation."	/texas/statements/2017/jun/29/shawn-thierry/shawn-thierry-says-texas-leads-nation-mothers-dyin/	A Democrat credited the Republican governor for highlighting maternal mortality and then made a claim about Texas leading nationally in a disturbing way. Houston Rep. Shawn Thierry noted in a press release circulated the day after Gov. Greg Abbott set the agenda for the special legislative session starting July 18, 2017, that Abbott authorized maternal mortality as a potential topic after Thierry and Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, had urged him to do so. Thierry said: "It was clear that a special session was going to happen and we now know that our Texas mothers are dying during childbirth at the highest rates in the nation. This time around, we cannot afford for party politics to stand in the way of resolving this crisis." Abbott included "extending maternal mortality task force" in his session "call," he said, to allow lawmakers to maintain the state’s advisory Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Task Force into 2023. The group, created by the 2013 Legislature, is otherwise abolished as of September 2019. We wondered if Texas mothers are more often dying in connection with childbirth than mothers in other states. That’s been reported previously, including in a June 4, 2017, Associated Press news story stating researchers last year found the Texas rate "not only the highest in the U.S., but one of the highest in the developed world." To our inquiry, a Thierry aide, Jasmine Connor, emailed us a web link to an August 2016 news story in the Guardian newspaper stating that according to a study in the medical journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, Texas in 2014 had the developed world’s highest maternal mortality rate at 35.8 deaths per 100,000 births. The journal is the official publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which describes itself as a 58,000-member organization dedicated to the advancement of women’s health. 2016 study When we inquired, an ACOG spokeswoman, Megan Christin, emailed us a copy of the study, which appeared in the journal’s September 2016 issue under the headline: "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate: Disentangling Trends From Measurement Issues," A methodological wrinkle was necessary, the authors wrote, to make sure the mortality rates estimated for each state reflected needed improvements in measurement. That is, the study adjusted each state’s tally of maternal deaths to account for whether the state’s death certificate already included a revealing question devised nationally in 2003 based on providing checkboxes on death certificates to measure whether women had been pregnant at up to a year before death. Adding the question, the study says, drove up reported maternal mortality rates. "The addition of this question led to increases in reported maternal mortality rates," the study says. "However, delays in states’ adoption of the new pregnancy question together with use of nonstandard pregnancy questions created a situation where, in any given data year, some states were using the U.S. standard question, others were using questions incompatible with the U.S. standard, and still others had no pregnancy question on their death certificates." Broadly, the study relied on a definition of maternal mortality typically used for international maternal mortality comparisons. The definition, attributed to the World Health Organization: "The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes." The study says, though, the WHO also defines late maternal deaths: "The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy." Study: Texas saw a spike So, did Texas have the nation’s highest maternal mortality? The state had a yet-to-be explained spike in rates in 2011-12, the study says, giving it by far the highest rate in the country. Previously, adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas showed a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, the study says, from a rate of 17.7 per 100,000 live-births to 18.6. "However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states," the report says. A figure in the study shows the Texas rate reaching 35.8 deaths per 100,000 live-births by 2014. ADJUSTED MATERNAL MORTALITY RATE, TEXAS, 2000-2014 SOURCE: Figure 4 in study, "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate: Disentangling Trends From Measurement Issues," Obstetrics & Gynecology, September 2016 The report also calls the two-year doubling for Texas through 2011-12 "puzzling." The authors continue: "Texas cause-of-death data, as with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase." The report continues: "There were some changes in the provision of women’s health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several women’s health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by race-ethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding." Among 48 other states, the estimated mortality rate in 2000 was 18.8; the rate escalated slowly to 23.8 in 2014, the report says. The remaining state, California, saw "a marked decline in maternal and late maternal mortality from 2003 to 2014," the study says, going on: "California has made concerted efforts to reduce maternal mortality, including initiating a statewide pregnancy-associated mortality review in 2006 and contracting with the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative to investigate primary causes of maternal death. This collaborative developed and promulgated evidence-based tool kits to address two of the most common, preventable contributors to maternal death (obstetric hemorrhage and preeclampsia) and implemented quality improvement initiatives throughout the state. These efforts appear to have helped reduce maternal mortality in California," the study says. Texas expert We were unable to connect with authors of the study including lead analyst Marian F. MacDorman of the Maryland Population Research Center at the University of Maryland, College Park. Meantime, Christin put us in touch with Dr. Lisa Hollier, ACOG’s president-elect and the chair of the 15-person Texas task force focused on maternal mortality. Hollier, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, said by phone the 2012 Texas spike identified in the study was unusual, even strange. In 2014, Hollier said, the task force began a case-by-case review of the 2012 deaths, she said, because that was then the latest year of complete death data. We asked Hollier if the 2012 spike seems to hold up. Hollier said: "We need a tiny bit more time to give a perfect answer to that," with conclusions possibly announced later in 2017. Asked to assess Thierry’s claim about Texas leading the nation in deaths in childbirth, which arguably would overlook deaths in the months after delivery, Hollier said by email: "As I considered this question, I believe that the proportion of all maternal deaths that occur literally ‘in childbirth’ would be largely equivalent across states. Given the high rates of maternal mortality in Texas relative to other states, I believe this would mean that deaths ‘in childbirth’ would also be high in Texas relative to other states." State agency response We also wondered if Texas government officials had analyzed the research suggesting Texas lately has the nation’s highest maternal mortality rate. At the Texas Department of State Health Services, spokesman Chris Van Deusen replied to our query by email by saying the agency doesn’t have data for other states or do related rankings. Van Deusen otherwise confirmed that officials are looking into what appears to have been a "pronounced difference" in Texas women in 2012 dying in childbirth or within a year afterward. Van Deusen said that to date, the task force had found the most common causes of maternal death in 2011-2012 were cardiac events (21 percent), drug overdoses (12 percent) and hypertension/eclampsia (11 percent). The task force’s July 2016 report states: "Cardiac events and hypertension/eclampsia were ranked first and third most common causes of maternal death, which is consistent with medical literature. However, overdose by ingestion of drugs emerged as the second leading cause of maternal death in 2011-2012 (11.6 percent). Review of actual case records (including postmortem toxicology and police reports) showed that the majority of these maternal deaths involved licit or illicit prescription opioids. This finding is alarming and may represent an ongoing shift in maternal causes of death." Also of concern, the task force said, was the number of maternal deaths that occurred months after delivery. Close to 60 percent of Texas maternal deaths 2011-2012 "occurred after 42 days post-delivery," the task force wrote. "Case review of these deaths will determine whether they were pregnancy-related, -associated, or neither. Nevertheless, it is clear that women remain at-risk for the first year after their pregnancy has ended. It is possible that lack of continuity of care plays a role in these later maternal death outcomes." In June 2017, Van Deusen wrote us: "Maternal deaths have been increasing in Texas at the same time we have seen increases in the chronic diseases that underlie many deaths: from 2005 to 2014, pre-pregnancy obesity of mothers increased 25 percent, hypertension increased 20 percent, and diabetes increased 45 percent." The state official also provided a chart suggesting that in 2014, 126 or 135 maternal deaths were reported in Texas, giving the state a rate of 31.5 or 33.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live-births, according to respective counts by DSHS and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with both rates a decrease from 2013 and the CDC-reported rate down 13 percent from the 38.7 deaths per 100,000 live-births posted for 2012: Texas Maternal Deaths Within 42 days After The End of Pregnancy DSHS Data CDC Wonder Data Maternal deaths Live Births Maternal Mortality Rate Maternal deaths Live Births Maternal Mortality Rate 2010 72 385,746 18.7 72 386,118 18.6 2011 100 377,274 26.5 114 377,445 30.2 2012 110 382,438 28.8 148 382,727 38.7 2013 126 387,110 32.5 140 387,340 36.1 2014 126 399,482 31.5 135 399,766 33.8 SOURCE: Emails, Chris Van Deusen, director of media services, Texas Department of State Health Services, June 8-9, 2017 Limited federal data At Hollier’s suggestion, we also checked on whether the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports state-by-state maternal mortality rates. Our web search yielded the center’s 2017 assessment that the national rate reached a high of 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2009 and 2011, according to the center’s review of state-forwarded death certificates for women who died within a year of delivering. CDC says: "Whether the actual risk of a woman dying from pregnancy-related causes has increased is unclear. Many studies show that an increasing number of pregnant women in the United States have chronic health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and chronic heart disease. These conditions may put a pregnant woman at higher risk of pregnancy complications. Although the overall risk of dying from pregnancy complications is low, some women are at a higher risk than others. The higher pregnancy-related mortality ratios during 2009–2011 are due to an increase in infection and sepsis deaths." SOURCE: Web page, "Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last updated May 10, 2017 (accessed May 26, 2017) At our request, Kimberly Rodriguez of the CDC emailed charts based on agency data showing that in 2015 among only 15 states with reported maternal death rates, Texas tied with Missouri for the third-highest rate of deaths per 100,000 residents, behind Louisiana, Georgia and Indiana. That’s a different indicator, though, than deaths per 100,000 live-births. In the end, CDC spokesman Brian Tsai suggested by email that we rely on the older figures covered by the 2016 study we'd already reviewed. Our ruling Thierry said Texas mothers "are dying during childbirth at the highest rates in the nation." In 2011 and 2012, according to a 2016 study, Texas had by far the nation’s highest maternal mortality rate. A clarification missing from Thierry’s statement: That national analysis took into account deaths not just at childbirth but during pregnancy and up to 42 days after delivery. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Shawn Thierry	None	None	None	2017-06-29T15:35:08	2017-06-07	['Texas']
-afck-00002	“Only 3.2 million are in formal employment.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/is-top-ruling-jubilee-party-official-right-about-who-is-paying-income-tax-in-kenya/	None	None	None	None	None	Is top ruling Jubilee Party official right about who is paying income tax in Kenya?	2018-10-30 08:29	None	['None']
-tron-01398	FDA Finds Thousands of Coors Light Beer Cans Laced with Cocaine	https://www.truthorfiction.com/coors-light-cocaine/	None	food	None	None	None	FDA Finds Thousands of Coors Light Beer Cans Laced with Cocaine	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-00205	Says 60 percent of Austin’s "waterways are found to be contaminated with fecal matter and deemed unsafe to swim."	/texas/statements/2018/oct/16/alexander-strenger/austin-mayoral-hopeful-says-60-percent-austins-wat/	One of six candidates challenging Austin Mayor Steve Adler in the November 2018 election said that more than half of Austin’s waterways are so dirty, they’re deemed "unsafe to swim." The splashy claim by pedicabbie Alexander Strenger appears among entries on an E.thepeople interactive website showing questions to Texans running for office and responses. Question: "What is your top environmental concern and how would you address it?" Strenger’s reply: "60% of our waterways are found to be contaminated with fecal matter and deemed unsafe to swim." Strenger then suggested that dog owners who fail to clean up are mostly to blame and said that as mayor, he’d step up police presence near bodies of water to ensure more owners get fined. Candidate cites news story By email, Strenger told us he based his statement on an August 2018 Austin American-Statesman news story. The story said that according to a study by the Environment Texas Research and Policy Center, "60 percent of Austin waterways tested last year were so contaminated with fecal matter as to be unsafe for swimming." Not that Austinites were told to ditch their swimsuits. Popular swimming destinations such as Barton Springs Pool, Barton Creek, Lake Travis, Lake Austin and Walter E. Long Lake did not test positive for unsafe bacteria at any point in 2017, the story said. On the icky side, Austin’s Waller Creek, Walnut Creek, West Bouldin Creek, East Bouldin Creek and Blunn Creek frequently had unsafe levels of worrisome bacteria, the story citing the study said. Colorado River test sites east of Lady Bird Lake were found to have high levels of bacteria two out of the four times they were tested, the story said. According to the story, the researchers "cited stormwater runoff as a cause for some of the biological pollution and recommended that cities require infrastructure improvements to mitigate runoff, such as permeable pavement. They also urged cities to educate residents about bacteria pollution caused by pet waste." Todd Jackson, a field biologist with the city’s watershed department, told the newspaper that the most likely culprit for bacterial contamination was aging infrastructure, including hard-to-spot leaks in residential and commercial utility lines in older urbanized areas. Figures supported by study We dog-paddled to the study, "Swim at Your Own Risk," which says that researchers found that 46 of 76 Austin sites, nearly 61 percent, had at least one 2017 water sample showing excessive bacteria levels--indicating unsafe conditions for swimming, tubing or wading safely. The samples are taken quarterly or less by the City of Austin’s Watershed Protection Department. Water "samples were listed as unsafe for swimming if they exceeded levels of bacteria deemed safe for swimming by Texas regulation," the study says. For freshwater, the study says, "safety is determined by counts of the bacteria E. coli. These bacteria, while they are not typically dangerous for humans, are used as indicators of fecal contamination, which can contain bacteria that make people sick," the study says. An accompanying chart shows that on each of the four days that samples were taken from two creeks, Blunn and East Bouldin, one site or more showed too much E. coli to be considered safe for swimming. Negative results were less consistent for the river and three other creeks, the chart indicates. SOURCE: Study, "Swim at Your Own Risk, Bacteria Pollution in Texas Beaches and Waterways Threatens Public Health," Environment Texas Research & Policy Center, August 2018 (fetched Oct. 11, 2018) An alternate interpretation To our inquiry, Luke Metzger of Environment Texas sent a spreadsheet by email showing the number of times each sampling showed higher-than-acceptable levels of E. coli. The sheet enabled us to speculate about a less dramatic read of the results. That is, just nine of the Austin sites, 12 percent, showed excessive E. coli at every sampling from the year. Metzger replied that he wouldn’t call that an all-clear to dive in. If "there's a problem even once during the year, there's a risk that people could get sick swimming or wading," Metzger said. "Just like Russian roulette, just because you don't die when it lands on an empty chamber doesn't make it a safe game to play." City of Austin says about half of creeks contain too much dangerous bacteria Next, we asked city and state water experts to speak to the study’s judgment about the swimmability of Austin waterways. A city spokeswoman, Susan Garnett, said that at any given time, about half of Austin’s creeks exceed the state’s bacteria threshold for "contact recreation," meaning an activity such as splashing or swimming that increases a person’s chances of swallowing water. That conclusion, she said, ties to samplings taken from about 125 sites in 45 watersheds over the past 30 years or so. Garnett said by email: "The higher the E. coli count, the more likely there is fecal contamination and the higher the risk there is for waterborne illness. Any natural body of water will have some amount of fecal matter due to fish and wildlife, and the fecal matter from warm-blooded animals such as birds, bats, dogs, deer and other mammals will include E. coli." Garnett’s 50 percent figure comports with what the city told the American-Statesman for an August 2014 news story quoting a city environmental engineer, Chris Herrington, estimating that half the city's watersheds had excessive levels of E. coli. Four Austin creeks were seen to be exceeding the state limit of 126 colonies per 100 milliliters of water (a method of gauging bacteria)--a level at which about eight out of 1,000 swimmers would have increased risks for gastroenteritis and offshoot aches and illnesses, the story said. Yet officials also pointed out that with the creeks often running shallow, it was almost impossible to fully immerse in the waters. Herrington said then that the state thresholds are "protective and very conservative." Exceeding them, he said, "doesn't mean an immediate health risk." State spokesman: Five impaired Austin-area waterways in 2014 By email, TCEQ spokesman Andrew Keese responded that in 2014, the latest year analyzed in a commission report, the agency found five of 53 Austin-area waterways, accounting for 13 percent of the area’s "stream miles," to be impaired. Each waterway had enough E. coli over multiple samplings to represent "an elevated level of risk of illness from contact recreation," Keese said. Still, Keese said, that didn’t "necessarily indicate areas considered unsafe to swim. Swimming in all natural waters (including those that meet water quality standards) comes with risk, whether that be from pathogen exposure or other risks," Keese wrote. Keese noted that the Environment Texas study relied on single samplings in one year while the agency makes determinations based on 20 samplings over several years which, Keese wrote, "provides a better overall assessment of risks associated with recreational activities such as swimming." Keese went on: "Bacteria data can be quite variable from day to day, and results are dependent upon a number of factors, such as antecedent precipitation." Commission officials also said through Keese that the study appeared to consider samples from some waterways and not others--notably Austin’s Bull Creek. We turned back to Brian Zabcik of Environment Texas, who said that the study’s consideration of a few water samples taken in 2017 was a deliberate effort to spotlight what the state’s long-term approach could obscure. By email, Zabcik said the researchers didn’t field Bull Creek results because the city samples water from that creek in even-numbered years. Zabcik further quoted Andrew Clamann, a city environmental scientist, advising: "There are too many watersheds in Austin to monitor them all every year." Another perspective For out-of-Austin perspective, we reached the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment at Texas State University, which is working with the city and the Shoal Creek Conservancy to develop a watershed protection plan for Austin’s Shoal Creek Watershed. Nick Dornak, the center’s director of watershed services, said by email that statewide, the majority of monitored streams don’t meet their "designated use," as defined by TCEQ, "due to high levels of bacteria and other contaminants. Other common impairments include high levels of dissolved solids (salts) and depressed dissolved oxygen." Dornak, asked to assess the Environment Texas study and TCEQ’s response, said: "The study looked at a ‘snapshot’ of water quality and represented a kind of worst-case scenario that may be a little misleading." Still, Dornak wrote, this "data does show that there are definitely days where swimming may not be safe around Austin-area streams." Our ruling Strenger said 60 percent of Austin’s "waterways are found to be contaminated with fecal matter and deemed unsafe to swim." This claim fairly echoes a study finding that 60 percent of Austin waterways sampled by the city had so much E. coli bacteria that swimming could pose health risks. Then again, the study indicates a smaller share of waterways, 12 percent, had too much of the bacteria at every sampling. It’s worth noting too that the samplings were all taken in 2017, a year ago. On balance, we rate this claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Alexander Strenger	None	None	None	2018-10-16T17:09:09	2018-10-01	['None']
-snes-03058	The Rachel Maddow No	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rachel-maddow-trump-tweet/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Rachel Maddow Tweet That Donald Trump Needs to be ‘Taken Out?’	26 January 2017	None	['None']
-hoer-00653	Facebook Post Claims Dog Saved Puppies From House Fire	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/dog-saves-puppies-fire.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Facebook Post Claims Dog Saved Puppies From House Fire	September 13, 2012	None	['None']
-tron-00565	Dubai Doesn’t Have a Sewer System	https://www.truthorfiction.com/dubai-doesnt-have-a-sewer-system/	None	business	None	None	None	Dubai Doesn’t Have a Sewer System	Jan 27, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07090	"Providence is one of the busiest fire departments for its relative size in the country."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/jun/24/paul-doughty/firefighter-union-chief-says-providence-has-one-bu/	When layoffs were looming in the Providence Fire Department, Paul Doughty, the president of the firefighters' union, went on the WPRI "Newsmakers" program June 12. He talked about the changes that cutbacks would entail, and whether a different type of schedule -- 24 hours on the job followed by a 48-hour break -- would pose a threat to public safety. Doughty said the cutbacks could significantly expand a firefighter's workweek in a city where mandatory overtime is already common. "Providence is one of the busiest fire departments for its relative size in the country and in terms of volume of runs," he said. "The rescues are some of the busiest. ... Engine 3 out of downtown is usually in the top 10 percent across the country." The threat of layoffs apparently has been averted now that the union and the city have tentatively agreed on contract modifications that include several union concessions, including giving up a planned pay raise and reducing paid vacation time. But the question still intrigued us: Is Providence's department really one of the busiest for its size? We had a burning desire to know whether that was true or just an attempt by the union to discourage cutbacks. We called Doughty, who said his source was the trade publication Firehouse Magazine, which has been collecting city-by-city data on firefighter activity for 30 years as part of its National Run Survey. The latest data available online, from 2009, includes information supplied by 287 departments in 47 states, the District of Columbia and six Canadian provinces. But Providence is not included. (The magazine looks at a different combinations of departments from year to year.) So he took us back to 2008's listing, which has data for Providence and 256 other U.S. departments. In those rankings, the city does look busy, with the 10th busiest engine (Engine 3, with 4,809 runs per year), the 13th busiest station (15,626 runs from the downtown station per year) and the 31st busiest ladder truck (Ladder 1 with 2,160 runs). It also ranked 50th out of 257 in total calls, with 42,989 runs that year, or 118 calls to the fire department per day. (To confirm that volume, we randomly picked seven days in 2008 and asked for copies of the department's logs. The number of runs ranged from 98 to 131 calls per day. Average for those days: 112.) But those are just raw numbers, and don’t take into consideration the size of population of the area being served or whether the station and equipment statistics reflect having only one station in an exceptionally busy area. The citywide number of calls would be the best indicator of activity. With 178,000 residents, according to the latest U.S. Census numbers, that would amount to 242 calls per 1,000 residents. Firehouse Magazine is a trade publication that doesn't double check the numbers it receives from fire departments. So we tried to get independent numbers from other sources. When we contacted the National Fire Data Center, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, statistician Gayle Kelch told us that the center couldn't break down the numbers by department because they wouldn't include rescue calls or false alarms. "Each city or town would have to do their own data runs," she said. Instead, the center had a nationwide estimate of 26.5 million fire department calls for all types of calls for 2009. (With a U.S. population of 307 million in July 2009, that would break down to 86 calls per 1,000 people. Providence’s reported volume is three times higher.) As part of our search, we also contacted the Insurance Services Office, a private company that collects fire data for insurance purposes. "ISO does not compile data related to this topic. It is not aware of any other organization that may track such information about fire departments, but suggests reaching out to Firehouse Magazine or Fire Chief Magazine," a spokeswoman responded in an e-mail. So we went back to Firehouse and its lists from 2008 (where Providence is mentioned) and 2009 (to see where Providence would fit into the list). "They're recognized as a reputable journal in the fire service," said Ken Willette, manager of the public fire protection division of the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), based in Quincy, Mass. We were concerned that the number of runs, because they are self-reported, might be inflated by multiple pieces of equipment going to the same call. For example, a fire truck will always show up at a rescue call in addition to a rescue wagon, a widespread practice that's been in place in Providence for over 30 years because it provides an extra set of hands and a fire truck can often get to the scene first, said Providence assistant chief Michael Dillon. That practice is common, Firehouse editor in chief Harvey Eisner told us. Thomas Warren, assistant chief for administration in the Providence department, said that in Providence, if more than one piece of apparatus goes to the scene of a fire or heart attack, that only counts as one run.) With those assurances, we took the total number of runs for all U.S. departments -- a combination of fire calls, emergency medical service calls and false alarms -- and factored them in with population statistics supplied by the departments, compiled by Firehouse Magazine, and published on a separate list. Warren supplied the number of runs made in Providence in 2009. For 2009, Providence, with 41,553 calls, ranked as the 14th busiest community, with 233 runs per thousand. Providence was behind Chicago (244 runs per thousand), Newport, R.I. (246), San Francisco (274), St. Louis (283) and Hartford (389), but the department was busier than larger cities such as Fort Lauderdale (231), Miami (209), Nashville (208), Cincinnati (196), Dayton (194), Orlando (191), Memphis (186), New York City (184), and every Massachusetts community, including Boston (124). In the 2008 Firehouse survey, when we adjusted for the populations of the areas covered, Providence ranked 15th. And when we combined the data for both years to include statistics for nearly 400 departments, Providence and Newport were virtually tied for the 20th busiest departments on the list. "It's a very large volume of runs," Doughty. Why so many calls? Providence's Dillon said it’s because residents have confidence that the department can handle emergencies quickly and efficiently, so they may be quicker to call for help than in other communities. Willette of the NFPA said that in addition to the confidence factor, Providence provides medical and rescue services that some departments don't. A higher call volume could also be due to the need to provide more mutual aid to neighboring communities that have cut back on their fire services. It may also reflect the presence of more fire suppression systems that are in place, especially following The Station nightclub fire. "You cannot underestimate the effect of that in a department's operation," he said. In summary, we think that being ranked in the top 20 when it comes to the number of calls per person qualifies Providence as one of the busiest departments in the United States. We rate Doughty's statement True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Paul Doughty	None	None	None	2011-06-24T08:00:00	2011-06-12	['None']
-pomt-06603	Says credit rating agencies realize that our instability stems in large part from Oregon’s kicker system.	/oregon/statements/2011/sep/23/brent-barton/former-rep-brent-barton-says-credit-analysts-reali/	Oregon’s "kicker law" is often kicked around in political fights over spending and taxes. Republicans, generally, want to leave the refund law alone and force the state to save money by spending less. Democrats, generally, say the kicker is a constitutionally built-in anti-savings mechanism. For those who don’t know, the kicker is officially called the state’s surplus refund law. It requires a refund to taxpayers if the state collects more money in taxes -- by at least 2 percent -- than economists projected. The idea is to make sure legislators don’t spend every dime they get from taxpayers. Former state Rep. Brent Barton, a Democrat who represented part of Clackamas County, recently wrote a guest column for The Oregonian in which he urged the state to divert the kicker and use the money to build a savings fund that could boost our credit rating, which in turn would save millions of dollars in lower interest payments. "The ratings agencies will not upgrade Oregon's credit rating until we stabilize state finances, and they realize that our instability stems in large part from Oregon's kicker system," he wrote. We can’t predict what ratings agencies will or won’t do, and neither can anyone else. Instead, PolitiFact Oregon had a simple question: Do credit ratings analysts actually finger the kicker as responsible for the state’s financial instability? Steve Buckstein of the Cascade Policy Institute, which promotes limited government, argues that without the kicker, legislators would spend every penny on hand for pay raises and new programs. The pressure not to spend is too great, he said. On the other hand, the kicker could "kick" at awkward times, for example, after drastic funding reductions, as The Oregonian’s Harry Esteve illustrates in this 2009 news story: "At the end of each legislative session, the state economist makes his best guess about how much revenue the state stands to receive over the next two years. He has lots of data to work with, and a complex set of equations, matrices and algorithms. But it's still a guess. If he sets a low figure -- which makes sense this year given the current economic conditions -- and then the economy rebounds, the state could end up sending millions of dollars back to taxpayers at the same time it is making deep cuts to services. It happened during the last recession, in 2001, and there are growing fears it could happen again." See the problem? Let’s turn to the actual reports, to see for ourselves what analysts have said. Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investor Service, and Fitch are the houses that determine our creditworthiness, which in turn determines the interest rate at which we borrow money. For example, they loved that Oregon started a savings fund in 2007 by diverting the corporate kicker that year. All three agencies consistently cite the state’s narrow reliance on economically sensitive corporate and personal income tax revenues as a negative. They also dislike Oregon’s active citizen initiative process because it means voters can restrict how much money we collect and how we spend that money. Their big issue is reliability. Many times, but not always, the kicker law is singled out as an added concern. A March 7 Moody’s report says the kicker "adds budgetary challenges, including cash flow pressures." Does that mean that a repeal of the kicker would increase our rating? Or that the existence of the kicker means we’re doomed to a lower rating? Kimberly Lyons, the primary analyst for Moody’s for Oregon, wouldn’t go so far. Ability to govern is what they measure and the kicker is not a defacto defect, Lyons said. "There are other ways to make the structure work for the state. As long as the state is structurally balanced, that’s all we care about." But Gabriel Petek of Standard & Poor’s was more willing to weigh in on the kicker. He said that while Oregon’s reliance on income taxes is the "main driver" of the state’s financial volatility, the kicker makes it difficult to build reserves because we can’t reap the benefits of economic upsides to manage for the economic downsides. It’s as if we’ve deliberately hobbled ourselves. Back to Barton. He checked in with PolitiFact Oregon while traveling. He said he should have stressed that the kicker magnifies Oregon’s fiscal instability rather than causes it. "I probably should have been more precise in wording that sentence, as the verb ‘stems’ implies causation more than magnification. However, the fact remains that the ratings agencies recognize that the kicker system contributes significantly to Oregon's unstable fiscal system." Finally, we checked in with state Treasurer Ted Wheeler, who manages our money. He acknowledged that if Oregon had jobs galore and oodles of extra money in the bank, the ratings agencies could upgrade us anyway, without kicker reform. But that’s not the case, he said, and so analysts continue to call out the kicker as a concern. But doesn’t our financial instability really stem from our unnaturally high reliance on income and corporate taxes? "The two go hand-in-hand. You can’t really separate them," Wheeler said. "You’ve got the volatility from our reliance on the income tax, which in my mind is the most significant issue. You have all of your eggs in one basket, and the basket we’ve chosen is the volatility basket, and then when you combine the kicker with that, the two really are like the evil twins. They work hand in hand to make it hard for government to plan through a reliable revenue structure." So what have we learned? Certainly government could save money without the kicker. But the kicker does exacerbate the volatility of the system that we’ve chosen to pay for public services. And the two analysts we interviewed were understandably wishy washy on how Oregon’s kicker figures into the state’s credit rating. In a previous PolitiFact, we gave Rep. Matt Wand, R-Troutdale, a Mostly False for saying that previous Legislatures suspended the kicker, spent every dime and failed to stabilize state finances. (We explained that serious context was missing.) In this PolitiFact, we come to a similar conclusion about Barton’s statement regarding the kicker’s relationship to financial stability. Oregon’s instability stems mainly from our heavy reliance on one revenue stream. The simplest way to counter that may be to divert the kicker. But a bigger difference, the reports suggest, would be made by adding other taxes -- hello, sales? -- to diversify Oregon’s revenue base. (Sorry, we had to say it.) We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Brent Barton	None	None	None	2011-09-23T06:00:00	2011-08-13	['Oregon']
-pomt-06404	Says adding toll lanes on I-95 in Broward County improved rush-hour traffic for non-toll lanes from 25 mph to 45 mph.	/florida/statements/2011/oct/28/rick-scott/gov-rick-scott-says-toll-roads-sped-traffic-i-95/	Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a big fan of interviews from friendly talk radio stations, used an Oct. 10, 2011, chat with a Daytona Beach host to discuss prudent investments for the state amid another big budget shortfall. (Well, after saying Florida doesn't need more anthropologists, which created an uproar within the academic community. And after disputing that he's changed how he will measure his promise to create 700,000 private-sector jobs, which PolitiFact Florida gave a full-flop. Moving on ...) Scott pointed to improving state ports in anticipation of the Panama Canal expansion, cargo rail and adding more toll roads across the state to support new construction projects. In his comments to host Marc Bernier, Scott said the state can designate toll lanes on federal highways as long as the state adds a new lane, and he cited changes to Interstate 95 as an example of how it can work well. "We did that down in Broward County," he said. "It took the rush-hour traffic for the non-tolled lanes from 25 mph to 45 (mph). So for people not paying the toll it was a big benefit. We're going to start doing that across the state." Scott's claim that express lanes improved rush-hour traffic for all drivers is interesting, especially given his signal that he wants to expand tolling statewide. He repeated the point a week later in an interview on Tampa Bay's WFLA-AM 970. We thought it wise to check his evidence. 95 Express, a primer First we'll address what he's talking about, as it may not be obvious to residents outside of southeast Florida with its notoriously treacherous commutes. Scott was referring to "95 Express," a Florida Department of Transportation project unveiled in December 2008 to improve traffic speeds during the morning and afternoon rush hour. He misspoke when he said the program was in Broward County. The only operational piece of the project is in Miami-Dade County. DOT workers added new lanes to a 7.3-mile stretch of I-95 by repainting northbound and, about a year later, southbound lane lines. The express lanes replaced High Occupancy Vehicle, or HOV, lanes that were reserved for cars carrying two or more people, free of charge. The HOV lanes -- one in each direction -- were not very popular. The special toll lanes, two in each direction, start at State Road 836, called the Dolphin Expressway, in Miami, and run north to the Golden Glades Interchange. The second phase, which was scheduled to begin construction in fall 2011, will extend from Golden Glades to Fort Lauderdale in Broward County. A word about the tolls: They are paid automatically via electronic transponders (SunPass) but are not charged to motorcycles, registered carpools of three or more passengers, registered hybrid vehicles, and school and transit buses. Anyone else itching to use the lane less traveled pays a fee based on "congestion pricing," meaning the toll value changes with traffic load. The rate increases with demand, so drivers pay more to use the express lane when they need it most. The higher the toll, the busier the lanes. DOT keeps a weekly estimate of these rates. From Oct. 3 to Oct. 7, 2011, the toll in both lanes was 25 cents from midnight to 7 a.m. But in the southbound lane, which takes on a heavier load of morning commuters, the fee got as high as $3. Conversely, the fee peaked at $2.75 in the northbound lanes from 5 to 6 p.m. "They opt to pay the toll because they know they're going to have a more reliable trip," said Brian Rick, DOT District Six spokesman. The program has generated about $28 million since its debut, he said, or about $1 million a month. That money pays for maintenance of the program and express buses that use the lanes. The first phase of construction cost about $132 million, according to the first yearly overview of the program. The second phase reaching Fort Lauderdale will cost an expected $92.7 million and be finished by 2014. The express lanes reached their peak toll of $7.10 when fans piled on the highway after an Oct. 4, 2010, Miami Dolphins-New England Patriots game. That's a pretty steep fare at $1 per mile, earning the express lanes the nickname "Lexus lanes." Benefits Scott is right: converting high-occupancy vehicle lanes to express lanes speeds up traffic, the program overview shows. Traffic in both HOV and general lanes crawled below 20 mph during the morning and afternoon rush, according to a 2008 study of the HOV lanes. With the express lanes, southbound traffic in non-toll lanes jumped to an average 51 mph during morning rush hour, a 35.7 mph leap. In the northbound non-toll lanes during the afternoon rush, traffic sped up to 41.3 mph, improving by 22.5 mph. DOT puts it more simply on its website: "With the opening of the express lanes, drivers are experiencing improved speeds above 40 MPH in the local lanes and 50 MPH in the express lanes along the northbound and southbound directions during rush hour periods." A few caveats about DOT's numbers. The 2008 HOV study relied on peak periods of 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. In its evaluation of average speeds with 95 Express, DOT expanded the rush-hour periods by an additional hour from 6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m. Also, the southbound toll lanes did not open until Jan. 15, 2010, halfway through the 2009-10 fiscal year during which DOT collected its speed data for both lanes. There's also the number of vehicles using the highway to consider. The program improved peak-period speeds, but did it do the same for volume? The southbound section in 2008 took on an average of 6,872 vehicles in the HOV and general purpose lanes per hour during the morning peak period. In the northbound section, the 2008 hourly peak period figure was 7,843. In 2010 (keeping in mind the caveats we mentioned before) the southbound express and general purpose lanes moved a total of about 8,916 vehicles per morning rush hour, and 7,856 vehicles per hour in the northbound section in the afternoon. DOT has not completed its fiscal year 2011 report, but project manager Rory Santana said volume is improving as peak-period speeds stay the same. In an interview, he acknowledged the argument that traffic would have improved simply because DOT created a new lane. Still, he says, if DOT had just added an extra lane without the toll lanes and congestion pricing, "there's a very good chance that volume would have gone up right there and filled it up," Santana said. Scott and DOT Secretary Ananth Prasad want to expand the managed lanes program across the state. Prasad is seeking a public-private partnership to put new Express-style lanes on I-75 in Broward County, as well as adding a managed lane to Miami's Palmetto Expressway, according to an interview with the News Service of Florida. Our ruling A program overview for 95 Express shows Gov. Scott was about right when he said speeds for rush-hour traffic in non-toll lanes had improved from 25 mph to 45 mph. DOT's first study of the program shows traffic speeds during the peak periods were actually lower than 20 mph before the program. In 2010, traffic speeds during peak periods increased by 35 mph for southbound general lanes and by 22.5 mph in northbound general lanes. Still, Scott misidentified the program's location. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2011-10-28T10:02:44	2011-10-10	['Fort_Lauderdale,_Florida']
-pomt-11886	"We have done more in eight months than the previous administration has done in many years" against ISIS.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/26/donald-trump/trump-takes-full-credit-gains-against-isis/	President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to hit the Islamic State hard, and the armed fundamentalist group has suffered major losses on his watch. In July, coalition forces broke ISIS' hold on Mosul, the largest Iraqi city under their control. In October, they were forced out of Raqqa, the Syrian city the Islamic State claimed as the capital of their would-be caliphate. During a news conference, Trump drew a sharp contrast with his predecessor in the White House. "We have done more in eight months than the previous administration has done in many years," Trump said Oct. 25. Based on numbers from the battlefield and the assessment of terrorism analysts, Trump can rightly claim that he built on the work done under President Barack Obama, but he can’t take full ownership of the gains that followed. Sorties and munitions Numbers tell only part of the story, but Pentagon figures on the missions flown and the explosives rained down on ISIS put the first months of the Trump administration into context. The campaign to defeat ISIS took shape in September 2014 under the name of Operation Inherent Resolve. According to U.S. Air Force Central Command data, coalition forces engaged the enemy nearly 33,000 times between the launch of the operation and September 2017. (The Air Force includes strikes taking place in August 2014.) Counting only sorties in which at least one weapon was released, about three-fourths of the action took place during the Obama years. The Air Force reports over 102,000 missiles, bombs and other explosives dropped in the course of the campaign. Over two-thirds of that came before Trump took office. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Loss of territory By late August 2014, the Islamic State controlled about 35,000 square miles. The defense data firm IHS Markit mapped the terrorist group’s declining influence between 2015 and 2017. The ISIS zones are in gray. The maps show that most of the territorial collapse of ISIS took place during the Trump administration. But defense experts say that what the maps don’t show are the offensive operations that began under Obama. The battle for Mosul, for example, began in October 2016, about four months before Trump took office. The collapse was a continuation of what had begun earlier. Between the start of 2015 and February 2016, IHS reported that ISIS had lost 22 percent of the territory it once controlled. A drawn-out effort Some defense analysts criticize Obama for not moving quickly enough to confront the Islamic State. Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the Obama administration was "grindingly slow" to get air power and equipment into the region. But that changed rapidly through 2015. "Virtually all were in place before the Trump administration came to office, along with virtually all of the key arms transfers and other assistance that went to Iraqi forces and the Syrian forces supported by the U.S," Cordesman said. Under Trump, the tempo of airstrikes increased, and military commanders were given greater leeway to order attacks. But Cordesman said that represented no great shift in overall strategy. "Trump deserves credit for fully implementing the plan and some limited improvements, but it is nonsense for him to take credit for a program his predecessor had largely put in place," he said. The Islamic State faced battles everywhere. It was under attack by the Iraqi and Syrian militaries. Kurdish and Syrian forces backed by the United States wore down ISIS fighters at strategically key locations. American and Russian airstrikes targeted both ISIS military centers and the oil fields that helped fund the fundamentalist fighters. William Braniff, executive director of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, said the Islamic State was an "impossibly poor nation-state fighting a multifront war while savaging its own economic base." It was, in Braniff’s view, unsustainable. "This beleaguered proto-state was then starved of external sources of money and fighters by an international effort, that included many initiatives led by the United States under the Obama administration, and that were continued into the Trump administration," Braniff said. We reached out to the White House for comment and did not hear back. Our ruling Trump said his administration had done more against ISIS in the last eight months than the Obama administration had done in many years. Trump is correct in the sense that the Islamic State has suffered its largest territorial losses since he took office, but that confuses the timing with the cause. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of the firepower unleashed against ISIS hit before Trump became president. The terrorist group’s hold on territory had started to crumble a year before he took command. While Trump ordered some changes in the military operation, the experts we reached said those didn’t transform the strategy so much as continue the one he inherited from Obama. Trump can take credit for keeping the fight going, but he has to share the glory for the results. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-10-26T18:08:24	2017-10-25	['None']
-pomt-13123	"One in five American households have nobody under the same roof that's got a job."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/03/mike-pence/mike-pence-right-1-5-us-households-dont-have-anyon/	On the campaign trail, Donald Trump has consistently criticized President Barack Obama’s stewardship of the economy. Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, echoed that theme during a campaign event in Cocoa Beach, Fla. "Literally, nearly one in four Americans in their prime earning years isn't working," Pence said at the Oct. 31 event. "You've got one in five American households have nobody under the same roof that's got a job." We wondered whether Pence was right. We were able to find a statistic with roughly that figure, but it lacks important context. Pence’s staff did not respond to an inquiry for this article, but we quickly found that several conservative websites all published similar articles last spring with headlines like, "One In Five American Families Don’t Have A Single Person Working A Job." We’ll set aside a technical distinction that will mostly irritate economists -- the difference between "families," which is the unit used in the data cited by the websites, and the broader term "households," which is the word Pence used. There are 81.4 million "families" in the United States, but there are 118.2 million "households," mainly because only "households" include single-person living arrangements. Ultimately, the differences between the two measures was modest -- 19.7 percent of families without any workers, compared to 26.7 percent of households. If these percentages were all that mattered, then Pence would be correct. But what he said ignores that many of those households without a working member consist of senior citizens who are retired. And unless Pence intends to shoo Grandma and Grandpa out of their Barcaloungers and into the workplace, he’s using a statistic that inflates the weakness of the labor market for Americans in their prime working years. How big a concern is this? Looking in federal statistical databases, we couldn’t find what percentage of households consisted of senior citizens. However, we were able to reverse-engineer it. We’ve streamlined the math by making some assumptions, but experts tell us the underlying method is solid. We’ll use "households" as our metric here, because that’s the term Pence used. (Using "families" would produce similar results.) According to the U.S. Census Bureau chart below, there were roughly 30 million households headed by someone 65 or older in 2015. Presumably most of these included a spouse who was also 65 or older. Meanwhile, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 19.5 percent of Americans 65 and over are in the labor force (that is, either working or looking for work). The flip side of this is that about 80 percent of Americans 65 and older are not in the labor force. As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, you can multiply the 30 million 65-and-over households by 80 percent -- the likelihood that someone of that age is not in the labor force -- and come up with an estimate of 24 million senior-citizen households in which no one working. These 24 million retiree households account for the vast majority of the 31.7 million total households in which no one is working. Essentially, it leaves 7.7 million households where no one is working for a reason other than retirement. These 7.7 million households account for just 6.5 percent of the nation’s 118.2 million households. And 6.5 percent is quite a bit smaller than the 20 percent figure Pence cited. By our math, about two-thirds of Pence’s non-working households can be explained by retirement -- a demographic issue that no president can reverse -- rather than by a shortage of jobs. Gary Burtless, a Brookings Institution economist, cautioned that many households include someone who is 65 and older yet still working, and many households have someone younger than 65 who is either unable to work, due to disability, or who has chosen to go to school or stay home to raise children. "It is valid for political candidates to point to the disappointing employment-to-population ratio of adults, especially for American men between 25 and 54," he said. "But it is quite misleading to suggest there is something wrong with a country that makes it possible for adult students, disabled adults, and very aged adults to live comfortably and productively in families or households that do not contain a person working for pay." Our ruling Pence said, "One in five American households have nobody under the same roof that's got a job." Pence has a point that, according to federal data, about one of every five families, and about one of every four households, does not include a worker. However, this glosses over the fact that a big majority of these households have no worker because they consist of senior citizens who have retired -- an entirely different policy concern than a weak labor market, and one whose demographic roots make it beyond the reach of the Obama administration. We rate Pence’s statement Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5c69165e-ef66-45f2-9fc8-6c6c7d2d21b3	None	Mike Pence	None	None	None	2016-11-03T11:59:35	2016-10-31	['United_States']
-pomt-13825	Says Hillary Clinton "took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire" during the terrorist attack in Benghazi.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/14/mike-pence/pence-falsely-says-clinton-didnt-send-help-during-/	Vice presidential nominees are often expected to act as attack dogs on a campaign ticket. Maybe Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was warming up for the role at a rally for Donald Trump in Indiana on July 12. Pence rattled off a series of reasons Hillary Clinton was not fit for the presidency. One of them caught our attention, a claim about Benghazi, the Libyan city where a 2012 terrorist attack left four Americans dead. "We don't need a president that took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire and after four brave Americans fell said ‘what difference, at this point, does it make.’ Anyone who did that, anyone who said that, should be disqualified from ever being commander in chief of the armed forces," Pence said. President Barack Obama’s administration has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny during, before and after that attack, and much of that has been directed at Clinton. Several investigations have found, however, that no action by Clinton -- or anybody in the administration -- could have moved additional forces to Benghazi before the last American deaths. And if it were possible, Clinton was not responsible for sending help. That fell to military officials. The Benghazi timeline The attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi began at 9:40 p.m., Benghazi time. It took until after 10 a.m. the next morning for the last plane evacuating Americans to leave Benghazi — the time from the initial attack to the final evacuation is Pence’s "13 hours." (For a more detailed timeline, see this document issued by the House’s select committee on Benghazi or our fact-check of a claim about delays in the military’s response.) At an 11 p.m. meeting (5 p.m. Washington time), President Barack Obama directed military officials to "do everything possible" to save lives in Benghazi. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified that he then ordered forces around the Mediterranean to move toward Libya. Clinton’s department was ultimately responsible for the security setup at the Benghazi mission, but at this point it was the military, under the Defense Department and, ultimately, the president, that was moving forces toward Libya. None of the forces ordered to prepare to deploy to Benghazi ever reached the city in the aftermath of the attack. Eventually, it was decided that the Americans in Benghazi would evacuate to Tripoli, Libya's capital, and forces that would have gone to Benghazi were directed there, Libya’s capital, where they were being evacuated to. The CIA station chief in Tripoli — as opposed to anyone in Washington — dispatched a team to work with local militia groups to extract the Americans in Benghazi. Clinton was active throughout the 13-hour period. She testified that she called Libya’s president to see if friendly forces could be dispatched to help the Americans in Benghazi. She also spoke with the embassy in Tripoli and then-CIA director David Petraeus. There have been eight congressional investigations of Benghazi so far, most of which were run by Republicans. Several of their reports criticized Clinton and her State Department for the security setup in Benghazi, for their part in the administration messaging after the attack, and for not holding themselves accountable afterward. But they generally criticized the Defense Department or other parts of the administration, not Clinton or the State Department, for delays in deploying military assets the night of the attack. When Congressman Mike Pompeo asked Clinton, "Why was heaven and earth not moved at the initial sound of guns," in terms of sending help, Clinton told him to ask the Defense Department. The House select committee on Benghazi concluded: "The decisions made earlier in the year by senior State Department officials to maintain a presence in Benghazi without adequate security forces and an inadequately fortified Mission compound contributed to what amounted to a worst case scenario of circumstances that would test the military’s preparedness and ability to respond. "Nevertheless, the Defense Department did not pass the test." The committee went on to question why it took so long for orders from Obama and Panetta to translate into action on the ground. The committee’s final report leaves open the possibility that the State Department might have further impeded the speed of reaction to Benghazi. "Whether this failure is shouldered by (the Defense Department) alone, or rests in part on decisions made by the State Department in Washington D.C. or with the White House... is one of the lingering questions about Benghazi," the report reads. This brings up the possibility that the State Department delayed help, but that wasn’t Pence’s claim. And, based on the generally accepted timeline of the attack, its appears likely the delay ended up being immaterial. Different Republican-led congressional investigations have concluded that additional forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to matter. Even if Clinton was responsible for the response to the attack, it's not clear what she could have done to overcome what military officials called "the tyranny of time and distance." Our ruling Pence claimed that Clinton "took 13 hours to send help to Americans under fire." In fact, it wasn’t Clinton’s responsibility to send troops to the scene — the military chain of command took that responsibility. The Defense Department attempted to send help to the scene, but was unable to reach Benghazi before the deaths occurred. Pence implied that Clinton dawdled before sending help to Americans in danger. That is not accurate. We rate this claim False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/16053b1b-0a59-4f24-ac3f-dcb041744f65	None	Mike Pence	None	None	None	2016-07-14T17:34:22	2016-07-12	['United_States', 'Benghazi']
-snes-04778	Michael Jordan threatened to move the Charlotte Hornets out of North Carolina over the state's HB2 bathroom law.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-jordan-hb2-hornets/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Michael Jordan to North Carolina: ‘HB2 Goes or the Charlotte Hornets Go’	11 May 2016	None	['Michael_Jordan', 'New_Orleans_Pelicans', 'North_Carolina']
-pomt-14308	"Youth unemployment in minority communities is about 40 to 45 percent."	/missouri/statements/2016/mar/31/peter-kinder/peter-kinder-right-about-high-unemployment-minorit/	Candidates for Missouri’s GOP gubernatorial nomination have sparred over race relations, MU campus protests and the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. At a March 17 debate in Columbia, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said unemployment was a key cause of the events in Ferguson, saying, "Young men were walking around with nothing to do." "Minority youth unemployment is about 40 to 45 percent," Kinder said. The reasons for the unrest in Ferguson following the shooting of Michael Brown aren’t simple, but we wanted to determine whether Kinder’s numbers for youth unemployment in minority communities were on the money. Youth unemployment in Ferguson and the city of St. Louis Kinder’s office said the numbers came from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch column in 2014, which said 47 percent of the metro area’s African-American men between ages 16 and 24 were unemployed, according to 2012 census numbers. Peter Muesser, professor of labor economics at MU, said the youth jobless rate Kinder cited seemed to be in the correct range. "I’m seeing Kinder’s statement as likely reliable because it was based on Census Bureau info," he said. "The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau are the best sources when it comes to reliable unemployment statistics." The Census Bureau and the BLS work together, using annual and monthly surveys to define the unemployment rate and other measures of the American population. The Current Population Survey is more in-depth, but the American Community Survey has a bigger sample size, which allows for unemployment estimates from smaller geographical areas like cities and townships. According to the American Community Survey, the youth unemployment rates in 2014 for St. Louis City, Ferguson Township, and Ferguson City were significantly different. St. Louis City – 32 percent (16-19 years); 21 percent (20-24 years) Ferguson Township – 54 percent (16-19 years); 34 percent (20-24 years) Because Kinder specified youth unemployment in minority communities, we looked at the demographic makeup of both St. Louis City and Ferguson. St. Louis City – 126,452 white residents; 118,653 African American residents Ferguson – 9,178 white residents; 17,824 African American residents St. Louis has a comparable number of black and white residents. Ferguson has a significantly larger African-American population, with black residents outnumbering white residents by a 2-to-1 margin. The rate of African American unemployment in all age groups is historically twice that of white unemployment across the nation. Youth unemployment is no different – nationally, the unemployment rate for African Americans 16-24 is about 20 percent, while the unemployment rate for the same age group of whites is about 10 percent. Our Ruling The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey data fits Ferguson into Kinder’s claim of youth unemployment of about 40 percent to 45 percent in minority communities. Defining which cities, suburbs and townships are "minority communities" is a matter of debate. But it’s worth noting that Ferguson’s youth are not only more unemployed than their peers in St. Louis , they are also significantly more unemployed on average than both white and black 16-24 year-olds across the country. Ferguson was the community in question when Kinder cited the rate of 40 percent to 45 percent of youth unemployment in minority communities — and Ferguson does fit into Kinder’s estimate. We rate Kinder’s statement as Mostly True.	None	Peter Kinder	None	None	None	2016-03-31T23:17:38	2016-03-17	['None']
-snes-01396	iPhone users can access emergency services simply by tapping the Lock button of their device five times.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iphone-sos/	None	Technology	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Can You Access Emergency Services by Pressing an iPhone’s Lock Button Five Times?	29 November 2017	None	['None']
-pose-01303	"Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1395/allow-free-access-drug-market/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Allow free access to the drug market	2017-01-17T08:30:52	None	['None']
-goop-00198	Ben Affleck Dating ‘Another Mystery Blonde’ In Addition To Shauna Sexton?	https://www.gossipcop.com/ben-affleck-dating-mystery-blonde-shauna-sexton/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Ben Affleck Dating ‘Another Mystery Blonde’ In Addition To Shauna Sexton?	11:53 am, October 1, 2018	None	['None']
-vogo-00046	Statement: “Lorie Zapf helped pass financial reforms, saving … $1,000,000,000. Over $1 billion saved so we can invest back into our neighborhoods,” a mailer for City Councilwoman Lorie Zapf’s campaign said.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/city-council/fact-check-still-not-so-instant-pension-savings/	Analysis: Pension reform supporters just can’t resist saying that Proposition B is saving a lot money.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: (Still) Not-So-Instant Pension Savings	May 21, 2014	None	['None']
-vogo-00514	Fact Check TV: Chargers Blackout, Fire Stations and San Diego's Mayor	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fact-check-tv-chargers-blackout-fire-stations-and-san-diegos-mayor/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: Chargers Blackout, Fire Stations and San Diego's Mayor	October 4, 2010	None	['San_Diego']
-pose-00042	"Protect the jobs and benefits of workers and retirees when corporations file for bankruptcy by telling companies that they cannot issue bonuses for executives during bankruptcy while their workers watch their pensions disappear."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/45/forbid-companies-in-bankruptcy-from-giving-executi/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses	2010-01-07T13:26:46	None	['None']
-snes-06350	In Canada, Santa's postal code is H0H 0H0.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/santas-canadian-postal-code/	None	Holidays	None	David Mikkelson	None	Santa’s Canadian Postal Code	3 December 2006	None	['Canada']
-snes-00814	Was the 'March for Our Lives' Permit Application Made Months Before the Parkland Shooting?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/march-for-our-lives-permit/	None	Junk News	None	Bethania Palma	None	Was the ‘March for Our Lives’ Permit Application Made Months Before the Parkland Shooting?	3 April 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-06785	Says Rick Perry "wanted to secede from the union."	/texas/statements/2011/aug/17/jay-carney/white-house-press-secretary-says-perry-wanted-sece/	Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, brought up secession when a New York Times columnist asked about the latest Republican presidential aspirant, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. In her op-ed column posted online Aug. 16, 2011, Maureen Dowd describes the stumping Perry as galloping "through Iowa like an unbroken stallion in danger of cracking a leg." Her column notes that the governor called President Barack Obama "the greatest threat to our country" and questioned Obama’s patriotism and sense of duty. Also mentioned: Perry saying Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would be treated "ugly" in Texas for tackling the economic slump by printing more money. In Cedar Rapids on Aug. 15, Perry said "printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost ... treasonous in my opinion." Obama, Dowd writes, batted away the Texan. Her column then quotes Carney telling her: "We may disagree with our political opponents, but we certainly think they’re all patriots — even those who wanted to secede from the union." We take that as Obama's spokesman saying Perry wanted Texas to secede. But did Perry say that? Asked for backup information, White House spokesman Adam Abrams pointed us to an April 17, 2009, Austin American-Statesman news article recapping Perry’s response to an Associated Press reporter who had asked him about people associating him with the idea of secession or sovereignty for Texas. Perry, who had just spoken at an April 15, 2009, Austin tea party rally, suggested Texans might at some point get so fed up with Democratic-led actions in Washington that they would want to secede. PolitiFact Texas later transcribed the exchange: Reporter Kelley Shannon: "Some have associated you with the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state..." Perry: "Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios. Texas is a unique place. When we came in the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. "You know, my hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that? So. But Texas is a very unique place and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot." A day after the rally, the Statesman reported, Perry called potential secession a "side issue of Texas history. ... We are very proud of our Texas history; people discuss and debate the issues of can we break ourselves into five states, can we secede, a lot of interesting things that I'm sure Oklahoma and Pennsylvania would love to be able to say about their states, but the fact is, they can't because they're not Texas." As noted recently by the Texas Tribune, Perry also touched on secession before the rally. He’s heard in audio accompanied by still photographs posted on YouTube in March 2009 telling tech bloggers visiting him in his Capitol office that from its beginnings as a state, "one of the deals was" that Texas could leave the union "any time we want." Perry continues on the recording: "So we’re kind of thinking about that again." His guests laughed. An anonymous Texas blogger takes credit here for putting the audio and pictures together. This week, we reached one of the tech bloggers, Robert Scoble of Half Moon Bay, Calif., who said the meeting occurred because the bloggers were in Austin for a conference. He said the visitors thought Perry "was being funny. I always thought" Perry’s secession reference "was just Texas bragging" mixed with Perry’s disappointment in the country’s direction. By email, Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said she has no details about the meeting. She said, though: "The governor was not advocating secession. He never has and he never will." After Perry made his April 2009 comment, a Perry spokeswoman told the Statesman that Perry believes Texas could secede if it wanted. Not so, advised Sanford Levinson, a professor at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin, saying that between the Texas Constitution, the U.S. Constitution and the 1845 Joint Resolution Annexing Texas to the United States, there is no explicit right for the state to return to its days as a republic. "We actually fought a war over this issue, and there is no possibility whatsoever that the United States or any court would recognize a 'right' to secede," Levinson said in an e-mail. Levinson noted that the 1845 resolution allows for Texas to break itself into five states but doesn't specify whether that would require congressional approval — and forming new states still wouldn't constitute secession. That was hardly the end of the issue. In April 2010, Perry said in an interview with Newsweek and the Texas Tribune he wanted to clear up his reply on secession the year before. "It was asked as a, you know, what do you think about the people who shout out the word 'secede.' And I say that we live in an incredibly wonderful country and I see absolutely no reason for that to ever happen. …" We rated Perry’s recap of his 2009 remarks Mostly True because he didn’t acknowledge in the later interview either his position that Texas has the right to secede or his initial speculation about "who knows what may come" from people angry about actions in Washington. Also, in June 2010, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White said Perry had threatened to secede, a claim we rated False. Via the Nexis search tool, we found 169 major newspaper articles as of that time linking Perry and secession. But none quoted Perry threatening to push for secession, though critics and comedians framed his words in that way. Our conclusion was that in a politically theatrical moment, Perry stated an old (and factually incorrect) claim that Texas retains the right to leave the union. That is not the same as his saying giddyap, I want to leave. Perry didn’t call for secession then and hasn’t since. We rate Carney’s statement False.	None	Jay Carney	None	None	None	2011-08-17T17:20:11	2011-08-16	['None']
-tron-03470	Rare Black Moon Could Be Ominous Sign	https://www.truthorfiction.com/rare-black-moon-ominous-sign/	None	space-aviation	None	None	['conspiracy', 'facebook']	Rare Black Moon Could Be Ominous Sign	Sep 29, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07536	Says "some [states] with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered their prison population."	/georgia/statements/2011/apr/05/newt-gingrich/gingrich-states-should-consider-alternatives-priso/	In the wake of the Great Recession, some conservative political leaders are considering a new portion of the state budget to save money -- the prison system. Gov. Nathan Deal has talked about his desire to find less costly alternatives to prison for drug addicts who commit nonviolent crimes. "It is draining our state treasury and depleting our workforce," Deal said in his inaugural address. It seems some of this new thinking comes from conservative mastermind Newt Gingrich, the former Georgia congressman and one-time U.S. House speaker who says he is considering a run for president. Gingrich co-wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post a few days before Deal’s speech that contained similar themes. "The criminal justice system is broken, and conservatives must lead the way in fixing it," wrote Gingrich and Pat Nolan, a former California lawmaker who is now vice president of a Christian ministry that aids prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families. "Some people attribute the nation’s recent drop in crime to more people being locked up. But the facts show otherwise," they added. "While crime fell in nearly every state over the past seven years, some of those with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered their prison population." AJC PolitiFact Georgia stumbled upon the second sentence late last week and wondered whether it was true. Wouldn’t the reason why some states have less crime is because more criminals are in prison? A Gingrich spokesman pointed to data from states such as Texas to make the former speaker’s case. In 2007, Texas lawmakers approved broad changes to the state’s correctional system -- then the nation’s largest -- that included more drug courts and treatment programs, The New York Times reported. Crime, Gingrich and Nolan wrote, dropped 10 percent between 2004 and 2009, and the Lone Star State is expected to save about $2 billion in prison costs over five years. Gingrich and Nolan also compared New York and Florida to further prove their point. "Over the past seven years, Florida's incarceration rate has increased 16 percent, while New York's decreased 16 percent," they wrote. "Yet the crime rate in New York has fallen twice as much as Florida's. Put another way, although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public safety." We looked around to see whether anyone has done research on this topic. The Washington-based Pew Center on the States puts together an annual report on the prison population of each state. Its most recent annual report, released in April 2010, found the number of state inmates in America declined for the first time in 38 years. Between 1972 and 2008, the number of state prisoners grew by an astounding 708 percent, Pew found. The Pew Center has also done research, using data from the federal government, on the nation’s crime rate. It shared two charts: one with the change in crime rate between 1999 and 2009; the other contained the incarceration rate change during that same time period. The Pew research showed four of the 10 states with the greatest drops in crime were also among the top 10 states in lowering their incarceration rates. Those four states were Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Utah. The six other states had increases in their incarceration rates. Texas, which Gingrich and Nolan held up as an example of their theory, had a 10 percent drop in crime and a 15 percent decline in its incarceration rate. Georgia, by the way, had a 21 percent decrease in crime and a 1 percent decrease in its incarceration rate, according to Pew’s data. The Peach State did not rank in the top 10 in either category. We also looked at data from the federal National Institute of Corrections, which compiled 2008 crime statistics from several state and federal agencies and the incarceration rates in 2009. Seven of the 10 states with the lowest crime rates also had among the 15 lowest incarceration rates. Those seven states were Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota and Vermont. Georgia had the eighth-highest crime rate and incarceration rate. Florida and Texas ranked among the top 10 highest crime rates and incarceration rates. So are some of these states making a concerted attempt to leave more space in their prisons? Texas is trying to change its approach in order to save money on incarceration, Gingrich and The New York Times noted. In Oregon, where officials say the crime rate is at its lowest rate in four decades, the state’s Criminal Justice Commission analyzed five-year intervals of the state’s incarceration rate, the Portland Oregonian reported. Oregon had a 36 percent decrease in crime between 1999 and 2009, the largest decrease in the nation, according to the Pew data. The commission found major drops in both violent and property crime from 1995 through 2000, when Oregon's prison population grew more than 50 percent, the Oregonian reported. It also showed that when incarceration remained fairly flat from 2005 to 2008, violent crime and property crime continued to fall. Then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, has used the lack of growth in the prison system to argue that Oregon should not "overinvest in our prison system." Others in the Oregonian article suggest the lower crime rate is a result of an aging population and efforts to reduce the production of a key ingredient of methamphetamine. There is some debate about what factors are causing a decline in crime. Gingrich and Nolan argued that "some" states with major reductions in crime have also had large drops in their incarceration rate. The Pew figures provide support to Gingrich’s point. So does the National Institute of Corrections data. Therefore, we rate Gingrich’s statement as True.	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-04-05T06:00:00	2011-01-07	['None']
-tron-01336	Bumble Bee Tuna Recall Involves Human Remains Mixed into Tuna	https://www.truthorfiction.com/bumble-bee-tuna-recall-involves-human-remains-mixed-into-tuna/	None	food	None	None	None	Bumble Bee Tuna Recall Involves Human Remains Mixed into Tuna	Mar 21, 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-01106	Toyota Rav4 Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/toyota-rav4-giveaway-scam-hitting-facebook/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Toyota Rav4 Giveaway Scam Hitting Facebook	September 3, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09111	“The Republican Party lost 1.1 million registered voters since 2008. The Democratic Party lost 1.2 million registered voters… (while) voter registration in the Libertarian Party rose 8 percent.”	/texas/statements/2010/jun/19/libertarian-party-texas/libertarian-party-says-major-parties-have-shed-reg/	Just before the Libertarian Party of Texas held its state convention, it suggested its fortunes are rising while the two major political parties are on the decline. “The Republican Party lost 1.1 million registered voters since 2008,” the Libertarians said in a June 7 press release. “The Democratic Party lost 1.2 million registered voters in that time period. There is one exception: the Libertarian Party. Over the same time frame, voter registration in the Libertarian Party rose 8 percent.” Did the major parties bleed voters while the LPT surged? Significantly, party affiliations based on voter registration records can only be gauged in the 29 states that allow citizens to declare an affiliation when they register. Texas is among 21 states that don’t permit voters to air a preference at registration time. To back up its claim, the Texas party’s release cites a blog post on smallgovtimes.com. We found that post largely based on research by Michael McDonald, an associate professor of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University. McDonald cites his research in two May posts at Pollster.com. In his first post, McDonald writes that since the 2008 election, voters registering as Democrats are down by 2.7 percent and voters registering as Republicans have dropped 3.5 percent in those states where voters are allowed to register an affiliation. Voters registering their affiliation with a minor party increased by 2.4 percent, he writes. Still, McDonald does not see an incipient minor-party revolution afoot. “America is a long way from having a viable multi-party system at the federal level, like we are currently witnessing in the United Kingdom,” he says in his second post. “However, these trends are consistent with the notion that some American voters are willing to express their frustration with the major parties by registering with a minor political party or affiliating with no party. Indeed, the increase in unaffiliated registrations is a long-term phenomenon observed since the 1970s.” We contacted McDonald in hopes of boring in on Libertarian voter registrations. He told us he did not separately calculate registration for minor parties, but referred us to Richard Winger, a Libertarian himself and the editor of Ballot Access News, a monthly newsletter. A May 26 blog post by Winger says Libertarian registrations in places that allow registration by party are up 8 percent since October 2008 — the figure cited in the release from the Texas Libertarians. Generally, Winger writes, more “voters are registered Libertarians now than ever before. Between October 2008 and this spring, Libertarian registration rose in 19 of the 23 states that tally Libertarians. It declined in four states, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota,” a state where the party has not been on the ballot since 2006. Professor McDonald told us he still doesn’t see Libertarians succeeding at the polls unless, he said, they move en masse to, say, lightly populated Wyoming. “They’re not concentrated enough in one state or district in order to win elections,” he said. Here’s why: Regardless of cited changes in party affiliation percentage-wise, the raw numbers of voters registering affiliations underscore the dominance of the major parties. As researched by McDonald, some 43.3 million voters now line up as Democrats, while 29.9 million align as Republicans. Meanwhile, 2.2 million voters are registered as members of minor parties. As of May, according to Winger’s research, more than 259,000 voters had registered affiliations with the Libertarian Party. Even if we assume that some of nearly 23.6 million unaffiliated voters in states where voters can register their affiliations end up supporting Libertarians at the polls, their numerical share of the electorate is swamped by either of the major parties. In elections, numbers are everything. That brings us to a statistical problem with the Libertarian’s statement: it compares a reduction in numbers (how many voters fell off the Democratic and Republican rolls) with an increase in a percentage (the share of voters affiliated with the Libertarian party). Patrick Dixon of Lago Vista, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Texas, told us that’s how the information was presented on the cited online sources. “Maybe I was a little lazy there,” Dixon said. Regardless, he said, the trend is that “our party is growing and theirs are shrinking or growing flat.” In fact, McDonald’s breakdown, shown on a chart in his first May blog post, tracks registrations both by raw numbers and percentages for the two major parties and all minor parties lumped together. Upshot: Based on voter registrations in 29 states that allow voters to declare their party affiliation, the statistics cited by the Libertarian Party are correct. But comparing raw numbers and percentages to make a point, as the Libertarians do, can leave a distorted impression: that the major parties are fading away as the Libertarians gallop ahead. Voter for voter, that’s at least an incomplete characterization. We rate the statement Half True.	None	Libertarian Party of Texas	None	None	None	2010-06-19T06:00:00	2010-06-07	['Libertarian_Party_(United_States)', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-13397	Says Donald Trump once suggested that he "would try to negotiate down the national debt."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/26/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donald-trump-has-said-he-woul/	During the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump fought about his statements on the national debt. Clinton said, "You even one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States." As she spoke, Trump interjected, "Wrong. Wrong." We did not get a reply from the Trump campaign on the night of the debate. The Trump campaign also did not respond when we looked at his debt comments in May. Clinton is correct that Trump did talk about negotiating down the debt, but he backtracked on his views after economists panned his idea. Trump’s debt statements Clinton’s attack stems from comments Trump made about the national debt in two separate interviews in May. Trump’s initial remarks came in an interview with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin and Becky Quick on May 5, 2016. Sorkin: "Mr. Trump, you talk about debt. And you are to some degree the king of debt. I appreciate that point. You have also renegotiated debt agreements over the years. Do you believe that we, in terms of the United States, need to pay 100 cents on the dollar, or do you think that there's actually ways that we can renegotiate that debt?" Trump: "Yeah, I think -- look. I have borrowed, knowing that you can pay back with discounts. And I have done very well with debt. Now, of course, I was swashbuckling, and it did well for me and it was good for me and all that. And you know, debt was sort of always interesting to me. Now we're in a different situation with the country. But I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can't lose. It's like, you know, you make a deal before you go into a poker game, and your odds are so much better." ... Quick: "I understand that you've done this in business deals, but are you suggesting we would negotiate with the U.S. credit in such a way?" Trump: "No, I think this. I think there are times for us to refinance. We refinance debt with longer term. Because you know, we owe so much money. … I could see long-term renegotiations, where we borrow long-term at very low rates." ... Quick: "But let's be clear. I mean, you're not talking about renegotiating sovereign bonds that the U.S. has already issued?" Trump: "No. I don't want to renegotiate the bonds. But I think you can do discounting, I think, you know, depending on where interest rates are, I think you can buy back. You can -- I'm not talking about with a renegotiation, but you can buy back at discounts, you can do things with discounts. … I would refinance debt. I think we should refinance longer-term debt." The second comments came in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, on May 9, 2016. Trump: "I’m only saying you can buy back. Look, this isn’t a real estate deal where you can go in and buy out a mortgage at a big discount because the market crashes, okay? This is the United States government. The bonds are absolutely sacred. … I’m saying if interest rates go up, you can buy debt at a discount on the market — just on the market. You just buy back debt on — at a discount." Wall Street Journal: "And so the U.S. government should spend its money to go buy back its bonds and --" Trump: "Well, if they can make good deals. If they can buy the debt back at good deals, you could buy it back in the market. And if rates go up, you’ll always — you’re always given that opportunity. But no, I’m not talking about negotiating with — with people that own the debt or creditors or anything like that." He tried to clarify his remarks in an interview on CNN May 9, and said that his comments had been misrepresented by the media. "If interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount, if we are liquid enough as a country, we should do that. In other words, we can buy back debt at a discount," he said. "People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and these people are crazy." Experts told PolitiFact in May that Trump’s statements were unclear and that he confused the concepts of "discount," "refinance," and "renegotiate." (We provided a more detailed discussion of the consequences of what he seemed to argue for in this article.) "The statements are neither clear nor coherent," said Paolo Mauro, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a visiting professor at Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School when PolitiFact asked him about it in May. On the night of the first presidential debate, Dean Baker, an economist with the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research, said that Trump’s comments "didn’t make any sense." "The U.S. has the strongest possible credit rating because it has always paid its debt," he said. "It would pay an enormous price if he tried to negotiate a write-down. We would pay higher interest rates for many decades in the future.More importantly, with the ratio of interest payments to (gross domestic product) at 50-year lows, it is hard to see why anyone would try to do this." "No one on the other side would pick up the phone if the secretary of the U.S. Treasury tried to make that call," said Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP, a firm that analyzes Federal Reserve operations, economic data and Treasury financing trends, told the New York Times. "Why should they? They have a contract" requiring payment in full. Our ruling Clinton said Trump one time suggested that he "would try to negotiate down the national debt." In two separate interviews in May, Trump suggested that he could do something to negotiate federal debt through "discounting" and that he would "refinance debt" and "buy back debt on — at a discount." He backtracked after criticism, saying his words had been misinterpreted. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2325dbd2-1cfb-4756-b276-26655f0a104e	None	Hillary Clinton	None	None	None	2016-09-26T21:54:04	2016-09-26	['None']
-tron-03082	Charlie Manson Endorses Donald Trump	https://www.truthorfiction.com/charlie-manson-endorses-donald-trump/	None	politics	None	None	None	Charlie Manson Endorses Donald Trump	Mar 16, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-09320	Says Republican state leaders are using "Soviet-style" budget management.	/texas/statements/2010/apr/15/bill-white/bill-white-objects-what-he-calls-soviet-style-budg/	In a public interview hosted by the Austin-based Texas Tribune, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White compared Republican leadership on state budget woes to how things swung in ye olde U.S.S.R. You remember, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- home of the late dictator Joseph Stalin and run single-handedly by the Communist Party prior to the government's collapse in 1991. White said March 9 he’d take a more deliberate approach to spending than the state's top leaders, all Republican, who asked government agencies in January to suggest ways to cut their budgets by 5 percent. White said if he's in charge, "it won’t be done by things that are just across the board, Soviet style, you know, budget management that only career politicians seem to embrace." Pressed by interviewer Evan Smith, White said: "Is it just a coincidence that 5 percent is the appropriate amount for each state agency?... No. It’s because that’s the way that career politicians know how to run government." We started our review of White's statement wondering what "Soviet-style" budget management means. Several expert professors said that historically, the term didn't refer to across-the-board budget cuts. Professor Paul Gregory of the University of Houston Department of History said "Soviet style" makes him think of a monopoly party (in this case, the Communist Party) dictating everything to subordinates without any possibility of change. Gregory said Soviet-style budgeting also means hiding expenditures you don’t want people to see—such as massive investments in military infrastructure. Peter Caldwell, a Rice University professor of history, said budget-writing in the Soviet Union most often consisted of “huge and crude” decisions to invest in one part of the economy at the expense of another. And H. Stephen Gardner, chairman of the Baylor University Department of Economics, said he’d define Soviet-style management as overly centralized as opposed to giving autonomy to individual units of government. So are there "Soviet style" ways that state leaders have approached the budget? Some background: In January, Gov. Rick Perry, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Joe Straus--mindful of a projected state revenue shortfall that could reach $15 billion by next January--jointly asked agencies to submit plans identifying savings in 5 percent “priority increments” in their 2010-11 appropriations from state revenue. Such plans could lead to cuts, though no decisions have been made and some programs have already been excused. No doubt, the leaders' request is a centralized one. But is it Soviet-style in any other way? We turned to White for elaboration. White’s campaign pointed us to a statement issued by White, the former Houston mayor, in January: “Well-run organizations cut spending based on priorities and where they can best attain productivity improvements. So, for example, in the city of Houston we made smaller cuts in public safety because that was the highest priority. And we were able to cut more in garbage collection and disposal through productivity improvements.” White then told us that by "Soviet style," he doesn't mean that Texas state government owns the means of production, as in the Soviet Union. “Obviously we have a market system,” White said. He described his alternative approach to the looming revenue gap, saying that as governor, he'd focus on funding priorities such as education while encouraging agencies to improve productivity via "process re-engineering" without hurting the delivery of services to taxpayers. He said the state also would seek savings by renegotiating vendor contracts. Also, he said, there’d be regular meetings with agency chiefs to talk about how they’re cutting spending and avoiding non-essential hirings. “I would have had reports back to me weekly and monthly concerning the efficiencies identified,” White said. We didn't get to why White considers the existing approach "Soviet style" before he had to go. We asked the professors if "Soviet style" accurately characterizes the GOP leaders' request for proposed budget cuts. Gregory said describing the request from Perry, et al. that way “doesn’t seem to have any relevance to what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union. ... It's inappropriate to use that term." Gardner agreed, saying: "It’s a bit hyperbolic to refer to this (budget cutting) as Soviet style. I should admit I have done exactly the same thing myself on matters of budgeting.” The point of saying as much, Gardner said, is to elicit an emotional reaction. He added that Republicans who cast President Barack Obama as socialist — Perry has told reporters he thinks Obama has socialist beliefs — are likewise guilty of hyperbole for dramatic effect. The professor, who said he considers Obama a centrist, speculated that Noam Chomsky, a left-leaning linguist who writes on public affairs, would call the president a "crazed capitalist." "If White’s point is that budget management is being handled in an overly centralized way," Gardner said, "I can see the element of truth there. The problem I would have is even if you say I am going to be more careful and more surgically look at the right places to cut, you’re still using a more centralized approach.” Caldwell agreed with the psychological impact, if not the accuracy, of "Soviet style." Generally, he said, “anyone who ever mentions the Soviet economy or Naziism when they’re talking about American domestic debate is usually off track. They’re referring to crude examples to raise the stakes of a debate. They’re not necessarily wanting a careful, rational debate. Who in America wants the Soviet economy or supports Naziism?” Our conclusion? The GOP leaders' request that agencies submit proposed budget cuts isn’t Soviet style — not even close. At best, White's statement is an example of how politicians try to light up a room. It's so off base, we're lighting up the meter: Pants on Fire!	None	Bill White	None	None	None	2010-04-15T16:59:30	2010-03-09	['None']
-pomt-05250	Says in the last six months of the Bush administration, the U.S. lost 3.5 million jobs, including 760,000 jobs during January 2009 alone.	/new-hampshire/statements/2012/jun/01/joe-biden/joe-biden-says-35-million-jobs-lost-during-bush-ad/	Vice President Joe Biden spent a lot of time in New Hampshire during the 2008 election, both as a candidate himself and as President Barack Obama’s running mate. So, when he returned to the Granite State earlier this month, he looked back to 2008 and the economic turmoil that year. Speaking May 22 to a crowd at Keene State College, Biden referred to the start of the national recession in the fall of 2008 and to the failing economy he and Obama inherited when they came into office. "In the last six months of the Bush administration, we lost 3.5 million jobs," Biden told the crowd. "As a matter of fact, on that magnificent day … when we were sworn in, before I lowered my hand that day after taking the oath … we’d already lost over 760,000 jobs that month." Claims and blames like this have become a rallying cry of sorts for Obama’s re-election campaign. But, are they true? PolitiFact decided to take a look. The source of the numbers wasn’t hard to find. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks employment numbers from month to month dating back to 1939. The data from the last six months of the Bush administration supports Biden’s claim. A search of the job figures from July 2008 through January 2009 shows the country lost 3.47 million jobs during that time, falling from 137 million from July 2008 to 133.6 million in January 2009, according to the bureau’s monthly count. Those figures, which are seasonally adjusted, are based on payroll surveys collected the 12th of each month from 141,000 businesses and government agencies across 486,000 locations, according to Gary Steinberg, a spokesman for the labor statistics bureau. The labor statistics show that job losses started to mount before the end of the Bush administration. Driven by the bursting housing bubble, the country lost 84,000 jobs between January and February 2008. But the job losses grew, reaching 200,000 in April. And by September, when Lehman Brothers collapsed in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, job losses spiked again, reaching 489,000 in October and 803,000 in November. When Obama and Biden took office in January 2009, the country had already lost 818,000 jobs from the prior month, falling from 134.4 million in December 2008 to 133.6 million in January. But, if you pro-rate those figures to the Jan. 20 inauguration date referenced by Biden, the economy would have lost about 527,000 jobs, roughly two-thirds of the month’s total. That number falls below Biden’s claim of 760,000 jobs lost by the time he took office. The steep job losses continued through the first few months of the Obama presidency, which lost 3.4 million from February through July 2009, according to the labor data. In October 2010, the economy started adding jobs, and job growth has been evident for 19 consecutive months, according to the labor figures. In total, the economy has lost 1.4 million jobs since Obama and Biden took office. "It had gotten bad by (the time they came into office)," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. "Regardless of political leanings, it is not ambiguous that Obama inherited a labor market in free fall." Our ruling: The economic recovery and job creation during the Obama administration will be a leading point of contention throughout the 2012 election. As for the labor situation Obama and Biden inherited when they came to office, there’s little room for debate. Federal labor statistics support Biden’s claim that the country lost 3.5 million jobs in the last six months of the Bush administration, but they show he overstated the losses reported by inauguration day, Jan. 20, 2009. We rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Joe Biden	None	None	None	2012-06-01T06:53:15	2012-05-22	['United_States', 'George_W._Bush']
-pomt-04688	"We have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/sep/06/choose-new-jersey/new-jersey-leads-world-number-scientists-engineers/	New Jersey has long held the title of most densely populated state in the country. But the Garden State has an even more prestigious ranking, according to a recent advertisement placed by Choose: New Jersey in the Wall Street Journal. The July 30 ad reads in part: "New Jersey has a rich tradition of bringing the world some very big thinking. In fact, we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world, making ours one of the most highly skilled and educated workforces available." That’s quite a claim for any state to make so for this fact check, we are focusing only on the statistic about scientists and engineers. And it seems Choose: New Jersey’s calculations add up. Let’s look at how Choose: New Jersey, a nonprofit group that markets the state to attract businesses and jobs, came up with their statistic. Choose: New Jersey is part of the Partnership For Action, the Business Action Center and state Economic Development Authority. Melissa Hensley, chief marketing officer for the group, said the group compared geographic and employment data from four organizations: the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the CIA’s World Fact Book 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the National Science Board. "All of it came down to an apples-to-apples comparison to the extent possible between a state and country," Hensley said. The Census Bureau’s Population Reference Bureau listed New Jersey as having 260,655 scientists and engineers in 2010. That number divided by New Jersey’s total land area of 8,722.58 square miles equals 29.88 scientists and engineers – the highest number among all states and a list of 37 countries. "I read somewhere that New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S., so I guess you could extrapolate from that that there are more scientists per square mile than anywhere else," Brian Bell, a spokesman for the California Institute of Technology said in an e-mail. "Although Massachusetts might give N.J. a run for its money. California has lots of smart people, but we have huge deserts and lots of empty space too." Bell’s guess is accurate. Massachusetts has the second highest number of scientists and engineers, at 23.47 per square mile, followed by Maryland, at 20.97. California is 10th on the list. A similar calculation was used for other countries by measuring the number of researchers – a more broad term that includes scientists and engineers – per 1,000 of employed people. Breaking that figure down and comparing it against country size, we determined that Israel tops the international list, with 5.10 scientists and engineers per square mile (Choose: New Jersey’s calculations were adjusted to consider countries in square miles instead of kilometers). Rounding out the top three are Japan, at 4.46, and Belgium, at 3.16. If both lists are put together, New Jersey and 11 other U.S. states lead the world in number of engineers and scientists per square mile before Israel joins the rankings. "The numbers reflect what we regularly hear from businesses considering locating or expanding in New Jersey – that if a company is looking to benefit from a high concentration of very skilled talent, New Jersey is a prime location," Hensley said in response to our findings. Our ruling Choose: New Jersey said in an advertisement that "we have more scientists and engineers per square mile than anywhere in the world," making the state’s workforce one of the most skilled and highly educated. Choose: New Jersey used a variety of data to reach its conclusion, from the U.S. Census Bureau to the CIA World Fact Book and more. PolitiFact New Jersey vetted the calculations and found that the Garden State does top the world in number of scientists and engineers per square mile: 29.8. We rate this statement True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.	None	Choose: New Jersey	None	None	None	2012-09-06T07:30:00	2012-07-30	['None']
-pomt-05316	Obama promised to cut the deficit by half by the end of his first term but he "hasn't even come close."	/florida/statements/2012/may/17/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-ad-says-obama-failed-keep-pledge-ha/	President Barack Obama is failing to deliver on his promises, insists a new attack ad from conservative group Crossroads GPS. The TV commercial, airing in Florida and nine other states through May 31, 2012, lists a few examples relating to foreclosures, taxes and Obama’s health care plan. We plan to fact-check each claim, but for now we’ll address one about the deficit. (See our other stories on past claims from Crossroads GPS.) The ad shows a clip of Obama at a press conference where he says, "Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office." A narrator deems that a broken promise over the sound of shattered glass, adding that Obama "hasn’t even come close." Spoiler alert: We’ve already checked out this issue a few times. In short, the claim about the deficit -- the difference between government spends and takes in -- is accurate. Obama indeed made the pledge on Feb. 23, 2009, following a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" shortly after his inauguration. (Watch more of his remarks that day.) He said then that the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit was the largest in the nation’s history. It was mostly unchanged through fiscal year 2011. In 2012? It’s expected to be $1.17 trillion. So not cut in half. That’s according to the nonpartisan researchers at the Congressional Budget Office in a March 2012 report. "Although the deficit is starting to shrink, it remains very large by historical standards," the CBO noted. PolitiFact Florida asked the Obama campaign about the pledge as part of a fact-check along the same lines from Republican Party of Florida chairman Lenny Curry. The campaign pointed us to Obama’s response when asked about it by an Atlanta TV station in February 2012. "Well, we're not there because this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized," he said. "Everybody who is out there back in 2009, if you look back at what their estimates were in terms of how many jobs had been lost, how bad the economy had contracted when I took office, everybody underestimated it. …" Obama promised to halve the nation’s deficit, but he hasn’t managed to chip away much as the end of his first term nears. We rate this claim from the Crossroads GPS ad True.	None	Crossroads GPS	None	None	None	2012-05-17T17:40:47	2012-05-16	['None']
-pomt-04951	"In 2010, Mr. [Anthony] Gemma described himself as a 'pro-life' candidate. Now, he claims to be pro-choice."	/rhode-island/statements/2012/jul/27/naral-pro-choice/abortion-rights-group-says-democratic-congressiona/	On July 19, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America announced that it was endorsing incumbent David Cicilline for reelection to Congress over his Democratic primary opponent, Anthony Gemma, who also ran for the seat in 2010. The group cited Cicilline's consistent support for abortion rights, accusing Gemma of "attempting a make-over" on the issue of whether abortion should continue to be legal. In a news release, NARAL President Nancy Keenan said the endorsement "is a matter of consistency versus conflicting statements" and that Gemma was calling himself a "pro-life Democrat" as recently as April 16, during a radio interview. "In 2010, Mr. Gemma described himself as a 'pro-life' candidate," Keenan said. "Now he claims to be pro-choice. My fear is that Mr. Gemma wants to hop on the pro-choice bandwagon as the anti-choice agenda unfolding in the House is becoming more and more unpopular." We thought readers might want to know whether Gemma really has done a major turnaround in two years. So we took a trip back in time (actually we checked our news archive), to when Gemma announced his original candidacy June 15, 2010. "How would you describe a Democrat who supports gay marriage, a Democrat who is pro-life, except in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother, a Democrat who opposes the death penalty, a Democrat who is pro-business when business is pro-Rhode Island, who is pro-labor when labor is pro-Rhode Island?" he said during a speech at Providence Place mall. He would repeat those views throughout the 2010 campaign. Fast forward to April 16, 2012. On WHJJ, Gemma told talk-radio host Helen Glover, "I'm a pro-life Democrat." But he also made it clear that he objected to Republican efforts to put limits on what women could choose for birth control and said that his personal pro-life beliefs would not affect how he voted on the issue. "I'm not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. I'm not even going near there," he said. "My beliefs will not affect where everyone's going here. Women have their own right to choose." And in a July 5 news release with the headline "Anthony Gemma Outlines Women’s Health Care Position/States He Will Defend a Woman’s Right to Choose," Gemma said the issue of family planning choices "is something I personally wrestle with everyday. "But I know I must put my personal religious beliefs aside, and defend a women's (sic) right to choose. The actions of Republicans in Congress and state legislatures are horrifying. I could never vote for an anti-choice bill. Women must be able to make this personal decision for themselves." The statement never used the word abortion but it seemed clear he was talking about abortion rights. Spokesman Alex Morash acknowledged that Gemma's position had evolved because the candidate has become "more understanding of other people's beliefs." When we inquired further for this story, Gemma e-mailed us a statement that said, in part: "My commitments to defend a woman’s right to choose and to preserve and strengthen Roe v. Wade are born of deep contemplation. To an appreciable degree my change was spurred by Republicans’ ongoing efforts -- supported by the likes of Brendan Doherty [the Republican running for the seat] -- to return America to a dark age when women were second-class citizens whose most intimate health choices were made by men." Finally, we asked NARAL Pro-Choice America about the organization's assessment of whether Gemma belonged in the "pro-choice" category, given his pledge and his personal feelings. Part of their response: "We remain skeptical of Anthony Gemma's sudden jump to support a woman's right to choose while labeling himself as a 'pro-life' candidate. His position contradicts how he frames his values." Our ruling NARAL Pro-Choice America said: "In 2010, [Anthony] Gemma described himself as a 'pro-life' candidate. Now he claims to be pro-choice." It's clear that Gemma's position on abortion rights has changed. He went from saying that he supported a woman’s right to abortion only in cases of rape, incest and the health of the mother, to saying he would defend a woman's right to choose when it comes to health care and family planning options, although his statement doesn't specifically mention abortion. He may be calling himself a "pro-life Democrat" in the same breath, but when the candidate says, "I vow to protect a woman's right to choose," he's trying to put himself in the "pro-choice" camp. NARAL says Gemma changed his position after his appearance on WHJJ. Clearly it predates that. But that's a side issue. When NARAL says Gemma has gone from being a "pro-life" candidate to calling himself a "pro-choice" one, we judge that statement to be True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	NARAL Pro-Choice America	None	None	None	2012-07-27T00:01:00	2012-07-19	['None']
-pomt-06515	"Not a single segment of the proposed Beltline intersects the MARTA system at MARTA stations."	/georgia/statements/2011/oct/11/eva-galambos/mayor-admits-error-beltline-connection-claim/	Ah, deadlines. For many, they bring panic. In one current case among metro Atlanta elected officials, a coming deadline has resulted in some attempted horse-trading and an interesting 11th-hour debate. County commissioners and mayors across the 10-county region are attempting to finalize a list by Oct. 15 of transportation projects that area residents will vote on next year, along with a 1 percent sales tax to fund those projects. One area they’re debating is a proposal to spend about $602 million on transit projects along the Atlanta Beltline. Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed wrote an op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution arguing for money for the effort, which is located in the city limits and he argues will benefit the region. Sandy Springs Mayor Eva Galambos countered in a separate op-ed in the AJC that the $602 million should be spent on other projects that will better serve the region. "These are worthy purposes for the city of Atlanta, but they are not related to relieving the Atlanta region’s traffic congestion," Galambos wrote, referring to the Beltline. "A close examination of the Beltline website map reveals an astounding fact: Not a single segment of the proposed Beltline intersects the MARTA system at MARTA stations." An astounding fact! Such a claim seemed ideal for PolitiFact Georgia. The Atlanta Beltline is a 22-mile loop of largely unused railroad tracks that circle around the core of Georgia’s capital city. Atlanta political and business leaders embraced a Georgia Tech graduate student’s suggestion to make better use of those lines and began an effort several years ago to build more homes, office space, parks and trails and construct a light-rail line along the Beltline. The effort is expected to take at least another decade before it is completed. Beltline spokesman Ethan Davidson sent us an e-mail contending that Galambos was wrong. "This is absolutely false ... the Atlanta Beltline corridor will have at least three additional connections to MARTA at the following areas: Lindbergh/Armour, Inman Park/Reynoldstown and West End/Oakland City," Davidson wrote. He also sent us a YouTube video by the Beltline that says the Beltline environmental impact study area intersects with six MARTA stations. The study area extends a quarter-mile east and west of the Beltline’s existing and former rail lines. We looked at the same Beltline map that Galambos referred to when we talked to her. We spotted two MARTA stations that seemed to connect to the Beltline: Inman Park/Reynoldstown and Lindbergh Center. Davidson explained that there are plans to connect the Beltline to the West End/Oakland City station. "[The Beltline] doesn’t work if it doesn’t connect to MARTA. … That’s the whole point of it," Davidson said. In response to what we found, and the Beltline’s argument, Galambos told us that the Lindbergh Center station did connect with the Beltline. Galambos admitted she erred in not saying the Beltline connects with the Lindbergh station. "That one is on the map," she said of Lindbergh. The mayor said her point about the Lindbergh MARTA station is that connecting it to the Beltline there won’t help more people across the region to get around. "In terms of service, I didn’t word it correctly," Galambos told us. "In terms of additional connectivity, we’re not getting any." Galambos admitted she made a mistake by writing that the Beltline doesn’t intersect MARTA at any of its stations. We thank her for her honesty. Still, her article went off the tracks on that point. We must give her a rating of False.	None	Eva Galambos	None	None	None	2011-10-11T06:00:00	2011-09-27	['Metropolitan_Atlanta_Rapid_Transit_Authority']
-snes-02430	A photograph shows author J.D. Salinger writing at a nudist retreat.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/salinger-write-nude/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did J.D. Salinger Write in the Nude?	15 May 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03939	"The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/feb/20/wayne-lapierre/wayne-lapierre-says-obama-ignores-border-fence-law/	In a searing call to action that appeared in the conservative Daily Caller, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre encouraged Americans to arm themselves, join the NRA and recruit others in preparation against the growing threats of terrorism, economic instability and the policies of the Obama administration. "It has always been sensible for good citizens to own and carry firearms for lawful protection against violent criminals who prey on decent people," LaPierre wrote. "During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing." He cited drug gangs and other criminals who enter the United States through the southern border. They get in, LaPierre said, because "the president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border." Flagrant defiance? We decided to examine whether it’s true that President Barack Obama is bucking a law requiring construction of a such a fence. Secure Fence Act of 2006 We did not hear back from the NRA for this story. But the 2006 law directing fence construction is the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by President George W. Bush. It authorized the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the border with Mexico. The act specified "at least two layers of reinforced fencing." One thing it did not do: require a fence to be built "along the entire Mexican border," as LaPierre claimed. Instead, it directed that specific segments of the border -- "extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry," for example -- be double-fenced. The fenced segments totaled roughly 650-700 miles, while the entire U.S.-Mexican border is about 2,000 miles long. Obama, an Illinois senator at the time, voted for the law. The following year, the legislation underwent a significant change. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security argued that different border terrains required different types of fencing -- that a one-size-fits-all approach across the entire border didn't make sense. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, proposed an amendment to give DHS the discretion to decide what type of fence was appropriate in different areas. The law was amended to read, "nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along an international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location." In other words, Border Patrol would use its discretion to decide which type of fencing was appropriate in various regions. The amendment was included in a federal budget bill in late 2007. Hutchison said at the time, "Border patrol agents reported that coyotes and drug-runners were altering their routes as fencing was deployed, so the amendment gives our agents discretion to locate the fence where necessary to achieve operational control of our border." Opponents, however, said the amendment effectively killed the border fence promised in the 2006 bill. Today, DHS says Border Patrol has completed 651 miles of fencing, including 299 miles of vehicle fence and 352 miles of primary pedestrian fence. One mile of pedestrian fence is left to complete, and it is tied up in litigation. So what’s being flagrantly defied? That comes down to the difference between vehicle fence and pedestrian fence, as well as the "double layer" specification in the 2006 law. On the one hand, the fence is virtually complete and in compliance with the 2007 amendment. "It cost almost $3 million per mile to construct that fence. Including maintenance, it is supposed to cost over $6 billion over the next 20 years. President Obama is going above and beyond any president ever at enforcing our immigration laws," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. On the other, it’s not the fence envisioned in 2006. For one thing, vehicle fencing would be more accurately described as posts placed close enough together that cars can’t be driven between them. What’s more, just 36.3 miles of fencing are double-layered. Said Rosemary Jenks with Numbers USA, a Washington group that favors low levels of immigration: "The Secure Fence Act called for 650 miles of double-layer pedestrian fencing. While the administration claims to have completed 650 miles of fencing, virtually none of it is double layer, and several hundred miles is vehicle barriers, instead of fence at all." Other resources, practical considerations While LaPierre was specific about fence construction, we thought we’d mention other aspects of border control. Rey Koslowski, in a 2011 paper for the Migration Policy Institute, noted that the Southwest Border Security Act Obama signed in 2010 appropriated $600 million for enhanced border protection on top of the president’s July 2010 authorization to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. The largest share of the additional funding, $244 million, was to hire and maintain existing levels of Border Patrol agents and customs officers. Almost $200 million went to the Department of Justice to hire more federal law enforcement officers for the southwest border region, and still millions more went to communications and aerial surveillance equipment. In an interview, Koslowski pointed out that the 2006 law required that no more than 18 months after its enactment the government should have "operational control" of the border. How was that defined? "The prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States." "Well, guess what, they failed," Koslowski said. "Under this definition, no country, not even East Germany, managed operational control like this." So the fence -- pedestrian and vehicle -- is an adaptation to changing immigration patterns, from population centers where people used to walk in, out to deserts and mountains where they drive across. Added Gordon Hanson, an economist at University of California, San Diego: "It simply doesn’t make economic sense to build a fence along the entire border; in desert/mountain regions there are far more efficient ways to block entry than a fence in the middle of nowhere." Our ruling LaPierre wrote that "the president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border." First, he misrepresented what the law required, which was segments of fencing in specific places, not a continuous fence along the 2,000 mile border. Second, he ignored the 2007 amendment which gave the government some discretion over how to build the fence. The fence that has been built -- just one mile short of what’s required -- is a combination of pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers. To some critics that does not satisfy what Congress intended in 2006, and very little of it is double-layered. On that point, we think LaPierre’s statement contains a grain of truth. Otherwise, though, it’s clear that Obama is not flagrantly defying the law, especially as resources toward other aspects of border enforcement are increasing. We rate LaPierre’s statement Mostly False.	None	Wayne LaPierre	None	None	None	2013-02-20T16:31:12	2013-02-13	['Mexico']
-goop-00853	Gwen Stefani Retiring After Las Vegas Residency?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwen-stefani-retiring-las-vegas-residency/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Gwen Stefani Retiring After Las Vegas Residency?	2:36 pm, June 8, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01474	"94 percent of those that are employed by the Department of Education at the federal level were deemed by the department as nonessential employees."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/sep/30/joni-ernst/joni-ernst-says-94-percent-education-department-em/	The U.S. Education Department is often a political football in debates about the role of the federal government. Look no further than the Iowa Senate debate on Sept. 28, 2014, between Republican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Braley. During the audience-participation part of the debate, a local college student named Jake asked Ernst this question: "You've said you'd like to eliminate the Department of Education. What implications does this have for students who receive Pell Grants and federal student loans?" Here’s Ernst’s response. "Thank you, Jake, that's a great question. It doesn't do anything to those that receive Pell Grants and student loans. Those are programs that are very necessary for our college students, but they can be easily housed in the Department of Treasury. Now when it comes to the Department of Education, 94 percent of those that are employed by the Department of Education at the federal level were deemed by the department as nonessential employees. So I would rather see the dollars that go to those nonessential employees be directed back to the states so they can be utilized by our administrators and our teachers in making sure that our Iowa students are receiving a great education." Is Ernst correct that 94 percent of employees at the Education Department have been "deemed by the department as nonessential"? Her campaign didn’t return an inquiry, but we took a closer look. First, some background. A government shutdown happens when one particular kind of federal funding stops flowing -- money that’s appropriated by Congress. Appropriations bills are supposed to be passed annually, though in recent years, acrimony between Congress and the president has made it happen more irregularly. This occurred most recently from Oct. 1, 2013, to Oct 16, 2013, when congressional Republicans refused to fund President Barack Obama’s health care law and Obama refused to sign spending bills unless they included funding for the law. There is a grain of truth to back up Ernst’s claim. During the 2013 shutdown, the Education Department furloughed 3,983 employees out of a workforce of 4,195. That’s 94.9 percent of all department employees. But the employees weren’t deemed "nonessential." While the term "nonessential employees" has been used in the media in the past to describe federal employees who are furloughed during a shutdown, the phrase was never officially used to describe employees. The word "nonessential," which has been used since a 1980 memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget, was applied to activities, not employees. The terms for employees themselves are "exempt/nonexempt" or "excepted/nonexcepted." More importantly, the way Ernst uses the term "nonessential" -- suggesting that the employees’ own department classifies them as make-work employees and that their salaries would be better shifted to state education budgets -- is misleading. What prevents an employee from being furloughed during a government shutdown is their performance of "emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." (Some federal employees are able to continue working because their salaries were paid entirely by user fees or trust funds and, as a result, were not held up by a stalled spending bill.) Few of the Education Department’s employees save lives or guard property. The department’s budget is heavily weighted toward paying out and overseeing student loans and aid to schools in the states. It has the fewest employees of any cabinet-level department in the federal government. (The next smallest, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has twice as many employees.) Since so much of what the department does is to write checks, it’s not surprising that 94 percent of its staff would be furloughed; neither life nor property is at risk. If being "essential" was defined solely by saving lives or protecting property, most Americans' job duties would be categorized in the "nonessential" camp. Ernst is "being disingenuous at best and probably a lot worse than that," said David Bills, an education professor at the University of Iowa. John M. Palguta, vice president for policy with the Partnership for Public Service, agreed. "The law makes no reference to whether or not an employee’s work is important, meaningful, and/or valuable to the agency’s mission," he said. A final note: Remember when Ernst said, "I would rather see the dollars that go to those nonessential employees be directed back to the states so they can be utilized by our administrators and our teachers in making sure that our Iowa students are receiving a great education"? Well, the money saved from "nonessential" employees wouldn’t do much to help front-line schools. If the roughly 4,000 Education Department employees were magically transferred to state or local education jobs, they would increase the number of state and local education employees by a minuscule 4/100ths of 1 percent, according to our calculations of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Our ruling Ernst said, "94 percent of those that are employed by the Department of Education at the federal level were deemed by the department as nonessential employees." While it’s true that the Education Department did furlough 94 percent of its employees during the 2013 government shutdown, those employees were neither called "nonessential" in official documents nor were they "nonessential" in any casual definition of the word. The Education Department’s furlough rate was 94 percent because its employees were not saving lives or protecting property -- the standard for being exempt from furloughs. The claim contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.	None	Joni Ernst	None	None	None	2014-09-30T11:18:37	2014-09-28	['None']
-pomt-02686	Under a proposed bill, a $100,000 home’s flood insurance premium would be "maybe $200 or $300 annually."	/florida/statements/2014/jan/07/gus-bilirakis/gus-bilirakis-says-his-flood-insurance-bill-would-/	While millions of indebted Florida homeowners are already trying to keep their heads above water, recently enacted flood insurance regulations are threatening to swamp the housing market with even more problems. With the end of subsidized flood coverage, Florida legislators have been looking for ways to keep their constituents from drowning in sky-high premiums. One such solution is a bill co-sponsored by Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Palm Harbor, who recently discussed the measure with Bay News 9 anchor Al Ruechel. After listening to Bilirakis explain his bill, Ruechel asked the congressman what it might cost to cover a home worth $100,000. Bilirakis’ answer was eye-popping, according to a reader who brought it to our attention: "Well, we’re saying maybe, I’m approximating, but maybe $200 to $300 annually. Approximate. Because I’ve done these figures in the past." The reader told us he couldn’t believe his ears, and frankly, neither could we. Would a $100,000 home really only cost as little as $200 a year to cover under the Bilirakis bill? We dove into this claim with both feet. A deluge of problems First and foremost, the 12th District representative’s figure sounded so low that it led us to wonder if Bilirakis had simply misspoken. We asked his office if that was the case. They assured us he had, meaning to say "monthly" instead of "annually." So if you were watching and thought your flood insurance bill could end up being only a few hundred dollars a year, sorry to disappoint you, but his office did correct the statement. But let’s go through the math, anyway. Bilirakis was referring to his proposed H.R. 3312, the Homeowners Flood Insurance Relief Act of 2013, which was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 23. The bipartisan bill is co-sponsored in part by Florida’s Thomas Rooney and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, both Republicans, and Democrat Kathy Castor. It’s a response to the Biggert Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, which Bilirakis supported. The law took effect on Oct. 1, 2013, and Bilirakis and other lawmakers have since been focusing on how to handle the law’s consequences. (Lawmakers said they didn’t realize such dramatic rate increases would happen.) Biggert-Waters ended subsidized premiums for the troubled National Flood Insurance Program, which is some $24 billion in debt, leading to astronomical increases for some homeowners. Homes with severe or repetitive losses, along with second homes and businesses, face rates that are allowed to rise 25 percent per year until they mirror their true risk of flooding. That applies to some 50,000 policyholders in Florida. Other homeowners in flood-prone areas will be grandfathered in at current rates unless they sell their homes or let their policies lapse. About 115,000 subsidized condos or multifamily homes won’t be affected, nor will about 1.8 million Florida policies currently not being subsidized. Some horror stories about changes in premiums involve homes being hit with insurance bills quintupling or worse, climbing well into five figures for a year of coverage. Many neighborhoods in flood-prone areas are already reporting dismal sales figures, with sellers frightened off by sky-high insurance quotes. The problem is especially troublesome for Florida, which Gov. Rick Scott claimed has paid out four times what it has received in flood claims over the last 35 years. We found that Mostly True. H.R. 3312 isn’t the only attempt to deal with this problem. The Senate has been struggling with its own measures, and Florida legislators are proposing a competing market set up by private insurers. The Bilirakis bill does a couple things: First, it caps the maximum flood insurance premium levied on a structure at 1/30th of the property’s appraised value at the time of sale. This is based on the concept of a 30-year mortgage and is meant to establish a baseline of coverage. Second, it would spread any increase over current premiums across a 10-year phase-in period, during which time the premium would get incrementally higher until it reached the maximum. FEMA, which evaluates the amount of risk faced by each property, would have the flexibility to determine that rate of increase. The bill would allow homeowners to pay for flood coverage in monthly installments, instead of an annual lump sum payment. So, using the example of a $100,000 home, the annual premium would be limited to 1/30th of $100,000, or $3,333.33 per year (we’ll round down, but actuaries probably won’t be as generous). Spread out over 12 months, that would be a monthly payment of $277.77. A $250,000 home would have a maximum premium of $8,333.33, with a $694.44 monthly payment, and so on. Only in Florida would an insurance bill that high be considered reasonable, but it still provides a cap to the exorbitant rates possible under Biggert-Waters. It’s also quite a bit higher than a couple of hundred dollars a year. Our ruling Bilirakis told Bay News 9 his bill would limit a $100,000 home’s flood insurance bill to "$200 to $300 annually." That didn’t add up to us, and when we asked his office about it, they told us he meant to say "monthly", not "annually." We do appreciate it when elected leaders admit they’re wrong. Unfortunately for homeowners paying for flood insurance, Bilirakis used the wrong word in the interview, and we have to rate the wording of this particular statement False.	None	Gus Bilirakis	None	None	None	2014-01-07T11:39:36	2014-01-02	['None']
-pomt-00457	Says the Trump administration "has banned the CDC even using the word ‘transgender.’ "	/wisconsin/statements/2018/aug/17/tammy-baldwin/sen-tammy-baldwins-claim-about-trump-administratio/	Transgender rights have become an issue in many aspects of American society, from Hollywood actors seeking recognition and roles, to the state of Vermont, where Democrat Christine Hallquist is vying to become the nation's first transgender governor. In Wisconsin, Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay person to the serve in the Senate, has been a champion of LGBTQ rights. At a June 2018 Human Rights Campaign event, Baldwin gave a speech in which she praised volunteers on the front lines of the "fight for equality" and also aimed a couple barbs at the Donald Trump administration. The administration "has banned the CDC even using the word ‘transgender,’ " Baldwin told the crowd, which booed in response. What’s more, she continued: "President Trump continues to disrespect patriotic transgender Americans who want to serve their country." For this fact check we will look at the first claim on the CDC word ban. (We checked the second claim, on transgender people and the military, separately. You can find it here). The background On December 15, 2017, The Washington Post published a story headlined "Words banned at multiple HHS agencies include ‘diversity and ‘vulnerable.’ " HHS is the department of Health and Human Services. The CDC is a federal agency under the HHS and is headquartered in Atlanta. The agency in question is the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (You may remember that in the wake of the story, the Human Rights Campaign and artist Robin Bell projected some of the words onto to the side of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.) When asked to provide backup for Baldwin’s statement, campaign spokesman Bill Neidhardt directed PolitiFact Wisconsin to that Washington Post report. "The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including ‘fetus’ and ‘transgender’ — in official documents being prepared for next year's budget," the news report said. A day later, The New York Times reported on the "uproar" over the purported word ban: The Department of Health and Human Services tried to play down on Saturday a report that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been barred from using seven words or phrases, including "science-based," "fetus," "transgender" and "vulnerable," in agency budget documents. "The assertion that H.H.S. has ‘banned words’ is a complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process," an agency spokesman, Matt Lloyd, told The New York Times. The Times story noted officials said the proposal was not a ban on words. Rather it was a recommendation to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans in Congress. In a Jan. 9, 2018, report in The Hill, CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald said the agency "has not banned, prohibited, or forbidden" the use of certain words in official documentation. The statement came in response to concerns from Senate Democrats. Later that month, CNN published a follow-up report, which said news reports about the "banned" words may have been overstated and cited a document, along with interviews with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services. They describe not a ban or prohibition on words but rather suggestions on how to improve the chances of getting funding."Words to avoid: vulnerable, diversity, entitlement." The other four words on the list — "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based" — were brought up by employees at the meeting who wanted to know if they could be used, according to the two HHS officials, who were familiar with what transpired at the meeting. "Nobody ever told them they couldn't use these seven words. It was just said, 'if you think these words would cause someone to jump to a conclusion, then use a substitute. But if there isn't a good substitute, then go ahead and use the word,' " said one of the officials. Likewise, CDC spokeswoman Kathy Harben in an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, refuted the idea of a ban. "CDC has not banned, prohibited, or forbidden employees from using any words," Harben said. "CDC uses the best scientific evidence available and strongly encourages evidence-based programs." Our rating Baldwin told a human rights group that the Trump administration "has banned the CDC even using the word ‘transgender.’ " The statement was based on a Washington Post report. But that story was later countered by several other published reports that indicated the words were not banned. Rather, it was suggested that other words be used in some cases — in part to temper controversy during the budget process. And despite The Washington Post headline, the first paragraph of the story does not mention the word "banned" instead saying "they should avoid using certain words or phrases in official documents being drafted for next year's budget." We rate the claim False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Tammy Baldwin	None	None	None	2018-08-17T06:00:00	2018-06-26	['None']
-pomt-01251	"It is senior citizens, not Hispanics, who are the fastest-growing demographic in this country."	/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/13/brit-hume/hume-senior-vote-growing-faster-hispanic/	Conventional wisdom is that the changing landscape of the American electorate -- i.e. the influx of Hispanic voters -- is good news for Democrats. But Fox News analyst Brit Hume turned the idea on its head during his post-election analysis. The fastest-growing segment of the country is old people, Hume said. And that’s good news for the Grand Old Party. "It is senior citizens, not Hispanics, who are the fastest-growing demographic in this country," Hume said. "Hispanics are clearly the fastest-growing ethnic group in the country, but their size as a group is dwarfed by the 65 and older demographic which has been trending Republican," Hume continued. "If the GOP continues to make gains, it may more than offset any advantage Democrats have with the ethnic groups." The simple question here is: Are senior citizens, and not Hispanics, the fastest-growing demographic in the United States? (Hume did not respond to our requests for more information.) Looking at the past Every two years, the U.S. Census Bureau produces a report that breaks down eligible voters by race, ethnicity and age. Of particular significance for tracking the Hispanic vote, it culls out noncitizens. This table, based on the Census Bureau data, shows that in no decade did the senior group grow at a faster rate than Hispanics. (All numbers are shown in thousands) Group 1980 1990 Growth 1980-90 2000 Growth 1990-00 2010 Growth 2000-10 Hispanic 18+ 5,565 8,566 +53.9% 13,158 +53.6% 21,285 +61.8% 65+ 23,514 29,192 +24.1% 31,815 +9.0% 37,745 +18.6% It’s the same case for the raw number of eligible voters, except for the 1980-90 period. So in present terms, Hume’s case appears weak. Looking ahead As a general rule, we at PunditFact don’t assess predictions, but we can compare Hume’s sense of the future to what the Census Bureau tells us to expect. Here, Hume finds a bit more support. There is one decade, between 2020 and 2030, when the senior population is estimated to grow by 30 percent while the Hispanic group would increase by 26 percent. (Note: These estimates look only at population, not voter turnout. The Census does not project voter turnout. Again, the numbers shown here are in thousands.) Group 2010 2020 Growth 2010-20 2030 Growth 2020-30 2040 Growth 2030-40 Hispanic 18+ 21,285 43,407 103.9% 54,827 26.3% 67,309 22.8% 65+ 37,745 55,969 48.3% 72,774 30.0% 79,719 9.5% The same pattern holds true when we look at the absolute change in population. Group 2010 2020 Growth 2010-20 2030 Growth 2020-30 2040 Growth 2030-40 Hispanic 18+ 21,285 43,407 22,122 54,827 11,420 67,309 12,482 65+ 37,745 55,969 18,224 72,774 16,805 79,719 6,945 A few important caveats In Hume’s framework, voters are either seniors or Hispanic, but of course, some will be both. By focusing on seniors, Hume seems to assume that age, rather than ethnicity, does more to shape a person’s vote. That might or might not be true, and it’s actually the diciest part of any comparison. Also, there is no question that seniors actually get to the polls much more reliably than Hispanics. In the 2010 elections, about 61 percent of seniors voted. The Hispanic rate was half that, just 31 percent. Now couple that with the higher number of seniors, 37.7 million in 2010 compared to 21.2 million Hispanic voters, and you can see where Hume has a point completely apart from how fast each group is growing. If Republicans get 57 percent of the seniors who vote, and Democrats get 70 percent of the Hispanics who vote, the Republicans come out ahead 13.1 million seniors to 4.6 million Hispanics. We could get into more complex calculations involving presidential races, the electoral college, and the concentration of Hispanics in certain states, but we’ll leave that for fivethirtyeight.com. Our ruling Hume said seniors, not Hispanics, are the fastest-growing demographic. The Census Bureau numbers tell us that’s not accurate right now. Historically, the Hispanic population has grown faster than the senior population. The Hispanic group will continue to grow faster until about 2020, according to Census Bureau projections. In the decade after that, the senior group is projected to grow at a faster rate, but then after 2030, the growth rate for Hispanics is higher once again. Hume’s electoral analysis (based on seniors showing up to vote) was more on target than the trend he cited as evidence, but we only deal with his factual statement, which aligns with Census numbers in one decade out of five. We rate the claim Mostly False.	None	Brit Hume	None	None	None	2014-11-13T16:47:47	2014-11-10	['None']
-pomt-06312	"The governor won this state with 49 percent. We had some of the closest races in the House in history. So you’re not dealing with this 70-30, like they want to make it."	/ohio/statements/2011/nov/14/robert-hagan/state-rep-robert-hagan-says-ohio-isnt-70-30-republ/	Because of slow population growth, Ohio is losing two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. And because of their statewide sweep last fall, Republicans controlled the process of drawing a new congressional map, which features 12 solidly GOP districts and four that favor Democrats. Needless to say, the Democrats aren’t fond of their counterparts’ work. They have resisted any deal that doesn’t improve their chances to win more seats and have threatened to take the map to a referendum. After two months of debate, cooler heads have yet to prevail. Capping a particularly rancorous session on Nov. 3, State Rep. Robert Hagan stood angrily to complain that redistricting was distracting from more urgent problems. "Quite frankly," the Youngstown Democrat said, "I’m left wondering what the hell we are doing down here." Colorful remarks, indeed. But PolitiFact Ohio was more interested in what Hagan said after the session. In an interview with Marc Kovac, a Statehouse bureau chief for several newspapers, Hagan stressed his preference for a map that better fits the state’s political pedigree. "The governor won this state with 49 percent," Hagan said of Republican John Kasich’s 2010 victory over Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland. "We had some of the closest races in the House in history. So you’re not dealing with this 70/30, like they want to make it." Hagan’s argument, and those similarly made by his fellow Democrats, is that new lines should reflect their belief that Ohio is split about 50/50 between the two parties. A map that favors the GOP in 12 of 16 districts could give Republicans 75 percent of Ohio’s congressional seats. We decided to take a closer look at the examples Hagan cites as justification for equality. First, Kasich’s margin of victory has been well-documented. But to cover all bases, we confirmed with the Ohio secretary of state’s office that Kasich received 49 percent of the vote to Strickland’s 47 percent. The remaining four percent went to third-party or write-in candidates. By mentioning this race, Hagan implied that Ohio is evenly divided. We found Republicans won by five points or more in all but one of the five other statewide contests last year. The exception: Mike DeWine’s 1.28-point victory over incumbent Democratic Attorney General Richard Cordray. Examining the second part of Hagan’s claim involved more scouring of past election results. In 2010, according to the secretary of state’s website, six Ohio House races featured margins of two points or fewer. All six of these races were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes. The closest was in the 99th District -- Ashtabula County and a slice of Trumbull County -- where Republican Casey Kozlowski beat Democratic Rep. Deborah Newcomb by 137 votes. Another squeaker came in the Franklin County-encompassing 21st District, where the GOP’s Mike Duffey beat Democrat David Robinson by 377 votes. In Hamilton County, Democratic Rep. Connie Pillich kept her 28th District seat by finishing 602 votes ahead of Republican Mike Wilson. Hagan confirmed to PolitiFact Ohio that those three were the races he was thinking about when speaking to Kovac. But was 2010 really an anomaly in terms of razor-thin margins of victory? Our review of Ohio House races dating to 2002 found no contest quite as close as the Kozlowski-Newcomb match. Another six races in 2008 and seven in 2006 were decided by two percentage points or fewer. Three candidates in 2004 won by fewer than 500 votes. For the sake of context, it’s important to note that the Ohio House has 99 seats, so the half-dozen or so nail-biters are exceptions. Many House elections are blowouts, and some candidates don’t even draw an opponent. It’s also important to point out that in the six tight races in 2010, Democrats and Republicans split the seats, with three going to each party. The makeup of the House today is 59 Republicans, 40 Democrats. That’s more like 60/40 than 50/50. If Democrats had won all six of the close races, the makeup would be 56-43. Unfortunately, there is no perfect accounting for party affiliation in Ohio. Voters here do not specify party when registering -- only when voting in a primary. But that’s an unreliable measure of true political identity. Republicans are known to cross over into Democratic primaries and vice versa, particularly during hotly contested battles for a party’s presidential nomination. PolitiFact Ohio decided to take a look at Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted’s turnout numbers anyway. Of those who voted in the 2010 primaries, 48 percent cast Republican ballots, while 42 percent cast Democratic ballots. So even by this measure, there is no evidence of a 50/50 split. Our best guess is that the 50/50 talk is part anecdotal, part wishful thinking. Ohio is known as a swing state with fickle tastes. In a four-year stretch, voters here elected to the U.S. Senate a known liberal in Sherrod Brown and a known conservative in Rob Portman. The state went for Democrat Bill Clinton twice in the 1990s, twice for Republican George W. Bush in the aughts, then for Democrat Barack Obama in 2008. But since 1991, Republicans have occupied the governor’s chair with the exception of the four years that Strickland served. Then again, as Hagan correctly noted, Ohio isn’t a 70/30 state, either. His arguments -- and those from his Democratic colleagues -- would benefit from more context, though. For one, there’s no bulletproof way of suggesting the state is 50/50 -- a claim Hagan did not make explicitly in his comments to Kovac. Hagan instead implicitly pointed to results of two elections as proof of Ohio’s political parity: Kasich’s narrow gubernatorial victory and a batch of close Ohio House races. Regarding the latter, Hagan remarked on "some of the closest races in the House in history." It is clear that several of those battles match that description. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Robert Hagan	None	None	None	2011-11-14T18:00:00	2011-11-03	['None']
-pomt-13295	"We have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-claims-us-has-biggest-increase-murders-45-ye/	Donald Trump returned to a topic he’s been citing often in recent months -- rising crime. "We have a very divided nation," he said. "You look at Charlotte. You look at Baltimore. You look at the violence that's taking place in the inner cities. Chicago. You take a look at Washington, D.C. We have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years." Trump is largely on target that "we have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years." His staff didn’t respond to an inquiry, but Trump seems to be referring to a set of annual statistics released by the FBI. The most recent report came out in September. Those statistics showed that the number of murders and non-negligent homicides rose nationally between 2014 and 2015 by 10.8 percent. When we checked the numbers, we confirmed that this increase does rank as the biggest year-to-year jump in murders since 1970-71, when the number rose by 11.1 percent. That was exactly 45 years ago. In fact, Trump’s debate comment was stated more accurately than what one of his key surrogates -- former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- said earlier in the day on Meet the Press. Giuliani stated that "last year, crime went up more than in the last 41 years." Not only did Giuliani get the number of years wrong, but he also referred to "crime" generally, not to murders specifically. And that makes a difference. Violent crime did go up between 2014 and 2015, but by a significantly smaller percentage than murders did -- 3.9 percent. That rate of increase was smaller than several year-to-year increases since 1971, most recently an increase between 1989 and 1990 of 10.6 percent. In addition, between 2014 and 2015, property crime actually dropped by 2.6 percent. So Trump has a fair point. Still, we’ll note two caveats. First, his terminology was imperfect. The 10.8 percent increase represents an overall national figure -- not the figure for murders "within our cities," as Trump phrased it. That said, murder rates within cities tend to be higher than for the country at large, as this chart shows. (The red line is the rate for cities over 250,000 population, while the blue line is the rate for the country as a whole.) So this flaw in Trump’s phrasing doesn’t strike us as especially problematic. A bigger problem for Trump is that he leaves out some important context -- that, as we have noted previously, crime rates were heading downward for a quarter-century before the most recent uptick, and that the recent increase is nowhere near big enough to erase those gains. Sticking to murder statistics for the moment, the following chart shows a zig-zagging rise in murders between 1970 and the early 1990s, followed by a fairly steady decline since then. To be precise, the number of murders declined by 42 percent between 1993 and 2014, even as the U.S. population rose by 25 percent over the same period. The same 25-year decline also shows up in the statistics for violent crimes more generally … … and for property crimes, too. After the newest FBI statistics came out, we asked several criminologists how much concern they place in the recent murder spike. They said it was definitely worth noting -- but that it also needs to be understood within a broader context. "Violent crime rates are up compared with historic lows, and they are still very, very low compared with just five or 10 years ago," said Raymond Paternoster, a University of Maryland criminologist. Alan Lizotte, a University at Albany criminologist, agreed. "A small increase between two time points is not an increase when the 20 year trend is downward," he said. "If it went on for several years, it might indicate an increase." And James Alan Fox, a Northeastern University criminologist said that while "crime rose, it is far from certain that it will continue. Such a large jump in homicide, the most volatile of crime figures, can easily be followed by a turn in the other direction. One year does not make a trend." For a past example, look no further than an October 2006 report by the Police Executive Research Forum that cited an upward spike around 2005 that’s visible in our graphs above. The group warned of "a gathering storm of violent crime that threatens to erode the considerable crime reductions of the past." But starting in 2006, crime began falling again, and it stayed that way for most of the next decade. As Jeffrey Butts of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice recently told the Guardian, "You lost 50 pounds. You gained back a couple. You’re not fat. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at your behavior, because the trend is not good." Our ruling Trump said, "We have an increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years." The number of murders nationally did rise by the biggest amount in 45 years, and criminologists agree that this is a development worth paying attention to. But they add that it comes after a steep, quarter-century decline, which suggests that it is not yet a cause for panic. The statement is accurate but needs clarification and additional information. We rate it Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/dbd0f6e6-df11-462a-bf5c-ac53c13c462f	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-10-10T01:14:09	2016-10-09	['None']
-pomt-07470	"43,000 people are going to be kicked out of nursing homes or denied nursing home entrance" if the Texas House version of the state budget passes into law.	/texas/statements/2011/apr/16/joaquin-castro/joaquin-castro-says-if-house-approved-budget-becom/	State Rep. Joaquin Castro says spending cuts in the Texas House version of the state’s 2012-13 budget will cause vulnerable Texans to suffer. For instance, the San Antonio Democrat said in House debate April 4, "43,000 people are going to be kicked out of nursing homes or denied nursing home entrance." The House-passed budget, yet to be answered by the Senate, would reduce by about 10 percent reimbursement rates paid to nursing homes for residents covered by Medicaid, the state- and federally-funded health program for the poor and disabled. Nursing home advocates say actual daily rates would effectively drop 34 percent — from $123 to $81 per resident — because the House-adopted budget also doesn’t account for projected increases in health care costs or in Medicaid-supported nursing home residents. Nor does it replace federal stimulus aid that ends this year. Some perspective: Of about 90,000 nursing home residents statewide, 54,800 — 62 percent — are covered by Medicaid. Starting in 1999, Medicaid reimbursement rates to nursing homes have increased seven times, most recently going up 2.7 percent in 2009. Rates have been cut thrice, most recently 2 percent as of February. The state’s reimbursement rate is 49th nationally, according to an April 9 Austin American-Statesman news article. Also, Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, told us that "there’s widespread agreement that our rates don’t fully cover costs." When we sought backup for Castro’s statement, his office said he got his numbers from the Texas Health Care Association, which represents the state’s nursing home industry. The group’s president, Tim Graves, told us that it analyzed the most recent data, covering 2008, to try to estimate "the scope of the potential impact" of the proposed cuts. Graves said at least 70 percent of the residents at about half the state’s nursing homes, or 550 facilities, are insured through Medicaid — figures we confirmed with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The association estimates that the average number of residents at these facilities is 83, suggesting that 45,650 residents live in heavily Medicaid-dependent homes that would bear the brunt of the House’s rate cut. And how many nursing home residents would be kicked out or denied care? That number proved elusive. A Feb. 16 association press release says the reduction "will force local facilities to significantly cut staffing levels, cut pay — or worse — go out of business, leaving local seniors and local workers to make do with no care and no jobs." Graves told us: "There’s no way I can predict the future, but I can tell you they’ll be in really bad shape. ... Our point is any facility that depends on Medicaid to that extent is going to be in very significant trouble, and that could affect a lot of folks." Graves said the association hasn’t asked every home if it would close upon the proposed rate cut, but conversations with nursing-home operators have persuaded him that widespread closures with residents getting displaced is a valid concern. At his suggestion, we contacted the Texas Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, which advocates for about 100 nonprofit nursing homes. President George Linial told us it now costs homes $140 to $150 a day to serve residents. Separately, the state health commission told us the average daily cost for nursing-home care in 2008 was $129 per resident and the state projects that average for 2012-13 to be $133. Linial shared an association document titled "Nursing Home Profile for Texas" stating that if the House-approved rates become law, 896 of the state’s nursing homes will close and 63,616 residents will lose their care. Linial, calling the group’s forecast "an estimate... a guess," also said: "It is tough to determine who will close because most nursing homes do not want to alarm their residents by saying they will close ... However, simply looking at their financial statements will tell you that closure is imminent with further cuts." How did the group reach its numbers? Association vice president David Thomason said he determined from cost data collected by the state health commission that an average of 71 residents lived in the state’s nursing homes in 2008 and that Medicaid-covered residents accounted for 65 percent or more of the occupants of 896 homes. Assuming those homes would close if the House-backed budget becomes law, Thomason said, 63,616 residents would be kicked out of the shuttered homes. According to the health commission, 676 nursing homes in 2009 had 65 percent or more of their residents covered by Medicaid. Informed of this tally, Thomason replied by email that he’d "rounded up" in his analysis and the group "will be happy to agree that at least 676 facilities will close at the current House version of the bill," with 47,996 residents kicked out. We pressed Thomason on his assumption that this particular cut would force the homes to close, though their reimbursement rates had mostly risen over the past decade. Reminding us of the homes greatly depending on Medicaid, Thomason said: "There’s no other way around it, you’re going to close." Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, told us that Castro accurately pinned the number of nursing home residents whose "access to care is at risk." Yet whether all those residents "would lose coverage at once, that may be pushing it," she said. Finally, spokeswomen for HHSC and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, which administers long-term services, said their agencies have not assessed the impact of rate cuts on Medicaid-covered residents. Goodman said: "We don’t doubt that deep cuts in Medicaid rates would mean that some nursing homes would close." All in all, Castro’s claim that the House-approved budget would effectively deny 43,000 people nursing home care was not confirmed by the group he cites as his source. Though a different group estimates a larger number, that’s acknowledged as an educated guess. At this point, all such predictions are speculative. We rate the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	Joaquin Castro	None	None	None	2011-04-16T06:00:00	2011-04-04	['Texas_House_of_Representatives']
-snes-01231	The word "Dixie" was removed from a popular Civil War-themed dinner show in Tennessee.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dixie-dolly-parton-stampede/	None	Politics	None	Bethania Palma	None	Was ‘Dixie’ Taken Out of Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede Dinner Attraction?	10 January 2018	None	['Tennessee']
-tron-00745	Will Smith was Injured Filming Hancock 2 and Died During Surgery	https://www.truthorfiction.com/will-smith-death-hoax/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Will Smith was Injured Filming Hancock 2 and Died During Surgery	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-07098	After not having any foreign trade offices overseas for the past decade, New Jersey opened offices in Shanghai and London in the past six months, and has seen an 18 percent increase in exports.	/new-jersey/statements/2011/jun/23/kim-guadagno/lt-gov-kim-guadagno-says-foreign-trade-offices-sha/	If you heard Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno on the Brian Lehrer Show on May 11, you'd think New Jersey didn’t have any foreign trade offices for at least a decade until the administration of Gov. Chris Christie set up outposts in Shanghai and London, which led to a big surge in exports. In the middle of her statewide tour to highlight New Jersey’s commitment to economic growth, Guadagno did a radio interview on the WNYC program. After discussing the state’s effort to attract jobs from the Hunts Point section of the Bronx, the conversation turned to where Guadagno said the "real game" is -- overseas. Here’s how Guadagno summed up New Jersey’s international outreach: "It's no longer just a regional market. It's attracting business from overseas. And New Jersey, for the past decade, hasn't had any offices overseas. Compare that to Pennsylvania (that) has 23. Now we just opened in the last six months, two offices. One in Shanghai and one in London. And we actually saw an increase in our exports of 18 percent." Fred Snowflack, a spokesman for Guadagno, said the offices in Shanghai and London opened last year through a joint effort between the New Jersey Economic Development Authority and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Two people are stationed in Shanghai and one person is in London, Snowflack said. According to a September 2010 press release announcing the deal, the duties of the foreign trade representatives include helping to advance export sales of New Jersey companies and arranging visits for potential investors. The London office covers the Europe, Middle East and Africa regions. PolitiFact New Jersey also confirmed that Pennsylvania has 23 foreign trade offices covering 67 countries. So she is right on that point. But she's wrong on two other key points: that the state lacked foreign trade offices for the past decade and that the two new ones led to the 18 percent increase in exports. Actually, a total of 10 full- and part-time overseas offices were in operation during the past decade. New Jersey had full-time offices in Tokyo from 1988-2006; London, 1994-2004; Ra’anana, Israel, 1995-2007; Mexico City, 1999-2006; Cairo, 2000-2004; and Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2000-2007. The state had part-time offices in South Korea from 1999-2004; Greece, 2000-2004; China, 2001-2004; and Argentina, 2001-2002. Snowflack told us those offices closed for financial reasons. Asked about the discrepancy between Guadagno’s radio interview and the information on previous offices, Snowflack wrote in an email: "As for the other question, the lieutenant governor has said on many other occasions, including her budget testimony of last year, that the offices were closed during the Corzine Administration. I submit that the important point here is that the state has reopened overseas offices, not the exact year in which some of the old ones closed." Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce back up the 18 percent increase in exports. Those exports included chemicals, computers and electronic products, and transportation equipment. But that's a figure for exports throughout the world and an economics professor expressed doubt that the new offices deserve much credit. "I wish economics were that easy," Rutgers University professor Thomas Prusa said. Snowflack told us Guadagno was not linking the export increases to the new offices. "She was not saying that the two new offices were directly responsible for the increase in exports," Snowflack wrote in an email. "Her point was that New Jersey is trying to rekindle business relationships overseas, as evidenced by an increase in exports and two new offices. But she never said two offices that opened within the last year prompted an 18 percent increase in exports." That may have been what she meant, but listeners who heard her would clearly be under the impression there was a link. She said, "Now we just opened in the last six months, two offices. One in Shanghai and one in London. And we actually saw an increase in our exports of 18 percent." Her wording suggests a clear linkage. Let’s review: Guadagno said New Jersey has opened foreign trade offices in Shanghai and London, marking the first in at least a decade. She’s right about those two offices, but she’s wrong to say such international efforts haven’t been done before. In fact, New Jersey had 10 offices at various times during the past decade. And there's little, if any, evidence that the offices led to the 18 percent increase. We find her statement False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Kim Guadagno	None	None	None	2011-06-23T05:15:00	2011-05-11	['Shanghai', 'London', 'New_Jersey']
-goop-00382	Jennifer Garner “Warning” Ben Affleck That Lindsay Shookus Will “Trap” Him?	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-ben-affleck-lindsay-shookus-trap/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner “Warning” Ben Affleck That Lindsay Shookus Will “Trap” Him?	2:17 pm, August 26, 2018	None	['Ben_Affleck', 'Jennifer_Garner']
-afck-00180	“Social grants now reach close to 17 million people, mainly older persons and children”	https://africacheck.org/reports/facts-alternative-facts-zumas-10th-state-nation-address-checked/	None	None	None	None	None	Facts or alternative facts? Zuma’s 10th State of the Nation Address checked	2017-02-10 07:12	None	['None']
-thal-00138	Claim: Niall Collins personally got ICTU’s full support for Fianna Fáil’s approach to the Banded Hours Contract bill.Published: 8 July	http://www.thejournal.ie/dail-tds-claims-factcheck-2887345-Jul2016/	None	None	None	None	None	FactCheck: A look back over the 32nd Dáil so far	Jul 21st 2016, 7:00 AM	None	['None']
-pomt-12958	"General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/04/donald-trump/mostly-true-trump-tweet-about-gm-chevy-cruze-manuf/	President-elect Donald Trump put General Motors on notice for tariff-free imports of vehicles from Mexico, warning of heavy taxes if vehicles are not instead manufactured in the United States. "General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border," Trump tweeted Jan. 3. "Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!" See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Imposing hefty tariffs on foreign goods was a staple of Trump’s pro-manufacturing agenda. He suggested on day one of his campaign that if Ford chose to open a factory in Mexico and then tried to sell those vehicles in the United States, he would tell Ford’s CEO that "we’re going to charge you a 35 percent tax." In the same speech, he bemoaned Chevy’s slight presence in foreign countries, particularly in Japan. We wanted to look at Trump’s most recent beef with Chevy. The key to our review is that the president-elect singled out the Mexican-made model of the Chevy Cruze. The Cruze made in Mexico is a hatchback that does not sell widely in the United States. Chevy Cruze sedans are more popular in the United States — and they are produced in Ohio. Trump has a point, however, that the Mexican Cruze has made its way to the United States free of taxes, based on provisions under the North American Free Trade Agreement. General Motors: We make Cruzes in Ohio, too General Motors, whose portfolio includes Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC, said in a brief statement that all Chevrolet Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in the company’s assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In 2016, it sold 185,500 of this body type in the United States. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com But the company "builds the Chevrolet Cruze hatchback for global markets in Mexico, with a small number sold in the U.S.," the statement said. Production of the hatchback model began in mid 2016, said Patrick Morrissey, a General Motors spokesperson, in an email. Out of 29,000 hatchbacks made in Mexico in 2016 for global markets, 4,500 were sold in the United States, Morrissey said. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com (Chevy Cruze photos courtesy of General Motors) Free trade provisions under international agreement The North American Free Trade Agreement, effective since January 1994, lifted trade tariffs and restrictions among Canada, the United States and Mexico. NAFTA has been praised for expanding and facilitating trade among the three countries, but Trump and labor unions from the United States have criticized the deal for outsourcing jobs and lowering wages. Trump called it the "worst trade deal ever," blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs. But nonpartisan research said NAFTA has had a more subtle effect on the U.S. economy. "NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters," a 2015 Congressional Research Service report said. "The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP." NAFTA allows the tariffs-free import of autos, light trucks, engines and transmissions from Mexico as long as 62.5 percent of their value is from North America, the 2015 report said. The "rules of origin" requirement for other vehicles and automotive parts is 60 percent, according to the report. The Chevy Cruze hatchback would be covered under NAFTA’s duty-free provision, experts told PolitiFact. NAFTA allowed each participating country to specialize in different stages of production, said Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics. Parts can go back and forth in the production of a vehicle, so a car that’s imported from Mexico can actually include components from companies in the United States, Freund said. As for the logistics of Trump’s plan to impose high tariffs, trade experts introduced a number of concerns about it for our June analysis. They cited potential rising production costs and an increased cost burden on consumers, as well as a possible trade war and broken international agreements. Our ruling Trump tweeted, "General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border." That’s accurate for 4,500 Chevy Cruze hatchbacks made in Mexico and sold in the United States in 2016. That was about 15 percent of all Cruze hatchbacks produced in Mexico last year for global markets. NAFTA provisions allow the tax-free imports of autos from Mexico. It’s worth pointing out extra context that Chevy Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in GM’s assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. The sedan is more than 40 times as popular among American buyers as the hatchback. Trump’s statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. Share the Facts Politifact 1 6 Politifact Rating: "General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border." Donald Trump President-elect in a tweet Tuesday, January 3, 2017 -01/-03/2017 Read More info After the Fact After publishing this check, readers reached out telling us some Chevy Cruze sedans have also been imported from Mexico to sell in the United States. We asked General Motors about it, since their statement in response to Trump's tweet said all Cruze sedans sold in the United States are built in General Motors' assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio. In a follow-up email, a General Motors spokesperson said, "In the fourth quarter of 2016 we built some sedans in Mexico (and shipped to the U.S) to help support the launch of the Lordstown plant with the new Cruze (that was announced and reported on last summer) – about 8,000 total. So some of those are still in inventory in the U.S., but the only Chevrolet Cruze models being built in Mexico now for the U.S. market are the hatchbacks." The approximate 8,000 sedans were sold to dealers in 2016 "and most were probably sold to consumers," General Motors spokesperson Patrick Morrissey said.	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2017-01-04T11:32:23	2017-01-03	['United_States', 'Mexico', 'General_Motors']
-pomt-09302	''I have received more contributions than any other candidate in the race – Republican or Democrat.''	/florida/statements/2010/apr/21/dan-gelber/state-sen-dan-gelber-boasts-hes-raised-more-other-/	State Sen. Dan Gelber says he has received more contributions than any other candidate in the race to become Florida's next attorney general. ''We received over $325,000 in contributions – and we did this during a shortened fundraising quarter of two months,” he wrote. ''I have received more contributions than any other candidate in the race – Republican or Democrat. Since announcing last year, our contributions total just under $1 million.'' We wondered if this was accurate, so we checked in with the Gelber campaign where aide Christian Ulvert told us the actual number was $321,000. We went to the Division of Elections website to see how that stacked up with the other candidates. We confirmed the $321,000, but noted that he included in-kind donations. Those would include restaurants comping Gelber for campaign events and the Democratic party sending staffers to assist from elsewhere but not charging for the hours. So we ran our own numbers using the same yardstick for first-quarter figures and found that state Sen. Dave Aronberg, another Democrat in the race, raised more -- $328,543 to Gelber’s $321,426. None of the Republican candidates broke $100,000. (Holly Benson raised $97,566.48; Pam Bondi raised $44,337 and Jeff Kottkamp, $27,230.) We also decided to check the total for the entire campaign, which goes back to June 2009. There again, Aronberg edged out Gelber, $999,609.87 to Gelber’s $991,922.35. Ulvert, Gelber's aide, then tried to move the goalposts by suggesting his boss' claim was true because ''we have the greatest number of contributors to our campaign. Our total contributors are 3,487.'' This, in fact, is true. The state database counted 91 more individual contributors to Aronberg’s 3,396 with none on the GOP side breaking the 2,000 mark. We don't accept that interpretation. When someone says contributions, we believe it's universally interpreted as the dollar amount. Said Aronberg campaign spokeswoman Allison North Jones: ''He is leading the public to believe -- and his supporters and his donors and everyone else -- that he had raised significantly more than his opponents.'' For his part, Gelber conceded in an e-mail to PolitiFact Florida that he did not outraise his opponent in the race. Rather, he said, ''We were innocently and unknowingly comparing apples to oranges,'' because Aronberg had published his fundraising totals first, minus in-kind donations. The Gelber campaign believed Aronberg's figures included in-kind contributions. ''Of course the difference turned out to be very, very minor ($8,000 in a million dollar race),'' wrote Gelber. ''Although I did not know or try to say when I wrote the e-mail that we had a greater number of contributors than Dave (which is pretty important as it shows actual level of support) -- I assumed we did and that did turn out to be totally true and accurate.'' The e-mail didn't focus on number of donors. It was about dollars. So we find the claim to be False.	None	Dan Gelber	None	None	None	2010-04-21T18:03:59	2010-04-05	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)']
-tron-00423	British Scientists Clone Dinosaur	https://www.truthorfiction.com/scientists-clone-dinosaur/	None	animals	None	None	None	British Scientists Clone Dinosaur	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-06413	Missionary is protected from murderous attackers by the miraculous appearance of 26 armed guards.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/26-guards/	None	Glurge Gallery	None	David Mikkelson	None	Missionary Guarded by Angels	18 September 2000	None	['None']
-snes-05022	Ed Trice successfully lobbied to have all standardized math tests in the country changed after his daughter's "correct" answer to the question "What's the largest number you can represent with 3 digits?" was marked wrong.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/common-core-ed-trice-999/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	Viral Story on ‘The Largest Number You Can Represent with Three Digits’ Doesn’t Check Out	23 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14184	"A tax on soda and juice drinks would disproportionately increase taxes on low-income families in Philadelphia."	/pennsylvania/statements/2016/apr/25/bernie-sanders/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-jim-kenneys-sod/	Jim Kenney’s proposed soda tax went national last week. Hillary Clinton led off what became a back-and-forth political battle by voicing her support for the tax at a forum in Philadelphia. Bernie Sanders chimed in later to call the tax regressive. Kenney fired back in an editorial on Huffington Post that his proposal, which would levy a three cent per ounce tax on distributors, was a "corporate tax" and said Sanders was siding with beverage corporations. Then Sanders responded with an editorial of his own, in Philly Mag. He basically gave an elongated version of what he said earlier in the week, which was, "A tax on soda and juice drinks would disproportionately increase taxes on low-income families in Philadelphia." Is Sanders correct? Or was this political grandstanding? Berkeley, Calif., remains the lone American city to enact a sugary drink tax. It taxes the distributors of sodas and similar beverages like sports drinks 1 cent per ounce. Studies have shown some of the cost of tax has been passed on to consumers. A Cornell study found about 25 percent of it was passed on, and a University of California-Berkeley study found the amount to be between about 50 to 70 percent, depending on the type of beverage. The prices of soft drinks were more likely to go up at supermarkets than chain drug stores. Carl Davis, the research director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, told Billy Penn last month soda taxes like the one proposed by Philadelphia are "imperfect:" "The first thing you realize is that it is regressive. It’s going to hit lower and more moderate income families more heavily than higher-income families." William Shughart, a Utah State University professor and sin tax expert, explained taxes like the one proposed by Kenney disproportionately affect lower income residents because a greater amount of their income is used on food and drinks. Warren Gunnels, senior policy advisor for Sanders, said in an email, "It would make much more sense to finance universal pre-school in Philadelphia by raising taxes on its wealthiest residents, who currently benefit from flat state and city tax rates. Right now wealthy Philadelphians pay state income tax of 3.07 percent, an unemployment tax of 0.07 percent, and a city income tax of 3.92 percent. That’s a total state and local tax burden of 7.06 percent. By contrast, New York City’s wealthiest residents pay a top rate of 12.6 percent." Such a plan would be easier said than done, according to Kenney’s administration. "Because of the uniformity clause, it’s constitutionally impermissible right now in Pennsylvania to raise the income tax rate only for wealthy individuals," said Lauren Hitt, Kenney’s communications director. "The Republican controlled state legislature would have to change the constitution and we’re not holding our breath on that one. Our kids need Pre-K now." Kenney has said the tax is not regressive because he believes the money will stay in the neighborhoods. His finance director, Rob Dubow, said most consumers of sugary drinks are in poor neighborhoods. When Dubow suggested distributors would absorb some of the tax, City Council president Darrell Clarke responded, "Fundamentally, I don’t believe that." Our ruling Sanders said Kenney’s proposed soda tax would disproportionately increase taxes for low income families. In the only other instance of a soda tax in the United States, studies have shown somewhere between 25 and 70 percent of the cost of the tax gets passed to consumers. Tax experts say if this tax reaches the consumer level it would affect low income residents to a greater extent. We rule the claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/19db2be2-02d7-4cfd-baa1-423db2d4d80f	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-04-25T13:02:29	2016-04-22	['Philadelphia']
-pomt-14125	"There’s no data that says a gun-free zone has saved lives."	/rhode-island/statements/2016/may/08/michael-oneill/how-many-lives-would-be-saved-gun-free-zone/	A bill that would stop the state’s more than 3,000 concealed-carry permit holders from bringing their weapons into Rhode Island schools quickly became the center of attention at an April 26 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Sponsored by Sen. Harold Metts, D-Providence, Senate Bill 2761 would make schools "gun free zones," meaning that only "peace officers" — defined in state law as people who are sanctioned by the school and have extensive firearms training — could carry weapons in school zones. This roiled Second Amendment enthusiasts who argued against the bill, saying it would put kids at higher risk for acts of terrorism. Legal gun owners, or "good guys," can help disarm a potential attacker if they are on school grounds before police arrive, Michael O’Neill, a pro-bono lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition said at the hearing. Sen. Frank Lombardi, D-Cranston, and Sen. Stephen Archambault, D-Smithfield, both agreed with O’Neill on that point. "If we're going to issue law-abiding concealed-carry permits to people," Archambault said, "... I'd rather know there's a chance someone can put down a lunatic." O’Neill added: "There’s no data that says a gun-free zone has saved lives." We reached out to O’Neill, and his colleague Frank Saccoccio, also of the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, to clarify. We briefly spoke with both men. Saccoccio said he’d send us information via email Tuesday night. By Friday, he hadn��t sent us an email, and he hasn’t returned subsequent emails and phone calls. On the other side of the argument, support for the bill comes from school committees across the state, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin, the Rhode Island Association of School Principals and the Rhode Island Federal of Teachers and Health Professionals, among others. Is it possible that it's not backed up by data? Is there no data? O’Neill’s statement is tough to refute because it’s so broad, said Linda Finn, a spokeswoman for the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence. There may not be data that gun-free zones have "saved lives." It’s hard to disprove a claim like that. Further, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the leading national public health institute — has not extensively researched firearms since 1996, when the National Rifle Association accused the agency of promoting gun control. After the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama signed an executive order reversing the research ban. But nearly four years later, Congress still hasn’t approved the funding. There is, though, "plenty of data that shows that when guns are present, it increases the likelihood of an injury or death," Finn told us. Like when Michelle Ferguson-Montgomery, a sixth-grade teacher and a concealed-carry permit holder in Utah, shot herself in the leg in the school bathroom in September 2014. Or when an Idaho State University professor literally shot himself in the foot with his concealed gun on campus. Then there’s a psychological phenomenon called the "weapons effect." Numerous peer-reviewed studies, including one dating back to 1967, show the presence of a weapon, or just a photo of one, leads to aggressive behavior in humans. This is especially true when stress levels are high -- say, in an active school shooter situation. The study "Does the Gun Pull the Trigger?" published in "Psychological Science" in 1996 showed that "simply identifying weapons increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts." This theory played out for a Barrington sixth grader, according to testimony by his father, Willis Peter Bilderback. Bilderback testified that his son became "very afraid" after his teacher told him he had a firearm in his desk. The boy was so shaken that he switched out of the class and had repeated nightmares of "his teacher attempting to track him down with a gun and kill him," according to Bilderback’s testimony. "The fact that my son believed his teacher had a gun in the classroom turned a nationally recognized blue-ribbon Middle School into a house of horrors for him," Bilderback wrote. But do ‘good guys" help? There is anecdotal evidence to back up O’Neill and Archambault’s idea — some of which is outlined in this Washington Post blog from October 2015. In Chicago in April 2015, an Uber driver with a concealed-carry permit "shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people," according to a Chicago Tribune report. A similar incident played out in a Philadelphia barber shop. And an FBI "Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013" showed that out of the 160 incidents studied, in 21 cases unarmed citizens "made the selfless and deeply personal choice" to confront the shooter, and ended the threat. There were seven times that an armed, off-duty police officer, citizen or security guard used a weapon to end the threat. Our ruling: O’Neill says "there’s no data that says a gun-free zone has saved lives." He is correct. There is no definitive data to say that a gun-free zone has saved lives. In part, that’s because the CDC has been blocked from studying anything related to firearms for the last 20 years. And also because "saved lives" are hard to quantify. However, there are many anecdotes, scholarly articles and federal studies with data showing that just the presence of guns can cause anxiety and increase aggressive behavior. Plus, there are the teachers who accidentally shot themselves on school grounds. And yes, there are the cases in which the "good guys" prevail. We rate O’Neill’s claim: Mostly True https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/97a87447-7f5a-4775-979a-98b85f616e16	None	Michael O'Neill	None	None	None	2016-05-08T00:00:00	2016-04-26	['None']
-pomt-02622	Says Alex Sink "failed Florida homeowners by using predatory lending practices."	/florida/statements/2014/jan/22/republican-party-florida/gop-accuse-alex-sink-using-predatory-lending-pract/	The Republican Party of Florida wasted no time attacking former Florida CFO Alex Sink in her bid for Congress. The GOP started its campaign long before the Jan. 14 Republican primary, which clinched the nomination for David Jolly. A video posted Oct. 31, 2013, begins with Sink taking a break at a CNN/Tampa Bay Times debate in 2010, during which a makeup artist showed Sink an email message from one of the candidate’s advisers. The incident broke the debate’s rules against coaching, and became a sensational talking point about the Democrat cheating. After flashing a sentence accusing Sink of having "failed the public’s trust by cheating during a debate," the video then declares it wasn’t her only failure, launching into several attacks, including the claim that Sink "failed Florida investors by allowing for deceptive sales practices … and failed Florida homeowners by using predatory lending practices." With the March 11 general election matchup set, we decided it was time to lend Sink’s past some of our attention. Sink’s banking background Before being elected Florida’s chief financial officer in 2006, Sink’s extensive banking career included 26 years working for Bank of America, formerly NationsBank. She was promoted to president of Florida operations in 1993 and oversaw tremendous growth. In 1997, NationsBank acquired Jacksonville-based Barnett Bank, then merged with California’s BankAmerica Corp. the following year. The new company took the Bank of America name. Sink retired as Florida president in 2000. The GOP said the "deceptive sales practices" that "failed Florida investors" was referring to a time between 1998 and 2002 when NationsBank and subsidiary NationsSecurities paid more than $13 million in fines to the federal government and the SEC. That led to a class-action lawsuit by investors; the bank in 2002 agreed to compensate their former customers with an $8.1 million settlement. Even though Rick Scott brought up the NationsSecurities fiasco during the same gubernatorial debate being referenced in the ad, Sink said the lawyer bringing the case declared she "had nothing to do with the situation." We found her statement Mostly True in 2010. The part of the ad we are checking, however, is about predatory lending. The video doesn’t give a time frame, and it would be understandable if your first thoughts went to the housing crash of 2008. But when we asked, the GOP told us their accusation actually goes back before that, to NationsBank’s August 1997 merger with Barnett, which was the largest commercial bank in the state at the time. The merger included Barnett subsidiary EquiCredit, which specialized in home loans for low-income borrowers at high interest rates, or subprime lending. EquiCredit was accused of predatory lending on multiple occasions, eventually leading to several lawsuits. The accusations gained steam after a May 2000 hearing before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Financial Services. William J. Brennan, an Atlanta Legal Aid Society attorney, told the committee that EquiCredit and NationsBank’s own subsidiary, NationsCredit were "the worst I have ever seen" in terms of predatory lending. EquiCredit’s delinquency rate -- the share of mortgages either 90 days past due or in foreclosure -- was much higher than average, and targeted minorities, women and the elderly, he said. The company charged higher than average interest rates, which is common in subprime lending. The difference, Brennan alleged, is that EquiCredit willfully deceived vulnerable consumers into taking on loans they could not easily pay, with terms they could rarely understand. At the end of 1999, Bank of America held more than $22 billion in subprime loans, the most of any bank in the country. But Sink was in charge of Florida operations, not national lending for EquiCredit -- that company was run out of two offices in Dallas and Jacksonville, and it used independent brokers, not Bank of America employees. Sink has repeatedly said she did not work with the mortgage side of the business and "never had any involvement with them." Her team reiterated to PolitiFact Florida during the current campaign that she "was not engaged in these disreputable practices." EquiCredit operated as a national entity, with about 150 units across 43 states (22 of which were in Florida). Sink’s Bank of America Florida operations existed alongside the division, but EquiCredit took orders from the bank’s Charlotte, N.C., headquarters. Amid pressure from regulators, lawsuits and consumers, Bank of America closed NationsCredit and sold off EquiCredit by the end of 2001. Officially, both were shuttered because Bank of America no longer considered them profitable. By 2001, one of every 18 EquiCredit loans nationwide went bad, compared to one in 60 of Bank of America’s overall loans. These practices preceded the post-9/11 housing bubble that thrived on subprime lending -- in fact, one of the reasons cited for the closure was the poor economy that initially resulted from the 2001 terrorist attacks. Our ruling The Republican Party of Florida accused Sink of having "failed Florida homeowners by using predatory lending practices," citing the subprime lending practices of Bank of America’s NationsCredit and EquiCredit during her time as the bank’s Florida president. The EquiCredit problems were a nationwide issue, though, not just in the Sunshine State. And EquiCredit used brokers to sell their products, not Bank of America Florida employees. Sink would have had no control over that. The video also seems to imply Sink was somehow responsible for the precipitous loss in property values since 2008, but that timeline doesn’t match up, either. There doesn’t seem to be much of anything at all to tie Sink with EquiCredit, other than they both answered to Bank of America HQ in Charlotte. The Florida subsidiary of PolitiFact rates this claim False.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2014-01-22T10:00:00	2013-10-31	['None']
-snes-05065	Donald Trump supporters were photographed wearing Nazi-style armbands.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-armbands/	None	Uncategorized	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Donald Trump Supporters Seen Wearing Nazi-Style Armbands	15 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-01494	Says Rick Scott "pled the Fifth 75 times to avoid jail for Medicare fraud."	/florida/statements/2014/sep/25/charlie-crist/crist-says-scott-pleaded-fifth-75-times-avoid-jail/	Gubernatorial campaign commercials have been digging up each candidate’s past for months, but now Gov. Rick Scott and Charlie Crist are pretty much calling each other criminals. The Republican Party of Florida, working on Scott’s behalf, had a Fort Lauderdale investor say in a TV ad that he was "swindled" by Crist. The man had invested with Scott Rothstein, who was later convicted of a Ponzi scheme. We rated that Pants on Fire!, because Crist had nothing to do with the plot to defraud investors. Now Crist is going after Scott’s past as the CEO of hospital chain Columbia/HCA, which in 1997 was busted by the federal government for bilking Medicare. Crist referred to the Rothstein attack in a Sept. 19, 2014, commercial, saying Scott lied to voters "4,000 times," the number of times the Rothstein ad had aired on Florida TV stations. "We shouldn’t be surprised," the narrator said. "Scott pled the Fifth 75 times to avoid jail for Medicare fraud." That’s referring to a deposition Scott gave in 2000 for an unrelated civil case. To further muddy the waters, the commercial shows footage from a deposition for yet another unrelated case in 1995. This attack should sound familiar, because it came up in the 2010 campaign, when Scott’s Republican primary opponent Bill McCollum said Scott "barely escaped imprisonment," which we rated False. PolitiFact Florida wanted to revisit this angle and see if Scott, who was never charged with wrongdoing in the federal fraud case, gave vague testimony to avoid time in the cooler. The Columbia/HCA case We’ve been over this many, many times before, so let’s explain the history as quickly as possible. Scott began what eventually became Columbia/HCA in 1987, buying and merging hospitals until his publicly traded company became the nation’s largest health care chain. At its peak, the company boasted more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations in 37 states and two foreign countries. Scott’s reputation as a hard-nosed businessman came from a cutthroat corporate environment, in which the most productive managers were rewarded and the least were fired. Some employees speculated it was that culture that led to unscrupulous behavior, such as padding bills, charging Medicare for procedures that were more lucrative than what was actually performed, and giving doctors kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals. Whether Scott knew about such practices is unknown, although he apparently signed off on reports that raised concerns about things happening within the chain. Jerre Frazier, a company attorney told the Miami Herald in 2010 that Scott said the company wasn’t doing anything differently than other chains in the health care industry. Whistle-blowers exposed the fraud, helping federal investigators gather enough evidence to raid the company’s offices and hospitals in 1997. Scott was pressured to resign in July of that year, taking a $5.1 million cash severance and an additional $300 million in stocks and options with him. (Five other top executives also resigned.) Scott has said it was because he wanted to fight the charges while the board wanted to settle, which they did in 2000 and 2002, for a total of $1.7 billion in fines and penalties. Scott was never charged with a crime. His boilerplate response to the incident is that he wasn’t even questioned by investigators, although ABC’s World News Tonight reported in 1997 he was "considered a prime target of the investigation." That’s not unusual, legal experts told PolitiFact, because replacing a CEO is often a first step a company makes to show the government it means business about cleaning up its wayward methods. Whether that’s exactly what happened in Scott’s case, we can’t say. Scott has addressed the case plenty, however. In a 2010 debate he called the deposition a "fishing expedition" he refused to participate in. He told the Tampa Bay Times that same year that he was partly culpable. "There's no question that mistakes were made and as CEO, I have to accept responsibility for those mistakes," he said. "I was focused on lowering costs and making the hospitals more efficient. I could have had more internal and external controls. I learned hard lessons, and I've taken that lesson and it's helped me become a better business person and a better leader." Think about the clink The company agreed to plead guilty to at least 14 corporate felonies, which don’t involve jail time but did factor into the fines. Four Florida-based Columbia/HCA executives were indicted. Two were convicted of defrauding Medicare and sentenced to prison, but those verdicts were later overturned. One was acquitted, and a jury couldn’t reach a verdict on the last. Does that mean Scott faced jail at all? In pleading the Fifth Amendment, it certainly seems like a possibility, former federal prosecutor Ryan O’Quinn told us. That’s because the only legal reason to use your Fifth Amendment right in court is if you think your answer would incriminate you. The deposition in which Scott pleaded the Fifth 75 times was part of a civil case by Nevada Communications Corp., which alleged that Columbia/HCA breached the terms of a communications contract. Scott gave the deposition at his offices in Stamford, Conn., on July 27, 2000, months before the settlement with the federal government. Scott lawyer Steven Steinbach explained the strategy thusly: "Unfortunately because of the pendency of a number of criminal investigations relating to Columbia around the country, he's going to follow my advice, out of prudence, to assert his constitutional privilege against giving testimony against himself." While pleading the Fifth in a criminal case can’t be used as an admission of guilt, it’s just fine to assume that in a civil case. For example, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2014 upheld a $67 million judgment against TD Bank for a group of investors bilked by imprisoned attorney Scott Rothstein, who has factored heavily into campaign commercials between Scott and Crist. In that ruling, the judge said jurors could infer former TD Bank South Florida regional VP Frank Spinosa knew about or participated in Rothstein’s scheme when he invoked the Fifth 193 times. Spinosa has not been charged with a crime and was no longer a bank employee, but was likely avoiding self-incrimination, or possibly as a favor to TD Bank, the ruling said. Scott wasn’t facing a jury, but we’re trying to establish whether one could infer guilt for invoking the Fifth Amendment. In fact, there’s no other reason to think otherwise, because by the letter of the law, Scott must have thought he would incriminate himself if he answered truthfully. "Given the adverse consequences of an assertion of the Fifth Amendment in a civil deposition, an executive must have a significant concern that their response could contribute to their criminal prosecution," O’Quinn said. "A frivolous assertion of the Fifth Amendment would be an unethical act." So if Scott was avoiding incriminating himself and other executives were actually convicted and sentenced to prison (albeit later overturned), does that mean Scott faced jail? That’s conjecture, but he certainly could have faced federal charges, which could have resulted in time in prison. There is a possibility some in the FBI regretted the decision to not go after Scott. "After Columbia/HCA, I realized people, individual corporate officers, had to be held accountable for the actions of their companies,'' former Tampa FBI agent Joe Ford said in a book about the Columbia/HCA case. "Instead of just giving us (the government) money, people need to go to jail. I learn from my mistakes and this was my first big one.'' Our ruling Crist said Scott "pled the Fifth 75 times to avoid jail for Medicare fraud." If you haven’t heard by now, Scott did invoke his Fifth Amendment rights 75 times in a deposition to avoid discussing a Medicare fraud case. But Crist’s ad is pushing the envelope to say he did it to avoid jail. No one went to prison for the Medicare fraud debacle, nor did Scott actually face the rigors of a grand jury or even federal investigators. The commercial seems to imply Scott was in the thick of the raids, when he was actually sent packing as soon as it became apparent the company faced a major punishment for defrauding the U.S. government. It’s impossible to say if Scott would have gone to jail if he had answered those deposition questions, but experts say he was certainly avoiding possible legal trouble by asserting the Fifth Amendment. We rate the statement Half True. Correction, Oct. 3, 2014, 2:30 p.m.: This version clarifies the context in which Scott asserted his Fifth Amendment right. The change does not affect the ruling.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2014-09-25T14:09:18	2014-09-19	['None']
-pomt-07063	"There is no $30 million pot of money" for redistricting issues, including defending redistricting lawsuits. "Your tax dollars are not being spent on anything like that."	/florida/statements/2011/jun/28/will-weatherford/weatherford-denies-30-million-pot-exists-redistric/	Redistricting will be a messy battle in 2012. And that means legislators need money to protect their turf. But how much have they set aside to wage the war? The Orlando Sentinel has reported that the House set aside $30 million that can be used for redistricting and to fight potential lawsuits. But state Rep. Will Weatherford, the House redistricting chairman and a Republican from Wesley Chapel, rejected that claim while speaking at a public legislative redistricting meeting in Panama City. "There is no $30 million pot of money. That doesn't exist," Weatherford, the House speaker designate, told the June 22, 2011, audience. "Your tax dollars are not being spent on anything like that. There is no large pot of money out there that is fighting anything." Several readers saw the Sentinel's reporting and the response from Weatherford and asked us to look into it. First, a quick primer on redistricting. Every 10 years -- two years after U.S. Census figures are compiled -- state lawmakers redraw state and congressional legislative districts. The objective is to adjust district sizes to reflect changes in the population. The task seems simple enough: to logically divide Florida's 18.8 million residents into 120 House districts, 40 Senate districts and 27 congressional districts. But the process is never without accusations of "gerrymandering" often brought up against the party in power. This round of redistricting, however, could be even more contentious because of two constitutional amendments approved by voters in 2010 that require districts to be drawn in a way that doesn't favor incumbents or political parties or interfere with minority representation. Some lawmakers say the amendments are vaguely worded and are open to interpretation, meaning that any redrawing of district lines will be open to a legal challenge. Expecting lawsuits, legislators have been storing away discretionary tax dollars to fight potential legal challenges. The Sentinel's Aaron Deslatte has been writing about the Legislature's plans and is the source for the $30 million figure. Specifically, Deslatte identified two House discretionary funds -- one with $8.49 million available and another with about $23 million available. (The Senate has set aside about $9 million, according to multiple reports). Deslatte asked House Speaker Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, about the funds in May, and reported that the reserves had been allowed to accumulate in part because the chamber would need money — millions of dollars — to pay for the redistricting fight. "The problem with redistricting every decade is it's unpredictable. The litigation this year is likely to be more broad and complex than it has been in past decades," Cannon said. Through June, the House had spent $945,843 on law firms associated with redistricting, Deslatte reported. Yet, despite the Sentinel stories, and quote from Cannon -- Weatherford is now challenging the dollar figure. Why? Weatherford told us that the problem is suggesting those moneys are specifically earmarked for redistricting. "Those resources are in two different areas, they are not earmarked for redistricting purposes," he said. "Will those pots be utilized for redistricting costs? I believe they will, but that's not the only thing they will be for." Weatherford's right that neither fund has shiny, bold-faced type linking it to redistricting. The funds are called "Legislative Carry Forward" and "House Discretionary Budget." But we believe he's also underplaying their intent. • Of the $8.49 million in the "Legislative Carry Forward" fund, about $571,000 has been spent -- including $18,932 for the redistricting committee. The fund includes small allotments for House members, but the biggest chunk of the money -- nearly $8 million -- is available in a "General House" fund that is available to be used on redistricting. (The redistricting committee has no specific allotment.) • Of the $23 million in the "House Discretionary Budget", about $700,000 has been spent so far on house reapportionment, and most of the money is not allocated for any specific use. Cannon himself admits that the funds were bolstered in order to fend off redistricting challenges. Which makes Weatherford's other claim that "your tax dollars are not being spent on anything like that" -- simply not true. (Weatherford told us he wasn't trying to suggest that there are zero dollars for redistricting.) Part of the problem in examining this claim is that the Sentinel's stories got somewhat lost in translation. The Sentinel never said there was a bank vault filled with money sealed behind a door with "Redistricting Only" written on it. But Weatherford, in responding to allegations, was able to suggest as much. And that's what makes his claim -- at least part of it -- credible. There is, in fact, no $30 million pot of money for redistricting in the House. There are two pots of money available for lots of things, but the House speaker said the money predominantly is available to fight potential redistricting lawsuits. That admission, which is not in dispute, defies Weatherford's other point, that "your tax dollars are not being spent on anything like that" -- referring to redistricting lawsuits. The Legislature is planning on doing exactly that. There's too much about this claim that is missing. We rate it False.	None	Will Weatherford	None	None	None	2011-06-28T14:20:27	2011-06-22	['None']
-goop-00266	Julia Roberts’ Marriage At ‘All-Time Low’ Amid Nonstop Fights?	https://www.gossipcop.com/julia-roberts-marriage-danny-moder-fights/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Julia Roberts’ Marriage At ‘All-Time Low’ Amid Nonstop Fights?	3:04 am, September 15, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-02039	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence Dating, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-jennifer-lawrence-dating/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Brad Pitt, Jennifer Lawrence NOT Dating, Despite Report	11:05 am, December 13, 2017	None	['Brad_Pitt']
-tron-00027	World’s First Human Meat Restaurant Opens in Tokyo	https://www.truthorfiction.com/worlds-first-human-meat-restaurant-opens-tokyo/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	World’s First Human Meat Restaurant Opens in Tokyo	Dec 5, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-00787	A photograph shows two daredevils playing tennis on the wings of an airplane.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/daredevils-playing-tennis-airplane/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are These Daredevils Playing Tennis on an Airplane?	9 April 2018	None	['None']
-tron-01999	Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal: Claims about Illegal Immigrants in California	https://www.truthorfiction.com/joe-legal-vs-jose-illegal/	None	immigration	None	None	['government waste', 'immigration', 'refugees', 'states']	Joe Legal vs. Jose Illegal: Claims about Illegal Immigrants in California	Apr 7, 2017	None	['California']
-snes-03616	A video shows Bill Clinton saying that his wife Hillary Clinton "communed" with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-communes-with-the-spirit-of-eleanor-roosevelt/	None	Politicians	None	Dan Evon	None	Hillary Clinton ‘Communes’ with the Spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt	7 November 2016	None	['Eleanor_Roosevelt', 'Bill_Clinton', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-hoer-00112	' Between First and Second Names in Facebook Chat	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/chat-between-first-second-names-hacked.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Bogus Hacker Warning - ' Between First and Second Names in Facebook Chat	24th March 2011	None	['None']
-snes-04963	Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said that he would abolish teachers' lounges.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-kasich-teachers-lounges/	None	Uncategorized	None	Dan Evon	None	John Kasich Would Abolish Teachers’ Lounges	4 April 2016	None	['John_Kasich', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-abbc-00304	The claim: A leading IVF expert claims secrecy around IVF clinic success rates is wasting millions of dollars worth of Medicare rebates, as poorly performing clinics take more cycles to have a baby.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-26/ivf-rates-expense-fact-check/6573208	The claim: A leading IVF expert claims secrecy around IVF clinic success rates is wasting millions of dollars worth of Medicare rebates, as poorly performing clinics take more cycles to have a baby.	['reproduction-and-contraception', 'fertility-and-infertility', 'womens-health', 'science-and-technology', 'australia']	None	None	['reproduction-and-contraception', 'fertility-and-infertility', 'womens-health', 'science-and-technology', 'australia']	Fact Check: Are millions of taxpayer dollars being wasted on poorly performing IVF clinics?	Fri 26 Jun 2015, 5:01am	None	['None']
-chct-00065	FACT CHECK: Did Trump Terminate Temporary Protected Status For 98 Percent Of Its Recipients?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/09/06/fact-check-trump-tps-98-percent/	None	None	None	Brad Sylvester | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	3:01 PM 09/06/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-12321	"Cannibals arrested in Florida claim eating human flesh cures diabetes and depression"	/punditfact/statements/2017/jun/20/miami-gazette/report-cannibals-arrested-florida-fake-news/	An article that tells a story about cannibals arrested in Florida is fake. TheMiamiGazette.com website posted a story on May 30 with the headline, "Cannibals Arrested in Florida Claim Eating Human Flesh Cures Diabetes and Depression." "Police in Vernal Heights, Florida, arrested 3-practicing cannibals who claim eating human flesh cures both type-1 and type-2 diabetes and depression," the article begins. This article cumulatively has 254,000 likes on Facebook and was republished by other websites and blogs. Facebook users flagged the article as being potentially fake, as part of the social media platform’s efforts to curb fake news. The story is pure fiction. TheMiamiGazette.com calls itself "an entertainment and satire web publication" in its Disclaimer section. The disclaimer also stated, "All news articles contained within The Miami Gazette are fictional and presumably satirical news." This disclaimer is buried, appearing only in a special page in the footer part of the website. Someone surfing the Miami Gazette will hardly notice the caution about the website being fictional, and the article adopts the style of news websites to give the impression of real news. In its Contact Us page TheMiamiGazette.com provides only an email address with a Gmail account. The website’s domain was registered as private and does not contain additional contact information about the owners. This article was supposedly written by Anthony Brooks, who has a profile on TheMiamiGazette.com. But there is neither a photo nor contact information for Anthony Brooks. In addition to providing real-sounding names of the suspects, the article was illustrated with images of a cluttered basement captioned with "courtesy of Vernal Heights Police Department" and cited "Vernal Heights Chief of Police Gregory Moore." The supposed picture of Vernal Heights Police Chief Gregory Moore traces back to the free photo download website, Pixabay.com. Pixabay also was used for the photo of the "‘tool wall’ that contained a myriad of tools that police believe were used to dismember several victims" as it states in the fake article. A photo used in the article that purportedly showed "a kitchen style refrigerator located in a small room in the corner of the basement that contained the limbs, organs, and miscellaneous remains of what police believe to be upwards of 7-8 different individuals" traced back to 41 different results. As for the suspects, we had difficulty tracking down who the men truly were, although one of them was a Georgia man named Markey Caldwell, who was arrested in 2014 for criminal trespassing. There is no place in Florida with the name Vernal Heights at all, and no reports of cannibals caught eating flesh to cure diabetes and depression. That would be big news, if true. In 2012 there was a real story of "Miami Zombie" with elements of cannibalism. As for this post, it’s Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	TheMiamiGazette.com	None	None	None	2017-06-20T14:30:00	2017-05-30	['None']
-snes-02816	The first "radioactive salmon" attributed to the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been found in British Columbia, Canada, posing a risk to human health.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/radioactive-salmon-fukushima/	None	Science	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Radioactive Canadian Salmon Tied to Fukushima Disaster?	7 March 2017	None	['Canada', 'British_Columbia']
-goop-00532	Angelina Jolie’s Kids Did Nearly ‘Knock Over Dinosaur Bones’ At Museum, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/angelina-jolie-kids-dinosaur-bones-museum-london/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Angelina Jolie’s Kids Did NOT Nearly ‘Knock Over Dinosaur Bones’ At Museum, Despite Fake News	1:55 pm, August 2, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-06282	Owning a chihuahua can help cure a person of asthma.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/chihuahuas-asthma-cure/	None	Critter Country	None	Snopes Staff	None	Can Owning a Chihuahua Cure Asthma?	21 May 2008	None	['None']
-snes-04866	Musician Prince Rogers Nelson and actor Haywood Nelson are half brothers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prince-haywood-nelson-brothers/	None	Entertainment	None	Dan Evon	None	Prince Was Not Haywood Nelson’s Brother	25 April 2016	None	['None']
-tron-01715	Medical Insurance Contributions to be Recorded on W-2 Forms and Added to Taxable Income	https://www.truthorfiction.com/hr-3590-w2-tax/	None	government	None	None	None	Medical Insurance Contributions to be Recorded on W-2 Forms and Added to Taxable Income	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-10459	"Bill Clinton invited him (the Rev. Wright) to the White House when he was having his personal crises."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/apr/25/barack-obama/photo-and-obama-dont-lie/	In an interview with Philadelphia radio talk show host Michael Smerconish on March 24, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama defended his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, noting that he was good enough at one point for the Clintons. "But understand this, something else that I think has not gotten reported on enough, is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. It's not some crackpot church. I mean, witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises." Obama is talking about a White House prayer breakfast on Sept. 11, 1998. But this wasn't just any prayer breakfast. This was the forum Clinton chose to make his most comprehensive public apology for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The Clintons invited more than 100 religious leaders from around the country. And Wright, pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, was one of them. A few days before Obama's radio comment, the Obama campaign released a photo of Rev. Wright shaking hands with President Bill Clinton at the prayer breakfast. Case closed. He was there. They also provided a two-sentence letter Clinton wrote to Rev. Wright the following month. "Thank you so much for your kind message," Clinton's letter reads. "I am touched by your prayers and by the many expressions of encouragement and support I have received from friends across the country." The Rev. Wright's incendiary comments about America — like the oft-viewed comment about America's "chickens coming home to roost" on Sept. 11 — and his close ties as spiritual adviser to Obama have made him the most controversial figure of this presidential election season. A couple days after the Obama campaign released the Clinton-Wright photo, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore took it one step further and claimed that during a time of marital difficulties due to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Clintons had reached out to none other than Rev. Wright for "spiritual counseling." According to ministers at the prayer breakfast, that's not true. Wright was merely one of more than 100 religious leaders invited to the prayer breakfast. There was no spiritual counseling. A small team of ministers were chosen by Clinton to provide ongoing religious counseling about his indiscretions. But Wright wasn't one of them. We rule Moore's statement False. But Obama's wording and purpose are different than Moore's. Obama merely noted that Clinton invited Wright to the White House during a time of personal crisis and didn't suggest there was some close personal tie. And by pointing out the invitation Obama was making clear that Wright was a well-regarded minister — good enough, at least, to be among a select group of religious leaders invited to the White House for an important address by Clinton. "To my knowledge, the 100 leaders were invited on the merits of their leadership and accomplishments in their particular communities," said Dr. Gerald Mann, who delivered a prayer at the breakfast. Listeners hearing Obama's comments might have thought Wright had a larger role at the White House than simply attending a prayer breakfast, but Obama is correct about the timing of the event. And so we find the statement Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-04-25T00:00:00	2008-03-24	['White_House', 'Bill_Clinton']
-snes-05051	Jason Brian Dalton, who as accused of killing six people during a shooting spree in February 2016, is suing Uber for $10 million in damages.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/uber-shooter-lawsuit-damages/	None	Uncategorized	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Lawsuit from Uber Shooter Seeking $10M in Damages?	17 March 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-07147	"For a young man or woman who is entering the ninth grade in Newark this year, they have a 29 percent graduation rate."	/new-jersey/statements/2011/jun/15/chris-christie/gov-chris-christie-says-graduation-rate-29-percent/	Gov. Chris Christie recently cited Newark as an example of the problem with New Jersey’s public school system, slapping a bulls-eye on the city’s high school graduation rate. "So let’s talk about Newark for a second, our largest city, little over 275,000 citizens, a school district of about 70 schools, where we spend on average $24,500 per pupil per year. And for a young man or woman who is entering the ninth grade in Newark this year, they have a 29 percent graduation rate. Twenty-nine percent graduation rate," Christie said in a speech at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Christie also used that number at a town hall meeting on April 19 in Jackson while discussing school funding for poor districts. PolitiFact New Jersey decided to check if Newark’s graduation rate is as low as the governor claims. First, let’s put the debate over graduation rates in context. The rates can vary wildly because of differences in calculation. "This is one of the most controversial and confusing areas in education … there is a great need to quiet the debate and have uniform measure," said Jack Jennings, president of the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy in Washington, D.C. "Otherwise, people cherry-pick their numbers." The graduation rate for New Jersey’s Class of 2011 will be based on a new federal standard called the "adjusted cohort graduation rate." The federal measurement closely resembles a common definition of graduation rates that 45 states, including New Jersey, agreed to in 2005. The rate will be calculated by determining the percentage of a ninth grade class that graduates in four years with a standard diploma, accounting for transfers and dropouts. But the number Christie cited at Harvard relied on a different approach. In fact, there are at least two other ways of measuring the graduation rate: One method calculates the percentage of people who enter ninth grade and graduate in four years by passing the High School Proficiency Assessment, or HSPA. A more generous method calculates the students who pass the HSPA, adds in the students who pass an alternate exam as well as special education students whose tests are varied. At Harvard, Christie was referencing a study released in February by Global Education Advisors, a private consulting company incorporated by Christopher Cerf before he became New Jersey’s acting state Education Commissioner. A presentation based on the study’s findings said that 22 percent of children who enter ninth grade in Newark graduate with a "HSPA degree in four years." Newark Public Schools said its graduation rate is 55 percent, which it calculates by including all students who graduate in four years, accounting for transfers and dropouts. Using raw data provided by Newark Public Schools, PolitiFact New Jersey calculated the four-year graduation rate for students who pass the HSPA. We got a rate of 25.8 percent. Newark also had a rate of 19.8 percent for students passing the alternate exam, now called the Alternate High School Assessment and special education students exempt from taking the HSPA accounted for another 9.4 percent, according to the district’s data. The HSPA number is higher than the 22 percent figure from the presentation based on the Global Education Advisors study, which appears to be calculated from two different years of data. And it’s lower than Newark’s 55 percent. Both the state Education Department and Newark Public Schools said they didn’t produce the presentation, so they couldn’t comment on it. Two emails and a phone call to Sangari Global Education, a company with ties to Global Education Advisors, were not returned. Still, Christie’s statistic isn’t totally out of the ballpark -- but only when specifically referring to students who graduate in four years after passing the HSPA. We spoke to three academics and a policy expert to gauge whether one method of calculating the graduation rate is more credible than the other. They said graduation rates should reflect students who graduate within four years prepared for a career or college. "I think we get in this number game way too much," said Alexander Urbiel, assistant dean of teacher education at Ramapo College. "What we really should be looking at is outcomes." One of the academics also said anyone citing a graduation rate statistic needs to be clear on who the number includes. "We need to account for them when we say the school’s graduation rate," said Donna Jorgensen, an associate professor of education at Rowan University, about students who graduate by passing the alternate exam. "If we don’t, it’s like saying they weren’t in school at all." We also talked to Alan Sadovnik, a professor of education, sociology and public affairs at Rutgers University who co-authored a recent report that studied the use of alternate exams in Newark. From 2003 to 2008 the study tracked 9,725 students, 60 percent of whom graduated from high school by passing the alternate exam, which was then called the Special Review Assessment. Forty percent of those students enrolled in college, compared with 68 percent of the students who graduated by passing the HSPA. The study also found that female, low-income and minority students were more likely to graduate by taking the alternate exam. Sadovnik said the governor’s choice of statistic is part of the larger, ongoing debate over eliminating alternate exams and requiring a single-high stakes test for graduation. Let’s review. The governor said the graduation rate in Newark is 29 percent. There are several ways to calculate graduation rates and there is no solid consensus on whether one method is more credible than any other. New Jersey is moving to a federal standard of calculating graduation rates, but hasn’t done so yet. Christie’s number is actually a bit higher than the statistic that measures the four-year graduation rate for students who passed the HSPA. But it’s lower than the calculation that the school system uses. There are different ways to calculate graduation rates and it’s important to be precise in describing them. In this case, the governor glossed over the details and omitted a whole group of students recognized by the state as having graduated, many of whom continued their education beyond high school. For these reasons, we rate Christie’s statement False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2011-06-15T05:00:00	2011-04-29	['Newark,_New_Jersey']
-pomt-05827	Says "there are homes for sale on and around (Oswego Lake) right now for under $150,000 that anyone is welcome to buy."	/oregon/statements/2012/feb/17/doug-thomas/can-you-really-get-home-near-lake-oswego-less-1500/	A fight over just who should have access to the waters of Oswego Lake is always simmering. Some say the lake belongs to the whole community and needs to be public. Others are coming down on the side of leaving access where it is now, largely with those who live on the lake or have access through easements. In defense of the status quo, Doug Thomas, president of the board of directors for the Lake Oswego Corporation (the organization that manages the lake) had this to say: "Every 10 years or so, someone makes a challenge as to why everyone and anyone can’t come into the lake … But the shareholders built this lake and have maintained it for over a hundred years. Why would we let everyone have access to our backyards?" Then he added an important dimension to the debate, telling The Oregonian that "We’re not exclusive. There are homes for sale on and around the lake right now for under $150,000 that anyone is welcome to buy." We might be a little out of touch, but "exclusive" is, in fact, one of the first words that comes to mind when we think about Lake Oswego. Generally speaking, the city carries a reputation as an upscale community for those who take home more than most. It seemed to us that $150,000 for a home in the area was a stretch -- let alone a home that sits on or near the lake. We couldn’t help ourselves; we had to check his claim. Our first call was to the Clackamas County assessor’s office. Lynn Longfellow, a sales analyst there, admitted to having heard something about Thomas’ comment earlier. She was similarly confused. She guessed there might be some condos with access to the lake for under $150,000, but she doubted there was anything on the lake for that price. The cheapest she could remember a house on the lake going for was $300,000 -- a short sale with some slide issues. "I can’t imagine anything (else) on the lake selling for $300,000," she said. Let alone $150,000. Still, she was kind enough to run us last year’s sales data, so we could take a closer look for ourselves. As far as waterfront property goes -- that means canals and the lake itself -- the cheapest sale documented was for just over $500,000. If you’re talking Lake Oswego and Lake Grove generally, six homes went for less than $150,000. None of them looked as though they’d be in areas with easement rights -- though we can’t say for certain as the map on the Lake Corp. website isn’t definitive. If you take a look at condos specifically, things look a little more promising. About 44 condos in the whole of Lake Oswego -- half of those listed -- went for less than $150,000. Few of them were in the estimated easement areas, but we did find a couple, including one in Lake Grove that went for just over $100,000. To put that figure in a little bit of context, though, of the 580 stand-alone homes sold in the area last year -- and the figures aren’t completely final -- six sold for less than $150,000, while more than 200 sold for $500,000 or higher. To check the current market, which seemed to be Thomas’ focus, we pulled up current listings in the area on the Windemere Real Estate website. First we searched for strictly waterfront properties under $150,000. Not a single one came up. When we left the waterfront part out, 20 properties popped up, about five of which appeared to be close enough to potentially have lake access via an easement -- though we can’t be sure. Those five properties were all condos. The cheapest listing that explicitly mentioned lake access was for a condo priced at $100,000. Based on that quick search, it seemed like Thomas might be right as far as homes around the lake go -- so long as you consider a condo a home. But there is still nothing directly on the lake, house or condo, that appears to be available for less than $150,000. Still, we’re hardly professionals when it comes to real estate, so we phoned Hasson Realtors, an agency that works in the area, for another take. Bill Marquard, one of the real estate agents with Hasson, was happy to help. He quickly found around 10 condos that were listed for less than $150,000 and would have lake access. Some condos at a property that was formerly an apartment complex even had docks. "You definitely have condos," Marquard said. "You can get into Lake Oswego and have access to the lake for definitely under $150,000." But as for stand-alone houses, "I wouldn't say impossible but very, very difficult. "What's your definition of a home?" he asked. Finally, we wanted to talk to Thomas. After all, he’s the one who made the statement we’re ruling on. After repeated phone calls, we finally got him on the line. He said condos are just as much a home as a house and he pointed out the apartments-turned-condos that were going for under $150,000. "I'm not trying to mislead anybody," Thomas said. "I think everybody always assumes that these properties are expensive." So that brings us to our ruling. Last week, Thomas told the Oregonian that there were "homes for sale on and around (Oswego Lake) right now for under $150,000 that anyone is welcome to buy." So far as we can tell, there’s nothing on the lake, condos or otherwise, that hits that mark. There are some condos with lake access that go for less than $150,000. But that price is hardly the norm. Those are important details -- and his statement ignores them. We give this a Half True. Return to OregonLive to comment on this staterement and ruling.	None	Doug Thomas	None	None	None	2012-02-17T16:27:48	2012-02-11	['None']
-hoer-00716	Luxury Yacht With Supercar - Buy One Get One Free	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/luxury-yacht-supercar.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Luxury Yacht With Supercar - Buy One Get One Free	23th August 2010	None	['None']
-tron-03025	Donald Trump: I’m More Popular Than Fried Chicken, Watermelon Among Black Voters	https://www.truthorfiction.com/donald-trump-im-popular-fried-chicken-watermelon-among-black-voters/	None	politics	None	None	['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'satire']	Donald Trump: I’m More Popular Than Fried Chicken, Watermelon Among Black Voters	Aug 26, 2016	None	['None']
-abbc-00148	The claim: Denis Napthine says his Government has "improved train punctuality".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-25/denis-napthine-improved-train-punctuality-fact-check/5906684	The claim: Denis Napthine says his Government has "improved train punctuality".	['government-and-politics', 'rail-transport', 'elections', 'advertising', 'federal---state-issues', 'liberals', 'vic']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'rail-transport', 'elections', 'advertising', 'federal---state-issues', 'liberals', 'vic']	Fact check: Has train punctuality improved under the Napthine Government?	Wed 26 Nov 2014, 12:14am	None	['None']
-tron-03012	President Obama Will Refuse to Leave Office if Trump is Elected	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-will-refuse-leave-office-trump-elected/	None	politics	None	None	['2016 election', 'barack obama', 'donald trump', 'satire']	President Obama Will Refuse to Leave Office if Trump is Elected	Sep 26, 2016	None	['None']
-para-00021	Australia’s emissions abatement task has decreased from 750 million tonnes over eight years to about 440 million tonnes before 2020.	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/04/greg-hunt/challenge-accepted-australia-abatement-task-decrea/index.html	None	['Carbon Tax', 'Environment']	Greg Hunt	Michael Koziol, Peter Fray	None	Challenge accepted: has Australia's emissions abatement task significantly decreased?	Friday, October 4, 2013 at 1:09 p.m.	None	['None']
-bove-00193	Repeat Offender Paresh Rawal Tweets Fake News About 26/11 Martyr	https://www.boomlive.in/repeat-offender-paresh-rawal-tweets-fake-news-about-2611-martyr/	None	None	None	None	None	Repeat Offender Paresh Rawal Tweets Fake News About 26/11 Martyr	Sep 10 2017 6:59 pm, Last Updated: Sep 11 2017 8:29 pm	None	['None']
-hoer-00656	Meteor Showers August 2012	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/meteor-showers-august.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Meteor Showers August 2012	August 6, 2012	None	['None']
-pomt-08068	"Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, recommended partitioning Iraq into three separate entities."	/texas/statements/2010/dec/22/george-w-bush/former-president-george-w-bush-says-senator-joe-bi/	In his memoir Decision Points, President George W. Bush says that he declined to announce plans to increase troop levels in Iraq in 2006 until after the midterm elections. "The rhetoric on Iraq was hot," he said. "Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, recommended partitioning Iraq into three separate entities. Republicans were anxious, too. Mitch McConnell (the Senate minority leader from Kentucky) made it clear with his Oval Office request for a troop reduction." Before he was elected Vice President in 2008, Biden called for boundaries to be drawn for the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite populations. But is that the same as partitioning a country? The word can hold some heavy implications: think India, Korea and Vietnam — previously unified territories that were divided into two countries. Seeking an answer to that question, we turned to the May 2006 op-ed article published in The New York Times that then-Delaware Sen. Biden penned with Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. In it, they drew a parallel between conditions in Iraq and Bosnia's recent ethnic turmoil. "A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country," the article says. "After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords, which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, breaking it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year." A similar plan for Iraq, the Biden-Gelb article says, would "maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it," establishing "three largely autonomous regions with a viable central govetrnment in Baghdad . . .The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security. The central government would control border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues. Baghdad would become a federal zone, while densely populated areas of mixed populations would receive both multi-sectarian and international police protection." And as to the "p" word? The article says: "Some will say moving toward strong regionalism would ignite sectarian cleansing. But that's exactly what is going on already, in ever-bigger waves. Others will argue that it would lead to partition. But a breakup is already under way. As it was in Bosnia, a strong federal system is a viable means to prevent both perils in Iraq." In 2007, Biden — who by then had become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, shepherded a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that proposed separating Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions while maintaining a federal government. The resolution passed the Senate 75 to 23. According to a C-SPAN video, Biden told colleagues on the Senate floor in April 2007: "You make federalism work for the Iraqis. You give them control over the fabric of their daily lives. . . Let them control their local police, their education, their religion, their marriage. That's the only possibility. Change the focus to a limited central government and a federal system that their Constitution calls for." But when news articles used "partition" or "soft partition" to describe Biden's proposal, the senator took exception to the label, mindful that in foreign policy, it is a loaded term. A June 2007 paper from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution making the case for "soft partition in Iraq" says it would divide the "country into three main regions. Each would assume primary responsibility for its own security and governance... it would require new negotiations, the formation of revised legal framework for the country, the creation of new institutions at the regional level, and the organized but voluntary movement of populations." "Such a plan for soft partition (as opposed to hard-partition which involves outright division of Iraq) is consistent" with the Biden-Gelb plan, according to the paper. Michael O'Hanlon, the paper's coauthor and a Brookings' foreign policy fellow, told us in an e-mail that "Biden called it enhanced federalism. He did not say that it would be formal partition into three states." O'Hanlon described "enhanced federalism" as "three regions with lots of autonomy." In an October 2007 op-ed (again co-written with Gelb) for The Washington Post, Biden wrote: "Our plan is not partition, though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments, with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue." And during a July 18, 2010 interview on ABC's This Week, Biden said: "I don't want to debate history here, but I never called for a partition. I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions." PolitiFact National rated his statement True. But is a rose by any other name still a rose? We wondered whether what Bush calls a partition and what Biden calls, well, not a partition, shakes out the same way. O'Hanlon said "the word 'partition,' by itself, tends to mean separate states. 'Soft partition' or 'enhanced federalism' or 'autonomous regions' are fairer ways to characterize Biden's thinking. I would say partition is inaccurate as a depiction," he said. Long story short, Biden proposed dividing the country into three separate and semi-autonomous regions while retaining a federal system to handle border security and other common concerns. Bush calls that partitioning. Biden does not, pointing to his support for a central government in Iraq. But both are talking about creating new geopolitical entities in Iraq. We rate Bush's statement Half True.	None	George W. Bush	None	None	None	2010-12-22T06:00:00	2010-12-09	['Joe_Biden', 'Iraq']
-vogo-00630	Fact Check TV: A Doozy and Dolphins	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-a-doozy-and-dolphins/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check TV: A Doozy and Dolphins	March 1, 2010	None	['None']
-snes-06228	Members of Congress can receive lavish pensions after only one term in office and are not required to contribute to the Social Security fund.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congressional-pensions/	None	Politics	None	David Mikkelson	None	Congressional Pensions	30 July 2001	None	['United_States_Congress', 'Social_Security_(United_States)']
-pomt-14646	Martin Luther King Jr. "was a Republican."	/virginia/statements/2016/jan/25/philip-van-cleave/van-cleave-wongly-says-martin-luther-king-jr-was-r/	On the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., gun rights supporters rallied on the state Capitol grounds against efforts to tighten firearm restrictions. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which organized the rally, disparaged the Democratic Party as the party of gun control. He then uttered what he said was a little-known fact: "We’re here on a holiday, and this holiday is Martin Luther King’s birthday, right? Somebody who fought for civil rights to bring people to be equal," Van Cleave said. "Let me ask you a question. What party was he with? He was a Republican." That was news to us. We decided to investigate. We asked Van Cleave to support his claim that the slain civil rights leader was a Republican. He told us in a telephone interview that he’d heard that statement many times. He said he’d do some research on the origin of the claim and get back to us. He followed with an email saying his research found some claims that King was with the GOP and others saying his party affiliation was unknown. "I’m also not finding an unimpeachable source either way. So I’d have to say that one can’t claim he was a Republican with absolute certainty, nor can one say he wasn’t a Republican with absolute certainty," Van Cleave wrote. "Rather than get mixed up in this gray area, I’m just going to drop that one off my talking points," he added. Indeed, the Internet is replete with declarations from conservative groups that King was a brethren Republican. The claim rests, in large part, on comments made at least eight years ago by Alveda C. King, the civil rights leader’s niece. "My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime was a Republican," Alveda King said in a video posted on the National Black Republican Association website. Her statement has been dismissed by other members of King’s family. "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican," Martin Luther King III, the civil rights leader’s son, told The Associated Press in 2008. "He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican." And on the same day Van Cleave made his statement, Bernice King, the civil rights leader’s daughter, said in a radio interview that her father was "never" a member of the Republican Party. The video of Alveda King’s comments has been circulating for years. But in 2013, she retracted her claim in an op-ed for Newsmax.com, a conservative news website. King wrote that she regrets "having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts." Alveda King wrote that her uncle was "an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat." She wrote that she had assumed her uncle was a member of the GOP because his father - Martin Luther King, Sr. - was a Republican. Alveda King wrote that before the election of Democrat John F. Kennedy as president in 1960, most blacks were Republicans. Our colleagues at PolitiFact Rhode Island in 2012 also examined a claim that the civil rights leader was a Republican. They wrote that it wasn’t surprising that King’s father, who lived in Atlanta, was a Republican because most Southern Democrats at the time backed racial segregation. For more insight, we contacted Clayborne Carson, founding director of the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University. We asked him if King was a Republican and whether there are any voter registration records that would confirm that’s the case. "To the best of my knowledge, the answer to both questions is no," Carson replied in an email. Carson also is director of the King Papers Project, a research initiative with the King Center in Atlanta that is compiling the civil rights leader’s sermons, correspondence, speeches and other writings. He said that project has not found any records that show King registered with either political party. Carson said King wasn’t completely enamored with Republicans or Democrats. "There are many documents indicating that King was critical of both major political parties, because they were insufficiently committed to civil rights and ‘a better distribution of wealth,’" he wrote. Lewis Baldwin, a professor emeritus of religious studies at Vanderbilt University who has written six books about the civil rights leader, told us there’s "no evidence whatsoever" that King was a Republican. Any assertion that King was a member of the GOP is "absolutely false," he said. King said blacks "should remain independent voters, and they should not become unduly tied to any party, Democrat or Republican," Baldwin said. Our ruling Van Cleave said at a rally that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican. He told us he had heard the claim many times but, after doing some research, now concludes that the evidence is cloudy and said he will stop using the line in speeches. Experts say King eschewed party labels and was critical of both major parties. King’s son and daughter have denied claims that their father sided with the GOP. King’s niece, who once said the civil rights leader was a Republican, retracted that statement three years ago. The burden is on Van Cleave to prove his statement, and he, too, backs away from it. We rate his claim False.	None	Philip Van Cleave	None	None	None	2016-01-25T09:13:49	2016-01-18	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-11474	Says Mike DeWine "flip-flopped on the gun issue and has earned an F from the NRA."	/ohio/statements/2018/mar/06/mary-taylor/gop-ohio-primary-governor-mary-taylor-said-mike-de/	Among Ohio’s Republican candidates for governor, Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor portrays herself as more conservative than Attorney General Mike DeWine when it comes to Second Amendment issues. "I do not trust Mike DeWine on guns," Taylor said during a Jan. 29 speech at the Washington Heights Baptist Church. "He flip-flopped on the gun issue and has earned an F from the NRA. I have an A with the NRA." Taylor and DeWine are competing in the May 8 Republican primary for governor with hopes to replace term-limited Gov. John Kasich. There is no disputing that DeWine once received an F grade from the NRA, which was based on his stances while in the U.S. Senate more than a decade ago. In 2002, the Columbus Dispatch described DeWine as a "Republican who's not afraid to stand up to the National Rifle Association." But when DeWine ran for Ohio attorney general in 2010, his positions on gun laws changed. Taylor omits that DeWine’s grades from pro-gun groups have risen as he has taken stances more in line with the NRA. The NRA did not respond to our requests to confirm DeWine’s grades, but DeWine’s campaign spokesman sent PolitiFact documents showing his grades by the NRA, as well as from a state group, the Buckeye Firearms Association. DeWine’s ratings from gun groups have varied over the years DeWine has served in elected office since he won a county prosecutor position in 1976. We largely focused our search of his gun stances starting with his tenure in the U.S. Senate from 1995 to 2007. Taylor’s campaign spokesman Michael Duchesne pointed to Vote Smart’s compilation of DeWine’s ratings from groups that take stances on gun laws. The NRA gave DeWine a 46 percent in 2000, an 8 percent in 2006 and an F in 2010. DeWine supported multiple gun control measures while a senator, including restrictions on sales at gun shows and the assault weapons ban. In 1999, DeWine was one of a handful of Republicans to side with Democrats to support an amendment to enact a waiting period on sales at gun shows following the mass shooting at Columbine High School. "The amendment seemed on balance to make sense," he said a year later. "I feel that the requirement to follow the Brady gun-check law should apply to everyone at a gun show and that's what this amendment did." In 2001, Dewine co-sponsored a bill with U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to impose a three-day waiting period on gun show purchases, which was opposed by the NRA. DeWine was outspoken in favor of extending the assault weapons ban. In 2005 when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation to re-establish the expired ban, DeWine was among a group of bipartisan cosponsors. "Re-establishing the assault weapons ban is simply good public policy. The law modestly prohibits a select few military-style weapons, all the while protecting the rights of legitimate gun owners nationwide," DeWine said. "As a former prosecutor, I understand the challenges Ohio's mayors and law enforcement officials face, and we owe it to them to reestablish this law." In 2006, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence endorsed DeWine in his re-election, according to news reports. DeWine lost to Democratic U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown that fall. The Columbus Dispatch later wrote, "DeWine's 2006 defeat was primarily because voters were sick of the war in Iraq, not because they believe everyone in Ohio should own a machine gun." DeWine’s gun record since leaving the U.S. Senate In 2010 while running for attorney general, DeWine’s campaign told sportsmen and Second Amendment groups that he regretted his assault weapons vote, said Ryan Stubenrauch, who has worked on behalf of DeWine’s campaigns between 2010-18. Stubenrauch said that while DeWine was in the Senate, he heard from law enforcement officials who said they supported the assault weapons ban. But he later concluded the assault weapons ban "didn’t do anything." (Firm conclusions about the impact of the ban are not possible, PolitiFact has previously concluded.) In 2010, the NRA still gave DeWine an F. But his support from gun rights groups would change after he was elected attorney general. While attorney general, DeWine repeatedly took stances in favor of gun rights by supporting legislation in Congress and the Ohio Legislature. He also signed on to amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, including in support of the Illinois State Rifle Association, opposed a federal proposal to ban a certain type of ammunition and supported efforts to arm school teachers. In 2012, DeWine supported the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act to allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry the concealed firearm in many other states. He also supported state bills that removed some requirements for concealed carry license holders. When DeWine sought re-election in 2014, the Buckeye Firearms Association gave DeWine a B grade and endorsed him while the NRA gave him a C plus. DeWine’s campaign spokesman said as of Feb. 21 he wasn’t aware of any grade by the NRA for his current race. One other sign of DeWine’s pro-gun stance: He named Secretary of State Jon Husted, who has received an A plus from the NRA, as his running mate. Our rating will only be based on information that was available at the time that Taylor made her statement in January, but we will note that in February the Republicans split endorsements from state gun-rights groups. DeWine was endorsed by the Buckeye Firearms Association, and Taylor was endorsed by Ohioans for Concealed Carry. Our ruling Taylor said DeWine "flip-flopped on the gun issue and has earned an F from the NRA." DeWine did receiving failing grades from the NRA based on his record in the U.S. Senate, including in 2010 when he ran for Ohio Attorney General. As Taylor noted broadly, DeWine did flip-flop. As attorney general he has taken several stances more aligned with the NRA and no longer supports an assault weapons ban. Taylor zeroes in on DeWine’s record from many years ago and omits that by 2014, he had clearly earned the support of the Buckeye Firearms Association when it endorsed his re-election. We rate this claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mary Taylor	None	None	None	2018-03-06T10:00:00	2018-01-29	['None']
-pomt-02720	Says Gov. Scott Walker dropped out or was kicked out of college short of a degree "not long after" he was "kicked out of student elections at Marquette University."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/21/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-democratic-party-says-scott-walker-was-k/	Some critics of Gov. Scott Walker have for years charged, insinuated or suggested that a dark story underlies his early departure from Marquette University in 1990. Such talk ramped up when Walker announced he was writing a book, "Unintimidated," that was released in November 2013. "The ‘Essence’ of Dirty Tricks: Dropping out at Marquette," read a headline on the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s website. "Scott Walker was kicked out of student elections at Marquette University after masterminding a scheme that destroyed newspapers critical of him," the party alleged on its website. "Walker either dropped out or was forced out not long after." Mike Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party, told us the party based its post on unnamed sources who he said had privately passed on information about possible "nefarious activity" that Tate did not describe. Those parties would be reluctant to talk to a reporter, he said. The allegation is defensible, Tate argued, because the party is trying to raise questions about the "mystery" of Walker’s departure. That’s a flimsy case, at best. At worst, it suggests a possible fictional smear. It’s similar to claims by others that Walker got caught cheating and was kicked out, for which critics have offered no evidence. To research the various claims, and examine how Walker has shifted his own explanation over time, we examined volumes of university files on the election and other matters from the period, and spoke with Walker, his opponent in the student elections, and students, teachers and administrators -- Walker critics and backers alike. We reported the results of our investigation in a story published Dec. 18, 2013. That story provides a basis for this Truth-O-Meter item, which we decided to break out separately because of how often we are asked by readers to look at -- and rate -- this very claim. Here we’ll summarize some of our findings. Walker enrolled at Marquette in the fall of 1986, and left in spring 1990 with about a year’s worth of credits left to earn. He took a full-time job and was running for state Assembly at the time. In February 1988, as a sophomore, he entered a fiercely fought campaign for Marquette student government president against John Quigley, a liberal student from Chicago. The day before the election, the student-produced Marquette Tribune endorsed Quigley. The paper, though, also said Walker was qualified. That day’s newspaper became a limited edition, students told the Quigley campaign. They’d seen Walker workers and/or College Republicans emptying editions of the Tribune from racks in high-traffic buildings, according to Quigley. Administrators soon got involved in the dustup. Walker campaign officials denied involvement. Stung by the endorsement, Walker’s camp plastered campus with an election-eve flier criticizing Quigley’s political tactics. It was gentle stuff, but the Trib took offense, publishing an election-day editorial headlined, "Walker unfit." It decried his "mudslinging" and said another factor in its reversal on Walker being qualified was the alleged theft of papers. The next day’s vote wasn’t close; Quigley won 1,245 to 927. His tenure was short. Within months, Quigley was forced from office when senators threatened impeachment following his arrest at a sit-in protesting a university decision to displace low-income residents of the central YMCA to make room for Marquette dormitory space. Theft of newspapers alleged Quigley’s departure left an opening in spring 1989. But Walker sat it out and disappeared from the student government scene. An interesting turn of events, but a far cry from proof that Walker was barred from running. Overall, we turned up no proof that Walker was banned from elections. We did find evidence that the alleged newspaper confiscation got the attention of top university administrators, one of whom ordered an investigation. "I have requested the Department of Public Safety to investigate the reported destruction/theft of a large number of Marquette Tribune newspapers on February 23, 1988," Dean of Students James E. Moore wrote to College Of Journalism Dean Sharon Murphy on May 9, 1988. "If the inquiry indicates a conduct policy violation on the part of the identified individuals, a disciplinary process will be initiated." We found no paper trail, and could not learn from interviews, what came of that investigation, if anything. Marquette officials told us that even if they once existed, records regarding disciplinary actions unrelated to academics are destroyed two years after a student or his/her class graduates, per the student handbook. Students who have completed a penalty for non-academic discipline are returned to good standing. Records of suspensions or expulsions are not destroyed, the handbook says. The bottom line: Details of the alleged purloining of the papers are not readily available in the public record, such as it is, much less evidence of who may have "masterminded" it. "These allegations are false," Walker spokesman Tom Evenson told us. Quigley firmly agrees. "I don’t believe any disciplinary action was taken against him for anything that happened in that election," said Quigley, who is now a Democratic political consultant. Marquette releases information Now let’s tackle the larger suggestion by the Democratic Party -- that Walker may have been forced out of the university altogether. In the course of our reporting, we heard nothing -- and found no evidence -- suggesting Walker was pushed out of the university. Publicly available documents cannot fully resolve the question, in part because a federal privacy law blocks release of information on former students unless the person consents. In addition, Walker told us he was sticking to an earlier decision not to release his transcript. With that in mind, we asked Walker if he would allow Marquette to comment on his academic and conduct record. He did. "Gov. Scott Walker was a student at Marquette from fall of 1986 until spring 1990 and was a senior in good standing when he voluntarily withdrew from Marquette," the university said in a statement. That means that no conduct issues, academic or otherwise, blocked Walker from continuing in school at the time of his departure, MU spokesman Brian Dorrington told us in early December 2013. When we asked Dorrington whether any conduct issues were on Walker’s earlier school record, he said Walker would have to permit release of that information. Walker did so in response to our request. "Governor Walker was in good standing each term while he was enrolled at Marquette University and when he left Marquette University," Associate Vice Provost Anne Deahl said in a letter. "Governor Walker was not expelled or suspended from the university at any time." That statement provides the strongest refutation to date of accusations that Walker was forced out. Finally, there’s another problem with the Democratic Party’s claims. According to MU, Walker left school after the spring semester in 1990. That’s more than two years after the 1988 election, instead of the "not long after" the Dems claim. After we published our Dec. 18, 2013 story, Tate told us the Democratic Party was changing its website in light of the new information released by Marquette that contradicts the party’s claims. "While we still stand behind our sources, only Scott Walker can clarify what happened in his time at Marquette University, and we'll afford the governor the respect of taking him at his word on this," Tate told the Journal Sentinel. "Accordingly, we've updated our website." The site now drops the "forced out" reference. But it still accuses Walker of "masterminding" the scheme to destroy newspapers. Walker, for his part, said this to PolitiFact Wisconsin about the accusation he was kicked out: "I can say unequivocally that isn’t true." Our rating The Democratic Party website said that "Scott Walker was kicked out of student elections at Marquette University after masterminding a scheme that destroyed newspapers critical of him." It added that "Walker either dropped out or was forced out not long after." The party offered nothing to backup up its claims, and our investigation found no backup either. And statements by Marquette go a long way to contradicting the party’s statements. We’ll revisit this item if new evidence emerges, but at this point, we rate the party’s claims False.	None	Democratic Party of Wisconsin	None	None	None	2013-12-21T05:00:00	2013-11-19	['Marquette_University', 'Scott_Walker_(politician)']
-pomt-06976	Social Security and other federal checks may not go out on Aug. 3 if the debt ceiling is not increased.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/13/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-social-security-and-other-federa/	President Barack Obama and Congress are in intense discussions on raising the debt ceiling -- the legal limit on how much money the government can borrow. But the negotiations aren't going so well, leaving observers -- and some participants -- to consider whether there are Plan B's, Plan C's and Plan D's if the negotiators can't reach an agreement in time. After hitting the debt ceiling earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury Department juggled accounts as a temporary measure that bought time for further negotiations. But officials now expect the debt limit to be reached on Aug. 2, 2011. While most if not all federal accounts are affected in some way by the debt limit debate, the most urgent items for many ordinary Americans are direct transfer payments, most notably Social Security and veterans' benefits. Obama was asked about this in a July 12, 2011, interview with CBS News anchor Scott Pelley. Here's their exchange: Pelley: "Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd? There are about $20 billion worth of Social Security checks that have to go out the day after the government is supposedly going to go into default." Obama: "Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans' checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month." Pelley: "Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?" Obama: "I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it." We heard from a lot of readers who wanted us to check whether that statement was factually accurate or if Obama was using scare tactics. Back in February, we examined a similar statement by Obama -- that if there's a government shutdown, "people don't get their Social Security checks." We rated that Barely True. Social Security is a mandatory program supported by a trust fund, so Social Security benefits don't have to be formally approved by Congress every year. However, Social Security Administration employees are paid through appropriated funds. The real question about a government shutdown was whether those employees would be kept from going to work and if so, whether the checks would sit idle rather than arriving in mailboxes nationwide. The rules that cover government shutdowns provide some leeway for federal workers to carry out core Social Security functions. This flexibility allowed checks to go out during a 1995 shutdown, even as less-urgent agency functions lagged. However, the two scenarios -- a government shutdown caused by the absence of funding approved by Congress and a debt ceiling impasse that prevents new borrowing -- are different. So the consequences of one do not necessarily match the consequences of the other. The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, put it this way: "Failing to raise the debt ceiling would not bring the government to a screeching halt the way that not passing appropriations bills would. Employees would not be sent home, and checks would continue to be issued. If the Treasury was low on cash, however, there could be delays in honoring checks and disruptions in the normal flow of government services." This is because the government receives both cash, including tax revenue, and bills at irregular intervals. So it doesn't always have enough cash on hand to pay all its debts at any given moment. (Families and businesses will recognize this as the always-dreaded "cash flow problem.") The Treasury Department has argued that failure to raise the debt limit actually would have more dramatic consequences than a government shutdown. "If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, the government would have to stop, limit, or delay payments on a broad range of legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and many other commitments," the department said in a statement. How broad would the impact be? The Bipartisan Policy Center -- a Washington, D.C.-based think tank with a board that includes former politicians from both parties -- conducted an analysis of what the government's fiscal situation would be if a deal on the debt ceiling is not reached. When the center analyzed the government's inflows and outflows for the rest of August 2011, it found $172.4 billion in cash coming in, to offset required payments of $306.7 billion. That works out to a deficit of $134.3 billion. With that amount of income to work with, the government -- if it could prioritize payments, and we'll say more on that later -- could pay the monthly costs of Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Pentagon vendors ($31.7 billion), interest on the debt ($29 billion), and unemployment benefits ($12.8 billion). Those categories total $172.7 billion. But doing so would mean delaying other payments -- for instance, Pell grants and other educational programs ($20.2 billion), salaries and benefits for federal employees ($14.2 billion), welfare and food programs ($9.3 billion), health and human services grants ($8.1 billion), housing assistance ($6.7 billion), and many other programs, including military active duty pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs program ($2.9 billion), Department of Justice funding that includes the FBI and federal courts ($1.4 billion) and IRS refunds ($3.9 billion). If the government could prioritize payments to creditors it deemed most important -- bondholders, say, or Social Security beneficiaries -- it could be a viable stopgap, at least for the favored creditors. But does the government have the power to prioritize whom it pays? The answer is somewhat in dispute. Here's how CRS describes it: "Some have argued that prioritization of payments can be used by Treasury to avoid a default on federal obligations by paying interest on outstanding debt before other obligations," CRS wrote in a study published earlier this year. "Treasury officials have maintained that the department lacks formal legal authority to establish priorities to pay obligations, asserting, in effect, that each law obligating funds and authorizing expenditures stands on an equal footing. In other words, Treasury would have to make payments on obligations as they come due." But CRS added that this view contrasts with one expressed by the Government Accountability Office in 1985 (when the office, the auditing arm of Congress, was known as the General Accounting Office). The GAO found "no requirement" that Treasury pay its bills in a first-in, first-out fashion. "Treasury is free to liquidate obligations in any order it finds will best serve the interests of the United States," the GAO concluded. Even if the government has the authority to prioritize payments such as Social Security checks, doing so would still entail some downsides, and some of these might be considered politically or practically untenable. Doing so merely kicks certain payments down the road, where they may accrue additional interest charges, worsening an already difficult fiscal climate. "A backlog of unpaid bills would continue to grow until the government collects more revenues or other sources of cash than its outlays," CRS wrote. "In some cases, delaying federal payments incurs interest penalties under some statutes such as the Prompt Payment Act, which directs the government to pay interest penalties to contractors if it does not pay them by the required payment date, and the Internal Revenue Code, which requires the government to pay interest penalties if tax refunds are delayed beyond a certain date." Even if payments to bondholders were prioritized, the bond market may still be spooked by the delays in other federal payments, risking harm to the nation's creditworthiness. "If the federal government were to prioritize payments on debt obligations above other obligations, it is not clear whether financial markets would find this distinction to be significant when deciding whether and how to invest in federal government Treasury securities," CRS wrote. CRS added, "if creditors lost this confidence, the federal government’s interest costs would likely increase substantially, and there would likely be broader disruptions to financial markets." Delaying certain payments, even while making others, could ripple through the economy and drag down already weak economic growth. "Removing a portion of government spending from the economy would leave behind significant economic effects and would have an effect on" gross domestic product, CRS wrote. There are also some specific technical challenges for shifting funding into and out of the Social Security Trust Fund, which our friends at the Washington Post Fact-Checker column looked into here. Most of the experts we interviewed agreed that the federal government, if push came to shove, could probably find a way to prioritize Social Security or other payments, though none expressed absolute certainty. However, most of the experts also acknowledged practical challenges of using such tactics. While he thinks the GAO's green light for payment prioritization carries significant weight, Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute added that "with so much being borrowed, it is hard simply to pick on a few programs" to continue in the face of a debt ceiling impasse. Ronald M. Levin, a professor at the Washington University School of Law said, "I interpret the president to be saying, 'Stopping Social Security checks would be hugely costly, but other curtailments would also be hugely costly. ... Something will have to give, and I cannot responsibly guarantee that it won’t be Social Security.' That is not quite what he said, but to my mind it’s close." Where does this leave us? The critics likely have a point when they say Obama is playing up the risk to the most sympathetic potential victims -- Social Security recipients, 23 percent of whom live in households that depend on the retirement system for 90 percent or more of their income. While it's not a certainty that the Obama administration could prioritize cutting checks to seniors, there's a reasonable shot that the administration could do it. On the other hand, doing so would likely cause a lot of collateral damage to other American creditors, federal workers, students, Pentagon vendors and countless others -- and could also hamper the broader economy at a particularly sensitive time. The president is probably justified in saying that the possibility of an un-raised debt ceiling jeopardizes Social Security checks -- after all, it hasn't happened before, so no one knows for sure. But we also think the president probably has tools at his disposal to avoid the worst-case scenario for seniors that he expresses concern about. Acknowledging that there are a lot of uncertainties, we rate his statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2011-07-13T18:26:51	2011-07-12	['None']
-pomt-13160	Says drug dealers have "overdosed on purpose" to avoid prosecution.	/new-hampshire/statements/2016/oct/28/chris-sununu/chris-sununu-says-nh-law-protects-drug-dealers-pro/	New Hampshire has a big problem with heroin and opioids -- the state is on track to hit over 480 overdose deaths in 2016 and currently ranks third nationwide for per-capita drug overdose deaths. Candidates up and down the ballot have explained their plans to deal with the crisis. Earlier this month, gubernatorial candidates Chris Sununu, a Republican from Newfields, and Colin Van Ostern, a Democrat from Concord, were asked separately about their plans to tackle the heroin and fentanyl epidemic at a candidate forum in Manchester. Asked about law enforcement’s response to the drug crisis, Sununu gave a lengthy answer on New Hampshire’s Good Samaritan Law, which gives people suffering an overdose immunity from arrest if they call 911 for help. Sununu said the bill has had an unintended effect - making police unable to prosecute drug dealers. And the executive councilor went one step further, saying drug dealers have started overdosing on purpose because they know they won’t be prosecuted. "So what I’ve heard from police officers, police chiefs, they’ve said we’ve gone in and revived folks with Narcan, with 10 fingers of heroin on the table knowing that was going to kill somebody, and they could do nothing," Sununu said. "Those are well intended laws with massively unintended consequences." He went on. "Drug dealers have smartened up right away, they've overdosed on purpose. They're buying Narcan themselves and they've overdosed, they've called 911 so all the drugs they have in the house are now immune from prosecution." Narcan is an overdose reversal drug carried by first responders in the state. Also known by its generic name naloxone, the drug has been made available over the counter at pharmacies because the state’s heroin problem has grown so dire. PolitiFact decided to look into the matter. Are police rendered helpless when responding to a report of an overdose? Are drug dealers intentionally overdosing? The Good Samaritan Law was one of many new pieces of legislation dealing with the drug crisis that went into effect in 2015. Advocates who backed the bill in the New Hampshire legislature argued it would save more lives by allowing people to call for help without fear of arrest. However, the bill was opposed by some in law enforcement for fear it could make it more difficult to arrest low-level drug dealers. The law states that anyone asking for help during a drug overdose "shall not be arrested, prosecuted, or convicted for possessing, or having under his or her control, a controlled drug in violation." But the law only shields individuals from drug possession charges, not charges related to drug dealing. We reached out to Sununu’s campaign, which said he based the statement about drug dealers overdosing on purpose from conversations with "sheriffs, police chiefs, and other law enforcement officials" on the campaign trail. So we called a few of the people Sununu said he’s been talking to. He is correct at least that some law enforcement officials are still concerned about the bill’s effects. Enfield Police Chief Richard Crate, the former president of the NH Chiefs of Police Association, says there was little evidence to show fewer people were calling for help during an overdose before the law was passed and removing the threat of arrest puts police at a disadvantage. "I think we’ve lost a valuable tool by being able to use the threat of prosecution and the threat of incarceration to keep people clean," he said. However, Crate said he is not aware of any drug dealers intentionally overdosing to try and avoid prosecution. We asked around to see if other departments had seen anyone intentionally overdosing to avoid prosecution. In Manchester, the state’s largest city, the police department’s drug unit was "not aware" of any intentional overdoses, said Lt. Brian O’Keefe. Police in Concord, the state's capital, and police in Laconia to the north, also said they had not seen anyone overdosing intentionally to gain immunity. Police in Nashua and the State Police Department did not respond. Even if a drug dealer did overdose on purpose to avoid prosecution, it wouldn’t work. If police respond to an overdose and find a significant amount of drugs, "we’re going to do an investigation regardless if the person overdosed on purpose," said Laconia police officer Eric Adams, the department’s prevention, enforcement and treatment coordinator and an advocate for the "good samaritan" law. While the law protects people who overdose with immunity from drug possession charges, it does not - as Sununu claims - give people with intent to distribute drugs protection from prosecution. A recent local case demonstrates this. On Sept. 30, Concord police responded to the Comfort Inn for a report of two people overdosing. Upon arrival, police treated the people with Narcan and observed hypodermic needles, a large amount of cash and multiple packages of pills. Police arrested both for possession with intent to distribute and seized 115 grams of methamphetamine. The law doesn’t prevent police from seizing drugs either, Concord Police Lt. Tim O’Malley said. "If we walk into living room and there’s heroin on the table, we’re going to seize that," O’Malley said. "We will not walk away from any kind of controlled substance." Our ruling Republican candidate for governor Chris Sununu said drug dealers have "overdosed on purpose" to avoid prosecution on drug charges. That’s not how the law works. New Hampshire’s "good samaritan" law shields people from drug possession charges if they call for help during an overdose. The law does not shield individuals from drug dealing charges and police can still investigate a crime and seize drugs when responding to an overdose. Police in various departments reported no instances of anyone intentionally overdosing to avoid drug charges. We rate the claim False.	None	Chris Sununu	None	None	None	2016-10-28T13:43:15	2016-10-06	['None']
-snes-00284	A photograph showing an odd-looking, large bat with an elongated face known as a "hammerhead bat."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hammerhead-bat/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Is the Hammerhead Bat a Real Animal?	30 July 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-00467	Obama has Declared December As National Muslim Appreciation Month	http://www.hoax-slayer.net/no-obama-has-not-declared-december-as-national-muslim-appreciation-month/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	No, Obama has NOT Declared December As National Muslim Appreciation Month	November 17, 2015	None	['Barack_Obama']
-tron-00721	Chuck Yeager’s Account of President Eisenhower’s Funeral	https://www.truthorfiction.com/chuck-yeager-080613/	None	celebrities	None	None	None	Chuck Yeager’s Account of President Eisenhower’s Funeral	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Dwight_D._Eisenhower', 'Chuck_Yeager']
-pomt-15201	"We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-repeats-flawed-claim-about-us-healt/	Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is on a campaign for "Medicare for all" — or at least something like it. Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who identifies as a socialist, told NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd to look at how much the country spends compared to the rest of the world as a reason for a single-payer system. "We spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country," Sanders said. It’s a striking claim, and one we heard from Sanders six years ago. We rated the claim False then, and it's still wrong now. We looked at data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), widely cited by experts as an authoritative source for this information. In 2007, the United States led the world in health care spending at $7,167 per capita, according to the OECD. Norway and Switzerland followed at $4,579 and $4,568, respectively. The United States maintained its spending lead in the years that followed. But Sanders puts the difference too strongly when he says U.S. spending is "almost twice" per capita of "any other country." According to the OECD’s most recent data, U.S. spending grew to $8,713 per capita in 2013. Switzerland and Norway came in second and third at $6,325 and $5,862 per capita, respectively. (The organization’s incomplete 2014 data set, which does not include the United States, shows no country spending over $6,500 per capita.) Had Sanders fine-tuned his talking point by claiming that the United States spends twice as much per capita as the average developed country, his statement would been accurate. Average per capita spending is less than $3,500 across the 32 countries listed in the OECD database. That’s 40 percent of what the United States spends per person. A spokesman for Sanders could not be reached for comment. Our ruling Sanders said that "we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country." The United States spends more on health care per capita than other countries, but not always twice as much. Sanders’ comment suggests the United States outpaces all other countries more than it actually does. European countries with extensive social service networks aren’t so far behind the United States. We rate his statement False.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2015-08-16T18:22:23	2015-08-16	['None']
-pomt-13321	"In the state legislature, I supported Second Amendment rights."	/missouri/statements/2016/oct/06/jason-kander/kander-supported-second-amendment-while-office/	In a September campaign TV spot that has gained national attention, Jason Kander assembles a military assault rifle while blindfolded. Kander, who is Missouri’s secretary of state and a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, puts together an AR-15 in 30 seconds. As he assembles the gun, he talks about how his opponent, Republican Roy Blunt, has attacked his record on guns Kander, a former Army captain, says "In the Army, I learned how to use and respect my rifle." He continues to say, "In the state legislature, I supported Second Amendment rights," while supporting background checks to keep guns like the AR-15 "out of the hands of terrorists." Kander was a Missouri state representative for four years, from 2009 to 2012, before he was elected secretary of state. We wanted to know more about how Kander handled Second Amendment issues as a representative, so we decided to investigate his claim. Voting record We asked Kander’s campaign about his statement, and his staff sent us part of his voting record. In 2011, Kander voted in favor of a bill that would lower the age — from 23 to 21— at which a person could get a permit to conceal and carry a gun. Kander voted against the bill when the House first debated it, but switched for the final vote. The bill became law. In 2012, he voted to lower the conceal-and-carry age from 21 to 18 for military members. That bill also became law. That same year, Kander voted for a resolution that would amend the Missouri Constitution to protect "the right of every citizen to possess, purchase, reload, or manufacture ammunition and any other parts or articles essential to the proper functioning of arms." The resolution died in a Senate committee. But that’s only part of the story when it comes to Kander and gun legislation. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund gave Kander an ‘F’ rating on his advocacy for the Second Amendment for 2016. It provided us with more information about Kander’s voting record. In 2009, Kander voted against a bill that would extend the Castle Doctrine to renters. The doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against a perceived intruder. The bill also would have lowered the age to get a concealed carry permit and would remove a ban on carrying a gun on a college campus. Kander voted against the "Business Premises Safety Act" four times – once during each of his terms as a state representative. That bill would have prevented business owners from restricting people from lawfully possessing a firearm in a car on business property. Both the NRA and incumbent Sen. Roy Blunt, Kander’s opponent, have released ads in response to Kander’s ad, denouncing his claim that he supports the Second Amendment. What the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment So Kander did not support every effort to expand access to guns while serving in the state legislature. That doesn’t mean he is against Second Amendment rights. In a 2010 landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Second Amendment prohibition against infringement on the right to "keep and bear arms" extends to state and local governments. But the court has also ruled in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that some restrictions on guns are acceptable. In the Heller decision, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, made clear that while D.C. could not ban handguns, the Second Amendment is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." He went on to say that some restrictions, like the prohibition of guns in churches and government buildings, were not affected by the court’s decision. Carrying a concealed weapon is also subject to regulation. Kander’s votes against expanding access to guns fall within the Supreme Court’s definition of allowable regulation of the Second Amendment. He has never proposed, or voted for, a bill that would repeal the Second Amendment or flout the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendment, our review found. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and well-known constitutional law expert, said in an email that analysis of Kander’s stance on the Second Amendment depends on two questions: "Does one believe that the Second Amendment protects a right to have guns?" and "Are particular regulations of guns desirable?" "Even if one believes in the Second Amendment right to have guns, that does not mean that every law to allow more access to guns should be regarded as a good thing," he said. "Someone could believe in the Second Amendment, but still support some restrictions on guns." Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in constitutional law, agreed. "The Supreme Court has only said that the right protects the right to have a handgun in the home," he said in an email. "So long as he did not vote to deny law-abiding people that right, then he can reasonably claim to be a supporter of the right to bear arms." Our ruling In a TV ad, Kander said, "In the state legislature, I supported Second Amendment rights." As a state representative, Kander voted in favor of two bills, which are now law, that would lower the age for someone to conceal and carry a weapon. On the other hand, he also voted against several bills that would reduce regulations on guns. In short, his gun record is nuanced. Further, experts cautioned us not to draw a straight line between votes and gun legislation and support for the Second Amendment. It is possible to support the Second Amendment and favor some regulation on guns. Even though he sometimes voted against bills to expand access to guns, it is fair for Kander to say he supported the Second Amendment as a legislator. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate Kander’s claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/05a77216-92bf-4df3-933b-6d093512c2a7	None	Jason Kander	None	None	None	2016-10-06T14:32:54	2016-09-15	['None']
-pomt-05315	President Obama "promised" families making less than $250,000 a year would not see taxes go up, but "Obamacare raises 18 different taxes."	/florida/statements/2012/may/17/crossroads-gps/crossroads-gps-says-health-care-law-raises-taxes-1/	The conservative advocacy group Crossroads GPS has a new ad that says President Barack Obama has broken his campaign promises. The ad says, "President Obama’s agenda promised so much," then recounts several areas where it says Obama broke his promises. One those points is about taxes. The ad shows video of Obama saying, "If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes go up." The ad’s narrator says, "Broken: Obamacare raises 18 different taxes. … We need solutions, not just promises." The text on the screen says, "$503 billion between 2010 and 2019." We’ll be fact-checking the ad’s other claims in separate reports. Here, we’ll look at what the ad says about taxes. We should note that here at PolitiFact, we consider ourselves experts on the president’s campaign promises. Our Obameter tracks more than 500 campaign promises Obama made during the 2008 campaign, including many promises about taxes. The health care law and taxes The ad makes a sweeping claim about taxes that suggests broad increases. It says that the health care law raised 18 different taxes, citing an analysis from the Heritage Foundation. We know from our previous research on the law that it does in fact raise taxes. But when we looked at the issue in January 2011, we found only 13 measures that could reasonably be considered tax increases. (The other items were mostly new regulations.) Many of those taxes are aimed at health insurance companies, drug manufacturers, medical device makers or high earners, not people who make less than $250,000, as the ad says. (See our detailed list of taxes in the health care law.) When we looked at the list with the Crossroads statement in mind, we found only five taxes that might apply to individuals making less than $250,000. Those taxes include the following: • Higher federal excise taxes on tobacco. • A 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services. • Limiting the amount taxpayers can deposit in flexible spending accounts to $2,500 a year. For people who use the accounts, this could increase their taxable income. This takes effect Jan. 1, 2013. • Raising the 7.5 percent adjusted gross income floor for the medical expenses deduction to 10 percent. People who would have qualified for the deduction this year would pay more. This takes effect Jan. 1, 2013. • A 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided "Cadillac" health insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. This takes effect Jan. 1, 2018. There’s one other thing that may or may not be a tax, and it’s a biggie: the individual mandate. The mandate means that everyone has to have health insurance or pay a penalty; the Supreme Court is currently considering whether it's constitutional -- and whether it's a tax. We won’t take a side on this question here. The tax increases on tobacco and tanning services prompted us to give Obama a Promise Broken on our Obameter for his pledge that "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." But the statement from Crossroads is different. It makes the sweeping claim that the health care law raises 18 taxes on people who make less than $250,000 when in fact many of the taxes are on corporations and health care companies. Only a few of them are on individuals in that income range. Obama’s tax cuts for workers On the other side of the equation, though, Obama has cut taxes for many people of modest means. Obama pushed for small tax credits in the economic stimulus of 2009. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit amounted to about $400 per worker per year for two years. Then, in 2010, Obama hammered out a deal with Republicans for lower payroll taxes. That lowered them by 2 percent; with a maximum tax break of about $2,202 per year. Those tax cuts apply to all workers, while the health care tax hikes apply to more limited groups, such as smokers and indoor tanners. Our ruling The Crossroads ad says Obama "promised" families making less than $250,000 a year would not see taxes go up, but "Obamacare raises 18 different taxes." Obama has increased a few taxes -- on tobacco and tanning -- that hit people making less than $250,000. But he also gets credit for tax breaks for workers, most notably a payroll tax holiday that is still in effect. The Crossroads ad wrongly implies that people of modest means are getting hit with 18 tax increases because of the health care law. In fact, most of the taxes in the health care law are on high-income individuals or the health care industry. We rate their statement Mostly False. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the 2012 election. View the video version of this fact-check.	None	Crossroads GPS	None	None	None	2012-05-17T18:03:40	2012-05-16	['Barack_Obama', 'Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']
-snes-00513	Paramedics found the upper half of a woman's body clutching her phone in the aftermath of a car accident caused by texting while driving.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-texting-driver-found-clutching-phone/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Was a Texting Driver Found Still Clutching a Phone After a Fatal Car Crash?	4 June 2018	None	['None']
-snes-04609	Image depicts the Orlando shooter's father, Seddique Mateen, visiting Hillary Clinton at the State Department.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/orlando-shooters-father-clinton/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Orlando Shooter’s Father Visited Hillary Clinton	15 June 2016	None	['United_States_Department_of_State', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Orlando,_Florida']
-pomt-03108	"Ninety-five percent of all the wages in Texas are above minimum wage."	/texas/statements/2013/sep/20/rick-perry/perry-claim-about-nearly-all-texas-workers-earning/	Assailed for Texas leading the nation in minimum-wage workers, Gov. Rick Perry shot back a statistic we hadn’t heard before. Perry, engaging with Stephanie Cutter, the from-the-left co-host of CNN’s Crossfire, said on the Sept. 18, 2013, edition of the show: "Ninety-five percent of all the wages in Texas are above minimum wage." We’re in gravy, baby! But is that so? By email, Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed shared the calculations behind Perry’s statement. Nashed noted that according to the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 452,000 Texas workers in 2012 earned the minimum wage or less, accounting for 7.5 percent of the state’s 6 million hourly workers over all. The Texas minimum wage equaled the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Nationwide, the bureau said, 4.7 percent of hourly workers earned the minimum wage or less. And those 452,000 minimum-wage Texas workers, Nashed said, accounted for 4.2 percent of the state’s total workforce, counting salaried workers and those paid on an hourly basis, of 10,879,800. The latter figure reflects the number of jobs held in Texas in 2012, according to the government’s payroll surveys. Nashed’s email continued: "This would tell us that roughly 95.8% of all Texas workers earn at or above minimum wage. And since this is our own analysis of the data, we prefer to round down to 95% to be cautious." By email, Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based bureau economist, did not quibble with the raw figures relied on by Perry. Then again, Abbot said by telephone that federal surveys of households and employers do not elicit detailed state wage data for employees paid by the week, the month or on other bases such as by the piece. Precisely, she said, the government’s household survey asks someone how much they’re paid only if the respondent says they are paid on an hourly basis. In 2012, Abbot said, the state’s 6 million hourly workers represented 57 percent of all wage and salary workers. So, what about the remaining workers? "Because we don’t have detail on wage levels for the non-hourly (workers)," Abbot said, "I really can’t tell you if any of those people are paid above or below the minimum wage." Still, she added, she assumes most non-hourly workers are paid more than the minimum wage. "I’m not saying that ‘95 percent’ is out of the realm of reason," Abbot said, just that "I can’t verify that." By phone, University of Texas economist Daniel Hamermesh told us that Perry’s methodology seems reasonable, though he agreed that because the bureau has no wage information from non-hourly workers, he said, "you can’t know for sure." Another factor, Hamermesh speculated, is that workers who are not legally authorized to live here may be underrepresented in the survey results; neither they nor their employers are likely to reveal extremely low pay rates, he said. Separately, political scientist Doug Hall of the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute said by phone that while the bureau figures largely support Perry’s statement, any assumption that this means nearly every Texan is reasonably paid--or that low-income Texans are doing particularly well--deserves scrutiny. For instance, Hall said, the lowest 10th percentile of Texas workers--meaning those who earned less than 90 percent of the workforce--were paid an average $7.84 an hour in 2012, according to U.S. Census Bureau survey results analyzed by the institute. That average wage for workers at the 10th percentile placed Texas third-lowest in the nation, besting Arkansas ($7.80 an hour) and Louisiana ($7.71), according to the institute. Hall noted that Texas ranked better in 2000 (7th) and 1990 (12th). (See the state-by-state breakdown here.) Our ruling Perry said 95 percent "of all the wages in Texas are above minimum wage." That conclusion ties to 452,000 of the state’s nearly 10.9 million workers in 2012 being paid the minimum wage or less. But those numbers are incomplete, because the federal agency that analyzes such data doesn’t gauge how much any non-hourly workers are paid. It seems reasonable to speculate that most non-hourly workers earn more than the minimum wage, but it’s not an across-the-board certainty. We rate this statement as Mostly True.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2013-09-20T17:58:04	2013-09-18	['Texas']
-pomt-07034	Says that in 2009, Jon Huntsman "said that the Recovery Act wasn't large enough and as governor he asked for $14.4 billion in federal stimulus funds. Now he's saying that he never supported it."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/03/richard-swett/former-us-rep-richard-swett-says-huntsman-flip-flo/	A week and a half ago, New Hampshire Democrats took aim at a former Republican governor they say has a deep history of flip-flopping. And no, it's not the one you think. Minutes after former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman officially launched his campaign for president, New Hampshire Democratic leaders took to the phones, accusing him of flip-flopping on key issues. Taking part in a New Hampshire Democratic Party conference call for political reporters, former U.S. Rep. Richard Swett criticized Huntsman for switching his stance on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the federal stimulus package. "Gov. Huntsman has left diplomacy for a reinvention tour that would make even Mitt Romney blush," Swett, a former ambassador to Denmark, said in the June 21, 2011, conference call. "In 2009, Huntsman said that the Recovery Act wasn't large enough and as governor he asked for $14.4 billion in federal stimulus funds. Now he's saying that he never supported it." So, is Huntsman backtracking? Or is Swett off base? To sort it out, we reviewed Huntsman's comments on the stimulus over the past two years. We used statements provided by the Democratic Party and the Huntsman campaign as well as some that we found in our own research. Together, they reveal that Huntsman was ready and willing to accept the federal money when it was made available, but that he has not retreated the way the Democrats claim. News accounts from the Salt Lake Tribune show that he requested more than $14 billion worth of stimulus funds for state projects, and he predicted the money would help create more than 124,000 jobs over the next five years, according to the Deseret Morning News. By October 1, 2009, six weeks after Huntsman left office, Utah had been awarded $1.5 billion in stimulus funds, and state officials had formally accepted $624 million during that time, according to the federal Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which tracks stimulus spending. But, even as he accepted the money, Huntsman expressed concerns over the $787 billion Recovery Act, including questions about the size of the bill (too small) and the amount of tax cuts (too few). Let’s go to the transcripts. Jan. 19, 2009, Huntsman to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, supporting the stimulus for state projects: "Well, if stimulus money is going to be invested in the U.S. economy, why don't those dollars follow projects that are ready to go? "Our state has more shovel-ready projects than any state in America right now. And you’ve got to remember, we're now the fastest growing state in America, which surprises a lot of people. … "We need to electrify. We need to move toward renewable opportunities. We need highways. We need everything that the rest of the country is talking about, but we need it sooner because of the way in which we're growing demographically and economically." Feb. 24, 2009, to Cavuto, saying he would have opposed the stimulus because it was too small: "Well, if I were in Congress, I probably would not have voted in favor (of the Recovery Act), because it didn`t have enough stimulus and probably wasn`t big enough to begin with. "But it is where it is. And I`m not going to quibble with a 1 or 2 percent of the entire package. We are trying to make our states run. We are going to take receipt of it. And we are going to try to actually focus some of the unallocated money on our own stimulus ideas in our states that might create some of the industries of tomorrow." Feb. 24, 2009, to Politico.com’s Alexander Burns, questioning the lack of tax cuts: "I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with (the bill). It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect. For example, a payroll tax exemption or maybe even a cut in the corporate tax … for small and medium-sized businesses for three years, for example. "I’m not sure it’s the stimulus money that will necessarily allow the economy to recover … It will help to fortify our budgets, frankly, to ensure that there isn’t as much backsliding in the areas of education and healthcare, for example. But economic recovery must be earned. And it will be earned by entrepreneurs and it will be earned by small businesses. "The size of about a trillion dollars was floated by Mark Zandi, who’s a very respected economist. I tend to believe what he is saying about the size of the package, which didn’t necessarily hit the mark in terms of size." April 27, 2009, to 2009 Milken Institute Global Conference, calling the stimulus flawed but helpful: The stimulus has helped by "building our core capacity to attract brain power, and to build our industries of tomorrow around innovation. Even when times are bad, we've invested in engineering and our science and technology undertaking, and are reaching out to name brand universities around the country and try to steal talent, to put it very crassly. So building these core areas of innovation, which we're not throttling back on at all, and some of the stimulus dollars have, in fact, allowed us to kind of move forward. "(There’s) too little focus on meaningful and relevant infrastructure that would have enhanced our entire nation and our ability to compete, whether delivering products or getting people from point A to point B. In other words, the overall enhancement of needed infrastructure in our country, which is desperately needed, so maybe you have 25 percent infrastructure, 75 percent all other categories. It should have been reversed in my mind, so that coming out of the stimulus phase, we actually could have maybe achieved a better, stronger, more 21st century infrastructure in our country. So that is my one gripe. There wasn't vision and direction in terms of where those dollars went. "Stimulus, to be sure, that was needed. We needed to sort of kick start the economy and infuse it with some liquidity. It was the targeted end points that I would sort of question, and whether or not that was done in a way that, longer term, will be meaningful for our citizens." May 19, 2011, to ABC’s George Stephanopolous, reflecting on his past criticisms of stimulus: "My take was, let's stimulate business. Let's look at tax cuts, let's look at payroll tax deductions. If you read on in the (2009) interview, that's exactly what I said. But more than that, George, a specific focus as opposed to just giving dollars to states. And let's face it, every governor took it. "Mark Sanford in South Carolina was the only one who stood up and said, ‘I'm not going to take it,’ and in the end, he ended up taking it too. We as governors, our states, we all make contributions to Washington. And when stimulus dollars are coming back, you ultimately found that every governor took those dollars. "(There’s) a regret that it was not properly focused around that, which would really stimulate the economy, tax cuts, and it was not focused around enhancing our infrastructure, and preparing ourselves for the future." Our ruling Huntsman's comments on the stimulus have been all over the map. He said from the start he would have voted against it -- because it wasn't big enough -- and then he's offered different explanations that have emphasized the need for more infrastructure spending or more tax cuts. Swett was right in saying that Huntsman requested $14 billion in stimulus funds, and that he offered his support for a figure even larger -- $1 trillion. But Swett's account is too one-sided. The record shows Huntsman has continued to raise questions about the stimulus all along, even as he accepted the money. We rate Swett’s statement Half True.	None	Richard Swett	None	None	None	2011-07-03T06:00:00	2011-06-21	['Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.']
-pomt-08620	Says Bill White "didn't pay taxes while earning $133,600 annual salary as deputy secretary of energy."	/texas/statements/2010/sep/21/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-bill-white-didnt-pay-taxes-1995/	Republican Gov. Rick Perry hasn't seen Democratic challenger Bill White's 1995 tax return. Even so, he says White didn't pay taxes that year. "Bill White hiding his taxes because he didn't pay them," says the headline on a Sept. 7 news release from Perry's campaign. That's followed by this header: "Liberal trial lawyer didn't pay taxes while earning $133,600 annual salary as deputy (U.S.) secretary of energy." Perry's press release did not say what kind of taxes he meant, though we suspect most observers would conclude that he is referring to White not paying federal income taxes that year. Perry said as much as we wrapped up our research on this topic, telling San Antonio's KTSA-550 AM last week that White "didn't pay any income tax in 1995." We believe that dramatic charge is impossible to independently prove or disprove without access to the relevant White tax return. Later that day, White told the station: "I served part of the year in the federal government. I paid income tax; there was withholding. And the other half of the year, when I was out of government, I lost money in my business with a self-employed business and so then I got a refund." Some background: White's tax returns have proved a Perry talking point. While White has released returns from his mayoral tenure (2004-09), Perry said he would not agree to a debate until he made public his tax returns from when he was deputy energy secretary in President Bill Clinton's administration (1993-95) and chairman of the Texas Democratic Party (1995-98). That didn't happen. In his Sept. 7 press release, Perry says White's 1995 tax obligation was "uncovered" in an Aug. 14 Dallas Morning News article citing information from White's campaign that he reported "no taxable income for 1995." Katy Bacon, White's campaign spokeswoman, declined to share the candidate's 1995 tax return or grant us an interview with White's accountant. But to counter Perry's charge that White paid no taxes while earning his federal pay in 1995, she sent us figures that she said White's camp gave the Dallas newspaper in August; they showed White's annual taxable income from 1993 through 1995 and his annual tax liability. For 1995, White's taxable income was listed as zero and his tax as $3,482. Katinka Podmaniczky, an Energy Department spokeswoman, confirmed that White's annual salary at the agency was $133,600. He resigned from the post in August 1995, according to White's 1995 federal financial disclosure report. Bacon told us in an e-mail that White grossed nearly $90,000 for his work at the department that year and that $21,568 in federal income taxes were withheld from his paycheck. He did not have another job in 1995 for which federal taxes were withheld, she said. "After he left Department of Energy, while starting a new business, his losses were such that he had no 'taxable income' and a refund of $24,186," Bacon said. (His refund was larger than the amount of taxes withheld, she said, because "he had also paid in estimated taxes and had rolled over an overpayment from 1994 that totalled $6,100.") She said the new business was White Acquisitions, which "pursued investments in oil and gas services and oil and gas." She told us that the firm was formed in September 1995 and dissolved on the last day of 1997. According to Bacon, White owned the company, there were no other investors and he was the "sole shareholder." Based solely on information from the White campaign, here's the tax math so far: Counting what he paid through withholding and estimated tax payments, plus his overpayment from 1994, White was credited with paying a total of $27,668 in income tax in 1995. His business losses the same year erased most of his tax liability, so he received a $24,186 refund. That left $3,482, which the federal government kept because he owed "household employment taxes ... on the income he paid to his employee," a housekeeper, Bacon said. Separately, we asked a tax policy expert whether it's possible to have no taxable income while still paying federal taxes on earnings. Sure, said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington. He told us that if White's taxable income was zero after all of his investment losses and other adjustments (exemptions, deductions, credits) were taken into account, his federal income tax liability would indeed have been zero. That would have produced a refund of income tax. However, Williams said, the vast majority of American workers also pay Medicare and Social Security taxes, commonly known as payroll taxes, which the government doesn't refund. If White paid those, "they are gone," Williams said. To address this aspect without handing over White's tax return, his campaign agreed to our suggestion that White ask the Energy Department to release all the taxes that were withheld from his pay in 1995. In an e-mail to the White campaign that was forwarded to us, the agency's payroll department listed $21,568.45 in federal income taxes, $3,794.40 in Social Security and $1,302.55 in Medicare taxes that were withheld from White's pay. (According to his 1995 tax return, Perry had $3,794 in Social Security and $1,121 in Medicare taxes withheld from the state salary he received as state agriculture commissioner.) Now to the Truth-O-Meter: Perry's press release claimed that White "didn't pay taxes while earning $133,600 annual salary as deputy secretary of energy." Later, he said he was referring to income taxes. Regardless of what sort of taxes Perry meant, we confirmed that White was paying taxes — income, Medicare and Social Security — while he was making that salary during the first eight months of 1995. White said he got income taxes back after filing his tax return. Why? His business losses later that year largely offset the income taxes he had already paid through withholding, he said, leaving him with no taxable income in 1995. Is that the same as White paying no taxes that year while he did his federal job, as Perry says? We think not. We rate the statement False.	None	Rick Perry	None	None	None	2010-09-21T06:00:00	2010-09-07	['None']
-snes-02789	Trump Cuts Veteran Suicide Hotline Funding?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/veterans-suicide-hotline/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Trump Cuts Veteran Suicide Hotline Funding?	13 March 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-00323	"In 2017, the number of new business registrations in West Virginia grew nearly 11 percent (8,318 new businesses registered for the year). This comes off the heels of a 12 percent increase in new business registrations during 2016."	/west-virginia/statements/2018/sep/20/west-virginia-republican-party/business-registrations-are-wva-closures-high-too/	Has there been an increase in new businesses in West Virginia? The West Virginia Republican Party says so. On Sept. 4, the West Virginia GOP tweeted "In 2017, the number of new business registrations in West Virginia grew nearly 11 percent (8,318 new businesses registered for the year). This comes off the heels of a 12 percent increase in new business registrations during 2016." See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The tweet cited a news article in the Herald-Dispatch of Huntington, W.Va., that includes this information almost verbatim. The data comes from the Business Statistics Database maintained by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, and the office confirmed to PolitiFact the accuracy of the numbers in the tweet. Erin Timony, the office’s assistant communications director, said the numbers focus on limited liability companies and corporate business license registrations by county. Since other types of businesses are not included, the data does not encompass all new businesses in the state. Another point to note: The tweet cites business registrations, but not business closings. "The number of businesses that are ‘born’ and ‘die’ in a given year (would) provide a more accurate portrayal of business conditions overall," said Brian Lego, a research assistant professor of economic forecasting at West Virginia University. This data is compiled by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, though data for both births and deaths is available only through the first quarter of 2017. Here’s a chart showing trends on business births and deaths in West Virginia. Quarters that saw more births than deaths are marked in blue, while quarters that saw deaths exceed births are marked in red: See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com So, looked at from this perspective, 15 out of 17 of the last quarters have seen more business deaths than births in West Virginia. This doesn’t mean that the business registration data is wrong; rather, it just says that the tweet paints an incomplete picture. Our ruling The West Virginia Republican Party tweeted, "In 2017, the number of new business registrations in West Virginia grew nearly 11 percent (8,318 new businesses registered for the year). This comes off the heels of a 12 percent increase in new business registrations during 2016." The data cited in the tweet is solid. However, it looks only at certain types of business births. Looking at data for both business births and deaths shows a less rosy picture for business creation in the state. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com	None	West Virginia Republican Party	None	None	None	2018-09-20T12:41:29	2018-09-04	['None']
-pomt-00601	Says that during his eight years as Florida governor, "we created 1.3 million net new jobs -- more jobs created than Texas."	/florida/statements/2015/jun/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-says-13-million-jobs-were-created-florida/	At an event in Orlando attended by several GOP presidential contenders, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a likely Republican candidate, touted his state’s record on job creation during his tenure. "In Florida, during my eight years, we grew at 4.4 percent per year, and we created, together, many of the people in this room, by creating a better environment, we created 1.3 million net new jobs -- more jobs created than Texas, more jobs created than any state in country other than California, a state 2 1/2 times our size," Bush said. That’s a direct knock at one of his likely rivals in the presidential race -- former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who also spoke at the summit and is expected to announce his candidacy for president later this week. We decided to look at the number of jobs created in Florida and Texas, respectively, and how much credit Bush deserves for that. Bush was governor from January 1999 through January 2007; Perry was governor from late 2000 to early 2015. Net jobs in Florida vs. Texas Bush’s term in office was bookended by two periods of robust job growth -- 1998-2000 and 2004-06. The 2007 recession hit after he left office. Bush’s spokesman pointed to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for total, nonfarm, seasonally adjusted jobs. In Florida, there were about 6.7 million such jobs in December 1998 and 8 million in December 2006. That works out to about 1.3 million net new jobs. By comparison, in Texas, there were about 9.1 million jobs in December 1998 and 10.2 million jobs in December 2006. That works out to 1.1 million net new jobs. So during Bush’s two terms in office -- which, we��ll note, includes a period before Perry was governor -- the number of net new jobs in Florida was 186,800 higher than in Texas. Does Bush get credit for the job growth? Bush took a measure of credit during his speech. And on his PAC’s website, Bush also took credit for growth saying that "his limited-government approach helped unleash one of the most robust and dynamic economies in the nation, creating 1.3 million net new jobs ... ." Is that justified? We started by asking his spokesman if he could point to anything that Bush did to fuel that job growth. "Creating 1.3 million new jobs and leading the nation in job creation over your final five years in office doesn’t just happen by riding an economic wave," Matt Gorman said. "That takes strong, pro-growth economic policies like those put in place by Gov. Bush. He consistently improved Florida's business climate, including cutting taxes every year he was in office." PolitiFact has frequently noted that when it comes to the economy and jobs, assigning credit (or blame) for a given statistical accomplishment isn’t as clear cut as politicians would like voters to believe. Much has to do with timing: Bush was fortunate to have governed during some economically robust years. "It is very hard to measure how much credit Gov. Bush should get for the job creation in Florida during his eight years, since so many different factors affect a state's job creation," George Washington University economist Tara Sinclair said. Sean Snaith, the director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Economic Competitiveness, compared the state’s economy to an omelet with many ingredients going into the final product. Snaith said it’s "difficult to point to one specific ingredient as being responsible for the omelet itself. Florida’s economy performed very well during this time period, the economic omelet was quite tasty. Not all of the ingredients, however, originated in Tallahassee’s kitchen. Low interest rates and a global thirst for oil impacted these state’s economies but neither had any control of these important ingredients." Moody’s economist Kwame Donaldson added that in the early 2000s, Nevada and Arizona experienced a similar growth trajectory as Florida, suggesting that Bush’s policies were not singularly responsible for his state’s growth. (Arizona, for instance, had a Democratic governor for the second half of the period in question.) Construction fueled Florida’s job growth -- and then bust The experts added that it’s worth looking at what happened after Bush left office. Texas’ job growth during that time frame was also relatively strong – a 19.6 percent increase in Florida vs. a 12.5 percent increase in Texas. Both states were higher than the 7.6 percent for the country as a whole over that period, said David Cooper, an expert on state labor markets at the Economic Policy Institute. Construction employment in Florida grew by 46.6 percent over that time frame -- more than double the growth in Texas and the nation. Then, when the recession hit, the construction job market in Florida nosedived. As a result, "Florida’s job losses were much more severe than in Texas," Cooper said. "I am not sure that the job growth during Jeb Bush administration should be celebrated, because it was primarily fueled by a housing bubble that burst as Bush’s term was ending," said Donaldson of Moody’s. "Florida is still struggling to recover from this housing bust." Sinclair concurred. "Although it makes more sense for a governor to compare across states in order to somewhat control for national level events, it would also be fair for him to take some of the blame for the worse performance of Florida so soon after he left office if he wants to take credit for the good times," she said. Texas, by contrast, was not as hard hit because it had stronger bank regulation, meaning it didn’t have as many bad loans as Florida, said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. As The Economist explained in 2010, "Texas has strict rules on home-equity lending, relative to other states, and this has helped to prevent ratios of loan size to home value from rising as high as they have elsewhere." Residential construction fell by about two thirds in Texas, but it collapsed by even more -- 85 percent -- in Florida, said Moody’s senior economist Chris Lafakis. "I certainly wouldn’t blame only Gov. Bush for Florida’s recession — there were many culpable parties that overlooked and underestimated the effect of horrific lending standards and bad mortgages — but Gov. Bush certainly didn’t prevent or mitigate the recession either," he said. "Vermont is an example where state policy restricted the housing boom but prevented the housing bust." It’s also worth noting that the sheer number of new jobs doesn’t say much about how well they paid, said Harry Holzer, a Georgetown University economist who is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Texas and Florida are both places that get a big influx of migrants either from other states or immigrants from other countries and I think they drive a lot of job creation in both places, often low-wage job creation," Holzer said. Our ruling Bush said that during his eight years in office, "we created 1.3 million net new jobs, more jobs created than Texas." He got his numbers right, but it’s worth noting that no governor is solely, or even mostly, responsible for economic growth in their state -- and if he wants to take credit for the expansion on his watch, then he also needs to shoulder some of the blame for the bust that followed his departure from office. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.	None	Jeb Bush	None	None	None	2015-06-03T15:28:10	2015-06-02	['Texas']
-pose-01050	"Our locally owned small businesses add to the character of our community. Promoting them will be one of my top priorities."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/krise-o-meter/promise/1131/help-grow-small-businesses/	None	krise-o-meter	Rick Kriseman	None	None	Help grow small businesses	2013-12-31T12:15:53	None	['None']
-snes-00556	Did a Woman Abandon Her Son on the Street to Appease Her Partner? (Bottom of Story)	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-woman-abandon-son/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did a Woman Abandon Her Son on the Street to Appease Her Partner?	23 May 2018	None	['None']
-para-00158	Treasury figures show the Commonwealth's $300bn debt level "will be broken in the next 18 months".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/06/joe-hockey/treasury-figures-show-commonwealth-debt-will-excee/index.html	None	['Budget', 'Debt', 'Economy', 'Finance']	Joe Hockey	David Humphries, Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	Treasury figures show Commonwealth debt will exceed $300bn within 18 months	Thursday, June 6, 2013 at 3:57 p.m.	None	['Commonwealth_of_Nations']
-snes-02047	Black lawn jockey figures were used to aid escaping slaves on the Underground Railroad.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jocko-lawn-jockey-racist/	None	History	None	Dan Evon	None	Lawn Jockeys Were Underground Railroad Symbols?	27 January 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-14593	Americans "are working longer hours for low wages . . . and yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/04/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-exaggerates-concentration-wealth-in/	Sen. Bernie Sanders repeated his ongoing theme that the rich have gotten richer and the United States needs to reverse income inequality during the Democratic president debate on Feb. 4 at the University of New Hampshire. "Millions of Americans are giving up on the political process. And they're giving up on the political process because they understand the economy is rigged," Sanders said. "They are working longer hours for low wages. They are worried about the future of their kids. And yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent," he said. "(That's) not what America is supposed to be about." PolitiFact has looked a couple of variations on his claims about wages, hours and income distribution. In the past, Sanders has said wages have gone down. He didn't make that claim Thursday night, perhaps because when we looked at data, we found that most reports concluded that wages have been flat since the 1970s. Instead, he characterized wages as low, a value judgement we won't quibble with. On the question of hours, we found mixed evidence that Americans are working longer during the week. The best data, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show average weekly hours for production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector have actually declined a bit since the 1960s. The trend flattened out at the beginning of this century and took a temporary dip during the Great Recession, but broadly speaking the numbers don't support the longer hours claim. Gallup surveys have found that workers report working longer hours than what the BLS numbers show. However, historical data from those Gallup surveys reveal that there hasn't really been a change in the number of hours that full-time employees report working between 2001 to 2014. On the other hand, when the Brookings Institution looked at a small slice of the middle class -- the middle 10 percent of families -- they found an increase in hours worked among mothers who were toiling longer to maintain their family's standard of living. Finally, there are plenty of data showing that new income is becoming concentrated in the richest Americans, which is Sanders' overarching theme. The question is to what degree. Sanders said Thursday night and during recent interviews that it's "almost all" new income. A year ago, he was saying it was 99 percent. There's no handy-dandy, universally agreed-upon formula to calculate an exact amount, but the economist that Sanders has been relying on concluded in 2015 that the top 1 percent had accumulated 91 percent of the income gains made from 2009 to 2012. That would be "almost all." But when the analysis was updated in 2015, the estimate dropped to 58 percent, a ratio Sanders has publicly acknowledged. That may be just over most of the new income, but it’s far from "almost all." One important caveat: One economist we consulted told us that the calculation Sanders relies on, which looks at pre-tax income minus all government payments, uses a method that tends to make the rich look richer. Our ruling Sanders said Americans "are working longer hours for low wages ... and yet almost all new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent." The issues are whether Americans are working longer hours -- on average, they're not -- and whether "almost all" new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent. A lot of it has, but not "almost all." If Sanders were to argue that a disproportionate amount of income and wealth is going to the very richest Americans, he'd be right on the money. But he's over-exaggerating. We rate this claim Half True.	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-02-04T22:27:33	2016-02-04	['United_States']
-pomt-14072	Under Donald Trump's tax plan, "the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average -- would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/may/20/jennifer-shilling/top-01-would-be-big-winner-under-donald-trumps-tax/	For being Hillary Clinton surrogates, two Wisconsin lawmakers sounded rather like Bernie Sanders when they got on the phone with reporters to denounce Donald Trump’s tax plan. "For the billionaires, by the billionaires," state Rep. Cory Mason of Racine declared in the May 11, 2016 teleconference, which was arranged by Clinton’s Wisconsin campaign. Mason was joined by fellow Democrat Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, the Senate minority leader. Her attack was more specific. Shilling stated that with Trump’s plan, "the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average -- would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined." Economic inequality has been a signature issue for Sanders, whose presidential campaign has kept Clinton from claiming the presumptive nominee title Trump has on the Republican side. When Sanders said in Madison that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we rated his claim Mostly True . Let's take a look at Shilling’s one-tenth of 1 percenters claim -- which, as we’ll see, was made at something of a moving target. The figures Standing in the lobby of Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan in September 2015, Trump rolled out his tax reform plan -- which some analysts immediately saw as a boon for the wealthy. He proposed significant cuts across the board, PolitiFact National found, but the wealthiest would get the most in tax cuts. For the highest income earners, the top income tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. When we asked about Shilling’s claim, Clinton’s Wisconsin campaign cited an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of two Washington, D.C. think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The analysis found that on average, under Trump’s plan, households at all income levels would receive tax cuts -- but the highest-income households would receive the largest cuts, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. More specific to Shilling’s claim: The highest-income 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- those who had an income of over $3.7 million in 2015 -- would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017. That same group would receive 18 percent of the tax reduction, while the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would receive 16.4 percent of the reduction. At our request, the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice also did calculations, which came out nearly the same: The top 0.1 percent would get 17 percent of Trump's proposed tax cuts and the bottom 60 percent would get 13 percent of the cuts. To some extent, this isn’t a surprise, in that the wealthiest pay the lion’s share of income taxes. In a June 2015 report, the Tax Policy Center said the top 0.1 percent pay 21.1 percent of all individual income taxes and the bottom 60 percent pays 1.5 percent. Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, also ran the numbers and told us Shilling’s claim is accurate. But Cole noted that under Trump’s plan: -- People in the 40th to 60th percentiles have about 99 percent of their income tax liability removed. -- People in the 0 to 40th percentiles who paid positive income taxes have about 100 percent of their income tax liability removed. "So the reason Trump’s plan doesn’t cut middle-class income taxes by more than that is, well, you can’t cut middle-class income taxes by more than that," Cole said. So, the figures back Shilling. The thing is, shortly before she made her claim, Trump’s tax proposal was changing. Sort of. Maybe. Or was it? Trump’s equivocation In the three days prior, Trump said he might raise, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Then he indicated the wealthy would get tax cuts, but the cuts might be less than what is in his plan. And then Politico reported that Trump’s campaign had enlisted conservative economists to revise his plan, and that they were advising a top tax rate of 28 percent -- higher than the 25 percent in Trump’s proposal. All of which has caused some confusion as to what Trump would do with taxes. Nevertheless, by the time Shilling made her statement, Trump had not changed his tax proposal, which remained on his campaign website. (Indeed, for what it's worth, the day after Shilling’s claim, a Trump spokeswoman told the New York Times: "There are no changes being made to the plan.") Our rating Shilling said that under Trump's tax plan, "the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average -- would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined." A report from a respected nonpartisan research group calculates that the 0.1 percent -- those making more than $3.7 million per year -- would receive 18 percent of the tax cuts under Trump’s proposal. The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, meanwhile, would enjoy only 16.4 percent of the cuts. Another tax group found similar figures. Trump has indicated he might make alter his tax proposal, but he hadn’t as of when Shilling made her statement -- so we rate the statement True. Watch the WTMJ-TV PolitiFact segment on this fact check. PolitiFact segments air during the 6 p.m. newscasts Wednesdays and Fridays. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a04647dc-1a56-4b81-a3b9-353803d39f5d	None	Jennifer Shilling	None	None	None	2016-05-20T05:00:00	2016-05-11	['None']
-pomt-05035	Says New Jersey’s tenure law "has now been reformed to say that if teachers get two years of partially effective or ineffective ratings they lose tenure."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/jul/12/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-state-reformed-its-tenure-law-/	Gov. Chris Christie didn’t get everything he had proposed from a tenure reform bill the state Legislature passed recently. But the Republican governor told a national audience this week teachers will lose tenure after receiving negative evaluations, one element of his education reform plan. That’d be a win for the governor, if it were true. But it’s not that simple. Christie said after the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, spent two years campaigning against his tenure reform proposals, they finally "came to the table. And we negotiated New Jersey's tenure law, which is over 100 years old, the oldest tenure law for K to 12 education in the country, has now been reformed to say that if teachers get two years of partially effective or ineffective ratings they lose tenure," Christie said during a July 9 speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "We're putting accountability back into the system." PolitiFact New Jersey found teachers who receive negative evaluations may be fired, but under the legislation -- passed by both houses of the Legislature on June 25 but not yet signed by the governor -- teachers still have the right to appeal, the core job protection afforded by tenure. Christie has described tenure as a job for life, but a process through which districts can fire teachers has always existed. Critics, however, argue the system is so costly and time-consuming that it deters districts from using it except in extreme cases of misconduct. State law says tenured teachers cannot have their pay reduced or be fired except for inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct or other just cause, and then only after a hearing. That does not change with the new legislation. Tenure charges are still subject to a hearing, though the process has been overhauled in an effort to make it easier to dismiss teachers. Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for Christie, said the governor "did not go into full detail and, for the sake of brevity in a speech, merely abbreviated the process which clears the way for revocation of tenure." "This is a sea change in the law," Drewniak said. "Prior to the tenure bill, teachers could be removed for only a handful of reasons in a process that was massively expensive for school districts and ridiculously time consuming. For the first time, there is a statewide evaluation system that can be used to remove poor-performing teachers through a more streamlined process." The legislation creates an evaluation system with four possible ratings: ineffective, partially effective, effective and highly effective. Superintendents will be required to file a charge of inefficiency against a teacher who receives either two consecutive ineffective ratings or a partially effective rating and then an ineffective rating the next year. Superintendents, under exceptional circumstances, may defer filing tenure charges for a year against a teacher who receives two consecutive partially effective ratings or an ineffective rating and then a partially effective rating the next year. But the charges must be filed if the teacher does not receive a positive evaluation the next year. Still, tenured teachers facing a charge of inefficiency maintain the right to dispute those charges with a third-party, though the process has been changed. For instance, arbitrators, rather than administrative law judges, will now hear cases involving tenure charges. We can’t know now whether that process will definitely make firing inefficient teachers easier, but what is clear is that tenure isn’t immediately revoked after two negative evaluations. Our ruling Christie said New Jersey’s teacher tenure law "has now been reformed to say that if teachers get two years of partially effective or ineffective ratings they lose tenure." For the large part, superintendents must file tenure charges against teachers who receive two consecutive negative ratings on annual evaluations. In those cases, teachers may ultimately be fired, but they don’t automatically lose their tenure and, therefore, maintain the right to appeal the charges levied against them. We rate this claim False. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Chris Christie	None	None	None	2012-07-12T07:30:00	2012-07-09	['None']
-snes-04924	The entire Goldman Sachs executive board was arrested by the FBI.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/goldman-sachs-arrested-fbi/	None	Junk News	None	Dan Evon	None	Entire Goldman Sachs Executive Board Arrested by FBI	14 April 2016	None	['Goldman_Sachs', 'Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation']
-pomt-10336	"Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/21/john-mccain/the-campaign-trail-leaves-little-time-for-hearings/	An ad for Sen. John McCain makes the case that Sen. Barack Obama is a foreign policy lightweight who has voted against funding for troops. "Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan," an announcer states. "He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops — positions that helped him win his nomination. Now Obama is changing to help himself become president. John McCain has always supported our troops and the surge that's working." See our story for details about the ad's other claims. Here we'll look at the statement on hearings about Afghanistan. The basis for McCain's attack here is that Obama serves on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and chairs the subcommittee on Europe. You might ask why the subcommittee on Europe should hold hearings on Afghanistan, which is in Central Asia. But we're familiar with this claim because Sen. Hillary Clinton made the same argument during a Democratic debate on Feb. 26, 2008. Obama "chairs the Subcommittee on Europe," Clinton said during the debate. "It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan." Obama responded then: "Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." Back then, we talked to a spokesman for Sen. Richard Lugar, who served as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. Lugar's spokesman said something as major as NATO's role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama's European subcommittee. See our full item here. The committee is now chaired by Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, who has also said such hearings should happen before the full committee. And Sen. John Kerry has said that if it were to happen at the subcommittee level, it should go to his subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs. About a month after the debate exchange between Clinton and Obama, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened for an afternoon hearing with testimony on Iraq from Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, which Obama attended. That morning, though, Obama chaired a full committee hearing on nominations for ambassadors to Europe, including Kurt Volker to be the U.S. permanent representative on the Council of NATO. During the hearing, Obama talked in some depth about NATO and Afghanistan. "Afghanistan, NATO's first major mission beyond the borders of Europe, has been overlooked and undermanned by many members of the alliance, including the United States," Obama said. "Success in Afghanistan, I believe, is critical to American national security and to the security of the entire world, and a failure there would not only endanger our nation and global stability, it would cast serious doubt on the ability of NATO's military and political architecture to uphold our security in the 21st century." When Clinton laid out her argument for why Obama should have held hearings, we found that she had her facts straight and gave her a True rating. McCain's ad, though, doesn't make the detailed case that Clinton did as to why Obama should have held hearings on Afghanistan in the first place. And in the months since Clinton made her claim, Obama did chair a meeting of the Foreign Relations committee in which Afghanistan was discussed at some length (though it arguably was not the primary reason for the meeting; the ambassadorships were). Taking all of this together, we find we have to lay out a number of explanations for McCain's statement on hearings, but in essence, he's right. Obama did not hold hearings that dealt directly with Afghanistan. We rate McCain's statement Mostly True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-21T00:00:00	2008-07-18	['Barack_Obama', 'Afghanistan']
-pomt-00374	Says Joe Radinovich "was cited 30 times for not paying court fines."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/sep/10/congressional-leadership-fund/joe-radinovich-no-stranger-traffic-court/	Do the crime (or petty misdemeanor), pay the fine. That’s an adage of justice. What to make, then, of a congressional candidate who’s cited more than 30 times with driving and parking violations but fails to pay in eight of those cases until the courts sic a collections agency on him? Minnesota’s Joe Radinovich says it was all an oversight, and a number of his tickets were a result of parking overtime in a meter zone -- not exactly high crimes -- although he’s also had a few speeding citations over the years. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to elect Republicans, says the behavior of Radinovich, a Democrat running for the open seat in Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District, shows he is a "typical politician," one who will raise your taxes yet "refuses to pay his own bills." We went to the records. They show Radinovich, a former state representative now vying to represent the Iron Range district in the nation’s capital, has been something of a ticket scofflaw until recently. He had his driver’s license revoked for a time. And he only paid the state's collections agency for the last four of his outstanding fines recently, at $75 each, months after he was originally ticketed and right when those tickets and fines became fodder in the 2018 congressional race. The claim The claim against Radinovich arose when the Congressional Leadership Fund, a PAC allied with U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, put out a TV ad and news release on Aug. 17. An announcer in the ad says, "Joe Radinovich votes to raise our taxes, but refuses to pay his own bills. Radinovich voted for a $2 billion tax hike, hurting working families. But Radinovich was cited 30 times for not paying court fines. "And after refusing to pay his bills, Radinovich was turned over to a collection agency eight times." The tax part of the claim refers to Radinovichs vote in the Minnesota Legislature for an "Omnibus Tax Bill" in 2013, according to KSTP-TV in Minnesota. The bill raised income taxes on Minnesota's highest earners by $1.1 billion dollars but also raised cigarette and other tobacco taxes by $430 million, the TV station said. The bill closed $400 million worth of corporate tax loopholes and increased taxes on some estates by $80 million, the station said. As for the tickets, the Congressional Leadership Fund accessed Minnesota court records, which are available online. Those records show the date a citation is issued, the alleged offenses, the plea and disposition of the charges and the collection of a fine if one is issued. The Congressional Leadership Fund’s ad led KSTP to do a "Truth Test" on the claim. That Truth Test -- in which the station gave the Congressional Leadership Fund’s claim an A minus -- in turn led Radinovich’s Republican opponent in the congressional race, Pete Stauber, to issue his own statement on Aug. 23. Stauber said that Radinovich "won't even pay his own bills and take responsibility for his own actions." Radinovich’ response Radinovich responded quickly to the Minnesota media. "I reject that they're a character issue," the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party member said of the tickets and fines, according to an Aug. 23 story in the Duluth News Tribune. He called the issue "a headache," the newspaper reported, and said he would be more careful about it going forward. He also said he uses a post office box and does not get mail at his physical address in Ironton, Minn., which sometimes led to a delay in his receiving notices. "The vast majority of violations occurred in Hennepin County in the last several years, when Radinovich worked as an aide to onetime city councilor and current Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey," the News Tribune reported. "It was tough to avoid parking tickets sometimes," Radinovich said in the story. He said construction and a lack of other parking options forced him to use streetside meters, which would expire while he became preoccupied with the business of the day. What the record shows PolitiFact accessed the Minnesota state court system’s online records. The records showed 32 cases against Radinovich dating to 2004, when he was 18, most of them minor and all leading to convictions or findings of guilt. They included two cases in 2018, 12 in 2017 and one in 2016. Where the level of offense was listed, all were labeled as misdemeanors. Other details: Sixteen of the 32 cases involved parking meter violations. Four involved speeding, the most recent in July 2017 when records show Radinovich was accused of driving 69 mph in a 55 zone. A 2006 case showed a conviction for driving on a revoked license. The circumstances of the revocation were not detailed in the online record. In 2009, Radinovich was charged with speeding, accused of going 81 in a 65 mph zone. The records say the court requested a driver’s license suspension that October for failure to appear in court, and requested reinstatement of the license the following March when payment was made. The collections Eight of the cases wound up going to a collection agency after Radovich was late paying his fines, records show. That does not mean private bill collectors were on Radinovich’s tail, however, because the state courts switched in 2010 from using private collectors to using the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Kyle Christopherson, a communications specialist with the Minnesota Judicial Branch told PolitiFact. Every one of Radinovich’s collection matters therefore would have been handled by the revenue department. Of the underlying offenses in those collection matters, six were for parking overtime in a meter zone. One was for obstructing traffic with a vehicle. One was for a violation that was unspecified in the online docket but was related to a vehicle registration, permit or license plates. Radovich pleaded or was adjudicated guilty in each case case against him, whether it went to collections or not, the records show. Petty stuff? That’s what Radinovich suggested. The Duluth News Tribune quoted him as saying, "I take full responsibility for this. It's a series of petty misdemeanors and that's the extent of it." When contacted by PolitiFact, Radinovich's congressional campaign did not dispute the tickets and late payments. Campaign spokesman Bennett Smith said the earliest driving offenses are from when Radinovich, now 32, was a young man. Radinovich's mother was shot and killed in a family murder-suicide in 2004, according to Minnesota media reports. "Like many people in their late teens and early 20s, Joe has done a lot of growing up," Smith said. "He's matured and is a different person." As for the numerous parking offenses, Smith said the Republican-supporting PAC is "oversensationalizing his ability to find convenient parking when he was working for the mayor." Our ruling The Congressional Leadership Fund said Radinovich was cited 30 times for not paying court fines. Radinovich unquestionably did not pay a number of his traffic and parking fines when due. The 32-year-old was charged in 32 separate traffic or parking cases since he was 18. But a single case can involve one or more legal citations, and this is where the Congressional Leadership Fund’s characterization can get a bit tricky. The PAC said Radinovch was "cited 30 times for not paying court fines," but a "citation" can mean, in the legal sense, a ticket or a charge. Or it can mean a notation in the record. It is unquestionable that the Minnesota court records note Radinvich’s repeated failure to pay fines when due. That did not mean Radinovich faced 30 new misdemeanor charges strictly for failure to pay; rather, the PAC told PolitiFact that it used the word "cited" as a reference to court notations of Radinovich’s failure to pay on time, and these notations were not just in the cases sent for collection. With that caveat, we rate the Congressional Leadership Fund’s claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Congressional Leadership Fund	None	None	None	2018-09-10T12:00:00	2018-08-17	['None']
-tron-02022	Photos Show Tramp Steamer Full of Immigrants Headed from Libya to Italy	https://www.truthorfiction.com/photos-show-tramp-steamer-full-of-immigrants-headed-from-libya-to-italy/	None	immigration	None	None	None	Photos Show Tramp Steamer Full of Immigrants Headed from Libya to Italy	Oct 9, 2015	None	['Italy', 'Libya']
-para-00080	The Coalition has "only one place" they can go to balance the books — "increasing the GST both in terms of its number but also the breadth of items that it would apply to".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/08/richard-marles/balance-books-only-coalition-plan-increasing-gst-s/index.html	None	['Economy', 'Tax']	Richard Marles	David Humphries, Peter Fray	None	Balance the books? The "only" Coalition plan is increasing the GST, says Labor	Thursday, August 8, 2013 at 7:06 p.m.	None	['Coalition_(Australia)']
-pomt-09080	"When George Bush took office, President Clinton, a Democrat, and the Democratic Congress at the time had left an annual budget that was in surplus."	/rhode-island/statements/2010/jun/25/sheldon-whitehouse/sen-whitehouse-forgets-which-party-controlled-cong/	With polls showing Americans becoming increasingly concerned about the debt, Democrats have been trying to blame President George W. Bush and Republicans for fiscal decisions of the past decade. But in some cases, the Democrats have gotten their facts wrong. In a speech on the Senate floor on June 24, 2010, Democratic U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island criticized the Bush Administration for squandering a federal surplus. "When George Bush took office, President Clinton, a Democrat, and the Democratic Congress at the time had left an annual budget that was in surplus," Whitehouse said. "It was returning more money to the federal government than we were spending. It was an annual budget in surplus. We had a national debt at the time, but with the annual budget in surplus, our Congressional Budget Office — the nonpartisan, not Republican, not Democratic, professional Congressional Budget Office — had estimated that, when George Bush took office, we would be a debt-free nation by 2009. We would be a debt-free nation by 2009. That was the trajectory that Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress left, along with those annual budget surpluses, when George Bush and the Republicans took office." We won't delve into the varying degrees of blame that Clinton and Bush deserve for the current deficit and debt in this item. But when Whitehouse says that "Clinton, a Democrat, and the Democratic Congress at the time had left an annual budget that was in surplus," he's wrong. When Clinton handed over the reins to Bush, there was a Republican Congress, not a Democratic one. In fact, it wasn't even a close call: For the last six years of Clinton's term, the GOP had been in control of both the House and the Senate. We'll note that on the numbers, rather than the party labels, Whitehouse is correct. In 2000, Clinton's final year in office, the federal government ran a surplus of $236 billion. The following year, Bush's first as president, the surplus was $128 billion. That was the last time the government ran a surplus, at least as of now. In early 2001, the CBO did indeed predict surpluses as far as the eye could see -- enough to eliminate the debt by 2009, as Whitehouse said. When we contacted Whitehouse's office, a spokesman acknowledged that the statement could have been articulated more clearly, but added that the senator was referring to the 1993 Clinton budget, which was passed narrowly by a Democratic House and Senate with widespread Republican opposition. Many economists argue that this blueprint set the table for the budget surpluses of the 1990s. So we see where Whitehouse, who got elected to the Senate in 2006, is coming from with this explanation. But when we looked at the words he spoke on the Senate floor, we decided that they did not indicate he was referring to the 1993 budget. In cases where we think someone simply misspoke inadvertently, we give them leeway. And we'll credit Whitehouse for repeating the numbers accurately. But in this case, Whitehouse said the same mistake twice -- and it was crucial to the point he was making on assigning partisan blame. Any listener not intimately familiar with budget legislation from the 1990s would be led to believe that the Democrats controlled Congress when Bush became president. So even though the mistake was inadvertent, we think it's sufficiently noteworthy to call out Whitehouse. We rate his statement False.	None	Sheldon Whitehouse	None	None	None	2010-06-25T15:37:07	2010-06-24	['Bill_Clinton', 'United_States_Congress', 'Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'George_W._Bush']
-pomt-00267	Says Tammy Baldwin was the only member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation "to have a report outlining that a doctor was overprescribing opioids" at the Tomah VA, "later a veteran died" and Baldwin "covered it up."	/wisconsin/statements/2018/oct/03/leah-vukmir/leah-vukmir-partially-accurate-faulting-tammy-bald/	On the campaign trail and in radio talk show interviews, Leah Vukmir has attacked U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin for months over the scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Tomah, Wis., where veterans were over prescribed opioid painkillers. But as the Nov. 6, 2018, election draws nearer, the Republican challenger’s attacks on the Democratic incumbent are reaching a crescendo. Vukmir hammered Baldwin again over the Tomah VA scandal on TV public affairs programs that aired Sept. 23, 2018 in Green Bay and in Madison. They were something of a prelude to a TV attack ad on the scandal that Vukmir aired three days later. So, let’s take a look at one of the attacks. Vukmir was asked on "Capital City Sunday" on WKOW-TV in Madison how she would have handled the Tomah VA matter differently. She responded by claiming that Baldwin was the only member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation "to have a report outlining that a doctor was overprescribing opioids" at the Tomah VA, "later a veteran died" and Baldwin "covered it up." All our Tammy Baldwin and Leah Vukmir fact checks in the U.S. Senate race. Let’s break down the three-part attack, starting with a quick review about what we know about Tomah. The scandal Problems at the Tomah VA first made news in January 2015, when the California-based Center for Investigative Reporting exposed the overprescription of opioid drugs by the facility. Doctors were handing out so many narcotic painkillers that some veterans had taken to calling the place "Candy Land." The attacks on Baldwin began in early 2017 from a super PAC largely funded by Republican Richard Uihlein, co-founder of Uline, a Wisconsin shipping and packaging supplies distributor. The group claimed in a radio ad that Baldwin was told by a whistleblower about "overmedicated veterans," she made "deadly mistakes" and "three veterans died." We rated that False, based on how and when the deaths occurred and the "deadly mistakes" part of the claim. Now to Vukmir’s claim, which doesn’t go so far as to blame Baldwin for a death. 1. Baldwin ‘only one’ to have a report The first part of Vukmir’s claim is that, among the Wisconsin members of the U.S. House and Senate, only Baldwin received a report "outlining that a doctor was overprescribing opioids" at the Tomah VA." The report was done by the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General following a 2½-year investigation of Tomah. Baldwin’s office received it on Aug. 29, 2014. Baldwin did not make the report public, though she shared it with a constituent who had complained to her about what was happening at Tomah. The report was not given to any other member of Congress at the time. So, Baldwin had been informed about the problems at the Tomah VA before they were exposed publicly. And she doesn’t dispute that she was the first member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation to get the report. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter: @PolitiFactWisc. 2. ‘Later a veteran died’ Former Marine Jason Simcakoski died of a "mixed use toxicity" overdose at the Tomah VA while being treated by doctors there. Simcakoski had checked himself into the facility citing an addiction to painkillers and severe anxiety. He was prescribed 15 drugs, including anti-psychotics, tranquilizers, muscle relaxants and the opioid painkiller tramadol. Simcakoski death, however, occurred Aug. 30, 2014 — just one day after Baldwin received the VA inspector general’s report about Tomah that Vukmir highlights. So, it’s misleading to say "later a veteran died," given that Baldwin had not had time to act on the report. 3. Baldwin ‘covered it up’ The third part of Vukmir’s claim is that Baldwin "covered it up" — a reference to the entire Tomah VA matter, not solely to Simcakoski’s death. In the interview, Vukmir elaborates by saying Baldwin tried to "fire one of her aides that brought the issue forward, offering the aide "taxpayer hush money" and hiring "Hillary Clinton's attorneys" to "cover this up." Let’s break down these sub-points. An important point: It’s clear Baldwin did not take steps publicly on the scandal until the Center for Investigative Reporting’s expose — months after she received the inspector general’s report and Simcakoski’s death. At the same time, there is no evidence that she took active steps to cover up the matter. Firing: Baldwin did fire an aide, but it’s not entirely clear she did so because the aide "brought the issue forward." In January 2015, after the Center for Investigative Reporting’s expose, Baldwin had called for the VA to investigate Tomah but remained under fire for inaction on the scandal. Baldwin then fired Marquette Baylor, her deputy state director, without explanation, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed. Whistleblower and former Tomah VA employee Ryan Honl told the newspaper he had talked with Baylor for two hours in late November 2014 about the Tomah VA and that she discouraged him from going public with his concerns, saying that doing so might get her and others fired. Baylor later said she had prepared three memos on the Tomah situation for Baldwin's review and forwarded them to her supervisors; she alleged they were either not delivered to Baldwin or were ignored by Baldwin. ‘Hush money’, Clinton lawyer: Baldwin did offer a severance payment to the fired aide and did hire a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer. But this needs further explanation. As part of the firing, Baldwin's office offered a severance package to Baylor that would have included a confidentiality agreement and a payment, the Journal Sentinel reported. Attorney Marc Elias, who was the top lawyer in Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, was hired by Baldwin with campaign funds to review how her office handled the Tomah VA matter. He said the U.S. Senate's chief employment lawyer had helped put together the offer and described the confidentiality clause as routine. Baldwin later said the deal would have included a payment of about $17,000, which would have been from Senate funds. Baylor later rejected the offer and, according to Baldwin, sought more than four times that amount. All our Tony Evers and Scott Walker fact checks in the governor’s race. Elias said Baylor’s handling of the Tomah VA matter was only one reason she was fired. ‘Cover up’: In addition to not releasing the inspector general report, Baldwin was slow to address the Tomah VA matter publicly. But ethics complaints filed against her alleging a cover up were found to have no merit. Baldwin avoided questions about the matter for weeks after the Center for Investigative Reporting’s expose; and it took attorney Elias nearly a month to confirm Baylor’s firing. After being fired, Baylor filed an ethics complaint accusing Baldwin of engaging in a political cover up by firing her for her alleged role in the mishandling of a whistleblower complaint. The complaint asked the U.S. Senate Ethics Select Committee to investigate Baldwin. The committee dismissed Baylor’s complaint and two similar complaints filed by groups, saying they lacked merit. Our rating Vukmir says Baldwin was the only member of the Wisconsin congressional delegation "to have a report outlining that a doctor was overprescribing opioids" at the Tomah VA, "later a veteran died" and Baldwin "covered it up." Baldwin was the only one, and she didn’t make the report public or go public with her concerns until the scandal made news. But she received the report only a day before the veteran died. On the cover up part of the claim, there was on inaction on Baldwin’s part -- not releasing the report, declining for weeks to answer questions and to confirm that she had fired a top aide. But there is no evidence Baldwin took active steps to cover up the matter, and a Senate committee determined that Baldwin had not engaged in a cover up. For a statement that contains elements of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, our rating is Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Leah Vukmir	None	None	None	2018-10-03T04:47:44	2018-09-23	['Tammy_Baldwin', 'Wisconsin']
-snes-04292	A Darboy Walmart shopper encountered human traffickers using an unexpected menstrual period as a ruse, and a nearby police officer confirmed the interaction was a "new trick" used to abduct women.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/darboy-walmart-abduction-warning/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Darboy Walmart Abduction Warning	8 August 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-08186	"Oregon, once again, remains among the top five hungriest states in the nation."	/oregon/statements/2010/nov/27/oregon-food-bank/oregon-one-nations-most-food-insecure-states-it-am/	Oregon doesn’t have a stellar track record in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual report on hunger, or as the report refers to it, food insecurity. The state is routinely above the national average and, despite much research, experts still aren’t sure exactly how to go about reversing this trend or, for that matter, why it exists at all. Whatever the case, the trend continues, and as proof we have the most recent study from the USDA. We also have a press release from the Oregon Food Bank alerting us all to the realities detailed within the report. "Hunger in Oregon continued to hover far above the national average as the Great Recession battered Oregon’s economy, according to the 2009 hunger report released today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture." It continues: "Oregon, once again, remains among the top five hungriest states in the nation, as it was last year." There’s a pretty big tendency, whether you’re writing a press release or a news article, to take this sort of data and compare one state to the next. In fact, that tendency is so strong, that while we were looking into the Oregon Food Bank’s assertion that our state is "among the top five hungriest in the nation" we came upon at least three articles that went one further and called Oregon the third hungriest state. There was a column in The Oregonian, an article in The Statesman Journaland a short brief by The Associated Press. But rarely -- heck, never -- are statistics so simple. We decided to see whether the report really backed up these various assertions. We started with the Food Bank itself to see which information from the report it was using to back up the "among the top five" claim. Jean Kempe-Ware, the spokeswoman, pointed us to the table that shows the "prevalence of household-level food insecurity and very low food security by state" for 2007-2009. The report offers two numbers for each state. The first is the percent of households that are suffering from either low or very low food security. The second category focuses on just those households suffering very low food security. In previous years, that category, she said, had been described as "hungry." Kempe-Ware said she focused on that second category. If you rank the states from highest rate to lowest rate, Oregon winds up in third place at 6.6 percent or, to put it another way, ahead of 47 other states. Now, this is where the state media seem to have stopped. By this measurement, Oregon is the third highest for those feeling extremely food insecure. To her credit -- and in an effort to be better safe than sorry -- Kempe-Ware went one further than the journalists and also looked at whether the state’s position would change much if you considered Oregon’s margin of error of plus or minus 1.02 percent. If you apply each state’s margin, in either direction, at the same time, Oregon winds up in fifth place, ahead of 45 other states. (It’s important to note here that the margin of error varies by state depending on how many residents were surveyed and the state’s overall population.) Based on these numbers and some additional advice, Kempe-Ware said "among the top five" felt like a fair estimate to her. We can see why. But there’s a lot more happening in these numbers that is worth exploring. For starters, we wanted to take a look at the first category that includes not just very low food security but also low food security. If you look at that number, Oregon’s prevalence of food insecurity jumps to 13.9 percent, but it ranks at 18th highest, or, to put it more accurately, it comes in higher than 32 other states. Not great marks, but certainly better than third or fifth. That’s just the beginning, however. The rankings that we’ve outlined here are all suspect. Just because Oregon might be near the low side of its margin of error doesn’t mean all other states will be. Of course, there are national factors that would probably weigh on all states, but for statistical purposes, there are a lot of possible variations. Let’s go back to the Food Bank’s preferred "very low food security" level. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that Oregon’s rate is the lowest statistically possible, meaning 5.58 percent (that’s the initial estimate of 6.6 percent minus the 1.02 percent margin), but all the other states are at the high end of their margin. Well, that would put Oregon higher than just 18 other states. Conversely, if Oregon’s rate were the highest possible and all other states were at their lowest, Oregon would rank the out and out hungriest. The take-away: Oregon can appear first or lower than 31 other states. If you use the first set of numbers (remember low and very low food security?) you get an equally perplexing range of 3rd to 43rd highest. For more input we turned to Mark Nord, one of the authors of the USDA report. He helped shed light on a few points. First, he said, it was pretty apparent that Oregon was among the nation’s leaders in very low food security. But, he said, "we kind of discourage ranking by indicating how large the margins of error are. What we try to emphasize is states that are above the national average and states that are below the national average." Oregon is above the national average. Mark Edwards, an associate professor of sociology at Oregon State University who has helped advise the Oregon Food Bank on this report and has also been tracking and looking into the causes of food insecurity in Oregon for the last decade, said much same. The numbers allow for a lot of leeway in all directions, Edwards agrees, but he still maintains that the report highlighted real problems with hunger in Oregon. As proof he pointed to past reports that have consistently showed Oregon near the top. "The fact that we repeatedly come out higher than other states convinces me that there's something unique going on in Oregon that's a problem." There are, naturally, other broader issues with the survey, according to its detractors. John Charles at the conservative-leaning Cascade Policy Institute said the study’s findings, which depend on the respondents’ subjective interpretations of various questions, offer little hard data. Instead, he said, the jobless rate might offer a better indication of how many individuals are struggling to get by. That number -- 10.5 percent -- and the food stamp rate -- one in five Oregonians -- also indicate a lot of people in Oregon who have trouble buying food. We can see why Kempe-Ware felt that "among the five hungriest" was a safe statement. We can even see why some journalists felt that "third highest" was appropriate (we might have been tempted to use the same language ourselves). There are some numbers here that would appear to back them up. And two experts agree that Oregon is on the high end of things -- certainly higher than the national average. Still, those same two experts discourage out-and-out rankings. Then there’s the fact that quite a bit of variation is possible no matter how you look at the numbers. For those reasons, we rate this claim Half True.	None	Oregon Food Bank	None	None	None	2010-11-27T06:00:00	2010-11-15	['None']
-pose-00087	"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest $10 billion per year in early intervention educational and developmental programs for children between zero and five. Their plan will help expand Early Head Start to serve more children with disabilities, and will spur states, through programs like Early Learning Challenge Grants, to expand programs for children with disabilities, such as IDEA Part C, and integrate these programs with other early childhood programs."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/90/invest-10-billion-per-year-in-early-intervention-/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Invest $10 billion per year in early intervention educational and developmental programs	2010-01-07T13:26:47	None	['Joe_Biden', 'Barack_Obama']
-tron-03337	Vatican No Longer Believes Jesus is Coming Back	https://www.truthorfiction.com/vatican-no-longer-believes-jesus-coming-back/	None	religious	None	None	None	Vatican No Longer Believes Jesus is Coming Back	Jul 27, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-02417	A young boy named Dakota was air lifted to the hospital after having a seizure.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prayers-for-dakota/	None	Inboxer Rebellion	None	Dan Evon	None	Prayers for Dakota	21 December 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-05519	Says "unemployment tripled" in Dane County due to Kathleen Falk’s tax policies	/wisconsin/statements/2012/apr/12/republican-governors-association/republican-governors-association-says-unemployment/	Enter the phrase "Madison liberal" into Google and up pop 17,000 hits. Many of those involve conservatives affixing that label to Kathleen Falk, the labor-backed Democrat seeking to take on Republican Gov. Scott Walker in the June 5, 2012 recall election. As the recall election became official, the pro-Walker Republican Governors Association got in on the action. In a TV ad by its political arm (Right Direction Wisconsin PAC), the group features a mock Internet search on Falk, who was the Dane County executive from April 1997 to April 2011. (It’s similar to the ad taking on Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, another Democratic candidate in the race, a claim we already evaluated) "Kathleen Falk is a longtime Madison politician," the narrator says as search results pop up. "Huh." "Backed by government employee unions. Oh boy." It continues: "She raised taxes every year she was county executive. Huuuuh. And under her watch, unemployment tripled. Oh oh." The narrator’s final words: "Typical liberal Madison politician. Raised taxes and lost jobs. Kathleen Falk for governor? I don’t think so." We previously rated True a claim by Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch that Falk raised property taxes by millions of dollars every year and approved the second highest increase in the state in 2010. But what about the joblessness claim -- that unemployment tripled during her time? And that the blame for the rise falls solidly on Falk’s shoulders? The numbers Dane County’s low unemployment rate compared with the rest of Wisconsin is notable. The county’s rate is typically a couple percentage points or more lower than Wisconsin as a whole, thanks in part to state government and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show. Unemployment was at just 1.7 percent when Falk took office in April 1997, and in her first full month on the job dipped to 1.5 percent. It held mostly under 3 percent until 2002, hovered between 3 and 4 percent until 2009, then spiked up for almost two years before receding a bit as she left office in April 2011. Dane County was growing at the time and overall employment was up, but the labor market couldn’t keep up with those seeking work. When Falk stepped down, the unemployment rate was at 5.2 percent, compared to Wisconsin’s overall rate of 7.5. In sum, the county’s unemployment rate grew during her tenure. Did it triple? It more than tripled if you compare the rate in her first full month to her last full month. The same is true when comparing the raw number of unemployed at those two points. And the same is true if you use her partial month in April 1997 as the baseline. There’s still another way to get there: When unemployment reached 6.7 percent at its height during her term, that was well over three times higher than Dane County’s rate when she came in. So the RGA is solid on the numbers. Responsibility But beyond the numbers the ad asserts that Falk and her policies were directly responsible for the jump. In the ad, the narrator notes the increase happened "under her watch." A website the RGA PAC set up to accompany the ad makes a stronger cause-and-effect link: "With Kathleen Falk’s tax hikes, came higher unemployment, too." As noted, taxes did go up. And some economists link high taxation to limits on economic growth. But it’s a stretch to pin the ups and downs of the economy in Dane County solely on Falk alone, much less pinpoint her tax increases alone. The trends are the work of multiple forces at the local, state, national and global level. The two big spikes in unemployment during Falk’s time coincided with national recessions, the latest fueled by the global meltdown in housing and financial markets. And on taxes, Falk mostly held to a yearly tax hike tied to inflation plus population growth. Only 15 of the state’s 72 counties had a lower cumulative tax levy increase during the time she was exec, we found in an earlier item. In short, the RGA claim is accurate on the numbers, but misfires by tying Falk so closely to the unemployment rise. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Republican Governors Association	None	None	None	2012-04-12T09:00:00	2012-03-29	['Kathleen_Falk']
-goop-00879	“Keeping Up With The Kardashians” Ending Over Caitlyn Jenner Drama?	https://www.gossipcop.com/keeping-up-with-the-kardashians-ending-false/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	“Keeping Up With The Kardashians” Ending Over Caitlyn Jenner Drama?	1:05 pm, June 5, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-14097	"Big rooftop solar's plan forces Nevada families who don’t have solar panels to pay higher power bills to subsidize rooftop solar."	/nevada/statements/2016/may/13/solar-energy-fairness/solar-subsidy-claims-need-more-evidence/	A group backed by Nevada’s energy monopoly is airing television ads that aim to cast a shadow over the well-publicized complaints of the rooftop solar industry. Solar Energy Fairness (which is backed by NV Energy, the state’s electric service monopoly) is airing an ad throughout Nevada with a narrator warning that "big rooftop solar" is trying to trick consumers into supporting a "government-mandated subsidy with no limits." "Big rooftop solar's plan forces Nevada families who don’t have solar panels to pay higher power bills to subsidize rooftop solar," it warns. The rooftop solar battle has seen angry protests and everyone from presidential candidates to actor Mark Ruffalo speaking out on the issue, so we thought the subsidy question was one that needed to be answered. A primer on net metering The gist of the subsidies question centers around Nevada’s net-metering program. Like most states, Nevada has a net-metering law that allows ratepayers who install solar panels and microturbines to sell excess energy they generate for use by their neighbor. Lawmakers created the program in 1997 to encourage shifting more of the state’s energy production to renewable sources. Generally, the idea is that utility companies will buy excess energy at the retail rate, so the "seller" is charged only for their net energy use. The process is an incentive for customers to make the investment in solar energy to lower their power bills. Critics of net metering, however, say solar customers are getting an unfair advantage because they’re not paying for the network that harnesses and distributes electricity. And in 2015, Nevada’s Public Utilities Commission agreed. The regulatory group effectively lowered the amount of credits solar customers can receive after determining that net metering participants were receiving an unreasonable subsidy. That prompted a revolt from solar companies, who left the state in mass, laying off workers and fighting to reverse the commission’s ruling through the ballot. The evidence Solar Energy Fairness (the group behind the ad) claimed that net-metering participants in Southern Nevada received $623 in annual subsidies under the former plan. In Northern Nevada, the annual subsidy was $471, the group claimed. In explaining the regulatory change, the PUC said that net-metering participants see a cost shift, or subsidy, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over an extended period of time. That cost-shift contradicted a 2015 Legislative directive to reduce any "unreasonable shifting of costs" from net-metering participants to other energy customers. But net-metering customers make up a tiny percentage of all energy customers in the state, so the commission’s highest estimate of a per-month subsidy for other power customers would be between $1-3 a month, depending on inclusion of a rebate program. While the ad itself refers specifically to the net-metering program, it’s worth noting Nevada has previously subsidized rooftop solar installation to the tune of $225 million through a rebate program approved by the state Legislature. Arriving at a figure Determining the exact subsidy figure is complicated. Utility commissioners outlined 11 possible variables in their ruling to determine the value of the net metering. It included a broad range of possible costs and benefits, ranging from the avoided energy that would be needed to replace locally produced solar electricity, total grid capacity and the possible social and environmental boons. The sticking point for many is that the commission only used two of the 11 factors (reduced line losses and capacity) when determining the value of excess energy produced through net metering — the other nine were not used because they were difficult to quantify. Rooftop solar advocates, like Chandler Sherman of advocacy group Bring Back Solar, say omission of the other nine factors nullifies the subsidy argument entirely. "These are real tangible benefits," she said. "This is real dollars and cents the utility is saving." The problem is that arriving at a more balanced measurement of the full costs and benefits of net metering is really difficult. Devin Hartman, a former energy analyst with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wrote a policy brief criticizing the "utter lack of convincing evidence of cost-shifting" in the commission's report. But he acknowledged that actually putting down a dollar figure for some of the benefits can be speculative as well. Ashley Brown, a former Ohio utility commissioner and current director of the Harvard Electricity Policy Group, said expanded rooftop solar penetration undermines the ability of utility commissions to set rates, and said the presumed benefits generally are outweighed by costs. "Solar is intermittent," he said. "You have to ignore it for purposes of planning capacity." Hartman told PolitiFact that the existence of a net-metering subsidy depends on variable market factors, but writing off all potential benefits likely leads to a flawed outcome. "Methodologically, you can come up with a better estimate than saying, ‘we just don’t have anything,’ " he said. "There was room for improvement, even though the task itself was very difficult." Another difficulty is the lack of standardized metrics used to measure potential net metering subsidies. A 2013 Rocky Mountain Institute study found many states overlap in their measurements of cost and benefits, but contain a "significant range of estimated value across studies." An independent analysis Both sides point to an independent analysis of Nevada’s net-metering program, done by Energy+Environmental Economics in July 2014 at the request of the commission. Rooftop solar advocates often refer to a section proclaiming a $36 million benefit for all consumers through net metering, but several factors in the study — like the price of solar per megawatt hour — have substantially changed since the report was issued in 2014. Still, it’s worth noting that study did not detect a major cost shift either way. Solar Energy Fairness spokeswoman Nicole Willis-Grimes said the Legislature has requested an update to the "E3" study, and Bring Back Solar’s Sherman says that SolarCity and non-profit group Natural Resources Defense Council are preparing their own study on the alleged cost-shift. Best estimates So what does all of this mean for the average energy customer who isn’t in the net-metering program? The subsidy figure used by Solar Energy Fairness likely represents the worst-case scenario, as it’s difficult to foretell the actual cost and benefits of the net metering program because so many factors have changed since the last independent report was filed in 2014. Though the assumed monthly subsidy cost is relatively small, Solar Energy Fairness spokeswoman Nicole Willis-Grimes notes that the number of net-metering applications skyrocketed in 2015 — going from around 6,000 participants between 1997 and June 2016 to more than 24,000 applications over the following six months. Our ruling A pro-NV Energy backed group is running ads claiming that "Nevada families who don’t have solar panels to pay higher power bills to subsidize rooftop solar." The net-metering subsidy question is complex and likely takes more than a 30-second television ad to explain in full. The root of the subsidy claim comes from a Public Utilities Commission decision that has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on the costs of the program. Rooftop solar systems have traditionally seen subsidies on both the state and federal level, but without hard evidence of a cost-shift occurring under the previous net metering rates, it’s a difficult argument to hold up. The reality is more complicated than Solar Energy Fairness puts on. We rate this claim as Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a31514aa-c154-4824-9ec9-400e0a178cdf	None	Solar Energy Fairness	None	None	None	2016-05-13T15:36:03	2016-04-13	['Nevada']
-chct-00339	FACT CHECK: Is America’s Drug Epidemic The ‘Deadliest’ In History?	http://checkyourfact.com/2017/08/31/fact-check-is-the-current-drug-epidemic-the-deadliest-in-us-history/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	4:27 PM 08/31/2017	None	['None']
-snes-01780	An image depicts a grieving obstetrician after his patient gave birth to a long-awaited baby and died.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctor-mourning-previously-infertile-mother/	None	Glurge Gallery	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Is this a Doctor Mourning for a Mother Who Died During Childbirth?	6 September 2017	None	['None']
-goop-02864	Jennifer Garner “Getting Cozy” With Ben Affleck Lookalike Bodyguard, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-bodyguard-ben-affleck-lookalike-dating/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Jennifer Garner NOT “Getting Cozy” With Ben Affleck Lookalike Bodyguard, Despite Report	9:50 am, April 14, 2017	None	['None']
-peck-00025	Are More Tanzanians Dying From Hepatitis Than From HIV/AIDS?	https://pesacheck.org/are-more-tanzanians-dying-from-hepatitis-than-from-hiv-aids-e14519a86ac7	None	None	None	Belinda Japhet	None	Are More Tanzanians Dying From Hepatitis Than From HIV/AIDS?	Sep 19, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-05664	The artificial sweetener aspartame is responsible for an epidemic of cancer, brain tumors, and multiple sclerosis.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aspartame-sweet-poison/	None	Medical	None	Snopes Staff	None	Is Aspartame Responsible for ‘An Epidemic of Multiple Sclerosis and Lupus’?	1 February 1999	None	['None']
-vogo-00402	Statement: “I think you, the collective media, have made it all about elected officials,” District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis told us in an interview about the focus of her Public Integrity Unit.	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/fact-check-d-a-says-the-media-did-it/	Analysis: In 2007, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis set up a Public Integrity Unit with much fanfare. Four years later, it had seemingly gone quiet. I decided to take a look back at the unit’s work and found that it had prosecuted just three elected officials, only one of which resulted in punitive action — a $1,000 fine.	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: D.A. Says the Media Did It	April 19, 2011	None	['Bonnie_Dumanis']
-pomt-10394	"I've supported every investigation (into Hurricane Katrina) and ways of finding out how – what caused the tragedy. I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the governor."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/11/john-mccain/with-two-notable-exceptions/	One of the ways Sen. John McCain is trying to put distance between himself and President Bush is by criticizing the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina. But to pull it off, he's having to sidestep politically sensitive votes he took in 2005 and 2006 to limit Democrats' ability to investigate federal response to the disaster. At a press conference in Baton Rouge, La., on June 4, 2008, the presumptive Republican nominee was asked why he twice opposed creation of an independent commission to probe such issues as the government's role and the impact of the storm. McCain responded that he had backed every probe into the disaster. "I've supported every investigation (into Hurricane Katrina) and ways of finding out how — what caused the tragedy," McCain replied. "I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the governor." But McCain twice joined other Senate Republicans to beat back Democratic efforts led by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to launch an independent probe that could have embarrassed the administration. Those efforts came at a time of particularly bitter recriminations over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, while the White House was refusing to release certain documents or to make senior officials available for sworn testimony before Congress, citing the confidentiality of executive branch communications. In the GOP-controlled Senate, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee had launched a probe of the federal role in hurricane preparedness and its response. Republican leaders expressed faith in the bipartisan investigation and derided Democratic efforts to charter an independent commission to conduct a parallel inquiry. An aide to then-Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., called amendments to establish an independent Katrina commission "taxpayer-funded flatulence that would just waste time and money to distract from the inquiry already well under way in the Senate." On Sept. 14, 2005, McCain and 53 other Senate Republicans rejected an effort by Clinton to establish the commission by attaching an amendment to a spending bill. Republicans said the move violated Senate rules, by attempting to legislate policy via a spending bill. Less than five months later, on Feb. 2, 2006, McCain joined with 52 Senate Republicans in a vote to kill a Clinton effort to attach a similar amendment to a tax bill. The Republicans countered Clinton's proposal by offering to create a bipartisan congressional committee consisting of senators and representatives to examine the hurricane response, but Democrats rejected the idea. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee each pounced on McCain's gaffe, sending e-mails providing the dates and vote numbers of the two Senate votes. "John McCain seems perfectly comfortable misleading the American people rather than telling them the truth," said DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the Arizona senator was not familiar with the votes referenced in the question at the press conference, and was referring to his support for the Senate Homeland Security Committee investigation that was ongoing while Clinton offered her amendment. He issued a statement chastising Obama for launching "tired negative attacks." As for McCain's claim that he met with "people on the ground" and then-Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco, his campaign would not provide information to back it up. But in March 2006, McCain was among the first senators to visit stricken districts of New Orleans, partly at the behest of the community activist group Women of the Storm, and he subsequently called for expanded funding to rebuild portions of the city. Media accounts of the visit state he was briefed by civic and business leaders and Army Corps of Engineers officials. Though there are no accounts of McCain and Blanco meeting, McCain and Louisiana state officials did consult on hurricane-related matters, such as in late 2006, when he was a player in unsuccessful House-Senate negotiations over a water resources bill that took up how much oversight to apply to future Army Corps of Engineers projects. McCain clearly showed empathy over the government's response to the disaster and the scope of the damage. But he overlooked his participation in two outright Senate rejections of Democratic efforts to establish an independent Katrina commission, so we rate his claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-06-11T00:00:00	2008-06-04	['Hurricane_Katrina']
-pomt-13103	Says "Ron Johnson calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme and wants to privatize the program."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/04/americans-united-change/does-gop-wisconsin-sen-ron-johnson-call-social-sec/	Social Security is one of the most commonly used vehicles for attack ads in election campaigns. And the Wisconsin U.S. Senate race, which will be decided Nov. 8, 2016, is no exception. Republican incumbent Ron Johnson said his Democratic challenger, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, "voted to raise taxes on Social Security benefits for seniors" and "tried to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants." Our rating was Mostly False. Feingold did support a measure that increased taxes on Social Security benefits for higher-income seniors, not across the board, but did not try to give benefits to illegal immigrants. Mostly False was also our rating when the Wisconsin Democratic Party said Johnson "supported a plan to cut benefits and raise the retirement age" for Social Security. Johnson has said he is open to considering such proposals and he voted for a federal budget proposal that contained them. But voting for a federal budget proposal and its myriad programs isn’t an explicit show of support for cutting benefits and raising the retirement age for Social Security. (Go here to see all of our fact checks in the Johnson-Feingold race.) Now comes Americans United for Change, a liberal advocacy group that released an ad Oct. 26, 2016 that makes this claim: "Ron Johnson calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme and wants to privatize the program." We’ll check both parts. ‘Ponzi scheme’ During the U.S. Senate campaign in 2010, in which Johnson ousted Feingold, Johnson said Washington politicians "run Social Security like a Ponzi scheme" (a claim we rated Mostly False). A Ponzi scheme is illegal -- it’s an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Johnson has emphasized the pay-as-you-go nature of Social Security -- using taxes on today’s wage earners to fund the retirement checks of millions of Americans -- and decried the "raiding" of the Social Security trust fund. The claim from Americans United for Change, though, is that Johnson currently calls Social Security a Ponzi, not that it’s run like one. The Huffington Post reported that Johnson told a local Americans for Prosperity group in June 2016: "We’ve got to convince more of our fellow citizens that Social Security really is — and by the way, I was wrong when I said this in 2010, I said it’s a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal. So, Social Security is — it’s a legal Ponzi scheme." Johnson has also called Social Security a legal Ponzi scheme on other occasions during the current campaign. ‘Privatize the program’ The Huffington Post article said Johnson supported privatizing Social Security, but that the public wasn’t ready for the idea. He was quoted as saying: "Currently, politically, you can’t do it." The article didn’t say whether Johnson explained what sort of privatizing he would favor. Johnson’s campaign did not dispute the Huffington Post story, which the website said was based on a recording it obtained. The campaign told us Johnson is willing "to consider any serious proposal that would protect Social Security." In 2015, Johnson told a small of group of people he would "take a look" at a form of privatization, according to a video clip that was posted to YouTube. He said perhaps he would be open to raising taxes for Social Security if people could keep part of the funds rather than having them go to the Social Security fund. Johnson also said it "was a shame" that a privatization initiative from President George W. Bush wasn’t explored more fully. And that brings up an important point. The claim that Johnson "wants to privatize the program" could be taken to mean a complete privatization. But there is no indication he backs that. The Bush initiative amounted to partial privatization. It would have allowed younger workers to contribute portions of payroll taxes into government-approved private mutual fund accounts. Our rating Americans United for Change says: "Ron Johnson calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme and wants to privatize the program." Ponzi schemes are illegal. Johnson calls Social Security a legal Ponzi scheme to emphasize that it uses taxes on today’s wage earners to fund the retirement checks of millions of Americans. Johnson has expressed support for some form of privatization of Social Security, such as allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security contributions, but it’s not clear that he backs complete privatization. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/9edf489e-cf8b-41ad-b0f3-359c9ac03823	None	Americans United for Change	None	None	None	2016-11-04T19:11:47	2016-10-26	['None']
-hoer-01305	Friend Request From Someone You Are Already Friends With Alert Message	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/friend-request-from-someone-you-are-already-friends/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Friend Request From Someone You Are Already Friends With Alert Message	March 3, 2014	None	['None']
-vees-00374	In a press briefing in Malacanang Sept. 5, Santiago was asked about the war on drugs, and when he thinks it would be over. (See VERA FILES FACT CHECK: In his own words: Duterte's drug war, so far)	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-ddb-chair-santiago-repeats-duterte-pub	Like Duterte, who earlier, including in his second State of the Nation Address, talked about procurement of goods and services for the military, Santiago is wrong. (See VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Can the president order COA to bypass gov't bidding rules?; VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Duterte orders breach of bidding rules anew)	None	None	None	Duterte,DDB,procurement,bidding	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: DDB Chair Santiago repeats Duterte public bidding flub	September 13, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03076	Says Maggie Hassan is the only female governor in the country.	/new-hampshire/statements/2013/sep/27/nh-afl-cio/new-hampshire-afl-cio-says-maggie-hassan-only-fema/	New Hampshire voters made a splash in November 2012 by sending the country’s first all-female delegation to Congress. The state also elected Democrat Maggie Hassan as its governor. With women continuing to be underrepresented politics, the electoral sweep garnered national attention, including from political powerhouse EMILY’s List, which backs female candidates. EMILY’s List hosted its second "Madam President" town hall discussion in Manchester, N.H., on Friday, Sept. 27, 2013. Hassan was among the speakers at the event, which focused on promoting women candidates for political office, including the presidency. Coverage of the event quickly took to social media. "At Emily list event in manchester nh," reads a message posted to the NH AFL-CIO’s Twitter account on Friday morning, Sept. 27. "Gov Hassen (sic) address a gathering as only women governor in the country." People quickly took to Twitter to tweak the tweeter’s grammar — and also to challenge the assertion that Hassan stands alone as the only female governor in the country. So we decided to check into it. Hassan is actually one of five women who are currently serving as governors. She’s joined by Republicans Jan Brewer of Arizona, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and Susana Martinez of New Mexico. Hassan is the only Democrat in the bunch -- and female governors are scarce. The Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey has compiled a definitive history of the country’s female governors. The center determined that 35 women have served as governors in 26 states. The first state to elect a female governor was Wyoming, where voters put Nellie Tayloe Ross into office in 1924. Before that, the former Wyoming Territories also passed the first law in U.S. history explicitly granting women the right to vote. Wyoming went on to approve the first constitution in the world granting full voting rights to women in 1889. In New Hampshire, former state Senate President Vesta Roy holds the title of the first woman to serve as governor. Roy, a Republican, held the position for seven days after the death of Gov. Hugh Gallen in 1982. She was replaced a week later when Gov. John H. Sununu was sworn into office. The Granite State's first elected female governor was Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, who served from 1997-2003, and was later elected to the U.S. Senate. Arizona claims the title of the first state to elect four women to serve as governor. It was also the first state to elect two successive women governors. Throughout history, 20 Democratic women and 15 Republican women have served as governors. Before Hassan took office, the last two Democratic governors were Christine Gregoire, of Washington, and Beverly Perdue, of North Carolina, who both served until 2013. Hassan’s distinction as the country’s only Democratic female governor at the moment might have been the distinction the AFL-CIO was aiming for when it tweeted about Hassan’s speech at the event in Manchester. We placed a call to NH AFL-CIO headquarters to inquire about the source of their tweet. President Mark MacKenzie said he was responsible for publishing the information, and acknowledged the error. MacKenzie said he was attempting to summarize information from Hassan’s introduction. "I think I made a mistake," he said. "I’m new at tweeting, and so I was trying to tweet and listen and tweet and listen and take pictures." Our ruling The New Hampshire AFL-CIO stated that Gov. Hassan is the only female governor in the country. While Hassan is the only Democratic governor, she’s one of five women holding governorships around the country. While that’s still far from being representative of the gender balance in the country, Hassan isn’t the only female governor. We rate this claim False.	None	NH AFL-CIO	None	None	None	2013-09-27T18:01:14	2013-09-27	['None']
-pomt-03640	South Carolina has a labor shortage, specifically in the meatpacking industry.	/georgia/statements/2013/may/03/lindsey-graham/graham-points-hard-fill-jobs-immigration-debate/	Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is a member of the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators pushing for comprehensive immigration reform. Graham has repeatedly used his state’s labor issues to justify guest worker programs for low-skilled and agricultural workers. "Nobody wants to displace a willing American worker, but I can tell you in South Carolina there are certain jobs, like in the meatpacking industry, that as an employer you can advertise all day long every day of the week and you’re not going to get that workforce," Graham said during a February 2013 Senate hearing. The senator made similar comments to a South Carolina Rotary Club. "When you go to these meatpacking plants in Saluda (S.C.), harvesting the crops or servicing the hotels along the coast, you may not believe it, but it is true -- there is a shortage of labor in some parts of our economy, even though we have high unemployment," Graham said. We wanted to know whether Graham’s comments about a labor shortage in some areas were correct. South Carolina’s jobless rate is higher than the national rate. That state and Georgia’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 8.4 percent in March. The national rate was 7.6 percent. So why would jobs go unfilled? The issue may be one of wages, not workers, said Steve Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for low levels of immigration. "Real wages in meat/poultry processing have declined about 40 percent in the last 30 years. These are not the lowest-paying jobs, but they are nasty, not pleasant work," he said. "If the job pays dramatically less than it previously did, that means there is a wage issue and not a jobs issue." The national average hourly wage for slaughterers and meatpackers was $11.99 in May 2012. In South Carolina, the average hourly wage was $11.36. In 2010, the national hourly wage for the job was $11.55; South Carolina’s wage was $8.81. Because of the nature of the work and the pay, the jobs may not attract enough applicants, said Mark Grey, an anthropology professor and director of the Iowa Center for Immigrant Leadership and Integration. The nonprofit, nonpartisan center at the University of Northern Iowa notes that its programs incorporate "a strong appreciation for the critical role newcomers play" in the state’s economy. "(Meatpacking) wages have increased, but still at $16 per hour (on the high end), the job would probably not be appealing to anybody with any kind of education," he said. In Saluda County, S.C. -- the area mentioned by Graham -- the unemployment rate for residents with less than a high school diploma was 19.1 percent in 2011, the most recent federal data available. The rate dropped to 10.9 percent for high school graduates with no college. Statewide unemployment that year was 10.5 percent. To sum up, research shows that South Carolina’s unemployment is almost a full percentage point higher than the national average, and the rate for lower-educated residents is even higher. But in the meatpacking industry, the nature of the work and the wages often turn off many American workers, those on both sides of the immigration debate said. Graham said that there was a problem filling certain jobs, even amid high unemployment. But his statement lacks context about wages and conditions in the meatpacking industry. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Lindsey Graham	None	None	None	2013-05-03T00:13:18	2013-02-14	['None']
-goop-00404	Chris Pratt, Katherine Schwarzenegger Engaged, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/chris-pratt-katherine-schwarzenegger-not-engaged/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Chris Pratt, Katherine Schwarzenegger NOT Engaged, Despite Report	2:31 pm, August 22, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05488	"We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/18/barack-obama/president-barack-obama-says-his-administration-has/	President Barack Obama touts his administration’s record holding trade partners accountable by drawing a contrast with President George W. Bush over China. "We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration," he said in an April 13, 2012, speech in Tampa, Fla., before a trip to Colombia. Here’s how he set it up: "Now, one of the ways that we've helped American business sell their products around the world is by calling out our competitors, making sure they're playing by the same rules. For example, we've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration. We just brought a new case last month. And we've set up a trade enforcement unit that's designed to investigate any questionable trade practices taking place anywhere in the world." It’s a claim he’s made before, published in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. We wondered, is it true? ‘The honeymoon’ We asked the White House for support for the president’s claim. Obama referred to cases brought against China before the World Trade Organization, said spokesman Matt Lehrich. The WTO is a group of more than 150 governments that sets and enforces international trade rules. Since the United States and China are both members, it’s a pivotal place they can go to settle disputes with one another. There are other important types of trade cases, such as anti-dumping cases brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission, but those are brought by private industry, said Peg O’Laughlin, public affairs officer for the ITC. Other kinds of enforcement cases include those brought under Section 301 or 201 of U.S. trade laws. They're rare now because, under WTO rules, the United States isn't supposed to regularly turn to that sort of unilateral action, said Paul Blustein, a trade expert with the Brookings Institution. So while there are a wide range of trade measures available, the experts we consulted said focusing on just WTO cases seemed reasonable. The Obama administration has brought six cases against China before the WTO in less than one term, while the Bush administration brought seven cases over two terms — thus, the claim "at nearly twice the rate." But there’s a distinction between the two presidencies, what we’ll call China’s "honeymoon." China joined the WTO in 2001, after Bush took office. At that point, member countries essentially gave China a grace period to follow the new rules. "Business was just rushing into China … those were good days," said Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior fellow for the Peterson Institute for International Economics who writes about U.S.-China trade and worked in the Carter and Ford administrations. "Nobody was wanting to bring cases in particular. (China) probably got more of a grace period than would normally be expected because of the business boom." The United States became the first country to file a trade case, over trade barriers against integrated circuits, in March 2004. Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in 2004 that China had needed time to adjust its tax and regulatory policies to comply with WTO standards, but that after two years "the honeymoon" was over, according to Congressional Quarterly and other news organizations. The Obama administration, on the other hand, had no such delay — plus it could take advantage of work started under Bush to file a first case within six months of taking office. That’s not to say Democrats back in 2004 weren’t arguing the Bush administration could have acted sooner. "One case brought as a political talking point does not make up for the administration's failure to develop a China trade policy over the past three years," Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top-ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, was quoted as saying in Congressional Quarterly in 2004. "This is an open-and-shut case that the administration should have addressed years ago." A Bush-era deputy U.S. trade representative says Bush realistically had five years to bring cases against China — not seven. "The first year of China's membership was eaten up giving them a chance to prove compliance," said John Veroneau, who also worked in the Defense Department under President Bill Clinton. "The second year was eaten up jawboning about problems and preparing the facts and analysis to be able to bring a WTO case. At the beginning of the third year, we brought the first case." That changes the math, putting Bush’s rate of cases much closer to Obama’s. Rather than nearly two cases a year for Obama vs. about one for Bush, the comparison would be nearly two cases a year for Obama vs. about one and a half for Bush. Driving factors The trade policy of the president isn’t necessarily the largest factor driving the rate of trade cases, said Hufbauer, the expert with the Peterson Institute. Other considerations out of Obama’s control (and Bush’s) held greater sway, he said. • When the country has more trade, you’re going to have more cases. And trade with China has boomed over the decade. • The economic climate matters. While the government brings cases to the WTO, its staff relies on private companies to come forward with strong evidence of wrongdoing. That requires companies to be motivated to do the legwork. In boom times, there’s less motivation. An economic downturn makes a difference. "Private companies have been much more aggrieved in the last few years than the first few years." • China hasn’t been as welcoming. "It just isn't as friendly to companies as it was during the Bush administration," Hufbauer said. "That wasn't because of the Bush administration — but because of the times. … This is leading companies to see more of the downside." That means they’re more willing to spend time to help the government build trade cases. One piece of evidence that Obama’s administration has been deliberately more aggressive than Bush’s deals with use of safeguards under Section 421 of U.S. trade law, which will be allowed by the WTO through 2013. The section allows U.S. industries to request blocking particular imports from China to protect American companies. While the Bush administration refused several such requests, Obama approved one on tires. "There is a very sharp change in that," Hufbauer said. But the White House told us Obama’s statistic relied on WTO cases, not other types of trade measures, so we're basing our ruling on that measurement, which independent experts said was a good metric. Our ruling Obama said his administration has "brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration." Though the statistic takes into account the fact that China didn’t join the WTO until nearly a year into Bush’s term, it fails to acknowledge time for China after it joined to adjust to new WTO regulation. By contrast, Obama's administration could hit the ground running. The math still favors Obama, but not by as much as he claims. Also, there are several external factors that affect an administration's decision to pursue trade cases. Those are important details and context. We rate his statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2012-04-18T17:37:56	2012-04-13	['China']
-vees-00143	​VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Draft charter defines, bans political dynasties	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-sheet-draft-charter-defines-bans-political-d	None	None	None	None	political dynasty,federal charter,political party	​VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Draft charter defines, bans political dynasties	July 11, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02749	School children can earn higher grades by studying Islam under a new "nationwide Muslim outreach program" announced by President Barack Obama.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/dec/16/blog-posting/viral-post-claims-barack-obama-has-begun-nationwid/	Several readers recently asked us to check a claim that’s been spreading widely through chain emails and on social media -- that the Obama administration is pursuing a "nationwide Muslim outreach program for children" in grades K through 12. Here’s some of the text that usually accompanies the claim: "At a press conference today, President Obama announced plans for the first ever federally funded Muslim outreach program. The program will be available nationwide for all elementary school students grade K-12 beginning February 1st, 2014. The program is designed to educate children about the fundamentals of the Muslim religion and Islamic belief. "President Obama spoke with reporters to explain why it is so important that these outreach programs exist. ‘The Muslim community deserves our full understanding and respect,’ Obama said. ‘We have killed millions of Muslims overseas since the September 11th attacks. These folks are not all bad. In fact, most of them are hard-working citizens just like you and me. I encourage every student in America to participate in your school’s Muslim outreach program. Learn about the Muslim community, the beauty of the Sunnah and the magic of the Qur’an.’" The item cited "35-year-old Paul Horner, a teacher at Starks Elementary School in Louisiana," who purportedly told MSNBC that he is "excited about the new program," because "if Becky has a D+ in math she can take a three week after-school class on the Qur’an and would then have an A in Math. That’s a win-win for everyone!" It closed by urging any parents of students who "would like to volunteer and teach the Muslim religion" to "call the Nationwide Muslim Youth Outreach hotline at (202) 863-8500." This all sounded fishy to us, so we checked with the White House, which confirmed that no such press conference had ever happened. Nor was there any such program. We also rooted around the Internet and discovered that a portion of the text originated with an "article" in the National Report, a satire website. In fact, when we fact-checked the previous iteration of the claim from National Report in October 2013 -- that "Obama Declares November National Muslim Appreciation Month" -- we rated that Pants on Fire. This is only the latest example of satire passed off as truth on the Internet. We took a detailed look at the phenomenon here. The recently circulating item about the Muslim outreach program included some of the same language as the National Report item, but it was substantially rewritten. Not only was the topic somewhat different, but the quote from "Horner" was added, among other things. (The website of Starks High School in Starks, La., -- which includes students from K-12 -- does not include any staff member by that name.) In addition, the phone number listed as being for the "Nationwide Muslim Youth Outreach hotline" was actually the phone number of the Republican National Committee. RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski confirmed that the RNC had nothing to do with the piece. "We’ve gotten calls from people giving us a heads up about this. We didn’t have anything to do with this and are telling people as much when they call," she said. The furthest back we could trace the language was to a Dec. 7, 2013, post on the website Conservative Frontline. While the National Report acknowledges that its stories "are not reflective of the fine journalistic and editorial integrity of National Report" and at one time included a disclaimer that that "all news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news," we could not find any indication that Conservative Frontline is designed to be a satire site. It includes an array of articles from a conservative perspective and sometimes conspiracy theories, but does not appear to be full of satire articles. From there it spread through conservative blogs, passed off, apparently, as truth. Conservative Frontline did not offer any contact information on its website, so we were unable to reach its staff. Our ruling Social media posts have reprinted or linked to a story titled, "Obama Administration Announces Nationwide Muslim Outreach Program For Children Grades K-12," that claims, among other things, that school children can earn higher grades for studying Islam. It’s not true. No such program exists. In fact, part of the story has been recycled from a previous satire article that we and others debunked. We rate this claim Pants on Fire.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2013-12-16T11:30:00	2013-12-07	['Islam', 'Barack_Obama']
-goop-00430	Sofia Richie Feuding With Dad Lionel, Sister Nicole?	https://www.gossipcop.com/sofia-richie-lionel-nicole-feud/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Sofia Richie Feuding With Dad Lionel, Sister Nicole?	12:17 pm, August 18, 2018	None	['None']
-vees-00095	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Kris Aquino wore Marcos jewelry to Hollywood film premiere	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-kris-aquino-did-not-wear-marcos-jewelr	None	None	None	None	fake news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Kris Aquino DID NOT wear Marcos jewelry to Hollywood film premiere	August 21, 2018	None	['Kris_Aquino']
-pomt-11982	New York has "the biggest outmigration of citizens of any state."	/new-york/statements/2017/sep/29/edward-cox/new-york-has-most-people-leaving-other-states-coun/	New York state’s population declined last year for the first time in a decade. State Republican Chairman Edward F. Cox blames the drop on Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Cuomo's economic policies make it hard for employers to add jobs, especially in upstate New York, so residents are leaving the state for better employment opportunities elsewhere, he said. "We have the biggest outmigration of citizens of any state," Cox said. Thirty other states also lost population to other states last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Is Cox right that New York state tops that list? Latest data New York state lost a net 191,367 residents to other states between July 2015 and July 2016, more than any other state. Where are they going? The most popular destination is Florida, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Almost 70,000 New York state residents moved to the Sunshine State in 2015. The second-most popular destination was New Jersey, which gained about 50,000 people from New York state. California ranked third with almost 37,000 people from New York. Brooklyn had the largest exodus from New York with a net 43,264 people moving from the borough to another state. Only three counties — Ontario, Saratoga, and Warren — had more people move in from another state than out. Since 2011 Last year was the worst year for domestic migration in New York state since at least 2011, the data shows. The state had a net loss of 90,342 people to other states between 2010 and 2011. That count has increased each year since, except for a short-lived dip in 2013. New York lost a net 846,669 people to other states between 2011 and 2016, more than any other state. Illinois recorded the second-highest outmigration in the country with a net loss of 540,166 residents. Again, Florida and New Jersey attracted the most New York residents. Almost 300,000 of them moved to Florida between 2011 and 2015. New Jersey ranked second, drawing about 225,000 people from New York state. Pennsylvania was the third most popular destination, with about 160,000 people migrating from New York state At the same time, New York state’s population has increased by 367,179 since 2010 thanks to almost 1.5 million births and migration from other countries. Migration rates Beyond raw counts, New York state has the biggest outmigration rate among the states if considering just domestic migration. Ten of every 1,000 New York state residents moved to another state in 2016. Illinois ranked second, with nine of every 1,000 residents in that state moving to another state. Governing magazine charted each state's migration rate -- the difference of in-migration and outmigration -- per 1,000 people in 2015-16, and it also included people coming and going from outside the country. New York state ranked fifth behind Illinois, Wyoming, North Dakota and Kansas. Our ruling Cox said New York has "the biggest outmigration of citizens of any state." By raw numbers alone, Cox is right. Census data shows more people are moving from New York state to other states than move from any other state. And the flow has become larger since 2011. Given that New York state has the nation's fourth-largest population, nearly 20 million, it's not surprising the numbers dwarf smaller states. But by proportion, and when including international migration, several other states have bigger outmigration rates. We rate his claim Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Edward Cox	None	None	None	2017-09-29T00:00:00	2017-09-19	['None']
-snes-00144	A photograph shows Heath Ledger's Joker doing a skateboard kickflip over Batman.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joker-kickflip-over-batman/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Does This Image Show Heath Ledger’s Joker Doing a Skateboard Kickflip Over Batman?	31 August 2018	None	['Heath_Ledger', 'Batman', 'Joker_(comics)']
-abbc-00359	Campaigning in prime minister Kevin Rudd's Queensland seat of Griffith in July 2013, the then opposition leader Tony Abbott promised that "here in Brisbane we will get cracking with the Gateway Motorway upgrade".	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/gateway-motorway-upgrade-brisbane-promise-check/5505462	None	['abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'road-transport', 'industry', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'brisbane-4000', 'qld', 'australia']	None	None	['abbott-tony', 'liberals', 'federal-government', 'road-transport', 'industry', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'brisbane-4000', 'qld', 'australia']	Promise check: $1 billion for the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Kevin_Rudd', 'Tony_Abbott', 'Brisbane', 'Queensland', 'Gateway_Motorway']
-vees-00153	Laurio’s post, "Ito Pala ang Build, Build, Build… (So this is the Build, Build, Build...)," carried screengrabs of a June 28 Reporter's Notebook episode on the June 19 erosion of almost a third of the P140 million dike in San Simon town, two days before its target completion date.	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-anti-duterte-blogger-posts-inaccurate	The San Simon flood control project is not under the Duterte administration’s P9 trillion ($180 billion) Build, Build, Build infrastructure program.	None	None	None	infrastructure,pinoy ako blog	​VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Anti-Duterte blogger posts inaccurate claim on ‘Build, Build, Build’ project	July 05, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-03807	Mike Pence's parents operated a chain of 'whites only' gas stations.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mike-pences-father-ran-whites-only-gas-stations/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Mike Pence’s Father Ran ‘Whites Only’ Gas Stations?	13 October 2016	None	['Mike_Pence']
-goop-01177	Khloe Kardashian Did Hint At Moving Back To L.A. Amid Tristan Thompson Cheating Scanda	https://www.gossipcop.com/khloe-kardashian-moving-back-los-angeles-tristan-thompson-cheating-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Khloe Kardashian Did NOT Hint At Moving Back To L.A. Amid Tristan Thompson Cheating Scandal	1:06 pm, April 16, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-05944	"Romneycare sent costs spiraling out of control" in Massachusetts, "hiking premiums, squeezing household budgets."	/florida/statements/2012/jan/26/winning-our-future/pro-gingrich-super-pac-blames-romneycare-spiraling/	Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are on the same side, says an ad from from a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC. "Think you know Mitt? Think again," says the ad from Winning our Future, which is spending a reported $6 million on the air in Florida. The ad then makes the point that the health care law Romney signed when he was governor of Massachusetts in 2006 is much like the one President Obama signed in 2010. "When Mitt Romney invented government-run health care, Romney advisers helped Barack Obama write the disastrous Obamacare," a narrator says. "Romneycare sent costs spiraling out of control, hiking premiums, squeezing household budgets." Yes, Romney’s health plan is a lot like the plan Obama ushered into law. No, it’s not government-run health care. These are old talking points that we’ve fact-checked many times. Here, we wanted to look specifically at whether "Romneycare sent costs spiraling out of control, hiking premiums, squeezing household budgets." First, a little about the health care plans: Generally speaking, both laws leave in place the major insurance systems. There’s employer-provided insurance for workers and their families, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the very poor. Both laws require people to buy insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." Both laws also seek to cover the uninsured by expanding Medicaid and offering subsidies to moderate-income people to buy insurance. Companies that don't offer insurance will typically pay penalties, with exceptions for small business. Massachusetts paid for the plan with some new state spending, but also with help from the federal government. In part because the Massachusetts plan is so similar to the national plan, health policy analysts have tracked the outcomes there closely and publish regular reports. In reviewing these reports, we found consensus that the high cost of health care is still a concern for Massachusetts. Also, more people have insurance in Massachusetts, so overall spending is up. But cost increases for individual households are largely due to the fact that health care costs have been rising across the country, regardless of the Massachusetts plan. We found little to suggest that the Massachusetts plan caused costs to go up more there than they did elsewhere. In an examination of the state’s health plan published in June 2011, the Boston Globe concluded that health care costs are on the rise in Massachusetts, just as they are elsewhere, but it’s not fair to blame the Romney plan for the trend. "Massachusetts does have the highest health care costs in the nation, but it owned this dubious distinction long before ‘Romneycare’ was born," the Globe said. Similarly, a January 2012 report in the scholarly journal Health Affairs concluded that affordability remained an issue for the state’s health care system. But the plan’s expansion of coverage also means that more people have insurance, and consumers have lower out-of-pocket expenses. "Going forward, the success of health reform under the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts, and in other states, will depend on the ability of policy makers and stakeholders to come together to take on the considerable challenge of reining in health care costs," the report said. When we contacted the Romney campaign, they pointed us to statistics from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that showed while the cost of insurance has still been increasing in Massachusetts, it’s increasing more slowly than it did in the years before reform. We asked Winning Our Future for evidence to back up its claim, but we didn’t hear back. Our ruling The Massachusetts health plan expanded coverage to many people who didn’t have insurance before, and that did cost the state and federal government money. Also, consumers saw increases in their health care costs. But there’s little to show that the health plan Romney signed as governor caused the increased costs that affected household budgets. In recent years, health care costs have been rising around the country, and Massachusetts is not exempt. We rate the statement False.	None	Winning Our Future	None	None	None	2012-01-26T20:00:32	2012-01-24	['Massachusetts']
-pomt-04469	Gov. Nathan Deal "has taken at least $15,600 from the (Koch brothers), their businesses, and their employees."	/georgia/statements/2012/oct/09/patriot-majority-usa/group-attempts-link-deal-koch-brothers/	When it comes to the game of big-money politics, there are few competitors more influential than the Koch brothers -- and supporters of President Barack Obama don’t like the way they play. Charles and David Koch support libertarian and tea party principles of lower taxes and smaller government, using some of their vast wealth to back causes and candidates that often oppose the president’s policies. The Koch brothers, who own myriad businesses under the umbrella company Koch Industries, have a combined reported fortune of $35 billion. One group recently came to Georgia to ask Gov. Nathan Deal to denounce the Koch brothers for "funding laws like voting restrictions that hurt Georgians." Georgia is one of several states in recent years to pass laws requiring various forms of photo identification at the polls, to the dismay of civil rights groups and Democrats. "Deal has taken at least $15,600 from the Kochs, their businesses, and their employees," Patriot Majority USA, which describes itself as a bipartisan organization, wrote in the news release. The group held a news conference at the state Capitol on Oct. 1 as part of its national tour to push solutions that it says will encourage economic growth. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether this group had its numbers right and whether any context was missing. Patriot Majority USA describes itself as an organization hoping to empower all Americans. Its action plan includes providing more money for public schools, improving the nation’s roads and bridges, supporting the federal health care law’s provision that allows parents to keep their children on their insurance until the age of 26, and closing tax loopholes for special-interest groups. Efforts to reach Deal’s office for comment were unsuccessful. Deal spent $8 million during his successful 2010 campaign for governor. Christy Setzer, a media representative for the organization, sent us a weblink that listed five separate contributions to Deal from individuals it claims are employees who work for companies owned by the Koch brothers. One of the individuals mentioned was James S. Balloun, a longtime leading Atlanta businessman and civic leader. State records show Balloun has made campaign contributions to a number of prominent Republicans, including Casey Cagle, Karen Handel, Sam Olens and Sonny Perdue, as well as to Deal. Balloun was named a director of Georgia-Pacific in 1998. The company was purchased by Koch Industries in 2005. As Patriot Majority USA stated, Balloun made contributions of $5,000 and $2,500 to Deal in 2010, according to state campaign finance records. Balloun, however, listed himself as retired when those two contributions were made. Setzer acknowledged that Balloun retired as a Georgia-Pacific director well before he made the contributions to Deal. She said, though, that Balloun was no "run of the mill" employee and that "there has been speculation in various blogs that Balloun continues to carry water for G-P." The other contributions Patriot Majority USA mentioned came from Georgia-Pacific and donors who work at the company. Balloun said he has never met the Koch brothers and noted that he had retired from Georgia-Pacific when Koch Industries bought the company. Balloun said he was a supporter of Perdue, who was governor from 2003 to 2010. He felt Deal would govern with a similar approach, he said, so he gave money to the Deal campaign. As for Patriot Majority USA’s claim that Balloun continues to carry water for Georgia-Pacific, he said: "There’s speculation that the Earth is flat, too." PolitiFact Georgia also found some contributions made by Georgia-Pacific and at least one executive, Curley Dossman, to Democrats in Georgia, including former Attorney General Thurbert Baker and former state Sen. Dubose Porter. Those contributions totaled $2,000. So does that mean the Koch brothers support the policies of these two Democrats because of these contributions? To sum up, Patriot Majority USA says Deal accepted $15,600 in campaign contributions from businesses owned by the Koch brothers or employees who work for those companies. One of those employees cited had retired by the time he made two contributions to Deal totaling $7,500, nearly half of what Patriot Majority USA mentioned in its news release. The information in the release is not accurate. We rate it False.	None	Patriot Majority USA	None	None	None	2012-10-09T06:00:00	2012-09-30	['Nathan_Deal']
-pomt-11285	Says the 2015 vote on the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act "was not a vote to deny access to the U.S."	/florida/statements/2018/apr/24/gwen-graham/did-gwen-graham-vote-favor-legislation-denying-res/	Gwen Graham’s opponents for Florida governor criticized her during the first Democratic debate over a past vote to put extra restrictions on Syrian refugees. Orlando-area businessman Chris King said the 2015 vote made it harder for Syrian refugees to come to this country (even though it never passed). Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum pointed out how former President Barack Obama was against the legislation. Graham, who served one term in Congress representing north Florida, said her vote on the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act would not have banned refugees from the country. "That vote was not a vote to deny access to the United States," Graham said April 18 in Tampa. "It was a vote that would only have certified the process that was in place." Given the pushback from her opponents, we wondered if Graham was right about the effect of the legislation. The SAFE Act did not explicitly deny refugees’ entry to the United States. However, Graham downplayed the new burden it would have placed on the processing of certain refugees that would have slowed the process, likely resulting in at least a pause in admissions. What did the the SAFE Act mean for refugees? The Republican-controlled U.S. House passed the SAFE Act (HR 4038) in response to the Nov. 13, 2015, terrorist attacks in Paris that resulted in more than 130 deaths. The vote was 289-137. Forty-seven Democrats, including Graham, broke from the party and voted for the legislation. The bill never made it through the Senate. Supporters at the time said the bill would increase national security. "In light of new threats, we must strengthen our vetting process," Graham told reporters at the time. "We must be able to identify those who wish to do us harm, while continuing to offer a safe haven to those in need of refuge from war and persecution." But opponents including the Obama White House said the bill would in effect prevent Syrian immigrants from coming to the United States. The end of the statement by the White House indicated Obama would veto the bill if it made it to his desk. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com So what would this legislation have really have meant for Syrian refugees? Under the existing requirements, experts said refugees experienced a processing time of 18 to 24 months in 2015. Refugees had to undergo a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. The legislation would have added a layer of certification to the process that was in place. It would have required each refugee case to have the sign-off of three agency heads. Here’s a key portion of the text: "A covered alien may only be admitted to the United States after the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the unanimous concurrence of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Director of National Intelligence, certifies to the appropriate Congressional Committees that the covered alien is not a threat to the security of the United States." Had this become law, it would have extended the waiting period for these applications. "To ask that we have my FBI director make personal guarantees would effectively grind the program to a halt," U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a news conference after the bill passed the House. So a more reasonable interpretation of this bill is that it would have slowed down or temporarily paused refugees from coming in to the United States. That is important context in understanding Graham’s defense. "The bill did not specify how the certification process would work, so DHS, the FBI, and the Office of the National Intelligence Director would be tasked with agreeing on standards—which could take months (and result in a pause)," said Sarah Pierce, an associate policy analyst of the U.S. Immigration Program at the Migration Policy Institute. Mark Hetfield, the president of HIAS, a nonprofit organization that provides humanitarian aid and assistance to refugees, agreed that nothing in the legislation stopped refugees from coming in. But he said the measure would have crippled the existing program. "Such a new security layer would have added a major bureaucratic hurdle without value, as it would largely be redundant to the existing (checks)," he said. The flow of Syrian refugees has decreased significantly since 2016 when the U.S. resettled more than 15,000, according to the Refugee Processing Center. In calendar year 2017, the country let in 3,024 refugees from Syria. So far this year, that number is just 11. A few days into his administration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to indefinitely suspend the entry of Syrian refugees. A revised order in March 2017 suspended refugee entry for 120 days, but did not single out Syrian refugees for indefinite admission. Refugee admissions eventually resumed under "enhanced vetting." In September 2017, Trump also reduced the cap on refugees coming to the United States from anywhere in the world to 45,000. Our ruling Graham said her 2015 vote for the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act was "not a vote to deny access to the U.S." Graham’s take on the legislation requires some context. While it would not have prevented Syrian entry outright, it would have installed a significant new layer of bureaucracy that would have at least delayed their entry. The bill would have required the signature of three agency heads for each case, an extraordinary hurdle on top of previous requirements. We rate this claim Half True. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Gwen Graham	None	None	None	2018-04-24T11:59:28	2018-04-18	['United_States']
-goop-01629	Tom Cruise Begging John Travolta’s Wife To Co-Star In ‘Top Gun’ Sequel?	https://www.gossipcop.com/tom-cruise-john-travolta-top-gun-sequel-wife-kelly-preston/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Tom Cruise Begging John Travolta’s Wife To Co-Star In ‘Top Gun’ Sequel?	2:49 pm, February 7, 2018	None	['John_Travolta', 'Tom_Cruise']
-pomt-03270	"Obamacare … carries on even under a government shutdown."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/08/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-says-government-shutdown-wouldnt-sidelin/	Some congressional Republicans are threatening to deny funding for government operations unless a provision is included to defund President Barack Obama’s health care law. Because defunding Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment is a nonstarter for Democrats, lawmakers are now openly pondering the possibility of a government shutdown. Other Republicans -- including Paul Ryan, the party’s former vice presidential nominee -- are warning that a government shutdown is a bad idea and won’t work anyway. That was a point he made on the Aug. 4, 2013, edition of CBS’ Face the Nation. "Obamacare is an entitlement like Medicare and Social Security is, and so the entitlement carries on even under a government shutdown scenario," said Ryan, who is also the House budget chairman. First, some background. Shutdowns occur when appropriations bills expire, and Congress and the president are at an impasse. A shutdown typically prevents federal agencies from carrying out any functions deemed non-essential. A shutdown last occurred in the mid 1990s, when President Bill Clinton squared off against a new Republican majority in the House and Senate. That led to two shutdowns -- one for five days in November 1995 and the other for 21 days from December 1995 to January 1996. Some government functions are not reliant on congressional appropriations, and these can usually continue unimpeded in the face of a shutdown. Several elements of the health care law fall into this category. Here’s a summary of some of the key provisions of the health care law and how they might be affected by shutdown. Insurance exchanges and premium subsidies Ryan referred to Obamacare being like such "entitlements" as Social Security and Medicare, which are not affected by shutdowns. An entitlement is a government program that is funded by a formula, rather than by the kinds of specific congressional appropriations that run out in a shutdown. Any American who meets the criteria for receiving the benefit will keep receiving payments even in the absence of congressional appropriations. The health care law creates online marketplaces where uninsured Americans can purchase health insurance, and it offers them means-tested subsidies to help pay the premiums for those plans. The subsidies fit the definition of an entitlement most directly. Because the subsidies are provided in the form of tax credits, they are not subject to appropriations, and thus should be able to proceed during a shutdown. As for the operations of the exchanges themselves, these too seem likely to be unaffected by a shutdown, although for a different reason. The independent Congressional Research Service has concluded that implementation of the insurance marketplace is being funded by long-term appropriations -- funding streams that won’t be cut off during a government shutdown. There’s one caveat, however: Delays could still occur if federal agencies have no workers, or too few, to carry out needed tasks. This has been an issue in the past with Social Security Administration employees. The agency’s operational employees are paid through appropriated funds. Would a shutdown prevent employees from going to work, potentially halting operations? A 1981 attorney general's opinion protects the right of at least some Social Security workers to carry out necessary functions -- and that’s essentially what happened during the 1995 shutdowns. According to Social Security's official history on its website, 4,780 employees remained at work at the start of the four-day shutdown, while the other 61,415 were furloughed. But this cut "significantly impacted the Agency’s service to the public," the account said, and on the second day, additional employees were recalled to work. The second shutdown -- which lasted three weeks, the longest in history -- could have brought even more severe consequences. But the agency deployed 55,000 employees and operations remained close to normal. Noting the past experience of Social Security, CRS wrote, "it may be reasonable to infer that any similar benefit programs" under the health care law would have enough administrative flexibility to keep operations going during a shutdown. In other words, there’s no guarantee, but it’s likely that operations will continue. Tax provisions In general, tax collection is not affected by a shutdown. Anyone who incurs taxes is still liable for paying them on a quarterly or annual basis, even if the IRS is in shutdown mode. In addition, exceptions exist for processing tax payments received during a shutdown. Some Obamacare taxes, such as those on branded pharmaceuticals, need to be calculated and assessed in writing by IRS before the manufacturer pays them, so these could be affected by a shutdown, according to the Congressional Research Service. But even if there’s a delay, the taxes will ultimately be paid, shutdown or not. This is true for the mandate on individuals to purchase health insurance; people who run afoul of this pay their penalty through their tax return. Regulations Many key aspects of the health care law are regulatory in nature -- for instance, rules about what insurers have to cover, how much insurers need to spend on health-related expenses and protections for patients with pre-existing conditions or those with young adult children. While these are all part of the health care law, a government shutdown wouldn’t really affect them. At most, enforcement efforts might lag during a shutdown, but the rules will remain on the books and will have to be respected. "At most, government enforcement activity might be put on hold, but after the shutdown people could be investigated and held liable for violations they committed during the shutdown period," said Ronald Levin, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. We will conclude by emphasizing the rarity of government shutdowns, and the absence of any that lasted any significant period of time. "It depends how long any shutdown goes on," said Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. "It's easy to be creative for a short period but harder after a while." Our ruling Ryan said that "Obamacare … carries on even under a government shutdown." For various reasons, most key parts of the law -- the insurance marketplace, the premium subsidies, and the taxes and regulations -- should continue unimpeded. But shutdowns are rare and unpredictable, so we can’t be entirely sure that there will be no major interruptions. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Paul Ryan	None	None	None	2013-08-08T09:00:00	2013-08-04	['None']
-hoer-00020	Onions are Magnets for Bacteria	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/onions-magnet-bacteria.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	False Claim - Onions are Magnets for Bacteria	July 16, 2014	None	['None']
-tron-03381	Germanwings Pilot Had Converted to Islam	https://www.truthorfiction.com/germanwings-pilot-had-converted-to-islam/	None	religious	None	None	None	Germanwings Pilot Had Converted to Islam	Mar 30, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00109	Katy Perry Having “Meltdown” Because Of “Flirty” Orlando Bloom?	https://www.gossipcop.com/katy-perry-orlando-bloom-beach-flirty-photos-meltdown/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Katy Perry Having “Meltdown” Because Of “Flirty” Orlando Bloom?	12:09 am, October 21, 2018	None	['None']
-snes-06192	After a 1977 episode of Happy Days aired, the American Library Association reported a nationwide 500% increase in library card applications from children.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/getting-carded/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Did ‘Happy Days’ Promote a 500% Increase in Library Card Applications?	7 November 2010	None	['American_Library_Association']
-tron-01653	“American Suicide” a speech by Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm	https://www.truthorfiction.com/lamm/	None	government	None	None	None	“American Suicide” a speech by Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm	Mar 17, 2015	None	['Colorado', 'Richard_Lamm']
-snes-02907	A photograph shows a Starbucks with an welcome mat featuring a picture of President Trump on its floor.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/starbucks-trump-photo-floor/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Starbucks Place Trump’s Photo on the Floor So Every Customer Has to Step on It?	19 February 2017	None	['None']
-chct-00077	SPACE FORCE: Here's How Many Military Satellites The US Has In Space	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/08/18/fact-check-us-most-military-satellites-space/	None	None	None	Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	3:51 PM 08/18/2018	None	['None']
-pomt-11451	American aluminum and steel "are vital to our national security. ... They are the bedrock of our defense industrial base."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/09/donald-trump/how-vital-our-national-security-are-steel-aluminum/	When President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, the stated reason was national security. "The president is exercising his authority to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports in order to protect our national security," the White House said in a statement. Specifically, the White House cited section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which it said "provides the president with authority to adjust imports being brought into the United States in quantities or under circumstances that threaten to impair national security." Hours before he officially announced the tariffs, Trump said he was "taking action to protect American industries that are vital to our national security, including American aluminum and steel. … Aluminum and steel are the backbone of our nation. They are the bedrock of our defense industrial base." Is Trump right that American aluminum and steel "are vital to our national security" and "the bedrock of our defense industrial base"? Dueling departments In an undated but recent memo, Defense Secretary James Mattis acknowledged concerns about "unfair trade practices," but he emphasized that "the U.S. military requirements for steel and aluminum each only represent about 3 percent of U.S. production." In other words, domestic production in the United States is more than 30 times the amount required to satisfy Defense Department needs -- before having to use a single ton of imported steel. Defense’s share of the high-purity aluminum produced domestically is a bit higher -- 10 percent -- but here, too, this "is more than adequately met" by existing U.S. sources, according to the Aerospace Industries Association of America. The Pentagon’s small share of U.S. steel and aluminum output would seem to undercut the argument of national security as a credible justification for the tariffs. However, the decision to impose tariffs for steel and aluminum imports was made based on a different argument by the Commerce Department, which is headed by a longtime free-trade skeptic, Wilbur Ross. In a pair of January 2018 reports, the Commerce Department addressed the role of the American steel and aluminum industries in preserving national security. In both cases, the department said that action against imports was necessary. The department concluded that the present import situation was "weakening our internal economy," which it noted was language included in the 1962 law. Specifically, the law says: In the administration of this section, the director (of the Office of Emergency Planning) and the president shall further recognize the close relation of the economic welfare of the nation to our national security, and shall take into consideration the impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of individual domestic industries; and any substantial unemployment, decrease in revenues of government, loss of skills or investment, or other serious effects resulting from the displacement of any domestic products by excessive imports shall be considered, without excluding other factors, in determining whether such weakening of our internal economy may impair the national security. The law offers a more expansive definition of national security than might be obvious on the surface. Both Commerce reports cite a variety of elements of "national security" that fall well beyond the scope of military activities. National security, according to the steel report, "encompasses U.S. critical infrastructure sectors including transportation systems, the electric power grid, water systems, and energy generation systems." Similarly, the aluminum report cites "critical infrastructure sectors that are central to the essential operations of the U.S. economy and government, including power transmissions, transportation systems, manufacturing industries, construction, and others." Keeping a viable industrial base Wayne Ranick, spokesman for the United Steelworkers labor union, said he has no quarrel with the Defense Department’s 3 percent calculation. However, he argued -- as the Commerce Department did -- that "to sustain that 3 percent, there must be viable U.S. aluminum and steel mills." Ongoing viability, Ranick said, requires operating at 80 percent capacity. "Mills that have so few orders that they must operate at less than 80 percent capacity shut down sections, lay off workers and lose money," he said. "When too much money is lost, the company goes bankrupt and the mill closes." He pointed to findings by the Commerce Department that there’s only one company left in the United States that produces the Navy armor plate used to build the Virginia Class Submarines, and that only one smelter produces the high-purity aluminum required for defense aerospace needs. Skeptics, however, see this argument as industry concerns masquerading as national security concerns. "Steel and aluminum are widely traded commodities in international markets, and the U.S. has ample production capacity to satisfy its defense needs," said Monica de Bolle, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which generally has a free-trade bent. "The case for tariffs made by the Commerce Department is that other countries underprice steel and aluminum, hurting U.S. production. This is not a national security argument." Impacts not considered Critics of the tariffs say they can cause at least as many national security headaches as they solve. For instance, the tariff issue has already irked U.S. allies whose assistance is needed in countless military and diplomatic situations across the globe. Those allies also tend to be valued customers for the U.S. defense sector, which has a sizable trade surplus with the rest of the world. "When relations overall are good, we export quite a lot of military equipment to allies and partners," said Remy Nathan, vice president for international affairs at the Aerospace Industries Association. Because a lot of that business come from maintenance, repair and spare parts of U.S.-made military items, this is "the gift that keeps on giving." There’s also a concern that the tariffs could kick off a global trade war, with unknown but potentially significant impacts on the availability of other inputs needed by the U.S. military, not to mention the economy at large. A Bloomberg article noted that access to solid rocket fuel is a commodity that should be much more worrisome for the United States than either steel or aluminum. In the meantime, the decision to justify the tariffs based on national security could embolden other countries to impose trade barriers of their own on the basis of "national security," with negative impacts for the United States. In addition, while the tariffs would likely aid domestic producers of aluminum and steel, they would presumably raise prices for companies that turn those raw materials into finished products, and this could hurt national security as well. This is especially acute for companies that sell both to private sector companies and the Pentagon, Nathan said. The White House did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling Trump said that American aluminum and steel "are vital to our national security. ... They are the bedrock of our defense industrial base." Military purchases account for a small fraction of U.S. production for both metals, to say nothing of foreign imports. Critics add that the tariffs could have negative impacts on national security that aren’t taken into account by the White House or Commerce Department. Bolstering Trump’s point, however, the 1962 law used as justification for the tariffs specifically allows a more expansive definition that adds far-reaching critical infrastructure to specific military activities. Because this claim needs so much additional context, we rate the statement Half True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-03-09T16:20:06	2018-03-08	['United_States']
-snes-04767	President Obama ordered all schools to make all bathrooms transgender or face a loss of federal funding.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-transgender-bathrooms/	None	Politicians	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Obama Decrees ALL Public Schools Must Allow Transgender Bathroom Use	14 May 2016	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-05816	Photograph shows a tornado sucking up a rainbow.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rainbornado/	None	Fauxtography	None	David Mikkelson	None	Tornado Sucking up a Rainbow	10 March 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-02852	Medicare Part D "was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act and unlike" the act, "was never budgeted."	/texas/statements/2013/nov/18/facebook-posts/obamacare-law-was-funded-and-expected-save-billion/	"Obamacare? Expensive?" says a photo-quotation mashup that a reader sent us on Facebook. Beneath a photo of President George W. Bush making a face, the caption reads, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted." The Facebook-shared image is unattributed, but its caption tracks word-for-word with an Oct. 18, 2013, tweet and blog post by writer and pundit Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan’s post doesn’t elaborate on Part D -- Medicare’s prescription drug program, created in 2003. But others have made similar comparisons. Economist Paul Krugman wrote in a Dec. 29, 2009, New York Times blog entry about "the trouble Republicans have been having as they try to explain why, if they consider the fully-funded, deficit-reducing Democratic health care reform unaffordable, they voted for the completely unfunded Medicare drug benefit six years ago." Did Congress "budget" enough for the promises made under the Obamacare law but not those in Medicare Part D -- and was Part D "far more expensive"? ‘Budgeted’ Via email, Krugman told us, "Not sure about what ‘never budgeted’ means, or exactly how ‘more expensive’ is defined. But the ACA designated cost savings and revenues to pay for the outlays; Part D just specified outlays with no offset." Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California-Berkeley and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization), told us by email, "It's certainly true that the ACA was funded while Medicare Part D was not." Part D is an optional insurance program for prescription drugs for senior citizens on Medicare. Private insurance companies offer a variety of plans subsidized by the government, and beneficiaries get to choose the plan that's best for them. Obamacare requires Americans to buy health insurance, extends Medicare to cover more people and makes numerous other changes. Auerbach said, "The ACA was funded in the sense that taxes were increased to pay for the estimated expenditure cost. Medicare Part D provided a new benefit with a substantial long-run cost... and did not raise any taxes." Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, told us by email, "Medicare Part D was always coming out of general revenues (unlike most of the rest of Medicare)," because the federal deficit was a less prominent concern at the time, "whereas ACA/Obamacare was drafted in a more deficit-conscious era." Ellis’ group, based in Washington, D.C., describes itself as a nonpartisan watchdog advocating more transparency and less waste in government spending. In a Nov. 3, 2013, fact-check, PolitiFact summed up tax increases in the Obamacare law, aside from the penalty Americans will pay if they don’t have approved health insurance: Medicare payroll taxes for the wealthy, investment income taxes and others on insurance companies, the health care industry and more are included. Other provisions are intended to push Medicare costs down. Medicare Part D wasn’t "funded" in that a source of money was not created or dedicated to offset all its costs -- say, a tax increase or other funding mechanism. Medicare trustees’ March 23, 2004, report explained Part D would be financed with general revenue (mostly federal income taxes) plus the enrollees’ premium payments and some money from the states. Because the premium amounts and the amount of general revenue would be reset each year, they could be adjusted to cover anticipated costs, the report said: "Thus, Part D income will automatically track Part D expenditures fairly closely." Which cost(s) more? Part D and Obamacare are intended to extend into the future. How does one measure the cost of such efforts? One way is to look at projected costs over a 10-year span, as PolitiFact Virginia did in a Dec. 7, 2010, fact-check. Which 10-year span? The photo-quotation that touched off this story gave no context. First we looked at the cost estimates available to members of Congress when they voted. On Nov. 20, 2003, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Part D’s gross cost would total $409.8 billion from 2004 through 2013. The net cost of the entire Medicare Modernization Act, including Part D and expected revenue increases, was given as $394.3 billion ($501 billion in today’s dollars). On March 18, 2010, the CBO and Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the Obamacare law’s net effect would be to save the government -- that is, reduce the federal deficit -- $138 billion from 2010 through 2019 ($148 billion in today’s dollars). Later estimates have varied, and realities are also kicking in. PolitiFact found in a June 15, 2011, fact-check that Medicare Part D costs were coming in 28 percent to 40 percent lower than projected by the CBO in 2003. Among the reasons: Fewer people than expected used the program and expiring patents made some name-brand drugs cheaper. The Obamacare law isn’t fully implemented yet, but Ellis said, "The tricky thing about the ACA/Obamacare is that it counts on a lot of moving parts and a lot of assumptions to get to the savings number. If things don’t work out as planned, it won’t be a deficit reducer… whereas after nearly a decade we know what Medicare Part D cost." Bob Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Health Policy Studies, pointed out by phone that the Medicare trustees have expressed doubt that Congress will leave its cost-reducing measures in place -- particularly the "sustainable growth rate" formula meant to lower Medicare payments to doctors. The Medicare trustees’ May 31, 2013, report said, "At a minimum, readers should not assume that the SGR-related payment rate reductions will take place." That report’s forecasts included a prediction that Part D’s general revenue outlays from 2013 through 2022 could total $852 billion but, the trustees wrote, "Medicare’s actual future costs are highly uncertain and are likely to exceed those shown by the current-law projections in this report." As for the Obamacare law, the CBO said in a May 14, 2013, blog post that its most recent prediction of the act’s total budget impact was a July 24, 2012, estimate that repealing the law could raise the federal deficit by $109 billion ($111 billion in 2013 dollars) from 2013 through 2022. But "projections of the effects of the ACA" are "highly uncertain," the CBO warned, with other factors including the law’s overall effect on the nation’s health systems and the Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The law had required states to widen Medicaid access. Krugman gives a different measure in his late-2009 blog entry: "According to the Medicare trustees, Part D created a $9.4 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years." The trustees’ 2013 report updated that estimate to $9.2 trillion for 2013-2087. A June 17, 2013, PolitiFact Virginia fact-check showed that January 2013 Government Accountability Office estimates of the Obamacare law’s cost over 75 years could result in two scenarios: It could raise the national debt $6.2 trillion if its cost containment measures were phased out, or it could save the government $13.3 trillion if it works as intended. A GAO analyst said the report did not say whether one outcome or the other is more likely. Our ruling The image shared on Facebook said, "Bush’s Medicare D was far more expensive than the Affordable Care Act, and, unlike the ACA, was never budgeted." It’s a vague claim without context. Looking for a reasonable way to evaluate it, we found the Obamacare law was "funded" and Part D "unfunded" and that, using estimated 10-year costs at inception, the former was projected to save $148 billion and the latter to cost something under $501 billion (in 2013 dollars). We rate the claim as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2013-11-18T15:18:05	2013-11-03	['None']
-tron-03170	A Proposed 28th Amendment That Says Congress Will Make No Laws That Does Not Apply To Them	https://www.truthorfiction.com/proposed-28th-amendment/	None	politics	None	None	None	A Proposed 28th Amendment That Says Congress Will Make No Laws That Does Not Apply To Them	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-14966	"You wonder why you don't see Rand Paul as much; he's still shopping for his billionaire. He's like the only one who hasn't found a billionaire to fund his super PAC."	/missouri/statements/2015/oct/20/claire-mccaskill/campaign-finances-more-complicated-claire-mccaskil/	Sen. Claire McCaskill has noticed Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul’s recent drop in the polls, and she thinks she knows why. Paul hasn’t found a financier to bankroll his campaign, she told Bill Maher on his Aug. 21 show. In fact, she said the Kentucky Republican is the only GOP presidential candidate "who hasn’t found his billionaire to fund his super PAC." "You wonder why you don't see Rand Paul as much; he's still shopping for his billionaire," McCaskill said. "He's like the only one who hasn't found a billionaire to fund his super PAC." With the importance money will play in the 2016 presidential race, we wonder if Paul is the only GOP candidate without a wealthy backer. We reached out to McCaskill for evidence, but her office did not respond. Paul’s big backers McCaskill used the word "billionaire," which is certainly an exclusive club. The problem is there is no easy way to determine who’s a billionaire versus, say, a super-rich millionaire. That’s part of how Donald Trump can say his net worth is $8.7 billion while others peg the number at about $3 billion. Also, it’s important to note that the presidential candidates don't have super PACs because, legally, super PACs and candidates cannot work together, said MU economics professor Jeffrey Milyo. "The senator’s comment is misleading about the nature of the law, but that sort of sloppiness is very common, in part because the issues are somewhat complex, and in part because it serves the purpose of the speaker," Milyo said in an email. Logistics and legalities aside, at the heart of McCaskill's claim is the suggestion that no wealthy supporters have stepped up to support Paul in a big way. That’s not correct. Campaign finance records compiled by OpenSecrets.orgshow that on June 19, Jeff Yass gave $1 million to America's Liberty, a super PAC that supports Paul. He also has given $250,000 to Concerned American Voters, another super PAC that supports Paul. Yass is the founder of Susquehanna International Group, a privately held global trading firm. Yass is rich. How rich is unclear. Reuters described Yass as a billionaire in a June story about campaign giving.PhillyMag.com described Yass as Paul’s "(very) rich friend in Philadelphia." Yass doesn’t make Forbes’ 400, but that list includes people with net worths of $1.7 billion or more. Paul has another wealthy backer in Scott Banister, a self-described capitalist who sits on the board of directors for multiple companies. Scott and his wife, Cyan, have served as angel investors for almost 100 companies, including Zappos, according to Fortune. Banister has given a combined $1.2 million to Concerned American Voters. In all, $5 million has been raised for the two super PACs that support Rand Paul. In comparison, Right to Rise, a super PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has a war chest of more than $100 million. Is Banister a billionaire? Again, we don’t know for certain. The other candidates So Paul does have the support of some wealthy donors. And Yass has been described as a billionaire. What about the rest of the crowded GOP field? We found three who don’t appear to have the backing of someone who can write a big check. PACs supporting former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore haven't broken the $1 million mark and haven't received significant help from one donor in particular, Federal Election Commission filings show. Security is Strength, a super PAC that supports Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., lists $500,000 donations from billionairesRobert McNair and Ronald Perelman. Former Arkansas Gov.Mike Huckabee’s super PAC has relied heavily on the support of Ronald Cameron, who donated $3 million, according to OpenSecrets.org. Steve Wynn has supported New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; T. Boone Pickens is helping Bush; and Robert Mercer is with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, according to FEC filings. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been helped out by Larry Ellison and Norman Braman. Donald Trump has, well, himself. And Republicans aren’t the only ones who have support from wealthy donors. Seven people have given $1 million to the super PAC supporting Democratic frontrunner and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according toOpenSecrets.org. Yet, the numbers don't tell the whole story. As MU political science professor Marvin Overby points out, candidates have been well-funded in past election cycles, but they still failed to secure the nomination. "A wealthy donor, like casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, can make a candidate, like Newt Gingrich in 2012, more viable for a longer period of time," Overby said. "But there are reasons Gingrich didn’t get the GOP nomination: Despite a wealthy backer, he was the wrong candidate, with the wrong message, and a troubled organization." Our ruling McCaskill said Paul’s failure to gain traction in the crowded GOP field may have something to do with the fact that Paul is the only candidate to have not found his billionaire. There are two problems with this statement. There are candidates running for president who don’t have a billionaire, and Paul has a reported billionaire backer in Yass. We rate McCaskill’s statement False.	None	Claire McCaskill	None	None	None	2015-10-20T15:19:40	2015-08-21	['Rand_Paul']
-hoer-00759	Huge Banana Bunch Photograph	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/huge-banana-bunch.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Huge Banana Bunch Photograph	November 2009	None	['None']
-pomt-06146	"Rhode Island is leading our nation in foreclosures."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/20/theresa-price/rhode-island-activist-says-state-has-highest-rate-/	There's no doubt that Rhode Island's economy is in rough shape, and one element of that problem is the number of people poised to lose their homes because they can't make their mortgage payments. During a Dec. 10, State House rally to highlight the plight of the homeless, and some legislative proposals to relieve it, Theresa Price, a board member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE), complained about the number of evictions caused by banks taking over properties. "Rhode Island is leading our nation in foreclosures," she said. Two days after the rally, Jim Ryczek, executive director of the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, sent us an unsolicited e-mail saying Price had misspoke. "Rhode Island ranks highest in New England in both foreclosure starts and serious delinquencies, not the entire nation. We did not mean to claim the lead for the entire U.S." That sentiment was echoed by Christopher Rotondo, a DARE organizer, when we called to get the source of Price’s numbers. Price did not respond to repeated requests for a comment. We decided we needed to get the facts ourselves. We found earlier numbers on various websites confirming that Rhode Island isn't at the top of the list. But we weren't sure if they were the latest numbers. The Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade association that releases quarterly statistics from more than 120 real estate companies that submit delinquency and foreclosure counts, sent us its latest numbers from July through September 2011. They reported: * 4.27 percent of Rhode Island's housing units are in the foreclosure process. Rhode Island ranks 12th, not first. Connecticut (4.8 percent) and Maine (5.7 percent) rank even higher. Florida, at 14.5 percent, is at the top of the list. * 1.66 percent of the state's housing units entered the foreclosure process during the third quarter of 2011. Here, we had the dubious distinction of being tops in New England and fourth in the nation. Only three other states -- Arizona (1.67 percent), Florida (1.96 percent) and Nevada (2.48 percent) -- had higher rates. * 8.48 percent of the state's housing units are owned by people who are at least one payment behind on their mortgage. Rhode Island ranks 19th by that measure, the worst in New England. Mississippi, at 13.2 percent, is number one. We also checked with RealtyTrac, an online marketplace for foreclosed properties. It reported on Dec. 15 that, in November, one in every 954 Rhode Island units had been the subject of a foreclosure filing, putting us 21st in the nation for the second month in a row. In New England, New Hampshire had a worse rate - 1 in 735. Rhode Island fares better than the national average of 1 in 579. Different organizations collect their numbers differently, warned Brenda Clement, executive director of the Housing Action Coalition of Rhode Island. Nonetheless, "Rhode Island has, from the very start of this foreclosure mess, consistently ranked in the top ten and usually in the top five across the country in terms of foreclosures and highest in New England," Clement said. Our ruling In the push to rally support for legislation to fight homelessness, DARE official Theresa Price said, "Rhode Island is leading our nation in foreclosures." Clearly that's not the case. Other states consistently have worse rates when it comes to foreclosures, although Rhode Island's -- whether you look at new foreclosures, ongoing foreclosures or delinquent payments -- are well above the national average. If Price had said we lead New England, that statement would not have been clearly true either. Depending on how the data are collected, people in other nearby states may face a greater foreclosure threat. Ryczek, of the Coalition for the Homeless, gave a more accurate characterization of the New England figures after the fact. But, in her speech to hundreds of people outside the State House, Price wasn’t talking about New England. She was talking about the United States. Her fallacious foreclosure factoid is False. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Theresa Price	None	None	None	2011-12-20T06:00:00	2011-12-10	['None']
-pomt-09033	Japan's "interest on its own debt" is "25 percent of its national budget"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/06/daniel-senor/senor-inflates-japans-interest-payments/	It's hard to talk about the economy without mentioning debt. That point was clear during this week's segment of ABC's This Week. Talking about stimulus spending and unemployment benefits, the round-table discussion eventually turned to the question of debt and long-term fiscal sustainability. "You begin to get in a situation where the interest payments on the debt become unsustainable, the debt becomes unsustainable, and there's a lot of uncertainty. There's uncertainty now about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the impact that'll have on the economy, the impact on health care, the Obamacare spending, what impact that will have, possible cap and trade. And people are just sitting on the sidelines saying, 'Where does this end?'" said Daniel Senor, Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Bush administration official. To demonstrate his point, Senor brought up Japan as an example of a country whose debt is unsustainable. "I mean, if you look at just the interest payments alone that the Japanese government pays, it accounts for 25 percent -- the interest on its own debt, 25 percent of its national budget," said Senor. That comment caught the attention of Paul Krugman, a Princeton economist who was also at the round-table. "That's just not right," objected Krugman. Jake Tapper, the show host, moved the argument along, but not before inviting PolitiFact to act as an objective judge. So we decided to investigate. We'll leave the debate about Japan's financial stability to economists, however, and focus on the numbers. Is a quarter of Japan's budget going solely to the interest payments on its debt? The details of Japan's fiscal condition are nicely summarized in a document put out by the Japan Ministry of Finance in February 2010. Page two of the report indicates that Japan spends 22.4 percent of its budget on "national debt servicing." Debt servicing consists of interest rate payments and bond redemption, which is essentially a repayment of the loan principal. Looking at interest rate expenses alone, that percentage is 10.6 percent. One can also look at the percentage as compared with the budget that does not include debt-related expenditures. That works out to 13.7 percent. Either way, Senor was off by a significant amount. We checked with Senor, who told us that even if we go with the 13.7 percent, his broader point stands -- Japan's debt is not sustainable. As we said before, that's a mess we'll leave to the economists. Our goal was to see if Senor was using the correct figures, and we found that he wasn't. Even if we go with the higher of the two figures, Senor missed the target by nearly half. For that, we give him a False.	None	Daniel Senor	None	None	None	2010-07-06T18:14:58	2010-07-04	['Japan']
-pomt-10351	U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan include a "few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jul/11/john-mccain/thousands-of-green-card-soldiers-in-iraq/	Update: We originally addressed this when it was released as a web ad on Memorial Day. On July 11, the McCain campaign released the same video as a national television ad. Because it will be new to many people seeing it for the first time on television, we decided to re-post the item. In a Web ad released on Memorial Day, Sen. John McCain praises the many Hispanic soldiers serving in the U.S. military, some of whom are not yet legal citizens of the United States. "My friends, I want you, the next time you're down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite," McCain begins. "You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names. "When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you're going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. "You're even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they're willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation. "So let's, from time to time, remember that these are God's children. They must come into this country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them." We checked with the Defense Department to see how many noncitizens are serving in the U.S. military, and if McCain was accurate that there are thousands serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. The short answer is that McCain is right. As of Feb. 29, 2008, there were 20,328 noncitizens on active duty in the military (about 1.5 percent of the entire active military), according to a report provided by the Pentagon. Of those, 4,112 were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or in support of those operations elsewhere. There were another 2,236 whose citizenship was "unknown." These are legal residents with green cards who have not yet become naturalized citizens. There are citizenship incentives for those who enlist. All immigrants who serve honorably in the military during wartime are eligible to file for immediate citizenship under special wartime provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. An analysis of the Pentagon report by PolitiFact determined that about a quarter of the "green card" soldiers are originally from Spanish-speaking countries. In addition, there are 10,533 naturalized citizens serving in the military who were born in Spanish-speaking countries. The thousands of noncitizens serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is one of the military's little-known facts. But apparently not to McCain. We rate his statement True.	None	John McCain	None	None	None	2008-07-11T00:00:00	2008-07-11	['United_States', 'Iraq', 'Afghanistan']
-pomt-06426	Says Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s "actions are directly responsible for killing at least 15,000 jobs."	/wisconsin/statements/2011/oct/24/brett-hulsey/gop-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-killed-15000-jobs-d/	On the day Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker held a forum n creating jobs, state Rep. Brett Hulsey, D-Madison, tried to steal some of his thunder. Hulsey sent a tweet, made himself available to reporters and issued a news release on Oct. 18, 2011, all to highlight his view of Walker’s record on jobs. In the news release, Hulsey declared: "Governor Walker’s actions are directly responsible for killing at least 15,000 jobs." That’s an ear-catching claim. It would mean that Walker -- who promised to create 250,000 private-sector jobs in his first term -- not only presided over a period of staggering job losses, but in effect took out 15,000 of them himself. Hulsey cited five sources to back up his claim -- three are estimates and two use hard numbers. We’ll start with the estimates. 1. Think tank estimate: 9,900 jobs Hulsey’s news release cited a February 2011 report on Walker’s 2009-2011 budget-repair bill by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, a liberal research and advocacy group based in suburban Milwaukee. The bill, which led to unprecedented public protests in Madison because it curbed collective bargaining rights, made public employees pay more for their pensions and health insurance. The institute said the higher benefit payments would reduce the public workers’ take-home pay and thus, their spending power, eventually leading to the elimination of 9,900 private-sector jobs. So, these are not jobs already lost, but potential losses that would have begun since Walker signed the bill into law in March 2011. Jack Norman, the institute’s research director, provided this example: If a typical state worker now takes home $70 per week less in pay because of higher payments toward pensions and health care, the worker might decide not to buy a ladder from the hardware store one week, not to buy a child’s coat from the department store the next and to postpone a dentist appointment the following week. Over time, he said, that worker’s reduced purchasing power means less income for those businesses, which eventually will reduce their work forces. Norman said the institute has been revising its projections, and now estimates 16,000 jobs will be lost over the course of one year because of the budget-repair bill and because of spending cuts Walker made in his 2011-2013 state budget. We should note that while both budget measures were proposed by Walker, they needed to be adopted by the Republican-controlled Legislature to become law. Norman said the job-loss estimates were made using "economic modeling software" called IMPLAN. We found that IMPLAN is used by consultants, university researchers and government agencies to make various economic projections. When we asked Hulsey if he had other evidence to back the 9,900 lost jobs part of his claim, he cited a March 2011 news article on a similar estimate made by University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Steven Deller. According to the article, Deller said 21,843 jobs would be lost within two years because of the budget-repair bill and Walker’s budget proposal. Like Norman, Deller cited reduced spending from public workers and public agencies that he said would result from Walker’s two budget measures. But that’s a narrow view of the economy. We asked Thomas Miller, resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., about estimating job losses in this way. "You can’t wall off one limited portion of the population and decide that whatever is done to them is good or bad," he said. Miller said the economy is affected by many factors, including the finances of state government. Walker essentially reallocated some of the state government’s resources by having employees pay a larger share of their benefits. In the big picture, he said, such a move, among other factors, could help employment. So, Hulsey relies on predictive estimates in claiming that those moves will eventually kill 9,900 jobs. But there simply isn’t evidence that Walker’s actions, as Hulsey claims, are "directly responsible" for that many jobs being eliminated. 2. Train construction estimate: 2,300 jobs Hulsey cited a November 2010 memo from the Wisconsin Legislature Fiscal Bureau that estimated the number of jobs that would have been created in connection with construction of a high-speed rail project between Milwaukee and Madison. The next month, the federal government pulled funding for the project after Walker, who had not yet been inaugurated, expressed his opposition to it. The memo, however, does not use the 2,300 figure and did not estimate jobs, per se. Rather, as we reported in a December 2010 PolitiFact item, the memo estimated that over six years, the rail line construction itself plus economic activity generated by it would create a certain number of jobs’ worth of work each year. That figure ranged from 250 to 5,535 per year. It should be noted that -- like the study of the potential jobs lost due to pension and health changes -- this looked at only one side of the picture. As we noted in another PolitiFact item, the estimates don’t take into account jobs that might have been lost due to more people riding trains and fewer using cars or other modes of transportation. So the advertised increase, on a net basis, may have been less. But there is some ground for Hulsey saying that Walker prevented roughly 2,300 jobs from being created by blocking the train project. It’s certainly true that a certain number of jobs would have been created to build the line itself, and Hulsey’s figure is within the range of credible estimates. 3. Wind-energy estimate: 950 jobs Hulsey cited comments by Denise Bode, chief executive officer of the American Wind Energy Association lobbying organization, in a January 2011 news article. Speaking about a bill proposed by Walker that would limit where wind turbines could be located, she said the measure would shut down 12 planned wind farm projects that could produce about 950 full-time jobs for one year. Since Walker introduced the bill, some of the 12 projects have been canceled while others remain on hold as Walker attempts to work out a compromise measure. So, there is evidence that Walker’s action prevented at least some jobs from being created. But Hulsey assumes that all 950 jobs -- which were projected, not certain -- will never be created and that is still an open question. Now, let’s go to the sources that used hard numbers: 1. State government positions: 1,030 jobs Hulsey cited a July 2011 fiscal bureau memo that said Walker’s 2011-2013 budget reduced the number of full-time-equivalent positions in state government by 1,032. That’s a firm figure. But it’s not what it might appear to be. Bob Lang, director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, told us: "I would not portray these 1,000 (positions) as people who got laid off." Rather, he said, the budget eliminated authorized positions that theoretically could have been filled -- but many had been vacant for a year or more and the budget ordered that they be taken off the books. So, it’s not clear that anyone lost a job because of this Walker maneuver -- and in any case, certainly nowhere near 1,000 jobs were killed. 2. School layoffs: 1,000 jobs Hulsey cited news reports of the layoffs of teachers and other educational staff in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha and Germantown, all in southeastern Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin Heights, northwest of Madison. The articles reported a total of roughly 1,000 layoffs in those school districts. Hulsey said he attributes all the layoffs to nearly $800 million in reduced state aid to schools in Walker-proposed and the Legislature-adopted budget. But again, it’s not that simple. In the article Hulsey cited about 519 layoffs -- including 354 teachers -- at Milwaukee Public Schools, the MPS superintendent said the layoffs were the result of a number of budgetary factors, not just the reduction of state aid. Moreover, MPS had laid off 482 educators in June 2010, five months before Walker was elected, which indicates that other factors trigger layoffs. Similarly, the article Hulsey cited that reported the Kenosha layoffs said the layoffs were the result of federal and state budget cuts as well as a previously-negotiated increase in staff pay. So, while Walker’s budget was a factor in some teachers losing their jobs, Hulsey cannot back his claim that 1,000 school layoffs all were caused by Walker. OK, what’s the final assessment? Hulsey said Walker’s "actions are directly responsible for killing at least 15,000 jobs." Two-thirds of his claim is based on estimates of the effect of reduced spending by government employees and government agencies as a result of budget actions taken by Walker. The estimates, however, don’t tie the spending reductions to actual job losses and take a very narrow -- some would say wrongheaded -- view of how the economy works. Hulsey’s claims of perhaps a few thousand jobs not being created because of actions taken by Walker regarding high-speed rail and wind energy have some merit. But his claim that the state budget killed 1,000 jobs appears to be off altogether. In sum, Hulsey isn’t close to demonstrating that actions taken by Walker are directly responsible for killing at least 15,000 jobs. We rate his statement False.	None	Brett Hulsey	None	None	None	2011-10-24T09:00:00	2011-10-18	['None']
-snes-00248	In August 2018, French politicians passed a law which stated that a child is capable of consenting to having sex with an adult.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/france-law-children-consent-sex/	None	Politics	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Did France Pass a Law Saying That ‘Children Can Consent to Sex with Adults’?	6 August 2018	None	['France']
-snes-03733	Donald Trump personally sent out an airplane to bring home U.S. military members stranded in Florida.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-marine-airlift/	None	Politics	None	Brooke Binkowski	None	Did Donald Trump Transport Stranded Troops on His Own Airplane?	22 October 2016	None	['United_States', 'Donald_Trump']
-pomt-15222	"The Republican presidential nominee hasn’t won women since 1988."	/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/09/heather-mcghee/republican-presidential-nominee-hasnt-won-over-wom/	Personal attacks against Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly may have cost Donald Trump an invite to an influential conservative powwow, but a prominent progressive activist says "batting away" the frontrunner’s misogyny will do little to help the GOP. Heather McGhee, president of the liberal economic think tank Demos, said on Meet the Press that the Republican Party has both institutional and structural biases against women. "I think it’s important to remember the Republican presidential nominee hasn’t won women since 1988, so this is a very deep problem for the party," McGhee said Aug. 9, 2015. "It’s not going to be enough for anyone, a commentator or one of the candidates, to just disavow Trump’s sort of interpersonal sexist comments." We were curious about McGhee’s 1988 statistic. Is it true that no GOP nominee candidate in almost three decades has earned more support from women than the Democratic nominee? McGhee pointed us to an article published Aug. 7, 2015, in the New York Times. Even though the article repeats the statistic without citing a source, we found several datasets that corroborate the claim with slightly different numbers. To be clear, the source of the information is surveys of voters, and includes exit polling data, so it's not an official record. But the surveys are widely cited as the best data available. In 1988, Republican nominee George H.W. Bush received a single percentage point more of female votes (at 50 percent) than Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, according to research by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Since then, no GOP candidate has "won" the women’s vote. Women overall have had a higher voter turnout than men in every presidential election for 35 years, almost always favoring liberal candidates. Their allegiance to the Democratic party is reflected in congressional races as well. Barack Obama earned 56 percent of women’s votes in 2008 — one of the highest shares of female voters ever — and 55 percent in 2012. Why do more women vote for Democrats? Aside from more women simply identifying as Democrats than men, women are also more likely to favor left-leaning policies of more government assistance for poor Americans, children and the elderly; providing better access to contraceptives and reproductive health; and protecting the environment, according to the Pew Research Center. Other factors include the rise of the powerful pro-choice PAC Emily’s List in the 1980s and 1990s and the controversy over Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, added Karen O’Connor, a professor of political science at American University's Women & Politics Institute. "Women were very angry," O’Connor said of the all-male Senate Judiciary Committee’s questioning of Thomas’ former employee, Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. The partisan gap has solidified in recent years, but experts say the female vote began to align with Democrats in 1980, eight years before Bush won a slight majority of female voters. Kelly Dittmar of Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics lists the feminist movement, increased participation in the labor force, and greater reliance on government programs as reasons for the shift. At the same time, men have shifted right, she said. Women generally favored GOP candidates from the suffrage movement in 1919 through the 1950s. Republican President Herbert Hoover was known as "the woman's candidate" in 1928, according to feminist scholar Jo Freeman. Democratic presidential candidates lost the female vote by double digits in 1952 and 1956, according to Gallup data. "Early on, white upper-class women were Republicans," explained O’Connor. Then came the 1960s, with both parties responding to the feminist movement. The era of bipartisanship was reflected in the presidential elections, with Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon each receiving substantial majorities of female votes. By the late 1970s, however, the political divide in women’s votes resurfaced and changed course. Christina Wolbrecht, a professor who studies gender and politics at the University of Notre Dame, points to a specific watershed moment: the 1980 Republican convention, when the party for the first time refused to endorse the Equal Rights Amendment. "By the early 1980s, the two parties stood on opposing sides of the debate over women’s rights," Wolbrecht wrote in The Politics of Women’s Rights. Not that the GOP wasn’t aware of the divide. In his first term as president, Ronald Reagan responded by enacting policies that appealed to women. "Reagan supported things like tax credits for child care and individual retirement accounts for homemakers, and the White House Working Group for Women was created in 1983," said Dittmar of Rutgers. "He also appointed some women to high-profile posts (such as) Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court." In his 1984 re-election, Reagan beat Walter Mondale and his female vice presidential pick with 56 percent of women supporting him. The experts said women are more driven by party lines than female candidates, which will make it hard for Republicans to upend the trend in 2016. Our rating McGhee said, "The Republican presidential nominee hasn’t won women since 1988." The data, based on surveys of voters, backs her up. George H.W. Bush won his 1988 election campaign with just 1 percentage point more of female votes than his Democratic opponent. No Republican has "won" the fight for more women’s votes since. We rate McGhee’s claim True.	None	Heather McGhee	None	None	None	2015-08-09T18:47:23	2015-08-09	['Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pomt-03467	Says the success of his economic agenda is supported by the fact "we went from unemployment at 9.2 percent when I decided to run for governor four years ago to two points lower."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/16/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-success-office-reflected-2-point/	Gov. Scott Walker has long emphasized falling unemployment rates as evidence that Wisconsin’s sluggish job growth is heading in the right direction. In his January 2013 "state of the state" speech, Walker highlighted the decline from 7.8 percent unemployment the month before he took office in January 2011 to the 6.7 percent figure for December 2012. Now, with the recent uptick to 7.1 percent unemployment in the first quarter of 2013, Walker has reworked his message. Asked by host Mike Gousha on WISN-TV’s Upfront show about Democrats criticizing him for focusing on a potential presidential bid instead of the governorship, Walker replied: "They can’t argue with the success. We went from unemployment at 9.2 percent when I decided to run for governor four years ago to two points lower. The deficit was $3.6 billion when I took office. We now have a half a billion dollar surplus." Let’s take a look at the new talking point on the unemployment rate. Walker says the success of his economic agenda is supported by the fact that "we went from unemployment at 9.2 percent when I decided to run for governor four years ago to two points lower." Is he right? According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures from monthly household surveys, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate peaked as the Great Recession officially ended in mid-2009. That peak -- 9.2 percent -- is the figure Walker selected as a four-year comparison point. And it did fall 2.1 points in that time, so the numbers are accurate. But the statement is complicated by other factors, especially the phrase "when I decided to run." The unemployment rate was surging up in late 2008 and early 2009, so the timing makes a big difference. For instance, Walker officially announced his long-expected candidacy in spring 2009. The most recent unemployment figure at the time was 8.4 percent. But news reports as far back as August 2008 described Walker as "expected" to run. The latest unemployment rate at that time was 4.7 percent. When we asked Team Walker for backup, spokeswoman Jocelyn Webster said, "he is not referring to the specific moment he decided to run, but generally to the climate during the time he decided to run four years ago." Doyle and Walker Then there’s the issue of who gets credit for the drop from 2009 to 2013; Walker couched the two-point decline as part of "the success" he can point to as governor. Here’s the timeline: -- From its 9.2 percent peak in June-July 2009, the rate fell almost monthly during the late stages of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s second term, dropping 1.4 points to the 7.8 percent mark in December 2010 when Doyle left office. So exactly two-thirds of the drop Walker mentions happened on his predecessor’s watch. -- After Walker took office in January 2011, the rate ticked down but was essentially flat for nine months before falling slowly to 6.7. Then it reversed course early in 2013, taking some of the luster off the positive trend. That left the total drop during Walker’s time at 0.7 points. So one-third of the drop compared to four years ago came during Walker’s administration. We asked Webster about this, and she responded in an email: "The Governor was providing a frame of reference for where we were and where we are now." A bit of perspective, before we wrap up. Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is lower than the national figure (7.1 vs. 7.6 percent). Among seven Midwest states, Wisconsin trails far behind Iowa (4.7) and Minnesota (5.3), but is well ahead of Illinois (9.3), Indiana (8.5) and Michigan (8.4). Wisconsin is fourth of the seven states in improvement in the unemployment rate since the month Walker took office in 2011. Our rating Walker said the success of his agenda is supported by the fact that "we went from unemployment at 9.2 percent when I decided to run for governor four years ago to two points lower." Walker’s numbers are on target if you go back "four years." But he muddies the waters by describing that as when he "decided to run" -- and that skews the picture when it comes to improvement. His decision came at an earlier date, when the unemployment rate was either much lower (at the time of his official announcement) or even lower than that (when he was unofficially running). Finally, the construction of the claim is misleading in part on the issue of who gets credit for the improvement. He discloses that he’s going back in time before he was governor but omits Doyle’s record and claims the "success" as his, glossing over the fact that only one-third of the gains took place on his watch. There’s an element of truth here, but critical facts are left out. That’s why we’re rating his statement Mostly False.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2013-06-16T06:00:00	2013-06-16	['None']
-farg-00270	Claims "illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay" under Hillary Clinton, while “terrorists and dangerous criminals” are “kept out" under his plan.	https://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/twisting-clintons-immigration-plan/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Lori Robertson	['2016 TV Ad', 'illegal immigrants']	Twisting Clinton’s Immigration Plan	August 23, 2016	[' In a TV ad – Friday, August 19, 2016 ']	['None']
-chct-00217	FACT CHECK: Did 40 Percent Of All Illegal Immigrants Overstay Legal Visas?	http://checkyourfact.com/2018/01/26/fact-check-did-40-percent-of-all-illegal-immigrants-overstay-legal-visas/	None	None	None	Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter	None	None	6:17 PM 01/26/2018	None	['None']
-snes-00570	President Donald Trump sent a video message to Belgian citizens criticizing their government for being part of the Paris Climate Change Agreement.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-belgium-climate-agreement/	None	Politics	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Did President Trump Tell Belgium to ‘Withdraw from the Climate Agreement’?	21 May 2018	None	['Belgium']
-hoer-00947	Free Box of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/free-box-of-krispy-kreme-doughnuts-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Free Box of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Facebook Scam	August 31, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02672	"Crime in Atlanta is down 18 percent since 2009."	/georgia/statements/2014/jan/10/atlanta-police-foundation/police-foundation-target/	Just in time for the Christmas holidays, people who give their time and money to help the Atlanta Police Department received good news in the mail. A flier from the nonprofit Atlanta Police Foundation arrived with this impressive headline: "Crime in Atlanta is down 18 percent since 2009." That is something to feel good about. But is it true? PolitiFact Georgia decided to look deeper into the foundation’s claim, especially given that, at several times during the year, residents have been rattled by -- and outspoken about -- high-profile neighborhood crimes. To make the claim of an 18 percent drop in crime, the foundation compared crime data in the first 45 weeks of 2009 against data for the same 45 weeks in 2013. The foundation focused on what are known as Part 1, or major, crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and auto thefts. The foundation pulled straight from records of the Atlanta Police Department, which show: 2009 2013 % difference Murders 72 70 -3 Rapes 95 93 -2 Robberies 2209 2020 -9 Aggravated assaults 2302 1970 -14 Burglaries 7654 5010 -35 Larcenies from auto 9447 7988 -15 Other larcenies 7191 6902 -4 Auto thefts 4898 3867 -21 All Part 1 offenses 33,868 27,920 -18 The 18 percent decline was calculated by taking the Part 1 offenses for 2009, subtract the Part 1 offenses from 2013, then divide the difference by the Part 1 Offenses in 2009. Step 1) 33,868 - 27,920 = 5,948 Step 2) 5,948/ 33,868 = 0.1756 (rounded to .18 or 18%) Robert R. Friedmann, a professor emeritus of criminal justice and director of the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange at Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, said the calculations are "legitimate." This is "one of several ways to calculate what’s happening with crime," he said. "It relies on raw figures, Friedmann said. "If you actually calculate rates, then the decline will be higher than 18 percent since the population has increased." The claim by the foundation, which raised and spent more than $2 million in 2012 to support police department initiatives, was "fair for the purpose it was done for," he said. "I read PolitiFact, and I would rate it as a True," Friedmann said. "I wouldn’t have an issue with it." Jack Levin, the director of the Brudnick Center on Conflict and Violence at Northeastern University, said the Atlanta Police Foundation could have provided its supporters a "clearer picture" of crime in the city had it shown the crime trends from 2009 to 2013, rather than a 45-week-to-45-week comparison. "But using a baseline of 2009, it doesn’t look like they were trying to put one over on the public," Levin said. Homicide rates were the lowest in decades in 2009, so someone wanting to make the city look better would likely have chosen another year to compare with 2013, he said. Had the foundation chosen to compare the 45 weeks of 2013 with the same weeks in 2010, 2011 or 2012, crime also would have been down, but not as much as compared with 2009. The Christmastime flier was sent to supporters "as a reminder of the impact that their donations have had funding critical programs spearheaded by the APF," said Miguel Sepulveda, the foundation’s vice president for communications and director of Crime Stoppers of Greater Atlanta. Earlier this year, the foundation sent supporters a postcard, directing them to a more detailed crime report, Sepulveda said. The recent flier didn’t give the reader any specifics to support the foundation’s claim. "Perhaps, we should do that," Sepulveda said in an email exchange. "We used the first 45 weeks because those were the most current stats available for 2013 at the time the [flier] went to print," he said. Mayor Kasim Reed made crime fighting a topic of his second inaugural address this week. He rated the Police Department’s expansion to 2,000 workers as a first-term milestone and promised to "double-down" efforts to address crime in his second term. Crime has brought the city some unflattering headlines. For instance, Forbes magazine ranked Atlanta as the ninth "most dangerous city" in the nation for 2013, down from sixth in 2012. The magazine creates the annual list by using the FBI's Crime Statistics database screened for cities with populations of 200,000 and higher. Experts generally downplay these rankings, and the FBI specifically warns against using its statistics for city-against-city rankings. But there’s no evidence that the foundation’s flier claim was anything but accurate based on the available data. We rate the statement True.	None	Atlanta Police Foundation	None	None	None	2014-01-10T00:00:00	2013-12-17	['Atlanta']
-snes-04750	"Sex roulette" is a new sexual trend in which one attendee at an orgy is HIV-positive.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sex-roulette/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Sex Roulette	18 May 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00016	Will direct the Internal Revenue Service to "give taxpayers the option of a pre-filled tax form to verify, sign and return to the IRS or online. This will eliminate the need for Americans to hire expensive tax preparers and to gather information that the federal government already has on file."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/18/provide-option-for-a-pre-filled-out-tax-form/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Provide option for a pre-filled-out tax form	2010-01-07T13:26:45	None	['United_States', 'Internal_Revenue_Service']
-snes-02262	A video depicts London Mayor Sadiq Khan defending September 11th terrorists, either verbally and ideologically or as their lawyer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sadiq-khan-video/	None	Fauxtography	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did London Mayor Sadiq Khan Defend 9/11 Terrorists?	6 June 2017	None	['London']
-snes-02545	Greg Comer is battling cancer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greg-comer-cancer-prayer/	None	Computers	None	Dan Evon	None	Is North Carolina Man Greg Comer Battling Cancer?	25 April 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-15180	"Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/aug/23/rhode-island-center-freedom-and-prosperity/ri-center-prosperity-freedoms-rails-against-regula/	Rhode Island has issued a controversial vaccination requirement designed to fight HPV, or human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cancer. The requirement, ordered by the Rhode Island Department of Health, took effect Aug. 1. It has drawn fire from a group of critics that included the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which calls itself a "free enterprise think tank." The new policy calls for the vaccination of all seventh grade boys and girls before the start of school. The requirement does not apply to students whose doctors cite a medical problem; or to students whose parents object for religious reasons. And the health department defines religious reasons very liberally. Before a series of public information meetings on the vaccination requirement, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity posted this statement on its website: "Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people." We telephoned Mike Stenhouse, the center’s founder and chief executive officer, and asked him for his sources. We didn’t get anything from him right away. So we did our own research and found that Virginia is the only other state to require students to receive immunization for HPV. Virginia’s vaccination requirement, which is only for sixth-grade girls, took effect in 2008 following an act of the legislature. Rhode Island’s policy is the product of a regulatory process that began in 2013 under the leadership of Michael Fine, then the state’s director of the Department of Health. In both states, HPV vaccination policies use the word "required" and both have opt-out provisions. In Virginia, parents have "sole discretion" on whether their children receive the vaccination. Stenhouse labels the policies in Virginia and Rhode Island as mandates. But Jason L. Schwartz, an assistant professor at the Yale University School of Public Health, says you can’t call policies with such liberal exemptions mandates. The breadth of Rhode Island’s opt-out provisions may not have been clear to the public — or to Stenhouse — before a public meeting Aug. 5. That’s when Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, the new director of the Department of Health, told parents that their philosophical objections would qualify for the religious exemption spelled out in the regulations. But what about the center’s claim that Rhode Island imposed the requirement by "regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people"? And, as the center says later in its policy statement, was the health department’s decision an example of "regulatory despotism" that "bypasses the traditional democratic process"? While it’s true that the General Assembly did not pass a law for the HPV vaccination, existing Rhode Island law gives the health director the power to adopt regulations to protect public health. And, of course, the health director is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor. Further, control of health-care policy by the executive branch is common in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for example, makes decisions affecting the health welfare of the country without first getting an act of Congress. "To say it’s anti-democratic would be a misunderstanding of how we structure our government in the United States," says Schwartz, the Yale professor, who co-authored a recent article about state vaccination requirements for the Journal of the American Medical Association. Also it’s not as if the state adopted the regulation in a back room somewhere — even though Stenhouse’s organization on July 30 described the news of the requirement as a "stunning revelation." On Dec. 2, 2013, Fine, the former health director, filed a notice of public hearing for Jan. 16, 2014, and also solicited written statements on the issue. In response to criticism, the department delayed the beginning of the program from Aug. 1, 2014, to Aug. 1, 2015, according to a form for the regulation that was filed with the Office of Secretary of State Nellie M. Gorbea. The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union registered its ardent opposition to the proposed regulation at the hearing and in written comments. On Jan. 27, 2014, the ACLU called on the health department to reconsider the proposal. The ACLU also criticized the requirement on Facebook. That’s seems like debate to us. We tried to get Stenhouse to explain what the center meant by the phrase "regulatory fiat." He declined. Instead, he sent us a written statement in which he said the center "stands by its statement" and he challenged PolitiFact’s fairness and objectivity. Our ruling The center says "Rhode Island will become just the second state to mandate the vaccine … and the only state to do so by regulatory fiat, without public debate, and without consideration from the elected representatives of the people." The center, in its statement, got two things right and two things wrong. It was right about Rhode Island being the second state and it was right that the requirement was not adopted by "the elected representatives of the people." It was wrong when it said the vaccination requirement was imposed "by fiat" and "without public debate." In 2014, the ACLU sharply criticized the vaccine requirement at the public hearing and debated the proposal in social media and on its website. As for acting by fiat, the regulation was put in place through a process established by law. And comments at a public hearing influenced that process, leading to a decision by the director of health to delay execution of the policy for one year. More recently, the new health director told the public that philosophical objections were enough to qualify for the religious exemption. In other words, parents can pretty much say whatever they want to get exemptions for their children. For those reasons, we rate the statement Half True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity	None	None	None	2015-08-23T00:00:00	2015-07-30	['None']
-pomt-12311	"5.7 million -- that’s how many illegal immigrants might have voted" in 2008.	/florida/statements/2017/jun/22/ainsley-earhardt/following-trump-voter-fraud-allegations-claim-57-m/	President Donald Trump’s unfounded allegations that millions voted illegally in 2016 is back in the news, with his supporters pointing to a new analysis that claims millions of undocumented immigrants voted in 2008. Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt talked about it on the morning show recently. "5.7 million -- that’s how many illegal immigrants might have voted" in 2008, she said. Her comments referenced an article in the Washington Times, a conservative newspaper. Trump has made repeated claims about massive voter fraud and election rigging, which we’ve debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again (and we debunked a claim by his spokesman Sean Spicer). The claim made on Fox and Friends is based on an extrapolation of a controversial study that relied on a very small number of responses. Researchers involved in the underlying survey of voters have cautioned against using their data to reach conclusions about noncitizen voters. Study about the 2008 election We emailed a spokeswoman for Fox News and did not get a reply; however, the Washington Times article showed that the information came from Just Facts, a think tank that describes itself as conservative/libertarian and was founded by James D. Agresti, a mechanical engineer in New Jersey. Agresti’s conclusions are based on data from a paper by Old Dominion University researchers who used data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, or CCES. He multiplied the findings in that data with U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the noncitizen population to come up with a conclusion about the number of noncitizen voters nationwide. It’s important to note that the CCES researchers have disputed the conclusions Old Dominion researchers reached about noncitizen voters. Here’s how the studies unfolded: In 2008, the CCES surveyed 32,800 adults nationwide online about their political views. Respondents answered at least 100 questions before they made it to the citizenship question, one of the last questions asked. The survey showed that 339 identified themselves as noncitizens -- about 1 percent of the total respondents. Then of the 339 self-identified noncitizens, 39 of those claim to have voted, said Brian Schaffner, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, one of the main researchers. That’s 39 respondents out of 32,800 people who are now being used to extrapolate millions of illegal voters. Schaffner has warned that with a subset that small, the responses might be unreliable. "Survey respondents occasionally select the wrong response by accident—perhaps because they are rushing through and not reading the questions carefully, because they do not fully understand the terminology being used, or because they simply click on the wrong box on the page," Schaffner wrote in a Politico magazine article after the November election. Subsequent CCES surveys provide more evidence that some respondents answered the question wrong. There were 20 respondents who identified themselves as citizens in 2010 but then in 2012 changed their answers to indicate that they were noncitizens, which Schaffer said is "highly unrealistic." In 2014, researchers at Old Dominion University used the CCES data in 2008 and 2010, as well as voter records in 2008, to conclude that more than 14 percent of noncitizens indicated that they were registered to vote. Their best guess at the portion of noncitizens who voted was about 6.4 percent, or 1.2 million votes cast. The researchers at CCES (including Schaffner; Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard political scientist; and Samantha Luks, managing director of scientific research at YouGov) have criticized the methodology used by Old Dominion. They said it didn’t fully consider the possibility that people responded to the survey inaccurately. "You are ignoring the measurement error in a very small group which is going to inflate those numbers," Schaffner said, "then you assume this is a random sample of all noncitizens in the country, which it probably isn’t." More than 100 political scientists from universities and colleges wrote an open letter in January disputing the Old Dominion paper as evidence for Trump’s claim that millions of noncitizens voted. "In a survey as large as the CCES, even a small rate of response error (where people incorrectly mark the wrong item on a survey) can lead to incorrect conclusions," they wrote. "The scholarly political science community has generally rejected the findings in the Richman et al. study and we believe it should not be cited or used in any debate over fraudulent voting." Jesse Richman, one of the Old Dominion researchers and a political science professor, told PolitiFact he still stands by his research and responded to the criticisms by CCES researchers in a working paper in February. Agresti of Just Facts, the source of the numbers cited on Fox and Friends, used the same data from CCES and Old Dominion and concluded that between 594,000 to 5.7 million noncitizens voted illegally in the 2008 election. Agresti said his number on the high end of his range was higher than Old Dominion because he used different methodology in his calculations. Other research has found small numbers of noncitizen voters Setting aside surveys, another way to find noncitizen voters is to examine state voter records and compare that with data about immigration status. But states have struggled with attempts to do that. Florida tried before the 2012 election and scrapped the effort amid many errors. We interviewed other election experts: Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine; Lorraine Minnite, political science professor at Rutgers University; and Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has tracked voter fraud allegations since 2000. All three rejected Agresti’s conclusions. There have been some instances of noncitizens voting, but actual evidence has shown small numbers among millions of votes cast nationwide. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who co-chairs Trump’s voter fraud commission, has obtained a total of one conviction for noncitizen voting since 2015. North Carolina’s 2016 post-election audit showed a few dozen noncitizen voters out of 4.8 million votes cast. Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced in February that since he took office in 2011, he has identified 126 noncitizens who cast ballots. Our ruling Fox and Friends co-host Ainsley Earhardt said, "5.7 million -- that’s how many illegal immigrants might have voted" in 2008. The number comes from a conclusion by Just Facts, a conservative/libertarian think tank. Just Facts’ numbers came from a study by Old Dominion University researchers. That study was based on a survey which showed that 39 people out 32,800 claimed to be noncitizens who had voted. Just Facts used data from the study and Census estimates on the noncitizen population to come up with a national figure of noncitizen voters. But other researchers and political scientists have said the small number is not a reliable source of data on noncitizen voters nationwide. We rate this claim False. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Ainsley Earhardt	None	None	None	2017-06-22T15:28:56	2017-06-20	['None']
-tron-02095	Woman Without Arms Flies Airplanes With Her Feet	https://www.truthorfiction.com/jessica-cox/	None	inspirational	None	None	None	Woman Without Arms Flies Airplanes With Her Feet	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-09139	"The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/14/john-boehner/boehner-says-house-has-always-passed-budget-resolu/	On the June 13, 2010, edition of ABC's This Week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, got into a back-and-forth over how diligent lawmakers have been in passing a budget in recent years. Hoyer said that "the Republicans didn't have a budget in '02, '04, '06," while Boehner claimed "the House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era." With dueling claims like these, we had no choice but to step in and play referee. In this item, we'll look at what Boehner said; in a separate item, we'll look at Hoyer's comment. First, a little background. The budget process used by Congress today was set forth in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Both the Senate and the House are supposed to pass resolutions in the spring that outline the framework for future bills that address spending, taxation and other fiscal policy items. This budget represents a plan for allocating revenues and expenditures for the coming fiscal year, as well as for the next four fiscal years in more general terms. Each chamber is supposed to pass a version of the resolution, and if the two versions differ, then the chambers jointly hammer out a compromise and pass it. The budget process is distinct from the series of appropriations, or spending, bills that actually allocate money for specific purposes. Unlike the appropriations bills, the budget resolution doesn't carry the force of law. In fact, unlike a law, the budget resolution is not signed by the president after it passes both chambers. If a budget resolution does not pass, the majority can still use parliamentary procedures to proceed to appropriations bills, but the inability to pass the budget framework can reflect poorly on the majority's organizational skills and/or the degree of partisan discord in Congress. It also increases the likelihood of a logjam of appropriations bills in the fall and winter and decreases the chance that controversial tax bills will pass the Senate. That's why the expected failure of the Democratic House majority to pass a budget for fiscal year 2011 has become a talking point for Republicans. According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the House has indeed passed a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year 1976. So if the House does not pass a budget for fiscal year 2011, it will be the first time since the current rules went into force. However, we should also note that the House has not always been joined by the Senate in passing a budget -- a factor that explains the difference between what Boehner and Hoyer said. Since 1983 -- the first year the House and Senate stopped passing two budget resolutions annually and began passing one per year -- the two chambers failed to pass a joint budget bill on four occasions. For fiscal year 2003, the Senate, then under Democratic control, failed to pass a budget resolution of any kind, and on three other occasions (fiscal years 1999, 2005 and 2007) the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. Because Congress always works on the budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, the Republican Congressional majority failed to pass a finished budget in three years: 1998, 2004 and 2006. So Boehner is correct that the House has always passed a budget resolution, even though on three occasions, it later failed to work out differences with the Senate and pass a final, identical version, and once the Senate, under Democratic control, had no budget resolution. We'll note that caveat, but we don't think his failure to mention that point undermines the accuracy of his statement. So we rate Boehner's statement True.	None	John Boehner	None	None	None	2010-06-14T15:26:55	2010-06-13	['None']
-pomt-11677	Says Sandra Bullock said to Hillary Clinton, "If you don’t like our president you can leave and never come back again."	/punditfact/statements/2018/jan/04/flash-24-daily/no-sandra-bullock-didnt-disparage-hillary-clinton/	A fake news article said actress Sandra Bullock praised President Donald Trump while telling Hillary Clinton she could leave the United States if she isn’t happy with how things are going. "Actress Sandra Bullock to Hillary Clinton: ‘if you don’t like our president you can leave and never come back again, you are one jealous woman who is nothing to compare with Trump, I hope he will arrest you soon,’" said a Dec. 25 headline on Flash 24 Daily. Facebook users flagged the post as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social network’s efforts to combat fake news. We found no evidence that Bullock made the statement about Clinton. The same story has circulated on various websites on Facebook at least since October. While the headline showed Bullock bashing Clinton, the article itself didn’t include any quotes by Bullock in which she mentioned Clinton or Trump by name. The article said that the quotes by Bullock came from her press conference for her "new film," Our Brand Is Crisis. One big hint that this is fake news: that movie was released in 2015. In the movie, Bullock played a political consultant drafted to help the president of Bolivia win re-election as she competed with her rival working for another candidate. At a press conference in October 2015 for her movie, Bullock said she disagreed with Trump when asked about his comments about Mexican-Americans. "I don’t agree with that at all," Bullock said. "That was not a statement that I can get behind. I don’t agree with that statement." The Flash 24 Daily article included some actual quotes by Bullock from that press conference about how her views are influenced by her son. Bullock has adopted two African-American children -- a boy and a girl. "I would like my rights represented and those of my son — very selfish views, and I think everyone else has them," she says. "When this film came along, it came along at a time that I was having that internal discussion with myself about who in our country would step out of their comfort zone to help others for the greater good." We found no evidence that Bullock said to Clinton "if you don’t like our president you can leave and never come back again." We rate this headline Pants on Fire. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Flash 24 Daily	None	None	None	2018-01-04T11:00:00	2017-12-25	['Sandra_Bullock', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']
-abbc-00020	An award provides "pay rates and conditions of employment such as leave entitlements, overtime and shift work, amongst other workplace related conditions"	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/fact-check-have-700000-of-the-poorest-workers-received-pay-cut/8694966	An award provides "pay rates and conditions of employment such as leave entitlements, overtime and shift work, amongst other workplace related conditions"	['alp', 'industrial-relations', 'australia']	None	None	['alp', 'industrial-relations', 'australia']	Fact check: Have 700,000 of the poorest-paid people received an effective pay cut?	Mon 24 Jul 2017, 5:08am	None	['None']
-pomt-08248	"My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP" was too.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/12/george-w-bush/former-president-george-w-bush-defends-his-fiscal-/	During the tour to promote his presidential memoir, Decision Points, George W. Bush defended his fiscal record in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's Today Show. In the interview, Bush said that the ratio of the deficit to gross domestic product during his time in office "was lower than Ronald Reagan's by half. Lower than my dad's. And only [worse than] Bill Clinton among modern presidents. ... My debt to GDP was the lowest or one of the lowest of modern presidents. My taxes to GDP was the lowest and my spending to GDP" was too. We thought it would be worthwhile to see if Bush was correct. So we turned to a historical table from the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole. The challenge is figuring exactly how to compare recent presidents. Let's start with the deficit. The most obvious way to do it is to add up all of the annual percentages for a president and divide by the number of years served, to produce an average. Calculating it this way -- and beginning our list of "modern" presidents with President Dwight Eisenhower -- we came up with the following order: Eisenhower (deficits averaged 0.53 percent of GDP), Clinton (0.76 percent of GDP), Richard Nixon (0.93 percent), Lyndon Johnson (1.1 percent), George W. Bush (2.0 percent), Jimmy Carter (2.4 percent), George H.W. Bush (3.98 percent), Reagan (4.23 percent). (We excluded John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford because of their short tenures.) You can do the same with spending and tax receipts. For spending as a percent of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (18.1 percent of GDP), Johnson (18.7 percent), Nixon (19.2 percent), George W. Bush (19.6 percent), Clinton (19.8), Carter (20.8), George H.W. Bush (21.9), and Reagan (22.4). For tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, the ranking from low to high is Eisenhower (17.5 percent of GDP), Johnson and George W. Bush (tied at 17.6 percent), George H.W. Bush (17.9 percent), Reagan (18.2 percent), Nixon (18.3 percent), Carter (18.4 percent) and Clinton (19 percent). Whether Bush is correct depends heavily on which presidents you consider "modern." If you only go back to Reagan -- the earliest president that Bush himself cited by name in the interview -- then Bush is basically correct. Only Clinton did better when measured by deficit as a percentage of GDP, while no president dating back to Reagan scored better on spending or tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. By contrast, if you go back to Eisenhower -- the first fully post-World War II president -- Bush is in the middle of the pack on the deficit and on spending, and he's near the top on tax receipts. But there's another way to look at the deficit -- to compare a president's first deficit as a percentage of GDP to their last. This shows what direction the deficit went during their tenures. And on this one, George W. Bush does the worst of any president dating back to Eisenhower. The younger Bush went from a 1.3 percent surplus to a 3.2 percent deficit, a decline of 4.5 percentage points. The best was Clinton, who moved the deficit from a 3.9 percent deficit to a 2.4 percent surplus -- a positive change of 6.3 percentage points. The other presidents all had changes up or down that were roughly two percentage points or smaller. This suggests that Bush's fiscal record wasn't so sterling if you use a different measure than the one he did. But to analyze the accuracy of his statement, we'll stick closely to the words he used. George W. Bush is correct that he outperformed his father, Reagan and (mostly) Clinton. So if you consider those the "modern" presidents, he's essentially right. If you broaden the "modern presidents" to include those serving in the entire post-World War II period, Bush is about average. While we wouldn't have chosen to define the "modern presidents" to include just the four that Bush mentioned by name, we'll give him some deference in framing the question. So we rate his statement Mostly True.	None	George W. Bush	None	None	None	2010-11-12T19:00:00	2010-11-08	['None']
-pose-01255	"We're going to cancel every needless job-killing regulation and put a moratorium on new regulations until our economy gets back on its feet."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1346/enact-temporary-ban-new-regulations/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Enact a temporary ban on new regulations	2017-01-17T08:31:45	None	['None']
-wast-00150	American Health Care Act: More competition and choices, resulting in lower costs and better coverage.	 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/05/24/fact-checking-a-rosy-portrait-of-the-american-health-care-act/	None	None	American Action Network	Glenn Kessler	None	Fact-checking a rosy portrait of the American Health Care Act	May 24, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-06322	Earthquakes are most likely to happen when the weather is hot and dry.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/earthquake-myths/	None	Old Wives' Tales	None	David Mikkelson	None	Earthquake Myths	17 April 2010	None	['None']
-tron-00552	Tim Horton Will Begin Selling Marijuana Across Canada in 2017	https://www.truthorfiction.com/tim-horton-will-begin-selling-marijuana-across-canada-2017/	None	business	None	None	None	Tim Horton Will Begin Selling Marijuana Across Canada in 2017	Jul 5, 2016	None	['Canada']
-pomt-14956	"The word progressive ... was created as a substitute for ‘communist’."	/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/22/jon-voight/actor-jon-voight-says-progressive-just-another-wor/	Cigar smokers of the world unite. Actor and conservative advocate Jon Voight engaged in a wide-ranging interview for Cigar Afcionado in which he got into the smoke-filled rooms of politics. The magazine released excerpts in advance of publication, and a Fox News website Fox411 wrote about Voight bemoaning how liberals have rebranded themselves. "I think the word ‘progressive’ is a very devious term. It was created as a substitute for ‘communist,’ " he said. "What they propose is the reverse of progress. It’s some that that (sic) does taste of communism and Karl Marx’s pernicious philosophy." We looked into the origins of the word progressive to see if it was created as a ruse to mask communistic thinking. What we found is quite the opposite. The progressive platform emerged as way to thwart the growth of nascent American socialist or communist movements. The birth of the progressive movement The progressive label showed up in the first decade of the 20th century. The Library of Congress describes the progressives as those who "tried to make big business more responsible through regulations of various kinds. They worked to clean up corrupt city governments, to improve working conditions in factories, and to better living conditions for those who lived in slum areas, a large number of whom were recent immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. Many progressives were also concerned with the environment and conservation of resources." Around the turn of the 20th century, children worked in factories, city bosses rigged elections, and corporate mergers had allowed single entities to enjoy monopoly or near-monopoly power. In nearly 80 industries, there was one firm that controlled over half the total output. The movement had many strands and at times drew support from both Republican and Democratic politicians. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, having failed to win the Republican nomination, ran for president under the banner of the Progressive Party (in the popular press it was called the Bull Moose Party.) Some planks in the party platform resonate today. They called for limits and disclosure of campaign contributions, an eight-hour workday, a national health service, social insurance for the elderly, the unemployed and the disabled, and oversight of Wall Street. They also sought direct election of senators and creation of a national income tax. William Link, a progressive-era historian at the University of Florida, told us that while some activists focused on cleaning up slums and others on fighting political corruption, there was a unifying theme. "It was mostly an attempt to regulate and restrain the negative forces of industrial capitalism," Link said. "This meant public interventions -- often, of government, but not always -- designed to create a better society in the industrializing age." During the progressive era, the nation gave women the right to vote and regulated the meat and drug industries, as well as the railroads. The progressive agenda showed strong regional differences. In the South, it was part of the white supremacist movement. In the North, some factions were strongly anti-immigrant. Many progressives also supported Prohibition. A break from the socialists and Marxists Rutgers University’s website on this period said many of the leaders of the movement were members of "the middle and upper-class establishment" who believed that the excesses of industry were breeding conditions that amplified calls for more radical change. "Fear of the expansion of Socialism and Marxism provoked many in the upper class to support more moderate reform efforts as a means to ease the growing tensions between rich and poor and head off more extreme threats to their privileged role in society," the authors wrote. Charles Postel is an historian at San Francisco State University currently writing a book on the progressive era. Postel told us leading progressives such as President Teddy Roosevelt were quite clear on the relationship between their reform agenda and socialism. "Roosevelt lectured business leaders that they needed to get on board with the graduated income tax and similar reforms if they were to successfully defeat the socialists," Postel said. Historian Shelton Stromquist at the University of Iowa wrote that the progressive agenda split from Marxist thinking on the issue of class. While Marxist thought emphasized class consciousness as the key to change, the mainstream progressives looked to reforms such as better housing, work conditions and education to raise people out of misery. "They convinced themselves that class conflict and the 'parochial' class loyalties that bred it could be transcended," Stromquist wrote in Reinventing "the People": The Progressive Movement, the Class Problem and the Origins of Modern Liberalism. Stromquist wrote that modern-day liberals inherited this framework, saying, "Liberals have largely continued to deny the relevance of class to reform." Later progressives Most historians mark the years immediately after World War I as the end of the progressive era. Link told us the term fell out of favor for nearly three decades. It returned briefly in 1948 when former Vice President Henry Wallace (he served in Franklin Roosevelt’s last full term) ran a third-party bid for president under the Progressive Party. Wallace had virtually no chance to begin with, but after the Communist Party USA endorsed him, his campaign was doomed. Wallace himself praised aspects of the Soviet Union for promoting "economic democracy." That incarnation of the Progressive Party dissolved in 1955. The Wallace link aside, Link told us that Voight’s assertion is "absurd." "To say that it ‘substituted’ for communism is historically inaccurate," Link said. Our ruling Voight said that the word progressive was created as a substitute for communist. The historic record shows that the progressive movement emerged around the turn of the last century in response to the conditions created by runaway capitalism. Its policies aimed to regulate private industry, not eliminate it. That agenda enjoyed broad support from people who identified with both parties and led to many of the basic features of government today. Many of the movement’s mainstream supporters backed reforms as a way to head off more radical movements based on class identity rooted in Marxist thought. There was a brief period when the progressive label attracted support from avowed Communists, but that ended about 60 years ago and played no role in the creation of the term. We rate this claim False.	None	Jon Voight	None	None	None	2015-10-22T17:24:36	2015-10-20	['None']
-pomt-13200	The Democratic Party "is the oldest continuous political party in the world."	/wisconsin/statements/2016/oct/24/tim-kaine/democratic-party-oldest-continuous-political-party/	It’s widely stated that the Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world. PBS says the party is the "world’s oldest existing political party." In a 2003 book review, the Washington Post called the party the "world’s oldest political party." And at a rally in Wisconsin, Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine repeated the claim: "When I was standing on that stage, and the balloons were falling after Hillary (Clinton) had accepted the nomination, and my 81-year-old mother was there with me, and all of our extended family, my mom said to me: 'Tim, this is the greatest night of my life,'" Kaine said in an Aug. 5, 2016 appearance in Milwaukee. "Now, she was saying that partly because of me, but, but she was saying it because it was a historic night for the oldest continuous political party in the world, and for the first time in the history of the United States, to have a woman nominated for president." We decided to take a stroll through the history books to see if Kaine was right about the Democratic Party being the oldest continuous political party in the world. The experts we reached gave us an answer: Yes, but. "It’s a very common statement and it’s largely true, but it’s a little complicated," said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. U.S. history Both parties can trace their beginnings to the start of George Washington’s time as president (1789), but the path is more direct for Democrats. The political parties that eventually developed in the United States were the first modern political parties in the sense that they drew broader representation from the general electorate than political groups in other nations. The Democratic Party traces its roots to the early 1790s. At that point, Congress was starting to divide into two groups, said John Aldrich, a Duke University political science professor who wrote the book, "Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America." But as a modern-looking continuous political party, it dates to either 1828, with the election of Andrew Jackson or 1832, when the party held its first national convention. Republicans could trace their roots back to Washington’s administration as well -- but the word "continuous" is key in this context. "The Democrats have established their claim that they’re the oldest continuous political party because the name changes less,"Jillson said. "The (two sides’) agendas, though, go all the way back to the first Washington administration in the 1790s." The Republican Party can trace itself -- by three different names -- to Washington’s first years, during which Alexander Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury and Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State and they argued with each other in Washington’s cabinet, Jillson said. "The two parties grow out of that (those arguments) and so it’s right to say that the Democrats are the oldest continuous party but the Republicans could make the claim that under three different names their party is just as old," he said. The Federalists, originally associated with Hamilton’s policies, became the Whigs, which became, ultimately, the Republicans, Jillson said. But the line from Federalists to Republicans is more obscure, Aldrich said. Most would say that while there are some connections, the Whigs and the Republicans were really new parties, especially when compared to the more or less direct line between Jefferson and today’s party, Aldrich wrote in an email. The Republican Party says its founding came in the 1850s. The Republican National Committee describes its formation at a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 and the party’s formal organization at a convention in Michigan that same year -- long after the Democrats. It held its first national convention in 1856. In the whole world? "In the U.S., we know the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party and so the question is, is it older than other parties elsewhere in the world?" said Casey Dominguez, an associate professor at the University of San Diego’s Department of Political Science and International Relations. There are only a handful of other democracies in the world to compare to, she said. Our experts primarily compared the U.S. political parties to those in Great Britain. American political parties are recognized for their broad electorate that tends to line up behind the two major political parties, whereas that dynamic came much later in Britain, Jillson said. When political parties were developing in the United States, the British counterparts were more aggregations of elites. The Conservative and Liberal parties in Britain can trace their roots to well before the founding of the United States. But it was not until the Great Reform Act of 1867 that Britain began to develop modern parties in the sense that a broader swath of the electorate was able to participate. Our rating Kaine said that the Democratic Party is "the oldest continuous political party in the world." The political parties that developed in the United States were the first modern political parties in the sense that they drew broader representation from the general electorate than their predecessors in other nations. In the U.S., the Democratic Party is older than the Republican Party. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f79891e0-294d-42ac-ac37-131d84a461b6	None	Tim Kaine	None	None	None	2016-10-24T05:00:00	2016-08-05	['None']
-pomt-02167	Says Scott Brown "voted to give oil companies big tax breaks."	/new-hampshire/statements/2014/apr/30/senate-majority-pac/senate-majority-pac-says-scott-brown-voted-give-oi/	The Senate Majority PAC, which employs several former aides to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has again struck former Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who’s now running in New Hampshire to oust Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. The April 27, 2014, ad, titled "Baggage," focuses on Brown’s connection to "big oil." "Scott Brown’s carrying some big oil baggage," the narrator says. "In Massachusetts, he voted to give oil companies big tax breaks. They make record profits. He collects over $400,000 in campaign contributions." In this fact-check, we’ll focus on Brown’s votes. We’ll tackle his campaign contributions separately. The Senate Majority PAC cited Brown’s votes in 2010, 2011 and 2012 against measures that would have kept the "big five" oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips) from taking advantage of existing tax breaks. Sponsors of the measures sought to apply the roughly $24 billion in additional tax revenue toward energy efficiency and conservation. Specifically, the measures would have prevented those five oil companies from using these existing tax breaks: • Deductions on taxes paid to foreign governments • Deductions on domestic manufacturing costs • Deductions for intangible drilling costs • Percentage depletion allowance for oil and gas wells • Deductions for qualified tertiary injectant expenses Three of these breaks applied specifically to the oil industry. The other two -- the ones about manufacturing costs and taxes paid to foreign governments -- can be claimed by businesses other than oil companies. If passed, these five provisions would still have applied to companies beyond the "big five" oil firms. In each of these three years, the measures failed -- by margins of 35-61 in 2010, 52-48 in 2011 and 51-47 in 2012. Majorities weren’t enough in the final two years, since those measures required 60 votes in order to cut off debate and take a final vote. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote in favor of the 2012 bill. In 2011, she voted the same way, along with fellow Maine Republican Susan Collins. In 2010, no Republican supported the measure. Brown joined most Republicans and a few Democrats from oil states in voting against the measure each time it hit the floor. Ironically, the Senate Majority PAC supports this year’s re-election bids of two other Democratic senators who voted the same way on these measures as Brown did -- Mark Begich of Alaska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. The bill’s opponents sometimes cited a March 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that concluded that withholding subsidies from companies could increase prices at the pump. In general, then, the ad is correct that Brown sided with the position of "big oil" on these votes. However, the ad’s claim is phrased slightly misleadingly. Rather than voting "to give oil companies big tax breaks," Brown voted not to take away the tax breaks that oil companies were already using. Also, it’s worth noting that two out of the five tax breaks in question were not targeted only at oil companies but were tax breaks that non-oil companies could benefit from, as well. Our ruling A Senate Majority PAC ad said Brown "voted to give oil companies big tax breaks." For three years in a row, Brown did indeed vote against measures that would’ve barred the biggest five oil companies from taking advantage of tax breaks they already enjoyed. That’s slightly different than what the ad says -- rather than voting to give the companies a new break, as the ad implies, Brown voted to support the status quo. Still, the ad is correct to suggest that Brown was voting in concert with the biggest oil companies on that legislation. We rate the ad’s claim Mostly True.	None	Senate Majority PAC	None	None	None	2014-04-30T16:17:00	2014-04-27	['None']
-pomt-03091	Says President Barack Obama "has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own (health care) law."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/25/tom-graves/rep-graves-says-obama-has-changed-aca-19-times/	The Republican effort to defund Obamacare threatens a government shutdown at the end of the month. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., is one lawmaker who believes the dangers of the health care law justify extreme measures. Over the summer, Graves called the Affordable Care Act "destructive" and a "job killer." "We need to make every effort to ensure Obamacare is never implemented," he said. Graves said President Barack Obama’s actions highlight the law’s terminal flaws. "Something very important has happened since the president did win the election," Graves said on ABC’s This Week. "He himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law. So if it's so good for America, then why he is delaying it for his friends in big business?" We wondered if in fact, Obama has made that many changes in the law. Graves’ office pointed us to a letter from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan think tank for Congress. The Congressional Research Service review listed 19 times the Affordable Care Act changed since it was passed in 2010. The report counted 14 public laws and five administrative actions that made a variety of modifications to the law. For the record, we note that a dozen of those adjustments took place before the 2012 election, and not after as Graves said. The timing seems less important than the substance of what was done. Changes to the Affordable Care Act Some items on the list qualify as significant in the eyes of the health policy experts we contacted. One of the country’s leading authorities on health care law, Timothy Jost at the Washington and Lee School of Law, pointed to three: A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses The administration acted on its own to delay the employer mandate, explaining that the systems were not in place to implement it. The other two changes came through votes in Congress. "Congress couldn’t find a way to make the CLASS Act actuarially sound," Jost said, "so they repealed it and put the money elsewhere." As for the business reporting rule, "businesses said this was a huge burden and Congress responded," Jost said. "There was strong bipartisan support, and you could find the votes to make those sorts of changes." In addition to those three, a program to create consumer health insurance cooperatives was retained but lost $2.2 billion in funding. Most of the items on the Congressional Research Service list, however, are less dramatic. Several clarified that certain government health insurance programs would count as coverage under the individual mandate. This included Tricare, which covers the military, and insurance through Veterans Affairs. Other adjustments extended tax breaks, such as a tax credit for families that adopt a child. There were changes in the Medicaid federal matching formula (to keep money flowing to Louisiana after Katrina), and a tweak to the calculation of income that determines the level of premium subsidies in the insurance exchanges. Such changes are common in Congress, according to our experts. "Legislators aren't perfect," said Jost. "They don't get everything right the first time. That’s the nature of the legislative process." It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, Obama signed off on those changes as part of larger pieces of legislation. We’ve been here before Graves’ comments suggest that so many changes to the health care law means it's fundamentally flawed. Actually, major pieces of legislation rarely remain the same as the day the president signs them into law. The Medicare prescription drug benefit, passed under President George W. Bush, was changed several times after its initial passage. Both that law and the recent health care law lay a government program on top of a complex private market system, said Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University. "Patches on a patchwork mean making a coherent quilt very difficult," Marmor said. Even though the country had about two years to get ready for the Medicare drug program, about the same as with Obamacare, some pieces were not in place when the program launched, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University. "States were worried that bunches of people would show up on Jan. 1, 2005, and not be able to get their prescription drugs," Hoadley said. "So some of them started picking up the tab." Later, Hoadley said, the Bush administration pulled money from another fund to reimburse the states. The law required insurance plans to set up systems to keep an eye on people who took many different medications. The goal was to make sure the drugs were compatible. The purpose was sensible but as of 2005, the technology wasn’t ready. "The decision was made that while that requirement was still there, there would be no enforcement until they had time to get things up and running," Hoadley said. "It took several years of saying ‘Lets not focus on this; it’s not the most important thing’." Our ruling Graves said Obama "himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law." Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However, he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved. Graves cited these changes as evidence that the law is fatally flawed but he glossed over the differences among them. Some of the changes were significant and some were technical or tangential to the health care law itself. The basic number is right but there are lot of details of details missing from Graves' assertion. We rate the claim Half True.	None	Tom Graves	None	None	None	2013-09-25T10:24:09	2013-09-22	['None']
-abbc-00001	Protestors have marched through the streets of Brisbane voicing their opposition to proposed changes to abortion laws in Queensland.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-04/fact-check-queensland-abortion-laws-unrestricted-access/10264402	None	 ['abortion', 'liberals', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'qld', 'brisbane-4000', 'australia']	None	None	['abortion', 'liberals', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'qld', 'brisbane-4000', 'australia']	Fact check: Will Queensland's proposed abortion laws allow unrestricted access after 22 weeks?	Wed 3 Oct 2018, 11:08pm	None	['Brisbane', 'Queensland']
-pomt-00055	The U.S. Geological Survey increased Yellowstone volcano eruption threat level to "high"	/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2018/nov/03/blog-posting/no-yellowstone-volcanos-eruption-threat-level-did-/	Amid partisan allegations of political disasters, should we be more worried about the natural variety—and cancel any upcoming vacations to the first national park in the United States? "Yellowstone super volcano threat level just increased to ‘high’ by USGS," warned the headline on a story posted with a "preppers" tag on Oct. 29 on Disclose.tv. (USGS is th acronym for the U.S. Geological Survey, which provides science about natural hazards.) The Disclose.tv website lets users submit and share topics and videos that are supposedly ignored, denied or inadequately covered "by the mainstream media, governmental institutions and other information keepers." This story was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) Disclose.tv said in an email to PolitiFact that 100 percent of its content is user-generated. But at some point before we reached out, the headline was changed to read, "Yellowstone super volcano threat level set to ‘high’ by USGS," and it said it was posted to "nature," not "preppers." The Epoch Times, which posted a story on Oct. 25 about an eruption threat, also updated its coverage, but with a correction. "The Epoch Times published a misleading headline declaring the threat of Yellowstone volcano eruption had increased to ‘high.’ Yellowstone volcano’s ranking of 21st on the U.S. Geological Survey’s assessment has not changed." Yet another publication, the Post Register in Idaho, reported that the threat had been bumped from "moderate" to "high," though the newspaper cautioned that the Yellowstone caldera isn’t expected to "explode in a mega eruption anytime soon." Perhaps anticipating—or responding to—confusion over the volano’s threat assessment, USGS published its own article on Oct. 29 that explains what it all means. Here are the facts: Earlier this month, the agency released an updated threat assessment for U.S. volcanoes for the first time since the original assessment was published in 2005. The new assessment accounts for new research and observations over the past 13 years. In the 2005 assessment, Yellowstone is listed as a "high threat" volcano. In the 2018 assessment, Yellowstone is listed as a "high threat" volcano. Each volcano also has an overall threat score, which considers factors including average recurrence of eruptions, what types of eruptions have taken place and nearby infrastructure. In 2005, Yellowstone was ranked 21. In 2018, Yellowstone was ranked 21. "This qualifies Yellowstone as a ‘high threat’ volcanic system," according to the USGS article. "This is not a change or any sort of upgrade in the threat posed by Yellowstone, and carries no implications for future eruptive activity. It is merely a way to provide a sense of Yellowstone’s threat level compared to other volcanoes in the USA." It’s also important to note that the assessment is not an indicator of which volcanoes are most likely to erupt, according to USGS. It’s also not a ranking of the most active volcanoes (and "active" means that a volcano has erupted in the past 11,650 years). Rather, assessments gauge the relative risk a volcano poses to people and property. So if a volcano erupts but no one is living on it, it has a very low threat because no people or property are at risk, according to USGS. Meanwhile, "a volcano that might experience only small explosions but that is surrounded by towns and near an airport has a higher threat, since lots of people and property are exposed to the hazard (even if the hazard might be a relatively small one.)" We’ll let Michael Poland, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey and scientist-in-charge at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, have the last word. "In a nutshell, this whole ‘bumped Yellowstone’s volcano threat to high’ thing is a massive job of misreporting," Poland said in an email. "The threat level for the caldera system is rated as ‘high’ in a report that was issued by USGS. That report updates an initial report from 2005, in which Yellowstone was also rated ‘high.’ ... Nothing has changed" We rate this statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2018-11-03T11:19:11	2018-10-29	['None']
-bove-00088	Who Runs The Website ‘The True Picture’	https://www.boomlive.in/who-runs-the-website-the-true-picture/	None	None	None	None	None	Who Runs The Website ‘The True Picture’	Apr 03 2018 9:18 pm, Last Updated: Apr 04 2018 6:20 pm	None	['None']
-farg-00046	"Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs."	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ocasio-cortez-wrong-on-cause-of-low-unemployment/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez	Corey Berman	['multiple jobholders']	Ocasio-Cortez Wrong on Cause of Low Unemployment	July 18, 2018	[' Interview with PBS – Friday, July 13, 2018 ']	['None']
-snes-04490	Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/philando-castile-was-not-wanted-for-armed-robbery/	None	Crime	None	Dan Evon	None	Philando Castile Was Not ‘Wanted for Armed Robbery’	9 July 2016	None	['None']
-pose-00550	Will "streamline the licensing process and open the door to aspiring teachers with real world experience."	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/573/streamline-teacher-licensing-process-allow-those/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Streamline teacher licensing process; allow those with "real world" experience.	2010-12-20T23:16:36	None	['None']
-pomt-08113	You "can't check out a library book without a photo ID."	/texas/statements/2010/dec/11/david-dewhurst/david-dewhurst-says-you-cant-check-out-library-boo/	Advocating for a law that would require Texas voters to present photo IDs at the polls, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst told an interviewer this summer that "you can't get on a plane without a photo ID, you can't buy Sudafed without a photo ID, you can't check out a library book without a photo ID . . . We need to protect the sanctity of our votes," he told a representative of Americans for Prosperity in a June 11 interview at the Republican State Convention in Dallas. Most everyone knows that airline passengers have to hand up a photo ID before going through airport security. And since 2005, Texas pharmacies have been required by state law to make a person purchasing pills containing ephedrine, pseudoephedrine or nopseudoephedrine to display a driver's license or other ID containing the purchaser's photograph, as noted online by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy. Sudafed, a decongestant, contains pseudoephedrine, according to WebMD, a medical information website. But showing your ID to check out a library book? To our inquiry, Dewhurst spokesman Mike Walz shared information we confirmed indicating that applicants for library cards from the Austin, Dallas or San Antonio public libraries must present a photo ID. His point: If a photo ID is needed to get a card, that's like requiring a photo ID to check out a book. You need a card before you can check out a book. In Austin, according to its library website, adults seeking a card must apply in person at any branch and present a current photo ID plus proof of home address. Minors seeking a youth card may also apply at any branch, with a parent or guardian, the site says. "They should bring current photo ID and proof of current residence address," a library site says. Next, we looked into whether libraries around the country have identical photo-ID policies. Not so, according to Amy Sargent, spokeswoman for the Chicago-based Public Library Association, a division of the American Library Association. Sargent, who undertook an overview at our request, said via e-mail that "for as many listings we found of libraries that require a photo ID, we found as many that don't, so it's safe to say that the requirement is not nationally consistent" or "even consistent among types of libraries (urban, suburban, rural, etc...)." "Even if a photo ID is a primary requirement," her e-mail says, "many libraries seem to make concessions for people without IDs." According to the association, individuals seeking a Chicago library card must present a current ID with their photo or two pieces of current identification, such a a personal check, voter registration card or a current telephone, gas, electric or cable TV bill. Applicants for cards from the El Paso public library must show a photo ID or, if lacking picture identification, one type of non-photo ID with their name and current address. According to the association, applications for a card from the Montgomery County (Md.) library must be accompanied by "official identification," such as a driver's license, a check with pre-printed address or a postmarked letter addressed to the applicant. Photo IDs are required to get cards at libraries in San Diego, Calif.; Scottsdale, Ariz.; Manchester, N.H.; and Troy, Mich., Sargent said. And what about practices in Texas? Gloria Meraz, director of communications for the Texas Library Association, said local communities set their own policies. At our request, she asked librarians to share their approaches. From the responses, we learned that the Plano Public Library does not require a photo ID from applicants for library cards, while public libraries in Alamo, Allen, Baytown, Haslet, Irving, Richardson, Taylor and Wells Branch do have the ID hurdle. Broadly, many libraries require photo IDs to get a card, some do not. Still, we found no instances of libraries requiring a photo ID when actually checking out a book. Walz of Dewhurst's office said the lieutenant governor makes his point. "If there are libraries that do not require a photo ID" to get a card, "there are certainly some that do," Walz said. Our take: Dewhurst's claim confuses activities that are subject to uniform regulations in Texas--boarding a plane, purchasing Sudafed--with one that is subject to inconsistent, local rules. Photo IDs are always required to board a plane or purchase Sudafed, while public libraries simply don't require photo IDs at checkout. However, patrons of most libraries have to show a photo ID when applying for a library card, a factor that gives Dewhurst's statement an element of truth. We rate the statement Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.	None	David Dewhurst	None	None	None	2010-12-11T06:00:00	2010-06-11	['None']
-pomt-12432	"We are investing more money into education than ever before in the history of Wisconsin."	/wisconsin/statements/2017/may/17/scott-walker/testing-scott-walker-claim-record-education-findin/	As Gov. Scott Walker laid out his 2017-’19 budget, he touted the "historic investment in our priorities" -- including K-12 education. To that end, Walker declared: "We are investing more money into education than ever before in the history of Wisconsin." More money than ever before? With Walker’s budget now before the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee, where it will undergo changes, we wondered if that was the case. We took a look at the budgets back to fiscal year 1991, which provides about 25 years of data and shows the trajectory before state funding jumped significantly in the late 1990s. The answer, we found, depends on how you crunch the numbers. Total state aid vs. inflation-adjusted For starters, we took Walker’s statement to mean K-12 education, not a picture that would include colleges and universities, and the "we" to refer to money directly from the state. That’s based on the context within Walker’s Feb, 8, 2017, budget address and the K-12 education fact sheet linked from the address itself. And when we reached out to Walker’s office, a spokesman pointed us to page 6 of the "Budget in Brief," where K-12 education is addressed. That page in the briefing document shows that state aid to schools for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 (the years covered by Walker’s budget) would be the highest in raw numbers -- at least back to fiscal year 2009, where the chart on the page ends. The $11.5 billion over the two years would amount to the largest tally in state history. That figure shakes out to $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2018 and $5.9 billion in fiscal year 2019. But when you compare figures over time, it’s important to take inflation into account. That is, costs grow, prices grow, the economy grows. Adjusting for inflation puts everything on an equal footing. To get inflation-adjusted state aid, we took the raw numbers from past reports from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau and gathered data back to fiscal year 1991. We put the figures through the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator and also compared our inflation-adjusted numbers to those run by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance. Both calculations found that fiscal year 2003 was the highest inflation-adjusted year for state aid to schools. That year, the raw total in state aid was $4.8 billion. But the tally by the Taxpayers Alliance found that inflation-adjusted state aid that year totaled $6.5 billion. That’s far more than the $5.6 billion and $5.9 billion proposed for the next two years in Walker’s budget plan. The bigger picture Although inflation-adjusted state aid is the best measure, we decided to examine another calculation. In Wisconsin, state aid doesn’t tell the full story in terms of how much money is going to schools. What’s known as the "revenue cap" imposes a limit on funding by local school districts. That means that without a referendum to exceed the limit, if state aid to schools goes up, local property taxes would go down, leaving a district with the same amount of funding. At the same time, the state can give schools additional money outside the revenue cap. "The revenue limit did not go up the last two years," said Dale Knapp, research director at the Taxpayers Alliance. "However, what they’ve done is for the past about six years they’ve been giving the schools money outside the revenue limit." That brings us to "per-pupil" funding. Knapp took the inflation-adjusted total of state aid and property taxes allocated to schools and divided that by full-time equivalent enrollment for fiscal years 1997 through 2017. If you slice the numbers that way, fiscal year 2011 is the highest at $13,112 per student. That compares to $12,329 in the current fiscal year. The challenge with calculating per-pupil aid is knowing enrollment numbers, which are difficult to predict for 2018 and 2019. Knapp said even this number comes with another important caveat. "Generally, per student funding has risen over the years, even after accounting for inflation," he said. "That it peaked in 2011 is also not a surprise as funding was cut in 2012. However, Act 10 saved districts enough to cover those cuts. Thus, you have to be careful about how you think about that. "Essentially, school costs were reset at a lower level in that year, and they have generally been rising since." Our rating Walker said in his budget address -- and in the weeks and months since -- that Wisconsin is investing more in education than ever in the history of the state. This is true in raw dollars but the statement doesn’t account for inflation-adjusted numbers, which is the best way to look at figures over time. When adjusted for inflation, fiscal year 2003 would be the highest ever. We rate Walker’s claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2017-05-17T05:00:00	2017-02-08	['Wisconsin']
-pomt-03406	"In 1999, the NRA leadership in Washington, pretty much the same people intact, were for (expanded background checks.)"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/01/joe-manchin/sen-joe-manchin-says-1999s-nra-supported-expanded-/	Washington may have moved on to immigration and the scandal du jour, but the gun law debate still simmers in states like Sen. Joe Manchin’s West Virginia. Dueling ads from the NRA and Manchin target West Virginia voters: "Tell Senator Manchin to honor his commitment to the Second Amendment!" and "Call the NRA and tell them to support criminal background checks!" Manchin’s not giving up his quest to broaden gun buyer background checks, the Associated Press reported June 26, 2013. The Democratic senator told Chris Matthews on MSNBC that he’s still making his case to the people in West Virginia to resurrect the bill that died in April. "When they start seeing what we have done to the bill, you know what they said? And you mean the NRA in Washington is against this? We have been fighting for some of these provisions for the last decade or more. "And I said, all we have done — and I said, guess what? In 1999, the NRA leadership in Washington, pretty much the same people intact, were for this. I haven't changed. They changed, Chris." Was the NRA leadership for the provisions of Manchin’s gun proposal back in ‘99? ‘Instant criminal background checks’ We’ve checked related claims from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President Barack Obama that Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, once supported wider background checks. It’s true he told a House subcommittee in May 1999 that "it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes for anyone." But the House rejected an expansion of background checks in June 1999 — a rejection the NRA supported. A Washington Post headline at the time said, "NRA Achieves Its Goal: Nothing." LaPierre’s testimony before the House subcommittee hadn’t been in support of background checks legislation — it was against an amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.. In his testimony, he outlined a set of proposals the NRA at the time found "reasonable," such as "instant criminal background checks." But the crux of his testimony was that he found provisions of the legislation unreasonable, such as the way the legislation defined a gun show, how the law handled inheritance of weapons, and that the instant check system didn’t destroy records of transactions immediately. The NRA ultimately backed legislation in the House that did expand background checks to sales at gun shows — but cut the time allowed for background checks to 24 hours, a change that ultimately killed the legislation. Manchin’s recent legislation, which he offered with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, addressed a number of the NRA’s concerns with Lautenberg’s 1999 provisions. (We summarized Manchin-Toomey back in April.) It didn’t apply background checks to transfers between close relatives. Its definition of a gun show increased the number of guns from 50 to 75 and excluded residences of private collectors. It ultimately would have cut the time allowed for background checks down to 24 hours. But the NRA still challenged applying background checks to transfers between distant relatives and "lifelong friends," for example, echoing its opposition to 1999 proposals. Our ruling Manchin explained his continued pursuit of expanding background checks, saying that in 1999, even "the NRA leadership in Washington, pretty much the same people intact, were for this." He’s correct that LaPierre, at the center of the most recent gun legislation battle, testified before lawmakers that the NRA supported "mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale." But then, as now, the group was opposed to specific legislative measures behind implementation of expanded checks. Even Manchin’s compromise measure may not have passed muster with 1999’s NRA. He’s right that the leadership expressed support for expanding background checks generally, but the details get more complicated, especially in the context of specific legislation. We rate his claim Mostly True.	None	Joe Manchin	None	None	None	2013-07-01T13:23:14	2013-06-20	['Washington,_D.C.']
-pomt-13522	Says Gov. Pat McCrory "tried to cut education funding to its lowest budget share in over 30 years."	/north-carolina/statements/2016/sep/01/roy-cooper/roy-cooper-ad-attacking-pat-mccrory-education-leav/	Education continues to be front-and-center in the North Carolina governor’s race. The latest ad from Democratic candidate Roy Cooper features a teacher talking about how teachers have to buy supplies for their jobs, and how she decided to move to another state that pays teachers more. "Gov. Pat McCrory talks about raising our pay, but he tried to cut education funding to its lowest budget share in over 30 years," she says. "Like over 2,000 other teachers, I’m having to move to another state so I can do what I love and make ends meet. Someone needs to fix this." We wondered if McCrory really did suggest cutting education funding to the lowest share of the overall state budget in more than 30 years. First, though, we have to figure out what the ad was talking about. The state’s education budget is broken into three categories – higher education, community colleges and K-12. Since the ad is entirely about K-12 schools and the claim is spoken by that K-12 teacher, our first impression was that the claim was about K-12 funding. Cooper’s campaign told us it was actually referring to the total education budget. However, we believe a normal person viewing this ad will think it’s talking about K-12 funding. So we’ll look at both. Overall education spending North Carolina’s budget is tweaked annually, although the big-picture budget is set every other year, during odd-numbered years. In his 2015 proposal, McCrory suggested spending 56 percent of the budget on public schools, community colleges and universities in 2015-16, and 54.4 percent in 2016-17. It was that drop to 54.4 percent that Cooper’s campaign honed in on. They cited data from McCrory’s own budget that went back to 1981-82 and showed larger portions in all of those years. McCrory spokesman Ricky Diaz said the historically low proposal was because of uncertainty surrounding tax cuts. He added that the funding "was always expected to be increased when the legislature came back ... after the state's revenue picture became more clear as the governor's tax cuts took hold, improving the economy and in turn, increasing revenue." We should note here that the N.C. General Assembly did not take McCrory’s advice. In 2015 it allocated 55.5 percent of state funding to education for 2016-17, more than a percentage point above McCrory’s proposal. And in July 2016, lawmakers increased the 2016-17 share to 56.8 percent. And that 56.8 percent share is, furthermore, less than what McCrory suggested in 2016. His proposal that year would have given education 57.5 percent of the state budget. That would’ve been the highest share since 2009-10, not the lowest in 30 years. Neither of McCrory’s suggestions were adopted by the legislature, high or low. But the ad specifically said McCrory "tried to cut" education’s budget share, so it’s fair to look at what McCrory proposed instead of what actually passed. And on that evidence, the claim is accurate about McCrory’s 2015 proposal. His 2016 proposal, however, suggested the largest budget share for education since the recession. K-12 only Next we’ll look only at the portion of the budget spent on K-12 schools. In 1981-82, the state spent 44 percent of its money on K-12. In 2015, McCrory suggested a 2016-17 spending level of 37.8 percent of the budget. That’s a drop, but it was not the "lowest budget share in over 30 years." In 2008-09, 2010-11 and 2012-13, the budget’s share of K-12 funding was even lower. The 2008-09 budget was under Democratic Gov. Mike Easley. The other were under Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue. The first two were passed by a Democrat-led legislature, and the 2012-13 budget was passed by a Republican-led legislature. Per-pupil funding McCrory’s campaign pointed out that the budget shares for overall education spending and for K-12 specifically also fell while Cooper was in the General Assembly. Cooper served in the House of Representatives from 1987-91 and in the Senate from 1991 until 2001, when he became attorney general. From 1987 to 2001 the share of the budget going to all types of education dropped from 68 to 60.1 percent. The K-12 share dropped from 45.5 to 42.4 percent. So the same thing Cooper’s accusing McCrory of also happened when Cooper and his fellow Democrats were in charge of the budget. Cooper’s campaign defended his record, though. Megan Jacobs, his campaign spokeswoman, said education’s 60.1 percent budget share in Cooper’s final year in the Senate was "almost 6 percent higher than what McCrory proposed here. It was also the highest it had been since 1993-94, which was before (Cooper) rose to senior leadership." So both Cooper and McCrory oversaw budgets that gave a smaller slice of the pie to education. But both also oversaw increases to per-pupil funding – a metric experts agree is a more indicative measure of support. Cooper knows all about the importance of per-pupil spending; we previously ruled his claim that North Carolina is near the bottom nationally as Mostly True. And per-pupil funding – from a combination of state, local and federal sources – rose under Cooper and has also risen under McCrory. Let’s rewind 20 years to the 1995-96 school year when Cooper was midway through his legislative career. North Carolina schools got $5,090 per student, the equivalent of $7,916 in 2015 dollars. Cooper’s last budget was for 2000-01, when he was the Democratic majority leader in the Senate. Schools that year received $6,654 per pupil, the equivalent of $9,158 in 2015 dollars. For comparison, North Carolina spent $8,496 per student in 2013-14 – McCrory’s first budget, and a few dollars higher than the year prior – and an estimated $8,898 in 2015-16, according to the National Education Association. Our ruling Cooper said McCrory "tried to cut education funding to its lowest budget share in over 30 years." McCrory’s proposed budget in 2015 did suggest doing exactly that for the 2016-17 school year, although McCrory later adjusted his proposal in 2016, when his budget’s share of education funding would’ve been the highest since 2009-10. That’s a detail the ad leaves out, along with the fact that the share of the budget going to education also declined when Cooper was in the legislature. Since the statement is partially accurate but leaves out important context, we rate this claim Half True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/59591c46-5118-4647-82a3-682071f7ea26	None	Roy Cooper	None	None	None	2016-09-01T14:51:27	2016-08-29	['Pat_McCrory']
-pomt-14209	"Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/20/bernie-sanders/bernie-sanders-ad-ignores-fact-members-congress-ca/	A new television ad by Sen. Bernie Sanders describes a very lucrative method for making money if you're a politician in Washington. "Wall Street banks shower Washington politicians with campaign contributions and speaking fees," the ad says. "And what do they get for it? A rigged economy, tax breaks and bailouts, all held in place by a corrupt campaign finance system. And while Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour. $200,000 an hour for them, but not even 15 bucks an hour for all Americans. Enough is enough." The ad was played in New York in the days leading to the state’s April 19 primary. The ad was clearly going after Sanders' Democratic opponent, former U.S. Sen. and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who made lots of money giving speeches after leaving government in 2013. Sanders has argued that Clinton can't effectively regulate Wall Street when she has taken so much money from the big banks. But the language of the ad is much broader than that, making three references to Washington politicians in general and twice linking them to a $200,000 per hour payment. In addition, four of the 11 camera shots in the 30-second ad show the United States Capitol building, the headquarters of Congress. There are no shots of the White House or institutions such as the Federal Reserve or the State Department. The clear impression is that Sanders is talking — exclusively or not — about members of Congress, the premiere political class of Washington. Can they really accept more than $200,000 an hour for speeches? The ad is very misleading. Senators and representatives have been prohibited from accepting money for speeches since 1991. Before then, members of Congress would often accept speaking fees from the industries they oversaw, which critics characterized as a form of bribery. And it's not just members of Congress. In the House, for example, even senior staff can't be paid for speeches, appearances or writing an article. Junior staff also can't do it if the topic relates to their official duties. The executive branch has a similar ban. But once a person leaves government service, those rules no longer apply, and they're free to charge for speeches. As we reported a year ago, Clinton was typically earning honorariums of about $225,000 per speech and, in some instances, over $300,000 each. Again, these happened after she left office. When we asked the Sanders campaign about the ad's claim, they sent along a list of links reporting on what some former federal government employees were getting for their speeches. They included: * $100,000-$175,000 for George W. Bush, who insists on a non-disclosure agreement so the sponsors can't say what they paid the former president (Politico). * At least $250,000 for a speech in Abu Dhabi by former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. His predecessor, Alan Greenspan, reportedly received comparable pay to speak at the private Lehman Brothers dinner after he left the Fed (Reuters). But the Sanders camp also sent links to stories about Mitt Romney making $68,000 for a speech (USA Today) and Jeb Bush commanding about $50,000 per talk (New York Times). That's far less than $200,000, and neither has held any significant elected or appointed office in Washington. And none of these people listed by Sanders had any kind of vote in the recent debate over the $15 minimum wage (which also sounds like a veiled shot at Clinton). Finally, we should note that it's a stretch to say that someone who earns $200,000 for a speech is earning $200,000 an hour. Most speeches require some preparation, research and travel time. It's akin to saying that a pastor paid $30,000 a year is earning $577 an hour because that's how long a Sunday service lasts. Our ruling Sanders said in an ad that uses repeated shots of the U.S. Capitol that "Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches." His ad is disingenuous on many levels. Politicians trying to get to Washington, or those who have come from Washington, certainly can earn such fees, but members of the House and Senate and top officials in the executive branch are not permitted to accept payment for speeches. And Sanders' campaign is including politicians who have never served in Washington in any significant capacity. Because the statement contains a small element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, we rate it Mostly False. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/19e74cb2-d6b7-4ba0-8088-ed2767c75a31	None	Bernie Sanders	None	None	None	2016-04-20T10:00:00	2016-04-15	['None']
-snes-00073	Photographs show a group of pigs on a flooded farm after Hurricane Florence.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pigs-after-hurricane/	None	Fauxtography	None	Dan Evon	None	Are These Pictures of Pigs on a Farm Flooded by Hurricane Florence?	17 September 2018	None	['None']
-snes-00885	A teacher trained in the use of firearms accidentally discharged a handgun in a California classroom, causing minor injury to a student.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/teachers-accidentally-discharge-gun/	None	Guns	None	David Emery	None	Did a Firearms-Trained Teacher Accidentally Discharge a Gun in a Classroom, Injuring a Student?	15 March 2018	None	['California']
-snes-00904	President Obama is being sued for "inciting violence" against police.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barack-obama-named-lawsuit-inciting-violence-police/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Was Barack Obama Named in a Lawsuit for ‘Inciting Violence’ Against Police?	12 March 2018	None	['Barack_Obama']
-snes-03475	Mattel is introducing "Public Assistance Barbie" for the holidays.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/public-assistance-barbie/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Public Assistance Barbie	27 November 2016	None	['Mattel']
-hoer-00998	British Airways Voucher Giveaway	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/british-airways-free-airline-tickets-facebook-scam/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	British Airways Voucher Giveaway Facebook Scam	July 15, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-01496	Real skeletons were used for a sequence in the horror movie "Poltergeist."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/were-real-skeletons-used-in-the-making-of-poltergeist/	None	Superstition	None	Arturo Garcia	None	Were Real Skeletons Used in the Making of ‘Poltergeist’?	31 October 2017	None	['None']
-pose-01264	"A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1355/place-lifetime-ban-foreign-lobbyists-raising-money/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Place lifetime ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections	2017-01-17T08:36:23	None	['United_States']
-farg-00370	A meme quotes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as saying “we’ll never have to worry about China attacking us” because of the country’s time difference.	https://www.factcheck.org/2018/09/viral-meme-makes-up-ocasio-cortez-quote/	None	fake-news	FactCheck.org	Angelo Fichera	['Memes']	Viral Meme Makes Up Ocasio-Cortez Quote	September 26, 2018	2018-09-26 14:44:59 UTC	['China', 'Alexandria']
-pose-00755	Will allow some individuals in Georgia to pool with others to buy health insurance plans.	https://www.politifact.com/georgia/promises/deal-o-meter/promise/785/allow-some-georgians-to-buy-health-insurance-from/	None	deal-o-meter	Nathan Deal	None	None	Allow some Georgians to pool together to buy health insurance	2011-03-20T19:53:56	None	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-pomt-01471	A 2011 measure passed into law with Wendy Davis’ support "removes from the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like" the school funding case.	/texas/statements/2014/sep/30/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-blames-wendy-davis-limit-settlements-p/	UPDATE, 4 p.m., Oct. 8, 2014: We updated this article with detail about how the attorney general carries out the 2007 mandate that certain legal settlements win legislative consent. This change did not affect our rating of Abbott’s debate statement. Given an opportunity, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wendy Davis pressed Republican Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, about his office continuing to battle school districts in court despite a state district judge ruling the school finance system to be both underfunded and unconstitutional. "The only thing right now coming between our children and appropriate funding of their schools today is you," Davis asserted in the pair's Sept. 19, 2014, debate in the Rio Grande Valley. "On behalf of the 5 million children of this state, will you agree tonight that you will drop your appeals and allow our schools to be appropriately funded?" Abbott responded by blaming legislators, including Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, for limiting his options. "Sen. Davis," Abbott replied, "there is actually another thing coming between me and settling that lawsuit. And that is a law that you voted on and helped pass in 2011 that removes from the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like this." Did legislators including Davis move to keep the attorney general from settling lawsuits? We started this fact check by asking the Abbott campaign for elaboration. Spokeswoman Amelia Chasse pointed to a proposal that won legislative approval in 2011, with Davis among supporters. Then again, it came clear, the legislative leash on the attorney general’s ability to settle cases originated in 2007 action -- more than a year before Davis won her first Senate term. The 2007 law said the attorney general must get legislative approval/consent to settle matters with damages costing the state more than $25 million. The 2011 change lowered the threshold to $10 million. Resolving the school-finance matter would surely cost more than either limit. In 2013 and again in August 2014, state District Judge John Dietz of Austin ruled against the state in the case, though he also gave lawmakers until July 2015 to act. At the time of the Davis-Abbott debate, state lawyers overseen by Abbott were expected to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court (which they did a few days later). By email, David Thompson, a lawyer representing hundreds of districts in the litigation, told us either settlement threshold -- $10 million or the previous $25 million -- "would be substantially below what it will take to resolve the school finance lawsuit." Meantime, former state Sen. Steve Ogden, who chaired the Senate Finance Committee and authored the settlement thresholds that passed into law, told us by phone that Abbott can’t settle the school case without the Legislature’s permission "because it’s going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to do it." He and Rep. Tryon Lewis, R-Odessa, chairman of the House Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Committee, were guided to us by Chasse. Both said the 2011 action effectively toughened and arguably reaffirmed the original restriction. Here are the details behind the legislation leashing the attorney general’s power: In 2007, according to legislative records, Ogden, R-Bryan, won passage of Senate Bill 2031,which required legislative consent or approval of the settlement or compromise of a claim or action against the state involving state expenditures exceeding $25 million. Specifically, the law barred the attorney general or any lawyer representing the state from entering into a settlement of a claim without legislative consent or approval. The new law said this limit applies if the settlement requires the state to pay damages exceeding the $25 million in a biennium or if it "commits this state to a course of action that in reasonable probability will entail a continuing increased expenditure of state funds over subsequent" two-year periods, which strikes us as sweeping in a possible resolution of the school suit. In May 2007, very few legislators objected to Ogden’s proposal as it headed toward Gov. Rick Perry. A House Democrat voted "no" in that body’s final vote and three Democratic senators cast "no" votes when the Senate later agreed to House amendments. Four years later, with Davis in the Senate, lawmakers and Perry signed off on Senate Bill 899, reducing the dollar threshold for legislative involvement. An accompanying analysis, by the in-house Senate Research Center, said: "In keeping with increased scrutiny of state expenditures, this bill would lower the threshold settlement amount requiring legislative approval from $25 million to $10 million." Senators including Davis unanimously advanced the reduction to the House, where it won approval with one Republican voting "no." To recap: Davis was not in the Legislature when lawmakers initially limited the attorney general’s ability to settle cases. She was a member of the Senate that approved a toughening. We asked Abbott’s office to explain how, day to day, the limit has been applied to cases. A spokesman, Jerry Strickland, replied after we initially published this fact check, saying by email: "Procedurally, when a settlement may implicate the statute, the opposing party is notified that any settlement reached will be subject to legislative approval. The terms of the settlement are negotiated before the settlement is brought to the Legislature. The Legislature can then approve, reject or request modifications to a settlement." We also asked about the attorney general’s biennial reports to lawmakers on such settlements; such reports were required by the 2007 law. Each biennium, Strickland said, the agency "provides privileged attorney-client communications concerning potential settlements requiring legislative approval. If a settlement is reached, the settlement is presented to the Legislature for consideration." Our ruling Abbott said Davis voted for a 2011 measure that removes the attorney general’s ability to settle lawsuits like the school funding case. That’s not so; a 2007 law created the legislative hurdle for major settlements -- and, significantly, Davis wasn’t a senator then. Still, this claim has an element of truth because Davis joined nearly every other lawmaker in tightening the limit in 2011 by reducing the threshold for settlements the attorney general may reach without legislative sign-off to those costing the state $10 million or less. Given how Abbott characterized the law at issue, we rate his claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Greg Abbott	None	None	None	2014-09-30T17:39:50	2014-09-19	['None']
-pose-00864	“If American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/896/walk-picketers-when-collective-bargaining-rights-a/	None	obameter	Barack Obama	None	None	Walk with picketers when collective bargaining rights are threatened	2011-03-03T13:49:16	None	['United_States', 'White_House']
-goop-02505	Kim Kardashian, Beyonce Feud Over Baby Gifts Tru	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-baby-gifts-beyonce-feud/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian, Beyonce Feud Over Baby Gifts NOT True	5:35 pm, September 2, 2017	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-pomt-02017	Ken "Block supports Obamacare."	/rhode-island/statements/2014/jun/08/allan-fung/gubernatorial-candidate-allan-fung-says-his-republ/	In the contest to be the next Republican candidate for governor in Rhode Island, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung has released a TV commercial that lampoons supporters of his GOP opponent, businessman Ken Block. The commercial, called "Blockhead," portrays them with large, cube-shaped heads and has them espousing positions that most Republicans would find objectionable, as "Over the Waves," a song often heard during circus trapeze acts, plays in the background. One of the "blockhead" characters says: "Block supports Obamacare," a reference to the Affordable Care Act that Republicans in Congress have tried to repeal, gut or delay more than 50 times. When the ad was released June 2, 2014, Block's campaign manager Jeff Britt, publicly invited PolitiFact Rhode Island to evaluate the claim because, he said, it misrepresents Block’s position on Obamacare. How could we resist? Britt sent us an email stating, unequivocally, that "Ken never supported Obamacare." He added that Block, who "has frankly been a strong critic, pointing out in speeches and in radio interviews how devastating it has been to his business." When Block, president of a Barrington software firm, reacted to the commercial on Buddy Cianci's WPRO radio show, he made the same assertion: "I've never supported Obamacare, in fact I've whacked Obamacare pretty hard because of the negative impact it's had on my business and the cost of acquiring insurance." While we were waiting for information from the Fung campaign seeking the source of its claim, we examined a new flier from Fung’s campaign that made a slightly different claim about Block's support for Obamacare. It shows a green-faced Block, along with Gov. Lincoln Chafee, depicted as "Two Peas in a Pod" because both "have been cheerleaders for liberal agendas." "Both supported Obamacare," it asserts, characterizing Block's support in the past tense. So where's the truth? Unlike the television ad, which lists no source for its claim, the flier says the claim is based on Block's Nov. 15, 2013 appearance on the WPRI-TV show "Newsmakers." Four minutes into that program, Block states that he has voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past, including President Obama in 2012. "In 2012, I bought what Barack Obama was selling in terms of changes to health care for me as a small business owner, someone who buys insurance for employees. I can no longer afford to do what we're doing. And I believed that Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, was going to provide the kind of relief that we needed in my business to insure my employees," he says. "And it turns out that the promise didn't live up to the hype, and I fairly regret the vote," Block continued. "I'm looking for answers and those answers didn't come." In other words, Block acknowledged in November that he did support the promise of Obamacare, signed into law in March 2010, and Obama's reelection in 2012, but stated that he no longer supports that law. And on March 31, the enrollment deadline for Obamacare, Block released a statement, published in The Providence Journal, characterizing it as "a horrible bill, ill-conceived, unilaterally passed by one party, and terribly implemented." He said it "raised taxes and massively disrupted the health insurance market in Rhode Island without increasing competition, access, or affordability." Even if Fung hadn’t seen that story, we know he is aware of Block’s earlier repudiation of Obamacare. That’s because when Fung appeared on "Newsmakers" on April 11, moderator Tim White challenged Fung over his internet ad that selectively quoted Block's November "Newsmaker" appearance. He noted that the Fung ad clipped out Block's phrase, "The promise didn’t live up to the hype, and I fairly regret the vote." Fung said he didn't have a problem with the omission. Despite this, the "Blockhead" commercial says "Block supports Obamacare," asserting that he supports the controversial health care law today. When the Fung campaign got back to us, spokesmen Patrick Sweeney and Robert Coupe argued that it is accurate to say that Block supports Obamacare today because Block has never called for repeal of the law, as other opponents have and has never formally revoked the support he acknowledged in the November "Newsmakers" appearance. On the latter point, we disagree. Block has repeatedly made it clear he no longer supports Obamacare. The very "Newsmakers" appearance the Fung campaign cites in its attack on Block shows that. In light of all the evidence, it is clear that Fung is making a ridiculously blockheaded claim. We rate it Pants On Fire. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Allan Fung	None	None	None	2014-06-08T00:01:00	2014-06-02	['None']
-goop-01584	Brad Pitt Surprised Jennifer Aniston On Her Birthday?	https://www.gossipcop.com/brad-pitt-jennifer-aniston-birthday-surprise-proposal-not-true/	None	None	None	Michael Lewittes	None	Brad Pitt Surprised Jennifer Aniston On Her Birthday?	1:01 am, February 14, 2018	None	['Brad_Pitt', 'Jennifer_Aniston']
-tron-02476	An Urgent Call for Prayer from Anne Graham Lotz	https://www.truthorfiction.com/777-anne-graham-lotz/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	An Urgent Call for Prayer from Anne Graham Lotz	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00642	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Competing With Beyonce, Jay-Z Over House Size?	https://www.gossipcop.com/kim-kardashian-kanye-west-beyonce-jay-z-house-size-competition-untrue/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Kim Kardashian, Kanye West Competing With Beyonce, Jay-Z Over House Size?	12:55 pm, July 14, 2018	None	['Kim_Kardashian']
-snes-04031	Canada has legalized heroin for general use.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-heroin/	None	Medical	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Canada Legalizes Heroin?	15 September 2016	None	['Canada']
-snes-05127	Bristol Palin said all black actors look alike, making Oscar nominees difficult to diversify.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bristol-palin-black-people/	None	Junk News	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Bristol Palin Said All Black Actors Look Alike?	2 March 2016	None	['Sarah_Palin']
-abbc-00363	On September 2, 2013 then opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt promised $40 million to establish a trust for the Great Barrier Reef.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-27/40-million-to-establish-a-reef-trust-promise-check/5455126	None	['great-barrier-reef', 'oceans-and-reefs', 'environment', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'environmental-policy', 'government-and-politics', 'australia', 'cairns-4870', 'qld']	None	None	['great-barrier-reef', 'oceans-and-reefs', 'environment', 'federal-government', 'liberals', 'environmental-policy', 'government-and-politics', 'australia', 'cairns-4870', 'qld']	Promise check: $40 million to establish a Great Barrier Reef trust	Sun 8 May 2016, 7:37am	None	['Greg_Hunt']
-snes-02997	A rise in automobile accidents occurs in the aftermath of the Super Bowl.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crash-course-2/	None	Automobiles	None	Snopes Staff	None	Do Car Accidents Increase After the Super Bowl?	21 January 2011	None	['None']
-snes-04516	Hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazăr Lehel) is missing from his jail cell.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/guccifer-missing-from-jail-cell/	None	Conspiracy Theories	None	Kim LaCapria	None	‘Guccifer’ Is Not Missing or Dead	5 July 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-11676	There is "substantial evidence of voter fraud."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/04/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-theres-substantial-evidence-vote/	President Donald Trump is closing the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, a panel to investigate voter fraud that had attracted controversy during its short life. The commission -- headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach -- had been "bedeviled by internal dissension, threats of litigation and the refusal of some states to provide information. Its last known meeting was Sept. 12," NBC reported. The panel included a few Democrats, but its membership was majority Republican. One Democratic member of the commission even filed a lawsuit, demanding to be kept abreast of its activities. Separately, the Government Accountability Office, a federal agency, announced in October 2017 that it would probe its handling of voter files and other issues, in response to calls by Democratic lawmakers. In a statement on Jan. 3, 2018, announcing his decision to disband the commission, Trump said, "Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action." PolitiFact is separately checking a different assertion by Trump, that "mostly Democrat states refused to hand over data" to the commission. In this fact-check, we’re looking at whether Trump is correct that there is "substantial evidence of voter fraud." This is hardly the first time Trump has made an assertion of this sort. He has repeatedly claimed the existence of massive voter fraud and election rigging, which we’ve debunked again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Trump has not yet produced any evidence that supports these claims, and the White House did not respond to another request for this article. The White House’s previous argument In a press briefing on Jan. 24, 2017, a reporter asked his then-press secretary Sean Spicer how Trump came to believe that it’s possible that illegal votes were to blame for his popular vote loss. "I think there's been studies," Spicer responded. "There's one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens. There's other studies that have been presented to him. It's a belief he maintains." We determined that Spicer was conflating a couple different studies, and that those studies have been erroneously used to prop up claims that noncitizens have swayed elections by voting illegally. There is no study that shows 14 percent of the votes cast in 2008 were cast by noncitizens. That would have added up to more than 18 million fraudulent votes — an implausible assertion, considering the total noncitizen population was about 22.5 million in 2010. As for the study that "came out of Pew in 2008," it actually came out in 2012, and it’s about outdated voter rolls -- not fraudulent votes. The 2012 Pew study -- found that about 24 million, or one in every eight, voter registrations in the United States are inaccurate or no longer valid, but it did not find evidence of actual voter fraud. The study was about record-keeping that is badly managed and in disarray. David Becker, the former director of Pew��s election program, tweeted in November 2016 that "we found millions of out of date registration records due to people moving or dying, but found no evidence that voter fraud resulted." Meanwhile, the study that shows that "14 percent of people who voted were noncitizens" has been widely criticized for its methodology. Many credible researchers have panned the study as methodologically unsound for using an opt-in Internet poll originally designed to survey citizens and not considering possible survey response error. In a blog post, one of the authors, Old Dominion professor Jesse Richman, said he stands by his study, but "our results suggest that almost all elections in the U.S. are not determined by noncitizen participation, with occasional and very rare potential exceptions." Voter fraud uncommon Other research suggests that voter fraud is not widespread. • News21, a national investigative reporting project funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, found just 56 cases of noncitizens voting between 2000 and 2011. • A report by the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that most cases of noncitizens voting were accidental. "Although there are a few recorded examples in which noncitizens have apparently registered or voted, investigators have concluded that they were likely not aware that doing so was improper," reads the 2007 report. • In 2012, Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s administration tried to crack down on noncitizens voting by comparing driver's license data against voter rolls. The Florida Department of State created a list of 182,000 potential noncitizens that had voted. That number was whittled down to 2,700, then to about 200 before the purge was stopped amid criticism that the data was flawed given the number of false positives — including a Brooklyn-born World War II vet. Ultimately, only 85 people were removed from the rolls. Meanwhile, ProPublica, an investigative journalism project, tweeted that "we had 1,100 people monitoring the vote on Election Day. We saw no evidence the election was ‘rigged’ " and "no evidence that undocumented immigrants voted illegally." Expert opinion In our previous articles on this topic, numerous election experts dismissed assertions like those made by Trump. Asked again for this article, experts agreed that nothing new had emerged as a result of the commission’s work. Trump’s claim "is not accurate at all," said Rick Hasen, a University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in election law. "There has been no proof of substantial voter fraud in the 2016 election. We have seen really just a smattering of isolated cases." Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers University political scientist and author of The Myth of Voter Fraud, said that her efforts to track the issue since 2001, including as an expert witness, has enabled her to study election processes up close in such states as Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Kansas. Her conclusion? "I am not aware of any evidence of substantial voter fraud ever being offered or presented to state legislatures adopting voter ID laws, or in any of the litigation in which states, as defendants, have brought forth such evidence to defend why they adopted the laws," Minnite said. Our ruling In his statement, Trump said there is "substantial evidence of voter fraud." That wasn’t accurate before, and it isn’t accurate now. We rate the statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, left, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, center, and New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, right, attend a meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in Manchester, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2017. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2018-01-04T16:24:11	2018-01-03	['None']
-snes-04900	Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford announced his retirement with a fiery political resignation speech.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jcs-chairman-resignation-speech/	None	Military	None	David Mikkelson	None	What the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Must Tell the Nation	18 April 2016	None	['None']
-snes-05616	Publisher HarperCollins has removed 45 complete verses from the NIV (New International Version) Bible.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/niv-removed-bible-verses/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Did HarperCollins Remove 45 Complete Verses from the NIV Bible?	13 July 2015	None	['Bible', 'New_International_Version']
-pomt-12147	"It costs us about $33,000 a year (on average nationally) to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year."	/california/statements/2017/aug/09/kamala-harris/does-it-cost-75k-year-lock-inmate-california/	U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris believes taxpayers aren’t "getting a good return on investment" when it comes to California’s prison system. The California Democrat told the Women Unshackled forum in Washington D.C. in July that alternatives to locking up inmates, such as drug treatment programs, are far cheaper and sometimes more effective than prison sentences. Her figures for California’s per inmate costs were eye-opening. "Let’s look at the fact that there is an issue around how much we are paying — and again, this gets back to the economic cost — it costs us about $33,000 a year to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year," Harris said on July 18, 2017. Harris makes her claim at about the 16:50 minute mark in the video above. Harris made criminal justice reform a top priority during her time as California’s attorney general and has done the same so far in the Senate. Recently, she teamed up with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to push bipartisan bail reform legislation that would prevent minor offenders from sitting in jail if they can’t afford the cost of being released before trial. In discussing prison costs, Harris said governments should place a greater focus on crime prevention and drug treatment given the high cost of incarceration. We interpreted Harris's claim about per inmate expenses to mean the operational costs to house male and female inmates, including security, health care, facility upkeep and employee compensation. Advocates for criminal justice reform often argue that just looking at the operational costs of running prisons ignores the social costs of incarcerating Americans. We looked at those costs as well, but based our rating primarily on the evidence supporting the numbers Harris cited in her Women Unshackled appearance. Our research A spokesperson for Harris provided us with data on the cost of federal incarceration, from the independent Vera Institute of Justice, as well as numbers for California, based on Gov. Jerry Brown’s spending plan for the 2017-18 fiscal year. In its May 2017 report "The Price of Prisons," the Vera Institute examined the cost to house inmates at prisons nationwide. It obtained data for 45 states and found the total cost per inmate averaged $33,274. The institute advocates for reducing inmate totals and improving conditions in prisons. It reported receiving about three-quarters of its funding from the federal government. The study’s findings support Harris’ claim on the average cost of housing inmates nationally. But what about the California’s per inmate price of $75,000? For that figure, Harris’ spokesman cited a June 2017 article by the Associated Press. It estimated the cost per inmate would reach a record $75,560 in the current fiscal year. The AP based its estimate on the money Gov. Brown set aside in this year’s budget for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. To verify this figure and put it in context, we examined the governor’s 2017-18 budget and contacted the Brown Administration’s corrections and finance departments, as well as the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. These sources pointed us to the projected $76,320 cost per inmate in Brown’s 2017-18 budget. That qualifies as "about $75,000" as Harris put it. A spokeswoman for the state’s corrections department told us California paid about $73,000 per inmate last fiscal year, also very close to Harris’ number. Cost in context While Harris’ numbers are nearly spot on, we wanted to know what’s driving this high cost to lock up prisoners in California. The expense to house each inmate has doubled since 2005, even as court orders reduced the prison population by about a quarter, according to the Associated Press. Several reasons account for the dramatic increase. Viewed simply, fewer inmates combined with higher corrections spending equals a higher per capita cost. But why are there fewer inmates and higher spending? California was forced to cut inmate levels after a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that overcrowding in prisons violated constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The drop in inmates hasn’t led to the closure of any prisons and hasn’t led to a reduction of prison staffing that corresponds directly to the drop in inmates. Jonathan Peterson, an analyst at the Legislative Analyst’s Office, said that’s because there are security requirements at the prisons that don’t allow for the elimination of guards simply because there are fewer inmates. "Regardless of how many inmates are in a particular unit, you still need the one guard to open and close the doors," Peterson said. The governor’s budget expects a nearly 2-to-1 inmate to prison staff ratio for the current fiscal year. That’s down from a ratio of a 2.24-to-1 just two years ago. Higher employee costs Just as the inmate population started to drop, employee compensation in the prison system jumped significantly. The corrections department budget has gone up $1.2 billion since 2012 due to employee compensation and retirement costs, according to the Department of Finance. Of that increase, $436 million is directly tied to increased pension contributions by the state for prison employees. Additionally, in July 2013, the state opened the California Health Care Facility providing 2,600 beds for inmates needing medical attention. The facility has cost $288 million since it opened, the finance department reported. California voters have contributed to the shrinking prison population in recent years by approving ballot measures that reclassify many felony drug and property crimes as misdemeanors and improving chances for parole for offenders classified as nonviolent. These measures are expected to further reduce the prison population by thousands of inmates. If that happens and prison employee costs rise or stay stable, California’s per capita inmate expense will continue to be higher than other states. Our ruling Sen. Kamala Harris recently claimed "it costs us about $33,000 a year (nationally) to lock somebody up. In California it costs about $75,000 a year." A recent study that examined costs in 45 states plus data from California’s departments of corrections and finance support the senator’s statement. Digging deeper, we found reducing inmates in California’s prisons, which Harris supports, may actually increase the per capita costs she highlights. That will be especially true if salary and pension costs continue to increase as inmate numbers drop. Harris doesn’t make a specific claim about what’s driving these costs. Her statement centers on the costs alone to house inmates nationally and in California. The evidence supports the figures she cited. We rate Harris' claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. PolitiFact California intern Eli Flesch contributed research and writing to this fact check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Kamala Harris	None	None	None	2017-08-09T17:27:02	2017-07-18	['California']
-pomt-02034	"The numbers make it clear that Georgia voters are increasingly taking advantage of early voting opportunities."	/georgia/statements/2014/jun/04/brian-kemp/early-voting-grows-popularity/	In the run-up to the May 20 primary elections, Georgia voters were deluged with candidate robocalls. Former Gov. Sonny Perdue even began his automated call by apologizing for ringing voters’ phones at dinnertime on election eve. Perdue said he just had to make a last-minute pitch for his cousin David Perdue, who went on to finish first in the crowded GOP race for the U.S. Senate. For many people, the automated campaign calls aren’t just annoying, they also are irrelevant. For the primary, more than 239,000 voters went to the polls in advance of Election Day to cast ballots for U.S. senator, governor, and a long list of state and local officeholders. An additional 772,643 followed on Election Day. Secretary of State Brian Kemp said the numbers "make clear that Georgia voters are increasingly taking advantage of early-voting opportunities." Kemp was specifically comparing early votes from the primaries in 2010 (at 19 percent) to 2014 (at 24.2 percent), Kemp spokesman Jared Thomas said. We decided to see whether Kemp is right. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia have early voting -- Georgia included. "We were one of the later states to come to the table. By that time, it had already become a pretty accepted practice," former Secretary of State Cathy Cox recalled. "It just makes such common sense in a busy world." The Georgia General Assembly passed legislation in 2003, allowing a one-week early-voting period, the Monday through Friday before Election Day. By the 2004 general election, when Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat John Kerry for president, 13 percent of Georgia voters cast ballots early. Since then, the number of voters who have cast their ballots early has generally risen steadily, according to data from the Secretary of State’s Office. They soared to the highest level -- 53 percent -- in the 2008 election, when Barack Obama was elected president, the data show. Last month, they accounted for 24.2 percent of votes in the GOP and Democratic primaries. Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University, said looking at the presidential elections in 2004, 2008 and 2012 and the midterm elections for governor in 2006 and 2010, "it’s clear that early voting is now quite common." "The fact that more than a third of Georgia voters cast early ballots in 2012 is impressive," Gillespie said. Here’s the specifics: Election Early votes Total votes cast % registered voters % early votes 2004 Primary 90,266 1,401,915 35% 6% 2004 Primary Runoff 36,076 559,920 14% 6% 2004 General 422,814 3,303,453 78% 13% 2004 General Runoff 25,145 254,376 6% 10% 2006 Primary 129,129 924,480 22% 14% 2006 Primary Runoff 51,865 396,360 9% 13% 2006 General 375,536 2,139,235 49% 18% 2006 General Runoff 51,171 219,485 5% 23% 2008 Primary 218,179 1,012,257 21% 22% 2008 Primary Runoff 91,292 464,189 10% 20% 2008 General 2,093,029 3,939,235 76% 53% 2008 General Runoff 553,614 2,109,917 41% 26% 2010 Primary 212,487 1,116,820 23% 19% 2010 Primary Runoff 88,734 688,261 14% 13% 2010 General 783,702 2,622,729 52% 30% 2010 General Runoff 57,965 290,325 6% 20% 2012 Primary 412,541 1,644,066 32% 25% 2012 Primary Runoff 98,562 412,222 8% 24% 2012 General 1,922,144 3,911,750 73% 49% 2014 Primary 239,031 987,618 20% 24% Source: Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's Office PolitiFact has looked previously at the research on in-person early voting that’s been growing as more states have added this option. Before 2008, much of the research suggested that early voting did not raise the overall level of voter participation in presidential contests over several decades. But that year in Obama’s run to become the first African-American president, and in major elections since, prominent researchers have detected a small turnout increase due to early voting, especially among black voters. Some top researchers say the increase is not significant. "Our take on this is that instead of increasing turnout, it just makes it easier for those who would have voted on Election Day to show up at other times to vote," Jan E. Leighley, a co-author with Jonathan Nagler of "Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues, Inequality and Turnout in the United States," told PolitiFact earlier this year. Cox said Georgia officials had hoped early voting would boost overall voter participation. But Maxine Daniels, who runs elections in DeKalb County, said she hasn’t seen that result. "It’s not an uptick in voting. It’s basically a shift in when people vote," Daniels said. "It just made it easier for the people who were going to vote anyway." There have been other benefits, Daniels and Cox said. Election Day lines are shorter, and counties have been spared the costs of adding more voting machines and ramping up staffing of the polls on Election Day, they said. Georgia has changed its rules on early voting more than once. After having early voting for one week in advance of the elections in 2003 and 2004, the law was amended in 2005 to allow a voter to request an absentee mail-in ballot without giving a reason up to 45 days ahead of a federal or state election or 21 days ahead of a special election. They could still vote in person in the week before the election. In 2010, the law was amended to in-person early voting for seven weeks without giving a reason. In 2011, early voting was reduced to 21 days, ending the Friday before the election and including at least one Saturday of early voting. To sum up, there’s plenty of evidence that Georgia voters are taking advantage of the chance to cast their ballots early. In the 2012 presidential election, 1.9 million early votes were cast. That’s up from about 420,000 in 2004, the first time Georgians could vote early in a presidential election. We rate Kemp’s statement as True.	None	Brian Kemp	None	None	None	2014-06-04T00:00:00	2014-05-19	['None']
-faly-00062	Fact Check: Amit Shah is wrong. BJP lost only 6 seats with a margin less than NOTA	https://factly.in/fact-check-amit-shah-is-wrong-bjp-lost-only-6-seats-with-a-margin-less-than-nota/	None	None	None	None	None	Fact Check: Amit Shah is wrong. BJP lost only 6 seats with a margin less than NOTA	None	None	['None']
-snes-04643	Florida beaches have been invaded with "sea lice."	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sea-lice-florida-beach/	None	Critter Country	None	Dan Evon	None	Sea Lice Invading Florida Beaches	7 June 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03791	A diet rich in vitamin D can reverse tooth decay and regrow portions of teeth lost to cavities.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reverse-cavities-with-vitamin-d/	None	Fauxtography	None	Alex Kasprak	None	Reverse Cavities and Heal Tooth Decay with Vitamin D	15 October 2016	None	['None']
-hoer-00976	You Are Eligible For A UN Grant	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/facebook-scammers-claim-you-are-eligible-for-a-un-grant/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Facebook Scammers Claim You Are Eligible For A UN Grant	February 13, 2018	None	['None']
-tron-02184	Walmart Removes “Made in USA” Signs from Stores	https://www.truthorfiction.com/walmart-removes-made-in-usa-signs-from-stores/	None	internet	None	None	None	Walmart Removes “Made in USA” Signs from Stores– Truth! & Misleading!	Aug 20, 2015	None	['United_States']
-pomt-00942	Cigarette butts "poison babies and small children because of the nicotine in them."	/rhode-island/statements/2015/feb/23/karina-wood/ri-lung-association-representative-says-cigarette-/	A bill before the General Assembly would prohibit smoking on public beaches; the Senate Judiciary Committee took testimony on the proposal Feb. 12. There were only two speakers. One was Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union,’s Rhode Island chapter, who objected to the provision calling for violators being charged with a misdemeanor. The other was Karina Wood of the American Lung Association, who cited the health dangers of secondhand smoke. But she also talked about another aspect of the issue -- the environmental problems posed by beach butts (the cigarette kind, not the anatomical variety). "Environmentally, cigarette butts are unsightly. They are the number one polluting litter on our beaches," she said. "I've been involved in beach cleanups myself with my kids and you'll be amazed, or maybe you won't, at how many of those butts are littering our beaches. And they're dangerous to animals -- wildlife, birds." "And also they poison babies and small children because of the nicotine in them." We've heard plenty of reports over the years that cigarette butts are the biggest source of beach pollution in Rhode Island. But we wondered whether they are really poisoning children, especially babies, whom we think of as not being able to get around on their own. It turns out that Wood was talking about the risks to children of eating discarded butts. When we contacted her to ask for some documentation, she sent us to a few pieces of research. We also sought our own information on the toxicity of nicotine. Common blends of tobacco contain roughly 15 to 25 milligrams per cigarette. The amount of nicotine in a cigarette butt could vary but just a milligram or two can be enough to produce poisoning symptoms in a child. Those symptoms include "agitation, headache, sweating, dizziness, auditory and visual disturbances, confusion, weakness and lack of coordination," according to safety guide for various chemicals on the International Programme on Chemical Safety’s website. That database says the mean lethal dose for children who consume nicotine is about 10 milligrams, although we found another source that reported that the fatal dose was 40 mg to 60 mg for children. Nicotine, a neurotoxin, can kill by causing lung failure or by paralyzing the muscles that control breathing. How common is nicotine poisoning among babies or children? Wood pointed us to two studies. The first was published in the September 2009 edition of the journal Public Health by Jeffrey T. Quirk of the Erie County Department of Health in Pennsylvania. Using a national database covering about 100 U.S. hospitals, it estimated that there were 3,616 cases of cigarette poisonings and 756 cases of cigarette ingestion among children in the United States from 2002 to 2007. That's two a day, typically involving a child age 2 or younger.. Because Quirk only tallied injuries that received or required hospital treatment and didn't include children who might have been treated in homes or doctor's office, "the actual number of children's cigarette-related injuries may be much greater," he concluded. Although they were mostly "generally minor injuries, these events have the potential to induce serious complications," he said. The second study was done, coincidentally, in Rhode Island. For the 31-month period that began in January 1994, the state's Poison Control Center logged 146 cases in which children age 24 months or younger had ingested cigarettes or cigarette butts. Only one case occurred outside a residence -- in this instance it was a public park. In one third of the cases, the child vomited, often more than once. Two thirds of the children had no symptoms.There were no fatalities and the children generally recovered within 12 hours. Once again, that number probably underestimates the actual number of cases, the researchers said, because many parents might not have thought to call poison control. The youngest children in the study, age 6 to 12 months, accounted for 75 percent of the cases. Finally, we found a 2011 review article in Tobacco Control, a journal from the publishers of the British Medical Journal (now BMJ), which reports on 1,289 additional cases that appeared in the medical literature, 239 of which produced symptoms. "We found that severe poisoning by cigarette butts among young children was rare but possible," the researcher said. "It is clear that smokers must treat cigarette butts as toxic waste products and take more care in discarding them; children will mimic parental behaviour by putting these items into their mouths and sometime consume them in quantities sufficient to be toxic." Finally, we asked Wood if she meant to include babies in her statement. After all, most babies -- before they become toddlers -- can only eat what people feed them. She pointed out that older babies find plenty of stuff on the floor when they're learning to crawl. "By way of a personal anecdote, I observed my own daughter, when she was a baby of 11 or 12 months old and crawling, pick up a discarded cigarette butt on the beach and bring it to her mouth," Wood said. Dr. William Lewander, coauthor of the 1994 study and current director of pediatric emergency medicine at Hasbro Children's Hospital, said another child who picks up a butt might offer it to a baby and "once they start crawling, if a cigarette butt is dropped on the floor it's possible" for poisoning to occur. "A toddler running around is probably most at risk," said Dr. Thomas Novotny, of San Diego State University, coauthor of the 2011 study. For younger children "it's possible they would crawl around in the sand and put something in their mouth. If a 1 year old were to eat a few butts, they likely would have nicotine toxicity -- increased heart rate, irritability - and there have been some reports of seizures in the past." In sum, the scientific literature shows that it's not a rare event for doctors and poison control centers to have to deal with young children -- who tend to put just about anything in their mouths -- who have consumed cigarettes or cigarette butts. It's seldom fatal, but it can qualify as a medical emergency, and it doesn't take much to give a child symptoms of poisoning. We rate the claim True. (If you have a claim you’d like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, email us at politifact@providencejournal.com. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)	None	Karina Wood	None	None	None	2015-02-23T00:01:00	2015-02-12	['None']
-pomt-03511	The National Rifle Association was "founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan."	/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/	On May 28, 2013, the Republican Party of Milwaukee County posted on its website a video that has been popping up elsewhere on the Internet. The video features African-American leaders speaking out against proposals to restrict gun rights at a Feb. 22, 2013 news conference in Washington, D.C. Among them: Harry Alford, president and chief executive officer of the D.C.-based National Black Chamber of Commerce. Alford, who spoke in Milwaukee in 2008, said at one point: "I want to thank the Lord for our Constitution. I also want to thank the NRA for its legacy. The National Rifle Association was started, founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan." Well known as a defender of the right to bear arms, the 5 million-member NRA does describe itself as "America's longest-standing civil rights organization." But is that why it was founded? Not even close. What the NRA says Here’s what the NRA says on its website about its founding: Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church. After being granted a charter by the State of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president. An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York State, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held. No mention of religious leaders, slaves or the KKK. Brief histories of the NRA by The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post contain no such mentions, either. We called and emailed the NRA to inquire about Alford’s claim, but the group offered no response. (Milwaukee County Republican Party chairman David Karst told us he wasn’t sure why the party posted the video on its website.) Alford’s evidence Alford’s wife, National Black Chamber of Commerce executive vice president Kay DeBow Alford, provided us three articles to back her husband’s claim. But none of them do. 1. PolicyMic.com: A January 2013 article on PolicyMic.com, which describes itself as a platform to "engage millennials in debates about real issues," notes that the NRA founders started the group because of the Union soldiers’ poor marksmanship and it calls the NRA the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. No mention of religious leaders founding the NRA to protect freed slaves from the KKK. 2. Ann Coulter: In an April 2012 opinion column, conservative author and commentator Ann Coulter said that when civil rights leader Robert F. Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., after serving in World War II, the Ku Klux Klan was "beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will." In 1957, Williams got a charter from the NRA, founded the Black Armed Guard and repeatedly thwarted KKK attacks, Coulter wrote. She didn't say whether the NRA played a role in the guard's fighting the Klan. Again, no reference to religious leaders or slaves. And the fighting against the KKK -- whether it involved the NRA or not -- would have occurred more than 85 years after the NRA’s founding. 3. Psychology professor’s article: A January 2013 article by psychology professor Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College in Grove City, Pa., not only doesn’t support Alford’s claim, it disputes it. Throckmorton noted that the NRA’s website makes no mention of the KKK or getting guns in the hands of newly freed slaves. He said he found no evidence in the early charter of the NRA, or the biographies of the founders, either. Other evidence So, even tangentially, is there anything to Alford’s statement? Two historians -- Jerald Podair of Lawrence University in Wisconsin and Kenneth Janken of the University of North Carolina -- said there is no evidence to support the statement. But, as an aside, here’s more information on Coulter's reference to Williams, the civil rights leader, and the KKK in North Carolina. It’s from the University of Florida-produced documentary "Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power": In 1956, Williams took over leadership of the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which was close to disbanding due to the Ku Klux Klan. Williams filed for a charter from the NRA and formed the Black Guard, an armed group committed to the protection of blacks. It's unclear, however, whether the NRA provided any assistance, based on what Williams' widow, Mabel, said in a University of North Carolina oral history interview. Mabel Williams said her husband altered the occupations of the members when applying for the NRA charter. "I'm sure when we joined and the years after then, had they known we were a black group, they would have revoked our charter," she said. Our rating Harry Alford, the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, said the National Rifle Association was "founded by religious leaders who wanted to protect freed slaves from the Ku Klux Klan." We can’t say whether he was misinformed or intended to mislead. But the NRA itself says the group was formed by Union Civil War veterans to improve soldiers’ marksmanship. And we found no evidence that religious leaders founded the NRA to protect freed slaves from the KKK. The claim is not only inaccurate but ridiculous -- Pants on Fire.	None	Harry Alford	None	None	None	2013-06-05T09:00:00	2013-02-22	['Ku_Klux_Klan', 'National_Rifle_Association']
-pomt-04786	Says "cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation."	/oregon/statements/2012/aug/23/nick-fish/do-cities-really-save-38-every-1-they-spend-fluori/	The Portland City Council is set to vote early next month on whether to fluoridate the city’s drinking water -- and a ‘yes’ vote looks all but certain. City Commissioner Nick Fish said as much in a statement that started bluntly "I believe it is time to add fluoride to Portland’s drinking water." Part of his rationale, he explained in the statement, are the potential savings fluoridation offers. "In fact, cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation," he wrote. We thought the topic was timely enough that we ought to do a quick check on this would-be fact. (Full disclosure: The Oregonian used the same fact in a Page 1 article on the subject of fluoridation.) We called Fish’s office and spoke with Emily York, one of the commissioner’s policy coordinators. She sent us a fact sheet from the Everyone Deserves Healthy Teeth Coalition that laid out the economic case in favor of fluoridation, including the $38 figure that Fish used. The figure, the fact sheet noted, came from a 2001 study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry by Susan Griffin, Karl Jones and Scott Tomar. It took some time, but we were able to get our hands on a copy of the study. A quick read revealed that the authors had indeed found significant savings from fewer instances of tooth decay and resulting dental care when communities fluoridated their water supplies. (PolitiFact Oregon recognizes that fluoridation has strong opponents who raise other issues -- but our purpose here is simply to examine the possible cost savings.) To get to the $38 figure, you need to do a little math. For a large community like Portland, the study’s authors estimated that fluoridation costs about 50 cents per person. Then it goes on to give a range of possible dental cost savings per person -- from $2.99 to $56.07, with a most likely savings (base case in financial jargon) of $19.12 per person for the 50 cents spent Just double the $19.12 in savings -- because that’s how much you get for half a dollar -- and you wind up with $38 in savings for each $1 spent. That’s a pretty decent return, to be sure. Now, there are a few caveats here. The study explicitly states that it does not take into account overhead costs of fluoridation or possible health issues that stem from fluoridation, such as dental fluorosis, which the study says "are negligible." We contacted one of the study’s authors, Scott Tomar, who teaches at the College of Dentistry at the University of Florida. In an e-mail he said the bottom line of the decade-old study was that "that community water fluoridation saves money under almost any scenario. It is actually one of extremely few public health initiatives that can make such a claim. Based on our analyses, an 18 to 1 return on investment is a reasonable estimate for Portland." We wanted something a little more specific, however, so we took a look at the actual numbers Portland would be facing. The figures are a little different for the Portland area because it’ll cost more than the estimated 50 cents per person to fluoridate. According to early estimates, it’ll cost the city about $5 million to get the project started and then about $575,000 annually from there on to fluoridate water for about 900,000 people. We worked the math and that means in the first year, Portland area residents would save about $3 in dental costs for every $1 invested. After that, it’d cost closer to 64 cents per person to fluoridate the water, meaning a savings of about $30 for each $1 spent. Fish was measured in his comments. He said that "cities save an estimated $38 in dental costs for every $1 invested in fluoridation" and, indeed, that was the estimate of one article that appeared in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Furthermore, the findings of this article are highlighted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on its website on the subject. The savings for Portland, however, are slimmer, and we think that’s important context that is missing. We find this statement Mostly True.	None	Nick Fish	None	None	None	2012-08-23T16:17:38	2012-08-16	['None']
-pomt-02163	"Many" of the founding fathers were "very actively involved" in cockfighting.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/01/matt-bevin/were-founding-fathers-active-cockfighters/	Were the founding fathers cockfighters? It’s not a question we expected to ask this campaign season. But we’re going to ask it because a Kentucky Senate candidate recently claimed that "many" of the men who founded our nation also took an interest in the blood sport. Tea party-backed candidate Matt Bevin, who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in a primary, drew criticism earlier this month after speaking at a cockfighters’ rally in Corbin, Ky. Cockfighting is illegal in Kentucky -- as it is in every state, 40 of which make it a felony -- but aficionados want to reverse such laws on a state-by-state basis. Bevin defended his presence at the rally on Louisville radio host Terry Meiners’ show in part by saying many of the founding fathers were participants. "But it's interesting, when you look at cockfighting and dogfighting as well, this isn't something new, it wasn't invented in Kentucky for example," Bevin said. "I mean, the founding fathers were all -- many of them -- very actively involved in this and always had been." We’ve checked some claims about historic politicians in the past, so we’ll try again with a look at cockfighting more than two centuries ago. Past claims Bevin’s campaign did not respond to an inquiry for this story, so we don’t know what he’s basing that claim on. However, these claims typically have concerned a handful of prominent founders, notably George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Some other sources also mention Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson, but Bevin’s claim specifically mentioned "founding fathers," so we didn't address them. Our research initially led us to the Humane Society of the United States, which has spearheaded a long fight to make cockfighting illegal and is one of cockfighting’s fiercest critics. In the early 1990s, the society contacted historians and experts about some of the founding fathers to see if there was any truth to the claims. According to the documents the society collected, the founders’ connections to cockfighting seem somewhat tenuous, though we acknowledge some limitations about this type of research -- namely that their surviving personal writings and other documentary evidence is limited. George Washington There is one reference in George Washington’s diaries that confirms that as a 19-year-old, the nation’s future first president attended a cockfight. "A Great Main of (co)cks fought… (be)tween Glouster and york for 5 pistoles each battle and 100 ye odd I left it with Colo. (John) Lewis before it was decided…," he wrote, according to information uncovered by the Humane Society. However, it’s unclear how excited the young Washington was, since the entry says he left before the fight ended, said Mary V. Thompson, a research historian at the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington. Another historian -- John P. Riley, formerly of Mount Vernon, Washington’s estate -- told the Humane Society that there is a vague reference to a cockfight elsewhere in Washington’s writings, but that Washington referenced other activities he enjoyed far more than he referenced cockfighting. "By the numerous references in his diaries and letters to foxhunting, card playing and attending the theater, we know that these were some of Washington’s favorite amusements," Riley wrote in 1993. "The two references to cockfighting in his voluminous writings and the absence of documentation or physical evidence of any cockpit at Mount Vernon leads me to believe that it was not an entertainment in which he participated in any great way." Thomas Jefferson The evidence on Thomas Jefferson is similar. "Although it is always much harder to disprove something than to prove it, I am confident that if Jefferson had any interest in cockfighting, I would come across some reference to it in my twenty-five years of working with his documentary archive," Lucia C. Stanton, the former director of research at Monticello wrote to the Humane Society in 1993. Stanton told PolitiFact that while it is impossible to tell what activities Jefferson took part in before he started prolifically documenting his life, it would be surprising if he had been actively involved in cockfighting as a young man yet made no mention of these activities in his later writings. Meanwhile, a transcribed memoir from the 1840s of a former slave of Jefferson’s seems to say pretty clearly that Jefferson did not participate in cockfighting. "Mr. Jefferson never had nothing to do with horse-racing or cock-fighting," former slave Isaac Granger Jefferson dictated to Charles Campbell in Memoirs of a Monticello Slave. In addition, Jefferson did raise fowl at Monticello, but it is a leap to say that he raised birds for sport. Finally, Jefferson helped write a 1799 law that was meant to deter gambling on activities like cockfighting. Adams, Franklin and other founders The evidence about the other founders is no more convincing. John Adams, who would become the new nation’s second president, has only one known reference to cockfighting -- his lament that young men waste time of the activity, said Amanda Mathews, assistant editor of the Adams papers with the Massachusetts Historical Society. "While they all probably attended one at some point or another, I don’t think any of the Adamses were ‘involved’ in any way," Mathews said in an email, referring to John Adams and his second cousin Samuel Adams. As for Franklin, some claims about his fondness for cockfighting involve his proposal to make the national bird a turkey instead of the familiar bald eagle. Some have taken this as a symbol of his association with cockfighting, but this seems too vague to serve as solid evidence. As for other founders, we will note that in October 1774, the Continental Congress, which would become the United States’ first governing body during the Revolutionary War, signed a resolution that, among other things, discouraged cockfighting. Fifty-seven members of the Congress signed the resolution, including such well-known founders like Jefferson, John Jay and Samuel and John Adams. Our ruling Bevin said that "many" of the founding fathers were "very actively involved" in cockfighting. In looking at the most prominent founders, we found no indications that any of the founders were avid and frequent participants. We rate the claim False.	None	Matt Bevin	None	None	None	2014-05-01T14:21:27	2014-04-03	['None']
-hoer-00161	Olive Garden Syphilis	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/olive-garden-syphilis-hoax.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Olive Garden Syphilis Hoax	July 2007	None	['None']
-snes-01023	Does Barack Obama's Official Portrait Contain Secret Images of Sperm?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-official-portrait-sperm-cells/	None	Politics	None	David Emery	None	Does Barack Obama’s Official Portrait Contain Secret Images of Sperm?	13 February 2018	None	['None']
-tron-02818	Obama Launched Reelection Campaign Targeting African Americans	https://www.truthorfiction.com/obama-african-americans-for/	None	obama	None	None	None	Obama Launched Reelection Campaign Targeting African Americans	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-goop-00249	Caitlyn Jenner Returning To Reality TV With Sophia Hutchins?	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-reality-tv-show-sophia-hutchins/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Caitlyn Jenner Returning To Reality TV With Sophia Hutchins?	6:00 am, September 19, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-01646	Says he "invested over $100 million in worker training."	/wisconsin/statements/2014/aug/24/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-he-invested-100-million-worker-t/	In February 2012, one of the Democrats who aimed to unseat Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin’s historic recall election made an aggressive claim. Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk said Walker enacted "the biggest cuts to education in our state’s history." We rated the statement True. Among the $1.1 billion in education cuts in Walker’s 2011-’13 state budget was a reduction of $71.6 million, or 30 percent, in general state aid for technical colleges. And the governor has since restored only a fraction of that funding. So, we wondered about Walker’s claiming in a new TV ad, which his campaign highlighted in an Aug. 13, 2014 news release, that he has "invested over $100 million in worker training." The system The state's tech school system has a long history and a large clientele. In 1911, Wisconsin became the first state to establish a system of state aid and support for industrial education, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council. Currently, the Wisconsin Technical College System has 16 schools that serve some 380,000 students each year. The tech schools’ primary mission is occupational education and training, although they also provide general education, career counseling and other services. As for financing, the largest share of the tech system's funding, slightly more than 50 percent, comes from property taxes. But given Walker’s claim, our focus here is on state spending. State funding General state aid to technical colleges remained virtually unchanged during the eight years under the previous governor, Democrat Jim Doyle. It ranged between $118 million and $119 million per year. Walker cut the allocation to $83.5 million for each year of his first budget, causing the $71.6 million reduction for 2011-’13 that we mentioned. He kept the funding at $83.5 million the following year, then bumped it up to $88.5 million in 2014-’15, still well below the Doyle levels. But when Walker first made the reductions, the tech system told us it estimated that 60 percent of the reductions were offset by savings the system was able to make as a result of Act 10, Walker’s collective bargaining reform law. That law required most public employees pay for a larger share of their pension and health benefits. Beyond that, the reductions were in general aid -- which can be used for many purposes, including general education and overhead, as well as worker training. They weren’t cuts in funding strictly for worker training. The claim As for Walker’s claim of investing more than $100 million in worker training, the governor in February 2013 said he would invest $132 million from various sources, including nearly $100 million in state money, to build a faster system to track jobs data, tie technical school and university funding to filling high-demand professions, and require nearly 76,000 people to train for work to collect food stamps. A key point here is that, although Walker has not restored all of the general state aid he had cut to the tech schools, he was adding money to other types of job training. Here are some of the larger worker training allocations: $35.4 million in increased workforce training grants in a March 2014 law. It requires the state Department of Workforce Development to fund initiatives such as reducing waiting lists for technical college programs in "high-demand" fields and collaborative efforts by school districts, tech schools and businesses to train high school students in high-demand fields. $31 million in the 2013-’15 state budget to carry out a new requirement that able-bodied adults who don't have dependent children work or get work training in order to receive food stamps. $22.5 million in the 2013-’15 state budget for new "incentive grants" to University of Wisconsin System institutions for economic development programs, programs that aim to develop the workforce and programs that make post secondary education more affordable for state residents. $20 million in a March 2013 law to the state Department of Workforce Development to provide grants to private and public organizations for training unemployed and underemployed workers. Of that amount, $15 million is for grants and the rest to run the program. $4.21 million in additional money for the state's vocational rehabilitation program through a December 2013 law. Those initiatives alone exceed $100 million. Walker's campaign provided us a spreadsheet listing those initiatives and others totaling nearly $178 million. However, whether the full $178 million could be considered worker training is debatable. For example, $12 million is allocated for "WorkKeys," a job skills assessment that is intended "to help high school pupils identify necessary coursework and provide another indicator for career readiness." Our rating Walker said he has "invested over $100 million into worker training." The governor has directed more than $100 million into a variety of new worker training programs. But his statement needs clarification in that he also cut general aid to technical colleges, some of which is used for worker training. Our rating is Mostly True.	None	Scott Walker	None	None	None	2014-08-24T05:00:00	2014-08-13	['None']
-pomt-09675	In the House health care bill, "Something like 2 percent of the people would [be] eligible even to get the public option."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/18/ron-wyden/wyden-mistakenly-lowballs-number-people-eligible-p/	The House health care bill, with its exchanges, public option and nearly 2,000 pages of densely worded text, isn't the easiest thing to comprehend. So it's not surprising that even a senator with years of experience in health care policy can make a mistake while explaining it. In a Nov. 17, 2009, appearance on MSNBC's Morning Meeting With Dylan Ratigan , Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he's trying to prod Senate leaders into including a version of the public option that goes further than what's in the House bill. The public option would be a government-run plan offered as one of many alternatives on the new health care "exchange." The exchange is designed to help uninsured Americans, as well as those who don't work for an employer who offers health coverage, find reasonably priced health insurance. Beyond some startup money from the federal government, the public option would be paid for entirely by patient premiums. Wyden argued during his MSNBC appearance that a public option that reaches more Americans than the one in the House bill would have a better chance of ensuring competition for private insurers. And that, in turn, would promote cost control and improve customer benefits. In explaining how limited the current House bill version is, Wyden said, "Something like 2 percent of the people would [be] eligible even to get the public option." That's not correct. The Congressional Budget Office -- the nonpartisan group whose estimates on the cost and impact of proposed bills are considered definitive -- said otherwise in an Oct. 29, 2009, letter to Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The CBO estimated that by 2019 -- the final year of the office's 10-year forecast -- 30 million people would be insured through plans offered on the exchange. But the CBO predicted that most of those 30 million would choose plans from private insurers. Only 6 million, or one of every five people buying on the exchange, would select the public plan, according to the CBO's estimate. (Anyone who's eligible to purchase insurance on the exchange would be able to choose either the public option or a plan offered by private insurers.) Now, 6 million people buying the public option amounts to just over 2 percent of the 282 million Americans who are under age 65 (that is, the 282 million Americans who aren't eligible for Medicare, the universal health insurance program for the elderly). But contrary to what Wyden said, it's not that 2 percent of Americans will be eligible for the public option in 2019; it's that 2 percent will choose the public option that year, according to CBO's estimate. The actual number of people eligible to choose the public option would be the entire pool of 30 million Americans in the exchange -- almost 11 percent of the under-65 population, or five times the proportion that Wyden indicated. When we spoke to Wyden's office, a spokeswoman immediately acknowledged that the senator had misspoken. In fact, when he returned to a different MSNBC program that night -- Countdown with Keith Olbermann -- he said, correctly, that the public option "has 6 million people in it." So while we applaud Wyden for correcting himself after the fact, his original comment was incorrect. So we're rating his statement False.	None	Ron Wyden	None	None	None	2009-11-18T18:59:43	2009-11-17	['None']
-pomt-08955	Obama's dog has his "own plane"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jul/22/blog-posting/bloggers-claim-bo-flies-his-own-plane/	Talk about making sacrifices and tightening the belt. Bo, the Portuguese water dog that Senator Ted Kennedy gave to the Obama family as a present, apparently flies in his own private jet. That, at least, is the claim that seems to have gone viral on the Internet over the weekend. "As the rest of us toil on the unemployment line, as millions of Americans find their retirement accounts dwindling, their hours at work cut, and their pay scale trimmed, King Barack and Queen Michelle are flying their little doggie, Bo, on his own special jet airplane for his own little vacation adventure," wrote Warner Todd Houston, a blogger on Publius Forum. The rumor caught our attention, and not just because we're fascinated with the pet air travel industry. Is Bo really commanding his own jet? We decided to look into it. We quickly traced the origin of the rumors to the Morning Sentinel, a newspaper based in Waterville, Maine. On July 17, 2010, the paper published an account of the First Family's visit to the state's Acadia National Park. Among the details was a reference to Bo. "Arriving in a small jet before the Obamas was the first dog, Bo, a Portuguese water dog given as a present by the late U.S. Sen Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and the president's personal aide Reggie Love, who chatted with Baldacci," the article stated. It seems that some people took this to mean that Bo actually arrived in his own jet. Air Force One is usually a Boeing 747, but the Trenton airport runway was too small for the plane, so the Obamas opted for a Gulfstream G3, the article stated. That plane can accommodate up to 19 passengers. To fit everyone in -- the President always travels with multiple staffers and aides -- the Obamas decided to travel in two smaller airplanes, the second of which carried several White House aides and Bo. Indeed, the Sentinel article was updated to clarify that there were many other people in the jet that carried Bo. "Today's story about the arrival of the Obamas said the Obamas' dog and one aide arrived on a small jet before the First Family, but there were other occupants on the plane, including several other staffers. The presidential party took two small jets to the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton because the airport was too small to accommodate the president's usual jet." To be thorough, we also checked with the White House. Katherine Bedingfield of the White House Office of Media Affairs told us that the claim is "baseless and absurd." Bo does not even require his own seat, and during the Maine trip he traveled on a government-owned plane with White House staff. We figured that at least some of the bloggers were being satirical, but from our review of reader comments that followed many of the entries, it's pretty clear that there are those who actually took this stuff seriously, so we wanted to set the record straight. So, Bo did indeed arrive in a separate jet, but it's ridiculous to claim that he has his own airplane. He traveled on a government-owned plane with government staffers who didn't fit in the small Gulfstream G3 that the First Family had to take because of the physical limitations of the Trenton airport runway. We rate this False.	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2010-07-22T11:16:09	2010-07-17	['None']
-pomt-05434	"About 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now."	/florida/statements/2012/apr/27/rick-scott/gov-scott-says-230000-fewer-people-receive-unemplo/	A radio host recently asked Gov. Rick Scott for an update on his trademark 7-7-7 plan -- creating 700,000 jobs in seven years in seven steps. (We're tracking that promise on the Scott-O-Meter.) Scott said Florida’s economy is getting better in a lot of ways. "We’re doing well. We’re at a three-year low on our unemployment in this state... We generated around 100,000 net jobs so far, if you look at the federal numbers," he said in the April 18, 2012, interview with Orlando-based station WDBO. "But if you look at the state numbers, about 230,000 people that were on unemployment when I took office are not on unemployment now. "When you look around the state, tourism is up, the home market’s up, home sales are up, home prices are up. … So good things are happening, but we still have 900,000 people out of work," he said. What stuck out to us is his claim that 230,000 fewer people receive unemployment benefits than when he took office 15 months ago. That sounds like a drastic decrease, which Scott is taking credit for and in turn using as evidence that the state’s economy is improving. A spokeswoman with the state’s Department of Economic Opportunity, the agency that manages the unemployment compensation program, responded to our request about Scott’s claim. Spokeswoman Nancy Blum said the number of people receiving unemployment compensation dropped from 561,736 on Jan. 31, 2011, to 345,052 on March 31, 2012. That’s a total decline of 216,684. That’s pretty close to "about 230,000," which is the number Scott offered. Whether Scott is right to take credit for the decline -- and whether that is translating to a better Florida economy -- is more complicated. In 2011 and 2012, Scott and Florida lawmakers made a series of changes to the state’s unemployment compensation program that generally make it harder for people to receive benefits. Among them: Claims must be filed online. Applicants must complete a 45-question initial workplace skills review before receiving the first check (the 2012 law requires a numeric score). Recipients must either prove they contacted five prospective employers each week or meet with a career representative at a one-stop employment center. The department tied the maximum number of weeks to the unemployment rate, so that the number of weeks decreases with the rate and vice versa. The maximum number of weeks fell from 26 to 23. The state is no longer required to resolve doubtful cases in favor of claimants, and the use of hearsay in appeals cases is expanded. It’s easier to be disqualified based on a broadened definition of an employee’s misconduct that resulted in a lost job, and applies to certain misconduct outside of work. Meanwhile, businesses got tax breaks. A 2012 bill reduces unemployment compensation taxes for businesses by at least $50 per employee, with savings of $276 million the first year. The Miami Workers Center asked the U.S. Department of Labor’s civil rights division to investigate Florida’s unemployment compensation system over allegations that these changes act as barriers to people who deserve checks but can’t get them for lack of computer access or reading skills. A Labor department spokesman told us the investigation is ongoing. "The governor’s number in and of itself does not demonstrate any kind of economic recovery in Florida," said Valory Greenfield, staff attorney for Florida Legal Services, which represents the workers center. "What it tells me based on our experience working with claimants is that fewer people who are potentially eligible are getting into the program." In fact, since August 2011 the department has denied 131,115 applicants for failing to comply with the new law, mostly for failing to fulfill the work search or the initial skills assessment. Those denials resulted in a $30.3 million savings. Economists said Scott's number, while accurate, isn't necessarily a great economic measure on its own. They also said it's too soon to tell if Florida's more stringent eligibility requirements play a big role in the declining number of recipients. Part of the drop-off could be attributed to people whose benefits have expired. Since December 2011, 30,600 people have exhausted all state and federal unemployment benefits, according to the department. "So far I haven’t been able to see any hard data or evidence to quantify (either) effect," said Mekael Teshome, PNC Financial Services Group economist. What’s more relevant, Teshome said, is that jobless claims have been coming down since their peak in mid 2009, well before Scott took office. That somewhat undermines the idea that the drop is thanks to Scott. In fact, if you started counting in 2010 instead of 2011 when Scott took office, even fewer people -- 300,770 -- are receiving unemployment benefits. Some experts also pointed to the contracting size of the labor force, which helps to lower the unemployment rate but also indicates some people are no longer looking for work. About 15,000 people left the labor force from February, according to the state’s March 2012 labor report. The 15,000-person drop in the labor force was part of the reason why the unemployment rate fall from 9.4 percent in February to 9 percent in March. "Some of those are people whose benefits ran out and are now not looking for work," said Chris McCarty, director of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. "Some of those are retirees who have left the labor force permanently." Our ruling Scott’s claim that 230,000 fewer people are receiving unemployment benefits than when he entered office is pretty close to the actual drop (216,684). A couple of caveats here. The figure is not completely an indicator that the economy is improving, as Scott suggests, and is somewhat the result of a strict new state law. Also, the trend of jobless claims started falling in mid 2009, more than a year before Scott took office. That undercuts, to a point, the suggestion Scott should get the credit. Scott’s statement is accurate but can use some additional information. That’s our definition of Mostly True.	None	Rick Scott	None	None	None	2012-04-27T16:25:51	2012-04-18	['None']
-snes-02347	An image accurately depicts what President Trump and President Obama wrote in the Yad Yashem guest book.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-trump-holocaust-memorial/	None	Politics	None	Dan Evon	None	Did Presidents Obama and Trump Write Wildly Different Entries in the Yad Yashem Guestbook?	25 May 2017	None	['Barack_Obama']
-hoer-00830	Beer Can Filled Townhouse Photographs	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/beer-can-townhouse.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Beer Can Filled Townhouse Photographs	December 2006	None	['None']
-goop-00797	Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew Broderick Marriage In Trouble, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/sarah-jessica-parker-matthew-broderick-marriage-trouble/	None	None	None	Alejandro Rosa	None	Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew Broderick Marriage NOT In Trouble, Despite Report	4:15 pm, June 18, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-08490	Say Matt Wand cut Troutdale police, created a slush fund for himself.	/oregon/statements/2010/oct/11/future-pac-oregon-house-democrats/house-democrats-say-matt-wand-cut-police-voted-slu/	At PolitiFact Oregon, nothing gets our pulse racing quite like the words "slush fund." We know that few things make voters angrier than personal expense accounts on the taxpayer dime. So we had to check it out when we spotted a recent campaign mailer that said this: "Matt Wand cut the police force while creating a slush fund for his own expenses." The line runs with a photo of Wand, a Republican House candidate for District 49, on the side of a police vehicle with the phrase "to protect and serve ... himself." Funny, cutting ... but is it true? According to Future PAC, the House Democrats' campaign committee, while on the Troutdale City Council, Wand voted to "cut the police force as part of the 2010-2011 budget." Separately, he "worked hard to protect his own pocketbook -- by supporting an expense slush fund for himself." Michele Rossolo, executive director of Future PAC, said the mailer was based on a reduction in the number of FTE, or full-time equivalent staff, in the Police Department from 2009-10 to 2010-11. Also, she sent minutes from an April 6, 2010, Troutdale City Council work session as evidence that Wand approved a "slush fund." Erich Mueller, finance director for Troutdale, was calmly apoplectic when reached by phone to explain the city’s budget. First, it's true that the number of budgeted police officers decreased, from 29.5 FTE positions to 28.5. But that's because one position had been double-filled to account for an employee on long-term deployment with the Oregon National Guard. And when that person returned from overseas, he retired. "The money was the same," said Troutdale Police Sgt. Marc Shrake. "There were two bodies on payroll for visual purposes." Second, the police budget was not cut in terms of money. In fact, the total amount of money budgeted for police operations and management went up -- from $3,710,552 in 2009-10 to $3,826,510 in 2010-11. That's about a $116,000 increase. "Since the police budget was increased," Mueller said, "I don't know how he could have cut it." And third, City Council members, as part of the 15-member city budget committee, did approve a new $50 monthly stipend for each of the six city councilors. The stipend, which replaced a reimbursement system for council members, would be used to pay for meals with other elected officials or individuals, to attend retirement events, or to pay for fax lines, cell phone bills and office supplies. None of those items would be reimbursed by the city. Wand was a member of the budget subcommittee that suggested the stipend. But the idea was proposed by Tanney Staffenson, chairman of the Troutdale budget committee, according to the minutes provided by Future PAC (Page 10). And get this: Wand signed a form declining the stipend on June 8, 2010. That’s right. He didn't even take the opportunity to "protect his own pocketbook." So, it’s inaccurate to say that Wand cut the police force when he didn’t. It’s inaccurate to say that he selfishly created a "slush fund" for his own expenses, when he didn’t. This attack on Wand’s character -- remember, he is pictured next to a slogan that reads "to protect and serve ... himself" -- shows a reckless disregard for the truth. Even in political advertising. This mailer is not only false, it’s ridiculous. We rate this Pants on Fire. Comment on this item.	None	Future PAC (Oregon House Democrats)	None	None	None	2010-10-11T06:00:00	2010-10-09	['None']
-pose-00940	"We will offer assistance to the new VCOM in Blacksburg and the Virginia Tech Carilon School of Medicine in Roanoke, to train more doctors and nurses to practice in rural Virginia."	https://www.politifact.com/virginia/promises/bob-o-meter/promise/974/train-more-doctors-to-practice-in-rural-areas/	None	bob-o-meter	Bob McDonnell	None	None	Train more doctors to practice in rural areas	2011-09-09T12:56:22	None	['Virginia', 'Roanoke,_Virginia']
-pose-01046	Q: Do you support or oppose the ballot question that would cancel the contract for the new Pier, and why? If voters approve the ballot question and the contract is canceled, what should the city do next? A: "My goal would be for the designs to be reviewed, narrowed down, and sent to council by September of 2014. In short, I will: Get to work on November 6th on appointing a new task force (with cooperation from the current administration). Instruct the task force to complete their work within the first three months of my administration. Ensure that we have a final design in place within the first nine months of my administration, and work with the architect to have the new pier built by the end of 2015."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/krise-o-meter/promise/1127/have-new-pier-built-end-2015/	None	krise-o-meter	Rick Kriseman	None	None	Have new pier built by end of 2015	2013-12-31T12:14:26	None	['None']
-pomt-09328	Marco Rubio was "subpoenaed."	/florida/statements/2010/apr/13/charlie-crist/charlie-crist-marco-rubio-ray-sansom/	Gov. Charlie Crist, facing an exceedingly difficult Republican U.S. Senate primary, has launched a second blistering television attack against former House Speaker Marco Rubio. In his first ad, Crist portrayed Rubio as a greedy politician who helped fund his personal lifestyle with Republican Party donations. (You can see our analysis of one of the ad's claims here.) Crist's new ad, which the campaign released April 12, 2010, seeks to link Rubio with indicted former House Speaker Ray Sansom. "Both steered millions of taxpayer money into two colleges," a female narrator says, followed by a male voice that adds, "Then, received cushy jobs from the colleges." The ad then flashes to a booking mug shot of Sansom and a picture of Rubio. Under Sansom's picture is the word "indicted." Under Rubio's picture is the word "subpoenaed." This item will explore whether Rubio was indeed "subpoenaed," and examine links between Sansom and Rubio. First, about Sansom. Sansom was Rubio's budget chief in 2007 and 2008 and succeeded Rubio as speaker in November 2008. On the day Sansom took over from Rubio, he also took a $110,000 job at Northwest Florida State College in the Florida Panhandle. A subsequent St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald investigation showed how Sansom had steered $35 million to the school. Included was $6 million for an airport building that one of Sansom's friends wanted to use for his corporate jet business. The airport building deal led a grand jury to indict Sansom. That case is ongoing. The Florida House also sought to investigate the deal, but Sansom abruptly resigned before a scheduled ethics trial was to start. What links Rubio to all this? Nothing, really, has been established. Yes, Sansom was Rubio's budget chief and the two were close, but Rubio contends that he knew nothing about the $6 million for the airport, saying the project was directed "solely" by Sansom, and that the specific language of the budget request was misleading. Ironically, it's the same answer offered by Crist -- who could've vetoed the project, but didn't. The 35-second TV ad builds its case by first linking Rubio and Sansom as close colleagues in the Florida House (they were). Next the ad says both Rubio and Sansom helped colleges get money from the Legislature and then took jobs from those institutions (We already discussed Sansom; Rubio did help Florida International University get $21 million for a hurricane center and medical school, records kept by the governor's office show, and then took a $69,000 part-time teaching job with FIU after leaving office). The next frames of the ad are where the paths diverge. But you wouldn't know it by watching. Sansom was indicted for his part in the airport hangar deal. And Rubio was subpoenaed, as the ad says, but not as part of his dealings with FIU. The subpoena was part of Sansom's House ethics trial in February 2010. Sansom's attorney Gloria Fletcher included Rubio among 35 potential witnesses that included current and former state legislators. (See the list here). The subpoena was formally issued Feb. 12, 2010. (See it here). We should note that Rubio never received the subpoena, his campaign says. And a subpoena doesn't suggest in any way Rubio did something wrong. Sansom, meanwhile, resigned on Feb. 21, 2010, the day before the ethics trial was to start. The House canceled the trial as a result, and Rubio never testified. To recap, while the ad tries to draw similarities between Sansom's history and Rubio's, Rubio has not been accused of wrongdoing in his association with Florida International University. In fact, Rubio took his job with FIU only as he was leaving the state House -- when his power was fading -- while Sansom took his higher-paying job as he was becoming one of the state's most powerful legislators. The differences are stark enough that overall impression caused by the ad can be quite misleading. The ad rightly says that Rubio was subpoenaed, but the overall connection between Rubio and Sansom is flimsy at best. First, a subpoena was issued, but apparently never delivered. Additionally, a subpoena isn't an indication Rubio did something wrong. It just means he could have been called to testify. As such we rate the statement Half True.	None	Charlie Crist	None	None	None	2010-04-13T19:20:49	2010-04-12	['Marco_Rubio']
-goop-00452	Blake Shelton Asked Gwen Stefani To Leave “The Voice”?	https://www.gossipcop.com/blake-shelton-gwen-stefani-leave-the-voice/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Blake Shelton Asked Gwen Stefani To Leave “The Voice”?	4:03 pm, August 15, 2018	None	['None']
-hoer-01055	More Despicable Like and Comment Amen	https://www.hoax-slayer.net/more-despicable-like-and-comment-amen-facebook-scams/	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	More Despicable Like and Comment Amen Facebook Scams	December 20, 2016	None	['None']
-pomt-06681	"This year, the Blackstone Valley Mayoral Academy became the first public school in Rhode Island history to have 100 percent of its elementary-age students proficient in reading on state assessments."	/rhode-island/statements/2011/sep/08/daniel-mckee/mayors-claim-students-blackstone-valley-charter-sc/	As part of the ongoing debate about mayoral academy charter schools, mayors and town administrators from several Rhode Island communities released a newspaper commentary last month touting their benefits. The commentary, published Aug. 21 in The Journal and credited to Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, Cranston Mayor Allan Fung and Cumberland Mayor Daniel McKee, highlighted test scores at the state’s first mayoral academy, in Cumberland. "This year, the Blackstone Valley Mayoral Academy, which serves students from Central Falls, Cumberland, Lincoln and Pawtucket, became the first public school in Rhode Island history to have 100 percent of its elementary-age students proficient in reading on state assessments." That sounds very impressive. A 100-percent proficiency rate? The first time in the state's history? On multiple assessment tests? We're selecting McKee as the person making the claim because he's a driving force in the school, known as Blackstone Valley Prep. He would be in the best position to know what the test scores are at his own academy. (A proposal by Fung to create a mayoral academy for Cranston and Providence was rejected Sept. 1 by the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education.) So we turned to Elliot Krieger, spokesman for the Rhode Island Department of Education. He delved into the records and here's what he found going back to 2005, when the state inaugurated its current testing system. Last May, all 152 first graders and kindergartners at the school passed the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), a test developed in the late 1980s in Ohio to measure reading skills. In fact, 130 of those 152 passed with distinction. Krieger said it was the first instance he could find of any elementary school doing so well on the current state-mandated standardized tests or, as far as he could recall, since the state began doing proficiency testing, in 1998. In May 2010 -- the school’s inaugural year, when all the students were kindergartners -- 97 percent were deemed proficient. "They're doing really well. No one will dispute that," said Krieger. "It's not a test where this is a cakewalk." But the mayors’ statement leaves out an important fact: The DRA is a test that very few students take because it is given only in schools that don't go above second grade. In all other elementary schools, the state uses the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP), a series of reading, writing, math and science tests used by Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermomt and Maine. Those tests start in grade 3. Last year, only 6 of the state's 168 elementary schools took the DRA, which makes Blackstone Valley Prep a big fish in a very small pond. "There are a lot of schools that are high-performing that don't take this test," said Krieger. (Blackstone Valley Prep did have a class of fifth graders last year and those students took the NECAP test, with less impressive results -- 61 percent were proficient in reading and 48 percent were proficient in math, both below the state average. But Krieger said that doesn't reflect the quality of the school because the test was given in October 2010, before the students had spent much time there. "They didn't teach those kids. It's testing them on what they learned the previous year, wherever they came from," Krieger said.) So when Mayors McKee, Fung and Avedisian say that the Blackstone Valley Mayoral Academy is "the first public school in Rhode Island history to have 100 percent of its elementary-age students proficient" on a state reading assessment, they're right. But that statement might lead readers to assume a comparison with all elementary schools in Rhode Island. Instead, the Blackstone Valley students are taking a test that students in the vast majority of elementary schools don’t take, an important qualifier. In addition, the statement -- and its use of the plural "assessments" -- suggests that the students got 100 percent in more than one test, which is false. Because the statement is mostly accurate but leaves out those important details, we rate the claim Mostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)	None	Daniel McKee	None	None	None	2011-09-08T00:00:01	2011-08-21	['Rhode_Island']
-pomt-14979	"Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. … Nazis were Democratic Socialists."	/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/	Bernie Sanders proudly declares himself a democratic socialist. A Texas state representative suggested that Sanders must somehow then be aligned with the Nazis of Adolf Hitler. State Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, posted a tweet during the CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, that opened: "The modern Democrat Party is filled with Democratic Socialists and soft socialists. Is this where we are in America?" To that tweet, Villalba attached an image of what looked like an old document stating: "That awkward moment when … 1) Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. 2) Nazis were Democratic Socialists 3) America fought an entire World War to stop the advance of Democratic Socialists." The image closed: "Sincerely, Sane Americans." A Democratic activist, Ed Espinoza of Progress Texas, brought it to our attention for a fact check. We didn’t hear back from Villalba about the presented "Democratic Socialist" conclusions. But he told the Dallas Morning News and Jonathan Tilove, chief political writer for the Austin American-Statesman, that the image with its mentions of Sanders and the Nazis was a meme he found online. He also insisted his tweet wasn’t likening Democrats to Nazis. "So is the history accurate in this?" Villalba told Tilove by phone. "Of course not. Look, was I trying to make a connection between Sanders and the Nazi party? Absolutely not. I categorically reject any suggestion that that is what I was intending to do." By the next day, Villalba's tweet was no longer posted by him. Regardless, we checked its accuracy. Sanders a democratic socialist Sanders, the independent Vermont senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, considers himself a democratic socialist. He’s also Jewish. In the debate, moderator Anderson Cooper delved in: COOPER: "You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?" SANDERS: "Well, we're going to win because first, we're going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. "That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing healthcare to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not going to separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are going to have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth. "Those are some of the principles that I believe in and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people…" COOPER: …"You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?" SANDERS: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires." Nazis And were the Nazis also Democratic Socialists? We consulted historians and books, finding the Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That name was adopted in 1920; before that, the party had been the German Workers’ Party. But there was little socialist about the party’s platform or Hitler’s actions once he acceded to leading Germany in the early 1930s. By phone and email, Rice University historian Peter Caldwell told us the key word in the party’s name was "national" and the party’s focus was on building nationalism — a focus ultimately reflected in Hitler’s twisted vision of cleansing the country of residents, especially Jews, not considered of pure German blood. While socialists on the left celebrate democracy, Caldwell said, the word has a different meaning on the right — in this instance, he said, excluding people who are not part of the nation, hence rejecting Jews and communists and, in pre-World War II Germany, democracy itself. Caldwell said the "misleading" tweet suggesting an alignment between Sanders’ professed democratic socialism and Hitler’s party would "have Hitler turning in his grave, wherever the grave is. The Nazis loudly opposed democracy, the first and foremost thing." Also, he said, "they were opposed to emancipating the workers, giving them the rights to vote and to organize" in unions. Similarly, Barbara Miller Lane, a Bryn Mawr College professor and co-editor of a compilation of Nazi ideology before 1933, said by email: "The Nazis were NOT ‘democratic socialists,’ whatever that means. The Nazis were never democrats and never real socialists either." While there was a longstanding and distinguished Social Democratic Party in Germany from the 1870 to the 1920s, Lane wrote, the Nazis fought against it, and after 1933 imprisoned its leaders. Lane added: "The Nazis opposed all traditional socialism, wanting to substitute something they called ‘German socialism’ or ‘Aryan socialism.’ This meant citizenship and privileges only for ‘Aryans’ (meaning non-Jews), concentration camps for others." According to the "The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany," Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, the year before the party’s decision to add National and Socialist to its name. At the time, according to the book, supporters included "well-placed anti-Semites and extreme nationalists" who hoped to gain influence over members of the working class; Hitler, a spellbinding orator, became the party’s chairman in 1921. Another book, "A Brief History of Germany," says the Nazi’s "appealed to a broad swath of the German population, attracting fervent nationalists and radical conservatives, as well as those who hated the Versailles settlement, feared the communists, or despised the Jews." Our ruling Villalba said Sanders "admits he is a democratic socialist… Nazis were Democratic Socialists." Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. The Nazis were not democratic socialists. Whether or not Villalba intended to link Sanders to the Nazis, his tweet neatly did the job. We find this claim historically inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Jason Villalba	None	None	None	2015-10-16T10:30:31	2015-10-13	['Bernie_Sanders']
-tron-02470	Wal-Mart employees have to buy American flags on their own	https://www.truthorfiction.com/walmartflag/	None	miscellaneous	None	None	None	Wal-Mart employees have to buy American flags on their own	Mar 17, 2015	None	['United_States']
-pomt-02253	"In 2006, Charlie Crist opposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants."	/florida/statements/2014/apr/11/republican-party-florida/charlie-crist-opposed-state-tuition-dreamers-2006-/	In a statewide election year when both parties are courting Florida’s growing Hispanic vote, the Legislature is debating giving in-state college tuition to young illegal immigrants known as "Dreamers." Similar efforts have failed in the past decade in Tallahassee. But this year the proposal may have the support of Gov. Rick Scott, who has said he will consider the bill if it also contains a provision he wants, one that is unrelated to immigrants: prohibiting universities from raising tuition above the rate set by the Florida Legislature. Democrats have portrayed Scott as anti-Hispanic after supporting an Arizona-style immigration law in 2010 and vetoing a bill that would have given Dreamers driver's licenses in 2013. Scott’s campaign also faced accusations by his former campaign finance chairman, Mike Fernandez, that some campaign staffers made fun of Mexican accents. In an April 9 press release, the Florida Democratic Party said the in-state tuition this year is election-year pandering. The Republican Party of Florida fired back in an email with their own attack against Charlie Crist, the Democratic frontrunner for governor: "Yesterday, Florida Democrats said it was time to ‘do what is right’ for Florida’s Hispanic community, regarding legislation that is moving through the Senate giving in-state college tuition to children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents," April 10 the state party stated. "So where does the Florida Democratic Party’s own candidate stand on the issue? In 2006, Charlie Crist opposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants." We wanted to check Crist’s position on in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in 2006 -- and in the following years. First, a note about Hispanics, who represented about 14 percent of voters in Florida as of 2012. Hispanics lean Democratic but past results show their vote in the governor’s race could be competitive. Though President Barack Obama overwhelmingly won the state’s Hispanic vote in 2012, Hispanics narrowly backed Scott in 2010 according to exit polls, though there was a large margin of error. Dreamers bill in 2006 The state party email cited a 2006 Miami Herald article about Crist when he was attorney general. According to the story, Crist said state lawmakers "did the ‘right thing’ earlier this year when they rejected a bill allowing children of illegal immigrants to pay the same tuition rates as Florida residents." That year a proposal to give certain Florida residents who were illegal immigrants in-state tuition divided Republican legislators and drew opposition from Senate President Tom Lee. Ultimately, the proposal failed. (Then-Gov. Jeb Bush said he supported giving in-state tuition to those children if they had lived in Florida at least two years, but he also said it wasn’t the year to deal with it, so the controversial provision was removed from an education bill.) A spokeswoman for the Republican Party of Florida didn’t point to any additional statements by Crist. We went in search of other statements by Crist about giving in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants and found little else. It did not appear that any bills that would grant in-state tuition to Dreamers reached Crist’s desk while he was governor during sessions between 2007 and 2010. An August 2006 article in the Tampa Bay Times included a one-word "yes" or "no" answer from candidates for governor to several questions, including this one: "Should we allow the children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at our universities?" The answer for Crist: No. Dreamers bill in 2014 Now running as a Democrat, Crist supports in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. "We must immediately pass legislation that allows the children of undocumented parents to attend Florida colleges and universities at in-state tuition levels," Crist says on the immigration page of his campaign website. "It simply isn’t fair to punish children of undocumented parents." This year’s bill has the backing of House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, and passed the House 81-33 in March. In the Senate, a similar measure passed in committees but hasn’t received a vote by the full Senate yet. The bill has the support of many public universities in Florida, and other Republican governors have signed similar measures, including Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey. A footnote about Scott and the Dreamers bill this year: Scott has expressed support for the Senate version of the bill which includes getting rid of the tuition differential that allows universities to raise rates beyond what the Legislature sets. The House version doesn’t include that provision. When asked about the House bill April 1, Scott reaffirmed his support for the Senate version. "I'm going to work with the Senate and the House to make sure we have a bill that lowers tuition for all Floridians," he said. Our ruling The Republican Party of Florida said in an email, "In 2006, Charlie Crist opposed in-state tuition for illegal immigrants." The attack doesn’t mention the fact that Crist now supports in-state tuition for immigrants here illegally. But the statement about 2006 is correct: We found two newspaper articles that stated Crist, who was running as a Republican for governor, opposed in-state tuition for Dreamers. We rate the statement True.	None	Republican Party of Florida	None	None	None	2014-04-11T10:49:05	2014-04-10	['Charlie_Crist']
-pomt-11967	A flight crew took a knee and stranded the New Orleans Saints on an airport runway.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/03/blog-posting/fake-news-flight-crew-did-not-take-knee-and-strand/	A recent article describing a flight crew taking a knee and leaving the New Orlean Saints stranded on the runway is a fake news story published on another satirical news website. "Flight crew takes a knee and walks off, leave New Orleans Saints stranded on runway," read the headline of the story published on dailyfeed.news on Oct. 2, 2017. The article claimed that the pilot and co-pilot of the plane were combat vets who did not take kindly to Saints players partaking in the "Take A Knee" protest and decided to take a knee of their own and exit the plane. "Looks like the group of thugs should have just considered themselves lucky they’re allowed to make millions for playing a game and stood with respect like they’re told to do in the league rulebook." said the post. Although the "Take a Knee" protest has been a point of controversy in the past few weeks, there is no evidence that this incident ever took place. (There is also no mention of the national anthem in the 2017 NFL rule book, though a spokesman did confirm the "game operations manual" requires players to stand for the song.) The Saints, who played the Dolphins in London on Oct.2, made a team decision to take a knee during the coin toss then stand during the anthem as "a way to show respect to all," tweeted quarterback Drew Brees. The article was first published on Oct. 1 to Freedumjunkshun.com, a satirical news site with a format that resembles Christopher Blair’s, TheLastLineOfDefense.org. Blair, a self-proclaimed liberal troll, is known to run a number of joke news sites responsible for publishing stories meant to "mess with conservatives," he told PolitiFact in an email last spring. The owner of Freedumjunkshun.com is listed as a private registrant, so there is not any definitive proof that Blair is behind this site. But a quick look at the website’s About Us reveals the site referring to itself as "Freedom Crossroad," the name of another website that we found to be run by Blair. Regardless of its origins, the post claims that a protesting flight crew stranded the Saints. We rate the claim Pants on Fire!	None	Bloggers	None	None	None	2017-10-03T16:17:39	2017-10-02	['New_Orleans_Saints']
-goop-00076	Caitlyn Jenner’s Kids Think Sophia Hutchins Is Using Her?	https://www.gossipcop.com/caitlyn-jenner-kids-sophia-hutchins-using-her-not-true/	None	None	None	Gossip Cop Staff	None	Caitlyn Jenner’s Kids Think Sophia Hutchins Is Using Her?	5:27 pm, October 27, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-02450	Barry Smitherman "doesn’t have enough legal experience to apply for most of the jobs at the attorney general’s office."	/texas/statements/2014/feb/26/ken-paxton/most-lawyer-jobs-ags-office-require-three-years-ex/	Interviewed Jan. 24, 2014, on KFYO-AM in Lubbock, state Sen. Ken Paxton of McKinney claimed Barry Smitherman, an opponent in the race for Texas attorney general, "doesn’t have enough legal experience to apply for most of the jobs at the attorney general’s office." Smitherman, who chairs the state Railroad Commission, "has only 15 months of total legal experience," said Paxton, vice chair of the Senate Transportation Committee and a former House member, who said he has 22 years’ experience practicing law. That 15-month figure didn’t hold up, though Smitherman separately acknowledged that he has spent less than three years practicing law. The others bidding for attorney general in the March 4, 2014, primary elections are also lawyers. Republican state Rep. Dan Branch of Dallas, who chairs the House Higher Education Committee, is a senior attorney and shareholder in corporate law firm Winstead PC; campaign spokesman Enrique Marquez told us by email Branch has practiced law for 30 years. The lone Democrat is Sam Houston, a Houston lawyer unrelated to the historical figure of the same name, who is nearing 27 years of private legal practice, as we noted in a 2013 fact-check. Traditionally, the state attorney general has been a lawyer, though according to the Secretary of State’s office, the Texas Constitution doesn’t require a law license or legal experience for the job, which was created in 1845, when legal qualifications were less formal. The attorney general does act as the state’s lawyer, often filing lawsuits at the request of a department or branch of state government, as well as litigating cases, defending state laws and providing legal advice; another duty is approving public bond issues. Asked for his response to Paxton’s claim, Smitherman told us by phone, "Well, first of all, most of the jobs over there are non-judicial; they’re non-lawyer jobs. So that’s patently false." Paxton spokeswoman Ashley Sewell told us via email that Paxton’s comment "was obviously given in the context of legal qualifications and legal jobs which require a licensed attorney. … (T)he lack of Barry Smitherman’s legal experience keeps him from being qualified for more than half of those jobs." Sewell emailed us information on employees in the attorney general’s office pulled from the Texas Tribune’s online data portal. She said that of 718 "legal personnel," 515 were classed as assistant attorney general employment grade IV or above. That, she said, meant the 515 positions required three or more years’ legal experience; as backup, she sent two 2014 job postings -- one requiring three years for a level IV assistant attorney general opening and another requiring four years for a level V assistant attorney general job. On behalf of the AG’s office, spokeswoman Lauren Bean told us by email that the agency has 4,073 employees, of whom 734 are lawyers, with 717 of those being categorized as assistant attorney general classifications I through VII. She said that the agency requires three years or more experience for classes IV and up; those categories account for 509 lawyer positions. Most of the remaining "lawyer" jobs are director positions and the post of first assistant attorney general; these don’t have a specific legal experience requirement attached. Rather, the job descriptions call for "experience relevant to the assignment" and possibly a law license in a specialty area. So 509 AAG positions at the agency require three or more years’ legal experience. That’s 70 percent of the total "lawyer" jobs on staff and 13 percent of all the agency’s jobs. Smitherman told us he practiced as a briefing attorney and municipal bond attorney from 1984 to 1985, earned a master’s degree in public administration and spent 16 years in investment banking, then began a second career as a prosecutor in the Harris County district attorney’s office and was there 15 months before Gov. Rick Perry appointed him to the Public Utilities Commission in 2004. He was promoted to PUC chairman in 2007, then appointed in 2011 to the Railroad Commission, which he has chaired since 2012. "If you’re going to do a just-math exercise on how long I was in a law firm and how long I was in the Harris County DA’s office, that’s about two years and three months," he said. But, he said, "I think I probably could have come out of the Harris County DA’s office as a baby prosecutor and gotten a job in the AG’s office" because the Harris County office is so large and so busy. A year there, where his typical morning could start with a hundred or more cases to plead out or pursue, is like "dog years," Smitherman said. Our ruling Paxton said Smitherman "doesn’t have enough legal experience to apply for most of the jobs at the attorney general’s office." Most of the jobs at the attorney general’s office -- 87 percent -- don’t require any legal experience at all. Of the 734 jobs that do, 70 percent have a minimum qualification of three years or more, which Smitherman would not meet. We rate Paxton’s statement, which could have used clarification that he was focusing on lawyer jobs, as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.	None	Ken Paxton	None	None	None	2014-02-26T17:01:12	2014-01-24	['None']
-pomt-01753	Israel in the last three weeks has "killed more Palestinian children, more than 200, than the total number of Israeli soldiers killed in military operations since 2006."	/punditfact/statements/2014/jul/31/jake-tapper/tapper-more-palestinian-children-killed-3-weeks-is/	Gaza’s casualties have piled up much faster than Israel’s since bombs began flying three weeks ago, and on July 29’s The Lead, CNN host Jake Tapper put the disparity in context during an interview with Israeli spokesperson Mark Regev. "If my calculations are right," Tapper said, "Israel has, in the last three weeks, killed more Palestinian children, more than 200, than the total number of Israeli soldiers killed in military operations since 2006, which includes the Second Lebanon War, Operation Cast Lead, Operation Pillar of Defense, and now Operation Protective Edge." "At what point does the Israeli government say, enough, we’re killing too many innocent children?" Regev gave an example of the grief the deaths are causing Israeli officials, but reiterated what Israel has been saying for weeks: Hamas is responsible for using civilians as human shields. Tapper’s tough line of questioning made some waves online, so we wanted to break down his claim about the casualties out of Israel and Gaza. Gazan child deaths Looking at the number of Palestinian children killed in the last three weeks is relatively simple -- virtually every major news organization has been referring to the United Nation’s figures, which we have little reason to doubt. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs issues a daily report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which includes a tally of total deaths, civilian deaths and child deaths, gathered by combining reports from Palestinian authorities -- not Hamas -- and the bodies their own agents have seen in Gaza. The UN’s July 31 report puts the total Palestinian death toll at 1,263, including at least 852 civilians and 249 children. On July 29, when Tapper made his claim, the UN reported 229 child deaths. So Tapper’s estimate that "more than 200" Palestinian children are dead is accurate. Whether you can attribute all the deaths directly to Israel, however, is more of an open debate. Palestinian and Israeli officials have blamed each other’s bombs for some of the civilian deaths -- for example, the 15 Palestinians killed at a UN school in Jabalia on July 24. When Tapper went on air, the UN had not yet been able to definitively resolve their conflicting claims, although they’ve since traced the mortal shell to Israel. Other children have died during gunfights between the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and Hamas, and it’s impossible to say definitively whose bullets killed them. Israeli military deaths Tracing deaths in the IDF back eight years takes a little more work. Tapper told us he looked at the Israeli government’s figures on casualties for their four major military operations since 2006: Conflict Dates Summary Israeli military deaths The Second Lebanon War July 12 – Aug. 14, 2006 Militants from Hezbollah -- a Shiite Muslim group considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. and EU -- took Israeli soldiers hostage at the Israel-Lebanon border. After negotiations and a rescue attempt failed, Israel bombed Lebanon, sent ground troops, and imposed air and naval blockades. Hezbollah responded with rockets and guerilla warfare. 119 Operation Cast Lead Dec. 27, 2008 – Jan. 18, 2009 Israel bombed and subsequently launched a campaign into Gaza, ostensibly to stop rocket fire and weapon smuggling by Palestinian militants, including Hamas. 9 Operation Pillar of Defense Nov. 14 – 21, 2012 Israel unleashed a series of airstrikes on Gaza, ostensibly to stop rocket fire by Palestinian militants, including Hamas. 1 Operation Protective Edge July 8, 2014 – present After the collapse of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the kidnapping and murder of both Israeli and Palestinian teenagers, increased rocket fire from Hamas, and skirmishes in the West Bank, Israel bombed and subsequently launched a military operation into Gaza. 43 (56 as of July 31) That adds up to 172 deaths, and Tapper correctly accounted for the major Israeli military operations since 2006. These figures, Tapper told us, "provide an important sense of just how large these Gaza children death numbers are -- more than all the IDF troops killed in action the Israeli government deemed necessary to protect its country in the last eight years combined." Besides the four operations above, three confrontations between Gaza and Israel have caused Israeli military casualties: Operations Summer Rain and Autumn Clouds in 2006, and Operation Hot Winter in 2008, which in total resulted in the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers. That takes us up to 180 deaths in what the IDF has publicly named "operations." We found a few other Israeli military deaths that likely should be added to any tally. In 2008, two Israeli soldiers were returned dead after being kidnapped during the Second Lebanon War, and an IDF soldier was killed by a Hamas bomb during Operation Cast Lead. An additional 34 on-duty soldiers and four off-duty soldiers also have died in terrorist attacks since 2006 (all the attacks were from Palestinians). Including them takes the total to 221 Israeli soldier deaths, compared to the deaths of 229 Palestinian children. Our ruling Tapper, while grilling an Israeli spokesman, said, "Israel has, in the last three weeks, killed more Palestinian children, more than 200, than the total number of Israeli soldiers killed in military operations since 2006." His figure for Palestinian child deaths comes from the United Nations. According to humanitarian workers on the ground, more than 200 Palestinian children have died in the last three weeks from the Israel-Hamas conflict, though it’s not clear in every case whether the Israeli bullets and bombs are directly responsible. That is indeed more than the number of Israeli soldiers killed since 2006 while engaged in military operations, our review found. Tapper’s numbers are accurate, but there remains some question about who bears responsibility for the deaths of every Palestinian child. As such, we rate this claim Mostly True.	None	Jake Tapper	None	None	None	2014-07-31T17:28:11	2014-07-29	['Israel']
-pomt-11361	Says Mary Taylor has a work schedule that is "almost untraceable."	/ohio/statements/2018/apr/03/mike-dewine/mike-dewines-tv-ad-says-gop-opponent-mary-taylors-/	Ohio Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor is a slacker who isn’t ready for a promotion to the governor’s mansion, says her Republican primary opponent, Attorney General Mike DeWine. On the website marydoesnotwork.com, the DeWine campaign posted a statewide TV ad that makes a series of attacks about her work record, including that she was a no-show. Part of the ad states: "Taylor is dogged by rumors that she skips out on work. A slacker whose work schedule is almost untraceable." We found that the ad cherrypicks a couple of sentences from one newspaper article about Taylor’s work schedule while ignoring her explanation. Also, the attack pertains to her former job as state auditor (2007-11) and not her current job as lieutenant governor. DeWine and Taylor are competing in the May 8 Republican primary. Taylor’s work as state auditor The ad draws on a March 2010 article by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which reported that since Taylor took office as state auditor in 2007, she had been dogged by rumors about skipping work. The state auditor, an elected position, is responsible for auditing all public offices in Ohio including cities, schools, state universities and state agencies. "The fact that she admittedly spends as much time working away from her main Columbus office as she is there has only fueled speculation that Ohioans had elected a slacker," the Plain Dealer wrote. "She doesn't document her work hours. She doesn't ask for mileage reimbursement from the state. And she can't tell you how much time she spends working here or there. Her work schedule is almost untraceable, and that's how Taylor seems to like it." The ad omits Taylor’s explanation to the Plain Dealer: Taylor said that she preferred to use one of her seven regional offices, including one close to her home in Canton, rather than travel to Columbus. The Columbus Dispatch wrote in February 2010 that Taylor was "the first statewide executive officeholder in memory to work most of the week from an office outside the state capital." Taylor worked several days a week out of the Canton office, allowing her to work close to home where she was raising two teenage boys with her husband, the Dispatch reported. She said she worked in Columbus one or two days a week. "I'm elected state auditor, I'm not just the auditor of Columbus," Taylor told the Dispatch. "From my perspective, it is manageable, and I think it's more efficient at times." The Dispatch’s editorial board concluded that critics of Taylor were ignoring both the prevalence of telecommuting and the nature of the state auditor's work. The editorial board wrote that 653 of Taylor's 833 employees worked in regional offices away from Columbus. "As long as the auditor's office is effectively managed, Taylor's location isn't of primary importance," the board wrote. We asked her campaign spokesman to cite some of her key accomplishments as auditor. Michael Duchesne said her office did "rigorous financial audits of more than 5,600 public entities" and identified millions of dollars in public funds that were handled improperly, spent illegally or stolen, leading to convictions. The auditor’s office also uncovered Medicaid fraud and tracked federal stimulus dollars. The ad said that Taylor’s work schedule was "almost untraceable," so we went in search of any record of her calendar while auditor and could not find one. The Ohio State Auditor’s office said her executive correspondence was transferred to the state archives. A reference archivist told us that a catalog record showed boxes of correspondence, but didn’t show her schedule. Taylor’s work as lieutenant governor Taylor became the lieutenant governor in January 2011 and was re-elected along with Gov. John Kasich in 2014. Kasich is term limited. In 2015, Taylor told the Plain Dealer that she "usually" worked in Columbus. "It’s no secret, and I make no apologies for this," she replied when asked about the time she spends close to home. "My family comes first. And you know what? I tell my staff the same thing." We asked her spokesman in the lieutenant governor’s office for a sample of her calendar. David Hopcraft sent PolitiFact her schedule between July and December 2016. The calendar showed the dates and times of policy briefings, staff meetings, public events, media interviews, phone calls and travel time. Hopcraft told PolitiFact that in 2018 she has taken personal time to campaign, but she has also come into the official office about once every 10 days to two weeks. We asked Hopcraft for a list of her accomplishments while lieutenant governor. Taylor was also the director of the Ohio Department of Insurance for most of her tenure, which meant she guided state policy related to health insurance coverage and other types of insurance, he said. She has also worked to cut business regulations and recruit business to Ohio and was the signatory on an agreement with Michigan and Indiana to reduce the load of nutrients and phosphorus runoff into Lake Erie by 40 percent by 2025. Neverthless, news reports during Taylor’s tenure as lieutenant governor have raised questions about her oversight of workers. In 2014, Taylor’s then-chief of staff Laura Johnson and her administrative aide, Heather Brandt, both quit after a public records request revealed they were working less than they had reported. They had hundreds of questionable hours claimed for work, including for hair and salon appointments, an Inspector General report showed. The Inspector General concluded that employees "operated with inadequate oversight, absence of supervision." The Columbus Dispatch also found that Johnson worked on state time on the 2014 re-election campaign of Taylor and John Kasich. Our ruling A TV ad by DeWine said that Taylor has a work schedule that "is almost untraceable." This attack refers to Taylor’s time as auditor, which ended when she became lieutenant governor in 2011. We were unable to find detailed records of her work schedule as auditor. By stating that her work schedule was "almost untraceable," the ad creates the impression that she was hardly ever at work, but the ad and the 2010 Plain Dealer article it draws from don’t prove that occurred. The ad omits Taylor’s explanation: that she worked out of a regional office close to her home. The ad also omits any information about where Taylor has worked in her current role. We were able to find her calendar while lieutenant governor by requesting it from her office. We rate this claim Half True. ' See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Mike DeWine	None	None	None	2018-04-03T17:05:13	2018-03-20	['None']
-pomt-15358	"We've cut the deficit by two-thirds."	/wisconsin/statements/2015/jul/08/barack-obama/wisconsin-visit-barack-obama-brags-he-reduced-fede/	Making an economic speech at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse on July 2, 2015, Barack Obama ticked off a list of his accomplishments as president -- and made a bolder version of a claim we have heard before about slashing the federal budget deficit. "So, we’ve got a record streak of private-sector job growth," Obama said in his remarks, which included veiled criticisms of Gov. Scott Walker on the day Walker filed federal papers as a precursor to announcing his run for president. "We’ve cut the deficit by two-thirds. Our stock market has more than doubled, restoring 401(k)s for millions of families. This is progress. Step by step, America is moving forward. Middle-class economics works. It works. Yes!" Here's why the deficit claim caught our attention: In September 2014 in Milwaukee, Obama said he had cut the deficit in half. We rated that statement True, and it has become one of our most-clicked fact checks. Could it be that, less than a year later, the deficit is down by two-thirds? Deficit vs debt Let’s be clear at the top that Obama is talking about the deficit, which has been getting smaller -- not the debt, which is getting bigger. The deficit is an annual number. It’s the difference between what the government collects in revenues and spends in one year. The United States hasn’t seen budget surpluses since the days of President Bill Clinton. The debt, meanwhile, is a running tally -- it’s the total of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. The nation's debt currently exceeds $18 trillion, and it has risen by more than $7 trillion under Obama. (Here’s a good primer from PolitiFact National on the difference between the two.) Tracking the deficit numbers In reviewing the cut-the-deficit-in-half claim, our baseline was fiscal 2009. That period started on Oct. 1, 2008, when George W. Bush was still president, and ended on Sept. 30, 2009, eight months after Obama took office. We found the deficit was $1.41 trillion in 2009 and $679.5 billion in 2013 -- a drop of more than half. Measured another way, the deficit made up 9.8 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 2009 and dropped to less than half of that -- 4.1 percent -- by the end of fiscal 2013. But now we have figures for fiscal 2014. PolitiFact National examined those figures in January 2015, after Obama said in his State of the Union speech that we've seen "our deficits cut by two-thirds." Our colleagues rated his statement Mostly True. The 2014 deficit was $486 billion -- a drop of two-thirds from the $1.41 trillion in 2009. And it was 2.8 percent of GDP, a reduction of more than two-thirds from the 9.8 percent in 2009. (In June 2015, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2015 will end with a deficit that, as a percentage of GDP, will be the lowest since 2007.) So, math wise, Obama’s two-thirds claim is solid. But there are a few caveats. "Yes, we reduced the deficit two-thirds from its peak in 2009, but that was after deficits had just increased by nearly 800 percent to their highest level outside of World War II," Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget told us. Indeed, Obama helped grow the 2009 deficit with his stimulus spending, although he can take some credit for the economy, which has improved since the Great Recession ended in June 2009 and helped bring down the deficits. And although the Congressional Budget Office projects that deficits relative to GDP will decline slightly over the next few years, they will then rise and add more to the debt. Largely as a result of the aging population and rising health care costs, CBO projects the deficit to grow from less than 3 percent of GDP in 2015 to more than 6 percent in 2040. Our rating Obama said: "We've cut the deficit by two-thirds." In raw dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy, the annual federal deficit in 2014 was two-thirds smaller than in 2009, the year Obama took office. But there are several caveats, including the fact that his stimulus spending helped raise the 2009 deficit and the economy, for which he can take some credit, has improved since the end of the Great Recession the same year. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2015-07-08T05:00:00	2015-07-02	['None']
-tron-00231	Vampire Fungus is Sucking the Life Out of You	https://www.truthorfiction.com/vampire-fungus-is-sucking-the-life-out-of-you/	None	9-11-attack	None	None	None	Vampire Fungus is Sucking the Life Out of You – Fiction!	Mar 17, 2015	None	['None']
-snes-01253	'Fixer Upper' star Joanna Gaines is pregnant with her fifth child in January 2018.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joanna-gaines-pregnant/	None	Entertainment	None	Dan MacGuill	None	Yes, Joanna Gaines from ‘Fixer Upper’ Is Pregnant	8 January 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01927	Kourtney Kardashian Pregnant, A Year After False Fourth Child Clai	https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-not-pregnant-year-after-fourth-child-claim/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Kourtney Kardashian NOT Pregnant, A Year After False Fourth Child Claim	11:41 am, January 2, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-10198	McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm is "the architect of some of the deregulation in Washington that helped cause the mess on Wall Street."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/17/barack-obama/former-adviser-supported-deregulation/	With a plummeting stock market grabbing headlines, Barack Obama attacked John McCain's economic philosophy in a speech in Elko, Nev. Obama mocked McCain for saying that he would shake up Washington and get rid of the "old boys network." "I mean, where is he getting these lines? The lobbyists running his campaign?" Obama asked. "Maybe it's Phil Gramm – the man who was the architect of some of the deregulation in Washington that helped cause the mess on Wall Street, who also happens to be the architect of John McCain's economic plan and one of his chief advisers. You remember Phil Gramm – he's the guy who said that we were just going through a 'mental recession' and who called the United States of America a 'nation of whiners.'" We should stipulate from the start that Phil Gramm might view the title "architect of deregulation" as a compliment, though he might prefer the title "architect of regulatory efficiency." Gramm gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, published on June 28, 2008. His biggest worry about Wall Street in the wake of the subprime mortgage meltdown was that it would be regulated more heavily, according to the story. "Every American should worry a lot about this," Gramm said. "We have benefited enormously from New York being the financial capital of the world because we had a more efficient regulatory structure than other nations did." As a U.S. senator, Gramm promoted two bills that curtailed regulation: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Gramm had a prominent role as sponsor and co-sponsor of these bills, respectively. But as we've said in other rulings, it takes more than one person to change a law. These bills had other supporters, and President Bill Clinton signed both into law. It's also worth noting that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve have frowned on increased regulation in the years since those laws were passed. So don't give Gramm all the credit. Did deregulation "help cause" the disaster on Wall Street? The carnage is still being autopsied, but most Wall Street watchers agree that light regulation allowed irresponsible lending and mortgage fraud to go unchecked. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act in particular has been singled out for spurring the growth of poorly understood, unregulated securities such as credit default swaps, which have been getting a good portion of the blame for the financial crisis of September 2008. Finally, Gramm is no longer a chief adviser to the McCain campaign. He resigned in July 2008 after the "nation of whiners" remark that Obama mentions. So let's go over the elements of this statement: "Architect of some of the deregulation": Not the architect, but fairly described as a key supporter. "That helped cause the mess on Wall Street": Not the root cause, but a contributing factor. "Helped" seems a fair characterization. "One of McCain's chief advisers": He used to be, but isn't anymore. There's some truth here, but it also seems like Obama is exaggerating to make a point. When you add up all the elements, we rate Obama's statement Half True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2008-09-17T00:00:00	2008-09-17	['Phil_Gramm', 'Washington,_D.C.', 'John_McCain']
-pomt-07385	"China now owns $1.1 trillion of our debt, our trade deficit last year with them was a quarter of a trillion dollars."	/virginia/statements/2011/may/03/terry-mcauliffe/terry-mcauliffe-says-china-owns-11-trillion-us-deb/	At the height of Donald Trump-fueled birther fever, potential Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe stopped by MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to chime in on "The Donald." McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman, received a $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump, a Republican, during his unsuccessful 2009 gubernatorial bid. But on TV, McAuliffe was dismissive of his one-time benefactor’s claims that President Obama was born in Kenya. He said the birther sideshow -- which was discredited a few days later when Obama released his long-form U.S. birth certificate -- was hurting Republicans by scaring away undecided voters, and distracting people from important issues. "This is so offensive to independents and to people in this country today ... who worry that China now owns $1.1 trillion of our debt, our trade deficit last year with them was a quarter of a trillion dollars. They’re worried about their job. They’re worried about their children’s job. And this gibberish that they talk about on television is doing nothing and other countries are moving at warp speed ahead of us on renewable energy, wind, electric cars..." OK, before McAuliffe starts plugging his electric car company, as he is wont, let’s take a look at those digits and dollar signs he’s throwing around. The $1.1 trillion sounded familiar, so we’ll examine that one first. For a source, McAuliffe provided a March 1 article from Reuters. The second paragraph of that story supports his claim: "Treasury Department data released on Monday showed that China held $1.16 trillion in U.S. government debt in December, the most recent month for which figures are available, up from prior estimates of $892 billion," the story says. Well, that’s true. The latest figures from the U.S. Treasury Department show China held $1.154 trillion in U.S. debt in February -- down $600 million from January. Japan was the second-largest holder, at $890.3 billion, with Great Britain third at $295.5 billion. Here’s a little background: The total federal debt, as of May 2, was $14.29 trillion. Of that amount, about $9.65 trillion is called public debt, which refers to all federal securities held by institutions and individuals outside the U.S. government. That includes China and other foreign nations. The remaining debt -- about $4.64 trillion -- is held by the Federal Financing Bank, U.S. government trust funds, and other federal funds and accounts. The largest trust fund is the one that endows Social Security. McAuliffe, for his second claim, used a report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution that reports: "In 2010, the U.S.-China trade deficit increased to over $273 billion, the highest bilateral trade deficit on record. It represents almost 55 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit." We checked it out, and that’s true, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. If you’re curious, this year’s trade deficit through February was $42.1 billion. That’s almost 36 percent of the United States’ $117.8 billion trade deficit for the first two months of the year. Looking back, this is an open-and-shut case. We cannot confirm McAuliffe’s claim that independent voters are offended by The Donald. But he’s right on his numbers: China owns $1.1 trillion in U.S. debt; our trade deficit with China was about $275 billion last year. Both scary, both True.	None	Terry McAuliffe	None	None	None	2011-05-03T13:32:34	2011-05-26	['China']
-pomt-12312	"Chinese lunar rover finds no evidence of American moon landings."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jun/22/antinews/its-fake-news-chinese-lunar-rover-found-no-evidenc/	An Internet post claiming that high-ranking Chinese officials had called the American moon landing a "complete hoax" is a fake news story that has been in circulation for years: A new scandal has happened after high ranking officials from the Chinese space program called the American moon landing "a complete hoax", the Beijing Daily Express reports. The claims came after the Chinese moon rover allegedly couldn’t find any proof of American landings on the Moon. The rover took thousands of photos and after analyzing them the Chinese discovered that there’s no trace of these moon landings. The post attributes the quote to the Beijing Daily Express, a publication we found no record of. It also points to thousands of photos taken by the Chinese Yutu moon rover, which launched in December 2013 and ceased to operate in July 2016, stating these "showed no trace" of the Apollo moon landing. While the rover did take many photos, Andrew Jones, a journalist following China’s space program, points out that Yutu landed far from the Apollo landing site, so there wouldn’t be evidence one way or another. "It had traveled tens of meters in total, when it would have needed to travel thousands of kilometers over varying and hazardous terrain to visit all the Apollo landing sites," Jones said. "Yutu, with designed minimum lifetime of three (Earth) months and a range of up to 10 kilometers, lasted 31 months on the Moon, but was stationary for the vast majority of this." The Lunar Reconnaissance Spacecraft has captured ample evidence of the Apollo landing, though, which can be seen in this database. This is the same spacecraft that the Chinese space agency used to determine Yutu’s landing site. In addition to photographs, the Apollo mission brought back rock samples that have fueled decades of scientific research, and are available upon request from NASA. "So far, no one has seen those samples and declared them to be fake," director of space policy at Planetary Society Casey Dreier said. The story also claims the Chinese space program launched a petition demanding the United States declassify NASA information regarding the U.S. moon landing, signed by 200 of its highest-ranking officials. But the petition is nowhere to be found and alleged signee and "world renowned nuclear engineer" Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin is actually renowned in fake news circles as a Russian conspiracy theorist denying all moon landings. The only information available about him online, though, has been produced by Mukhin himself, leading Wikipedia to cast serious doubt on his profile. The story can be traced back to a 2014 post on WorldNewsDailyReport.com, a known peddler of fake news that assumes "all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content." We rate this statement Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	AntiNews.in	None	None	None	2017-06-22T10:32:44	2017-05-21	['United_States', 'China']
-pomt-01525	Michelle Nunn "spent most of her childhood" in Perry, Ga.	/georgia/statements/2014/sep/19/michelle-nunn/nunn-invitation-exaggerates-her-youth-georgia/	Readers of a certain age will remember Bill Clinton accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 by invoking the name of the small southern town where he lived as a young boy. The two-time president spent seven years in Hope, Ark., first while his mother finished nursing school and then briefly after she returned. "I still believe in a place called Hope," Clinton famously said, explaining the small town’s lessons of equality and aspiration. Clinton was in Atlanta last week, at the home of R&B singer Usher, to raise money for Democrat Michelle Nunn’s U.S. Senate bid. Both Nunn and her Republican opponent, David Perdue, are trying to burnish their Georgia credentials, no easy task since both have spent major portions of their lives out of state. The invitation to the Usher event invoked a small middle Georgia town to tell Nunn’s story. "Daughter of Sam and Colleen Nunn," the bio section read, "Michelle was born in 1966 in Macon, near her grandparents’ farm in Perry, Ga., where she spent most of her childhood." An alert reader pointed out the "most of her childhood" claim, certain Nunn herself had acknowledged her family moved away when her father was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. She was 6 at the time. Nunn declined to talk to PolitiFact Georgia about the claim. But she has talked with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and national media about her childhood plenty, even before announcing her candidacy. In several AJC stories, including a 1992 Father’s Day piece, Nunn says she grew up in the Washington, D.C. area. A January, 2014 New York Times story describes her as quipping that she moved "against my will," when she was 6 and her family relocated to Maryland. The same article notes Nunn lived in the Capital region during high school, when she played basketball at the all-girls National Cathedral School. Those reports are accurate, said Nunn spokesman Nathan Click. So is the biography listed on her official campaign website, which notes only that she was born near the family’s Perry farm, he said. "While the bio that appears on the campaign's website and is widely utilized by the campaign correctly characterizes Michelle's biographical facts, a separate document that appeared on some event invitations failed to properly do so," Click said in a statement. Even though the fundraiser was the most high-profile to date in Nunn’s race against Republican businessman Perdue, that might be the end of it: a bio not properly vetted before publication. But another Nunn misstep, the leak of confidential campaign strategy memos this summer, brings up another point. The memos point out that Nunn should anticipate certain attacks, among them that she is "not a ‘real’ Georgian." Candidates, and voters, move in and out of the state all the time, so it’s unclear how much of a negative that would really be, said Kerwin Swint, chairman of the political science department at Kennesaw State University. Perdue, for instance, has a television ad airing outside of metro Atlanta, that says he "grew up working his family’s farm in middle Georgia. " The spot doesn’t mention that the 64-year-old spent much of his working life outside the state, in places such as Massachusetts, Tennessee and Hong Kong. But the leaked memos could open up Nunn to attack for being disingenuous, Swint said. "Newt Gingrich is from Pennsylvania for heaven’s sake," he said. "Ordinarily it wouldn’t be that big of a story, but it is because of the intense publicity from the leak." Leslie Shedd, spokeswoman for the division of the Georgia GOP known as Georgia Victory, said the issue is not where Nunn grew up but why any biography would counter already-published facts. "To me, it’s not an issue that she didn’t spend her entire life in Georgia," Shedd said. "Why does she feel the need to essentially lie about it?" Based on the explanation from the Nunn camp, and the ease to find biographical information on her, Swint said it appears the bio was an inadvertent, not intentional mistake. Click described Nunn as a ninth-generation Georgian, who kept ties to Perry by spending holidays and summers at the family farm. Nunn herself, in the New York Times piece, said her father constantly reminded her that she was "from Georgia." Nunn has lived in Atlanta since 1989, after graduating from the University of Virginia at 23. Childhood, by any reasonable definition, ends at least at age 18. And the facts are clear: Nunn spent 12 of those years living outside of Georgia. Even accounting for summer vacations and holidays, any claim that she spent "most" of her childhood here is inconsistent with the facts. Nunn’s campaign admits it made a mistake with its statement, and there are multiple instances of her acknowledging her move from Georgia. Nunn did spend part of her childhood in Georgia, but certainly not most of it. We rate the invitation claim Mostly False.	None	Michelle Nunn	None	None	None	2014-09-19T00:00:00	2014-09-13	['None']
-snes-05620	A bevy of tax increases were quietly imposed upon Americans in January 2015 due to the Affordable Care Act.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-here-is-what-will-happen-on-january-1-2016/	None	Uncategorized	None	David Mikkelson	None	What Happened, Quietly, on January 1, 2015?	26 August 2014	None	['None']
-goop-01397	Camilla Parker Bowles Writing Tell-All About Royal Family?	https://www.gossipcop.com/camilla-parker-bowles-tell-all-royal-family-book/	None	None	None	Holly Nicol	None	Camilla Parker Bowles Writing Tell-All About Royal Family?	6:08 am, March 14, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-04679	When Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were created, "Republicans stood on the sidelines"	/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/06/james-clyburn/james-clyburn-says-republicans-sat-sidelines-passa/	During his speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., James Clyburn -- a South Carolinian who is the third-highest-ranking Democrat in the House -- offered an extended metaphor about how Democrats have protected Americans over the years. "When too many of our senior citizens who were living their golden years in the darkness of economic security, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic congress created Social Security, lighting a candle, while the Republicans cursed the darkness," Clyburn said. "When too many of our elderly found their lives darkened by unaffordable and inaccessible health care, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress lit the candles of Medicare and Medicaid, while Republicans stood on the sidelines and cursed the darkness," he added. Clyburn used some strong metaphors in that passage, but his point was clear -- that Republicans were not involved when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were passed. We have looked at similar claims in the past, which we’ll recap here. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Social Security Act, was controversial for a number of reasons, including its perceived effects on the labor market and whether its benefits favored working white men. But some opponents, including some Republicans, spoke out forcefully against it. As Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times recalled in a 2009 column, Daniel Reed, a Republican House member from New York, predicted that Americans would feel "the lash of the dictator." Sen. Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that the proposal would "end the progress of a great country." And John Taber, a GOP House member representative from New York, said, "Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers." Nevertheless, on Aug. 8, 1935, the conference report — the final version of the bill that melds together changes made in the House and in the Senate — passed in the House, 372-33, with 81 Republicans voting in favor compared to just 15 against. The next day, the bill was passed in the Senate, 77-6, with 16 Republicans supporting the legislation and only 5 voting against it. So Social Security did pass with Republican support. Decades later, the idea of federally sponsored health care was unpopular in certain segments of the Republican Party. In 1961, Ronald Reagan, the future president, released an LP with a speech in which he demonized "socialized medicine," citing proposals that sound a lot like the one passed four years later. "Write those letters now; call your friends and then tell them to write them," Reagan said. "If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. ... And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free." Other high-profile Republicans who opposed Medicare and Medicaid included Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, the party's 1964 presidential nominee. And by 1965, as the bill that Johnson would eventually sign worked its way through the House, Republican support was scant. No Republicans voted for the bill until it reached the floor. It passed the Ways and Means Committee by a party-line vote of 17-8. And all four Republicans on the House Rules Committee — the panel that sets the boundaries of debate on all bills that come to the House floor — voted against the bill. However, as time went on, Republican support grew. As the bill worked its way through the Senate, Republican support was somewhat stronger. In the final Finance Committee vote, the measure passed 12-5, with four of the committee's eight Republicans supporting it. And when the House adopted a conference report, on July 27, 1965, it passed it by a 307-116 margin. That included 70 Republican "yes" votes, against 68 "no" votes. Then, on July 28, 1965, the Senate adopted the bill by a vote of 70-24, with 13 Republicans in favor and 17 against. President Johnson signed it two days later. So in the House, a slight majority of the Republican caucus voted for the bill, and in the Senate, a significant minority voted in favor. In neither case did Republicans as a whole "stand on the sidelines." "The political parties were very different in 1965 than they are today," said Donald Ritchie, the historian of the U.S. Senate. "Both had strong conservative and liberal wings, so most votes were bipartisan because the conservatives in the two parties voted against the liberals in each party. You had Republicans like Jacob Javits (N.Y.) who were more liberal than most Democrats, and Democrats like James Eastland (Miss.) who were more conservative than most Republicans. So there were Republicans who supported Medicare and Democrats who opposed it." Our ruling Although some of the biggest and most vocal opponents of the bills were Republicans, it’s wrong to say that "Republicans stood on the sidelines" when the bills were being considered. On the final vote on Social Security, Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill. On Medicare and Medicaid, a majority of Republicans voted for the bill in the House, as did a significant minority in the Senate. We rate Clyburn’s claim False.	None	James Clyburn	None	None	None	2012-09-06T20:33:41	2012-09-06	['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'Medicare_(United_States)']
-pomt-05059	If the U.S. didn't borrow $1.2 trillion every year "to fund government operations," that money would be available "for entrepreneurs and business people to put to work creating jobs and building and expanding their businesses."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/jul/08/mark-neumann/uncle-sams-borrowing-leaves-less-businesses-gop-wi/	Americans have heard many times that Uncle Sam’s borrowing puts a terrible burden on their children and grandchildren, because they’re the ones who will have to pay the money back someday. But former congressman Mark Neumann, a Wisconsin Republican running for U.S. Senate, contends the borrowing has a pernicious present-day effect as well. In a June 13, 2012 radio interview, Neumann said that if the federal government didn't borrow $1.2 trillion every year "to fund government operations," that money would be available "for entrepreneurs and business people to put to work creating jobs and building and expanding their businesses." Really? There’s essentially one pot of money out there and every time the federal government sticks it beak in, there’s less for private businesses -- even with interest rates at near-record lows? Neumann’s case Here’s the relevant exchange between Neumann and talk show host Mitch Henck of WIBA-AM (1310) in Madison: Henck: "We need something bold, don't you, to get this economy going?" Neumann: "Well, I think balancing the federal budget so that the federal government stops borrowing $1.2 trillion out of the private sector is going to help our economy immensely. When you think about the federal government taking $1.2 trillion out of the private sector to fund government operations, you can see what's wrong with our economy." Henck: "Aren't they taking that from the Chinese? They're borrowing that money, aren't they, Congressman?" Neumann: "They are borrowing that money and that's the point exactly. If they did not borrow that money, that money would be available out here in the private sector for entrepreneurs and business people to put to work creating jobs and building and expanding their businesses. "As it is -- and listen, I'm a business owner myself, I've been in business for 35 years here in Wisconsin creating Wisconsin jobs -- and the reality is, I understand that I'm now competing against the federal government to borrow money to expand our businesses. We just expanded into the Madison market to the Dane County area with our business and it was a monumental task to arrange the financing to do that because the federal government is taking $1.2 trillion first, before any of us entrepreneurs get to compete to borrow money." We called Neumann to ask him to elaborate on the relation between borrowing done by the federal government and borrowing done by an individual or business on Main Street. He repeatedly said that if the U.S. government didn’t run annual deficits of about $1.2 trillion, necessitating the borrowing, that money would be available to businesses and individuals. Other views We asked five experts about Neumann’s argument. "This is a fairly straightforward, almost master of the obvious-type statement," said J.D. Foster, senior fellow in the economics of fiscal policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. Money is loaned first to the U.S. government because it is considered "the riskless borrower," and the money the U.S. borrows isn’t available to others, he said. OK, the same dollar can only be loaned one time. But does U.S. borrowing, as Neumann claims, leave less money for businesses? Not according to the other experts. "The U.S. government and American entrepreneurs are not running after the same pool of money," said Abdur Chowdhury, chairman of the economics department at Marquette University in Milwaukee. The U.S. borrows largely from overseas -- by selling securities -- while domestic businesses borrow mostly from domestic banks, he said. The notion that the amount of federal borrowing limits money available to be loaned to businesses "is absurd on its face," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. "Every single measure of the interest rate (Aaa bonds, Baa bonds, mortgage loans, car loans etc.) is lower today than at any point in the (George W.) Bush administration," he said by email. "If government borrowing were pulling money away from businesses, it would be by pushing up interest rates." Barry Bosworth, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, agreed. Neumann’s statement "makes little sense right now because the basic problem is the opposite -- no one wants to borrow, and hence interest rates are near zero. If we could get more people to borrow and invest, the economy would quickly recover," he said. Bosworth, a former adviser to Democratic President Jimmy Carter, said Neumann’s claim might have been true prior to 1970, when "capital markets were closed at the borders." But since the 1990s capital markets are global and U.S. government borrowing doesn’t "crowd out" businesses seeking capital, he said. Andrew Reschovsky, professor of public affairs and applied economics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that among other reasons, Neumann is proven wrong by "basic economics." Increased federal borrowing should increase demand for money and raise interest rates, which would discourage businesses from borrowing, but interest rates have been at or near historic lows, he said. Our rating Neumann said that if the federal government didn't borrow $1.2 trillion every year "to fund government operations," that money would be available "for entrepreneurs and business people to put to work creating jobs and building and expanding their businesses." While it’s true you can only lend the same dollar once, the consensus among experts we consulted is that the level of federal government borrowing does not leave less money available for businesses to borrow -- or as Marquette’s Chowdhury put it: "It’s not a zero-sum game." We rate Neumann’s statement False.	None	Mark Neumann	None	None	None	2012-07-08T09:00:00	2012-06-13	['United_States']
-tron-02849	Prayer Requests for Heaven Ray Cox, Kidnapped 15-year-old	https://www.truthorfiction.com/prayer-requests-for-heaven-ray-cox-kidnapped-15-year-old/	None	pleas	None	None	['criminal justice', 'facebook', 'missing children']	Prayer Requests for Heaven Ray Cox, Kidnapped 15-year-old	Nov 30, 2017	None	['None']
-snes-03820	The PGA officially has changed the golf term "a bad lie" to "a Hillary" in honor of Arnold Palmer.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bad-lie-golf-joke/	None	Humor	None	Dan Evon	None	A Bad Lie	12 October 2016	None	['Arnold_Palmer']
-snes-04479	A Black Lives Matter protest in Memphis obstructed I-40, leading to the death of a critically ill child transplant patient.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/black-lives-matter-protests-kill-girl-waiting-for-transplant-in-memphis/	None	Crime	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Black Lives Matter Protests Kill Girl Waiting for Transplant in Memphis	11 July 2016	None	['Memphis,_Tennessee']
-hoer-00724	Abduction Alert Message For Eight Year Old Girl From West Valley City Utah	https://www.hoax-slayer.com/little-girl-utah-abduction-alert.shtml	None	None	None	Brett M. Christensen	None	Abduction Alert Message For Eight Year Old Girl From West Valley City Utah	24th June 2010	None	['None']
-goop-01654	Miley Cyrus Had Baby Bump At Grammys?	https://www.gossipcop.com/miley-cyrus-baby-bump-grammys-photos/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Miley Cyrus Had Baby Bump At Grammys?	12:57 pm, February 3, 2018	None	['None']
-pomt-13705	On whether the federal government should set a minimum wage	/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/28/donald-trump/donald-trump-gets-full-flop-stance-minimum-wage/	During a press conference in Florida while Democrats were preparing for the third night of their national convention in Philadelphia, Donald Trump was asked a question about his stance on whether to raise the minimum wage. Here’s what he said: "The minimum wage has to go up. People are -- at least $10, but it has to go up. But I think that states -- federal -- I think that states should really call the shot. As an example, I live in New York. It's very expensive in New York. You can't buy a hot dog for the money you're talking about. You go to other states and it's not expensive at all. Now what it does is puts New York at a disadvantage if the minimum wage is up, companies move out and things, bad things happen. At the same time, people have to be taken care of. But what I'm really going to do on the minimum wage -- but it has to go up.. .. So I would like to raise it to at least $10." A journalist then followed up, "You said we need to raise it to $10. … Are you talking about the federal minimum wage?" Trump confirmed, "Federal." Some saw the Florida remarks as a change to Trump’s previous position on whether there should be a federal minimum wage floor for the entire country. Were they? Before we go any further, let’s recap how the minimum wage works in the United States. There is a federal minimum wage -- currently $7.25 -- that serves as a floor beneath which no state’s minimum wage can fall. Any states, however, can set their minimum wage level higher than $7.25. (There are exceptions to the $7.25 minimum wage level for some workers, such as those who survive heavily on tips.) The clearest counterpoint to Trump’s Florida comments came from an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on May 8. We cited this exchange in our July 8 fact check, in which we gave a True rating to an assertion by Hillary Clinton that Trump "wants to get rid of the federal minimum wage." In the fact-check, we noted that Trump told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he preferred that states -- not the federal government -- act on their own to raise the minimum wage. "I would like to see an increase of some magnitude," Trump told Todd. "But I'd rather leave it to the states. Let the states decide. Because don't forget, the states have to compete with each other." When Todd asked specifically, "Should the federal government set a floor" for the minimum wage?" Trump replied, "No. I'd rather have the states go out and do what they have to do." Now, fast-forward nearly three months to Trump’s Florida news conference. His comments at the news conference seemed to embrace a national rise in the minimum wage -- specifically, he said, "The minimum wage has to go up. ... at least $10, but it has to go up." And he clarified that that meant, "federal." That’s a clearer commitment to hiking the minimum wage for every American than Trump had made in his comments to Todd. At the same time, though, Trump also said, "I think that states should really call the shot." This essentially kept Trump’s focus on the states acting on their own. Trump’s apparent advocacy for a national $10 minimum wage in his Florida comments does go further than some of his other prior statements on the issue. • In an interview with MSNBC in August 2015, Trump said, "Having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country." • During the Republican debate in Milwaukee in November 2015, Trump said wages are "too high" and, when asked whether he would raise the minimum wage, said, "I would not do it." • On ABC’s This Week on May 8, 2016, host George Stephanopoulos asked Trump, "Minimum wage -- all through the primaries, you were against an increase. Now you're saying you're looking at it. So what's your bottom line on this?" Trump responded, "Well, I am looking at it and I haven't decided in terms of numbers. But I think people have to get more." When Stephanopoulos asked whether that’s a change, Trump answered, "Well, sure it's a change. I'm allowed to change. You need flexibility." A final note: Trump’s most recent comments on the issue were a brief exchange in a longer press conference. It’s possible he may adjust his views again in the future. Trump’s press office did not respond to an inquiry for this article. Our ruling On the question of whether the federal government should set a minimum wage, Trump seems to have made a shift between his Meet the Press comments and his Florida news conference. In the Meet the Press interview, Trump explicitly said he doesn’t want the federal government raising, or even setting, the minimum wage floor. By contrast, in the Florida news conference, he said the "federal" minimum wage "has to go up." Trump emphasized in both instances that he prefers the states to raise their minimum wages on their own, so it’s fair to say that Trump is sending conflicting messages. Still, his contrast on the question of a federal minimum wage hike is pretty stark. We rate this a Full Flop. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/af3a5b62-19a8-4b79-b8cb-dc2cfe6ee0c2	None	Donald Trump	None	None	None	2016-07-28T18:39:48	2016-07-27	['None']
-pomt-03253	Says there are half as many students in one Georgia technical college than there were two years ago.	/georgia/statements/2013/aug/12/dubose-porter/hope-changes-hurt-enrollment-porter-says/	The four people vying to become the next chairman of Georgia’s Democratic Party spent most of their time at a recent forum discussing ways to help get candidates elected, but one of them said something about education that made us quite curious. "Look at our technical schools now. We had the best in the world. And (Republicans) ruined that by what they did with the HOPE Grant to try to fix it a little bit the last time. There are half as many students in the Heart of Georgia in technical colleges than there were two years ago," said DuBose Porter, a former state representative who ran for governor in 2010. PolitiFact Georgia was a little confused. Porter, the chief executive officer of The Courier-Herald newspaper in Dublin, explained. In July 2011, two Middle Georgia colleges, Sandersville Technical College and Heart of Georgia Technical College, merged to create Oconee Fall Line Technical College. The Heart of Georgia is located in Dublin and is now called Oconee’s South campus. Sandersville is called Oconee’s North campus. Porter told us that he was referring to the drop in enrollment at the new college after the changes to the HOPE program. With that clarity, we wanted to find out whether Porter was correct about the drop in enrollment. In 2011, state lawmakers raised the academic requirements for the Georgia Lottery-funded HOPE Grant program, which helps students attend state colleges. Students needed to have a 3.0 grade-point average instead of the previous requirement of a 2.0. The change was made in response to concerns that the HOPE Grant and Scholarship programs were in financial peril. In response to blistering criticism that enrollment at technical colleges declined greatly after the change, the Georgia Legislature passed bills earlier this year to go back to the 2.0 grade-point average requirement. Nearly 9,000 students lost the grant in 2012 because they couldn't meet the higher standard, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Porter sent us a September 2011 article reported by his newspaper that Oconee’s enrollment had fallen by 1,000 students, from about 2,800 students to about 1,800 students. That’s a decrease of about 36 percent. The Technical College System of Georgia sent us figures for the enrollment drop after the merger. They show a 37 percent decrease for the two campuses after the HOPE Grant requirement was changed. It’s a 41 percent decrease if you calculate the changes before the HOPE change and two years afterward. Here’s their breakdown: Year Students 2008-2009 4,231 2009-2010 4,749 2010-2011 4,472 2011-2012 2,806 2012-2013 2,824 The state broke down the numbers for each campus before and after the merger. The state’s data for the Dublin campus were similar to the information Porter sent us. Regardless, neither set of numbers shows a 50 percent decrease. The state’s data suggest the HOPE changes may have had an impact on enrollment. In fiscal year 2011, nearly 82 percent of Oconee students had received a HOPE grant. In fiscal year 2012, it was 71 percent. Preliminary figures for fiscal year 2013 show 61 percent of Oconee students received a HOPE grant. "They lost a lot of students who could no longer go to college," said Mike Light, a spokesman for the Technical College System of Georgia. To sum up, Porter said at a forum that enrollment at the Oconee Fall Line Technical College had dropped in half. The enrollment declines were severe, but not a 50 percent drop. The data show a decline in the percentage of Oconee students who received a HOPE Grant, which seems to support Porter’s argument. Porter’s overall point has merit, but his claim was somewhat overstated. Our rating: Mostly True.	None	DuBose Porter	None	None	None	2013-08-12T00:00:00	2013-08-12	['Georgia_(U.S._state)']
-vogo-00193	DeMaio First to Cross Border? Fact Check TV	https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/demaio-first-to-cross-border-fact-check-tv/	None	None	None	None	None	DeMaio First to Cross Border? Fact Check TV	September 17, 2012	None	['None']
-tron-01561	President Obama Has Ordered “Behavior Experiments” on Americans	https://www.truthorfiction.com/president-obama-has-ordered-behavior-experiments-on-americans/	None	government	None	None	None	President Obama Has Ordered “Behavior Experiments” on Americans	Sep 18, 2015	None	['None']
-pomt-09570	"The amount of debt is on pace to double in five years and triple in 10. The federal debt is now over $100,000 per household."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/bob-mcdonnell/national-debt-pace-triple-10-years-now-more-100k-h/	Recently elected Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell took up the flag for Republicans in response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010. That meant talking about spending, deficits and debt. "In the past year, more than 3 million people have lost their jobs, and yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and our grandchildren," McDonnell said in a speech from the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates. "The amount of debt is on pace to double in five years and triple in 10. The federal debt is now over $100,000 per household. This is simply unsustainable." We wanted to check two things: Whether the debt is growing as fast as McDonnell says, and whether it now constitutes $100,000 per household. First things first -- a quick but critical lesson on the federal debt. The debt clock you're use to seeing, the one that's ticking past $12.3 trillion these days, actually is the summation of two types of debt. The first part is the money the government borrowed to pay for things -- wars, roads, whatever. The second is debt held by government trust funds and government accounts that are internal transactions (government passing money from one fund to another). In these cases, there is no effect on the credit markets. (Read the Treasury Department's Q&A on debt here.) The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, says the first form of debt is a more meaningful measure. It's the combination of both types of debt, however, that gets most noticed, surely because it's bigger but also because it's what the debt ceiling is based on. McDonnell's claim that the debt is on pace to double in five years and triple in 10 is not a new talking point for Republicans. Judd Gregg (the Republican senator from New Hampshire who was almost Obama's commerce secretary) said the same thing about Obama's proposed 2010 budget last March. To check Gregg, we relied on a Congressional Budget Office analysis from March 20, 2009. The CBO projected that the debt held by the public (the first part of the total debt) would rise from $5.8 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2008 -- which is Sept. 30, 2008 -- to $11.8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2013; and to $17.3 trillion in 2019 under Obama's proposed FY 2010 budget. By that count, Gregg's claim of doubling the debt in five years, tripling it in 10 years, is correct. But in Gregg's case we found it a little unfair to tie some of the debt to Obama and not President George W. Bush. We rated Gregg's claim Mostly True. Now on to McDonnell. Just hours ahead of McDonnell's response, the CBO released updated baseline debt projections that shrink the amount of debt predicted over the next 10 years. The CBO put the debt held by the public at the end of fiscal year 2008 at $5.8 trillion, $7.5 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2009, and estimates the debt will increase to $11.6 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2014 and to $14.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2019. Again, this is just the first part of the debt calculation. That's a decrease from the projections the CBO put out in response to Obama's 2010 budget. In checking this claim, like when considering Gregg's claim, the truth depends on where you start counting the debt. If you set your baseline as Sept. 30, 2008, the national debt is on pace to nearly triple by Sept. 30, 2019, as McDonnell suggests. If you recalculate for Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt doubles, not triples in 10 years. Now, for argument's sake, we wanted to run the same calculation for the entire gross federal debt. (You will see why this matters in a second.) According to the CBO, the gross federal debt ended 2009 at $11.9 trillion, will hit $16.7 trillion by the end of 2014 and $20.6 trillion by the end of 2019. That's short of McDonnell's marks as well. The percentages don't improve much even if you roll back to 2008 -- we're talking again about doubling the debt after 10 years, not tripling. So unlike comparing the debt held by the public, McDonnell's numbers are off whether you start counting Sept. 30, 2008, or Sept. 30, 2009. White House debt projections from August 2009 are a slightly worse, but not enough to make a change when considering McDonnell's claim. As we try to digest all of that, let's turn to the second part of McDonnell's claim: "The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household." The Census Bureau estimated in 2007 that there were nearly 116 million U.S. households. The current debt held by the public -- the money the government has borrowed -- is $7.8 trillion, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The current gross debt is $12.3 trillion. Presto, chango, carry the one, move the decimal point ... and you get two different debt per household figures. The household share of the debt owed by the public is about $67,000. The household share of the gross federal debt is slightly more than $106,000. McDonnell's press secretary, Stacey Johnson, did not return two phone calls or an e-mail asking for clarification on what debt figures the governor was using to make his calculations. Why does it matter? If he's using the gross debt figure -- the big one -- McDonnell is right about the per household number and wrong about the doubling and tripling. If he's using the smaller debt held by the public number, he has a case to make about growth of the debt, but is wrong when it comes to the per household share. Or he's mixing one form of debt to make one point, and another to make a second. In his State of the Union response, McDonnell tried using both the macro and the micro to drive home a point that spending led by the Democrats in the White House and Congress is out of control. His claim that national debt is on pace to double in five years and triple in 10 isn't wildly off, but it ignores the fact that some of the responsibility falls on Bush's shoulders. On his second claim, that the per household share of the national debt is more than $100,000, that's true if you measure the gross federal debt and false if you only count the money the government actually borrowed from somebody else. On the whole, we rate McDonnell's statement Half True.	None	Bob McDonnell	None	None	None	2010-01-28T12:04:46	2010-01-27	['None']
-pomt-06203	Says IBM leader told Obama that using IBM technology to cut fraud could "pay for" health care reform.	/texas/statements/2011/dec/09/newt-gingrich/gingrich-says-ibm-made-obama-offer/	During a discussion of health care costs at a Nov. 5, 2011, two-person GOP presidential debate outside Houston, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich made a dramatic claim about a White House visit. Gingrich, who was debating then-candidate Herman Cain, said: "The CEO of IBM went to the White House and said to (President) Barack Obama, you can pay for virtually all of Obamacare by simply taking existing IBM technology and applying it to stop paying crooks." By "Obamacare," a term that some view as polarizing shorthand, Gingrich meant the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Democrat-led 2010 overhaul of health care laws. Obama affixed a price tag of $900 billion to the plan when he rolled out his version in September 2009. Subsequent cost estimates varied. So, Gingrich is suggesting a lot of fraud. But was he right that IBM presented the president with such a scheme? By way of background, we note that Gingrich has long advocated using technology to help cut health-care costs. Until recently he led a for-profit consultancy called the Center for Health Transformations, which counted IBM among its clients. We asked Gingrich’s campaign for the former House speaker’s basis in making the statement. Spokesman Joe DeSantis told us: "All I can say is that he heard it from someone he trusts. Sorry." But DeSantis directed us to video of a Sept. 14, 2010, Wall Street Journal interview of Sam Palmisano, IBM’s then-CEO and chairman. Separately, IBM spokesman Ed Barbini also referred us to the Journal interview. He declined further comment. The video opens with the Journal’s Alan Murray saying: "When President Obama was elected, you started spending a fair amount of time at the White House." Palmisano: "Yes, I did." Murray: "What was that all about?" "Well," Palmisano replied, "part of it was the administration was reaching out to the business community. I mean, I was one of many, obviously ... around economic (issues)... So we were having lots of input, lots of exchange. That’s what we all were working on at the time." Asked how he thought the White House visits had turned out, Palmisano replied: "We haven’t made any progress. It doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a lot of interaction." Murray: "Well, what’s the point of interaction if it doesn’t lead to progress?" Palmisano: "You’d have to ask the people who aren’t progressing." He added, "We’ve done tons of work, and for whatever sets of reasons, we haven’t been able to establish, be in sync with, the priorities." Palmisano offered an example: "We -- and I’m fairly confident about this one because it required no legislative change -- we could have improved quality and reduced the costs of the health-care system by $900 billion... It was self-funding. You could have insured anybody you wanted to, illegal aliens, dogs, cats, ponies, whatever, right? And the stuff was simple. Did not require any big legislative change." About $400 billion of the reduced costs could be realized through negotiating discounts with drug companies, just as IBM negotiates its own discounts, he said. "Buy a nationwide discount," he said. "Just like pharmaceutical companies sell to us on a nationwide discount. It’s no different. I said, ‘Take the IBM discount! Take the IBM discount.’ " Another example of savings: "Two hundred billion in fraud. That was a 3 percent improvement, by the way. This wasn’t transformational. ... There’s so much fraud in the system -- 3 percent and then Year 7 was 8 percent, Year 5 was 5 percent. It’s 200 billion." Murray: "And why didn’t they do that? Is there a fraud --" Palmisano: "I said we would do it for free to prove that it works. They turned us down. You’ll have to ask them… Free. Free wasn’t good enough." Murray asks again: Why? Palmisano replies, "I think what it is, not to be judgmental about these things, I really do think what it is is that we weren't aligning with the priorities. ... the priority at the time, if I stay on my example of health care, was not to reduce costs and improve quality. It was to provide insurance and coverage for more people. That was our priority in the line. All we said, if you did this you could fund the priority without increasing the deficit, taking taxes up. And we couldn't sell the case." Let’s take a breath here. In the Journal interview, Palmisano insisted he gave the White House an offer to cover the $900 billion estimated cost of the health care plan -- with $200 billion coming from reduced fraud. We were unable to find independent confirmation of such an offer -- and our search of news archives indicates the CEO’s comments to the Journal touched off only one follow-up news account. Nearly a month after the interview, on the Oct. 8, 2010, episode of a Fox News program, guest host Stuart Varney said that an IBM spokesman stood by Palmisano’s claims. That program aired shortly after a more widely publicized event: On Oct. 6, 2010, Palmisano led a group of high-tech CEOs to the White House to present Obama with a proposal they said could save the government $1 trillion by 2020. Among the plan’s seven initiatives: saving $500 billion by streamlining supply chains and pushing suppliers to reduce costs; and saving $200 billion by using technology to better detect "improper payments" -- payments that prove to be unnecessary or fraudulent. The proposal cites an Office of Management and Budget estimate that Medicare accounted for $54 billion of the government’s $98 billion in improper payments in 2009. By email, White House spokesman Brandon Lepow did not provide information confirming or denying Palmisano’s claims to the Journal about presenting savings ideas. Lepow initially said companies including IBM had offered the administration help fighting fraud. He later told us he had learned his first statement was inaccurate. His follow-up statement said the administration and IBM had worked on "possible projects" but agreed not to "move forward," although IBM is a partner in "our work to fight fraud." Our ruling Gingrich did not reveal the source of his claim or provide backup beyond the Journal interview. Meantime, the White House did not confirm or deny Palmisano’s claims. Contrary to Gingrich’s debate claim, though, the then-CEO said $200 billion in funding would come from cutting fraud -- not nearly enough to pay for the health-care overhaul. We rate Gingrich’s statement Half True.	None	Newt Gingrich	None	None	None	2011-12-09T06:00:00	2011-11-05	['Barack_Obama', 'IBM']
-pomt-11038	Says Ron DeSantis "voted in an agricultural bill to give food stamps to illegal immigrants."	/florida/statements/2018/jun/29/adam-putnam/putnam-parrots-previous-absurd-claim-food-stamps-i/	The top two Republicans running for governor in Florida, Adam Putnam and Ron DeSantis, tried to paint a picture that the other was weak on immigration issues during a nationally televised debate on Fox News June 28, 2018. Moderator Bret Baier of Fox News asked Putnam, the state’s agriculture commissioner, to respond to a DeSantis’ attack ad calling him "Amnesty Adam." Putnam shot back, "That’s rich for somebody who voted in an agricultural bill to give food stamps to illegal immigrants." Off-screen, DeSantis, a Florida congressman who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, responded, "That’s not true, you know that, come on." So, is that true? No, it’s not. The bill in question is a 2014 agricultural bill, H.R. 2642. Farm bills are passed about every five years, reauthorizing food and agriculture policy including measures such as crop and commodity subsidies, conservation programs, agriculture research and food assistance benefits, known as SNAP for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The bill mentioned illegal immigrants briefly, in Section 4015, to mandate that states would be "required to use an immigration status verification system" when distributing food assistance benefits. DeSantis voted against the bill, which passed 251-166. He also voted against a predecessor of the bill which failed to pass through the House, but had a similar provision against immigrants in the country illegally obtaining food assistance benefits. Putnam and his supporters frequently cite these votes as evidence that DeSantis was in favor of extending SNAP to people in the country illegally. The thinking goes that by voting against the farm bill in total, DeSantis voted against a provision that sought to verify that food assistance benefits only went to U.S. citizens. As a result, Putnam and his supporters claim, DeSantis supported distributing food assistance benefits without a citizenship test. And therefore, he supported distributing food assistance benefits to people in the country illegally. In April, seven radio stations have pulled a radio ad from the National Liberty Federation making the same claim as Putnam made during the Fox News debate, according to the DeSantis campaign. Even if H.R. 2642 had been voted down, SNAP regulations already in place prohibited people living in the United States illegally from receiving benefits. Nune Phillips, a policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, told PolitiFact in March 2018, "Undocumented immigrants are not currently, and never have been, eligible for SNAP. To qualify for SNAP, applicants must be U.S. citizens or be eligible, lawfully-present noncitizens." After the vote in 2014, DeSantis wrote a Facebook post clarifying his reasoning: he voted against the bill because of the high cost and low return. The bill, he wrote, is a "bad deal for taxpayers and contains little in the way of meaningful reforms." Specifically, he was concerned that the bill did not do enough to cut back the rising cost of food stamp program—a far cry from wanting to expand it to include illegal immigrants. When asked about the claim, Putnam campaign spokesperson Meredith Beatrice directed us toward DeSantis’s voting record on the 2014 bill and its predecessor, as well as a link to this similarly misleading Central Florida Post article. Our ruling Putnam claimed DeSantis "voted in an agricultural bill to give food stamps to illegal immigrants." DeSantis actually voted against the bill, and explained later it had nothing to do with provisions related to immigration. Putnam has cast the vote against the farm bill as somehow allowing people living in the country illegally to receive food assistance benefits. But the practice was prohibited before the 2014 vote, and it remained prohibited after the 2014 vote. We rate this claim Pants on Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Adam Putnam	None	None	None	2018-06-29T14:10:24	2018-06-28	['None']
-pomt-08210	On his "half pay" pledge.	/wisconsin/statements/2010/nov/19/jeff-scrima/looking-waukesha-mayor-jeff-scrima-and-his-half-pa/	When 32-year-old political novice Jeff Scrima joined the April 2010 race for Waukesha mayor, he felt the city leaders were "out of touch," pointing to the decision to give raises to the mayor during the worst recession in 70 years. So, this tag line went on his campaign literature: "Will serve as full-time mayor on half pay." Promising to hold the line on taxes, Scrima’s lean government message carried him into office in Waukesha, Wisconsin’s ninth largest city and a suburb of Milwaukee. "Being an elected official should not be about the money," Scrima said in an interview. He added the "will work for half pay" slogan drew attention and seemed catchy. Since taking office, the simple pledge has gotten a whole lot more complicated, from a new charitable fund to complaints from aldermen that his approach isn’t helping taxpayers at all. In the latest twist, Scrima told aldermen he’d give half of his future pay back to the city -- if they all returned to the city an equal share of their pay. Boy, the Flip-O-Meter was built for situations like this. Its purpose is to sort out if elected officials have changed their positions -- whether the switch is good or bad or in between is up to the voters. Let’s start at the beginning: The pledge During the campaign, Scrima routinely repeated the "work for half" pledge in literature, interviews and debates. It was an echo of sorts to the pledges made by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and other elected officials to return some of their pay to taxpayers. The salary for the mayor of Waukesha is $70,100 a year and in April will increase to $73,100. Scrima did not specify how he would handle the half of the salary that he would decline. But voters were clearly left with the impression that his pledge would reduce the cost to taxpayers. Most politicians simply return their unwanted pay to the municipal coffers. Under state law, Scrima had 30 days after the election to tell the city if he didn’t want to accept full pay. "The mayor did not do that," said Donna Whalen, human resources manager and assistant city attorney. Such givebacks may make only a small difference in the bottom line -- Waukesha’s general operations budget for 2011 is about $58 million, with $51.4 million to come from property taxes. But they can be popular with voters. "Most people never look at the benefits of how you give money back," said Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel for the state Government Accountability Board, adding: "For most people it’s a gesture." In any case, Scrima did not take the most direct route to accomplish his goal. The alternative path On June 16, 2010, Scrima announced the creation of the "New Day in Waukesha Fund" and said half of his net pay (after taxes and health and dental insurance deductions) would be directly deposited to the fund with each pay day. He launched the fund with a check for $2,787.34 - the amount that equaled half of his net pay for his first weeks in office. At the time, he said state law prohibited him from taking a half-sized paycheck. But that was only true because he missed the 30-day deadline to self-change the pay scale. He could have written a check to the city with each paycheck, but did not. The nonprofit fund, which echoes his campaign theme, is administered by a five-member board -- Scrima and four others he selected. The fund’s stated purpose is to "provide vitality" to the city through creation of gateways, memorials, beautification and arts, and collaborative efforts that benefit young people. So far, no grants have been awarded. Contributions to the fund are tax deductible. Scrima said he hoped the community fund would "leverage" other contributions once projects were identified. And at the time of the announcement he declared he had secured "additional commitments already totaling $26,700 from the community." But so far, Scrima’s checks are the only ones that have gone into the fund, said David Schultz, president of the Waukesha County Community Foundation Inc. which handles the money at the direction of the "New Day" board. So, let’s update the scorecard: Taxpayers are still paying Scrima’s full salary. Instead of returning the money directly to city coffers, the giveback is being put -- after taxes -- into a fund that gives Scrima more control over how it is spent. During a recent meeting about the city budget, Ald. Chris Hernandez needled the mayor, saying it would help the tax levy if Scrima gave the money back to the city rather than his fund. The alternate alternative path On Nov. 10, 2010, Scrima changed course. He offered in a budget amendment to give half of his future pay back to the city as a way of preventing a tax levy increase. The catch: He would only do so if all 15 aldermen also agreed to pay cuts and return the money to the city. That idea was dead on arrival, but it gives even more life to our analysis. If anything, the mayor’s proposed amendment underlines that the money is not going to the city now. "I believe I’m living up to my campaign promise," Scrima told PolitiFact Wisconsin, arguing the city could enjoy greater benefits from his approach -- especially once others contribute to the fund. "This is what I signed up for and I don’t regret it." The Flip-O-Meter came to a different conclusion. The new mayor said he’d work for half pay. But under his approach, he’s taking the full salary and then putting money in a charitable fund, which carries tax advantages and control advantages. He has more say over how it is spent than if it went back to the city to hold down taxes. Creating the fund may be noble -- and clever, after all it is named after his campaign slogan. But it is not what voters could have expected based on his slogan. Scrima’s latest effort, to leverage aldermen into his pledge, underlines the half-pay is doing nothing to help the city’s bottom line. All Scrima’s bouncing on the half-pay pledge earns him a Half-Flip.	None	Jeff Scrima	None	None	None	2010-11-19T09:00:00	2010-11-10	['None']
-farg-00154	The Republican tax plan will be the largest tax cut in U.S. history.	https://www.factcheck.org/2017/11/largest-tax-cut-history/	None	the-factcheck-wire	Donald Trump	Lori Robertson	['tax cuts']	Largest Tax Cut in History?	November 1, 2017	[' Twitter – Wednesday, October 18, 2017 ']	['United_States', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']
-pose-00824	Will pass concealed carry legislation. “Scott has time and again supported shall issue concealed carry legislation and has said explicitly he will sign it as governor.”	https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/promises/walk-o-meter/promise/856/pass-and-sign-concealed-carry-legislation/	None	walk-o-meter	Scott Walker	None	None	Pass and sign concealed carry legislation	2011-01-14T21:36:31	None	['None']
-snes-06011	The father of actor Tom Hanks was the lead singer of the musical group The Diamonds.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tom-hanks-father-sang-lead-diamonds/	None	Entertainment	None	David Mikkelson	None	Tom Hanks’ Father Sang Lead for The Diamonds?	5 February 2012	None	['Tom_Hanks']
-snes-00465	Did Pierre Trudeau Say of Richard Nixon, ‘I Have Been Called Worse Things by Better People’?	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-trudeau-say-worse-things-better-men/	None	Politics	None	Kim LaCapria	None	Did Pierre Trudeau Say of Richard Nixon, ‘I Have Been Called Worse Things by Better People’?	13 June 2018	None	['Pierre_Trudeau', 'Richard_Nixon']
-pomt-02639	"For the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world."	/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jan/17/barack-obama/obama-says-us-produces-more-oil-it-imports-first-t/	President Barack Obama this week touted the progress his administration has made in recovering from the economic recession, focusing on developments in engineering and manufacturing. "Thanks to the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, the good news is the economy is growing stronger," he said in a speech on Jan. 15, 2014, at North Carolina State University. "Our businesses have now created more than 8 million new jobs since we hit bottom. Because of an all-of-the-above strategy for American energy, for the first time in nearly two decades, we produce more oil here in the United States than we buy from the rest of the world." PolitiFact wanted to know if Obama’s claim gives us an accurate picture of U.S. oil numbers. A spokesman offered up this White House blog post that touches on Obama’s point in more detail. Domestic crude oil production surpassed crude oil imports in October 2013 for the first time since 1995. We also consulted the U.S. Energy Information Administration. According to their November 2013 report, the United States produced an average of 7.8 million barrels of oil per day in October and imported 7.5 million barrels of oil per day. So Obama’s numbers add up. How did we arrive at this point? Kenneth Medlock, an economics professor at Rice University who serves as the senior director for the Center for Energy Studies, said there are a couple of reasons why production exceeds imports. "Yes, we are producing more than we import now, but that owes to both increased production domestically and reduced demand,"Medlock said. The reduced demand is due in part to the recession. It’s no surprise that people cut back on gasoline consumption when there’s less money in their wallets, so that lowers demand. And if demand is down, the United States doesn’t need to import as much oil supply. Another cause of reduced demand is increased energy efficiency. Over the last few years, rising popularity of fuel-efficient vehicles and other innovations have led consumers and businesses to spend less on utilities and at the pump, said John Lowe, a senior associate dean and energy law professor at Southern Methodist University. Aside from reduced demand, Medlock also mentioned increased production as another reason the United States is producing more oil than it's importing. We can credit increased domestic production to innovation in regulatory infrastructure. That includes factors like the ability for companies to negotiate directly with private landowners about mineral rights, as well as open access to pipelines. But we can’t tie these developments back to one president, Medlock said. They go back a couple of decades. Still, it’s worth noting that Obama is a known supporter of energy efficiency. When he campaigned for office, he promised to reduce the country’s dependency on foreign oil. In 2012, we rated that Promise Kept based on projections of the impact of his administration’s fuel efficiency standards. Our ruling Obama said the United States is producing more oil domestically than it’s importing from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. That claim is on the money. However, a lot of this has been in the works for awhile, including dynamics that pre-date the Obama administration. Experts told us the new dynamic is due to factors like the recession, increased fuel efficiency and ramped up domestic oil production. As a simple statement on where we stand on oil exports vs. imports, though, Obama’s claim is accurate. We rate it True.	None	Barack Obama	None	None	None	2014-01-17T10:06:58	2014-01-16	['United_States']
-abbc-00315	The claim: NSW Premier Mike Baird says Labor did not deliver a single railway line when in government.	http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-23/did-labor-fail-to-deliver-a-single-train-line3f/6276858	The claim: NSW Premier Mike Baird says Labor did not deliver a single railway line when in government.	['government-and-politics', 'elections', 'rail-transport', 'liberals', 'nsw']	None	None	['government-and-politics', 'elections', 'rail-transport', 'liberals', 'nsw']	Fact check: Did NSW Labor fail to deliver 'a single railway line'?	Thu 3 Mar 2016, 5:59am	None	['Australian_Labor_Party', 'New_South_Wales']
-snes-02990	A damaged nuclear reactor at Fukushima Daiichi is about to fall into the ocean.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fukushima-reactor-falling-into-ocean/	None	Uncategorized	None	Bethania Palma	None	Is a Damaged Fukushima Nuclear Reactor About to Fall Into the Ocean?	6 February 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-03504	Says Americans "invented ‘Pong,’ ‘Space Invaders’ and the iPhone."	/texas/statements/2013/jun/06/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-americans-invented-pong-space-invade/	The junior Republican senator from Texas celebrated American ingenuity in a spring commencement address. On May 11, 2013, Ted Cruz told the Hillsdale College (Mich.) Class of 2013 that the American dollar is the world’s international reserve currency and English is the planet’s language of commerce. Also, Cruz said, most movies are made in the U.S., where the telephone, automobile and airplane also were invented. "Americans were the first to walk on the moon," Cruz continued. "We invented ‘Pong,’ ‘Space Invaders’ and the iPhone." Wait; Americans invented the iPhone plus "Pong" and "Space Invaders," the dominant (trust us, dominant) 1970s-era arcade games? Let's recap iPhone-age, then check on those games. Apple rolled out the iPhone in 2007 with its invention credited to Steve Jobs, though it also was clear that the spinoff from the popular iPod MP3 player built on multiple creations. Journalist Mary Bellis has written that more than 200 patents were part of the design of the iPhone, "so pinpointing one inventor would be unfair." Still, her undated online post credits Apple employee John Casey with conceiving an iPhone-type device in 2000 by emailing colleagues about combining a phone and iPod. Jobs directed the teams that hatched the iPhone, she wrote, while Apple's British-born head of design, Jonathan Ive, is "heavily credited with the aesthetic design and look of the iPhone." In an Oct. 22, 2010, news article, PC Magazine said Jobs and his team "clearly reinvented the smartphone with the iPhone, which then gave him a platform for creating mobile apps and new forms of mobile commerce." Similarly, the California-based Computer History Museum notes in its Jobs’ biography, which appeared Dec. 2, 2011 (about two months after Jobs’ death), that when Jobs unveiled the iPhone, he "described it as nothing less than the reinvention of the telephone: a combination ‘widescreen iPod with touch controls,’ a ‘revolutionary mobile phone,’ and a ‘breakthrough Internet communicator.’" Most recently, Slate magazine, citing newly revealed documents, said in a Sept. 10, 2012, news article that Apple "reinvented" the smartphone with the iPhone, which was honed by Apple employees only; the story quotes a company executive testifying that Jobs "didn’t let the iPhone team recruit anyone from outside the company to work on the device." And the arcade games? "Pong" was mass-produced by an American company, Atari, according to web posts and news stories, and individuals credited with developing the game appear to have American roots. The Associated Press summed up "Pong" this way in an April 19, 2013, news article: "The black-and-white arcade game introduced in 1972 had no complicated graphics, just geometric shapes. Players controlled digital paddles and tried to hit the ball so their opponents could not return it." Accounts agree that Nolan Bushnell, a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of the University of Utah, steered the game’s creation after founding Atari with another engineer, Ted Dabney, in 1972. Bushnell had seen a Magnavox Odyssey version of ping-pong that spring and sought an easier-to-play version, enlisting Atari engineer Al Alcorn to perfect it. Bushnell, who grew up in Utah, and Alcorn, born in San Francisco, according to news stories, both appear to be Americans. Next, we looked into who invented "Space Invaders," in which a player fires at space aliens steadily advancing from the top of the game screen; try it here, though keep in mind we’re not responsible for associated time sucks. Accounts credit a resident of Japan, not an American, with inventing the game. An Aug. 20, 2003, feature story in the Derby Evening Telegraph, a British newspaper, said a Japanese computer programmer "wrote the game for Taito in Japan in 1978." The story said the game heralded the introduction of arcade machines in restaurants and other places before Atari bought the rights to the game in 1980 and "launched it on hundreds of thousands of black boxes plugged into TVs across the Western world." The Tokyo-based Taito Corp., which says in a company timeline that it released the game in 1978, told us by email that Tomohiro Nishikado was the inventor. In a 2008 interview from his Yokohama home, Nishikado told an Australian newspaper that Taito sales people initially resisted the game, saying it was too hard to play. Nishikado also recalled concern that people would not play a game where the enemy shot back at them. "It was never seen before," Nishikado said. Nishikado told the West Australian newspaper he was inspired to create the game by a magazine story previewing the Star Wars movie. "Instantly I felt that something that takes place in outer space would be popular," Nishikado said. We alerted Cruz’s office to the Japanese engineer widely described as the Father of "Space Invaders." Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton replied by referring to the senator’s childhood, saying by email: "Perhaps he was mistaken about ‘Space Invaders’ origins, but to an eight-year-old playing the game it certainly seemed American." Our ruling Cruz said "Pong," "Space Invaders" and the iPhone were invented by Americans. This appears so for "Pong" and the iPhone. But a Japanese programmer is credited with developing "Space Invaders." We rate this partly accurate claim as Half True. UPDATE, 3 p.m. June 6, 2013: This story was updated shortly after its publication to provide more information on the iPhone's development. The paragraphs drawing on Mary Bellis and an article in Slate were added. These changes did not affect the rating.	None	Ted Cruz	None	None	None	2013-06-06T13:00:00	2013-05-11	['None']
-tron-00603	Johnny Depp Arrested, Charged Under Patriot Act	https://www.truthorfiction.com/johnny-depp-arrested-assassination/	None	celebrities	None	None	['celebrities', 'conspiracy', 'criminal justice', 'donald trump']	Johnny Depp Arrested by CIA, Charged Under Patriot Act	Jun 27, 2017	None	['None']
-pomt-06519	Say the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the U.S. is 475 to 1.	/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/oct/10/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-ceo-worker-pay-ratio-has-obscu/	If you've got liberal friends and logged into Facebook lately, chances are pretty good that you've seen this chart. As people express their support with the Occupy Wall Street protests, they are citing this chart and similar statistics to show income inequality in the United States. The chart -- here’s another version posted on the liberal website Daily Kos -- lists the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the U.S. and nine other countries. The smallest ratio is Japan’s at 11 to 1. The United States is highest at 475 to 1. We've gotten many reader requests to check the numbers, in part because the chart lacks any sourcing or additional explanatory information. But despite the lack of backup information, the chart has gone viral. It's not only been posted and re-posted many times on Facebook, it's also appeared in countless blogs and been tweeted and re-tweeted on Twitter. The chart is the latest reminder that factual claims can spread at lightning speed on the Internet -- even when the facts to back them up are scarce. Before we check the accuracy of the numbers, it's worth exploring where the chart began and how it went viral. It's been repeatedly cited in blogs and reports, including one paper presented at a conference of a United Nations affiliate. The paper, written by Thomas Prosser of the Industrial Relations Research Unit at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, included the same chart that’s now circulating, which it sourced to a 2005 paper by an M. Kroll titled, "CEO Pay Rates: U.S. vs Foreign Nations." We located a scanned version of the paper on the Internet, and it did appear to be written by Prof. Mark Kroll. His institution wasn’t listed, but after some additional searching, we found that Kroll had been teaching at the Louisiana Tech College of Business in 2005 and that he is now the business dean at the University of Texas at Brownsville. But it turns out he didn’t write the paper after all. "Actually, I am the ‘recipient’ of the paper you refer to," Kroll told us in an e-mail. "The paper was done as a class project by three of my students in a graduate class back in 2005. The 475-to-1 ratio that you reference is listed in a table in the paper the students wrote. They do not give a specific citation for the data in the table." The paper’s cover sheet fooled us -- as it fooled others -- because the professor’s name appears in the middle of the page, and the three students’ names appear together at the bottom in a less prominent spot. We tried to reach the co-authors -- Adam Choate, Dana Rowzee and Jerrod Tinsley, all of whom were working on their Master of Business Administration in 2005 -- but we did not hear back. So how about the substance of the chart? From previous fact-checks, we knew that American CEOs are generously paid, and we had confirmed that for ordinary Americans, incomes are stagnating. But on the specific comparison of CEO pay and average-worker pay, we found two liberal groups -- the Economic Policy Institute and the Institute for Policy Studies -- that have produced long-running studies of this question. The most recent chart from the Economic Policy Institute shows a ratio of 185 to 1 for 2009. According to the group’s calculations, the peak since the mid 1960s was almost 299 to 1. But it was never as high as high as 475 to 1. Meanwhile, the most recent ratio from the Institute for Policy Studies is also smaller -- for 2010, it was 325 to 1. In previous years the ratio on two occasions has exceeded 475 to 1 -- to be specific, 516 to 1 in 1999 and 525 to 1 in 2000. The Institute for Policy Studies’ ratios are higher than the Economic Policy Institute’s due to methodological differences. Sarah Anderson, who has co-authored the Institute for Policy Studies reports, said the figures can vary depending on several factors, including which CEOs are sampled and what types of compensation for both the CEO and the worker are used in the calculation. Still, both of the years where the CEO pay ratio in the IPS study was at least 475 to 1 came more than a decade ago, so data from those years would be of questionable use to policy debates today. In addition, neither of the two groups that compiled these figures made comparisons of CEO-to-worker pay across different countries, as the chart circulating on Facebook does. So what we’re left with is an unsourced, undated chart with numbers that, at best, were only correct (approximately) in 1999 and 2000 according to one measure, and wrong according to a different measure. Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies said that for a paper written in 2005, a 475 to 1 ratio was not "crazy high," since the figure for 2004 in her group’s study was 431 to 1. Kroll, the professor who graded the paper, added that "it would not surprise me if (the students’) number was ‘in the ball park.'" Still, that argument doesn’t help today’s social-media posters. The data they’re circulating is at best six years old, and the ratios have fallen since then. Our ruling This is a textbook example of how claims can spiral out of control on the Internet. Just as conservatives have circulated unfounded claims about President Barack Obama's birth certificate, liberals are spreading this questionable chart. We don’t doubt the chart’s underlying point that the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is high in the United States, and is likely higher in our free-wheeling economy than it is in the historically more egalitarian nations of Europe. But in its claim that the U.S. ratio is 475 to 1, the chart conveys a sense of certitude and statistical precision that simply isn't warranted -- and which is contradicted by the facts. The latest number for the U.S. is 185 to 1 in one study and 325 to 1 in another -- and those numbers were not generated by groups that might have an ideological interest in downplaying the gaps between rich and poor. We rate the claim on the U.S. ratio False.	None	Facebook posts	None	None	None	2011-10-10T16:14:19	2011-10-10	['United_States']
-tron-03510	Federal Agents Raid Mosque in Michigan, Arrest ISIS Combatants	https://www.truthorfiction.com/federal-agents-raid-mosque-michigan-arrest-isis-combatants-fiction/	None	terrorism	None	None	['dearborn', 'fake news', 'fbi', 'isis', 'terrorism']	Federal Agents Raid Mosque in Michigan, Arrest ISIS Combatants	 Jan 11, 2018	None	['Michigan']
-pomt-04217	Says that in the 1985 election former Gov. Tom Kean had "the largest winning margin for a gubernatorial candidate in Jersey history."	/new-jersey/statements/2012/nov/29/raymond-bateman/raymond-bateman-says-tom-kean-won-1985-gubernatori/	If Newark Mayor Cory Booker declines to run for the state’s highest office, a former state legislator predicts a decisive -- possibly even historic -- re-election victory for Gov. Chris Christie Raymond Bateman, a former Republican state senator and assemblyman who lost a bid for governor in 1977, said in a recent column that Booker seems like the only Democrat capable of foiling Christie’s prospects for a second term. "Unless Booker gets into the race, 2013 reminds me of 1985. That was the year Tom Kean made history with the largest-ever New Jersey gubernatorial victory," Bateman wrote in a Nov. 23 column published in The Asbury Park Press. "Kean, who barely won (by 1,797 votes) in 1981, destroyed his 1985 opponent, Peter Shapiro, winning by a majority of more than 750,000 votes, the largest winning margin for a gubernatorial candidate in Jersey history." "In any case," Bateman wrote later in his column, "2013 should see a political barn-burning election in New Jersey that I believe will produce a Kean-like victory for Christie if, in fact, he runs." This week Christie announced he will seek a second term. Potential Democratic rivals -- including Booker -- have not formally declared their intentions. The outcome of any matchup wouldn’t be determined until next year, but until then PolitiFact New Jersey wondered whether Bateman’s comparison was rooted in fact. Did Kean, a Republican, rebound from a close election to a historically decisive re-election bid? The data -- whether it’s broken down by total votes or percentages -- shows that’s true. More than 1.37 million New Jerseyans cast their vote for Kean that year, while Shapiro, the Democratic candidate and a former Essex County executive, won about 578,000 votes. So Kean won by more than 790,000 votes, according to election data published in the state’s legislative manual. No other governor in New Jersey’s history has won election by a larger margin. In all, Kean won more than 69 percent of the vote, carrying every one of New Jersey’s 21 counties and all but three municipalities. It’s worth noting that Kean’s sweeping victory came four years after he narrowly won office. In 1981 Kean defeated Democrat Jim Florio by fewer than 1,800 votes, which represented less than one twelfth of one percent of the total vote. No other gubernatorial race was closer as a percentage of the total vote, though in 1880 the Democratic candidate won by only 651 votes. That accounted for about one-quarter of one percent of the total vote. Our ruling Bateman said that in the 1985 general election Kean had "the largest winning margin for a gubernatorial candidate in Jersey history." Kean trounced his opponent that year. The former Republican governor won more than 1.37 million votes, compared with the roughly 578,000 ballots cast for his Democratic rival. That means Kean won by more than 790,000 votes. That’s the largest margin of victory for a gubernatorial election in New Jersey’s history. We rate this statement True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com.	None	Raymond Bateman	None	None	None	2012-11-29T07:30:00	2012-11-23	['None']
-pomt-05618	Says when he was governor, Wisconsin cut unemployment to 2.1 percent and the state’s unemployment rate was "the lowest in the country for 40 consecutive months."	/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/26/tommy-thompson/tommy-thompson-says-wisconsins-unemployment-rate-w/	Former Gov. Tommy Thompson loves talking about about the good old days of Wisconsin’s economy as he runs in the GOP primary for an open U.S. Senate seat. Amid continuing high unemployment in the Badger State and across the nation, Thompson often redirects voters to the mid- to late-1990s. "We created 740,000 jobs – can you imagine that? – a record for the state!" Thompson proclaimed in a March 3, 2012 speech at a party caucus meeting in Sauk County. "The state was in bad shape, and we turned it completely around. Our unemployment dropped down to 2.1 percent … (and was) the lowest in the country for 40 consecutive months. The lowest in the country!" In his familiar cheerleading style, he added: "Then, we were so good, people were so excited, we went to the Rose Bowl and we won three times!" Wisconsin’ economic success in Thompson’s time -- as well as gridiron glory in Pasadena -- is well-established. The Badgers won all three Rose Bowl trips during Thompson’s era, and not once during his governor’s tenure (1987 to 2001) did unemployment rise to the February 2012 mark of 6.9 percent. But did the state really lead the nation in shrinking unemployment -- and for more than three years? We turned to the official scorekeeper of labor market performance, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The numbers showed some things for Thompson to crow about. But on the specific claim, it is more along the lines of eating crow. When Thompson won the job, the small-town lawyer and legislator inherited a tough -- but dramatically improving -- unemployment picture. Four years before his election, unemployment peaked at 11.5 percent in January 1983, but it had fallen to 6.6 percent as he took office. Under Thompson, the rate dropped for three more years, jumped around for a couple, then dropped slowly for seven years before heading back up in his last full year, 2000. This trend line mirrored the national one. The Wisconsin unemployment rate was 3.9 percent as Thompson left in February 2001 for a cabinet post in President George W. Bush’s administration -- an improvement over that 6.6 mark in his first month as chief executive. (Historical footnote: it would climb to 5.3 percent within 10 months after he departed.) In his Sauk County speech, Thompson said unemployment dropped all the way down to 2.1 percent. But the most commonly used official figures show Wisconsin’s low was 3.0 percent, achieved in six different months during that time. That’s according to seasonally adjusted figures, which BLS officials told us are preferred for month-to-month comparisons. In addition, Wisconsin governors have long relied on and emphasized the seasonally adjusted figures when announcing unemployment figures. In short, they are treated as the official numbers. Even Thompson, as he left office, used the seasonal numbers, saying the low point in his tenure was around 3 percent, according to media coverage at the time. When asked about the claim, Thompson’s campaign pointed to data that is not seasonally adjusted. The rate was 2.0 percent in September 1999, according to a Thompson administration press release from December of 1999. However, the federal data shows a 2.4 percent unadjusted rate for that month, likely because figures are preliminary when announced, and later get updated. So the 2.1 percent figure doesn’t hold up. Now let’s examine Thompson’s national comparison. Was Wisconsin No. 1? We couldn’t find a single month -- much less 40 straight months -- in which Wisconsin’s unemployment rate was lowest among the states. To be sure, its rate was in the very bottom tier for most of the 1990s -- bottom five or 10, Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows. But Nebraska and the Dakotas consistently beat Wisconsin’s numbers throughout the decade. And Minnesota, Iowa and Indiana -- other Midwestern states -- put up lower figures when Wisconsin was its best in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Indeed, this held true even when the data was not seasonally adjusted. Reacting to our findings, a campaign official said Thompson actually was referring to the city of Madison when he said "lowest in the nation." The campaign also noted the state’s unemployment rate was below the national average for well over 40 months. But Thompson cited a statewide number in his claim. And he didn’t say below the average. He said lowest. Our rating In a speech in Sauk County, Thompson contended Wisconsin’s unemployment rate dipped to 2.1 percent and was lowest in the nation for more than three years running when he sat in the governor’s chair. Federal statistics clearly refute the "lowest in the nation" claim, and the 2.1 percent is on target only if you cite preliminary numbers from a less-preferred statistical method. We rate this statement False.	None	Tommy Thompson	None	None	None	2012-03-26T09:00:00	2012-03-03	['Wisconsin']
-goop-01242	Gwyneth Paltrow Sabotaging Chris Martin, Dakota Johnson Relationship?	https://www.gossipcop.com/gwyneth-paltrow-chris-martin-dakota-johnson-relationship/	None	None	None	Andrew Shuster	None	Gwyneth Paltrow Sabotaging Chris Martin, Dakota Johnson Relationship?	11:09 am, April 5, 2018	None	['None']
-afck-00378	“The [Western Cape] also has the highest proportion of households receiving free basic water, free basic electricity and free basic sewerage and sanitation.”	https://africacheck.org/reports/is-the-das-western-cape-story-a-good-story-to-tell-we-examine-the-claims/	None	None	None	None	None	Is the DA’s Western Cape Story a ‘good story to tell’? We examine the claims	2014-03-28 05:02	None	['None']
-pomt-02156	The Cathedral of Christ the King is one of the Archdiocese of Atlanta’s largest and fastest-growing parishes.	/georgia/statements/2014/may/02/wilton-gregory/mansion-moved-sparked-church-growth/	Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory has promised to find a new place to live since getting an earful from some Catholics -- and unwelcome national attention -- about his new 6,186-square-foot, $2.2 million residence on Habersham Road in Buckhead. In a statement he issued March 31, the archbishop said he had no desire to move to the Tudor-style mansion in the first place. "However, the Cathedral parish has a problem, albeit a happy one," he said. "The Cathedral of Christ the King is one of our largest, most vibrant and fastest-growing parishes — but it is landlocked." PolitiFact deemed the archbishop’s statement worthy of a fact check, given all the hoopla. A review of some numbers, as well as some number crunching, should settle the questions: Is it one of the largest of the 99 Catholic churches that are part of the Archdiocese of Atlanta? And is it one of the fastest-growing? We requested membership data for at least five years. But the bulk of what we received was from 2012 and 2013. And looking at that data and limited information that was provided from 1997, the answer to each question is yes. According to the Official Catholic Directory, the Cathedral of Christ the King was the second-largest church in the archdiocese in 1997, based on the number of families, or households. It had 3,505 at the time. Fast-forward to 2013, and the cathedral on Peachtree Road in Buckhead was the archdiocese’s third-largest parish, with 4,842 families. Only St. Michael’s in Gainesville and St. Thomas the Apostle in Smyrna were larger, with 7,054 and 6,844 families, respectively. The cathedral’s congregation grew 9.6 percent between summer 2012 and summer 2013, adding 426 families, according to the archdiocese’s data. By our calculations, that made it the archdiocese’s 15th-fastest-growing of all the churches that year and, among the bigger churches, the second-fastest-growing. St. Joseph’s in Dalton grew the most, 23.2 percent or 509 families, while more than 30 parishes in the archdiocese had virtually no growth or lost families in that same time, the data show. The cathedral was built in French Gothic architectural style and named "the most beautiful building in Atlanta" by Architectural Record in 1939, two years after its completion. Some would say it remains a contender today. Members of the parish come from more than 150 ZIP codes in metro Atlanta. Priests at the cathedral presided over more than 1,200 daily Masses, 624 weekend Masses, more than 500 Baptisms, 128 weddings and 49 funerals in 2013. Seven adult choirs and four children’s choirs chimed in at many of these events. The cathedral became part of the recent controversy after Joseph Mitchell, a parishioner at Christ the King and the nephew of "Gone With the Wind" author Margaret Mitchell, left $15 million and his home on tony Habersham Road to the archdiocese. Mitchell requested that the archdiocese use the inheritance for "general religious and charitable purposes." He also asked that Christ the King get primary consideration. The cathedral was given $7.5 million for its building program and spent $1.9 million of that to buy the archbishop’s longtime residence nearby on West Wesley Road. The goal was to convert the archbishop’s old home into a rectory, or residence, for the cathedral’s six priests. That would allow the rectory that’s on the cathedral’s campus to eventually be replaced with worship and meeting space. (The cathedral is effectively landlocked. It’s surrounded by streets on three sides, and it is restricted from developing on its east side for 20 years. That was part of a deal negotiated with the neighborhood that allowed the church to develop a youth recreation area.) Meanwhile, Mitchell’s home on Habersham Road was torn down. In its place and with part of the proceeds from the sale of the West Wesley residence, the archbishop’s new $2.2 million mansion was built, equipped with two dining rooms, an elevator and a second-floor safe, or panic room. Gregory, long-rumored to be a candidate on the short list to succeed soon-to-be-retiring Chicago Bishop Francis George, moved to the new residence on Habersham in January. He initially defended the move, which critics said went against Pope Francis’ call for modest living. He later apologized. "I am disappointed that, while my advisers and I were able to justify this project fiscally, logistically and practically, I personally failed to project the cost in terms of my own integrity and pastoral credibility with the people of God of north and central Georgia," Gregory wrote. The archbishop promised to sell the house and move elsewhere. We’re told that’s still the plan today. In summary: We decided to fact-check the archbishop’s statement largely on two points: Is the Cathedral of Christ the King one of the archdiocese’s largest churches? And is it one of the diocese’s fastest-growing churches. The data we were provided say yes. But they allowed only a limited comparison, and the information could not be independently verified. We rate the archbishop’s statement Mostly True. Top 10 parishes in 2013 1997 Registration Data 2013 Registration Data % Growth # Growth St. Michael, Gainesville 1,500 7,054 370% 5,554 St. Thomas the Apostle 1,514 6,844 352% 5,330 Cathedral of Christ the King 3,505 4,842 38% 1,337 St. Joseph, Marietta 2,053 4,804 134% 2,751 Our Lady of the Americas Mission of IHM, Data not Recorded 4,665 St. Ann 3,960 4,381 11% 421 Transfiguration 2,700 4,323 60% 1,623 St. Brigid Did not exist 4,056 St. Benedict 2,604 4,004 54% 1,400 St. Thomas Aquinas 2,524 3,930 56% 1,406 Source: Archdiocese of Atlanta Sources:	None	Wilton Gregory	None	None	None	2014-05-02T00:00:00	2014-03-31	['None']
-para-00217	Under an Abbott government, "workers will have to show the Fair Work Commission they have properly considered the productivity demands of their employers" ... employers will be able to set up "new companies and to write enterprise agreements on their own terms".	http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/20/australian-council-trade-unions/Half-baked-cremation-unions-raising-ghost-workchoi/index.html	None	['Industrial relations', 'Workers rights']	Australian Council of Trade Unions	Jonathan Pearlman, Alix Piatek, Peter Fray	None	Is there truth to 'Power'? Unions keep raising the ghost of Workchoices	Tuesday, August 20, 2013 at 12:47 p.m.	None	['None']
-pose-01135	"Demand the Florida Legislature phase out the 6 percent sales tax on commercial leases."	https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/1221/phase-out-state-sales-tax-commercial-leases/	None	scott-o-meter	Rick Scott	None	None	Phase out the state sales tax on commercial leases	2014-12-30T10:51:23	None	['None']
-pose-01334	"The Trump Plan will collapse the current seven tax brackets to three brackets."	https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1426/simplify-tax-code/	None	trumpometer	Donald Trump	None	None	Cut the number of tax brackets	2017-01-17T09:02:40	None	['None']
-vees-00500	Is that so? Duterte-De Lima ‘word war’ on rice smuggling revisited	http://verafiles.org/articles/so-duterte-de-lima-word-war-rice-smuggling-revisited	Senator Leila de Lima refuses to back down in the word war between her and President Duterte. (Photo from Sen. de Lima's Facebook)	None	None	None	Duterte,de lima,rice smugling	Is that so? Duterte-De Lima ‘word war’ on rice smuggling revisited	September 02, 2016	None	['None']
-snes-03319	Transcript reproduces Ben Stein's television commentary about the observance of Christmas.	https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/confessions-for-the-holidays/	None	Soapbox	None	David Mikkelson	None	Confessions for the Holidays	26 February 2006	None	['Ben_Stein']
-pomt-12071	"My grandparents were proud immigrants to the United States of America, here to Illinois in the late 1800s. My grandparents did not speak English when they were young."	/illinois/statements/2017/sep/05/bruce-rauner/rauner-trims-twists-branches-his-family-tree-immig/	Bruce Rauner clearly idolized his maternal grandparents, Clarence and Viola Erickson. From his earliest days in politics, he has repeatedly invoked their memory as role models for the kind of selfless, rugged and generous person that he hoped voters would find him to be. It was of little surprise then that, as he appeared with immigrant activists to sign a controversial law putting limits on policing of the undocumented, Rauner retold his own favorite story of immigrants -- the Ericksons from Sweden. "My grandparents were proud immigrants to the United States of America, here to Illinois in the late 1800s," Rauner said. "My grandparents did not speak English when they were young." Variations of the Erickson story have been staples of Rauner appearances for years. But the key word here is "variations," because the governor has not always been consistent in the telling. So what is the real immigrant story of those grandparents Rauner is always talking about? We decided to check. Immigrant cred First, a little context. Bruce Rauner grew up in the upscale North Shore suburbs of Deerfield and Lake Forest as well as Scottsdale, Ariz., and his father was a high-ranking executive at electronics giant Motorola. Rauner went to Ivy League colleges, became enormously wealthy as a private equity investor and was the owner of nine luxury homes and ranches when he launched his campaign. His campaign was clearly sensitive to how that might play with voters as it sought from the first to portray him as a regular guy. Early campaign ads featured Rauner with his $18 Timex watch and a two-decade old family van that he said his children dubbed the "rolling trash can." The Chicago Tribune asked in 2014 about comparisons to wealthy private equity investor turned politician Mitt Romney, and Rauner bristled: "He came across as a blue blood, I'm a regular guy. I drink beer. I don't drink Courvoisier or whatever the hell that stuff is. I drink beer and I smoke a cigar and I ride a Harley and I love to fish." Cue the Ericksons as a key component of Rauner’s down-to-earth cred. Here’s the story as highlighted on Rauner’s campaign website: "Bruce’s grandfather was a Swedish-speaking, small-town dairyman who taught Bruce about fishing and hunting, the value of hard work and the importance of giving back." And here is how Rauner described his grandfather during a campaign stop in Wauconda in October 2013: "My best friend growing up was my grandfather on my mom’s side. Swedish immigrant. Didn’t speak much English. Lived in a double wide trailer in a cornfield outside Whitewater, Wisconsin. Dairy farmer. Taught me to milk cows. Taught me about huntin’ and fishin.’ Taught me about hard work and giving back." A year later, he was quoted in the Pekin Daily Times this way: "America's built on immigration, my grandparents were immigrants, and I would like to see us a welcoming state for immigrants from all over the world." More recently, when Rauner was interviewed in June 2017 by the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, he again talked of his grandfather. "He was my best buddy growing up. He was an immigrant, didn't speak much English. He spoke Swedish," Rauner said. And he also said this on Aug. 11, 2017, in an interview with Bret Baier on the Fox News Channel: "Illinois is a state built by immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants." A few weeks later, as he addressed the crowd at the high-profile signing event for the Illinois Trust Act on Aug. 28, he expanded on his grandparents’ narrative, adding that they came to this country "in the late 1800s" and "did not speak English when they were young." Notice the difference? When Rauner talks off the cuff about his grandparents, they are immigrants challenged by English. But when Rauner’s official website describes Grandpa Erickson, there’s no mention of him being an immigrant. He spoke Swedish, the website stressed, but that hardly means he didn’t also speak English. And there may be a good reason for the parsing. Records from U.S. Censuses taken between 1910 and 1940, the latest year publicly available, clearly show that both of Rauner’s maternal grandparents were born in Wisconsin — Clarence Erickson in 1901 and Viola Erickson (nee Wedin) in 1900. In other words, neither of them were immigrants. What’s more, the census shows that Viola’s mother — Rauner’s great-grandmother — was also born in Wisconsin. Viola’s father, while born in Sweden, emigrated to the U.S. at age 6 in 1868. As for Clarence, the census describes him as speaking English and having a seventh grade education. In the 1940 count, his profession was listed as "buttermaker." Slack suspended In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain called them stretchers -- engaging stories that don’t meet the smell test. Politicians who spin engaging personal narratives can be artful practitioners of the stretcher. Here in Illinois, former U. S. Sen. Mark Kirk often inflated his resume, exaggerating the importance of jobs he held, his educational background and military service. Most famously, Kirk overly dramatized details of a Lake Michigan boating accident and rescue that he claimed altered his life and led him to commit to public service. Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich used to place himself at the center of an "ah shucks" story about being mistaken for former Mayor Richard Daley. Depending on Blagojevich’s audience, the mix-up occurred on a busy Loop street, or at a memorial service for a prominent businessman, or on his way to the airport. The only thing clear about the story was that it always got a laugh. Rauner’s grandparents’ story has elements of that genre. No one expects children to have more than a hazy grasp of details about what came before them in the family, and Rauner was just a boy when those close bonds with his grandparents were formed. So it’s tempting to cut his memories some slack. Except for this: Rauner the adult knows that his grandparents weren’t immigrants and admitted as much in a 2014 interview with reporters from the Tribune. "My great grandparents came to this country, it was my great-grandparents, and my grandparents grew up with them in Wisconsin speaking Swedish," Rauner said. "They were born to immigrants." Our ruling Bruce Rauner said his grandparents were immigrants from Sweden who came to the U.S. "in the late 1800s." We have no reason to doubt that Rauner’s grandparents meant the world to him. But the Census plainly refutes his claim that they were immigrants. What’s more, both couldn’t have come to the U.S. in the late 1800s because they weren’t even born until the early 1900s — in Wisconsin, not Sweden. Rauner’s assertion in August that his grandparents immigrated to Illinois is yet another inaccuracy. Since we don’t have a time machine, we can’t say for certain what language was spoken in the Erickson and Wedin childhood homes. But to the extent that Rauner implies the Ericksons' facility with English was limited, Census reports refute that notion as well. Topping all that is the acknowledgement by Rauner himself in his 2014 Tribune interview that his grandparents were not immigrants. Still, he continued to repeat the claim on many occasions. Census records and Rauner’s own admission show that this statement has no credibility. That is why it earns our lowest possible rating, Pants On Fire. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com	None	Bruce Rauner	None	None	None	2017-09-05T05:58:00	2017-08-28	['United_States', 'Illinois', 'England']
-vees-00229	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Kuwait DID YIELD to Duterte in diplomatic row	http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-kuwait-did-not-yield-duterte-diplomati	None	None	None	None	false news	VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Kuwait DID NOT YIELD to Duterte in diplomatic row	May 02, 2018	None	['None']
-goop-01503	Blac Chyna Does “Suspect” Kardashians Are “Behind” Tape Leak, 	https://www.gossipcop.com/blac-chyna-kardashians-leaked-tape-not-true/	None	None	None	Shari Weiss	None	Blac Chyna Does NOT “Suspect” Kardashians Are “Behind” Tape Leak, Despite Report	10:03 pm, February 23, 2018	None	['None']